Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 16:23] – irisnils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226 [2021/04/11 16:31] – iris
Line 48: Line 48:
 There is the so-called “Extradition Act” – a British law – and this Act does not exclude extradition for political offences. The judge performed legal acrobatics stating that the law is binding on the national court and the international treaty is only binding at the international level. This was an improper argument to circumvent a very clear ban on extradition for political offences. She went through the whole logic, corroborating every [US argument] and established a precedent that in principle allows anyone who publishes US classified information to be extradited for espionage. There is the so-called “Extradition Act” – a British law – and this Act does not exclude extradition for political offences. The judge performed legal acrobatics stating that the law is binding on the national court and the international treaty is only binding at the international level. This was an improper argument to circumvent a very clear ban on extradition for political offences. She went through the whole logic, corroborating every [US argument] and established a precedent that in principle allows anyone who publishes US classified information to be extradited for espionage.
  
-In the end, she denied extradition – for none of the legal reasons I explained earlier, but purely on medical grounds. To put it simply: Julian Assange is mentally ill, that’s why he has suicidal ideation, and the risk that he would commit suicide under the US prison conditions is very high. However, she did not state that there was anything “flawed” about the prison conditions, but that this was down to Assange’s illness, which pathologised him. That is the only reason that the extradition was opposed.+In the end, she denied extradition – for none of the legal reasons I explained earlier, but purely on medical grounds. To put it simply: Julian Assange is mentally ill, that’s why he has suicidal ideation, and the risk that he would commit suicide under the US prison conditions is very high. However, she did not imply that there was anything “flawed” about the prison conditions, but that this was down to Assange’s illness, which pathologised him. That is the only reason that the extradition was opposed.
  
 At first glance, this looks like a victory for Julian Assange and freedom of the press, but it is not at all – on the contrary. It is an extremely dangerous ruling because it establishes the whole precedent and says that legally he would be extraditable. Essentially saying;  it is all punishable, it is all espionage and he cannot defend himself on the basis of public interest or political motivation. It’s all set in stone and Britain is not extraditing him now precisely because he’s sick. This is a trap, of course! At first glance, this looks like a victory for Julian Assange and freedom of the press, but it is not at all – on the contrary. It is an extremely dangerous ruling because it establishes the whole precedent and says that legally he would be extraditable. Essentially saying;  it is all punishable, it is all espionage and he cannot defend himself on the basis of public interest or political motivation. It’s all set in stone and Britain is not extraditing him now precisely because he’s sick. This is a trap, of course!
  
-It means Assange might not appeal – he doesn’t want to be extradited – so his lawyers woudn't appeal the verdict, only the Americans would. And if the Americans appeal, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, will only have to deal with what the Americans criticise. And they, of course, would only criticise the argument that he is not extraditable on medical grounds. And they can then say: yes, we will adjust the conditions of his detention, we will give guarantees that he will have access to medical specialists, that he will not be held in solitary confinement and so on.+It means Assange might not appeal – he doesn’t want to be extradited – so his lawyers wouldn't appeal the verdict, only the Americans would. And if the Americans appeal, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, will only have to deal with what the Americans criticise. And they, of course, would only criticise the argument that he is not extraditable on medical grounds. And they can then say: yes, we will adjust the conditions of his detention, we will give guarantees that he will have access to medical specialists, that he will not be held in solitary confinement and so on.
  
 Then the Court of Appeal can say: in that case the reason why you can’t extradite him ceases to be valid and we can now extradite anyway. They don’t no longer have to judge any of the other issues, and I think that was the goal. That’s why now that the Americans have appealed, it’s important that Assange’s lawyers are far-sighted enough to cross-appeal. So not questioning the final decision, but questioning the reasoning; affirming there are still several reasons why he cannot be extradited, which then also have to be questioned by the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, this temporary victory could very quickly turn into a crushing defeat. Then the Court of Appeal can say: in that case the reason why you can’t extradite him ceases to be valid and we can now extradite anyway. They don’t no longer have to judge any of the other issues, and I think that was the goal. That’s why now that the Americans have appealed, it’s important that Assange’s lawyers are far-sighted enough to cross-appeal. So not questioning the final decision, but questioning the reasoning; affirming there are still several reasons why he cannot be extradited, which then also have to be questioned by the Court of Appeal. Otherwise, this temporary victory could very quickly turn into a crushing defeat.
  • nils_melzer_-_a_dangerous_verdict_-_20210226.txt
  • Last modified: 2021/04/11 17:26
  • by iris