Julian Assange’s Extradition to US Approved by UK Home Secretary
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
So much for sovereignty.
Tough times for good journalism...
The US didnt have to do anything of the kind - contrary to the beliefs of Assange fans the UK routinely extradites people to the US to stand charges.
In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions.
That’s not really how I see it. The case is shocking in that it has revealed that some rights that we thought that we had, cannot be enforced in law.
The US is exploiting a legal loophole in that while the extradition treaty forbids political extraditions, the UK has not incorporated that prohibition into domestic legislation. Therefore the court of first instance approved [in principle] the extradition for a political crime (espionage). However as I understand it, this aspect has not yet been appealed by Assange.
In my opinion, if this case had happened 5 years ago, then under presidency of Hale, Assange would had a decent chance of challenging it in the Supreme Court. However under the presidency of Reed and in the aftermath of the prorogation case, the Supreme Court has become extremely reluctant to deviate from government policy, as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether. So I doubt they will stick their neck out for Assange when they didn’t for e.g. Begum or in the recent Rwanda case.
They should be abolished altogether. A court without judicial independence is worth nothing at all. Less than nothing because it hinders the formation of an independent court.
Ironically, when they were in the House of Lords, the court was less susceptible to interference as it benefited from the constitutional protection of the Lords’ existence and affairs as part of Parliament.
On the other hand, re-creating it would at least be „doing something“
I don't know what right this is, but in the UK there's no right to do anything with classified information. Directly the opposite: the official secrets act makes it a crime to share it, distribute it, etc. The only real legal option you have if you find some classified information lying on a train (say) is to hand it to the police.
There's no exemption for journalism and it doesn't matter if you have been 'notified' under the act (that just changes the penalties) or if you are British or not (You're on UK soil, UK law applies). Classified information belonging to foreign allied governments would definitely fall under the OSA.
If that's shocking, ok, but that's the law and has been since the last time the OSA was updated.
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think sharing classified information unredacted would count as a political defence in the UK. I suspect that definition refers to political views and activities that don't break UK laws, e.g. I would expect the US would not be allowed to extradite someone purely for their belief that the US should become a communist state. However if they hacked the computers of th US fed, then they'd be fair game.
The treaty itself is problematic and the US recently refused the Saacoolas extradition. So the next time a British citizen is on the line we should refuse as well. But I also agree: this particular case is about the least troubling extradition ever.
This is a traditional carve-out included in almost every extradition treaty the US has signed for over a hundred years, and it's included in the US-UK extradition treaty. However, the UK court ruled that despite this protection, which is supposed to exist and which is written into the treaty, the UK Parliament has not incorporated the protection into UK law.
So as it stands, the traditional protection against extradition for political crimes no longer exists in the UK, at least for people facing extradition to the US. However, the protection still applies for people facing extradition from the US to the UK, because the treaty has force of law in the US.
For example, searching around, it looks like the US has asked spies to be extradited before and succeeded: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/us/politics/china-spy-esp...
I'm still not sympathetic even if he has a political defence, however. Wikileaks has published at least one classified UK document, which means he can be charged under the OSA in the UK anyway under the onwards disclosure clause (I don't know if they'll do this. Probably not, I would guess, due to lack of evidence. I do know there is a consultation ongoing to revamp the OSA partially in response to Snowden: press: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-57998950, law commission review: https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/protection-of-official-dat... consultation: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...). I think he would have stood a better chance of avoiding extradition pretty much anywhere else than the UK, including Sweden, which is why I am not sympathetic (if you're going to spit in the eye of the US, the UK is probably not one of the places to be when you do it). I'm also... perplexed, to put it charitably, as to why he'd avoid the Swedish extradition, as I think he would have had a better chance of avoiding extradition from Sweden to the US than the fight he currently has (where he has pretty much zero chance).
Espionage is not a gray area. It is one of the core political crimes.
It should be noted, however, that Assange is not a spy. He's a journalist, and the fact that the US government is trying to redefine journalistic activity as espionage is incredibly alarming.
I live in the UK. There's been a federal indictment out for me for well over 10 years now, at some point there was an Interpol blue notice, but that's been gone for years now. There's never been any attempt to pursue extradition.
UK: "Will do".
UK: "Oh, can we have Anne Sacoolas, please?".
US: "Fuck you".
UK: "Will do; thank you very much".
> Amnesty International said enabling the extradition to take place "would put him at great risk and sends a chilling message to journalists".
This extradition should have been done long ago so that he could stand trial. Either he gets convicted and then we know that liberal democracy and a free press is dead in the US, or he gets exonerated and the civil suits that he will bring will send a chilling message to the suppressors of free speech.
My sincere hope is for the latter. I have held off on contributing to his defense fund because denying extradition because US prison food is shitty would just mean that the next journalist is kept quiet, and in many ways is far more chilling. Once he is extradited to the US and is set to stand trial, I hope each and every person on this thread helps ensure him the effective counsel he needs to send the once-in-a-generation reiteration of the message that a free press is essential to a free state.
The people in the U.S government who want him silenced for this, or even dead, should take his place, and he should be set free.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-a...
Trump and Biden are not in the same team, in the sense that they represent opposing parties, who benefit (and their members) from holding the power.
Beyond that, they are both just presidents, e.g. when it comes to foreign affairs mostly figureheads for the long term American foreign policy, which is dictated by national "interests", the state department, and long term (career) washington personel, not by who happens to be the president now or then.
From that aspects, they're just mascots for different teams, playing the same sport, where others are calling the shots.
>But if they're the same team, then why did Trump mind losing the election
Because parties like winning.
>why the big lie
Nt such a big lie. Even if not widespread election fraud, the whole game was rigged against him, regarding press coverage, assosiates investigated (for the same kind of deals and BS that's daily business on from both sides for decades, but nobody bats an eye), supposedly neutral organizations standing against the president, double standard reporting as "unprecedented" for the same shit Obama, Clinton, Bush and co pulled, and so on.
>why attempt a coup?
A couple thousand rag-tag fans got in the capitol, with no plan, no leadership, no endorsement, and no prospects. It was just a BS protest attempt from idiots. But of course it got played to death as some kind of evil coup plan - from the same press that hailed an equally incompetent senile bland long-term insider as the second coming of Lincoln.
It's a lot of work, isn't it? Why is this a more reasonable theory to you than simply: Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
> no plan, no leadership, no endorsement,
That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far. But there's not much point me talking about real world evidence to someone who believes in an imaginary world of deep state puppeting foreign judges to get a website operator extradited
You make it sound like a believe in aliens and illuminati too.
Whereas what I believe is that the president is a figurehead, and the foreign policy show is run by party figures, long term Washington political careerists, big lobbies, and, long term State Department (and Pentagon) staffers and strategies. How is that a controversial take?
>The president, both Trump and Biden, were puppeting the ... UK establishment. And the UK establishment were puppeting the judge who is formalising the extradition of Assange.
The US has UK on a leash as a client state since WWII. That's what happens to empires when they fade and a new top dog takes over. No special need for Trump and Biden to "puppet" the UK establishment: in the usual course of things, unless there's some unprecedented harm to it's own interests (where it might take a stance), the US says jump and UK says "how high?".
>Assange is being extradited because the lawyers convinced a judge to agree to it - see how my theory involves no puppets, no deep state, no invisble powers...
Yes, just "Mr Smith goes to Washington" starry-eyed naivety, and an ignorance of a century of similar political maneuvering.
>That's not the impression I've been taking away from the three congressional hearing so far.
That's because those are dog and pony shows for the faithful.
They still haven't gone back into the JCPOA, for instance.
The UK government doesn't like Assange, and on top of that, they don't want to upset the Americans.
Also I don’t see why you put so much importance on his testimony being under oath. Clapper directly lied to congress under oath and never saw any consequences. It’s an interesting double standard we have.
Because he would be tried for treason/terrorism? (since he is not a US citizen) What kind of good thing do you expect from something that obviously political?
Unlike actual defense employees (Snowden), Assange didn't make any agreements to protect classified information so it's just effectively a SLAPP [2] lawsuit. Imagine you were a comedian (John Oliver) and made fun of China's president (Winnie the Pooh) and then China asked for you to be extradited; I think you'd expect the US to tell China to pound sand.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
"U.S. Rejects Extradition Request for Driver in Fatal U.K. Accident": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/12/world/europe/harry-dunn-a...
A vastly more treasonous activity than what Assange did. May made it clear Patel could resign or be fired from the cabinet.
But then the Tories are so incredibly corrupt and incompetent[2], BoJo and co are treating the ministerial code with destain at this point.
Another one of BoJo's ethic's advisors has just resigned in disgust at him, and this one had an iron stomach to make it this far. [3]
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41923007 [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61796958 [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61837871
"Boris Johnson's government looked at building wave machines to stop migrant boats crossing the English Channel": https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-wave-machines-migrant-boa...
https://gal-dem.com/everything-horrible-priti-patel-has-smir...
Justice has been served. They treated him appropriately also before with the staged Swedish lawsuit. In the end, it doesn't matter who your masters are (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchil) when they behave the same.
Assange was called in for questioning. That's the most basic measure to take in any police investigation.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_....
Sounds incredibly arbitrary to make such a guarantee. I'm not surprised the government was unwilling to do so.
> ...to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.
The above may be wrong. Such a decision may be legal. However, that's far from saying such decisions are "standard".
> However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.
As previously stated. The fact that they have such a right doesn't mean they'll use it. Such rules exist to allow for emergency exceptions.
I don't see how the sitting government (not the police), being unwilling to exceptionally override a court recommendation, ahead of the decision, implies the Swedish police or prosecution was compromised. They just did their job.
And also from [2] below:
"...one of the two women, who was simply accompanied by the other, was horrified when the police before her eyes began to draw up a rape report from her statements. She, as she pointed out on several occasions, had sexual relations with Assange on a totally consensual basis, and only contacted the authorities to find out whether it would be possible to force him to take an AIDS test. As soon as she realized that the police were starting to do something completely different, she interrupted the interrogation in a state of shock and left the room. However, only a few hours later, the headline appeared in large letters in the Swedish tabloid press: Julian Assange was accused of double rape..."
[2] "How Swedish authorities invented the rape charge against Julian Assange": https://www.pressenza.com/2020/03/how-swedish-authorities-in...
That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
Team america, world police.
It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving.
That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct.
It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed.
Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.
I’d personally say it’s due to the UK pursuing extradition instead of just dropping it, but your perspective is interesting as well.
Extradition is first and foremost political, and the government of the UK has final authority in the matter. It's obvious that this case is political in nature, and that the US government is pursuing Assange in order to send a message to any other journalists who might try to emulate him. The UK government could tell the US to stuff it, the US would have no recourse, and the decision would be popular in Britain.
So yeah the UK has leeway here. Why pretend otherwise?
edit: Why would I receive downvotes for this?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review...
Extradition hearing
"""
The extradition hearing before the District Judge is where most of the issues in the case are decided. The CPS will represent the requesting State in the proceedings.
The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights.
"""
The judge could both not believe that dual criminality is satisfied and could also believe the supposed evidence isn't good enough.
And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnes...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24505438
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503896
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526096
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27881936
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.
Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.
Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange...
He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation.
https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...
Article 22:
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
[1] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...
He's terrified of US covert military operations. And he has a point.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...