UK Home Sec kick-starts US request to extradite ex-WikiLeaker Assange UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid revealed this morning that he has signed papers to have Julian Assange extradited to the US. Speaking on BBC radio earlier today, Javid said: "There's an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will …
Hong Kong has had an extradition agreement with the US for decades, so there isn't anything changing which deserves protest.
Being extradited to China is a clear and present danger for Hong Kong citizens who aren't terribly fond of the Chinese government and have used their freedom in the past to make that known. Considering how people who make controversial statements on Chinese social media will sometimes "disappear" (not saying they are killed, probably just "re-educated" and strongly encouraged to stay away from social media in the future) I could see where people in Hong Kong would justifiably be worried.
Will something you posted five years ago criticizing the Chinese president get you arrested? Nobody knows, but since Chinese repression has been increasing rather than decreasing over time I sure wouldn't want to be in a position where I had to either leave the country I'd lived in all my life or bet my freedom that they will ignore me.
"Will something you posted five years ago criticizing the Chinese president get you arrested? Nobody knows, but since Chinese repression has been increasing rather than decreasing over time I sure wouldn't want to be in a position where I had to either leave the country I'd lived in all my life or bet my freedom that they will ignore me."
Sadly, for the people of Hong Kong, I suspect that is exactly the choice they will have to make over the coming years, or maybe decades. I think it unlikely that China is going to continue to allow the freedoms the residents have enjoyed to date. The clamp down will be gradual (as it has been so far) but unless there is a significant change in the Chinese political outlook, it will only get worse.
I suspect that the. populations of Taiwan, Singapore, and Vancouver are going to increase, and soon. Because you're right, the PRC will continue to remind the population of Hong Kong that the PRC is a _communist_ country, and that, like it or not, Hong Kong is a part of the country. And that all the 'one country, two systems' nonsense is exactly that: nonsense, mostly there not for Hong Kong's benefit but to try to lure Taiwan into the net. Taiwan ain't being lured, and the PRC is losing patience.
Most of the communism has been replaced by capitalism, but the one part of the former communist government that was kept and has been strengthened is the authoritarianism. Even if they wiped away the last vestigates of communism the situation wouldn't change for its citizens (other than the poorest and most vulnerable)
Calling China communist in 2019 is just plain wrong.
North Korea calls itself a "democratic republic", are you going to argue they are democratic? They aren't totally free market but they are far more of a free market economy than any other country that has ever called itself "communist".
Anyway the point is that they are authoritarian, whether the underlying system is communist, capitalist or socialist doesn't matter - the problem people in Hong Kong have is with China's authoritarianism, not their remaining communism.
Authoritarian jackboot-to-the-head policies were always the heart and soul of communism. The PRC has got much worse as time has gone by, and they were pretty bad in the first place. (Hmm. What event in China is it, again, that we recently saw the 20th anniversary of outside of China but which passed unnoticed, officially, inside of China? They're _worse_ now...)
Pretty much every system tends towards authoritarism over time, the question is how much. How much more authoritarian is the UK today versus a century ago? The US today versus a century ago? How much worse will they each be a century from now?
But yes, it isn't human nature to share "equally" amongst millions of people so you need an authoritarian infrastructure to support a communist government. Communism could work without requiring force in the size of a small town where you know everyone or at least know someone who knows them, but not a nation.
dumping unredacted details is not journalism, wikileaks was widely criticized by many reputable journalists and others for it's actions
'But Stephen Aftergood, an anti-secrecy activist at the Federation of American Scientists, noted that WikiLeaks lately seemed to be surrounded by “a lot of melodrama.” He added: “When criticized, the standard WL response is to deny error, shift responsibility to someone else, and attack the critic. It does not inspire much confidence.”'
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-names-idUSTRE77U75A20110831
fwiw i see no justification for extraditing him to the usa, this creeping extraterritoriality and it's craven acceptance by the uk goverment is a disgrace, but his claiming to be a journalist is utter nonsense
teknopaul,
I have seen "collaterol murder". That's the video that Wikileaks edited to remove the weapons that the alleged victims were carrying. Admittedly Wikileaks did eventually publish the unedited version, but they lost all credibility by doing that. There was no warcrime there anyway, because the journalist who got killed was with a group of armed people, which was who the helicopter engaged. The gunner shouts "RPG" when he sees the camera poking round the corner of the building, and that's why they fired, which was withing their rules of engagement. If you are a journalist on the front lines, that's unfortunately the risk you take.
So Wikileaks edited the video to make the helicopter crew look guilty when they weren't. Admittedly they also left in the intercom comments, which were in pretty poor taste, but then these were people in a high stress combat environment - it's pretty hard to judge that behaviour unless you've been there. Proper journalism would be to get an experience war correspondent to tell you if that behaviour is normal.
For example an ex US Marine that I know was hit by friendly fire in Afghanistan. And he says that as the first 1,000lb bomb hit near their bunker (and the second was about to hit it) the last thing he remembered was shouting, "They nuked us man! They fuckin' nuked us!" I'd say that line of dialogue came from an over-written action film, except I know it actually happened...
To "add" to Wikileaks journalistic credentials, they also edited out the end of that video for 'Collaterol Murder', as they thought people would be bored. I once read an interesting piece by a US lawyer - who argued that if there was a war crime there, it happend at the end. I've not bothered watching it, but she said that it shows some of the armed people the helicopter crew had engaged going into a building, and the crew firing on the building. She argued that this would be a disproportionate use of force, as they didn't know who else was in that building - and they didn't know those people were going to attack, they might just be hiding. I'm not enough of a lawyer to know how that would stand up, it sounds more like a breach of rules of engagement than rules of war to me.
I once read an interesting piece by a US lawyer - who argued that if there was a war crime there, it happend at the end. I've not bothered watching it, but she said that it shows some of the armed people the helicopter crew had engaged going into a building, and the crew firing on the building. She argued that this would be a disproportionate use of force, as they didn't know who else was in that building - and they didn't know those people were going to attack, they might just be hiding. I'm not enough of a lawyer to know how that would stand up, it sounds more like a breach of rules of engagement than rules of war to me.
It would be hard to find guilt. They were already engaging the enemy and it would depend on the RoE.
Breaching the RoE could be a court martial offense.
There was more information... such as the reporters never told the US or their allies that they would be in the area. That's their mistake.
You are wrong, they DID redact, AND they shared the data with publications such as the Guardian in the UK.
Unredacted cables were retrieved, but only because a Guardian journalist leaked access codes.
https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-blames-guardian-unnamed-german-for-cable-leaks/a-15359380
Assange was working newspapers across the world, that qualifies him as an investigative journalist.
I do not understand how whistleblowing can be considered a crime. I do not understand how disclosing atrocities committed by armed forces can somehow be considerd bad!
Icon: closes I could find to investigative journalist.
What constitutes as a journalist is pretty wide open. There are enough recognized journalists who would claim Assange is a journalists where he would have some protection from the NYT vs US Government (Ellsberg decision).
But the main and more serious charge is that Assange did in fact assist with the break in.
The other thing is that the US has to list anything that they could theoretically charge him with. So they do.
I'm not sure that he could survive the charges or that Ellsberg would shield him.
Because he's being charged with participating in the theft. The extradition is valid. The US will have to show evidence which has to be accepted at face value to be true. He's not going to be tried in the UK during his appeal.
@Sir Awesome: "isn't extradition meant to return you to the country you were physically in when committing said crimes?"
No. It's about sending you to the country where you are accused or convicted.
Disclaimer: IANAL. Couldn't be bothered to do more than 1 minute of "research". But had to check - thanks for prompting.
I hope they do not extradite him to the states. I remember the days when the US courts resolutely refused to extradite IRA fugitives to the UK. I think we should operate the same policy.
I have no problems if he is extradited to Sweden. Very different circumstances.
As a US citizen I'd be happy if you keep the turd. Whether or not he's guilty what's done is done and Wikileaks' reputation is so tainted the only way he ever gets any attention again is via a trial in the US. The worst punishment for narcissistic types like him is for everyone to ignore him.
We need to bear in mind the Us doesn't always get it's way. The two aforementioned "hackers" for a start.
There was also a guy whose extradition was refused as the penalty the US had in mind was deemed to be a cruel punishment under the ECHR.
Also the US will have to give assurances not to try as a death penalty case, or Assange stays here regardless. They really hate that.
AFAIR, that was the first and least on the US laundry list. I have not seen the heavier ones mentioned.
As I see it, if the US get him there on only that charge it is a bit of a loss to them, as they will not be able to proceed with the others.
Sadly not. Accoring to the Guardian piece there were about 18 counts, with both the hacking and the stuff under the espionage act. I've no problem with him going down for hacking, if guilty - but since the US added those charges to their extradition request I'd personally like to see the Home Secretary refuse it.
that sad excuse for humanity David Blunkett and ended up as the UK–US extradition treaty of 2003.
The U.S. embassy in London reports that, as of April 2013, 77 individuals have been extradited from the UK to the US. Of course France has extradited no one as it protects it's citizens.
I believe the US have extradited more people here in that time than we've sent back to them. Not that I don't agree, it's a pisspoor excuse for a treaty, and we should cancel it and replace it with the perfectly fine previous one.
But then I'd also cancel the European Arrest Warrant system. I've no problem with trusting the Swedish legal system, but I'm not so happy with some of the others. So I think our courts should get to assess the quality of the evidence first, and the Home Secretary have a veto as well.
Oh, yeah, the same guy who also introduced the indefinite sentences thing so that people could be banged up for several times the maximum they should serve on the basis that they seemed a bit iffy. Rightly repealed under human rights legislation but sadly not retroactively so there are still thousands of people imprisoned under extremely dodgy legislation.
"But I didn't mean it to do that!" wails Blunkett. It's impossible to say if he's genuinely that incompetent or just trying to evade responsibility for something he knew perfectly well was extremely wrong. Given his track record, both.
sorry, it _is_ relevant. We stick a finger to Europe (now with Johnson's grin behind the finger), hence we need to stick our ass to the US and hopefully they'll appreciate it. In every possible segment, because, come on, now we have NO ace on the table. Other than a couple of crumbs, such as being "unsinkable", and a one-state sized piece of land for big US biz to rape. So, Assange goes west.
p.s. independent courts?! Come on, when "future of the UK is at stake", etc, etc? We will see... I would hope, but I've already have none left.
Sadly the Swedish court appears to have told its prosecutors that they can only interview him with his permission - and that they can't have an arrest warrant, even though they had one before. Don't ask me why, I don't understand the Swedish system. The reports on that case in this country didn't say why the court ruled the way it did, so I guess our press know as little about the Swedish criminal justice system as me...
What was the point of showing all those Scandi-noir detective shows on BBC2 - that's what I want to know!
When the US Government tried to suppress the publication of the Pentagon papers it didn't go so well. I see no difference in what the New York Times did in the 70's and what Assange did now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
And for the prosecution and possible conviction of Assange to stand the USSC would have to re-visit and overturn their decision, New York Times Co. v. United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Oh you youngster...
Lots of differences.
First Ellsberg had legal access to the documents. He worked for RAND who was the defense contractor and these documents were given to him as part as his job. He also copied them and walked out of the office with them. Back then there was a lot more trust of the employees.
Manning stole the docs. Assange allegedly assisted in the theft.
That's a big thing.
This is why Assange is in serious deep do do.
A journalist in Russia that often reported about corruption was recently arrested on trumped-up charges of drug trafficking.
"[Ivan] Golunov received an unexpected wave of support. His incarceration became a test of solidarity among Russian journalists, who rallied to his defense. In front of the country and the world, they effectively dismantled the police narrative. Even some reporters in the state-run media stood up for Golunov. Eventually, the Russian Interior Ministry stepped in to order his release. The officers involved in his arrest have been suspended.
https://time.com/5605456/russian-journalist-ivan-golunov-arrest/
Good to see that (at least in Russia) journalists stand together in solidarity against oppression/corruption.
Doesn't matter whose law is followed in this country or anywhere else. If he gets extradited to the good ol' USA, the only law that will be applied is Trump's Law, in which case he doesn't stand a chance. He will be in the same boat as Manning - they will throw the book at him.
The court ruling will not mean anything. The only reason he will be found guilty is because of Trump and because he refused to tell the courts what his defence was as a matter of principle. Full of principals that hero is.
So, we will have to trust him that he has never done anything wrong in his entire life, ever. I have read over and over again that all of the people saying otherwise work for the CIA. Dozens of comment spammers can't be wrong! Except the ones who work for the CIA, of course.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
