Comment by tsimionescu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsimionescu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To my understanding, the judge found that Assange's rights will be sufficiently upheld by the US courts, based on the US constitution and precedent - so, she is willing to allow the US judicial system to conduct their trial (if it weren't for the abhorrent conditions in which he would be kept, which she found too likely to be detrimental to his well being).

It is not really a matter for an extradition judge to rule on whether what Assange did falls under press freedom. The US courts would have to decide that. If however the case had been identical but coming from China, the judge would still not have ruled on press freedom, but would have likely considered that the Chinese constitution and court precedents do not offer sufficient guarantees that there would actually be a fair trial, unlike in the US system.

Whether you agree with this point or not is another matter, but I don't see the ruling as being either for or against press freedom, by my understanding.

Don’t the charges at least need to be credible?

IFF the legal system of the country seeking extradition is trust-worthy and offers the same guarantees of human rights as the UK one, why would the charges need to be credible at all? The accused could be sent to that country, with the expectation that the trial would quickly go in the accused's favor.

Of course, they do have to be charges for something which would be illegal in some way in the UK as well. If the US criminalized ice cream consumption, you would not be able to extradite someone in the UK for having consumed ice cream in the USA, of course. But this is not the same as, say, extraditing someone accused of murder in the USA who is not known to have been physically there - the extradition judge may be ok in not looking at the evidence that the charges are based on (except maybe to ascertain whether they may be a sign of a politically-motivated trial).

I wonder about this. Let's say that in the US I'd have a budget of about $3000 to spend on the trial, without having to completely ruin my savings.

Would that be enough for housing, airline tickets (back to europe), and the trial/lawyers/bail/court fees in the US?

If frivolous extradition/trial would ruin me financially, I'd rather extradition procedure took the credibility/frivolousness of charges into account...

Imo the problem is that the ruling accepts the premise that the case has merit i.e. is criminal in the UK, that itself is a threat to press freedom given the charges.

The charges are of espionage and illegal access to computer systems. Those are also illegal in the UK.

Whether the actions Assange took amount or not to espionage and illegal access to computer systems is a matter for a fair trial to decide, not the extradition judge. I happen to believe that they did not in any way, but it should be a jury trial that decides that, not an extradition judge in the UK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com