8 ms·

> Court documents revealing Assange's plea deal were filed Monday evening in U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacif

> Court documents revealing Assange's plea deal were filed Monday evening in U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory in the Pacific Ocean. Assange was expected to appear in that court and to be sentenced to 62 months, with credit for time served in British prison, meaning he would be free to return to Australia, where he was born. I wouldn’t get too excited just yet. He is appearing in US territory before a US judge who is actually under any obligation to honor the plea deal. The judge could reject the plea deal and remand him to custody or sentence him to US prison.

throwup238 2y ago
IANAL but the judge can't both reject the plea deal and sentence him, since rejecting the plea deal invalidates the guilty plea. Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. He's not out of the woods yet by any means, but if they reached a deal his lawyers are confident in, I wouldn't be worried about the judge. They are supposed to deffer to international law if US is a party to the treaties involved (which in the case of extradition, it is).
- aixpert 2y ago
  The history of Assange is the history of diplomatic incidents, in that sense rejecting the plea deal would not be out of the ordinary
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - smegger001 2y ago
    yeah we weren't supposed to force the plane carrying the president of Ecuador to land so we could search it for Assange yet we did that anyway.
- mike_d 2y ago
  > Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. Why would it be a diplomatic incident? When you are a fugitive from justice taking a plea deal is always a gamble because you have to show up in court. Should the judge reject your deal, you are handed over to US Marshals pending a new court date. Edit: downvote all you want, it doesn't change facts. There is a separation of powers between the prosecutor who is negotiating the extradition/plea and the judge who independently evaluates the agreement.
  - vintermann 2y ago
    This case made a mockery out of the idea of separation of powers, which you'd know if you'd followed it at all. The case was political from day 1, and even if there is no last-moment disgrace from the US (I don't think there will be), it still will be 100% political. They probably just realized they shouldn't dig the embarrassment hole any deeper, and think that an extorted confession is the most face-saving they're going to get.
    - mike_d 2y ago
      What exactly was political about it? He committed a crime against the United States, they empaneled a grand jury, and handed down 18 federal charges of espionage and computer intrusion. The US sought extradition just like they would in any other similar case. While he fighting extradition, he was actively attempting to recruit hackers to break into US government systems and steal information for him. Assange was the one who was constantly trying to make it political and turned it into a clown show by trying to paint himself as a journalist.
      - vintermann 2y ago
        > a crime against the United States That is the definition of a political crime. Governments are allowed to charge people of crimes which only have the government as victim, but most countries (including the UK) have laws against extradition for such crimes. And when the person you charge is not a citizen of your country, and the act harming government is simply journalism, you have to be pretty blind to deny that it's political. > they empaneled a grand jury which can famously indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury was empaneled in a district in which half the adults work for the spy agencies as I recall. There's a clown show. We are not obliged to respect this kind of process as something proper and legitimate. > trying to paint himself as a journalist He has won a ton of journalistic awards. When journalists call you a journalists, you are a journalist, even if security services and their online yes-men say otherwise.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  The judge can't sentence him, but if the judge refuses the plea deal he can order him to be taken into immediate pre-trial detention and schedule a bail hearing in the near future; and then refuse bail due to him being a flight risk (previously ran from authorities). He would then spend potentially several more years in jail preparing for trial, obtaining discovery, going through discovery, filing pretrial motions, subpoenaing witnesses, etc etc.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    My answer above is slightly wrong, see my clarification: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790246
- OccamsMirror 2y ago
  > Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. Australian Politicians: collective silence We let dodgy Uncle Sam do whatever he wants to us.
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    As far as I remember there were a few Australian politicians making a few waves about the Assange case.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  I don't think law, justice or even diplomacy are very relevant for most of this case. 1900 days in isolation (human rights violation), falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, jailed outside of the US on behalf of the US (but not officially), and just the simple fact that a journalist gets jail time for exposing war crimes. Yeah, this has nothing to do with law or justice. This is about a handful of people above the law trying to save their *sses. Anything could happen at this point. Reminds me of when a foreign diplomatic aircraft (Equador) was forced to land in a foreign country (France), because the US thought Snowden might be on board. Remind me of the relevant law that allows for this please? lol
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > 1900 days in isolation (human rights violation) Call it what it is, torture.
  - youngtaff 2y ago
    > falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, Where’s the evidence that he was falsely accused?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      The accusers withdrew their testimony, Swedish prosecutors were caught falsifying and destroying documents, and the case was withdrawn due to lack of evidence. I'd say that you could have found all this out yourself with Google, but you didn't even need to. All this info has already been linked in these comments.
      - youngtaff 2y ago
        You know accusers in sexual assault allegations often withdraw their testimony due to the pressures of the case – especially in this case where the women were threatened, smeared and accused of being honeypots etc? Most of the links in these comments aren't authoritative in anyway
      - tuna74 2y ago
- vidarh 2y ago
  The US is a country with a history of outright kidnapping people from foreign soil - including that of friendly nations. There's every chance here that this deal represents a way out for the US as well, and that it will be kept for that reason, but if the US government still wants him to stand trial, a plea deal and the risk of a minor diplomatic scuffle at a point in time where the UK parliamentary election will overshadow the case in UK media isn't going to stop them. Keep in mind he doesn't have any support from the UK government - they'd rather be rid of him -, and the current UK government is almost certain to be out of government shortly. It's unlikely there'd be more of a diplomatic incident than a slightly stern letter. I think he has reasonable odds - this case is likely at this point mostly just a nuisance for everyone involved except Assange himself. There's nothing to be gained, other than perhaps for some overzealous prosecutor. But I also would not be one bit surprised if something was to happen.
  - seabass-labrax 2y ago
    In addition, Keir Starmer (who will almost certainly become prime minister after July) has told the media in the past that he's 'pro-American', which suggests to me that he'd be unlikely to set the official relationship off to a bad start with awkward diplomatic interactions - and given how hostile Sir Keir is to Trump, I imagine he'd actively try to help Biden look good before the US presidential elections. An Indy article that sums Sir Keir's atlanticist stance in a few short paragraphs: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-joe-biden-donald-trump-labour-b1788092.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-...
    - vidarh 2y ago
      Yeah, I think the furthest Starmer would take this would be to instead attack the Tories for failing to ensure the case was handled better rather than attack the US.
fblp 2y ago
I think it would be quite the diplomatic travesty for them to switch to arresting him after choosing to trial him in the closest court of Australia and credit him for time in prison already. https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1805385141239660627?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1805385141239660627?ref_src...
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. That said, if the Americans wanted to drag this out further, they'd simply drag it out further, so it seems highly unlikely this is some ploy, however it's not impossible. Assange is more easily "forgotten" if they actually managed to imprison him in The States. But we'll see. I'll only completely believe it once he touches down in Australia.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK. This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this. And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.
    - steve_gh 2y ago
      I think this is quid pro quo for the Harry Dunn case, which interestingly reached a final conclusion a week or so ago in the Coroner's court.

throwup238 2y ago

IANAL but the judge can't both reject the plea deal and sentence him, since rejecting the plea deal invalidates the guilty plea. Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. He's not out of the woods yet by any means, but if they reached a deal his lawyers are confident in, I wouldn't be worried about the judge. They are supposed to deffer to international law if US is a party to the treaties involved (which in the case of extradition, it is).

aixpert 2y ago
The history of Assange is the history of diplomatic incidents, in that sense rejecting the plea deal would not be out of the ordinary
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- smegger001 2y ago
  yeah we weren't supposed to force the plane carrying the president of Ecuador to land so we could search it for Assange yet we did that anyway.
mike_d 2y ago
> Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. Why would it be a diplomatic incident? When you are a fugitive from justice taking a plea deal is always a gamble because you have to show up in court. Should the judge reject your deal, you are handed over to US Marshals pending a new court date. Edit: downvote all you want, it doesn't change facts. There is a separation of powers between the prosecutor who is negotiating the extradition/plea and the judge who independently evaluates the agreement.
- vintermann 2y ago
  This case made a mockery out of the idea of separation of powers, which you'd know if you'd followed it at all. The case was political from day 1, and even if there is no last-moment disgrace from the US (I don't think there will be), it still will be 100% political. They probably just realized they shouldn't dig the embarrassment hole any deeper, and think that an extorted confession is the most face-saving they're going to get.
  - mike_d 2y ago
    What exactly was political about it? He committed a crime against the United States, they empaneled a grand jury, and handed down 18 federal charges of espionage and computer intrusion. The US sought extradition just like they would in any other similar case. While he fighting extradition, he was actively attempting to recruit hackers to break into US government systems and steal information for him. Assange was the one who was constantly trying to make it political and turned it into a clown show by trying to paint himself as a journalist.
    - vintermann 2y ago
      > a crime against the United States That is the definition of a political crime. Governments are allowed to charge people of crimes which only have the government as victim, but most countries (including the UK) have laws against extradition for such crimes. And when the person you charge is not a citizen of your country, and the act harming government is simply journalism, you have to be pretty blind to deny that it's political. > they empaneled a grand jury which can famously indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury was empaneled in a district in which half the adults work for the spy agencies as I recall. There's a clown show. We are not obliged to respect this kind of process as something proper and legitimate. > trying to paint himself as a journalist He has won a ton of journalistic awards. When journalists call you a journalists, you are a journalist, even if security services and their online yes-men say otherwise.
qingcharles 2y ago
The judge can't sentence him, but if the judge refuses the plea deal he can order him to be taken into immediate pre-trial detention and schedule a bail hearing in the near future; and then refuse bail due to him being a flight risk (previously ran from authorities). He would then spend potentially several more years in jail preparing for trial, obtaining discovery, going through discovery, filing pretrial motions, subpoenaing witnesses, etc etc.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  My answer above is slightly wrong, see my clarification: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40790246
OccamsMirror 2y ago
> Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. Australian Politicians: collective silence We let dodgy Uncle Sam do whatever he wants to us.
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  As far as I remember there were a few Australian politicians making a few waves about the Assange case.
bboygravity 2y ago
I don't think law, justice or even diplomacy are very relevant for most of this case. 1900 days in isolation (human rights violation), falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, jailed outside of the US on behalf of the US (but not officially), and just the simple fact that a journalist gets jail time for exposing war crimes. Yeah, this has nothing to do with law or justice. This is about a handful of people above the law trying to save their *sses. Anything could happen at this point. Reminds me of when a foreign diplomatic aircraft (Equador) was forced to land in a foreign country (France), because the US thought Snowden might be on board. Remind me of the relevant law that allows for this please? lol
- sofixa 2y ago
  > 1900 days in isolation (human rights violation) Call it what it is, torture.
- youngtaff 2y ago
  > falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, Where’s the evidence that he was falsely accused?
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    The accusers withdrew their testimony, Swedish prosecutors were caught falsifying and destroying documents, and the case was withdrawn due to lack of evidence. I'd say that you could have found all this out yourself with Google, but you didn't even need to. All this info has already been linked in these comments.
    - youngtaff 2y ago
      You know accusers in sexual assault allegations often withdraw their testimony due to the pressures of the case – especially in this case where the women were threatened, smeared and accused of being honeypots etc? Most of the links in these comments aren't authoritative in anyway
    - tuna74 2y ago
vidarh 2y ago
The US is a country with a history of outright kidnapping people from foreign soil - including that of friendly nations. There's every chance here that this deal represents a way out for the US as well, and that it will be kept for that reason, but if the US government still wants him to stand trial, a plea deal and the risk of a minor diplomatic scuffle at a point in time where the UK parliamentary election will overshadow the case in UK media isn't going to stop them. Keep in mind he doesn't have any support from the UK government - they'd rather be rid of him -, and the current UK government is almost certain to be out of government shortly. It's unlikely there'd be more of a diplomatic incident than a slightly stern letter. I think he has reasonable odds - this case is likely at this point mostly just a nuisance for everyone involved except Assange himself. There's nothing to be gained, other than perhaps for some overzealous prosecutor. But I also would not be one bit surprised if something was to happen.
- seabass-labrax 2y ago
  In addition, Keir Starmer (who will almost certainly become prime minister after July) has told the media in the past that he's 'pro-American', which suggests to me that he'd be unlikely to set the official relationship off to a bad start with awkward diplomatic interactions - and given how hostile Sir Keir is to Trump, I imagine he'd actively try to help Biden look good before the US presidential elections. An Indy article that sums Sir Keir's atlanticist stance in a few short paragraphs: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-joe-biden-donald-trump-labour-b1788092.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-...
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Yeah, I think the furthest Starmer would take this would be to instead attack the Tories for failing to ensure the case was handled better rather than attack the US.

fblp 2y ago

I think it would be quite the diplomatic travesty for them to switch to arresting him after choosing to trial him in the closest court of Australia and credit him for time in prison already. https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1805385141239660627?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1805385141239660627?ref_src...

SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. That said, if the Americans wanted to drag this out further, they'd simply drag it out further, so it seems highly unlikely this is some ploy, however it's not impossible. Assange is more easily "forgotten" if they actually managed to imprison him in The States. But we'll see. I'll only completely believe it once he touches down in Australia.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelt 2y ago
  > What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK. This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this. And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.
  - steve_gh 2y ago
    I think this is quid pro quo for the Harry Dunn case, which interestingly reached a final conclusion a week or so ago in the Coroner's court.