Sweden cannot extradite Assange to the US. So I agree with Greenwald.

[Robb]

See Conditions for extradition to a state outside the EU:

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect....

...When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality&quot . Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

So, when Glenn Greenwald tweets this:



...I believe we are in agreement. Assange has been remanded in absentia. Time for him to explain himself to Sweden's court.

[Enrique]

1. they can extradite him

your excerpt lays out the conditions for extradition. The U.S. and Sweden could easily maintain it's not a political matter, it's a criminal matter.

[Robb]

2. Ah, but the "criminal matter" would put the death penalty on the table, making extradition illegal.

He's covered.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. The death penalty is on the table only if the US puts it there

And what has Assange been accused of doing that would be a death penalty offense?

Plenty of people are extradited to the US for death-eligible crimes - the key is that the US agrees not to seek the death penalty.

[Robb]

8. Assange's lawyers say he's doing this to avoid the death penalty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/assange-asylum-bid-fear-death-penalty?newsfeed=true

[Romulox]

7. Not that I agree with your analysis, but the death penalty is routinely waived in order to secure

extradition from EU countries, Mexico, and elsewhere. They just have to promise not to seek it.

[Robb]

10. Then they cannot pursue espionage charges.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/20/assange-asylum-bid-fear-death-penalty?newsfeed=true

The Assange team believes the US is likely to seek to prosecute him on espionage charges, which carries a potential death penalty.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. It doesn't matter what the potential penalty is

It only matters what the US decides to seek as the penalty. The US and/or states routinely waive the death penalty in order extradite people from other countries. This is not new.

[Robb]

17. Swedish law, quoted upthread, speaks to potential.

If there is potential to face loss of life, no extradition.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. And if the US agrees not to seek the death penalty, then there is no potential

You're just wrong in your argument when you say that Sweden can't extradite.

[Robb]

29. So Sweden can extradite if the death penalty is off the table.

So Assange does not truly fear the death penalty?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

28. It's clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll say it again. The US can promise no death penalty to have him extradited. It's been done before.

If I'm not mistaken, that provision is in most extradition agreements we have with countries that forbid the death penalty. AKA, most of the civilized world.

Here. I'm not mistaken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
Death penalty - Many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Macao,[2] and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out.

[Robb]

34. Then Assange lied to Ecuador, and has no justification for asylum.

Associated Press quoted Ecuador foreign minister Ricardo Patino as telling reporters Mr Assange had written to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted.

Mr Assange feared Sweden would not protect him from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition," Mr Patino said.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

36. You are not even making sense at this point.

Yes, as it stands, Assange is still death penalty eligible in the US because the US hasn't waived the death penalty.

His attorney would be guilty of malpractice if he didn't state the facts as they are today. If the US wants to tip their hand and FORMALLY admit they want Assange, they will have to tip their hand by waiving DP BEFORE Sweden can get their hands on him. Then it's a different ballgame altogether.

I'll re-iterate: As it stands TODAY, he is DP eligible in the US. The US has expressed interest in getting their hands on Assange. Therefore, any CIVILIZED nation shouldn't be aiding the US to that end.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Robb]

38. Well, one of us is confused.

Assange told Ecuador he feared for his life, and requested asylum to avoid the death penalty.

There is no chance of Sweden extraditing him without assurances there will be no death penalty.

Therefore Ecuador has no reason to grant him asylum.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

39. Has the US waived the death penalty in Assange's case? Yes or No.

[hack89]

40. Yes or no is irrelevant. There is no way he can possibly face the death penalty.

Sweden can't extradict if the US refuses to waive the death penalty.

[Robb]

42. What "case"?

What charges has the US brought?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. Exactly.

[Robb]

46. So Assange can go to Sweden.

Good.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. As soon as the US promises no death penalty. Glad we agree.

[Romulox]

14. Again, no. Authorities simply promise not to seek that penalty in order to secure extradition.

For example, persons Federally accused of first degree murder may be extradited from the EU as long as prosecutors agree not to seek the death penalty.

[Robb]

30. Then Assange has no fear of the death penalty.

Therefore Assange has no justification for asylum.

[backscatter712]

27. All the US has to do is promise not to use the death penalty.

I'm sure they'd be satisfied with supermaxing him for the rest of his life.

[tsuki]

47. Just like all those prisoner of rendition were covered.

Oh, I guess you could say that Sweden did not extradite those political prisoners, they just sent them to countries that torture and kill. That apparently makes it okay. My problem with Sweden is who is to say that Assauge will not just be "sent" to the US. He's not covered.

[Robb]

48. Why single out Sweden, then?

Why not the UK? Or, frankly, Ecuador? (PDF)

[tsuki]

52. UK has a provision against torture.

The US cannot guarantee that it will not torture according to international standards.

[JDPriestly]

3. If the US is capable of rendition -- I think Assange should stay away from Sweden.

[Robb]

5. Sweden took a dramatic stand *against* rendition.

...Something we know about, ironically, thanks to Wikileaks.

http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military

An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights, according to the latest revelation from Wikileaks.

Daily Svenska Dagbladet wrote Sunday that Swedish Military Intelligence posed as airport personnel and boarded one of the two controversial extraordinary rendition flights during a stopover at Stockholm’s Arlanda International Airport. The suspected prisoner transfers were confirmed.

A few days before the incident US charge d’affaires at the American Embassy in Stockholm, Steven V. Noble, was summoned by the Swedish Foreign Ministry and questioned about the planned stopover. The Swedish military also set down rules for stopovers.

Steven V. Noble wrote in cables reveled by WkiLeaks that the Swedish government reacted strongly because rules had not been followed.

[tsuki]

49. It only took a UN, Amnesty Int'l and Human Rights investigation to stop rendition from Sweden.

Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari sought political asylum in Sweden and were detained and rendered via a CIA plane to Egypt. Sweden knew that Egypt tortured and has the death penalty.

They not only allowed CIA planes to stop in Sweden, they knowingly and willingly participated in rendition until exposed.

Yeah, I'd trust them...Not.

[Robb]

56. The story above took place in 2006.

Thank the Swedish Military Intelligence forces for ending rendition.

[tsuki]

57. Agiza was rendered in 2001 by Sweden. He suffered

nine years of torture. Then, in 2006 under investigation, the Swedish Military Intelligence makes a showy raid. Oh, we're the good guys.

I wonder what they were doing in 2007.

[ananda]

6. The Swedish charges are both bogus and wrong.

Assange should never go to Sweden under any circumstances.

[randome]

15. Because you'll believe a man's word over a woman's?

Or because you were there at the time. It has to be one of those since you seem so sure of yourself.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. Because anyone with a functioning brain cell can see what's going on here.

[tsuki]

51. Agreed.

[treestar]

9. Is he on any wanted list or any charges laid against him in the U.S.?

This is idiotic waste of time created by an attention seeker who just hadn't gotten any attention recently.

I'd like to know the Ecuadorian asylum standards. It must be pretty broad, like "political opinion" includes the opinion one does not have to obey laws others do. In which case, they can expect millions of claims from criminals across the globe. I don't know why they think it will take them a long time. If they have any sort of standard anything like the rest of the world's, the claim for asylum is frivolous.

[kenny blankenship]

11. I bet they have laws against torture, too

didn't stop them from "helping out" when we asked them.

[GarroHorus]

13. Espionage is not considered a political offense, Sweden can still extradite.

That would assume, of course, that Assange is indicted, which, IMO, he should be.

[Robb]

18. Nope. Espionage charges carry death penalty potential.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Doesn't matter - you been told, several times, that the US can promise not to apply a death penalty

and, if you read the bit you put in bold again, "nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death". That does not say "cannot be extradited for any offence that might carry a death penalty". It says the person cannot be sentenced to death. And that's the point of the US promising not to seek the death penalty.

For instance:

Murder suspects lose appeal against extradition to US

But their claims were dismissed by the ECHR. In a summary of the decision, the court said "the diplomatic assurances, provided by the US to the British government - that the death penalty would not be sought in respect of Mr Harkins or Mr Edwards - were clear and sufficient to remove any risk that either of the applicants could be sentenced to death if extradited, particularly as the US had a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law".

On the question of life imprisonment without parole, the court said it would not be disproportionate if Harkins or Edwards were given life sentences. Both men have three months to appeal against the judgment to the ECHR's upper chamber and cannot be removed until that period has passed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/17/murder-suspects-lose-appeal-extradition

[Robb]

22. Assange's lawyers, as I've said, claim his asylum attempt is to avoid the death penalty.

Are they not familiar with Swedish law?

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. They're spinning it to get some sympathy for him

Lawyers claim all sorts of shit, in the hope they'll either get public or political sympathy, or they might get lucky and find a judge who decides to overturn established precedent - eg some judge that says "I don't trust the assurances of the USA any more". Since there is no record of the USA applying the death penalty after giving assurances that they wouldn't, such a decision would not survive appeal (you wouldn't get a panel of judges making an unfounded claim like that), it would never be more than a delaying tactic.

But, as I pointed out, the Swedish government site you quoted was clear - it's about the person not being put to death, not the maximum penalty that the crime carries.

The American lawyer actually said "he was facing the death penalty or certainly life in jail". Notice the 'or', which gives him a get-out clause if someone says "how competent are you, as a lawyer?"

[Robb]

31. Agreed.

However, as I said upthread, if Assange has no real fear of the death penalty, he has no real justification for asylum.

Associated Press quoted Ecuador foreign minister Ricardo Patino as telling reporters Mr Assange had written to Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa saying he was being persecuted.

Mr Assange feared Sweden would not protect him from being extradited to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition," Mr Patino said.

[tsuki]

50. No, but they read up on the rendition lack of law. nt

[GarroHorus]

23. Doesn't matter.

The U.S. can assure there will be no death penalty and still extradite. They've done so numerous times where extradition would be impossible without such assurance.

Basically, all the U.S. would have to do is take the DP off the table as a potential sentence and Sweden would then be able to comply.

[Robb]

32. With the DP off the table, Ecuador will deny his asylum request.

Ecuador weighing Assange death sentence risk: Foreign minister

QUITO: Ecuador is weighing the risk that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could face the death penalty in the United States in reaching a decision on whether to grant him asylum, its foreign minister said Wednesday.

"We are now studying Assange's charge that he risks being tried for political reasons and could be sentenced to death," foreign minister Ricardo Patino said on his Twitter account.

[GarroHorus]

35. But with no indictment, it's all moot.

[Robb]

43. Considering Ecuador's extradition treaty with the US, that's putting it mildly.

[dionysus]

16. i thought his 15 minutes were up.

[SidDithers]

19. Who? Assange or Greenwald?...

Sid

[dionysus]

20. vaht? i'm telling you Sid, assange is really bill maher doing performance art...

douchewald.. is just douchewald...

[GarroHorus]

24. DOUCHEWALD!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Good for Sweden. But, Assange should still head for Ecuador.

Though, even there, he probably wouldn't be safe from the vengeance the embarrassed big shots in 'Murka want to impose on him for being whistleblower.

[EFerrari]

41. Sweden cannot participate in extraordinary rendition, either. But they did.

So, your premise doesn't work.

[kenny blankenship]

44. Where the United States is involved, "International Law" is moot and absurd

and the laws of individual nations often turn out to be more like suggestions for conduct and procedure, rather than anything binding that they must stick to.

The US has lots of ways of compelling countries to do what it wants, and it rarely involves going through the World Court. Little Ecuador knows this and I'm afraid they will have to turn Julian Assange over to Britain or whatever lapdog we send to collect him. It would be trivial to add them to the list of countries slated for regime change.


"Julian Assange will never leave Casablanca, alive."

[diabeticman]

54. The charges against Assange are bogus. I have a couple friends from Sweden and they aren't even

buying the charges which where brought than dropped several times before sticking. You have Legal experts in Sweden questioning the charges.

[Robb]

55. Well, if your friends in Sweden say so.