Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads:<p>> The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.<p>The judge states:<p>> it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs (special administrative measures) regime, both pre-trial and post-trial<p>And goes on to contrast with the conditions at HMP Belmarsh:<p>> many of the protective factors currently in place at HMP Belmarsh would be removed by these conditions. Mr. Assange’s health improved on being removed from relative isolation in healthcare. He has been able to access the support of family and friends. He has had access to a Samaritans phone line. He has benefited from a trusting relationship with the prison In-Reach psychologist. By contrast, a SAMs regime would severely restrict his contact with all other human beings, including other prisoners, staff and his family. In detention subject to SAMs, he would have absolutely no communication with other prisoners, even through the walls of his cell, and time out of his cell would be spent alone.<p>These conditions sound barbaric to me and I'd go as far to describe them as torture. Amnesty International do a better job of outlining the problems with this regime than I can: <a href="https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the-us-federal-prison-system/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the...</a><p>Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.<p>She concludes:<p>> I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.<p>> I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange, pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003<p>Whilst a victory nonetheless for Assange, it is unfortunate that the entire judgement seems to come down to this point alone. Let's hope it is not overturned.
If there's anything to learn from Assange and Snowden:<p>1. Our western "liberal" democracies stop being liberal when the government gets angry at you at a personal level.<p>2. With enough propaganda, you can make people believe anything, even that Snowden is a "traitor" to the US.<p>3. Politically vociferous people (the mob) don't give a shit about you unless you're instrumental to support the <i>cause du jour</i>
I actually don't think this is such great news for him.<p>Extradition was specifically blocked on the grounds of a particular regime he might be subjected to (to be fair, probably the only legal grounds on which he had any chance of succeeding). That leaves the US with a way out if they want to proceed with the extradition - guarantee a different set of circumstances.<p>If the judge had found on more substantive grounds, those would have been much more resistant to that. For instance, all the claims based on language in the extradition treaty and other international agreements failed and they failed for pretty fundamental legal reasons. English courts only have regard for domestic law and it is for parliament to pass laws consistent with the treaties that have been signed, therefore claims based on treaty language won't work.<p>That means that none of the claims on the political nature of his activities were upheld and those would have provided a much more robust and durable bar to extradition.
Kevin Gosztola: "The United States government's mass incarceration system just lost them their case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - <a href="https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/kgosztola/status/1346048531249958914</a><p>Matt Kennard, investigative journalist: "Brilliant news, but be in no doubt. This ruling is utterly chilling for investigative journalism. Baraitser sided with US prosecutors on pretty much all of their arguments. It was the barbaric nature of the US penal system that saved Assange." - <a href="https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/kennardmatt/status/1346051928011235328</a><p>Rebecca Vincent from Reports Without Borders responding to the judgment: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3JMUREH8A</a>
I am incredibly happy for this ruling, I really hope it stands after the appeals. Freedom of expression and the right to know what oppresive governments are doing are too important to lose.
So, she basically dismissed all other arguments of Assange team except the mental health argument/risk of suicide, and blocked extradition based on that.<p>That's really interesting.
Quite unexpected! Like many HNers who followed Craig Murray's reporting of the trial (see below), I thought Judge Baraitser was a compliant puppet and the extradition to the US was preordained. Will be interesting to see his take on this.<p><a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=false&query=craigmurray&sort=byPopularity&type=story" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...</a>
Where we find out that extradition from the UK for political offences is actually largely permitted.
Some protection from extradition remains, but it is very narrow. It only stands if the person is being prosecuted "on the basis of their political opinions" :<p>"53. The EA 2003 created a new extradition regime, described in Norris as a “wide-ranging
reform of the law” (§45). As the US points out, it is a prescriptive regime, setting out the
sole statutory basis on which a court is obliged to deal with matters, and does so in a series
of imperative steps the court must follow. These steps no longer include a consideration
of the political character of an offence, and there is no opportunity, within the scheme of
the EA 2003, to raise this as an objection to extradition. The EA 2003 retained the bar to
extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person
on the basis of their political opinions, pursuant to section 81 (the political opinion bar),
but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence."
This is fantastic news, however I’m sure there will be a lengthy appeal.<p>In summary:<p>- the judge did not agree with the defence that this was an improper extradition request<p>- however she blocked extradition on the grounds that Assange would likely commit suicide due to the extreme prison conditions he would face
" However, I am satisfied that,in these harsh conditions,Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.<p>363.I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America"<p>Seems to be the reason why the case is rejected.
In my mind, what distinguishes the Snowden case from the Assange/Manning cases is the distinction between whistleblowing [1] and a fishing expedition [2]:<p>> A fishing expedition is an informal, pejorative term for a non-specific search for information, especially incriminating information. It is most frequently organized by policing authorities.<p>The question is whether it is lawful for any group to mine a corpus of private documents searching for a crime or misdeed. Individuals or small activist organizations now have this ability and it is not exactly the same as a whistleblower leaking documents associated with a known crime.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_expedition</a>
I don’t quite understand this case. It’s not really US vs Assange. This is either US vs GB, or Assange vs GB, but the claims don’t seem to have anything to do with allegations of damages between third parties under GB law and jurisdiction. The interpretation of US law by a GB judge seems extraneous. The US indictment is settled. The only relevant question is whether the extradition treaty applies. I don’t know if any of this is relevant, but, to recap from a layperson’s understanding, this is a US case against a non-US person residing in a foreign country, and accused of a US conspiracy to commit a crime with a US person who was incidentally pardoned by a US president. GB and AUS both have direct standing and jurisdiction under their own law through NATO, so why is he not being tried this way?<p>My guess is that the US wants nothing to do with this case. The military would be watching proto-Obama crucify Prof after pardoning Chelsea.<p>Side note: I’m pretty sure at this point he wishes he’d not had anything to do with any of this hacking stuff. Being a professional dog-walker in a small village probably sounds great.
It’s good to see that the inhumane prison system in the US is beginning to become a problem for those who actually implemented it. Regardless how you feel about Assange, and I’m ambivalent about him, the US facing consequences for what we’ve done with our criminal justice system is something to be applauded.
Is he out already? Be good to hear it’s going okay... must be feeling very relieved but I would have convinced myself I was ending up in a high-max. Emotional disorientating I’d say.
Can't help but suspect the british security establishment decided it didn't want to extradite him because there was real risk he would be pardoned in the U.S. In their estimation, if they wait just 16 more days (post inauguration), that's no longer a risk, and even if something unprecedented in the U.S. happens, the british govt still has him.<p>Assange humiliated a generation of spies and officials and discredited the institutions they controlled at a key strategic moment, just as they were consolidating a lifetime of work toward their international alignment and control. It's zero sum for them, where if he survives, he's proven right. Historically, Wikileaks (among a few other projects) is how Gen-X unmoored the new establishment of the Boomer generation, and inspired Millennials like Snowden to surge into the breach.<p>It doesn't matter what they do to him now, he won.
I find it interesting that on nearly the last page we see that the defense argued that it was an abuse of power of the courts to deny extradition. I wonder how happy he will be rotting in a UK prison instead of a US one.
I find the timing for this news extremely amusing.<p>Currently, there's a lot of criticism towards China for arresting journalists investigating controversial topics.<p>OTOH, the US is doing literally the same thing, with little to no backlash.
Practically speaking a good outcome for Assange, but a bad outcome for our rights to free speech and free reporting in a liberal democracy. The US have killed millions in the Middle East since 9/11, yet no one is ever held to account for their brutal war crimes. Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld and their associates should be the ones prosecuted, not Assange.
The entire US prison system feels abusive to me. I've said before that if I somehow magically were to find myself on a US jury (can't happen - I'm not resident in or a citizen of the US; this is a pure hypothetical), I'd be hard pressed to be able to justify voting "guilty" on a moral basis even for quite serious crimes.<p>It feels designed for vengeance and inducing harm rather than for safety for society and rehabilitation.
The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the government wants to appear aligned with the US as much as possible on this issue, while not actually extraditing Julian Assange.
Quite surprised by that verdict. Reading the commentary from Craig Murray [1] I thought it likely he would be extradited.<p>Maybe Trump will pardon him and Snowdon on his way out as well.<p>[1] EG: <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-21/" rel="nofollow">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/10/your-man-in-...</a>
funny how usa can do such barbaric shit to humans in the name of "upholding the constitution" but let someone else kill a person for breaking their own laws and usa gets its panties in a bunch. good bigotry.
How will this affect US and UK relations? They are brother/sister countries. Snowden and Assange are 2 Americans most wanted, US would do anything to get them.<p>Btw I'm not in favor of US Gov. spying but what Snowden and Assange did (leak state secrets) is criminal and they need to face justice.