Legal myths about the Assange extradition
newstatesman.com
Legal myths about the Assange extradition
1–10 of 187 posts
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#2I found this a very interesting article, particularly the first 4 points (the last is a little more vague).
However, this article mainly helps formalise my previous beliefs, so I wonder if I found it interesting just because it agrees with my point of view?
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#3I found this a very interesting article, particularly the first 4 points (the last is a little more vague). However, this article mainly helps formalise my previous beliefs, so I wonder if I found it interesting just because it agrees with my point of view?
It is totally possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I like this article because it seems to be more informative than persuasive.
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#4"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances."
Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze...
Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assange supporters while continuing to spread myths by the Assange opponents.
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#5I found this a very interesting article, particularly the first 4 points (the last is a little more vague). However, this article mainly helps formalise my previous beliefs, so I wonder if I found it interesting just because it agrees with my point of view?
It is totally possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias I like this article because it seems to be more informative than persuasive.
I agree. I don't hold a strong opinion one way or the other in case.
One thing I found interesting was the author's suggestion that the rule of law will result in the appropriate outcome. However, that assessment assumes that the legal system will basically always get it right.
I think that a lot of people are upset specifically because they don't trust the 'rule of law' cannot be subverted for political gain. In this case, it at least seems plausible that the rules of the courts could be influenced by political forces in some way; thus, people lack faith that the legal system in the UK or Sweden will provide what they believe is an appropriate response.
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#6"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances." Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze... Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assan…
The article does not make the point that, having been delivered to Sweden, Assange would be protected by an impregnable shield against extradition to the US. Rather, the article simply points out that the protections Assange has against extradition in Sweden are comparable to the ones he has in the UK --- perhaps better, in fact, given the ease with which the US has extradited people from the UK.
More importantly, since both the UK and Sweden are already enjoined formally from extraditing Assange to face the death penalty, what does it mean for Assange to extract a further promise from Sweden's executive not be extradited? If the ECHR --- the very law governing extradition from Sweden --- can't be trusted, why is Assange demanding an even less meaningful promise from Sweden's government?
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#7IF YOU DON'T SEE THE FNORD IT CAN'T EAT YOU, DON'T SEE THE FNORD, DON'T SEE THE FNORD...
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#8"Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition in the United States in such circumstances." Except that law has been violated before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Ze... Edit: In my opinion this article seems to clear up some myths spread by the Assan…
The article does not make the point that, having been delivered to Sweden, Assange would be protected by an impregnable shield against extradition to the US. Rather, the article simply points out that the protections Assange has against extradition in Sweden are comparable to the ones he has in the UK --- perhaps better, in fact, given the ease with which the US has extradited people from the UK. More importantly, si…
No, that was under the section called “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”. If it had been under the previous section it would have meant what you state.
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article does not make the point that, having been delivered to Sweden, Assange would be protected by an impregnable shield against extradition to the US. Rather, the article simply points out that the protections Assange has against extradition in Sweden are comparable to the ones he has in the UK --- perhaps better, in fact, given the ease with which the US has extradited people from the UK. More importantly, si…
No, that was under the section called “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”. If it had been under the previous section it would have meant what you state.
I think it's hard to miss the comparison that's actually being made in the article between the protections Assange has in the UK versus those he'd have in Sweden, as those comparisons are made explicitly in each sentence in which the ECHR protections are mentioned.
In fact, the article points out the additional protection Assange has in Sweden: should the US seek to extradite, both Sweden and the UK would need to agree.
Re: Legal myths about the Assange extradition
#10“By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press”
This is perhaps the strangest proposition. / Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press.
The proposition doesn't actually say that protecting the freedom of the press is their motivation. Good things can arise from bad motives.