Assange verdict: NO extradition

[Flobart]

Surprise verdict to many, but no surprise that the BBC is more concerned about Irans uranium enrichment than giving the Assange issue any cover.

[skuthorp]

Well that is a surprise in some ways, but given the imminent change of jockeys in the US, and the almost automatic appeal it may be that the judiciary decided not to be precipitate till the new boy makes his decision, and after all with donald as his trial horse he can do just that.

Re Iran and Uranium, donald basically gave them permission and a reason to fire up their programme again by repudiating the treaty. And who now would trust any treaty or promise made by any US admin knowing that in 4/8 years all bets are off again?.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Can we send Mr Julian Hawkins back to his native Australia now?

[The Q]

yes please, send Mr Shipton away..

[JayInOz]

Assange should be drowned in a toilet.

[skuthorp]

Cannot agree Jay, he exposed the whole Iraq setup for what it really was, and the US as as a war monger and abettor of war criminals, and Howard as a collaborating brown noser.
And here we are in Aus, with the SAS's reputation shot for something we had no business in being part of, but we just followed the usual orders.

[Flobart]

Assange should be drowned in a toilet.

For making common knowledge war crimes the US tried to keep out of public eye?

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The Judge found that the United States have made their case. The creep was not extradited because of concerns over his mental health. Apparently he might do us all a favour and kill himself if sent to the USA. The United States will appeal.

[LeeG]

Cannot agree Jay, he exposed the whole Iraq setup for what it really was, and the US as as a war monger and abettor of war criminals, and Howard as a collaborating brown noser.
And here we are in Aus, with the SAS's reputation shot for something we had no business in being part of, but we just followed the usual orders.

I don’t know the extent of what he helped to release, I’m only familiar with the helicopter video of civilians getting shot. There was already voluminous open source information that the invasion was based on propoganda and disinformation with ongoing efforts to cover up that reality.

[Flobart]

The Judge found that the United States have made their case. The creep was not extradited because of concerns over his mental health. Apparently he might do us all a favour and kill himself if sent to the USA. The United States will appeal.

Its these kind of comments that lead others to question just how far removed your bubble is from the reality the majority live in, or whether senility is taking root. Care to expound on what favour you would benefit from his expiry?

[Paul Pless]

Its these kind of comments that lead others to question just how far removed your bubble is from the reality the majority live in, or whether senility is taking root. Care to expound on what favour you would benefit from his expiry?

reality is, nobody really gives a flying **** about assange
the war was the wrong war in the first place
as in any war of such scale there were heinous acts committed
assange is still a douchebag, no matter how virtuous he and supporters make him out to be
it was a long time ago
we have more pressing issues at the moment

[Steve McMahon]

reality is, nobody really gives a flying **** about assange

we have more pressing issues at the moment

understatement of the year.

[Peerie Maa]

He has been in custody for 21 months. If the appeal drags on for as long as predicted he will have served any sentence with time off for good behaviour by the time any trial and subsequent appeal is complete.

[Flobart]

Bail hearing set for Wednesday.

[Flobart]

reality is, nobody really gives a flying **** about assange

If that were true, why the need to seek sanctuary in an embassy for 7 years? YOU might not give a flying fig, but it is obvious that Pompeo and his ilk have a far different opinion, otherwise this case would never even have been bought to Court in the first place. So it would appear you are wrong. The douchbaggery is open to debate.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

He was obviously a party to the systematic hacking of US security and to the publication of information which the US Government did not want published. He was party to Russian efforts to get Trump elected. For these reasons he should stand trial in the USA.

But the reason I would prefer the wretched fellow to top himself is simple - it would put a stop to all the tiresome fools agitating on his behalf.

[Peerie Maa]

If that were true, why the need to seek sanctuary in an embassy for 7 years? YOU might not give a flying fig, but it is obvious that Pompeo and his ilk have a far different opinion, otherwise this case would never even have been bought to Court in the first place. So it would appear you are wrong. The douchbaggery is open to debate.

Yep, the US have long memories. They still have not got over Cuba yet.

[Osborne Russell]

reality is, nobody really gives a flying **** about assange
the war was the wrong war in the first place
as in any war of such scale there were heinous acts committed . . .

You make nothing of the effort to prevent such wars and such acts. They are not inevitable.

we have more pressing issues at the moment

Not really.

[lupussonic]

He was obviously a party to the systematic hacking of US security and to the publication of information which the US Government did not want published. He was party to Russian efforts to get Trump elected. For these reasons he should stand trial in the USA.

But the reason I would prefer the wretched fellow to top himself is simple - it would put a stop to all the tiresome fools agitating on his behalf.

Why would you not want illegal murderous government sanctioned acts published?

In which way was he 'party' to Russian attempts to get trump elected? Credible link please.

[Hugh Conway]

In which way was he 'party' to Russian attempts to get trump elected? Credible link please.

Seriously?

[lupussonic]

Yes.

[Hugh Conway]

Which amusingly means the opposite. Pg. 44
https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-re...sed-110220.pdf
I suppose that isn’t credible though

[Flobart]

.

But the reason I would prefer the wretched fellow to top himself is simple - it would put a stop to all the tiresome fools agitating on his behalf.

Would that be journalists from around the world who have praised his work and awarded him for doing so? Journalists that you might even get your news information from?

[Nicholas Carey]

He was obviously a party to the systematic hacking of US security and to the publication of information which the US Government did not want published. He was party to Russian efforts to get Trump elected. For these reasons he should stand trial in the USA.

Not to defend Assange in any way, shape or form, especially after his participation in Trump and Putin's election shenanigans in 2016.

However, the USA lacks venue in this: Assange is not

- He was given the documents, and
- He's not a US citizen or resident, and
- He was not present in the United States or its territories when the alleged offenses occurred, and
- Consequently, the classification status assigned by the US government to a document has no meaning to him.

To allow the United States standing to prosecute him for espionage in this is to put every publisher, anywhere in the world at risk, should they get their hands on documents classified by the USA or any other power.

If the US wants to prosecute someone, they need to go after the person who illegally transferred the documents to him in the first place.

[skuthorp]

I agree with Lupssonic on this
"Why would you not want illegal murderous government sanctioned acts published?".

The argument accepted by the judge re his status as a journalist in this is, in my opinion, effected by the judges realisation that likely Britain and it's armed forces, having taken part in an iilegal invasion, may also be vulnerable.
Once again the shadow of Nuremberg looms.

[Nicholas Carey]

Another reason not to extradite Assange is that to do so, is to validate the notion that any country may extend its law to cover any person of any citizenship anywhere on the globe. That's a slippery slope to go down.

[lupussonic]

Mr Craig-Bennett is an odd fellow. On the one hand he would like some politicians shot without trial, and on the other he sanctions their supposed good deeds (which are secret) that he deems above reproach and without question, without having any evidence about them at all.

Personally I think people like Assange are an aid to democracy... They shine light on dark campaigns, neferous organisations and sinister goings on orchestrated by people innocently elected by the general voters. Good!

Call the buggers to account!

[Hugh Conway]

Another reason not to extradite Assange is that to do so, is to validate the notion that any country may extend its law to cover any person of any citizenship anywhere on the globe. That's a slippery slope to go down.

the UK themselves believe in universal jurisdiction for certain crimes it’s not much of a notion or a slippery slope.

[lupussonic]

Which amusingly means the opposite. Pg. 44
https://epic.org/foia/doj/mueller-re...sed-110220.pdf
I suppose that isn’t credible though

Says that the GRU hacked the DNC server and handed info to wikileaks which published it. That's hardly 'party to Russian attempts to get Trump elected'. At best that's a very small party.

[lagspiller]

It ain't over yet. The most interesting thing about the case right now is if he is allowed bail. I think not, because of his proclivity for doing a runner.

There is little question the man personally is an odious, egoistic prick. But Wikileaks is not Asssange. It has done excellent things and inexcusable things. Exposing the war atrocities was a perfect example of watch-dogging and whistle-blowing. That must go on the positive account for the whole of Wikileaks and to Assange. But his personal vendetta toward Hillary Clinton and the resulting involvement in the Russian trolling of the US elections in 2016 in support of Trump is an obvious misuse of his position. That caused a lot of waves internally in Wikileaks and is indefensible as an exercise in freedom of the press and watchdog for the public good. It was petty and has done arguably irreparable damage to the state of democracy in USA. That has caused repercussions for human rights agreements, the UN, defense agreements, immigration and refugee rights, trade agreements... The world has become less safe and the major threats of pollution and climate change have all suffered from Assange's tampering with the 2016 election.

In a modern justice system, Assange would probably face a prison sentence not so very much more than he has imposed on himself already. In USA, he could face charges of more than 100 years, which is totally unreasonable. There is also the question of the rape charges in Sweden, which have not been answered, but instead suspended (or whatever the legal term actually is) due to there being no opportunity to try the case. The state prosecutor has said that the case 'could' be reopened if Assange were to be made available for the court at some time in the future. I doubt that will ever happen, but the slight possibility exists.

IMO, any way this is looked at, it is a total mess with no fair outcome ever being possible. It is quite possible it will just drag on forever until Assange dies of old age or he turns completely and is committed to permanent health care somewhere.

[skuthorp]

the UK themselves believe in universal jurisdiction for certain crimes it’s not much of a notion or a slippery slope.

……..but America does not except in circumstances where they are not the defendant. Something about 'exeptionalism' I think?

[Peerie Maa]

Another reason not to extradite Assange is that to do so, is to validate the notion that any country may extend its law to cover any person of any citizenship anywhere on the globe. That's a slippery slope to go down.

We already are

New UK-US Extradition Treaty On 31 March, David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, signed a new Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK with his United States counterpart, Attorney General Tom Ashcroft, ostensibly bringing the US into line with procedures between European countries. The UK parliament was not consulted at all and the text was not public available until the end of May. The only justification given for the delay was for"administrative reasons", though these did not hold-up scrutiny by the US senate, which began almost immediately.The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US). Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.Guantanamo Bay, the failed extradition of Lofti Raissi and US contempt for the International Criminal Court make this decision to remove relevant UK safeguards all the more alarming "

https://www.statewatch.org/media/doc...usa-extrad.pdf
Amd debated again a year sgo. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Common...itionAgreement

[Hugh Conway]

……..but America does not except in circumstances where they are not the defendant. Something about 'exeptionalism' I think?

not sure what you mean - the USA believes in universal jurisdiction for some crimes, and we’ll also extradite to some countrys for some crimes. We are somewhere on the scale of nations in that way. Not the “best” by far, not the worst.

the general origin of universal jurisdiction is the crime of piracy.

[skuthorp]

See #32 Hugh….
"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required".

[lagspiller]

We already are
https://www.statewatch.org/media/doc...usa-extrad.pdf
Amd debated again a year sgo. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Common...itionAgreement

This is the reason I have always thought he made a huge blunder by skipping out on Sweden. They have a much better record in refusing extradition to USA than UK, both on papir and in practice.
The type of rape charge he would have faced there would have max resulted in a fraction of the prison time he has served already in his embassy and prison period in UK, and only then if he had been found guilty. He would have been out and on his way home to Oz years ago.