Biden Considering Request To Drop Assange Charges (bbc.com) 146
President Joe Biden said he is "considering" a request from Australia to drop the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The BBC reports: The country's parliament recently passed a measure -- backed by PM Anthony Albanese -- calling for the return of Mr Assange to his native Australia. The US wants to extradite the 52-year-old from the UK on criminal charges over the leaking of military records. Mr Assange denies the charges, saying the leaks were an act of journalism. The president was asked about Australia's request on Wednesday and said: "We're considering it."
Mr Assange, 52, is fighting extradition in the UK courts. The extradition was put on hold in March after London's High Court said the United States must provide assurances he would not face the death penalty. The High Court is due to evaluate any responses from the US authorities at the end of May. The measure passed the Australian parliament in February. Mr Albanese told MPs: "People will have a range of views about Mr Assange's conduct... But regardless of where people stand, this thing cannot just go on and on and on indefinitely."
Mr Assange, 52, is fighting extradition in the UK courts. The extradition was put on hold in March after London's High Court said the United States must provide assurances he would not face the death penalty. The High Court is due to evaluate any responses from the US authorities at the end of May. The measure passed the Australian parliament in February. Mr Albanese told MPs: "People will have a range of views about Mr Assange's conduct... But regardless of where people stand, this thing cannot just go on and on and on indefinitely."
Good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Coerced, cajoled, encouraged. However you want to put it, Assange was an enthusiastic participant in espionage against the United States which was not mitigated by any journalistic targeting of some particular wrong. It was literally, "Information wants to be free and I want to be the hero who frees it!"
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If I convinced a Chinese national to turn over state secrets, as a US citizen, should I be extradited to China?
No because there is no extradition treaty with China. You see the problem with your slippery slope fallacy whereby you take any example to extremes, is that the law has already considered those extremes. The USA cannot extradite a Chinese national to China on their request alone, there's no legal basis for doing so.
Also if Assange did what he did from China, and stayed in China he wouldn't be facing extradition right now either.
It's an election year (Score:2)
I don't think Biden would be doing this if there wasn't pressure from Robert F Kennedy Jr's campaign. If he cared about sparing journalists and whistleblowers, he would pardon Snowden, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... this!
Snowden needs to be pardoned first, IMO.
Re: It's an election year (Score:2)
I expect Snowden to end up as a casualty in Ukraine soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ehh, there's a pretty big gap between Snowden and Assange, even if I think Snowden should be able to cut a deal to come back to the USA. He should at the very least be given the chance to defend himself under the condition of being a whistleblower.
The fact Snowden is both a US citizen and was a government employee, in intelligence no less whereas Assange is neither of those things puts him a different category entirely. Also Assange is not or really has never been holed up in an adversarial nation.
Re:It's an election year (Score:4, Interesting)
he would pardon Snowden, too.
Snowden deserves it even more. He was much more selective in what he leaked, exposing high-level crimes while trying to minimize leaking any information that would jeopardize legitimate activities. Snowden even offered to let the CIA and NSA review the material before release to ensure any non-criminal sensitive information was protected. The CIA and NSA refused.
Manning/Assange did much more of a wholesale release.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden deserves it even more. He was much more selective in what he leaked, exposing high-level crimes while trying to minimize leaking any information that would jeopardize legitimate activities. Snowden even offered to let the CIA and NSA review the material before release to ensure any non-criminal sensitive information was protected. The CIA and NSA refused.
They aren't being charged with the same crimes either. If you want to draw parallels to Snowden you'd need to look at Manning. But even then what they were charged with doing was wildly different since Snowden was privy to the Information he released, Manning was not.
Manning/Assange did much more of a wholesale release.
What and how - was released is irrelevant to Assange's case. Assange would be facing extradition for the same reason even if he didn't release anything. - Go read up on what the primary charge related to extradition is.
Re: It's an election year (Score:2)
Snowden is a spy and a traitor. Assange is a foreign journalist who - as far as we know - has not broken any laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden is a spy and a traitor. Assange is a foreign journalist who - as far as we know - has not broken any laws.
He has not broken any laws - as far as YOU know - the rest of us with even rudimentary reading comprehension recognize he unambiguously broke laws.
There is an argument to be made that he should not be tried for them, especially at this point, but little room to argue he did not intentionally break those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. He may have started out with good intentions, but Assange has basically been acting as an agent of the FSB for years. He selectively released information that benefited Russia and in doing so, lost any claim he had to being a journalist.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-got-what-he-deserved/587008/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/
Re: It's an election year (Score:2)
He's a foreigner. He has no obligation to support the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say he did. YOU claimed he was a journalist and I you had bothered to read what I wrote you'd see I was pointing out that he lost any right to claim to be a journalist.
Journalists report the news, they don't influence it. Assange was absolutely trying to influence people and governments around the world by selectively releasing and withholding information, and by actively and illegally soliciting information that would only be damaging to some folks and not others.
Re: It's an election year (Score:2)
That's not now nor has it ever been how journalism works. News is published generally by wealthy magnates who have a message they want to present. The idea that you lose your right to be a journalist because you have a point of view is the type of shit you might hear from Russia.
Re: It's an election year (Score:2)
RT is literally a Russian propaganda news network that you can get with your cable subscription all across America. Just because a journalist supports a foreign government does not make them no longer a journalist. That's the way dictatorships work, not democracies.
Re: It's an election year (Score:2)
That's fair. And in a proper multiparty system I would welcome shithead motherfuckers like RFK. Unfortunately, his bullshit charlatanism is not founded in reality, and his fake promises to free Snowden are like Sirens to Odysseus.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have whole-heartedly disagreed with this statement until last week when he came out saying Jan 6th wasn't an insurrection. I looked over his policy ideals, and they're all pretty left, except for his anti-vaccine stance (which wasn't on his website). I know some lefties who are anti-vax, but mostly its the righters that are. Trump (for once) wasn't wrong in claiming that RFKJr would be taking votes from Biden, but now I don't know who will vote for him? Trumpers surely aren't going to flip for RFK
Re: (Score:2)
Election season... (Score:2)
Re:Election season... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean isn't that how it works? I vote for politicians that do things I approve of.
So this is one of the things that confuses people (Score:5, Informative)
So for example the majority of democrat voters firmly believe in legalized abortion and student loan debt forgiveness (although that last one is by a smaller margin than you'd expect). But the majority of them also want to continue providing military aid to Israel.
Note that I said Democrat voters not registered Democrats. There are plenty of Independents who will vote Democrat pretty consistently just like there are plenty of them to vote Republican consistently.
Basically Biden is going to follow the majority of his party's voters because he's representing you he's not ruling you.
If you want a ruler then you go with the other party. They will tell you what to do and you better obey. Some people like that because it feels more stable and because they expect to be allowed to tell anyone under them on the totem pole what to do and they have to obey.
We called those conservatives but we really should call them the right wing. It's a belief in the sort of caste system monarchies had which is where the phrase right-wing comes from. The monarchists sat on the right wing.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically Biden is going to follow the majority of his party's voters because he's representing you he's not ruling you.
We elected him partially on his promise of 150k student loan relief for all student loan debtors. He went around congress to fund a Holocaust but keeps dicking around with penny-ante loan forgiveness bullshit. If you believe Biden is representing The People over corporations like the oil companies he's been handing new leases to left and right (another thing he promised, this time, that he wouldn't do) then you're just another rube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you don't think this is simply a bank transfer. No "money" is changing hands. This is about weapons, specifically weapons built in America, the factories for which employ Americans. This is the "military industrial complex" and a lot of our economy is based on it. So when Congress is signing bills to give aid to these countries, it's weapons that we're sending, not dollars.
I feel like I have to explain that because not many in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Russia's economy is growing faster
The price of the ruble says otherwise. It's far lower now than when they started the war in Ukraine, and it also went lower after they annexed Crimea. Russia is sliding. But if you think it's so great, I suggest you go move there. Oh wait, you probably already do. Your comments are 100% Russian propaganda bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. You don't know that, you're using your shitty feels to come up with that nonsense.
> That jackass voted with Republicans to remove student loans from bankrupcy court.
Maybe you don't realize that people have the capacity to change, and Biden has changed for the better on very many issues. But since you've always been a shithead, I guess you think other people can't change either?
>If he really cared about student loans, he wouldn't ha
I am the bone of my bait. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About Joe Biden. He's a representative not a ruler.
If you want a ruler then you go with the other party. They will tell you what to do and you better obey. Some people like that because it feels more stable and because they expect to be allowed to tell anyone under them on the totem pole what to do and they have to obey. .
Let's be honest here. Both the Democrats and Republicans want to RULE instead of REPRESENT. The Democrats just "appear" to be different. It's a very thin veil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways they are the same. Of course the obvious differences appear to be the policies they support.
The strategies and tactics aren't very different, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nonsense, if you ever bothered to look up the voting records you would know that Democrats do represent and vote for the people, while Republicans are the ones who want to rule and have authoritarian government. But you've never looked at the voting records, that much is clear from your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
"You're guy is no better than the other guy."
Thank you for making my point!
Re: (Score:2)
Go buzz somewhere else, you fucking mosquito - you're full of shithead nonsense and have no clue how government works so you just blame blame blame, instead of showing up to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean isn't that how it works? I vote for politicians that do things I approve of.
But only for 2 out of every 4 years? You give them a free pass to ignore you when there's no upcoming election?
Dear J. Assange, from the US gov (Score:3)
Getting back to the current situation. We've rendered you harmless, and we've gotten a bit tired of using you as a combination punching-bag/chew-toy. So, we're gonna make you an offer. Fess up. Admit that you were wrong, you broke a whole bunch of laws, that you were a useful idiot for Russia, and that you were just generally a raging prick. Apologize. If you manage to show even the slightest acknowledgement that you lost this fight, we'll probably take our boot off your throat and let you go back to Australia.
You're young enough that you could still have a few good decades. Would you prefer that? Or would you like to go a few more rounds of no-rules cage-fighting with Uncle Sam? Frankly, you're not a challenge and you're getting boring.
Your decision.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just asking questions here (Score:2)
Trump has an off the record meeting with Putin in Helsinki. https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
A few months later lots of CIA assets are being captured or killed. https://thehill.com/policy/nat... [thehill.com]
I'm just asking questions.
lol (Score:2)
The indictments we know about so far are to satisfy the extradition process - crimes demonstrating US jurisdiction. I bet the US has a bunch more racked up for all the shit he got up to while he was hiding in the embassy. He'll get those when he is in US custody.
charged issues (Score:2)
"this thing cannot just go on and on and on indefinitely."
Assange Charges violate a conservation law, apparently. He won't get a Faraday trial...
Re: (Score:2)
LOL no.
Re:pardon? (Score:5, Informative)
pardon?
At this point, just dropping the charges would make more sense.
1. Assange is not a U.S. citizen or resident.
2. Assange committed the alleged acts outside of the U.S.
3. Assange didn't steal anything. He just published info already compromised.
4. He reported illegal acts, including war crimes. The laws are supposed to protect whistleblowers.
Even if the U.S. gets its hands on him, there's a good chance he'll be acquitted. Among my acquaintances, about half want him in prison, and half think he's a hero. The former are mostly righties, and the latter are mostly lefties. A conviction requires a unanimous verdict.
Re:pardon? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:pardon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that Assange has spent 12 years either in hiding in an embassy or in jail since 2012 , I'd say it has been pretty firmly established that his life has already been ruined - deterrent achieved, I should think.
The guy looks like he's about 20 years older than his age.
Re: (Score:2)
When he blows his own head off, they'll drop charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pardon? (Score:5, Informative)
3. Assange didn't steal anything. He just published info already compromised.
I agree with the sentiment that holding Assange further serves no purpose, but the above point is a bit incorrect. While he didn't actually hack/steal himself, he definitely personally developed and encouraged sources like an intelligence handler. Notably, in the case of Chelsea Manning, [theguardian.com] the chat logs show that he clearly crossed the line into what the US gov't terms "criminal conspiracy" instead of just receiving information.
This is the reason Mark Felt stayed anonymous as Woodward's source "deep throat," as the same fate may have been waiting for him during Watergate. He waited until he was near death to reveal himself. Chelsea Manning on the other hand, got busted looking for another "handler" in Adrian Lamo, thus leading to the evidence against Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah fuck Lamo for that too. Lost all my respect for that loser after that conduct.
Re: pardon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So what that he encouraged or developed something, he is not the person who had actual access to this information, he never worked for any agency in USA where he would have to promise not to disclose information, to him (or anyone who doesn't work for such agencies) status of any 'secret' information is completely irrelevant, as it should be.
For example, if I egged on some general to disclose top secret information about some project and then he did disclose it, it would be on the general, not on me or anyo
Re: pardon? (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Assange is not a U.S. citizen or resident.
2. Assange committed the alleged acts outside of the U.S.
These aren't even relevant. Without going into detail, somebody like Xu Yanjun or even Osama Bin Laden would be unassailable under this reasoning.
3. Assange didn't steal anything. He just published info already compromised.
The charge is that he actively participated in this compromise. This is like saying Xu Yanjun is in the clear because somebody else leaked the trade secrets to him. And he can't just say "oh this is for journalism" and get off either, even if he was an actual journalist. This is a key point that the Assange camp really seems to miss.
4. He reported illegal acts, including war crimes. The laws are supposed to protect whistleblowers.
Except these were none of those
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't that work? It worked for the people who published the Pentagon Papers, didn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Let's suppose the conspiracy theories are true that they were all just journalists carrying around cameras that look like small arms. Well, guess what? Given the circumstances, still not a war crime, or even in some way illegal. To be a war crime, the actor has to already know in advance that these are civilians. Any indication to the contrary at all is sufficient grounds for it to be a legal action.
The conspiracy theory is that they were armed fighters of some kind. It's proven beyond any doubt that they were journalists.
The people who murdered them were far away, flying above them. If they had been carrying small arms, they were no threat to the aircraft. They were killed because they might possibly be a threat to someone on the ground at some point, without bothering to verify if they were actually armed and dangerous.
Sorry, but murdering people who are no threat to you on the off chance that you sa
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but murdering people who are no threat to you on the off chance that you saw them holding a weapon is a war crime.
Off chance? It was a war zone, during a battle in which the enemy was well known to employ such deception tactics, and to use human shields. It was NOT a police action. Soldiers don't get to verify the identity of people inside a van they believe is firing at them, or when they think they saw a weapon. Especially if they were "far above them."
Your standard is absurd and you're a funt. That's a fool+cunt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you decide that an entire city full of civilians is a war zone, you need to be extremely careful to minimize civilian casualties. Shooting people because they might possibly be carrying something that looks like a gun, which you can only see from hundreds of metres away in the air, and who pose no threat to you directly, is a crime.
Sorry but you can't simply declare a city a war zone and then murder everyone in it. That should be obvious, especially as the ICJ just ruled that Israel doing it is prima fac
Re: (Score:2)
It was an ACTIVE battle, in an area where Al Qeada had been using those tactics. You're expecting something that can't happen, and you know it. As I said you're being totally unreasonable, funt.
Re: pardon? (Score:2)
Sorry but you can't simply declare a city a war zone and then murder everyone in it. That should be obvious, especially
Too bad for you Assangeophiles then that there's overwhelming evidence that it was in fact exactly that. In fact, one of the journalists present was there photographing the aftermath. Further, there's no camera that will be mistaken for a kalash, which is very much apparent in the video. Even if there was, taking it to a place like that is dumber than wearing antlers on your head in the woods during deer season. And guess what else? Being shot in that situation also wouldn't count as murder. Homicide? You b
Re: pardon? (Score:2)
The conspiracy theory is that they were armed fighters of some kind. It's proven beyond any doubt that they were journalists.
Nobody said there were not journalists among them. Nevertheless, they were in fact armed and in an area of active hostility. The conspiratards, which apparently includes you, claim otherwise. In fact, you often strike me as the type who never questions wikipedia, so try this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed,[17][18][19] standing less than 100 meters away from U.S. ground troops at a location where insurgents earlier that day had attacked an American Humvee with small arms fire.
So let's hear it, what about this makes you so absolutely certain this is a war crime? The video Assange himself provided highly contradicts both his own claims and yours.
Re: (Score:3)
Actively participating in compromise of security for the purpose of whistleblowing should be as protected as any other act related to whistleblowing, including the release of information itself. Otherwise you are placing more value on access control systems than The People's right to facts. It's just a way for you to feel good about protecting fascism.
Re: pardon? (Score:2)
Actively participating in compromise of security for the purpose of whistleblowing should be as protected as any other act related to whistleblowing, including the release of information itself.
So given I suspect you have kiddie porn on your phone, you'd have no problem if I broke into it because exposing it to the public would just be whistleblowing to expose the criminal element living among us.
Otherwise you are placing more value on access control systems than The People's right to facts.
I definitely do actually. Not long ago I was maintaining such systems to protect, among other facts that you also don't have the right to, people's medical records and financial data.
Of course, given you believe "The People's" right to the facts, why not publish your medical records?
It's just a way for you to feel good about protecting fascism.
Between the two of us,
Re: pardon? (Score:2)
Assange has now spent several years locked up anyway so even if convicted of something that time might be counted into the sentence and he'll be thrown out to Australia right after the trial.
Re: (Score:2)
His prison term in the Ecuadorian embassy was self-imposed and doesn't count for anything, and even if it somehow did, that would be up to Sweden as it had nothing to do with the US. Though if he actually liked it there, he really should have tried a lot harder to not wear out his welcome; apparently maintaining better hygiene would have gone a long way. Either way, 8 years for nothing, aside from making a bigger name for himself by directly assisting with Putin's propaganda efforts while he was there.
He al
Re: (Score:2)
that would be up to Sweden as it had nothing to do with the US.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Baltimore to sell you.
Re: pardon? (Score:2)
Obviously you already bought it
Re: (Score:2)
One massive point about your analysis, specifically this bit:
Even if the U.S. gets its hands on him, there's a good chance he'll be acquitted. Among my acquaintances, about half want him in prison, and half think he's a hero. The former are mostly righties, and the latter are mostly lefties. A conviction requires a unanimous verdict.
And being seated as a juror requires attesting to your ability to decide based on the presented evidence and findings of fact. None of the juror's predispositions towards him are relevant in any way - he will be charged with a specific thing, and then the prosecution will present their supporting facts and witnesses to prove he indeed did do that thing. The defense will impeach those witnesses' testimony and cast doubt on or outright disprove th
Re: (Score:2)
I like it when people number their irrelevant / incorrect points.
1. Assange is not a U.S. citizen or resident. - Not a requirement for extradition or legal persecution.
2. Assange committed the alleged acts outside of the U.S.- That's why extradition exists. You being outside a jurisdiction doesn't give you immunity when you target within that juristiction.
3. Assange didn't steal anything. He just published info already compromised.- He is not being charged with stealing or with publishing anything. The c
Re: (Score:2)
If the prosecutor drops the charges, couldn't they just be reopened later if a less-sympathetic regime moves in?
extradition (Score:3)
The extradition was put on hold in March after London's High Court said the United States must provide assurances he would not face the death penalty.
We can't actually make that promise. We can promise that the current administration won't seek the death penalty, but that promise would bind neither the next administration nor would it prevent any state from filing charges that carry the death penalty.
To make that promise, we would literally have to rewrite our extradition treaty with the UK and the Congress would have to ratify the new treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't actually make that promise. We can promise that the current administration won't seek the death penalty, but that promise would bind neither the next administration nor would it prevent any state from filing charges that carry the death penalty.
To make that promise, we would literally have to rewrite our extradition treaty with the UK and the Congress would have to ratify the new treaty.
Where in the hell are you getting this idea from?
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the hell are you getting this idea from?
1. Federal law enforcement has no jurisdiction over state matters. If a state A.G. finds something to accuse Assange of that's a state crime, the DoJ can't do anything about it.
2. Any decision by the DoJ is reversible by the President. Except for Trump, Presidents try to give the DoJ autonomy, but that's tradition not law.
3. Any decision made by the President alone is reversible by the President or the next President.
4. International treaties ratified by the Senate are enforceable on everybody, including th
Re: extradition (Score:2)
1. Federal law enforcement has no jurisdiction over state matters. If a state A.G. finds something to accuse Assange of that's a state crime, the DoJ can't do anything about it.
I see you've never actually read the Constitution. Go read article 6 and then hang your head in shame.
2. Any decision by the DoJ is reversible by the President. Except for Trump, Presidents try to give the DoJ autonomy, but that's tradition not law.
The President can't increase a sentence already issued. In fact, nobody can. At best, a judge can vacate a verdict and it can be retried where a different and possibly harsher sentence can be issued, but only upon successful appeal by the accused. And even then, article 6 still applies.
3. Any decision made by the President alone is reversible by the President or the next President.
The President has no authority over the judicial branch at all, and only the judicial can issue a sentence within the laws
Re: (Score:2)
Article 7 of the treaty says the inverse of what you claim: extradition can be refused for failing to provide assurance. It does not require any such assurance to be provided and does not provide a mechanism by which such assurance can be lawfully provided.
As you point out, the judge in a specific case can impose any sentence it wants within what the law allows regardless of what anybody else promises. How exactly do you propose that a judge in a case where the judge has not even been selected yet make a pr
Re: extradition (Score:2)
Article 7 of the treaty says the inverse of what you claim: extradition can be refused for failing to provide assurance. It does not require any such assurance to be provided and does not provide a mechanism by which such assurance can be lawfully provided.
Regardless of how you interpret that, you still can't end up with capital punishment.
As you point out, the judge in a specific case can impose any sentence it wants within what the law allows regardless of what anybody else promises. How exactly do you propose that a judge in a case where the judge has not even been selected yet make a promise to a foreign nation that he won't impose the death penalty in a case where the law allows it? Have you even begun to think it through?
Again, read the treaty. Even if a death sentence is issued, that is ok under the treaty, but the US is obligated to not carry it out if such an assurance was provided. Doesn't matter whether it's federal or state.
Finally, once the accused is in the U.S. states can file any charges they want under state law regardless of what the federal government does, so long as they're under state law. For example, if they decide that someone was killed in their state because of wikileaks, they can charge Assange with murder. And there's nothing the Federal government can do about it. The President can't even issue a pardon because it's not a Federal crime.
Again, read the constitution. It does not in any way state that treaties only apply to the federal government or that states are free to ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
you still can't end up with capital punishment.
Did I say otherwise? I did not.
Even if a death sentence is issued, that is ok under the treaty, but the US is obligated to not carry it out if such an assurance was provided.
Again, the treaty says the inverse: that the U.K. can refuse to extradite if the the U.S. fails to provide such an assurance. Nothing in the treaty, nor anywhere else in U.S. law, grants anyone the authority to provide such a sweeping exception to U.S. law.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say otherwise? I did not.
Obviously you realized how dumb you sound so now you're trying to play a semantics game, so let's break this down. You stated:
We can't actually make that promise.
This is completely false.
We can promise that the current administration won't seek the death penalty,
This is also false. Per the treaty, seeking the death penalty is allowed, but may not be carried out if the US provides an assurance that it won't be. The constitution specifically says that the wording of that treaty is the de-facto law of the US. ALL of the US, not just the federal government, not just the states. Such an assurance is legally binding all th
Re: (Score:2)
We can promise that the current administration won't seek the death penalty,
This is also false.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Given how many misses you've made, it's safe to say that what you think is rarely correct.
Re: extradition (Score:2)
And by the way, if you don't know why that statement you made is false, then you didn't read the treaty at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The current USA-UK extradition treaty says:
so it's clearly already envisioned by the current treaty. Why would rewriting the tr
Re: (Score:2)
Why would rewriting the treaty make a difference to the ability to provide the assurance?
No U.S. law specifies who is authorized to waive the death penalty associated with this treaty. Including the treaty itself. Even if there were a law separate from the treaty, it would not be binding on the states over state crimes.
However, the Constitution grants the Senate the authority to ratify treaties, so if they specified who could waive the death penalty *in the treaty* then it would be binding on both the federal and state governments.
As the treaty is written now, the only consequence of the death
Re: (Score:2)
To make that promise, we would literally have to rewrite our extradition treaty with the UK and the Congress would have to ratify the new treaty.
Or we could abolish the death penalty, which has no valid use, since it does not prevent recidivism more effectively than lifetime imprisonment, and even costs more to implement. It is useful only for revenge, which is itself petty, useless, and in fact does self-harm.
Re: (Score:2)
A properly implemented death penalty keeps the person from causing damage to anyone else in the future. Including OTHER INMATES.
If I've already got life in prison, I'm free to stab, main, or generally bully anyone else who is in there with me. What're they gonna do, give me another life sentence?
If we truly want prison to be even slightly reformative, you can't have this happening.
Re: (Score:2)
As a compromise how about we permit the death penalty IF:
1) The penalty must be carried out the same day as the conviction.
2) The penalty must be performed by the direct victim of the convicted's crimes. (Or a direct relative of the victim if the crime was wrongful death.) No substitutions or delegations of duty are permitted.
3) The penalty must be carried out by the use of a gun aimed at the head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The treaty says they don't have to turn Assange over unless we waive the death penalty. But neither it nor any other U.S. law actually grants anyone in the United States the authority to irreversibly waive the death penalty for all crimes with which the extradited individual might be charged.
The practical effect of the treaty clause is that if the crime carries the death penalty in the U.S. but not the U.K., the U.K. is not bound by treaty to extradite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: That is a blow-off answer. (Score:2, Insightful)
Off topic and stupid comment.
Re: (Score:2)
We get it, you're a right wing idiot and you're making up shit to attack a president you don't personally like. Both sides are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely convinced Biden knows where he keeps his underwear.
Go watch Biden's State of Union Speech and then come back and tell us if you still feel that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange added 8 years of his own to his sentence.
In reality, he's only done:
April 2019: ejected from the embassy
May 2019: 50 weeks prison for skipping bail
May 2020: everything else starts taking effect
So not even 4 years yet - for a complex, public, international extradition case. BBC News has a story of a rape conviction that took 6 years to get to court only this morning.
That's including a denial of extradition on health grounds, an appeal by the US and escalation to the High Court.
And look... it's about
Re: (Score:2)
What other countries are you referring to where Biden controls the judicial system? You do understand that Biden is president of the United States, and not other countries, right?