4 ms·
What makes you say that? He was used to strengthen the US case late into the proceedings. The UK judge, while refusing extradition on humantiarian grounds, side
by k1m 5y ago
What makes you say that? He was used to strengthen the US case late into the proceedings. The UK judge, while refusing extradition on humantiarian grounds, sided with the US based in part on his testimony:
> The Stundin article continued:
> ‘With regards to the actual accusations made in the indictment Baraitser sided with the arguments of the American legal team, including citing the specific samples from Iceland which are now seriously called into question.
- WoahNoun 5y agoThe main charges are related to Chelsea Manning. This was a charge for hacking in Iceland completely unrelated to that. That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges.
- k1m 5y ago> That charge could be completely removed from the case and he would still be on trial for the other charges. That charge was completely absent from the case until the US decided it needed to strengthen its case and added it last-minute. So clearly they disagree with you, otherwise they would have kept it out (knowing the background of the individual involved). And again, why would the judge refer to it specifically in siding with the US if it were so unimportant?