That's a lovely proverb Foxy, but I expect to wait a bit longer. Th judgement will be an interesting read I hope.

.

As I see it, a watershed decision of the High Court is possible, overturning that of the lower court ruling in 2022 that Assange was apt for extradition based on the assurance of the US that he would be treated humanely and receive a fair trial – on the receipt of which Britain’s interior minister, Home Secretary Priti Patel, signed an order authorising Assange’s extradition.

The reason I think a watershed decision is possible is that at no point have the UK courts sought to determine if Assange is guilty or innocent of the multiple charges of espionage and computer fraud and abuse that the US seeks to bring against him. Nor have the UK courts sought to determine if the US is guilty or innocent of having committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as justification for the publication by Wikileaks of the US classified documents.

The latter justifying the former, the question of possible US war crimes would need to be resolved before making any decision regarding the question of Assange’s possible espionage and computer fraud and abuse.

It would be “putting the cart before the horse” to judge Assange for possible espionage and computer fraud and abuse before judging the US for possible war crimes.

In the absence of the determination of the latter, and until such determination is accomplished, there is no justification for the extradition of Julian Assange.

So much for the purely judicial aspect of the question.

Hopefully, the two judges of His Majesty's High Court, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, will resist any attempts by the US and UK authorities to influence their decision for purely political reasons.

.

Dear Fester and Banjo,

We can only hope that the UK judges will make their
decision according to the law and not politics.

Hi Foxy,

You only need to compare Mr Shipton with Alexei Navalny to see how fairly he has been treated. In fact, if he hadn't skipped bail and hid in an embassy he may well have done his time and be walking a free man today. Why should a coward be awarded freedom for evading a trial for his actions? I see no reason why he won't get a fail trial in America. The last thing you want is an unrepentant criminal walking the street. It is almost a guarantee that Mr Shipton will carry on harming people.

Hi Banjo Patterson,
"It’s difficult to imagine that the US authorities could ever be extradited and tried by the ICC in the Hague for purported war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan."

- The US even passed a bill to try to prevent that from ever happening.

American Service-Members' Protection Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

The American Service-Members' Protection Act (enacted August 2, 2002 after 911 and the invasion of Iraq), is known informally as the 'Hague Invasion Act', a United States federal law described as 'a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party'.
The act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands where the Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.

It's a complete snub to the 'rule-based order' they proudly claim to stand for.
- Because in truth, they're just imperialists who are actively engaged in expanding and defending the US empire (that's what all these 'liberal interventions' are), and their Congress is bought and paid for by the uniparty supported MIC and Jewish donors and lobby groups.

The US politicians don't even support US interests at home, let alone anybody else's anywhere else.
That should tell you they're not what they claim to be.

.

If it is proven by an international court that the US did commit war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no reason why Julian Assange should be extradited by the UK to the US to be tried and punished for revealing those war crimes.

Quite the contrary, he should be congratulated and receive a medal for it.

If, on the other hand, it is not proven by an international court that the US committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Julian Assange should be extradited to the US to be tried and punished.

In the meantime, Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US until the question of the guilt or innocence of the US for war crimes purportedly committed in Iraq and Afghanistan has been clearly established by an international court of law.

The problem is there are serious pitfalls on the road to a fair decision by the UK’s High Court judges who have agreed to examine the case :

1. The question of the guilt or innocence of the US has not yet been clearly established by an international court of law,

2. As Armchair Critic just pointed out, the US enacted the American Service-Members' Protection Act in 2002 to protect US military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the US government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the US is not a party (the ICC),

3. In 2017 the ICC declared that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the UK committed war crimes in Iraq – including killing, torture, inhuman/cruel treatment, rape and/or other forms of sexual violence.

The European Human Rights Organisation (ECCHR) reported in 2019, the failure of the UK to prosecute torture cases domestically. Nevertheless, in December 2020, the ICC decided to close the case.

This means that the US has washed itself clean of any wrongdoing and the ICC has washed the UK clean of any wrongdoing.

That leaves Julian Assange holding the buck.

It remains to be seen if the UK’s High Court judges consider that to be fair.

.