On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <[1]gmkarl@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.^[2][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.^[3][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

References

   1. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-460
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-theduran.com-458