Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - Stundin

[David Barrett]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while
>> Assange appeals the extradition request
>>
>
> ThIs doesn't appear clear to me.  The article says the USA has appealed
> the extradition request, after a judge denied it.
>
> The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-460> A spokesman
> for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it
> would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.[458
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-theduran.com-458>
>

Oh, that's a great clarification, thank you.  Regardless, unless you are
suggesting that the UK should offer no appeals process, I think it makes
sense to let the UK courts follow its process.


So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by choice.
>> He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
>>
>
> He is in the UK as opposed to the US.  The charges levied at him could
> imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't
> think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything.
>

Just like Chelsea Manning.  Who went free after 7 years, and was given
credit for all her time in prison pre-trial.


>
> Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison.  But it feels
>> like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a
>> court (and the UK agrees).
>>
>
> FALSIFIED EVIDENCE?  REASONABLE CASE AGAINST?
>
> Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic.  I'm wondering
> if you're forgetting it.
>

The courts determine what is true and false evidence; that hasn't happened
yet.  If you are so confident it's easily proven as false, why wouldn't
Assange's attorney be able to easily show that?  The reality is, there is
likely a wide range of evidence against him -- some false, some true, and
there is a process to figure out which is which.  A process that the US is
trying to follow, but that is being blocked -- currently by the UK.  And
that's fine.  If the UK denies his extradition even after appeal, great.
The system works.  If the UK does not deny his extradition, and he goes to
trial in the US, then great.  The system works.


Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
>> to have broken --
>>
> such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his tracks
>> while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning)
>> in publishing state secrets?  I'm sure you would think that he has a
>> reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court.
>> But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear?
>>
>
>
Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any
> law?  Does this include people working for governments?
>

Yes, I would support prosecuting anyone who breaks the law,
including/especially those in the government.  But whether or not someone
else is tried is irrelevant to whether Assange should be tried.

-david

>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7357 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210630/ccbf1b5b/attachment.txt>