3 ms·
I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do w
by jl2718 6y ago
I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any of this is relevant, but, to recap from a layperson’s understanding, this is a US case against a non-US person residing in a foreign country, and accused of a US conspiracy to commit a crime with a US person who was incidentally pardoned by a US president. GB and AUS both have direct standing and jurisdiction under their own law through NATO, so why is he not being tried this way?
My guess is that the US wants nothing to do with this case. The military would be watching proto-Obama crucify Prof after pardoning Chelsea.
Side note: I’m pretty sure at this point he wishes he’d not had anything to do with any of this hacking stuff. Being a professional dog-walker in a small village probably sounds great.
- richardwhiuk 6y agoThe US wants to extradite Assange.
- gsnedders 6y ago> The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. For the extradition treaty to apply, it must be alleged that the defendant has committed actions which amount to a criminal offence in both countries. If his alleged actions are not a criminal offence in both countries, then the extradition treaty does not apply. Therefore, you can challenge extradition on dual criminality by arguing that the act is not a crime in one or both countries.