Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

judiciary.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#121

Post by dalbasal »

lol768 wrote: post #11

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs…

If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective.

This was an extradition hearing, not a trial. This seems to have given the judge room to justify a nuanced conclusion that doesn't extend far past this case. IDK if there's much precedent. If there is, it relates to espionage-adjacent cases. That kind of makes sense. Espionage is different to other crimes. The imprisonment is different, and so is the standard for justice. Closed trials & such. This was also true of these extradition hearings.

I have to wonder though, did all the other stuff relating to this saga affect her decision. The odd charges in Sweden. The party-politic aspects to the US' pursuit of him. Also the "time served" aspect. If he's found guilty, the sentence is unlikely to be longer than the 8 years he has spent imprisoned already.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#122

Post by Uberphallus »

Buttons840 wrote: post #94
checkyoursudo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

Did Julian Assange commit his alleged crimes while in the US? This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.

You don't need to be in a country to commit crimes in that country. A lot of financial crime wouldn't be a prosecuted in that case.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#123

Post by detaro »

nix23 wrote: post #81
checkyoursudo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.

Ban on the death penalty is quite possibly true here too (it would have been under EU treaties, I didn't find a quick statement how the situation is now exactly).

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#124

Post by tomatocracy »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #59
nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

Some countries (France at least I think) have a constitutional bar on extradition of citizens from their own territory and instead allow citizens to be prosecuted domestically for crimes committed abroad (but according to the standards of domestic law). This is a logical alternative I think although it typically doesn't extend to a bar on the extradition of foreigners to either their home country or third countries so that system wouldn't have helped him here.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#125

Post by qsort »

checkyoursudo wrote: post #59
nix23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

It depends on what type of crime you're talking about. For common criminals, then sure, but for example, most Western countries have laws or constitutional provisions against extradition for political offences.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#127

Post by niea_11 »

rory_isAdonk wrote: post #86
niea_11 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asasnge is not a french citizen, so France will refuse to extradite him for the same reasons as the UK : health problems. The extradition treaty between France and the United States allows France to deny extradition when the extradited party faces serious consequences related to health or age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extra...

A French minister has called for him to be given asylum.

If you're talking about Marine Le Pen, she's not a french minister (as in government minister, she's (or was) a member of the european parliament)

https://www.france24.com/en/video/20190412-wikileaks-fouder-...

The last public stance of the french government (that I could find) on the matter was that they don't "offer asylum to someone who’s not asking for it"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assan...

And he made a request in 2015 but was denied.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-assange/france-rej...

Plus, I'm not sure if he qualifies for the status of refugee (asylum seeker) as defined here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Sta...

As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

From the US point view at least (and the UK according to the latest judgment), he's being extradited for a crime not a political opinion.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#128

Post by hestefisk »

Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#129

Post by microtherion »

nix23 wrote: post #75
mschuster91 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Julian Assange was on UK territory, not Australian.

Yes and? Australia should have asked the UK that he is extradited to them (and prosecuted under Australian Law) and not to a third party (with a possible death sentence). Espionage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unit...

That's not how extradition works, ever. Yes, many countries have extra protections against extraditing their own citizens, but those only apply while those citizens reside there.

Otherwise there would be a booming naturalization business for some less-scrupulous nations.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#130

Post by zapdrive »

Buttons840 wrote: post #94
checkyoursudo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it…

Did Julian Assange commit his alleged crimes while in the US? This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.

Bin Laden did not go to the USA to commit his crimes.
Post reply on HN