Julian Assange granted permission to appeal against extradition to US

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.