Reading this (pdf)
SUPPLEMENTARY CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA AND THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN
TIAS 10812 35 U.S.T. 2501; 1983 U.S.T. LEXIS 131
March 14, 1983, Date-Signed September 24, 1984, Date-In-Force
".....
Article VI
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving
a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or
(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement [*7] of the Contracting States. "
makes clear why no-one in their right mind (once properly informed rather than relying on what cognitive scientists refer to as 'folk' understandings - eg folk physics) would agree to go to Sweden on the doubtful grounds that Mr Assange is being sought by the Swedes.
Unfortunately for the Americans the United Kingdom has judicial processes that have to be gone through on extradition requests. Sweden has Executive decision-taking for the 'lending' of a prisoner for any period the contracting states choose at any moment of the Swedish state's pleasure. Short of extraordinary rendition (which when practised in Milan made the Italians very cross indeed and has led to a fistful of US agents now permanently excluded from Italy on pain of instant arrest and prosecution) Mr Assange had to be delivered to a more 'appropriate', a more 'yielding' judicial environment for transfer to America.
In these circumstances Angels would have nipped smartly into a friendly embassy too.
Shame on Australia though for seeming to fail one of their citizens so completely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Hear, hear.
What Sackers says...
Does America actually ever agree to extradite any of its citizens? Many countries do not, preferring to try the accused at home instead where sentencing procedures/levels may be very different from the requesting country. Any extradition involving America seems to be a one way street - and the UK's latest New Labour-led Agreement is a travesty which should be revisited without delay.
The answer would seem to be 'No', Nomad. Until America normalises its relations with other nation states nobody should be delivered up to them.
An open reform of all America's secret prisons, punishment regimes etc., wouldn't come amiss either. Those films and photographs of the conditions in which they hold their prisoners do tend to stick in the mind.
Thanks HG, I thought that might be the case. Can't imagine why anybody would ever even think of negotiating such a one sided arrangement sans full reciprocity.
In his shoes, until Swedish authorities give him a cast iron and very well publicised assurance that he will not be surrendeed to the Americans, Julian should remain where he is.
Hat tip, Angels! This is quite a scoop.
1984? what for? no terrorism, no 9/11 excuses for replicating extraordinary renditions, no need for suspending the rule of law. A Reaganite, anti-communist, NATO-wide conspiracy? A good Orwellian date, all the same.
Post a Comment