5 Filters

Julian Assange CANNOT be extradited to US, British judge rules

Holy shit. I was not expecting that!

some scenes from outside court

The unstopabble Kevin Gosztola’s take on this

Judge Baraitser’s official judgmenent

Hmm. Great news on the face of it.

“Extradition would be oppressive by reason of Assange’s mental health,” Baraitser stated.

She hasn’t objected to Belmarsh half-killing him already.

“She 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.”

Is this begging some ‘guarantees’, perhaps British ‘oversight’?

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 today’s 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 ‘guarantees’ (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 ‘main’ objections had apparently been met.

1 Like

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. Literally


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: “The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man fearful for his future.”

She said: “Faced 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.”

Does this mean “I agree with the case to extradite him but there’s criticism over here of your Customer Care Plan.”

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 can’t just ‘up’ 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 Assange’s lawyer on BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme. Posted to the HJS Youtube channel, Mendoza told the national broadcaster: “Journalists are not allowed to break the law in obtaining their materials.” He added: “I think it’s quite clear Mr Assange has spent many years evading justice, hiding in a room in Knightsbridge
 Isn’t it time he actually answered questions in a court of law?”"

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.

1 Like

Caitlin’s on it - with another angle

The Assange Extradition Ruling Is A Relief, But It Isn’t Justice

i.e
this ruling could still help the US extradite future whistle-blowers. They might be able to refer to the ‘key legal viewpoint’. Is it possible to challenge the ‘legal view’ 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?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Viva Mexico

I found this interesting from Galloway from his RT piece;

“As it happens I have the most excellent relations with Britain’s 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.”

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.

3 Likes