The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get custody.
I’m not surprised to see new charges filed. But these charges seem very likely to backfire. By overcharging, the US may well cause the UK to balk. I have to assume that someone expects to negotiate a shorter list of charges, so they started with a crazy opening offer.
>The UK won’t extradite Assange if he faces execution. The US will have to make a binding promise not to sentence him to death if it wants to actually get custody.
I know that previous non-binding promises (which were then ignored; i.e., people were executed) caused diplomatic trouble, so I still expect the US to make a binding promise.
Even if it is expressly told, in private, by the Home Secretary, that it doesn't have to, even while the UK government claims a different policy in public, as has apparently already happened in this other case? Also, the Home Office could make an exception at the very last minute if it wants to. There would be questions asked, but it would be largely moot if he is already out of the country.
To extradite without such a guarantee is a blatant violation of the UK's obligations as a signatory of the ECHR, as to do so would violate his right to life.
If there's any reason to suspect that no such guarantee exists, they may well apply to the ECtHR after any Supreme Court decision to extradite him, and it would be unlikely that he'd be extradited until the ECtHR judgment had happened.
That said, if it comes to light after he's been extradited any application to the ECtHR would likely do little for him, though it would be politically damaging.
>'The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said a senior British government official told him that this case was not the first time that the UK had dropped its request for assurances that the death penalty would not be used.'
>'What ministers and MPs believe is that Mr Javid is attempting to smooth the way for the Americans to take the cases by letting them know that the UK will not, for once, kick up a fuss about the death penalty.'
>'In other words, this is all part of a deal. And some sources suggest this is a deal with precedent, that this is not the first time the UK has turned a blind eye towards its death penalty policy.'
>'The Security Minister, Ben Wallace, told MPs that it had happened before but not while he has been in his job.'
>'He explained that little-known guidance to ministers, known as the Overseas Security and Justice Assistance guidance, that was last updated January 2017, allowed the Home Secretary to make an exception to the rule.'
>'It states "written assurances should be sought before agreeing to the provision of assistance that anyone found guilty would not face the death penalty" but "where no assurances are forthcoming or where there are strong reasons not to seek assurances, the case should automatically be deemed 'High Risk' and FCO Ministers should be consulted to determine whether, given the specific circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance".'
There is reason to strongly suspect that no such concrete guarantee exists and it is in fact entirely down to the personal whims of whomever currently happens to occupy the Home Office, while the Foreign Office is busy keeping an image going of something entirely different. As is tradition.
Let’s say they make a binding promise and then try and execute him anyway.
What then? He’s dead, and US-UK relations are basically unaffected. Where is the recourse? Who would seek it? No one would be punished, just as for the other violent crimes being discussed in this thread.
Or, what’s worse: they don’t kill him quickly, but instead torture him to death like they tried (and almost succeeded in doing) to Manning. They could even do it in the context of a multi-year protracted non-capital trial, making it seem like they were intending to comply with their promise.
Their goal is suffering and intimidation, make no mistake. Death or not, they are within sight of their endgame. Once he is in their custody, his life will become very, very painful, regardless of what the law says or whether or not he is given a trial or whether or not he is convicted or whether or not is is fair or just. He will suffer, and probably die.
Remember, he is the adversary of the organization who hacked their own Senate to avoid oversight. (No legal repercussions for that, either. The CIA is allowed to hack the legislature.) They give zero fucks about the law, because they know it doesn’t apply to them.
(To add insult to injury: that oversight they were avoiding? It was because they torture people.)
Even Mengele didn’t have that kind of carte blanche.
Literally no law in any country practically applies to the US military intelligence machine at this point.
It’s my understanding that the US used to claim that it was inappropriate for the State Department to make binding promises that someone would not be sentenced to death because the State Department is part of the executive branch and should not interfere with the judicial branch.
The US got away with this argument for a long time. Eventually, countries made it clear that the US would have to solve its own separation of powers issues if it hoped to ever get extradition requests approved. This is the diplomatic equivalent of saying “that sounds like a personal problem to me.”
The US did eventually find a way to provide those promises without interfering with the courts. Reneging on a promise like that is the kind of thing the US can only do once: sure they would get to execute Assange, but the natural result would be that the UK and other countries would stop extraditing people.
I’m not an expert on extradition, but based on the initial hearing, it sounds like both the UK courts and the UK government have to approve the extradition request. I believe that negotiating with the government is expected, and coordination on that side of things is definitely likely.
However, coordinating with the judge without Assange’s lawyers would be highly inappropriate. It wouldn’t surprise me if the appropriate government minister offered legal help in drafting the court documents, but I don’t think it would go beyond that.
I’m not surprised to see new charges filed. But these charges seem very likely to backfire. By overcharging, the US may well cause the UK to balk. I have to assume that someone expects to negotiate a shorter list of charges, so they started with a crazy opening offer.