10 ms·

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is

by lol768 6y ago

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > 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-us-federal-prison-system/ 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.

tda 6y ago
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?
- sneak 6y ago
  I don't think it's common, but it certainly isn't legalese.
- dempseye 6y ago
  It is normal usage.
- DanBC 6y ago
  It's not legalese, but it is frequently used in judgments.
- eutectic 6y ago
  I guess it's more common in British English (and maybe a bit old-fashioned?). Edit: google ngrams seems to agree.
  - afandian 6y ago
    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?
    - eutectic 6y ago
      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.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      No, that's the definition that does track perfectly in American English: where it can be substituted by "pleased."
      - Sharlin 6y ago
dalbasal 6y ago
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.
- ohthehugemanate 6y ago
  > 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.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    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.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      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.
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
>> 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.
- Sharlin 6y ago
  Probably ”useful idiots”.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Alternatively: * 51st State * Airstrip One * The next market for chlorinated chicken
    - arminiusreturns 6y ago
      In reality the relationship is quite the opposite of this framing, but carry on I suppose.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
    - sampo 6y ago
      While cynical and snarky towards US government, the comment is substantive if you're familiar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
      - dang 6y ago
        It's a cliché. That is one reason the GP comment was unsubstantive.
cannabis_sam 6y ago
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 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3714864.stm
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  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.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    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.]
    - 542354234235 6y ago
      > 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.
      - eternalban 6y ago
        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 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105462/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1] > any sort of credibility https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=542354234235 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=542354234235
jariel 6y ago
"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?
- seniorivn 6y ago
  >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
- DanBC 6y ago
  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.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "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'.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      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.
arcticbull 6y ago
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/canada-court-rules-safe-third-country-pact-with-u-s-invalid-cites-detention-risk-idUSKCN24N2B2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-refugee-safethird/...
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  That court ruling is not yet final and is on hold during appeals: https://www.immigration.ca/decision-to-strike-down-safe-third-country-agreement-stayed-by-federal-court-of-appeal https://www.immigration.ca/decision-to-strike-down-safe-thir...
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Ah I see that happened in late October, I must have missed it.
dillondoyle 6y ago
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
- sn41 6y ago
  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.
  - Synaesthesia 6y ago
    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.
jimbob45 6y ago
(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.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  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?
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    AFAIK he just continues to chill in the UK under house arrest until he succumbs (ostensibly during a decade).
pmiller2 6y ago
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?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > 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.
  - sanp 6y ago
    With the new administration, perhaps. Not sure this would have been true with the current admin.
  - TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
    > you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally. The UK has done exactly that by denying extradition to the US.
    - rvx80 6y ago
      One wonders if there is not some element of 'tit-for-tat' in response to the Anne Sacoolas / Harry Dunn affair at play here.
    - YawningAngel 6y ago
      I'm sure Anne Sacoolas will be presenting herself at the Old Bailey forthwith?

by lol768 6y ago

tda 6y ago

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?

sneak 6y ago
I don't think it's common, but it certainly isn't legalese.
dempseye 6y ago
It is normal usage.
DanBC 6y ago
It's not legalese, but it is frequently used in judgments.
eutectic 6y ago
I guess it's more common in British English (and maybe a bit old-fashioned?). Edit: google ngrams seems to agree.
- afandian 6y ago
  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?
  - eutectic 6y ago
    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.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    No, that's the definition that does track perfectly in American English: where it can be substituted by "pleased."
    - Sharlin 6y ago

dalbasal 6y ago

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.

ohthehugemanate 6y ago
> 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.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  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.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    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.

YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago

>> 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.

Sharlin 6y ago
Probably ”useful idiots”.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Alternatively: * 51st State * Airstrip One * The next market for chlorinated chicken
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    In reality the relationship is quite the opposite of this framing, but carry on I suppose.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
  - sampo 6y ago
    While cynical and snarky towards US government, the comment is substantive if you're familiar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
    - dang 6y ago
      It's a cliché. That is one reason the GP comment was unsubstantive.

cannabis_sam 6y ago

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 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3714864.stm

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alisonkisk 6y ago
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.
- eternalban 6y ago
  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.]
  - 542354234235 6y ago
    > 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.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      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 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105462/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1] > any sort of credibility https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=542354234235 https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=542354234235

jariel 6y ago

"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?

seniorivn 6y ago
>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
DanBC 6y ago
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.
- jariel 6y ago
  "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'.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    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.

arcticbull 6y ago

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/canada-court-rules-safe-third-country-pact-with-u-s-invalid-cites-detention-risk-idUSKCN24N2B2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-refugee-safethird/...

jkaplowitz 6y ago
That court ruling is not yet final and is on hold during appeals: https://www.immigration.ca/decision-to-strike-down-safe-third-country-agreement-stayed-by-federal-court-of-appeal https://www.immigration.ca/decision-to-strike-down-safe-thir...
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Ah I see that happened in late October, I must have missed it.

dillondoyle 6y ago

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

sn41 6y ago
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.
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  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.

jimbob45 6y ago

(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.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
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?
- jimbob45 6y ago
  AFAIK he just continues to chill in the UK under house arrest until he succumbs (ostensibly during a decade).

pmiller2 6y ago

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?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> 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.
- sanp 6y ago
  With the new administration, perhaps. Not sure this would have been true with the current admin.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > you've potentially damaged diplomatic relations with an ally. The UK has done exactly that by denying extradition to the US.
  - rvx80 6y ago
    One wonders if there is not some element of 'tit-for-tat' in response to the Anne Sacoolas / Harry Dunn affair at play here.
  - YawningAngel 6y ago
    I'm sure Anne Sacoolas will be presenting herself at the Old Bailey forthwith?