That means that Assange, in order to be found innocent, have to convince the court that he didn't leak any classified information in the first place, which is clearly beside the point. It is not enough to convince the court that he acted in good faith, or that what he did was the right thing.
What, for example, would you say about extraditing Western journalists to China and have them stand trial for whether they criticized the CCP? Would that be a fair trial?
Team america, world police.
It doesn't matter what barbaric laws the United States has on the books to go after journalists. Assange should not be subject to the laws of whatever tin-pot regime wants to get their hands on him and punish him for airing their dirty laundry in public.
You’re right! Convincing a court that you acted in good faith or did the right thing is almost never enough in a criminal trial. “I killed that man because I really thought he was a bad guy” doesn’t make you innocent of murder and neither does “I was going 150 miles per hour in good faith” make you innocent of reckless driving.
That’s how our justice system works. Your approach is completely untenable and would lead to wildly different results for two persons who each engage in the exact same illegal conduct.
It might be enough to get a jury to nullify though.
For example, you can kill people in self-defense many places in the world. Ambulances and firetrucks can drive 150 mph if they are doing it to save people's life.
Assange was in Iceland at the time, and in Iceland there is a duty to assist people in distress. It is not unlikely that Assange had some hint that something like what was done to people like Khalid El-Masri was going on, and it was through his acts that this was revealed.
Such laws generally justify basically anything, provided that you have a reasonable suspicion that a person is danger.
I’d personally say it’s due to the UK pursuing extradition instead of just dropping it, but your perspective is interesting as well.
So yeah the UK has leeway here. Why pretend otherwise?
edit: Why would I receive downvotes for this?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review...
Extradition hearing
"""
The extradition hearing before the District Judge is where most of the issues in the case are decided. The CPS will represent the requesting State in the proceedings.
The judge must be satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence (dual criminality), that there is prima facie evidence of guilt (where applicable and in accusation cases), and that none of the bars to extradition apply, including that extradition would not breach the person’s human rights.
"""
The judge could both not believe that dual criminality is satisfied and could also believe the supposed evidence isn't good enough.
And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnes...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24505438
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503896
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526096
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27881936
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.
Extradition is first and foremost political, and the government of the UK has final authority in the matter. It's obvious that this case is political in nature, and that the US government is pursuing Assange in order to send a message to any other journalists who might try to emulate him. The UK government could tell the US to stuff it, the US would have no recourse, and the decision would be popular in Britain.
Well he never went to Sweden and it turns out that one of the easiest countries in the world to get extradited to the US is ... the UK. No idea why the lies, but so much of the persecution has been self persecution.
Except he wasnt. He was Wandsworth prison and later free on bail. For the avoidence of doubt, it is Her Majestys Prison Wandsworth, which is sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
The case was fought, in person at the Royal Courts of Justice, again sovereign, inviolable, land of Her Majesty the Queen of the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/16/julian-assange...
He fled to the Ecuadorean embassy after he failed to fight extradition and failed on appeal to be extradited to sweden. If the US wanted to file for extradition, the UK had him in custody in 2010.
Contrary to popular belief, embassies do not become the sovereign territory of the guest nation.
https://time.com/5429365/saudi-consulate-sovereignty-territo...
Article 22:
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
[1] https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventio...
He's terrified of US covert military operations. And he has a point.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)#...