UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Assange extradition. The case now moves to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition.
WikiLeaks editor and publisher Julian Assange is facing a 175 year sentence for publishing truthful information in the public interest.
Julian Assange is being sought by the current US administration for publishing US government documents which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. The politically motivated charges represent an unprecedented attack on press freedom and the public’s right to know – seeking to criminalise basic journalistic activity.
If convicted Julian Assange faces a sentence of 175 years, likely to be spent in extreme isolation.
The UN working group on arbitrary detention issued a statement saying that “the right of Mr. Assange to personal liberty should be restored”.
Massimo Moratti of Amnesty International has publicly stated on their website that, “Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of its obligations under international law.”
Human Rights Watch published an article saying, “The only thing standing between an Assange prosecution and a major threat to global media freedom is Britain. It is urgent that it defend the principles at risk.”
The NUJ has stated that the “US charges against Assange pose a huge threat, one that could criminalise the critical work of investigative journalists & their ability to protect their sources”.
Sadly this was a foregone conclusion for anyone that knows a bit about the history of the UK Supreme Court 😓
Well the thing is in this case there was clealry a point of law that is of general interest, and that concerns other people as well:
Can a state (the US) give “diplomatic assurances” (that they will not torture Assange, unless… ) after a decision of justice was taken, in order to invalidate it? In a context where the defendant couldn’t have access to these insurances to be able to properly invalidate them with the use of expert witnesses in first instance?
By claiming that this was NOT a point of law justifying a supreme court appeal, the court implicitly allows the US (and other countries) to “keep their cards to their chest” and not disclose their arguments in first instance extradition procedures to bypass the contradictory procedure, waiting to eventually lose the case to disclose diplomatic assurances…
This is a major blow for whoever still believed in the UK court system, and maybe in “justice” at large in the UK. As they say there: “disgraceful!”… :(
context pls?
I don’t doubt that uk supreme court is a shitty organisation, just curious for some prior examples 🤔
I am not British, but I was told the Supreme Court was especially created around the Falkland War and staffed with political appointees to overrule a politically inopportune decision by what had been the highest court in the UK until that time for decades.
And it has been used as such a political tool ever since.
Neo-liberalism is a feudal system disguised as democracy, since it puts the particular interests of an elite before the real sovereignty of a population, the essence of a real democracy.
“If you tell the truth you need a damn fast horse”
It’s unclear to me how the man could ever have broken any US law. Apparently he’s never stepped foot on US soil and is not a US citizen. These two things together make it extremely challenging to engage in espionage against the US.
Did he, or did he not infiltrate some computer system owned by the US government/military? Best I’ve heard is someone “sent him files”. That’s not illegal. He had no legal obligation to be loyal to the United States, so anything treason-like is out of the question.
that’s fucking awful, but sadly not unexpected based on experiencing reality lol
i can only hope that if he does end up being “authorized” to be extradicted that the the good british ppl will physically block the convey or smth
UK: Refusal by Supreme Court to grant Assange right to appeal is “a blow for justice”
Responding to a UK Supreme Court decision refusing to grant Julian Assange permission to appeal against the previous High Court ruling permitting his extradition, Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe Julia Hall, said:
“Today’s decision is a blow to Julian Assange and to justice. The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.
But the Putin apologists said Amnesty International was a nazi arm of NATO… I’m confused now. Do we like them only when they’re not criticizing us?
also unsure about who is “we” in that case?
You don’t have to like them to acknowledge they are indeniably right about something, do you?
I just thought it was funny that in another thread they were being painted as the western foils for criticizing Russia. Amensty’s actions belie that reactionary slander.
In some regions and on some issues (such as the currently-existing states that identify as Marxist-Leninist) Amnesty’s positions tend to be strongly US-aligned, while on other topics (such as Palestine, US domestic issues, and WikiLeaks) they’re very much not aligned. It turns out politics aren’t reducible to a small boolean circuit :)
Removed by mod
The eastern autocratic dictatorship that is guilty of all your points as well? Is that who you mean?
Tell us more, o wise orientalist, of the crimes of the barbaric asiatic hordes.
Removed by mod
Well, the funny thing is that Russia never really did recover from the conquest by the Mongols. Their entire culture was scarred by cynicism and paranoia instilled by the Rus who came in the dark for you and your whole family. An unbroken line of terror from Tsars, Commisars, and now President-for-life.
UK: RSF calls on Home Office to block Assange extradition following Supreme Court refusal to consider appeal
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is deeply disappointed by the refusal of the UK Supreme Court to consider the appeal in the extradition case against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. More than two years after extradition proceedings began, the case will now be sent back to the Home Office to take a political decision. RSF urges the Home Office to act in the interest of journalism and press freedom by refusing extradition and immediately releasing Assange from prison.
Does the UK supreme court function similarly to the USA one?
