Well, if the UK *agreed* to the changed extradition law/treaty between the USA and the UK, they have no one but themselves to blame.

Agreed, but the US is a bit of a global bully boy when it comes to making these "agreements". Often things are rather one sided.

The USA usually does NOT have such great power in extradition matters. For instance, the USA vs. Mexico. Mexico will almost always refuse to extradite one of its citizens to the USA if the person in question faces the possibility of the death penalty. Sure, we will gripe about it, but we know they won't. Frequently, in order to extradite, the USA will guarantee that the person if found guilty will NOT get the death penalty.

Canada also will not extradite people to countries where they will face inhumane and barbaric treatment such as the death penalty.

Assange has every cause to be afraid for the rest of his life, as does Snowden. Both need to live out their lives quietly under some VERY secure rock. While it is not usual practice, the USA has been known to go capture people we want BADLY enough while they are travelling on or over international waters by boat or aircraft, diplomatic consequences be d**ned. They might not even be safe while walking around town.

Yes, we get it. America is the big shouty bully. We know.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It is no wonder that Julian Assange is so afraid of been extradited to the US.

No Es99. Here is the story.
In August 2010, Julian Assange visited Sweden to present the latest WikiLeaks publication.
During the visit, Assange was arrested by a prosecutor in absentia on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women.
The arrest was lifted just one day later, on 25 August, the ordinary prosecutor Eva Finne, and suspicion was changed to molestation.
On September 1, preliminary investigation was reopened, now by Marianne Ny and the rubric changed to once again apply rape.
On November 18 Assange was arrested in absentia by the Stockholm District Court and 7 December reported that he had been arrested by British police when he arrived at the police station.
On December 16, Julian Assange was released on bail.
On February 24, 2011 resolved a British court that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
It was appealed and a new trial if the extradition was carried out 12 to 13 July 2011.
On 2 November 2011 the High Court in England rejected his appeal and that he should still be extradited to Sweden.
On June 19, 2012 revealed that Assange sought political asylum in Ecuador and thus found himselve at the country's embassy in London.
On 16 August 2012 it was announced that Ecuador granted him asylum.
Nine people who set bail for Assange has a British court ordered to pay 93,000 pounds to the British Treasury.
On July 16, 2014 examined the Stockholm District Court again arrest the grounds and found that Assange was still on probable suspicion of a crime and that the arrest would remain.
On November 16, 2014 decided Svea Court of Appeal, after Assange appealed there, that he would remain in custody.
But in its decision, the Court of Appeal directed sharp criticism of the prosecutor in the case, Marianne Ny, for not doing enough to push the investigation forward.

I do not know the truth of the allegations against him...but it all seems rather serendipitous and it does appear that there might be ulterior motives towards the desire to extradite him to Sweden. He had offered to be interviewed regarding the allegations outside of Sweden and they have now been forced to agree to that as the statute of limitations runs out on the allegations.

Julian Assange may well be a complete jerk, but he knows full well he won't get a fair trial and justice if he is snatched by the Americans.

---

Reality Internet Personality

It is no wonder that Julian Assange is so afraid of been extradited to the US.

No Es99. Here is the story.
In August 2010, Julian Assange visited Sweden to present the latest WikiLeaks publication.
During the visit, Assange was arrested by a prosecutor in absentia on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women.
The arrest was lifted just one day later, on 25 August, the ordinary prosecutor Eva Finne, and suspicion was changed to molestation.
On September 1, preliminary investigation was reopened, now by Marianne Ny and the rubric changed to once again apply rape.
On November 18 Assange was arrested in absentia by the Stockholm District Court and 7 December reported that he had been arrested by British police when he arrived at the police station.
On December 16, Julian Assange was released on bail.
On February 24, 2011 resolved a British court that Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
It was appealed and a new trial if the extradition was carried out 12 to 13 July 2011.
On 2 November 2011 the High Court in England rejected his appeal and that he should still be extradited to Sweden.
On June 19, 2012 revealed that Assange sought political asylum in Ecuador and thus found himselve at the country's embassy in London.
On 16 August 2012 it was announced that Ecuador granted him asylum.
Nine people who set bail for Assange has a British court ordered to pay 93,000 pounds to the British Treasury.
On July 16, 2014 examined the Stockholm District Court again arrest the grounds and found that Assange was still on probable suspicion of a crime and that the arrest would remain.
On November 16, 2014 decided Svea Court of Appeal, after Assange appealed there, that he would remain in custody.
But in its decision, the Court of Appeal directed sharp criticism of the prosecutor in the case, Marianne Ny, for not doing enough to push the investigation forward.

I do not know the truth of the allegations against him...but it all seems rather serendipitous and it does appear that there might be ulterior motives towards the desire to extradite him to Sweden. He had offered to be interviewed regarding the allegations outside of Sweden and they have now been forced to agree to that as the statute of limitations runs out on the allegations.

Julian Assange may well be a complete jerk, but he knows full well he won't get a fair trial and justice if he is snatched by the Americans.

Nonsense. He is a coward and Sweden have no obligation to send him to US.
He is charged by a prosecutor in absentia on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women

Julian Assange may well be a complete jerk, but he knows full well he won't get a fair trial and justice if he is snatched by the Americans.

Nonsense. He is a coward and Sweden have no obligation to send him to US.

And the US doesn't want him.

---

He had offered to be interviewed regarding the allegations outside of Sweden and they have now been forced to agree to that as the statute of limitations runs out on the allegations.

In the USA, depending upon the Individual State, if a Federal Charge, and type of crime: Statute of Limitations may not apply, if the accused flees the Jurisdiction.
Basically - 'The Clock Stops'.
Does Sweden have the same?

Oh dear:)
Europe has not the term Jurisdiction between states like in the US.
We have first Europol and Interpol of course for those trying to flee.
It's remarkable that in for instance Maine they have different implemention of the law then Arkansas!
I choosed Arkansas because there where a special case there some years ago:(
One of the alleged perpetor that was a kid where executed!

Getting back to the Knox case, even if I don't agree with the court finding her guilty, I think she(and the U.S.) needs to play by the rules of Italy and extradite her if that's the result. If I'm traveling, I just have to be aware and accept the risks, whether I do anything wrong or not. Even on my home turf, I could be sent to jail for a crime I didn't commit. I don't think the U.S. should overrule Italian courts.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Common sense and a bit of judgement should prevail or do you think our country should offer her up as a sacrificial lamb? There is not one piece of evidence that she is guilty, only a prosecutors wild hypothesis.

---

She is a US citizen, presently in the USA, presumably has the protections of the US Constitution. While I understand the Italian system allows multiple trials, the US system does not. It should be up to the Italians to show that their system is not double jeopardy as the US defines it.

---

He had offered to be interviewed regarding the allegations outside of Sweden and they have now been forced to agree to that as the statute of limitations runs out on the allegations.

In the USA, depending upon the Individual State, if a Federal Charge, and type of crime: Statute of Limitations may not apply, if the accused flees the Jurisdiction.
Basically - 'The Clock Stops'.
Does Sweden have the same?

Oh dear:)
Europe has not the term Jurisdiction between states like in the US.
We have first Europol and Interpol of course for those trying to flee.
It's remarkable that in for instance Maine they have different implemention of the law then Arkansas!
I choosed Arkansas because there where a special case there some years ago:(
One of the alleged perpetor that was a kid where executed!

By states in your statement, do you mean 'provinces' (or whatever term you call them), or do you mean Nations in the EU?

Well, the States in the United States are more in line with the various Nations in the EU than with the various, for instance, Departments in France (101 of them, if I remember correctly).

You find it remarkable that Maine has different laws than Arkansas? Tell me this, does Spain have exactly the same laws as Sweden? In EVERY respect?

Now then, there are some laws and regulations in common between Maine and Arkansas. by virtue that both States are members of the USA, the FEDERAL laws and regulations. Just as Spain and Sweden have some laws and regulations in common, by virtue that both are members of the EU, the EU laws and regulations.

In the USA, most crimes violate STATE laws, not Federal laws.

For instance, the crime of robbery. The laws against robbery are STATE laws, not Federal, with pretty much the only major exception being BANK robbery (but there are a few others). Most other catagories of crimes are similar, including murder. Most murders only violate State law. For a murder to violate Federal law, it must pretty much be the murder of some Federal Government official.

Yes, there are a LOT of different sets of laws in the USA. There is the Federal set that applies in all parts of the USA. Then there are the 'State-level laws'. You have 50 (currently) States in the USA. Then there is Washington D.C.. Then there a bunch of Native American Tribal areas inside the USA where the various Tribes (organized by Treaty as Dependant Nations of the USA) have their own legal systems, and essentially govern themselves. Then there are the various U.S. Territories (such as Puerto Rico), each with their own legal systems.

The States are, essentially, Sovereign Nations, in a Federal Union with each other. Want proof? This is subject of the thread time:

Just as someone wanted in connection with a crime in, lets say, Sweden, and is located and arrested in the UK has to be extradited from the UK to be returned to Sweden to stand trial...

So then does someone that is wanted in connection with a crime in, lets say, California, and is located and arrested in New Mexico has to be extradited from New Mexico to be returned to California to stand trial.

So, no, it is NOT surprising that Maine has different laws than Arkansas.

As far as Arkansas and the execution of the person what was under 18 when they committed the crime, you will be glad to know that that practice has been ended in the USA, back in 2005.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), overturning statutes in 25 states that had the penalty set lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

Sorry it is so long, but it is a complex subject.

Italy is the country that recently found geologists guilty, in a court of law, for not being able to adequately predict an earthquake and warn citizens of a town to evacuate in time.
Sad, considering the country's intellectual history.
But, to adhere to the wacky system they have now? No way in the fictional place below the Earth the Swedish guy told me to go to.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Typically boring in its shallow attacks, as usual.

Didn't I just post about verbiage?

EDIT:

You mean you don't care how the rest of the world sees America?

Now why doesn't that surprise me.

Julian Assange may well be a complete jerk, but he knows full well he won't get a fair trial and justice if he is snatched by the Americans.

Oh hum.

EDIT 2: Es99 - You do admit you are Factually Incorrect, regarding Julian Assange extradition?

Whut?

---

Reality Internet Personality

And the majority of the people in Sweden in every case are very unhappy with all these decision.
There are bureaucrats who do not understand the legal meaning.

Those bureaucrats understand the legal meaning of immigration law perfectly fine. Which is why those people are being deported. And yes, most people are angry about such decisions. But those same people complain when to many immigrants and asylum seekers come to Sweden. What people want is that Sweden keeps as many of these people out of the country, as long as those people are just faceless masses its easy not to empathize. But when those people they want kept out get a face and a name, they suddenly want all kinds of exceptions on the laws.

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either accept that there will be a lot of immigrants going to Sweden, or accept that the Swedish government is forced to deport people you know and like.

You guys have a Parliament. If a majority of the Citizens of Sweden want the law changed, lobby your elected legislative officials. Perhaps a letter-writing campaign to your elected officials. Let them know that either they change the law or you will be voting for the other guy next election. That usually gets their attention. They get enough letters, the law will get changed.

Well the thing is, citizenship is rather complicated in Europe. Besides being a national citizen of a certain country, you also get European citizenship, which significantly expands your rights in regards to Europe. And once you become a European citizen, countries sort of have to share jurisdiction on nationality laws with the EU. In other words, it becomes more difficult to keep people out.

And lets be clear here, all European immigration and asylum laws, in every European country, are designed for only one purpose and thats to keep as many people out as possible. The people that are complaining that Nadine is getting deported are big fat hypocrites for the most part, because the vast majority of them have at some point voted in favor of stricter immigration policies. Thats how the political winds are blowing in Europe. And for those people its easy to vote for stricter immigration laws as long as the immigrants are unknown faceless masses to them. But now that they know someone in person who is affected by those rules, they throw a tantrum because they are suddenly faced with the consequences of their choices.

It sucks, so vote for a party that is for less strict immigration policies.

I do not know the truth of the allegations against him...but it all seems rather serendipitous and it does appear that there might be ulterior motives towards the desire to extradite him to Sweden. He had offered to be interviewed regarding the allegations outside of Sweden and they have now been forced to agree to that as the statute of limitations runs out on the allegations.

The guy is accused of RAPE. But he should get a free pass because he published a bunch of secret documents? Seriously?

Where is the logic in that? How is that different than authorities protecting famous celebrities from the consequences when they rape someone?

It sucks, so vote for a party that is for less strict immigration policies.

That is just silly talk! Is that what they are teaching you on your Uni course?

If you are a citizen of country A and commit a crime in country B against country B's laws, then you should stand trial in country B. But what happens is that clever criminal lawyers will try to get you the trial in the country that is most likely to give you a more lenient sentence. And they will quote human rights and a fair trial etc etc to try to achieve that. If that doesn't work you hole up in a friendly country that doesn't care anyway.

This has nothing to do with immigration policy. So why do you even bring it up?

And no, clever criminal lawyers know damn well it doesn't work like that. If you get caught in country B for committing a crime in country B you are gonna stand trial in country B. What might happen is that in some cases country A offers to take their citizen have them sit out their jail term in country A, under the rules of country A. That can in some cases work out better for the guy committing the crime, but its not like he can pick and choose in what country he is gonna serve his prison sentence, and not all countries will offer to take back criminals locked up abroad and not all countries allow it.

But again, that has nothing to do with immigration law.

If there were no immigration or emigration policies, then there would be nobody left in Eastern Europe or probably the Far East either, they'd all be living in Western Europe or the USA! The last plumber to leave Poland turned the lights off 5 years ago :-))

Yeah thats not how it works. Under a completely unrestricted regime of free movement of labor, immigration would only happen up to a certain point and only to places with a labor shortage. The moment the labor shortage is filled, immigration would stop (no jobs, no point in people coming there).

Also, even without immigration policies there are still insanely high costs associated for most people that prevents them from immigrating. You'll find that most immigrants were actually middle or upper class people in their country of origin. Lower classes generally can't afford to move to the West.

Finally, there is some evidence that suggest strict immigration policies, besides not working at all and encouraging illegal immigration, they also make it less likely for immigrants, once they are in to move back again. The high entry costs basically make sure they are not willing to give that up to move back. If the barrier to entry was lower, you would find that more people would move back after a few years. This is clearly shown in the case of the EU, where a lot of Polish workers move back to Poland again after having worked a few years in Western Europe. It is even suggested that temporary labor which is encouraged by low entry costs is beneficial for the country of origin of the immigrant, as returning workers bring back new ideas, work experience or an education to their countries.

Italy is the country that recently found geologists guilty, in a court of law, for not being able to adequately predict an earthquake and warn citizens of a town to evacuate in time.
Sad, considering the country's intellectual history.
But, to adhere to the wacky system they have now? No way in the fictional place below the Earth the Swedish guy told me to go to.

Fictional :) I have been to Hell:)



https://www.google.se/maps/place/Hell,+Norge/@63.4484873,11.0036182,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x466d16fb3ae6fd6d:0x1596b57897c52a6b

Tirpitz not far from Hell.

She is a US citizen, presently in the USA, presumably has the protections of the US Constitution. While I understand the Italian system allows multiple trials, the US system does not. It should be up to the Italians to show that their system is not double jeopardy as the US defines it.

Exactly THIS! To expand on your answer:

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

CRS Annotated Constitution wrote:

“The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo–American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/amdt5afrag2_user.html#amdt5a_hd7

Ok, Person in Italy gets murdered. U.S. Citizen Knox, at the time residing in Italy, is arrested for said murder. U.S. Citizen Knox is put on trial for said murder, and is acquitted. U.S. Citizen Knox is then allowed to return home to the USA by the Italian authorities.

Some time later, the Italian Government wishes to put U.S. Citizen Knox, located inside the USA, on trial for the murder a 2nd time. The Italian Government submits an extradition request for U.S. Citizen Knox to the U.S. Government.

The extradition request is just that, a request. A polite request between Nations. It is NOT a commandment or an order, but a request. The USA is free to refuse the request, if it so wishes. When the USA requests extradition of people from many jurisdictions, the other nations do refuse the requests from time to time due to the request violating some or another legal principle in the other nation.

By example: The Nation of Mexico will refuse to grant an extradition request by the USA in cases where the person involved may receive the death penalty if convicted, since the death penalty violates the Mexican Constitution and/or Law.

If U.S. Citizen Knox is returned to Italy and put on trial again for the murder, this would violate U.S. Citizen Knox's right under the U.S. Constitution to not be placed in 'double jeopardy'. Therefore, the U.S. Government should refuse the request.

Should the U.S. Government mistakenly grant extradition of U.S. Citizen Knox to Italy for another trial for that murder, rest assured that U.S. Citizen Knox's lawyers have a legal action against it ready to be filed in U.S. Federal Court at a moment's notice.

There would be an immediate injunction against turning U.S. Citizen Knox over to the Italian authorities, and the case would have to be litigated, likely all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, a process that would take years and be a great expense to the U.S. Taxpayers.

I am sorry, Italy. You had your chance to convict Ms. Knox on this murder. You tried Ms. Knox for this murder, with the full cooperation of the U.S. Government. Your trial and legal system in your country acquitted her of the murder. You allowed MS. Knox to return home to the USA. Your putting Ms. Knox on trial for that murder a 2nd time would violate her rights as a U.S. Citizen.

Perhaps you guys should have done a better job on the first trial. Well, you blew your wad, now leave her alone.

He had offered to be interviewed regarding the allegations outside of Sweden and they have now been forced to agree to that as the statute of limitations runs out on the allegations.

In the USA, depending upon the Individual State, if a Federal Charge, and type of crime: Statute of Limitations may not apply, if the accused flees the Jurisdiction.
Basically - 'The Clock Stops'.
Does Sweden have the same?

Oh dear:)
Europe has not the term Jurisdiction between states like in the US.
We have first Europol and Interpol of course for those trying to flee.
It's remarkable that in for instance Maine they have different implemention of the law then Arkansas!
I choosed Arkansas because there where a special case there some years ago:(
One of the alleged perpetor that was a kid where executed!

By states in your statement, do you mean 'provinces' (or whatever term you call them), or do you mean Nations in the EU?

Well, the States in the United States are more in line with the various Nations in the EU than with the various, for instance, Departments in France (101 of them, if I remember correctly).

You find it remarkable that Maine has different laws than Arkansas? Tell me this, does Spain have exactly the same laws as Sweden? In EVERY respect?

Now then, there are some laws and regulations in common between Maine and Arkansas. by virtue that both States are members of the USA, the FEDERAL laws and regulations. Just as Spain and Sweden have some laws and regulations in common, by virtue that both are members of the EU, the EU laws and regulations.

In the USA, most crimes violate STATE laws, not Federal laws.

For instance, the crime of robbery. The laws against robbery are STATE laws, not Federal, with pretty much the only major exception being BANK robbery (but there are a few others). Most other catagories of crimes are similar, including murder. Most murders only violate State law. For a murder to violate Federal law, it must pretty much be the murder of some Federal Government official.

Yes, there are a LOT of different sets of laws in the USA. There is the Federal set that applies in all parts of the USA. Then there are the 'State-level laws'. You have 50 (currently) States in the USA. Then there is Washington D.C.. Then there a bunch of Native American Tribal areas inside the USA where the various Tribes (organized by Treaty as Dependant Nations of the USA) have their own legal systems, and essentially govern themselves. Then there are the various U.S. Territories (such as Puerto Rico), each with their own legal systems.

The States are, essentially, Sovereign Nations, in a Federal Union with each other. Want proof? This is subject of the thread time:

Just as someone wanted in connection with a crime in, lets say, Sweden, and is located and arrested in the UK has to be extradited from the UK to be returned to Sweden to stand trial...

So then does someone that is wanted in connection with a crime in, lets say, California, and is located and arrested in New Mexico has to be extradited from New Mexico to be returned to California to stand trial.

So, no, it is NOT surprising that Maine has different laws than Arkansas.

As far as Arkansas and the execution of the person what was under 18 when they committed the crime, you will be glad to know that that practice has been ended in the USA, back in 2005.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), overturning statutes in 25 states that had the penalty set lower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

Sorry it is so long, but it is a complex subject.

Dont't be sorry.
It is so complex that I now started this
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76996

Ahmed Agiza (Arabic: أحمد عجيزة‎) and Muhammad Alzery (Arabic: محمد الزيري‎) (also Elzari, el-Zary, etc.) were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The forced repatriation was criticised because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers.

Aftermath
The Helsinki Committee is calling for Alzery to be given a Swedish residence permit and to receive compensation for the suffering caused by his deportation.
In March 2007, the Swedish government overturned the decision to repatriate Alzery. A short time before, an application for residence permit was denied on grounds that he was deported. In May 2007, the repatriation of Mr. Agiza was also overturned.
In July 2008, and September 19, 2008 they were each awarded 3 million SEK ($380,000) in damages in a settlement with the Swedish ministry of justice.
In November 2009, the Swedish government on appeal denied the renewed applications for residence in Sweden that had been submitted following the formal overturning of the repatriations in March 2007.
In July 2012, the Swedish government granted Agiza a permanent residence permit.

Allegation of US threats
In January 2009 it was claimed that the United States had threatened to impose trade barriers on the European Union if the two men were not transferred. Reporter Eva Franchell, friend of the deceased foreign minister Anna Lindh, witness to her murder, and at an earlier stage her press secretary, published a book about Lindh where she described the difficulties surrounding the repatriation decision, as well as the participation of other politicians who allegedly later conveniently shoved the responsibility over to the deceased Lindh

CIA and FBI you CAN NOT play around in Sweden.
Wrong country and for once look in a map!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden

Fighting terrorists abroad:)
No to protect US from "angry" oil owners.

KWSN - MajorKong explained things pretty well for me. I didn't think the defendant's home country laws superseded those of the country where the crime was supposedly committed.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place