Assange Wins Appeal Against US Extradition Order: Legal Battle Continues

[Social Media]

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted the right to appeal against his extradition to the United States, a decision made by High Court judges in London. This ruling, delivered on Monday, marks another chapter in a protracted legal saga that has spanned over a decade.

 

High Court judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson concluded that Assange has valid grounds to challenge the UK government's extradition order. Assange, 52, faces 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse in the U.S., stemming from WikiLeaks' publication of classified U.S. documents nearly 15 years ago. As the decision was announced, Assange's supporters, who had gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice, erupted in cheers and applause. However, Assange himself was not present in court due to health reasons, according to his lawyer.

 

Assange's legal team argued that the assurances provided by the U.S. regarding his treatment if extradited were "blatantly inadequate." Lawyer Edward Fitzgerald contended that the U.S. had failed to guarantee Assange would be protected under the First Amendment's free press protections. "The real issue is whether an adequate assurance has been provided to remove the real risk identified by the court," Fitzgerald stated. "It is submitted that no adequate assurance has been made."

 

U.S. prosecutors allege that Assange actively assisted U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in stealing classified diplomatic cables and military files, which WikiLeaks then published. They argue that Assange's actions exceeded those of a journalist and amounted to solicitation, theft, and indiscriminate publication of sensitive government documents. Assange’s defense maintains that he acted as a journalist exposing U.S. military misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue that extraditing him to the U.S. would result in a politically motivated prosecution and a severe denial of justice. The defense also emphasizes the potential risks to Assange's health and well-being after over a decade of legal battles and confinement.

 

In a previous ruling in March, High Court judges rejected most of Assange’s arguments but allowed for an appeal if the U.S. could not guarantee he would not face the death penalty and would have the same free speech protections as U.S. citizens. Although the U.S. provided these assurances, Assange's team argues that these promises are insufficient, especially concerning the reliability of First Amendment protections.

 

James Lewis, representing the U.S., asserted that Assange’s actions were "simply unprotected" by the First Amendment. "No one, neither U.S. citizens nor foreign citizens, are entitled to rely on the First Amendment in relation to the publication of illegally obtained national defense information giving the names of innocent sources, to their grave and imminent risk of harm," Lewis stated.

Outside the courthouse, supporters displayed banners and signs, including one directed at President Joe Biden that read, "Let him go Joe." Assange’s supporters argue that he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted, although U.S. authorities suggest the sentence would likely be much shorter. Assange's family and supporters claim his health has significantly deteriorated due to his lengthy legal ordeal and imprisonment. Assange spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London before being transferred to a high-security prison for the past five years.

Recently, Biden mentioned considering Australia's request to drop the case against Assange, hinting at a possible diplomatic resolution. Stella Assange, Julian's wife, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have expressed optimism about Biden’s comments, seeing them as a positive sign towards potentially ending Assange's prolonged legal and personal struggle.

Credit: BBC 2024-05-21

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Excellent news. Hopefully the US will lose this case.

[SAFETY FIRST]

1 hour ago, Social Media said:

nearly 15 years ago

Can't think of anything worse, being locked up for so long, the best years of your life. 

 

Anyway, hopefully he can enjoy the outdoors again now. 

 

I reckon he'll be coming to Thailand, first stop, not a better place on the planet to enjoy the outdoors, beautiful scenery and beautiful people. 

 

Just got to watch out for the occasional dodgy foreigners. 

 

Edited May 20 by SAFETY FIRST

[RayC]

32 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Can't think of anything worse, being locked up for so long, the best years of your life. 

 

Anyway, hopefully he can enjoy the outdoors again now. 

 

I reckon he'll be coming to Thailand, first stop, not a better place on the planet to enjoy the outdoors, beautiful scenery and beautiful people. 

 

Just got to watch out for the occasional dodgy foreigners. 

 

 

I agree with your sentiments but in Assange's case his confinement was, for the most part, of his own volition. Assange had the choice between facing charges of sexual assault in Sweden or breaking his UK bail conditions and escaping to the Ecuadorian embassy. He chose the latter course of action. He has no one to blame for those 'lost' 15 years but himself.

[Chomper Higgot]

Assange has won his appeal for the right to appeal.

 

Nobody can claim he’s not being given full rights and due process under the law.

 

Although of course Bail Jumper Assange will claim exactly that.

 

[Skeptic7]

Hero. Should be exonerated and set free.

Same with Edward Snowden. 

Heroes both. 

[Tug]

I disagree this dude endangered lives,it’s not his decision to make.country's have secrets for reasons this kind of thing should not be tolerated personally I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible sorry guys but I disagree I for one hope he gets life

[newbee2022]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been granted the right to appeal against his extradition to the United States, a decision made by High Court judges in London. This ruling, delivered on Monday, marks another chapter in a protracted legal saga that has spanned over a decade.

 

High Court judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson concluded that Assange has valid grounds to challenge the UK government's extradition order. Assange, 52, faces 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse in the U.S., stemming from WikiLeaks' publication of classified U.S. documents nearly 15 years ago. As the decision was announced, Assange's supporters, who had gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice, erupted in cheers and applause. However, Assange himself was not present in court due to health reasons, according to his lawyer.

 

Assange's legal team argued that the assurances provided by the U.S. regarding his treatment if extradited were "blatantly inadequate." Lawyer Edward Fitzgerald contended that the U.S. had failed to guarantee Assange would be protected under the First Amendment's free press protections. "The real issue is whether an adequate assurance has been provided to remove the real risk identified by the court," Fitzgerald stated. "It is submitted that no adequate assurance has been made."

 

U.S. prosecutors allege that Assange actively assisted U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in stealing classified diplomatic cables and military files, which WikiLeaks then published. They argue that Assange's actions exceeded those of a journalist and amounted to solicitation, theft, and indiscriminate publication of sensitive government documents. Assange’s defense maintains that he acted as a journalist exposing U.S. military misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue that extraditing him to the U.S. would result in a politically motivated prosecution and a severe denial of justice. The defense also emphasizes the potential risks to Assange's health and well-being after over a decade of legal battles and confinement.

 

In a previous ruling in March, High Court judges rejected most of Assange’s arguments but allowed for an appeal if the U.S. could not guarantee he would not face the death penalty and would have the same free speech protections as U.S. citizens. Although the U.S. provided these assurances, Assange's team argues that these promises are insufficient, especially concerning the reliability of First Amendment protections.

 

James Lewis, representing the U.S., asserted that Assange’s actions were "simply unprotected" by the First Amendment. "No one, neither U.S. citizens nor foreign citizens, are entitled to rely on the First Amendment in relation to the publication of illegally obtained national defense information giving the names of innocent sources, to their grave and imminent risk of harm," Lewis stated.

Outside the courthouse, supporters displayed banners and signs, including one directed at President Joe Biden that read, "Let him go Joe." Assange’s supporters argue that he could face up to 175 years in prison if convicted, although U.S. authorities suggest the sentence would likely be much shorter. Assange's family and supporters claim his health has significantly deteriorated due to his lengthy legal ordeal and imprisonment. Assange spent seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London before being transferred to a high-security prison for the past five years.

Recently, Biden mentioned considering Australia's request to drop the case against Assange, hinting at a possible diplomatic resolution. Stella Assange, Julian's wife, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have expressed optimism about Biden’s comments, seeing them as a positive sign towards potentially ending Assange's prolonged legal and personal struggle.

Credit: BBC 2024-05-21

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

They stole at least 15 years of his life. Only of political reasons. Good luck Julian.👏

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

They stole at least 15 years of his life. Only of political reasons. Good luck Julian.👏

Nobody stole any of his life.

 

He pished away the prime of his life all by himself, hiding like the bail jumping coward he is.

 

I’ve way more respect for young offenders  who turn up at court to face justice by themselves, often with little if any support from anyone.

 

 

‘Stole at least 15 years of his life’.

 

You’re ‘avin’ a laugh.

[impulse]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I agree with your sentiments but in Assange's case his confinement was, for the most part, of his own volition. Assange had the choice between facing charges of sexual assault in Sweden or breaking his UK bail conditions and escaping to the Ecuadorian embassy. He chose the latter course of action. He has no one to blame for those 'lost' 15 years but himself.

 

He was never going to Sweden to face the sex assault charges.  He would have been extradited to the USA.

 

[Robert Paulson]

I think at least Pam anderson consoled him when she was still hot. I’m sure the fbi recorded those visits. Maybe they will be released one day

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

He was never going to Sweden to face the sex assault charges.  He would have been extradited to the USA.

 

Again the false  narrative

Under the extradition treaty between the UK and Sweden ( "Doctrine of Speciality" ) Assange could not be extradited from Sweden  without the extradition request being approved by both the Swedish AND the British courts.

 

He would have been safer from extradition had he gone to Sweden.

 

https://www.aklagare.se/en/media/press-service/the-assange-matter/can-assange-be-extradited-from-sweden-to-the-usa/

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, Robert Paulson said:

I think at least Pam anderson consoled him when she was still hot. I’m sure the fbi recorded those visits. Maybe they will be released one day

I expect the FBI are more interested in what Farage was passing to Assange during his visit.

[impulse]

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again the false  narrative

Under the extradition treaty between the UK and Sweden ( "Doctrine of Speciality" ) Assange could not be extradited from Sweden  without the extradition request being approved by both the Swedish AND the British courts.

 

He would have been safer from extradition had he gone to Sweden.

 

https://www.aklagare.se/en/media/press-service/the-assange-matter/can-assange-be-extradited-from-sweden-to-the-usa/

 

So you don't figure the Brits would have looked at 2 competing extradition requests, one from Sweden for a bogus sex assault and the other from the USA for national security issues, and decided to send him west instead of north?  At the time, his only chance of avoiding extradition to the US was to not be in custody. 

 

He was never going to Sweden.  So it matters not whether Sweden could extradite him.

 

Edited May 21 by impulse

[JonnyF]

Great news.

 

No way he will get fair treatment in the US "justice" system. 

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So you don't figure the Brits would have looked at 2 competing extradition requests, one from Sweden for a bogus sex assault and the other from the USA for national security issues, and decided to send him west instead of north?  At the time, his only chance of avoiding extradition to the US was to not be in custody. 

 

He was never going to Sweden.  So it matters not whether Sweden could extradite him.

 

So you ignore the due process Assange has been afforded by the British Courts.

 
What matters is your continuing adherence to the false narrative, even when corrected with linked evidence.

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you ignore the due process Assange has been afforded by the British Courts.

 
What matters is your continuing adherence to the false narrative, even when corrected with linked evidence.

 

The only reason Assange is getting that due process is the debacle of hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy for so long.   As it transpired, it's such an embarrassment to the British Gub'ment that they have to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.  They're under the microscope, because of the publicity.

 

Had he been arrested at the time, he'd have been bundled off to the USA before the public even knew he was in custody. 

 

[spidermike007]

This is good news. In my mind, there is no doubt the Swedish charges were fake, and rigged by the US govt. 

 

I have mixed feelings about the leaking of that info. I don't like many lives being put at risk, if indeed that happened. But, it is likely the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were absolutely filthy, and perhaps there was a need for a leak like this. 

[roquefort]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

I have mixed feelings about the leaking of that info. I don't like many lives being put at risk, if indeed that happened. But, it is likely the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were absolutely filthy, and perhaps there was a need for a leak like this. 

It was not Assange who put lives at risk. He went to great lengths to redact names and any other information that could identify individuals at risk.

 

It was two Guardian 'journalists' who later published the unredacted files.

[spidermike007]

Just now, roquefort said:

It was not Assange who put lives at risk. He went to great lengths to redact names and any other information that could identify individuals at risk.

 

It was two Guardian 'journalists' who later published the unredacted files.

That is a huge distinction. Thanks for that. Perhaps they should be jailed, or even worse. 

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The only reason Assange is getting that due process is the debacle of hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy for so long.   As it transpired, it's such an embarrassment to the British Gub'ment that they have to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.  They're under the microscope, because of the publicity.

 

Had he been arrested at the time, he'd have been bundled off to the USA before the public even knew he was in custody. 

 

The British Courts afford people accused of crimes due process as a matter of daily routine.

 

Because that’s what British Courts do.

 

Away with you and your false narrative.

 

And be careful, you’ll be accused of ‘Brit bashing’.

 

 

 

Edited May 21 by Chomper Higgot

[roquefort]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The British Courts afford people accused of crimes due process as a matter of daily routine.

 

Because that’s what British Courts do.

 

Away with you and your false narrative.

 

And be careful, you’ll be accused of ‘Brit bashing’.

 

 

 

Your faith in British justice is touching.

 

But you must also be aware that governments and intelligence services have no hesitation in overriding due process where they deem the matter to be one involving 'national security'.

[Sheryl]

The headline is inaccurate.

 

He did not win an appeal.

 

He was granted the right to file an appeal.

 

Huge difference. 

[Chomper Higgot]

34 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Your faith in British justice is touching.

 

But you must also be aware that governments and intelligence services have no hesitation in overriding due process where they deem the matter to be one involving 'national security'.

Oh no the crackpot conspiracy shows up.

[KhunLA]

7 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I agree with your sentiments but in Assange's case his confinement was, for the most part, of his own volition. Assange had the choice between facing charges of sexual assault in Sweden or breaking his UK bail conditions and escaping to the Ecuadorian embassy. He chose the latter course of action. He has no one to blame for those 'lost' 15 years but himself.

Not much of a choice ... kangaroo court, and I don't think he expected Ecuador to stab him in the back.  Show have gone to the RU embassy 

 

Just a warning to all future whistleblowers ... speak out and we'll ruin your life ... OR ... kill you.

 

Nothing like the FREE WORLD 

Edited May 21 by KhunLA

[SpaceKadet]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again the false  narrative

Under the extradition treaty between the UK and Sweden ( "Doctrine of Speciality" ) Assange could not be extradited from Sweden  without the extradition request being approved by both the Swedish AND the British courts.

 

He would have been safer from extradition had he gone to Sweden.

 

https://www.aklagare.se/en/media/press-service/the-assange-matter/can-assange-be-extradited-from-sweden-to-the-usa/

 

 

Right, we all know the governments follow the written rules and treaties. If he went to Sweden to face those bogus sex charges, he would have ended up in US custody. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

 

So what about those secret CIA torture sites in Eastern European countries, is there a treaty for that too?

[SpaceKadet]

And the farce continues. Just let Julian go. He has suffered enough just for exposing the dirty deeds of the US government and their dirty war. 

 

This is just comical. The court grants him the right to file an appeal. So back to Belmarsh and pickle there for the next couple of years, while the "justice" is being administered. This issue should have been resolved within a year of Julian being picked up from the Ecuadorian embassy.

Any reason why they keep him in a high security prison? Is he such a dangerous "criminal"?

[roquefort]

51 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh no the crackpot conspiracy shows up.

Is that the best you've got? Desperation showing.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Right, we all know the governments follow the written rules and treaties. If he went to Sweden to face those bogus sex charges, he would have ended up in US custody. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

 

So what about those secret CIA torture sites in Eastern European countries, is there a treaty for that too?

And yet the OP on which this thread is based is an example of the courts following due process independent of Government or indeed the CIA.

 

So maybe, and you should perhaps consider this, the factual reality of Assange’s access to due process and his rights under he law is at odds with the things for which ‘you have no doubt in your mind’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Is that the best you've got? Desperation showing.

No I’ve got facts and reality on my side.

 

Refer above.