Hacker News Reader

Comment by implements | Hacker News Reader

But the US system incorporates a political viewpoint deliberately as part of what it considers justice in the public interest.

We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic.

Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process.

Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.

View on HN

> We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis

The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1]

> extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.

There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?"

1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

That's interesting. I wonder if "politically motivated" is typically understood to encompass "acted against the general nebulous interests of the prevailing political and state apparatus".

Err, yes?

Is it really so clear cut? Suppose a KKK member had fled from the US to the UK and was trying to bring about the secession of the Confederacy from the Union to form a white supremacist state, and that part of his strategy was to selectively leak US state secrets. Should the UK refuse to extradite him because the extradition request is politically motivated?

Potentially. It depends on the facts of the case as well as the guarantees around execution and torture'

But in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.

> in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.

Personally I agree with that, but that doesn't impinge on the "politically motivate" crime issue, does it?

What crime? This is politically motivated punishment.

I believe the alleged crime is espionage. Espionage seems typically to have had a political motive historically. Does that mean that all such espionage charges should lead to denied extradition requests?

When the basis for the charge is political rather than factual like this one. Then usually yes.

I'm confused. "Political" and "factual" do not seem to be contradictory notions. The seem to be orthogonal, to me.

Some interesting context

> "Fitzgerald [barrister for the defence] stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A 'pure' political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A 'relative' political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities."

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser#Political_extr...

My understanding is that this is precisely the sort of behavior that the customary "political crimes" exemption in extradition treaties is supposed to cover. Things like espionage, treason, separatism and other crimes against the state are inherently political. The UK-US extradition treaty also explicitly states that in the case of politically motivated prosecution, no extradition can occur.

Yes, they should not be extradited for leaking US State Secrets. They could be extradited for something else, which should be easy since they are a KKK member, but not for that act.

Moreover, Assange isn't even an American citizen, so that doesn't work either.

I don't believe the KKK is an illegal organisation, but if it is then membership of an illegal organisation seems like it would fall under "political crime". In any case, change the setup to another organisation that is not outlawed but nonetheless has similar ends. I just don't see how extradition can be withheld for leaking state secrets just because the overall aim was to damage the US political status quo.

Membership of an organization that commits crimes is criminal, not because it is political. And if you're a member of the KKK you've certainly been implicated in a crime in some way.

That being said, it is completely ridiculous to extradite an Australian for leaking US State secrets. It should just not be a thing, at all. So yes, leaking state secrets should not be an extraditeable offense. Treason? Maaaaybe.

> the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic.

I believe a case can be made for both.

The USA started an illegal war. Assange exposed some of the war crimes (for which no one has faced justice). The USA wants revenge.

They are acting like a banana republic and this extradition request should be treated as such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com