Is there still a police security presence around the Ecuadorian Embassy?
24-hour surveillance ended over a year ago. That’s not to to say that there’s never a policeman on duty at or near the embassy - embassies get a fairly high level of police attention as a matter of routine - but it’s not a permanent ring of steel.
OK, it was never really a ring of steel. But the Google street view archive photographs show one or two constables hanging around the embassy consistently from September 2012 - the first in the archive dated after Assange’s arrival - until May 2015. In the next photograph in the archive, dated May 2016, they don’t appear, and they’re not there in the current photograph, which is September 2016.
Since he helped save us from Hillary, the world owes Assange; and recently Trump has been asked by many people to issue a pardon ( and of course, separately, a sensible pardon to old Hil just for generosity’s sake ) which would end the Captivity.
I really doubt if Trump cares that much what happens to St. Julian, but it would be a handsome gesture.
The reason I ask about the security is that if the government has withdrawn the police watchers, then Mr. Assange is no longer inside.
Can you pardon someone for something for which they haven’t been convicted?
The US President has no power to pardon a criminal offense that is alleged to have occurred in Sweden.
What folks might mean by this idea of a “pardon” is for Trump to publicly state that he has no intention of asking for Assange’s extradition from Sweden, if and when he would go to Sweden for trial.
Well, possibly, but not necessarily. They could be watching other than through a visible uniformed police presence. Or, they could be watching only part of the time, but he might still not have left.
(He was certainly still there long after the overt police guard was removed, since people have met him there.)
Assange’s professed concern is that, if he goes to Sweden, the US will attempt to extradite him from Sweden for acts which are crimes under US law. That concern would be alleviated if he were pardoned for any and all offences under US law.
I am not really wondering if he has left, in the sense of departed for some other country. I am wondering if the Ecuadorian government, after bowing to US pressure to cut his internet connection, has once more given in and allowed him to be taken. It’s been a month since he has been seen.
It worked for Richard Nixon.
Moderator Note
Evan Drake, political jabs are not permitted in General Questions. Since you are new here, I am making this a note instead of a warning. However, further comments of this kind may be subject to an official warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
That is his professed concern. However, i have never seen any explanation why he thinks the US would attempt to extradite him from Sweden when the US never attempted to extradite him from the UK.
As well, if the Uk were to extradite him to Sweden and the US then applied to Sweden to extradite him, Britain and Sweden would both have to consent to the US extradition.
In other words, it would be more procedurally difficult to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK.
I have never seen any one who supports Assange address these points.
Three points, or two?
The UK is famous for this and has a long history of giving asylum to even the most radical Islamic preachers, wanted in their own countries, not convicted terrorists of course. I think extradition to any country would be very difficult from the UK. Sweden, on the other hand, works hand in glove with US intelligence, kind of an undeclared NATO partner, very paranoid about the Ruskies.
And for point two, once Sweden has possession of Assange, guilty or innocent of the sex charges, and then agrees to a US request for extradition on a whistleblower charge, the nodded assent of the UK at that point may be a government decision and not a court anointed one. Not sure about this…
That does not appear to be supported by the wiki article on the relevant UK treaty, the UK-US extradition treaty. The article indicates that the treaty has been controversial in Britain because some say it favours extradition from the UK to the US more than extradition from the US to the UK.
The article also has a list of several people extradited from the UK to the US, including several Muslims wanted by the US for terrorism related offences. One of the most well-known of those extradited from the UK was Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical cleric who has two hooks for hands and is blind in one eye, reputedly from handling explosives in Afghanistan. See also the BBC article: “Abu Hamza among five terror suspects extradited to US”, BBC News, 6 October 2012.
Based on this information, I don’t see how it can be argued that it would be difficult for the US to extradite someone from Britain on a national security issue, especially since Britain is one of the closest allies of the US, and is an actual member of NATO, not simply an undeclared one like Sweden. For instance, the UK and the US are both part of the “Five Eyes” intelligence gathering consortium.
Extradition from Britain to the US and from Britain to Sweden are both governed by the UK Extradition Act 2003. Although there are some differences in the way extradition out of Europe and extradition to a European country are handled, in both cases the final decision is a political one: the Secretary of State has the final say whether to extradite, not the courts. And under the terms of European Arrest Warrant system, which is the source of the Swedish extradition request, Sweden could not extradite Assange to the US unless the British government consents, just as Assange could not be extradited directly from the UK to the US without the consent of the British government. See the section on “Specialty” in the wiki article on the European Arrest Warrant system.
In short, if Britain extradites Assange to Sweden and then the US requests extradition from Sweden, there are now two foreign governments which have to consent: the British government and the Swedish government. That is procedurally and politically more difficult than if the consent from only one foreign government is needed.
Are you saying that since the US has not asked for extradition from the UK, they are not interested in prosecuting him?
No, I am addressing the issue raised by Assange supporters, who argue that the “real reason” Sweden wants to extradite Assange from Britain is that it will then be easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden, and that for some reason it is easier to extradite from Sweden than from Britain.
I have seen Assange supporters make that statement, but I have never seen them say why they think that is true.
The laws governing extradition from the UK to the US and to Sweden do not appear to support that argument. I would like to hear from an Assange supporter why they think the US will find it easier to extradite from Sweden than from the UK, rather than just a bare statement.
That’s because their own countries tended not to be those best known for their commitment to due process of law and untainted evidence, still less to human rights, as understood in the west.