Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Julian Assange is being 'arbritarily detained' by the UK government... Really? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    If its a sting then he should stop all this now by going to Sweden and prove his innocence.

    This is the Swedish legal system, its not like extraditing him to face a court in Zimbabwe or North Korea.
    Being extradite to guantanamo bay is equally terrible, if not more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's very hard to see this as a detention. Clearly Assange is fleeing from justice and the fact that he is being sheltered from it by a state's embassy is hardly a detention. I think we can safely dispense with the UN committee as at best confused.

    On Assange's claims, the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, is on record as stating that Sweden would not extradite to a country that has the death penalty, which Assange could potentially face in the US, although that is also something of a stretch. There is no US request for extradition against him and the UK would also have to agree to his extradition from Sweden to the US.

    He might actually be more fearful of being extradited to Australia from Sweden, which is a distinct possibility.

    Personally I think his current conduct is part of his rather disordered personality, although he undoubtedly very clever, he is also extremely narcissistic and self-serving and despite his achievements, if he has committed crimes in Sweden, he should answer to them. He does have a history of previous allegations against him in this area and he certainly should not be exempted because of his celebrity / notoriety.

    I also think that Ecuador made both a legal and a political mistake accepting him and that one day they will realise this, put aside their embarrassment and 'let him go', at which point he will have no choice but to hand himself over to the authorities. The only real question is if this will happen before the Swedish case times out.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    A post in reply to you has stated they are not seeking extradition. You are also missing another point. He is on the run from an arrest warrant. You don't negotiate your own arrest, or make demands on the country that wants you arrested. His whole position is laughable, this is a man running from a sexual assault charge, perhaps someone should consider the rights of his victims, no?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And yet they shouldn't guarantee it. Yes, the rights of the alleged victims are important, but with the risk of death, or being in a camp like Guantanamo, he has every reason to not just hand himself over.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    And yet they shouldn't guarantee it. Yes, the rights of the alleged victims are important, but with the risk of death, or being in a camp like Guantanamo, he has every reason to not just hand himself over.
    I think it has been satisfactorily demonstrated he won't be extradited to the US so that rules out your post. Even if he was sent to the usa he would not be put in Guantanamo bay or sentenced to death. He has no reason to not hand himself over. Other than a fear of the outcome of his trial. One wonders what an innocent man has to fear from a free and fair trial, in a nation renown for its fair judicial system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think it has been satisfactorily demonstrated he won't be extradited to the US so that rules out your post. Even if he was sent to the usa he would not be put in Guantanamo bay or sentenced to death. He has no reason to not hand himself over. Other than a fear of the outcome of his trial. One wonders what an innocent man has to fear from a free and fair trial, in a nation renown for its fair judicial system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    None of that has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think it has been satisfactorily demonstrated he won't be extradited to the US so that rules out your post. Even if he was sent to the usa he would not be put in Guantanamo bay or sentenced to death. He has no reason to not hand himself over. Other than a fear of the outcome of his trial. One wonders what an innocent man has to fear from a free and fair trial, in a nation renown for its fair judicial system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    saying that there is no chance of him being put in guantanamo bay is like saying the tories promised not to cut tax credits hence it wont happen.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    saying that there is no chance of him being put in guantanamo bay is like saying the tories promised not to cut tax credits hence it wont happen.
    Saying he'll end up there shows a complete ignorance of what the camp was for and what the prevailing political climate in the US about the place is.

    He won't end up there. I doubt there is even a capacity for someone trialed on American soil and convicted there to be sent to Guantanamo. It is mere scaremongering from a man fleeing a legitimate trial.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Saying he'll end up there shows a complete ignorance of what the camp was for and what the prevailing political climate in the US about the place is.

    He won't end up there. I doubt there is even a capacity for someone trialed on American soil and convicted there to be sent to Guantanamo. It is mere scaremongering from a man fleeing a legitimate trial.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    its easy to say that sitting behind a screen with no credibility at stake.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    saying that there is no chance of him being put in guantanamo bay is like saying the tories promised not to cut tax credits hence it wont happen.
    He can't be legally extradited from either the UK or Sweden if there is any chance of him not receiving a fair trial, facing a death penalty or mistreatment and torture. This is ECHR legally binding rulings we're talking about here, not broken campaign promises during an election. The European Court literally will not allow him to be extradited if there's any chance whatsoever. The USA would have to give an ironclad promise knowing that if they break it they'd never be able to extradite anyone from Europe ever again.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)

    On Assange's claims, the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, is on record as stating that Sweden would not extradite to a country that has the death penalty, which Assange could potentially face in the US, although that is also something of a stretch. There is no US request for extradition against him and the UK would also have to agree to his extradition from Sweden to the US.
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think it has been satisfactorily demonstrated he won't be extradited to the US so that rules out your post. Even if he was sent to the usa he would not be put in Guantanamo bay or sentenced to death. He has no reason to not hand himself over. Other than a fear of the outcome of his trial. One wonders what an innocent man has to fear from a free and fair trial, in a nation renown for its fair judicial system.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    None of that has been satisfactorily demonstrated.
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    He can't be legally extradited from either the UK or Sweden if there is any chance of him not receiving a fair trial, facing a death penalty or mistreatment and torture. This is ECHR legally binding rulings we're talking about here, not broken campaign promises during an election. The European Court literally will not allow him to be extradited if there's any chance whatsoever. The USA would have to give an ironclad promise knowing that if they break it they'd never be able to extradite anyone from Europe ever again.
    The promise that matters here is a diplomatic assurance by Sweden to the United Kingdom. The USA doesn't enter into this. We don't extradite to countries that refoule elsewhere, because we would lose control of the situation. If the USA wants to extradite someone from the UK, the US government must satisfy a British court and the British government. If we allowed extradition to a country that was then prepared to entertain an extradition request from the USA, our courts and politicians would not have any input into whether that extradition request was granted.

    There is a similar principle called the specialty principle which says that if a country extradites someone from the UK, it can only try him for the crimes for which he was extradited. It can't add to the charge sheet, one it has got him back, because the UK never had an opportunity of considering whether it would extradite for these other charges.

    So why can't anyone here point to a clear assurance from the Swedish government to the British government that Sweden would not refoule him to the USA? This isn't about whether the USA has made an extradition request, or about the death penalty or about Guantanamo Bay.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The promise that matters here is a diplomatic assurance by Sweden to the United Kingdom. The USA doesn't enter into this. We don't extradite to countries that refoule elsewhere, because we would lose control of the situation. If the USA wants to extradite someone from the UK, the US government must satisfy a British court and the British government. If we allowed extradition to a country that was then prepared to entertain an extradition request from the USA, our courts and politicians would not have any input into whether that extradition request was granted.

    There is a similar principle called the specialty principle which says that if a country extradites someone from the UK, it can only try him for the crimes for which he was extradited. It can't add to the charge sheet, one it has got him back, because the UK never had an opportunity of considering whether it would extradite for these other charges.

    So why can't anyone here point to a clear assurance from the Swedish government to the British government that Sweden would not refoule him to the USA? This isn't about whether the USA has made an extradition request, or about the death penalty or about Guantanamo Bay.
    There doesn't need to be a clear assurance, because like I said Assange is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
    Hypothetical extradition to the United States hardly counts as refoulement either, which renders your point moot.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    There doesn't need to be a clear assurance, because like I said Assange is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.
    Hypothetical extradition to the United States hardly counts as refoulement either, which renders your point moot.
    Extradition to the USA by Sweden following extradition by the UK would be a paradigm case of refoulement.

    Article 3 ECHR does not prohibit refoulement per se but only where there is a risk of "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The ECtHR is most unlikely to find that in the case of an ordinary trial in the USA where the death penalty has been specifically ruled out (which is what the USA routinely does in extradition cases from Europe).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Extradition to the USA by Sweden following extradition by the UK would be a paradigm case of refoulement.

    Article 3 ECHR does not prohibit refoulement per se but only where there is a risk of "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The ECtHR is most unlikely to find that in the case of an ordinary trial in the USA where the death penalty has been specifically ruled out (which is what the USA routinely does in extradition cases from Europe).
    What persecution does Assange face that would make it refoulement? Trying someone for an alleged crime is not persecution, and the fact that the ECHR prohibits ill treatment and guarantees a fair trial by definition negates the possibility of refoulement.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    What persecution does Assange face that would make it refoulement?
    Refoulement has nothing whatsoever to do with persecution.

    Refoulement is the process by which a country to which a person has been extradited, itself extradites the person to a third country,

    The mischief of refoulement is that the second extradition happens without the control of the first extraditing country. Therefore Sweden might extradite to the USA for something that is not a crime in the UK (infringing the principle of double criminality) or for something that is not an extradition crime under the UK-USA extradition treaty.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Refoulement has nothing whatsoever to do with persecution.

    Refoulement is the process by which a country to which a person has been extradited, itself extradites the person to a third country,

    The mischief of refoulement is that the second extradition happens without the control of the first extraditing country. Therefore Sweden might extradite to the USA for something that is not a crime in the UK (infringing the principle of double criminality) or for something that is not an extradition crime under the UK-USA extradition treaty.
    None of which seems very likely, it's quite a stretch to think that Sweden of all countries would publicly engage in such double dealing.

    All of this points a big finger at the implausibility of Assange's refuge and justifications for it.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    None of which seems very likely, it's quite a stretch to think that Sweden of all countries would publicly engage in such double dealing.

    All of this points a big finger at the implausibility of Assange's refuge and justifications for it.
    I agree but why doesn't Sweden nail this, once and for always? It isn't just public opinion. Refoulement underpins Ecuador's decision to grant diplomatic asylum.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Refoulement has nothing whatsoever to do with persecution.

    Refoulement is the process by which a country to which a person has been extradited, itself extradites the person to a third country,

    The mischief of refoulement is that the second extradition happens without the control of the first extraditing country. Therefore Sweden might extradite to the USA for something that is not a crime in the UK (infringing the principle of double criminality) or for something that is not an extradition crime under the UK-USA extradition treaty.
    Refoulement is 'the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution.' Many sources omit the 'persecution' part and simply state it as returning a refugee to their country of origin.
    It doesn't apply to Assange and what you describe is not a bar to Assange's extradition since he's still absolutely guaranteed fair and just treatment by the ECHR, which placate the worries you state.

    Edit: I think you're referring to chain-refoulement, but the concept still focuses on the concept of the return of someone to a country where they'd face persecution, not the idea of extraditing someone more than once to a chain of countries.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 9, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.