Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Denied Permission To Appeal Extradition (cnet.com) 102

Posted by msmash from the tussle-continues dept.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's attempt to appeal extradition was denied by the UK's Supreme Court on Monday. Assange was initially granted the right to petition the court in late January. From a report: The UK's highest court denied Assange's bid because "the application does not raise an arguable point of law," according to a statement released by the court. Assange faces espionage charges relating to WikiLeaks' release of confidential US military records about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange could potentially face a 175-year jail sentence, though US officials said, if he's convicted, his sentence would likely be between four and six years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Denied Permission To Appeal Extradition More

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Denied Permission To Appeal Extradition

Comments Filter:
  • Just my opinion: this farce has gone on way too long.

    • Agreed, Assange needs better lawyers who know how to file an appeal correctly.

      • Appeals aren't magical "get of jail free" cards. Desire to see somebody set free does not magically transform into a legal issue that can block extradition. Extradition between allies who have a solid extradition treaty is unlikely to be successfully opposed. It will only work in cases where there is a competing legal principle, such as if a person had diplomatic immunity at the time of the alleged crime.

        Here, the claim is a specious attack on the US criminal justice system that has no place in the courts o

        • If you take the court at face value the issue is that there was no valid legal reason given to free him in the appeal. And it doesn't take a genius lawyer really to come up with a decent reason why the appeal should go forward. Ie, what is the point of law that is being argued here? This is what the UK supreme court does; it argues about the previous case but it does not decide guilt or innocence. So find something in the original case judgement that is flawed and argue that flaw, which his lawyers did

          • And it doesn't take a genius lawyer really to come up with a decent reason why the appeal should go forward. Ie, what is the point of law that is being argued here?

            No, dipshit, that's something that has to be addressed in the US courts.

            The point of the law here is that there is an extradition treaty.

            What is the flaw going to be? Did he have diplomatic immunity? No. Is the accusation for something that isn't a crime in the UK? No. Is he not actually the person he's accused of being? No. Did the UK make a mistake, and there isn't actually an extradition request? No.

            Yes, it would absolutely take a "genius lawyer" to just pull something out of their ass to block extraditi

            • Yes, it would absolutely take a "genius lawyer" to just pull something out of their ass to block extradition.

              Remind us again what crimes he's committed on American soil or in American jurisdiction.

              • committed on $COUNTRY soil or in $COUNTRY's jurisdiction

                The definition of extradition is delivering someone from one jurisdiction to another. That's the point. Otherwise you could flee a country and get away with anything, or commit fraud from your home with impunity.

                I'm oversimplifying the extradition process, but the things he's accused of are crimes in both countries and a bunch of people with a lot of discretion said "OK", so he's coming over.

              • Remind us again what crimes he's committed on American soil or in American jurisdiction.

                Violation of the Official Secrets Act.

            • I have to agree with you. Regardless of whatever the real situation is, the UK simply cannot refuse to extradite someone to the US on grounds that the US will not give a fair trial. They just can't do that. Even if the judge were convinced it was true, refusing the extradition would create an international scandal. I actually feel that the guy is being unfairly targeted and will probably be unfairly prosecuted. But I am objective enough to see that there is no way for the UK to NOT extradite him.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • gone to Sweden and then US prison hell take rape change and do the time in Sweden an lot better then an US jail / prison.

      • Gone to Sweden then been shipped directly to the USA under their prisoner exchange system.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by gflash ( 6321000 )

          Gone to Sweden then been shipped directly to the USA under their prisoner exchange system.

          Why in the world do we think that it would have been easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK???? The UK has a much closer relationship with the US than Sweden on many levels (NATO, Five Eyes etc.). As well due to the "Doctrine Of Specialty" if Sweden agreed to extradite Assange they would have needed UK's approval to extradite him to the US too:

          https://www.aklagare.se/en/med... [aklagare.se]

          Can we please put this nonsense to bed once and for all?

          • Can we please put this nonsense to bed once and for all?

            When have you ever known conspiracy theorists to put any of their nonsense to bed? That's all that this crap over Assange is, and always has been. I don't know why these guys put all of their faith in a guy who got tossed out of the Ecuadorian embassy because they finally had enough of his bullshit (and his bad hygiene, apparently.)

        • There are no prisoner exchange system between Sweden and the US.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Gimric ( 110667 )

            I guess we all forgotten that "extraordinary rendition" is a thing that the US has done in the past.

            • So the US is going to kidnap him off the plane? From the Swedish Police? The UK Police? How does that work?

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

            • No, the very existence of those is one of the reasons why this whole "lets get him to Sweden on rape charges from the UK" scheme is 100% unbelievable. They could just have snatched him of the streets into an unmarked van at any time they wanted so why starts this extremely convoluted and failed scheme? So logic dictates that this is just a crazy conspiracy theory.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DrXym ( 126579 )
          No such thing. Besides which, he'd have a far easier time fighting extradition in Sweden than in the UK. Comfier prisons too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        He was worried that he might be kidnapped. As it turns out, he was right to be. Leaked documents show that the US did look at kidnapping him.

      • or rather his administration? Not that I'd be surprised if he did (Assange P.O.'d our version of Aristocracy here in America) but I don't recall him caring one way or another so long as Assange continued to pick his targets carefully like he seemed to be after his 1st round of leaks.
      • I don't feel all that bad for a Russian sympathizer(and perhaps on the payroll) now that everything he's worked for has come to a head and a new cold war brews in the shadow of an actual war
      • This is an attack on journalism. Be very carful when you say this is his fault. Assange exposed the lies and crimes of the American empire and the empire is going to extract flesh in payment. The 1917 espionage act (the legal grounds the US went after him with) was evoked only 2 times between 1917 and 2009. Obama invoked it 9 times to silence journalists, including against Assange. This is a war against freedom.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        Absolutely. Worst case is he'd have served a few years in a cosy Swedish prison for rape and then enjoy the rest of his life at liberty. But more likely he would have gone over, been questioned, Sweden wouldn't have prosecuted and he could be on his merry way.

        Fleeing justice and enraging the US, UK, France and other powers with his Russian backed bullshit while hiding in an embassy didn't work out so good for him. He should have flown to Sweden.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      This is a situation of his own making.

      The funny part is knowing that if he had gone to Sweden and even if the worst had happened and he was charged and convicted of rape, he would have been out years ago. I doubt the US would have even bothered trying to extradite him at the time. But after spending all those years interfering with US elections and other things, they sure as hell did.

      • One thing is clear, he made no friends in the UK when he skipped bail and hid out in Ecuadorian Embassy for a few years thumbing his nose at the British courts.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DrXym ( 126579 )
          Definitely. He first served time for jumping bail and and there was NO WAY he was going to be granted bail by the courts during extradition proceedings. If he had just gone to Sweden chances are he would have been a free man all this time.

      • >he would have been out years ago

        I thought we had confirmed that the US had already quietly arranged for his extradition to the US the moment he set foot in Swedish jurisdiction?

        As I recall, the rape charges had already been dropped by the time Sweden tried to extradite him from the UK. Extremely suspicious behavior on the part of Sweden, especially since as I recall they "only wanted to interview him", but steadfastly refused to conduct the interview outside Swedish jurisdiction.

        • No, the rape charges timed out whilst he was in the embassy.

          • You're right, I should have said the rape charges were already dropped *by the alleged victims*. As I recall that happened almost immediately, within days or weeks of the original accusation. That Sweden continued to pursue them in the absence of an accuser was what convinced many that they had ulterior motives.

            • The state pursuing rape charges regardless of if the victims drops the charges or not is standard procedure. Also they dropped the charges since they got huge backlash among Assanges Internet friends and they didn't want that kind of attention. They still to this day receive death threats from anonymous jack asses.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DrXym ( 126579 )
          That was the excuse at the time but it seems the US was hesitant to proceed so more likely he would have gone to Sweden and faced some questioning. Seems like the US changed their minds when he spent his embassy time fucking around in the 2016 president election and other things.

        • >he would have been out years ago

          I thought we had confirmed

          That's not thinking, that's confusing hyperbole for history. No thought is required to do that.

          He had not even been indicted yet. That happened in 2018. And largely was pursued because his work with the Russians (while a fugitive in the embassy) to interfere with US elections changed the calculus. If he hadn't done that stuff, it wouldn't have been worth the trouble of chasing him down. Especially when he had already caused himself so much suffering by hiding from shadows. But that shit was a bridge too far

          • Those weren't shadows. He's one of the people in the world for whom paranoia is most justified.

            • Not for going to Sweden no, under international law Sweden could not have extradited him to the US without the consent of the UK so why would they even bother with this strange maneuver instead of extraditing him directly from the UK which is exactly what they are doing now when they really want to get their hands on him.

              • Why wouldn't they step out from under the burdensome irritation of the USA for protecting him?

                • Who are we talking about? I was talking about him being paranoid about Sweden wasn't justified.

              • He didn't have an indictment in the US until 2018, and he wouldn't have had one either if he hadn't also been attempting to interfere in US elections.

                Basically, it wasn't until the election stuff that he was revealed as a Russian asset, which entirely changed the calculus for the US.

                And his defenders should probably look into that part, and check what is going on in the world now, before going all-in on supporting this guy. Prior to about 6 weeks ago, most people didn't care if he was working with the Russi

        • No there are no such confirmation, him being extradited to the US is and was, much higher in the UK than in Sweden.

    • Standing up for the little guy generally results in punishment. This is because the little guy has no interest in standing up for you.

      • Russia is not "the little guy."

        Even with Puta Poutine in charge.

        • I think you misinterpreted my post.

          Wikileaks published ways in which the American government killed civilians and did other terrible things. These were covered-up precisely because of the outrage they would cause (and wound up causing). So, the "little guy" here is basically all of us; the ordinary civilians that are treated as disposable by our governments.

          It has been a common story throughout history: whistle blowers get punished for blowing the whistle. The people who benefit from the revelations don'

    • Just my opinion: this farce has gone on way too long.

      Fully agree. If Assange had just faced the accusations against him rather than endlessly running from the law he'd have served his sentence and be a perfectly free man now. He really turned this into a farce.

  • I'd love to go back in time and show this to everyone claiming it was a conspiracy theory to say that Assange's arrest for "sex crimes" (hearsay claiming he said he'd use a condom and then claiming he didn't) was really a ploy by the US government to get him extradited to the US.

    Of course it's not actually necessary to go back in time, because I said it to them then. I'm sure those people will have selective memories and just shrug at this news and go "well, what do you expect? It was obvious."

    • IRC there was still the sheen of the good guy Obama presidency, so people thought that Assange was just making things up. Those were different times. Now it seems everything's possible.

    • a ploy by the US government to get him extradited to the US.

      You don't need a ploy to extradite, it's paperwork and a bunch of legal and diplomatic stuff. If they wanted him extradited, they'd just extradite him. From Sweden, from the UK, from Australia, etc.

      I didn't show up to my speeding ticket hearing because the spooks are after me doesn't mean you didn't speed.

      • Or more simply just grab him off the streets in a van, that would have been the easiest of all, why on earth cook up some complex conspiracy days after he left Sweden for the UK.
    • It was a ludicrous conspiracy theory back then and it's even more stupid now. By international law, Sweden could not extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK so why go this extra mile when he already is in the UK where it's the only place the US can make this request. And funnily enough, now that they actually want to get their hands on him, that is exactly how they do it, they ask the UK to extradite him, so if anything this is more proof that your theory was nothing but a loony conspiracy the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Except it wasn't a ploy. A complaint was made by the alleged victim and the Swedes wanted to question him. And if the Americans had wanted to extradite the guy they could have done it in a far less elaborate, convoluted way given that he was in the UK where extradition to the US is a relatively common occurrence.

      And if Assange *really* didn't want to be extradited in the US he would have whiled away his time in the embassy being a good little boy instead of being Putin's bitch. If his intent was to anger

      • >It wasn't a ploy, it's just a coincidence that Assange has been pursued across the world and tens of millions of dollars have been dedicated to surveilling him 24/7 as he claimed asylum in an embassy who then kicked him out after some backroom deals, and even though his original sex crime charges are long-since expired he was still hunted and now still manages to find himself being extradited to the US.

        Huh?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DrXym ( 126579 )
          If you're too stupid to read the circumstances or timeline of this dumbass and his adventures in meddling with US affairs until fucked around and found out then it's not my problem.

          • So you're fully incapable of separating an analysis of the situation over how you personally feel about it. It must be terrible to have such a lack of clarity of thought

  • Apparently doesn't fly in a UK court. Who woulda thunk it.

    He has a point, though. Don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no love for Assange. He's a self-declared enemy of the US and for some reason he thought he could play at the espionage game and outsmart uncle sam. What a moron. The Dunning-Kruger is strong with that one. But we seriously abandoned the high road when we tossed Manning into a solitary jail cell and let him rot while he slowly went insane. That individual was obviously mentally unstab
    • they won't extradite to us for most crimes because our prison system is designed to inflict more punishment than the actual sentence.

    • > But we seriously abandoned the high road when we tossed Manning into a solitary jail cell and let him rot while he slowly went insane

      Umm - that sort of behavior was already business as usual, which was why Assange was worried. We didn't have any moral high ground to lose. Manning's case was just public enough to make a larger portion of the general public aware of it. And as you prove, obviously many people didn't really get the message and thought their treatment was somehow exceptional.

      I mean, come

      • The prisoners in Gitmo have no constitutional rights. THere is NOTHING in the constitution that says how we are to treat terrorists.

        • Actually it does - constitutional rights apply to everyone in America (which includes all overseas embassies, and is generally regarded to include all facilities operated by the US government), and regardless of legal status. And that's actually a restrictive interpretation - nothing in the constitution asserts that it doesn't apply to every person on the planet, which would mean it binds the US Government in their dealings with anyone, anywhere in the world, for any reason.

          (Well, there are a (very) few ri

          • It's the reason the 6th amendment exists and why Madison pushed through the 9th.

            It is amazing how many are just willing to wipe their ass with the constitution as soon as someone yells "terrorist!" - because as you said, if those in power declares that you're a terrorist you're SOL and sunshine for the rest of your life probably.

          • Your hypothetical example is already a reality since President Obama declared he could kill any US citizen with hellfire missles at any time as long as they were abroad. If we get another significant terrorist act or Mr Trump as president again, rendition of US citizens within and abroad might not be far away.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Gimric ( 110667 )

          The very point of Gitmo is to avoid the Constitutional protections that people would have if it was located inside the US.

        • Have they been tried and convicted of terrorism? I don't think they were even charged. My understanding is they're "illegal combatants".

          The constitution does go into detail about how accused criminals are dealt with. It's kind of weird that you are willing to completely ignore the rights of a group of people based on a mere accusation.As though you trust the government never to make accusations against people who are inconvenient to the government.

    • He's a self-declared enemy of the US and for some reason he thought he could play at the espionage game and outsmart uncle sam.

      The problem is, that he is not an American, he committed no crimes on American soil, and he did not steal anything.
      All he did was receive stolen goods from Manning. Manning was RIGHTLY prosecuted and should still be in prison except that Obama let him out. Sad that he did. Manning deserves a life sentence. But assange does not even deserve to be tried.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ksevio ( 865461 )

        I believe the charges are because Assange helped Manning steal classified data including telling her how to retrieve it, not just that he received it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hawk ( 1151 )

          wait, what?

          This is slashdot; you can't bring in facts in place of misinformed or ignorant outrage!

      • As I said, Manning had a well documented history of mental instability and workplace outbursts, entirely unrelated to his LGBT status, and the US government handed him a top secret clearance anyway, and then acted all surprised and angry when he wasn't a consummate professional. That alone should be a mitigating factor. You can't expect a toddler to bench-press 250 pounds. Manning should have NEVER been allowed to access TS data. That's on the US government.

        If you feel that hostile towards Manning and

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Gimric ( 110667 )

      Where "being mean to me" includes psychological torture and possibly being killed and have it made to look like suicide, while the cameras are turned off and the guards are asleep.

  • Just tell him to get a gender change along with changing his name to Juliana, then he'll get a pardon.

  • Whistleblower protections really need to be ramped up. This just shows how corrupt the govts around the world are.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ffkom ( 3519199 )
      And how ironic Assange is harrassed for exposing war crimes during an invasion based on lies, while the very country going after him currently chides another international bully country that is engaging in war crimes right now, in yet another invasion based on lies.

      • And how ironic Assange is harrassed for exposing war crimes during an invasion based on lies, while the very country going after him currently chides another international bully country that is engaging in war crimes right now, in yet another invasion based on lies.

        You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        Most of what people are reflexively calling war crimes after watching a tik tok video are not war crimes, or a whole lot more information needs to be dug out before anyone can conclusively say they are. That goes for everything in Iraq and Ukraine.

        The justification for both invasions is bullshit, I'm not going to play might makes right and pretend WMDs was anything less than total bullshit. You're still responsible for how you co

  • Well, setting aside the fact that some official's opinion might be wrong, he might be relieved to have an actual timeline. Unless he has been enjoying himself...

    • And you believe them because...?

      • Could have sworn I said, "Setting aside..."

        • >setting aside the fact that some official's opinion might be wrong,

          I made no suggestion that they were wrong.

          A bald-faced lie is a completely different sin, and an extremely common one among politicians, intelligence agents, and (probably to a lesser extent) law enforcement officials.

  • The Military-Industrial Complex we were seriously warned about by Einshower and Kennedy. There is enough information accessible to know the M.I.C. does not concern itself with the law and is set up to be self-funding in the way of manipulating world economies and more. i.e. trillion-dollar bet of the '90s.

    Anyone claiming Assange deserves this is either a propagandist supporting the M.I.C., an intentional troll, someone caught up in mass formation, or just plain ignorant as there is plenty of verifiable info

  • "If the Americans, with their precious little Constitution, can screw over people in their custody, then we certainly can as well."

  • I think that what assange did was despicable. The fact that he manipulated another westerner to betray a western nation just makes assange a POS. HOWEVER, what laws does America have to charge somebody from outside of America doing this? Assange is not an American. Nor, did he do this on American soil. If either was true, THEN it would make sense to go after him. But that is not the case.

    We really need to let sweden try him for rape and that is all.

  • Is anybody else noticing that the coverage of Ukraine is like the Upside-Down compared to the coverage of Iraq?

    This time, the people receiving the missiles and bombs are getting pictures out of what it's like to be on the sharp end. The biggest story from Wikileaks was the "collateral murder" video of a Reuters cameraman (and several others) dying because a helicopter gunner shot first and checked who it was, later.

    We got that one video from Ukraine, though we read of so many innocents killed at stops, a

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Russian oligarch gets Lordship after donating to the Tories.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close