Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US
UK judges have given Julian Assange a conditional path to appeal his extradition to the United States, hinging on US guarantees that he will receive First Amendment protections, won’t face discrimination as a foreigner, and won’t be subject to the death penalty. Commenters question whether such diplomatic assurances are credible, highlight past US conduct on rendition, solitary confinement and assassination plots, and debate whether Assange could receive a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is widely seen as a referendum on press freedom, extraterritorial application of US law, and the willingness of allied governments—especially the UK and Australia—to resist US pressure.
Extradition assurances and their credibility
- UK court is demanding US assurances: First Amendment protections, no nationality-based prejudice, no death penalty.
- Many commenters see such assurances as politically expedient but practically unenforceable; “nothing happens” if they’re broken beyond diplomatic embarrassment.
- Others note EU/UK courts can factor in past breaches when judging future requests, so the US has some incentive not to violate them.
- Debate over whether a broken death-penalty assurance would realistically cause Europe/Germany to halt capital-case extraditions, with some doubting they’d defy US pressure.
Jurisdiction, espionage, and hacking
- Confusion over how a non‑US citizen outside the US can be extradited for “espionage.”
- One side: acts targeted US systems, similar to indictments against foreign hackers; extradition is governed by treaties and double‑criminality (must be a crime in both states).
- Counter‑examples raised (e.g., blasphemy laws) to argue that “crime in requesting state” alone is insufficient.
- Disagreement whether Assange “broke into computers” or only published; some say hacking is what the trial should decide, others say current extradition theory focuses on publication of unredacted documents and assisting Manning with access.
Press freedom and chilling effects
- Strong view that the case is fundamentally about punishing publication of state secrets and deterring whistleblowers and publishers.
- Distinction drawn between state‑on‑state espionage (tolerated, managed) and public disclosure, which threatens power structures.
- Others stress US framing: not “journalism” but conspiring to steal secrets and publish names of informants.
- Concern that prosecuting a publisher under the Espionage Act is unprecedented and sets a dangerous precedent for journalism globally.
Fair trial and treatment in the US
- Deep split: some believe a US jury trial could acquit him and that extradition plus acquittal would be the best outcome; others think conviction in the Eastern District of Virginia is near‑certain given its national‑security culture.
- Serious worries about solitary confinement and supermax conditions, described by some as torture; Manning’s treatment and Guantanamo/black sites cited as reasons to doubt US assurances.
- UK judgment downplaying prior CIA kidnap/assassination planning is seen by many as absurd and alarming.
Allies, sovereignty, and politics
- Australia criticized for long inaction; some see recent parliamentary moves as a shift.
- Broader argument that many US allies function like semi‑dependent “provinces” in practice, especially on security matters; others reject this as exaggerated, citing more independent stances (e.g., France, Polanski).
Responsibility for unredacted leaks and actual harm
- Commenters note multiple actors were involved in the unredacted cable release (password in a book, volunteer leak, others publishing first), yet Assange alone faces prosecution.
- US previously told a court in Manning’s case it knew of no reprisals tied to those leaks; this is contrasted with later Taliban reprisals arising from the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal, not disclosures.
Endgame, time served, and plea talk
- Some argue continued litigation is becoming pointless as UK custody time mounts and may effectively cover any plausible US sentence.
- References to reported plea‑deal discussions (possibly minor charges and no US prison) lead some to predict a negotiated exit; others remain highly skeptical and fear lifelong incarceration if extradited.