Quick question on extradition

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, I have been catching up on my Julian Assange news, and it has come back to my attention that the US may or is seeking to extradite him from Sweden for leaking classified documents, should the brits extradite him there for the rape allegations. So, I have a small question that hopefully our various attorneys and others may be able to answer.

Is that even legal? To extradite a foreign national to face charges for breaking the laws of a nation, when the alleged violations did not occur on the soil of country requesting extradition? Putting aside the probability that our CIA may just Rendition him to a third world shit hole and torture him to death if they get the chance, is there actually a basis in law for doing that? It strikes me that this would be illegal, and it is certainly rather silly.

[Spoonist]

Not a legal expert just reporting what swedish news are saying about it.

1) No such request has been issued (yet)
2) For extradition to be an option the crime must be over a certain limit, so far what the US is mumbling about is not over that limit. So leaking of classified info wouldn't be enough as it looks right now.
(Case in point sweden refused to have a swedish hacker sent to the US unless the US agreed to certain terms regarding his stay in the US).
3) since the US uses torture on Manning any such request will go to highest gov body in sweden, this since the greens do that routinely when torture or death penalty is possible. (However the current gov and former gov is a lapdog for the US so its quite possible they will be overruled by a majority in the gov).

[Julhelm]

They sure had no qualms about handing over terror suspects covertly to the CIA a few years ago.

[Serafina]

They sure had no qualms about handing over terror suspects covertly to the CIA a few years ago.

That was covertly however - it's much easier to break the law when you don't risk any public outrage by doing so.
I think handing over Asange legally would require a three-way process: The USA would have to ask Sweden to hand him over, and they would need Australias permission in order to do so. I could be totally wrong on this, i'm not an expert.

[Julhelm]

My guess is that Sweden will do as papa US says.

[Spoonist]

They sure had no qualms about handing over terror suspects covertly to the CIA a few years ago.

None whatsoever, but those were "terrorists" aka not people like us. Don't think that they will get away with it as easily with all the media attention.
But still agreed on papa US.

... and they would need Australias permission in order to do so.

Media has never mentioned Australian permission, so that would suprise me.

[Xon]

They sure had no qualms about handing over terror suspects covertly to the CIA a few years ago.

None whatsoever, but those were "terrorists" aka not people like us. Don't think that they will get away with it as easily with all the media attention.
But still agreed on papa US.

... and they would need Australias permission in order to do so.

Media has never mentioned Australian permission, so that would suprise me.

Australia is a brownnoser with regard to the USA, there is very little that they ask for that they don't get.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

What about the extradition agreement between Sweden and the UK? Does it put limits on whether Sweden can (legally) extradite Assange to the USA?

[Todeswind]

Extradition from Sweden to a non-Nordic state
The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act (1957:668) regulates the conditions and procedures for extradition from Sweden. The Act is not applicable if the Act (1959:254) on Extradition for Criminal Offences to Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway or the Act (2003:1156) on surrender from Sweden according to the European arrest warrant is applicable in relation to the other state. The Act was drafted in close connection with the work of the Council of Europe which led to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and in all essential respects the Act is based on the Convention.

Conditions for extradition to a state outside the EU
The Extradition for Criminal Offences Act prohibits the extradition of Swedish nationals.

Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. If sentence has been passed in the state applying for extradition, the penalty must be imprisonment for at least four months or other institutional detention for an equivalent period. Thus, extradition requires an offence punishable under the law of both countries ("dual criminality") that, in principle, is of a certain degree of seriousness.

Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.

The state requesting for extradition must show that there is reason for extradition in the specific case. The outcome of the crime investigation in the requesting state - generally a conviction or a detention order - must be enclosed with the request for extradition. When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.

Procedure
Any state that desires the extradition of a person must make a request for extradition to the Central Authority, enclosing the report of the investigation on which the application request is based.

The Central Authority scrutinises the request to see if there is obvious reason why it should not be approved; if this is the case, the Government shall reject the request without delay. Otherwise the request is forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor-General, which is required to determine whether the conditions for extradition laid down by law are met in this particular case. The actual investigation of the case follows the rules for preliminary investigations and is conducted by the regional or local public prosecution office in which district the person who is sought for extradition lives. If the person whose extradition is requested opposes extradition, it falls to the Supreme Court to examine whether extradition can be legally granted under the conditions laid down by law. The Supreme Court then delivers its opinion to the Government for use in its examination of the case. If the person involved does not oppose to extradition, the report from the investigation is instead delivered directly from the Prosecutor-General to the Government, which then makes its decision. If the request is approved, a date is set by which the person must be surrendered to the requesting state. With the assistance of Interpol, the police authority concerned determines a time and place for surrendering the person to the other state.

If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request. The Government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against extradition, as the law states that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person "may" be extradited - not "shall" be extradited.

Coercive measures
The regulations in the Extradition for Criminal Cases Act include provisions on the use of coercive measures pending a request for extradition from a foreign state. If an international warrant has been issued, a Swedish prosecutor can decide on certain coercive measures. Arrest, an injunction against travelling, obligation to report to the authorities and seizure are all measures that are applicable at this early stage of the proceedings. Decisions on coercive measures can also be taken following an application from a competent authority in a foreign state.

The prosecutor who has decided on the use of coercive measures must submit his or her decision to the district court under whose jurisdiction the case comes. If the court confirms the decision by the prosecutor to use coercive measures, the head of the Ministry of Justice, i.e. the Minister for Justice, must immediately be informed. If the Minister is of the opinion that future extradition is out of the question, the Government will order the cancellation of the decision to use coercive measures. In all other cases, the Minister for Justice will set a date by which a request for extradition must be received. The other state will be informed of the decision by the Central Authority. The time allowed for submitting a request must not exceed 40 days. If the other state does not present a request by the appointed date, the decision to use coercive measures will be revoked. In all other cases, a decision to implement coercive measures remains in force until extradition is enforced. The law also allows the possibility to decide whether to implement coercive measures after a request for extradition has been granted but before this decision has been enforced.

Extradition from Sweden to a Nordic state
The Extradition Act (1959:254) for Criminal Offences to Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, only in Swedish, is a product of close cooperation between the Nordic countries, which have all passed similar legislation.

In relation to Denmark and Finland the Act (2003:1156) on surrender from Sweden according to the European arrest warrant is applicable, if the competent authorities do not agee that, in the specific case, the Act (1959:254) on Extradition for Criminal Offences to Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway should be applied.

Conditions for extradition
As a general rule, all that is required for extradition to another Nordic state is that the act is punishable by law in the requesting state. There is therefore no general requirement of "dual criminality".

A Swedish national can be extradited if, at the time when the offence was committed, he had been permanently domiciled for at least two years in the state requesting extradition or if the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to an offence for which the range of punishment in Swedish law includes imprisonment for more than four years. However, extradition is not permitted if the act is only punishable by a fine in the requesting state.

There is no impediment to extradition for military offences. Extradition for political offences is only permitted if the act is an offence according to Swedish law and if the person whose extradition is requested is not a Swedish national.

A person who is extradited may not be prosecuted for an offence committed before extradition if he has been sentenced, or has been granted a waiver of prosecution, for that offence here in Sweden. If the case concerns a Swedish national or a political offence, prosecution for another offence is only permissible if:

the Government has given special assent for this, or
the person extradited has consented to such prosecution or has voluntarily remained in the country after the prosecution for which extradition was granted, or
the person has voluntarily returned to the requesting state after having left it.
Re-extradition to a third state requires, in principle, the special agreement of the Government.

Procedure
Unlike extradition requests involving non-Nordic countries, no assessment of guilt is made in Nordic cases. The evaluation of the evidence is left to the requesting country. However, a conviction or a decision (usually a detention order) demonstrating the existence of probable cause for suspicion must be presented in connection with the application. If the person whose extradition is requested consents to extradition or confesses to the act, not even this needs to be included with the request.

The authorities concerned shall establish direct contact with one another instead of submitting an application for extradition to the Central Authority. This means that an extradition request should be sent to the regional or local public prosecution office in the locality where the wanted person is living.

A local prosecutor conducts an investigation, following the regulations for preliminary investigations in criminal cases. If the person who is wanted consents to extradition, the local prosecutor himself can, with certain exceptions, deliver a decision on extradition. If not, the case must be transferred to the Office of the Prosecutor-General. The Prosecutor-General has the authority to decide on extradition if it is evident that the request should be approved and if the case does not involve a Swedish national or extradition for a political offence. In these cases the authority to decide is reserved for the Government. The Government then has the option of procuring a statement from the Supreme Court. As in non-Nordic cases, if the Supreme Court rejects the request, the Government is not allowed to give its approval.

Coercive measures
Coercive measures can be implemented pending the presentation of a request for extradition. The provisions in this area are similar to those for non-Nordic states, though with two important exceptions. The period within which a Nordic country is required to present an extradition request is two weeks. In addition, it is sufficient that the range of punishment for the offence in Sweden includes imprisonment. Coercive measures can therefore not be used if an act is not punishable under Swedish law, even though the possibility of extradition does exist in such cases.

Extradition to Sweden
The point of departure when Sweden is the party requesting extradition is the Ordinance concerning certain provisions on the Extradition for Criminal Offences (1982:306).

A number of points should be considered before dispatching a request for extradition. The law provides that it must always be assessed whether or not it is reasonable to request extradition.

Note that relative to other EU Member States it is not a question of extradition but surrender according to the European Arrest Warrant.

How a request is initiated
In general, the Central Authority receives notification that a person is under provisional arrest on account of an international search warrant issued by Sweden through Interpol channels. The Central Authority then contacts the Swedish authority that has issued the warrant for arrest to confirm that extradition of the person is still of current interest. After that, the central authority of the other state is asked directly or via the Swedish Embassy in that country to indicate the deadline for presentation of a request for extradition.

Extradition from a non-Nordic state
A request for extradition from a non-Nordic state, for purposes of prosecution, of a person who is suspected of an offence in Sweden or is a defendant in a criminal case in this country, is made by a prosecutor. The request is sent to the Office of the Prosecutor-General, who decides whether it should be passed on to the Central Authority for forwarding to the other state. The request should be accompanied by minutes of the detention hearing, a specially drawn up detention order or other document that shows clearly that a court has found that the person sought for extradition is suspected on probable cuase of having committed the crime in question, indicating where and when the act occurred, relevant sections of the law etc. The Central Authority is responsible for translation.

A request for extradition from a non-Nordic state for the enforcement of a prison sentence, forensic psychiatric care or institutional care of a minor is made by the National Prison and Probation Service, National Board of Health and Welfare or National Board of Institutional Care, respectively. The request shall be presented to the Central Authority for forwarding to the other state. Such request must be accompanied by a copy of the judgment that is to be enforced, information on the term of sentence that remains to be served, identification data etc. The Central Authority is responsible for translation.

When the Central Authority has been notified that the other state has taken a decision to grant the request, the authority requesting extradition will be informed. The contacts between the Swedish and foreign authorities on the enforcement of extradition are then managed by Interpol.

Extradition from Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Norway
A request for extradition from Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Norway, for purposes of prosecution of a person who is suspected of an offence in Sweden or is a defendant in a criminal case in this country, shall be made by a police authority or prosecution authority. The request must include information on the nature of the offence and when and where the act occurred. Any such request must be accompanied by a copy of a decision showing that a court has found that there is probable cause to believe that the person whose extradition is requested has committed the stated offence. This is not, however, required if there is reason to assume that the person in question consents to being extradited or confesses to the offence.

A request for extradition from Denmark, Finland, Iceland or Norway for the enforcement of a prison sentence, forensic psychiatric care or institutional care of a minor shall be made by a police authority or prosecution authority, at the request of the National Prison and Probation Service, the National Board of Health and Welfare or the National Board of Institutional Care. Any such request shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment that is to be enforced and by certain other documents from the investigation.

The request shall be sent to the competent police authority or public prosecution office in the other state or to the responsible ministry in that country.

Relative to Denmark and Finland the competent prosecutor may choose to request that the suspect is surrendered according to the European arrest warrant.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435

[Gil Hamilton]

So, since the charges in the US are nothing but political charges, Sweden can't extradite him directly to the US by Swedish law. Since the US hasn't been able to convince anyone that Assange is an actual terrorist in order to get him, the US probably won't be able to touch him. Being arrested in Sweden might be the best thing for him in that regard.

[Spoonist]

So, since the charges in the US are nothing but political charges, Sweden can't extradite him directly to the US by Swedish law. Since the US hasn't been able to convince anyone that Assange is an actual terrorist in order to get him, the US probably won't be able to touch him. Being arrested in Sweden might be the best thing for him in that regard.

Uhm, whether it is political or not depends on the actual charge. Even if it is the gov can still approve, see below.

...
When extradition is granted, certain conditions may be laid down. For example, without the consent of the Government in the particular case, the person who is extradited may not be prosecuted or punished in the other state for any other offence committed prior to extradition (the "principle of speciality"). Nor may he or she be re-extradited to another state without the consent of the Government. Furthermore, nor may the person who is extradited be sentenced to death.
...
The Supreme Court then delivers its opinion to the Government for use in its examination of the case.
...
If the Supreme Court finds that there is any legal impediment to extradition, the Government is not allowed to approve the request. The Government can, however, refuse extradition even if the Supreme Court has not declared against extradition, as the law states that if certain conditions are fulfilled, a person "may" be extradited - not "shall" be extradited.
...
Extradition for political offences is only permitted if the act is an offence according to Swedish law and if the person whose extradition is requested is not a Swedish national.
...
Re-extradition to a third state requires, in principle, the special agreement of the Government.
...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ok. However, none of this deals with the legality of extraditing someone to a country to answer charges for a crime not committed in the territory of the country requesting extradition.

It would be like the US demanding extradition of a guy running a Canabis cafe' in Holland for distribution of a controlled substance.

[cosmicalstorm]

The legality of this stuff is a gray area. If he was a complete unknown suspected of some fuzzily described terror-plot, sure, maybe they would. But considering the attention and political value attached to his case I'm sure the matter would be handed in a very different way. If he ends up in a Swedish jail I doubt he would be extradited to the US simply because there would be an enormous public outrage if that happened, big enough to change the outcome of an election, I suspect.

[TheHammer]

An interesting note - that some of the charges against private manning assigned a monetary value to the records stolen. Specifically, a value of "more than $1,000". I wonder if perhaps they'd attempt to extradite Assange for receipt of stolen property?

Aside from that, its been speculated that they might charge him with old fashioned espionage:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/wor ... 99746.html

Despite the fears of his lawyers, I highly doubt Assange would be executed even if convicted. There would be too much of a political backlash. More likely he'd spend many years in prison.

[White Haven]

How can you even assign a monetary value to something that was never intended for sale or sold for a profit in spite of that lack of intent? That...just...doesn't make sense, then again, that's true of many of the charges against Manning. (Although not all, before the whiners get started).

[TheHammer]

How can you even assign a monetary value to something that was never intended for sale or sold for a profit in spite of that lack of intent? That...just...doesn't make sense, then again, that's true of many of the charges against Manning. (Although not all, before the whiners get started).

I'd say you could absolutely assign a monetary value. Many things are produced without intention of selling them. It costs money to gather and analyze intelligence and that "work" has value. Besides that, I'm sure there are many foreign governments that absolutely would pay for the information contained in the database had Manning chosen to sell it rather than give it away.

[Todeswind]

How can you even assign a monetary value to something that was never intended for sale or sold for a profit in spite of that lack of intent? That...just...doesn't make sense, then again, that's true of many of the charges against Manning. (Although not all, before the whiners get started).

If I receive a stolen car that I know is stolen and don't turn it into the authorities it's still receipt of stolen property even if I donated it to charity instead of selling it. Although the car never represented any monetary value to me it still has a monetary value assigned to it. My motives being altruistic don't make it less receipt of stolen property.

I could feasibly see each classified document being assigned a value well into the hundreds of thousands of American dollars, if not tens of millions. Not only for the man hours and infrastructure involved in acquiring and securing information but also for the "cost of doing business" between nations.

[General Zod]

How can you even assign a monetary value to something that was never intended for sale or sold for a profit in spite of that lack of intent? That...just...doesn't make sense, then again, that's true of many of the charges against Manning. (Although not all, before the whiners get started).

I'm sure they factored in things like the amount of time required to compile those records, which probably went towards some schmucks paychecks.