Julian Assange can be extradited to US to face espionage charges, court rules

[loomer]

Julian Assange can be extradited to US to face espionage charges, court rules

WikiLeaks co-founder’s fiancee says appeal will be launched, as Amnesty International says decision is a ‘travesty of justice’

Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, the high court has ruled as it overturned a judgment earlier this year.

The decision deals a major blow to the WikiLeaks co-founder’s efforts to prevent his extradition to the US to face espionage charges, although his fiancee immediately indicated that an appeal would be launched.

The senior judges found that a then-district judge had based her decision earlier this year on the risk of Assange being held in highly restrictive prison conditions if extradited.

But in their ruling on Friday, they sided with the US authorities after a near-unprecedented package of assurances were put forward that Assange would not face those strictest measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he committed an act in the future that required them.

Lord Burnett said: “That risk is in our judgment excluded by the assurances which are offered. It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently.”

He added: “That conclusion is sufficient to determine this appeal in the USA’s favour.”

Allowing the appeal, the judges ordered that the case be remitted to Westminster magistrates court with a direction that a district justice send the case to the secretary of state, who will decide whether Assange should be extradited to the US.

Responding to the decision, Stella Moris, Julian Assange’s fiancee, said: “We will appeal this decision at the earliest possible moment.”

She described the high court’s ruling as “dangerous and misguided” and a “grave miscarriage of justice.”

“How can it be fair, how can it be right, how can it be possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which plotted to kill him?” she said.

The case against the 49-year-old relates to WikiLeaks’s publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as diplomatic cables, in 2010 and 2011.

Alarm at the high court ruling was expressed by advocates of press freedom, with Amnesty International describing the ruling as a “travesty of justice”.

Nils Muižnieks, Amnesty International’s Europe director, said: “By allowing this appeal, the high court has chosen to accept the deeply flawed diplomatic assurances given by the US that Assange would not be held in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison.”

“If extradited to the US, Julian Assange could not only face trial on charges under the Espionage Act but also a real risk of serious human rights violations due to detention conditions that could amount to torture or other ill-treatment. The US government’s indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad.”

Rebecca Vincent, director of international campaigns at Reporters Without Borders and the organisation’s UK bureau director, tweeted: “This is an utterly shameful development that has alarming implications not only for Assange’s mental health, but also for journalism and press freedom around the world.”

The high court was told earlier this year that blocking Assange‘s removal from the UK due to his mental health risked “rewarding fugitives for their flight”.

James Lewis QC, for the US, said the district judge based her decision on Assange‘s “intellectual ability to circumvent suicide preventive measures”, which risked becoming a “trump card” for anyone who wanted to oppose their extradition regardless of any resources the other state might have.

The assurances offered by the US in a diplomatic note in February included one that Assange would not be subject to “special administrative measures” or held at a maximum security “ADX” facility, such as one in Florence, Colorado, either during a pretrial period or after any conviction.

The US also said it will consent to an application by Assange, if he is convicted, to be transferred to his native Australia to serve any sentence and that he would receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment while in US custody.

The US assurances were described in the ruling by the high court judges on Friday as “solemn undertakings offered by one government to another.”

Lord Burnett of Maldon, lord chief justice, and Lord Justice Holroyde added in their ruling: “There is no reason why this court should not accept the assurances as meaning what they say. There is no basis for assuming that the USA has not given the assurances in good faith.”

Source

Bluntly - catastrophic. Contrary to the judgment, the US has actually refused to guarantee Assange's treatment won't include SAMs and their equivalents, and their assurances are wholly non-binding even within the realm of fiction that a written guarantee offered to an allied government means a thing to the US.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The USA would break their word? Surely not!

secretary of state

Which secretary of state though? There are sixteen of them. I imagine it'll either be Dominic Raab as the one for Justice... or the one for the Home Department, the extremely unpopular Priti Patel.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As someone who works for the UK Court's Service I'm curious as to why they ordered it remitted to Westminster magistrates court, they don't deal with appeals of any kind. Also we don't have "district Justices" we have "District Judges." - though I'm not surprised the Guardian made a mistake like that. If they do send it to the Secretary of State for Justice, well Mr Raab will just regurgitate whatever bullshit Boris tells him to since he's a complete non-entity (at least our previous Justice Secretary actually had been a barrister (even a QC) before going off to politics, I don't think Raab has ever even been in a courtroom before).

I admit I have a lot of conflicting feelings about this mess. On the one hand I wouldn't trust the US government if it said today was Friday without checking first, but on the other, well, the dude was responsible for obtaining and releasing classified material - which is a crime, no matter which way you slice it. I am very very wary of people saying "xyz crime is ok because the other guy is worse/it's in the public interest/the public have a right to know/freedom of the press" etc.

I mean, just how much illegal action can be justified as "public interest?"

[Solauren]

I actually want to see Assange on trial. A nice open courtroom trial, on TV, and all the shit he revealed put out there. I want to actually see a US Judge have to decide on his fate, while the US public is screaming about what was revealed.

It could be the only way the United States industrial/military/political machine wakes up and goes 'you know what, we might need to change a few things'

[Crazedwraith]

BBC radio news seemed to suggest it would be the Home Secretary's decision. I.e. Priti Patel not that it makes much difference.

[Tribble]

I actually want to see Assange on trial. A nice open courtroom trial, on TV, and all the shit he revealed put out there. I want to actually see a US Judge have to decide on his fate, while the US public is screaming about what was revealed.

It could be the only way the United States industrial/military/political machine wakes up and goes 'you know what, we might need to change a few things'

Ya, lessons like “we’d better learn how to plug our leaks better and remove threats like Assange sooner”.

[Formless]

I actually want to see Assange on trial. A nice open courtroom trial, on TV, and all the shit he revealed put out there. I want to actually see a US Judge have to decide on his fate, while the US public is screaming about what was revealed.

It could be the only way the United States industrial/military/political machine wakes up and goes 'you know what, we might need to change a few things'

Ha! If you think this trial has been a complete railroad, he'll receive no better in the US, and probably worse. That's why the extradition has been challenged in the first place. Whatever he did, they've blown in out of proportion for the purpose of silencing him. From the very beginning this has been nothing but a political attack, and one that predates the Trump administration. And since that administration, I would put no faith in the US public to give a shit about Assange's fate, let alone the Military Industrial sector to change their ways. They aren't woke, and they never will be. Every reform of the military had to come from above them. They are among the most conservative institutions in the country, in every way that counts.

[loomer]

As someone who works for the UK Court's Service I'm curious as to why they ordered it remitted to Westminster magistrates court, they don't deal with appeals of any kind. Also we don't have "district Justices" we have "District Judges." - though I'm not surprised the Guardian made a mistake like that. If they do send it to the Secretary of State for Justice, well Mr Raab will just regurgitate whatever bullshit Boris tells him to since he's a complete non-entity (at least our previous Justice Secretary actually had been a barrister (even a QC) before going off to politics, I don't think Raab has ever even been in a courtroom before).

I admit I have a lot of conflicting feelings about this mess. On the one hand I wouldn't trust the US government if it said today was Friday without checking first, but on the other, well, the dude was responsible for obtaining and releasing classified material - which is a crime, no matter which way you slice it. I am very very wary of people saying "xyz crime is ok because the other guy is worse/it's in the public interest/the public have a right to know/freedom of the press" etc.

I mean, just how much illegal action can be justified as "public interest?"

As a general rule of thumb, any time virtually every peak body involved in regulating the ethics of your field agrees that your actions were in the public interest, it's probably safe to agree that they fall under that heading. Also, it needs to be remembered that Assange's 'crimes' have essentially no jurisdictional nexus with the US (which is why they were pushing so hard on the Manning angle to create one) and are pretty clearly within the remits of freedom of the press there anyway.

Again, there is a reason virtually every peak body for journalists is jumping up and down going 'Holy shit, no, this is the worst possible thing for press freedom'.

[Broomstick]

Bluntly - catastrophic. Contrary to the judgment, the US has actually refused to guarantee Assange's treatment won't include SAMs and their equivalents, and their assurances are wholly non-binding even within the realm of fiction that a written guarantee offered to an allied government means a thing to the US.

Even if the Biden administration could be trusted to keep those assurances there is zero guarantee the next guy (or gal) would honor them. It's become very apparent over the last couple decades that the US changes drastically every time power moves from one political party to the other. How can anyone make a deal with/trust a party subjected to such changes?

[Elfdart]

The most disgusting part of this slow-motion lynching is the masturbatory glee from shit-libs in the media (especially MSDNC) at the prospect of Assange being -as Peter Hitchens vividly described it- buried alive in Florence, Colorado.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Julian Assange wins ruling in his battle against extradition to US

Julian Assange has won the first stage of his bid to appeal against the decision to extradite him to the United States to the Supreme Court.

Assange, 50, is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

In December last year, US authorities won their High Court challenge to overturn an earlier ruling that Assange should not be extradited due to a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide.

Assange’s fiancee, Stella Moris, called that decision “dangerous and misguided” and said the WikiLeaks founder’s lawyers intended to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, she said: "As long as this case isn’t dropped, as long as Julian isn’t freed, Julian continues to suffer.

“For almost three years he has been in Belmarsh prison and he is suffering profoundly, day after day, week after week, year after year. Julian has to be freed and we hope that this will soon end.”

For a proposed appeal to be considered by the UK’s highest court, a case has to raise a point of law of “general public importance”.

Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, for Assange, previously said the case raised “serious and important” legal issues, including over a “reliance” on assurances given by the US about the prison conditions he would face if extradited.

On Monday, two senior judges ruled there was a point of law, but denied him permission for the appeal.

Stella Moris, the partner of Julian Assange, speaks to the media outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, after the Wikileaks founder won the first stage of his bid to appeal against the decision to extradite him to the United States.

However, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, said Assange could go to the Supreme Court itself and ask to bring the appeal.

“Whether or not the issue needs ventilation in that court is a matter appropriately for its decision,” Lord Burnett said.

Lord Burnett asked the Supreme Court to “take steps to expedite consideration” of any application for an appeal.

Assange’s lawyers now have 14 days to make the application to the Supreme Court.

In Monday’s pronouncement, Lord Burnett said the point of law was about the circumstances in which an appeal court can be given assurances by a country that were not given at the original extradition.

He added that “although the law in this jurisdiction has long been settled it does not appear that the Supreme Court has considered the question.

“Assurances are at the heart of many extradition proceedings”.

Looks like this shitshow isn't going to end any time soon.

[Crazedwraith]

so they've said... they're not giving him the appeal but he can apply to the supreme court to see if they want to take it? How complicated.

[Tribble]

so they've said... they're not giving him the appeal but he can apply to the supreme court to see if they want to take it? How complicated.

Or in other words “ya you’re totally screwed but we need to wash our hands of this, so we’ll let you ask our bosses and they can give you the bad news.”

[EnterpriseSovereign]

so they've said... they're not giving him the appeal but he can apply to the supreme court to see if they want to take it? How complicated.

Or in other words “ya you’re totally screwed but we need to wash our hands of this, so we’ll let you ask our bosses and they can give you the bad news.”

If that's what they do and deny him his appeal, I wonder how soon after they'll hand him over- I can imagine them wanting to be rid of him sooner rather than later.

[irishmick79]

I actually want to see Assange on trial. A nice open courtroom trial, on TV, and all the shit he revealed put out there. I want to actually see a US Judge have to decide on his fate, while the US public is screaming about what was revealed.

It could be the only way the United States industrial/military/political machine wakes up and goes 'you know what, we might need to change a few things'

Ha! If you think this trial has been a complete railroad, he'll receive no better in the US, and probably worse. That's why the extradition has been challenged in the first place. Whatever he did, they've blown in out of proportion for the purpose of silencing him. From the very beginning this has been nothing but a political attack, and one that predates the Trump administration. And since that administration, I would put no faith in the US public to give a shit about Assange's fate, let alone the Military Industrial sector to change their ways. They aren't woke, and they never will be. Every reform of the military had to come from above them. They are among the most conservative institutions in the country, in every way that counts.

To offer some very circumstantial corroboration, I live in one of the most liberal cities in America. Just judging from the people who I’ve talked with about Assange, I would suggest that the average American reaction to this whole thing if he hits the U.S. would be something along the lines of

wait, he’s not already in prison?!?

And that would be coming from the wing of American politics that would at all be inclined to embrace him. The right wing I suspect will be eagerly awaiting his arrival with the modern equivalent of tar and feathers.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Julian Assange's bid to appeal against extradition to United States fails.

Julian Assange has been denied permission to appeal against a court decision to extradite him to the United States, where he faces serious allegations over the release of leaked documents.

The Supreme Court on Monday confirmed the High Court’s decision in December 2021 to extradite the Wikileaks founder.

On Monday, the UK’s highest court said that senior judges had refused Assange’s bid to challenge the decision as his application did not raise “an arguable point of law”.

However, Assange’s legal team previously said there were other parts of his appeal that had not yet been heard by the High Court.

The 50-year-old was living at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, before he was arrested and transferred to HMP Belmarsh.

He is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Mr Assange has denied wrongdoing and won support from human rights organisations across the world.

US authorities brought a High Court challenge against a January ruling by then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser that Assange should not be sent to the US, in which she cited a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide.

After a two-day hearing, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, ruled in favour of the US last year.

The senior judges found that Judge Baraitser had based her decision on the risk of Assange being held in highly restrictive prison conditions if extradited.

However, the US authorities later gave assurances that Assange would not face those strictest measures either pre-trial or post-conviction unless he committed an act in the future that required them.

Lord Burnett previously said that if the original judge had been given those assurances at the time of her ruling, “she would have answered the relevant question differently”.

Mr Assange's lawyers had sought to appeal against that decision at the Supreme Court, arguing it raises “serious and important” legal issues.

In January, Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, refused permission for the appeal, adding that the decision of whether to hear the appeal was up to the Supreme Court.

In her January 2021 ruling blocking the extradition, Judge Baraitser found in favour of the US on all issues except Assange’s mental health.

Assange has previously indicated that he wants to challenge the original judge’s other findings.

The outcome of the appeal decision comes the day after it was revealed Mr Assange would be allowed to wed behind bars.

Stella Moris will marry her fiance in Belmarsh Prison on March 23, just weeks before the third anniversary of his dramatic arrest.

Ms Moris told the PA news agency that just four guests and two witnesses will be allowed to attend the ceremony, as well as two security guards.

Celebrated British fashion designer Vivienne Westwood will design her wedding gown.

The couple managed to have two sons while Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy.

He had been a resident of the embassy for seven years from 2012, before his arrest.

The guests will have to leave immediately after the event, even though it is being held during normal visiting hours.

Ms Moris, a lawyer, told PA over the weekend: “Obviously we are very excited, even though the circumstances are very restrictive.

“There continues to be unjustified interference in our plans. Having a photographer for an hour is not an unreasonable request.

“All the guests and witnesses must leave as soon as the ceremony is over, even though that will be before normal visiting time ends.

“Julian is looking forward to the wedding because it is finally happening, many months after we first made the request.”

Ms Moris, who spoke to Mr Assange on Sunday, added: “He is being held on behalf of a foreign power and has not been charged with anything, which is completely disgraceful.”

Does this mean they'll hand him over now?

[Solauren]

There are other parts of the appeal apparently still under review.

You know, I'm wondering this....

Why doesn't Julian ask to be held in UK custody, and tried via tele-remote by the US?
Or, if tele-remote isn't an issue, ask UK to hold him and to allow the US to convene a court on their soil?
Including the appeals process.

He doesn't therefore have to worry about 'assisted suicide' from the US government while he's being held pre and during trial.

After trial, well, I guess it depends on if the US will let the UK hold him after that.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The cynical part of me says it's because he wants to delay the trial as much as possible. Part of me also wonders if that's behind the wedding, to give him a better case for requesting asylum under the "right to a family" laws.

[Broomstick]

Why doesn't Julian ask to be held in UK custody, and tried via tele-remote by the US?

I think that might be a problem in regards US law and custom about conducting trials in relevant jurisdictions.

[Tribble]

so they've said... they're not giving him the appeal but he can apply to the supreme court to see if they want to take it? How complicated.

Or in other words “ya you’re totally screwed but we need to wash our hands of this, so we’ll let you ask our bosses and they can give you the bad news.”

If that's what they do and deny him his appeal, I wonder how soon after they'll hand him over- I can imagine them wanting to be rid of him sooner rather than later.

Probably sooner now that the bosses have spoken?

Wonder how long he’ll last in the US before an “accidental suicide”? After some “accidental injuries” for “resisting law enforcement?”

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Or in other words “ya you’re totally screwed but we need to wash our hands of this, so we’ll let you ask our bosses and they can give you the bad news.”

If that's what they do and deny him his appeal, I wonder how soon after they'll hand him over- I can imagine them wanting to be rid of him sooner rather than later.

Probably sooner now that the bosses have spoken?

Wonder how long he’ll last in the US before an “accidental suicide”? After some “accidental injuries” for “resisting law enforcement?”

While taking place in Jeffrey Epstein's cell. You know, the one with "defective surveillance"?

[Solauren]

I don't think that 'accidental suicide' would actually happen in this case.

Killing Epstien was to protect themselves/people in power that broke the law.

However, killing Assange makes him a Martyr. It's no longer preventative. What more can he reveal then what he has?
They don't want that. They want him dragged into court, questioned, and hopefully shown to be the villain.

Kind of like how the mob sends messages using blabbermouths getting punished. Same idea, national scale.

[Ralin]

Kind of like how the mob sends messages using blabbermouths getting punished. Same idea, national scale.

Except the mob isn't known for giving people lawyers and trials.

[Solauren]

Kind of like how the mob sends messages using blabbermouths getting punished. Same idea, national scale.

Except the mob isn't known for giving people lawyers and trials.

Which is the point. Mobs want to rule by fear.

The US government wants to appear respectable, and not turn Assange into a Martyr.

[Gandalf]

Maybe they can have a nice show trial.