"What was issued is not an approval of extradition. It was a remittance. This means, the UK High Court found that the district judge ruled in error on 2 points out of the 5 the US government appealed on.
Because of this, the case is sent back to the magistrate courts and is effectively retried before being sent to the UK Secretary of State, who makes the final decision.
This ruling just represents the continuation of using the process itself to punish Assange.
As long as the US can endlessly appeal decisions, they can keep Julian as a silent hostage in the UK without ever having to proceed with their actual case against him."
What do you make of this assertion:
"What was issued is not an approval of extradition. It was a remittance. This means, the UK High Court found that the district judge ruled in error on 2 points out of the 5 the US government appealed on. Because of this, the case is sent back to the magistrate courts and is effectively retried before being sent to the UK Secretary of State, who makes the final decision.
This ruling just represents the continuation of using the process itself to punish Assange.
As long as the US can endlessly appeal decisions, they can keep Julian as a silent hostage in the UK without ever having to proceed with their actual case against him."