> It said the courts found that extradition would not be "incompatible with his human rights" and that while in the US "he will be treated appropriately".
Justice has been served. They treated him appropriately also before with the staged Swedish lawsuit.
In the end, it doesn't matter who your masters are (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchil) when they behave the same.
The Swedish incident proved to the world that entire Swedish legal system is a joke befit to a banana Republic not to a so called progressive nation. If there is one incident in last decade that brought down Sweden in the eyes of the world - this one qualifies.
[1] "...UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer investigated the rape accusations against Assange and said he had never before seen a comparable case where a person was subjected to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges being filed. He said Assange's lawyers made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S and described such diplomatic assurances as routine international practice. Melzer criticised Swedish prosecutors for, among other things, allegedly changing one of the women's statements without her involvement, to make it sound like a possible rape..."
"Later the woman said, that Assange's action has not been a crime for her and that she has "long forgiven" Assange."
And also from [2] below:
"...one of the two women, who was simply accompanied by the other, was horrified when the police before her eyes began to draw up a rape report from her statements. She, as she pointed out on several occasions, had sexual relations with Assange on a totally consensual basis, and only contacted the authorities to find out whether it would be possible to force him to take an AIDS test. As soon as she realized that the police were starting to do something completely different, she interrupted the interrogation in a state of shock and left the room. However, only a few hours later, the headline appeared in large letters in the Swedish tabloid press: Julian Assange was accused of double rape..."
> Assange said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,
Sounds incredibly arbitrary to make such a guarantee. I'm not surprised the government was unwilling to do so.
> ...to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.
The above may be wrong. Such a decision may be legal. However, that's far from saying such decisions are "standard".
> However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.
As previously stated. The fact that they have such a right doesn't mean they'll use it. Such rules exist to allow for emergency exceptions.
I don't see how the sitting government (not the police), being unwilling to exceptionally override a court recommendation, ahead of the decision, implies the Swedish police or prosecution was compromised. They just did their job.
"Later the woman said, that Assange's action has not been a crime for her and that she has "long forgiven" Assange."
And also from [2] below:
"...one of the two women, who was simply accompanied by the other, was horrified when the police before her eyes began to draw up a rape report from her statements. She, as she pointed out on several occasions, had sexual relations with Assange on a totally consensual basis, and only contacted the authorities to find out whether it would be possible to force him to take an AIDS test. As soon as she realized that the police were starting to do something completely different, she interrupted the interrogation in a state of shock and left the room. However, only a few hours later, the headline appeared in large letters in the Swedish tabloid press: Julian Assange was accused of double rape..."
They claimed it's a horrible precedent, except it isn't a precedent.
They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist.
Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense.
"And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example.
The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme).
So I don't think I ignored any valid points.
Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct.
Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi.
Tell me if this sounds familiar. A law is made that targets heinous individuals. Then that law is broadened. Eventually everyone that law is used to target ordinary people or critics.
E.g. civil forfeiture laws. Designed to seize organized crime assests. Eventually used to shake down innocent people.
Was it used first to shakedown an innocent man? Nah. I'm pretty sure along the way it's use was broadened bit by bit.
If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi".
If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim.
Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.
> That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years.
You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US?
> I don't even know how to respond
Double check it.
> slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur
Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt?
Is it highly likely American government would expand its power?
Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
>You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US?
Assange is not is being extradited for treason.
The US has extradited non-UK people from the UK (and elsewhere) to the US for all sorts of criminal activity. And so have many other countries. That is pretty much the point of something like an INTERPOL Red Notice. Do you think moving from country to country should make arrest warrants invalid? He had his day in court there - they decided extradition was warranted. He'll have his day in court in the US.
Here's a list of 14 people extradited from the UK, some of which are not UK citizens [1]. There is very little anything in this case that is ground-breaking precedent.
Of course, if you want to keep refining and refining your claims, you can eventually claim this situation is unique, but it's not setting precedent in any legal sense. Everything so far ruled is already under current case law.
>Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it?
Sure. I might misremember the exact law, although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason.
> If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it?
See my previous messages. He is a heinous enough that people won't jump that eagerly to his defense. That makes him a perfect scapegoat. From that you expand until you end up in authoritarian state. Remember that saying:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I rembember chatting on HN few years ago, when peple were certain he would be extradited to Sweden for rape charges, and that US charges were just a side accusation. Now that all fell into pieces as US makes an example of him.
But hey time may prove me wrong. I hope so, but I don't expect it. I think he will rot in prison as an example to future whistleblowers, while US slides further into authoritarianism.
>although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason.
You know you can look stuff up instead of forming world views on so much misunderstanding.
>Remember that saying:
Yes, people have been making the slippery slope fallacy for millennia with all sorts of catchphrases. And for millennia the extreme end is extremely rarely ever reached. People invoke such hand wavy feel good stuff when they don't have an actual argument based on evidence.
"It's just common sense!"
"Think of this children"
"First they came for..."
Assange is charged not with being a journalist, or publishing classified materials, but with actively recruiting and convincing people to break laws so he could get such materials. If true, he deserves jail. If you believe in journalism, then should support prosecuting those that violate journalistic ethics and laws, otherwise you are helping weaken protections for journalists.
Here's [1] the original indictment. It's pretty damning if true. Among other things, it claims Assange helped crack password on SIPRNET, which I suspect they have solid evidence for, otherwise any lawyer in a trial will get that thrown out. If true, that is worth prison for pretty much anyone, especially a foreign national that is cracking passwords to obtain classified material so he can publish it.
There are at least two superseding indictments you can also read on the internet, but the first is still the main reason he is being extradited. One of the superseding indictments claims Assange directed hacker groups which places to hack for Assange (CIA and NSA and even the New York Times). If this part is true, Assange is not a journalist - he is directing hackers to attack government and journalists. Again, if the govt does not have solid evidence of these claims, it will get tossed in court. If they have evidence, Assange should stand trial.
The way to have this play out is a trial - jurors and judges and lawyers can see the evidence and decide. Plus the content of the trial will be public record (unless there's classified stuff, in which case judges still oversee those details).
All this hand waving silly slippery slope nonsense, to protect someone who seems quite likely to have violated reasonable laws, is hanging your hat on the wrong case.
So keep using extreme claims and arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny - people will simply dismiss you and your arguments. Or understand the nuance and make more defensible, fact supported arguments - then you may persuade someone.
As despicable as this was, it was all the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign. The irrational Republican hatred of Hillary Clinton is absolutely ridiculous and without remotely resembling anything rational or honest. It was a campaign of bullying, hatred and sexism, and ignorance won. The character assassination of Hillary Clinton, the election of President Trump, and the January 6 Insurrection, all stand to embarrass our nation on the international stage. The World turns it's lonely eyes to America, for inspiration, as a roll model, and we just screwed the pooch. If America was a conscious entity, it'd wish it could just curl up and die of embarrassment for the Republican shenanigans over the last 6-7 years. If everyone would simply ignore all other distractions and vote in their personal economic interests, we'd never see another Republican elected to any office, and our economy would boom like we've never seen. But the ignorance and hatred is strong, so our economy will struggle while the uber rich continue to desperately consolidate the vast majority of the wealth into the hands of the minuscule few.
Starting with an assumption that Republicans have a goal of winning elections isn't it pretty rational for them for do character assassination and not irrational? The average voter isn't going to fact check your attack ads.
Assange has been paying the long price for his affronts to American Royalty.
For context, the articles are written from the perspective of the DNC as a victim despite their illegal collusion in support of a pre-decided candidate. There is also a conspicuous absence of any language implying HRC's direct involvement in these events, as well as no assertion of Sanders' dominance in the primaries prior to DNC interference.
They are referring to the fact that Assange coordinated with Russian state actors to hack the DNC during the 2016 US presidential election. You can find more about it in the Mueller report and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.
The republican committees spent YEARS and 10s of millions of dollars trying to get something solid and failed miserably beyond painting her as the average democrat politician. I found it both sad and hilarious.
Why do you think that? The two most recent American administrations have been seemingly polar opposites. It would be weird for the UK PM, who has seen both POTUS, to have been a puppet of both of them
Maybe from an US point of view. From a foreigner perspective is that the new US president does not scream to other european liders like the old one did.
So you're saying that Trump and Biden are part of the same "team" puppeting Boris Johnson, but Biden is the quieter one, from a European perspective... But if they're the same team, then why did Trump mind losing the election, why the big lie, why attempt a coup? If he was just handing over control to his quieter teammate. The whole thing makes no sense to me
Trump and Biden are not in the same team, in the sense that they represent opposing parties, who benefit (and their members) from holding the power.
Beyond that, they are both just presidents, e.g. when it comes to foreign affairs mostly figureheads for the long term American foreign policy, which is dictated by national "interests", the state department, and long term (career) washington personel, not by who happens to be the president now or then.
From that aspects, they're just mascots for different teams, playing the same sport, where others are calling the shots.
>But if they're the same team, then why did Trump mind losing the election
Because parties like winning.
>why the big lie
Nt such a big lie. Even if not widespread election fraud, the whole game was rigged against him, regarding press coverage, assosiates investigated (for the same kind of deals and BS that's daily business on from both sides for decades, but nobody bats an eye), supposedly neutral organizations standing against the president, double standard reporting as "unprecedented" for the same shit Obama, Clinton, Bush and co pulled, and so on.
>why attempt a coup?
A couple thousand rag-tag fans got in the capitol, with no plan, no leadership, no endorsement, and no prospects. It was just a BS protest attempt from idiots. But of course it got played to death as some kind of evil coup plan - from the same press that hailed an equally incompetent senile bland long-term insider as the second coming of Lincoln.
Ok so keep fleshing out your idea. You believe that the state department, et al, are some of the secret rulers of the world, and they puppet the president. The president, both Trump and Biden, were puppeting the ... UK establishment. And the UK establishment were puppeting the judge who is formalising the extradition of Assange.
It's a lot of work, isn't it? Why is this a more reasonable theory to you than simply: Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
> no plan, no leadership, no endorsement,
That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far. But there's not much point me talking about real world evidence to someone who believes in an imaginary world of deep state puppeting foreign judges to get a website operator extradited
>Ok so keep fleshing out your idea. You believe that the state department, et al, are some of the secret rulers of the world, and they puppet the president.
You make it sound like a believe in aliens and illuminati too.
Whereas what I believe is that the president is a figurehead, and the foreign policy show is run by party figures, long term Washington political careerists, big lobbies, and, long term State Department (and Pentagon) staffers and strategies. How is that a controversial take?
>The president, both Trump and Biden, were puppeting the ... UK establishment. And the UK establishment were puppeting the judge who is formalising the extradition of Assange.
The US has UK on a leash as a client state since WWII. That's what happens to empires when they fade and a new top dog takes over. No special need for Trump and Biden to "puppet" the UK establishment: in the usual course of things, unless there's some unprecedented harm to it's own interests (where it might take a stance), the US says jump and UK says "how high?".
>Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
Yes, just "Mr Smith goes to Washington" starry-eyed naivety, and an ignorance of a century of similar political maneuvering.
>That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far.
That's because those are dog and pony shows for the faithful.
The President is the least interesting aspect of the American administration, and doesn't change much, if anything, to how the US treats its client states
While in Theresa May's cabinet, Priti Patel had secret off-the-books meetings with foreign officials while "on holiday", and then misled/lied about it.[1]
A vastly more treasonous activity than what Assange did. May made it clear Patel could resign or be fired from the cabinet.
But then the Tories are so incredibly corrupt and incompetent[2], BoJo and co are treating the ministerial code with destain at this point.
Another one of BoJo's ethic's advisors has just resigned in disgust at him, and this one had an iron stomach to make it this far. [3]
They're irrelevant. True or not, they would not warrant extradition to the US. I see no reason to assume they are bogus, if true they don't subtract from the fantastic things WikiLeaks has done.
A fig leaf. See which parties those agreements favor, and you will see how much sovereignty you have left. And "parties" are not necessarily countries - e.g. it is not to the benefit of the average American that the WIPO copyright treaty [1] forbids DRM circumvention.
Indeed. If anything this whole story only has shown us the expanse of US diplomatic and financial leverage over much of the world and their willingness to use it in order to terrorize upstanding individuals.
> In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions
That’s not really how I see it. The case is shocking in that it has revealed that some rights that we thought that we had, cannot be enforced in law.
The US is exploiting a legal loophole in that while the extradition treaty forbids political extraditions, the UK has not incorporated that prohibition into domestic legislation. Therefore the court of first instance approved [in principle] the extradition for a political crime (espionage). However as I understand it, this aspect has not yet been appealed by Assange.
In my opinion, if this case had happened 5 years ago, then under presidency of Hale, Assange would had a decent chance of challenging it in the Supreme Court. However under the presidency of Reed and in the aftermath of the prorogation case, the Supreme Court has become extremely reluctant to deviate from government policy, as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether. So I doubt they will stick their neck out for Assange when they didn’t for e.g. Begum or in the recent Rwanda case.
as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether
They should be abolished altogether. A court without judicial independence is worth nothing at all. Less than nothing because it hinders the formation of an independent court.
I‘m on the verge regarding this theory. The existing court was explicitly created to have enough agency and independence to do just what is discussed above. Abolishing it and (maybe) creating a new one will not fix the problematic environment that causes the ineffectiveness in the first place.
On the other hand, re-creating it would at least be „doing something“
I tend to agree. The formation of the UK Supreme Court was intended to give the Court more political independence but it seems to have had the opposite effect and resulted in extreme loss aversion on the part of the justices, as there is no constitutional provision to protect its existence, unlike in almost every other supreme court around the world.
Ironically, when they were in the House of Lords, the court was less susceptible to interference as it benefited from the constitutional protection of the Lords’ existence and affairs as part of Parliament.
> That’s not really how I see it. The case is shocking in that it has revealed that some rights that we thought that we had, cannot be enforced in law.
I don't know what right this is, but in the UK there's no right to do anything with classified information. Directly the opposite: the official secrets act makes it a crime to share it, distribute it, etc. The only real legal option you have if you find some classified information lying on a train (say) is to hand it to the police.
There's no exemption for journalism and it doesn't matter if you have been 'notified' under the act (that just changes the penalties) or if you are British or not (You're on UK soil, UK law applies). Classified information belonging to foreign allied governments would definitely fall under the OSA.
If that's shocking, ok, but that's the law and has been since the last time the OSA was updated.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think sharing classified information unredacted would count as a political defence in the UK. I suspect that definition refers to political views and activities that don't break UK laws, e.g. I would expect the US would not be allowed to extradite someone purely for their belief that the US should become a communist state. However if they hacked the computers of th US fed, then they'd be fair game.
The treaty itself is problematic and the US recently refused the Saacoolas extradition. So the next time a British citizen is on the line we should refuse as well. But I also agree: this particular case is about the least troubling extradition ever.
It's not supposed to be possible to extradite someone for political crimes, such as espionage. It doesn't matter if the acts in question are considered crimes in the UK. What matters is that the acts are political in nature.
This is a traditional carve-out included in almost every extradition treaty the US has signed for over a hundred years, and it's included in the US-UK extradition treaty. However, the UK court ruled that despite this protection, which is supposed to exist and which is written into the treaty, the UK Parliament has not incorporated the protection into UK law.
So as it stands, the traditional protection against extradition for political crimes no longer exists in the UK, at least for people facing extradition to the US. However, the protection still applies for people facing extradition from the US to the UK, because the treaty has force of law in the US.
Hmmm, I see. I would have considered a political exemption to cover issues of political dissent, but I suspect espionage to be a gray area where it very much depends on political sensitivities. I.e. the US probably wouldn't try to extradite a UK citizen working for the UK intelligence community to not ruffle feathers, and the US simply outright won't extradite its own spies regardless. Sure, probably not fair, but there you are. Assange though is neither a US, nor a UK citizen, has definitely annoyed the US and crucially his acts if committed against the UK would count as crimes locally, which is usually one test for extradition in many treaties (haven't checked if it applies to the UK-US one).
I'm still not sympathetic even if he has a political defence, however. Wikileaks has published at least one classified UK document, which means he can be charged under the OSA in the UK anyway under the onwards disclosure clause (I don't know if they'll do this. Probably not, I would guess, due to lack of evidence. I do know there is a consultation ongoing to revamp the OSA partially in response to Snowden: press: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57998950, law commission review: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-dat... consultation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...). I think he would have stood a better chance of avoiding extradition pretty much anywhere else than the UK, including Sweden, which is why I am not sympathetic (if you're going to spit in the eye of the US, the UK is probably not one of the places to be when you do it). I'm also... perplexed, to put it charitably, as to why he'd avoid the Swedish extradition, as I think he would have had a better chance of avoiding extradition from Sweden to the US than the fight he currently has (where he has pretty much zero chance).
Espionage is not a gray area. It is one of the core political crimes.
It should be noted, however, that Assange is not a spy. He's a journalist, and the fact that the US government is trying to redefine journalistic activity as espionage is incredibly alarming.
US does not pursue extraditions in most cases where a person facing federal charges is abroad. International extraditions are hardly routine (except within the EU with EAWs)
I live in the UK. There's been a federal indictment out for me for well over 10 years now, at some point there was an Interpol blue notice, but that's been gone for years now. There's never been any attempt to pursue extradition.
Can somebody objectively explain why Assange should not stand trial? I don't even care about the outcome but I am extremely interested in seeing him answer questions under oath.
I haven’t followed this for a while, but I remember the main argument for extradition was that he induced the release of classified information. A transcript used as proof that I read in the grand jury testimony was a joke a d certainly showed no evidence of inducing the documents’ release. Hence I still haven’t seen any evidence that a crime occurred (even according to US law). The publication of classified documents certainly isn’t a crime. Even when making biased choices about what to publish or not redacting information.
Also I don’t see why you put so much importance on his testimony being under oath. Clapper directly lied to congress under oath and never saw any consequences. It’s an interesting double standard we have.
Since his activity has put him opposite of a higher than one number of governments, which court do you think would be the best to judge if his activity falls under the jurisdiction of journalism or something else?
I would be all for a court to decide it if that court wouldn't be guaranteed to be biased against him.
> I can't reply to you as I've triggered the "You're not left wing enough/you're posting too fast" YC trigger
I'm pretty close to as left-wing as they come and I trigger that all the time. I'm guessing we've landed on a list because we're prone to getting into arguments that quickly gravitate away from polite discourse or something, not our politics directly.
Because he would be tried for treason/terrorism? (since he is not a US citizen)
What kind of good thing do you expect from something that obviously political?
The Espionage Acts [1] are criminal offenses so Assange doesn't have to testify.
Unlike actual defense employees (Snowden), Assange didn't make any agreements to protect classified information so it's just effectively a SLAPP [2] lawsuit. Imagine you were a comedian (John Oliver) and made fun of China's president (Winnie the Pooh) and then China asked for you to be extradited; I think you'd expect the US to tell China to pound sand.
It's kind of absurd that this has taken so long - and that's primarily down to Assange himself. I can understand that people genuinely think he did the right thing, but he should at least have to defend his actions in court. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that publishing secret government documents should atleast potentially be illegal, and it's up to the justice system to decide whether he broke the law. I don't buy the idea that he won't get a fair trial. He might not be innocent, he may be guilty of a crime you don't think should be a crime, but we should still fundamentally adhere to the processes we have.
It depends on what you mean by a "fair trial". The standard argument for his trial not going to be fair is that he will convicted under the espionage act of 1915. The law behind this act has no exceptions that allow whistleblowing, or otherwise allows the defender to argue that he acted in the nation's interest.
That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
I mean there is no other likely outcome when tried under this law, or do you suppose that he will not be tried under the espionage act? because if that is the case I have a bridge to sell you.
Yeah I mean I wouldn't call that an issue about not getting a fair trial, that's just an issue where you don't think the law is just. But you know, you don't get to just opt-out of the laws you don't like. At the end of the day this could be appealed right up to the Supreme Court, but you have to actually have the trial to find out whether it was fair.
Ultimately it's a game of semantics. I'd say a trial is not fair if the law is intentionally built to not weigh any kind of moral defense.
What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
I would say that the legal and constitutional frameworks of the US and China have some slight differences. In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial and therefore you're advocating for Assange to essentially never face any legal scrutiny.
> In fact, basically I would say that if you're going to claim that the US laws and legal system won't give you a fair trial, you're essentially saying that there is no legal system in the world where you can get a fair trial
Assange is an Australian journalist who was outside the United States when he published this material.
It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
>> It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving.
That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct.
It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
That is simply not correct. Nearly all laws have exceptions which mean you can be found innocent under the right circumstances, even if you admit to doing whatever you're charged of.
For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
These are defenses to a crime and they are explicitly provided for in the law. You don’t just get to assert a random defense just because you want to, which is what your approach is. There is no “good faith” or “did the right thing defense” to the law here, as you noted. Defenses are not required for all criminal laws and, in general, do not exist for crimes.
I think it's a good thing that he did it. However, there is no disputing that he had absolutely no authority to. He is guilty. And he knew that when he did it.
Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed.
Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.
Sorry, why would the UK drop it? The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, the US wanted Assange extradited, what would be the basis for the UK refusing?
The UK could have looked at the evidence and decided it wasn’t a crime according to UK law and hence he shouldn’t be extradited. I haven’t looked at the evidence for a while, but last I checked I didn’t even understand how his actions were a crime according to US law.
So yeah the UK has leeway here. Why pretend otherwise?
The extradition hearing before the District Judge is where most of the issues in the case are decided. The CPS will represent the requesting State in the proceedings.
The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights.
"""
The judge could both not believe that dual criminality is satisfied and could also believe the supposed evidence isn't good enough.
The UK did look at the evidence to the level of scrutiny as agreed in the extradition treaty and decided he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court, and the judges came to the conclusion that he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, it is a matter of law that his extradition is legal.
And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
"Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court"
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
I think this really lays it out clearly now where you're coming from. I point to a whole series of judgements that lay out in clear legal text why and how they came to the decision to extradite Assange and you reply with essentially a claim that one of the most respected judges in the country is biased because he's friends with a government minister. Guess what? That is literally not evidence.
It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.
You are probably receiving downvotes because of your assumption that based on the evidence -you've- looked at (which I would suspect is probably a single digit percentage at most of all the evidence presented), and decided "Oh, I don't see a problem here, so why would the UK Courts", when plainly, that's not exactly the way of things.
Here's a possible response from the UK: "No, we're not going to extradite a journalist to the US, to face 175 years in prison for publishing evidence of war crimes."
Extradition is first and foremost political, and the government of the UK has final authority in the matter. It's obvious that this case is political in nature, and that the US government is pursuing Assange in order to send a message to any other journalists who might try to emulate him. The UK government could tell the US to stuff it, the US would have no recourse, and the decision would be popular in Britain.
Remember the defence for not going to Sweden for questioning ... it was because if he went to Sweden it would enable extradition to the US (because Assange says the UK cant extradite people to the US despite doing it all the time).
Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.
But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil, he was in the Ecuadorean embassy which is sovereign, inviolable, and it doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
>But conveniently when he was refusing to go to Sweden he was not on UK soil
Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden.
If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
You're right. Apparently the status of embassies is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[1], and its articles dedicated to them only mention the inviolability part:
Article 22:
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
civil disobedience? like having a contry which permits war crimes, to then put proof under seals for decades to avoid any accountability if any. Should the youth who escaped military draft in apartheid SA have been extradited back? But the russia connection is another topic.
And next someone to China and then maybe some rich Arab country and maybe soon Russia? Why not, you have already given one person to evil, why not others...
The chilling message has been sent. Assange has been confined without trial for various reasons for nearly ten years (minus the 6 months for the only crime he has been convicted of, bail violation).
This extradition should have been done long ago so that he could stand trial. Either he gets convicted and then we know that liberal democracy and a free press is dead in the US, or he gets exonerated and the civil suits that he will bring will send a chilling message to the suppressors of free speech.
My sincere hope is for the latter. I have held off on contributing to his defense fund because denying extradition because US prison food is shitty would just mean that the next journalist is kept quiet, and in many ways is far more chilling. Once he is extradited to the US and is set to stand trial, I hope each and every person on this thread helps ensure him the effective counsel he needs to send the once-in-a-generation reiteration of the message that a free press is essential to a free state.
How is none of these threads about Assange extradition on the front page? I realize they can hit the top by the time I post my comment, but so far they are all buried pretty far down on best, new and newest. Have people gotten bored with this? Did the news hit in the dead time slot for the Silicon Valley?
155 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 236 ms ] threadJustice has been served. They treated him appropriately also before with the staged Swedish lawsuit. In the end, it doesn't matter who your masters are (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchil) when they behave the same.
Assange was called in for questioning. That's the most basic measure to take in any police investigation.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_....
"Later the woman said, that Assange's action has not been a crime for her and that she has "long forgiven" Assange."
And also from [2] below:
"...one of the two women, who was simply accompanied by the other, was horrified when the police before her eyes began to draw up a rape report from her statements. She, as she pointed out on several occasions, had sexual relations with Assange on a totally consensual basis, and only contacted the authorities to find out whether it would be possible to force him to take an AIDS test. As soon as she realized that the police were starting to do something completely different, she interrupted the interrogation in a state of shock and left the room. However, only a few hours later, the headline appeared in large letters in the Swedish tabloid press: Julian Assange was accused of double rape..."
[2] "How Swedish authorities invented the rape charge against Julian Assange": https://www.pressenza.com/2020/03/how-swedish-authorities-in...
Remember this went on for 9 years...now what is surprising is why nobody is trying to make the Swedish prosecutor office accountable for it's actions?
Sounds incredibly arbitrary to make such a guarantee. I'm not surprised the government was unwilling to do so.
> ...to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.
The above may be wrong. Such a decision may be legal. However, that's far from saying such decisions are "standard".
> However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.
As previously stated. The fact that they have such a right doesn't mean they'll use it. Such rules exist to allow for emergency exceptions.
I don't see how the sitting government (not the police), being unwilling to exceptionally override a court recommendation, ahead of the decision, implies the Swedish police or prosecution was compromised. They just did their job.
And also from [2] below:
"...one of the two women, who was simply accompanied by the other, was horrified when the police before her eyes began to draw up a rape report from her statements. She, as she pointed out on several occasions, had sexual relations with Assange on a totally consensual basis, and only contacted the authorities to find out whether it would be possible to force him to take an AIDS test. As soon as she realized that the police were starting to do something completely different, she interrupted the interrogation in a state of shock and left the room. However, only a few hours later, the headline appeared in large letters in the Swedish tabloid press: Julian Assange was accused of double rape..."
[2] "How Swedish authorities invented the rape charge against Julian Assange": https://www.pressenza.com/2020/03/how-swedish-authorities-in...
The people in the U.S government who want him silenced for this, or even dead, should take his place, and he should be set free.
Sure today Jullian Assange. Tomorrow a future-Watergate journalist. And after that anyone that dissents.
The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
They then went full slippery slope fallacy jumping from Assange to a mythical future (appealing to emotion) Watergate journalist.
Watergate type journalists were and are explicitly protected in the US. So the US trying to extradite a journalist for something akin to Watergate is purely nonsense.
"And after that, anyone who dissents" - that is full on FUD. Assange is not some gatekeeper between current judicial systems and fantasy dystopian extremes. So this as an endpoint for a slippery slope fallacy is a perfect example.
The slippery slope fallacy, to not be a fallacy, needs not only the ends of the slope (which this poster failed at both ends), but an explained or obvious causal mechanism to move from one to the other (also not present - despite going from today to a fantastical extreme).
So I don't think I ignored any valid points.
Now I'm sure if someone used the above arguments with a "think of the children" to move from one claim to another, you'd rightfully call the argument crap. That Assange's case likely is important to you does not make the above argument any more correct.
Feel free to tell me which points were valid.
What are your counter points it won't be a precedent?
See https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/28/julian-assange...
Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi.
Tell me if this sounds familiar. A law is made that targets heinous individuals. Then that law is broadened. Eventually everyone that law is used to target ordinary people or critics.
E.g. civil forfeiture laws. Designed to seize organized crime assests. Eventually used to shake down innocent people.
Was it used first to shakedown an innocent man? Nah. I'm pretty sure along the way it's use was broadened bit by bit.
That the US has extradited people from the UK for over 100 years.
>Slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy, if and only if it is demonstrated again and again as modus operandi.
I don't even know how to respond - maybe see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope ?
If you cherry pick examples - that is not how evidence works. The proper way is to take all laws, not just a few you think supports your case, and see how many have done what you claim is "modus operandi".
If the majority have not done what you claim, then more likely to not do what you claim.
Also, if laws are going to go where you claim they are, then Assange is not going to be the brick in the wall stopping it.
You mean UK extraditing Australian national for treason to US?
> I don't even know how to respond
Double check it.
> slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real—that is, if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur
Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
Assange is not is being extradited for treason.
The US has extradited non-UK people from the UK (and elsewhere) to the US for all sorts of criminal activity. And so have many other countries. That is pretty much the point of something like an INTERPOL Red Notice. Do you think moving from country to country should make arrest warrants invalid? He had his day in court there - they decided extradition was warranted. He'll have his day in court in the US.
Here's a list of 14 people extradited from the UK, some of which are not UK citizens [1]. There is very little anything in this case that is ground-breaking precedent.
Of course, if you want to keep refining and refining your claims, you can eventually claim this situation is unique, but it's not setting precedent in any legal sense. Everything so far ruled is already under current case law.
>Is it highly likely American lawmakers are corrupt? Is it highly likely American government would expand its power? Is it highly likely American politicians would use laws to quell dissent?
If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_extradited_fro...
Sure. I might misremember the exact law, although I believe the Espionage act falls under the category of treason.
> If you think all these things, then Assange being extradited is a non-issue, since the slippery slope you think Assange starts would happen with or without him. Which is it?
See my previous messages. He is a heinous enough that people won't jump that eagerly to his defense. That makes him a perfect scapegoat. From that you expand until you end up in authoritarian state. Remember that saying:
I rembember chatting on HN few years ago, when peple were certain he would be extradited to Sweden for rape charges, and that US charges were just a side accusation. Now that all fell into pieces as US makes an example of him.But hey time may prove me wrong. I hope so, but I don't expect it. I think he will rot in prison as an example to future whistleblowers, while US slides further into authoritarianism.
You know you can look stuff up instead of forming world views on so much misunderstanding.
>Remember that saying:
Yes, people have been making the slippery slope fallacy for millennia with all sorts of catchphrases. And for millennia the extreme end is extremely rarely ever reached. People invoke such hand wavy feel good stuff when they don't have an actual argument based on evidence.
"It's just common sense!"
"Think of this children"
"First they came for..."
Assange is charged not with being a journalist, or publishing classified materials, but with actively recruiting and convincing people to break laws so he could get such materials. If true, he deserves jail. If you believe in journalism, then should support prosecuting those that violate journalistic ethics and laws, otherwise you are helping weaken protections for journalists.
Here's [1] the original indictment. It's pretty damning if true. Among other things, it claims Assange helped crack password on SIPRNET, which I suspect they have solid evidence for, otherwise any lawyer in a trial will get that thrown out. If true, that is worth prison for pretty much anyone, especially a foreign national that is cracking passwords to obtain classified material so he can publish it.
There are at least two superseding indictments you can also read on the internet, but the first is still the main reason he is being extradited. One of the superseding indictments claims Assange directed hacker groups which places to hack for Assange (CIA and NSA and even the New York Times). If this part is true, Assange is not a journalist - he is directing hackers to attack government and journalists. Again, if the govt does not have solid evidence of these claims, it will get tossed in court. If they have evidence, Assange should stand trial.
The way to have this play out is a trial - jurors and judges and lawyers can see the evidence and decide. Plus the content of the trial will be public record (unless there's classified stuff, in which case judges still oversee those details).
All this hand waving silly slippery slope nonsense, to protect someone who seems quite likely to have violated reasonable laws, is hanging your hat on the wrong case.
So keep using extreme claims and arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny - people will simply dismiss you and your arguments. Or understand the nuance and make more defensible, fact supported arguments - then you may persuade someone.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/downl...
Assange has been paying the long price for his affronts to American Royalty.
For context, the articles are written from the perspective of the DNC as a victim despite their illegal collusion in support of a pre-decided candidate. There is also a conspicuous absence of any language implying HRC's direct involvement in these events, as well as no assertion of Sanders' dominance in the primaries prior to DNC interference.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
Trump and Biden are not in the same team, in the sense that they represent opposing parties, who benefit (and their members) from holding the power.
Beyond that, they are both just presidents, e.g. when it comes to foreign affairs mostly figureheads for the long term American foreign policy, which is dictated by national "interests", the state department, and long term (career) washington personel, not by who happens to be the president now or then.
From that aspects, they're just mascots for different teams, playing the same sport, where others are calling the shots.
>But if they're the same team, then why did Trump mind losing the election
Because parties like winning.
>why the big lie
Nt such a big lie. Even if not widespread election fraud, the whole game was rigged against him, regarding press coverage, assosiates investigated (for the same kind of deals and BS that's daily business on from both sides for decades, but nobody bats an eye), supposedly neutral organizations standing against the president, double standard reporting as "unprecedented" for the same shit Obama, Clinton, Bush and co pulled, and so on.
>why attempt a coup?
A couple thousand rag-tag fans got in the capitol, with no plan, no leadership, no endorsement, and no prospects. It was just a BS protest attempt from idiots. But of course it got played to death as some kind of evil coup plan - from the same press that hailed an equally incompetent senile bland long-term insider as the second coming of Lincoln.
It's a lot of work, isn't it? Why is this a more reasonable theory to you than simply: Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
> no plan, no leadership, no endorsement,
That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far. But there's not much point me talking about real world evidence to someone who believes in an imaginary world of deep state puppeting foreign judges to get a website operator extradited
You make it sound like a believe in aliens and illuminati too.
Whereas what I believe is that the president is a figurehead, and the foreign policy show is run by party figures, long term Washington political careerists, big lobbies, and, long term State Department (and Pentagon) staffers and strategies. How is that a controversial take?
>The president, both Trump and Biden, were puppeting the ... UK establishment. And the UK establishment were puppeting the judge who is formalising the extradition of Assange.
The US has UK on a leash as a client state since WWII. That's what happens to empires when they fade and a new top dog takes over. No special need for Trump and Biden to "puppet" the UK establishment: in the usual course of things, unless there's some unprecedented harm to it's own interests (where it might take a stance), the US says jump and UK says "how high?".
>Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
Yes, just "Mr Smith goes to Washington" starry-eyed naivety, and an ignorance of a century of similar political maneuvering.
>That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far.
That's because those are dog and pony shows for the faithful.
They still haven't gone back into the JCPOA, for instance.
The UK government doesn't like Assange, and on top of that, they don't want to upset the Americans.
"Boris Johnson's government looked at building wave machines to stop migrant boats crossing the English Channel": https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-wave-machines-migrant-boa...
https://gal-dem.com/everything-horrible-priti-patel-has-smir...
A vastly more treasonous activity than what Assange did. May made it clear Patel could resign or be fired from the cabinet.
But then the Tories are so incredibly corrupt and incompetent[2], BoJo and co are treating the ministerial code with destain at this point.
Another one of BoJo's ethic's advisors has just resigned in disgust at him, and this one had an iron stomach to make it this far. [3]
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41923007 [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61796958 [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61837871
So much for sovereignty.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty
Tough times for good journalism...
The US didnt have to do anything of the kind - contrary to the beliefs of Assange fans the UK routinely extradites people to the US to stand charges.
In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions.
That’s not really how I see it. The case is shocking in that it has revealed that some rights that we thought that we had, cannot be enforced in law.
The US is exploiting a legal loophole in that while the extradition treaty forbids political extraditions, the UK has not incorporated that prohibition into domestic legislation. Therefore the court of first instance approved [in principle] the extradition for a political crime (espionage). However as I understand it, this aspect has not yet been appealed by Assange.
In my opinion, if this case had happened 5 years ago, then under presidency of Hale, Assange would had a decent chance of challenging it in the Supreme Court. However under the presidency of Reed and in the aftermath of the prorogation case, the Supreme Court has become extremely reluctant to deviate from government policy, as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether. So I doubt they will stick their neck out for Assange when they didn’t for e.g. Begum or in the recent Rwanda case.
They should be abolished altogether. A court without judicial independence is worth nothing at all. Less than nothing because it hinders the formation of an independent court.
On the other hand, re-creating it would at least be „doing something“
Ironically, when they were in the House of Lords, the court was less susceptible to interference as it benefited from the constitutional protection of the Lords’ existence and affairs as part of Parliament.
I don't know what right this is, but in the UK there's no right to do anything with classified information. Directly the opposite: the official secrets act makes it a crime to share it, distribute it, etc. The only real legal option you have if you find some classified information lying on a train (say) is to hand it to the police.
There's no exemption for journalism and it doesn't matter if you have been 'notified' under the act (that just changes the penalties) or if you are British or not (You're on UK soil, UK law applies). Classified information belonging to foreign allied governments would definitely fall under the OSA.
If that's shocking, ok, but that's the law and has been since the last time the OSA was updated.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think sharing classified information unredacted would count as a political defence in the UK. I suspect that definition refers to political views and activities that don't break UK laws, e.g. I would expect the US would not be allowed to extradite someone purely for their belief that the US should become a communist state. However if they hacked the computers of th US fed, then they'd be fair game.
The treaty itself is problematic and the US recently refused the Saacoolas extradition. So the next time a British citizen is on the line we should refuse as well. But I also agree: this particular case is about the least troubling extradition ever.
This is a traditional carve-out included in almost every extradition treaty the US has signed for over a hundred years, and it's included in the US-UK extradition treaty. However, the UK court ruled that despite this protection, which is supposed to exist and which is written into the treaty, the UK Parliament has not incorporated the protection into UK law.
So as it stands, the traditional protection against extradition for political crimes no longer exists in the UK, at least for people facing extradition to the US. However, the protection still applies for people facing extradition from the US to the UK, because the treaty has force of law in the US.
For example, searching around, it looks like the US has asked spies to be extradited before and succeeded: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/china-spy-esp...
I'm still not sympathetic even if he has a political defence, however. Wikileaks has published at least one classified UK document, which means he can be charged under the OSA in the UK anyway under the onwards disclosure clause (I don't know if they'll do this. Probably not, I would guess, due to lack of evidence. I do know there is a consultation ongoing to revamp the OSA partially in response to Snowden: press: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57998950, law commission review: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-dat... consultation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...). I think he would have stood a better chance of avoiding extradition pretty much anywhere else than the UK, including Sweden, which is why I am not sympathetic (if you're going to spit in the eye of the US, the UK is probably not one of the places to be when you do it). I'm also... perplexed, to put it charitably, as to why he'd avoid the Swedish extradition, as I think he would have had a better chance of avoiding extradition from Sweden to the US than the fight he currently has (where he has pretty much zero chance).
Espionage is not a gray area. It is one of the core political crimes.
It should be noted, however, that Assange is not a spy. He's a journalist, and the fact that the US government is trying to redefine journalistic activity as espionage is incredibly alarming.
I live in the UK. There's been a federal indictment out for me for well over 10 years now, at some point there was an Interpol blue notice, but that's been gone for years now. There's never been any attempt to pursue extradition.
Also I don’t see why you put so much importance on his testimony being under oath. Clapper directly lied to congress under oath and never saw any consequences. It’s an interesting double standard we have.
I would be all for a court to decide it if that court wouldn't be guaranteed to be biased against him.
That is not a guarantee though.
I'm pretty close to as left-wing as they come and I trigger that all the time. I'm guessing we've landed on a list because we're prone to getting into arguments that quickly gravitate away from polite discourse or something, not our politics directly.
Because he would be tried for treason/terrorism? (since he is not a US citizen) What kind of good thing do you expect from something that obviously political?
Unlike actual defense employees (Snowden), Assange didn't make any agreements to protect classified information so it's just effectively a SLAPP [2] lawsuit. Imagine you were a comedian (John Oliver) and made fun of China's president (Winnie the Pooh) and then China asked for you to be extradited; I think you'd expect the US to tell China to pound sand.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
Team america, world police.
It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving.
That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct.
It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed.
Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.
I’d personally say it’s due to the UK pursuing extradition instead of just dropping it, but your perspective is interesting as well.
So yeah the UK has leeway here. Why pretend otherwise?
edit: Why would I receive downvotes for this?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review...
Extradition hearing
"""
The extradition hearing before the District Judge is where most of the issues in the case are decided. The CPS will represent the requesting State in the proceedings.
The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights.
"""
The judge could both not believe that dual criminality is satisfied and could also believe the supposed evidence isn't good enough.
And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnes...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24505438
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503896
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526096
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27881936
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
Extradition is first and foremost political, and the government of the UK has final authority in the matter. It's obvious that this case is political in nature, and that the US government is pursuing Assange in order to send a message to any other journalists who might try to emulate him. The UK government could tell the US to stuff it, the US would have no recourse, and the decision would be popular in Britain.
Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.
Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange...
He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation.
https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...
Article 22:
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
[1] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...
He's terrified of US covert military operations. And he has a point.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...
"U.S. Rejects Extradition Request for Driver in Fatal U.K. Accident": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-a...
> Amnesty International said enabling the extradition to take place "would put him at great risk and sends a chilling message to journalists".
This extradition should have been done long ago so that he could stand trial. Either he gets convicted and then we know that liberal democracy and a free press is dead in the US, or he gets exonerated and the civil suits that he will bring will send a chilling message to the suppressors of free speech.
My sincere hope is for the latter. I have held off on contributing to his defense fund because denying extradition because US prison food is shitty would just mean that the next journalist is kept quiet, and in many ways is far more chilling. Once he is extradited to the US and is set to stand trial, I hope each and every person on this thread helps ensure him the effective counsel he needs to send the once-in-a-generation reiteration of the message that a free press is essential to a free state.
UK: "Will do".
UK: "Oh, can we have Anne Sacoolas, please?".
US: "Fuck you".
UK: "Will do; thank you very much".