Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
105.4 said:
AJL308 said:
Nope, it's crap news.
Notable from the article that the only thing preventing his extradition is apparently his mental health. The court said quite clearly that other than that (which is arguably largely self inflicted) that his extradition would be entirely right and proper.
I’m hoping this won’t turn into a but fight, but I view the law in two different ways. One way which is legal, and another which is morally correct. What is morally correct isn’t always legal, and what is legal isn’t always morally correct.Notable from the article that the only thing preventing his extradition is apparently his mental health. The court said quite clearly that other than that (which is arguably largely self inflicted) that his extradition would be entirely right and proper.
IMO, Assanges extradition wasn’t morally correct. IMO it was likely to be very much politically motivated.
Whether you or I or anyone else thinks that Assange is a bit of a dick is besides the point. Whistleblowers should always have a safe forum on which to highlight the wrong doings of those in power.
I fully expect to get utterly flamed by many on here for this belief, but that won’t change my mind about this.
I don't disagree that his attempted extradition is partly "politically" motivated. That's not the same as extraditing someone purely because your purpose is to get someone who disagrees with the current regime though. The prime reason for his extradition is because he was disseminating classified documents and helping and encouraging others to obtain them for him. If capturing and prosecuting a person who does that is a politically important issue for the country in question then I see no moral problem with that at all.
Even if he was running a legitimate whistle blowing service then that isn't simply an excuse to publish everything that comes your way. We all know that the Americans (and other countries) do some s
tty things in war. This is no great surprise. It still doesn't mean you automatically have to publish it, especially when you have done absolutely sod all risk assessment of the effects of publication, which he didn't. It certainly doesn't mean that you just dump tens of thousands of pages of classified information when you clearly have no idea what's in them because you obviously haven't read them all! It is a fair certainty that people have died because of what Julian Assange has published. Getting more people killed because you don't like the fact that the Americans shot the wrong people some years back is reprehensible. Ultimately the Yanks want him for matters relating to espionage. I see no moral issue with that at all and there is no moral problem with extraditing someone for that. The fact that he's a dick (which he clearly is and he has clearly had some sort of narcissistic messiah complex for years) is really beside the point.
Breadvan72 said:
vaud said:
Will all those who complained here and elsewhere that the hearing was biased and the Judge corrupt now sing a different tune?Saw this from another forum, it makes a sort of sense, like a consolation prize.
--
Initially I was disappointed that the extradition request was denied, but then I reflected a little. It’s not a terrible result, for the following reasons:
a) it’s emerged that he would likely have only copped a 4-6 year sentence, so the 8 years he’s been out of circulation have something of a bonus element to them.
b) the judge made it clear that none of his arguments held water, what he did went beyond legitimate journalism into criminality. His release thus sets no precedent in that regard. He *would* have been extradited if the judge had determined that he had sufficient balls to deal with a trial, conviction and sentence. In the event, the judge effectively determined that he would likely take the easy way out and top himself.
c) He has inflicted severe reputational damage upon himself. He’s not trustworthy (under no circumstances should one stand bail for him), lacking in personal hygiene, unwilling to take responsibility for his actions and mentally weak. And a convict.
d) the US government may still appeal - the only real sticking point is that the judge was not persuaded that the regime under which he would be held wasn’t robust enough to prevent his suicide. If the USG can remedy that, then perhaps he will after all be extradited. I doubt it though, the judge (or appeal judge) would have to reverse the “I order his discharge” statement.
e) none of this UK case has any bearing on the outstanding charges against him, he remains a wanted suspect on serious charges. Allied with the criminal conviction for failing to answer bail, travel will be difficult for him, as will finding traditional employment.
f) I would bet my mortgage that his every electronic move will be under the eye of the not-so-small resources of US Cyber Command. This would include the NSA, DIA and elements of the FBI and CIA.
Not a terrible result.
--
--
Initially I was disappointed that the extradition request was denied, but then I reflected a little. It’s not a terrible result, for the following reasons:
a) it’s emerged that he would likely have only copped a 4-6 year sentence, so the 8 years he’s been out of circulation have something of a bonus element to them.
b) the judge made it clear that none of his arguments held water, what he did went beyond legitimate journalism into criminality. His release thus sets no precedent in that regard. He *would* have been extradited if the judge had determined that he had sufficient balls to deal with a trial, conviction and sentence. In the event, the judge effectively determined that he would likely take the easy way out and top himself.
c) He has inflicted severe reputational damage upon himself. He’s not trustworthy (under no circumstances should one stand bail for him), lacking in personal hygiene, unwilling to take responsibility for his actions and mentally weak. And a convict.
d) the US government may still appeal - the only real sticking point is that the judge was not persuaded that the regime under which he would be held wasn’t robust enough to prevent his suicide. If the USG can remedy that, then perhaps he will after all be extradited. I doubt it though, the judge (or appeal judge) would have to reverse the “I order his discharge” statement.
e) none of this UK case has any bearing on the outstanding charges against him, he remains a wanted suspect on serious charges. Allied with the criminal conviction for failing to answer bail, travel will be difficult for him, as will finding traditional employment.
f) I would bet my mortgage that his every electronic move will be under the eye of the not-so-small resources of US Cyber Command. This would include the NSA, DIA and elements of the FBI and CIA.
Not a terrible result.
--
1. I regard Assange as a slimeball, and do not accept that he is a responsible or principled whistleblower, but
2. I am glad that the independence and fairness of the British court system has been demonstrated by all of the cases involving him here.
3. If the US can persuade the High Court or SCUK that Assange's safety can be guaranteed in a US jail, off he goes, but the US may struggle on that.
2. I am glad that the independence and fairness of the British court system has been demonstrated by all of the cases involving him here.
3. If the US can persuade the High Court or SCUK that Assange's safety can be guaranteed in a US jail, off he goes, but the US may struggle on that.
If anyone still thinks that Assange is a "journalist" this para from the judgement demonstrates pretty firmly that you are wrong;
132. To illustrate this point, in stark contrast to Mr. Assange’s final, indiscriminate disclosure
of all of the data, newspapers who had worked with him from both sides of the Atlantic
condemned his decision. These traditional news media outlets contrasted their own
careful editorial decisions not to publish these names, with what they describe as a “data
dump” carried out by Mr. Assange. The Guardian published the following report on 2
September 2011 (put in evidence to both Professor Feldstein and Mr. Timm):
“WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables without redactions,
potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their
lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners, the
Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde who have worked with WikiLeaks
publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.” …. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to
publish the unredacted State Department cables which may put sources at risk, the organisations said in
a joint statement. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were with a clear basis that we would only
publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint edited and clearance process. We will
continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless
publication of the complete data. Indeed, we are united in condemning it.”
That's the Guardian saying in no uncertain terms that he is not a journalist.
132. To illustrate this point, in stark contrast to Mr. Assange’s final, indiscriminate disclosure
of all of the data, newspapers who had worked with him from both sides of the Atlantic
condemned his decision. These traditional news media outlets contrasted their own
careful editorial decisions not to publish these names, with what they describe as a “data
dump” carried out by Mr. Assange. The Guardian published the following report on 2
September 2011 (put in evidence to both Professor Feldstein and Mr. Timm):
“WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables without redactions,
potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their
lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners, the
Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde who have worked with WikiLeaks
publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.” …. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to
publish the unredacted State Department cables which may put sources at risk, the organisations said in
a joint statement. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were with a clear basis that we would only
publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint edited and clearance process. We will
continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless
publication of the complete data. Indeed, we are united in condemning it.”
That's the Guardian saying in no uncertain terms that he is not a journalist.
AJL308 said:
If anyone still thinks that Assange is a "journalist" this para from the judgement demonstrates pretty firmly that you are wrong;
132. To illustrate this point, in stark contrast to Mr. Assange’s final, indiscriminate disclosure
of all of the data, newspapers who had worked with him from both sides of the Atlantic
condemned his decision. These traditional news media outlets contrasted their own
careful editorial decisions not to publish these names, with what they describe as a “data
dump” carried out by Mr. Assange. The Guardian published the following report on 2
September 2011 (put in evidence to both Professor Feldstein and Mr. Timm):
“WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables without redactions,
potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their
lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners, the
Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde who have worked with WikiLeaks
publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.” …. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to
publish the unredacted State Department cables which may put sources at risk, the organisations said in
a joint statement. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were with a clear basis that we would only
publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint edited and clearance process. We will
continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless
publication of the complete data. Indeed, we are united in condemning it.”
That's the Guardian saying in no uncertain terms that he is not a journalist.
Where does it say that? It's simply saying that his action was irresponsible, and beyond what The Guardian had agreed.132. To illustrate this point, in stark contrast to Mr. Assange’s final, indiscriminate disclosure
of all of the data, newspapers who had worked with him from both sides of the Atlantic
condemned his decision. These traditional news media outlets contrasted their own
careful editorial decisions not to publish these names, with what they describe as a “data
dump” carried out by Mr. Assange. The Guardian published the following report on 2
September 2011 (put in evidence to both Professor Feldstein and Mr. Timm):
“WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables without redactions,
potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their
lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners, the
Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde who have worked with WikiLeaks
publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.” …. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to
publish the unredacted State Department cables which may put sources at risk, the organisations said in
a joint statement. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were with a clear basis that we would only
publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint edited and clearance process. We will
continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless
publication of the complete data. Indeed, we are united in condemning it.”
That's the Guardian saying in no uncertain terms that he is not a journalist.
There have been - and will forever be - irresponsible journalists. FWIW, there are also many thousands of responsible journalists who cut-n-paste press releases and full-time to collect a pay cheque.
Breadvan72 said:
You answer your own question: "In this country". Assange is safe in Belmarsh. His safety is in question in US custody, says the Judge.
Yet there have been 4 suicides at Belmarsh alone within the last year or so. It seems odd that the US system is considered more dangerous than that in this country.Judgement has the whiff of a fudged result to me. I suspect some reticence in handing him over to the Americans as there is a real risk he would be treated badly but on the other hand accepting any of his legal arguments would set a precedent. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?
Escapegoat said:
AJL308 said:
If anyone still thinks that Assange is a "journalist" this para from the judgement demonstrates pretty firmly that you are wrong;
132. To illustrate this point, in stark contrast to Mr. Assange’s final, indiscriminate disclosure
of all of the data, newspapers who had worked with him from both sides of the Atlantic
condemned his decision. These traditional news media outlets contrasted their own
careful editorial decisions not to publish these names, with what they describe as a “data
dump” carried out by Mr. Assange. The Guardian published the following report on 2
September 2011 (put in evidence to both Professor Feldstein and Mr. Timm):
“WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables without redactions,
potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their
lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners, the
Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde who have worked with WikiLeaks
publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.” …. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to
publish the unredacted State Department cables which may put sources at risk, the organisations said in
a joint statement. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were with a clear basis that we would only
publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint edited and clearance process. We will
continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless
publication of the complete data. Indeed, we are united in condemning it.”
That's the Guardian saying in no uncertain terms that he is not a journalist.
Where does it say that? It's simply saying that his action was irresponsible, and beyond what The Guardian had agreed.132. To illustrate this point, in stark contrast to Mr. Assange’s final, indiscriminate disclosure
of all of the data, newspapers who had worked with him from both sides of the Atlantic
condemned his decision. These traditional news media outlets contrasted their own
careful editorial decisions not to publish these names, with what they describe as a “data
dump” carried out by Mr. Assange. The Guardian published the following report on 2
September 2011 (put in evidence to both Professor Feldstein and Mr. Timm):
“WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables without redactions,
potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their
lives in danger. The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners, the
Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde who have worked with WikiLeaks
publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.” …. “We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to
publish the unredacted State Department cables which may put sources at risk, the organisations said in
a joint statement. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were with a clear basis that we would only
publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint edited and clearance process. We will
continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless
publication of the complete data. Indeed, we are united in condemning it.”
That's the Guardian saying in no uncertain terms that he is not a journalist.
There have been - and will forever be - irresponsible journalists. FWIW, there are also many thousands of responsible journalists who cut-n-paste press releases and full-time to collect a pay cheque.
There was zero reasonable journalistic call for doing this. None. The Guardian is clearly saying, in so many words, that he is not a journalist due to his despicable behaviour. This was not a "mistake" made by a journalist acting in good faith for the public good. It was nothing more than Julian Assange's ego because the papers he was working with refused to dance to his tune. He did it because he could and because it added to his irrational belief that he's infallible and more important than anyone else, especially those who's lives he has endangered. It was a fit of pique. No professional journalist with the slightest idea of what investigative journalism actually is would have done what he did.
He's an egotist with a severe personality disorder, not a journalist.
Bonefish Blues said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're in too low a court to be talking about creating precedent, aren't we?
That is correct. But deciding that the case was made out but defeated by medical concerns avoids handing the High Court an argument about the first bit. I assume however that the Judge made a conscientious decision on the evidence. Principle and pragmatism need not be mutually exclusive.
Assange does appear to be an odious little tt but I have a suspicion he is not that important in the grand scheme of tbings. If the US wanted to harm him he would be dead already the fact is they want a bit of a spectacle and trial. Far as I am aware Chelsea Handler has already been released and is living her life as she wants. Assange would be free now also instead he is an unwashed mental in prison...not exactly living the high life.
t but I have a suspicion he is not that important in the grand scheme of tbings. If the US wanted to harm him he would be dead already the fact is they want a bit of a spectacle and trial. Far as I am aware Chelsea Handler has already been released and is living her life as she wants. Assange would be free now also instead he is an unwashed mental in prison...not exactly living the high life.XCP said:
People who are suicide risks are jailed every day in this country. What is so different about Assange?
I found myself asking that. The Court said that he's a suicide risk if extradited. When rendering its judgement the Court went to great lengths to demonstrate that what he has been accused of has comparisons in English law - basically what he is accused of by the USA would also be an offence here. It found that the crimes he is accused of by the USA have comparisons in this country. That being the case, had the crimes been committed here he could be convicted on similar terms and would surely have been sent to prison under similar conditions and, hence, be just at risk of suicide as he would be in the USA prison system. What difference does it make as to whether he is a suicide risk here or in the USA? Are we to take from that that if a person is facing the courts in this Country and is likely a suicide risk we just drop the charges? Is it now the case that the only thing anyone facing extradition to the USA has to do is to convince a shrink or two that they are likely to kill themselves and it's "game over" for any extradition proceedings? If so then we will never extradite anyone ever again.
Breadvan72 said:
XCP said:
People who are suicide risks are jailed every day in this country. What is so different about Assange?
You answer your own question: "In this country". Assange is safe in Belmarsh. His safety is in question in US custody, says the Judge. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff