WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US, judge rules - T...
source link: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/4/22206428/julian-assange-extradition-us-uk-wikileaks-espionage-hacking-charges
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Filed under:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US, British judge rules
The US can still appeal the decision
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/68615348/1201406239.0.jpg)
Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images
A judge in the United Kingdom has denied Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States, where he faces espionage charges for his work running WikiLeaks. The Guardian reports that the ruling was delivered in a criminal court this morning, with the Wall Street Journal reporting that the judge noted that the risk of suicide is too high.
Assange will now remain in British custody pending a bail application, and the US government is free to proceed with an appeal against the decision. This particular ruling is only related to the US request for extradition under an extradition treaty between the UK and US. The full ruling is available here.
Initially detained by the UK for violating his bail conditions, Assange faces hacking and espionage charges in the US related to a string of Wikileaks publications that the US Justice Department called “one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.”
The case has raised significant free speech concerns, as many legal scholars see the government’s case as punishing the Wikileaks founder for publishing information. The extradition has also been unusually high-profile, with a number of UK protests in support of Assange and opposing extradition.
Assange was reportedly considered for a pardon by outgoing president Donald Trump, who benefitted from Wikileaks’ DNC releases during the 2016 campaign. However, Assange was not included in a December round of appeals, and it’s unclear whether Trump plans to intervene in the case.
Featured Videos from The Verge
Sign up for the newsletter Processor
A newsletter about computers
There are 73 comments.
US demands extradition of a whistleblower doing a public service, yet completely refuses to extradite a diplomat’s wife, who killed a teenager in a hit and run before running back to the US.
One way relationship. Love to see it…
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:12 AM
I love how the media tells us we should protect and celebrate certain whistleblowers (ie, Trump phone call), yet other whistleblowers are "traitors" who should spend the rest of their life behind bars (Assange, Manning, Snowden, etc).
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:50 AM
Assange is not a US citizen, he can’t be considered a traitor.
As much as I hate Assange for helping to elect Trump (supposedly with the goal, as a crypto-anarchist, to destroy US power, which succeeded beyond all hope), exposing US war crimes was a public service and should not be prosecuted even if the truth is uncomfortable.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 3:02 PM
Assange didn’t help to elect Trump…he exposed legit corruption within the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. I’m not a fan of Trump by any stretch, but it was the corruption which helped to elect Trump, not Assange.
When corruption is exposed, we shouldn’t kill (or torture, in this case) the messenger.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 3:24 PM
Could you say which "corruption" was exposed exactly ?
Assange helped Russia to publish hacked documents from the DNC at critical time before the 2016 election.
The goal to influence the election is obvious given the timing.
There was also direct communication between Wikileaks and Trump, also showing that the goal was to damage US power by helping Trump (and damage a potential Clinton presidency).
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/
WikiLeaks didn’t write again until Election Day, November 8, 2016. "Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do," WikiLeaks wrote at 6:35pm, when the idea that Clinton would win was still the prevailing conventional wisdom. (As late as 7:00pm that night, FiveThirtyEight, a trusted prognosticator of the election, gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning the presidency.) WikiLeaks insisted that contesting the election results would be good for Trump’s rumored plans to start a media network should he lose the presidency. "The discussion can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc.," WikiLeaks wrote.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 4:59 PM
Your response reveals the degree to which you have internalized talking points that are entirely unfounded and without evidence. In fact the president of CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC that originally claimed a link between Russia and the email leak, recently admitted that they had no solid evidence that data was hacked from the DNC server, or that Russia was involved:
The corruption that wikileaks exposed was, among other issues, the collusion within the DNC to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign despite claiming to be impartial. It also exposed collusion between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and many corporate media outlets to boost her campaign, a money-laundering scheme that funneled donations meant to go to down-ballot candidates to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and many related disclosures. In case you forgot, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the then DNC chair, had to resign in disgrace following the revelations, so clearly there was corruption exposed.
Assange’s motives for exposing the corruption doesn’t really matter. EVERY news outlet has biases, and agendas. In fact, a big reason why Assange’s character has been under constant assault by the DNC and their corporate media allies is precisely because he revealed the degree to which the corporate media outlets themselves have agendas they are actively advancing in collusion with those in power, rather than doing the proper job of the fourth estate, which is holding the powerful to account (which is what Assange was actually doing).
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:33 PM
So the exposed "corruption" is that the DNC was favorable to Clinton, which everybody knew ? Was there any actual fraud or corruption claim made by Sanders or anyone else ?
Despite lack of hard evidence, it’s still, as of today, the most likely scenario (for Dutch and US intelligence), that Russia hacked the documents and provided them to Assange:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/dutch-spies-tipped-off-nsa-that-russia-was-hacking-the-democrats-new-reports-claim/
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 6:09 PM
"Everybody knew" the DNC was favoring Clinton? Come on. Firstly there is a big difference between favoring Clinton, and actively conspiring to damage Sanders’ campaign. Also, you are ignoring the revelation of money laundering from down-ballot candidates to Hillary’s campaign, as well as the many leaks that exposed the collusion between corporate media outlets and Hillary’s campaign to boost her candidacy, and I haven’t even mentioned the revelation that the Clinton campaign illegally coordinated with Super PACs (a MAJOR scandal). The leaks exposed corruption on many fronts, and a deeply rigged system.
As for your claim that "as of today" Russian hacking is the most likely means by which Assange got access to the server content, your "evidence" is an article that was published three years ago. In truth, the most recent information, which I posted, suggests there isn’t any serious evidence linking Russia to the emails, nor even that the DNC server was hacked. If there was such evidence, it would have clearly been presented in the senate testimony.
Question: if concerns about Assange conspiring with Russia were legit, why didn’t Mueller interview him, even once, during his investigation? Assange actually repeatedly offered to speak with US investigators, an odd offer if your guilty, and even odder that US intelligence didn’t take him up on the offer. Not odd, though, if the accusation was bs all along.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/questions-mueller-russiagate/
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:53 PM
Links that I posted above clearly show malicious intent to manipulate the US election, which was my original point.
Oh, Wikileaks also attacked french presidential candidate Macron a few days before the election, accusing him of having an offshore account, based on documents that where proved to be fabricated, and also publishing other hacked documents from Macron’ campaign just days before the election (when candidates are forbidden to speak publicly).
Wikileaks have been trying to manipulate multiple elections in western countries, always aligned with Russians interests and communication strategy.
Spreading fake and hacked documents days before the election in order to manipulate the outcome has nothing to do with "holding the powerful to account"
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 6:42 PM
You’re parroting the nebulous "aligned with Russian interests" accusation that has had little evidence put forth to substantiate the claim. Just a lot of smoke that you’re claiming to be fire. Guillaume Poupard, the head of French government’s cyber security agency, said there was actually no evidence that Russia was responsible for the leaked Macron emails:
https://euobserver.com/foreign/138106
As for the authenticity of the emails, you say they were "proved to be fabricated" but I can’t find any such confirmation. There was a lot of bluster about law suits, but no actual action taken that I can find, and the wikileaks content is still online, which they are claiming to be authentic:
https://wikileaks.org/macron-emails/
You may very well doubt that claim, but then why is the content still online, and why hasn’t Macron sued wikileaks for their publication?
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 8:17 PM
The signature on the document was an obvious fake, taken from public campaign material (not Macron’s actual signature).
Wikileaks retweeted the fake (they didn’t published it themself), as a part of a larger attack on Macron a few days before the election, similar to what happened in the US. I don’t think you will convince many people that Wikileaks simply acts in good faith "against corruption".
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:33 PM
I have found very few examples of wikileaks publishing "fake news," their track record as a publisher is actually far superior to other so-called trustworthy publications which issue retractions routinely, or publish misleading content like the completely unsubstantiated "Berne Bro" narrative without providing a lick of evidence. Do you think that kind of journalism has an influence on elections? The list of inaccurate reporting on Russiagate alone is a mile long. The Guardian, for example, published an article claiming that Manafort visited Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy even though there was zero evidence of him ever checking in, or appearing in surveillance videos, a near-impossibility for such a heavily monitored locale. As Glenn Greenwald wrote back in his Intercept days:
No other media outlet has confirmed this; no video or photographic evidence has emerged; the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake
Why isn’t that bad-faith agenda-driven journalism?
Greenwald also published his "top ten" list of the biggest Russiagate media failures, all of which erred in advancing, rather than questioning, the narrative:
Again, why is that kind of egregious reporting not considered bad-faith journalism by you, but wikileak’s publications, which are much more consistently accurate, are?
I would never say that Assange doesn’t have an agenda, but as I said previously all news publications do. Assange just doesn’t hide behind a false "just the facts" veneer the way corporate media does, while they conspire with power behind the scenes to advance a mutually beneficial agenda. And Assange has been raked through the coals because his agenda is (yes) to expose the corruption that the corporate media outlets enable.
And remember when Assange was considered a hero for exposing corruption within the Bush administration? Why was he celebrated then, but when he turns his lens on the corruption of neoliberal politicians like Clinton and Macron he’s no longer a good faith actor?
Posted on Jan 5, 2021 | 12:50 AM
Because she’s afraid he may try to kill himself? THAT is why she thinks he shouldn’t be extradited? What am I reading here? What kind of judge is this? So she admits that he’ll get a fair trial and the crime is prosecutable in the UK but refuses to extradite because of the aforementioned reasons? Can you imagine if every judge had the same line of thinking? "I’m sorry but you must free this man because he has threatened to kill himself if he is to face trial." Wow, if the appellate judge doesn’t throw this garbage of a verdict out the English justice system will become the laughing stock of the civilized world. Instead of holding up in embassies and smearing feces on walls, Julian Assange needs to put on his big boy pants and answer for his crimes. Chelsea Manning did her time, in Leavenworth, no less. What does that say about Assange?
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:30 AM
The judge found US prison system to inhumane to extradite. And Assange committed no crime.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:43 AM
Assange actively encouraged others to commit crimes, that in itself is a crime. As for our prison system being ‘inhumane’, how did she come to that conclusion? Has she spent time in one? Is she talking federal? And which system is she comparing it to? This judge is a fool. They said the same thing about the guy who hacked NASA: "Oh, he has aspergers, he can’t handle the US prison system." Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:51 AM
Journalism is a crime according to you.
1. Read the ruling, the judge details it.
2. "Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time" maybe be a thing for you but for civilized people there is such things as proportionality, non-cruel punishment and human rights.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:55 AM
Just because you’re a journalist doesn’t mean you can commit crimes in the name of journalism and get off scott-free. This isn’t hard to understand. Assange wasn’t just reporting what Manning was giving him. He was actively telling Manning to hack into more computers to get more files. That is crossing a red line and patently illegal. Just because I work for the NY Times doesn’t mean I can encourage someone to hack into a computer system or stab someone in the heart simply so I can report it.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:59 AM
Even if you are saying it is true. What was exposed is too important for them to get punished. I still think they did a great job. As a Brazilian I am ashamed my country didn’t grant him asylum. It was a great shame for the Brazilian left in my opinion.
"Just because I work for the NY Times doesn’t mean I can encourage someone to hack into a computer system or stab someone in the heart simply so I can report it." – this is dumb
I hope you get this worked up with all the war criminals in the US gov which would be at least the last 4, including Trump.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 12:34 PM
Speaking of Trump, this is the guy who gave us that POS. Also consequently, your own Brazilian POS, Bolsonaro. Working as a hired gun for a Russian authoritarian isn’t journalism.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 2:01 PM
Also, being a rapist doesn’t look good on his resume.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 2:03 PM
BPSKYLINE, how much is the US department of justice/CIA paying you to keep writing this? Clearly they should have paid for a better writer with something more convincing.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 1:35 PM
Ok what if I agree with BPSKYLINE.. Does that mean im being paid by the DOJ or CIA too? Come on man…
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:29 PM
Just because you’re a journalist doesn’t mean you can commit crimes in the name of journalism
Actually, yes, you can. This is why whistleblowers have historically been protected (aka, the Whistleblower Protection Act). If Assange was encouraging a whistleblower to reveal more corruption then he was an accomplice to whistleblowing, which should afford him the same protections as any whistleblower, or any journalist doing their job of holding power to account.
In a healthy democracy, the focus would be on the corruption not on those exposing it. As such, because you are instead angry at the messenger you’ve really lost the plot.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 3:47 PM
In case you didn’t read what the Whistleblower Protection Act actually says.. The only people entitled to protection under the act are federal employees. Whistleblowing is supposed to be about reporting wrong doing so that it can be stopped. Is it not about giving a journalist his 15 mins of fame and being above the law. Assange did break the law and should be held accountable.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:37 PM
It’s always easy to sympathize with the victimizer when you aren’t the victim.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 9:58 AM
Which is why justice systems are supposed to be impartial, otherwise they just become vehicles for vengeance. This is a bad thing.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:26 AM
I think most people in more even-handed countries with even passing knowledge of our prisons and who lack the taste for retributive justice would conclude that our system is inhumane. It might not seem that way from inside the US because our society has a particularly puritanical sense of justice and morality.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 9:52 AM
If you think an Australian citizen in another country should get shipped off and imprisoned for committing "crimes" in a country he’s never lived in, you’ve lost the plot.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 1:13 PM
EVERY major news publisher has "encouraged others to commit crimes" in order to reveal corruption that wouldn’t otherwise get revealed. This is why the Obama administration didn’t pursue charges against Assange, they knew that putting him on trial would be tantamount to putting journalism (and, by extension, democracy) on trial.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 3:41 PM
It is important to note that despite agreeing with US gov. arguments the UK judge found the US prison system to inhumane to extradite. Think about that Americans
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:41 AM
They’re too busy thinking about whether they should wear a mask or not.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:44 AM
The judge specifically considered the fact that there is forced prison labour in considering it to inhumane to extradite. Also forced prison labour is disproportionate impact on visible minorities.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 9:49 AM
Yep, US prison system is still our pathway to enslaving folks, thanks loophole in the 13th amendment. Gotta love 1619 style thinking still embedded deeply in our country, and the ways it’s still entwined with bad parts of British colonial history.
Assange though is far from innocent with any of this. Between the shady shit at WikiLeaks and 2016, along with his unanswered for sexual crimes, spreading poo on walls… well, I still hope he sees justice one day, even if it’s not going to be from the problematic US system.
The US, UK and Asssange here are in quite a crappy, self made situation.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:47 AM
That’s a little disingenuous. "Prison" encompasses a broad range here. There are federal, state and private institutions, ranging from dank, dark, maximum security holes of isolation to white collar country clubs that’d I’d guess many a homeless person would find appealing.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 1:42 PM
I would like to point out this: "Wall Street Journal reporting that the judge noted that the risk of suicide is too high." The WSJ was a bit, how can I put it, mild in its reporting towards the US prison system. The risk of suicide was high because the judge claimed the US prison system is too inhumane. And from what I have read in the ruling I agree.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:51 AM
Inhumane conditions was listed as secondary (at least when I read through it earlier this morning) and the risk of suicide was high because he’s specifically stated he will and they found a razer blade in his cell and there’s no belief the US Prison System will actually keep someone from committing suicide.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 1:48 PM
It’s really sad how far England has fallen. They once conquered the world. Now they’re afraid of criminals threatening to commit suicide and letting them go. Think about that. It’s no wonder Russia is poisoning all their expatriate there and there’s nothing the English will do except protest with strongly worded letters.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:54 AM
Did you mean they committed genocide and theft?
The Judge rightfully condemned the US prison system in its ruling.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 7:59 AM
How nice of you to be judge and jury. How about we let history judge the conquerors, huh? Last time I checked the nations and peoples England ruled over still use the English language and judicial system. Me thinks they preferred it to what they had before…
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 8:02 AM
CIA bot is that you? Btw, the reason is actually to do with forced labour in US federal prisons.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 9:47 AM
Christ, go learn some history.
Brutal subjugation of local rights customs and language was the British way of doing things. There’s a reason people went to war to get rid of them and it’s not because they preferred the British way.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:22 AM
YEP I am judge and jury. In fact I declare you: an idiot.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 12:28 PM
Good. The US shouldn’t be able to be punish anyone who outs them for the crimes they committed (while refusing to extradite one of their own citizens for murder in the UK).
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 8:14 AM
Julian Assange’s allegations have proven to be correct, keep up the good work from Canada!
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 9:50 AM
Whilst I agree with you, Anne Sacoolas isn’t wanted for murder as murder implies intent to kill. That’s if you’re referring to the sad case of Harry Dunn.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:35 AM
You don’t think running over a teenager in a car and fleeing the country to avoid justice citing "diplomatic immunity" is just as bad as murder?
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 1:16 PM
I’m not sure what you’re struggling to understand. Murder requires intent and yes, whilst it’s deplorable what she did, it still doesn’t constitute murder. Do you think she’ll face a murder charge if she does come to the UK to face justice? To be clear, I’m not defending her and I also want the coward to face justice – I’m just stating fact that it wasn’t murder.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:28 PM
At what point did I state it wasn’t horrible what she did? She also wouldn’t be charged with any form of homicide, she would likely be charged for death by careless driving.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:33 PM
I figured it was more than just getting stuck on little details. Sorry if I misunderstood.
When you kill somebody, it’s homicide. Certain jurisdictions may put some cutesy spin on the name of the charge, but it’s homicide by definition.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:40 PM
It’s not about being ‘cutesy’, considering the US have no interest in extraditing her and the family want her to face justice in a British Court then she’ll only ever face British charges. In Britain, only murder and manslaughter fall under the definition of homicide.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:48 PM
What you wish to call it is irrelevant, the conversation was in regards to what crime she’ll be charged with in the UK which is neither murder nor homicide. I’m merely stating facts.
I don’t necessarily agree with our charges and or sentencing but it is what is is. If you want to see an example of how badly you can drive in the UK and still only get charged with either death by careless driving or death by dangerous driving then Google for ‘Antonio Boparan’. TLDR: Rich kid severely disabled a baby by driving his Dad’s luxury sports car at 80mph is a 30 zone, with the baby unfortunately passing away 10 years later from injuries sustained in that accident. He only served 7 months of his 18 months prison sentence, pretty ridiculous considering the lives he ruined.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 6:12 PM
The conversation was in regards to the act, not the charge. This was further evidenced by OP’s follow-up. Anyways, it’s been fun. Hope we see some action.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 6:17 PM
Assange and Snowden are heroes; not traitors. They exposed the baldfaced lies that our own government was telling us about domestic spying, among many other lies. That the US is so eager to prosecute whistleblower journalists in the name of ‘national security’ is so very sad.
If Trump had had the balls to pardon Assange or Snowden, instead of his cronies, he would’ve gone from an F to a D- grade in my book.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 8:44 AM
Snowden and Assange are not even in the same category. What baffles me is that people still hold Assange as some moral actor when he was clearly propagandizing for the Russian government via the release of diplomatic cables and hacked emails.
I’ll agree, governments should be held accountable. But saying that a mouthpiece for a government that has illegally annexed territory, invaded its neighbors, imprisoned LGBT citizens, and conducted assassinations of expatriate whistleblowers is a hero is appalling. At least Assange would be guaranteed due process.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 2:19 PM
For the record, just because you’re a journalist, it doesn’t mean you’re allowed to commit crimes in order to get the story. Assange was an active participant in the crimes Manning did. He told him what to do and which systems to hack. He encouraged his behavior. It’s not unlike the movie Nightcrawler with Jake Gyllenhaal. Your job as a journalist is to report the story, not be the story.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 8:54 AM
Right, right. Let’s all forget what they actually uncovered and showed the World.
Turn your head the other way and continue with your Amazon shopping and Instagram posting, because that’s what the World boils down to.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 9:28 AM
Whilst I usually side with people trying to uphold law and order. When it comes to outing modern war crimes committed by a first world country, I think you have the moral high ground in doing so. And I commend any person, institution or government that defends them.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 11:28 AM
Your job as a journalist is to report the story, not be the story.
Sometimes you can’t report a story without risking becoming the story.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/16/malta-car-bomb-kills-panama-papers-journalist
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 3:01 PM
How many comment threads are you going to start in this article? GFG.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:30 PM
I agree with you! Manning was the Whistleblower, Assange just took advantage of a source to create stories for him to report on, and that is ethically wrong as a journalist.
As for the other comments, this leak of information was done years ago, there is no turning a blind eye to it. Assange not being a federal employee does not get any protection from the laws he broke under the Whistleblower Protection Act. period.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 5:54 PM
Hopefully this sets a precedent for extradition from the UK to the US. Even without taking into account the deplorable decision to reject the extradition of Anne Sacoolas, leaving a grieving family without justice; we shouldn’t be extraditing anyone to a country that still has the death penalty (regardless if the individual is facing the death penalty or not).
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:32 AM
After reading about Ramsey Orta, one can only imagine what would happen to someone like Assange in the American "justice system". My guess is after landing in the States he would be never seen or heard from again.
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 10:47 AM
You can have him when you send Anne Sacoolas back to the UK for killing a teenager while she was driving on the wrong side of the road
Posted on Jan 4, 2021 | 4:18 PM
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK