I find it interesting that on nearly the last page we see that the defense argued that it was an abuse of power of the courts to deny extradition. I wonder how happy he will be rotting in a UK prison instead of a US one.
USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
241–250 of 646 posts
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
>crime is a crime, justice doesn't care. Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars. Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment o…
> Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press What Assange is accused of is not that. > Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context. It doesn't. Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that. Nobody is forced to…
Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way. He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
I wish Snowden didn't flee the country. I'd have a completely different opinion if he stood trial.
I doubt he'd receive a fair trial; No way the government would let an unbiased judge rule over him
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough. It is highly likely that the High Court will be asked to re-examine pretty much the whole judgment; it's highly unlikely that the defence won't question the holdings that they lost. (It is also pretty likely that this will then be appealed to the Supreme…
If this case is indeed politically motivated, one would expect the US to lose interest on January 21 and drop the case instead of appealing to the Supreme Court.
Most of the people in the intelligence community and beyond who hate being challenged will stay at their posts way past that date, not that Biden has a different take here.
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA. The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the H…
This is an oversimplification but accurate - I don't think it's credible to stay in the EU while not having the ECHR implemented in statute.
I'm not sure this is true really, as long as a state remained a party to the ECHR itself. The UK didn't incorporate into domestic law until 1998 and RoI (which has a similarly "dualist" legal system of international and domestic law) 2003 - so it was possible to be a member of the EU before 2003 without doing this for sure.
Also to add to the confusion, many EU member states have "monist" systems of international and domestic law and never have incorporated via statute because their legal systems allow enforcement of convention rights directly. But in some of these countries the practical effect and applicability of the ECHR is actually less than in the UK via the HRA.
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way. He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
I wish Snowden didn't flee the country. I'd have a completely different opinion if he stood trial.
He didn't already sacrifice enough of his life? You aren't satisfied unless he gave all of it?
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Service related activities are treated a little different.
Service is considered to be delivered in the country where the service beneficiary is.
That's why financial services cannot be delivered cross border, without legal approval in the "destination" country.
On the other hand sales of goods is something that happens in the seller's country - that's how companies in countries without consumer protection can just tell you to STFU on thing you bought from them.
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners
We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books: https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y... There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it…
Extradition requires dual criminality. If you can extradite you can prosecute the offence locally.
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right.…
Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >>…
Certainly better in the UK than the US. He gets to see family and has contact with support including calls with e.g. the Samaritans.
Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the fact that the extradition wasn't rejected on press freedom grounds makes me think maybe it's just a way for the judge to shake it off so that it's not HER who goes down in history books as to have made the decision to extradite. But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough. I REALLY hope am wr…
There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.
Other sources[1] expect the US to appeal.