5 ms·

A reminder that Assange is an Australian citizen, currently in the UK, and is being extradited for breaking US law. So much for sovereignty.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
International law and agreements exist between sovereign countries.
- anonymouswacker 4y ago
  - blitzar 4y ago
    And in this case they didnt need to make any up.
  - kwere 4y ago
    was the sweden bogus rape claim an example?
    - geysersam 4y ago
      They're irrelevant. True or not, they would not warrant extradition to the US. I see no reason to assume they are bogus, if true they don't subtract from the fantastic things WikiLeaks has done.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - stefantalpalaru 4y ago
- car_analogy 4y ago
  A fig leaf. See which parties those agreements favor, and you will see how much sovereignty you have left. And "parties" are not necessarily countries - e.g. it is not to the benefit of the average American that the WIPO copyright treaty [1] forbids DRM circumvention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty
theK 4y ago
Indeed. If anything this whole story only has shown us the expanse of US diplomatic and financial leverage over much of the world and their willingness to use it in order to terrorize upstanding individuals. Tough times for good journalism...
- blitzar 4y ago
  > US diplomatic and financial leverage over much of the world and their willingness to use it The US didnt have to do anything of the kind - contrary to the beliefs of Assange fans the UK routinely extradites people to the US to stand charges. In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    > In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions That’s not really how I see it. The case is shocking in that it has revealed that some rights that we thought that we had, cannot be enforced in law. The US is exploiting a legal loophole in that while the extradition treaty forbids political extraditions, the UK has not incorporated that prohibition into domestic legislation. Therefore the court of first instance approved [in principle] the extradition for a political crime (espionage). However as I understand it, this aspect has not yet been appealed by Assange. In my opinion, if this case had happened 5 years ago, then under presidency of Hale, Assange would had a decent chance of challenging it in the Supreme Court. However under the presidency of Reed and in the aftermath of the prorogation case, the Supreme Court has become extremely reluctant to deviate from government policy, as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether. So I doubt they will stick their neck out for Assange when they didn’t for e.g. Begum or in the recent Rwanda case.
    - blitzar 4y ago
      NatWest Three – extradited to Texas on fraud charges against a British bank while they were living in the UK and working for the British bank.
    - chongli 4y ago
stjohnswarts 4y ago
There are extradition treaties between all those countries so yeah extradition happens lmao.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

International law and agreements exist between sovereign countries.

anonymouswacker 4y ago
- blitzar 4y ago
  And in this case they didnt need to make any up.
- kwere 4y ago
  was the sweden bogus rape claim an example?
  - geysersam 4y ago
    They're irrelevant. True or not, they would not warrant extradition to the US. I see no reason to assume they are bogus, if true they don't subtract from the fantastic things WikiLeaks has done.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - stefantalpalaru 4y ago
car_analogy 4y ago
A fig leaf. See which parties those agreements favor, and you will see how much sovereignty you have left. And "parties" are not necessarily countries - e.g. it is not to the benefit of the average American that the WIPO copyright treaty [1] forbids DRM circumvention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPO_Copyright_Treaty

theK 4y ago

Indeed. If anything this whole story only has shown us the expanse of US diplomatic and financial leverage over much of the world and their willingness to use it in order to terrorize upstanding individuals. Tough times for good journalism...

blitzar 4y ago
> US diplomatic and financial leverage over much of the world and their willingness to use it The US didnt have to do anything of the kind - contrary to the beliefs of Assange fans the UK routinely extradites people to the US to stand charges. In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  > In reality this is one of the least shocking extraditions That’s not really how I see it. The case is shocking in that it has revealed that some rights that we thought that we had, cannot be enforced in law. The US is exploiting a legal loophole in that while the extradition treaty forbids political extraditions, the UK has not incorporated that prohibition into domestic legislation. Therefore the court of first instance approved [in principle] the extradition for a political crime (espionage). However as I understand it, this aspect has not yet been appealed by Assange. In my opinion, if this case had happened 5 years ago, then under presidency of Hale, Assange would had a decent chance of challenging it in the Supreme Court. However under the presidency of Reed and in the aftermath of the prorogation case, the Supreme Court has become extremely reluctant to deviate from government policy, as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether. So I doubt they will stick their neck out for Assange when they didn’t for e.g. Begum or in the recent Rwanda case.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    NatWest Three – extradited to Texas on fraud charges against a British bank while they were living in the UK and working for the British bank.
  - chongli 4y ago

stjohnswarts 4y ago

There are extradition treaties between all those countries so yeah extradition happens lmao.