For example - given the ample (and basically) record of U.S. authorities in regard to their treatment of so-called High Value Detainees -- and even of very low-value detainees at is borders, as we have seen in recent years -- the High Court had no reason whatsoever to lend credence to the so-called "assurances" they cited in their ruling:
The High Court said Friday that it had received appropriate assurances from the U.S. to meet the threshold for extradition, including:
Assange will not be subject to “special administrative measures” or be held in a notorious maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado.
Assange, if convicted, will be permitted to serve out his sentence in his native Australia.
Assange will receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment in custody.
Who is going to oversee and enforce these promises? The UK High Court? When the US violates their promises, will the High Court Judge personally fly to the US to collect Assange and bring him back to the UK?
They have no means to enforce it, the judgement is what they think will happen. If, say, North Korea gave assurances on how they would treat a prisoner their judgement would probably be different.
The point is, saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken, which is an actual falsifiable proposition - I'm just asking which one you think is going to be broken.
Saying the judgement is wrong is logically equivalent to stating that one of these assurances is going to be broken
No - that plainly does not follow.
All that is needed is to apply the standard of reasonable doubt: in this case, that the party in question (the U.S. government) can be trusted not to act contrary their assurances on these matters.
Which we are compelled to adopt, based on the very ample track record of their conduct in this regard.
The judgement relied (in part) on the Diplomatic Note (No. 169), in which the US stated;
> "The United States has provided assurances to the United Kingdom in connection with extradition requests countless times in the past. In all of these situations, the United States has fulfilled the assurances it provided."
Are you saying this is false? What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to?
What track record of breaking assurances are you referring to?
We're going in circles. This was already referred to in my original entry into this thread, 5 or 6 levels up.
The fact that the U.S. may keep some of its assurances to some parties (if in fact this is the case) does not obviate the fact that frequently and brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard. It is this, much bigger fact (which is pretty obvious and doesn't need substantiation as to the particulars) which takes precedence.
Your original comment refers to the fact that the USA generally treats detainees poorly, not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard".
You haven't convinced me why the court is wrong to believe the USA on this point. You just seem to repeatedly state that it's ridiculous without saying why.
But anyway, ultimately we will be able to see whether or not the USA does let Assange (if convicted) serve his sentence in Australia or not.
not that it "brazenly breaks many other assurances it makes in this regard".
Are you referring to the CIA's famous "We don't do torture" promise, here?
Or the implicit promise to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan that they would be treated humanely when they came in contact with our armed forces and their surrogates? And most certainly when they ended up in our ... detention centers?
Or to the migrants detained by the ICE, who were told they were merely being "detained"... not that they would one day find an officer
"sitting on her like one would on a horse", with his "erect penis on her butt"
to quote just one of 1,224 reports of recent sexual abuse at these facilities?
In fairness, the US would be idiotic to renege on their assurances. That essentially would be a valid reason to block any future extraditions.
Saying that, we live in strange times where countries like the UK, which always used to play by the rules, albeit the ones they wrote, now backs out of treaties where the ink is barely dry.
They openly admit their willingness to break all three if "future acts" deem them necessary, not to mention they're free to stick him in another terrible jail with other restrictive measures even with the assurances.
Because if we wait for them to be violated, Assange could already be dead? And for the nth time, why should I expect them to hold to these promises when they've already violated his right to a free trial?
