10 ms·

Yes, 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

Yes, 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Most 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 ago
      Why 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 :)
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > Why would the intelligence community be involved with decision-making inside the department of justice? Because the intelligence community hates Assange and what he represents. They spied on US lawmakers, tortured, manufactured evidence... I find it hard to believe they WOULDN'T meddle in this case. > Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion? Because post 2016 election the Democrats are no friends of Assange and WiliLeaks, regardless of the implications for press freedom.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    "Political motivation" does not mean that the motivation must be associated with only 1 political party. There are many political decisions taken in the US that both parties agree on, especially in this area of the intelligence state. If anything, as the judge notes, the current administration was likely somewhat more "friendly" to Assange than the Biden administration will be.
    - HotHotLava 6y ago
      I'm confused: The Assange defense team literally argues that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute the case, and that the Trump administration resurrected it in 2017 for political reasons. (The judge rejects the premise and argues that since there is no sufficient evidence that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute, the Trump administration couldn't have made a political decision to resurrect, since the case was always ongoing.) Your position seems to be that the defense is mistaken, but that the case is still political because it was already started as that under Obama and continues to be politically motivated throughout the Trump and Biden administrations?
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        Exactly. The case against Assange has always been political - it is not to the benefit of Justice or the American People, it is a case for protection of the surveillance state, and a case designed to scare away anyone who might emulate Assange. Same as the case against Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.
djsumdog 6y ago
There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.
- lixtra 6y ago
  Other sources[1] expect the US to appeal. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241
- tastroder 6y ago
  https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1346030852136906752 https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/13460308521369067... "this is a sitting of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. It is not a trial. The losing side may appeal against the DJ’s ruling." Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.
- implements 6y ago
  > UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness. Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse. Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    > Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. > > Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace. While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly) [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-tshirt-police-black-lives-matter-protest-a9549911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...
Veen 6y ago
Are you claiming the judge’s decision was made on political grounds rather than on legal grounds under UK law? It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. That’s her job and it has nothing to to do with “siding with the US”. Whether they are good laws or not is a matter for the UK Parliament and people.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still. Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted. It's clear Assange is someone who the intelligence community views as an individual who crossed them and needs to be used to deter others. Reading the judgment it is hard not to come to the conclusion she agrees with this view.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected. She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2]. In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed. 1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303
tsimionescu 6y ago
To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being). It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule on whether what Assange did falls under press freedom. The US courts would have to decide that. If however the case had been identical but coming from China, the judge would still not have ruled on press freedom, but would have likely considered that the Chinese constitution and court precedents do not offer sufficient guarantees that there would actually be a fair trial, unlike in the US system. Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but I don't see the ruling as being either for or against press freedom, by my understanding.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Don’t the charges at least need to be credible?
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    IFF the legal system of the country seeking extradition is trust-worthy and offers the same guarantees of human rights as the UK one, why would the charges need to be credible at all? The accused could be sent to that country, with the expectation that the trial would quickly go in the accused's favor. Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US criminalized ice cream consumption, you would not be able to extradite someone in the UK for having consumed ice cream in the USA, of course. But this is not the same as, say, extraditing someone accused of murder in the USA who is not known to have been physically there - the extradition judge may be ok in not looking at the evidence that the charges are based on (except maybe to ascertain whether they may be a sign of a politically-motivated trial).
    - megous 6y ago
      I wonder about this. Let's say that in the US I'd have a budget of about $3000 to spend on the trial, without having to completely ruin my savings. Would that be enough for housing, airline tickets (back to europe), and the trial/lawyers/bail/court fees in the US? If frivolous extradition/trial would ruin me financially, I'd rather extradition procedure took the credibility/frivolousness of charges into account...

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 ago
If 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 ago
  Most 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 ago
    Why 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 :)
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Why would the intelligence community be involved with decision-making inside the department of justice? Because the intelligence community hates Assange and what he represents. They spied on US lawmakers, tortured, manufactured evidence... I find it hard to believe they WOULDN'T meddle in this case. > Obama's DoJ apparently decided not to pursue the case, why would we expect Biden's DoJ to come to a different conclusion? Because post 2016 election the Democrats are no friends of Assange and WiliLeaks, regardless of the implications for press freedom.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  "Political motivation" does not mean that the motivation must be associated with only 1 political party. There are many political decisions taken in the US that both parties agree on, especially in this area of the intelligence state. If anything, as the judge notes, the current administration was likely somewhat more "friendly" to Assange than the Biden administration will be.
  - HotHotLava 6y ago
    I'm confused: The Assange defense team literally argues that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute the case, and that the Trump administration resurrected it in 2017 for political reasons. (The judge rejects the premise and argues that since there is no sufficient evidence that the Obama DoJ decided not to prosecute, the Trump administration couldn't have made a political decision to resurrect, since the case was always ongoing.) Your position seems to be that the defense is mistaken, but that the case is still political because it was already started as that under Obama and continues to be politically motivated throughout the Trump and Biden administrations?
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Exactly. The case against Assange has always been political - it is not to the benefit of Justice or the American People, it is a case for protection of the surveillance state, and a case designed to scare away anyone who might emulate Assange. Same as the case against Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden.

djsumdog 6y ago

There is no real right to appeal in the UK. It's very unlikely there would be an appeal. UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. I'm not surprised it failed on those grounds.

lixtra 6y ago
Other sources[1] expect the US to appeal. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55528241
tastroder 6y ago
https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1346030852136906752 https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/13460308521369067... "this is a sitting of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. It is not a trial. The losing side may appeal against the DJ’s ruling." Later in the same thread it says they have 14 days to do so and already announced they will.
implements 6y ago
> UK also doesn't really have freedom of speech or press in any meaningful way. Not in a way meaningful to libertarian extremists, no - thank goodness. Citizens and the press can say pretty much what they want, barring libel and what you might describe as “violence done through speech” ie threats, harassment or abuse. Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace.
- vidarh 6y ago
  > Consider that if I were to walk through London wearing a teeshirt emblazoned with “Atheist” I’d be perfectly safe. I suspect doing the same in many US towns or cities might result in assault - contrast “liberties” with “effective freedoms”. > > Also, political free speech is pretty much absolute in the UK - it’s citizens putting the boot in to each other in public that tends to attract Police interest in keeping the peace. While I have a lot of sympathy for your argument about effective freedoms vs. de jure liberties, someone was stopped and told to cover up her "fuck Boris" t-shirt by police in London not that long ago[1]. (Though, while I consider the stop ridiculous, at the same time at least the officers in question otherwise conducted themselves calmly) [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-tshirt-police-black-lives-matter-protest-a9549911.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnso...

Veen 6y ago

Are you claiming the judge’s decision was made on political grounds rather than on legal grounds under UK law? It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. That’s her job and it has nothing to to do with “siding with the US”. Whether they are good laws or not is a matter for the UK Parliament and people.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
> It seems to me she looked at the appropriate laws and made a reasonable decision. It is true that the UK technically doesn't guarantee 'freedom of the press' per se, it does have laws however that protect the freedom of expression, not as strongly as the 1st Amendment but still. Further, there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted. It's clear Assange is someone who the intelligence community views as an individual who crossed them and needs to be used to deter others. Reading the judgment it is hard not to come to the conclusion she agrees with this view.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 6y ago
  > there's a long precedent of British newspapers doing what WikiLeaks does and even collaborating with WikiLeaks without being prosecuted The judge discusses that in the opinion. The difference she notes is that the newspapers carefully choose what they publish in order to avoid harm--for example, they don't publish the names of government informants even if those names are contained in the materials they obtain, since that would put the lives of those informants at risk. Wikileaks did not do that with the information obtained from Manning; they just released it all. The judge quotes the newspapers themselves condemning Wikileaks for doing that.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    Except of course she fails to note that Assange tried[1] to do that and was rejected. She cites the Guardian who has a history of questionable reporting on Assange and WikiLeaks because they didn't do a good job[1][2]. In fact WikiLeaks made a point of going via the newspapers after being blamed. 1 - https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 https://www.salon.com/2010/08/20/wikileaks_5 2 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51633303

tsimionescu 6y ago

To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being). It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule on whether what Assange did falls under press freedom. The US courts would have to decide that. If however the case had been identical but coming from China, the judge would still not have ruled on press freedom, but would have likely considered that the Chinese constitution and court precedents do not offer sufficient guarantees that there would actually be a fair trial, unlike in the US system. Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but I don't see the ruling as being either for or against press freedom, by my understanding.

runarberg 6y ago
Don’t the charges at least need to be credible?
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  IFF the legal system of the country seeking extradition is trust-worthy and offers the same guarantees of human rights as the UK one, why would the charges need to be credible at all? The accused could be sent to that country, with the expectation that the trial would quickly go in the accused's favor. Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US criminalized ice cream consumption, you would not be able to extradite someone in the UK for having consumed ice cream in the USA, of course. But this is not the same as, say, extraditing someone accused of murder in the USA who is not known to have been physically there - the extradition judge may be ok in not looking at the evidence that the charges are based on (except maybe to ascertain whether they may be a sign of a politically-motivated trial).
  - megous 6y ago
    I wonder about this. Let's say that in the US I'd have a budget of about $3000 to spend on the trial, without having to completely ruin my savings. Would that be enough for housing, airline tickets (back to europe), and the trial/lawyers/bail/court fees in the US? If frivolous extradition/trial would ruin me financially, I'd rather extradition procedure took the credibility/frivolousness of charges into account...