Efforts to extradite Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from the UK to the US have gone on for years. Here’s what’s been going on and what might happen in court this time.
Why does the US have any jurisdiction at all? This isn’t an American citizen. He didn’t do any of his supposed crimes in the USA. What right do they have?
A country’s laws can be violated by a foreign national, from outside the country.
When this happens within the country, there are plenty of examples of people being convicted for violating local law when visiting. When this happens they get arrested and trialed according to local law.
When it happens from outside or if the perpetrator leaves the country, the country can ask the country that the perpetrator is in for extradition. That can be their home country, or simply another country that they happen to be in.
It is then up to that country’s legal system whether to grant that extradition. Most countries will have laws and policies around when extradition can be granted, and if it is, they will then arrest the individual and hand them over to the country requesting their extradition for trial.
So, by default, they have every right as long as a person is within their borders. And when they aren’t, they can ask for the right. And they are. The government of the other country can then give them the right to uphold their rule of law over this one specific individual.
Assanges whole ordeal has been about whether the countries harbouring him will grant the extradition requested by the US, or properly grant him asylum instead. Ecuador did for a while, but withdrew that and allowed him to be arrested by UK law enforcement. Which they could do because he breached bail on the EU arrest warrant issued by Sweden, valid in the UK due to their membership at the time.
Whether he’d be in the clear within the borders of his home country, isn’t relevant, because that’s not where he is.
Oh my god, you’ve figured out how spies can avoid prosecution in countries they spy in: don’t be a citizen! Now when they get arrested they can say that they aren’t citizens and so jurisdiction falls to a different country! Police hate this one trick.
That’s an extremely dangerous line of thought. I’m certain that I do things every day, both IRL and online, that are against the laws of many countries. Easy examples would be Iran, China, Russia, Israel, and many others. However, I am not (and have never been) within their borders, and their laws do not apply to me.
Is the only thing stopping them from enforcing their laws upon me, that my own government does not want to appease them? What if there are diplomatic/policy shifts? Do we end up in a situation where the most awful countries have ruling power over everyone?
You don’t live in the EU, do you? Hack into the government of Germany’s computer system and tell the FBI they can’t extradite you there because you are a US citizen and Germany has no jurisdiction.
Why does the US have any jurisdiction at all? This isn’t an American citizen. He didn’t do any of his supposed crimes in the USA. What right do they have?
A country’s laws can be violated by a foreign national, from outside the country.
When this happens within the country, there are plenty of examples of people being convicted for violating local law when visiting. When this happens they get arrested and trialed according to local law.
When it happens from outside or if the perpetrator leaves the country, the country can ask the country that the perpetrator is in for extradition. That can be their home country, or simply another country that they happen to be in.
It is then up to that country’s legal system whether to grant that extradition. Most countries will have laws and policies around when extradition can be granted, and if it is, they will then arrest the individual and hand them over to the country requesting their extradition for trial.
So, by default, they have every right as long as a person is within their borders. And when they aren’t, they can ask for the right. And they are. The government of the other country can then give them the right to uphold their rule of law over this one specific individual.
Assanges whole ordeal has been about whether the countries harbouring him will grant the extradition requested by the US, or properly grant him asylum instead. Ecuador did for a while, but withdrew that and allowed him to be arrested by UK law enforcement. Which they could do because he breached bail on the EU arrest warrant issued by Sweden, valid in the UK due to their membership at the time.
Whether he’d be in the clear within the borders of his home country, isn’t relevant, because that’s not where he is.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this well.
Oh my god, you’ve figured out how spies can avoid prosecution in countries they spy in: don’t be a citizen! Now when they get arrested they can say that they aren’t citizens and so jurisdiction falls to a different country! Police hate this one trick.
Removed by mod
That’s an extremely dangerous line of thought. I’m certain that I do things every day, both IRL and online, that are against the laws of many countries. Easy examples would be Iran, China, Russia, Israel, and many others. However, I am not (and have never been) within their borders, and their laws do not apply to me.
Is the only thing stopping them from enforcing their laws upon me, that my own government does not want to appease them? What if there are diplomatic/policy shifts? Do we end up in a situation where the most awful countries have ruling power over everyone?
You don’t live in the EU, do you? Hack into the government of Germany’s computer system and tell the FBI they can’t extradite you there because you are a US citizen and Germany has no jurisdiction.
You clearly misunderstood what I said.
Removed by mod