8 ms·

This was inevitable to anyone who read the original ruling. What I said 11 months ago: " actually don't think this is such great news for him. Extradition was

This was inevitable to anyone who read the original ruling. What I said 11 months ago: " actually don't think this is such great news for him. Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances. If the judge had found on more substantive grounds, those would have been much more resistant to that. For instance, all the claims based on language in the extradition treaty and other international agreements failed and they failed for pretty fundamental legal reasons. English courts only have regard for domestic law and it is for parliament to pass laws consistent with the treaties that have been signed, therefore claims based on treaty language won't work. That means that none of the claims on the political nature of his activities were upheld and those would have provided a much more robust and durable bar to extradition."

kingcharles 5y ago
I don't know how other countries deal with treaties, but the USA tends to ignore all the treaties it has signed unless it has also created a statute in federal or state law to enforce it.
- m-watson 5y ago
  It isn't exactly ignore, they just all have to be ratified by the Senate. Otherwise it is just the executive branch making an agreement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
- Mvandenbergh 5y ago
  The US is actually quite far in the "monist" side of the spectrum when it comes to ratified treaties but it has such a divided and dysfunctional political culture coupled with an executive which has wide latitude in foreign affairs that many agreements are signed up to by the executive without being ratified by the senate. Monism basically means that properly entered into, international treaties have force as domestic law as well. The UK is one of the world's most dualist countries. No treaty has any domestic legal standing whatsoever. Until 2010, the government of the day could ratify treaties without recourse to parliament although there has been an observed rule since the early 20th century called the Ponsonby rule that parliament have time to debate and vote on important treaties. The government cannot make domestic statute law without a parliamentary vote therefore dualism emerged. This means that the UK has to pass a "back to back" law to give legal effect to any treaty it signs where that is required. The US only has to do so when there are elements of the treaty that are plainly not "self executing" i.e. if the US signs a treaty creating a personal right for its own citizens then no further legislation is required but if it signs a treaty agreeing to do something that requires new appropriations, a new agency, or whatever then additional legislation is required. Quite a long-winded way of saying that Assange never had recourse to certain claims his legal team attempted to make about conflicts between his treatment and the extradition treaty - the extradition treaty does not directly drive UK domestic law on extradition.
DonHopkins 5y ago
If only Hillary Clinton were serving her second term, then maybe he'd have a chance with that argument.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.
  - tifadg1 5y ago
    are you denying he released the truth or are you saying he released the truth, but "others" behaved similarly yet he withheld the truth on them?
    - DonHopkins 5y ago
      Are you denying that he washed and selectively released Russian propaganda, and also worked with the Trump campaign? So do you believe Seth Rich was murdered then? Edit: roenxi: Spreading the propaganda that Seth Rich was murdered is not "aggressively telling the truth", it's aggressively and mendaciously lying. It's a bit awkward for you to suggest that it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_... >WikiLeaks statements >Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[76] Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[77] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source, as they do with other leaks.[32] It subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues.[78] >According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[79][80][81] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.[82] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even as he knew the documents' origin."[82] Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".[83]

kingcharles 5y ago

I don't know how other countries deal with treaties, but the USA tends to ignore all the treaties it has signed unless it has also created a statute in federal or state law to enforce it.

m-watson 5y ago
It isn't exactly ignore, they just all have to be ratified by the Senate. Otherwise it is just the executive branch making an agreement. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
Mvandenbergh 5y ago
The US is actually quite far in the "monist" side of the spectrum when it comes to ratified treaties but it has such a divided and dysfunctional political culture coupled with an executive which has wide latitude in foreign affairs that many agreements are signed up to by the executive without being ratified by the senate. Monism basically means that properly entered into, international treaties have force as domestic law as well. The UK is one of the world's most dualist countries. No treaty has any domestic legal standing whatsoever. Until 2010, the government of the day could ratify treaties without recourse to parliament although there has been an observed rule since the early 20th century called the Ponsonby rule that parliament have time to debate and vote on important treaties. The government cannot make domestic statute law without a parliamentary vote therefore dualism emerged. This means that the UK has to pass a "back to back" law to give legal effect to any treaty it signs where that is required. The US only has to do so when there are elements of the treaty that are plainly not "self executing" i.e. if the US signs a treaty creating a personal right for its own citizens then no further legislation is required but if it signs a treaty agreeing to do something that requires new appropriations, a new agency, or whatever then additional legislation is required. Quite a long-winded way of saying that Assange never had recourse to certain claims his legal team attempted to make about conflicts between his treatment and the extradition treaty - the extradition treaty does not directly drive UK domestic law on extradition.

DonHopkins 5y ago

If only Hillary Clinton were serving her second term, then maybe he'd have a chance with that argument.

cyanydeez 5y ago
unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.
- tifadg1 5y ago
  are you denying he released the truth or are you saying he released the truth, but "others" behaved similarly yet he withheld the truth on them?
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    Are you denying that he washed and selectively released Russian propaganda, and also worked with the Trump campaign? So do you believe Seth Rich was murdered then? Edit: roenxi: Spreading the propaganda that Seth Rich was murdered is not "aggressively telling the truth", it's aggressively and mendaciously lying. It's a bit awkward for you to suggest that it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_... >WikiLeaks statements >Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, fueled the speculation in an interview with Nieuwsuur published on August 9, 2016, which touched on the topic of risks faced by WikiLeaks' sources.[76] Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are".[77] Subsequent statements by WikiLeaks emphasized that the organization was not naming Rich as a source, as they do with other leaks.[32] It subsequently came to light that WikiLeaks communicated with the Trump campaign over other issues.[78] >According to the Mueller Report, WikiLeaks had received an email containing an encrypted file named "wk dnc link I .txt.gpg" from the Guccifer 2.0 GRU persona on July 14, which was four days after Seth Rich died.[79][80][81] In April 2018, Twitter direct messages revealed that even as Assange was suggesting publicly that WikiLeaks had obtained emails from Seth Rich, Assange was trying to obtain more emails from Guccifer 2.0, who was at the time already suspected of being linked to Russian intelligence.[82] BuzzFeed described the messages as "the starkest proof yet that Assange knew a likely Russian government hacker had the Democrat leaks he wanted. And they reveal the deliberate bad faith with which Assange fed the groundless claims that Rich was his source, even as he knew the documents' origin."[82] Mike Gottlieb, a lawyer for Rich's brother, noted that WikiLeaks received the file of stolen documents from the Russian hackers on July 14, four days after Rich was shot. Gottlieb described the chronology as "damning".[83]