Judges in London have already ruled that the US's request was lawful and that the American authorities would care for him properly in prison.
Now, the home secretary has carried out her role in the complicated legal process by signing off the US request. Her officials said she was legally bound to do so because Mr Assange does not face the death penalty - nor does his case fall into the other narrow range of categories for her to refuse to approve the transfer.
If his lawyers cannot get a hearing back before judges in London, he could petition the European Court of Human Rights.
Still, it's nice to know there's some people we can deport when we want to, isn't it?
H/T: Ian J
3 comments:
Not that I've much sympathy for Assange but the 2003 UK/US extradition agreement ("negotiated" by civil servants, not submitted to parliament but signed off by Blunkett) is an unbalanced crock compared with the previous 1972 agreement.
Essentially, the US does not have to supply evidence just a "statement of the facts of the offence". The UK has to supply prima facie evidence. In other words, as long as the document submitted by the US has all the correct (US) signatures, no evidence has to be submitted. OTOH, the UK is stuck with providing prima facie evidence to extradite someone from the US.
This is another legacy of Labour (and the EU by the way) The 2003 treaty was supposed to bring US/UK extradition practice in line with US/EU practice: suffice it to say the Blob ensured that the new treaty went much further and, by no coincidence whatsoever, against the interests of the UK.
Why don't we arrange a swap for Sacoolas?
"...the 2003 UK/US extradition agreement ("negotiated" by civil servants, not submitted to parliament but signed off by Blunkett) is an unbalanced crock compared with the previous 1972 agreement."
Another lergacy of the Blair/Brown didaster. Not that May/Johnson bothered to reverse the decline, of course.
"Why don't we arrange a swap for Sacoolas?"
I like that idea!
Post a Comment