UK Clears Assange Extradition To US

a reply to: gortex

Assanges legal team has tried every trick in the book to zealously represent their client but several times they were caught outright lying to the media to get Assange sympathy.


His legal team -
* - tried to claim Assange faces the death penalty in the US (he is not facing a death sentence sine the charges dont support that as an outcome.
* - They tried to argue Assange would be charged with Treason in the US (he can't face treason charges because he is not a US citizen - this was also an attempt like the above example of claiming he faces the death penalty).

a reply to: crayzeed

I was under the impression the UK Supreme Court overrode that judges decision, clearing the way to be deported to Rwanda.

a reply to: Xcathdra
No, it's the other way around, the UCHR overruled the British high court.

a reply to: crayzeed

Also explain what is meant by UCHR.

The UCHR doesnt have that kind of authority if it what I think it is.

UK deportation flight to Rwanda can go ahead, high court judge rules

A high court judge has ruled that a controversial deportation flight to Rwanda that was due to take off early next week can go ahead.

Mr Justice Swift refused to grant interim relief – urgent action in response to an injunction application made by several asylum seekers facing offshoring to Rwanda.

Lawyers acting for the asylum seekers and the groups had argued the policy was unlawful and sought the urgent injunction to stop next week’s planned flight and any other such flights ahead of a full hearing of the case later in the year.

The decision will not stop individual refugees from further legal challenges to their removal to Rwanda, or a judicial review of the policy, which Swift said could take six weeks.

He supported submissions made by the home secretary, Priti Patel, and rejected the application to halt the Rwanda flight next Tuesday, but granted permission to the claimants to appeal – suggesting court of appeal judges would hear the case on Monday.

click link for article..

a reply to: Xcathdra
Sorry that should read ECHR. The ECHR is the European Court of Human Rights. Even though the UK is out of the EU they are still in the ECHR so must abide by their decision. Though the UK government is making moves to come out of the ECHR

he will be epstiened for sure...a reply to: myselfaswell

a reply to: crayzeed

Thats what I was thinking (ECHR). Thanks for the clarification.

Also, the ECHR has no enforcement authority. The UK is also a nation that has ignored a ruling from the ECHR.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: gortex

Assanges legal team has tried every trick in the book to zealously represent their client but several times they were caught outright lying to the media to get Assange sympathy.


His legal team -
* - tried to claim Assange faces the death penalty in the US (he is not facing a death sentence sine the charges dont support that as an outcome.
* - They tried to argue Assange would be charged with Treason in the US (he can't face treason charges because he is not a US citizen - this was also an attempt like the above example of claiming he faces the death penalty).

They're not lies - they're based on cases with legal precedent where the UK has denied extradition to the US as charges are known to be trumped up once extradited and the lack of ability to get a fair trial.

Happened with all the Arms to Iraq, Matrix-Churchill, Ordtech, Space Research Council etc...cases in the early 90s where UK judges denied extradition and named the US intel agents who wanted the arms shipped to Iraq to build Saddam's Supergun.

The whole affairs were detailed in the Scott Inquiry and similar ruling should have applied in the case of Assange as in the UK journalists have Public Interest Immunity Defence and legal protections meant to protect journalists when exposing war crimes/crimes of the state.

IIRC he advised Manning on how to leak securely (legal and ethical journalism under source protection/UK journalism law) but he didn't actively hack or crack networks which would be crossing the line of legal and ethical journalism and into criminality.

a reply to: bastion

Actually in the context I provided they are lies. Assange is not a US citizen and therefore cannot be charged with treason. The charges he faces do not have the death penalty as an option. The whole point behind Assange / his lawyers making the claims in question is to get extradition blocked using the death penalty angle.

As for denying extradition, that decision is up to the Home Secretary. As for assisting Manning he did more than just advise. He provided the program that helps avoid the the detection of classified / restricted material. He also requested the action to obtain the diplomatic cables. The moment a journalist switches from being a passive recipient of info and instead becomes an active participant the 1st amendment will most likely lose in that regard.

All of his claims are based on US law. The only involvement of the UK is extradition. Since he is not a UK citizens the legal precedents you speak of are going to be a stretch. The cases in question dealt with UK citizens. To the best of my knowledge Australia has not ventured into Assanges mess.