Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[AJL308]

Gecko1978 said:

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.

You seem to be suggesting that the US Government would happily have carried out an assassination on UK soil. I don't believe that for a minute - they aren't the Russians.

Chelsea Manning is not free. She's back inside for contempt or something. I suspect that she just finds it impossible to keep her trap shut and keep a low profile.

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

[eharding]

AJL308 said:

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

Looks like his next bail hearing will be Wednesday - even if he is granted bail, I'd imagine it would be for a hefty amount and given that as I recall it his last set of bail guarantors ended up badly out of pocket, you have to ask who would be willing to guarantee his bail this time.

Plus, if in the unlikely event he is released, if he's looking forward to getting a decent haircut, going out for a nice meal, and maybe a relaxing stay at a quiet country spa hotel he's bang out of luck.

[hutchst]

AJL308 said:

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.

The DJ ordered his release, so the pertinent comparison is risk of suicide in a US jail vs. footloose and fancy-free in the UK.

[jakesmith]

eharding said:

AJL308 said:

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

Looks like his next bail hearing will be Wednesday - even if he is granted bail, I'd imagine it would be for a hefty amount and given that as I recall it his last set of bail guarantors ended up badly out of pocket, you have to ask who would be willing to guarantee his bail this time.

Plus, if in the unlikely event he is released, if he's looking forward to getting a decent haircut, going out for a nice meal, and maybe a relaxing stay at a quiet country spa hotel he's bang out of luck.

This does give me some joy

[AJL308]

hutchst said:

AJL308 said:

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.

The DJ ordered his release, so the pertinent comparison is risk of suicide in a US jail vs. footloose and fancy-free in the UK.

No it's not because the relevant law states that if the Court finds that health is a bar to extradition then it is required to discharge the defendant. The fact that he is less likely to commit suicide if released is not a consideration for the court, it is the consequence of the finding of health barring the extradition.

The question remains, then; if he were to be convicted of the offences in the US then if he is at no greater risk of suicide there than he would be if convicted of similar offences here (and the court doesnt appear to suggest that he would be) then why is that a bar to extradition?

Edited by AJL308 on Monday 4th January 23:20

[Getragdogleg]

If he goes to the US he will get Epstein'd, depending on how much of a conspiracy theory buff you are that either means suicided in his cell or fake suicided in his cell and then kept in the US equivalent of the Château d'If.

[XCP]

Adopting the principle that people who claim they are a suicide risk should not be incarcerated seems very strange.
A very high proportion of people in custody are 'self harmers'. Some are suicidal, some do it for attention and to be a nuisance to the authorities.
I am surprised that the American system is more dangerous for self harmers than ours is, which seems to be the implication.

[AJL308]

XCP said:

Adopting the principle that people who claim they are a suicide risk should not be incarcerated seems very strange.
A very high proportion of people in custody are 'self harmers'. Some are suicidal, some do it for attention and to be a nuisance to the authorities.
I am surprised that the American system is more dangerous for self harmers than ours is, which seems to be the implication.

When you read it though, it doesn't seem to suggest that he is at greater harm in the US system. Just that he is at some harm of suicide. The Court appears to conclude that because the US Federal system is unable to guarantee that he can't kill himself then he should not be extradited. That is perverse because no system can guarantee that a prisoner is unable to harm themselves. A search of Assange's cell at Bellmarsh revealed a razer blade so clearly the English system is unable to guarantee that he cant kill himself either.

It could also be argued that he has little intention of killing himself in any event; he claimed to have thoughts of killing himself "one hundred times a day" yet clearly had the means to do so but didn't.

If he were convicted of these crimes in an English court then he'd be locked up in an English prison. If he is in no greater danger of suicide in a US jail then where is the problem?

Also, and I realise that this wont be seen in the best light but I'm going to say it anyway, his mental health is, from the looks of it, very much a product of his own actions; he close to jump bail and hide away in a tiny embassy for seven years and let conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about illegal rendition and three hundred years in prison affect his mind. If he's at some greater suicide risk then it's largely of his own making.

[Getragdogleg]

AJL308 said:

XCP said:

Adopting the principle that people who claim they are a suicide risk should not be incarcerated seems very strange.
A very high proportion of people in custody are 'self harmers'. Some are suicidal, some do it for attention and to be a nuisance to the authorities.
I am surprised that the American system is more dangerous for self harmers than ours is, which seems to be the implication.

When you read it though, it doesn't seem to suggest that he is at greater harm in the US system. Just that he is at some harm of suicide. The Court appears to conclude that because the US Federal system is unable to guarantee that he can't kill himself then he should not be extradited. That is perverse because no system can guarantee that a prisoner is unable to harm themselves. A search of Assange's cell at Bellmarsh revealed a razer blade so clearly the English system is unable to guarantee that he cant kill himself either.

It could also be argued that he has little intention of killing himself in any event; he claimed to have thoughts of killing himself "one hundred times a day" yet clearly had the means to do so but didn't.

If he were convicted of these crimes in an English court then he'd be locked up in an English prison. If he is in no greater danger of suicide in a US jail then where is the problem?

Also, and I realise that this wont be seen in the best light but I'm going to say it anyway, his mental health is, from the looks of it, very much a product of his own actions; he close to jump bail and hide away in a tiny embassy for seven years and let conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about illegal rendition and three hundred years in prison affect his mind. If he's at some greater suicide risk then it's largely of his own making.

True enough but just because the US wants him does not necessarily mean we should just give him to them.

At the moment they are little more than a banana republic run by idiots, but they are used to getting their own way and need to be reminded once in a while that they don't call all the shots.

[Fundoreen]

We all lose out if he continues to get punished. Looking at the sort of turds trump has pardoned you would have though obama would have had the balls to pardon assange before he left office.
We need the assanges of the world to make others less inclined to do evil by knowing they may get exposed.

[Getragdogleg]

Fundoreen said:

We all lose out if he continues to get punished. Looking at the sort of turds trump has pardoned you would have though obama would have had the balls to pardon assange before he left office.
We need the assanges of the world to make others less inclined to do evil by knowing they may get exposed.

Absolutely, he's the court jester who went too far but like the jester he has a purpose.

[AJL308]

Getragdogleg said:

AJL308 said:

XCP said:

Adopting the principle that people who claim they are a suicide risk should not be incarcerated seems very strange.
A very high proportion of people in custody are 'self harmers'. Some are suicidal, some do it for attention and to be a nuisance to the authorities.
I am surprised that the American system is more dangerous for self harmers than ours is, which seems to be the implication.

When you read it though, it doesn't seem to suggest that he is at greater harm in the US system. Just that he is at some harm of suicide. The Court appears to conclude that because the US Federal system is unable to guarantee that he can't kill himself then he should not be extradited. That is perverse because no system can guarantee that a prisoner is unable to harm themselves. A search of Assange's cell at Bellmarsh revealed a razer blade so clearly the English system is unable to guarantee that he cant kill himself either.

It could also be argued that he has little intention of killing himself in any event; he claimed to have thoughts of killing himself "one hundred times a day" yet clearly had the means to do so but didn't.

If he were convicted of these crimes in an English court then he'd be locked up in an English prison. If he is in no greater danger of suicide in a US jail then where is the problem?

Also, and I realise that this wont be seen in the best light but I'm going to say it anyway, his mental health is, from the looks of it, very much a product of his own actions; he close to jump bail and hide away in a tiny embassy for seven years and let conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory about illegal rendition and three hundred years in prison affect his mind. If he's at some greater suicide risk then it's largely of his own making.

True enough but just because the US wants him does not necessarily mean we should just give him to them.

At the moment they are little more than a banana republic run by idiots, but they are used to getting their own way and need to be reminded once in a while that they don't call all the shots.

The Court examined the case in great detail and applied his arguments to the relevant Acts. Those arguments were comprehensively dismissed and the Court agreed that the US had made out their case to have him extradited. The sole reason they would not grant the extradition request was due to his mental health. So, yes, mental health aside, we should give him to them because that's what the law says we should do.

[AJL308]

Fundoreen said:

We all lose out if he continues to get punished. Looking at the sort of turds trump has pardoned you would have though obama would have had the balls to pardon assange before he left office.
We need the assanges of the world to make others less inclined to do evil by knowing they may get exposed.

He hadn't even been charged with anything when Obama left office (I don't think). Are you suggesting then that the executive should have intervened to alter the course of an ongoing criminal investigation into espionage?

If Assange had restricted himself to only releasing details of alleged US war crimes then that would be one thing. He didn't though, he indiscriminately released tens of thousands of classified files containing the names of informants, defence staff, agents and other people. The world does not need more arrogant, narcissistic tossers like him.

[Ayahuasca]

This case is in no way related or comparable to the Anne Sacoolas case, but still there is a quantum of satisfaction in the decision.

[PurpleTurtle]

eharding said:

AJL308 said:

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

Looks like his next bail hearing will be Wednesday - even if he is granted bail, I'd imagine it would be for a hefty amount and given that as I recall it his last set of bail guarantors ended up badly out of pocket, you have to ask who would be willing to guarantee his bail this time.

Plus, if in the unlikely event he is released, if he's looking forward to getting a decent haircut, going out for a nice meal, and maybe a relaxing stay at a quiet country spa hotel he's bang out of luck.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but I'd imagine that if Assange is ever released he'll probably go for a stroll in the same woods as Dr David Kelly, so to speak.

[Gecko1978]

AJL308 said:

Gecko1978 said:

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.

You seem to be suggesting that the US Government would happily have carried out an assassination on UK soil. I don't believe that for a minute - they aren't the Russians.

Chelsea Manning is not free. She's back inside for contempt or something. I suspect that she just finds it impossible to keep her trap shut and keep a low profile.

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

I am saying if the US or any government actually wanted rid of him then when he was in Ecuadoran soil he would have had an accident got sick etc. While the US are not Russian we are talking about espionage and endangering assets. So was he really a huge issue or a huge embarrassment. One might end up dead another just ends up persecuted and in jail. All governments will do some pretty dark things I suspect just make sure its never public. Assange's best protection was proably being so public.

[Taylor James]

Gecko1978 said:

AJL308 said:

Gecko1978 said:

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.

You seem to be suggesting that the US Government would happily have carried out an assassination on UK soil. I don't believe that for a minute - they aren't the Russians.

Chelsea Manning is not free. She's back inside for contempt or something. I suspect that she just finds it impossible to keep her trap shut and keep a low profile.

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

I am saying if the US or any government actually wanted rid of him then when he was in Ecuadoran soil he would have had an accident got sick etc. While the US are not Russian we are talking about espionage and endangering assets. So was he really a huge issue or a huge embarrassment. One might end up dead another just ends up persecuted and in jail. All governments will do some pretty dark things I suspect just make sure its never public. Assange's best protection was proably being so public.

I don't the West generally has form for state revenge killings. That seems to be more of a Russian or ME thing. It's another story when it comes to proactive action.

[Oilchange]

What is ‘proactive action’?

[AJL308]

Gecko1978 said:

AJL308 said:

Gecko1978 said:

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.

You seem to be suggesting that the US Government would happily have carried out an assassination on UK soil. I don't believe that for a minute - they aren't the Russians.

Chelsea Manning is not free. She's back inside for contempt or something. I suspect that she just finds it impossible to keep her trap shut and keep a low profile.

It is true that Assange would probably be free now if he hadn't skipped bail. He's an utter tool!

I am saying if the US or any government actually wanted rid of him then when he was in Ecuadoran soil he would have had an accident got sick etc. While the US are not Russian we are talking about espionage and endangering assets. So was he really a huge issue or a huge embarrassment. One might end up dead another just ends up persecuted and in jail. All governments will do some pretty dark things I suspect just make sure its never public. Assange's best protection was proably being so public.

He was never on Ecuadorian soil.

So you are suggesting that the US would carry out an assassination of a foreign national who was a fugitive from US justice outside of it's own territory? I think you are somewhat deluded in that opinion.

[AJL308]

Oilchange said:

What is ‘proactive action’?

Tacking an immediate and serious threat, presumably?