Hacker News Reader

Comment by shp0ngle | Hacker News Reader

So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that.

That's really interesting.

View on HN

Yes, as soon his health gets better they can go on with the extradition.

Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better.

But the symptoms could.

They already did, thanks to the provisions of his current imprisonment. The ruling is based on those provisions almost surely removed upon extradition, guaranteeing that his "symptoms" would reappear. To put it extremely mildly.

I was simply replying to

> Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better

As someone diagnosed in the spectrum it totally can.

That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. I might be overly cynical but that seems to be little more than a ploy of appearing impartial by denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal.

> That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then.

Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.

They even cited Jeffrey Epstein suicide in the judgement (paragraph 299, page 95)

> That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then.

While it doesn't quite go that far, it is pretty common for extradition from Europe to the US to be blocked for this reason.

Arguably, given how common solitary confinement is in the US, all extradition to the US should be abandoned.

> denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal

Why would you think it would be reversed? It's fairly common to refuse extradition where the subject would be at significant risk of being abused/tortured/executed.

The point of an extradition treaty is surely that lawmakers have concluded the two systems participating are reasonably close to allow for extradition in the first place. It is then not the place of a judge to decide otherwise.

There are exemptions such as no extradition when the conduct isn't illegal in the extraditing country, but as you mention: if you consider solitary confinement torture, there is no reason to approve of any extradition to the US anymore.

The US will sometimes promise to not use solitary confinement (or various other forms of inhumane treatment/torture) to secure extradition, and some countries will sometime accept that.

Likewise capital punishment.

'It is then not the place of a judge to decide otherwise'

It is precisely role of the Judge to uphold the law and rights, they take precedence over any agreements

It's not the place of the judge to consider the treaty one way or another. Judges judge based on the actual laws put in place in their court.

If the current state really isn't what the lawmakers had intended with their treaties, then they need to update the domestic laws that go along with them.

All potential death sentence extraditions are automatically refused (not just from UK). A fair number of other ones are, not sure what proprtion.

You actually make a good point in a way. It's because the autism argument has been used before is why it was employed in this case and why it became the strongest argument.

Lauri Love https://news.sky.com/story/lauri-love-autistic-hacking-suspe...

He'll be released to some kind of house arrest (or whatever the UK equivalent is), and be found dead the next day.

It will be ruled a suicide.

Please don't do this here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com