SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1, Disagree) by SomeRandomGeek on Tuesday March 26 2024, @08:21PM (2 children)
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]
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 2024, @09:04PM (1 child)
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 2024, @09:13PM
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.