A UK judge has just announced that Assange cannot be extradited to the USA because his treatment by the US would cause him to be a suicide risk. However, he is not released as the prosecution and the USA may decide to appeal. He remains in Belmarsh prison but the courts still have to decide whether he should be released.
The political arguments were all dismissed by the Judge but her decision is based solely on the treatment he will receive in the USA.
canopic jug writes:
The UK Westminster Magistrates' Court decision is now public, Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange will not be extradited from the UK to the US...
407. The defence complains that the late service of the second superseding indictment has resulted in unfairness in the preparation of its case. Mindful of any potential unfairness flowing from the late service of this amended indictment, on Friday 14 August 2020, I invited the defence to consider applying to adjourn the evidential hearing which was due to commence on 7 September 2020. I gave them the opportunity to consider this invitation over the course of a week but, on 21 August 2020, the defence confirmed that itwould not be seeking to adjourn proceedings. No further applications were made between that date and 7 September 2020.408. In my judgment the appropriate remedy for any unfairness arising from the late indictment would have been to allow the defence sufficient time prepare its case and advance any relevant arguments. That time was offered in August 2020 and declined.409. I reject the defence submissions concerning staying extradition as an abuse of the process of this court.
407. The defence complains that the late service of the second superseding indictment has resulted in unfairness in the preparation of its case. Mindful of any potential unfairness flowing from the late service of this amended indictment, on Friday 14 August 2020, I invited the defence to consider applying to adjourn the evidential hearing which was due to commence on 7 September 2020. I gave them the opportunity to consider this invitation over the course of a week but, on 21 August 2020, the defence confirmed that itwould not be seeking to adjourn proceedings. No further applications were made between that date and 7 September 2020.
408. In my judgment the appropriate remedy for any unfairness arising from the late indictment would have been to allow the defence sufficient time prepare its case and advance any relevant arguments. That time was offered in August 2020 and declined.
409. I reject the defence submissions concerning staying extradition as an abuse of the process of this court.
... unless the decision is appealed by either the outgoing US administration or the incoming one.
"You don't have to go to the US to face execution, but we're going to keep you in prison in case we change our minds."
I suppose the decision has some justification, since Assange hid out in the embassy for years. But it doesn't have any real justification. Either he's guilty, and goes to the US, or he's not guilty, and goes free.
What a hard hearted bitch.
I think the best decision the court could have given was that Assange is being persecuted for political reasons, and that he should go free. Instead, we get some wishy washy bullshit that the US can appeal. And, appeal they will. Establishment Joe isn't going to let things go.
The decision to not release Assange is solely to give time for appeals. As I understand it, if there are no such appeals he has already served all time necessary for crimes for which the UK courts have any jurisdiction and he could be released in a matter of a week or two.
They could be sour about having a police force sit around for so long when he skipped bail. So, just dragging it out a bit to make him squirm. Then again, it's just as likely that the judge doesn't care about any of that and is just doing what she does.
It's just another question which can be solved by following the money. Her husband was a defence minister hand has links to the British military and intelligence establishment. Early in the case there was a lot of discussion of these ties and the importance of her recusing herself from the case. Because she didn't, it suggests that Julian is still in for a longer ride and that he is a long way from getting out from behind bars.
Right, because as a judge she bases her judgement on something her husband did at some random point in the past, and not on applying the law. Silly of me to think that a judge would, you know, be motivated by applying the law rather than being part of some nebulous conspiracy based on her husband's former job.
If you read the ruling it's legally sound, the conditions in a US supermax are too inhumane for Assange to be sent there, in line with many countries refusing to extradite to countries that practice torture (the UN regards US supermaxes as a form of torture). So he'll either need to be given safeguards that the US is unlikely to give, or the UK won't extradite.
That's how corruption works. Either way, there are enough ties that it would have been more appropriate for that particular judge to recuse herself than to go on with the case herself.
Notice in the ruling that she did not take the opportunity to address any of the other aspects she could have. Basically the court took no issue with the US effort to outlaw journalism. Just Julian's current state of bad health, which they have created by putting him in Belmarsh and in solitary++ on top of that. That is just vindictive to put him in with the country's most unstable and violent offenders as an excuse to torture him with solitary and other abuses.
He's being temporarily held for a couple of weeks, as the legal process has not ended w/ the judge's decision. And she didn't make the decision based on probable guilt or legality of the charges. This is the worst part. What she said was that she takes no issue with his claim of guilt and fully believes he will be given an honest trial which will put him in prison.
The reason to deny the request she gave was he looked mentally unstable and the US prison system in her opinion doesn't take care of the jailbirds enough to prevent his possible suicide. While it's a nice Epstein joke, it's not by any means a victory dance. In my personal opinion, it's also pretty easy to appeal that decision because of her given reason. Not good.
IMO, if and when he gets outside of a prison wall, he needs to beat feet somewhere that has no extradition agreements with either the US or the UK. Russia? Huh. I believe Assange has published a few things that has pissed Russia off as well.
There may well be no safe haven for him. The crazy angle may be his only hope!
So quick email to Edward to see if he has a spare room?
perhaps venezuelahttps://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Venezuela-Rejects-Asylum-Removal-and-Arrest-of-Julian-Assange-20190412-0011.html [telesurenglish.net]
i don't think the us is at russia-level yet where we just execute someone in a foreign country while in the world's eye. we only do that inside our country.
Anwar al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org] might disagree with that assessment.
Sandpeople doesn't count.
So Obama killed a US Citizen and his son without a trial, then Trump executed his 8yo daughter. I always had a hunch he was into fucking little brown girls.
and now thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8 [youtube.com]
what were we talking about again? oh yeah, the dems and the republicans execute citizens and their little kids without a trial. here's the issue with getting angry about that. If you're a citizen and you represent an organization blowing up skyscrapers, and you actively train people who do, you are actively engaged in killing of other citizens. At that point, you can be captured alive, or shot in the back to prevent more killings. It's the same reason a cop can shoot you in the back, if after you killed someone you start running away with your gun.
Now as far as the dead kids, they joined a group of literal terrorists, and were killed when we blew up the terrorists. I don't mean "terrorists" like in a label. I mean people with guns who have killed hundreds of people. so again, a case where you don't need a trial. you only get a trial if you turn yourself in, not if you run away to kill more people.
So while Anwar al-Awlaki might disagree, no one's listening. Because we killed him to prevent him from killing more of us.
> oh yeah, the dems and the republicans execute citizens and their little kids without a trial. here's the issue with getting angry about that. If you're a citizen and you represent an organization blowing up skyscrapers, and you actively train people who do, you are actively engaged in killing of other citizens.
Likewise, if you vote democrat or republican you are actively engaged in murder of citizens and their little kids. Agreed, Democrats and Republicans are basically the fifth of the earth, and anyone who has voted for either needs to face some kind of reckoning.
Cute, the trumpers are going full BOTH SIDES now that they're fascist coup failed. Kinda like that video of the "patriot" protest in Oregon where one protester got shot with rubber bullets and now they're all angry at cops who are supposed to be on their side. Haha what fucking morons.
Maybe we should band together and support Reform Party candidates that promise to actually fix election funding and processes like the un-auditable voting machines. After we get that fixed we can resume partisan bickering.
Haha. Most people are neither republicans not democrats, any random person you really to is most likely neither. You are a minority who is tolerated by people who just want to be left alone to live their lives.
"You are a minority who is tolerated by people who just want to be left alone to live their lives."
That would be Trumpers, but don't stretch out that brain it is already too smooth.
You still don't get it. You are on the same side as Trumpers. Unless you are in the majority who doesnt vote or votes third party, which I doubt.
And around half the people who do vote for the fascists (democrats and republicans) really don't care that much. The rabid ones like you are probably 10-20% of the country. A small minority that causes all these problems for everyone else by reelecting fascists every election.
I want to agree with you. But, I don't think you're right. If we are to believe the numbers, about 150 million people actually voted in the 2020 election. That's nearly half of all US residents. Take away prisoners, convicts, expats, mentally incompetent, too young to vote, and you have well over half of adult Americans voting this time around.
People who want to be left alone? Well, the numbers say that well over 2/3 of registered voters are either R or D.
If you were correct that most people just want to be left alone, then we would see a lot more people registered Independent, and voting for issues. That is, I will always vote for a candidate with a passing grade on gun rights issues. I consider other issues important, but second amendment considerations take priority almost all the time. Registered Independent, and want to be left alone - and won't tolerate the assholes who want to confiscate my property.
Well, yeah, it's pretty much alright to kill men and their sons. When you come back and kill off the wives and daughters, then it's a genocide. Ask the Armenians, they're pretty well versed on genocide.
Oh yeah - fuck Wankagain Erdogan.
Or Qassem Soleimani.
The good news is that appeals in the UK take closer to 6 months rather than the 2-4 years they often take in the US.
I think you're missing the next logical step:
If Assange is so at-risk of suicide that he cannot be extradited, that's not going to magically cure itself if he's released (and bail is unlikely given his previous twattery).
If anything, if he's that at-risk, an argument could be made that he should be committed to an institution for his own safety. Courts are perfectly able to order such. And either you're healthy/stable enough to be extradited (i.e. take a plane flight) or you're not. There's little in-between wiggle room.
If Assange and his lawyers aren't careful, he could well end up being "sectioned" into a secure mental health facility.
(And guess what... when he re-emerges... the extradition actions can be brought again...)
There's little in-between wiggle room
There's always in-between wiggle room, except for the people who purposefully want to view the world in black and white.
I said little.
And what wiggle-room is there between "If I'm extradited I might top myself" and "I'm perfectly fine and should be let out of jail without consequence"? Vanishingly small.
There's no way a court is going to release someone who can't stand trial because they're at risk of suicide without some kind of monitoring.
And there's no way they'll accept that such monitoring isn't necessary without also considering that the same person isn't then perfectly fit to stand trial.
Just sheer liability, in the face of intense public scrutiny, for a start.
What he needs is a nice last minute pardon. Will he get one? You decide.
A new "reality" show for trump TV?
There's not enough time for that.
Doesn't Twitter allow users to make and vote in multiple choice polls? Direct democracy FTW.
The extradition hearing is not to decide guilt or innocence. Just to decide if there are grounds to extradite, on the one hand, or not extradite, on the other.
Guilt or innocence is irrelevant, same as it is in most of the US court system, where most people, even if innocent, cop a plea because it costs too much to go to trial.
> Establishment Joe
I guess Swamp Drainer in Chief also failed... sorry, I mean fixed... the broken system
Difference is, Old Moldy Dick Biden has been fucking things up for over fifty years. Little Dick Trump has only been screwing around for 4 years. Did you vote for Moldy?