Next step in Assange extradition case due in UK court on Friday

[snoop1130]

Next step in Assange extradition case due in UK court on Friday

 

FILE PHOTO: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves Southwark Crown Court after being sentenced in London, Britain, May 1, 2019. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange is due before a London court on Friday, facing the next stage of a U.S. attempt to try him on spying charges after Britain’s interior minister said he had validated the American extradition request.

 

Assange, 47, is accused of conspiring to hack U.S. government computers and violating an espionage law.

 

He is currently in a London prison after being jailed for 50 weeks for skipping bail after fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning in a sexual assault investigation in 2012.

 

“I am very pleased the police were finally able to apprehend him and now he’s rightfully behind bars because he broke UK law,” British Home Secretary Sajid Javid told BBC radio.

 

“Yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow. It is ultimately a decision for the courts.”

 

Javid’s certification simply means the extradition request is a valid one but it will be for a judge to decide whether Assange can be sent to the United States, taking into account issues such as whether it would breach his human rights.

 

When Assange fled to the Ecuadorean embassy, he said he feared he would be ultimately extradited to the United States where he had caused anger by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

 

He was dragged from the embassy by British police on April 11 and within hours of his arrest, U.S. prosecutors said they had charged him with conspiracy in trying to access a classified U.S. government computer.

 

They added a further 17 criminal charges to that indictment when they submitted a formal extradition request.

 

Swedish prosecutors have also said they want to extradite Assange as part of a rape investigation that was dropped in 2017 although no formal request has yet been submitted.

 

He was too ill to attend that hearing and is due to appear by videolink on Friday at Westminster Magistrates’ Court where a date for his full U.S. extradition hearing is likely to be set.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-13

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[meand]

People need to look into those rape charges themselves. Incidents all originated from consensual cases for one. Two, Sweden has a very wide definition of what rape is. Supposedly you can even be charged with rape as a husband if you nag your wife for sex too much and she says no. The number of rape cases there is extraordinarily high due to their rape laws. Three, there could have of course been influence from any number of govt authorities to charge him with "rape". 

 

Of course he gets labeled as a "rapist" when these headlines come out. That does not help his case with the public if he is in fact innocent of the charges. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, meand said:

People need to look into those rape charges themselves. Incidents all originated from consensual cases for one. Two, Sweden has a very wide definition of what rape is. Supposedly you can even be charged with rape as a husband if you nag your wife for sex too much and she says no. The number of rape cases there is extraordinarily high due to their rape laws. Three, there could have of course been influence from any number of govt authorities to charge him with "rape". 

 

Of course he gets labeled as a "rapist" when these headlines come out. That does not help his case with the public if he is in fact innocent of the charges. 

 

People need to obey the law in nations they visit.

 

 

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, meand said:

People need to look into those rape charges themselves. Incidents all originated from consensual cases for one. Two, Sweden has a very wide definition of what rape is. Supposedly you can even be charged with rape as a husband if you nag your wife for sex too much and she says no. The number of rape cases there is extraordinarily high due to their rape laws. Three, there could have of course been influence from any number of govt authorities to charge him with "rape". 

 

Of course he gets labeled as a "rapist" when these headlines come out. That does not help his case with the public if he is in fact innocent of the charges. 

 

Some people need to look at themselves.

[meand]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

People need to obey the law in nations they visit.

 

 

Typically insightful thaivisa reply. 

 

Nobody said people do not need to obey laws. 

 

Get your reading glasses in and learn something:

-The rape charges need to be looked into very closely because there are obviously powerful govts looking to smear Assange in any way possible. Doesn't it strike you as odd the the absolute worst thing that comes up are some alleged cases of consensual sex with no condom? Imagine if the US tried to dig up dirt on you (or anyone) for example, they would probably find all sorts if jewels much better than that. 

-Sweden's definition of rape is much different than other countries' definition. So, to have an international headline like "rapist" does not always translate as accurately as it should. Not to mention little facts like the case has not been tried yet. 

[Scott]

Inflammatory post reported and removed along with reply.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

45 minutes ago, meand said:

Typically insightful thaivisa reply. 

 

Nobody said people do not need to obey laws. 

 

Get your reading glasses in and learn something:

-The rape charges need to be looked into very closely because there are obviously powerful govts looking to smear Assange in any way possible. Doesn't it strike you as odd the the absolute worst thing that comes up are some alleged cases of consensual sex with no condom? Imagine if the US tried to dig up dirt on you (or anyone) for example, they would probably find all sorts if jewels much better than that. 

-Sweden's definition of rape is much different than other countries' definition. So, to have an international headline like "rapist" does not always translate as accurately as it should. Not to mention little facts like the case has not been tried yet. 

It doesn't strike me as odd at all, what does strike me as odd is the ridiculous conspiracy theories Assange's supporters come up with. 

 

What I find odd is he notion that the US has the need to (by means unexplained) manipulate the judicial system in Sweden to 'smear' Assange. 

 

The US are piling all manner of extremely serious charges on Assange, why on earth would the DoJ (or anyone else for the matter) waste time and take the risk of interfering with the judicial system in Sweden to bring charges that are only likely to delay the US getting their hands of Assange?

 

As for Assange not having been tried yet. 

 

Who's fault is that?!

 

 

[Thongkorn]

I wounder how many operatives died becasue of this mans Ill intention ,

[gk10002000]

6 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

by publishing hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables

I have had security clearances as part of my Air Force and later civilian jobs since literally before Reagan was in office.  I take security classifications quite seriously, regardless of the reasons Assange chose to publish them.   If the cables really were properly classified secret, then he should be held fully accountable for publishing them.  How he got them, is another matter.

[usviphotography]

7 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

I have had security clearances as part of my Air Force and later civilian jobs since literally before Reagan was in office.  I take security classifications quite seriously, regardless of the reasons Assange chose to publish them.   If the cables really were properly classified secret, then he should be held fully accountable for publishing them.  How he got them, is another matter.

Assange was in the US Air Force? I don't remember that. He's a reporter, who has no security obligations to the American military and in fact isn't even an American at all. The idea that reporters can't report or publish something because American, or Russian, or Chinese government deems it "classified" information is offensive and nutty. 

[gk10002000]

1 minute ago, usviphotography said:

Assange was in the US Air Force? I don't remember that. He's a reporter, who has no security obligations to the American military and in fact isn't even an American at all. The idea that reporters can't report or publish something because American, or Russian, or Chinese government deems it "classified" information is offensive and nutty. 

I never said he was in the US Air Force.  So stop babbling.   If you are trying to say that anybody can go to any country and start publishing that country's secret information, but then be free of prosecution, well you are wrong.  They would most likely be prosecuted by that country for being a spy.   Good luck going to Russia or China and openly admit that you gained access to and then started publishing their secret information.  Get back to us on how that works out

[usviphotography]

2 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

I never said he was in the US Air Force.  So stop babbling.   If you are trying to say that anybody can go to any country and start publishing that country's secret information, but then be free of prosecution, well you are wrong.  They would most likely be prosecuted by that country for being a spy.   Good luck going to Russia or China and openly admit that you gained access to and then started publishing their secret information.  Get back to us on how that works out

In China or Russia, maybe. In the US, reporters are actually protected from such prosecutions. That is what the Pentagon Papers trial was all about:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

 

And Assange didn't even go to America anyway. He was operating under Swedish law, which to my knowledge has no law criminalizing the publishing of information the US Government deems "confidential". 

[Salerno]

29 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

The idea that reporters can't report or publish something because American, or Russian, or Chinese government deems it "classified" information is offensive and nutty.

What is "offensive and nutty" is calling someone that does nothing but publish a data dump a "reporter".

[gk10002000]

2 hours ago, usviphotography said:

In China or Russia, maybe. In the US, reporters are actually protected from such prosecutions. That is what the Pentagon Papers trial was all about:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

 

And Assange didn't even go to America anyway. He was operating under Swedish law, which to my knowledge has no law criminalizing the publishing of information the US Government deems "confidential". 

You should contribute to Assange's Go Fund Me page.  The Pentagon Papers ruling does not give unilateral relief for anybody to publish anything.    There are constraints and provisos.  All is irrelevant at the moment.  The matter now is if the UK judge will grant the extradition.  What happens to Assange if he gets extradited will be up to the courts in whatever country he gets extradited to, if any

[JAG]

5 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Assange was in the US Air Force? I don't remember that. He's a reporter, who has no security obligations to the American military and in fact isn't even an American at all. The idea that reporters can't report or publish something because American, or Russian, or Chinese government deems it "classified" information is offensive and nutty. 

He was however somewhat proactive in subborning a US serviceman, who presumably was security cleared, to pass the material to him. That is a more justifiable accusation of espionage.

 

As a side issue, how did someone with Manning's very apparent "issues" get through even the most perfunctory of security vetting processes? Assange certainly realised and exploited that, although that in itself probably not an indictable action.

 

As for the wide scope of rape allegations in Swedish law, mentioned earlier in the thread: "Sweden has a very wide definition of what rape is.", if I recall the details, didn't the Swedish authorities wish him extradited to answer allegations of nonconsensual buggery on sleeping female partners? Perhaps not unreasonable to consider that within the scope of rape?

[tokachinter]

11 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

I wounder how many operatives died becasue of this mans Ill intention ,

I have asked people on another forum to investigate this. So far, the answer is zero, nadda and zilch.

[robertson468]

9 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Assange was in the US Air Force? I don't remember that. He's a reporter, who has no security obligations to the American military and in fact isn't even an American at all. The idea that reporters can't report or publish something because American, or Russian, or Chinese government deems it "classified" information is offensive and nutty. 

Your reading of the post is considerably different from mine!  Dystlexic perhaps?

[jany123]

12 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

I wounder how many operatives died becasue of this mans Ill intention ,

I would guesstimate none. If there was just one death, the US would have screamed it from the rooftops to make its case. I sincerely hope that I’m not wrong. (In my guesstimating)

[jany123]

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Javid’s certification simply means the extradition request is a valid one but it will be for a judge to decide whether Assange can be sent to the United States, taking into account issues such as whether it would breach his human rights.

Assange should never be extradited to a hostile, xenophobic, nationalistic country which has a faulty judicial system presided over by partisan judges where there is no guarantee of fairness nor transparency.

 

the US should pursue this case via international courts, even if A45 has already disgracefully derided those courts and bodies.

 

the US will not hand over those charged with war crimes to other juristictiond (and is even considering pardoning them!), so why should it expect the commonwealth to hand over a commonwealth citizen, beyond that the commonwealth is more likely to stick to agreements made with other nations, which the US is failing to do

 

oh... right... do as I say, not as I do, bullyboy tactics. Disgraceful. 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

13 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

I wounder how many operatives died becasue of this mans Ill intention ,

Fewer, it would seem, than the people who died because of the ill intentions of the US forces, as revealed by Assange. 

[Basil B]

11 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Assange was in the US Air Force? I don't remember that. He's a reporter, who has no security obligations to the American military and in fact isn't even an American at all. The idea that reporters can't report or publish something because American, or Russian, or Chinese government deems it "classified" information is offensive and nutty. 

And stealing it, or conspiring with others to... ???

[Guest Jerry787]

if he will be deported, it will mark the end of FREE OF SPEACH and the FREEDOM OF JOURNALISM in the so called  western democracy

 

Assange its a journalist , it shall be freed immediately !

[Morch]

4 hours ago, jany123 said:

Assange should never be extradited to a hostile, xenophobic, nationalistic country which has a faulty judicial system presided over by partisan judges where there is no guarantee of fairness nor transparency.

 

the US should pursue this case via international courts, even if A45 has already disgracefully derided those courts and bodies.

 

the US will not hand over those charged with war crimes to other juristictiond (and is even considering pardoning them!), so why should it expect the commonwealth to hand over a commonwealth citizen, beyond that the commonwealth is more likely to stick to agreements made with other nations, which the US is failing to do

 

oh... right... do as I say, not as I do, bullyboy tactics. Disgraceful. 

 

 

 

Unless there's a general comment involved regarding extradition, why should the USA pursue this specific case via "international courts"? How does this case even relate to "international courts"?

 

Was the USA requested to extradite those charged with war crimes to a country it had an extradition treaty with and refused? And even if it did, does it automatically imply something with regard to Assange?

 

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Jerry787 said:

if he will be deported, it will mark the end of FREE OF SPEACH and the FREEDOM OF JOURNALISM in the so called  western democracy

 

Assange its a journalist , it shall be freed immediately !

 

".... it shall be freed immediately !"

 

Yeah....what happened with the cat?

[jany123]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Unless there's a general comment involved regarding extradition, why should the USA pursue this specific case via "international courts"? How does this case even relate to "international courts"?

 

Was the USA requested to extradite those charged with war crimes to a country it had an extradition treaty with and refused? And even if it did, does it automatically imply something with regard to Assange?

 

 

Mr trump has come out in defiance of sending accused war criminals to face an international tribunal, in favor of pardons and reduced sentences, thus demonstrating that the US is unable to fairly adjudicate on war crimes committed by US citizens, which puts those cases within the purview of the international courts.

 

my comment on this matter was more about the inequalities of demanding Assange to face trial, whilst claiming that no US citizen would face war crime trials in another jurisdiction. The claim (by trump) is verifiable, if not any specific cases

 

Anyway, im not sure if there is any legal framework in international law that cover this, although international courts can hear cases when others can’t (or won’t) do so properly.

 

Imo, that would cover this situation, as it’s very very unlikely that he will be treated fairly in any US court, due to a tainted jury pool, and politically biased courts, so he should not go before a US court. 

 

I may be completely mistaken, but I think that the British courts will reject the application for extradition due to his “human rights”, or his rights to a fair trial, because of the above

 

[usviphotography]

15 hours ago, Salerno said:

What is "offensive and nutty" is calling someone that does nothing but publish a data dump a "reporter".

Yeah, you are only a "real" reporter is you inject your own personal political commentary and prejudices in to the story, right? Assange practices the most pure form of journalism possible. He just prints the facts. And in over ten years Wikileaks has never been caught in a lie or forced to publish a retraction. Can the same be said of The New York Times or Evening Standard? 

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Yeah, you are only a "real" reporter is you inject your own personal political commentary and prejudices in to the story, right? Assange practices the most pure form of journalism possible. He just prints the facts. And in over ten years Wikileaks has never been caught in a lie or forced to publish a retraction. Can the same be said of The New York Times or Evening Standard? 

Then he has nothing to fear when facing trial in open courts before juries and in the glaring light of the world's media .... does he?!

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, usviphotography said:

Yeah, you are only a "real" reporter is you inject your own personal political commentary and prejudices in to the story, right? Assange practices the most pure form of journalism possible. He just prints the facts. And in over ten years Wikileaks has never been caught in a lie or forced to publish a retraction. Can the same be said of The New York Times or Evening Standard? 

Here's a Wikileaks lie:

 

Assange was captive in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

 

Here's another:

 

Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorian Embassy.

 

Here's another:

Assange is a journalist.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, jany123 said:

Mr trump has come out in defiance of sending accused war criminals to face an international tribunal, in favor of pardons and reduced sentences, thus demonstrating that the US is unable to fairly adjudicate on war crimes committed by US citizens, which puts those cases within the purview of the international courts.

 

my comment on this matter was more about the inequalities of demanding Assange to face trial, whilst claiming that no US citizen would face war crime trials in another jurisdiction. The claim (by trump) is verifiable, if not any specific cases

 

Anyway, im not sure if there is any legal framework in international law that cover this, although international courts can hear cases when others can’t (or won’t) do so properly.

 

Imo, that would cover this situation, as it’s very very unlikely that he will be treated fairly in any US court, due to a tainted jury pool, and politically biased courts, so he should not go before a US court. 

 

I may be completely mistaken, but I think that the British courts will reject the application for extradition due to his “human rights”, or his rights to a fair trial, because of the above

 

 

Yes, I'm well aware of Trump (and Bolton's) comments. We had one of them lengthy topics at the time.

But be that as it may, I think USA policy on this front predates Trump. And that's before getting into the whole bit about the USA not signing up to the ICC etc.

 

I don't think that the USA is unique when it comes to how authorities and courts handle charges of war crimes. The part about "thus demonstrating that the US is unable to fairly adjudicate on war crimes committed by US citizens" is a bit of a tall order, and apparently them "international courts" are not all that decided about this point.

 

Still at a lose as to why you compare war crime charges with Assange's case. Apples and oranges.

 

There will be no "international court" (or rather, a soap box) for Assange. At best, he can hope that the extradition request will be denied, or that he'll manage to get a note from the doctor preventing him from facing trial. Might pull either/both, but woudn't bet on his chances.