Sarah Palin thinks the non-American Assange should be prosecuted for treason.
Under most extradition treaties, the crime for which extradition is sought must be prosecutable in the extraditing country, too. Not clear at all that such would be the case here.
No, Assange claims the sex was consensual but that he refused to wear a condom. The charges are related to (wiki)allegation that he had raped a woman in Enköping on the weekend of 14 August after a seminar, and two days later had sexually harassed a second woman …Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny filed charges of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. There is now a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) out on him, which is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU).
Thus, he’s likely to get arrested in a number of nations, and the USA can ask for extradition after Sweden gets done with him.
Well, you don’t need to be an American under U.S. law to commit treason - what is necessary is “owing allegiance to the United States”. I agree that Julian Assange probably does not owe allegiance to the U.S. within the meaning of that provision, but more abstractly speaking, American nationality is not the only possible ground for such allegiance.
The story I linked to said that the accusers were saying the sex was consensual. More information has come out since then. I personally still find the harges dubious, but who knows.
The US does not have very solid grounds to ask for extradition, so I doubt anybody would cooperate with such a request.
What other ground is there? Owing allegiance, AFAIK, means you’re either a US citizen or a US national.
There were apparently two different situations. And it wasn’t the accusers, it was one set of victims.
Foreign national enlisted in the US military?
Right - just ask Manuel Noriega, who served 17 years in U.S. federal prison and was then extradited to France for prosecution there.
You have to be a lawful permanent resident to enlist, so you’d also be a US national.
Oh well then that nails it.:rolleyes:
Certainly this is a sufficient condition for allegiance, but not necessarily a necessary one - my argument being that if the statute required U.S. citizenship or nationality, it would simply say so. If a statute uses a vague term rather than a self-suggesting more precise one, this is usually because the statute is not intended to be limited in its application to the narrow case described by the precise term, but is rather intended to be applied where exceptional circumstances require so as well.
A famous case concerning the allegiance required in English-based legal systems is that of Lord Haw-Haw, the pseudonym of William Joyce, an American who lived in Germany during WWII and became the speaker of an anti-British propaganda programme on German radio. After the war, he was tried for treason (which, under British law, required allegaince to the Crown). The defence argued that since Joyce was not a British subject he did not owe such allegiance to the Crown. The court held otherwise and convicted him for treason.
I admit the Lord Haw-Haw case is special, because while Joyce had never been a British subject he had, at some stage, applied for a British passport to British authorities by claiming that he was British. This allowed the court to argue that if he himself claimed to be British, he is precluded from invoking his non-British nationality in a treason trial. The point here is that while nationality or citizenship is certainly the most important ground on which allegiance may be based, it is not necessarily the only one.
Under that rule, North Korea and Iran could issue warrents for the arrest of anyone they consider a threat.
Geez, when did the United States become the imperial overgovernment of the planet Earth, it’s laws applicable to everyone?
It’s not just the U.S., many, many nations exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. France, for example, prosecuted and imprisoned Noriega once we were done with him. North Korea could indeed issue an arrest warrant for me, but there’s very little chance I’ll get extradited there.
The rape charges were withdrawn almost immediately after they were made. Here’s a summary of what he’s charged with.
He could perhaps be charged with treason under Australian law.
And then re-instituted. That Blog is pretty biased and worthless.
wiki "Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny admitted the procedural fault and immediately filed a new detention order.[122]
Ny filed charges of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.[
Indeed his lawyer **claims **there was no rape, just unprotected sex. (Gomer pyle) Surprise, surprise, surprise.
[nm, answered at post 20]
According to this article, Australia is looking for grounds to prosecute Assange.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/pm-has-betrayed-me-assange-20101204-18ks8.html
The article also mentioned that there are a bunch of Australia specific cables that haven’t been published yet.
I’m trying to decide if his statement that he feels the the Australian PM has betrayed him is either disingenuous or insane. What did he think would happen when decided to make his own foreign policy?
Something tells me the Brits wouldn’t have a problem handing him over to us, nor would Australia, Germany, or any of the other Coalition countries whose information he also indirectly disclosed.