5 ms·

Well, the defence is trying to turn the process into a “make the hearing about literally everything” three-ring circus, and the prosecution’s countering with “t

Well, the defence is trying to turn the process into a “make the hearing about literally everything” three-ring circus, and the prosecution’s countering with “there’s a case to answer and the USA meets the required judicial standards”. On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity - particularly given the sheer amount of court time and media attention he’s had over the last ten years?

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Everyone knows the prosecution is politically motivated, which rules out extradition under the US-UK treaty. You know it, I know it, the judge knows it. Yet everyone also thinks the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) before the proceedings began. Not even giving the defense time to prepare a closing statement just underlines this. This is the sort of trial you're used to hearing about in banana republics.
- implements 6y ago
  But the US system incorporates a political viewpoint deliberately as part of what it considers justice in the public interest. We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic. Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process. Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    > We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?" 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
    - tome 6y ago
      That's interesting. I wonder if "politically motivated" is typically understood to encompass "acted against the general nebulous interests of the prevailing political and state apparatus".
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Err, yes?
        tome 6y ago
        Is it really so clear cut? Suppose a KKK member had fled from the US to the UK and was trying to bring about the secession of the Confederacy from the Union to form a white supremacist state, and that part of his strategy was to selectively leak US state secrets. Should the UK refuse to extradite him because the extradition request is politically motivated?
        hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
        Potentially. It depends on the facts of the case as well as the guarantees around execution and torture' But in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.
        tome 6y ago
        > in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners. Personally I agree with that, but that doesn't impinge on the "politically motivate" crime issue, does it?
        hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
        What crime? This is politically motivated punishment.
  - hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
    The USA started an illegal war. Assange exposed some of the war crimes (for which no one has faced justice). The USA wants revenge. They are acting like a banana republic and this extradition request should be treated as such.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    > the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic. I believe a case can be made for both.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) I wouldn't give her that much credit. She probably got the ruling already written from the US authorities.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  It's not entirely unreasonable for the judge to dismiss closing arguments: this is an administrative hearing, not a criminal case. There may well be sound case management reasons for doing so. Mr Assange can appeal to the High Court if the judgement goes against him, and then further to the Supreme Court, and potentially the European Court of Human Rights. Any of those courts can block his extradition.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    The UK government has said it is hoping to undo the Human Rights Act. It seems too many people dislike the idea of human rights now, especially rights for "criminals". So I wouldn't be surprised if the ECHR has no standing in the UK by the time Mr Assange could do with its services.
- torified 6y ago
  They should just save everyone's time by dropping pretences and summarily dragging Julian into the square and shooting him in the back of the head. That would be much more humane than dragging this farce out with endless legal purgatory before guaranteed solitary confinement for the rest of his life. All for sharing proof of systematic illegal murder. It's sickening.
raxxorrax 6y ago
> On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity Not even close. The US started a war of aggression and this process is inline with silencing critics. In my opinion the US cannot be a dependable partner anymore. Not for security, not for trade and especially not as a defender of democracy. Maybe it never really was, but the nature of open information exchange certainly makes that more transparent. That killed hundreds of thousands of people and you think someone who supplied evidence of wrongdoing had too much media time?
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > who supplied evidence Not even that. He published it. That's it.
  - croes 6y ago
    Not even that, the newspapers published it.
Normille 6y ago
>the USA meets the required judicial standards”. Except that, on paper, the UK [and I think the wider EU] claim they will not extradite someone to a country which still retains the death penalty, or which uses torture. Since the US clearly fails both those tests, no-one should ever be extradited from the UK or the EU to the USA. But as we all know, the US is special and doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > the US is special In the same as "No timmy, you're not retarded, you're just special"
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The US in this case is special in that it will use massive force to strongarm this into happening.
- matthewheath 6y ago
  Extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty is barred in UK law, however it's no bar if "the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out"... It's quite the disgrace.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

Everyone knows the prosecution is politically motivated, which rules out extradition under the US-UK treaty. You know it, I know it, the judge knows it. Yet everyone also thinks the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) before the proceedings began. Not even giving the defense time to prepare a closing statement just underlines this. This is the sort of trial you're used to hearing about in banana republics.

implements 6y ago
But the US system incorporates a political viewpoint deliberately as part of what it considers justice in the public interest. We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic. Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process. Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  > We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?" 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - tome 6y ago
    That's interesting. I wonder if "politically motivated" is typically understood to encompass "acted against the general nebulous interests of the prevailing political and state apparatus".
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Err, yes?
      - tome 6y ago
        Is it really so clear cut? Suppose a KKK member had fled from the US to the UK and was trying to bring about the secession of the Confederacy from the Union to form a white supremacist state, and that part of his strategy was to selectively leak US state secrets. Should the UK refuse to extradite him because the extradition request is politically motivated?
        hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
        Potentially. It depends on the facts of the case as well as the guarantees around execution and torture' But in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.
        tome 6y ago
        > in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners. Personally I agree with that, but that doesn't impinge on the "politically motivate" crime issue, does it?
        hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
        What crime? This is politically motivated punishment.
- hdjdbtbgwjsn 6y ago
  The USA started an illegal war. Assange exposed some of the war crimes (for which no one has faced justice). The USA wants revenge. They are acting like a banana republic and this extradition request should be treated as such.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  > the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic. I believe a case can be made for both.
rbanffy 6y ago
> the judge made up her mind (and probably wrote her ruling) I wouldn't give her that much credit. She probably got the ruling already written from the US authorities.
matthewheath 6y ago
It's not entirely unreasonable for the judge to dismiss closing arguments: this is an administrative hearing, not a criminal case. There may well be sound case management reasons for doing so. Mr Assange can appeal to the High Court if the judgement goes against him, and then further to the Supreme Court, and potentially the European Court of Human Rights. Any of those courts can block his extradition.
- jlokier 6y ago
  The UK government has said it is hoping to undo the Human Rights Act. It seems too many people dislike the idea of human rights now, especially rights for "criminals". So I wouldn't be surprised if the ECHR has no standing in the UK by the time Mr Assange could do with its services.
torified 6y ago
They should just save everyone's time by dropping pretences and summarily dragging Julian into the square and shooting him in the back of the head. That would be much more humane than dragging this farce out with endless legal purgatory before guaranteed solitary confinement for the rest of his life. All for sharing proof of systematic illegal murder. It's sickening.

raxxorrax 6y ago

> On balance, don’t you think JA has had a fair opportunity Not even close. The US started a war of aggression and this process is inline with silencing critics. In my opinion the US cannot be a dependable partner anymore. Not for security, not for trade and especially not as a defender of democracy. Maybe it never really was, but the nature of open information exchange certainly makes that more transparent. That killed hundreds of thousands of people and you think someone who supplied evidence of wrongdoing had too much media time?

rbanffy 6y ago
> who supplied evidence Not even that. He published it. That's it.
- croes 6y ago
  Not even that, the newspapers published it.

Normille 6y ago

>the USA meets the required judicial standards”. Except that, on paper, the UK [and I think the wider EU] claim they will not extradite someone to a country which still retains the death penalty, or which uses torture. Since the US clearly fails both those tests, no-one should ever be extradited from the UK or the EU to the USA. But as we all know, the US is special and doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> the US is special In the same as "No timmy, you're not retarded, you're just special"
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The US in this case is special in that it will use massive force to strongarm this into happening.
matthewheath 6y ago
Extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty is barred in UK law, however it's no bar if "the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out"... It's quite the disgrace.