Julian Assange: What the US “assurances” for extradition are all about (www.freitag.de)

submitted 6 months ago by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

today is the deadline for the United States to provide diplomatic assurances to the High Court of the UK prior to the next hearing on May 20

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

First amendment is given to us by our creators it says so in the us constution everyone gets it period

Neither the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of its other amendments use the word "creator". You're probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence (the famous second sentence of which is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."). The DoI predates the Constitution and its amendments by over a decade and has no force of law.

There is a strong legal argument to be made, including some historical court rulings, that at least some of the rights in the Bill of Rights do apply to non-citizens - although some of those arguments are limited to when non-citizens are on US soil (which Assange was not when he engaged in the acts of journalism which he is being prosecuted for).

However, one of the US prosecutors (Gordon Kromberg) specifically told the court in his declaration in support of the Assange extradition:

Concerning any First Amendment challenge, the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment [...]

Former Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo also wrote in his memoir Never Give An Inch:

Julian Assange has no First Amendment privileges. He is not a U.S. citizen.

Other US officials have made similar statements.

You can read more here:

Last month, the British High Court gave the US prosecutors until April 16 to submit a declaration including assurances that "the applicant is permitted to rely on the first amendment" and that he "is afforded the same first amendment protections as a United States citizen" (those are the British court's words).

The assurance the US has now submitted did not actually repudiate the prosecutors earlier explicit statement that the "the United States could argue that foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment" but instead said merely that he can "seek to raise" the first amendment in his defense. But, he has already been seeking to raise the first amendment to stop his extradition, and these "assurances" that he can seek to raise it again in the US come from the same prosecutors who explicitly argued (and again, have not repudiated their argument) to the British court that he is not entitled to first amendment protection because he is a foreign national.

You didn't answer my question: Better off than what?

[-] edwardthefma99@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Better off coming to the us getting a fair trial instead of being a held without a trial or conviction

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

getting a fair trial

🤨 did you read any of the links in my last comment?

(are you suggesting you think that he could actually be extradited and found not guilty, or are you saying you think he deserves to go to prison and that is what you mean by saying he would be "better off" not fighting extradition?)

[-] edwardthefma99@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Yes he could be extradited and found not guilty No member of the press deserves to go to jail For doing that's job

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

Yes he could be extradited and found not guilty No member of the press deserves to go to jail For doing that’s job

So, I guess you're either being disingenuous or you haven't followed the case much. If it's the latter, I highly encourage you to read the two links in my earlier comment, and/or any of these: 1, 2, 3

Are you aware of anyone besides yourself seriously arguing that he has any chance of being found not guilty in a US espionage trial, while also saying that he doesn't deserve to go to jail?

As far as I've seen, any remotely informed commentator who argues that he could get a "fair trial" in the US is also arguing that it would be "fair" for him to be convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

This person is both being disingenuous and showing the intellectual prowess of a sovereign citizen. I enjoyed your posts FWIW.

this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024

25 points (79.1% liked)

World News

38977 readers

2189 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.