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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2024, @04:00AM (7 children)
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 2024, @10:18AM (6 children)
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 2024, @10:37AM (5 children)
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 2024, @10:46PM (4 children)
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 2024, @12:39AM (2 children)
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 2024, @06:59AM
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 2024, @04:47PM
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 2024, @10:55AM
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...