Julian Assange: US extradition bid gets a legal boost(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Julian Assange: US extradition bid gets a legal boost
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58157955
24 コメント
The paper I read says he faces up to 150 years in prison. Going to the US there is always the risk that they will throw the book at you.
The 4 to 6 years might just be a tactic to get the extradition since 150 years every where else in the world is considered cruel and unusual punishment.
The 4 to 6 years might just be a tactic to get the extradition since 150 years every where else in the world is considered cruel and unusual punishment.
That's my take too - I wouldn't for a second believe the 4 to 6 years unless they're prepared to actually guarantee it.
There is no guarantee when dealing with the US. I mean the last president pull out of an international agreement (Iran) just because he didn't like it. How can you agree to something that in 4 years might just change. Making a deal with the US is dangerous, just ask Saddam or Gaddafi.
I agree with that, but I also think that of the US issued a formal guarantee they'd only imprison him for 4 years, then a British judge would likely choose to believe it whether or not we think it should be trusted.
I keep wondering if a president can grant pre-emptive clemency, to limit the length of a sentence that hasn't been decided yet.
If the maximum sentence is 150 years, but Biden would settle for keeping him locked up another 4 years (so that he doesn't interfere with the 2024 election), then the naive thing to do would be to grant a 146 year reduction of his sentence, but this could end up with Assange serving a sentence of negative length if the judge hands him a sentence less than the maximum.
More seriously, I wonder if Assange's time spent in prison in the UK fighting extradition to the US (after his punishment for skipping bail was served) will count as time served towards whatever sentence he is given in the US. If so, he may only need to drag out the appeals process for another couple of years and the US will have punished him more through the process of him proving his innocence than the sentence he is being threatened with if guilty.
If the maximum sentence is 150 years, but Biden would settle for keeping him locked up another 4 years (so that he doesn't interfere with the 2024 election), then the naive thing to do would be to grant a 146 year reduction of his sentence, but this could end up with Assange serving a sentence of negative length if the judge hands him a sentence less than the maximum.
More seriously, I wonder if Assange's time spent in prison in the UK fighting extradition to the US (after his punishment for skipping bail was served) will count as time served towards whatever sentence he is given in the US. If so, he may only need to drag out the appeals process for another couple of years and the US will have punished him more through the process of him proving his innocence than the sentence he is being threatened with if guilty.
Prosecutors can commit to only asking for a particular sentence, but AIUI they can't formally tie the hands of the judge. The sentencing guidelines may also suggest a sentence far below the theoretical 150 year maximum.
One thing that they have done is undertake to consent to any request from Assange to serve any sentence in Australia. So I don't know whether trying to wait out the clock in Belmarsh would be a good move anyway.
One thing that they have done is undertake to consent to any request from Assange to serve any sentence in Australia. So I don't know whether trying to wait out the clock in Belmarsh would be a good move anyway.
> concern over the suicide risk
If you embarrass the US government there is a real risk that a suicide will happen to you.
If you embarrass the US government there is a real risk that a suicide will happen to you.
Can we talk about the fact that the US committed a war crime and no one has been held accountable?
They are throwing the book at Assange because some US personnel may have been put at risk for having their names revealed. What about the dead unarmed journalists shot from the air like fish in a barrel?
They are throwing the book at Assange because some US personnel may have been put at risk for having their names revealed. What about the dead unarmed journalists shot from the air like fish in a barrel?
I'm being down voted for pointing out a war crime but sone how exposing effectively what are US spies is considered worse? Wtf is wrong with people?
"Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? Cold comfort for change?"
US neo-parties prioritize party+profit over principle, and the gentle babes run in herd.
US neo-parties prioritize party+profit over principle, and the gentle babes run in herd.
By the way, a pretty successful way to avoid drawing negative approval is to slightly complicate the language or couch the idea. The goldfish-minds that generate negative votes cannot eval. Directness induces reflexive folly.
They should mention that in every article that's published about Assange. They should mention everything he's uncovered in every article.
Make no mistake UK, he will almost certainly be kept in solitary confinement (23-24 hours a day, every day) for the entire duration of his sentence for "his own safety."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement_in_the_Un...
https://www.afsc.org/resource/solitary-confinement-facts
Another cruelty of our criminal justice system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement_in_the_Un...
https://www.afsc.org/resource/solitary-confinement-facts
Another cruelty of our criminal justice system.
US journalists remain silent. The correlation between journalism and truth matches journalists’ approval ratings.
Frustrating that the US extradition case gets a legal boost while the UK courts ignore the evidence that the US indictment of Assange is based on lies https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
UK is dire strait after brexit, they would not oppose USA "internal affairs"
He jumped bail before, screwing over the supporters who put up his bail. He worked deliberately to tank Hillary Clinton's campaign. And don't forget he said he'd agree to extradition if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency, which he blatantly reneged on.
I think the fact that people just don't like him, justifiably, makes it easy to not care about his case, even though most people can at least agree the legal precedents that may be set are very important.
I think the fact that people just don't like him, justifiably, makes it easy to not care about his case, even though most people can at least agree the legal precedents that may be set are very important.
You're quite genuine in acknowledging that the devotion to Hillary Clinton exceeds the commitment to human rights and freedom of information.
I'm acknowledging that people don't often stick up for people they dislike. Is that a controversial or surprising assertion?
Not surprising, but rather candid when we're talking about the "legal system" and basic human rights.
`bootlooped` -> `bootlicked`
Standards of care matter even for dislikable people, you could argue they matter even more for them.
Standards of care matter even for dislikable people, you could argue they matter even more for them.
Blatant attempts to frame one of the heroes of our times are just that, attempts. As if intelligent people would suddenly favor emotions over rational thought, because some troll with an agenda voices his irrational contempt.
Also, if they don't think there's a justification for a longer sentence, surely guarantees could be offered that they won't seek a longer sentence, and this might go some way to reduce the courts concern over the suicide risk.