Britain’s High Court orders Assange’s extradition: A quasi-legal travesty

Yesterday’s court order from Britain’s High Court, that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could be extradited to the United States, is a heinous travesty of the law.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange [Foto: AP Photo/Matt Dunham]

The verdict is the result of a 10-year political conspiracy involving the United States, Britain, Australia and Sweden, to persecute a brave journalist who exposed crimes committed by imperialist governments during their murderous invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lord Burnett of Maldon, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Lord Justice Holroyde upheld an appeal by the US Government, ruling that a lower court, the Magistrate’s Court, should have given the US “the opportunity to offer assurances” about Assange’s treatment. Both judges accept that bail is now granted – from the circumstances under which, they were told in the appeal hearing, plotted the murder, kidnapping, surrender of Assange. [‘rendering’] and poisoned “-” enough to satisfy his “welfare” concerns.

With this ruling, the British judiciary has revealed its function as a compliant instrument of the British state, ready to give its stamp of approval to a dizzying campaign of crime, with devastating anti-democratic implications.

Assange’s lawyers turned US “insurance” into dust during the trial, which was not really the case, and they provided extensive evidence of the CIA’s illegal siege of him, including a highly credible investigation conducted by Yahoo! News and the ongoing criminal investigation in Spain, which documents that his kidnapping and murder was premeditated at the highest levels of government.

The UK High Court referred to this argument before passing the sentence: “A statement of public opinion that calls into question the goodwill of the United States [‘good faith’], of those who do not have the relevant expertise to have such a formation, nothing more than a journalistic opinion drawn from an internet search. “

The judges continued: “The reality is that this court was invited to deny US insurance, either on the grounds that the insurance was not offered in good faith or for some reason, the insurance was unacceptable at face value. This is a serious charge, especially considering the UK and the United States have a long history of cooperation on extradition cases … »

Matt Thompson

"Problem solver. Proud twitter specialist. Travel aficionado. Introvert. Coffee trailblazer. Professional zombie ninja. Extreme gamer."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.