SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Julian Assange's extradition from UK to US approved by home secretary
Priti Patel has approved the extradition of the WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange to the US, a decision the organisation immediately said it would appeal against in the high court.
The case passed to the home secretary last month after the supreme court ruled there were no legal questions over assurances given by US authorities over how Assange was likely to be treated.
While Patel has given a green light, WikiLeaks immediately released a statement to say it would appeal against the decision.
"Today is not the end of fight," it said. "It is only the beginning of a new legal battle. We will appeal through the legal system; the next appeal will be before the high court."
Also at NYT.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @04:32AM (43 children)
His immense ego and hubris have caught up to him.
(Score: 5, Informative) by dalek on Monday June 20 2022, @05:11AM (33 children)
Ego and hubris aren't crimes. What crimes has Assange committed?
He's being extradited for publishing materials that the US didn't want published. But what separates Assange from a journalist reporting on leaked information? I fail to see a substantial difference between Assange releasing documents that were given to him and the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers. Assange didn't break into computer systems to obtain documents. They were given to him, and he helped to sort through the information and publish what he thought was appropriate. The only thing that might be different from what Assange did versus a traditional journalist is that he published the material instead of crafting a story around the documents that were delivered to him.
Journalism is protected by the first amendment. Assange acted as a journalist and his release of documents, however controversial, are protected by the freedom of the press. A person cannot be denied constitutional rights on the basis of ego and hubris.
Accepting a presidential pardon is not an admission of guilt. Biden should do the right thing and immediately pardon Assange. It would not admit any guilt, and I do not believe that Assange is guilty of any actual crimes.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @05:43AM (10 children)
Ah but once he's in the US he's no longer a person, he's an alien without rights isn't he?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Monday June 20 2022, @07:24AM (9 children)
See, that's the difference between a civilized society and a banana republic: In a civilized society, even non-citizens have basic human rights.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @08:06AM
Constitution applies equally to foreigners and citizens. There is no distinction. You should really know that. Having said that, here are the places where they claim parts of it don't apply because ...
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone [aclu.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20 2022, @03:25PM (5 children)
Is First Amendment a basic human right in your book?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @08:58PM (3 children)
Um, yes? In everyone's book, because it is stated in the International Declaration of Human Rights [ohchr.org]:
Nice how they anticipated Net Neutrality way back in 1948.
aristarchus (the one being denied human rights under the IDHR)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 21 2022, @02:41AM (2 children)
Your right to express yourself hasn't been taken away or denied you - you are expressing yourself in the comment I am responding to.
Nowhere in the IDHR or the First Amendment does it give you the right to insist that we publish your expressions. You are free to create your own site and publish whatever you wish, or write to the press, or to use Twitter etc. We are also free to publish whatever we wish.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @06:09AM (1 child)
Expect a case before the European Court of human rights, you brexited bastard! It says right there, . . . oh, you didn't read it, did you? Pretty soon SoylentNews will be left with khallow/Runaway legal interpretations, and the totally unreflective British racism of the Eds. And who, besides Americans, would troll mod the UDHR? Do they not now it was First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt that pushed it through? And nowadays, in collusion with the Brits and the Auzzies, America seeks to undermine the very same, and to get immunity from the International Criminal Court where its war criminals, like Tom Cruz, could be tried.
[BTW, if you knew what measures I have to take to just get an AC post to appear on SoylentNews. Bad posting notices, invalid forms, Cowboys slowing down, the whole circus is quite amusing, and totally ineffective. I imagine that if I was not a Soylentil from the beginning, committed to the Cause, I might be deterred by such trivial measures. But, Freeze Peaches, you Blimey Bag of Bollocks! I will be back. ]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 21 2022, @02:23PM
Yes, I did. But unlike yourself, I also understood it. It doesn't say any medium 'of your choice', but you can use any of those that will permit you to. We simply moderate you. Have you tried WaPo, or BBC News? Think of the coverage you could get from them for your valuable and insightful political views.
I wonder how all those European countries managed to get RT off the air - they must be queuing up to be in the dock before a judge of the International Court for walking all over Putin's human rights?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21 2022, @08:13AM
Not just mine, the international declaration of human rights would say so, too:
Note, though, that it doesn't expect you to have the right to impose your opinion on anyone. You have the right to speak. Nobody has the obligation to listen.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21 2022, @11:02AM (1 child)
Am I the only one who finds the "disagree" mod on this one kinda ... frightening?
Seriously, do people really disagree with the idea that humans should have basic human rights independent of their origin?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @06:26PM
I hate to break it to you, but yes, some do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday June 20 2022, @08:04AM (10 children)
You don't have to like the guy. Not only did he just act as a journalist, he (a) did not perform any of these actions while in the US, and (b) is not a US citizen. What possible basis for prosecution does the US have?
Of course, the US will trump up some charges. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, they will keep in in jail for years, as the process plays out. More likely, they will trump up some charges that they can stick him with. Think "Martha Stewart", if nothing else.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @02:16PM (8 children)
If you hack a bank online from Australia and the US authorities manage to catch you then those charges are all very much legal. There is no difference if that "Bank" happens to be a US intelligence agency.
Now, whether or not Assange actually did that will be decided by a jury. I make no claim one way or the other on that. I'm just pointing out that your legal analysis above is very flawed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Monday June 20 2022, @02:41PM (3 children)
My analysis was simplistic, yes. However, see this lovely summary of applicable law [justice.gov], especially the section on jurisdiction on page 113. The relevant bits from the Patriot Act, which is likely the relevant law applicable here:
Summarized: As I understand this legalese, Assange would have to have (1) accessed a sensitive device in the US (he didn't, Manning did), and (2) stored data in the US (unlikely, but possible - where was his storage located).
AFAIK, the plan of the prosecution is to claim that he helped Manning to steal the documents, by providing technical advice. Unlikely, since Manning simply had to copy documents to which he had access - no hacking necessary.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @02:52PM (1 child)
The allegation is that he did exactly that. Manning did as well but the legal case against Assange is based on his own access to that secured device.
I posted the indictment here, it is alleging he accessed the system directly and without authorization. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @03:53PM
Yikes, the attempt to mod objective reality onto oblivion in this thread is egregious!
Please, mods and posters, actually look at the indictment I have posted before repeating/modding as fact things that have not been established as facts yet.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @05:49PM
Sending data from a US server to an external server doesn't count as "transporting" the data within the jurisdiction of the US?
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20 2022, @03:22PM (3 children)
If you hack GRU of Russia and Russian authorities managed to catch you anywhere in the world regardless of you working or not for the US or any other government...
Come to think about it, if you designed a tool and sold it to the perpetrators...
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @03:39PM (2 children)
Yes, and the opposite is also true. Remember how all those indictments against Russian citizens for illegally interfering in the 2016 election are just meaningless paper?
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20 2022, @03:42PM (1 child)
Well, I am pretty sure Assange will be hard pressed to admit the whole Wikileaks is Russian intelligence operation.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @03:58PM
Literally!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 20 2022, @11:33PM
Except that Martha Stewart actually did some criminal stuff involving breaking securities laws. Julian Assange has, as far as anyone can tell, broken no US law whatsoever.
My understanding is that the theory of prosecution is that he solicited the crime of hacking the Clinton campaign, rather than somebody doing that without his direction and giving him the information to publish. But really, it's just an excuse to get him behind bars any way they can, and his political protection disappeared once he annoyed both powerful Democrats and powerful Republicans.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20 2022, @03:14PM (8 children)
"Journalism is protected by the first amendment."
That implies that Assange is protected by the first amendment. But that's rubbish. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitiuton only applies to those within the borders of the U.S. Foreigners in foreign lands have no such rights or protections against being prosecuted (or persecuted) by the United States government. For precedent I site the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Assange is not an American, and was not within the U.S. when he committed his heinous crimes. The evidence before the court is incontrovertible. There's no need for the jury to retire. In all my years of judging I have never heard before of someone more deserving of the full penalty of law. ...It fills me with the urge to defecate!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @03:41PM (5 children)
They had to define a whole new class of enemy soldier to pull off Guantanamo...
As of now he is just a normal foreigner who committed a crime against a US entity. This is a well established and very common occurrence for countries with extradition treaties.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20 2022, @03:52PM (4 children)
"As of now he is just a normal foreigner who committed a crime against a US entity."
Exactly! Journalism when committed by foreigners in foreign lands may be deemed a crime, and not protected by the 1st amendment. Although, the warning will extend to Americans that such "acts of journalism" will not be tolerated when committed by them either.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @04:01PM (3 children)
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand what he's actually being charged with but here it is directly from the indicment:
Maybt it'll stick, maybe it won't, but he is no longer merely being charged with reporting information he was provided.
(Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20 2022, @06:23PM (2 children)
Yes, those are ostensibly the "official" charges. But those charges only exist to whitewash the true source of animosity that the MIC has for Assange and the reason behind his prosecution, i.e. for exposing the actions and the attitude of American military personnel while they were killing innocent civilians.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @06:39PM (1 child)
It is possible to expose government misdeeds and also commit a crime.
You don't get to say "I'm just a journalist" when you are personally doing the hacking.
It is now up to the DOJ to convince a jury that he personally did the hacking. No shadowy conspiracies required....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @11:33PM
a jury of Windows, ipad and Facebook users...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @09:07PM (1 child)
American's ignorance of their own Constitution is astounding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @08:42PM
Yeah, nowhere in the first amendment does it say it only applies to US citizens. It is a restriction upon the government, whether it wants to go after US citizens or non-citizens.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @11:28PM (1 child)
Dalek Your ego and hubris were your undoing vs. APK on Symbiote. What's always BOUND TO HAPPEN to you is you losing to APK as always He got you yet again https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1254772#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with solid proof he is right hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication. Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either. Orders come from C2 servers!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2022, @12:55AM
apk is loosing again. So sad. Say what you want about MDC, but at least he was an interesting crazy person. apk, not so much.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @02:12PM (8 children)
Trump finally got his man!
A reminder of the timeline:
Obama chooses not to indict Assange due to first Amendment concerns. [theintercept.com]
Trump then tried to SECRETLY indict Assange but hilariously failed at the secret part. [reuters.com]
Then team Trump indicts Assange officially since all those brave free speech warriors decided to DEFEND the secret indictment. [theguardian.com]
So now that there's no magic (R) involved everybody on the right loves Assange again.
So here we are, Trump finally caught his guy!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @02:39PM (7 children)
We don't know that. What we do know is that the indictment was ready the moment that Assange stepped out of the embassy. And that Obama's administration tried to frame [katoikos.world] Assange before.
This interview was in December, 2016 at the tail end of the Obama administration. My take is that if Assange had left the embassy during Obama's term, the US would have found something to extradite him on just like they did now. Notice that nothing has changed even though it's now Biden in charge. This demonstrates the futility of blaming it all on Trump.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @02:54PM (6 children)
Obama's indictment was so secret that we STILL don't know if it exists!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @03:07PM (5 children)
You keep whistling past that graveyard. Indictments routinely are secret - the Trump one was secret, for example, until it was deployed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @03:15PM (4 children)
Correct, which means we now have evidence to present for a claim that Trump wanted to arrest Assange. And now Assange has been arrested based on the orders issued by the Trump admin.
For Obama, your claim is only based on the LACK of evidence. There is no public indictment, you have no evidence for a secret indictment, and he was never arrested. (indictments become unsecret super quick if you use them for their purpose which is to arrest people!)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @03:53PM
Khallow tries so HARD to sound objective and logical, then undoes it all with extreme rightwing propaganda. Annoying having the same arguments over and over just to keep the bullshit in check.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @04:35PM (2 children)
Lack of evidence like an Obama-era FBI mission to Iceland to frame Wikileaks? Yours is an argument from ignorance fallacy even if there really were LACK of evidence.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20 2022, @05:23PM (1 child)
They wouldn't need to frame him if they already had an indictment!
So what you have provided is actually evidence AGAINST the claim there was a secret indictment already in place already for Assange.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @07:28PM
You have it backwards. The frame needs to be in place first before the indictment. Notice also this was during the same time span as the Swedish rape accusations. My take is that they attempted to discredit Wikileaks in 2010 by having Assange accused of rape by Swedish prosecutors. Assange immediately contested the extradition on the grounds that it was prelude to extradition to the US. If the US had then indicted and issued an extradition request at that time, the optics would have looked bad and may have scuttled both extradition requests.
Further, this wasn't a theoretical concern because then US Attorney General Eric Holder had stated [boston.com] (November, 2010):
Incidentally, that announcement came two weeks after the international arrest warrant issued by those Swedish prosecutors.
My take is that the Iceland adventure in 2011 came about (the FBI incidentally is under Holder's control) because the extradition to Sweden took so long. And after Assange sought political asylum with Ecuador, there was no opportunity to deliver said indictment/extradition request until he was kicked out in 2019.
That's the thing that gets missed. Strategically, it made no sense to issue a public indictment at any point during that eight years prior to Assange's department from the Ecuador embassy. Prior to the Swedish rape charge, Assange's reputation was solid enough to endanger an extradition request. Prior to the final resolution of the Swedish extradition request, an indictment would have backfired, confirming Assange's narrative in court. Prior to Assange getting kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy, an indictment would have politically confirmed Assange's narrative of being a political refugee. The US couldn't have revealed an indictment any sooner than they did.
And of course, there's been no change in the US tactics here despite yet another transition to the Biden administration. Sure, if you wish to continue to believe that the Obama administration had some respect for the First Amendment, that's your choice. None of the rest of us need to be that gullible.