Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 26, @02:52PM   Printer-friendly

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68662881

The US must provide assurances that Julian Assange will not receive the death penalty if convicted, before a UK court rules on whether he can appeal against his extradition.

The court has adjourned its decision by three weeks to give the US government time to comply.

US authorities say the Wikileaks founder endangered lives by publishing thousands of classified documents.

His lawyers have argued that the case is form of "state retaliation".

In a High Court judgment on Tuesday, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson said that Mr Assange would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds, unless assurances were given by the United States.

These assurances are that the 52-year-old would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment - which protects freedom of speech in the US; that he would not be "prejudiced at trial" due to his nationality; and that he would not face the death penalty if he is convicted.

Judges have given the US authorities three weeks to make those assurances, with a final hearing potentially taking place on 20 May.

"If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing," said Dame Victoria in the court's ruling.

"If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal."

See also: Julian Assange faces further wait over extradition ruling

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
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.
(1)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday March 26, @03:45PM (23 children)

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 26, @03:45PM (#1350428)

    They already wasted his life, and keep at it. Is the death penalty the worst to do to him?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday March 26, @05:39PM (1 child)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Tuesday March 26, @05:39PM (#1350457)

      They don't care about Assange. As you said, he's already had his punishment.

      Assange is a message to anybody who thinks of doing the same thing.

      • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday March 26, @07:52PM

        by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday March 26, @07:52PM (#1350477)

        Indeed. Message received loud and clear.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by quietus on Tuesday March 26, @08:35PM (13 children)

      by quietus (6328) on Tuesday March 26, @08:35PM (#1350485) Journal

      He already did that to himself, didn't he?

      You know, he could have followed the methods of Sakharov and the other USSR dissidents by going for a very public court case, instead of holing himself up in the backroom of an embassy.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Tuesday March 26, @09:58PM (12 children)

        by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday March 26, @09:58PM (#1350495)

        In order for him to seek a very public court case, he'd have to submit to being arrested. At that point, he would've been instantly renditioned to a Black Site that would make Gitmo look like a luxury resort and you would have never heard of him again.

        Multiple senior US government officials (Democrat and Republican) have very seriously talked about having him erased - starting with Hillary Clinton, but including many since then. The US has not yet taken the death penalty off the table - that should tell you that Assange's fears are entirely justifiable.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by loonycyborg on Tuesday March 26, @11:58PM (5 children)

          by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday March 26, @11:58PM (#1350508)

          Yes US aren't wussies like USSR.

          • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday March 27, @02:31AM (4 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday March 27, @02:31AM (#1350521)

            Putin obviously didn't care about the cases that you cited, otherwise the people in question would've fallen out of windows (before, during or after the case).

            • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Wednesday March 27, @09:49PM (3 children)

              by loonycyborg (6905) on Wednesday March 27, @09:49PM (#1350557)

              Yes, that's how US habitually justify their actions by lying that someone else is even worse than them.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 28, @11:38PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 28, @11:38PM (#1350782) Journal

                Yes, that's how US habitually justify their actions by lying that someone else is even worse than them.

                Given that there's Russia and China in the world, not to mention North Korea... mission easily accomplished. My take though is that one probably ought to look for a better class of country and strive to compare to that.

                • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Friday March 29, @11:14AM (1 child)

                  by loonycyborg (6905) on Friday March 29, @11:14AM (#1350833)

                  Well you can't know that anymore given how much alt-truth from US there is.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30, @06:34AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 30, @06:34AM (#1350974) Journal

                    Well you can't know that anymore given how much alt-truth from US there is.

                    Maybe you ought to stop using them as your source of knowledge then. Seems like that would fix your problem.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @03:02AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @03:02AM (#1350524)

          The US has not yet taken the death penalty off the table - that should tell you that Assange's fears are entirely justifiable.

          The problem with your statement is that none of the offenses charged (18usc793 [cornell.edu], 18usc371 [cornell.edu] and 18usc1030 [cornell.edu]) in the indictment [justice.gov] carry the death penalty as a punishment.

          So...wtf are you blathering on about?

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday March 27, @03:13AM (4 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 27, @03:13AM (#1350525) Journal

            You are misunderstanding the issue. Whether the death penalty applies or not, some US politicians have insisted that it should be the appropriate punishment. Therefore the UK is entitled to insist that the USA formally withdraws it because the UK would be in breach of other international treaties if it did not do so.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @03:45AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @03:45AM (#1350527)

              You are misunderstanding the issue. Whether the death penalty applies or not, some US politicians have insisted that it should be the appropriate punishment. Therefore the UK is entitled to insist that the USA formally withdraws it because the UK would be in breach of other international treaties if it did not do so.

              No. I'm not. Since this is a Federal case, the only government officials who can sentence Assange are those in the Federal Judiciary. Our constitution forbids members of one government branch from actively serving in another at the same time.

              And since Federal judges receive lifetime appointments, they are not elected officials or, as you put it, "politicians."

              An elected or appointed official of the Executive Branch cannot direct a sitting judge to do *anything*. Nor can an elected member of the Legislative Branch.

              As such, what some Senator/Congressperson/Cabinet Member says or even demands is irrelevant in a Federal criminal trial.

              AIUI, this is different from how the UK's parliamentary government works, with sitting members of the Legislative Branch acting as members of the Executive at the same time. How that might apply to the UK Judiciary is unclear (perhaps you could enlighten me?).

              I'm not sure what portion of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US applies (I'm sure you're correct that some portion does) in this scenario, but the law is the law and Assange has been accused/charged with specific offenses (see the post to which you replied) that do not carry any punishment greater than ten years in prison.

              And even if "politicians" write and pass new laws that make such offenses punishable by death, then have other politicians sign off on such laws (both houses of the legislature and the president, respectively), such laws may not be enacted retroactively, based on long-standing jurisprudence.

              As such, any "politicians" who might "demand" the death penalty for Mr. Assange are sure to be frustrated in their attempts.

              As for the UK being "entitled to insist that the USA formally withdraws it [I assume you mean the death penalty here, but it's not clear]...", I suppose they are. But since the death penalty is reserved only for specific offenses in the US (personally, I don't support the death penalty for any reason, but that's a different discussion) and those with which Mr. Assange has been charged do not carry that penalty --regardless of what a bunch of blowhards might call for-- Mr. Assange is not at risk of being put to death as a result of being tried for those alleged offenses.

              Which, I'm sure, is exactly what the US State Department will tell the UK Foreign Office -- because they want Assange in the US, and more importantly, because it's true.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @09:12AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @09:12AM (#1350541)

                But since the death penalty is reserved only for specific offenses in the US and those with which Mr. Assange has been charged do not carry that penalty --regardless of what a bunch of blowhards might call for-- Mr. Assange is not at risk of being put to death as a result of being tried for those alleged offenses.

                Ok, you TLA shill. At best they have not yet charged him with any death penalty crimes. Although I seem to remember the Rosenbergs were executed for espionage, one of the "crimes" Assange is charged with.

                • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday March 28, @03:18AM

                  by Mykl (1112) on Thursday March 28, @03:18AM (#1350625)

                  Someone modded this down since I last saw it, but it's very insightful IMHO.

                  The US could absolutely add charges to Assange after he arrives in the country in handcuffs. Those charges could absolutely carry the death penalty. Let's not forget that the US was asking for extradition for years before they put any charges up formally.

                  What's the likelihood that the TLAs would try something shifty like that? The Magic 8-Ball reads "Signs Point to Yes". Even more reason why the UK needs assurances before they hand him over - because they know that the US could and would add extra charges once they have their hands on Assange.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 28, @11:43PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 28, @11:43PM (#1350785) Journal

                As such, what some Senator/Congressperson/Cabinet Member says or even demands is irrelevant in a Federal criminal trial.

                Unless, of course, it's not. For starters, the Biden Administration would be responsible for the prosecution. And congresscritters have influence with the administration. Plus, there's a good chance that Trump will follow Biden in 2025 and he'll want to look tough on crime. The UK wants reassurances. I'm not sure the US is capable of giving those presently.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @02:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @02:35AM (#1350522)

      They already wasted his life, and keep at it. Is the death penalty the worst to do to him?

      He wasted it himself, hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

      Had he not done so, he'd already have (if he'd even been sentenced to prison) served his time and have been back to banging Swedish chicks for years already.

      But all Americans are evil scum and live only to torture and murder everything that's good and just in this world, right?

      Which is why it doesn't matter if it's Obama, Trump or Biden, literally every American wants to kill Assange and smear his innards on the Washington Monument.

      I mean, hell. Look what they did to Chelsea Manning [wikipedia.org]! They disappeared him and forced him to become a woman, then they murdered the abomination and shot her entrails into the crowd at the Super Bowl with a T-Shirt gun, to the excitement and happiness of Americans the world over.

      Please.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Thursday March 28, @10:11AM (5 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Thursday March 28, @10:11AM (#1350653) Homepage

      If he hadn't skipped bail and spent 8 years in hiding pissing off his hosts, he'd have been out LONG ago.

      Literally we are now at the point where what SHOULD have happened is now starting to happen.

      Everything else in-between was literally evasion of UK justice and court orders. We don't really care about the US side - nothing's going to happen to him and we can't release anyone to the US without similar requirements anyway, our law says so - but his time in the embassy / jail (a significant portion of his life now) were because he thumbed his nose at the judiciary and courts. This is literally "finding out" after his initial... you know what.

      And starting NOW exactly what was always going to happen to him is going to happen. Which will involve a trial, possibly a conviction, possibly a prison sentence, then being deported back to Australia and probably never being allowed into another country ever again.

      This is literally no different to someone who was going down for, say, 5 years because of burglary but decided to try to flee skip, go on the run, go into hiding, skip bail, etc. etc. etc. All he's done is added a long jail sentence and years on the run to whatever was going to happen anyway.

      And personally, I think he's done a huge disservice to all genuine whistleblowers the world over - because of him, whistleblowers have seen three people, Manning, Snowden and Assange, all whistleblow SO BADLY that they were imprisoned, exiled, in hiding, held in jail or at the behest of the Russian authorities. Yet Katherine Gun, who did things properly, had no such problems even when whistleblowing on the damn GCHQ, one of the most secretive military organisations in the entire world. If they had whistleblown like she did, and made sure that it was done properly (like almost all actual, real, proper journalists have to day in, day out to avoid the same fates as Assange), they'd all be free men and people would have listened to what they had to say. Instead they've all ruined their entire lives - and potentially killed others - because they wanted the whistleblowing to be about them, and become famous "journalists" because of it, and did not understand how to whistleblow at all.

      Assange is a product of his own creation.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 28, @11:45PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 28, @11:45PM (#1350786) Journal

        If he hadn't skipped bail and spent 8 years in hiding pissing off his hosts, he'd have been out LONG ago.

        This attempted extradition to the US shows Assange's foresight in not doing that. Sorry, I don't buy that he'd be out LONG ago. If he were still alive, he'd still be rotting is my take.

        • (Score: 2) by ledow on Friday March 29, @12:24PM (3 children)

          by ledow (5567) on Friday March 29, @12:24PM (#1350834) Homepage

          "This attempted extradition to the US shows Assange's foresight in not doing that."

          It shows that he thinks he can run away from the US, and instead hid in an allied country with an extradition agreement. He's a twat.

          It also shows no foresight - HE WAS WANTED BY THE US. Otherwise none of this would have happened. You can't leak or even deal in US classified military information (of ANY kind), get caught doing so, and expect not to have to answer to them. It's insane to think so.

          All he's done is imprisoned himself because he was SO TERRIBLE at actually evading the US he thought that he could hide in the UK and then also thumb his nose at UK courts and skip UK court bail and hide out in a UK-based embassy.

          If he had half a brain and seriously thought he was at risk of death or lifetime imprisonment, he'd literally have been better hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. Like the world hide-and-seek-from-the-US champion did for, what? 10+ years?

          Instead he wanted publicity. He got it. And he's paying the price for it.

          People with a genuine fear for their life or of lifelong "unjust" imprisonment in the US that they want to evade don't preach from balconies in London.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30, @06:36AM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 30, @06:36AM (#1350975) Journal

            It shows that he thinks he can run away from the US, and instead hid in an allied country with an extradition agreement.

            Extradition occurs under rules. It has to be a crime in the allied country and not break any laws in that country as well. This bit about the death penalty is actually part of those restrictions.

            Instead he wanted publicity. He got it. And he's paying the price for it.

            People with a genuine fear for their life or of lifelong "unjust" imprisonment in the US that they want to evade don't preach from balconies in London.

            Unless perhaps they have something more important to them than their life at stake.

            • (Score: 2) by ledow on Monday April 01, @11:04PM (1 child)

              by ledow (5567) on Monday April 01, @11:04PM (#1351256) Homepage

              And everything he's accused of is illegal in the UK too.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 02, @12:34AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 02, @12:34AM (#1351272) Journal

                And everything he's accused of is illegal in the UK too.

                Hence why extradition is possible in the first place.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @04:07PM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @04:07PM (#1350432)

    Assange is a political prisoner

    And Wikileaks.. what's up with them? What are they doing to expose the corruption of this case? Why do they have no effect? All the same psychopaths are still in charge, none of them are in jail for their crimes against humanity.. Seems that Wikileaks is kind of toothless, or it reflects that we are just as corrupt as the psychos we reelect

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @04:38PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @04:38PM (#1350445)

      I partially agree, but we don't elect CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, FCC, SEC, justice dept., police, etc. Stupid Congress gives them far too much latitude and they pretty much do as they please. The very wrongest people are in power in those agencies.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @04:47PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @04:47PM (#1350446)

        "Stupid Congress" = Stupid voters. If you don't believe me, look at the reelection rates, holding steady at 95%. That's not anybody's fault but our own.

        All those agencies have the power that we give them through congress

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @05:35PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @05:35PM (#1350455)

          Yeah, great, new ideas, new people who don't really understand how huge and complex government is. (that was sarcasm)

          What I think would hugely help: very frequent voting, many times a year. Just like any job, you get performance reviews, and maybe fired and replaced. It might be messy for a while, but medium to long-term I think society would greatly improve.

          In 1780 we couldn't easily vote so frequently. Now, if we can clean up all the problems with voting, security, fraud, etc., we could do it frequently.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @02:40AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @02:40AM (#1350523)

            if we can clean up all the problems with voting, security, fraud, etc.,

            What problems might those be, friend? And please, be specific. And cite actual issues that changed the outcome of elections so we know what you're *specifically* going on about.

        • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday March 26, @05:45PM

          by aafcac (17646) on Tuesday March 26, @05:45PM (#1350458)

          The problem is that they've been interfering in elections for decades. Not to mention all the times where they create criminal conspiracies in order to rationalize their overreaching. So often, the end reality is that the FBI had to provide the plans, connections and supplies in order to have somebody to bust. If they're having to provide all of that, then in what sense did they stop anything? They literally provided basically everything except for a handful of angry nutters. Nutters that lacked any of the necessary things to actually do anything other than be upset.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday March 26, @04:57PM (3 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday March 26, @04:57PM (#1350448)

        So I remember some of the history here.

        Back when Wikileaks was making the Bush administration look bad, the Democrats were largely cheering while the Republicans were largely calling for Assange's head on a platter, and shortly after that came the sexual misconduct accusations (with the absolute demand that he be physically in custody in Sweden with no assurances at all that he wouldn't be turned over to the US immediately after questioning) that put him on the run in the UK and then to the Ecuador embassy in London. Then in 2016, Wikileaks made Hillary Clinton look bad too, and suddenly the Democrats were also calling for Assange's scalp, and that's about the point where efforts started being made to force him out of the Ecuador embassy and into prison. And there he's been, for years since, all without trial.

        He absolutely could make the argument that he's a political prisoner, and has been now for approximately 15 years, all for publishing information inconvenient to politicians, something that's supposed to be legal in a free country.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday March 26, @05:48PM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday March 26, @05:48PM (#1350459)

          > for publishing information inconvenient to politicians

          No, for publishing information inconvenient to TLAs.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by quietus on Tuesday March 26, @09:17PM (1 child)

          by quietus (6328) on Tuesday March 26, @09:17PM (#1350492) Journal

          I also remember some history, from that same period.

          Katharine Gun leaked a secret memo in which the NSA requested the UK's aid in bugging the United Nations' offices of a number of nations. She didn't hide in a corner, and look what happened to her [wikipedia.org]

          . Odd, eh?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 29, @10:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 29, @10:56PM (#1350930)

            There's a difference.

            She was a one-time leak and she'll never do it again. Prosecuting any case against her would have either been empty of evidence or exposed a lot of info they didn't want to expose.

            Assange set up wikileaks, which is an ongoing irritation to all the shady shits out there. Regardless of what he is charged with, his real death penalty crime is the on-going publishing of their dirty little secrets.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday March 26, @05:55PM (3 children)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Tuesday March 26, @05:55PM (#1350460)

      Wikileaks is kind of toothless

      Revealing the truth only has an effect if people are outraged by the truth and demand justice and change.

      But nobody is outraged anymore: there has been such an onslaught of injustive and dystopia in the past 2 decades that most people have just given up. All you get when you reveal to people the staggeringly amoral and anticonstitutional things their government, the TLAs and the military do with their tax money is apathy.

      Nobody cares anymore. Or rather, they would care if they didn't feel crushed by the sheer about of it. People rightfully feel steamrolled and they just don't fight anymore.

      Case in point: remember Watergate? Nixon lost his seat over this. It was a huge scandal. Watergate wouldn't even be a minor news item on page 3 of your local newspaper in 2024: nowadays, a former president who's being sued for tax evasion, sex scandal and attempting a coup is running for a second term and nobody bats an eyelid. Can you imagine this in 1974? I was there back then, and I can tell you, the streets would have erupted in demonstrations across the country for months.

      So yeah, Wikileaks is toothless because whatever is has to reveal is pretty much ignored by everybody.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @08:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @08:00PM (#1350481)

        Nixon lost his seat over this.

        Ultimately replaced by Reagan, an administration full of scandals, nothing but feigned outrage there. So here we are, going from bad to worse, ever since Kennedy died. Nothing really has changed except we don't try to hide it anymore, kinda difficult with this internet thingy.

        Oh, and nobody was outraged during Chile's 9/11, done by the CIA, widely known even at the time. What became of the Church Committee in '75? Nothing, some name changes. Iran/Contra? Meh...

        There's more to Watergate than just a silly break-in, could have been a cover for his treason back in '68 [historynewsnetwork.org]

        Wikileaks is toothless, so were the Pentagon Papers, neither upset the apple cart, just a lot of noise

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by quietus on Tuesday March 26, @09:04PM (1 child)

        by quietus (6328) on Tuesday March 26, @09:04PM (#1350488) Journal

        Disagree. Wikileaks is toothless because it is pointless.

        It is pointless, because the real problems are out there in the open, instead of hidden away in "secrets".

        Take that high-watermark of Wikileaks-reveal: an Apache helicopter "lighting up" some people in a street in Bagdad, because they felt like it. A few dudes in killer machines, high on Hollywood war hero propaganda, wasn't the problem with the whole Iraq invasion.

        The problem with the Iraq invasion was that their was no valid reason for the invasion in the first place, and secondly, even if the Iraqis would have welcomed the US military with flowers and sweets, that their wasn't a damn plan at all about what to do once the glorious camera-victory was won: nothing about how they were going to deal with the infrastructure rebuild, the food supply, public services and the officials who had manned these. Nothing at all.

        You wouldn't know that when you read the quality newspapers, ofcourse: they were too busy whipping themselves into outrage about the Wikileaks "revelations". In the meantime, US Congressman Henry S. Waxman was bringing these issues to the fore through the House Budget and Oversight Committee, but he couldn't get more than a few alinea's in the New York Times, 3 or 4 days after the Hearing -- and only in reaction to the colleagues of the UK's Financial Times reporting about it.

        Wikileaks was nothing more than a convenient and entertaining distraction, which quite possibly made life even more miserable for Iraqis, and the rest of the world.

        • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Tuesday March 26, @11:37PM

          by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday March 26, @11:37PM (#1350505)

          It wasn't pointless. All US war exist to give it some sort of advantage be it in global trade or just to remind everyone they still could kick ass despite Vietnam. Many people in US itself wouldn't agree with this but it isn't most important issue on elections.

    • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday March 26, @07:59PM (1 child)

      by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday March 26, @07:59PM (#1350480)

      why haven't they had any consequential effect? Well, that is how real power works. people aren't so much elected by the democratic mob as they are groomed for positions of power that are horse-traded by our international elites. no one is getting close to the levers of power that isn't fully bought and paid for. If you would like to effect real change in the world, makes lots of money. see what happens. see who comes around to visit.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @08:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @08:10PM (#1350482)

        people aren't so much elected by the democratic mob

        Sure they are, it's right there is the count, you're not saying the elections are fraudulent, are you? Nobody, no matter how rich, can win the seat without winning the election by the "democrat mob". They are the ones attracted to the money.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Username on Tuesday March 26, @04:56PM (14 children)

    by Username (4557) on Tuesday March 26, @04:56PM (#1350447)

    I still don't understand how they can charge him with crimes when he never signed any nondisclosure or is even a US citizen. How can this be treason or espionage etc when the guy doesn't even live here, or has ever been here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @05:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 26, @05:31PM (#1350454)

      Crimes and evidence of crimes cannot be classified. So technically, the assertions of loss of classified material is a lie.

      The assertion that the releases "put lives at risk" has been debunked repeatedly but the press still parrots it to this day.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by loonycyborg on Tuesday March 26, @07:28PM

      by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday March 26, @07:28PM (#1350474)

      I still don't understand how UK can consider an extradition in the first place. Espionage against a country is only a crime in the very same country. If it wasn't so then UK would have to extradite own intelligence workers upon request if they participated in any ops against an other country's interests.

    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by SomeRandomGeek on Tuesday March 26, @08:21PM (2 children)

      by SomeRandomGeek (856) on Tuesday March 26, @08:21PM (#1350483)

      I still don't understand how they can charge him with crimes when he never signed any nondisclosure or is even a US citizen. How can this be treason or espionage etc when the guy doesn't even live here, or has ever been here.

      There are two parts to your question.
      1. How can he be charged with espionage when he has not agreed to keep american secrets?
      2. How does the US have jurisdiction over a non-US citizen?
      In answer to the first question: While it is true that people with access to classified information have to agreed not to share it in unauthorized ways, that is not what makes it classified. The material is classified, and sharing it is a crime, unless you have permission to do so. I would compare it to murder. There is no murder defense "I never agreed not to go around killing people, therefore it's not a crime when I do."
      In answer to the second question:
      Here's an overview of jurisdiction: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/procedures-personal-and-subject-matter-jurisdiction/#:~:text=These%20two%20types%20of%20jurisdiction,authority%20to%20hear%20that%20lawsuit. [nationalaglawcenter.org]

      A court must have both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction over all the parties to a lawsuit, or the court will not have the authority to hear that lawsuit.
      ...
      A court will always have personal jurisdiction over parties who live in the state where the court is located. However, there are several ways that courts can gain personal jurisdiction over people who do not live in the same state as the court. Most states have what is known as a “long-arm” statute that allows state courts to gain personal jurisdiction over non-residents if that non-resident has had at least “minimum contact” with the state. The United States Supreme Court has held that the “minimum contact” requirement will be satisfied if the activity that is the basis of the lawsuit took place in the state where the court is located.

      TL;DR: It wouldn't be much of an espionage act if it didn't apply to foreign spies.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Tuesday March 26, @09:04PM (1 child)

        by loonycyborg (6905) on Tuesday March 26, @09:04PM (#1350487)

        State in your quotes means internal subdivision of US, and not state as a country. Although murder remains a murder in pretty much all countries, this doesn't apply to state secrets. What's a state secret in one country isn't a state secret in another. And main property of extradition is that it's done only in response to an act that is a crime in both countries involved.

        • (Score: 2) by SomeRandomGeek on Tuesday March 26, @09:13PM

          by SomeRandomGeek (856) on Tuesday March 26, @09:13PM (#1350490)

          Yeah, yeah. If you google US jurisdiction the first 100 entries are all going to be about federal vs. state jurisdiction. The quote that I used summarizes the legal principles involved well enough.
          I was not speaking to the question of extradition. I have no idea what the UK requires for extradition. I was speaking to the question of why the US has jurisdiction under US law.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday March 26, @09:06PM (8 children)

      by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday March 26, @09:06PM (#1350489)

      The US needed laws to be able to go after people planning and/or funding terrorist attacks overseas and the UK accepted those laws into the extradition treaties post 9/11. It's sorta similar to international wire-fraud or hacking, only with a death penalty.

      --
      compiling...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @04:00AM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @04:00AM (#1350530)

        The US needed laws to be able to go after people planning and/or funding terrorist attacks overseas and the UK accepted those laws into the extradition treaties post 9/11. It's sorta similar to international wire-fraud or hacking, only with a death penalty.

        And which of those laws applies here? Seriously. Name the law. Here, I'll help you out. This [justice.gov] is the document alleging that Assange committed specific crimes.

        Those crimes are infractions of (see the above indictment) the following laws:

        USC Part 18 Section 371 (enacted in 1909)
        USC Part 18 Section 793 (enacted in 1950)
        USC Part 18 section 1030 (enacted in 1986)

        So, barring time travel for the purpose of enacting legislation, how exactly were these laws passed to " be able to go after people planning and/or funding terrorist attacks overseas" after 9/11? Which was in 2001 in case you were confused about that.

        I'd also note that none of the above laws include the death penalty. The most serious punishment is ten years in prison.

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by RamiK on Wednesday March 27, @10:18AM (6 children)

          by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday March 27, @10:18AM (#1350546)

          barring time travel

          It wasn't new crimes but new laws and treaties (the UK extradition treaty is from 2003 and ratified 2007 [service.gov.uk]) to allow expanding the jurisdiction and extradition under those laws. The framework is covered here: https://www.jurist.org/features/2024/02/22/the-legal-framework-of-extradition-and-the-case-of-julian-assange/ [jurist.org]

          Btw, yesterday's judgement covers most of this with proper formatting and is a true (searchable) pdf: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Assange-v-USA-Judgment.pdf [judiciary.uk]

          Page 14 names the charges:
          1. Conspiracy to Obtain, Receive, and Disclose National Defense Information, contrary to Title 18, USC section 793(g)
          2. Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion contrary to Title 18 USC section 371
          3-18. (attempt in one charge) Unauthorised Obtaining of National Defense Information contrary to Title 18, USC section 793(b)

          I believe the charges are technically strong but principally (intent of the law) weak since, while Assange is said to have instructed Manning to leak as opposed to being a passive recipient of the leak, his intent and actions where clearly to report the news and uncover crimes rather than harm the US which means he acted as the free press.

          The issue is that these things need to be on a case-by-case basis since there's quite a lot of instances where state agents, unaffiliated individuals or even employees of news networks (holding journalist credentials and everything) are deliberately giving away troop positions, adjusting artillery by reporting drop locations, hack, dox etc... on public streams and TV to try and pass off as journalists.

          So, the UK court basically addresses that by requiring the US to assure Assange would be able to stand before a judge and argue his case as acting as a journalist and reported the news and that he wouldn't face the death penalty per UK and international laws that supersede the extradition treaty.

          --
          compiling...
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Wednesday March 27, @10:37AM (5 children)

            by RamiK (1813) on Wednesday March 27, @10:37AM (#1350548)

            p.s. the issue with the death penalty bit is that, once Assange is under US custody, the US can charge him with espionage and the UK can't say "give him back so we'll do a new extradition trial". And to be clear, that's exactly what they tried to do when they falsely charged him with rape last time: They deliberately presented it as an "easy" extradition case so once they have him they'll drop the rape charges and recharge him with espionage.

            --
            compiling...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @10:46PM (4 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27, @10:46PM (#1350578)

              Right. Which is why we (the US) wants him.

              Look what we did to Bradley Manning? We *literally* castrated him and then publicly executed him. Then, we dragged his mutilated corpse around the US behind an army Humvee, then stuck his head on a a pike in the National Mall in Washington, DC as a warning to others.

              Oh, wait.

              See I can make shit up too.

              • (Score: 2) by evilcam on Thursday March 28, @12:39AM (2 children)

                by evilcam (3239) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 28, @12:39AM (#1350610)

                I know this will probably get down-modded, but her name is Chelsea Manning.
                Deadnaming should be avoided and research indicates that microagressions such as this are harmful [doi.org] to the wider community.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 28, @06:59AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 28, @06:59AM (#1350643)

                  That's the point of satire. To go way over the line. Do you *really* think dead-naming someone is worse than castrating them, dragging their dead body behind a Humvee and sticking their head on a pike on the National Mall?

                  Just to make myself completely clear here, you've apparently been smacked in the head with Poe's Law [wikipedia.org].

                  Geez Louise!

                • (Score: 2) by Username on Friday March 29, @04:47PM

                  by Username (4557) on Friday March 29, @04:47PM (#1350879)

                  Chelsea manning was never charged with a crime and no one knows who they are. Bradley manning is a widely known trator. Cannot let people escape their crimes by pretending to be someone else.

              • (Score: 1, Redundant) by RamiK on Thursday March 28, @10:55AM

                by RamiK (1813) on Thursday March 28, @10:55AM (#1350658)

                Between how Huawei's CFO Meng Wanzhou arrest and extradition imploded* and the lengths Mike Pompeo went about to try and justify assassinating Assange [wikipedia.org], I think it's pretty clear the US is perpetually one elections away from voting in people who just don't give a damn about justice or the laws and there's little to no executive, judicial or congressional effective oversight for their actions.

                Look, anything colored "national security" in the US isn't going to be perfectly legal. You have secret courts rubber stumping anything from surveillance to assassinations over the phone. You have academics and business men falsely charged since they happen to work in the wrong field/industry. You have quick fix special laws to handle one company or the next where a proper regulatory action should have been in place. Behind most of these there's legitimate calls for actions causes that end up as legal clusterfucks means that, on a case-by-case basis, just don't justify themselves. Assange's case is a particularly thorny mess involving war crimes and a documented history of "creative" prosecutor conduct that leaves real concerns on whether he'll get a fair trial. The UK court is simply asking for simple assurances to cover their own ass on this matter. It's only a matter of weeks before the due date for the US response so we'll know for sure soon.

                * Still waiting for someone to come forward with evidence showing Huawei was involved in espionage...

                --
                compiling...
(1)