Hacker News Reader

Comment by popol12 | Hacker News Reader

> the assurances would need to include “that the applicant (Assange) is permitted to rely on the first amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed”.

I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ?

Also, what kind of sentence would Julian face even if he get these assurances ? Could it be anything lower than life in jail ?

View on HN

> I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ?

Regarding the death penalty part: extraditions from Germany (and probably all of Europe) would immediately stop in capital cases. Those all rely on American assurances, and the first time it's broken, courts will disregard them for a long time.

"Would" is a strong word. "Might" seems a bit more reasonable. There is currently an escalating war in Europe and Germany has already rolled over and accepted the Nord Stream pipe as an act of God. Well, I don't actually know where their investigation is up to, but they're not acting like their infrastructure was attacked by a military. They're just taking it on the chin, probably some strongly worded diplomatic protests. If that was a pipeline heading in to the continental US a country would have been removed from the map by now.

With that so large in the rear view mirror, are they really in a position to start defying the US on extraditions? The US will claim this is a special case and Germany will probably go with it in practice.

You don‘t seem to be aware of the concept of an independent judiciary.

I dunno, is the German judiciary powerful enough to be independent of the US? In theory the entire country has independent sovereignty but it doesn't isn't in a position to exercise it to full effect. It doesn't come up very often, but in physical reality the judiciary's independence rests on the beliefs of a country's police chiefs and generals.

The US has a history of just doing what it wants in Europe when it comes to renditions (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [0]). It isn't out of the question that they just grab these people and the judiciary can go sort itself out. There were reports that they were considering assassinating Assange and being done with it. I assume the fact he isn't much of a threat going forward and that his miserable existence is an object lesson in defying the US stood him in good stead against those ideas.

[0] I liked the 2006 resolution that called on that the US to stop doing these things and apologise. The good old fashioned sternly worded letter is one of my favourite parts of politics.

Why do you think extraordinary renditions happen (rarely, but sometimes)? If a German district judge would just read the newspaper, conclude that "America wants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri" and obediently judges accordingly, America wouldn't have gone to all that trouble.

If your argument is that the judiciary can afford to be independent because the US will ignore them and just take anyone who they think is important to their interests then yes, I can see that as a reasonable possibility. But it is also a reasonable possibility that the courts cave in. It depends what sort of pressure the US brings in to play.

If you're arguing that the German judiciary had influence over the fate of Khaled El-Masri then I'm not sure how the argument is meant to hang together. They seem to have been powerless in that instance. The outcome depended on the CIA's judgement.

>If that was a pipeline heading in to the continental US a country would have been removed from the map by now

The problem is which country? No one seems to know who did it.

Given that the US has turned itself into an unreliable defense partner, not sure why they wouldn't stick to German law in Germany, not like the government can just bypass the courts.

Also, if a hypothetical US pipeline had been attacked by a large nuclear armed adversary, pretty sure that country would still be on the map...

> Also, if a hypothetical US pipeline had been attacked by a large nuclear armed adversary, pretty sure that country would still be on the map...

Doesn't have to be the same country. There is a bit of history in recent times; US went in to Afghanistan to find Osama and Iraq to find WMD. Turned out both were only to be found in Pakistan.

I'd say by who is in charge in Afghanistan now again, the place is still on the map.

Nuclear weapons in Pakistan isn't anything new (but the US was surprised quite a while back when Pakistan tested a fusion weapon).

Huh, I always figured it was the Germans themselves that blew it up. To remove the blackmail angle.

That is the most outrageous theory I've ever heard on the subject. I don't believe it but I do like the audacity of it.

Probably the Germans and the Russians working together, I would say. Makes the most sense, after all, what losing the billions they invested together in building it would hurt everyone else the most, right?

Then the US would not be able to extradite anyone from a country that requires assurances ever again. Given that the US still has the death penalty for many crimes this would cripple its ability to extradite.

If he is suicided ("sudden heart attack" etc.) that won't cause any issues wrt formal assurances (no official death penalty so all is good).

Well that's unlikely to happen, US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want

Yeah, once you start kidnapping your allies citizens openly, a lot less goodwill will be returned. And the US isn't powerful enough to just bully the rest of the world without repercussions.

Again, it isn’t about goodwill. The US totally dominates these countries and its times like this where its citizens really see that.

Anymore?

You'd think so and yet the rest of the world is what gives US its edge. Without it, they are to lose more than they win with Assange.

> US have enough leverage to extradite anyone they want

I thought that was the case but I think Assange proves that's not as strong as many expected. I think it was reasonable to expect him being extradited 10 years ago, it's surprising he hasn't been yet.

What I do think the US achieved was pressuring the UK into not extraditing him to Sweden. He was charged with crimes there that seemed much more clear cut – not espionage, just a regular case that anyone else would be extradited for. Whether you think that was a conspiracy or not, in isolation it was a justified extradition with no safety concerns, so the US clearly has some sway in preventing it.

The UK is known for having an extremely slow and thorough extradition process with a lot of appeals. For example, the case of Abu Hamza (Captain Hook).

Polanski says hi.

> I wonder what would happen if the US gave these assurances then broke them ?

The English courts are permitted to take into account whether assurances for previous extraditions have been complied with:

> When considering the adequacy of an assurance in any particular case, the courts should place appropriate weight on any assurance previously obtained in extradition requests from the same requesting country.

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0191...

...this is of little comfort to Assange, but it does mean that there is an incentive for the country issuing the assurances to comply with them, otherwise their future extradition requests have a greatly increased chance of being denied.

They can also easily give him a life sentence while claiming to maintain the "assurances"

That's... exactly what I expect given the assurance given? I'm not sure why there's any implication that the uk meant something else.

nothing, apart from some officials expressing disappointment

Reply on news.ycombinator.com