The British public is so appalled at the Israeli genocide going on in Gaza that it has failed to spot the latest negation by the UK Establishment of basic judicial principles. Only Consortium News and Craig Murray have given clear reports on the implications of last week’s Supreme Court’s opaque judgement whose 66 page report can be read here.
Craig Murray’s argument is that -
Both judges are compromised by their close association with the security
The Supreme Court accepts the evidence that the US plotted
to kill Julian Assangeforbids Assange’s lawyers to mention this in any future appealshas given the US 3 weeks to come up with a form of words which
reassures the UK authorities that the US will not inflict the death penalty on Assangebut then argues that the UK is not bound (by any of the 150 treaties it
has signed) to respect basic human rights.
Judge Johnson and Judge Sharp accept that there is evidence to the required standard that the U.S. authorities did plot to kidnap and consider assassinating Julian Assange, but they reason at para. 210 that, as extradition is now going to be granted, there is no longer any need for the United States to kidnap or assassinate Julian Assange: and therefore the argument falls. It does not seem to occur to them that a willingness to consider extrajudicial violent
action against Julian Assange amounts to a degree of persecution which obviously reflects on his chances of a fair trial and treatment in the United States. It is simply astonishing, but the evidence of the U.S. plot to destroy Julian Assange, including evidence from the ongoing criminal investigation in Spain into the private security company involved, will never again be allowed to be mentioned in Julian’s case against extradition. Similarly, we are at the end of the line for arguing that the treaty under which
Julian is being extradited forbids extradition for political offence. The judgment confirms boldly that treaty obligations entered into by the United Kingdom are not binding in domestic law and confer no individual rights. Of over 150 extradition treaties entered into by the United Kingdom, all but two ban extradition for political offences. The judgment is absolutely clear that those clauses are redundant in every single one of those treaties. Every dictatorship on Earth can now come after political dissidents in the U.K. and they will not have the protection of those clauses against political extradition in the treaties. That is absolutely plain on the face of this ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment