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: 3, Insightful) by quietus on Tuesday March 26 2024, @08:35PM (13 children)
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 2024, @09:58PM (12 children)
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 2024, @11:58PM (5 children)
Yes US aren't wussies like USSR.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday March 27 2024, @02:31AM (4 children)
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 2024, @09:49PM (3 children)
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 2024, @11:38PM (2 children)
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 2024, @11:14AM (1 child)
Well you can't know that anymore given how much alt-truth from US there is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 30 2024, @06:34AM
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 2024, @03:02AM (5 children)
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 2024, @03:13AM (4 children)
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.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2024, @03:45AM (3 children)
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 2024, @09:12AM (1 child)
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 2024, @03:18AM
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 2024, @11:43PM
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.