7 ms·

> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of

> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right. They omitted it very deliberately.

lmg643 6y ago
Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-under-inhumane-conditions-lawyer-say-20200918-0005.html https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >> The lawyer pointed out that during the criminal hearings Assange is kept in a glass box at the back of court from where he cannot his lawyers properly.
- agd 6y ago
  Certainly better in the UK than the US. He gets to see family and has contact with support including calls with e.g. the Samaritans.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > Each day Julian is ... x-rayed Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - randylahey 6y ago
    Could just be sloppy, inaccurate writing. But yeah that would be pretty bad.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      It's a direct quote from his fiancé, who is also a lawyer and part of his defense team: https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306205472521891840?s=20 https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306205472521891840?... I can't vouch for the analysis here, but this is interesting. It's an FOIA request that seems to show the equipment being used. https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-rayed-in-and-out-of-hmp-belmarsh-during-september/ https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-ra...
      - hunter2_ 6y ago
        That second link says "each full body scan of an individual would generate 6 Micro Sieverts (µSv)" so 2 scans per day would be 12 µSv, and a dose chart [0] shows the average daily background dose to be 10 µSv while a flight from NY to LA is 40 µSv. So it's a bit like taking that flight every 3.3 days. So maybe it's no worse than being a pilot / flight attendant? [0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-much-radiation-is-too-much-a-handy-guide/8124/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-muc...
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Enginerrrd 6y ago
        Pilots get a lot of radiation exposure though! It's not to be casually dismissed.
        6y ago
- pantalaimon 6y ago
  on what charges is he being held in the UK?
  - jamie_ca 6y ago
    Arrested in 2019 when his Ecuadorian asylum was revoked, charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, maximum 5y sentence. Was changed a month later to be the Espionage Act charges. Those all stem from the US though, I think he's only detained by the UK for extradition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Arrest_by_the_Metropolitan_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      Yes. We prosecuted him for jumping bail by going to the embassy, but he's served his sentence for that. He's only being held for possible extradition.
    - handelaar 6y ago
      And for breaking the terms of his bail conditions by legging it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place.
  - occamrazor 6y ago
    For skipping bail
cormacrelf 6y ago
This fell into a broader question of whether the Extradition Act 2003 has to be enforced notwithstanding the terms of the extradition treaty. The treaty refers to political offences; the Act does not. The answer to this question was yes, the Act is self-contained. Therefore the judge did not need to decide the question of whether it was a political offence. So she did not discuss it or decide the question. You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it. But you couldn't say she "sided with US prosecutors" on whether it was a political offence or not. If you put that language in the Extradition Act, then you would get a decision on it. It's not so much "chilling for investigative journalism" as a deficiency in the Act itself not accounting for the particular US-UK treaty language or the US' categorisation under the Act that should reflect its recent anti-democratic bent.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it. And that's a bad thing as it leaves the case more or less open to US side coming up with "We promise to put him in some VIP jail with blackjack, and hookers," and more opportunities for retrials for state attorney to attack weaker defense arguments one at a time. Having the extradition flopped as political, would've closed the door on it for good.
  - cormacrelf 6y ago
    Are you saying she should have discussed it anyway? Just lob up an opinion from the magi court on a searing hot political issue regarding which according to her own reasoning anything she says isn’t binding whatsoever? Yeah, she totally could have “flopped” the extradition by doing that lol There’s a difference, as I’m sure you’re now aware having stopped accusing her of being extremely suspect, between judgments that are simply annoying for your team, and producing utterly biased, pre-decided results that match the tie of the President that nominated you. You’ll find that the former happened here, and the latter isn’t nearly as big a problem in the UK as you seem to have assumed to be the case.

lmg643 6y ago

Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-under-inhumane-conditions-lawyer-say-20200918-0005.html https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >> The lawyer pointed out that during the criminal hearings Assange is kept in a glass box at the back of court from where he cannot his lawyers properly.

agd 6y ago
Certainly better in the UK than the US. He gets to see family and has contact with support including calls with e.g. the Samaritans.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Chris2048 6y ago
> Each day Julian is ... x-rayed Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- randylahey 6y ago
  Could just be sloppy, inaccurate writing. But yeah that would be pretty bad.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    It's a direct quote from his fiancé, who is also a lawyer and part of his defense team: https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306205472521891840?s=20 https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1306205472521891840?... I can't vouch for the analysis here, but this is interesting. It's an FOIA request that seems to show the equipment being used. https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-rayed-in-and-out-of-hmp-belmarsh-during-september/ https://wiseupaction.info/2020/10/15/julian-assange-was-x-ra...
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      That second link says "each full body scan of an individual would generate 6 Micro Sieverts (µSv)" so 2 scans per day would be 12 µSv, and a dose chart [0] shows the average daily background dose to be 10 µSv while a flight from NY to LA is 40 µSv. So it's a bit like taking that flight every 3.3 days. So maybe it's no worse than being a pilot / flight attendant? [0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-much-radiation-is-too-much-a-handy-guide/8124/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/how-muc...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Enginerrrd 6y ago
        Pilots get a lot of radiation exposure though! It's not to be casually dismissed.
        6y ago
pantalaimon 6y ago
on what charges is he being held in the UK?
- jamie_ca 6y ago
  Arrested in 2019 when his Ecuadorian asylum was revoked, charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, maximum 5y sentence. Was changed a month later to be the Espionage Act charges. Those all stem from the US though, I think he's only detained by the UK for extradition? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Arrest_by_the_Metropolitan_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julia...
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    Yes. We prosecuted him for jumping bail by going to the embassy, but he's served his sentence for that. He's only being held for possible extradition.
  - handelaar 6y ago
    And for breaking the terms of his bail conditions by legging it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place.
- occamrazor 6y ago
  For skipping bail

cormacrelf 6y ago

This fell into a broader question of whether the Extradition Act 2003 has to be enforced notwithstanding the terms of the extradition treaty. The treaty refers to political offences; the Act does not. The answer to this question was yes, the Act is self-contained. Therefore the judge did not need to decide the question of whether it was a political offence. So she did not discuss it or decide the question. You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it. But you couldn't say she "sided with US prosecutors" on whether it was a political offence or not. If you put that language in the Extradition Act, then you would get a decision on it. It's not so much "chilling for investigative journalism" as a deficiency in the Act itself not accounting for the particular US-UK treaty language or the US' categorisation under the Act that should reflect its recent anti-democratic bent.

baybal2 6y ago
> You are correct in a way -- judges do not decide issues that do not need to be decided, and things they do say about those issues are ignored, so yes, she omitted to discuss it. And that's a bad thing as it leaves the case more or less open to US side coming up with "We promise to put him in some VIP jail with blackjack, and hookers," and more opportunities for retrials for state attorney to attack weaker defense arguments one at a time. Having the extradition flopped as political, would've closed the door on it for good.
- cormacrelf 6y ago
  Are you saying she should have discussed it anyway? Just lob up an opinion from the magi court on a searing hot political issue regarding which according to her own reasoning anything she says isn’t binding whatsoever? Yeah, she totally could have “flopped” the extradition by doing that lol There’s a difference, as I’m sure you’re now aware having stopped accusing her of being extremely suspect, between judgments that are simply annoying for your team, and producing utterly biased, pre-decided results that match the tie of the President that nominated you. You’ll find that the former happened here, and the latter isn’t nearly as big a problem in the UK as you seem to have assumed to be the case.