USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment(judiciary.uk)
judiciary.uk
USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf
623 comments
Relatedly, Canada has struck down America's status as a safe third country for refugees as "U.S. immigration detention violates their human rights." [1]
"Nedira Jemal Mustefa, among the refugees turned back and on whose behalf a challenge was launched, described her time in solitary confinement in the United States as 'a terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic experience,' according to the court ruling."
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-refugee-safethird/...
"Nedira Jemal Mustefa, among the refugees turned back and on whose behalf a challenge was launched, described her time in solitary confinement in the United States as 'a terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic experience,' according to the court ruling."
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-refugee-safethird/...
That court ruling is not yet final and is on hold during appeals: https://www.immigration.ca/decision-to-strike-down-safe-thir...
Ah I see that happened in late October, I must have missed it.
If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective.
This was an extradition hearing, not a trial. This seems to have given the judge room to justify a nuanced conclusion that doesn't extend far past this case. IDK if there's much precedent. If there is, it relates to espionage-adjacent cases. That kind of makes sense. Espionage is different to other crimes. The imprisonment is different, and so is the standard for justice. Closed trials & such. This was also true of these extradition hearings.
I have to wonder though, did all the other stuff relating to this saga affect her decision. The odd charges in Sweden. The party-politic aspects to the US' pursuit of him. Also the "time served" aspect. If he's found guilty, the sentence is unlikely to be longer than the 8 years he has spent imprisoned already.
This was an extradition hearing, not a trial. This seems to have given the judge room to justify a nuanced conclusion that doesn't extend far past this case. IDK if there's much precedent. If there is, it relates to espionage-adjacent cases. That kind of makes sense. Espionage is different to other crimes. The imprisonment is different, and so is the standard for justice. Closed trials & such. This was also true of these extradition hearings.
I have to wonder though, did all the other stuff relating to this saga affect her decision. The odd charges in Sweden. The party-politic aspects to the US' pursuit of him. Also the "time served" aspect. If he's found guilty, the sentence is unlikely to be longer than the 8 years he has spent imprisoned already.
> If you take an absolutist, principled or binary view, then most imprisonment is a torture of some sort. It causes severe psychological distress. That's what a prison is. The differences are in the nuance, and you might call those subjective.
That's what prison in America is, but that's not what prison either has to be, or is everywhere else in the world.
If your goal is to torture people, America's system is very effective. If your goal is to rehabilitate people and make sure they don't go on to commit more crimes, America's system is an abject failure.
Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%. Apparently not treating people inhumanely is a great way of getting them not to commit more crimes. [1] Who would have thought?
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
That's what prison in America is, but that's not what prison either has to be, or is everywhere else in the world.
If your goal is to torture people, America's system is very effective. If your goal is to rehabilitate people and make sure they don't go on to commit more crimes, America's system is an abject failure.
Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%. Apparently not treating people inhumanely is a great way of getting them not to commit more crimes. [1] Who would have thought?
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
>>Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%.
I'm no defender of the US prison system, but why compare the US to Norway, a country with:
* a population of 5 million Norwegians, the descendants of whom actually rank very high in socioeconomic indicators in the US
* one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, thanks in large part to being one of the highest per capita oil exporters in the world for decades
I'm no defender of the US prison system, but why compare the US to Norway, a country with:
* a population of 5 million Norwegians, the descendants of whom actually rank very high in socioeconomic indicators in the US
* one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, thanks in large part to being one of the highest per capita oil exporters in the world for decades
> a population of 5 million Norwegians, the descendants of whom actually rank very high in socioeconomic indicators in the US
Why does this matter?
> one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, thanks in large part to being one of the highest per capita oil exporters in the world for decades
Their GDP per capita is almost identical to the US. (And the US has tons of oil too for what it's worth.)
Why does this matter?
> one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, thanks in large part to being one of the highest per capita oil exporters in the world for decades
Their GDP per capita is almost identical to the US. (And the US has tons of oil too for what it's worth.)
Because who the people are, who administer the prison system, and who are the objects of the prison system's rehabilitation program, matters. Humanity isn't a mass of identical copies. Certain traits, that might be highly conducive to effective rehabilitation, concentrate in certain regions of the world.
A smaller polity also tends to mean a much more accountable government which might be expected to be much more effective at implementing any policy.
>>Their GDP per capita is almost identical to the US.
Nominal per capita GDP is $5,000 higher.
The country also has a population that is 80X smaller. Smaller population size tends mean much smaller regional variations in socioeconomic conditions and fewer regions with the extreme conditions associated with high crime rates and pervasive criminal sub-cultures.
A smaller polity also tends to mean a much more accountable government which might be expected to be much more effective at implementing any policy.
>>Their GDP per capita is almost identical to the US.
Nominal per capita GDP is $5,000 higher.
The country also has a population that is 80X smaller. Smaller population size tends mean much smaller regional variations in socioeconomic conditions and fewer regions with the extreme conditions associated with high crime rates and pervasive criminal sub-cultures.
Don't we think the way we handle prisons greatly affects the culture around them?
> Smaller population size tends mean much smaller regional variations in socioeconomic conditions and fewer regions with the extreme conditions associated with high crime rates and pervasive criminal sub-cultures.
Do US regional prisons in non-hotspot areas do much better?
How many criminal sub-cultures extend past a single city?
> Smaller population size tends mean much smaller regional variations in socioeconomic conditions and fewer regions with the extreme conditions associated with high crime rates and pervasive criminal sub-cultures.
Do US regional prisons in non-hotspot areas do much better?
How many criminal sub-cultures extend past a single city?
> but why compare the US to Norway
Because it is currently fashionable in the US to esteem, exalt, or even hallow many things Scandavian. If you live in the US, you’ve no doubt seen this.
To many in the US, the Scandavians have just nailed it everything social-economic. Personally, I wish we’d take more influence from their diet (fish! fish! more fish!)
Because it is currently fashionable in the US to esteem, exalt, or even hallow many things Scandavian. If you live in the US, you’ve no doubt seen this.
To many in the US, the Scandavians have just nailed it everything social-economic. Personally, I wish we’d take more influence from their diet (fish! fish! more fish!)
> Personally, I wish we’d take more influence from their diet (fish! fish! more fish!)
I mean, the furthest you can get from fresh fish in Norway is pretty different to what is seen in most the US. I'm not sure that Fish is the answer there
I mean, the furthest you can get from fresh fish in Norway is pretty different to what is seen in most the US. I'm not sure that Fish is the answer there
> I'm not sure that Fish is the answer there
Well, there was no question so I’m not sure what fish is or is not the answer to.
Anyway, you cannot deny America’s obsession with Scandinavia culture, economy, and society.
Well, there was no question so I’m not sure what fish is or is not the answer to.
Anyway, you cannot deny America’s obsession with Scandinavia culture, economy, and society.
Are you really suggesting that a country full of white people is a priori superior to a diverse country? Do you realise how insanely racist that is? Can you back up your assertion that Norway's good record on recidivism is because of all the whites?
Hold up. That's a bit of a strawman argument. He didn't say "country full of white people", he specifically mentioned socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status generally correlates negatively with criminality. There's nothing inherently racist about that statement, it's just stating that:
- desperate people will do desperate things to survive
- oppressed people are bound to lash out
- the poor are powerless against authority
- people in poorer neighbourhoods are prone to overpolicing
- destitute people are more likely to succumb to substance abuse
If he said recidivism or crime rates were higher because the population was black/hispanic/etc, that would obviously be racist.
- desperate people will do desperate things to survive
- oppressed people are bound to lash out
- the poor are powerless against authority
- people in poorer neighbourhoods are prone to overpolicing
- destitute people are more likely to succumb to substance abuse
If he said recidivism or crime rates were higher because the population was black/hispanic/etc, that would obviously be racist.
But when it comes to US vs. Norway, surely what matters is their status in their home country. Why is the status of the descendants of the ones that move to the US important, if you're not trying to say it's something innate about them?
I don't want to assume such a motivation for bringing it up, which is why in my own comment I just asked why it was relevant in a completely neutral way. But that got me no response.
I don't want to assume such a motivation for bringing it up, which is why in my own comment I just asked why it was relevant in a completely neutral way. But that got me no response.
I didn't read too much into his use of "descendants", trying to be charitable in my interpretation. But having read his response to you I'm starting to have second thoughts...
Culture matters, and survives migration.
Now you're losing me. In what way does "culture" matter? Socioeconomic status has nothing to do with "culture".
Well as Devil’s advocate, look at how people in Japan reacted after Fukushima. The world was awed by how awesome their “community spirit” was - nobody denied they exhibited far more social cohesion, sacrifice and civic responsibility than would ever be on display in the US.
That’s a cultural difference on display. Culture is not determined by race, so let’s not conflate the two. Culture is something you are immersed in and it does influence behavior.
There are also massive downsides to extreme cultural cohesion, looking at it another way.
But let’s not deny that social culture has a bearing on individual and group behavior. It has a massive impact. Conflating that observation with race or _racism_ seems a particularly unhelpful neuroticism of the US.
That’s a cultural difference on display. Culture is not determined by race, so let’s not conflate the two. Culture is something you are immersed in and it does influence behavior.
There are also massive downsides to extreme cultural cohesion, looking at it another way.
But let’s not deny that social culture has a bearing on individual and group behavior. It has a massive impact. Conflating that observation with race or _racism_ seems a particularly unhelpful neuroticism of the US.
I agree with most of what you say. It's just that culture in the US isn't nearly as homogeneous as culture in Japan, and I have my doubts now as to whether the poster in question was talking about US as a whole or the culture (read race) of a specific demographic. Also, your examples here entirely sidestep the subject, which is crime and recidivism, things that are also found in Japan, probably lower than in the US but probably still higher than in Norway.
I never said anything that would imply that, so please take your absurdly inflammatory accusation out of here.
You’re comparing Norway’s 2 year recidivism rate with the US’s 5 year rate. The US’s 2 year rate is 29%.
You’re comparing Norway’s 2 year recidivism Reconviction rate with the US’s 2 year Reimprisonment rate. The US’s 2 year Reconviction rate is 36%.
Even if those are the correct numbers to compare (which the other reply to you is questioning), the US number is 45% higher than Norway's which is still quite significant. Using the 36% rate from the other reply to you, the US rate is instead 80% higher than Norway's.
What I find striking are the reported recidivism rates of Sweden and Norway: 43% vs. 20% after 2 years. Sure, Norway is richer and socially/ethnically more homogeneous, but can this be the whole explanation for this extreme difference, considering the two countries are otherwise very similar?
Well Norway is a fraction the size of the US in population.
I would imagine that wealth, cultural homogeneity, and a very small population accounts for at least 80% of the explanation. So not the “whole” explanation, but the critical mass of why it works, sure.
It’s questionable to assume that Norway’s system could scale up by a factor of even 3x, let alone something sixty times the size. I’d be interested if it could produce results in a country like Spain or France with 50m people before calling on the US to simply do what Norway does but with 350m people.
I would imagine that wealth, cultural homogeneity, and a very small population accounts for at least 80% of the explanation. So not the “whole” explanation, but the critical mass of why it works, sure.
It’s questionable to assume that Norway’s system could scale up by a factor of even 3x, let alone something sixty times the size. I’d be interested if it could produce results in a country like Spain or France with 50m people before calling on the US to simply do what Norway does but with 350m people.
Sure, but my question is about the difference between Norway and Sweden. Sweden has (merely) twice the population size of Norway, is culturally similar, highly developed, has a similar political system etc, but still seems to fair far worse.
Why not implement it at a state level then? Many states in the US have a similar population to Norway.
[deleted]
Wow, I had no idea recidivism in Norway was that high. I expected something like 5%.
Basically 1 in 5 ex convicts return to crime.
Basically 1 in 5 ex convicts return to crime.
Worth noting that rates don't necessarily tell the whole story. In some countries you will avoid prison entirely for a whole range of offences including even some "heavy" things. It's not impossible that in countries like Norway or Denmark, people who are in prison are already statistically part of the people less likely to be rehabilitated.
On the other hand, prisons entirely create problems they're supposedly there to solve. Just ask people who've gone through juvenile detention if it's not a breeding ground to make some contacts and learn the ropes..
You'd almost need a compound unit like (reconviction rate at x years) * (prison population/total population) in order to figure out what is going on, with the idea that you'd want both reconvictions and proportion of population in prison to be low numbers.
For reference, the US has 655 prisoners per 100k, Norway has 60 per 100k.
On the other hand, prisons entirely create problems they're supposedly there to solve. Just ask people who've gone through juvenile detention if it's not a breeding ground to make some contacts and learn the ropes..
You'd almost need a compound unit like (reconviction rate at x years) * (prison population/total population) in order to figure out what is going on, with the idea that you'd want both reconvictions and proportion of population in prison to be low numbers.
For reference, the US has 655 prisoners per 100k, Norway has 60 per 100k.
It's generally higher than that depending on the data you use too. Most statistics you see are based on 1-2 year recidivism rates, so if they end up in prison at a later date then that's not included. For example, the UK keeps data of up to 9 years. It increases from 46% to 78% during that time period, so really almost 4 in 5 people return to crime.
Another thing to note is some base it on reconviction, instead of reimprosonment, which obfuscate the data again.
A decent summary of some research done in 2020 in recidivism rates: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
Another thing to note is some base it on reconviction, instead of reimprosonment, which obfuscate the data again.
A decent summary of some research done in 2020 in recidivism rates: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/recidivis...
As someone who grew up around serious criminals, this number is far lower than what you’d see in North America and shows that Norway at least makes some progress.
X/5 convicts return to crime because it is all they know and their peer group, family, and professional network are all infected by crime and their childhoods were marked by abuse, neglect, drugs, stress, anxiety, and isolation from healthy and stable human relationships. Good, well to do people like to pretend they are better than the lower classes but seriously undervalue their own good luck.
You can give an exconvict a bath, haircut, and paper degree all you want but at the end of the day the average citizen will still see them as scum and irreversibly damaged. Good luck finding a good job as a minority or (to a lesser degree) otherwise with any kind of record. The truth is that the punishment for a crime doesn’t end with one’s first stint in prison but continues for life.
Criminals are made far more often than they are born and the system is too quick to affirm the idea that they are little better than animals. No surprise to me that many return to crime.
X/5 convicts return to crime because it is all they know and their peer group, family, and professional network are all infected by crime and their childhoods were marked by abuse, neglect, drugs, stress, anxiety, and isolation from healthy and stable human relationships. Good, well to do people like to pretend they are better than the lower classes but seriously undervalue their own good luck.
You can give an exconvict a bath, haircut, and paper degree all you want but at the end of the day the average citizen will still see them as scum and irreversibly damaged. Good luck finding a good job as a minority or (to a lesser degree) otherwise with any kind of record. The truth is that the punishment for a crime doesn’t end with one’s first stint in prison but continues for life.
Criminals are made far more often than they are born and the system is too quick to affirm the idea that they are little better than animals. No surprise to me that many return to crime.
As we know, correlation doesn’t mean causation. Recidivism may have nothing to do with prison conditions for all we know. The link you provided even says that numerous other factors have more of an impact on recidivism.
> Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%. Apparently not treating people inhumanely is a great way of getting them not to commit more crimes. [1] Who would have thought?
Your mistake is in not realizing that this is considered a feature, not a bug. The US incarceration system is very much designed so that "certain people" stay in prison for the majority of cradle to grave. It is not in the interest of this design that recidivism be reduced.
Your mistake is in not realizing that this is considered a feature, not a bug. The US incarceration system is very much designed so that "certain people" stay in prison for the majority of cradle to grave. It is not in the interest of this design that recidivism be reduced.
Certainly feels that way with the minimum prison occupancy contracts states sign with private prisons. [1]
[1] http://www.aublr.org/2017/11/private-prison-contracts-minimu...
[1] http://www.aublr.org/2017/11/private-prison-contracts-minimu...
>Recidivism in the US is 55% after 5 years, as compared to Norway's 20%. Apparently not treating people inhumanely is a great way of getting them not to commit more crimes. [1] Who would have thought?
There's a thousand other ways America is different from Norway. The quote statistic -> unwarranted conclusion -> logic dunk! shitposting ruins websites.
There's a thousand other ways America is different from Norway. The quote statistic -> unwarranted conclusion -> logic dunk! shitposting ruins websites.
> it causes severe psychological distress. That's what prison is.
Depends. Some penal systems are there for "retribution" or punishment, and those match your definition. Other concepts available are rehabilitation and simply separating proven dangerous elements from society at large. Apart from the loss of freedom of movement (which I would not describe as "severe psychological distress"), there is no hard requirement for a prison system to be even unpleasant.
Depends. Some penal systems are there for "retribution" or punishment, and those match your definition. Other concepts available are rehabilitation and simply separating proven dangerous elements from society at large. Apart from the loss of freedom of movement (which I would not describe as "severe psychological distress"), there is no hard requirement for a prison system to be even unpleasant.
Having your freedom restricted for years is not "severe psychological distress"?
Have to disagree there.
Have to disagree there.
Why? Would you really say that restricting freedoms generally causes severe psychological distress? What about militaries around the world, that either through volunteer or conscription, severely restrict a soldier’s freedom and requires compulsory training and work? It seems that we are stretching “severe psychological distress” to the point of meaninglessness if simply having your movement restricted and being required to follow some sort of rules and regime based system causes it. There is a difference between stress and “severe psychological distress”.
The philosophy of imprisonment is fairly vast, I believe.
But hard/philosophical requirements notwithstanding, prisons tend to be what they are. The famous moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham designed some a "modern" prison system with some of these goals in mind, especially reform. The result was quite horrific.
But hard/philosophical requirements notwithstanding, prisons tend to be what they are. The famous moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham designed some a "modern" prison system with some of these goals in mind, especially reform. The result was quite horrific.
You've chosen to ignore any of the cases of actually modern reform-based prison systems and instead bring up the late 18th century? Odd choice.
Note that the exaggerated theoretical horrors of Bentham's panopticon are the mundane reality of modern non-prison life under camera and cell phone surveillance.
Being watched by guards isn't one of the top 10 worst aspects of living in prison.
Being watched by guards isn't one of the top 10 worst aspects of living in prison.
I can't agree. I doubt many people on HN are "absolutist" a lot of us do realize that the US prison system is horrible if you're not in a white collar minimal security prison (and he would not be, he is headed for a federal prison with probably 23.5 hours solitary confinement a day in a room and 30 minutes of exercise) and probably some time with his lawyers. I can't say I wouldn't side with the English judge in this case, he's just calling it like he sees it.
Pretty sure the judge is "she", not "he".
what's extra horrible is solitary is used for 'protection' and mental health. e.g. if you report fear for your life (common in US prisons if you don't want to play the gang game) they throw you into the SHU. It's barbaric as punishment, disgusting for supposed health reasons
I have been fascinated with the effects of solitary confinement on mental health. Why the Covid pandemic has added horrors is because large parts of human populations are under virtual imprisonment, not being able to visit and touch friends and family, and not being able to travel. Anecdotal evidence strongly indicates that this had vastly detrimental effect on mental health.
(Understanding this may be also crucial for the proper design of long-duration space travel.)
Just like ordeal by fire, and ordeal by boiling oil, I wish that solitary confinement be identified as cruel and unusual punishment, used sparingly and only with the highest levels of bureaucratic clearance. Probably only against the insanely violent, rather than the mildly inconvenient.
(Understanding this may be also crucial for the proper design of long-duration space travel.)
Just like ordeal by fire, and ordeal by boiling oil, I wish that solitary confinement be identified as cruel and unusual punishment, used sparingly and only with the highest levels of bureaucratic clearance. Probably only against the insanely violent, rather than the mildly inconvenient.
It's understood to be torture no? If you look in the CIA manual on torture, they found that mental torture or psychological torture worked better than physical torture. This would include deprivation and isolation.
Regarding your comment about how the entire ruling centers on this one point, would this mean all the US would have to do to get it overturned is pinky promise they won't throw Assange in solitary? What if they then put him in solitary anyway?
> What if they then put him in solitary anyway?
Nothing, but now you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally. Countries generally (!) try to keep their promises to each other, or they won't be considered reliable in the future. Just like individuals.
Nothing, but now you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally. Countries generally (!) try to keep their promises to each other, or they won't be considered reliable in the future. Just like individuals.
> you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally.
The UK has done exactly that by denying extradition to the US.
The UK has done exactly that by denying extradition to the US.
One wonders if there is not some element of 'tit-for-tat' in response to the Anne Sacoolas / Harry Dunn affair at play here.
I'm sure Anne Sacoolas will be presenting herself at the Old Bailey forthwith?
With the new administration, perhaps. Not sure this would have been true with the current admin.
>> Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
It's because the US is a powerful ally and the UK does not want to displease them. The British call this their "special relation" to the Americans. I don't know what the Americans call it.
It's because the US is a powerful ally and the UK does not want to displease them. The British call this their "special relation" to the Americans. I don't know what the Americans call it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efOs0BsE0g
There was an amusing twist after this was published. The creators got in trouble with the Australian Government, who were concerned about their use of the Australian coat of arms: it might confuse viewers into thinking the video was an official government one.
There was an amusing twist after this was published. The creators got in trouble with the Australian Government, who were concerned about their use of the Australian coat of arms: it might confuse viewers into thinking the video was an official government one.
What do all the other countries with an extradition treaty with the US call their own relationship? They can't all be special ... can they?
Sharlin(2)
I have never come across the use of satisfied for "persuaded by argument or evidence" before. (yes, I had to look it up, not a native speaker)
Is this usage common or just some kind of legalese?
Its normal - its even used in Computer Science, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem
Relatively common in the UK but fairly formal; can be substituted for 'fulfill' pretty much everywhere it's used
"You have satisfied the requirements of a degree and have been granted the award of BSc Physics"
"You have satisfied the requirements of a degree and have been granted the award of BSc Physics"
It's not legalese, but it is frequently used in judgments.
I don't think it's common, but it certainly isn't legalese.
It is normal usage.
I guess it's more common in British English (and maybe a bit old-fashioned?).
Edit: google ngrams seems to agree.
Edit: google ngrams seems to agree.
As in sentences like "I'm satisfied that you did your best" and "I'm satisfied that it contains no gluten". Do those not work in American or other international English?
According to google ngrams the frequency of 'satisfied that' is 0.00026% in British English and 0.00012% in American English. So only a factor of 2 difference. Interestingly the peak of American usage was in the 1860s (~0.001%), followed by a slow decline, but in Britain there was a small peak around 1920 (~0.00127%), then a higher peak in the 1940s (~0.002%), followed by a rapid decline to the present day.
No, that's the definition that does track perfectly in American English: where it can be substituted by "pleased."
But those sentences are also perfectly meaningful assuming the other sense of "satisfied", which may be what GP meant. Ie. "I am convinced that you did your best" and "I am convinced that it contains no gluten".
Oh, I definitely agree that those example exist on the fuzzy line, but the question was whether they didn't read to Americans.
The more I think about it, the harder the actual barrier between "pleased" and "convinced" is hard to draw.
The more I think about it, the harder the actual barrier between "pleased" and "convinced" is hard to draw.
It's not that hard to draw it: 'I am satisfied that this man is the one who killed my dog'. Whether you are convinced that this is the man, or whether you are pleased that this particular man killed your dog are clearly different senses.
Interestingly, the BBC asked the question: “is HMP Belmarsh the British Guantanamo Bay?” [0]
By the transitive properties of anglo-american fascist thought, does that make the US prison system better or worse than the US extrajudicial prison in Cuba??
[0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3714864.stm
By the transitive properties of anglo-american fascist thought, does that make the US prison system better or worse than the US extrajudicial prison in Cuba??
[0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3714864.stm
There are better and worse parts in each system. Not everyone is in solitary confinement or 22hr per day in cell. The worst parts of all 3 are bad.
Camp X-Ray is a criminal enterprise against humanity. There are no "better parts" of an extra-judicial detention and torture center. You must be one of those "new" Americans who grew up watching "interrogations" on cable tv shows. [I'm one of the "old" Americans who stopped watching TV as soon as torture was promoted on American airwaves.]
> You must be one of those "new" Americans who grew up watching "interrogations" on cable tv shows.
Instead of discussing the issue, you are just dismissing the person based on a completely made up attribute about them.
> I'm one of the "old" Americans who stopped watching TV as soon as torture was promoted on American airwaves.
Calling yourself morally superior and acting as if your tv watching habits when discussing detention centers gives you any sort of credibility.
Instead of discussing the issue, you are just dismissing the person based on a completely made up attribute about them.
> I'm one of the "old" Americans who stopped watching TV as soon as torture was promoted on American airwaves.
Calling yourself morally superior and acting as if your tv watching habits when discussing detention centers gives you any sort of credibility.
I dismissed the notion that 2 correctional facilities that nominally are subject to a legal regime are in the same set as Camp X-Ray.
Well, we Americans until 21st century were repeatedly told that our way of life was in fact “morally superior” to “torturing” USSR. I can dig up the imdb link for TV shows in 90s that used that very line in discussing the Soviets.
[here you go: Stalin, 1992, Robert DuVall https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105462/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1]
> any sort of credibility
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=542354234235
Well, we Americans until 21st century were repeatedly told that our way of life was in fact “morally superior” to “torturing” USSR. I can dig up the imdb link for TV shows in 90s that used that very line in discussing the Soviets.
[here you go: Stalin, 1992, Robert DuVall https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105462/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1]
> any sort of credibility
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=542354234235
I’m not disagreeing about what was on television. However, you are saying that if someone disagrees with you that it is because of the tv they watched and your moral and legal opinion on the workings of detainment center are apparently proudly derived from tv shows, or at least that is the only thing you have provided in support of your position.
I’m really not sure why you linked to my profile. I can only assume you are attempting to imply that because my account is only a few months old, and your account is several years old, that that gives you some sort of credibility. So, to summarize, you have used old tv shows and an old account on social media as your bonafides in a discussion on the moral, ethical, and legal framework around Guantanamo Bay. Very compelling.
I’m really not sure why you linked to my profile. I can only assume you are attempting to imply that because my account is only a few months old, and your account is several years old, that that gives you some sort of credibility. So, to summarize, you have used old tv shows and an old account on social media as your bonafides in a discussion on the moral, ethical, and legal framework around Guantanamo Bay. Very compelling.
That is not an accurate reading of what I wrote.
To spell it out: prior to 9/11, institutionalized use of torture was anathema to our national mores as reflected by American cultural products. Only ad-hoc extra legal violence (various police shows) was on the entertainment menu.
After 9/11, institutionalized use of torture was promoted as "necessary" and "acceptable" and cultural products were duly modifed to represent that radical shift in American ethos.
American children who grew up post 9/11 are likely not even aware that as recently as 1992, use of torture was systemically held up as a sign of a repressive system. I merely bring up TV given that it is the main source of social conditioning for the masses. We could discuss academic and political content not on TV and see the same abrupt shift in our national value system.
To spell it out: prior to 9/11, institutionalized use of torture was anathema to our national mores as reflected by American cultural products. Only ad-hoc extra legal violence (various police shows) was on the entertainment menu.
After 9/11, institutionalized use of torture was promoted as "necessary" and "acceptable" and cultural products were duly modifed to represent that radical shift in American ethos.
American children who grew up post 9/11 are likely not even aware that as recently as 1992, use of torture was systemically held up as a sign of a repressive system. I merely bring up TV given that it is the main source of social conditioning for the masses. We could discuss academic and political content not on TV and see the same abrupt shift in our national value system.
[deleted]
(Lousy) conspiracy theory: the judge is on the US payroll to keep him in Britain. It’s cheaper and easier for the British to house and guard him than it is for the US to deal with him (and go through the spectacle of his ostensible execution). Better to jail him away in Britain while muttering something about humanitarianism.
What exactly is his fate if the appeals process which the US is planning fails to change anything? Does he live free in the UK or will he be prosecuted there for something else?
AFAIK he just continues to chill in the UK under house arrest until he succumbs (ostensibly during a decade).
"Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder."
This would be entirely speculative for an MD let alone a Judge who doesn't really know what 'autism' is.
So it's possibly a good outcome but based on bad legal proceedings.
We're supposed to be 'advanced countries' why can't we get simple things right?
This would be entirely speculative for an MD let alone a Judge who doesn't really know what 'autism' is.
So it's possibly a good outcome but based on bad legal proceedings.
We're supposed to be 'advanced countries' why can't we get simple things right?
That's what expert witnesses reported, not some thought the judge just came up with. I recommend reading the actual ruling if you want to understand how the judge came to this conclusion.
I find this to be an odd statement as well (as someone who did not know Assange had autism until I read that sentence)
Although I think the ruling is reasonable if the justification is simply that US prisons are inhumane
Vaguely related: I heard about a thought experiment from Amanda Askell (in one of her podcast interviews), but it's kind of interesting: what would you give up in order to not go to jail for 5 years. What amount of money would you pay? Would you be willing to lose a finger instead?
This does not immediately imply that we should abolish jails, but at the very least we should consider just how serious the punishment is. (And then repeat the experiment for a federal prison Assange would be in)
Although I think the ruling is reasonable if the justification is simply that US prisons are inhumane
Vaguely related: I heard about a thought experiment from Amanda Askell (in one of her podcast interviews), but it's kind of interesting: what would you give up in order to not go to jail for 5 years. What amount of money would you pay? Would you be willing to lose a finger instead?
This does not immediately imply that we should abolish jails, but at the very least we should consider just how serious the punishment is. (And then repeat the experiment for a federal prison Assange would be in)
It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. The judge was persuaded on the balance of probability (more likely than not) that it was true.
"It's not speculative, it's literally what he and his lawyers said. "
Then it's the most absolutely biased possible thing upon which to rule.
Assange's isolation was a) self imposed and b) considerably better than any 'prison' than he would face in Sweden, the UK or the USA. You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'.
Then it's the most absolutely biased possible thing upon which to rule.
Assange's isolation was a) self imposed and b) considerably better than any 'prison' than he would face in Sweden, the UK or the USA. You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'.
Do you understand what happens in a court case?
One side puts forward an argument, and the other side puts forward their argument, and a judge decides which is true and then applies the law.
Here the judge decided that he was at risk of death if he went to a US prison, the US was unable to answer that point, and the judge then looks at law - ECHR article 2 - to decide whether to send him or not.
The judge seems pretty clear that Assange should be in jail. Just not in an inhumane US jail.
Your comment BTW is a great example of how toxic these convos can be. I loathe Assange and I don't care if he rots in prison. You've assumed that I think he should be walking free.
One side puts forward an argument, and the other side puts forward their argument, and a judge decides which is true and then applies the law.
Here the judge decided that he was at risk of death if he went to a US prison, the US was unable to answer that point, and the judge then looks at law - ECHR article 2 - to decide whether to send him or not.
The judge seems pretty clear that Assange should be in jail. Just not in an inhumane US jail.
Your comment BTW is a great example of how toxic these convos can be. I loathe Assange and I don't care if he rots in prison. You've assumed that I think he should be walking free.
>You don't get to 'not go to jail' because 'it will be depressing'.
To add to DanBC, a country absolutely can decide not to extradite to another country they believe plans to imprison someone at well below what they consider to be the minimum standard for human rights, the same way many countries do not extradite to a country that tortures or has the death penalty. There is a difference between making the argument “I don’t want to go to jail because it is depressing” and “the country’s planned imprisonment would violate my basic human rights and is to such an inhumane level as it would likely cause severe physiological damage”.
To add to DanBC, a country absolutely can decide not to extradite to another country they believe plans to imprison someone at well below what they consider to be the minimum standard for human rights, the same way many countries do not extradite to a country that tortures or has the death penalty. There is a difference between making the argument “I don’t want to go to jail because it is depressing” and “the country’s planned imprisonment would violate my basic human rights and is to such an inhumane level as it would likely cause severe physiological damage”.
>We're supposed to be 'advanced countries' why can't we get simple things right?
for the same reason old projects tend to suffer from old unfixed bugs and a burden of backwards compatibility
for the same reason old projects tend to suffer from old unfixed bugs and a burden of backwards compatibility
If there's anything to learn from Assange and Snowden:
1. Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level.
2. With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US.
3. Politically vociferous people (the mob) don't give a shit about you unless you're instrumental to support the cause du jour
1. Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level.
2. With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US.
3. Politically vociferous people (the mob) don't give a shit about you unless you're instrumental to support the cause du jour
> Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level.
That's a fairly weak observation both because liberal democracies still punish criminals and many people do take serious issue with what Assange is and has done - it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews.
That's a fairly weak observation both because liberal democracies still punish criminals and many people do take serious issue with what Assange is and has done - it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews.
> it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews.
It's a heavily penalized sentiment in this portion of the internet.
It's a heavily penalized sentiment in this portion of the internet.
Publishing what he did is not a crime (under ruling on the Pentagon Papers) however everyone here seems to miss the point that he did so without the normal process a journalist would apply, redacting the names of people that would be put at risk of harm in doing so. That was irresponsible and could be considered criminal. If you read the ruling the judge makes it clear that his actions would be considered a crime in the UK.
So what exactly is his fate if the appeals process which the US is planning fails to change anything? Does he live free in the UK or will he be prosecuted in the UK for something else?
I can’t find any information about that.
I can’t find any information about that.
Honestly, I am going to bet he looses in the end. The US government has unlimited time and will around these things (look at what they did to the mob). Let’s say he steps one foot out of the UK to another country that has an extradition treaty, US issues warrant and it starts all over again. It is likely given the fact that the UK judges only reason for not granting the request was how he would be held that the US government as we speak are drawling up a proposal that would be agreeable to the judge.
> The US government has unlimited time and will around these things
> ...
> Let’s say he steps one foot out of the UK to another country that has an extradition treaty
Very much agree with this take, after all the US already forced the landing of the Bolivian presidential plane in Austria when they believed that Snowden could be aboard it in order to capture him and extradite him to the US
> ...
> Let’s say he steps one foot out of the UK to another country that has an extradition treaty
Very much agree with this take, after all the US already forced the landing of the Bolivian presidential plane in Austria when they believed that Snowden could be aboard it in order to capture him and extradite him to the US
> US already forced the landing of the Bolivian presidential plane in Austria
What would they do if Snowden was actually on the plane and the Bolivian president had a reason not to land the plane?
I bet they would do nothing. Or do you think they would literally down a plane with a president of another country?
The only reason they landed was because they had nothing to hide. I am also pretty certain American politicans are smart enough to realise that the only reason that plane landed was because there was no one there.
What would they do if Snowden was actually on the plane and the Bolivian president had a reason not to land the plane?
I bet they would do nothing. Or do you think they would literally down a plane with a president of another country?
The only reason they landed was because they had nothing to hide. I am also pretty certain American politicans are smart enough to realise that the only reason that plane landed was because there was no one there.
Additionally, it probably doesn't matter how the particular judge is placated, if that occurs - once he's in the states the US Government can essentially do as it pleases because who's going to stop them? A sternly worded letter might be sent, which will be filed, and that'll be the end of it is my guess.
> The US government has unlimited time and will around these things
So why are Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon still free after the same extradition denial years ago?
So why are Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon still free after the same extradition denial years ago?
Failure to edit wasn't what he was accused of.
US government secrets are not expressly protected by UK law.
Consider this absurdity: you could be extradited to South Korea for having some North Korean songs on your phone.
US government secrets are not expressly protected by UK law.
Consider this absurdity: you could be extradited to South Korea for having some North Korean songs on your phone.
So in the UK you can go to jail for what he did, unlike in the US. The Pentagon Papers ruling gave cover for journalists leaking government secrets. In the UK the official secrets act offers no such protection and is a ticket right to jail.
> With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US.
When you do things like https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-ns..., no propaganda is necessary.
When you do things like https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-ns..., no propaganda is necessary.
That is horrible. Wasting tax dollars spying on schools.
Does Lincoln Lab count as MIT? Is it really a "school" per se?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Lincoln_Laboratory
It'd be pretty surprising if no one was attempting to spy on such organizations
I don't know what Tsinghua does but I can imagine a top school doing similar government-funded work anywhere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Lincoln_Laboratory
It'd be pretty surprising if no one was attempting to spy on such organizations
I don't know what Tsinghua does but I can imagine a top school doing similar government-funded work anywhere
> It'd be pretty surprising if no one was attempting to spy on such organizations
Just last year a professor and two Chinese nationals at Harvard were indicted for something similar: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...
Just last year a professor and two Chinese nationals at Harvard were indicted for something similar: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-...
A country’s premier research university seems like a pretty normal espionage target.
> Our western "liberal" democracies
....are by far not all like the United States.
....are by far not all like the United States.
Back when Snowden initially did what he did, I had a conversation with some coworkers about whether he was a hero or a traitor for releasing that information. I, personally, concluded that he was a bit of both, but, on balance, I considered him more heroic than traitorous. These days, I've shifted my opinion even more toward "heroic."
[deleted]
Power structures protect themselves. They use various combinations of propaganda and force.
The lesson is that the US and the UK are the same power structure.
The lesson is that the US and the UK are the same power structure.
One of the most interesting aspects of the assange saga is how journalists and mainstream media treated him throughout the years.
When he exposed Bush, the media and journalists celebrated him as a hero. I believe he was even given some awards. When he exposed Hillary, the media and journalists attacked him. Journalism is political activism at its core.
When he exposed Bush, the media and journalists celebrated him as a hero. I believe he was even given some awards. When he exposed Hillary, the media and journalists attacked him. Journalism is political activism at its core.
He's been a piece of shit for decades
Pretty sure Snowden dumped every single thing he could get his hands on. That pretty much makes him a traitor.
Reading your comment history, you are only here to spew your hate for Snowden and Assange: clearly a political motive.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. -- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. -- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
They're both fools that a certain subset - call them uncritical libertarians - of the tech comunity seem to worship. The topic annoys me.
Reading from that to my "purpose" for being here, and moreover calling it a "political" purpose (ignoring the fact that basically everything is political) is entirely spurious.
Reading from that to my "purpose" for being here, and moreover calling it a "political" purpose (ignoring the fact that basically everything is political) is entirely spurious.
You think exposing government atrocity and showing people what is done in their name to them and by them makes people fools?
I actually don't think this is such great news for him.
Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances.
If the judge had found on more substantive grounds, those would have been much more resistant to that. For instance, all the claims based on language in the extradition treaty and other international agreements failed and they failed for pretty fundamental legal reasons. English courts only have regard for domestic law and it is for parliament to pass laws consistent with the treaties that have been signed, therefore claims based on treaty language won't work.
That means that none of the claims on the political nature of his activities were upheld and those would have provided a much more robust and durable bar to extradition.
Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances.
If the judge had found on more substantive grounds, those would have been much more resistant to that. For instance, all the claims based on language in the extradition treaty and other international agreements failed and they failed for pretty fundamental legal reasons. English courts only have regard for domestic law and it is for parliament to pass laws consistent with the treaties that have been signed, therefore claims based on treaty language won't work.
That means that none of the claims on the political nature of his activities were upheld and those would have provided a much more robust and durable bar to extradition.
> Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances.
And isn't that actually done on a fairly regular basis? IIRC, the US has pledged not to pursue the death penalty in certain cases in order to get cooperation on an extradition.
And isn't that actually done on a fairly regular basis? IIRC, the US has pledged not to pursue the death penalty in certain cases in order to get cooperation on an extradition.
In many cases.
Virtually any jurisdiction that knows no capital punishment refuses to extradite if it be possible the extraditee face it.
Virtually any jurisdiction that knows no capital punishment refuses to extradite if it be possible the extraditee face it.
Maximum security prison + solitary confinement is way too harsh for this issue IMHO.
Agreed. The k ly thing I would say is that extradition from the UK to the US is almost always granted, so even a delay and appeal is a better result than expected...
Kevin Gosztola: "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914
Matt Kennard, investigative journalist: "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." - https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328
Rebecca Vincent from Reports Without Borders responding to the judgment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A
Matt Kennard, investigative journalist: "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." - https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328
Rebecca Vincent from Reports Without Borders responding to the judgment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A
> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange."
A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right.
They omitted it very deliberately.
A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right.
They omitted it very deliberately.
Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u...
>> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said.
>> The lawyer pointed out that during the criminal hearings Assange is kept in a glass box at the back of court from where he cannot his lawyers properly.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u...
>> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said.
>> The lawyer pointed out that during the criminal hearings Assange is kept in a glass box at the back of court from where he cannot his lawyers properly.
Certainly better in the UK than the US. He gets to see family and has contact with support including calls with e.g. the Samaritans.
[deleted]
> Each day Julian is ... x-rayed
Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.
Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.
I think they meant put through a metal detector? Assange was put on suicide watch (whether justifiedly or not I do not know) so presumably they're checking for weapons he could harm himself with, still seems like overkill though.
Could just be sloppy, inaccurate writing. But yeah that would be pretty bad.
It's a direct quote from his fiancé, who is also a lawyer and part of his defense team: https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306205472521891840?...
I can't vouch for the analysis here, but this is interesting. It's an FOIA request that seems to show the equipment being used. https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-ra...
I can't vouch for the analysis here, but this is interesting. It's an FOIA request that seems to show the equipment being used. https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-ra...
That second link says "each full body scan of an individual would generate 6 Micro Sieverts (µSv)" so 2 scans per day would be 12 µSv, and a dose chart [0] shows the average daily background dose to be 10 µSv while a flight from NY to LA is 40 µSv. So it's a bit like taking that flight every 3.3 days. So maybe it's no worse than being a pilot / flight attendant?
[0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-muc...
[0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-muc...
2 scans a day for 1 year would be 4,380 µSv, or 4.3 mSv. The yearly dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) is 1 mSv per year for the general public, and 20 mSv for “occupationally exposed workers” [1]. Since Assange is receiving this for very specific reasons, I don’t think he would fall into the general public. So he is receiving less than a quarter of what is considered max safe for a radiation worker. For further comparison, long haul airline pilots receive and average of 2.94 mSv/year [2] and “diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiotherapy workers were found to be 0.66, 1.56, and 0.28 mSv, respectively” [3]. So he could be on the high end when compared to medical workers and pilots, while still being well under the safe max limits.
[1] https://radiopaedia.org/articles/dose-limits?lang=us
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019040/
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S165836551...
[1] https://radiopaedia.org/articles/dose-limits?lang=us
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019040/
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S165836551...
Thanks, this is very informative. Does the peakiness of being subject to X-ray scanning (a duty cycle like 500ms on, 12hr off) come into play when comparing with those other occupations, though?
First, I am probably as much as a layman as you. But from what I have read and some quick googling now, there is no additional risk or appreciative difference. Although I did find a few regulations that the general public should not be exposed to any sort of radiation higher than 10 µSv per hour. However I believe that is to prevent regular people unknowingly being around high radiation sources that would add up to a high cumulative total, since the general public does not have any way to track their cumulative exposure, not a problem with that level of single dose radiation per se.
Ionizing radiation damage is overwhelmingly and almost exclusively in its cumulative effects, namely the cancer it can cause. Each “unit” of radiation has a certain likelihood of slicing through the DNA of one of your cells, which has a certain likelihood of causing a mutation, which has a certain likelihood of being a cancerous mutation and not a “kills the cell” mutation, which has a certain likelihood of being a specific type that can evade all the body’s natural defenses against rouge cells. It is a long chain of dice rolls that have to all go just wrong.
So, unless the dose is concentrated to a physical location, e.g. radon in the lungs or sunburn on the skin, then it doesn’t really matter if you get a given dose over a month or a year. It will still start the same number of cascading dice rolls.
If someone that actually knows what they are talking about feels the need to correct anything, please do.
Ionizing radiation damage is overwhelmingly and almost exclusively in its cumulative effects, namely the cancer it can cause. Each “unit” of radiation has a certain likelihood of slicing through the DNA of one of your cells, which has a certain likelihood of causing a mutation, which has a certain likelihood of being a cancerous mutation and not a “kills the cell” mutation, which has a certain likelihood of being a specific type that can evade all the body’s natural defenses against rouge cells. It is a long chain of dice rolls that have to all go just wrong.
So, unless the dose is concentrated to a physical location, e.g. radon in the lungs or sunburn on the skin, then it doesn’t really matter if you get a given dose over a month or a year. It will still start the same number of cascading dice rolls.
If someone that actually knows what they are talking about feels the need to correct anything, please do.
Pilots get a lot of radiation exposure though! It's not to be casually dismissed.
Do they ever get pulled off of flights to reduce their cumulative radiation exposure?
12 µSv in two 500 ms bursts is very different 12 µSv spread out over 1 hour of flight time.
The difference in intensity is 3,600 fold. It's the difference between being subjected to 1 hour of 30 degree celcius heat and 1 second of 108,000 degree celcius heat.
The difference in intensity is 3,600 fold. It's the difference between being subjected to 1 hour of 30 degree celcius heat and 1 second of 108,000 degree celcius heat.
To bolster your argument: only the Kelvin scale is eligible for multiplication operations, so 30C * 3600 = 1,091,067C when converting to K and back.
On the other hand: I expect 500 ms of such extreme heat would instantly kill a human, although I'm having a hard time finding an answer for such a short time scale. Since X-ray imaging doesn't instantly kill, it's apples and oranges, but point taken.
On the other hand: I expect 500 ms of such extreme heat would instantly kill a human, although I'm having a hard time finding an answer for such a short time scale. Since X-ray imaging doesn't instantly kill, it's apples and oranges, but point taken.
[deleted]
This is not a description of how he's being treated as a prisoner, but rather specifically as a prisoner who is being transported between a prison and a courthouse during a trial or hearing.
So... somewhat disingenuous.
So... somewhat disingenuous.
[deleted]
on what charges is he being held in the UK?
Arrested in 2019 when his Ecuadorian asylum was revoked, charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, maximum 5y sentence. Was changed a month later to be the Espionage Act charges.
Those all stem from the US though, I think he's only detained by the UK for extradition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
Those all stem from the US though, I think he's only detained by the UK for extradition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
For skipping bail
This fell into a broader question of whether the Extradition Act 2003 has to be enforced notwithstanding the terms of the extradition treaty. The treaty refers to political offences; the Act does not. The answer to this question was yes, the Act is self-contained. Therefore the judge did not need to decide the question of whether it was a political offence. So she did not discuss it or decide the question.
You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it.
But you couldn't say she "sided with US prosecutors" on whether it was a political offence or not. If you put that language in the Extradition Act, then you would get a decision on it. It's not so much "chilling for investigative journalism" as a deficiency in the Act itself not accounting for the particular US-UK treaty language or the US' categorisation under the Act that should reflect its recent anti-democratic bent.
You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it.
But you couldn't say she "sided with US prosecutors" on whether it was a political offence or not. If you put that language in the Extradition Act, then you would get a decision on it. It's not so much "chilling for investigative journalism" as a deficiency in the Act itself not accounting for the particular US-UK treaty language or the US' categorisation under the Act that should reflect its recent anti-democratic bent.
It's just bizarre that the terms of the extradition treaty, which explicitly bars extradition for political offenses, would be irrelevant. If the terms of the treaty don't matter, then what's the basis for extraditing Assange in the first place?
> It's just bizarre that the terms of the extradition treaty, which explicitly bars extradition for political offenses, would be irrelevant.
Basic UK constitutional law: judges apply the law as written by Parliament, not the law as it ought to be written if the treaty had been properly implemented. If this leads to the UK not following their obligations, the remedy for this is Parliament need to modify primary legislation to satisfy their international obligations. All treaties need ratification by Parliament.
(There are two major exceptions to this: the European Convention of Human Rights which was "domesticated" by the Human Rights Act 1998, and EU law which, pre-Brexit, was brought into UK law by the European Communities Act, and has now been integrated into UK law through the EU Withdrawal Act.)
Basic UK constitutional law: judges apply the law as written by Parliament, not the law as it ought to be written if the treaty had been properly implemented. If this leads to the UK not following their obligations, the remedy for this is Parliament need to modify primary legislation to satisfy their international obligations. All treaties need ratification by Parliament.
(There are two major exceptions to this: the European Convention of Human Rights which was "domesticated" by the Human Rights Act 1998, and EU law which, pre-Brexit, was brought into UK law by the European Communities Act, and has now been integrated into UK law through the EU Withdrawal Act.)
The basis is the Extradition Act, which according to the judgment is a self-contained implementation of a bunch of different extradition treaties.
Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure out what the legislature meant by unsavoury when they wrote it. Maybe a bunch of treaties had similar provisions using the word unsavoury, but the US one changed it, and you would analyse why they didn’t use the language again, or whether political offences as referred to by the US treaty would fit the bill... But according to the judgment, the Act is not ambiguous. There is nothing to look to the treaty for.
Still, the basis for the extradition is not the treaty. Treaties bind States (ie countries) against each other. The remedy for a treaty law breach is stern words from the UN, maybe a fine, whatever. But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition. The only requirement imposed by the treaty is on the UK as a State to implement the treaty in domestic law, which is how countries like the UK comply with the terms of the treaty. International law does not bind local decision makers who decide whether the extradition goes ahead. It also does not bind parliament, which can refuse to implement a treaty or decide to deviate from it. It should also be quite plain that Assange is not a State party to the extradition agreement, being neither the literal United States nor Kingdom, so he does not have standing to object to the UK’s implementation, and of course, is in utterly the wrong court for that :)
(That the UK is bound to comply makes for a strong suggestion that parliament actually intended to be true to the treaty when they implemented it, but this is only relevant where there is ambiguity in the domestic law requiring resolution, because of the primacy of legislative power and its ability to write laws in clear terms that can’t be wriggled out of.)
Hypothetically, let’s say the statute actually had a section with “no extraditions for unsavoury offences” in it. That’s pretty weird and ambiguous, so you might, subject to UK law on statutory interpretation, look to the treaty/treaties the Act is implementing to figure out what the legislature meant by unsavoury when they wrote it. Maybe a bunch of treaties had similar provisions using the word unsavoury, but the US one changed it, and you would analyse why they didn’t use the language again, or whether political offences as referred to by the US treaty would fit the bill... But according to the judgment, the Act is not ambiguous. There is nothing to look to the treaty for.
Still, the basis for the extradition is not the treaty. Treaties bind States (ie countries) against each other. The remedy for a treaty law breach is stern words from the UN, maybe a fine, whatever. But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition. The only requirement imposed by the treaty is on the UK as a State to implement the treaty in domestic law, which is how countries like the UK comply with the terms of the treaty. International law does not bind local decision makers who decide whether the extradition goes ahead. It also does not bind parliament, which can refuse to implement a treaty or decide to deviate from it. It should also be quite plain that Assange is not a State party to the extradition agreement, being neither the literal United States nor Kingdom, so he does not have standing to object to the UK’s implementation, and of course, is in utterly the wrong court for that :)
(That the UK is bound to comply makes for a strong suggestion that parliament actually intended to be true to the treaty when they implemented it, but this is only relevant where there is ambiguity in the domestic law requiring resolution, because of the primacy of legislative power and its ability to write laws in clear terms that can’t be wriggled out of.)
The political offenses exception is not ambiguous. It's well understood what the exception means, and the treaty explicitly bars it. It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK.
> But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition
In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.
There are enough other problems in this ruling to make me very skeptical of the judge's reasoning here. A few of them:
* The judge says that it's an open question whether or not a journalist from The Guardian was the person who first published unredacted cables with informants' names. As was established beyond any doubt, it was The Guardian's journalist who first published the cables. The decryption key was the title of a chapter in his book, for crying out loud, and the encrypted archive was available online. Yet Baraitser treats this as an open question. Doing so allows Baraitser to argue that Assange put people's lives at risk.
* The judge asserts that Pompeo's statements about going after Assange do not represent the views of the US government, and therefore cannot be used to argue that the prosecution is politically motivated. Pompeo is the former director of the CIA and the current Secretary of State. He's one of the most senior members of the government, and he gave an entire speech devoted to arguing that the government should go after Assange.
To me, these are just unbelievable statements by the judge. The bottom line, though, is that the judge's ruling makes it possible for the US to go after investigative journalists in the UK who publish about the US military or intelligence apparatus. All the protections that journalists thought they had do not exist.
> But treaty law cannot establish domestic laws that govern things like extradition
In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.
There are enough other problems in this ruling to make me very skeptical of the judge's reasoning here. A few of them:
* The judge says that it's an open question whether or not a journalist from The Guardian was the person who first published unredacted cables with informants' names. As was established beyond any doubt, it was The Guardian's journalist who first published the cables. The decryption key was the title of a chapter in his book, for crying out loud, and the encrypted archive was available online. Yet Baraitser treats this as an open question. Doing so allows Baraitser to argue that Assange put people's lives at risk.
* The judge asserts that Pompeo's statements about going after Assange do not represent the views of the US government, and therefore cannot be used to argue that the prosecution is politically motivated. Pompeo is the former director of the CIA and the current Secretary of State. He's one of the most senior members of the government, and he gave an entire speech devoted to arguing that the government should go after Assange.
To me, these are just unbelievable statements by the judge. The bottom line, though, is that the judge's ruling makes it possible for the US to go after investigative journalists in the UK who publish about the US military or intelligence apparatus. All the protections that journalists thought they had do not exist.
> In the US, treaties are law.
In Britain and Australia, they're not. (Except for the Tasmanian Dams Case.) Parliament has to, in effect, cut and paste the treaty into legislation, and only then will courts enforce it. Sometimes parliament refuses to do that, and sometimes they try but slip up.
In Britain and Australia, they're not. (Except for the Tasmanian Dams Case.) Parliament has to, in effect, cut and paste the treaty into legislation, and only then will courts enforce it. Sometimes parliament refuses to do that, and sometimes they try but slip up.
> In the US, treaties are law. The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.
Sure, in the US they are. The judge explicitly contrasts the US’s “monist” system with the UK’s “dualist” system where treaties are not law. Correspondingly, in the US treaties require Congressional approval to be ratified. In the UK, at least prior to 2010, treaties could be ratified by the executive branch alone, but Parliament’s approval was required to incorporate the terms into national law. (As of 2010, Parliament has a greater role in treaty ratification [1], but AFAICT that still doesn’t make them automatically national law. Anyway, the treaty in question was ratified prior to 2010.)
[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05...
Sure, in the US they are. The judge explicitly contrasts the US’s “monist” system with the UK’s “dualist” system where treaties are not law. Correspondingly, in the US treaties require Congressional approval to be ratified. In the UK, at least prior to 2010, treaties could be ratified by the executive branch alone, but Parliament’s approval was required to incorporate the terms into national law. (As of 2010, Parliament has a greater role in treaty ratification [1], but AFAICT that still doesn’t make them automatically national law. Anyway, the treaty in question was ratified prior to 2010.)
[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05...
> It's just very strange to me that the US and UK explicitly agreed to arrange for extradition on certain terms, but that those terms are now deemed by this judge not to apply in the UK.
The Treaty does not limit extradition permitted under other law, it creates an obligation. If another law requires extradition, the terms of the treaty are immaterial.
> In the US, treaties are law.
They are a kind of law, but unless they are “self-executing” treaties, they aren't law with much practical force until and except to the extent that implementing legislation is adopted.
Now, IIRC, extradition treaties have generally been held to be self-executing in US law, but it's simply not generally the case that treaties are automatically judicially-enforceable laws in the US without separate legislative action.
> The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.
The US statute law governing extradition also allows extradition outside of any extradition treaties, but in far more limited circumstances (mostly,for non-US citizens/nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes against US citizens or nationals) than UK law does. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here except that the domestic law of the United States is not identical to that of the United Kingdom, which is unsurprising.
The Treaty does not limit extradition permitted under other law, it creates an obligation. If another law requires extradition, the terms of the treaty are immaterial.
> In the US, treaties are law.
They are a kind of law, but unless they are “self-executing” treaties, they aren't law with much practical force until and except to the extent that implementing legislation is adopted.
Now, IIRC, extradition treaties have generally been held to be self-executing in US law, but it's simply not generally the case that treaties are automatically judicially-enforceable laws in the US without separate legislative action.
> The political offense exception absolutely applies when extraditing people from the US to the UK.
The US statute law governing extradition also allows extradition outside of any extradition treaties, but in far more limited circumstances (mostly,for non-US citizens/nationals who are alleged to have committed crimes against US citizens or nationals) than UK law does. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here except that the domestic law of the United States is not identical to that of the United Kingdom, which is unsurprising.
> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here
That the judge is making a novel argument that there is no longer any barrier to extraditing people from the UK to the US for political offenses, despite what it clearly says in the treaty. As I understand it, this is a contentious issue, and most commentators had previously expected the political offenses exception to hold. The argument that the judge made - that the terms set out in extradition treaties are irrelevant in extradition hearings - does not appear to be as straightforwardly accepted as you're claiming. My understanding is that the Extradition Act of 2003 itself, without the treaty, is not sufficient to extradite Assange. If the treaty with the US did not also exist, there would be no extradition to the US. So to argue that the defendant derives no protections from the text of the treaty is quite a strange argument.
If people can now be extradited from the UK to the US for political offenses, that is a major development with extremely worrying consequences. Now that the US is treating national security reporting as espionage, if UK journalists are no longer protected by the traditional political offenses exception, they are open to prosecution in the US.
That the judge is making a novel argument that there is no longer any barrier to extraditing people from the UK to the US for political offenses, despite what it clearly says in the treaty. As I understand it, this is a contentious issue, and most commentators had previously expected the political offenses exception to hold. The argument that the judge made - that the terms set out in extradition treaties are irrelevant in extradition hearings - does not appear to be as straightforwardly accepted as you're claiming. My understanding is that the Extradition Act of 2003 itself, without the treaty, is not sufficient to extradite Assange. If the treaty with the US did not also exist, there would be no extradition to the US. So to argue that the defendant derives no protections from the text of the treaty is quite a strange argument.
If people can now be extradited from the UK to the US for political offenses, that is a major development with extremely worrying consequences. Now that the US is treating national security reporting as espionage, if UK journalists are no longer protected by the traditional political offenses exception, they are open to prosecution in the US.
The EA2003 Part 2 applies to territories with which the UK has extradition relations in place but aren’t designated as category 1 territories. Yes, there is a threshold requirement that a relationship should exist. No, that does not mean you automatically import all the language in a treaty into domestic law. It is not strange at all.
Calling it “novel”, “strange”, “contentious”, going against what “commentators” expected (who? why do we care?), etc are all pretty much just your opinion, man. All you’re really saying is that you still don’t understand how you can have two different kinds of law and have them operate in different ways, which is perfectly okay. It’s tricky. I don’t think this HN thread is going to do a better job of figuring out if the judgment is right about the EA2003 being self-contained than the actual UK appellate court system. If we dive any deeper than “there are different kinds of law and here are the ways they usually interact” then even those of us here with law degrees are out of our depth without doing way too much research for HN.
But rather than directing your ire at today’s legal reality at this judge, maybe you should be angry that the EA2003, rushed through Parliament in the wake of 9/11 with very little scrutiny as is SOP for almost all NatSec legislation floated in western democracies since then, appears to cut off the protection against extraditions of political offences for anyone — terrorists or journalists - despite this being a common exception in treaties and I think may have been a significant part of the old scheme. Just skimming old reports I think this problem may have been raised but not addressed before passage. As I said in my first post, this is a deficiency of the EA2003, not a judge making up “novel arguments” (afaik this has never been actually tested since the EA passed, so you can’t really call it novel) and creating a problem. The problem has been there for 17 years.
Calling it “novel”, “strange”, “contentious”, going against what “commentators” expected (who? why do we care?), etc are all pretty much just your opinion, man. All you’re really saying is that you still don’t understand how you can have two different kinds of law and have them operate in different ways, which is perfectly okay. It’s tricky. I don’t think this HN thread is going to do a better job of figuring out if the judgment is right about the EA2003 being self-contained than the actual UK appellate court system. If we dive any deeper than “there are different kinds of law and here are the ways they usually interact” then even those of us here with law degrees are out of our depth without doing way too much research for HN.
But rather than directing your ire at today’s legal reality at this judge, maybe you should be angry that the EA2003, rushed through Parliament in the wake of 9/11 with very little scrutiny as is SOP for almost all NatSec legislation floated in western democracies since then, appears to cut off the protection against extraditions of political offences for anyone — terrorists or journalists - despite this being a common exception in treaties and I think may have been a significant part of the old scheme. Just skimming old reports I think this problem may have been raised but not addressed before passage. As I said in my first post, this is a deficiency of the EA2003, not a judge making up “novel arguments” (afaik this has never been actually tested since the EA passed, so you can’t really call it novel) and creating a problem. The problem has been there for 17 years.
The treaty was ratified after the passage of the act, and the act only applies to the US through the treaty. This is not some normal case of, "We're required by this treaty to tax pickles at 25%, but Parliament has only imposed a tax of 20%." Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty. Without the treaty, there's no extradition in the first place. The treaty was ratified after the passage of the Extradition Act, and the government apparently felt that the terms of the treaty, including the provision on political offenses, could be implemented without further legislation.
Okay, but none of that can have any bearing on the interpretation of the 2003 legislation, since as you say, it was a treaty ratified by the executive after Parliament had already expressed their intention.
If your point is that there is in fact an express importation of the various treaties’ terms into UK law, you need to point to the words in an Act of Parliament that say that. If your point is that the threshold requirement in the first section of Part 2 of the Act that a treaty relation exist actually constitutes an importation of treaty terms, or that an express importation is not actually required for this kind of thing, then go ahead and argue that based on UK statutory interpretation law. The defence didn’t manage it, but I look forward to seeing their attempt in any appeal proceedings. It’s not really obvious how “Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty” is an argument for either; you’re only really saying it meets the threshold requirement, which was a given. You have to argue based on the words in the Act and UK law first, and your instinct about what treaties should mean second.
Edit: While you’re at it, you’ll have to rebut quite a lot of points about the intention of Parliament in EA2003, when it deliberately omitted the previous domestic implementation of treaties that refer to political offences. Read the judgment 41-63 over and over to see what you’re up against.
If your point is that there is in fact an express importation of the various treaties’ terms into UK law, you need to point to the words in an Act of Parliament that say that. If your point is that the threshold requirement in the first section of Part 2 of the Act that a treaty relation exist actually constitutes an importation of treaty terms, or that an express importation is not actually required for this kind of thing, then go ahead and argue that based on UK statutory interpretation law. The defence didn’t manage it, but I look forward to seeing their attempt in any appeal proceedings. It’s not really obvious how “Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty” is an argument for either; you’re only really saying it meets the threshold requirement, which was a given. You have to argue based on the words in the Act and UK law first, and your instinct about what treaties should mean second.
Edit: While you’re at it, you’ll have to rebut quite a lot of points about the intention of Parliament in EA2003, when it deliberately omitted the previous domestic implementation of treaties that refer to political offences. Read the judgment 41-63 over and over to see what you’re up against.
I'm not an expert and not in a position to fully judge the legal argument, but I am aware that this is a contentious issue, and it appears to me from Assange's lawyers' arguments that it's not so open and shut. But given the judge's really absurd rulings on other issues (such as whether Assange is a journalist or whether or not he'll face a fair trial), I'm not inclined to automatically believe her interpretation is correct here. If she is correct, though, then the UK has not implemented the treaty, and more importantly, journalists in the UK are in serious danger if they report on foreign governments.
> You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it.
And that's a bad thing as it leaves the case more or less open to US side coming up with "We promise to put him in some VIP jail with blackjack, and hookers," and more opportunities for retrials for state attorney to attack weaker defense arguments one at a time.
Having the extradition flopped as political, would've closed the door on it for good.
And that's a bad thing as it leaves the case more or less open to US side coming up with "We promise to put him in some VIP jail with blackjack, and hookers," and more opportunities for retrials for state attorney to attack weaker defense arguments one at a time.
Having the extradition flopped as political, would've closed the door on it for good.
Are you saying she should have discussed it anyway? Just lob up an opinion from the magi court on a searing hot political issue regarding which according to her own reasoning anything she says isn’t binding whatsoever? Yeah, she totally could have “flopped” the extradition by doing that lol
There’s a difference, as I’m sure you’re now aware having stopped accusing her of being extremely suspect, between judgments that are simply annoying for your team, and producing utterly biased, pre-decided results that match the tie of the President that nominated you. You’ll find that the former happened here, and the latter isn’t nearly as big a problem in the UK as you seem to have assumed to be the case.
There’s a difference, as I’m sure you’re now aware having stopped accusing her of being extremely suspect, between judgments that are simply annoying for your team, and producing utterly biased, pre-decided results that match the tie of the President that nominated you. You’ll find that the former happened here, and the latter isn’t nearly as big a problem in the UK as you seem to have assumed to be the case.
To be fair there was quite a lot of lobbing of opinions as it pertained to his guilt and ability to be prosecuted. Including: “This conduct would amount to offences in English law” and many , many other statements outlining exactly why she thought asking for information and publishing it would be considered aiding and abetting in espionage. I only got about 40 pages of skimming in, the documents is 130+ pages, but the vast majority of it was related to way the charges are felt to be appropriate in his case and very little evidence from the defense other than their broad objections.
> To be fair there was quite a lot of lobbing of opinions as it pertained to his guilt and ability to be prosecuted.
There's a difference between legally meaningful findings and lobbing opinion on legally non-germane questions.
> Including: “This conduct would amount to offences in English law”
That's a determination the court is called on to make in an extradition case under Section 137 of the Extradition Act.
There's a difference between legally meaningful findings and lobbing opinion on legally non-germane questions.
> Including: “This conduct would amount to offences in English law”
That's a determination the court is called on to make in an extradition case under Section 137 of the Extradition Act.
I think maybe that determining the defense's evidence as not "legally meaning findings" constitutes an a opinion of some kind, even if only through exclusion. I mean 130 pages on why he is guilty does not quite say: We were only interested in making a mental health determination as some of the comments seem to suggest. Then again, maybe there is much more there that I did not read or understand properly.
The conduct being refereed to is part of the issue many people are having here. As the defense argued the conduct is that of an investigative journalist. If such conduct constitutes an offense in the law, then some are worried that there is precedent to charge a wider range of conduct then previously though possible. Weather this is true or not remains to be seen I guess. Either way its a meaningful determination that this judge made.
The conduct being refereed to is part of the issue many people are having here. As the defense argued the conduct is that of an investigative journalist. If such conduct constitutes an offense in the law, then some are worried that there is precedent to charge a wider range of conduct then previously though possible. Weather this is true or not remains to be seen I guess. Either way its a meaningful determination that this judge made.
[deleted]
*> Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange.
Another interpretation is, the judge tried as much as s/he could to prevent extradition while "saving face" (either preventing a political conflict, or even saving themselves from assassination!)
Another interpretation is, the judge tried as much as s/he could to prevent extradition while "saving face" (either preventing a political conflict, or even saving themselves from assassination!)
Are you really calling what Assange did "investigative journalism"?
It doesn't matter what you think is investigative journalism.
What Assange did is investigative journalism... as proven by Bellingcat, that literally bought private phone, flight, bank and train ticket data on private individuals to show how FSB tried to kill Navalny.
What Assange did is investigative journalism... as proven by Bellingcat, that literally bought private phone, flight, bank and train ticket data on private individuals to show how FSB tried to kill Navalny.
well bellingcat went (and still goes) looking for information, sources and then publishes article on those stories, which is not exactly what Assange did, which was mostly making confidential documents (sent by a variety of sources) available to the wider public
They also publish their source materials and how they obtained them.
Writing summary articles is not the definition of journalism.
Writing summary articles is not the definition of journalism.
that still doesn't make what Assange did "investigative journalism", unlike what Bellingcat does
It does, so stop trying to be the "ultimate authority on what is investigative journalism"
and you are the one, to claim it was? Because nothing you wrote changed my mind on whether or not Assange did investigative journalism. Some journalists did use the documents that Assange released into the wild as a basis for their investigations, but that's not what Assange did
Assange first provided the cables to newspapers like The Guardian, Der Spiegel and El Pais, so that they could write articles about them. After they had had time to work through the material and write up a series of articles, WikiLeaks published redacted versions of the cables.
Irrelevant pendantry is boring.
I wasn't trying to be pedant, I just don't think what Assange did is investigative journalism, which was an important part of the comment I was replying to.
Of course it is and was, it's very valuable investigative journalism, which was picked up by major newspapers (Guardian, NY Times) who won awards for their work.
It isn’t cut and dry. What the newspapers did was very clearly investigative journalism. But it is argued that investigative journalism requires some sort of care and responsibility when dealing with the safety of others. Assange’s classified data dumps did not redact names and details that could/did put people in danger. Is simply broadcasting information investigative journalism? Maybe. What if amongst the documents there were lists of names/locations of persecuted minority populations within an authoritarian country? Is it journalism to simply publish the list, giving the country greater ability to target those people? Or does it require using that information expose the targeting and the implications of why that list exists and what the implications are while protecting the identities of the vulnerable people?
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a lot of the information was valuable and needed to be brought to light. The “devil is in the details” of how it was done and what responsibility was taken on his part.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that a lot of the information was valuable and needed to be brought to light. The “devil is in the details” of how it was done and what responsibility was taken on his part.
Doesn't matter whether we agree on whether he's an investigative journalist, this'll still be cited as precedent in the future against investigative journalists
Funny how everyone's opinion about Assange changed after 2016.
One of the main activities of the CIA is to shape public opinion. They already proved that they hated him enough to hire contractors to destroy him, and the leaked HBGary/Palantir proposal from 2011 even talks about smearing him on social media:
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/WikiLeaks_Response_v6.pdf
I've been a pretty consistent believer that Assange is a narcissist and an ass on personal level. His public statements about his work always seemed childish and petulant. It probably does bias me somewhat against his work. I'm generally supportive of bringing information to light, but Assange himself doesn't seem to do much besides host the data and he doesn't even do that well since he leaked the unredacted cablegate. And given that MSM sources have exposed far more and it don't more responsibly and faced courts over their actions, it makes me think that he's not much of a hero. I'm not sold that his actions wrt to cablegate were espionage, but I'd very much like to hear about what he discussed with Roger Stone and Guccifer 2.0.
[deleted]
I don't think my opinion much changed since I heard about wikileak
I am incredibly happy for this ruling, I really hope it stands after the appeals. Freedom of expression and the right to know what oppresive governments are doing are too important to lose.
It's an awful ruling overall, from what I can tell from skimming it. It's great Assange won, but this ruling is not at all support for freedom of expression. This is the one part the judge agreed with the defense on as far as I can tell:
> 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
For anyone not suffering from severe mental health problems that want to expose secrets this ruling in scary as hell.
> 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America.
For anyone not suffering from severe mental health problems that want to expose secrets this ruling in scary as hell.
I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.
While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable?
If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances?
Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it seems in general that we should want to allow extradition so that justice can be met. No?
If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances?
Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it seems in general that we should want to allow extradition so that justice can be met. No?
Did Julian Assange commit his alleged crimes while in the US?
This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.
This scenario is more like person who's never left B gets shipped off to C because he said something C didn't like.
You don't need to be in a country to commit crimes in that country. A lot of financial crime wouldn't be a prosecuted in that case.
That seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners
We'll set aside for a moment the fact that a country like Nigeria hasn't even HAD laws against hacking on their books:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y...
There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted.
Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-nigerian-law-means-seven-y...
There are countless examples of state sponsored hacking. There's no way the actor would be punished in the country of origin if their country of origin was not only OK with their actions but supporting them. Does that mean whoever did it should be free to travel anywhere they want without repercussions? You're essentially saying that countries are no longer allowed to enforce their laws on any foreign citizens... that seems EXTREMELY short sighted.
Furthermore, how would the country of origin even prosecute when the victim wasn't one of their citizens. What are the mental gymnastics to say that your citizens can't be prosecuted anywhere but their country of origin...b ut the victims have to what? Travel to your country to get justice? If a nigerian scammer is caught, you expect a US citizen to fly to nigeria on their own dime to try make their case?
What you are arguing is moral myopia.
Countries are sovereign, a Nigerian person living in Nigeria is only beholden to laws of Nigeria.
In your world, you can accuse someone who lives in Mongolia of a crime that doesn't even exist is Mongolian legal system, such as some peculiarities of US copyright or packaging of lobsters. You seem to think they should be flown to the US to be tried at your convenience to in a language they don't speak, in a legal system they don't understand at their expense?
You could prosecute him in Australia for hacking in whatever form it broke Australian law. How can any non-US citizen be held responsible for some vague 'damage to US national security' if they have nothing to do with the US? Why should a hypothetical person living in Nigeria be responsible for US, UK, Russian, Saudi, Israeli and everyone else's national security?
Countries are sovereign, a Nigerian person living in Nigeria is only beholden to laws of Nigeria.
In your world, you can accuse someone who lives in Mongolia of a crime that doesn't even exist is Mongolian legal system, such as some peculiarities of US copyright or packaging of lobsters. You seem to think they should be flown to the US to be tried at your convenience to in a language they don't speak, in a legal system they don't understand at their expense?
You could prosecute him in Australia for hacking in whatever form it broke Australian law. How can any non-US citizen be held responsible for some vague 'damage to US national security' if they have nothing to do with the US? Why should a hypothetical person living in Nigeria be responsible for US, UK, Russian, Saudi, Israeli and everyone else's national security?
I mean, if I make war on a foreign country, I don't think "I'm don't live there" is a valid defense against retaliation.
Laws and customs of war are not about justice, presumption of innocence, due process or fair trial. I have no idea why you would compare the two, to me this speak to lack of clarity you have on this issue.
An individual can't 'make war', only countries can do that.
We are talking about an allegation (not proven!) of a crime, highly political in nature to boot, not 'retaliation'
An individual can't 'make war', only countries can do that.
We are talking about an allegation (not proven!) of a crime, highly political in nature to boot, not 'retaliation'
Extradition requires dual criminality. If you can extradite you can prosecute the offence locally.
I don't think that's universally true? E.g. reading the judgement here, when evaluating the charges regarding the conspiracy to obtain national security documents, does not ask "is stealing US national security documents against UK law", but rather "if Manning had been a UK army member, targeting the UK, would this have been against UK law", finding that would be the case and thus accepting the conspiracy charges as fulfilling dual criminality.
But you couldn't prosecute Assange in the UK for conspiracy to steal documents from the US and damage done to US national security, but at best for damage done to UK national security through that.
(It's possible I am misunderstanding something?)
But you couldn't prosecute Assange in the UK for conspiracy to steal documents from the US and damage done to US national security, but at best for damage done to UK national security through that.
(It's possible I am misunderstanding something?)
[deleted]
True, that Country can make a Penalty application and your getting prosecuted in your country.
Service related activities are treated a little different.
Service is considered to be delivered in the country where the service beneficiary is.
That's why financial services cannot be delivered cross border, without legal approval in the "destination" country.
On the other hand sales of goods is something that happens in the seller's country - that's how companies in countries without consumer protection can just tell you to STFU on thing you bought from them.
Service is considered to be delivered in the country where the service beneficiary is.
That's why financial services cannot be delivered cross border, without legal approval in the "destination" country.
On the other hand sales of goods is something that happens in the seller's country - that's how companies in countries without consumer protection can just tell you to STFU on thing you bought from them.
A lot of financial crime does not get prosecuted
I agree there a valid cases for such a rule: In a world that has global communication and logistics available for practically everyone, you can potentially cause a lot of harm in a country without ever stepping foot in it.
On the other hand, this is also a very obvious slippery slope if now the jurisdiction of any country were to be applied globally.
What if a country abuses this to get rid of political opponents, to gain an economic advantage or to cover up its own crimes? (See e.g. the recent threats from China about showing solidarity with the Hong Kong movement even outside of China. See the US covering up war crimes.)
What happens if two countries have mutually exclusive laws? (e.g. at least for some time, it was a crime in Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide while in France it was a crime to not acknowledge it)
If we don't want this to devolve simply to "rule of the strongest", more detailed rules are needed.
On the other hand, this is also a very obvious slippery slope if now the jurisdiction of any country were to be applied globally.
What if a country abuses this to get rid of political opponents, to gain an economic advantage or to cover up its own crimes? (See e.g. the recent threats from China about showing solidarity with the Hong Kong movement even outside of China. See the US covering up war crimes.)
What happens if two countries have mutually exclusive laws? (e.g. at least for some time, it was a crime in Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide while in France it was a crime to not acknowledge it)
If we don't want this to devolve simply to "rule of the strongest", more detailed rules are needed.
That's why you should just make extradition contracts with country's that have a fair and ~humane justice system.
Bin Laden did not go to the USA to commit his crimes.
Bin Laden had no court hearing. He was killed by a special commando. It really surprises me that anyone thinks that this has something todo with justice.
BTW: No saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely something else than justice or a Curt-order.
BTW: No saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely something else than justice or a Curt-order.
Well, Obama claimed he sent in a team to kill him and dump his body in the ocean, during an election year, even though the French intelligence agencies said he was probably dead for at least 7 years. That seal team also died in a helicopter crash later, but it wasn't "the same seal team."
Honestly I don't understand how Americans still trust our news sources today.
Honestly I don't understand how Americans still trust our news sources today.
> French intelligence agencies said he was probably dead for at least 7 years
All I have been able to find was 1 French newspaper publishing what it claimed was a French intelligence report that simply noted that Saudi intelligence agencies believe bin Laden had died in 2006. The report seems to have been immediately noted by the French president as not being confirmed. Furhtermore, in 2010 a recording of bin Laden threatening France was confirmed as genuine by the French Foreign Ministry, showing that French intelligence services still considered it at least possible that he was still alive.
All I have been able to find was 1 French newspaper publishing what it claimed was a French intelligence report that simply noted that Saudi intelligence agencies believe bin Laden had died in 2006. The report seems to have been immediately noted by the French president as not being confirmed. Furhtermore, in 2010 a recording of bin Laden threatening France was confirmed as genuine by the French Foreign Ministry, showing that French intelligence services still considered it at least possible that he was still alive.
[deleted]
>dump his body in the ocean
Yeah that's a bit crazy if you ask me.
Yeah that's a bit crazy if you ask me.
[deleted]
Crazy? That's literally what they did.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-...
The post was claiming that the raid never happened and articles like the one you read are propaganda.
Succinct..agreed.
And US presidents have been warm and fuzzy in the White House when ordering killing of thousands of completely innocent people...
So you can stop with the "justice angle" on that one.
So you can stop with the "justice angle" on that one.
Given the action (as I understand it [0]) involved communicating with Americans in America, the muder-analogy you replied to would be a person from country A, living in country B, firing a gun over a border and killing someone in country C, surely?
[0] """conspiracy contrary to Title 18 of the US Code (the “U.S.C.”), section 371. The offence alleged to be the object of the conspiracy was computer intrusion (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030)""" was the actual phrase used
[0] """conspiracy contrary to Title 18 of the US Code (the “U.S.C.”), section 371. The offence alleged to be the object of the conspiracy was computer intrusion (Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1030)""" was the actual phrase used
Some countries (France at least I think) have a constitutional bar on extradition of citizens from their own territory and instead allow citizens to be prosecuted domestically for crimes committed abroad (but according to the standards of domestic law). This is a logical alternative I think although it typically doesn't extend to a bar on the extradition of foreigners to either their home country or third countries so that system wouldn't have helped him here.
This is not the case with the European Arrest Warrant anymore. France only retained the right for the accused to spend the eventual sentence in France.
European Arrest Warrant has a strong protective clause and a court that oversees European Justice. (ECHR)
Do you know what happens if a penalty doesn't exist in France? E.g. Sweden cannot sentence people to a 40 years prison sentence. Could a German court sentence me to something like that and send me home to Sweden for 40 years?
The European arrest warrant, as other extradition agreements have a clause that they only work in cases where the offence is a criminal act in both countries. A famous recent case is Carles Puigdemont who was arrested in Germany by request on the Spanish government for "rebellion" but a German court decided that what he did (fight for Catalan independence) isn't a criminal offence in Germany and that he only could be indighted for misuse of public funds.
"""On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein [Germany] confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds. Puigdemont's legal team said they would appeal any decision to extradite him. Ultimately, though, Spain dropped its European arrest warrant, ending the extradition attempt. Puigdemont was once again free to travel, and chose to return to Belgium.""" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont
"""On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein [Germany] confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds. Puigdemont's legal team said they would appeal any decision to extradite him. Ultimately, though, Spain dropped its European arrest warrant, ending the extradition attempt. Puigdemont was once again free to travel, and chose to return to Belgium.""" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont
Double-criminality is not an absolute requirement for the execution of an EAW. The most common categories of crime are explicitly excluded from such a requirement - precisely because the whole point of the EAW is to speed up extradition of the most common cases. It just happened that Spain attempted to prosecute Puigdemont for a crime that did not fall in any of those categories. That decision was mostly a sign that the Spanish government that initiated the process was not very competent on this subject.
I’ve not read the whole treaty, but according to Wikipedia only the Dutch enjoy a system where the sentence has to match what an equivalent Dutch sentence should be. So I would assume that yes, Germany could convict you and send you to Swedish jail for 40+ years. But to be fair there are a number of grey areas, depending on the details of each case. It’s difficult to harmonize 27 criminal systems...
There is a good rule when dealing with government enforcement of laws. Everyone must be equally treated under the law, it must be safe against misuse, and failure by the government must be punished harder than the offense itself.
Extradition cases sadly fails all three of those. They are extremely selective enforced, there are few safeguards, and generally no punishment against officials that fails to uphold the few safeguards that exist. The whole ordeal is intertwined with diplomatic relations and politics of both national and international nature.
Extradition cases sadly fails all three of those. They are extremely selective enforced, there are few safeguards, and generally no punishment against officials that fails to uphold the few safeguards that exist. The whole ordeal is intertwined with diplomatic relations and politics of both national and international nature.
True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.
Ban on the death penalty is quite possibly true here too (it would have been under EU treaties, I didn't find a quick statement how the situation is now exactly).
This is my first time thinking through this deeply, so I'm open to changing my mind.
> If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances?
Perhaps in certain circumstances. But in general, this is a dispute between A and B. C should let those two countries handle it. I.e., deport the citizen back to A, their home country. [edited: s/extradite/deport]
Consider: in many countries, certain forms of speech are illegal. I shouldn't need to worry that I may have said something illegal in China in order to visit South Korea. It's hard enough to learn all the laws in the country I am visiting, let alone every country that directly or indirectly has an extraction treaty.
The one scenario where I could see this being reasonable is within a bloc of countries that have free travel between and a somewhat unified set of laws, and only for breaking one of those bloc-level laws.
> If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances?
Perhaps in certain circumstances. But in general, this is a dispute between A and B. C should let those two countries handle it. I.e., deport the citizen back to A, their home country. [edited: s/extradite/deport]
Consider: in many countries, certain forms of speech are illegal. I shouldn't need to worry that I may have said something illegal in China in order to visit South Korea. It's hard enough to learn all the laws in the country I am visiting, let alone every country that directly or indirectly has an extraction treaty.
The one scenario where I could see this being reasonable is within a bloc of countries that have free travel between and a somewhat unified set of laws, and only for breaking one of those bloc-level laws.
I don't think your ideas are unreasonable, though this would have to be governed by any existing treaties, of course. In practice, however, I think that, to use your example, South Korea will act based on its relationship with China rather than your relationship with China. So, if KOR agrees with you that free speech is more important than how China might react to non-extradition, then KOR may not extradite you. However, if KOR thinks that they must turn you over to preserve their relationship, then they might. Again, all of this is of course hypothetical and in the real world should be defined by treaties.
I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.
I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.
Yes, I am totally agreed that the real world is often very messy. It's oh-so-easy to say how things should work when we can conveniently ignore all the other complexities of international diplomacy. All of this is hypothetical. Including, I am not trying to come to a conclusion on Assange in particular, just form opinions on how things ought to work — and from there, of course, there will be compromises.
---
I am imagining a scenario like the UN countries all agreeing on a common standard for extradition.
The guiding principle I'm working off of is that if B and C share the same law against X, then extradition is reasonable. The fuzzy line is where B and C both outlaw X, but each have their own laws against it.
On one hand, it is reasonable. If B and C both outlaw murder, then C should extradite the murderer, because the citizen can't claim ignorance, nor can they claim that "murder isn't illegal here in C."
On the other hand, I have trouble seeing how you'd write a consistent standard here. Sure, it's easy to equivocate premeditated murder across different laws, but what about even manslaughter? Then it requires both countries to have the same definition of negligence, etc.
So basically, the only form of extradition treaty that doesn't seem to pose an unreasonable burden on tourists is, "Here is a set of laws that are enforced in both B and C. If you break these laws in B and then flee to C (or vice versa), you are still under jurisdiction of the law you broke, so you may be extradited."
In practice, that might look like CHN and KOR signing a treaty that unifies their libel law. Then, if you commit libel against someone in CHN while in KOR, you may be extradited. This is quite reasonable, since a tourist would be expected to learn KOR libel law before travelling there.
> I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.
Thanks, edited.
---
I am imagining a scenario like the UN countries all agreeing on a common standard for extradition.
The guiding principle I'm working off of is that if B and C share the same law against X, then extradition is reasonable. The fuzzy line is where B and C both outlaw X, but each have their own laws against it.
On one hand, it is reasonable. If B and C both outlaw murder, then C should extradite the murderer, because the citizen can't claim ignorance, nor can they claim that "murder isn't illegal here in C."
On the other hand, I have trouble seeing how you'd write a consistent standard here. Sure, it's easy to equivocate premeditated murder across different laws, but what about even manslaughter? Then it requires both countries to have the same definition of negligence, etc.
So basically, the only form of extradition treaty that doesn't seem to pose an unreasonable burden on tourists is, "Here is a set of laws that are enforced in both B and C. If you break these laws in B and then flee to C (or vice versa), you are still under jurisdiction of the law you broke, so you may be extradited."
In practice, that might look like CHN and KOR signing a treaty that unifies their libel law. Then, if you commit libel against someone in CHN while in KOR, you may be extradited. This is quite reasonable, since a tourist would be expected to learn KOR libel law before travelling there.
> I'll just note that in your example, if C is just trying to stay neutral and acting of its own accord, then the correct term would be that C would deport the suspect to A rather than extradite the suspect to A, unless A is seeking extradition in its own right.
Thanks, edited.
It depends on what type of crime you're talking about. For common criminals, then sure, but for example, most Western countries have laws or constitutional provisions against extradition for political offences.
Espionage is 100% a political offence, yet...
A lot of things are political in nature.
But extraditions are mostly issues of diplomacy, not justice.
A lot of things are political in nature.
But extraditions are mostly issues of diplomacy, not justice.
It would seem more logical for the person to be extradited from C to A, and then A to B.
The problem with your analogy is the extradition treaties extend far beyond the red herring of "surely you want a murder to get justice right"
This is not far removed from "Think of the children" style rhetoric that is used in the US to pass all kinds of oppressive laws and regulations
Everyone can generally agree that having a murderer stand trail is a good thing, but what about someone that illegal distributes a file to one nation thus committing a "crime" in that nation.
What about other less extreme crimes, which is more often what extradition treaties are used for, not murder as your strawman desires it to be
This is not far removed from "Think of the children" style rhetoric that is used in the US to pass all kinds of oppressive laws and regulations
Everyone can generally agree that having a murderer stand trail is a good thing, but what about someone that illegal distributes a file to one nation thus committing a "crime" in that nation.
What about other less extreme crimes, which is more often what extradition treaties are used for, not murder as your strawman desires it to be
That was simply a reply to a specific question asked in the previous comment.
Australian governments would easily send their own citizens to foreign countries they never been to, for non violence offences like copyright infringement.
UK is way better than Australia in terms of bill of rights, etc.
UK is way better than Australia in terms of bill of rights, etc.
Because Julian Assange was on UK territory, not Australian.
Yes and? Australia should have asked the UK that he is extradited to them (and prosecuted under Australian Law) and not to a third party (with a possible death sentence).
Espionage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unit...
Espionage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unit...
That's not how extradition works, ever. Yes, many countries have extra protections against extraditing their own citizens, but those only apply while those citizens reside there.
Otherwise there would be a booming naturalization business for some less-scrupulous nations.
Otherwise there would be a booming naturalization business for some less-scrupulous nations.
In France it often does, and in other country's too, like a trade...China and the US trade allot of "bad boys".
>some less-scrupulous nations
Like the US, where you can buy your "out of prison" Card?
>some less-scrupulous nations
Like the US, where you can buy your "out of prison" Card?
Do you have an example of country A asking France for permission before extraditing a French citizen who was not wanted for crimes in France to country B?
It's written in German, a bit different and even more complex:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/auslieferungs-gesuch/2803478
Argentina asked Switzerland to extradite Jean Bernard Lasnaud for smuggling Weapons to Ecuador and Croatia (he's French), and why Argentinia? Because the former President Carlos Menem and other Politicians where involved in it.
As an example, France would ask A if he can extradited to France and prosecuted there, even when let's say the crime was in Country B. The US did something like that with Otto Warmbier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
That whole thing is often not National or International Law but Diplomatic (especially with someone like Assange)
https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/auslieferungs-gesuch/2803478
Argentina asked Switzerland to extradite Jean Bernard Lasnaud for smuggling Weapons to Ecuador and Croatia (he's French), and why Argentinia? Because the former President Carlos Menem and other Politicians where involved in it.
As an example, France would ask A if he can extradited to France and prosecuted there, even when let's say the crime was in Country B. The US did something like that with Otto Warmbier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
That whole thing is often not National or International Law but Diplomatic (especially with someone like Assange)
> Argentina asked Switzerland to extradite Jean Bernard Lasnaud
That's Argentina asking Switzerland to extradite a French citizen to Argentina for crimes committed under Argentinian law. The article does not say that France was asked for their opinion or permission.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
That's the US asking North Korea to release a US citizen jailed there for a crime against North Korean law. Extradition does not enter the picture at all.
That's Argentina asking Switzerland to extradite a French citizen to Argentina for crimes committed under Argentinian law. The article does not say that France was asked for their opinion or permission.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
That's the US asking North Korea to release a US citizen jailed there for a crime against North Korean law. Extradition does not enter the picture at all.
As an Aussie, sadly our politicians are a bunch of cowards.
Far cry from just years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w
Allowed by whom?
It is a magistrate court judgment, so as a precedent, it only has persuasive authority at best (or at worst, depending on your perspective) when deciding future cases.
I'm more worried about why the judge acted like this in the first place.
Yes, the fact that the extradition wasn't rejected on press freedom grounds makes me think maybe it's just a way for the judge to shake it off so that it's not HER who goes down in history books as to have made the decision to extradite.
But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough.
I REALLY hope am wrong here.
But it goes to show the West is again only concerned with 'press freedom' when it's our strategic competitors violating it.
But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough.
I REALLY hope am wrong here.
But it goes to show the West is again only concerned with 'press freedom' when it's our strategic competitors violating it.
To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being).
It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule on whether what Assange did falls under press freedom. The US courts would have to decide that. If however the case had been identical but coming from China, the judge would still not have ruled on press freedom, but would have likely considered that the Chinese constitution and court precedents do not offer sufficient guarantees that there would actually be a fair trial, unlike in the US system.
Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but I don't see the ruling as being either for or against press freedom, by my understanding.
It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule on whether what Assange did falls under press freedom. The US courts would have to decide that. If however the case had been identical but coming from China, the judge would still not have ruled on press freedom, but would have likely considered that the Chinese constitution and court precedents do not offer sufficient guarantees that there would actually be a fair trial, unlike in the US system.
Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but I don't see the ruling as being either for or against press freedom, by my understanding.
Don’t the charges at least need to be credible?
IFF the legal system of the country seeking extradition is trust-worthy and offers the same guarantees of human rights as the UK one, why would the charges need to be credible at all? The accused could be sent to that country, with the expectation that the trial would quickly go in the accused's favor.
Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US criminalized ice cream consumption, you would not be able to extradite someone in the UK for having consumed ice cream in the USA, of course. But this is not the same as, say, extraditing someone accused of murder in the USA who is not known to have been physically there - the extradition judge may be ok in not looking at the evidence that the charges are based on (except maybe to ascertain whether they may be a sign of a politically-motivated trial).
Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US criminalized ice cream consumption, you would not be able to extradite someone in the UK for having consumed ice cream in the USA, of course. But this is not the same as, say, extraditing someone accused of murder in the USA who is not known to have been physically there - the extradition judge may be ok in not looking at the evidence that the charges are based on (except maybe to ascertain whether they may be a sign of a politically-motivated trial).
I wonder about this. Let's say that in the US I'd have a budget of about $3000 to spend on the trial, without having to completely ruin my savings.
Would that be enough for housing, airline tickets (back to europe), and the trial/lawyers/bail/court fees in the US?
If frivolous extradition/trial would ruin me financially, I'd rather extradition procedure took the credibility/frivolousness of charges into account...
Would that be enough for housing, airline tickets (back to europe), and the trial/lawyers/bail/court fees in the US?
If frivolous extradition/trial would ruin me financially, I'd rather extradition procedure took the credibility/frivolousness of charges into account...
Imo the problem is that the ruling accepts the premise that the case has merit i.e. is criminal in the UK, that itself is a threat to press freedom given the charges.
The charges are of espionage and illegal access to computer systems. Those are also illegal in the UK.
Whether the actions Assange took amount or not to espionage and illegal access to computer systems is a matter for a fair trial to decide, not the extradition judge. I happen to believe that they did not in any way, but it should be a jury trial that decides that, not an extradition judge in the UK.
Whether the actions Assange took amount or not to espionage and illegal access to computer systems is a matter for a fair trial to decide, not the extradition judge. I happen to believe that they did not in any way, but it should be a jury trial that decides that, not an extradition judge in the UK.
Are you claiming the judge’s decision was made on political grounds rather than on legal grounds under UK law? It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. That’s her job and it has nothing to to do with “siding with the US”. Whether they are good laws or not is a matter for the UK Parliament and people.
> It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision.
It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still.
Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted.
It's clear Assange is someone who the intelligence community views as an individual who crossed them and needs to be used to deter others. Reading the judgment it is hard not to come to the conclusion she agrees with this view.
It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still.
Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted.
It's clear Assange is someone who the intelligence community views as an individual who crossed them and needs to be used to deter others. Reading the judgment it is hard not to come to the conclusion she agrees with this view.
> there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted
The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.
The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.
Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected.
She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2].
In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed.
1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5
2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303
She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2].
In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed.
1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5
2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303
> Assange tried to do that and was rejected.
Assange tried (at least he claims he tried) to get the US government to help him remove names that it felt should not be released. The US government refused. Which is perfectly understandable: why should the US government tell Wikileaks exactly which names in some leaked documents are the names of actual US government informants? That would be stupid.
Assange then chose to release all the material anyway, putting the life of anyone whose names were in that material potentially at risk. Newspapers, in the same position, did not publish the names. Whether you agree or not with either action, the fact remains that they are clearly different actions, and that one involves publishing people's names and potentially putting their lives at risk and the other does not.
Assange tried (at least he claims he tried) to get the US government to help him remove names that it felt should not be released. The US government refused. Which is perfectly understandable: why should the US government tell Wikileaks exactly which names in some leaked documents are the names of actual US government informants? That would be stupid.
Assange then chose to release all the material anyway, putting the life of anyone whose names were in that material potentially at risk. Newspapers, in the same position, did not publish the names. Whether you agree or not with either action, the fact remains that they are clearly different actions, and that one involves publishing people's names and potentially putting their lives at risk and the other does not.
He was right to publish it, I as a non-American care less about US operatives than about knowing the truth, esp. considering what was revealed. We're talking about people who were complicit in the organization that claimed there were WMDs in Iraq, among other bs.
> I as a non-American care less about US operatives
What if you lived in an oppressive regime and believed, rightly or wrongly, that the US was trying to help improve the situation in your country, and you gave the US information? Would you still be OK with your name being published and your life being put at risk?
What if you lived in an oppressive regime and believed, rightly or wrongly, that the US was trying to help improve the situation in your country, and you gave the US information? Would you still be OK with your name being published and your life being put at risk?
What situation was the US trying to improve during O.I.L. (Operation Iraqi Liberation, original name, look it up)? Removing non-existent WMDs? What a smashing success it's been since then.
> Assange tried (at least he claims he tried) to get the US government to help him remove names that it felt should not be released. The US government refused. Which is perfectly understandable: why should the US government tell Wikileaks exactly which names in some leaked documents are the names of actual US government informants? That would be stupid.
If that's stupid then complaining asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid and gives the U.S. no right to complain. Especially when top secret is used to conceal war crimes.
> Assange then chose to release all the material anyway
Not publishing war crimes because those who commited them refuse to cooperate in redacting names would be a great way for the Pentagon to make sure their crimes stay hidden. In fact it appears that was their goal in not cooperating.
> Newspapers, in the same position, did not publish the names.
Newspapers were NOT in the same position. They published the leaks but Pentagon started cooperating with them by then.
It's remarkable that people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals who did not face any consequences and laughed about while murdering civilians including journalists.
If that's stupid then complaining asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid and gives the U.S. no right to complain. Especially when top secret is used to conceal war crimes.
> Assange then chose to release all the material anyway
Not publishing war crimes because those who commited them refuse to cooperate in redacting names would be a great way for the Pentagon to make sure their crimes stay hidden. In fact it appears that was their goal in not cooperating.
> Newspapers, in the same position, did not publish the names.
Newspapers were NOT in the same position. They published the leaks but Pentagon started cooperating with them by then.
It's remarkable that people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals who did not face any consequences and laughed about while murdering civilians including journalists.
> asking him to redact names without telling him which ones is even more stupid
He should have had the good judgment to redact all names even without being asked to. (Or at least all names that he didn't know belonged to people whose lives would not be put at risk by their publication.) He didn't.
> Newspapers were NOT in the same position.
It is true that newspapers (and other "mainstream" media organizations) have a special relationship with governments (and note that I'm not saying it's right that they do, only that as a matter of fact they do), so they aren't in exactly the same position as Wikileaks. That still does not excuse Wikileaks putting people's lives at risk by publishing their names.
> people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals
I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange, so you have no basis for even making any such comparison.
Also, I'm not blaming Assange for publishing the material itself. I'm blaming him for publishing people's names and putting their lives at risk. As I've already said, he could have published the material without publishing the names. He chose not to.
He should have had the good judgment to redact all names even without being asked to. (Or at least all names that he didn't know belonged to people whose lives would not be put at risk by their publication.) He didn't.
> Newspapers were NOT in the same position.
It is true that newspapers (and other "mainstream" media organizations) have a special relationship with governments (and note that I'm not saying it's right that they do, only that as a matter of fact they do), so they aren't in exactly the same position as Wikileaks. That still does not excuse Wikileaks putting people's lives at risk by publishing their names.
> people exposing war criminals get more blame that actual war criminals
I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange, so you have no basis for even making any such comparison.
Also, I'm not blaming Assange for publishing the material itself. I'm blaming him for publishing people's names and putting their lives at risk. As I've already said, he could have published the material without publishing the names. He chose not to.
> He should have had the good judgment to redact all names
So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on?
> I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange
Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.
So how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on?
> I haven't said anything at all about blame regarding anyone other than Assange
Right. That is exactly my problem. When we're talking about war criminals I'd hope the person who exposed it would be the last to get some blame in the matter.
Leave the names of officials. Redact names your don't know, as was already suggested. Newspapers seem to have managed to do this just fine for ages.
If there issue is that high ranking officials aren't being held accountable, there's no reason to publish the names of some random agent.
If there issue is that high ranking officials aren't being held accountable, there's no reason to publish the names of some random agent.
> When we're talking about war criminals
We're not. We're talking about Assange. He can still be at fault and worthy of blame for some things he did, even if the US government is also worthy of blame for some things it did.
We're not. We're talking about Assange. He can still be at fault and worthy of blame for some things he did, even if the US government is also worthy of blame for some things it did.
> how exactly are you supposed to hold officials accountable if you don't have any names to go on?
Manning could have told Assange which names were the names of US government officials. (In fact, I'd be surprised if Manning didn't actually do just that; on your own theory of who should be held accountable it would be irresponsible not to.)
Manning could have told Assange which names were the names of US government officials. (In fact, I'd be surprised if Manning didn't actually do just that; on your own theory of who should be held accountable it would be irresponsible not to.)
This just proves the point. Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism. They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing, but we couldn’t, so we knowingly did the wrong thing instead.
> Wikileaks is not a journalistic organisation because it lacks the editorial expertise, ethics, and resources essential to carry out responsible journalism.
There's (luckily) no exams (yet) for what makes a journalist. Someone who has a blog is no less a journalist than anyone at a national newspaper.
> They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing
Actually it is. That's why intention is regularly taken into account in court cases and it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact and if needed even via the Pentagon.
> but we couldn’t, so we did the wrong thing instead.
They did no 'wrong' thing instead. They tried to consult the U.S. Government about any needed redactions and then published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name.
Not publishing that would've been wrong and was most likely the goal of the Pentagon in not cooperating.
Is similar with zero days, researchers publish them if the vendor doesn't cooperate because not doing so and letting black hats exploit a known bug is way more 'wrong' than publishing the 0day widely is.
There's (luckily) no exams (yet) for what makes a journalist. Someone who has a blog is no less a journalist than anyone at a national newspaper.
> They have to rely on real newspapers or the pentagon (!) to do it for them. It’s no defence to say: we tried to get other people to help us do the right thing
Actually it is. That's why intention is regularly taken into account in court cases and it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact and if needed even via the Pentagon.
> but we couldn’t, so we did the wrong thing instead.
They did no 'wrong' thing instead. They tried to consult the U.S. Government about any needed redactions and then published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name.
Not publishing that would've been wrong and was most likely the goal of the Pentagon in not cooperating.
Is similar with zero days, researchers publish them if the vendor doesn't cooperate because not doing so and letting black hats exploit a known bug is way more 'wrong' than publishing the 0day widely is.
> it shows WikiLeaks had the intention to redact
No, it shows that Wikileaks can be just as disingenuous as any other "journalistic" organization. Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault, not Wikileaks's fault, that the names got published. That's not "responsible journalism"; it's Wikileaks playing power politics just like governments and the media do.
> published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name
Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name. They chose not to do it that way.
No, it shows that Wikileaks can be just as disingenuous as any other "journalistic" organization. Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault, not Wikileaks's fault, that the names got published. That's not "responsible journalism"; it's Wikileaks playing power politics just like governments and the media do.
> published vital information to inform the public that the government is committing war crimes of foreign soil in their name
Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name. They chose not to do it that way.
> Wikileaks made a request to the US government that it had to know the US government would refuse (for the reason I gave in my other post in response to you upthread). It did that so it could disingenuously claim that it gave the US government a chance to protect people's names and the US government refused, making it seem like it's the US government's fault
It's the U.S. government who committed war crimes here and used secrecy to conceal their crimes. Of course it's the U.S. government's fault. The option to not commit war crimes and use the secrets act to conceal it was there. They didn't take it.
The U.S. Government proved it will use 'top secret' to hide not only information that is actually top secret but also information that is embarrassing. This would be a pretty clear motivator for the Pentagon not to respond and for WikiLeaks to go ahead with the publication.
> Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name.
No. Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Most leaks are published with names in them. There are names that the U.S. government could have suggested (not demand) to be redacted and WikiLeaks could have agreed to either some or all of the requests. They refused to cooperate. It's pretty clearly on them.
I also love how the people exposing war crimes are getting more heat that the actual war criminals who never spent a day behind bars. Speaks volumes.
It's the U.S. government who committed war crimes here and used secrecy to conceal their crimes. Of course it's the U.S. government's fault. The option to not commit war crimes and use the secrets act to conceal it was there. They didn't take it.
The U.S. Government proved it will use 'top secret' to hide not only information that is actually top secret but also information that is embarrassing. This would be a pretty clear motivator for the Pentagon not to respond and for WikiLeaks to go ahead with the publication.
> Wikileaks could have published that information without publishing anyone's name.
No. Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable. Most leaks are published with names in them. There are names that the U.S. government could have suggested (not demand) to be redacted and WikiLeaks could have agreed to either some or all of the requests. They refused to cooperate. It's pretty clearly on them.
I also love how the people exposing war crimes are getting more heat that the actual war criminals who never spent a day behind bars. Speaks volumes.
> it's the U.S. government's fault
Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable.
Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps.
Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.
Even if the US government is at fault, that still doesn't mean Wikileaks can't also be at fault. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Names as such are vital. It lets you know WHO needs to be held accountable.
Names of US government officials who made decisions that are being questioned, perhaps.
Names of people in other countries with oppressive regimes, who passed on information on the understanding that their names would be kept confidential, no.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> But having sided with the U.S. on pretty much all of the counts concerning press freedom, an appeals court may well 'find' that the heath condition is not enough.
It is highly likely that the High Court will be asked to re-examine pretty much the whole judgment; it's highly unlikely that the defence won't question the holdings that they lost.
(It is also pretty likely that this will then be appealed to the Supreme Court, and relatively likely the case will be heard there too.)
It is highly likely that the High Court will be asked to re-examine pretty much the whole judgment; it's highly unlikely that the defence won't question the holdings that they lost.
(It is also pretty likely that this will then be appealed to the Supreme Court, and relatively likely the case will be heard there too.)
If this case is indeed politically motivated, one would expect the US to lose interest on January 21 and drop the case instead of appealing to the Supreme Court.
"Political motivation" does not mean that the motivation must be associated with only 1 political party. There are many political decisions taken in the US that both parties agree on, especially in this area of the intelligence state.
If anything, as the judge notes, the current administration was likely somewhat more "friendly" to Assange than the Biden administration will be.
If anything, as the judge notes, the current administration was likely somewhat more "friendly" to Assange than the Biden administration will be.
I'm confused: The Assange defense team literally argues that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute the case, and that the Trump administration resurrected it in 2017 for political reasons. (The judge rejects the premise and argues that since there is no sufficient evidence that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute, the Trump administration couldn't have made a political decision to resurrect, since the case was always ongoing.)
Your position seems to be that the defense is mistaken, but that the case is still political because it was already started as that under Obama and continues to be politically motivated throughout the Trump and Biden administrations?
Your position seems to be that the defense is mistaken, but that the case is still political because it was already started as that under Obama and continues to be politically motivated throughout the Trump and Biden administrations?
Exactly. The case against Assange has always been political - it is not to the benefit of Justice or the American People, it is a case for protection of the surveillance state, and a case designed to scare away anyone who might emulate Assange. Same as the case against Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.
Most of the people in the intelligence community and beyond who hate being challenged will stay at their posts way past that date, not that Biden has a different take here.
Why would the intelligence community be involved with decision-making inside the department of justice?
And Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion?
It's also interesting that this case has so many overlapping conspiracy theories that I don't even know if my initial comment is downvoted by US patriots for suggesting that the case might be politically motivated (which is the assertion made by Assanges defence team and many human rights groups), or by Assange supporters for suggesting that there was no ongoing investigation in 2010 and the Swedish allegations were not a plot by the DoJ :)
And Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion?
It's also interesting that this case has so many overlapping conspiracy theories that I don't even know if my initial comment is downvoted by US patriots for suggesting that the case might be politically motivated (which is the assertion made by Assanges defence team and many human rights groups), or by Assange supporters for suggesting that there was no ongoing investigation in 2010 and the Swedish allegations were not a plot by the DoJ :)
> Why would the intelligence community be involved with decision-making inside the department of justice?
Because the intelligence community hates Assange and what he represents. They spied on US lawmakers, tortured, manufactured evidence... I find it hard to believe they WOULDN'T meddle in this case.
> Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion?
Because post 2016 election the Democrats are no friends of Assange and WiliLeaks, regardless of the implications for press freedom.
Because the intelligence community hates Assange and what he represents. They spied on US lawmakers, tortured, manufactured evidence... I find it hard to believe they WOULDN'T meddle in this case.
> Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion?
Because post 2016 election the Democrats are no friends of Assange and WiliLeaks, regardless of the implications for press freedom.
There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal.
UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.
UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.
https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/13460308521369067... "this is a sitting of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. It is not a trial. The losing side may appeal against the DJ’s ruling."
Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.
Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.
Either side can appeal in an extradition hearing. There's no guarantee that the High Court will grant leave to appeal.
If the US seeks to appeal, it'd be under s105 of the Extradition Act.
If the appeal is filed and accepted, Assange can be kept in remand pending appeal under s107.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41
If the US seeks to appeal, it'd be under s105 of the Extradition Act.
If the appeal is filed and accepted, Assange can be kept in remand pending appeal under s107.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41
> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way.
Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness.
Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse.
Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”.
Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.
Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness.
Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse.
Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”.
Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.
> Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”.
>
> Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.
While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly)
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...
While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly)
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...
I take your point, but would suggest that the stop was motivated by legitimate Police concern over public decency rather than political content (“Fuck” is quite offensive) and I believe that the Officers concerned probably wouldn’t have arrested her if she had refused to cover up.
If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept?
My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.
If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept?
My point is our freedom of expression laws are aimed at creating an atmosphere where people don’t feel violence is necessary to defend their position or sensibility - it’s where we happen to draw the line in the paradox of tolerance.
"Fuck" in the context of "Fuck <name>" is really not particularly offensive in the UK. Furthermore, merely being offensive is insufficient under the law. Section 5 of the Public Order Act requires:
> If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept?
In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London.
Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over.
[This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration]
If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.
> "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he/she:
> (a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
> (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],
> within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
> If an aggrieved third party had been present, and her refusal to cover up created a likelihood of imminent breach of the peace then - perhaps - a temporary arrest might be justified, would you accept?
In principle, if the language had been bad enough, yes. In this case? No, I would not. It's not nearly offensive enough language that you won't hear far worse on a regular basis. If someone can't handle seeing a t-shirt like that, they would not last long in London.
Here she'd be more likely to cause offence people by wearing a "Boris is great" t-shirt. Personally I'd find that horribly offensive (I'm not being facetious - the guy is a threat to life and liberty), but I wouldn't argue for it to be banned, because it's nowhere near bad enough for a reasonable person to disturb public order over.
[This is especially true because Boris is a politician, and people need to expect coarser language used to express frustration]
If an actual aggrieved party had been present and reported her, then they would have had a reason to intervene to at least consider the issue. But that aggrieved party is and was entirely hypothetical.
It sounds like you're saying that if someone wants to fight me over what I'm wearing, that I should be arrested. That feels backwards, and I don't think the specifics of the article of clothing change that.
The article of clothing was not called into question. The language "fuck" in terms of public decency, was. That is I believe a misreading of the OPs comment.
I was referring to the third party example, where there is an "imminent breach to the peace." The point about indecency can stand as it is: not how I'd order a society, but I get it.
However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
However, I should not suddenly be in MORE trouble for wearing an indecent shirt because it made someone standing around me angry enough to get rowdy.
Public decency is not addressed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act, which was the act the police officer cited.
Other sources[1] expect the US to appeal.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241
You might be able to argue that Assange crossed the line between "journalism" and "hacking", for example when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash.
The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal).
It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.
The UK has other history about journalists hacking (see the phone hacking scandal).
It's one thing to receive the contents of a hack, and quite another to offer active assistance to exploit systems.
If you imagine Assange's "hacking" taking place with physical objects, the charge looks ridiculous.
In short, Manning told Assange she could access a military filing cabinet, and was going to go remove all the documents in them to leak to Assange. Before leaving, she asked Assange if he had some gloves to hide her fingerprints. He said he'd check, and Manning left to grab the documents.
Would you consider Assange's actions there to cross the line of journalism?
In short, Manning told Assange she could access a military filing cabinet, and was going to go remove all the documents in them to leak to Assange. Before leaving, she asked Assange if he had some gloves to hide her fingerprints. He said he'd check, and Manning left to grab the documents.
Would you consider Assange's actions there to cross the line of journalism?
Yes.
The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime.
If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "send me the documents when you have them, but I can't help you hiding your fingerprints"
If you imagine the hack being another crime, maybe it's clearer.
Imagine Manning told Assange she could get the files but in order to get them she had to kill the guards at the door and asked Assange if he had a gun.
The journalist in your example should not be accessory to a crime.
If Manning asked for gloves to hide her fingerprints, Assange should have answered "send me the documents when you have them, but I can't help you hiding your fingerprints"
If you imagine the hack being another crime, maybe it's clearer.
Imagine Manning told Assange she could get the files but in order to get them she had to kill the guards at the door and asked Assange if he had a gun.
'she had to kill the guards at the door' .
Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help
Why stop there, while we are at it, imagine she had to commit a terrorist attack and a genocide at once and Assange volunteered to help
A crime is a crime, justice doesn't care.
A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations.
I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar.
The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.
A journalist should not be accessory to a crime when receiving infornations.
I made that example to make it clearer, but if you don't like it I can make another one: to get the documents she needed to open the door, so she Asked Assange if he had a crowbar.
The simple fact that he didn't say "no, I can't help you with that" is the problem.
>crime is a crime, justice doesn't care.
Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars.
Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
Which is why all the war crimes detailed in Manning's leaks have been prosecuted with the criminals behind bars.
Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press. Prosecuting them for that action infringes on their rights, making it unconstitutional. Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
> Further, a crime isn't just a crime. A journalist attempting to protect their source is an essential part of their freedom of the press
What Assange is accused of is not that.
> Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
It doesn't.
Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that.
Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent.
Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints)
Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
What Assange is accused of is not that.
> Even if you disagree with my assessment of Assange's actions, it should be clear that justice does care about the context.
It doesn't.
Protecting a source is not a crime, hence a journalist cannot be prosecuted for that.
Nobody is forced to reveal a criminal activity, people have the right to remain silent.
Another thing entirely is if someone actively participated in committing the crime (for example helping a thief to hide their fingerprints)
Also, I don't believe Assange should be extradited, but from a legal point it doesn't matter if he looked for gloves because Manning wanted to hide her fingerprints or a gun, if (and it's a big if) he said "I'll help you" that's a problem.
I don't want to try and change your opinion on Assange's actions, many journalist have said the "I'll help" you see as a problem is a routine procedure, but you clearly disagree.
A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.
A crime still isn't just a crime though. A less ambiguous example, unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime, yet no journalist has been charged for it.
I'm honestly expressing no opinion on Assange's actions.
"I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime).
What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant.
The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequence doesn't make it legal.
A crime is a crime by the law, the court has to decide if you either committed it or not (regardless if you did it for real, if the court can prove you did it, you did it).
That doesn't mean that killing a baby and downloading an episode of a TV show illegally is the same thing, it means that if I helped you to download the content and you are accused of downloading that content and the court can prove it, I am accessory to the crime even if people routinely get by.
> unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime
Are you referring to this?
> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.
"I'll help" is not a problem, if they are not helping someone to commit a crime (clarification: when I say "it's a problem" I mean it's a problem for whoever says "I'll help" because they are being accessory to a crime).
What routinely escapes from the prosecution of the law is irrelevant.
The fact that I have downloaded copyrighted material without any consequence doesn't make it legal.
A crime is a crime by the law, the court has to decide if you either committed it or not (regardless if you did it for real, if the court can prove you did it, you did it).
That doesn't mean that killing a baby and downloading an episode of a TV show illegally is the same thing, it means that if I helped you to download the content and you are accused of downloading that content and the court can prove it, I am accessory to the crime even if people routinely get by.
> unauthorized possession's of classified information is a crime
Are you referring to this?
> Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.
>What journalists do is not retain them, it's publish them, which AFAIK is not illegal.
Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first.
Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.
Unless you are just immediately releasing all documents you receive unedited, you will have to retain them for a period first.
Would a journalist raided the second before he could click publish be committing a crime, while a second later he would not be committing a crime and have never been committing a crime.
Assange is accused of basically running hashcat. I am sure that a fair percentage of HN would be criminals under this logic.
I doubt a fair percentage of HN has used hashcat to break passwords to attempt to steal US government documents. The tool is not the point of the charge.
I'm very sad to say this, but HN as a Place to discuss is not up to the standards people say it is.
I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote.
I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of!
Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime.
Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat.
Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it)
To put it in other words, he is accused of being
> a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime.
Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious and, worse than that, by people that do not stop a second to think about what other people wrote.
I'm not putting Assange on trial, I'm not a judge, this is not a tribunal, I was just clarifying what he's been accused of!
Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
The crime is not driving, is helping other criminals to commit the crime.
Which is what Assange is accused of. He's not accused of running hashcat.
Even if he did the decryption with pen and paper and failed he would be an "accessory to the crime" (allegedly, because he's only accused of doing it)
To put it in other words, he is accused of being
> a person who knowingly and voluntarily participates in the commission of a crime.
Regardless of the crime, the simple fact that he (allegedly) helped is a crime.
>I'm being downvoted for basically stating the obvious
Because "stating the obvious" is rarely a productive mode of discussion. People are trying to discuss the nuance of the topic, but you have a very hard-lined view that leaves little room to actually discuss anything.
Because "stating the obvious" is rarely a productive mode of discussion. People are trying to discuss the nuance of the topic, but you have a very hard-lined view that leaves little room to actually discuss anything.
Sure but I don't know how this is relevant to what I said.
> Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
> Having said that: yes, if you are the driver in a Bank robbery, you can get arrested for "basically driving a car"
Driving in a bank robbery is different to basically just doing some calculations. It might be a crime but it should not be one. Regardless though I would claim that even if he tried to physically get into buildings and steal documents in order to expose warcrimes I would say that they should let him free.
Don't get too downhearted by the downvotes.
I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say.
I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism.
Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).
I get the feeling people in this thread are getting mixed up between the difference of what people think is right or should be right and what the courts and laws say.
I think Assange was a hero. At the same time, the claim that he tried to help crack a US military hash to assist with extracting files does sound pretty illegal on the face of it, despite its good intentions and positive outcomes for truth and journalism.
Just because you did good by breaking the law, or that you broke the law in the name of journalism, doesn't provide you protection from the courts in the eyes of the law (And particularly not at a magistrates court!).
The statement is factually false, the reason we have judges is to consider individual circumstances and to make the tradeoffs between conflicting rights and laws. Cutting a person open without their consent could be murder or a lifesaving surgery depending on context. Breaking and entering is justified if you did it to save a child out of a burning building, breaking someone's bones is OK if it happens during CPR (varies by country).
Your right to privacy conflicts with the State's desire for surveillance, your right for self-defence can clear your of charges of manslaughter, and depending on exact circumstances the judge will decide if your actions were justified or if you belong in jail.
Your right to privacy conflicts with the State's desire for surveillance, your right for self-defence can clear your of charges of manslaughter, and depending on exact circumstances the judge will decide if your actions were justified or if you belong in jail.
> The statement is factually false, the reason we have judges is to consider individual circumstances and to make the tradeoffs between conflicting rights and laws.
Not really, we have judges at the level of the magistrates to apply laws based on the precedents set in higher courts, not based on their own feelings of what the law should be.
There are legal tests that need to be applied - in your example about murder and surgery the definition of murder requires intent. As we know from cases like Shipman, a surgery can be murder, but it’s not for the judge to decide that arbitrarily, it’s for a judge to apply case law.
A district judge is not a one person jury!
Not really, we have judges at the level of the magistrates to apply laws based on the precedents set in higher courts, not based on their own feelings of what the law should be.
There are legal tests that need to be applied - in your example about murder and surgery the definition of murder requires intent. As we know from cases like Shipman, a surgery can be murder, but it’s not for the judge to decide that arbitrarily, it’s for a judge to apply case law.
A district judge is not a one person jury!
Is he a journalist or an intelligence asset? In my mind, he can't be both. Once you pick a side, you lose the right to press protection.
I don't see why journalists should have some sort of special protection that should not apply to the "peasants".
seems like a function of their role in the 4th estate as the watchdogs of government.
In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
In practical terms, a journalist covering a protest should not be treated the same by security forces as a protestor. I am sure other, similar scenarios can be imagined.
I would say that they should, both the protestor and the journalists should be treated with respect. Even then though, a non-journalist that is not a protestor should be able to cover a protest just as well as professional journalists can.
> as the watchdogs of government.
More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.
> as the watchdogs of government.
More like dogs of the government. The ones willing to go against it in any meaningful manner are few and sidelined.
If justice had any say we wouldn't be blowing up civilians with helicopters and laughing about it.
I’m not convinced by your implied equivalence of, on the one hand, phone hacking celebrities and murder victims to generate tabloid clickbait, and on the other, helping protect an intelligence source whose leaked material shows human rights abuses and the death of innocent civilians.
If he hacked a celebrity's account and used it to uncover a killing spree by said celebrity it might be equivalent.
And, no doubt the celebrity's supporters would argue that he'd crossed the line from journalism to hacking as well.
If Assange were a Russian holed up in Belarus being extradited to Russia for uncovering Russian war crimes by cracking password hashes I really wonder how many people here would still be arguing that he "crossed the line".
My guess is precisely zero, and any Russians who did so would be mocked and accused of being shills.
And, no doubt the celebrity's supporters would argue that he'd crossed the line from journalism to hacking as well.
If Assange were a Russian holed up in Belarus being extradited to Russia for uncovering Russian war crimes by cracking password hashes I really wonder how many people here would still be arguing that he "crossed the line".
My guess is precisely zero, and any Russians who did so would be mocked and accused of being shills.
Some people are still into the idea of "national unity" and "collective insult" things.
Unfortunately the law usually legislates against acts rather than outcomes.
Additionally in the eyes of the law, hacking a celebrity does not bring a higher punishment than hacking a nation state, despite its good intentions and the public interest of the released information.
And he isn't accused of "helping to protect an intelligence source", because that's not a crime. One claim raised by the prosecution is that Assange was sent hashes and ran them against a rainbow table in an attempt to provide assistance to manning in order to grant further access to confidential government systems.
If this claim is true or not, we don't know because it hasn't gone to court yet, but the accusation is more than "just protecting a source".
And personally I think there should be an exception to releasing documents that show government wrongdoing which means it isn't illegal - however this is not codified in law.
Additionally in the eyes of the law, hacking a celebrity does not bring a higher punishment than hacking a nation state, despite its good intentions and the public interest of the released information.
And he isn't accused of "helping to protect an intelligence source", because that's not a crime. One claim raised by the prosecution is that Assange was sent hashes and ran them against a rainbow table in an attempt to provide assistance to manning in order to grant further access to confidential government systems.
If this claim is true or not, we don't know because it hasn't gone to court yet, but the accusation is more than "just protecting a source".
And personally I think there should be an exception to releasing documents that show government wrongdoing which means it isn't illegal - however this is not codified in law.
You're certainly right that there are other charges related to Assange's crimes.
How scandalous, he hacked someone... Of course that is far worse than killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east which he put the finger on.
Hacking and computer sabotage.... really? You call that justice? It is not and the UK jurisdiction remains a joke. A posh joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Please... as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
Hacking and computer sabotage.... really? You call that justice? It is not and the UK jurisdiction remains a joke. A posh joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Please... as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
> Of course that is far worse than killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east which he put the finger on.
> as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
The comment you're responding to did not make either of these claims.
> as if there would have been alternative to leaking hunan rights violations.
The comment you're responding to did not make either of these claims.
Unfortunately nowhere in the law does it state "you can break any law if it helps human rights causes".
I fully support Assange FYI, but at the same time I think he possibly broke laws while doing his (incredibly important) work, or at least there would be enough ambiguity around law to bring a case to the crown court (remember this is the magistrates).
I fully support Assange FYI, but at the same time I think he possibly broke laws while doing his (incredibly important) work, or at least there would be enough ambiguity around law to bring a case to the crown court (remember this is the magistrates).
But a judiciary should be careful to synchronize laws and justice to the best degree possible. Otherwise they end up as the joke that they are. There is room to the bottom of course, but I don't think trust is available in excess in western nations.
> when he attempted to assist with cracking a hash
Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that?
You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?
Was it ever proved that he did? There was some non-committal talk quoted, but nothing beyond that?
You also say "for example" - are there any other credible allegations that Assange "crossed the line"?
This is a little bit disingenuous.
There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies.
The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.
There is no proven accusation because Assange hasn't gone to trial, which is the part of the process where that standard applies.
The credible allegation part is the indictment handed down from a federal grand jury; this is the 'probable cause' standard.
I should've worded that differently - we obviously do not expect accusations to be proven before a trial.
What I meant was rather: has there been made any credible/sensible accusation for him being involved in hacking? Because while the drivel made it through the grand jury, it's still a vague answer without any allegations of follow-up. Could I help you crack a password hash? Sure, maybe I could. Am I now conspiring to hack into a military network? I rather think not. And that's even though you have my offer in writing.
What I meant was rather: has there been made any credible/sensible accusation for him being involved in hacking? Because while the drivel made it through the grand jury, it's still a vague answer without any allegations of follow-up. Could I help you crack a password hash? Sure, maybe I could. Am I now conspiring to hack into a military network? I rather think not. And that's even though you have my offer in writing.
If tomorrow NovemberWhiskey was arrested and found incontrovertibly guilty of hacking a military network, you don't think it's even slightly reasonable that you might also end up on the stand after that comment?
Not really, no. But even so, I certainly hope it's unlikely I'd end up in extradition hearings to the US, charged with conspiracy.
> Was it ever proved that he did?
No, which is why in the judgment every reference to a supposed attempt of "cracking a hash" is preceded by "alleged".
No, which is why in the judgment every reference to a supposed attempt of "cracking a hash" is preceded by "alleged".
That was, in fact, the judgement of the court in this case; that he allegedly participated in the alleged crime and did not just receive the data resulting from it.
edit: added 'allegedly' as his guilt or innocence is not evaluated
edit: added 'allegedly' as his guilt or innocence is not evaluated
This was coverered in point #117 in the summary. N.B. I should have said 'allegedly participated in the alleged crime'.
The ruling has nothing to do with freedom of expression.
If the judge wouldn't think Assange is suicidal, he would be extradicted.
So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that.
That's really interesting.
That's really interesting.
Yes, as soon his health gets better they can go on with the extradition.
Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better.
But the symptoms could.
They already did, thanks to the provisions of his current imprisonment. The ruling is based on those provisions almost surely removed upon extradition, guaranteeing that his "symptoms" would reappear. To put it extremely mildly.
I was simply replying to
> Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better
As someone diagnosed in the spectrum it totally can.
> Except his autism spectrum disorder isn't going to get better
As someone diagnosed in the spectrum it totally can.
That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. I might be overly cynical but that seems to be little more than a ploy of appearing impartial by denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal.
> That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then.
Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.
Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.
> That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then.
While it doesn't quite go that far, it is pretty common for extradition from Europe to the US to be blocked for this reason.
Arguably, given how common solitary confinement is in the US, all extradition to the US should be abandoned.
> denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal
Why would you think it would be reversed? It's fairly common to refuse extradition where the subject would be at significant risk of being abused/tortured/executed.
While it doesn't quite go that far, it is pretty common for extradition from Europe to the US to be blocked for this reason.
Arguably, given how common solitary confinement is in the US, all extradition to the US should be abandoned.
> denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal
Why would you think it would be reversed? It's fairly common to refuse extradition where the subject would be at significant risk of being abused/tortured/executed.
All potential death sentence extraditions are automatically refused (not just from UK). A fair number of other ones are, not sure what proprtion.
The point of an extradition treaty is surely that lawmakers have concluded the two systems participating are reasonably close to allow for extradition in the first place. It is then not the place of a judge to decide otherwise.
There are exemptions such as no extradition when the conduct isn't illegal in the extraditing country, but as you mention: if you consider solitary confinement torture, there is no reason to approve of any extradition to the US anymore.
There are exemptions such as no extradition when the conduct isn't illegal in the extraditing country, but as you mention: if you consider solitary confinement torture, there is no reason to approve of any extradition to the US anymore.
'It is then not the place of a judge to decide otherwise'
It is precisely role of the Judge to uphold the law and rights, they take precedence over any agreements
It is precisely role of the Judge to uphold the law and rights, they take precedence over any agreements
It's not the place of the judge to consider the treaty one way or another. Judges judge based on the actual laws put in place in their court.
If the current state really isn't what the lawmakers had intended with their treaties, then they need to update the domestic laws that go along with them.
If the current state really isn't what the lawmakers had intended with their treaties, then they need to update the domestic laws that go along with them.
You actually make a good point in a way. It's because the autism argument has been used before is why it was employed in this case and why it became the strongest argument.
Lauri Love https://news.sky.com/story/lauri-love-autistic-hacking-suspe...
Lauri Love https://news.sky.com/story/lauri-love-autistic-hacking-suspe...
He'll be released to some kind of house arrest (or whatever the UK equivalent is), and be found dead the next day.
It will be ruled a suicide.
It will be ruled a suicide.
Please don't do this here.
Quite unexpected! Like many HNers who followed Craig Murray's reporting of the trial (see below), I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet and the extradition to the US was preordained. Will be interesting to see his take on this.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
Given the apartment disconnect between the reality Murray describes in his reports and the reality we can observe today, do you think you'll read his content with a higher degree of skepticism in the future? His headlines are all calibrated for maximum outrage, that alone turns me off from reading them. Edit to eat crow: only one article has a sensational headline
Honestly, his articles where so overwhelmingly obviously biased and lacking any sense of journalism that it was actually painful to watch the number of people on this very site enthusiastically promote him as some kind of truth-seeking hero.
It's valid to oppose the Assange extradition, be concerned about the impact on free speech, and any number of other things; Murray is not a reliable narrator on any of these issues, so if you do want to examine his content remember to do so with an extremely heavy dose of skepticism.
It's valid to oppose the Assange extradition, be concerned about the impact on free speech, and any number of other things; Murray is not a reliable narrator on any of these issues, so if you do want to examine his content remember to do so with an extremely heavy dose of skepticism.
What specific incompatibility do you find between his reporting and the ruling? It seems to match quite well?
People on here have already made up their minds about Assange/Snowden etc, even if damning evidence came out against them, they would still find a way to spin it one way or another.
Cases like these I doubt the truth will ever be known/come out. There is too much political BS surrounding it.
Cases like these I doubt the truth will ever be known/come out. There is too much political BS surrounding it.
Not really. If you read his coverage it does mostly accord with the final judgement. I.e. the judge rejected all defence claims on whether the extradition request was proper.
It was blatantly obvious where his sympathies lay, so I read them with a grain of salt from day one. But florid (and occasionally hilarious) writing style aside, I have no reason to doubt the factual content of his reports, which repeatedly demonstrated that the whole process was a mockery of justice and the scales were stacked against Assange.
The reality that we read today confirms Murray in that the Judge agreed with the US Government in pretty much every area of the extradition request.
it does not harm Murray nor encourage people to be more sceptical of him.
it does not harm Murray nor encourage people to be more sceptical of him.
Mind drawing out these differences for the rest of us?
>> I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet
Maybe this judgement will make people think a bit more deeply before jumping to ludicrous conspiracy theories in future. In the UK at least judge's are for the most part demonstrably non-political.
Maybe this judgement will make people think a bit more deeply before jumping to ludicrous conspiracy theories in future. In the UK at least judge's are for the most part demonstrably non-political.
> In the UK at least judge's are for the most part demonstrably non-political.
This is not about UK judges being political, but rather about judges being pressured by governments to do what's convenient for the government.
In this particular case, the outcome is surprising.
This is not about UK judges being political, but rather about judges being pressured by governments to do what's convenient for the government.
In this particular case, the outcome is surprising.
If a judge can be pressured by the government they're political. Judges (in the UK) have nothing to gain by being political. They aren't elected politically, the roles are based on merit.
Do you mean that the career of judges is never affected by politics? I think, e.g., that appointments to SCOTUS are an obvious counterexample.
Appointment to senior judicial roles in the UK is done through a process that's kept at quite some distance from politics precisely because people aren't keen on having SCOTUS-style politicking. It isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...
(The JAC handles judicial appointments for England and Wales. There are JAC equivalents for Scotland and Northern Ireland. When there's a Supreme Court vacancy, a process starts up where members of the three JACs appoint people to a committee to recommend new SC justices.)
There are Supreme Court justices in the UK who have discernible political views (the retired Lady Hale was left of the average, and the retired Lord Sumption is more to the right) but their political affiliation has a comparatively small role in deciding whether they get a senior judicial appointment.
Nobody talks about justices having been appointed by a particular prime minister, for instance, because it is irrelevant. Nor does their political affiliation give you much of a clue how they are going to decide cases. This is also because in most cases, the Supreme Court sits as panels—unlike in the US, most cases are decided by a panel of five of the twelve judges, usually picked based on subject matter expertise (those with, say, family law experience will get picked for family cases, while those with more commercial experience are likely to be picked for commercial or financial disputes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...
(The JAC handles judicial appointments for England and Wales. There are JAC equivalents for Scotland and Northern Ireland. When there's a Supreme Court vacancy, a process starts up where members of the three JACs appoint people to a committee to recommend new SC justices.)
There are Supreme Court justices in the UK who have discernible political views (the retired Lady Hale was left of the average, and the retired Lord Sumption is more to the right) but their political affiliation has a comparatively small role in deciding whether they get a senior judicial appointment.
Nobody talks about justices having been appointed by a particular prime minister, for instance, because it is irrelevant. Nor does their political affiliation give you much of a clue how they are going to decide cases. This is also because in most cases, the Supreme Court sits as panels—unlike in the US, most cases are decided by a panel of five of the twelve judges, usually picked based on subject matter expertise (those with, say, family law experience will get picked for family cases, while those with more commercial experience are likely to be picked for commercial or financial disputes).
Thanks, that was an interesting summary.
I don't think the involvement of parliament necessarily causes polarisation: Germany has a quite similar system to the US, the most relevant difference being that the election is by secret ballot. Germany has relatively apolitical judges.
Instead, I think the spectacle seen in the US has more to do with the role the Federalist Society has played polarising the legal profession, making the politics of judicial candidates interesting to career politicians.
Relevant to the Assange case is not that judges benefit from showing overt political affiliation, but that ambitious judges want to be seen as safe non-boat-rockers - establishment friendly, if you like - because there is the possibility of having appointments nixed by, e.g., the Lord Chancellor.
I don't think the involvement of parliament necessarily causes polarisation: Germany has a quite similar system to the US, the most relevant difference being that the election is by secret ballot. Germany has relatively apolitical judges.
Instead, I think the spectacle seen in the US has more to do with the role the Federalist Society has played polarising the legal profession, making the politics of judicial candidates interesting to career politicians.
Relevant to the Assange case is not that judges benefit from showing overt political affiliation, but that ambitious judges want to be seen as safe non-boat-rockers - establishment friendly, if you like - because there is the possibility of having appointments nixed by, e.g., the Lord Chancellor.
How’s the US Supreme Court relevant to whether UK judges are political?
The case is being heard in the UK so I'm only talking about the UK. Unlike the US, court appointments in the UK are not political and not for a life long term. Even the public image of a judge as being conservative/liberal is not something really seen here.
The politics of appointments in the UK is less obvious than that of the US, but it is there. The Secretary of State for Justice, a member of the cabinet appointed by the PM, has veto power over appointments to the UK Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
Good point although I think that mechanism is rarely used and highly scrutinised when it is. The government has lost several high profile court cases in the last few years which I doubt would happen in a more politicised system.
> Craig Murray's reporting
The first two words explain any surprise here. It's still usable data but the HN-groupthink is still wilfully blind to Craig Murray's habits.
The first two words explain any surprise here. It's still usable data but the HN-groupthink is still wilfully blind to Craig Murray's habits.
Where we find out that extradition from the UK for political offences is actually largely permitted.
Some protection from extradition remains, but it is very narrow. It only stands if the person is being prosecuted "on the basis of their political opinions" :
"53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive regime, setting out the sole statutory basis on which a court is obliged to deal with matters, and does so in a series of imperative steps the court must follow. These steps no longer include a consideration of the political character of an offence, and there is no opportunity, within the scheme of the EA 2003, to raise this as an objection to extradition. The EA 2003 retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions, pursuant to section 81 (the political opinion bar), but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence."
"53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive regime, setting out the sole statutory basis on which a court is obliged to deal with matters, and does so in a series of imperative steps the court must follow. These steps no longer include a consideration of the political character of an offence, and there is no opportunity, within the scheme of the EA 2003, to raise this as an objection to extradition. The EA 2003 retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions, pursuant to section 81 (the political opinion bar), but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence."
If the judge's interpretation is correct, then it seems that the UK is in breach of its treaty obligations, which bar extradition for political offenses.
This is fantastic news, however I’m sure there will be a lengthy appeal.
In summary:
- the judge did not agree with the defence that this was an improper extradition request
- however she blocked extradition on the grounds that Assange would likely commit suicide due to the extreme prison conditions he would face
In summary:
- the judge did not agree with the defence that this was an improper extradition request
- however she blocked extradition on the grounds that Assange would likely commit suicide due to the extreme prison conditions he would face
Time for Australia to step up and own this one. Take your citizen home.
What I learnt over the past year is that Australia doesn’t really care about it’s citizens abroad.
The CCP has a strong influence on AU: I fear AU law more than US law.
Well, I think that’s generally more to do with the particular political party in power than anything, but unfortunately on Assange both sides have been rubbish. Only a few Greens and Andrew Wilkie are really pushing for him in Parliament...
Arguably the safest place for him is Russia
Is this a reference to Snowden?
With a nice cup of tea, served to him by Putin personally, presumably…
No reason to do it, he's been useful to them and will remain useful to them alive.
No way, let the lad go to France. He'll be protected there.
Asasnge is not a french citizen, so France will refuse to extradite him for the same reasons as the UK : health problems.
The extradition treaty between France and the United States allows France to deny extradition when the extradited party faces serious consequences related to health or age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extra...
The extradition treaty between France and the United States allows France to deny extradition when the extradited party faces serious consequences related to health or age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extra...
A French minister has called for him to be given asylum.
If you're talking about Marine Le Pen, she's not a french minister (as in government minister, she's (or was) a member of the european parliament)
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20190412-wikileaks-fouder-...
The last public stance of the french government (that I could find) on the matter was that they don't "offer asylum to someone who’s not asking for it"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assan...
And he made a request in 2015 but was denied.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-assange/france-rej...
Plus, I'm not sure if he qualifies for the status of refugee (asylum seeker) as defined here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Sta...
As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
From the US point view at least (and the UK according to the latest judgment), he's being extradited for a crime not a political opinion.
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20190412-wikileaks-fouder-...
The last public stance of the french government (that I could find) on the matter was that they don't "offer asylum to someone who’s not asking for it"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assan...
And he made a request in 2015 but was denied.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-assange/france-rej...
Plus, I'm not sure if he qualifies for the status of refugee (asylum seeker) as defined here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Sta...
As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
From the US point view at least (and the UK according to the latest judgment), he's being extradited for a crime not a political opinion.
I think the parent was referring to M. Eric Dupond-Moretti, who, a few months before becoming France's current Garde des Sceaux (Minister of Justice), joined the Assange defense team [0] and sent Macron an asylum request for Assange [1].
[0] https://www.europe1.fr/international/eric-dupond-moretti-va-...
[1] https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/affaire/assange/eri...
The irony is that, now that he belongs to Macron's government, he seems not to be allowed to issue asylum requests :/
[0] https://www.europe1.fr/international/eric-dupond-moretti-va-...
[1] https://www.francetvinfo.fr/faits-divers/affaire/assange/eri...
The irony is that, now that he belongs to Macron's government, he seems not to be allowed to issue asylum requests :/
Thanks for the links. So it was before he joined the french governement.
This is off-topic, but after a google search, I found something more ironic: he said a few years ago that he would never accept a position in the government.
https://www.lci.fr/politique/video-remaniement-garde-des-sce...
An intimidating figure who has likened the courtroom to a theatre, Dupond-Moretti swore as recently as 2018 that he would never be justice minister, saying no one would have the "utterly absurd" idea -- "and frankly I would never accept such a thing".
https://www.france24.com/en/20200708-france-s-acquittator-so...
This is off-topic, but after a google search, I found something more ironic: he said a few years ago that he would never accept a position in the government.
https://www.lci.fr/politique/video-remaniement-garde-des-sce...
An intimidating figure who has likened the courtroom to a theatre, Dupond-Moretti swore as recently as 2018 that he would never be justice minister, saying no one would have the "utterly absurd" idea -- "and frankly I would never accept such a thing".
https://www.france24.com/en/20200708-france-s-acquittator-so...
Honestly I'm amazed. I called the whole process a farce a few weeks ago. I'm pleased and a little embarrassed.
[deleted]
" However, I am satisfied that,in these harsh conditions,Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
363.I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America"
Seems to be the reason why the case is rejected.
363.I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America"
Seems to be the reason why the case is rejected.
Astonished to see this but hopeful for Julian. Very sad state for journalism and prison conditions
Assange is not a journalist. He wrote software until he started leaking documents. That isn’t journalism.
And I suppose anyone with a journalism degree isn't a journalist because they were a student until they started working?
Assange has done journalistic work, but he isn't a journalist, not because of some technicality but because Wikileaks have a very flexible relationship with basic principles of good journalism and are clearly prepared to play politics when it suits them.
If Assange is a mere journalist, he and his organisations are hypocrites because of their use of NDAs and either malicious or deeply incompetent in their complete disregard for the privacy of people (bystanders) mentioned in their dumps. For example, dumping the credit card numbers and addresses of donors to the Democratic Party is unnecessary and clearly intended to do harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspir... and downwards is a good place to start - the idea that Wikileaks are some kind of bastion of good journalism is pretty naff
If Assange is a mere journalist, he and his organisations are hypocrites because of their use of NDAs and either malicious or deeply incompetent in their complete disregard for the privacy of people (bystanders) mentioned in their dumps. For example, dumping the credit card numbers and addresses of donors to the Democratic Party is unnecessary and clearly intended to do harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspir... and downwards is a good place to start - the idea that Wikileaks are some kind of bastion of good journalism is pretty naff
> not because of some technicality but because Wikileaks have a very flexible relationship with basic principles of good journalism and are clearly prepared to play politics when it suits them.
By that definition there's hardly anyone who could be called a journalist.
It's also a textbook example of a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
A journalist is someone who does journalistic work, so he's a journalist, even if he's a bad one.
By that definition there's hardly anyone who could be called a journalist.
It's also a textbook example of a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
A journalist is someone who does journalistic work, so he's a journalist, even if he's a bad one.
If they haven’t investigated and written in search of the truth, they are not journalists.
Just as I wasn’t an engineer until I started designing and making things.
Just as I wasn’t an engineer until I started designing and making things.
Interesting to see how programmers have turned into "engineers" the last decade or so.
Do you have an engineering degree?
Used to be that you'd have to be registered as a professional engineer before calling yourself one.
Do you have an engineering degree?
Used to be that you'd have to be registered as a professional engineer before calling yourself one.
I have an MSEE, worked in a test house during school, and currently work on a very physically real machine with a title of “engineer”; not that any of that is relevant.
Are you agreeing with my point? Not everyone who calls themself something is that thing. Assange is certainly not a journalist.
Are you agreeing with my point? Not everyone who calls themself something is that thing. Assange is certainly not a journalist.
In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]:
> A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities.
The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of private documents searching for a crime or misdeed. Individuals or small activist organizations now have this ability and it is not exactly the same as a whistleblower leaking documents associated with a known crime.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition
> A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities.
The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of private documents searching for a crime or misdeed. Individuals or small activist organizations now have this ability and it is not exactly the same as a whistleblower leaking documents associated with a known crime.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition
FWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way.
He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
Right, Snowden and Manning sit on a similar spectrum in terms of unauthorized copying of classified documents. Snowden, seemed to have foreknowledge of an actual crime or at least the government failing to follow a reasonable person’s expectation of it following a given law.
I wish Snowden didn't flee the country. I'd have a completely different opinion if he stood trial.
I think he didn’t care much about your opinion of him so much as he did about what would happen to him and where he’d end up. Given what was being kept from the American people and what he knew, it’s impossible to call him paranoid or to even pass judgement on his character. He may not have been willing to give his literal life for the sake of blowing the whistle, but there really can be no question that he did give up his life to do so.
He didn't follow whistleblower procedure and fled to an adversary. If he believes he is being noble then he should stand trial in good faith. Best case he wins and gets off, worst case he does jail and is proven right.
Hes afforded almost no whistleblower protections since he was a contractor.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2016/09/busting-myth-of-whistl...
The espionage act under which he'd be charged doesn't allow a public good defense to be used in court.
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/why-snowden-won-t-g...
What you're asking for structurally can't happen in the US legal system.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2016/09/busting-myth-of-whistl...
The espionage act under which he'd be charged doesn't allow a public good defense to be used in court.
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/why-snowden-won-t-g...
What you're asking for structurally can't happen in the US legal system.
Well then you write a report and send it to Congress members as a sign of good faith.
I just really don't like fleeing. Now that he fled he is fucked and looks guilty.
I just really don't like fleeing. Now that he fled he is fucked and looks guilty.
The congress members are part of the problem, as he's gone over. They approved the illegal problems and were looking to bury public mention once they figured out all the scope of the programs since they were implicated and didn't want blowback during their own elections.
You keep saying you "don't like fleeing", but you haven't provided an alternative that would both provide real change and not have him being threatened with the prospect of a firing squad.
You keep saying you "don't like fleeing", but you haven't provided an alternative that would both provide real change and not have him being threatened with the prospect of a firing squad.
Things carry risk. I'm sorry.
US literally forced Snowden to stay in Russia. He wen to HK, then was supposed to fly to Chile or Argentina through Moscow... But US government decided to disallow that.
So no - he didn't "flee to an adversary", as much as he was "forced to stay at advesary's".
PS: US "justice" system would have granted him no justice. So you can stick that "good faith" argument in the same location where I tell people to stick their "go march in Pakistan with your PRIDE flag" arguments.
So no - he didn't "flee to an adversary", as much as he was "forced to stay at advesary's".
PS: US "justice" system would have granted him no justice. So you can stick that "good faith" argument in the same location where I tell people to stick their "go march in Pakistan with your PRIDE flag" arguments.
Now I think you are being intentionally duplicitous. You know that there were at least two prior whistleblowers who did go up the chain of command, and as a result both were harassed and persecuted? If not, why did you not know this? Why are you commenting almost a decade later about a topic that you still know nothing about?
Edit: What a surprise, you "work in defense".
Edit: What a surprise, you "work in defense".
He didn't already sacrifice enough of his life? You aren't satisfied unless he gave all of it?
It doesn't have to be about just deserts, it can be about ethics. This argument is the main thrust of Plato's dialogue Crito [1]:
> In Crito, Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito
> In Crito, Socrates believes injustice may not be answered with injustice, personifies the Laws of Athens to prove this, and refuses Crito's offer to finance his escape from prison. The dialogue contains an ancient statement of the social contract theory of government.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito
I doubt he'd receive a fair trial; No way the government would let an unbiased judge rule over him
The point is moot since these were documents belonging to the government.
The crime is not by the journalist who reports it, but on the person who breaks classification.
In this sense, Snowden is more guilty than Assange.
In this sense, Snowden is more guilty than Assange.
These were government documents leaked to a service designed to protect whistleblowers.
I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any of this is relevant, but, to recap from a layperson’s understanding, this is a US case against a non-US person residing in a foreign country, and accused of a US conspiracy to commit a crime with a US person who was incidentally pardoned by a US president. GB and AUS both have direct standing and jurisdiction under their own law through NATO, so why is he not being tried this way?
My guess is that the US wants nothing to do with this case. The military would be watching proto-Obama crucify Prof after pardoning Chelsea.
Side note: I’m pretty sure at this point he wishes he’d not had anything to do with any of this hacking stuff. Being a professional dog-walker in a small village probably sounds great.
My guess is that the US wants nothing to do with this case. The military would be watching proto-Obama crucify Prof after pardoning Chelsea.
Side note: I’m pretty sure at this point he wishes he’d not had anything to do with any of this hacking stuff. Being a professional dog-walker in a small village probably sounds great.
> The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous.
For the extradition treaty to apply, it must be alleged that the defendant has committed actions which amount to a criminal offence in both countries. If his alleged actions are not a criminal offence in both countries, then the extradition treaty does not apply.
Therefore, you can challenge extradition on dual criminality by arguing that the act is not a crime in one or both countries.
For the extradition treaty to apply, it must be alleged that the defendant has committed actions which amount to a criminal offence in both countries. If his alleged actions are not a criminal offence in both countries, then the extradition treaty does not apply.
Therefore, you can challenge extradition on dual criminality by arguing that the act is not a crime in one or both countries.
The US wants to extradite Assange.
So is Julian Assange going to be released now or what?
He is currently imprisoned pending a USA appeal (which they have stated, to the court, they will make); his lawyer told the court that he would submit an application for bail on Wednesday (and not to the court today).
Appeals are not a right in the UK and rarely granted. This is a highly political case, so it might get herd. I hope he goes free. Assange is a true Australian hero, even though his own government abandoned him.
Right; to be pedantic, he is being held in custody until such point that the High Court decide to grant leave to appeal.
I would be frankly _amazed_ if in this case the High Court doesn't allow an appeal. And I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't too. It's such a high profile and politicised case that it's incredibly likely to be viewed to be in the public interest.
I would be frankly _amazed_ if in this case the High Court doesn't allow an appeal. And I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court didn't too. It's such a high profile and politicised case that it's incredibly likely to be viewed to be in the public interest.
"Mr Assange was jailed for 50 weeks in May 2019 for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London."
Given that the US Government is appealing and he has a record of skipping bail, I'd guess no. I suppose they might possibly let him out with an ankle bracelet, but no idea for sure.
Given that the US Government is appealing and he has a record of skipping bail, I'd guess no. I suppose they might possibly let him out with an ankle bracelet, but no idea for sure.
Time served; it's already more than 50 weeks after May 2019, much though it may seem like it's still March 2020.
(Most) English prisoners only serve half the given sentence in prison before being released on license, so he won't go back to prison for that. I don't know if he can be held pending a US appeal on the extradition case, given his history of skipping bail.
[deleted]
So, didn't the 50wks go by already (or due to other factors) or he remains in custody due to the extradition proceedings?
doesn’t make sense to jail him until appeal is resolved. he is only in jail for skipping bail.
Looks like the judge has ordered his discharge in the case - I guess it depends on where he is in serving his uk sentence.
[deleted]
If released , will he be safe?
If Hillary Clinton gets a role under Biden, then probably not.
Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Can't we just drone this guy?"
"It would have been a joke if I ever said that."
- HC
"It would have been a joke if I ever said that."
- HC
ramijames(1)
he should be, if he served his time. not a lawyer but it doesn’t sound right to jail him until appeal is resolved. he is in jail only for skipping bail I think, not for being extradited
he might. he better fly to russia the same day
"This tweet is not available to you" error is still happening to this day. (a reload was required)
Weird, both load for me
I've read that it happens to a lot more people... not sure what the conditions need to be, but yes, it is really weird. It almost looks like some kind of censoring.
It’s good to see that the inhumane prison system in the US is beginning to become a problem for those who actually implemented it. Regardless how you feel about Assange, and I’m ambivalent about him, the US facing consequences for what we’ve done with our criminal justice system is something to be applauded.
[deleted]
Who would guessed Epstein's suicide would be Assanges saving grace? Not I.
The only suicide ever in that prison.
Is he out already? Be good to hear it’s going okay... must be feeling very relieved but I would have convinced myself I was ending up in a high-max. Emotional disorientating I’d say.
[deleted]
Well, color me very surprised.
Very happy with the outcome (assuming it stands), but I would have bet the farm on the opposite outcome.
Very happy with the outcome (assuming it stands), but I would have bet the farm on the opposite outcome.
What is the possibility that the USA was aware of the verdict in advance and perhaps gave it tacit approval?
What?
...
What?
...
What?
The Assange case has been the most political trial in my lifetime. The plaintiff was the United States.
It seems possible.
It seems possible.
[deleted]
Can't help but suspect the british security establishment decided it didn't want to extradite him because there was real risk he would be pardoned in the U.S. In their estimation, if they wait just 16 more days (post inauguration), that's no longer a risk, and even if something unprecedented in the U.S. happens, the british govt still has him.
Assange humiliated a generation of spies and officials and discredited the institutions they controlled at a key strategic moment, just as they were consolidating a lifetime of work toward their international alignment and control. It's zero sum for them, where if he survives, he's proven right. Historically, Wikileaks (among a few other projects) is how Gen-X unmoored the new establishment of the Boomer generation, and inspired Millennials like Snowden to surge into the breach.
It doesn't matter what they do to him now, he won.
Assange humiliated a generation of spies and officials and discredited the institutions they controlled at a key strategic moment, just as they were consolidating a lifetime of work toward their international alignment and control. It's zero sum for them, where if he survives, he's proven right. Historically, Wikileaks (among a few other projects) is how Gen-X unmoored the new establishment of the Boomer generation, and inspired Millennials like Snowden to surge into the breach.
It doesn't matter what they do to him now, he won.
[deleted]
The entire legal system is a fucking kangaroo court joke.
I find it interesting that on nearly the last page we see that the defense argued that it was an abuse of power of the courts to deny extradition. I wonder how happy he will be rotting in a UK prison instead of a US one.
I find the timing for this news extremely amusing.
Currently, there's a lot of criticism towards China for arresting journalists investigating controversial topics.
OTOH, the US is doing literally the same thing, with little to no backlash.
Currently, there's a lot of criticism towards China for arresting journalists investigating controversial topics.
OTOH, the US is doing literally the same thing, with little to no backlash.
I'd 100% donate to support his bail fund.
Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.
You forgot Obama https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/01/18/commentary/w...
What's particularly disappointing is that Obama was elected after promising to end US military operations in the Middle East, and did much the opposite. Bush could at least be said to be doing what was expected of him, in continuing the legacy of his father.
Voters should really be holding their leaders to account the fiscal and moral costs of these wars, especially given their strategic objectives haven't been met. OTOH, one could argue it's kept a lot of people employed, and those people vote too.
Voters should really be holding their leaders to account the fiscal and moral costs of these wars, especially given their strategic objectives haven't been met. OTOH, one could argue it's kept a lot of people employed, and those people vote too.
> in continuing the legacy of his father.
And retaliating for the 9/11 attacks, of course.
And retaliating for the 9/11 attacks, of course.
It's possible to make this argument about Afghanistan, but Iraq was completely unrelated to 9/11.
there certainly was a connection, if not a logical one
There's a connection to the gulf war, but that's about it. The threat of WMDs was a concoction. And Iraq is Shia majority, whereas the Wahhabi jihadists and the Taliban, the incubator for the 9/11 terrorists, are supported by Sunni majority countries with completely different and consequential views on their religious texts. After Iraq was 'liberated' from Saddam, a Sunni leader, Iran, another Shia majority country, has been able to take political control of the country.
Well Obama like Trump is a celeb more than a leader. Celebs spend all day pandering to their fan clubs to survive. Leaders dont. And the US is celeb obsessed. So thats a big bug in the code.
You're getting downvoted, but it's true. Obama ushered in the age of the political personality cult. Pretty much every election from here on out is going to hinge on how well you can sell the politician's personality, and brushing aside his platform, all his shady connections and people he's aligned with. This is very much a byproduct of all the private money in election campaigning.
How's this different from Kennedy + Reagan?
I find it hard to square your statement with the election of Joe Biden, is he an outlier? I guess only time will tell.
Biden's political personality is not Trump.
I think that invalidates the theory a bit but the personality cult that got Biden elected was anti-Trump, not pro-Biden.
I think that invalidates the theory a bit but the personality cult that got Biden elected was anti-Trump, not pro-Biden.
That article is grossly inaccurate. It's one thing to say "Obama applied hard power more than was expected" as opposed to "He was worse than Bush" which is completely unjustified. There is absolute no equivalence between drone usage and the two ground wars engaged by Bush. The 2 week Shock and Awe campaign in Iraq dropped more ordinance and killed more people than 8 years of drones. And the drone campaigns were mostly carried out with the private consent of the nations with targets. And saying the Libyan Civil War was "US-led" is just a complete lie. It was most directly lead by Libyans, but the air campaign was led by France.
I did say other associates.
US soldiers did not kill millions of people, Iraq is somewhere between 100000 and 650000 excess deaths to Oct 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_cas...
The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging.
Lancet indeed gives those numbers, other sources gives other numbers. Who's right? Probably we'll never know, but just for having the other numbers out there, here they are:
- Lancet survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636)
- Opinion Research Business (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000)
- Iraq Family Health Survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)
- PLOS Medicine Study (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000)
Only Opinion Research Business[1] seems to put the upper bound above 1 million.
Rather than going for the "Lancet Surveys" page on Wikipedia, you'll probably get a better view when reading through the general page of "Casualties of the Iraq War" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Also, hestefisk (which you're replying to) are talking about Middle East, not just Iraq. US sure has killed a lot more people in Middle East than just the ones that died in Iraq.
> being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging
Not sure we're talking about the same war here. As far as I know, the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times (so no civil war), pretty sure we're referring to those events (post 9/11), not the civil wars that were happening there before that.
- Lancet survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 654,965 (95% CI: 392,979–942,636)
- Opinion Research Business (March 2003 – August 2007): 1,033,000 (95% CI: 946,258–1,120,000)
- Iraq Family Health Survey (March 2003 – July 2006): 151,000 (95% CI: 104,000–223,000)
- PLOS Medicine Study (March 2003 – June 2011): 405,000 (95% CI: 48,000–751,000)
Only Opinion Research Business[1] seems to put the upper bound above 1 million.
Rather than going for the "Lancet Surveys" page on Wikipedia, you'll probably get a better view when reading through the general page of "Casualties of the Iraq War" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Also, hestefisk (which you're replying to) are talking about Middle East, not just Iraq. US sure has killed a lot more people in Middle East than just the ones that died in Iraq.
> being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging
Not sure we're talking about the same war here. As far as I know, the US invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq in recent times (so no civil war), pretty sure we're referring to those events (post 9/11), not the civil wars that were happening there before that.
"The criticisms in the Wikipedia are very detailed and imply there are problems with the 650000 figure of which 186000 are due to US troops direct actions. That still seems high, but you know being caught in the middle of a civil war is challenging."
I am not sure you can honestly characterize US as being caught in the middle of the war. US caused it. Everything that follows is its responsibility. That is why you don't start wars willy nilly.
I am not sure you can honestly characterize US as being caught in the middle of the war. US caused it. Everything that follows is its responsibility. That is why you don't start wars willy nilly.
> War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common
from the judgement of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common
I recall Iraq being more of an invasion than a civil war.
It's complicated, because it started out as "smash the state and let democracy reassert itself". Everyone involved in the room had such a broken mental model of what the Iraqi population was like. American politicians have been getting drunk off the rhetoric of democracy for some time, and we typically forget that most governments are precariously balanced between multiple competing socioeconomic elements with eternal and unending grudges between one another. In the case of Iraq, what started as "invade and impose democracy" quickly progressed into policing sectarian violence as America inherited Saddam's problems.
> America inherited Saddam's problems
Sounds like not only the American politicians were drunk on something, what the hell are you talking about? In no way have the US been through the same pile of shit that Iraq has been through, and neither have any of those problems suddenly walked over the ocean home to the US. Sure, the US has their nose wet in Iraqi and Afghan blood, but let's not pretend and say that US takes any sort of responsibility for the bloodshed they've caused.
Otherwise I agree with your comment.
Sounds like not only the American politicians were drunk on something, what the hell are you talking about? In no way have the US been through the same pile of shit that Iraq has been through, and neither have any of those problems suddenly walked over the ocean home to the US. Sure, the US has their nose wet in Iraqi and Afghan blood, but let's not pretend and say that US takes any sort of responsibility for the bloodshed they've caused.
Otherwise I agree with your comment.
Iraq began as an invasion in March 2003. The invasion was exceedingly well planned and executed with minimal cost in a very short time frame, but the planning did not account for the resulting occupation that followed.
Key figures in Iraq, such as Ali Al Sistani, pressed US civilian authorities to stand up an interim government until a permanent government could be drafted. The interim government stood up in May 2004. But by that time Iraq had become a political vacuum with disastrous results. Various external political factions from terrorist groups and nation states were massively importing arms and radicalized youth to instigate internal tribal warfare and acts of terrorism.
Shortly after the interim government stood up GEN Casey took over command of coalition forces in Iraq and promoted a hand's off policy and letting the Iraqis clean up the mess, which further compounded the internal problems when Iraq really needed a strong occupation force to stabilize conditions until conditions allowed the capabilities for self governance. GEN Casey was replaced two years later in 2006.
In mid-2006 it really looked like Iraq was on the verge of civil war and the US completely reversed policy by late 2006 announcing a troop surge in 2007. The successful command policies of COL HR McMaster were given some credit for exemplifying a successful approach. GEN Petraeus took command of coalition forces in Iraq and advocated a policy of counter-insurgency (COIN) that made significant advances at reducing internal violence and building trust in internal institutions. Over the next two years the surge declined to prior troop levels with forces more engaged in peace keeping and stability missions.
In 2009 coalition forces were drastically reduced in what was called a withdrawal. By that time Iraq was no longer on the verge of civil war. Conditions were improving and permanent government institutions were coming online. Unfortunately, the withdrawal was too early. Newly established Iraqi military forces were still conducting peace keeping and stability missions and had not matured enough yet to focus on national defense. This became apparent with the ISIS invasion of Mosul.
Key figures in Iraq, such as Ali Al Sistani, pressed US civilian authorities to stand up an interim government until a permanent government could be drafted. The interim government stood up in May 2004. But by that time Iraq had become a political vacuum with disastrous results. Various external political factions from terrorist groups and nation states were massively importing arms and radicalized youth to instigate internal tribal warfare and acts of terrorism.
Shortly after the interim government stood up GEN Casey took over command of coalition forces in Iraq and promoted a hand's off policy and letting the Iraqis clean up the mess, which further compounded the internal problems when Iraq really needed a strong occupation force to stabilize conditions until conditions allowed the capabilities for self governance. GEN Casey was replaced two years later in 2006.
In mid-2006 it really looked like Iraq was on the verge of civil war and the US completely reversed policy by late 2006 announcing a troop surge in 2007. The successful command policies of COL HR McMaster were given some credit for exemplifying a successful approach. GEN Petraeus took command of coalition forces in Iraq and advocated a policy of counter-insurgency (COIN) that made significant advances at reducing internal violence and building trust in internal institutions. Over the next two years the surge declined to prior troop levels with forces more engaged in peace keeping and stability missions.
In 2009 coalition forces were drastically reduced in what was called a withdrawal. By that time Iraq was no longer on the verge of civil war. Conditions were improving and permanent government institutions were coming online. Unfortunately, the withdrawal was too early. Newly established Iraqi military forces were still conducting peace keeping and stability missions and had not matured enough yet to focus on national defense. This became apparent with the ISIS invasion of Mosul.
[deleted]
pydry(1)
US literally started the damn civil war.
And not in 2003... think '79.
The only thing that makes Amercians forget - lack of conscription and relatively small army(as % of population).
The only thing that makes Amercians forget - lack of conscription and relatively small army(as % of population).
European colonial empires killed millions as well and faced no prosecution. Never forget what Hitler said; he said that concentration camps were not his idea instead he learnt about it from reading about British concentration camps during the Second Boer War in which thousands of Boers died.
And the inspiration for the gas chambers came from US border posts with Mexico, where anyone coming in from Mexico had to have their clothes fumigated with Zyklon-B and themselves bathed in gasoline (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=517617...).
There's a big difference between using chemicals to prevent disease from entering your country (However misguided) and using it as a tool for mass murder and genocide.
Not to mention there was Hitler's quote about how no-one remembers the Armenian genocide. He wasn't even wrong about that, as few remember the brutality that the Nazis exacted on the Poles.
The comparison is silly. While the Boer War concentration camps were brutal, they were nothing on par with the Nazis.
In fact “concentration camp” is largely a misnomer. The sizable majority of Holocaust victims were killed in extermination camps, like Treblinka. These never even purported to hold any prisoner population, and simply murdered all prisoners immediately upon arrival.
The British have no shortage of problems. But nothing in their history is even remotely comparable to Hitler.
In fact “concentration camp” is largely a misnomer. The sizable majority of Holocaust victims were killed in extermination camps, like Treblinka. These never even purported to hold any prisoner population, and simply murdered all prisoners immediately upon arrival.
The British have no shortage of problems. But nothing in their history is even remotely comparable to Hitler.
I mean we did have a pretty brutal occupation of many other countries and were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the process. We even had our own fair share of racist leaders - take a look at what Churchill had to say about Indian people for example. The timescales were different - Britain committed its crimes over the course of centuries rather than a decade or so - but it's not accurate to say "nothing in their history is even remotely comparable" to Nazi Germany.
The main visible difference nowadays is that Germans of today are hyper-aware of the atrocities committed in the past by their ancestors. Britons are often either ignorant of theirs or are proud of them.
The main visible difference nowadays is that Germans of today are hyper-aware of the atrocities committed in the past by their ancestors. Britons are often either ignorant of theirs or are proud of them.
There is no difference between starved Boer children[1] and starved Jewish children[2].
Warning: Disturbing images
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Holocaust#/med...
Warning: Disturbing images
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Holocaust#/med...
Well, there is a slight difference between 26,000 and 7 million.
Murder is a murder and it is wrong in both views of the law and the god if you are religious.
And I absolutely agree with that. Earl Kitchener is an evil man. But he acted independently to convert humanitarian refugee camps into punitive concentration camps. The British government itself investigated the allegations, and explicitly put an end to Kitchener's abuses after they came to light. The opposition party and subsequent prime minister vehemently denounced his actions.
In contrast, Nazi leadership sat in a seaside resort and meticulously planned out the industrial mass execution of millions of people. The entire regime from Hitler down was involved. So while, I'd agree there's a moral equivalence between Kitchener and Heydrich, the Nazi regime itself is far more guilty than the British Empire.
In contrast, Nazi leadership sat in a seaside resort and meticulously planned out the industrial mass execution of millions of people. The entire regime from Hitler down was involved. So while, I'd agree there's a moral equivalence between Kitchener and Heydrich, the Nazi regime itself is far more guilty than the British Empire.
I agree and it all comes down to power and monetary gain in both cases of Third Reich and British Empire. I didn't know that trigger for Second Boear War was the discovery of diamonds and gold in the Boer states. [1]
[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/boer-war-begins-...
[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/boer-war-begins-...
You're right - Hitler was overt, while British still pretend that they are the "good guys" and literally blame the Irish for not joining them in WW2.
No wait! The British are worse, because majority have not accepted the horrors that British empire has brought to many people... Not the least being be Bengal Famine of 1943. There's no question that Nazis were evil. Time to realize that many other empires were/are "not benevolent".
No wait! The British are worse, because majority have not accepted the horrors that British empire has brought to many people... Not the least being be Bengal Famine of 1943. There's no question that Nazis were evil. Time to realize that many other empires were/are "not benevolent".
That seems improbable given that German colonizers committed a genocide in Africa in the years following the Boer War.
whataboutism is a logical fallacy.
Not necessarily in this area. Wikileaks has exposed a number of US war crimes that went completely unpunished, while a person who was working on behalf of Wikileaks is being prosecuted on grounds that are fairly constructed and far-fetched even by US standards. Morally speaking, even if some of Assange's actions were immoral they might be considered excusable because the perils were outweighed by the benefits of these actions. It's not uncommon to reason that way. The same kind of reasoning is used to justify the means by the ends, e.g. purporters of the US drone strike program argue that the many civilian bystanders that are killed by those strikes are justifiable by the end, which is the extrajudicial killing of the alleged terrorist targets.
It's called a balance of consideration argument, sometimes also "conductive argument".
Obviously, the legal question is different from this, IANAL and I don't even know if lawyers use conductive arguments in this way. The judge in this extradition case certainly didn't, but that's not surprising since her job wasn't to judge Assange's actions.
It's called a balance of consideration argument, sometimes also "conductive argument".
Obviously, the legal question is different from this, IANAL and I don't even know if lawyers use conductive arguments in this way. The judge in this extradition case certainly didn't, but that's not surprising since her job wasn't to judge Assange's actions.
Assange literally encouraged people to infiltrate US intelligence agencies and "leak" classified intel.
Let's not even get into his work laundering Russian hacked docs to damage the US, and then repeatedly lying about it.
He also is credibly accused of being a rapist.
The US has done some bad shit, no doubt, but that doesn't make Assange some saint. He's a bad dude.
Let's not even get into his work laundering Russian hacked docs to damage the US, and then repeatedly lying about it.
He also is credibly accused of being a rapist.
The US has done some bad shit, no doubt, but that doesn't make Assange some saint. He's a bad dude.
CIA literally funded drug cartels. Obama literally authorized a drone strike on a "suspected terrorist US citizen" in Yemen.
While the rape accusation was retracted.
There's no equivalence of a proven fact vs accusation. Assange is unquestionably on a moral high ground here.
While the rape accusation was retracted.
There's no equivalence of a proven fact vs accusation. Assange is unquestionably on a moral high ground here.
This is a straight-up lie. The accusations were never retracted. The women have maintained their allegations ever since.
and Not even going to respond to your whataboutism here, just lazy argumentation.
and Not even going to respond to your whataboutism here, just lazy argumentation.
If I encourage people to leak Chinese classified documents, would that make me a bad dude too? I don’t think your reasoning is sound here.
If you raped two women, encouraged people to steal Chinese intel, and then worked with Russian intelligence to spread propaganda, yes, indeed you would be a bad dude.
Referencing the US war crimes that Assange helped expose is important though. I'm not denying Assange committed crimes by leaking or helping to leak secret documents, but it was the moral thing to do to expose war crimes that would otherwise be (and which are being) covered up.
In this case, the UK should not only consider the extradition request itself, but how they stand with regards to the US and their war crimes. And when it comes to war crimes, for the UK to be silent is to be complicit.
In this case, the UK should not only consider the extradition request itself, but how they stand with regards to the US and their war crimes. And when it comes to war crimes, for the UK to be silent is to be complicit.
Calling out logical fallacies is a logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
It comes from not understanding the difference between logical entailment and logical equivalence when given a set of premises and a conclusion. I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
It comes from not understanding the difference between logical entailment and logical equivalence when given a set of premises and a conclusion. I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this.
> I'd've hoped programmers would have taken enough discrete maths to know this.
It’s not that I haven’t - but I’m 8 years out of uni and have completely forgotten how to apply Modus tollens and I suspect I’m not alone.
It’s not that I haven’t - but I’m 8 years out of uni and have completely forgotten how to apply Modus tollens and I suspect I’m not alone.
Being a hypocrite isn't a logical fallacy, but it isn't a good rhetorical stance for convincing others.
Its a deflection, not a fallacy.
So basically the UK tells the US that they don't need to punish him any further because the UK already broke him.
That is kinda the hidden message isn't it? He was practically imprisoned in the embassy. Now even if he is free, he's returning to a world of lock-downs and stay-at-home orders. Released from his private hell into collective human rights violations in the name of a virus. Welcome to 2084. Everything old is Orwell again.
It's hacking case, but it's a corporate espionage related searches.
So aspergers is a get out of jail free card?
The entire US prison system feels abusive to me. I've said before that if I somehow magically were to find myself on a US jury (can't happen - I'm not resident in or a citizen of the US; this is a pure hypothetical), I'd be hard pressed to be able to justify voting "guilty" on a moral basis even for quite serious crimes.
It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabilitation.
It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabilitation.
In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.
You're not within your rights as a juror to nullify. You can do so as a matter of practice.
Jury nullification looks great for laws you disagree with. It's not so great when it's used to let people off the hook for lynchings.¹
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
Jury nullification looks great for laws you disagree with. It's not so great when it's used to let people off the hook for lynchings.¹
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.
You lie, if they accuse you of perjury then you say "I googled it after I was asked".
But that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"
I agree on the general indirection they use. However my answer to the specific question you posed is "no, I'd have no problem". But if it were eg a drug charge, then I wouldn't consider the relevant criminal law to be constitutional (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for starters), and thus the defendant is innocent because there is no crime to have been committed. My judgment wouldn't be to save one sympathetic person from being convicted of what is otherwise a legitimate crime, but rather over the validity of the law itself.
In general they will ask you a bunch of questions to trip up anyone who might be too clever, but they can't ask about jury nullification directly (lest they give anyone else ideas). If you answer in the expected common sense way, and don't boast about your reasoning, it's going to be very hard for them to claim perjury.
In general they will ask you a bunch of questions to trip up anyone who might be too clever, but they can't ask about jury nullification directly (lest they give anyone else ideas). If you answer in the expected common sense way, and don't boast about your reasoning, it's going to be very hard for them to claim perjury.
Keyword: would (not will). No perjury.
And if they use "will", it's perfectly normal to wonder why one would ask such a strange question. It would totally read as "we're gonna find a case to test you on that teehee".
And if they use "will", it's perfectly normal to wonder why one would ask such a strange question. It would totally read as "we're gonna find a case to test you on that teehee".
Then what, for every other jury duty?
> Majority verdicts are not allowed in criminal cases in the United States, and so a hung jury results in a mistrial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury
What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant?
If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.
If they can't convince other jurors, no "harm" done. If they can, then perhaps the law is overkill. The judge seems to be overpowered here.
> What's the reason for allowing judges to remove jurors who admit their intent to acquit a guilty defendant?
Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1].
And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning.
Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i...
[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge
Arguably, the same reason judges should be allowed to remove jurors who admit their intent to convict an innocent defendant: jurors must apply the law impartially. The LII has a pretty decent primer on all this entails[1].
And almost all state laws require a jury to unanimously vote to convict, so empaneling a jury that has someone who will always acquit means that the jury's decision has been set from the beginning.
Personally, I live in a state that requires a unanimous vote to convict or acquit, and prohibits the judge from "poking at" a deadlocked jury[2]. In the few times I've been selected for a jury I haven't gone far enough to be asked if I would be impartial, and I'm glad because I've yet to decide where my personal ethics take me.
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/i...
[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/allen_charge
To me, an impartial jury is one that would make the same decision when given the same evidence and accusations, regardless of who the defendant is.
In that sense, jury nullification can be impartial.
In that sense, jury nullification can be impartial.
I'm of two minds of this. On one hand I do agree with you that it has the potential to be an important safety valve (not least because I think the US prison system is immoral and unjust...). On the other hand, historically it has a history of severe abuse, e.g. to let people go free for lynchings and the like.
The right to bear arms has a history of severe abuse as well, but I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A jury that acquits a white murderer, then convicts a black murderer of the same caliber, is the textbook definition of an impartial jury (which is unconstitutional).
yeah, but when you say guilty or not guilty you don't have to explain why.
Right, I've actually used this before when I wanted to get out of Jury Duty.
> I'd be hard pressed to be able to justify voting "guilty" on a moral basis even for quite serious crimes. It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabilitation.
If you lived your entire life in the US, and everyday felt the "Me or you" and "I'll get mine" mentality, you'd have a different approach.
It is a VERY strong dog eat dog country, and the feeling is palpable for people who live in countries with a lot more equality and sharing.
If you lived your entire life in the US, and everyday felt the "Me or you" and "I'll get mine" mentality, you'd have a different approach.
It is a VERY strong dog eat dog country, and the feeling is palpable for people who live in countries with a lot more equality and sharing.
...Let's not stereotype a country of 380+ million people. C'mon.
There are many Americans who feel the justice system is too punitive, and fails to uphold justice for the average American. Especially for people of color.
The problem is what can one realistically do? Besides voting (both parties adore punitive instead of rehabilitative punishment) and contacting our representatives (yeah, that'll help...).
There are many Americans who feel the justice system is too punitive, and fails to uphold justice for the average American. Especially for people of color.
The problem is what can one realistically do? Besides voting (both parties adore punitive instead of rehabilitative punishment) and contacting our representatives (yeah, that'll help...).
It's impossible to stereotype a country full of people that have little in common.
Most justice in US is served on state and local levels. You don't need 700k votes to get into your state assembly(in most cases) and try to change laws that affect your day-to-day.
But I must correct myself - most Americans are completely ignorant of their own legal/justice system. How many know what Civil Forefeiture is?
Most justice in US is served on state and local levels. You don't need 700k votes to get into your state assembly(in most cases) and try to change laws that affect your day-to-day.
But I must correct myself - most Americans are completely ignorant of their own legal/justice system. How many know what Civil Forefeiture is?
Maybe, but it's irrational also from a perspective of wanting to maximise your own pie. You don't need to favour equality and sharing to acknowledge that a more humane treatment of prisoners leads to drastically lower re-offending for example.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629935.
[deleted]
TLDR?
Why didn't he wear a wig during his in-embassy venture and escape?
He had plenty of time to plot something like that
He had plenty of time to plot something like that
The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the government wants to appear aligned with the US as much as possible on this issue, while not actually extraditing Julian Assange.
This is nonsense conspiracy theorism. There is unlikely to be any possibility of the judicial decision in this case being influenced by the UK government's policies on UK-US trade deals.
Maybe not trade deals but the Anne Sacoolas[0] case of using diplomatic immunity of dubious legality to flee from justice probably tends to irritate the British judiciary.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630...
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630...
It is pretty far reaching, but I wouldn't say that it is 'unlikely to be any possibility' that the UK government would want to influence a high profile case, which is highly likely to impact the UK-US relationship.
Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK.
No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.
There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament.
The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like.
Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first.
What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like.
Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first.
What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
Also recall the high-profile, politically-charged cases which the Government has lost (to its considerable embarrassment) in recent memory.
Government isn't the parliament.
No court in the UK has ever overruled the parliament.
No court in the UK has ever overruled the parliament.
Because one of the key parts of UK law is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - that parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority. The court cannot overrule parliament by definition, in the same way SCOTUS cannot overrule the Constitution.
This is more than a little naive I think.
The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.
The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.
Okay, but how do you think this works? Boris Johnson having a word with the judge? The judiciary haven’t exactly shown much interest in pandering to Boris; see Brexit judgements over the last couple of years.
I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too.
The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego.
I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.
The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego.
I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.
> I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is
Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation for sticking to it.
Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation for sticking to it.
Whether it's their "job" or not it's exactly in line with their rulings. Whether it's taking gold from Venezuela, trying to prevent the Brexit train from going off the cliff or this, realpolitik is clearly never far from their mind.
If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.
If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990.
Quite surprised by that verdict. Reading the commentary from Craig Murray [1] I thought it likely he would be extradited.
Maybe Trump will pardon him and Snowdon on his way out as well.
[1] EG: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-...
Maybe Trump will pardon him and Snowdon on his way out as well.
[1] EG: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-...
Some of us did try to say that Murray is a fucking idiot and should not be listened to.
And yet the judgement in general seems to match his assessment of the judges reaction to most of the issues raised by the defence.
She only refused the extradition because of his mental health and likely prison conditions.
She only refused the extradition because of his mental health and likely prison conditions.
Agreed.
Assange supporting bloggers/writers including Murray have been alleging extreme bias on the part of the judge for the entirety of the extradition trial.
Pretty standard things that happen in a criminal trial in England (putting defendants in the dock etc.) have been interpreted as unique forms of victimisation reserved solely for Assange.
I won't hold my breath for a mea culpa.
Pretty standard things that happen in a criminal trial in England (putting defendants in the dock etc.) have been interpreted as unique forms of victimisation reserved solely for Assange.
I won't hold my breath for a mea culpa.
funny how usa can do such barbaric shit to humans in the name of "upholding the constitution" but let someone else kill a person for breaking their own laws and usa gets its panties in a bunch. good bigotry.
Right ruling for the wrong person. I hope Assange can be brought to justices before he flees to Russia.
This happens on the first day that UK is no EU member anymore. Is this somehow connected?
No. The discussions in the judgement are all focused on UK law, and the ECHR as embedded in UK law, and UK membership of the ECHR remains (it's not an EU organ, but related to the Council of Europe, which while confusingly similar to EU's European Council has nothing to do with the EU).
No. If anything, this is more down to the Human Rights Act (the UK implementation of the ECHR). Some particularly extreme Brexiters have advocated revoking the Human Rights Act (as a member of the EU the UK was required to actually implement the ECHR, but as a non-member it could just pay lip-service, like Russia does), but that hasn't happened as yet (and hopefully never will).
I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA.
The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the HRA was most notably proposed in the past by Theresa May as Home Secretary, who campaigned for Remain.
I don't think the ECHR/HRA is particularly likely to go away here any time soon. However the government may attempt to reform the way judicial reviews can be brought to limit their impact or remove the ability to bring "last minute" challenges which could have been brought in a more timely way (theoretically this is already supposed to be the case but in practice the politically controversial cases aren't often dismissed for lack of timeliness).
The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the HRA was most notably proposed in the past by Theresa May as Home Secretary, who campaigned for Remain.
I don't think the ECHR/HRA is particularly likely to go away here any time soon. However the government may attempt to reform the way judicial reviews can be brought to limit their impact or remove the ability to bring "last minute" challenges which could have been brought in a more timely way (theoretically this is already supposed to be the case but in practice the politically controversial cases aren't often dismissed for lack of timeliness).
This is an oversimplification but accurate - I don't think it's credible to stay in the EU while not having the ECHR implemented in statute.
I'm not sure this is true really, as long as a state remained a party to the ECHR itself. The UK didn't incorporate into domestic law until 1998 and RoI (which has a similarly "dualist" legal system of international and domestic law) 2003 - so it was possible to be a member of the EU before 2003 without doing this for sure.
Also to add to the confusion, many EU member states have "monist" systems of international and domestic law and never have incorporated via statute because their legal systems allow enforcement of convention rights directly. But in some of these countries the practical effect and applicability of the ECHR is actually less than in the UK via the HRA.
Also to add to the confusion, many EU member states have "monist" systems of international and domestic law and never have incorporated via statute because their legal systems allow enforcement of convention rights directly. But in some of these countries the practical effect and applicability of the ECHR is actually less than in the UK via the HRA.
Look at the calendar. January 31st is almost a year behind us.
Even the transition period ended multiple days ago.
Even the transition period ended multiple days ago.
A system of "mass incarceration" should have no impact on any individual case. That's beyond stupid.
"Mass incarceration" may not be the best phrasing, but the particularly inhumane (for a developed country) nature of the US criminal justice system does lose it a lot of extradition cases. In particular, punitive long-term solitary confinement is commonly used in the US but is not generally permitted in most European countries.
It's a human rights issue. The US doesn't have a very good record. The most usual scenario in which this comes up is in extradition cases where the person involved could face the death penalty (of life imprisonment I think too). It wouldn't make sense for the UK (where there is no death penalty) to extradite a person to somewhere they no longer have that right to life. This is just a natural extension of that policy.
It should, if its properties have material impact on the individual case. Which is what the judge argued here.
agreed this sounds like political activism judging. how can one judge say we can’t extradite to the us because the system isn’t good enough when other extraditions are ok?
It's not activism, it's the law in the UK.
The judge interprets how the law applies to the specific facts of this case. The law says extradition is not allowed in some circumstances. Those circumstances include how the prisoner is likely to be treated, and the health of the prisoner. Some other extraditions are ok according to the law because those factors vary in each case.
The judge interprets how the law applies to the specific facts of this case. The law says extradition is not allowed in some circumstances. Those circumstances include how the prisoner is likely to be treated, and the health of the prisoner. Some other extraditions are ok according to the law because those factors vary in each case.
Not really. s91 of the Extradition Act requires that "the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him", the judge must "order the person’s discharge".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/91
There have been extraditions of other people charged with computer hacking offences like Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon where there was a similar concern. In both Love and McKinnon's cases, both were on the autistic spectrum.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/91
There have been extraditions of other people charged with computer hacking offences like Lauri Love and Gary McKinnon where there was a similar concern. In both Love and McKinnon's cases, both were on the autistic spectrum.
How will this affect US and UK relations? They are brother/sister countries. Snowden and Assange are 2 Americans most wanted, US would do anything to get them.
Btw I'm not in favor of US Gov. spying but what Snowden and Assange did (leak state secrets) is criminal and they need to face justice.
Btw I'm not in favor of US Gov. spying but what Snowden and Assange did (leak state secrets) is criminal and they need to face justice.
It's quite common for EU countries to refuse extradition to the US on these sorts of grounds; can't see it having much effect.
Last time I checked, the charges are related to Assange's alleged involvement in one or more accounts of hacking, not regarding the subsequent public release of the obtained documents.
Assange is not American.
Justice for thee but not justice for me. - Some US politician, probably
> Assange did (leak state secrets)
Assange is a journalist and an Australian. He has no ties or obligations to the US. His organization also rededicated almost all published documents to prevent doxing. He is no different than the New York Post.
Snowden was an NSA contractor. Personally I still think he's a disinformation campaign similar to Operation Mockingbird or COINTELPRO and likely still works for either the CIA or State Dept (look up "Limited Hangouts")
Manning swore and oath as a soldier and broke it; releasing information that was not filtered or screened.
Three entirely different cases.
Assange is a journalist and an Australian. He has no ties or obligations to the US. His organization also rededicated almost all published documents to prevent doxing. He is no different than the New York Post.
Snowden was an NSA contractor. Personally I still think he's a disinformation campaign similar to Operation Mockingbird or COINTELPRO and likely still works for either the CIA or State Dept (look up "Limited Hangouts")
Manning swore and oath as a soldier and broke it; releasing information that was not filtered or screened.
Three entirely different cases.
> The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.
The judge states:
> it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs (special administrative measures) regime, both pre-trial and post-trial
And goes on to contrast with the conditions at HMP Belmarsh:
> many of the protective factors currently in place at HMP Belmarsh would be removed by these conditions. Mr. Assange’s health improved on being removed from relative isolation in healthcare. He has been able to access the support of family and friends. He has had access to a Samaritans phone line. He has benefited from a trusting relationship with the prison In-Reach psychologist. By contrast, a SAMs regime would severely restrict his contact with all other human beings, including other prisoners, staff and his family. In detention subject to SAMs, he would have absolutely no communication with other prisoners, even through the walls of his cell, and time out of his cell would be spent alone.
These conditions sound barbaric to me and I'd go as far to describe them as torture. Amnesty International do a better job of outlining the problems with this regime than I can: https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the...
Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
She concludes:
> I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.
> I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange, pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003
Whilst a victory nonetheless for Assange, it is unfortunate that the entire judgement seems to come down to this point alone. Let's hope it is not overturned.