Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday June 20 2022, @04:27AM   Printer-friendly

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20 2022, @02:39PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @02:39PM (#1254611) Journal

    Obama chooses not to indict Assange due to first Amendment concerns.

    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.

    [Interviewer] You are “the minister” who refused to cooperate with the FBI because you suspected their agents on mission in Iceland were trying to frame Julian Assange. Do you confirm this? [Ögmundur Jónasson] Yes. What happened was that in June 2011, US authorities made some approaches to us indicating they had knowledge of hackers wanting to destroy software systems in Iceland. I was a minister at the time. They offered help. I was suspicious, well aware that a helping hand might easily become a manipulating hand!

    Later in the summer, in August, they sent a planeload of FBI agents to Iceland seeking our cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

    Since they had not been authorised by the Icelandic authorities to carry out police work in Iceland and since a crack-down on WikiLeaks was not on my agenda, to say the least, I ordered that all cooperation with them be promptly terminated and I also made it clear that they should cease all activities in Iceland immediately.

    It was also made clear to them that they were to leave the country. They were unable to get permission to operate in Iceland as police agents, but I believe they went to other countries, at least to Denmark. I also made it clear at the time that if I had to take sides with either WikiLeaks or the FBI or CIA, I would have no difficulty in choosing: I would be on the side of WikiLeaks.

    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)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20 2022, @02:54PM (#1254617) Journal

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @03:07PM (#1254622) Journal

      Obama's indictment was so secret that we STILL don't know if it exists!

      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)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20 2022, @03:15PM (#1254625) Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20 2022, @03:53PM (#1254643)

          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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @04:35PM (#1254657) Journal

          For Obama, your claim is only based on the LACK of evidence.

          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)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20 2022, @05:23PM (#1254674) Journal

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20 2022, @07:28PM (#1254710) Journal

              They wouldn't need to frame him if they already had an indictment!

              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):

              The Justice Department will prosecute anyone found to have violated U.S. law in the leaks of classified government documents by online whistleblower WikiLeaks, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday.

              "This is not saber-rattling," said the attorney general, who declared that the Obama administration condemns the leaks.

              Holder said the latest disclosure, involving classified State Department documents, puts at risk the security of the nation, its diplomats, intelligence assets and U.S. relationships with foreign governments.

              "To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law, who put at risk the assets and the people I have described, they will be held responsible; they will be held accountable," Holder said at a news conference on another topic. He called the WikiLeaks probe "an active, ongoing criminal investigation."

              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.