Holy shit. I was not expecting that!
The unstopabble Kevin Gosztolaâs take on this
Judge Baraitserâs official judgmenent
Hmm. Great news on the face of it.
âExtradition would be oppressive by reason of Assangeâs mental health,â Baraitser stated.
She hasnât objected to Belmarsh half-killing him already.
âShe accepted that he would likely be imprisoned at a supermax prison in the U.S. under special administrative measures (SAMs) and would find a way to commit suicide.â
Is this begging some âguaranteesâ, perhaps British âoversightâ?
The US will appeal: https://www.foxnews.com/world/british-judge-denies-extradition-of-julian-assange
According to Mary of the Hulk before the judgement, the appeal against any decision to extradite Assange would be decided by Priti Patel. Presumably still the case with todayâs unexpected opposite outcome.
The outcome seemed inevitable; if so this might be a tactic. Does the judgement give any ruling on the substance of the court case? If the UK accepts US âguaranteesâ (speculating here), where will the decision on this case be then? It would appear superficially that the reasons for not extraditing Assange had been addressed. The substance would need to be referred to somewhere - but at the superficial level at which it might be reported, could be seen to carry less weight if what had been elevated to appear as the âmainâ objections had apparently been met.
Yes, the ruling is pretty hollow. Essentially Baraitser threw out the case for the defence, ruling that there were grounds for extradition, and the only reason not to do so is that Assange will definitely find a way to kill himself in a supermax prison.
Having read the hair raising reportage by Craig M and Stuart Gosztola on the conditions in the supermax prisons, I wonder who would not try to kill themselves?
The question of guarantees is a worrying one. Essentially if they could prove that they could stymie any attempt that Assange may make to kill himself, then there might be room to extradite him after all.
The whole idea of the supermax just makes me physically sick. LiterallyâŠ
Just up on the BBC (emphasis added): "District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that while US prosecutors met the tests for Mr Assange to be extradited for trial, the US was incapable of preventing him from attempting to take his own life.
She outlined evidence of his self harm and suicidal thoughts and said: âThe overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man fearful for his future.â
She said: âFaced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at HMP Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the US will not prevent Mr Assange from finding a way to commit suicide and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge.â
Does this mean âI agree with the case to extradite him but thereâs criticism over here of your Customer Care Plan.â
If this is a tactic it would normally carry a risk; the appeal judge might say they can only appeal legally against the decision taken on procedural grounds, so canât just âupâ their offer.
However since the beginning Assange has been in the clutches of people who really should have been excluded due to conflicts of interest. Priti Patal, Lady Arbuthnot and husband all have links to the Henry Jackson society, as outlined in the link below. This I found telling:
" In April 2019, after Julian Assange was seized from the embassy by British police, HJS director Alan Mendoza was put up as the counterweight against Assangeâs lawyer on BBCâs flagship Newsnight programme. Posted to the HJS Youtube channel, Mendoza told the national broadcaster: âJournalists are not allowed to break the law in obtaining their materials.â He added: âI think itâs quite clear Mr Assange has spent many years evading justice, hiding in a room in Knightsbridge⊠Isnât it time he actually answered questions in a court of law?â"
With Priti Patel in charge of the US appeal, the risk the appeal could founder straight off on technical grounds may not be a real one.
Caitlinâs on it - with another angle
The Assange Extradition Ruling Is A Relief, But It Isnât Justice
i.eâŠthis ruling could still help the US extradite future whistle-blowers. They might be able to refer to the âkey legal viewpointâ. Is it possible to challenge the âlegal viewâ expressed (but that was not acted upon for another reason)?
Apparently Assange will not be released pending the appeals process. As his partner just said, the fight for justice continues. The trouble is, there is more than one type of injustice against Assange for them to fight.
Anyway - how is it possible for the US to appeal a ruling on health grounds?
Bairaitser ducks out on a ludicrous quibble. Passes the poisoned chalice to the appeals court judges. Meanwhile, Julian remains in the torture chamber of the brutish thug who runs Belmarsh.
Viva Mexico
I found this interesting from Galloway from his RT piece;
âAs it happens I have the most excellent relations with Britainâs prison officers through long involvement with their trade union affairs, and I pressed throughout for the officers to treat Julian fairly during his detention. I failed. Not because the guards wanted to treat him mean, but because the meanness came from on high.â
Everybody is fixated on Trump going after Assange, but ignoring that the monsters in the British Deep State want JA punished as a deterrent & put out of action just as much, remember that they even almost stormed a foreign Embassy, and spent millions watching the building for years, long before Trump ever became President.