13 ms·

USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

814 points by yuriko 6y ago

mmkos 6y ago
The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the government wants to appear aligned with the US as much as possible on this issue, while not actually extraditing Julian Assange.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  This is nonsense conspiracy theorism. There is unlikely to be any possibility of the judicial decision in this case being influenced by the UK government's policies on UK-US trade deals.
  - mmkos 6y ago
    It is pretty far reaching, but I wouldn't say that it is 'unlikely to be any possibility' that the UK government would want to influence a high profile case, which is highly likely to impact the UK-US relationship.
    - bmsleight_ 6y ago
      Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK. No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.
      - jfk13 6y ago
        Also recall the high-profile, politically-charged cases which the Government has lost (to its considerable embarrassment) in recent memory.
        JAlexoid 6y ago
        Government isn't the parliament. No court in the UK has ever overruled the parliament.
        spiralx 6y ago
        Because one of the key parts of UK law is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - that parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority. The court cannot overrule parliament by definition, in the same way SCOTUS cannot overrule the Constitution.
      - toyg 6y ago
        There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament. The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like. Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first. What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
  - pydry 6y ago
    This is more than a little naive I think. The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      Okay, but how do you think this works? Boris Johnson having a word with the judge? The judiciary haven’t exactly shown much interest in pandering to Boris; see Brexit judgements over the last couple of years.
      - pydry 6y ago
        I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too. The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego. I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.
        rsynnott 6y ago
        > I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation for sticking to it.
        pydry 6y ago
        Whether it's their "job" or not it's exactly in line with their rulings. Whether it's taking gold from Venezuela, trying to prevent the Brexit train from going off the cliff or this, realpolitik is clearly never far from their mind. If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.
  - PoachedSausage 6y ago
    Maybe not trade deals but the Anne Sacoolas[0] case of using diplomatic immunity of dubious legality to flee from justice probably tends to irritate the British judiciary. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630089 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630...
- dang 6y ago
  We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990.
the-dude 6y ago
TLDR; No extradiction.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Erikun 6y ago
  TLDR+; No extradition due to Assange's mental health.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    TLDR++: No extradition because Assange's mental health makes him a suicide risk in the conditions of US prisons.
k1m 6y ago
Kevin Gosztola: "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914 https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914 Matt Kennard, investigative journalist: "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." - https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328 https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328 Rebecca Vincent from Reports Without Borders responding to the judgment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A
- baybal2 6y ago
  > "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right. They omitted it very deliberately.
  - lmg643 6y ago
    Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-under-inhumane-conditions-lawyer-say-20200918-0005.html https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >> The lawyer pointed out that during the criminal hearings Assange is kept in a glass box at the back of court from where he cannot his lawyers properly.
    - agd 6y ago
      Certainly better in the UK than the US. He gets to see family and has contact with support including calls with e.g. the Samaritans.
tedeh 6y ago
So is Julian Assange going to be released now or what?
- tsjq 6y ago
  If released , will he be safe?
  - gadders 6y ago
    If Hillary Clinton gets a role under Biden, then probably not.
    - ramijames 6y ago
      I'm genuinely concerned. What is wrong with you?
      - gadders 6y ago
        Nice ad-hominem attack. Good skills. Wikileaks leaks about the Democrat Party corruption prior to the 2016 election certainly hurt her. And there are unconfirmed reports she joked about hitting him with a drone. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/hillary-clinton-drone-strike-wikileaks-julian-assange https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/hillary-clinton-drone-s...
        rvz 6y ago
        If true, it already sounds like 'exposing the truth' really does hurt some people so badly that they would take pleasure in jokingly drone-striking them at full force to shut them up; if they could. An insult to injury I guess.
        djsumdog 6y ago
        It's not really a joke either. The Clitnon's have been corrupt for years. The entire Hunter/Biden censorship of the Post by Facebook and Twitter show the interests of big tech align with that of the Bush/Clinton dynasty. Biden could have him killed. He's an empty husk of a president, and will be controlled by the big interests, the Clinton and anyone else who he's been compromised by. We've been living in 1984 for decades and most of American won't acknowledge it.
gadders 6y ago
Quite surprised by that verdict. Reading the commentary from Craig Murray [1] I thought it likely he would be extradited. Maybe Trump will pardon him and Snowdon on his way out as well. [1] EG: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-21/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-...
- DanBC 6y ago
  Some of us did try to say that Murray is a fucking idiot and should not be listened to.
  - gadders 6y ago
    It will be interesting to say what his next update is. And Amnesty and others weren't positive on the trial process either.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Amnesty at least have some credibility.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    And yet the judgement in general seems to match his assessment of the judges reaction to most of the issues raised by the defence. She only refused the extradition because of his mental health and likely prison conditions.
    - rory_isAdonk 6y ago
      Agreed.
  - harry8 6y ago
    What a terrible comment. It adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion. Make your case. Link evidence. Or appear to be nothing more than the poorest and purest smear. Maybe that appearance is deceptive and it was just really, really lazy?
shp0ngle 6y ago
So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that. That's really interesting.
- KirillPanov 6y ago
  He'll be released to some kind of house arrest (or whatever the UK equivalent is), and be found dead the next day. It will be ruled a suicide.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't do this here.
- stefan_ 6y ago
  That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. I might be overly cynical but that seems to be little more than a ploy of appearing impartial by denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal.
  - sabertoothed 6y ago
    > That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.
    - shp0ngle 6y ago
      They even cited Jeffrey Epstein suicide in the judgement (paragraph 299, page 95)
      - bitcharmer 6y ago
        "suicide". FTFY
  - 6y ago
lol768 6y ago
Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs (special administrative measures) regime, both pre-trial and post-trial And goes on to contrast with the conditions at HMP Belmarsh: > many of the protective factors currently in place at HMP Belmarsh would be removed by these conditions. Mr. Assange’s health improved on being removed from relative isolation in healthcare. He has been able to access the support of family and friends. He has had access to a Samaritans phone line. He has benefited from a trusting relationship with the prison In-Reach psychologist. By contrast, a SAMs regime would severely restrict his contact with all other human beings, including other prisoners, staff and his family. In detention subject to SAMs, he would have absolutely no communication with other prisoners, even through the walls of his cell, and time out of his cell would be spent alone. These conditions sound barbaric to me and I'd go as far to describe them as torture. Amnesty International do a better job of outlining the problems with this regime than I can: https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the-us-federal-prison-system/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the... Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. She concludes: > I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder. > I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange, pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003 Whilst a victory nonetheless for Assange, it is unfortunate that the entire judgement seems to come down to this point alone. Let's hope it is not overturned.
- tda 6y ago
  I have never come across the use of satisfied for "persuaded by argument or evidence" before. (yes, I had to look it up, not a native speaker) Is this usage common or just some kind of legalese?
Findeton 6y ago
I am incredibly happy for this ruling, I really hope it stands after the appeals. Freedom of expression and the right to know what oppresive governments are doing are too important to lose.
- vidarh 6y ago
  It's an awful ruling overall, from what I can tell from skimming it. It's great Assange won, but this ruling is not at all support for freedom of expression. This is the one part the judge agreed with the defense on as far as I can tell: > 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. For anyone not suffering from severe mental health problems that want to expose secrets this ruling in scary as hell.
  - nix23 6y ago
    I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.
    - checkyoursudo 6y ago
      While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it seems in general that we should want to allow extradition so that justice can be met. No?
      - nix23 6y ago
        True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.
jonny383 6y ago
Time for Australia to step up and own this one. Take your citizen home.
- ostenning 6y ago
  What I learnt over the past year is that Australia doesn’t really care about it’s citizens abroad.
  - dkdk8283 6y ago
    The CCP has a strong influence on AU: I fear AU law more than US law.
  - stephen_g 6y ago
    Well, I think that’s generally more to do with the particular political party in power than anything, but unfortunately on Assange both sides have been rubbish. Only a few Greens and Andrew Wilkie are really pushing for him in Parliament...
- docdeek 6y ago
  Would that solve anything? Surely the US could seek extradition from Australia if he returned there?
  - jonny383 6y ago
    Given the ruling, probably the best outcome for his mental health.
- rory_isAdonk 6y ago
  No way, let the lad go to France. He'll be protected there.
  - niea_11 6y ago
    Asasnge is not a french citizen, so France will refuse to extradite him for the same reasons as the UK : health problems. The extradition treaty between France and the United States allows France to deny extradition when the extradited party faces serious consequences related to health or age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extradition_from_France_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extra...
choeger 6y ago
So basically the UK tells the US that they don't need to punish him any further because the UK already broke him.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  That is kinda the hidden message isn't it? He was practically imprisoned in the embassy. Now even if he is free, he's returning to a world of lock-downs and stay-at-home orders. Released from his private hell into collective human rights violations in the name of a virus. Welcome to 2084. Everything old is Orwell again.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xenonite 6y ago
This happens on the first day that UK is no EU member anymore. Is this somehow connected?
- Tomte 6y ago
  Look at the calendar. January 31st is almost a year behind us. Even the transition period ended multiple days ago.
- vidarh 6y ago
  No. The discussions in the judgement are all focused on UK law, and the ECHR as embedded in UK law, and UK membership of the ECHR remains (it's not an EU organ, but related to the Council of Europe, which while confusingly similar to EU's European Council has nothing to do with the EU).
- rsynnott 6y ago
  No. If anything, this is more down to the Human Rights Act (the UK implementation of the ECHR). Some particularly extreme Brexiters have advocated revoking the Human Rights Act (as a member of the EU the UK was required to actually implement the ECHR, but as a non-member it could just pay lip-service, like Russia does), but that hasn't happened as yet (and hopefully never will).
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA. The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the HRA was most notably proposed in the past by Theresa May as Home Secretary, who campaigned for Remain. I don't think the ECHR/HRA is particularly likely to go away here any time soon. However the government may attempt to reform the way judicial reviews can be brought to limit their impact or remove the ability to bring "last minute" challenges which could have been brought in a more timely way (theoretically this is already supposed to be the case but in practice the politically controversial cases aren't often dismissed for lack of timeliness).
agd 6y ago
This is fantastic news, however I’m sure there will be a lengthy appeal. In summary: - the judge did not agree with the defence that this was an improper extradition request - however she blocked extradition on the grounds that Assange would likely commit suicide due to the extreme prison conditions he would face
LatteLazy 6y ago
Honestly I'm amazed. I called the whole process a farce a few weeks ago. I'm pleased and a little embarrassed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sgt101 6y ago
" However, I am satisfied that,in these harsh conditions,Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder. 363.I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America" Seems to be the reason why the case is rejected.
howlgarnish 6y ago
Quite unexpected! Like many HNers who followed Craig Murray's reporting of the trial (see below), I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet and the extradition to the US was preordained. Will be interesting to see his take on this. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=craigmurray&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
- tt433 6y ago
  Given the apartment disconnect between the reality Murray describes in his reports and the reality we can observe today, do you think you'll read his content with a higher degree of skepticism in the future? His headlines are all calibrated for maximum outrage, that alone turns me off from reading them. Edit to eat crow: only one article has a sensational headline
  - jules-jules 6y ago
    Mind drawing out these differences for the rest of us?
  - agd 6y ago
    Not really. If you read his coverage it does mostly accord with the final judgement. I.e. the judge rejected all defence claims on whether the extradition request was proper.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    Honestly, his articles where so overwhelmingly obviously biased and lacking any sense of journalism that it was actually painful to watch the number of people on this very site enthusiastically promote him as some kind of truth-seeking hero. It's valid to oppose the Assange extradition, be concerned about the impact on free speech, and any number of other things; Murray is not a reliable narrator on any of these issues, so if you do want to examine his content remember to do so with an extremely heavy dose of skepticism.
    - 6y ago
vidarh 6y ago
The entire US prison system feels abusive to me. I've said before that if I somehow magically were to find myself on a US jury (can't happen - I'm not resident in or a citizen of the US; this is a pure hypothetical), I'd be hard pressed to be able to justify voting "guilty" on a moral basis even for quite serious crimes. It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabilitation.
- tremon 6y ago
  nvm, misread your post
  - vidarh 6y ago
    How is that in any way relevant to what I wrote?
- 0x445442 6y ago
  In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.
  - rjbwork 6y ago
    And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.
    - Uberphallus 6y ago
      You lie, if they accuse you of perjury then you say "I googled it after I was asked".
      - rjbwork 6y ago
        But that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"
Triv888 6y ago
"This tweet is not available to you" error is still happening to this day. (a reload was required)
- NietTim 6y ago
  Weird, both load for me
  - Triv888 6y ago
    I've read that it happens to a lot more people... not sure what the conditions need to be, but yes, it is really weird. It almost looks like some kind of censoring.
    - spiralx 6y ago
      I get that regularly when someone quotes a tweet by someone that has blocked them since - if I click on the quoted tweet I can then see it as I'm not blocked. Could be related in some way.
    - NietTim 6y ago
      The assumption of censorship is unfounded
mrkramer 6y ago
How will this affect US and UK relations? They are brother/sister countries. Snowden and Assange are 2 Americans most wanted, US would do anything to get them. Btw I'm not in favor of US Gov. spying but what Snowden and Assange did (leak state secrets) is criminal and they need to face justice.
- ArchD 6y ago
  Justice for thee but not justice for me. - Some US politician, probably
- rsynnott 6y ago
  It's quite common for EU countries to refuse extradition to the US on these sorts of grounds; can't see it having much effect.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Last time I checked, the charges are related to Assange's alleged involvement in one or more accounts of hacking, not regarding the subsequent public release of the obtained documents.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > Assange did (leak state secrets) Assange is a journalist and an Australian. He has no ties or obligations to the US. His organization also rededicated almost all published documents to prevent doxing. He is no different than the New York Post. Snowden was an NSA contractor. Personally I still think he's a disinformation campaign similar to Operation Mockingbird or COINTELPRO and likely still works for either the CIA or State Dept (look up "Limited Hangouts") Manning swore and oath as a soldier and broke it; releasing information that was not filtered or screened. Three entirely different cases.
- lagadu 6y ago
  Assange is not American.
Mvandenbergh 6y ago
I 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.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > 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. And isn't that actually done on a fairly regular basis? IIRC, the US has pledged not to pursue the death penalty in certain cases in order to get cooperation on an extradition.
  - gizmodo59 6y ago
    Maximum security prison + solitary confinement is way too harsh for this issue IMHO.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    In many cases. Virtually any jurisdiction that knows no capital punishment refuses to extradite if it be possible the extraditee face it.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Agreed. The k ly thing I would say is that extradition from the UK to the US is almost always granted, so even a delay and appeal is a better result than expected...
anothernewdude 6y ago
A system of "mass incarceration" should have no impact on any individual case. That's beyond stupid.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  "Mass incarceration" may not be the best phrasing, but the particularly inhumane (for a developed country) nature of the US criminal justice system does lose it a lot of extradition cases. In particular, punitive long-term solitary confinement is commonly used in the US but is not generally permitted in most European countries.
- detaro 6y ago
  It should, if its properties have material impact on the individual case. Which is what the judge argued here.
- kjakm 6y ago
  It's a human rights issue. The US doesn't have a very good record. The most usual scenario in which this comes up is in extradition cases where the person involved could face the death penalty (of life imprisonment I think too). It wouldn't make sense for the UK (where there is no death penalty) to extradite a person to somewhere they no longer have that right to life. This is just a natural extension of that policy.
- foolfoolz 6y ago
  agreed this sounds like political activism judging. how can one judge say we can’t extradite to the us because the system isn’t good enough when other extraditions are ok?
  - jlokier 6y ago
    It's not activism, it's the law in the UK. The judge interprets how the law applies to the specific facts of this case. The law says extradition is not allowed in some circumstances. Those circumstances include how the prisoner is likely to be treated, and the health of the prisoner. Some other extraditions are ok according to the law because those factors vary in each case.
93po 6y ago
Astonished to see this but hopeful for Julian. Very sad state for journalism and prison conditions
- willis936 6y ago
  Assange is not a journalist. He wrote software until he started leaking documents. That isn’t journalism.
  - jonny383 6y ago
    And I suppose anyone with a journalism degree isn't a journalist because they were a student until they started working?
    - willis936 6y ago
      If they haven’t investigated and written in search of the truth, they are not journalists. Just as I wasn’t an engineer until I started designing and making things.
      - jcbrand 6y ago
        Interesting to see how programmers have turned into "engineers" the last decade or so. Do you have an engineering degree? Used to be that you'd have to be registered as a professional engineer before calling yourself one.
        willis936 6y ago
        I have an MSEE, worked in a test house during school, and currently work on a very physically real machine with a title of “engineer”; not that any of that is relevant. Are you agreeing with my point? Not everyone who calls themself something is that thing. Assange is certainly not a journalist.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      Assange has done journalistic work, but he isn't a journalist, not because of some technicality but because Wikileaks have a very flexible relationship with basic principles of good journalism and are clearly prepared to play politics when it suits them. If Assange is a mere journalist, he and his organisations are hypocrites because of their use of NDAs and either malicious or deeply incompetent in their complete disregard for the privacy of people (bystanders) mentioned in their dumps. For example, dumping the credit card numbers and addresses of donors to the Democratic Party is unnecessary and clearly intended to do harm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspir... and downwards is a good place to start - the idea that Wikileaks are some kind of bastion of good journalism is pretty naff
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
2Gkashmiri 6y ago
funny how usa can do such barbaric shit to humans in the name of "upholding the constitution" but let someone else kill a person for breaking their own laws and usa gets its panties in a bunch. good bigotry.
hestefisk 6y ago
Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.
- erfgh 6y ago
  whataboutism is a logical fallacy.
  - jonathanstrange 6y ago
    Not necessarily in this area. Wikileaks has exposed a number of US war crimes that went completely unpunished, while a person who was working on behalf of Wikileaks is being prosecuted on grounds that are fairly constructed and far-fetched even by US standards. Morally speaking, even if some of Assange's actions were immoral they might be considered excusable because the perils were outweighed by the benefits of these actions. It's not uncommon to reason that way. The same kind of reasoning is used to justify the means by the ends, e.g. purporters of the US drone strike program argue that the many civilian bystanders that are killed by those strikes are justifiable by the end, which is the extrajudicial killing of the alleged terrorist targets. It's called a balance of consideration argument, sometimes also "conductive argument". Obviously, the legal question is different from this, IANAL and I don't even know if lawyers use conductive arguments in this way. The judge in this extradition case certainly didn't, but that's not surprising since her job wasn't to judge Assange's actions.
    - jboog 6y ago
      Assange literally encouraged people to infiltrate US intelligence agencies and "leak" classified intel. Let's not even get into his work laundering Russian hacked docs to damage the US, and then repeatedly lying about it. He also is credibly accused of being a rapist. The US has done some bad shit, no doubt, but that doesn't make Assange some saint. He's a bad dude.
sradman 6y ago
In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]: > A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities. The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of private documents searching for a crime or misdeed. Individuals or small activist organizations now have this ability and it is not exactly the same as a whistleblower leaking documents associated with a known crime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition
- djbebs 6y ago
  The point is moot since these were documents belonging to the government.
  - sradman 6y ago
    These were government documents leaked to a service designed to protect whistleblowers.
  - appleflaxen 6y ago
    The crime is not by the journalist who reports it, but on the person who breaks classification. In this sense, Snowden is more guilty than Assange.
- chippiewill 6y ago
  FWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way. He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
  - sradman 6y ago
    Right, Snowden and Manning sit on a similar spectrum in terms of unauthorized copying of classified documents. Snowden, seemed to have foreknowledge of an actual crime or at least the government failing to follow a reasonable person’s expectation of it following a given law.
pyb 6y ago
Where we find out that extradition from the UK for political offences is actually largely permitted. Some protection from extradition remains, but it is very narrow. It only stands if the person is being prosecuted "on the basis of their political opinions" : "53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive regime, setting out the sole statutory basis on which a court is obliged to deal with matters, and does so in a series of imperative steps the court must follow. These steps no longer include a consideration of the political character of an offence, and there is no opportunity, within the scheme of the EA 2003, to raise this as an objection to extradition. The EA 2003 retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions, pursuant to section 81 (the political opinion bar), but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence."
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  If the judge's interpretation is correct, then it seems that the UK is in breach of its treaty obligations, which bar extradition for political offenses.
ur-whale 6y ago
Well, color me very surprised. Very happy with the outcome (assuming it stands), but I would have bet the farm on the opposite outcome.
jl2718 6y ago
I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any of this is relevant, but, to recap from a layperson’s understanding, this is a US case against a non-US person residing in a foreign country, and accused of a US conspiracy to commit a crime with a US person who was incidentally pardoned by a US president. GB and AUS both have direct standing and jurisdiction under their own law through NATO, so why is he not being tried this way? My guess is that the US wants nothing to do with this case. The military would be watching proto-Obama crucify Prof after pardoning Chelsea. Side note: I’m pretty sure at this point he wishes he’d not had anything to do with any of this hacking stuff. Being a professional dog-walker in a small village probably sounds great.
- gsnedders 6y ago
  > The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. For the extradition treaty to apply, it must be alleged that the defendant has committed actions which amount to a criminal offence in both countries. If his alleged actions are not a criminal offence in both countries, then the extradition treaty does not apply. Therefore, you can challenge extradition on dual criminality by arguing that the act is not a crime in one or both countries.
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  The US wants to extradite Assange.
nelsonenzo 6y ago
Who would guessed Epstein's suicide would be Assanges saving grace? Not I.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  The only suicide ever in that prison.
knodi 6y ago
Right ruling for the wrong person. I hope Assange can be brought to justices before he flees to Russia.
gvv 6y ago
I'd 100% donate to support his bail fund.
WhyNotHugo 6y ago
I find the timing for this news extremely amusing. Currently, there's a lot of criticism towards China for arresting journalists investigating controversial topics. OTOH, the US is doing literally the same thing, with little to no backlash.
stevespang 6y ago
J.ORDERS410. I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange,pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003.
motohagiography 6y ago
Can't help but suspect the british security establishment decided it didn't want to extradite him because there was real risk he would be pardoned in the U.S. In their estimation, if they wait just 16 more days (post inauguration), that's no longer a risk, and even if something unprecedented in the U.S. happens, the british govt still has him. Assange humiliated a generation of spies and officials and discredited the institutions they controlled at a key strategic moment, just as they were consolidating a lifetime of work toward their international alignment and control. It's zero sum for them, where if he survives, he's proven right. Historically, Wikileaks (among a few other projects) is how Gen-X unmoored the new establishment of the Boomer generation, and inspired Millennials like Snowden to surge into the breach. It doesn't matter what they do to him now, he won.
kpsnow 6y ago
So aspergers is a get out of jail free card?
djhaskin987 6y ago
I find it interesting that on nearly the last page we see that the defense argued that it was an abuse of power of the courts to deny extradition. I wonder how happy he will be rotting in a UK prison instead of a US one.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chejazi 6y ago
What is the possibility that the USA was aware of the verdict in advance and perhaps gave it tacit approval?
- cormacrelf 6y ago
  What? ... What?
  - chejazi 6y ago
    The Assange case has been the most political trial in my lifetime. The plaintiff was the United States. It seems possible.
devpbrilius 6y ago
It's hacking case, but it's a corporate espionage related searches.
young_unixer 6y ago
If there's anything to learn from Assange and Snowden: 1. Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level. 2. With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US. 3. Politically vociferous people (the mob) don't give a shit about you unless you're instrumental to support the cause du jour
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level. That's a fairly weak observation both because liberal democracies still punish criminals and many people do take serious issue with what Assange is and has done - it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews.
  - iaw 6y ago
    > it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews. It's a heavily penalized sentiment in this portion of the internet.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US. When you do things like https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-nsa-targeted-chinas-tsinghua-university-extensive-hacking https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-ns..., no propaganda is necessary.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    That is horrible. Wasting tax dollars spying on schools.
    - season2episode3 6y ago
      A country’s premier research university seems like a pretty normal espionage target.
Trias11 6y ago
Why didn't he wear a wig during his in-embassy venture and escape? He had plenty of time to plot something like that
dafty4 6y ago
TLDR?
ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s good to see that the inhumane prison system in the US is beginning to become a problem for those who actually implemented it. Regardless how you feel about Assange, and I’m ambivalent about him, the US facing consequences for what we’ve done with our criminal justice system is something to be applauded.
- giantg2 6y ago
  They do have an appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if they extricate him on appeal. The higher up you go, the more politics get involved in these international incidents (even in the "impartial" courts).
  - RachelF 6y ago
    "Impartial" courts are one myth those in the UK still believe in.
andy_ppp 6y ago
Is he out already? Be good to hear it’s going okay... must be feeling very relieved but I would have convinced myself I was ending up in a high-max. Emotional disorientating I’d say.
90red 6y ago
The entire legal system is a fucking kangaroo court joke.

814 points by yuriko 6y ago

The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the government wants to appear aligned with the US as much as possible on this issue, while not actually extraditing Julian Assange.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
This is nonsense conspiracy theorism. There is unlikely to be any possibility of the judicial decision in this case being influenced by the UK government's policies on UK-US trade deals.
- mmkos 6y ago
  It is pretty far reaching, but I wouldn't say that it is 'unlikely to be any possibility' that the UK government would want to influence a high profile case, which is highly likely to impact the UK-US relationship.
  - bmsleight_ 6y ago
    Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK. No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      Also recall the high-profile, politically-charged cases which the Government has lost (to its considerable embarrassment) in recent memory.
      - JAlexoid 6y ago
        Government isn't the parliament. No court in the UK has ever overruled the parliament.
        spiralx 6y ago
        Because one of the key parts of UK law is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - that parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority. The court cannot overrule parliament by definition, in the same way SCOTUS cannot overrule the Constitution.
    - toyg 6y ago
      There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament. The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like. Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first. What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
- pydry 6y ago
  This is more than a little naive I think. The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Okay, but how do you think this works? Boris Johnson having a word with the judge? The judiciary haven’t exactly shown much interest in pandering to Boris; see Brexit judgements over the last couple of years.
    - pydry 6y ago
      I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too. The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego. I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.
      - rsynnott 6y ago
        > I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation for sticking to it.
        pydry 6y ago
        Whether it's their "job" or not it's exactly in line with their rulings. Whether it's taking gold from Venezuela, trying to prevent the Brexit train from going off the cliff or this, realpolitik is clearly never far from their mind. If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.
- PoachedSausage 6y ago
  Maybe not trade deals but the Anne Sacoolas[0] case of using diplomatic immunity of dubious legality to flee from justice probably tends to irritate the British judiciary. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630089 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630...
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990.

the-dude 6y ago

TLDR; No extradiction.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Erikun 6y ago
TLDR+; No extradition due to Assange's mental health.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  TLDR++: No extradition because Assange's mental health makes him a suicide risk in the conditions of US prisons.

k1m 6y ago

Kevin Gosztola: "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914 https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914 Matt Kennard, investigative journalist: "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." - https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328 https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328 Rebecca Vincent from Reports Without Borders responding to the judgment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A

baybal2 6y ago
> "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." A barbarical nature of US penal system it is, but they did not even note a prima fascie political nature of the prosecution when the defence was slashing it left, and right. They omitted it very deliberately.
- lmg643 6y ago
  Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-under-inhumane-conditions-lawyer-say-20200918-0005.html https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >> The lawyer pointed out that during the criminal hearings Assange is kept in a glass box at the back of court from where he cannot his lawyers properly.
  - agd 6y ago
    Certainly better in the UK than the US. He gets to see family and has contact with support including calls with e.g. the Samaritans.

tedeh 6y ago

So is Julian Assange going to be released now or what?

tsjq 6y ago
If released , will he be safe?
- gadders 6y ago
  If Hillary Clinton gets a role under Biden, then probably not.
  - ramijames 6y ago
    I'm genuinely concerned. What is wrong with you?
    - gadders 6y ago
      Nice ad-hominem attack. Good skills. Wikileaks leaks about the Democrat Party corruption prior to the 2016 election certainly hurt her. And there are unconfirmed reports she joked about hitting him with a drone. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/hillary-clinton-drone-strike-wikileaks-julian-assange https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/hillary-clinton-drone-s...
      - rvz 6y ago
        If true, it already sounds like 'exposing the truth' really does hurt some people so badly that they would take pleasure in jokingly drone-striking them at full force to shut them up; if they could. An insult to injury I guess.
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        It's not really a joke either. The Clitnon's have been corrupt for years. The entire Hunter/Biden censorship of the Post by Facebook and Twitter show the interests of big tech align with that of the Bush/Clinton dynasty. Biden could have him killed. He's an empty husk of a president, and will be controlled by the big interests, the Clinton and anyone else who he's been compromised by. We've been living in 1984 for decades and most of American won't acknowledge it.

gadders 6y ago

Quite surprised by that verdict. Reading the commentary from Craig Murray [1] I thought it likely he would be extradited. Maybe Trump will pardon him and Snowdon on his way out as well. [1] EG: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-21/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-...

DanBC 6y ago
Some of us did try to say that Murray is a fucking idiot and should not be listened to.
- gadders 6y ago
  It will be interesting to say what his next update is. And Amnesty and others weren't positive on the trial process either.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Amnesty at least have some credibility.
- vidarh 6y ago
  And yet the judgement in general seems to match his assessment of the judges reaction to most of the issues raised by the defence. She only refused the extradition because of his mental health and likely prison conditions.
  - rory_isAdonk 6y ago
    Agreed.
- harry8 6y ago
  What a terrible comment. It adds nothing whatsoever to the discussion. Make your case. Link evidence. Or appear to be nothing more than the poorest and purest smear. Maybe that appearance is deceptive and it was just really, really lazy?

shp0ngle 6y ago

So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that. That's really interesting.

KirillPanov 6y ago
He'll be released to some kind of house arrest (or whatever the UK equivalent is), and be found dead the next day. It will be ruled a suicide.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do this here.
stefan_ 6y ago
That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. I might be overly cynical but that seems to be little more than a ploy of appearing impartial by denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal.
- sabertoothed 6y ago
  > That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. Appears to be a very valid reason. The US prison system is a disgrace.
  - shp0ngle 6y ago
    They even cited Jeffrey Epstein suicide in the judgement (paragraph 299, page 95)
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      "suicide". FTFY
- 6y ago

lol768 6y ago

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads: > The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him. The judge states: > it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs (special administrative measures) regime, both pre-trial and post-trial And goes on to contrast with the conditions at HMP Belmarsh: > many of the protective factors currently in place at HMP Belmarsh would be removed by these conditions. Mr. Assange’s health improved on being removed from relative isolation in healthcare. He has been able to access the support of family and friends. He has had access to a Samaritans phone line. He has benefited from a trusting relationship with the prison In-Reach psychologist. By contrast, a SAMs regime would severely restrict his contact with all other human beings, including other prisoners, staff and his family. In detention subject to SAMs, he would have absolutely no communication with other prisoners, even through the walls of his cell, and time out of his cell would be spent alone. These conditions sound barbaric to me and I'd go as far to describe them as torture. Amnesty International do a better job of outlining the problems with this regime than I can: https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the-us-federal-prison-system/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the... Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. She concludes: > I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder. > I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange, pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003 Whilst a victory nonetheless for Assange, it is unfortunate that the entire judgement seems to come down to this point alone. Let's hope it is not overturned.

tda 6y ago
I have never come across the use of satisfied for "persuaded by argument or evidence" before. (yes, I had to look it up, not a native speaker) Is this usage common or just some kind of legalese?

Findeton 6y ago

I am incredibly happy for this ruling, I really hope it stands after the appeals. Freedom of expression and the right to know what oppresive governments are doing are too important to lose.

vidarh 6y ago
It's an awful ruling overall, from what I can tell from skimming it. It's great Assange won, but this ruling is not at all support for freedom of expression. This is the one part the judge agreed with the defense on as far as I can tell: > 363. I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America. For anyone not suffering from severe mental health problems that want to expose secrets this ruling in scary as hell.
- nix23 6y ago
  I really don't get it why the UK is even allowed to extradite a citizen of Australia to the US. Shame on Australia too for not protecting it's citizens.
  - checkyoursudo 6y ago
    While I would prefer that Assange not be extradited to the USA on the specific circumstances of that case, extradition treaties in general seem reasonable? If a citizen of A commits murder in B and there is credible evidence, but the person has fled to C, should C not be able to extradite the person to B under any circumstances? Barring civil rights problems, corruption, etc (e.g., some very specific exceptions), it seems in general that we should want to allow extradition so that justice can be met. No?
    - nix23 6y ago
      True it's not a easy question, but for example in Switzerland you cannot extradite someone if the punishment is harder then in Switzerland, that prevents that someone is send to a country with death-sentence, let's say for murder. But yeah it's not that easy and contracts exist.

jonny383 6y ago

Time for Australia to step up and own this one. Take your citizen home.

ostenning 6y ago
What I learnt over the past year is that Australia doesn’t really care about it’s citizens abroad.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  The CCP has a strong influence on AU: I fear AU law more than US law.
- stephen_g 6y ago
  Well, I think that’s generally more to do with the particular political party in power than anything, but unfortunately on Assange both sides have been rubbish. Only a few Greens and Andrew Wilkie are really pushing for him in Parliament...
docdeek 6y ago
Would that solve anything? Surely the US could seek extradition from Australia if he returned there?
- jonny383 6y ago
  Given the ruling, probably the best outcome for his mental health.
rory_isAdonk 6y ago
No way, let the lad go to France. He'll be protected there.
- niea_11 6y ago
  Asasnge is not a french citizen, so France will refuse to extradite him for the same reasons as the UK : health problems. The extradition treaty between France and the United States allows France to deny extradition when the extradited party faces serious consequences related to health or age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extradition_from_France_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mastro#Attempted_extra...

choeger 6y ago

So basically the UK tells the US that they don't need to punish him any further because the UK already broke him.

djsumdog 6y ago
That is kinda the hidden message isn't it? He was practically imprisoned in the embassy. Now even if he is free, he's returning to a world of lock-downs and stay-at-home orders. Released from his private hell into collective human rights violations in the name of a virus. Welcome to 2084. Everything old is Orwell again.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xenonite 6y ago

This happens on the first day that UK is no EU member anymore. Is this somehow connected?

Tomte 6y ago
Look at the calendar. January 31st is almost a year behind us. Even the transition period ended multiple days ago.
vidarh 6y ago
No. The discussions in the judgement are all focused on UK law, and the ECHR as embedded in UK law, and UK membership of the ECHR remains (it's not an EU organ, but related to the Council of Europe, which while confusingly similar to EU's European Council has nothing to do with the EU).
rsynnott 6y ago
No. If anything, this is more down to the Human Rights Act (the UK implementation of the ECHR). Some particularly extreme Brexiters have advocated revoking the Human Rights Act (as a member of the EU the UK was required to actually implement the ECHR, but as a non-member it could just pay lip-service, like Russia does), but that hasn't happened as yet (and hopefully never will).
- tomatocracy 6y ago
  I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA. The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the HRA was most notably proposed in the past by Theresa May as Home Secretary, who campaigned for Remain. I don't think the ECHR/HRA is particularly likely to go away here any time soon. However the government may attempt to reform the way judicial reviews can be brought to limit their impact or remove the ability to bring "last minute" challenges which could have been brought in a more timely way (theoretically this is already supposed to be the case but in practice the politically controversial cases aren't often dismissed for lack of timeliness).

agd 6y ago

This is fantastic news, however I’m sure there will be a lengthy appeal. In summary: - the judge did not agree with the defence that this was an improper extradition request - however she blocked extradition on the grounds that Assange would likely commit suicide due to the extreme prison conditions he would face

LatteLazy 6y ago

Honestly I'm amazed. I called the whole process a farce a few weeks ago. I'm pleased and a little embarrassed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sgt101 6y ago

" However, I am satisfied that,in these harsh conditions,Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder. 363.I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America" Seems to be the reason why the case is rejected.

howlgarnish 6y ago

Quite unexpected! Like many HNers who followed Craig Murray's reporting of the trial (see below), I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet and the extradition to the US was preordained. Will be interesting to see his take on this. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=craigmurray&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...

tt433 6y ago
Given the apartment disconnect between the reality Murray describes in his reports and the reality we can observe today, do you think you'll read his content with a higher degree of skepticism in the future? His headlines are all calibrated for maximum outrage, that alone turns me off from reading them. Edit to eat crow: only one article has a sensational headline
- jules-jules 6y ago
  Mind drawing out these differences for the rest of us?
- agd 6y ago
  Not really. If you read his coverage it does mostly accord with the final judgement. I.e. the judge rejected all defence claims on whether the extradition request was proper.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Honestly, his articles where so overwhelmingly obviously biased and lacking any sense of journalism that it was actually painful to watch the number of people on this very site enthusiastically promote him as some kind of truth-seeking hero. It's valid to oppose the Assange extradition, be concerned about the impact on free speech, and any number of other things; Murray is not a reliable narrator on any of these issues, so if you do want to examine his content remember to do so with an extremely heavy dose of skepticism.
  - 6y ago

vidarh 6y ago

The entire US prison system feels abusive to me. I've said before that if I somehow magically were to find myself on a US jury (can't happen - I'm not resident in or a citizen of the US; this is a pure hypothetical), I'd be hard pressed to be able to justify voting "guilty" on a moral basis even for quite serious crimes. It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabilitation.

tremon 6y ago
nvm, misread your post
- vidarh 6y ago
  How is that in any way relevant to what I wrote?
0x445442 6y ago
In your scenario, the good news would be that you'd be within you're rights as a juror to vote not guilty on the grounds you did not think the law was just; it's called Jury Nullification. The bad news is, the "justice system" goes out of it's way to hide the existence of this right from U.S. citizens.
- rjbwork 6y ago
  And they weed you out of the jury pool if you admit to knowing of its existence. And of course you can't lie when asked, as that's perjury.
  - Uberphallus 6y ago
    You lie, if they accuse you of perjury then you say "I googled it after I was asked".
    - rjbwork 6y ago
      But that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"

Triv888 6y ago

"This tweet is not available to you" error is still happening to this day. (a reload was required)

NietTim 6y ago
Weird, both load for me
- Triv888 6y ago
  I've read that it happens to a lot more people... not sure what the conditions need to be, but yes, it is really weird. It almost looks like some kind of censoring.
  - spiralx 6y ago
    I get that regularly when someone quotes a tweet by someone that has blocked them since - if I click on the quoted tweet I can then see it as I'm not blocked. Could be related in some way.
  - NietTim 6y ago
    The assumption of censorship is unfounded

mrkramer 6y ago

How will this affect US and UK relations? They are brother/sister countries. Snowden and Assange are 2 Americans most wanted, US would do anything to get them. Btw I'm not in favor of US Gov. spying but what Snowden and Assange did (leak state secrets) is criminal and they need to face justice.

ArchD 6y ago
Justice for thee but not justice for me. - Some US politician, probably
rsynnott 6y ago
It's quite common for EU countries to refuse extradition to the US on these sorts of grounds; can't see it having much effect.
fogihujy 6y ago
Last time I checked, the charges are related to Assange's alleged involvement in one or more accounts of hacking, not regarding the subsequent public release of the obtained documents.
djsumdog 6y ago
> Assange did (leak state secrets) Assange is a journalist and an Australian. He has no ties or obligations to the US. His organization also rededicated almost all published documents to prevent doxing. He is no different than the New York Post. Snowden was an NSA contractor. Personally I still think he's a disinformation campaign similar to Operation Mockingbird or COINTELPRO and likely still works for either the CIA or State Dept (look up "Limited Hangouts") Manning swore and oath as a soldier and broke it; releasing information that was not filtered or screened. Three entirely different cases.
lagadu 6y ago
Assange is not American.

Mvandenbergh 6y ago

I 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.

ardy42 6y ago
> 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. And isn't that actually done on a fairly regular basis? IIRC, the US has pledged not to pursue the death penalty in certain cases in order to get cooperation on an extradition.
- gizmodo59 6y ago
  Maximum security prison + solitary confinement is way too harsh for this issue IMHO.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  In many cases. Virtually any jurisdiction that knows no capital punishment refuses to extradite if it be possible the extraditee face it.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Agreed. The k ly thing I would say is that extradition from the UK to the US is almost always granted, so even a delay and appeal is a better result than expected...

anothernewdude 6y ago

A system of "mass incarceration" should have no impact on any individual case. That's beyond stupid.

rsynnott 6y ago
"Mass incarceration" may not be the best phrasing, but the particularly inhumane (for a developed country) nature of the US criminal justice system does lose it a lot of extradition cases. In particular, punitive long-term solitary confinement is commonly used in the US but is not generally permitted in most European countries.
detaro 6y ago
It should, if its properties have material impact on the individual case. Which is what the judge argued here.
kjakm 6y ago
It's a human rights issue. The US doesn't have a very good record. The most usual scenario in which this comes up is in extradition cases where the person involved could face the death penalty (of life imprisonment I think too). It wouldn't make sense for the UK (where there is no death penalty) to extradite a person to somewhere they no longer have that right to life. This is just a natural extension of that policy.
foolfoolz 6y ago
agreed this sounds like political activism judging. how can one judge say we can’t extradite to the us because the system isn’t good enough when other extraditions are ok?
- jlokier 6y ago
  It's not activism, it's the law in the UK. The judge interprets how the law applies to the specific facts of this case. The law says extradition is not allowed in some circumstances. Those circumstances include how the prisoner is likely to be treated, and the health of the prisoner. Some other extraditions are ok according to the law because those factors vary in each case.

93po 6y ago

Astonished to see this but hopeful for Julian. Very sad state for journalism and prison conditions

willis936 6y ago
Assange is not a journalist. He wrote software until he started leaking documents. That isn’t journalism.
- jonny383 6y ago
  And I suppose anyone with a journalism degree isn't a journalist because they were a student until they started working?
  - willis936 6y ago
    If they haven’t investigated and written in search of the truth, they are not journalists. Just as I wasn’t an engineer until I started designing and making things.
    - jcbrand 6y ago
      Interesting to see how programmers have turned into "engineers" the last decade or so. Do you have an engineering degree? Used to be that you'd have to be registered as a professional engineer before calling yourself one.
      - willis936 6y ago
        I have an MSEE, worked in a test house during school, and currently work on a very physically real machine with a title of “engineer”; not that any of that is relevant. Are you agreeing with my point? Not everyone who calls themself something is that thing. Assange is certainly not a journalist.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Assange has done journalistic work, but he isn't a journalist, not because of some technicality but because Wikileaks have a very flexible relationship with basic principles of good journalism and are clearly prepared to play politics when it suits them. If Assange is a mere journalist, he and his organisations are hypocrites because of their use of NDAs and either malicious or deeply incompetent in their complete disregard for the privacy of people (bystanders) mentioned in their dumps. For example, dumping the credit card numbers and addresses of donors to the Democratic Party is unnecessary and clearly intended to do harm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Promotion_of_conspir... and downwards is a good place to start - the idea that Wikileaks are some kind of bastion of good journalism is pretty naff

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

2Gkashmiri 6y ago

funny how usa can do such barbaric shit to humans in the name of "upholding the constitution" but let someone else kill a person for breaking their own laws and usa gets its panties in a bunch. good bigotry.

hestefisk 6y ago

Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.

erfgh 6y ago
whataboutism is a logical fallacy.
- jonathanstrange 6y ago
  Not necessarily in this area. Wikileaks has exposed a number of US war crimes that went completely unpunished, while a person who was working on behalf of Wikileaks is being prosecuted on grounds that are fairly constructed and far-fetched even by US standards. Morally speaking, even if some of Assange's actions were immoral they might be considered excusable because the perils were outweighed by the benefits of these actions. It's not uncommon to reason that way. The same kind of reasoning is used to justify the means by the ends, e.g. purporters of the US drone strike program argue that the many civilian bystanders that are killed by those strikes are justifiable by the end, which is the extrajudicial killing of the alleged terrorist targets. It's called a balance of consideration argument, sometimes also "conductive argument". Obviously, the legal question is different from this, IANAL and I don't even know if lawyers use conductive arguments in this way. The judge in this extradition case certainly didn't, but that's not surprising since her job wasn't to judge Assange's actions.
  - jboog 6y ago
    Assange literally encouraged people to infiltrate US intelligence agencies and "leak" classified intel. Let's not even get into his work laundering Russian hacked docs to damage the US, and then repeatedly lying about it. He also is credibly accused of being a rapist. The US has done some bad shit, no doubt, but that doesn't make Assange some saint. He's a bad dude.

sradman 6y ago

In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]: > A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities. The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of private documents searching for a crime or misdeed. Individuals or small activist organizations now have this ability and it is not exactly the same as a whistleblower leaking documents associated with a known crime. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition

djbebs 6y ago
The point is moot since these were documents belonging to the government.
- sradman 6y ago
  These were government documents leaked to a service designed to protect whistleblowers.
- appleflaxen 6y ago
  The crime is not by the journalist who reports it, but on the person who breaks classification. In this sense, Snowden is more guilty than Assange.
chippiewill 6y ago
FWIW Edward Snowden is slightly guilty of fishing in a way. He didn't just collect relevant documents, he collected a massive cache of documents and instead of vetting them himself (someone who is at least vaguely cleared to read the documents) he turned all of it over to the press to review instead.
- sradman 6y ago
  Right, Snowden and Manning sit on a similar spectrum in terms of unauthorized copying of classified documents. Snowden, seemed to have foreknowledge of an actual crime or at least the government failing to follow a reasonable person’s expectation of it following a given law.

pyb 6y ago

Where we find out that extradition from the UK for political offences is actually largely permitted. Some protection from extradition remains, but it is very narrow. It only stands if the person is being prosecuted "on the basis of their political opinions" : "53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive regime, setting out the sole statutory basis on which a court is obliged to deal with matters, and does so in a series of imperative steps the court must follow. These steps no longer include a consideration of the political character of an offence, and there is no opportunity, within the scheme of the EA 2003, to raise this as an objection to extradition. The EA 2003 retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions, pursuant to section 81 (the political opinion bar), but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence."

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
If the judge's interpretation is correct, then it seems that the UK is in breach of its treaty obligations, which bar extradition for political offenses.

ur-whale 6y ago

Well, color me very surprised. Very happy with the outcome (assuming it stands), but I would have bet the farm on the opposite outcome.

jl2718 6y ago

I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any of this is relevant, but, to recap from a layperson’s understanding, this is a US case against a non-US person residing in a foreign country, and accused of a US conspiracy to commit a crime with a US person who was incidentally pardoned by a US president. GB and AUS both have direct standing and jurisdiction under their own law through NATO, so why is he not being tried this way? My guess is that the US wants nothing to do with this case. The military would be watching proto-Obama crucify Prof after pardoning Chelsea. Side note: I’m pretty sure at this point he wishes he’d not had anything to do with any of this hacking stuff. Being a professional dog-walker in a small village probably sounds great.

gsnedders 6y ago
> The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. For the extradition treaty to apply, it must be alleged that the defendant has committed actions which amount to a criminal offence in both countries. If his alleged actions are not a criminal offence in both countries, then the extradition treaty does not apply. Therefore, you can challenge extradition on dual criminality by arguing that the act is not a crime in one or both countries.
richardwhiuk 6y ago
The US wants to extradite Assange.

nelsonenzo 6y ago

Who would guessed Epstein's suicide would be Assanges saving grace? Not I.

djsumdog 6y ago
The only suicide ever in that prison.

knodi 6y ago

Right ruling for the wrong person. I hope Assange can be brought to justices before he flees to Russia.

gvv 6y ago

I'd 100% donate to support his bail fund.

WhyNotHugo 6y ago

I find the timing for this news extremely amusing. Currently, there's a lot of criticism towards China for arresting journalists investigating controversial topics. OTOH, the US is doing literally the same thing, with little to no backlash.

stevespang 6y ago

J.ORDERS410. I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange,pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003.

motohagiography 6y ago

Can't help but suspect the british security establishment decided it didn't want to extradite him because there was real risk he would be pardoned in the U.S. In their estimation, if they wait just 16 more days (post inauguration), that's no longer a risk, and even if something unprecedented in the U.S. happens, the british govt still has him. Assange humiliated a generation of spies and officials and discredited the institutions they controlled at a key strategic moment, just as they were consolidating a lifetime of work toward their international alignment and control. It's zero sum for them, where if he survives, he's proven right. Historically, Wikileaks (among a few other projects) is how Gen-X unmoored the new establishment of the Boomer generation, and inspired Millennials like Snowden to surge into the breach. It doesn't matter what they do to him now, he won.

kpsnow 6y ago

So aspergers is a get out of jail free card?

djhaskin987 6y ago

I find it interesting that on nearly the last page we see that the defense argued that it was an abuse of power of the courts to deny extradition. I wonder how happy he will be rotting in a UK prison instead of a US one.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

chejazi 6y ago

What is the possibility that the USA was aware of the verdict in advance and perhaps gave it tacit approval?

cormacrelf 6y ago
What? ... What?
- chejazi 6y ago
  The Assange case has been the most political trial in my lifetime. The plaintiff was the United States. It seems possible.

devpbrilius 6y ago

It's hacking case, but it's a corporate espionage related searches.

young_unixer 6y ago

If there's anything to learn from Assange and Snowden: 1. Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level. 2. With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US. 3. Politically vociferous people (the mob) don't give a shit about you unless you're instrumental to support the cause du jour

mhh__ 6y ago
> Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level. That's a fairly weak observation both because liberal democracies still punish criminals and many people do take serious issue with what Assange is and has done - it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews.
- iaw 6y ago
  > it's just not a common thing to say on hackernews. It's a heavily penalized sentiment in this portion of the internet.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
> With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US. When you do things like https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-nsa-targeted-chinas-tsinghua-university-extensive-hacking https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1266892/exclusive-ns..., no propaganda is necessary.
- Talanes 6y ago
  That is horrible. Wasting tax dollars spying on schools.
  - season2episode3 6y ago
    A country’s premier research university seems like a pretty normal espionage target.

Trias11 6y ago

Why didn't he wear a wig during his in-embassy venture and escape? He had plenty of time to plot something like that

dafty4 6y ago

TLDR?

ashtonkem 6y ago

It’s good to see that the inhumane prison system in the US is beginning to become a problem for those who actually implemented it. Regardless how you feel about Assange, and I’m ambivalent about him, the US facing consequences for what we’ve done with our criminal justice system is something to be applauded.

giantg2 6y ago
They do have an appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if they extricate him on appeal. The higher up you go, the more politics get involved in these international incidents (even in the "impartial" courts).
- RachelF 6y ago
  "Impartial" courts are one myth those in the UK still believe in.

andy_ppp 6y ago

Is he out already? Be good to hear it’s going okay... must be feeling very relieved but I would have convinced myself I was ending up in a high-max. Emotional disorientating I’d say.

90red 6y ago

The entire legal system is a fucking kangaroo court joke.