4 ms·

> Secondly and more importantly, you don't need to be guilty of something under UK law to be extradited. That's the whole point of extradition. If you commit a

> Secondly and more importantly, you don't need to be guilty of something under UK law to be extradited. That's the whole point of extradition. If you commit a crime abroad, you are almost certainly not guilty of it at home, because you are out of your home country's jurisdiction. The issue isn't one of jurisdiction, it's whether his actions would have been illegal in the UK _if_ they occurred in the UK. If not, why would the UK extradite? He wasn't in the US at the time and wasn't under US jurisdiction.

KaiserPro 5y ago
> The issue isn't one of jurisdiction, it's whether his actions would have been illegal in the UK _if_ they occurred in the UK. That is really not how extradition works. But even if it was, illegally sourcing, publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK. The other important thing to note is that the UK extradited a number of British citizens to the US for computer hacking charges, even though they were on UK soil at the time. The issue is not where the person physically is, but where they were doing the damage. The crime happened in the USA, not on UK soil.
- simiones 5y ago
  > publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK It is not - as seen by the many papers doing the same.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > That is really not how extradition works. > The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#extradition-from-the-uk-category-2-territories https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review... That is from the section discussing extradition to the US. Clearly you are wrong. That said, out of your example only “illegally sourcing” the information is potentially illegal. The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. I personally would never have supported the extradition on the evidence I saw were I on a grand jury tasked with it. That said, the UK of course needs to decide that it is extraditable on their end as well. You have argued this isn’t the case for a few posts now. Clearly you’re incorrect. That is the point I intended to make.
  - ac29 5y ago
    > The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. Your link says the United States (and many other countries) "are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their requests for extradition".
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      This is true. If I were the UK and I saw what the US considered as evidence in this case, I would strongly consider requiring the US to provide prima facie evidence going forward. That said, I was more replying to the claims that dual criminality were not required. The UK still needs to find the acts themselves as illegal under UK law. I don't remember it being clearly so. Frankly, the released information I read coming from grand jury didn't even seem illegal to me according to US law.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  > But even if it was, illegally sourcing, publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK. If this was even vaguely true then it would be what he is being extradited for. It's not, because it's not. If you'd read the article, you'd know this. The USA is literally making crimes up, accusing Assange of them, and then finding "evidence" from a dodgy Icelandic criminal to support their case. Said criminal has now admitted that he lied about that evidence. What should happen now is that the entire case collapses and Assange is released. That's not happening because the system is corrupt. This is important and we need to be making more noise about such a blatant abuse of justice.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> The issue isn't one of jurisdiction, it's whether his actions would have been illegal in the UK _if_ they occurred in the UK. That is really not how extradition works. But even if it was, illegally sourcing, publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK. The other important thing to note is that the UK extradited a number of British citizens to the US for computer hacking charges, even though they were on UK soil at the time. The issue is not where the person physically is, but where they were doing the damage. The crime happened in the USA, not on UK soil.

simiones 5y ago
> publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK It is not - as seen by the many papers doing the same.
CogitoCogito 5y ago
> That is really not how extradition works. > The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review#extradition-from-the-uk-category-2-territories https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review... That is from the section discussing extradition to the US. Clearly you are wrong. That said, out of your example only “illegally sourcing” the information is potentially illegal. The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. I personally would never have supported the extradition on the evidence I saw were I on a grand jury tasked with it. That said, the UK of course needs to decide that it is extraditable on their end as well. You have argued this isn’t the case for a few posts now. Clearly you’re incorrect. That is the point I intended to make.
- ac29 5y ago
  > The information I read previously released by the US supporting this claim was extremely weak. Your link says the United States (and many other countries) "are not required to provide prima facie evidence in support of their requests for extradition".
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    This is true. If I were the UK and I saw what the US considered as evidence in this case, I would strongly consider requiring the US to provide prima facie evidence going forward. That said, I was more replying to the claims that dual criminality were not required. The UK still needs to find the acts themselves as illegal under UK law. I don't remember it being clearly so. Frankly, the released information I read coming from grand jury didn't even seem illegal to me according to US law.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
> But even if it was, illegally sourcing, publishing, and continuing to host secret documents is still very much illegal in the UK. If this was even vaguely true then it would be what he is being extradited for. It's not, because it's not. If you'd read the article, you'd know this. The USA is literally making crimes up, accusing Assange of them, and then finding "evidence" from a dodgy Icelandic criminal to support their case. Said criminal has now admitted that he lied about that evidence. What should happen now is that the entire case collapses and Assange is released. That's not happening because the system is corrupt. This is important and we need to be making more noise about such a blatant abuse of justice.