LONDON: The Westminster Magistrates Court has ordered the extradition of Abraaj Group founder and businessman Arif Naqvi to face charges of fraud, money-laundering and racketeering which carry, in total, an incredible 300 years in prison.

Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot ordered that the Pakistani national businessman should be extradited to the US and that his safety and rights will not be at risk in the US jail as argued by Naqvis lawyer during the extradition hearings. Arif Naqvi expressed no emotions when the decision was read out. Arif Naqvis lawyer will appeal against the extradition at the London High Court. He didnt speak to the media when he arrived at the court with his lawyers ahead of the decision but exchanged pleasantries with the reporters when he was leaving the court.

Arif Masood Naqvi is accused of 16 counts of fraud and related money- laundering said to have been committed between 2014 and 2018. American government has described him as the leader of a criminal enterprise that quoted Abraaj.

The judge noted in her decision that the alleged fraud started unravelling in September 2017 when an anonymous email was sent to some of the investors. Funds were also said to have been used to bribe a politician in Pakistan to obtain approval for the sale of Abraajs stake in an electrical energy utility company, according to the judgment released by the Ministry of Justice.

The judge accepted that Arif Naqvi has mental health issues and this deteriorated during the extradition proceedings at Westminster.

The judge rejected almost all grounds relied on by the legal team of Pakistani businessman and wrote that she was satisfied with the assurances given by the US administration that Mr Naqvi will have the right to a fair trial; his human rights will not be impacted and he will be provided a reasonably safe environment to live in.

She ruled: The burden on the defence is less than on the balance of probabilities but the risk must be more than fanciful. The prosecution and defence rely on different authorities but there is no dispute that the burden of establishing the real risk lays on Arif Naqvi.

The judge accepted that there are gangs in some if not all of the housing units and that there are leadership issues in some jails. I accept that there are some bad apples amongst the correctional officers and there is also some violence amongst the prisoners. Finally, I accept that the prison is having the same trouble with COVID-19 that each prison in every country is having, staff are off with COVID-19 or self-isolating which is causing a staff shortage.

The judge noted she was satisfied that Mr Naqvi will live in a special dormitory reserved not just for Federal inmates but for those who are aged 50 and over and have no disciplinary issues.

She said she didnt accept that the gangs in that unit would be able to threaten Arif Naqvi with impunity or be allowed to flourish. She said the US soil is the right forum for Mr Naqvi to stand trial and not London as Mr Naqvi held Abraaj meetings in the US when misrepresentations to the investments were made and harm was caused to the US investors.

The decision comes weeks after a similar request for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was blocked by Judge Vanessa Baraitser.

The US request to extradite Assange was blocked on basis of the 49-year-old Australian editors deteriorating physical and mental health conditions, with District Judge Vanessa Baraitser saying she refused due to fears that he could commit suicide, similar in Naqvis case as his lawyers have publicly stated during the proceedings before the chief magistrate, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot.

Judge Baraitser had ruled at the Old Bailey Court on January 4, 2021, that Assange could not be extradited to the US due to risks pertaining to his mental health and took notice to the submissions by the editors lawyers in relation to increased concerns that came to light in recent years over prison conditions at the US facilities.

Several expert witnesses had appeared during the Arif Naqvi case proceedings to testify before the judge about conditions at the US prison facilities where the Pakistani businessman would likely be held.

Naqvi has through his lawyers continued to strongly protest the disturbingly long, 300-year sentence.

Go here to read the rest:
Arif Naqvi will be extradited to US, rules UK judge - The News International

Dinah Rose QC is a human rights lawyer of great distinction. A former Barrister of the Year, she has appeared in several high profile cases, ranging from extraordinary rendition and Julian Assange to the admissions policy of the Jewish Free School. After the Jimmy Savile scandal, the BBC appointed her to investigate bullying and sexual harassment among its staff. She resigned on principle from the Liberal Democrats in protest at Nick Cleggs support for the secrecy provisions of the Coalitions Justice and Security Act 2013. An admirer of Lord Pannick and the late Lord Lester, scourges of authoritarian governments, she is a pillar of the liberal legal establishment.

Why, then, is Ms Rose suddenly under fire from Stonewall and other LGBT lobby groups? There are two reasons. The first is that she is representing the Cayman Islands in a case brought by a lesbian couple that has now reached the Privy Council, the final court of appeal for many Caribbean jurisdictions. Her critics claim that she is helping the Cayman government to ban same sex marriage. Edwin Cameron, a former South African judge, has accused her of litigating on behalf of homophobia in the Caribbean.

The second reason why Ms Rose is under pressure is that last year she was elected President of Magdalen College, Oxford. As the first female head of one of Englands greatest academic institutions, she has inherited the weight of 563 years of history. Among the most colourful characters in that history is Oscar Wilde. By the time he graduated with a First in 1878, Wilde had not only won the Newdigate Prize for poetry but already created his own myth as a literary aesthete. His spectacular rise and fall have made him perhaps the worlds most celebrated icon of the gay rights movement, indelibly associated with the cruelty of a criminal justice system that incarcerated him.

Hence Ms Rose finds herself, through no fault of her own, depicted as a hypocrite: simultaneously representing a homophobic regime while also representing the alma mater of Oscar Wilde. In the words of Edwin Cameron, it is appalling that, 125 years after Wildes prosecution, trial and imprisonment, the President of his college can ally herself with those who seek to persecute LGBTIQ persons in the Caribbean by denying them equal rights. He accuses her of potentially deterring LGBT undergraduates from studying at Magdalen. This latter charge seems, to say the least, implausible.

Camerons line of argument is roundly rejected by Dinah Rose, although her careful legal reasoning is unlikely to be heard amid the uproar. She points out that, far from persecuting anybody, the Cayman Islands is actually one of the most progressive countries for LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean. It already allows for civil partnerships and the case before the Privy Council only concerns the proper interpretation of the Cayman constitution. The question at issue is not about prohibiting same-sex marriage, but rather whether the decision to provide it is to be imposed on the Cayman Islands by the court, or remains a political question for parliament.

Another, less complex issue is also at stake here, as she points out: It is a long-standing principle, essential to the maintenance of access to justice and the rule of law, that a lawyer is not to be equated with their client. On this principle, she is seconded by her opponent in court, the equally eminent barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC. In his view, she was acting perfectly properly in accepting the Caymans brief. It would be a breach of her professional duty to return it now, he told The Times. It is an important constitutional principle that barristers should not be identified with the clients they represent.

Indeed, they should not. Under oppressive regimes such as Russia, lawyers have been imprisoned and even murdered for defending dissidents. The fact that Dinah Rose is acting for the Cayman Islands in court does not imply that she personally agrees with its position on the right to gay marriage. And the narrow point of law on which the case will turn does not even concern that right. To imply that she should either return the brief or resign as President of Magdalen, because her legal role is a stain upon the college, is a pernicious example of cancel culture. For the first woman to hold such a venerable office to be evicted merely for performing her legal duty to a client would itself be a form of persecution. The Fellows should have none of it.

There is a famous precedent at the college for the Fellows standing firm behind a President and a principle under intolerable pressure. In 1687, there was a vacancy for the Presidency of Magdalen. King James II proposed Anthony Farmer, a Catholic of dubious reputation, to the college. The Fellows rejected him as ineligible he was not a Fellow and elected John Hough, who was. The King tried again, proposing a compromise candidate: Samuel Parker, Bishop of Oxford. But the Fellows defied the King, as there was no longer a vacancy. James then resorted to force, imposing Parker and expelling the Fellows. This episode marked the moment in his reign when public opinion turned against James. The Glorious Revolution followed. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the obstinate adherence to their own statutes of the Fellows of Magdalen decided the future course of British history.

In their present predicament, the Fellows do not face an absolutist monarch, merely a lobby group though the power of social media should not be underestimated. Were the dons of Magdalen to cave in to this hue and cry by abandoning their embattled President, no head of house at Oxford or indeed any academic establishment could feel secure. Inspired by their 17th-century predecessors, the Fellows of Magdalen should stand behind President Rose.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Here is the original post:
Should the President of Magdalen be forced out over a gay marriage case? - TheArticle

LONDON: The Westminster Magistrates Court has ordered the extradition of Abraaj Group founder and businessman Arif Naqvi to face charges of fraud, money-laundering and racketeering which carry, in total, an incredible 300 years in prison.

Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot ordered that the Pakistani national businessman should be extradited to the US and that his safety and rights will not be at risk in the US jail as argued by Naqvis lawyer during the extradition hearings.

Arif Naqvi expressed no emotions when the decision was read out. Arif Naqvis lawyer will appeal against the extradition at the London High Court. He didnt speak to the media when he arrived at the court with his lawyers ahead of the decision but exchanged pleasantries with the reporters when he was leaving the court.

Arif Masood Naqvi is accused of 16 counts of fraud and related money- laundering said to have been committed between 2014 and 2018. American government has described him as the leader of a criminal enterprise that quoted Abraaj.

The judge noted in her decision that the alleged fraud started unravelling in September 2017 when an anonymous email was sent to some of the investors. Funds were also said to have been used to bribe a politician in Pakistan to obtain approval for the sale of Abraajs stake in an electrical energy utility company, according to the judgment released by the Ministry of Justice.

The judge accepted that Arif Naqvi has mental health issues and this deteriorated during the extradition proceedings at Westminster.

The judge rejected almost all grounds relied on by the legal team of Pakistani businessman and wrote that she was satisfied with the assurances given by the US administration that Mr Naqvi will have the right to a fair trial; his human rights will not be impacted and he will be provided a reasonably safe environment to live in.

She ruled: The burden on the defence is less than on the balance of probabilities but the risk must be more than fanciful. The prosecution and defence rely on different authorities but there is no dispute that the burden of establishing the real risk lays on Arif Naqvi.

The judge accepted that there are gangs in some if not all of the housing units and that there are leadership issues in some jails. I accept that there are some bad apples amongst the correctional officers and there is also some violence amongst the prisoners. Finally, I accept that the prison is having the same trouble with COVID-19 that each prison in every country is having, staff are off with COVID-19 or self-isolating which is causing a staff shortage.

The judge noted she was satisfied that Mr Naqvi will live in a special dormitory reserved not just for Federal inmates but for those who are aged 50 and over and have no disciplinary issues.

She said she didnt accept that the gangs in that unit would be able to threaten Arif Naqvi with impunity or be allowed to flourish. She said the US soil is the right forum for Mr Naqvi to stand trial and not London as Mr Naqvi held Abraaj meetings in the US when misrepresentations to the investments were made and harm was caused to the US investors.

The decision comes weeks after a similar request for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was blocked by Judge Vanessa Baraitser.

The US request to extradite Assange was blocked on basis of the 49-year-old Australian editors deteriorating physical and mental health conditions, with District Judge Vanessa Baraitser saying she refused due to fears that he could commit suicide, similar in Naqvis case as his lawyers have publicly stated during the proceedings before the chief magistrate, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot.

Judge Baraitser had ruled at the Old Bailey Court on January 4, 2021, that Assange could not be extradited to the US due to risks pertaining to his mental health and took notice to the submissions by the editors lawyers in relation to increased concerns that came to light in recent years over prison conditions at the US facilities.

Several expert witnesses had appeared during the Arif Naqvi case proceedings to testify before the judge about conditions at the US prison facilities where the Pakistani businessman would likely be held.

Naqvi has through his lawyers continued to strongly protest the disturbingly long, 300-year sentence.

See the article here:
Arif Naqvi will be extradited to US, British judge rules - The News International

One name missing in US president Donald Trump's flurry of pardons is Tiger King Joe Exotic.

His team was so confident in a pardon that they had readied a celebratory limousine and a hair and wardrobe team to whisk away the zookeeper-turned-reality-TV-star, who is now serving a 22-year federal prison sentence in Texas.

But he was not on the list announced on Wednesday morning.

Undated TV still handout from Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem And Madness. Pictured: Joe Exotic. PA Feature SHOWBIZ Download Reviews. Picture credit should read: PA Photo/Netflix. All Rights Reserved. WARNING: This picture must only be used to accompany PA Fea

Joe Exotic, whose real name is Joseph Maldonado-Passage, was sentenced in January 2020 to 22 years in federal prison for violating federal wildlife laws and for his role in a failed murder-for-hire plot targeting his chief rival, Carole Baskin, who runs a rescue sanctuary for big cats in Florida. Ms Baskin was not harmed.

Maldonado-Passage, who has maintained his innocence, was also sentenced for killing five tigers, selling tiger cubs and falsifying wildlife records. A jury convicted him in April 2019.

In his pardon application filed in September, Maldonado-Passage's lawyers argued that he was "railroaded and betrayed" by others.

Maldonado-Passage, 57, is scheduled to be released from custody in 2037, but his lawyers said in the application that "he will likely die in prison" because of health concerns.

Maldonado-Passage's legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment early on Wednesday.

The blonde mullet-wearing zookeeper, known for his expletive-laden rants on YouTube and a failed 2018 Oklahoma gubernatorial campaign, was prominently featured in the popular Netflix documentary Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness.

Another famous face to miss out was Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Mr Assanges supporters had hoped Mr Trump would pardon the Wikileaks founder, however he did not make the list.

File photo dated 19/05/17 of Julian Assange, who is not among a round of pardons which US President Donald Trump issued in his final hours in office. Issue date: Wednesday January 20, 2021.

Mr Assanges partner Stella Moris previously said: I urge the (US) Department of Justice to drop the charges and the President of the United States to pardon Julian.

Earlier this month, Mr Assange won his fight to avoid extradition to the United States but was denied bail under strict conditions for fear he could abscond and deny prosecutors the chance to appeal.

The 49-year-old is wanted to face an 18-count indictment, alleging a plot to hack computers and a conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information.

The US Government has formally lodged an appeal against the decision to block Mr Assanges extradition.

SO WHO DID MAKE THE CUT?

President Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of 143 people early on Wednesday, just hours before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.

Among the prominent names to have received a presidential pardon is Mr Trumps former strategist Steve Bannon, US rapper Lil Wayne and Republican fundraiser Elliott Broidy.

Most noteworthy was the pardoning of Mr Bannon.

A statement from the White House said: "Prosecutors pursued Mr Bannon with charges related to fraud stemming from his involvement in a political project.

"Mr Bannon has been an important leader in the conservative movement and is known for his political acumen."

Bannon had been charged with duping thousands of investors who believed their money would be used to fulfil Mr Trump's chief campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border.

Instead, he allegedly diverted over a million dollars, paying a salary to one campaign official and personal expenses for himself.

In August, he was pulled from a luxury yacht off the coast of Connecticut and brought before a judge in Manhattan, where he pleaded not guilty.

Mr Trump has already pardoned a slew of long-time associates and supporters, including his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in-law; his long-time friend and adviser Roger Stone; and his former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Besides Bannon, other pardon recipients included Elliott Broidy, a Republican fundraiser who pleaded guilty last autumn in a scheme to lobby the Trump administration to drop an investigation into the looting of a Malaysian wealth fund, and Ken Kurson, a friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner who was charged last October with cyberstalking during a divorce.

Bannon's pardon was especially notable given that the prosecution was still in its early stages and any trial was months away. Whereas pardon recipients are conventionally thought of as defendants who have faced justice, often by having served at least some prison time, the pardon nullifies the prosecution and effectively eliminates any prospect for punishment.

Wednesday's list also includes rappers Lil Wayne and Kodak Black, both convicted in Florida on weapons charges.

Wayne, whose real name is Dwayne Michael Carter, has frequently expressed support for Mr Trump and recently met with the president on criminal justice issues.

Others on the list included Death Row Records co-founder Michael Harris and New York art dealer and collector Hillel Nahmad.

Other pardon recipients include former Representative Rick Renzi, an Arizona Republican who served three years for corruption, money laundering and other charges, and former Representative Duke Cunningham, who was convicted of accepting 2.4 million dollars in bribes from defence contractors. Cunningham, who was released from prison in 2013, received a conditional pardon.

Mr Trump also commuted the prison sentence of former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who has served about seven years behind bars for a racketeering and bribery scheme.

Bannon - who served in the Navy and worked at Goldman Sachs and as a Hollywood producer before turning to politics - led the conservative Breitbart News before being tapped to serve as chief executive officer of Mr Trump's 2016 campaign in its critical final months.

He later served as chief strategist to the president during the turbulent early days of Trump's administration and was at the forefront of many of its most contentious policies, including its travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries.

But Bannon, who clashed with other top advisers, was pushed out after less than a year. And his split with Mr Trump deepened after he was quoted in a 2018 book making critical remarks about some of Mr Trump's adult children.

Bannon apologised and soon stepped down as chairman of Breitbart. He and Trump have recently reconciled.

Read the original:
Tiger King and Julian Assange miss out on Trump pardons - but plenty of controversial figures make the grade - The Northern Echo

Long-time campaigner for whistleblowers and hacktivists, Naomi Colvin, argues that the case of Julian Assange reveals the outdated and illiberal mess of British secrecy laws

It is nice to be proven right, even when it comes as a surprise. After WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange was arrested in April 2019, I explained in an article for Byline Times that his extradition to the United States was by no means a foregone conclusion.And so it has transpired.

On 4 January, district judge Vanessa Baraitser surprised the world with a ruling that may rescue Assange on exactly the basis I predicted. In fact, the ruling is the latest result of a decades-long campaign against the excesses of the 2003 UK-US Extradition Treaty, which has spanned the cases of Gary McKinnon, Richard ODwyer and Lauri Love.

Putting aside Brexit for one moment, this movement against extradition holds some claim to being the most effective extra-parliamentary campaign in recent British history.

British-Finnish computer scientist Lauri Love won his appeal against extradition to the US on hacking charges in February 2018, partly because his diagnosis of Asperger syndrome was found to heighten the risk that he would take his own life.

The Love case is important because it embedded the post-McKinnon understanding of the injustices of US extradition into law. In fact, the reasoning in USA v Assange follows the logic and language of the Loves appeal ruling almost exactly.

One of the grounds on which Love won his appeal was the forum bar. This was the change in the law that was introduced by the UKs then Home Secretary Theresa May, after she bowed to public pressure and made the political decision that Gary McKinnon a Scottish systems administrator who was accused in 2002 of the biggest military computer hack of all time would not be extradited to the US. The forum bar allows individuals with ties to the UK to have that factor balanced against arguments in favour of them being sent abroad.

Shortly after the Love ruling in 2018, the banker Stuart Scott won his appeal against extradition to the US on these grounds and other victories have followed. This is not to say that forum arguments always prevail or that abusive proceedings dont happen any more, but the Love precedent has led to some rebalancing of the situation for UK residents.

But Assanges ruling did not rely on the forum bar but on the other way in which Lauri Love won his appeal: that the inadequacy of US prison conditions for those with mental health issues makes extradition an oppressive death sentence.

Julian Assanges ruling gives him a strong basis for seeing off an appeal and will likely save his life, but that is not to say that it makes for comforting reading.

The state of Assanges health should be taken as much as a criticism of the English prison system such as the use of isolation at HMP Belmarsh, which Assange experienced for six months in late 2019 as it is of the American.

Many commentators have focused on the lack of comfort for media freedom advocates in the ruling and it is true that the judge ruled against Assanges defence in all aspects save for the medical evidence.However, the ruling is a pragmatic one that serves a particular purpose that of stopping Assanges extradition to America.

The defence argument in USA v Assange was complicated. Much of it was either politically controversial (that the extradition was initiated and pursued in an illegitimate way for partisan reasons), above the pay grade of a district judge (the 2003 Extradition Act is incompatible with the UK-US treaty), or totally novel in an extradition setting.

Unlike those kinds of arguments, medical evidence and prison conditions are bread-and-butter stuff for a first instance extradition judge and findings of fact at this level are likely to be respected by an appeal court.

The judges take on the medical evidence was therefore always going to be the key part of her ruling. In fact, the US presented it own medical experts in September (something it did not do in the Love case) so it is significant that the judge sided unambiguously with the defence. Providing a strong basis for stopping the extradition happening is almost, by definition, the most important contribution this ruling could have made to press freedom, and it does that.

The defence arguments on freedom of expression fit into the novel for extradition category. Given that the ruling is by a lower court with no precedential value, it is hard to say that it really makes things worse for British journalists. In contrast, what clearly does create difficulties for national security journalists in the US and via extradition abroad is the US indictment, which will stay in place regardless of how the extradition case goes. That is why my employers, Blueprint for Free Speech, are currently campaigning for a full pardon.

The Law Commissions final verdict is that the Official Secrets Act is no longer compatible with human rights standards.

While the ruling does not provide a precedent, the concerns expressed by organisations such as Reporters Without Borders are not groundless because it clearly illustrates the problems with the current English legal framework around investigative journalism. Sections of the ruling betray doubts about the legitimacy of technologically-assisted reporting and the use of large datasets.

A similar logic that technology has made everything terribly difficult was present in theLaw Commissions 2017 consultation report on the Protection of Official Data, its first stab at reviewing the Official Secrets Act. This project was initiated in the wake of official discomfort around the Edward Snowden revelations about mass digital surveillance in the US and Britain, but was quickly disowned. A number of press and civil society organisations made their opposition to UK Espionage Act proposals clear at the time.

In a strange coincidence, the final version of that much-delayed report, taking account of the outburst of criticism, was published just as the September hearings in USA v Assange were getting underway. The Law Commissions final verdict is that the Official Secrets Act is no longer compatible with human rights standards and that journalists and whistleblowers should be able to make apublic interest case in their defence.

Julian Assange being extradited to face prosecution in the US on Espionage Act charges is by far the worst consequence for press freedom that could come out of his case and those who care about these issues should keep a close eye on what happens at the High Court on appeal. But, not only does the first instance ruling provide real hope that a US appeal will be dismissed, it also gives freedom of expression advocates in Britain a road map for what they should be trying to achieve in 2021.

New to Byline Times? Find out about us

Our leading investigations include Russian Interference, Coronavirus, Cronyism and Far Right Radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

To have an impact, our investigations need an audience.

But emails dont pay our journalists, and nor do billionaires or intrusive ads. Were funded by readers subscription fees:

Or donate to our seasonal crowdfunder to hire an additional journalist to conduct more investigations.

See the original post here:
Sting in the Tail: Assange, Extradition and the Protection of Press Freedom Byline Times - Byline Times

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces 18 federal counts related to allegations of illegally obtaining, receiving and disclosing classified information. He is accused of conspiring to hack U.S. government computer networks, and obtain and publish classified documents related to national security. John Thys/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces 18 federal counts related to allegations of illegally obtaining, receiving and disclosing classified information. He is accused of conspiring to hack U.S. government computer networks, and obtain and publish classified documents related to national security.

Updated at 3:15 p.m. ET

A British court has denied a request from U.S. officials to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on charges of illegally obtaining and sharing classified material related to national security. The judge cited the risk of suicide if Assange is sent to U.S. custody.

"I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America," British Magistrate Vanessa Baraitser said in her decision Monday.

Baraitser's move surprised many watching the case, who had expected the judge to honor the U.S. request. It allows Assange to continue to evade U.S. law enforcement, an effort that's included spending seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The judge ordered Assange to be discharged. But the U.S. government said it will continue to pursue his extradition.

"While we are extremely disappointed in the court's ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised," Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi said in a statement.

Saying that the judge rejected Assange's contentions that he was politically targeted and should be protected by free speech laws, Raimondi added, "We will continue to seek Mr. Assange's extradition to the United States."

A psychiatrist who analyzed Assange in a London prison told Baraitser that the WikiLeaks founder was at a high risk of suicide if he ended up incarcerated in the United States.

Assange was diagnosed in December 2019 with recurrent depressive disorder, which was at times severe, and sometimes accompanied by hallucinations and often with thoughts of suicide, Baraitser wrote in her opinion.

"Although the imminence of extradition or extradition itself would trigger the attempt, its cause would be Mr. Assange's clinical depression," the judge noted. Citing the psychiatrist who examined Assange, she wrote, "He stated, 'I am as confident as a psychiatrist ever can be that, if extradition to the United States were to become imminent, Mr. Assange will find a way of suiciding.' "

Assange is facing 18 federal counts. He is accused by the U.S. government of conspiring with Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst, to compromise U.S. government computer networks and to obtain and publish classified documents.

The documents posted on the WikiLeaks website and shared with journalists included classified diplomatic cables and sensitive military reports from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The U.S. asserts that the release of those documents made public the names of locals in Iraq and Afghanistan who assisted America's military, putting their lives at risk.

Defense attorneys had argued that so much time had passed when the U.S. began unveiling charges against Assange about a decade after classified documents were published on WikiLeaks that it amounted to an "unjust and oppressive" circumstance. The delay undermined Assange's ability to defend himself, his attorneys said, adding that his mental health has deteriorated in the interim.

U.S. prosecutors said the delay was because Assange continued to break the law by releasing more sensitive diplomatic cables and classified U.S. military reports. And they added that he chose to live as a fugitive, including sequestering himself inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years to avoid arrest.

Assange entered the embassy in June 2012 to avoid an extradition order related to a criminal inquiry in Sweden, making him a fugitive from British justice.

He was expelled from the building in April 2019 and sent to London's Belmarsh prison.

Assange's attorneys are expected to ask for his imminent release from prison as they await a likely appeal from the U.S. to the U.K.'s High Court, The Washington Post reported.

If convicted of all U.S. charges, Assange could face a maximum of 175 years in prison, likely in the U.S. Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo. The prison maintains strict lockdown for inmates, who get almost no human contact and are kept in their cells 23 hours a day.

Those tough conditions might have pushed Assange to suicide, Baraitser said.

The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders welcomed Monday's decision but said it is concerned by the judge's rationale. On purely substantive grounds, the group noted, Assange would have been handed over to the United States.

Rebecca Vincent, the group's director of international campaigns, disagreed with the court's findings that the case against Assange isn't a matter of free speech and political retribution.

"We remain convinced that Mr. Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism," Vincent said. "As we all know, the publication of the leaked information informed extensive public-interest reporting. The public had a right to these stories, and the public still has a right to these types of stories."

The judge's ruling, advocacy groups say, signals that journalists everywhere must be concerned about what they report about the United States.

"The mere act of publishing secrets that the U.S. government doesn't want the public to see is not akin to spying," said Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "It's deeply troubling that the English court sided with the U.S. Department of Justice in its attempt to criminalize such disclosures, even if the court ultimately rejected the U.S.'s extradition request."

But Reporters Without Borders Secretary General Christophe Deloire also noted of Assange's case, "An extradition would have set a precedent. For those who defend him, it is a huge relief."

Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador said at his regular Monday press conference in Mexico City that if released Assange would be offered political asylum in Mexico.

"Assange is a journalist and deserves a chance, I am in favor of pardoning him," Lpez Obrador said. "We'll give him protection."

Read the original here:

British Court Rejects U.S. Request To Extradite WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange - NPR

A British court ruled on Monday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States because of concerns over his mental health.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser said that Assange would likely commit suicide if sent to the U.S. as his clinical depression would be exacerbated by the isolation he would face in a top-security U.S. prison. Assange had the intellect and determination to circumvent any suicide prevention measures the authorities could take, she said. The U.S. government said it would appeal the decision.

I find that the mental condition of Mr Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America, said Baraitser.

The overall impression is of a depressed and sometimes despairing man who is genuinely depressed about his future, she added.

The case against Assange refers to WikiLeakss publication of leaked documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse, which would carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, saying the leaks of classified material endangered lives.

Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech. However the British judge rejected those claims, saying his conduct, if proved, would therefore amount to offenses in this jurisdiction that would not be protected by his right to freedom of speech.

Assange has now been returned to the high-security Belmarsh Prison in South London ahead of an application on Wednesday for his release on bail.

More here:

Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the US, UK judge rules - POLITICO.eu

WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange, will not be extradited to the US, after a UK court deemed him at risk of suicide and self-harm.

UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser on Monday blocked the US request, saying: "I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America."

Assange is wanted in the US on a litany of conspiracy and hacking charges with a maximum prison sentence of 175 years. The US government has accused him of conspiring to hack US government computers and of breaching the Espionage Act when WikiLeaks published military and diplomatic documents in 2010. Assange faces 18 charges in total.

He has fought the extradition request, saying the US case is politically motivated.

The WikiLeaks founder has been imprisoned in the UK since April 2019, when he was arrested and convicted of breaching bail conditions. Before that, he had taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for almost seven years, until it revoked his asylum, saying it was fed up with what it described as his bad behavior. He had fled to the embassy after facing a separate extradition request from Sweden on allegations of sexual assault. The case was subsequently dropped.

Since his arrest, he has been housed in HMP Belmarsh, which has been described as the UK's "Guantnamo Bay." The US asked to extradite him in April 2019.

Baraitser said she accepted evidence that Assange had "recurrent depressive disorder." She added that medical notes from Assange's detainment in Belmarsh showed he had expressed "suicidal or self-harming thoughts" to staff members on multiple occasions and that in May 2019 half a razor blade was found in his cell.

Baraitser concluded that her "overall impression" of Assange's mental state was of a "depressed and sometimes despairing man, who is genuinely fearful about his future."

The US said it would appeal the decision, per the Associated Press.

Baraitser said Assange was expected to be kept in custody ahead of the appeal from the US, per The Independent.

"Today is a victory for Julian. Today's victory is the first step towards justice in this case," Assange's fiance, Stella Moris, told reporters Monday.

"We are pleased that the court has recognized the seriousness and inhumanity of what he has endured and what he faces. But let's not forget the indictment in the US has not been dropped. We are extremely concerned that the US government has decided to appeal this decision," she said.

She added: "It continues to want to punish Julian and make him disappear into the deepest, darkest hole of the US prison system for the rest of his life. That can never happen. We will never accept that journalism is a crime in this country or in any other."

Assange's legal team and the US Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

See the original post:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will not be extradited to the US, a UK court ruled - Business Insider - Business Insider

The year 2020 may now be behind us, but we aren't done with the 2020 election just yet. You'll want to keep an eye ontwo really important political eventsthis week:

Will these events be dramatic? I cant imagine 2021 starting any other way. But don't worry, we've got you covered: Sign up and we'll text you with thelatest political news to know the moment it goes down.

It's Ashley, excited to kick off the year with your daily dose of news to know. Let's do this.

But first, resolved to get active in 2021? Here are 15 songs to help you get moving and motivated.

House Democrats on Monday passed around the draft of a censure resolution against President Donald Trump after leaked audio from a phone call showed him pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to reverse his election loss to Biden.The resolution censures and condemns Trump over the explosive audio, a symbolic gesture to rebuke the presidents conduct thats ultimately the equivalent to a slap on the wrist. With two weeks left in Trumps presidency, there is not enough time to launch a new impeachment inquiry, but legal experts and Democratic lawmakers assert that Trumps action was tantamount to criminal conduct that should open him to fresh legal scrutiny.

President Donald Trump on Dec. 12, 2020, in Washington, D.C.(Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)

Vice President Mike Pence on Monday vocalized his support for some Republicans efforts to keep Trump in the White House by overturning the Electoral College resultsduring a special joint session of Congress that will cement Biden's election win. But Pence stopped short of saying he would do anything other than allow objections to the certified results to be heard. On Wednesday, Pence in his constitutional role as president of the Senate will preside over Congress acceptance of the Electoral College results, which have been certified by states. A faction of House Republicans, led by Mo Brooks, R-Ala., intends to object to electoral votes from some states. To succeed, the objections must be supported by a majority of both the House and the Senate, which will not happen.

From left, Doug Emhoff, husband of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, President-elect Joe Biden and Jill Biden celebrate Nov. 7 in Wilmington, Del.(Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)

A British judge ruled Monday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the United States on espionage charges because he is a suicide risk. That ruling touches on press freedoms and the international reach of the U.S. justice system. Remember Assange? He was indicted by the Department of Justice on 18 counts of espionage and computer misuse connected to WikiLeaks' publishing of secret U.S. military documents provided to him by ex-U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in 2019. Assange denied the charges and claimed the documents exposed war crimes and abuses by the U.S. military in Iraq. U.S. prosecutors said they would appeal the ruling.

Julian Assange, holds up a copy of today's Guardian newspaper during a press conference in London on July 26, 2010. Assange first rose to prominence after Wikileaks published thousands of leaked military files about the war in Afghanistan In all, some 92,000 documents dating back to 2004 were released by the New York Times, Britain's Guardian newspaper, and Germany's Der Spiegel newsweekly.(Photo: Leon Neal, AFP/Getty Images)

An air-powered, inflatable Christmas tree costume worn by a staffer at a California hospital could be linked to an outbreak that infected more than 40 people, killing one,hospital officials say. Kaiser Permanente San Jose Medical Center said that the staffer wore the costume, which included a fan that could have helped spread infected droplets through the air, in the emergency department on Christmas. An employee working in the department that day died from COVID-19 complications, NBC Bay Area reported. California, which early in the pandemic successfully fended off the worst of the surge, has seen infections race out of control in recent weeks.

An Israeli health care worker vaccinates a man against COVID-19 at Clalit Health Services in Tel Aviv on Jan. 3, 2021.(Photo: JACK GUEZ, AFP via Getty Images)

Tanya Roberts, who starred alongside Roger Moore in the 1985 Bond film "A View To A Kill," as well as classic TV series "Charlie's Angels" and "That '70s Show," has died. She was 65. Her publicist told USA TODAY that Roberts died Sunday at Los Angeles' Cedar-Sinai Hospital after being hospitalized following a collapse. He did not disclose the cause of death but said Roberts did not die from a COVID-19 related illness.

Tanya Roberts, who starred in "A View to A Kill," is hospitalized. On Sunday, her representative announced she had died.(Photo: MGM)

This is a compilation of stories from across the USA TODAY Network. Want this news roundup in your inbox every night?Sign up for The Short List newsletter here.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/01/04/trump-georgia-runoffs-electoral-college-julian-assange-mondays-news/4122326001/

See the article here:

Did Trump break the law? - USA TODAY

A judge in London plans to rule on Monday whether Britain should extradite Julian Assange to the United States, where the WikiLeaks founder faces charges of conspiring to hack government computers and violating the Espionage Act by obtaining and releasing confidential documents in 2010 and 2011.

A ruling in favor of the U.S. extradition request could pave the way for a high-stakes trial that Mr. Assange has sought to avoid for years, and which his supporters say poses a dangerous threat to press freedom. Mr. Assange faces up to 175 years in prison if found guilty of all charges.

If the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, rejects the extradition request, however, it would give Mr. Assange a major victory at a time when recent U.S. administrations have increasingly used the Espionage Act against journalists sources.

Here is what you need to know about the ruling.

Judge Baraitser will not rule on whether Mr. Assange is guilty of wrongdoing, but she will decide whether the U.S. extradition request meets requirements set out under a 2003 extradition treaty with Britain namely, that the alleged crime for which Mr. Assange is wanted could also lead to trial in Britain, had he done it there.

If Judge Baraitser rules in favor of the extradition, the case would go to Britains home secretary, who makes the final decision on extraditions. And it would be a politically delicate choice: Mr. Assange is such a high-profile figure, and the charges he faces in the United States so serious, that a decision by the British authorities will have long-lasting consequences.

Yet before moving to the home secretary, appeals are likely to keep the case in courts for months. And if Mr. Assange were to lose, his legal team could also attempt to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. If he were to win on appeal, he could be freed.

President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. could play a critical role in determining the fate of Mr. Assange. If the British judge rules in favor of an extradition, and the U.S. is able to extradite, it will likely fall to the new president to make a decision as to whether the government should continue with the prosecution, said Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond.

As vice president, Mr. Biden called the WikiLeaks founder a high-tech terrorist in 2010, but it remains unclear what he would do as president. Mr. Biden could pardon Mr. Assange, or the Justice Department could drop the charges against him, or carry on with the prosecution.

Calls for President Trump to pardon Mr. Assange have also grown in recent weeks as Mr. Trump has issued a wave of pardons and commutations before his term ends.

Britain has turned down several extradition requests from the United States in recent years. In 2012, it refused to extradite Gary McKinnon, a British hacker who breached U.S. government computers in 2002, on the basis that he was too ill. In 2018, a high court ruling also blocked the extradition of Lauri Love, who was accused of breaking into U.S. government websites.

A ruling in favor of extradition could subject Mr. Assange to life in prison.

The U.S. government considers Mr. Assange an individual who has put lives at risk by revealing names of U.S. personnel and informants who provided valuable information in dangerous places like war zones.

Reporting or journalism is not an excuse for criminal activities or a license to break ordinary criminal laws, James Lewis, a lawyer representing the U.S. government, told the British court last year.

But news organizations and right groups say the charges Mr. Assange faces pose a serious threat to press freedom.

The future of journalism and press freedom is at stake here, said Rebecca Vincent, the London-based director of international campaigns at Reporters Without Borders.

If the U.S. government is successful in obtaining Mr. Assanges extradition and prosecuting him in the U.S., then it could prosecute any journalist and news organizations under similar charges, Ms. Vincent added.

Greg Barns, an Australian lawyer and adviser to Mr. Assange, said, The greatest risk for him in the U.S. is that he wont face a fair trial. Mr. Barns added: He could spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement, treated in a cruel and arbitrary fashion.

In 2012, Mr. Assange entered the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to escape an extradition request from Sweden, where he faced rape accusations. He spent seven years in the embassy, but was arrested by the British police in 2019, and later sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for skipping bail when he entered the embassy.

The charges in Sweden have been dropped, and Mr. Assange has completed his 50-week sentence. He is not accused of any crime outside the United States, but he remains at the Belmarsh prison in London as Britain decides on his extradition. His bail requests have been rejected.

Several doctors have said that Mr. Assange suffers from depression and memory loss and could attempt to commit suicide if he were extradited.

Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and ill treatment, who has examined Mr. Assange in prison, said last year that his incarceration amounted to psychological torture.

I can attest to the fact that his health has seriously deteriorated, to the point where his life is now in danger, Mr. Melzer said last month in urging Mr. Trump to pardon Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange, 49, was indicted in 2019 on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act for obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents. He was later charged with violating the Computers Fraud and Abuse Act.

Mr. Assanges promotion of government transparency has made him a hero to many, but he has also been criticized as a publicity seeker with an erratic personality.

The publication of the material exposed various crimes and wrongdoings committed by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rights groups have hailed their release as valuable information for the public. Right groups like Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International have called for all charges to be dropped.

The activities that Julian Assange engaged in are activities that journalists engage in all the time, said Julia Hall, Amnesty Internationals expert on counterterrorism and criminal justice in Europe. We wouldnt have information without them.

The hearings were delayed by the coronavirus pandemic and technical glitches that rights groups said hampered their ability to monitor them.

In February, Mr. Assange appeared in a glass box, where he could not hear properly, according to observers. In September, after an outburst from Mr. Assange, the judge warned that he would be removed from the courtroom if he kept interrupting prosecutors. Mr. Lewis, acting for the U.S. government, argued that Mr. Assange faced extradition over the publication of informants names, not for handling leaked documents.

In their closing remarks, lawyers for Mr. Assange argued that accusations of espionage constituted a political offense, and that an extradition on the basis of a political offense was barred by the extradition treaty between the Britain and the United States.

Asked whether he would consent to extradition to the United States, Mr. Assange replied: No.

See the article here:
Julian Assange Faces Ruling on Extradition to U.S. - The New York Times