16 ms·
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 doi
by Findeton 6y ago
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.
- vidarh 6y agoIt'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.
- nix23 6y agoI 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.
- checkyoursudo 6y agoWhile 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?
- nix23 6y agoTrue 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.
- detaro 6y agoBan 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).
- syshum 6y agoThe 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
- simonh 6y agoThat was simply a reply to a specific question asked in the previous comment.
- Buttons840 6y agoDid 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.
- ben_w 6y agoGiven 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
- Uberphallus 6y agoYou 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.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThat seems incorrect, you can be prosecuted in your country of origin just fine for stealing from or hacking foreigners
- nix23 6y agoTrue, that Country can make a Penalty application and your getting prosecuted in your country.
- tw04 6y agoWe'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-years-for-cybercrime/ 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?
- tomatocracy 6y agoSome 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.
- toyg 6y agoThis 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.
- widforss 6y agoDo 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?
- johannes1234321 6y agoThe 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont
- qsort 6y agoIt 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.
- JAlexoid 6y agoEspionage is 100% a political offence, yet... A lot of things are political in nature. But extraditions are mostly issues of diplomacy, not justice.
- belorn 6y agoThere 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.
- smichel17 6y agoThis 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.
- checkyoursudo 6y agoI 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.
- smichel17 6y agoYes, 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.
- londons_explore 6y agoIt would seem more logical for the person to be extradited from C to A, and then A to B.
- mschuster91 6y agoBecause Julian Assange was on UK territory, not Australian.
- nix23 6y agoYes 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_United_States_federal_government#Capital_offenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_Unit...
- NewLogic 6y agoAs an Aussie, sadly our politicians are a bunch of cowards.
- ignoramous 6y agoFar cry from just years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w
- microtherion 6y agoThat'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.
- nix23 6y agoIn 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?
- microtherion 6y ago
- matthewmorgan 6y agoAllowed by whom?
- Joakal 6y agoAustralian 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.
- jand 6y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 6y agoThis is incoherent. How would this work in the context of English courts?
- Closi 6y agoYou 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.
- raxxorrax 6y agoHow 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.
- frereubu 6y ago> 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.
- Closi 6y agoUnfortunately 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).
- raxxorrax 6y agoBut 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.
- joshuaissac 6y agoIt 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.
- vidarh 6y agoI'm more worried about why the judge acted like this in the first place.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoYes, 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.
- gsnedders 6y ago> 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.)
- HotHotLava 6y agoIf 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.
- AsyncAwait 6y agoMost 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.
- HotHotLava 6y agoWhy 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 :)
- croes 6y agoThe ruling has nothing to do with freedom of expression. If the judge wouldn't think Assange is suicidal, he would be extradicted.