5 ms·

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 i

by 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
    as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether They should be abolished altogether. A court without judicial independence is worth nothing at all. Less than nothing because it hinders the formation of an independent court.
    - theK 4y ago
      I‘m on the verge regarding this theory. The existing court was explicitly created to have enough agency and independence to do just what is discussed above. Abolishing it and (maybe) creating a new one will not fix the problematic environment that causes the ineffectiveness in the first place. On the other hand, re-creating it would at least be „doing something“
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      I tend to agree. The formation of the UK Supreme Court was intended to give the Court more political independence but it seems to have had the opposite effect and resulted in extreme loss aversion on the part of the justices, as there is no constitutional provision to protect its existence, unlike in almost every other supreme court around the world. Ironically, when they were in the House of Lords, the court was less susceptible to interference as it benefited from the constitutional protection of the Lords’ existence and affairs as part of Parliament.
  - zahllos 4y ago
    > 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. I don't know what right this is, but in the UK there's no right to do anything with classified information. Directly the opposite: the official secrets act makes it a crime to share it, distribute it, etc. The only real legal option you have if you find some classified information lying on a train (say) is to hand it to the police. There's no exemption for journalism and it doesn't matter if you have been 'notified' under the act (that just changes the penalties) or if you are British or not (You're on UK soil, UK law applies). Classified information belonging to foreign allied governments would definitely fall under the OSA. If that's shocking, ok, but that's the law and has been since the last time the OSA was updated. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think sharing classified information unredacted would count as a political defence in the UK. I suspect that definition refers to political views and activities that don't break UK laws, e.g. I would expect the US would not be allowed to extradite someone purely for their belief that the US should become a communist state. However if they hacked the computers of th US fed, then they'd be fair game. The treaty itself is problematic and the US recently refused the Saacoolas extradition. So the next time a British citizen is on the line we should refuse as well. But I also agree: this particular case is about the least troubling extradition ever.
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      It's not supposed to be possible to extradite someone for political crimes, such as espionage. It doesn't matter if the acts in question are considered crimes in the UK. What matters is that the acts are political in nature. This is a traditional carve-out included in almost every extradition treaty the US has signed for over a hundred years, and it's included in the US-UK extradition treaty. However, the UK court ruled that despite this protection, which is supposed to exist and which is written into the treaty, the UK Parliament has not incorporated the protection into UK law. So as it stands, the traditional protection against extradition for political crimes no longer exists in the UK, at least for people facing extradition to the US. However, the protection still applies for people facing extradition from the US to the UK, because the treaty has force of law in the US.
- prvit 4y ago
  US does not pursue extraditions in most cases where a person facing federal charges is abroad. International extraditions are hardly routine (except within the EU with EAWs) I live in the UK. There's been a federal indictment out for me for well over 10 years now, at some point there was an Interpol blue notice, but that's been gone for years now. There's never been any attempt to pursue extradition.

by theK 4y ago

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
  as they are afraid that the Government will simply abolish the Supreme Court altogether They should be abolished altogether. A court without judicial independence is worth nothing at all. Less than nothing because it hinders the formation of an independent court.
  - theK 4y ago
    I‘m on the verge regarding this theory. The existing court was explicitly created to have enough agency and independence to do just what is discussed above. Abolishing it and (maybe) creating a new one will not fix the problematic environment that causes the ineffectiveness in the first place. On the other hand, re-creating it would at least be „doing something“
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    I tend to agree. The formation of the UK Supreme Court was intended to give the Court more political independence but it seems to have had the opposite effect and resulted in extreme loss aversion on the part of the justices, as there is no constitutional provision to protect its existence, unlike in almost every other supreme court around the world. Ironically, when they were in the House of Lords, the court was less susceptible to interference as it benefited from the constitutional protection of the Lords’ existence and affairs as part of Parliament.
- zahllos 4y ago
  > 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. I don't know what right this is, but in the UK there's no right to do anything with classified information. Directly the opposite: the official secrets act makes it a crime to share it, distribute it, etc. The only real legal option you have if you find some classified information lying on a train (say) is to hand it to the police. There's no exemption for journalism and it doesn't matter if you have been 'notified' under the act (that just changes the penalties) or if you are British or not (You're on UK soil, UK law applies). Classified information belonging to foreign allied governments would definitely fall under the OSA. If that's shocking, ok, but that's the law and has been since the last time the OSA was updated. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think sharing classified information unredacted would count as a political defence in the UK. I suspect that definition refers to political views and activities that don't break UK laws, e.g. I would expect the US would not be allowed to extradite someone purely for their belief that the US should become a communist state. However if they hacked the computers of th US fed, then they'd be fair game. The treaty itself is problematic and the US recently refused the Saacoolas extradition. So the next time a British citizen is on the line we should refuse as well. But I also agree: this particular case is about the least troubling extradition ever.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    It's not supposed to be possible to extradite someone for political crimes, such as espionage. It doesn't matter if the acts in question are considered crimes in the UK. What matters is that the acts are political in nature. This is a traditional carve-out included in almost every extradition treaty the US has signed for over a hundred years, and it's included in the US-UK extradition treaty. However, the UK court ruled that despite this protection, which is supposed to exist and which is written into the treaty, the UK Parliament has not incorporated the protection into UK law. So as it stands, the traditional protection against extradition for political crimes no longer exists in the UK, at least for people facing extradition to the US. However, the protection still applies for people facing extradition from the US to the UK, because the treaty has force of law in the US.
prvit 4y ago
US does not pursue extraditions in most cases where a person facing federal charges is abroad. International extraditions are hardly routine (except within the EU with EAWs) I live in the UK. There's been a federal indictment out for me for well over 10 years now, at some point there was an Interpol blue notice, but that's been gone for years now. There's never been any attempt to pursue extradition.