Julian Assange can appeal against extradition to the U.S. on spy charges, U.K. High Court rules

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

Mar. 26, 2024, 6:39 AM EDT


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was given permission by the High Court in London to take his challenge against extradition to the United States to another hearing on Tuesday.

The court ruled that Assange could pursue his appeal at a full hearing, unless the U.S. provided “satisfactory assurances” on the questions of whether he was able to rely on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and whether he could be subject to the death penalty.

Assange has been fighting extradition for more than a decade, including seven years in self-exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and the last five in the high-security Belmarsh Prison on the outskirts of the British capital.

American prosecutors say Assange put lives at risk when he helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks published almost 15 years ago. He has been indicted on 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse over Wikileaks’ publication of the classified documents.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/julian-assange-wikileaks-win-appeal-extradition-us-spy-charges-rcna139519

[hlthe2b]

1. Silly me. I thought this WAS his appeal.

He'll be in late-stage dementia or dead and buried before this is ever sorted out.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. I think this decision was whether to deny his ability to appeal or not

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143215746

So now he'll go through an actual appeal.

(apparently previous attempts to appeal were refused)

[moniss]

3. Sometimes people like to think of this

as "he was just a journalist writing about what info he was given". The conduct of Assange went way beyond that. Somewhat of an analogy would be if a "journalist" helped a burglar fashion a lock picking tool to get into an office that had documents and then the journalist published the documents. Trying to defend your actions by screaming "freedom of the press" doesn't get you off the hook for taking part in a burglary.

So the indictment is that he "burglarized" and then disseminated what he took part in stealing. The 1st Amendment is not about being allowed to commit a crime and then use the proceeds of your crime. Otherwise you would have a situation where, for example, someone could break in to Bank of America headquarters and steal documents about upcoming, undisclosed initial public offerings being planned and then "publish" that information on their blog. Freedom of speech or press? Not by a long shot.

[hueymahl]

6. Hard Disagree

These are trumped up charges attempting to cover up very bad acts by those in power. This is absolutely a witchhunt and Assange is absolutely a journalist.

[moniss]

7. Doesn't matter what he calls himself.

The charge is that he gave assistance in hacking into a computer. That makes it different. There is a line. If he had simply received documents, written articles based on those documents talking about the various programs/problems he felt the documents showed then I would have no problem. As it is he wholesale dumped documents that contained information about names and details about those people that were not needed in order to tell a story. He needlessly endangered the lives of people.

Journalism has ethical guidelines despite the fact that most people using that label today wouldn't know ethics if it jumped up and bit them in the backside. Just because you have a blog etc. doesn't mean you are a journalist. Most of the so called "new breed of journalists" aren't journalists at all but rather just some person writing a bunch of stuff on a web site(s). Before the internet we used to know them as that loudmouth at the end of the bar who knows it all and never shuts up. They weren't journalists either.

[emulatorloo]

12. 'Very Bad Acts?' He's a Putin operative who attacked our democration election in 2016.

[Ford_Prefect]

4. I know this is a divisive issue and far from a simple conclusion. But does anyone recall what was exposed?????

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan raised many questions about American foreign policy, how the decisions were made which initiated the war, and the judgements involved which enabled so much of the Neo-Con agenda.

The information released by Assange and WikiLeaks was the only look we had into how far wrong the war effort was, who was driving it, how many people suffered the direct and intentional methods employed to prosecute it.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. There was one HUGE issue and that was regarding his involvement in the DNC server hack

and the "But her emails" mess.

How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its emails to WikiLeaks

By Ellen Nakashima and Shane Harris
July 13, 2018 at 7:26 p.m. EDT


On a late July day in 2016, Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for president, stood at a lectern in Florida, next to an American flag, and urged a U.S. adversary to become involved in the election campaign and find tens of thousands of emails wiped from the server of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

“Russia, if you’re listening,” he said at a news conference at one of his resorts, “I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

That same day, July 27, several Russian government hackers launched an attack against the email accounts of staffers in Clinton’s personal office, according to a sweeping indictment Friday by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. At or around the same time, the hackers also targeted 76 email addresses used by the Clinton campaign, investigators said.

The remarkable timing of the Russian attempt on Clinton’s servers is just one of the new details revealed in the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers, who Mueller alleges hacked the email accounts and computers of Democratic officials and organizations in an audacious effort to influence the U.S. election.

(snip)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-the-russians-hacked-the-dnc-and-passed-its-emails-to-wikileaks/2018/07/13/af19a828-86c3-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html

And then there was the Roger Stone/Randy Credico/Assange contacts -

FBI documents reveal communication between Stone, Assange


By ERIC TUCKER, COLLEEN LONG and MICHAEL BALSAMO
Published 8:41 PM EDT, April 28, 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — Weeks after Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel in the Russia investigation, Roger Stone, a confidant of President Donald Trump, reassured WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a Twitter message that if prosecutors came after him, “I will bring down the entire house of cards,” according to FBI documents made public Tuesday.

The records reveal the extent of communications between Stone and Assange, whose anti-secrecy website published Democratic emails hacked by Russians during the 2016 presidential election, and underscore efforts by Trump allies to gain insight about the release of information they expected would embarrass Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

The documents — FBI affidavits submitted to obtain search warrants in the criminal investigation into Stone — were released following a court case brought by The Associated Press and other media organizations.

They were made public as Stone, convicted last year in Mueller’s investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, awaits a date to surrender to a federal prison system that has grappled with outbreaks of the coronavirus.

(snip)

https://apnews.com/article/presidential-elections-robert-mueller-russia-elections-roger-stone-ce9a4541f903109079900528d9f0a9e7

Steve Bannon testifies Stone boasted of Assange ties, info that would hurt Hillary Clinton


Nov. 8, 2019, 2:10 PM EST / Updated Nov. 8, 2019, 3:35 PM EST
By Associated Press


WASHINGTON — Steve Bannon, who served as chief executive of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, told jurors Friday he saw Roger Stone as "an access point" to WikiLeaks, which later released hacked emails damaging to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign.

Bannon appeared as reluctant witness in Stone's criminal trial in federal court under subpoena and said he otherwise would not have taken the stand. Stone, a colorful political operative and Trump ally, is charged with witness tampering and lying to Congress about his attempts to contacts WikiLeaks about damaging material during the 2016 presidential campaign.
On the witness stand, Bannon said Stone boasted about connections to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, regularly implying he had an inside track on WikiLeaks. He also detailed that there would be information coming from the anti-secrecy organization that would be "hurting Hilary Clinton and helping the Trump campaign," Bannon said.

"The campaign had no official access to WikiLeaks or to Julian Assange. But Roger would be considered if we needed an access point," Bannon said.

(snip)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/comedian-says-roger-stone-called-him-stoolie-threatened-take-his-n1078951

[DickKessler]

9. But that's not what he was indicted for.

It was for assisting Chelsea Manning. I find indicting Assange for that far more problematic than indicting him for his skullduggery coordinating with Russian intelligence operations and the Trump campaign, or for sexual assault.

You can believe that Assange is a really nasty and shitty guy and also believe that prosecuting him for helping and publishing a whistleblower sets a dangerous precedent. There’s a reason a lot of journalists have spoken out against this prosecution.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. It doesn't matter

it's a pattern and practice and a result that could end up with superseding indictments.

If the "First Amendment" argument is convincing enough, then there should be no worry at trial. Right?

[hueymahl]

13. That sounds a lot like

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. You should just let us come in and search your house. You are a good guy right? Nothing to hide, right?

[BumRushDaShow]

14. But that's not what arguing a "First Amendment" right as "press" would be about in this case.

You have now introduced the "Fourth Amendment" ("right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers..." ) into the argument for some reason and that doesn't apply to the issue of establishing that one is "press".

My issue with him is not with the whole Chelsea Manning affair but with interfacing with RW loons like Roger Stone and obtaining HACKED information from an enemy of the U.S. (Russia) that happened to belong to the DNC and a then-Secretary of State and candidate for President - Hillary Clinton.

So does this mean that you support Russian (or even Chinese) hackers breaking in and stealing info from the party that this website supports. Because. "Press" (in quotes)?

[hueymahl]

15. I am a first amendment absolutist

When it comes to the free flow of information, there is almost nothing that I would argue against. Your example of espionage by Russian or Chinese agents might be the only thing. That and child pornography, and a few other extreme examples.

But even in espionage, I would come close to allowing it. For example, if the Russians stole the information, I would absolutely support the right to publish that information if it was sent to a third party.

And this is one area where I am loving the advancement of cryptography and trustless systems. If Assange had the tools that are available today and knew how to use them, he would have never been caught. And that would be a good thing.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. To address -

I am a first amendment absolutist

You are not alone. DU has a whole pile of them.

When it comes to the free flow of information, there is almost nothing that I would argue against. Your example of espionage by Russian or Chinese agents might be the only thing. That and child pornography, and a few other extreme examples.

And that is one of my biggest issues, along with "hate speech" that serves to promote and incite violence.

But even in espionage, I would come close to allowing it. For example, if the Russians stole the information, I would absolutely support the right to publish that information if it was sent to a third party.

A problem with this argument is that certain "publishing" can and has put lives in literal danger - if NOT redacted in some manner. Pure publication without effective and careful vetting, can become a death sentence for innocents.

And this is one area where I am loving the advancement of cryptography and trustless systems. If Assange had the tools that are available today and knew how to use them, he would have never been caught. And that would be a good thing.

Encryption has been around a long long time (including digital, where AES standards have been around for almost 25 years).

[moniss]

8. Names of rank and file operatives and names of those

Afghans etc. who were sources for us. No need to divulge that by doing raw dumps of documents. Criticize the wars, how they came about and the lies told? Sure thing and I have no problem with it. But getting entire families of intelligence sources and their children killed by outing them when they were just cooperating with us is egregiously wrong.

[onetexan]

11. the real question should be who was paid off or blackmailed