WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange’s battle to avoid extradition to the United States received a huge boost on Monday when London’s High Court ruled that U.S. assurances over his case were unsatisfactory and he would get a full appeal hearing.
In March, the High Court provisionally gave Assange, 52, permission to appeal on three grounds. But it gave the U.S. the opportunity to provide satisfactory assurances that it would not seek the death penalty and would allow him to seek to rely on a First Amendment right to free speech in a trial.
In a short ruling, two senior judges said the U.S. submissions were not sufficient and said they would allow the appeal to go ahead.
I guess they have to drag it out for diplomatic reasons, but the High Court has set a condition that the US cannot satisfy: The State Department nor the Department of Justice can guarantee that he would be granted First Amendment rights. It’s established precedent in US law that constitutional rights only apply to citizens. Judicial independence prevents them enforcing any agreement to the contrary.
This isn’t true at all. The general legal consensus is that foreign nationals are entitled to virtually the same rights as US citizens while on US soil.
Foreign, and non-foreign, citizens only get those rights once they’re legally admitted to US soil. Like, they don’t have those protections at the airport before being granted entrance.
Could the US decide to deport Assange to Guantanamo?
If conditions cannot be guaranteed, the court can uphold his appeal and deny the order.
Whether or not that ruling would in turn be appealed by the US DoJ to the UK Supreme Court is moot. Ditto chance of success if it is. Between impinging on the right to freedom of expression & the horrors of the US penal system, extradition is likely illegal under UK human rights law.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I guess they have to drag it out for diplomatic reasons, but the High Court has set a condition that the US cannot satisfy: The State Department nor the Department of Justice can guarantee that he would be granted First Amendment rights. It’s established precedent in US law that constitutional rights only apply to citizens. Judicial independence prevents them enforcing any agreement to the contrary.
What precedents exist to deny first amendment rights to foreigners?
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
This isn’t true at all. The general legal consensus is that foreign nationals are entitled to virtually the same rights as US citizens while on US soil.
Foreign, and non-foreign, citizens only get those rights once they’re legally admitted to US soil. Like, they don’t have those protections at the airport before being granted entrance.
Could the US decide to deport Assange to Guantanamo?
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
If conditions cannot be guaranteed, the court can uphold his appeal and deny the order.
Whether or not that ruling would in turn be appealed by the US DoJ to the UK Supreme Court is moot. Ditto chance of success if it is. Between impinging on the right to freedom of expression & the horrors of the US penal system, extradition is likely illegal under UK human rights law.