USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

pyb wrote: post #169

Where we find out that extradition from the UK for political offences is actually largely permitted. Some protection from extradition remains, but it is very narrow. It only stands if the person is being prosecuted "on the basis of their political opinions" : "53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive r…

Post by jkaplowitz » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #488

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…

Relatedly, Canada has struck down America's status as a safe third country for refugees as "U.S. immigration detention violates their human rights." [1] "Nedira Jemal Mustefa, among the refugees turned back and on whose behalf a challenge was launched, described her time in solitary confinement in the United States as 'a terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic experience,' according to the court ruling."…

Post by tsimionescu » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

AsyncAwait wrote: post #350

tsimionescu wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being). It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule o…

Imo the problem is that the ruling accepts the premise that the case has merit i.e. is criminal in the UK, that itself is a threat to press freedom given the charges.

Post by morelisp » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 11:02 PM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #468

africanboy wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly expressing no opinion on Assange's actions. "I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime). What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant. The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequ…

>What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal. Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first. Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.

Post by morelisp » Mon, Jan 04, 2021, 11:06 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #436

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little bit disingenuous. There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies. The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.

I should've worded that differently - we obviously do not expect accusations to be proven before a trial. What I meant was rather: has there been made any credible/sensible accusation for him being involved in hacking? Because while the drivel made it through the grand jury, it's still a vague answer without any allegations of follow-up. Could I help you crack a password hash? Sure, maybe I could. Am I now conspiring…