> No timeline was given for a decision, but we expect it to take weeks if not months.
It's strange to think that after all this time, Assange could walk away a free man by the end of the year, although it's not hard to imagine that some government will come up with another reason to arrest him (or worse) if that happens.
At any point from around 2011 the US could stop persecuting the man and it seems quite likely that all his legal problems would just disappear in about that timeframe. All of this has been a cynical and persistent campaign from the States showing off how far beyond the strict legal jurisdiction they can reach when someone embarrasses the government.
The argument that he's a flight risk is quite strong, supported by his historic behaviour.
No, I don't think they should be holding him at all, given that extradition has already been refused, but this is about punishment and vengeance and politics, not about right, wrong or justice.
I don't see any content in that PDF that relates to what you claim to be using it as a citation for. Linking to a 130 page document legal document and providing no quote or source section seems like a bad faith use of citations to bolster your argument without actually providing any facts.
The fact is that Assange kept in conditions that were not only deemed solitary isolation by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, but also qualify as solitary isolation under British , EU and UN law. [0]
The article you've linked seems to be claiming that being in the healthcare unit is the "solitary confinement". This is why I asked you which nine months you are saying you think he was in "solitary confinement", as you said that they predated his time in the healthcare unit but this is impossible as he moved to the healthcare unit in May 2019.
The relevant quote from my link is; "Dr. Blackwood confirmed that Mr. Assange was placed on an ACCT on arrival at the prison; on 18 May 2019 he was admitted to the healthcare unit; and, on 21 December 2019, he was returned to ordinary location.".
It is absolute nonsense to describe being in the healthcare unit as solitary confinement and it absolutely does NOT qualify as solitary isolation under British law, or EU law or UN law.
Assange's supporters have an absurd habit of exaggerating his suffering. They even claimed being in the embassy was "solitary confinement"!! [0]. While in the healthcare unit he still had all his usual prison visits etc (there are plenty of blogs out there of people who visited him during this time, several a month), and of course regular contact with healthcare professionals. He did have less contact with other inmates (but not none) which apparently had a negative impact on his mental health.
He was moved to the healthcare unit for good reason (they found a razor hidden in his cell and assessed him as a suicide risk). There is absolutely nothing to suggest HMPPS have anything other than his interests in mind. All of this is covered in the judgment if you could be bothered to read it rather than accusing me incorrectly of not knowing the facts.
> It is absolute nonsense to describe being in the healthcare unit as solitary confinement and it absolutely does NOT qualify as solitary isolation under British law, or EU law or UN law.
The article I linked makes a very strong argument that the location and/or reason for solitary confinement does not change its nature. Indeed when the British prison system uses "segregation" to curtail contact with other prisoners there is an official approval and review process that is designed to asses impacts on the prisoner's mental health. The "healthcare" isolation didn't involve any such process.
The article also lays out exactly how Assange's isolation for 22 hours a day qualifies as "solitary confinement" under both UN and EU laws. Are you disputing the facts of Assanges isolation or the interpretation of these laws?
> There is absolutely nothing to suggest HMPPS have anything other than his interests in mind.
I think it is pretty damning that a nonviolent prisoner was placed in a maximum security prison for a parole violation and then placed in isolation in a manner that bypassed the standard processes that would have protected Assange's mental health during that isolation.
If the HMPPS had really had Assange's interests in mind, he would have been placed at a medium or low security psychiatric facility.
> All of this is covered in the judgment if you could be bothered to read it rather than accusing me incorrectly of not knowing the facts.
Please indicate where this is all covered in that judgement as I can't address the entire document in a hope that I cover the sections you are referencing.
It's difficult to engage constructively with you because it is obvious you have come to your conclusions based on reading extremely biased sources and you refuse to read primary sources. You also Gish gallop around which is enervating to deal with.
You haven't addressed my question so I am going to assume that you now realise you were wrong in what you said, but don't want to admit it.
Your argument has now evolved from a factual one that can be disproved (9 months in solitary confinement), to a conspiracy theory; Assange was put in the healthcare unit against his interests, as a political punishment. This has no factual basis. It is for you to prove this claim.
>No charges in the UK, and the extradition was denied. He should not have been detained between the extradition being denied and this appeal trial.
I'm not familiar with UK law, nor am I well informed about the penalties for jumping bail there. Was Assange held on charges related to that?
It's also not entirely clear to me what responsibilities the UK government has with respect to its extradition treaty with the US. Is the UK treaty-bound to hold Assange based on the US indictment?
Since you seem better informed about this than I am, perhaps you could provide some detail about that?
Assuming that your assertion is correct, the UK government has some explaining to do.
> I'm not familiar with UK law, nor am I well informed about the penalties for jumping bail there. Was Assange held on charges related to that?
Yes, he was tried and convicted, and has now served the 50 week jail sentence (he was convicted 1 May 2019 after 6 years 10 months on the run).
> It's also not entirely clear to me what responsibilities the UK government has with respect to its extradition treaty with the US. Is the UK treaty-bound to hold Assange based on the US indictment?
Yes. They could be released on bail, but if you are a convicted criminal whos crime was jumping bail the last time you were released on bail, you are going to have a tough time convincing a judge that 'its different this time'.
Bail in extradition cases is covered by the Bail Act 1976. Where the requested person is wanted to face an accusation, the starting point is that there is a ‘presumption in favour’ of bail.
> Assuming that your assertion is correct, the UK government has some explaining to do.
> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs.
Sounds like a good reason to be a threat, albeit a not so smart one.
It's strange to think that after all this time, Assange could walk away a free man by the end of the year, although it's not hard to imagine that some government will come up with another reason to arrest him (or worse) if that happens.