Julian Assange can appeal extradition to the US, London High Court rules WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can appeal his extradition to the US from the UK, the High Court of England and Wales ruled Monday. Assange, an Australian citizen, has spent the past five years in a London prison as Uncle Sam has sought to haul him over to America where he faces 17 espionage-related charges and one charge of …
No he didn't. He got a load of information and dumped all of it on the web with no consideration for the dangers it might have caused for individuals. A journalist would check it, make sure that people weren't at risk because of it and only publish what, in their view, was in the public interest. I'm not convinced he should be extradited to the US, but Assange is not a journalist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/21/julian-assange-wikileaks-extradition-usa-appeal
I thought I knew about the Julian Assange case. Then I read an interview with Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture...
Republik: "A murderous system is being created before our very eyes"
I would humbly ask anyone who also feels that they understand what's happening to please take the time and read this article.
Wow 4 downvotes and not a single attempt to define a "citizen journalist".
Come on, it's a genuine and interesting question. I doubt there is any formalised definition so I'd love to hear just what people think on the topic, especially those who downvoted. I suspect that it will be similar to "woke". No one knows what it means but everyone thinks they know what it means, and they all think something different :-)
Come on, it's a genuine and interesting question. I doubt there is any formalised definition so I'd love to hear just what people think on the topic, especially those who downvoted
Yep, and you probably know what I think about the angry thumbs. I agree there's probably no definition, and not sure there should be, or could be. Pretty much anyone can be a publisher and create 'news'. Or misinformation. Or be an 'auditor' and get themselves into trouble. Not everyone can blag Press Passes though (damnit!) and I guess the way those are issued could be one definition, ie if you can get a goverment press pass, you're probably a journalist. Think that works on the basis of working for a recognised news/press company, or I guess for freelancers & stringers if they can show a publication history.
I think Assange is arguably a journalist, but from reading about the US Espionage Act, so what? A lot of the prosecutions have been against journalists, so I think it's more about the delicate balance between free speech / freedom of the press vs other laws. I guess this is a bit like the phone hacking scandal, and being a journalist doesn't grant immunity from prosecution if laws are broken. This is some of the stuff I was taught on courses I went on, which was mainly aimed at dealing with the press. It's a tricky subject. The press needs to be able to hold governments to account, especialy in the face of new legislation against 'misinformation'. Journalists who fall foul of challenging official misinformation could end up in jail soon.
You are aware that you have the greatest source of information known at your fingertips?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism
https://www.britannica.com/story/citizen-journalists
https://www.independentmedia.us/education/what-is-citizen-journalism
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726471-800-how-citizen-journalists-are-transforming-the-news/
Obviously these are mostly from the before times and now, as JE has pointed out, journalists who are not bought and paid for by mega corp/pharma/govt are all spreaders of misinformation.
(the reality being usually quite the opposite as mainstream media has lied their collective asses off about things like Covid and Biden's performance)
Just need to look at ol' Chris 'Fredo' Cuomo admitting that he is in fact a horse:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/watch-former-cnn-host-chris-cuomo-admits-to-using-ivermectin-after-once-saying-users-should-be-shamed/ar-BB1m6Ip9
> He .. dumped all of it on the web with no consideration for the dangers ..
The files were stored in an encrypted archive. Assange shared a temporary link to the files with the Guardian. Later on someone posted the archive to BitTorrent and later on a Guardian journalist published the password in a book. One such file, the Collateral Murder video shows a US helicopter gunship shooting-up journalists and later on shooting-up the rescuers.
Mirnotoriety,
The "Collaterol Murder" video shows no such things. Plus that wasn't leaked by the Guardian by mistake, that was released (edited to make it look worse) by Wikileaks directly.
What it showed was a US helicopter in a combat zone, where active combat was ongoing, engage an armed group that also had a journalist with them. The pilots clearly aren't good actors, because they comeo across as total idiots. But when the gunner screams "RPG" it's because he thinks he's seen an RPG. Sadly he's seen a camera poking round the side of a building.
They then find and attack the armed group that the journalists were with, and the other armed people that came to resuce the injured. Neither of which are war crimes by the way. Engaging armed people in combat is perfectly legal. There's an argument it might have been against their rules of engagement, as those armed people didn't constitute an immediate threat. But the thing about soldiers is that they can spend some time rescuing their mates, and when they're finished they can change plans and come and suit you again.
Those pilots were out there with the sole purpose of returning to base with as little remaining ammunition as possible and notching up some more dead eye-rakkeees
Err. Not quite-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#Context
According to Tom Raju, a reporter at CNN, "the soldiers of Bravo Company, 2–16 Infantry had been under fire all morning from rocket-propelled grenades and small arms on the first day of Operation Ilaaj in Baghdad". Al Jazeera stated that the Army had received "reports of small arms fire", but were unable to positively identify the gunmen. Apache helicopters were called in by a soldier in the Humvee (Hotel 2–6) under attack from the same position used by Namir Noor-Eldeen to photograph the vehicle...
...In the video on the morning of July 12, 2007, the crews of two United States Army AH-64 Apache helicopters observe a gathering of men near a section of Baghdad in the path of advancing U.S. ground troops, some armed with AKMs and RPGs. The crew estimates the group is twenty men. Among the group are two journalists working for Reuters, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh
And the rest became history. Or an edited version of it for many people anyway.
"He got a load of information and dumped all of it on the web with no consideration for the dangers it might have caused for individuals. "
Except that's totally untrue. He spent months reading and redacting it before releasing it. The only "dangers for individuals" is causing political embarrassment all the way to the top - which is of course the most serious crime in the whole statute.
It's not true though is it? There's a difference between being a journalist and being a troll. What Assange did is what cybercriminals do...took a bunch of data and dumped it on the web and said "there you go...yous fucking well analyse it". As for Chelsea isn't she free now? According to Wikipedia, she dumped 482,832 army records online via wikileaks...all 482,832 were relevant? Fuck it! Information wants to be free so I can do what I want.
Assange was working with news orgs in Europe and the US and releasing redacted versions.
Assange was the one who put that information out there, and didn't secure it. He's the convicted hacker and he was the one who was their data expert - they're journalists (and so can be assumed to be terrible at security). So it was his responsibility to secure the data.
Even so, as I understand the law, if Manning just gave him the data - then he should still be protected under journalism laws. All he did was exercise free speech, in sharing that information.
But if he assisted Maning to get the data, then he was involved in espionage or at least conspiracy to steal data or hack systems. As a foreigner trying to break into US government intelligence databases. I remember when Manning confessed that the prosecutors said they had her evidence that Assange helped - and that's the basis of the case.
It's a lot more complex as a journalist when you commit a crime to get the story. I remember a Radio 4 program years ago about BBC editorial guidelines on when a journalist can break the law to get a story and when they can't. There was no hard-and-fast answer - it depends on how important the story and what the crime is. But that's in the UK, where journalists don't have the same protections as they do in the US.
"and didn't secure it"
Except he did.
"protected under journalism laws"
No such thing.
"But that's in the UK, where journalists don't have the same protections as they do in the US."
Actually those protections are the same for normal people AND journalists. Main stream media think they are special and can lie to us with impunity.
Bradley Manning was cleared of 'aiding the enemy' so claims that Assange was the mastermind behind him leaking the information to wikileaks really has no basis.
"His life has been hard."
No-one forced him to run away from Sweden when the police there asked to interview him about a completely different matter. And there was never any guarantee that if he'd been arrested in Sweden that the US would seek an extradition order, or that Sweden would comply.
No-one subsequently forced him to breach his bail terms in the UK.
No-one forced him to take up residency in the Equadorian embassy until he outstayed his welcome. And he only got put in jail then because he'd breached his bail terms.
Looks like these were all actions he knowingly did for whatever reason so he has to accept the consequences for those.
As for embarrassing the US? After all this time you do have to ask if it's in the best interests of 'National Security' or if it is even in the public interest to prosecute him for it.
Downvoted only because the US government has a long and well documented record of highly legally and ethically questionable actions anywhere outside it's boundaries. It seems not at all unlikely that that "entirely different matter" (alleged rapes if memory serves) was a ruse to jail him in Sweden then extradite him to the US. No proof of that? Why would anyone expect proof? It's not like the details of such a scheme would be published in the Congressional Record or made public in the lifetime of anyone now living.
No-one forced him to run away from Sweden when the police there asked to interview him about a completely different matter. And there was never any guarantee that if he'd been arrested in Sweden that the US would seek an extradition order, or that Sweden would comply.
Yep, and if after the Swedes were done with him, or Assange had exhausted Sweden's appeals process, Assange could have been a free man with his name cleared. Instead, he'll forever be an alleged sex offender who's spent a long time in self-imposed detention.
As for embarrassing the US? After all this time you do have to ask if it's in the best interests of 'National Security' or if it is even in the public interest to prosecute him for it.
I think there may be. I think free speech is a good thing, but there has to be limits. So picking on one of my favorite books-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Control_(book)
The arming codes for nuclear weapons were 00000000. Todays codes are.. well, no idea, and even if I did know I wouldn't publish them. Some stuff just needs to stay secret. Maybe this will test the limits of free speech, but I really don't think it's a good idea to be able to steal masses of classified information, dump it in public and claim it's fine because I'm a journalist. Even if he didn't directly leak that stuff, he was still the custodian of classified information, and responsible for it. I've had a few journalism training courses and part of those were the journalist's responsibilities and ethics, so for situations like this, is it really in the public interest?
For the prosecution, it's also if it's in the public interest to prosecute people who leak, or steal classified information. I'd say in many cases yes, and Assange will have the US appeals process to argue his defence. If others feel the same as Assange, he can probably expect amicus filings in support.
> .. No-one forced him to run away from Sweden when ..
One of the accusers attended a social event subsequent to the alleged rape. Only changed her mind when she discovered Assange had sexual congress with the second accuser. The main crime being the non-use and/or torn condom use. Assange was informed the investigation was discontinued and he was free to leave. Later on, with a change of prosecutor the investigation was resumed. Twenty seven days after the prosecution failing to interview Assange, he left Sweden. At which an arrest warrant was issued.
Assange was informed the investigation was discontinued and he was free to leave. Later on, with a change of prosecutor the investigation was resumed. Twenty seven days after the prosecution failing to interview Assange, he left Sweden. At which an arrest warrant was issued.
Not really true. Assange's lawyer was informed before he left Sweden that he would have to come in to be interviewed by police the next morning. His lawyer subsequently lied about this in court in the first case before the magistrates in the UK. And was asked to produce his phone, which still had the text message from the Swedish prosecutors. That was to be the pre-charge interveiw required by Swedish law before charging a suspect.
He left the country knowing he might be charged the next morning. When he lost his appeal about being sent to be charged, he hid out in the Ecuadorian embassy to wait out the charges.
It's not a ruling to stop him being extradited; it's only giving him another chance to argue against it.
I imagine the decision making process was essentially that lawyers are going to be making money, so they might as well do it this side of the pond where we can take some tax from them. Plus, Assange will be locked up for the duration anyway.
Hopefully eventually they'll rule that he's OK to toddle off to America and at that point the American lawyers can make lots of money off of him, delaying the inevitable conviction (and thereby extending it)
The cost of keeping him locked up in a UK prison will far outweigh any tax take from the lawyers.
As long as donors keep funding Assange's defence, then his lawyers will help keep him in Belmarsh.
Which is one of life's little ironies, as he proved himself a flight risk, he stays in jail. Even if the US decides they're bored now and cancel the warrant, HMG hopefully wants to PNG and expel him. Then if he fights a one-way ticket back to Australia, his lawyers get more billable hours & Assange gets more prison food. Also curious if we could charge either the US or Assange for board & lodgings. He's in jail because the US want him, but given the US won't pay parking tickets or congestion charges, I doubt they're going to pay this bill either.
So, the point has been reached at which an appeal against Assange's extradition can be launched. That leaves a serious question in need of an answer.
Why has it taken so many years for Assange to become eligible for a full appeal?
Supplementary enquiries concern the studied inactivity of successive British governments, and the stunning silence in the Houses of Parliament. Being of questioning nature, I ask whether there could be credibility in the suggestion that members of the Commons (Conservative and Labour) were somehow 'bought' or threatened by lobbyists working on behalf of whoever owns the USA.
In addition, setting aside matters of legal process, there is what should be the overriding consideration of basic decency. Whatever wrong Assange is alleged to have perpetrated, it certainly did not endanger anybody. There was no crime of violence. Incarceration would not have an element of justification in terms of protecting society from a dangerous criminal. Assange's offence was, at most, administrative, i.e. releasing information a government chose to keep secret yet officialdom was so incompetent as not to be able to keep it away from prying eyes. The American government's embarrassment was acute: vengeance was sought.
No British Prime Minister, Home Secretary, or member of the judiciary, possessed sufficient integrity to declare “Enough is enough!” and put an end to the matter.
There is a parallel to the case of Kim Dotcom in New Zealand. He invoked wrath from US copyright cartels. Given that dealing in so-called 'intellectual property' is a major component of the US economy, it's no surprise to discover US government malice could keep Dotcom bottled up for so long in a battle for extradition. Also, New Zealand's gutless government offers no surprises either.
One of the main reasons all the cases have taken so long, is that Assange has appealed almost every decision, at almost every stage. If he wants it over quickly, he can accept when he loses and go on to teh next stage in proceedings.
It was only when he ran out of appeals against the European Arrest warrant that he broke bail, and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy. Where he spent many years. Then, when they chucked him out, he has spent his time in the UK appealing his extradition to the US.
I'd have preferred him to go to Sweden, and face his accusers - so they could have their day in court. But he's managed to time out the ten year statute of limitations on rape charges in Sweden, so we'll never know whether he was guilty or not. But that's his choice.
Why has it taken so many years for Assange to become eligible for a full appeal?
That's the way the legal system works. You're charged with something, convicted, even though you deny the charges and don't believe the evidence presented was fair. It wasn't me, you're looking for a shorter man. So you appeal the conviction to the appeals court, they review the case and based on what you argue, grant leave to appeal or not. Assange has done this every step of the way. Prosecution has the same option. So first time around, Judge ruled he couldn't be extradited due to potentially self-deleting. US appealed and said they'd take care of him and won that appeal. Back to Assange, who appealed again claiming new evidence, that was dismissed. So Assange tried again demanding he be entitled to First Amendment protections and he wouldn't face the death penalty, and that appeal was granted.
Next up, Assange will file an appeal demanding he will not be imprisoned in America's first lunar penal colony, and will be entitled to a fresh Chick-fil-A every Sunday.
Whatever wrong Assange is alleged to have perpetrated, it certainly did not endanger anybody.
Surely that's for a court to decide? The US will probably argue that his actions did endager lives, ie the bit about unredacted files containing names. Or just argue, like with most espionage cases that his actions harmed national security and national interests. The US has been.. somewhat inconsistent in prosecuting cases involving mishandling of classified information of late, so perhaps Assange is hoping that by the time it reaches a US court, he'll be declared unfit to stand trial and can retire to shamble around his lawn. Much as in a similar case. But then he is charged with embarrassing a member of America's royalty, costing her the election. US justice is similarly inconsistent in those kinds of cases. Assault an 'ordinary American' in LA, and you probably won't get charged, unless it's against a member of their royalty, in which case, it's 30yrs.
They are based in New York and have been publishing secret documents since 1996, wikileaks started to publish in 2006.
P.S. Normally I would suggest not visiting cryptome without using a VPN or TOR, unless you want to end up on a government list. But cryptome has been online since 2023-08 and will stay offline until until Julian Assange is freed.
The court case is interesting in that the UK government is seeking assurance from the USA that its constitutional rights that are unconditionally guaranteed to everyone in the USA are especially unconditionally guaranteed to Julian Assange. This seems a bit ridiculous, but whatever: sure, the USA unconditionally guarantees that universal constitutional rights that apply to everyone unconditionally will also apply to Julian Assange, too, even though nowhere therein is he (or anyone) excluded by name or by any distinguishing feature whatever. The unlimited universally guaranteed basic rights that are granted to everyone in the USA are hereby extended specifically to include Julian Assange also, even though nobody (not even he) were ever excluded at any time or in any manner.
As for his reluctance to face trial I suspect that Julian Assange has strong reason to assume the evidence will unequivocally show that he’s guilty as charged and has effectively zero chance of succeeding at trial. So he’s been evading justice for the last 15 years or so, and there just seems like there’s no way he can keep evading justice except so long as he waits it out in some jail or other. But eventually he’s going to get put on trial and possibly (definitely?) face his consequences.
I personally think it’s hilarious, here this overblown coward shrieks and screams at the prospect of having to be judged by a jury of his peers, because he knows in his innermost self, he has no defence for what he done.
The unlimited universally guaranteed basic rights that are granted to everyone in the USA are hereby extended specifically to include Julian Assange also, even though nobody (not even he) were ever excluded at any time or in any manner.
Yep. This is the bit I find interesting, and am looking forward to the results of the latest appeal. Some of which seems redundant, but IANAL. Being a simple soul, I know that if I'm in the US and commit a crime, US law applies and I'd be charged and tried accordingly. I know even as a British subject, I'd have the same rights as any US citizen. I think the US said in one of the previous appeals that Assange would have the same rights under the First Amendment as any US citizen as well. So not sure what the latest argument will be.
It's much the same with the death penalty bit. Although the US Espionage Act includes provisions for a death penalty, it seems rarely used, especially in recent times. There were attempts to amend it to include revealing asset's names, but that attempt was rejected. As I understand US law, Assange would have had a charging notice and know what he's being charged with, and the potential penalties. I guess the US could find additional charges once they've got him in custody, but the death penalty seems unlikely, legally or politically. But maybe the US doesn't want to set a precedent by binding themselves at this stage, which seems like a remote plea bargaining.
I personally think it’s hilarious, here this overblown coward shrieks and screams at the prospect of having to be judged by a jury of his peers, because he knows in his innermost self, he has no defence for what he done.
Yep. It could help set some of the limits of 'free speech' and journalism, but he seems to be going about it in a very strange way. Given the publicity, he'll probably get a lot of support in the US so if I were him, I'd want the case over and done with. Instead he's imprisoned himself. Then again, the US sometimes doesn't exactly play nicely with foreigners, eg the way they attempted to make people non-persons in places like Gitmo. But the Supreme Court ruled if you're in US custody, US laws apply.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
