'I do not wish to surrender' Julian Assange tells court over US extradition bid

Julian Asssange unsurprisingly told a judge today that he did not “wish to surrender myself” to a US extradition request. Appearing via video link from HM Prison Belmarsh in south-east London, the day after he was sentenced to 50 weeks’ imprisonment for jumping bail, Assange said: “I do not wish to surrender myself for …

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Isn't there still a valid European arrest warrant (from Sweden) out for him, that the UK courts have already ruled legal?

Despite any suspicions about the Sweden-side process that generated it, I thought UK law was clear that he was to be sent to Sweden, after his current sentence, and that the USA would have to get to the back of the queue.

[Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese]

That would seem to be the logical course of action, and if there's one thing that we Brits know about, it's how the system of queuing works

[Semtex451]

Unless you're in London where seathing mobs must be cordoned in, to enforce a narrow queue.

[NoneSuch]

Yes and the Swedish warrant should take precedence. However, you have a weak PM combined with strong US pressure, so that may be over-ruled. Don't be surprised if Assange (TM) flies west and not east.

He is in no way a journalist. At best, he's a intermediate source. Journalists take responsibility for what they publish, after appropriate fact checking, review and consideration. Assange put peoples lives at risk when he blanket released information including names of active undercover agents in hostile countries. Whatever good he did in the past (when he released the video of the Reuters journalists being killed by a US helicopter gunship) has been over-written by multiple idiotic and self-serving narcissistic actions since.

[JetSetJim]

The EU Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedes was withdrawn a couple of years ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/lawyers-doubt-julian-assange-ever-stand-trial-sweden

The Yanks are now at the front of the queue

[aberglas]

The Swedes do not want him.

The charges were always dubious, which is why they never interviewed Assange in London.

They would be laughed at if they tried to actually prosecute him. Better to let the Americans have him.

No surprise that the Swedes dropped, and then did not reinstate, the charge.

And that stuff about expiring is nonsense. Statutes of limitations only apply before you are charged, not after. And they never actually charged Assange with anything. Because that would mean they would have to present their case in detail to his defense. And there has never been any credible case.

That said, as turns out, Assange was an idiot for not going to Sweden earlier. Would have dealt with this, and be a little bit harder for the US to get hold of him.

[MacroRodent]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

That said, as turns out, Assange was an idiot for not going to Sweden earlier.

Exactly. He would probably have been cleared, and I suspect there would have been a good change of him getting asylum status in Sweden. At the time he still had some freedom fighter reputation left.

[Aitor 1]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Maybe he would have been cleared, but the whole thing was to extradite him to the US, as we (UK) made quite clear by deploying illegal base stations near the embassy, and a massive police force to detain Assange, while bands of gangsters are knifing citizens not that far from the supposed sexual predator, and we essentially do little about it.

[phuzz]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

"the whole thing was to extradite him to the US"

If the US had tried to extradite him from Sweden there's a good chance they'd have failed (short version, Sweden doesn't allow 'political' extraditions). That said, they could have just applied to Sweden for extradition, there would be nothing to gain from 'faking rape charges' as some of his supporters seem to think.

Instead he ran to the UK completely voluntarily, despite the fact that the UK is probably one of the countries in Europe most likely to extradite to the US. So he's made things worse for himself there.

You'll also notice that during the two years that he was on bail in the UK, the US didn't try to get him extradited. That's clearly a decision they've made since 2012, so no "the whole thing" wasn't to extradite him to the US. They've just take advantage of his string of bad decisions.

[Danny 2]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Sweden at the time was run by a very right wing, pro-American government as witnessed by the fact Karl Rove ("Bushs' Brain") was an official Prime Ministerial advisor. Oh, and there had already been a scandalous political extradition from Sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

[Andrew Norton]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

That was a REPATRIATION, not extradition, of two men who applied for asylum, but had it denied.

Sweden was given certain assurances by Egypt. Egypt later broke those assurances, which Sweden then protested.

So, unless Assange is Egyptian, claiming asylum in Sweden, then being sent back to Egypt, it's not a very relevant case. It is, however, the only semi-relevant case that Assange supporters can muster, and DEFINITELY an attempt to try and hide the case of Edward Howard.

You know, Edward Howard the only CIA guy to defect to the USSR? The one arrested in Sweden, then where the US requested his extradition for espionage.

That sounds a lot more like the situation Assange is claiming, eh?

How'd it end up? Well, despite Howard being American, and openly admitting espionage (by defecting), Sweden refused (oops, there goes that whole conspiracy theory) and that's despite the 'presidential influence', which was greater than ever, what with the rise of important of NATO following the soviet collapse and regional instabilities, and that the President (bush 41) was facing [and losing] a re-election fight, AND he had been head of the CIA, AND he was vice president when Howard defected. Trumpy couldn't come close to what Bush was bringing to bear.

Oh, and Karl rove being a Prime Ministerial advisor? Nope. Maybe you're thinking about his 2010 induction into the Scandinavian-American hall of fame in 2010, but that was all, and it's in North Dakota. Rove stayed in the US, post-Bush43.

Oh, and not so much 'very right wing' government, Prime Minister Reinfeldt's government (of 'The Moderate Party') from 2006-2014 was center-right (which means center-left by US standards) and actually moved more to the center during his leadership.

I'd say 'try again, without the lies', but you'd have nothing to post.

[gnasher729]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Cleared or not, he would have been free to go back home years ago. Huge miscalculation on his part.

Now in Sweden he is accused of rape. In the USA, he is accused and 100% guilty of embarrassing the government. The first is something that deserves extradition and jail if guilty, the second doesn’t.

[gnasher729]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

What a nonsense. He wasn’t interviewed in the embassy because no court allows itself to be told where to interview someone. The charges are very reasonable and would very likely lead to a conviction, and from man to man, his behaviour in Sweden was utterly contemptible.

[Stork]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

This is plain wrong. Swedish law requires him to be seen by a Swedish court as he is a suspected criminal (lANAL and am happy to be corrected on finer points). Assange thought it reasonable that the law was charged for him, Sweden strangely didn't.

Statute of limitation normally applies from the alleged crime, you have to bring charges before.

In many places (not sure about Sweden) , it must be in the public interest to do so AND the prosecutor must be convinced the guilt can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Sweden was not there yet, as they needed Assange's version of events.

[Andrew Norton]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

It's quite hard to be as wrong as you are, without effort. I would wager you've read the Wikileaks defense site, and not much else.

They didn't initially interview him in london, because at first (and I mean very first, september/october 2010) he kept saying, through his lawyer, that he was coming back to Sweden. When Ny got tired of the lies, she applied for hte EAW. At that point, there was no need to interview in London, because she was going to have him in sweden.

And BTW, it wasn't 'just for an interview', as she made clear to Hurtig (Assange's defense lawyer) the morning he went to the UK, she intended to place him in custody at the interview the following day. Now, Why would Assange suddenly (and yes, it was sudden) go to the UK that night, when he had NOTHING planned? Well, because it's the only place he could go that day, and stay for 30+ days. Now, his lawyer can't even be certain he didn't tell Assange that he would be arrested the next day, which considering he was certain (to the point of testifying and informing his experts) that Ny made no attempts to interiew assange and that assange could leave the country (which turned out to be a lie, with messages still on his phone exposing that lie at the hearing) then yes, preponderance of evidcence is that he was told he'd be remanded (as is *standard* for such cases, in fact one defense expert was amazed it hadn't been done earlier, as he would have done).

Now, that's why no UK interview until June 2012. Then Assange enters the embassy. Now there's a problem. See, The interview is a legal formality prior to arrest. It's going to be nigh-on impossible to put him on remand now he's in the embassy, so it wouldn't be able to proceed under the restrictions placed by the embassy.

Not that they didn't try later. At one point they sent a request to interview 5 weeks later by email and registered mail. When they turned up, no answer at the door. 6 months later the embassy wrote back saying 'no'.

As for the 'not charging', are you using the Swedish definition of charging, or the UK/US one?

The Swedish definition is irrelevant, because it's done right before trial, after arrest, because there's a strict clock of (I think) 20 days between charging, and the trial beginning, and the trial can't be paused mid-way through. So not being 'charged' is the same thing as 'not gone to trial' in Swedish terms.

Now, if you meant the UK definiton of charged, I've got a bit of sad news for you. They tried that claim in the UK High Court in November 2011. The judge said 'Mr Assange fails on the facts here', which is High Court speak for 'stop lying', and said that the actions he'd undergone in Sweden were the equivilent of the UK 'charging', the fact that it was in Sweden and so a UK custody sergeant didn't say 'I charge you' didn't mean he wasn't 'charged' under the meaning of UK law. For legal terms, he'd been 'charged' to the UK definition in the Stockholm District Court in October 2010, when the EAW was given, and those charges were affirmed (if reduced slightly) by the Svea Appeals court a short time after.

In short, he WAS charged, under the UK definition (albeit in absentia, but with his lawyer there) or not charged because the notion is irrelevant under the Swedish definition.

As the High Court would say, Aberglas fails on the facts in this case.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

"The charges were always dubious, which is why they never interviewed Assange in London..... And they never actually charged Assange with anything."

And there was me supposing that it was because Assange was in the Ecuadoran embassy. Are you telling me he wasn't fleeing anything but had gone to see about a tourist visa, got lost and couldn't find his way out for 9 years?

Remember there was no extradition warrant out from the US, just Sweden.

[Cederic]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

No, being in the embassy wasn't a barrier to the Swedes interviewing Assange:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0811/808423-wikileaks-julian-assange/

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The Swedes do not want him.

Who's looking dumb now? Are the Swedes now being "laughed at"?

You poor little conspiracy theorist trvialising rape.

[Saruman the White]

As I recall Assange has already tried claiming to be a journalist in court. The judge slapped him down pretty hard on this subject.

[Anonymous Coward]

You recall?

I recall seeing a flying pig. If I state it to be true I'm certain many would ask for evidence.

Were you in the courtroom then? If not you must have a link?

Perhaps you read it in a newspaper. Some spun bit of hyperbole written to get clicks/papers sold. These days I would trust wikileaks publications over most of the chip paper in the shops.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. Assange's idea of journalism is still very much at odds with the actual profession. Journalists, for instance, do as a rule not threaten to publish more if one of them is facing jail time, mainly because they don't engage in activities that warrant jail (other than in totalitarian states).

Assange calling himself a journalist is an insult to the profession.

He can call himself a political activist, sure, that has been quite clear, or even Russian stooge. But not a journalist.

[LucreLout]

Assange calling himself a journalist is an insult to the profession.

I agree. And bear in mind that this is a profession that was just peachy with:

- Hacking the voicemail of a murdered school girl, giving her mother false hope she was alive

- Entrapping people with fake sheikh scams

- Harassment in order to manufacture stories

- Hide in bushes and on boats with very long lenses hoping to snag a picture of some celebutards tits

- Outing other peoples secrets for money

- etc etc

On the whole, journalism is a piss poor profession, and yet, even they don't want anything to do with Assange.

[Saruman the White]

Just to answer the question you posed with such politeness and intelligence, I originally saw it in multiple news sources, but subsequently read the court transcript (and yes, they are in the public domain if you wish to look for them).

[Pascal Monett]

Well since you can't be arsed to post a link supporting your views, I did the search and I found that :

Frida Ghitis, journalist on CNN, definitely states he is not a journalist

Peter Greste on stuff, another actual journalist, says he's not and why

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a columnist for The Bulwark, says the question is irrelevant and why

David French, journalist of National Review, calls him a leader of a non-state hostile intelligence service

On Wikipedia, his page states that he has been a member of the Australian Journalist Union

Kathy Kiely and Laurel Leff, two professors of journalism at The Conversation, explain why calling Assange a journalist is a bad mistake

Of course, I also found quite a lot of articles supporting the thesis that Assange is a journalist.

What I did not find is any report of a judge stating he is not.

So, citation please.

[Steve 114]

Category error

Point is, 'journalism' is not the alleged offence. Conspiring to hack passwords is.

[veti]

"Being a journalist" is neither here nor there. "Journalists" have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, no more and no less, and they can be charged with all the same crimes.

(At least that's the way it works in semi-civilised countries, such as the US and UK. Discrimination is increasingly being introduced in the barbarian world (e.g. Australia), but that's out of scope for this case.)

[Graham Cobb]

You may not consider Assange a "real" journalist, but I can see no fundamental difference between what he did and the Pentagon Papers. The US government cannot be allowed to get away with an attempt to criminalise journalists actively working with their sources.

[DavCrav]

"You may not consider Assange a "real" journalist, but I can see no fundamental difference between what he did and the Pentagon Papers."

Journalism is not dumping a bunch of stuff on the table. Journalism is investigating, collating, and then writing it up in a neutral fashion. That's just one reason why he isn't a journalist.

[Augie]

By that definition, not one of the mainstream press could be called Journalists..

[Graham Cobb]

The crimes he is charged with are not publishing the papers (that is very clearly permitted under the US constitution -- and not restricted in any way to "journalists"). The crimes he is charged with are to do with the way he received the information.

How is that different from the Pentagon Papers?

[Anonymous Coward]

re. Journalism is investigating, collating, and then writing it up in a neutral fashion

I dare say this is a very naive and hugely outdated idea of what journalism "is". What is "should be", maybe, if not definitely, but not what is is. And definitely NOT in 2019.

[veti]

Re: re. Journalism is investigating, collating, and then writing it up in a neutral fashion

Journalism is about bearing witness. It's about publicly saying, day after day, "these are the things I saw and heard".

Doing it regularly is important (part of the word comes from the French jour - it's something you do every day. Even when nothing exciting is happening. After all, negative results are as important as positive ones.)

So really, the truest form of journalism nowadays is what you'll find on random blogs on Facebook and elsewhere. Second best is the ailing industry of local newspapers.

But - here's the rub - legally, "journalism" is just writing, no different from a private letter or a novel. A senior BBC correspondent doesn't have the right to report anything that you or I couldn't report just as well. (What they have is contacts that will help them to find out about it, and occasionally lawyers who will help them stand up to powerful people. But that's just a matter of resources, not rights.)

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that different from the Pentagon Papers?

I think the main difference is that Daniel Ellsberg was a member of the US establishment (Defense, MIT, RAND, Marines, Harvard) and Julian Assange is an Australian. And all charges against Ellsberg were dismissed after the court deemed there was evidence of “gross governmental misconduct.” ref

@Graham Cobb: ‘The crimes he is charged with are not publishing the papers (that is very clearly permitted under the US constitution -- and not restricted in any way to "journalists"). The crimes he is charged with are to do with the way he received the information. How is that different from the Pentagon Papers?’

It isn't a crime to receive ‘secret’ files, except in GB-land and the provider has signed the Official Secrets Act. But to be pedantic about, once a file is on the Internet, then it isn't a secret anymore. ref

Who really should be prosecuted is whoever designed a secure communications system, that anyone could walk in off the street and copy all the secrets to a writable DVD.

[Peter2]

Whatever good he did in the past (when he released the video of the Reuters journalists being killed by a US helicopter gunship)

And if we are going to be absolutely fair, that journalist decided to embed with the opposition in the hope of getting some combat footage.

The footage in which it shows him being killed clearly shows the group that he was with being armed with AK47's & at least one RPG. The group then only gets strafed by the Apache about 30 seconds after one chap aims and looks to be firing around the corner of a building towards the US troops the Apache is flying top cover for.

So it's not as if the US Military deliberately went aiming at a journalist or did something utterly unjustifiable. He just happened to be 3 meters away from somebody shooting at US forces in a war zone when they shot back.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and here too there was evidence of the non-journalistic bend of Assange (and WL), as they edited the footage to remove the context and make it appear to be something completely different.

[Smody]

And that journalist just happened to be running for his life, alone, posing no threat, when he was casually gunned down.

[(func (param $db) (result void) drop $db)]

"And if we are going to be absolutely fair, that journalist decided to embed with the opposition in the hope of getting some combat footage." <citation-needed>

"The footage in which it shows him being killed clearly shows the group that he was with being armed with AK47's & at least one RPG."

There is absolutely no clear evidence of an RPG. That's clearly what one of the murderers thought they saw, but it never materialises in the video.

"The group then only gets strafed by the Apache about 30 seconds after one chap aims and looks to be firing around the corner of a building towards the US troops the Apache is flying top cover for."

Totally false, watch the video again. The group are all (but one guy) killed after the aforementioned murderer identifies the "RPG" being held by someone at the corner of a building. It is being pointed downwards - it is not someone "firing around the corner of a building towards the US troops". Look again. It's also a very short RPG isn't it. About camera-with-telephoto-lens-sized.

"So it's not as if the US Military deliberately went aiming at a journalist or did something utterly unjustifiable." Er, that's exactly what they did.

"He just happened to be 3 meters away from somebody shooting at US forces in a war zone when they shot back." Again, patently false. Just watch the video.

[Malcolm Weir]

Well, (func blah blah blah) is doing a nice job of spinning, but as usual with spinners (including Assange) he's omitting context and details and applying different standards on the fly.

First, there absolutely was evidence of RPGs, and no-one (not even func-dude or Assange) disputes that the group of men were carrying AK-47 or AK-M rifles. It's true that the video does not provide _conclusive_ evidence (but there is evidence), but the soldiers flying the helicopters were also equipped with things called "eyes" and had a better view than a standard def video gives. [Nevertheless, two RPGs were found at the scene.]

Second, there was an actual firefight going on a few blocks from the scene (which is why the helicopters were there). Putting those together, we have a group of men carrying weapons moving in a combat zone. There is no rational viewpoint that suggests that the men were not a legitimate target. (Sure, you can argue that the coalition forces shouldn't have been in the country at all, but given that they were, armed men out of uniform moving around an actual battle are targets). Yes, it's really unfortunate that two of the men were not fighters, but it's equally unfortunate that insurgents killed western journalists embedded with US troops (such as Briton James Brolan).

Third, the second attack (on the van/people carrier) is less clear-cut. The conclusion reached by the helicopter crews (that the van was picking up the weapons and injured fighters) is not wholly unreasonable (people driving around during a fire-fight are not unlikely to be somehow involved in the battle), but there is a good argument that picking up wounded fighters is not a belligerent act, and therefore they should have let the van go. But this is second-guessing people who were in the middle of combat, so I'm not sure there's a "good" answer to this.

Overall, I'd say Wikileaks is a publisher, and Assange is (sometimes) a journalist, but you could say the same for the Daily Mail and Paul Dacre. And there's no question that the Mail/Dacre engaged in shady practices that should have been prosecuted, but weren't because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence. If that evidence existed (as it allegedly does with respect to Assange), then prosecution should proceed, in no small part because they _are_ publishers/journalists: they already have the power to spin the story however they like (e.g. naming the video "collateral murders", highlighting cameras but not weapons, excluding the existence of an active gun battle blocks away, etc), so they should _also_ be able to break the rules with impunity.

Oh, yeah: for those who like to try to discredit true statements with "citation needed": https://web.archive.org/web/20131020142823/https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalist was amoung of AK47 armed group?

The so-called weapon was a camera with a telescopic lens

@Peter2: “And if we are going to be absolutely fair, that journalist decided to embed with the opposition in the hope of getting some combat footage.”

Embed: that's an interesting choice of word. For a long time, the military have been specifically targeting non-embedded journalists, accidentally on purpose, makes it easier to control the narrative.

@Peter2: “The footage in which it shows him being killed clearly shows the group that he was with being armed with AK47's & at least one RPG.”

No it doesn't .. The real Assange scandal is the piss-poor responce of the ‘real’ media in relation to wikipedia revelations: The Collateral Murder video, the human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Tibetan discent against China, the Peru oil scandal, Russian mass bugging of cell-phones, toxic dumping in Africa, the massive Australian corruption scandal, the Iraq war logs, secretive Bilderberg meetings, the DNC and Podesta emails, the TPP chapters, the Stratfor emails, the Afghan war diaries, the State Department cables.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Journalist was amoung of AK47 armed group?

Nope, you're distorting the truth. There were both cameras with telescopic lenses and AK47 or AKM assault rifles -- even Assange acknowledges this. There is also a "long item" that Assange's cronies dismiss as possibly a tripod (because press photographers in war zones always carry tripods, nice backdrops, rolls of seamless paper, have makeup artists, etc), but which the military describe as an RPG.

Two RPGs were found with the bodies.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131020142823/https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Journalist was amoung of AK47 armed group?

For a long time, the military have been specifically targeting non-embedded journalists, accidentally on purpose, makes it easier to control the narrative.

Citation *really* needed. Most people I know will do their damnedest to protect journalists in the field so I'd like to hear where that came from other than as a weird conspiracy theory.

[Mark 85]

@Peter2

I'm still not sure what all the stink is about on this. As long as there's been combat reporters/photographers, there's been many who have died doing their job. It's a dangerous job. Crap happens in a battle. Civilians get caught in cross-fires in every war. So what makes this one so special? It's not like you can separate them from the soldiers they're with in the heat of battle.

My observation here is that most of the posters have never been in combat. They have no idea what kind of shit happens. It's not a tea party or happy time. It's grim, it's evil, there's confusion, and adrenalin. Simply put, it's kill or be killed. Unless a journalist/reporter/etc. is wearing something like dayglo orange, it's easy to mistake them for combatants.

[Peter2]

Re: @Peter2

Simply wearing a jacket with "PRESS" written on it with reflective tape would be sensible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Peter2

...that would be sensible for the fighters to do too!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I remebe rthe RPG was actually the journalists camera but it wa sthe cas ethat some time earir teh journalist has been with armed insurgents.

However killing journalists in the mistaken believe they are armed insugenets is understandable. What is not understandable is what came later when unarmed civilians who stopped when driving past the bodies to investigate and see if they can help were also killed. Amazingly killing civilians in these circumstances was within the US forces rules of engagement despite being an obvious war crime. I can't see any justification for shooting unarmed civilians, with no eveidenc eor suggetsion they are armed, simply for attempting to provide first aid. The US rules of engagement was explicitly that anyone providing aid to people shot by the US became legitimate targets.

Revealing this was in my view a service.

[steviebuk]

"Journalists take responsibility for what they publish, after appropriate fact checking, review and consideration."

Not always. Yes I know its now VERY old but was listening to an old recording of The Day Today on iRadio/iSound/iwhatever they call it now, and they had one of them calling up the News of The World pretending to have a recording of an MP in a restaurant being a dick. The recording was one of them doing an impression. Without doing any fact checking the paper offered them £1k I think it was, then they haggled for £1.5k and so on. They were going to meet them and give them cash in hand.

Things may have changed over the years, but I suspect not.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish were offered to visit him at the embassy at any time.

They didnt bother.

They dropped the whole case, not surprising once it was found out the Swedish police tampered with the statement recorded by one of the women who publicly stated that she never said several things in it.

[JimmyPage]

RE: The Swedish were offered to visit him at the embassy at any time.

Do fuck off. Enlightened and liberal as Sweden is, tehy don't have a policy of allowing suspects to dictate the terms of engagement.

[Andrew Norton]

They tried a bunch of times to do so.

At one point they sent an email and a letter saying they'd come next month (I think sent May for a end of June arrival) to do the interview. The door stayed locked. The embassy sent a letter back saying they declined the request... in December. That's right, 6 months after the letter was sent, 5 after the date concerned, they said 'no'.

So don't talk crap, eh? Wikileaks may claim it, doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalist my arse

And who the hell is “FREXIT RIC”?

[Semtex451]

Re: Journalist my arse

Well I'm not Googling the chap, in case he's rude

[JetSetJim]

Re: Journalist my arse

We've got BREXIT NIGE

[JetSetJim]

Re: Journalist my arse

FREXIT is the French equivalent of Brexit

RIC, is a referece to a demand for referendums in France - the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum - that wants (some) govmt policies put to the people before implementation. Similar to what exists in Switzerland. I think there may be procedures in place already, but they've not been used (or some people want them changed to be more widespread - see https://www.france24.com/en/20181217-france-yellow-vests-battle-popular-referendum-RIC-citizens-initiative-macron-philippe)

[michael50]

Re: Journalist my arse

Nice to see they're using the English word for exit.

[GrapeBunch]

Re: Journalist my arse

Of course they do, SORTIEFR would sound ridicule.

And the necessaire Russian verb Сортийфрить, c'est affreux, sounds like some kind of potato lottery. That would never do. We speak English, rather than descend to the abîme of ugly. Or as you say in English, the pit of ordure.

If they free Julien and send him to France, that is FRassangeFR, non?

Have a joli Weekend, mon ami.

[alain williams]

The USA wants Assange for what he did

please remind me if they have been after those who Assange exposed for doing wrong; eg the helicopter crew who laughed while shooting innocent people ?

This is a case of 'shoot the messenger' - there is a clear message to other who might expose USA wrong doing.

[Chris G]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Somebody downvoted you for not supporting the shooting of innocent people.

You know airing the truth about government's wrongdoings is frowned upon these days.

[BigSLitleP]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

I did not downvote the original comment but i did downvote yours. Is it possible they downvoted the original comment for playing ye' olde bait and switch? The fact that Assange did some good (allegedly) does not mean that he doesn't deserve to get the legal book thrown at him for his wrong doings. The fact that the people he has called out have not found justice does not mean he shouldn't.

Of course, i'd rather see him go to Sweden than the USA but hey ho. I'm happy just to see him go.

[msknight]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

What Assange would face in the USA is not what I'd call justice. Neither would I call it justice if the laughing helicopter crew haven't faced any.

Then again, you could easily call it American Justice and be perfectly correct; although any likeness between American Justice and justice, would be purely coincidental IMHO.

[PM.]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

The difference between 'justice' and 'American Justice' is akin to the difference between 'chair' and 'electric chair' .. ?

[msknight]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Don't forget the cup of Earl Grey

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: difference between 'chair' and 'electric chair

it's ironic that the original joke was about the Soviet system (what's the difference between economy and socialist economy?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Right.

Let the laughing killers keep firing bullets while you rush to get justice for a couple of women who had a bad sexual experience (with no preserved evidence and one of the women questioning the accuracy of the police recording of her statement).

Kids seeing their innocent parents blown to bits in front of their faces while the shooters laugh like they play a game, the government covering it all up, to help their own carry on with the shooting again tomorrow. I saw the video. Did you? But no, I suppose in your eyes a bad sexual experience, that hurt nobody, is a greater crime than blowing a dad to bits in front of his screaming children.

[DavCrav]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

"Let the laughing killers keep firing bullets while you rush to get justice for a couple of women who had a bad sexual experience (with no preserved evidence and one of the women questioning the accuracy of the police recording of her statement)."

Rapist releases footage of shooting, along with thousands of classified but unnewsworthy documents. Since he released one video, he can go around committing rape, no worries.

[Aodhhan]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

It's great when people who have never faced a weapon being aimed at them, or having shells and RPGs land near them criticize those who have on many occasions. Ive seen attitudes change and boys grow up when witnessing the first time they hear the whiz of a bullets passing near them before the noise of the actual shot can be heard. Or witness someone suddenly dropping to the ground next to them before hearing shots.

Yet, how they enjoy the ability to criticize veterans beneath the cover of freedom they so enjoy each day. To ensure, the worst thing in life they have endured is waiting in line for an electronic device.

You need to do a bit more research, and also understand... there is also video of the same attack which shows the danger the helicopters were under. Yet of course, these videos weren't published--even though they were known to exist.

The narrow mind, often can't understand how sound tracks can be added, how videos can be edited. That, the press is never wrong--well, unless they are showing something the narrow mind doesn't agree with, right?

Something tells me karma is affecting you in ways you don't understand or see--or perhaps I'm wrong, and everything in your life is going great right now.

[msknight]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Those of my family and friends who have been in service, have not treated their responsibilities with a light heart or jollity. They have been marked badly by their service; and those I have talked with about this, are perhaps the most offended by the crews laughter than anyone else I've talked with on this subject... and they would have more reason and experience than I, to feel that way.

If the audio was faked, then I would believe that the American authorities would have acted very quickly to disprove the footage. They haven't, so there is more reason to believe it is accurate.

Indeed - this article records the Americans confirming the validity of the footage - https://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military

[gyaku_zuki]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

I'm sorry, but were these people conscripted? Because otherwise, it seems to me they signed up for service knowing that there might be "a weapon being aimed at them" and other emotive imagery you used. And if its a matter of "growing up" after the first time they get in a firefight for real, sounds to me like a tacit admission that we send people into combat knowing they aren't actually making the decision to serve for sound reasons...

Moving on, if you're going to claim that the sound track has been altered or the footage taken out of context, you're going to need to actually offer some proof or reference, otherwise all it seems you've said is "people are narrow minded just because they disagree with me."

[Rich 11]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

It's great when people who have never faced a weapon being aimed at them, or having shells and RPGs land near them criticize those who have on many occasions.

Is this a reference to President Bonespur talking about Senator John McCain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

> Is this a reference to President Bonespur talking about Senator John McCain?

Surely it's a reference to Dubya telling John Glenn that he was a celluloid hero?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Another one who seems to think that when he opens his mouth unquestionable holy words are emitted.

"Yet of course, these videos weren't published--even though they were known to exist."

Link?

Oh wait they wernt published... so how can you know of them?

Link to someone who knows of the existence? As you stated, these people exist and you know of them and how to locate their statement of the fact that these videos exist. Although you say they WERE known to exist. So who destroyed them? LInk to the article that states that these videos no longer exist?

...

[Adrian 4]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

@Aodhhan <citation needed>

(yes, I do know wikileaks isn't wikipedia)

[Warm Braw]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

the ability to criticize veterans

I don't really like the term veterans which has emerged from US militarism and is finding its way into right-wing discourse in the UK. But I think we not only have the ability but the necessity to criticise those who willingly set aside their personal moral responsibility to enable and facilitate the ludicrous military adventures of incompetent politicians. I can't think of one significant military campaign undertaken by the US or the UK in my lifetime that was not fundamentally misguided and ultimately counterproductive. That's as much the fault of the people who signed up to do whatever they were told, right or wrong, as the people who told them to do it.

I do have some sympathy for the rootless and unhappy teenagers the British Army, at least, seems to prey on to make its recruitment numbers - they're being cynically exploited by people who ought to know better making light of the realities of combat. Not, however, sympathetic to the extent that I believe their service should be elevated above that of people whose contribution to society is more consistently positive - doctors, nurses, teachers and, yes, even technologists.

[Alan Brown]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

"I do have some sympathy for the rootless and unhappy teenagers the British Army, at least, seems to prey on to make its recruitment numbers"

My sympathies lay more on the ones it abandons on the streets once it's finished with them.

[Dog11]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

>how they enjoy the ability to criticize veterans beneath the cover of freedom they so enjoy each day.

I still find it difficult to identify how the US attack on Iraq has enhanced the freedom of either Americans or Iraqis. Perhaps American companies have secured the oil, but that's "freedom" only in the sense of "freedom to loot". For Americans, the government spies on them more than they did before. For Iraqis, who had a dictatorial government but relative equality between the sexes, freedom from religious bigotry, and a decent educational system with a fairly high standard of living, that has been traded for a huge number of deaths, a corrupt government, sectarian strife, little to no health care, crime, and a collapsed standard of living.

[Dog11]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

>how they enjoy the ability to criticize veterans beneath the cover of freedom they so enjoy each day.

I still find it difficult to identify how the US attack on Iraq has enhanced the freedom of either Americans or Iraqis. Perhaps American companies have secured the oil, but that's "freedom" only in the sense of "freedom to loot". For Americans, the government spies on them more than they did before. For Iraqis, who had a dictatorial government but relative equality between the sexes, freedom from religious bigotry, and a decent educational system with a fairly high standard of living, that has been traded for a huge number of deaths, a poisoned landscape, a corrupt government, sectarian strife, little to no health care, crime, and a collapsed standard of living.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Hope British pilots never laughed when they were bombing women and children.... and they knew they were bombing women and children...

[BigSLitleP]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

What was the nationality of the laughing crew again?

UK 1, USA 0

I'd take a british crew over an american crew every time.

[GrapeBunch]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

One could invent an alternative sound track--or an infinity of sound tracks--showing the same horrific events regarded with different sensibilities. And different accents and languages.

Since this is in very very bad taste, I will provide an example. English accents only.

Trevor! They said "take away the curry", not "take out the Kurd".

Phyllida, would you agree that the Role Playing Gamer needs to know that his turn is finished?

etc.

Please downvote me. I would.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

If you are speaking about WW2 (when bombs were dropped on the public during the war on both sides) I'm sure they were not laughing.They were probably wondering if their children had been bombed back home, not to mention if they were going to even get back home. I would expect that the german pilots had much the same going through their minds too.

Back then, bombing the non-combatants happened on both sides and was thankfully outlawed in future wars.

Today, the helicopter pilots are very different from those back then. They have computerised weapons that can pick out individual targets miles away from danger and take them out. They can hover their chopper behind a building, pop up and get a look, pop down again to select targets, pop up and fire. Their weapons are able to so much more than simply dropping a bomb hoping it will hit the right target, they literally see like eagles and have full control over what/who they hit assuming that the systems are working correctly.

Todays armed forces have this ability because of the outlawing of simply dropping bombs on people and crossing fingers.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Helicopters aren't all that safe in combat. They're generally considered "ground troops" and attached to army units, because they're going low and slow enough to often be vulnerable to small arms fire and RPGs. Whereas planes can go faster, and run away quicker.

the reason drones are increasingly popular with militaries, is that if they get shot down while loitering slowly above battlefields, nobody dies.

[404]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

No. The US Army isn't allowed fixed-wing aircraft - goes back to inter-service rivalries that still exist today.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Do you think the Army knows that e.g. https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/iews-emars-mep-ped/ ?

[Ghostman]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Boy are you ever wrong. Liaison, spotter, recon, and transport aircraft are all used by the Army.

Look up the Key West Agreement and what followed.

The Air Force, after their inception, did not want the Army to have fixed wing weapon platforms, and really pushed back on armed helicopters.

I have flown in Army fixed wing aircraft (OV-1 Mohawk, look it up).

Facepalm, since you will when you realize you didn't research before posting.

[404]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

I found the disconnect - I served in the US Army in the early 80's - the agreement to allow fixed wing aircraft happened in 1983 and really didn't occur until 1988, well after I was gone.

[DanceMan]

Re: simply dropping bombs on people and crossing fingers.

Syrian barrel bombs

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Are you sure? Really sure? For each and every pilot and their crews? All good people, no idiots?

War makes you quite insensible, you have to become it, or you would end mad or kill yourself.

What about the "funny" words they wrote on bombs they were deploying on civilians? Are you sure that crews while bombing in the middle of AA fire and fighter trying to kill them didn't enjoy they were killing those "hated enemies" - even when their bombs were killing harmless people?

A school full of children nearby were I work was hit (the plane was American though, as it was a daylight bombing, Britons preferred night ones) - I hope the crew just mistook the target.

What about Dresden? The idea was to kill as much civilian as possible. In an horrible way. When the war was almost over. Just to test the bombers capabilities.

That's what war turn you into. As you understood, you never know if you return alive, and adrenaline flows. All the technology you have on today aircraft does help, but up to a point. It's not a videogame, you don't have different icons for different things - you still have to interpret the situation if a few seconds or less, and there are no safe places. Even behind a building, you can be a target from another side, and every time you hide, you don't know what happens.

And mistakes happen.

[DontFeedTheTrolls]

Aircraft Maintenance Log Entries

Pilot Entry: "evidence of oil seepage on #1 propeller"

Maintenance entry: "evidence removed"

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

The helicopter crew engaged armed people during a combat operation. Other units involved were having gun battles at the time. According to the "Collateral Murder" video released by Assange they would have no charges to answer. The gunner correctly identified armed people wandering around, then called out that he saw an RPG poking round the corner of a building and engaged. Sadly that "RPG" wasn't a shoulder mounted rocket grenade, but a shoulder mounted camera.

They then proceeded to make some awful comments and act like arseholes. But if being an arsehole was illegal Julian Assange would already be serving a life sentence.

I've since read it argued that there is a bit of the video that might be considered a war crime. It was ironically cut out by Wikileaks when they edited the footage to make the pilots look guilty, they edited out the armed people - which rather fucks up Assange's journalistic credentials.

Anyway it was a while ago, and I've not watched the whole video, but this piece talked about a later bit where some armed guys run into a building, and the helicopter shoots at it. Seeing as the pilots had only seen guns on those people, and didn't know who else was in the building, she argued that this was a disproportionate use of force, and might aguably constitute a war crime. Although as they didn't know they'd shot a cameraman and not an RPG armed insurgent, so thought this group had RPGs and intended to shoot them down, and other US helicopters had been taken out with RPGs, that seems like one of those rather lawyerly arguments that are rather hard on the troops on the ground.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

I was involved in peacekeeping & combat operations in Afghanistan for four and a half years, including a six month stint in Sangin Valley, my eldest son was also in one of the DC's in Sangin Valley attached to 3PARA as a JTAC - I won't identify him any further. In close combat ops, air support is crucial but potentially deadly to both sides, many times my Son called in fast air and rotaries in 'danger close' missions, it's documented that many of the occupants of the DC's, British, Danish & Afghan shouted, cheered and laughed when air support carried out strafing runs, dropped munitions or otherwise 'brassed up' those seeking to do them harm. The same goes for the aircrews, their job was incredibly stressful, having to protect the ground forces, themselves, other air assets and correctly identify targets according to the RoE - I was one of the ground forces providing fire support to other assets whilst a JTAC had to direct an A10 to fire 30mm cannon on a location < 50 metres from our position, yes, we cheered, shouted and enjoyed the moment (no whooping though!) - and then got on with the job. If you've never been in that situation, either on the ground or above it, IMO you can never know what adrenaline rushes can do.

[Mark 85]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

What gets me is that there's no outcry about all the killings of civilians by groups such as the ISIS unless it's in one's own 'back yard". Not just random bombings like we've read about in the last couple of weeks but videos on Youtube of them (ISIS) taking civilians, lining them up and killing them because "they're not believers" or some such reason.

As for the laughter on the video... pretty normal for men in combat to laugh when stressed like that or relieved when the stress is over or even in the middle of the stress. I and others did it in Vietnam. Others have done it in every war since the beginning of time.

This has not been a war of armies, but of armies vs. insurgents who have no scruples, no signing of the Geneva Convention to abide by "rules".

[Smody]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

"Sadly that "RPG" wasn't a shoulder mounted rocket grenade, but a shoulder mounted camera." SADLY? Considering that that was the main reason for the firing, I'd say "sadly" doesn't even begin to describe the nature of that event.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

You do know that two RPG launchers were found with the bodies, and RPGs _are_ visible in the video, but hard for a non-expert to recognize, right?

The "sadly" refers to the the fact that a decision was made to attack based on faulty evidence that the RPGs were about to be used. The Apache pilots saw what was (probably) a lens poking round the corner, assumed it was an RPG, and asked for / received permission to attack.

But the RPGs and AK's were there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The USA wants Assange for what he did

Further to my anon. post above, one of the nightmare scenarios for aircrew was to be shot down, survive and be taken prisoner by Taliban / AQ. Literally, a fate worse than death.

I lost good colleagues and friends when a lucky shot with an RPG brought down C130-K XV179 in Iraq in 2005. It took CSAR 45 minutes of pure hell to find the crash site, during which time, any survivors would have been spirited away. 'Thankfully', there were none. I mention this to underline the reactions of aircrew to preventing their own potential death

[Saruman the White]

The Swedish arrest warrant lapsed after it was not renewed by the authorities when Assange disappeared into the Ecuadorean embassy. However the Swedish authorities are reported to be thinking about issuing a new one since some of the (potential) charges that Assange will face in Sweden have not expired.

[lglethal]

... while Love and the Australian were part of the same cypherpunk crowd.

He actually said "cypherpunk crowd"??? Right thats it extradite the both of them, we dont need that sort of bollocks 'round here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Love trying to show the court is health conditions were fake?

This guy looks to have the same mental health issues of Assange - both are irrecoverable narcissists.

[DontFeedTheTrolls]

Given the vagueness of the allegations in the indictment it doesn't sound like the United States of America Grand Jury has sufficient evidence to back up the indictment.

Perhaps that evidence will come out at the next hearing, but will it stand up to scrutiny as genuine (i.e. is it video or audio of the meetings, of the hacking, of evidence Assange was directly controlling the actions)?

Sounds like the extradition should be denied, Asswipe should serve his 22 weeks (assuming he can behave and earn parole), and on "release", Asswipe should be taken directly to an airport and put on a plane to Australia. In those 22 weeks the Swedes might re-open their request as one charge doesn't expire until 2020. Sweden or Australia, I don't care, just get him out of the UK.

[I ain't Spartacus]

It was only a ten minute hearing. If he'd accepted extradition willingly, that might have been it.

Actual evidence will come in a later hearing. There has to be actual evidence too. The US will have to prove that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute in a UK court - and that it's a charge that also exists under UK law.

[Malcolm Weir]

Technically, this is incorrect. The US will have to show that they have reasonable suspicion that the offenses were committed by the accused, which they have -- that's what the grand jury indictment is.

The fight will be over whether extraditing Assange will violate his human rights, etc. Any grandstanding about how the US will immediately whip out new charges will be dismissed, because that's against the treaty ("specialty" and all that), and the court will assume that the US will abide by the rules even if no pro-Assanger thinks they will.

[Alan Brown]

" the court will assume that the US will abide by the rules "

If/when the US does not, what happens next? Does the UK tear up the treaty?

Or do poodles remain wandering halls of power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the Americans request extradition in advance?

If this attempt fails, can they put in place extradition requests as he physically moves through jurisdictions on his way to his next destination?

[LeahroyNake]

Chelsea pardoned by Obama

Maybe they are waiting on Chelsea to speak up so they can accuse Assange of something else but she is rightfully staying quiet while locked up... Again. The whole thing in a massive farce!

Where is my ticket of this planet :/

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Chelsea pardoned by Obama

Where is my ticket of this planet :/

Just travel to the US and hang around near schools or shopping malls, or blacken up and annoy a cop. You'll receive help quickly, although I cannot make any predictions about the destination.

[Zippy´s Sausage Factory]

My questionn is who else they have sealed warrants on, and are they waiting until they get their hands on Assange before they start grabbing people?

I actually find myself wanting to see Assange on a plane bound for Washington asap, if only to find out what's really going on...

(Paris icon because, as you can tell, I really don't have a clue what's going to happen next...)

[I Am Spartacus]

Journalist my arse

Calling Asange a journalist is stretching the point beyond breaking.

He doesn't report things. He simply republishes what people have sent, often illegally, to him. Now, if he had read the leaks from Manning and redacted names, places, dates etc. he might have a fighting chance of being a journalist. But describing him as a such demeans the whole of the fourth estate.

[amanfromMars 1]

Re: Journalist my arse

What would you then choose, I Am Spartacus. Conduit for/or Source Intelligence Supplier?

And now AI Pusher Man? That would make him a national treasure.

Does Belmarsh Provide or Deny Citizens of Worlds their Global Operating Device Rights to Free and Far Reaching Cyber Space Defence Forces ....... Supplying Immaculate Virtual Assistance with Prime AIdMinisterial Source Resources.

Honi soit qui mal y pense treasure say all who are many.

One wouldn't want to be recorded being discovered beautifully uncovered and enjoying just messing around in any such space place as has Greater Simple Temptations APTly Sated for Servering with Immaculate Supply. ........ hence to Remotely Lead from Afar with AIMentoring and Monitoring of Future Source Provision into Current Realisations ...... in order to preclude their Crashing without such Raw Core Source Production.

FCUKing Creation just doing ITs AI Thing for Y'All ‽ .

Crikey, you must have touched an ACTive Nerve there, IAS.

I would struggle to find anything not to like immensely in similar such Right Nervous Excitement PR0Motions.

And I am amazed at how long those few words took to be written.

Ciao for now, again :-)

[amanfromMars 1]

Re: Journalist my arse

Oh? A journalist doesn't report things, simply publishing what people have sent them and/or what they have gleaned?

Since when did that fundamental staple change to something else lesser and sub-prime?

You're talking out of your arse there, I Am Spartacus .... surely?

[Alan Brown]

Re: Journalist my arse

"He doesn't report things. He simply republishes what people have sent,"

You just described 95% of the content of every newspaper on the planet.

[smudge]

If it's OK for a Cabinet Minister...

... to leak national security information and not be prosecuted, then surely it's OK for Assange to try to hack into some other country's computers?

No need for investigation of Williamson = no need to even consider extraditing Assange.

One law for everyone, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Files were illegally received by journalist?

“The US authorities allege these were illegally received by Assange, and thus illegally published to the world.”

Is a journalist receiving files from a source an extraditable offense under the US UK Extradition Treaty of 2003:

‘An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both states’

‘If the laws in the Requested State do not provide for the punishment of such conduct committed outside of its territory in similar circumstances, the executive authority of the Requested State, in its discretion, may grant extradition provided that all other requirements of this Treaty are met.’

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

“All requests for extradition shall be supported by .. the relevant text of the law(s) describing the essential elements of the offense for which extradition is requested”

“A person extradited under this Treaty may not be detained, tried, or punished in the Requesting State except for: (a) any offense for which extradition was granted”

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Files were illegally received by journalist?

Nope. A journalist receiving files from a source is not a crime in the USA, so it isn't extraditable.

However, an individual with a (criminal) record for hacking (Assange, 1996) advising an individual how to break into a computer system is the crime of accessory to an act of computer abuse and an accessory to the crimes for which Manning was convicted. That is extraditable.

Hence the extradition proceedings.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A journalist receiving files from a source is not a crime in the USA, so it isn't extraditable."

That's why good journalists do a lot to protect their sources - because the sources could have committed a crime, something again Assange doesn't care of. Just dumping everything or so can leak out the source as well.

Anyway if a journalist acts to commit or promote a crime, it can be liable as well - just look at the "News of the World" scandal.

[RunawayLoop]

Assanger the Seer

Serious question bc I don't know the UK system but are UK courts allowed to extradite to countries that have the death penalty?

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: Assanger the Seer

Yes. But by policy the UK must obtain an undertaking that, if convicted, the extraditee will not face it.

This used to be a bright-line rule: if the UK government provides any assistance in a prosecution, the death penalty must not be sought by the assisted country. Sadly, the current scumbag Conservatives have weakened this rule considerably by agreeing to waive this requirement for case where they provide information used in a prosecution (both Boris and Sajid independently engaged in this disgusting behavior).

[Anonymous Coward]

Inside story?

Inside choko, more likely

[Nick Kew]

Botany Bay should do nicely

For the UK to lock him up is legit, though IMHO a bit petty at this stage.

For Sweden to put him on trial and lock him up if found guilty would be entirely legitimate. But he's a hot potato, and I suspect the Swedish authorities would rather never see him again. Hence why they haven't issued a new warrant.

For the US to lock him up would be political, and political prisoners deserve our support. The prospect of supporting Assange has very little appeal.

If Sweden shows no interest, just let him go when he's served his sentence: we routinely do that with criminals at all levels of seriousness. Or deport him back to Oz - the sooner the better.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Botany Bay should do nicely

"Or deport him back to Oz - the sooner the better."

Of course the problem there is that Australia don't want him and they'd put him on the first available plane to LAX - with or without legal authority to do so.