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: 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.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.