UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Assange extradition. The case now moves to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition. Julian Assange’s solicitors Birnberg Peirce statement on Supreme Court Decision: We will keep you updated…
UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Assange extradition. The case now moves to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition.
WikiLeaks editor and publisher Julian Assange is facing a 175 year sentence for publishing truthful information in the public interest.
Julian Assange is being sought by the current US administration for publishing US government documents which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. The politically motivated charges represent an unprecedented attack on press freedom and the public’s right to know – seeking to criminalise basic journalistic activity.
If convicted Julian Assange faces a sentence of 175 years, likely to be spent in extreme isolation.
The UN working group on arbitrary detention issued a statement saying that “the right of Mr. Assange to personal liberty should be restored”.
Massimo Moratti of Amnesty International has publicly stated on their website that, “Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of its obligations under international law.”
Human Rights Watch published an article saying, “The only thing standing between an Assange prosecution and a major threat to global media freedom is Britain. It is urgent that it defend the principles at risk.”
The NUJ has stated that the “US charges against Assange pose a huge threat, one that could criminalise the critical work of investigative journalists & their ability to protect their sources”.
UK: Refusal by Supreme Court to grant Assange right to appeal is “a blow for justice”
Responding to a UK Supreme Court decision refusing to grant Julian Assange permission to appeal against the previous High Court ruling permitting his extradition, Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe Julia Hall, said:
“Today’s decision is a blow to Julian Assange and to justice. The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.
I just thought it was funny that in another thread they were being painted as the western foils for criticizing Russia. Amensty’s actions belie that reactionary slander.
In some regions and on some issues (such as the currently-existing states that identify as Marxist-Leninist) Amnesty’s positions tend to be strongly US-aligned, while on other topics (such as Palestine, US domestic issues, and WikiLeaks) they’re very much not aligned. It turns out politics aren’t reducible to a small boolean circuit :)
Amnesty: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/03/uk-refusal-by-supreme-court-to-grant-assange-right-to-appeal-is-a-blow-for-justice/
UK: Refusal by Supreme Court to grant Assange right to appeal is “a blow for justice”
Responding to a UK Supreme Court decision refusing to grant Julian Assange permission to appeal against the previous High Court ruling permitting his extradition, Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe Julia Hall, said:
“Today’s decision is a blow to Julian Assange and to justice. The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.
But the Putin apologists said Amnesty International was a nazi arm of NATO… I’m confused now. Do we like them only when they’re not criticizing us?
also unsure about who is “we” in that case?
You don’t have to like them to acknowledge they are indeniably right about something, do you?
I just thought it was funny that in another thread they were being painted as the western foils for criticizing Russia. Amensty’s actions belie that reactionary slander.
In some regions and on some issues (such as the currently-existing states that identify as Marxist-Leninist) Amnesty’s positions tend to be strongly US-aligned, while on other topics (such as Palestine, US domestic issues, and WikiLeaks) they’re very much not aligned. It turns out politics aren’t reducible to a small boolean circuit :)