Place your bets
An exchange for one of theirs, you know who.
Accused hacker and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US to stand trial, Westminster Magistrates' Court has ruled. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser told Assange this morning that there was no legal obstacle to his being sent to the US, where he faces multiple criminal charges under America's …
Folks like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange are brave heroes who need to be protected. Nothing will bring back the dead but we can at least do our bit to keep the powers that be in check from time to time.
Besides, what would the diplomat get (at best) for what legal experts will argue as an accidental death caused by ignorance? A 2 year prison sentence and a lifetime UK driving ban perhaps? Fat lot of good that would do, since the ban wouldn't be respected in the US anyway and it's obvious that there'd be very early parole.
You shouldn't insult Manning by comparing her to those two. Snowden and Assange were smash-and-grab vandals, both happily exploited by Russian state powers as the useful idiots they are, with no idea what it was they were stealing or publishing, just happy to do it on as grand and a destructive scale as possible, before fleeing like cowards into the night.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Stick to the facts - Snowden released details on activities of the US government that they themselves would be screaming as illegal espionage if it was being done by anyone else.
Hello, pot & kettle - oh, suprise, you're both the same!
What would you rather them have done - tried to stand and fight an entire army? They aren't Rambo/Commando/Superman you know!
Compared with what the Americans want to do to Mr Assange, a slap on the wrist and a lifetime driving ban for someone driving on the wrong side of the road and subsequently killing another road user does not equate.
Now, if we were talking about Mark Zuckerberg delivered cuffed, gagged and bagged at Heathrow complete with confession regarding Cambridge Analytica and other nefarious activities then I might reconsider.
Journalism is not a crime, I don't think that there is any evidence that Assange hacked anything, he simply published documents that were sent to him - certainly he may have been manipulated by the "hackers" on all sides but I don't see how he can be prosecuted by a country that stands up shouting:
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation ...
>I don't think that there is any evidence that Assange hacked anything
Assange attempted to crack hashed password for SIPRNet accounts, with the express intention of procuring more documents than Manning was otherwise allowed to access. He was not simply a passive recipient of the documents. He can claim the intrusion was necessary in pursuit of journalism - and in some jurisdictions (not the UK) that would may even be a valid legal defence - but he was very much engaged in otherwise illegal computer misuse.
Precisely. Attempted, unusuccessfuly.
How illegal is opening fire on a market place full of civilians? Is the crime of randomly killing people worse than the crime of exposing that killing?
I guess you're loving the fact the blackwater contractors were pardoned, eh?
America, Fuck Yeah!
Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!
I really don't know what Assange tried or didn't but, "Attempted, unusuccessfuly" probably covers 99.9999% of all KNOWN crime.
On a side note, maybe I should attempt to rob my bank, as they're successfully robbing me :-/
First World problems == Third World dreams
Shit, planning a crime is also a crime, isn't it? "Conspiracy to do bad things"-type crime. You don't even have to attempt the crime itself to commit an offense, just make an effort to plan it - e.g. buy a load of fertiliser and hair dye and you'll probably get done for conspiracy to make a big bang somewhere.
> Precisely. Attempted, unusuccessfuly.
> How illegal is opening fire on a market place full of civilians?
What if the bullets fail to hit anyone? There was an attempt, but it was unsuccessful.
As a general rule, anyone who's tried for a crime was somewhat unsuccessful in their commission of that crime - they got caught.
If you throw a grenade into a crowded marketplace, and it fails to go off, you better believe the law's still going to apply to you. If you try to rob a bank, but accidentally lock yourself in the vault, guess what - the law will still apply.
> Is the crime of randomly killing people worse than the crime of exposing that killing?
Oddly enough, a functioning justice system doesn't work on whatabouttery. There's plenty out there that's worse than many crimes on the books, it doesn't absolve those who commit those crimes.
"It is alleged that ..." not "Assange attempted to ..."
That is part of the potential US case which is yet to be tried.
What's interesting to me is it was found that Assange could have been prosecuted under the GB Official Secrets Act for leaking the US cables ... As he was not a signatory (being an officer of the Crown) to the Official Secrets Act, the information released was not GB state owned material or from GB state owned sources and was sourced from a third party overseas that makes an oddly shaped pill to swallow. Is there an 'information belonging to allies or "friends at the time"' clause in the OSA that allows such an interpretation? Obviously the information within the documents themselves cound not be regarded as UK secret as, even if they contained information pertinant to the UK, they were freely shared in some way with a third party which, by definition, means it is not secret to the UK.
> As he was not a signatory (being an officer of the Crown) to the Official Secrets Act
Signing or not signing the OSA is irrelevant - it's an Act of Parliament, not a contract, it applies to you either way.
The _reason_ you're made to sign it if you work in certain areas is so that there's a paper trail to show you acknowledged you understood the Act and what it applied to, as well as to remind you that you are under obligations.
> Is there an 'information belonging to allies or "friends at the time"' clause in the OSA that allows such an interpretation?
There's a section on handling information arising from unauthorised disclosures, as well as sections handling information entrusted in confidence to other states.
> Obviously the information within the documents themselves cound not be regarded as UK secret as, even if they contained information pertinant to the UK, they were freely shared in some way with a third party which, by definition, means it is not secret to the UK.
That's.... not how it works, at all. Just because the information has been shared with some 3rd party, they can still consider be considered secrets. In fact - although it would _probably_ never be prosecuted, redistributing something leaked on Wikileaks/Cryptome could still land you in trouble (particularly if you're in a role that's required you to sign the OSA and/or get clearances)
The OSA is not necessarily considered to cover secrets of other countries, though it could. The point is that it is a crime in the UK to release information of that nature, and thus that extradition is permitted on that basis. In most cases, to extradite a person, the crime of which they're accused must be a crime in the country they're physically in. If country A thinks something I did was illegal but country B does not, country B is unlikely to extradite me. If country B also thinks that's illegal, then I'm more likely to be extradited. That works whether or not country B could charge me for the crime.
Here's a simple example. Let's say that I go to the UK, rob a bank there, then flee to Germany. The robbery charge should happen in the UK. The Germans probably wouldn't charge me there for it, because the victim was located in the UK and I wasn't in Germany when I robbed it. Technically, my crime wasn't a thing for Germany. However, robbery is still a crime in Germany, so the extradition request would go through quickly, even though the victim wasn't German. In the same sense, the crimes that the U.S. allege are crimes in the UK, so the UK doesn't have to deny extradition for that reason.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation
Freedom of Speech is an American right only bestowed upon American citizens (and everybody else is "fair game").
Julian is an Australian citizen living in the UK -- I'm just sayin'.
"He's not a journalist, just a data dumper."
But somebody has to expose, ethically or otherwise. I think just as many hate him as love him and that's not exclusive to journalists. Assange is somewhere between Snowden and The Dread Pirate Roberts... where between I don't know.
The conflict I have is that illegally exposing the truth is still exposing the truth. If only BAD things were exposed, would you care? Of course, I didn't read AND rationalize 250,000 text documents or have the resources to do so, so I can't say one way or the other.
He dumps everything he gets his hands on, regardless of the damage it does
IIRC for the War Logs he partnered with several newspapers (Guardian, Der Spiegel & New York Times) who triaged and redacted material pre-release, getting first dibs on the stories for their efforts, making sure relevant militaries had the opportunity for "live" material to be withheld.
The guy is an egotistical dick. But if governments are going to cover up war crimes and run torture black sites then sooner or later someone is going to spill the beans. It's a matter of when, not if. Assange just happened to be in the right place at the right time that he ended up enabling Manning's data (amongst others), and our society is better and more accountable for that.
Not of itself, no. But journalists are not permitted to commit a crime in order to discover facts for a news report. Not that I am saying that what Assange did was not justified. Sometimes laws are made for the sole purpose of giving governments an advantage and/or allowing them to commit highly immoral and/or criminal acts without the people who voted for them finding out. Breaking an immoral law is still a crime no matter how much you or I may believe that it should not be. Juries should however be specifically told about jury nullification, and the fact that it is perfectly legal for a jury to find a person "not guilty" even if the evidence makes it 100% certain that they broke the law.
Yeah. The argument that 'a law was broken' is, morally speaking, a pretty weak justification for the determination of the reasonableness of any given governmental action. The rationale of the law in question, as well as its primary and secondary effects, have to be accounted for, because the only legitimate laws, are those promulgated by the consent of the governed. So if they abrogate that standard, they are, ipso facto, illegitimate. I think in both this case, and even more so in the case of Edward Snowden, the alleged 'crime' was more rubbing the government's nose in its own dirt, than anything else. In my opinion, the general public hasn't been given enough details in either case to assent to their designation as 'criminal' based upon demonstrated damage to that public.
Of course, I still think Assange is an ass. But that's beside the point.
But journalists are not permitted to commit a crime in order to discover facts for a news report. Not that I am saying that what Assange did was not justified.
Certainly within the UK there has generally been a view that journalists should not be prosecuted under Official Secrets. If they have access to classified material, then it's because someone gave it to them - in which case the priority is to put your own house in order. If data has been leaked to a journo, it could as easily have been leaked to a foreign state actor. The problem here is not the journalist.
The Home Secretary was furious when members of the military and Security Services orchestrated Duncan Campbell's 1977 arrest in defiance of his wishes that journalists not be targetted. The subsequent ABC Trial underlined the preference of both the government and the courts not to impose overly on the 4th Estate.
In some instances what could be dressed up as journalism could be considered a crime.
That is not the issue here. He is imprisoned in the UK for jumping bail. At the end of his sentence he should be deported back to Australia unless another country can successfully be granted extradition.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
The UK probably won't deport him after all this. He has two young children with his (British) fiancee, according to the reporting on the BBC. Their right to a family life will mean that a deportation attempt would be almost certain to fail when challenged in court.
And we did prosecute him for the crime he committed here - jumping bail. For which he got the standard term (as noted by several commenters at the time). He's currently being held on remand as the courts deem him a flight risk, based on his previous history of fleeing from the control of the courts.
She is not British. Per media accounts she was born in South Africa and holds Spanish and Swedish nationality. While the sons are almost certainly British Citizens, that's not enough to prevent a deportation order. In addition the deportation must be deemed to be "unduly harsh". Given the family's means and international makeup there's a fair argument to be made they would tolerate it better than most.
Remember the Tories spent much of the last 10 years stripping away any and all protections foreigners might have. If Priti wants him gone he's gone.
"Actually since 1983 one of your parents have to be British Citizens (and possibly Indefinite leave to remain but I'm not 100% on that) for you to acquire British nationality by birth, UK doesn't have birthright citizenship"
She is EU and settled in the UK, so as long as that happened for five years before the child was born, the child has British citizenship. I'm not sure of the situation if she is in the UK for five years, but not at the time of birth. Possibly she has right-of-abode, coming from a Commonwealth country, in which case the child has citizenship again. That depends on exact circumstances.
Wow, you haven't been paying attention have you?
Automatic extradition for non-british citizens after one year in jail. The above article describes twin brothers, both born in the UK, who will be deported to different countries despite having no close family there nor, I believe, having visited either of them. Even if you are a British citizen, if they think they can weasel out of our obligations as a country to clean up our own trash, they will - google "Shamima Begum" for details.
Erm, that's not automatic extradition.
The automatic deportation is not automatic, and it is not racist either, as it takes no account of the race of the criminal idiots that are being deported.
The women complaining about the deportations should perhaps switch their focus to stopping idiots from committing crimes - if you don't spend a year in prison, you won't be up for deportation.
Agreed, Assange cares about nothing but himself. If he were truly a journalist as he claims no one would ever have heard of Chelsea Manning or know how he got the information in the first place.
This won't end anytime soon either. If the next appeal fails he'll then ask for asylum in the UK, because wherever we deport him to (I don't know if the law is country of origin I.e. Sweden or "home" country I.e. Australia) will immediately be asked to extradite him as well.
Without prejudice to the man or the accusations: As it's Assanges mental state that seems to be the only remaining barrier to deportation - How about a virtual extradition and trial under COVID lockdown conditions?
- Deport him to the US Embassy in London, on the condition they don't try to take him out of the country.
- Allow him to face his accusers via video link, as many trials are performed nowadays.
- For a fee, Britain can provide trained staff to monitor his health during the trial.
- IF found guilty then, for a fee, Britain can provide suitable accommodation at HMP Belmarsh.
He'll basically be a prisoner here. If he goes to another jurisdiction then all bets are off and he'll probably find himself on a flight to the USA before he knows it.
They (the USA) won't stop until he is locked up for several 100 year sentences in a Federal Supermax.
But... perhaps things will change when the current Tweeter/Traitor in Charger in DC is in prison.
I'm doubting his crime would even be considered for a Federal Supermax
Robert Hanssen is still in a federal Supermax, serving 15 consecutive life sentences for 15 violations of the Espionage Act: 14 counts of espionage * and one count of conspiracy to commit espionage †. All but one of the allegations for which Assange’s extradition is sought are also violations of the Espionage Act ‡. If extradited and found guilty on all counts (including the non-espionage alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusions), the maximum total consecutive sentence would be 175 years.
* — 18 U.S.C. § 794(a)
† — 18 U.S.C. § 794(c)
‡ — viz in the second superseding indictment, one count of 18 U.S.C. § 793(g); two counts of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(b) and 2; four counts of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(c) and 2; three counts of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and 2; three counts of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e) and 2; three counts of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e).
Judge Baraitser also dismissed Assange's legal arguments that publishing stolen US government documents on WikiLeaks was not a crime in the UK, ruling that had he been charged in the UK, he would have been guilty of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989.
Having been subject to the official secrets act for many of my years (I have signed the form that I understand my responsibilities etc. etc. more times than I care to recall), I could understand a successful prosecution for publishing UK secrets in the UK, but not US secrets (unless they are shared NATO secrets, but I don't recall any of that being the case).
I would appreciate if someone might enlighten me here.
I could understand a successful prosecution for publishing UK secrets in the UK, but not US secrets (unless they are shared NATO secrets, but I don't recall any of that being the case).
I think that may be the case, ie stuff that was published would be covered by the UK OSA. Alternatively, I think part of the extradition test is to consider if the alleged crime is one that would also be considered a crime, if committed in the UK.
But the saga rumbles on. Given all the Clinton stuff Assange published, not convinced the Democrats would be keen on dropping charges. Then again, there may be some potential horse trading given Assange has hinted in the past that he's got more damaging stuff about the Dems.
It'll be interesting to see what happens next with the bail hearing, which will no doubt play on the IT angle and risk that the agent becomes a self-terminating process. Kinda tricky given he's absconded once before, and I think it must be tempting to grant bail & not look too hard if his supporters whisk him out of the country. Oops, sorry America..
Attempting to blackmail the US govt is NOT a bright idea, makes it more likely they find a hole to bury you in than less....
I can see him being declared "persona non grata" in the UK and deported back to Australia, who will likely happily stick on a plane to the USA (thats if he's not put on the flight that goes via the USA)
The full judgement walks through this in some detail - page 33 onwards. What's less well known is that there's a whole "other" side to the OSA dealing with people what are not servants of her majesty attempting to gain documents through nefarious means, and that side applies to "national security documents which might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy" whether or not they are explicitly marked and indeed whether or not they are specifically British.
However it's also important to stress the purpose of looking at British law isn't to establish criminality - neither Assange nor Manning are British and none of the offences happened in the UK - but to meet a test of "dual criminality". This essentially transposes the actors and offences to British law and tests whether we also have the same crime on the books, to stop the US unilaterally criminalising offences for extradition purposes. Therefore the whole point of the comparison is to pretend, for the moment, that the actions were happening in the UK and with UK secrets, to allow us to compare the consequences of US and UK law to make sure the request is fair.
>Doesn't matter if you signed the form or not, you're still subject to the provisions of the Act.
This is mostly true. The act as most people encounter it applies to three groups of people. The first are the crown servants - government employees and contractor staff who are directly working for the government. The second group are "government contractors", who are engaged indirectly (e.g. BAE staff building a tank). If you fall outside those first two groups the bulk of the OSA does not apply to you. The third category is why you're made to sign the paper - and it is any person who is notified in writing that they are subject to the terms of the act. Your signature is your acknowledgement that you have been notified so that even if you're not a crown servant or a contractor you are still subject to the act in the same way.
The bits of the OSA in question for this Assange judgement are the "other" bits of the OSA that very much do apply to everyone.
Your signature is your acknowledgement that you have been notified so that even if you're not a crown servant or a contractor you are still subject to the act in the same way.
It's a law, it applies whether or not you sign a bit of paper saying you were notified. Being notified is largely a courtesy.
"Do you have to sign the Official Secrets Act to be bound by it?
It is not necessary for a person to have signed the Official Secrets Act in order to be bound by it. The 1989 Act states that a person can be “notified” that he or she is bound by it; and Government employees will usually be informed via their contract of employment if they must observe the Act."
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" ........ tfewster
Quite so, .... however, how about ignorance of a fact or a fiction being a secret, tfewster? Is there a law designed to allow one to be prosecuted or persecuted for sharing one of those which practically hardly anyone knows and which might be, or might later be classified COSMIC Top Secret?
Any sort of cogent guidance on that very particular and peculiar matter would be much appreciated, such is the extreme nature of certain emerging virtual fields of investigation and experimentation nowadays that might entertain and warrant such a premium primary security classification.
I can't help thinking such classifications will only be recognised and needed to be heeded by those expert in the field[s] of concern/especial certain interest for no one else will realise that there be colossal dangers readily available.
Indeed so; the key here is that people who are expected to need access to classified information see it all spelled out in gruesome detail and that was my point.
I never saw a clause in the (admittedly short) forms where secret information from another state was necessarily a UK secret. There are occasions when that is true and I have seen such specific occasions but in general the OSA protects UK secrets.
I never saw a clause in the (admittedly short) forms where secret information from another state was necessarily a UK secret. There are occasions when that is true and I have seen such specific occasions but in general the OSA protects UK secrets.
I think it can be pretty common, ie some secrets are shared on the basis that we'll keep a foreigner's secrets secret as well. Which can be odd sometimes, eg training manuals might be openly published in the US, but still classified in the UK. Or situations where not everything is shared, so you might have a thing, but how that thing works is kept in a room only for say, US personnel because those secrets are US-NOFORN.
"I never saw a clause in the (admittedly short) forms where secret information from another state was necessarily a UK secret."
That doesn't matter. The question that the judge needs to answer in this case is rather simple. Basically, if all this happened in or to the UK, would it be a crime. In full detail, if a guy broke into Ministry of Defense systems or published UK classified documents, would the UK consider it a crime? In that hypothetical case, the OSA would indicate that it was a crime. Since the action would have been criminal had the UK been the victim, the crime is worthy of extradition on the basis of dual criminality. It's not the only test that needs to pass before extradition succeeds, but it virtually always has to pass in order to do so. Just because it did pass doesn't mean that the real person could be charged under the OSA; only the hypothetical person who acted against a UK victim needs to be culpable for the test to pass.
The reason a hypothetical criminality test is used is that one country could pass a law making something illegal which another country hasn't done. Extradition in that scenario is usually refused. For example, consider the U.S.'s slavery legislation in the 1800s. The laws of the U.S. stated that it was legal to enslave people and it was illegal for a person who was enslaved to run away. Canada's laws said that it was not legal to enslave people. A person who managed to escape to Canada could therefore live in freedom because an extradition request would be denied; the act of leaving a position of slavery was not considered criminal in Canada, so they wouldn't be sent. Meanwhile, someone who escaped to Canada after murdering people would be extradited, because murder was considered a crime in both countries. Even if Canada couldn't charge the murderer because the victim was American, Canada would still consider the murder to have been a crime and sent the perpetrator to the location where the trial was allowed.
Judge Baraitser also dismissed Assange's legal arguments that publishing stolen US government documents on WikiLeaks was not a crime in the UK, ruling that had he been charged in the UK, he would have been guilty of offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. Had his conduct not been a crime in the UK, that would have been a powerful blow against extradition.
Can anyone be charged with sharing secrets one might not know are shared secrets if one has not signed the Official Secrets Act 1911-1989? One presumes Julian Assange has never ever signed such an agreement.
Or even charged with sharing stolen secrets one might know are stolen shared secrets if one has not signed any Official Secrets Act?
I remember, back in the distant past, obscured by the ever thickening mists of time, I was required to “sign a Section 10” to acknowledge my understanding of the OSA. My boss told me that it was completely irrelevant but it was in the rule book. If I didn’t sign then they would probably look at me sideways.
So I signed.
It was soon after that that I came up with the concept of being punished by a “departmental frown”, hence the icon.
The OSA is a law. You have to obey it if you're in the UK. Sometimes, you may be asked to sign a document acknowledging that you know this, but if you've never signed it, it doesn't change. For the same reason, you don't have to sign a document saying "I acknowledge that there's a law saying I can't kill people when I want to". If you do kill people, it's illegal whether you've acknowledged it's illegal or not. It's how laws work.
"Or even charged with sharing stolen secrets one might know are stolen shared secrets if one has not signed any Official Secrets Act?"
Short version: yes.
Long version: being required to sign the OSA is just to make things easier to prosecute. Assuming actus rea (the act of a crime), for offences that are not strict liability, you have to also prove mens rea (that the crime was knowingly being committed). An easy way to establish mens rea is to have someone sign a piece of paper saying 'I know this is a crime if I do it', but another way would be if it were bloody obvious that the documents are secret.
And whenever one shares a secret one doesn't know is a secret and/or, because of the information it releases and which may have been previously unknown, is suddenly classified a Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information?
Ye Olde Worlde Rumsfeldism .......
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.
Is one then routinely rewarded and paid extremely handsomely to keep schtum and/or warned there be consequences if it be shared further with others in the dark without arrogant presumptuous instruction from those newly brought into the light and rendered an overwhelming advantage by such information/intelligence?
With all that is going on around everything in such a field being programmed today for virtually real presentations in every tomorrow and for 0days, such clarification for some would be surely be more than just helpful and advisable.
The judge's remarks are pointing out that publishing UK state secrets is indeed a crime in the UK and so its equivalent in the US is recognised by UK courts as a "valid" crime. As opposed to an extridition request for doing something that would be perfectly legal had the equivalent act been carried out in the UK.
Why is Trump doing this? He often said he loved Assange and Wikileaks. And Trump hates the DEEP STATE (CIA, Justice Dept, etc.) Plus, Jared Kushner and Roger Stone communicated with Assange a lot of times - BFFS, all of them. But then, why does Trump do anything except lie and cause sickness, death, and debt? And try to override an election. And many other bad things. I wish Trump could be extradited to anywhere but here. (And Bush too, while we're at it.)
He can be pardoned without being convicted - eg Ford pardoned Nixon explaining that "the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former president of the United States," were Nixon to be brought up on charges.
He doesn't need to be extradited to the US to be pardoned. A pardon is essentially an executive order stating that a action (or actions between time periods etc) have no legal consequence.
In short there is nothing to stop Trump (before he leaves office) from pardoning Assange without it ever going to trial. It would also stop the extradition as there would no need for the extradition.
Take a look at the Nixon Pardon as an example of how vague the wording can be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon
We're not sending him to be tortured, but only on the grounds that we've already tortured him plenty. How very enlightened of us. In the meantime, what has happened to those seen/heard committing war crimes (allegedly) in the documents that Wikileaks published? Right.
Interesting how many of these extradition cases fail on the 'suicidal' grounds. You might almost think our judiciary has suspicions about the US justice system.
Solitary confinement is not widely recognised as torture. Even if it were, the only reports I can find describing his torment from the search you have linked all root back to Sputnik news, Wikileaks staffers or immediate family members. Not exactly neutral. Do you have a direct link to materials concerning his treatment at Belmarsh?
It's my understanding - per the judgement - that his own assessment of his mental health has significantly improved during his incarceration. In fact that's the whole crux of his defence: without the support structures and treatments available to him in the British prison system he was almost certain to end up dead. Is that a system engaged in wholesale torture?
I've pretty much been in solitary since last March, if you consider a fibre optic Internet connection "solitary." I'm not much crazier than I was before.
Actual solitary, without access to books, news media, communication with others is inhumane. Then again, for some incarcerated persons, it might be a lot safer than integration with the general prison population.
There was a steel bed frame, bolted to the floor, and a toilet. Bedding was allowed, but nowhere to create a ligature point. And that was it.
I was eventually bailed when my appeal was lodged, and thankfully the appeal was successful. If you're ever in legal bother, all I can say is make sure to get a bloody good solicitor and barrister.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
The UN Special Rapporteur in question is less of a Special Rapporteur on torture and more a Special Rapporteur for Julian Assange. His misguided interventions include the particularly distasteful episode where he implied that the woman Assange allegedly raped must have concocted the story because she didn't "behave like a proper rape victim". Melzer might have solid credentials, but his contributions to this sorry saga do not fill him with glory.
"Free speech does not comprise a 'trump card' even where matters of serious public concern are disclosed," said the judge in a passage that will be alien to American readers, whose country's First Amendment reverses that position.
It does not reverse that position. The US want to prosecute him under US law.
The US have not withdrawn from the ICC because the US have never been a state party to it, since the Rome Statute of the ICC was never submitted by any US administration to the US Senate for “advice and consent” (i.e. treaty ratification).
The US are in the august company of Israel, Russia, and Sudan, all of which have signed the Rome Statute and subsequently declared that they have no intent to ratify it.
Dmytro Firtash. The Russian oligarch, accused of bribing officials. The US sought and got approval from the Austrian courts to extradite him..... way back in mid 2019! US sought extradition, then Bill Barr stepped in and they simply never extradited him.
He's the man in Vienna that Republicans keep visiting on their way to Ukraine.
"DOJ has still not answered question about Firtash extradition, says senator's office A U.S. senator's office says after 18 months it has no answer from the DOJ about why an oligarch linked to Paul Manafort hasn't been extradited to the U.S. Sen. Wicker's 2018 letter alleges that prior to 2014, Firtash acted as a "direct agent of the Kremlin" during a separate scheme to skim money from natural gas transfers between Russia's Gazprom and Ukraine."
"She accused Firtash, who is a key contributor to Yanukovych, of fraudulently using New York real estate through which to launder money from Ukraine through the United States and then back to Ukraine to support various corrupt political activities and politicians"
They skimmed off $800 million and used it to install Putin friendly politicians across the world. Laundering it through New York property deals.
You see why Trump is so desperate. Why he's trying to coerce Republicans to overturn the election and appoint him as President. You can also see why some of them are going along with it.
I presume you are basing your statement on the "evidence" presented by the media which has never been tested in court - and never will be since charges have been dropped. There have been numerous cases where a person has been vilified by the media and convinced most of the public that the person is guilty of a heinous crime, but then had to back down after the person's innocence was conclusively proven.
You won't give us the killer driver Anne Sacoolas (and before anyone says innocent until proven guilty, she admitted it to the police, then the coward fled the country) hiding being her post event phony diplomatic immunity, so we're not giving you Assange whatever the official reason the judge may have given.
I think he should cease his whining and accept the consequences of his own actions, as the rest of us generally do. Come to think of it, he hasn't personally been doing much public whinging lately - I think most of the 'Assange-related-noise' recently is coming from his supporters or hand-wringers, who should also cease their moaning.
Actions have consequences, and generally the larger the target the larger the consequences. In this case, I think he was
a damn fool an effing idiot to imagine he could twist the tail of the large tiger, as hard as he did, and expect to walk away unscathed. He really has no-one else to blame apart from himself for his current situation.
If I am overseas, I obey the local laws *and* take the sensible approach to local behaviour (Don't photograph the local airbase despite my interest in aircraft. Don't snap away at the local Military on exercise despite my interest in tanks  ).
I for one will be glad if/when he does leave these shores - we have spent too much time and money on him already. I say declaring him PNG and shipping him back whence he belongs (i.e. anywhere but here!) is a damn good idea. If the tiger who's tail he twisted still bears a grudge ....... well, he should have considered that at the time - especially knowing which particular tiger he was trying to upset. The guy is an effing idiot.
 Don't believe me? Please try this in Turkey or the TRNC.
 Where someone from .za keeps their car.
Following this evening's announcement by Boris "scarecrow" Johnson, Julian Assange has announced that he would like to appeal against today's extradition hearing. In a press announcement he said "get me the fuck out of this plague ridden country".
Meanwhile, the rest of the country prepares to enter Tier five. First step, change the light bulb...
Mine's the one with the Red Dwarf boxed set in the pocket
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I have seen a number of commenters on here stating that Assange has admitted to the rape allegations from Sweden. I don't care for rapist but I cannot find this admission of guilt reported anywhere by a reputable source. From what I can see the Swedes dropped the case at the end of 2019 because of a lack of evidence and he has always maintained his innocence, as has been reported by news outlets such as The Guardian and France24. As recently as Monday the Guardian said "an international arrest warrant had been issued at the request of Swedish authorities who wanted to question Assange about allegations – one of rape and one of molestation – made by two women in Stockholm. He has denied those claims.". Surely if he had confessed to the crime the Swedes would have continued the prosecution.
I'm not a supporter of Assange but don't say someone has done something without evidence.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021