4 ms·
it's a little more nuanced than that, but for starters Assange already held the right to apply to serve any sentence in Australia. What is crucial to understan
by dijit 3y ago
it's a little more nuanced than that, but for starters Assange already held the right to apply to serve any sentence in Australia.
What is crucial to understand is that prisoner transfers (IE; to Australia in this case) are eligible only after all appeals have been exhausted. For the case to reach the US supreme court it could easily take a decade, even two. What the US has proposed is a formula to keep Assange in prison effectively for the rest of his life, and in a US prison.
- zirgs 3y agoRoss Ulbricht - the infamous Silk Road guy: 1. Arrested in 2013. 2. Sentenced in 2015. 3. First unsuccessful appeal in 2017. 4. The case reached the Supreme Court and was denied in 2018. So - 5 years. Fewer than Assange spent in the embassy.
- toyg 3y agoNowhere near the level of complexity and political visibility as Assange's.
- formerly_proven 3y agoI don't actually understand why people who were convicted on overwhelming preponderance of evidence so often waste everyone's time with appeals.
- zirgs 3y agoIf you're in prison for life it's not like there's anything better to do. They can't increase your sentence anyway.