> Q: If someone robs a bank to get money to fund terrorism then does that crime become a political offence, and should that person be immune from extradition?

> Q: If someone robs a bank to get money to fund terrorism then does that crime become a political offence, and should that person be immune from extradition? Robbing a bank is a crime against the bank. You can be extradited for that. There may be an additional political charge. > Q: If someone attacks a politician is that crime political and not extraditable? Does it matter which politician? That is a crime against the person. You can be extradited for that. There may also be a political charge. We are talking here about extradition for purely political crimes – because they can be and are often completely made up. You may be interested in checking some of your assumptions about the nature of the case and revisiting your opinion. I did, and I found that a lot of what I "knew" about this case was wrong. Specifically, from RSF (Reporters without Borders): > Crucially, the prosecution - for the US government - failed to produce any evidence of actual physical harm caused to anyone as the result of Wikileaks’ publication of leaked documents, severely undermining their claim that Assange knowingly put sources at risk. Testimony from Khaled El-Masri argued that to the contrary, the information published by Wikileaks exposed the atrocities to which he was subjected and has served as important evidence in his pursuit of justice. [0] From the same article: > Journalist John Goetz testified that Wikileaks had republished the unredacted diplomatic cables, which had been published in the first instance by website Cryptome and a number of media outlets. None of these outlets have faced adverse legal consequences for publishing the documents - only Wikileaks. A statement read into the record by Cryptome founder John Young confirmed that the unredacted files remain on the website to this day, and that Cryptome has never been approached by US law enforcement suggesting their publication was illegal. Then we have the deliberate stifling of access to the hearing: > However, at the start of proceedings on 7 September, RSF received a further communication from the court, stating: “The judge has regretfully decided not to grant requests for members of the public to attend the Julian Assange hearing via CVP...she is concerned about her ability to maintain the integrity of the court if members of the public are able to attend the hearing remotely.” On 8 September, Vincent nonetheless attempted to access the CVP via the link that had been provided, and was admitted to the waiting room before being removed and unable to log in again. Amnesty International and other NGOs also reported having their access revoked, along with a number of political observers. [0] https://rsf.org/en/news/usuk-julian-assanges-extradition-hearing-marred-barriers-open-justice https://rsf.org/en/news/usuk-julian-assanges-extradition-hea...