Specifically, he mentions USAID vs. Alliance for Open Socieyy International II.
The case centered around this requirement for funding to be given:
As a condition of this funding, entities were required to also promote an anti-prostitution pledge requiring them to establish "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking", a term known as the Policy Requirement.
We know why NGOs would be against this, unfortunately, but it’s weird that this is what Lauria is directly mentioning here regarding SCOTUS rulings that affect his appeal….
However the denial of his rights in an American courtroom would go beyond the First Amendment to all of his U.S. constitutional rights, according to the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., which says that a non-U.S. citizen acting outside the U.S. has no constitutional protections at all.
Is this a correct statement in terms of the law? Or does Lauria have no clue what he’s talking about?
Either way, it’s interesting that human trafficking is once again coming to the fore in the Assange case.
U.S. Constitutional Rights ONLY pertain to U.S. citizens and inhabitants on U.S. land. Once you're outside the country and get nabbed by a foreign govt, you're on your own. The military used to drill that into our heads in the lead up to an overseas deployment. I know plenty of people who I served with that got caught doing something illegal in a foreign land and there was absolutely nothing the govt could do to stop the host nation from prosecuting and convicting and then sentencing them to prison.
What Assange is being targeted for goes beyond U.S. law, too. If it didn't, Britain would've already handed him over instead of letting him languish at Belmarsh Prison.
The principle is true, people like Julian Assange who live outside of the USA and who are not Citizens of the United States do not have the 1st Amendment and other protective rights (4th Amendment, 5 Eyes spying…) and freedoms as Citizens and legal residents in the USA enjoy. (here’s a link to the case summary: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-177 and here is the summary New York Times v. United States 1971 famous Pentagon Papers case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873) ___ Now let’s think of some distinctions as to why NY Times “Pentagon Papers” case might not be helpful in the case of Julian Assange. 1) Julian Assange is accused of hacking. That is like an intrusion, an attack. Generally there’s no 1st Amendment right to do that (when you hack to save the world, you do this at your own risk). National Constitution Center explains (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-assange-indictment-and-the-first-amendment — note, they are not fully “based” yet, they still write as if Russia did the hacking of HRC and Democratic Party, but otherwise this is a good article) ****2) The Law of Specialty might apply (international law lawyers’ trick in Assange’s favor): but we don’t know yet, as the U.S. appellate court where Assange could be tried has not decided upon this “Law of Specialty” issue yet. a) It’s an international law treaty right and it limits countries from tacking on extra charges against an accused when the extradition process has begun. b) Other U.S. Appellate Courts are split, so this “right” is open for debate. 2) Not sure if U.S. and UK have signed a mutual agreement to this principle in extradition rights and / or other human rights treaties / systems like OAS Organization of American States (“Law of Specialty” is discussed in USA / Canadian relations here: https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/831/1.0077580/2 ). 3) When you hack to save the world, it’s an uphill battle, but this brings people of different political perspectives together and strengthens the cause of The Great Awakening.