Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Elroy Blue said:
I don't do prejudice (you seem good at it). I deal in facts. Snowdon is a traitorous individual who wanted to show 'truth and justice'. His principles however, didn't stretch very far when he choose to live in a violently oppressive country.
Assange went through every criminal court in the land. Every court rejected his argument. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant, just like thousands of others. He's too much of a coward to face his accusers. He just happens to be a despicable individual as well.
As you deal in facts ...which country is he a trailer to ...?Assange went through every criminal court in the land. Every court rejected his argument. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant, just like thousands of others. He's too much of a coward to face his accusers. He just happens to be a despicable individual as well.
Edited by Elroy Blue on Friday 5th February 12:41
13 million quid to wait for one man, Assange to come out of the embassy, does seem like a lot, given that we currently appear to be importing any number of unknown individuals, who have already committed worse crimes in the UK.
One has to wonder WHY the UK, and Sweden, possibly even the US, are wasting so much time, effort, and taxpayers cash on acquiring this one particular individual?
Rape is no joke, but some recently imported individuals have committed far worse crimes, and yet the government lets them remain in the UK (and not holed up in an embassy either) There is possibly much more to this, than we are being told.
One has to wonder WHY the UK, and Sweden, possibly even the US, are wasting so much time, effort, and taxpayers cash on acquiring this one particular individual?
Rape is no joke, but some recently imported individuals have committed far worse crimes, and yet the government lets them remain in the UK (and not holed up in an embassy either) There is possibly much more to this, than we are being told.
P5BNij said:
Did anyone see his little piece to camera on the balcony today..? Someone in the crowd fired a question at him, his response..? ''Can someone close that person down...''.
I thought he believed in freedom of speech. What a sanctimonious, cowardly, self righteous prick!
Someone should've pulled him off the balcony, into the back of a transit, run him to Londin Docklands and stuck him on a private jet to Stockholm.I thought he believed in freedom of speech. What a sanctimonious, cowardly, self righteous prick!
Stepping back a page or two, and for those that think the Courts here are beholden to politicians, this is a recent and very real example of a judge giving ministers a bloody nose (relates to planning policy but raises fundamental constitutional issues -Holgate J warms to his task from about para 110 - to be appealed): Reading and West Berks judgment
At 08:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1zAKZhCOlg
What a twunt
I have wondered why the US don't just declare their intent to arrest/prosecute him for his breaches of US security laws - which I assume he has broken with his actions.
The UK could then just arrest him & deport him to the US when he comes out.
If he doesn't come out he's there for ever. End of story - his choice, face justice or else.
If - for example - Person A had murdered someone in the US, they would have broken the law. If they then fled to the UK, the US could then say "please can you arrest and deport Person A" so they can face trial. Person A could hide in an embassy etc., but I fail to see the problem with the UK arresting them and deporting them once they leave the embassy. They are free to leave the embassy and face trial at any time. He even admits the crime he has committed against the US. He is choosing to avoid facing the consequences, even though the US have not even declared an interest to do anything!
The UN have made themselves look like prize muppets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1zAKZhCOlg
What a twunt
I have wondered why the US don't just declare their intent to arrest/prosecute him for his breaches of US security laws - which I assume he has broken with his actions.
The UK could then just arrest him & deport him to the US when he comes out.
If he doesn't come out he's there for ever. End of story - his choice, face justice or else.
If - for example - Person A had murdered someone in the US, they would have broken the law. If they then fled to the UK, the US could then say "please can you arrest and deport Person A" so they can face trial. Person A could hide in an embassy etc., but I fail to see the problem with the UK arresting them and deporting them once they leave the embassy. They are free to leave the embassy and face trial at any time. He even admits the crime he has committed against the US. He is choosing to avoid facing the consequences, even though the US have not even declared an interest to do anything!
The UN have made themselves look like prize muppets.
///ajd said:
At 08:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1zAKZhCOlg
What a twunt
I have wondered why the US don't just declare their intent to arrest/prosecute him for his breaches of US security laws - which I assume he has broken with his actions.
The UK could then just arrest him & deport him to the US when he comes out.
If he doesn't come out he's there for ever. End of story - his choice, face justice or else.
If - for example - Person A had murdered someone in the US, they would have broken the law. If they then fled to the UK, the US could then say "please can you arrest and deport Person A" so they can face trial. Person A could hide in an embassy etc., but I fail to see the problem with the UK arresting them and deporting them once they leave the embassy. They are free to leave the embassy and face trial at any time. He even admits the crime he has committed against the US. He is choosing to avoid facing the consequences, even though the US have not even declared an interest to do anything!
The UN have made themselves look like prize muppets.
I think the point is that this is not supposed to be about the US, at least according to the US and Sweden. But I see you feel this is but a smokescreen.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1zAKZhCOlg
What a twunt
I have wondered why the US don't just declare their intent to arrest/prosecute him for his breaches of US security laws - which I assume he has broken with his actions.
The UK could then just arrest him & deport him to the US when he comes out.
If he doesn't come out he's there for ever. End of story - his choice, face justice or else.
If - for example - Person A had murdered someone in the US, they would have broken the law. If they then fled to the UK, the US could then say "please can you arrest and deport Person A" so they can face trial. Person A could hide in an embassy etc., but I fail to see the problem with the UK arresting them and deporting them once they leave the embassy. They are free to leave the embassy and face trial at any time. He even admits the crime he has committed against the US. He is choosing to avoid facing the consequences, even though the US have not even declared an interest to do anything!
The UN have made themselves look like prize muppets.
No one is arguing, I think, that Assange is the sort of person one would want as a son-in-law. He appears to be quite obnoxious. But then again, he might be quite right in what he says about the incident with the two women. If the situation with the reports of the offences are as reported, it suggests there are some odd facts of the case. There is certainly some cause for concern.
Further, if the Swedes are being straight and all they want to do is to interview Assange, then I believe he has stated he will make himself available.
Does anyone not believe that the extradition is merely a route to extradition to the US on a separate matter?
Whilst there is no publicly available evidence that the US has put pressure on Sweden, or that Assange's claim this was a 'honey trap' is correct, the history of the CIA would tend to suggest that they would do something. What does need evidence is any claim that it is not involved.
Pan Pan Pan said:
13 million quid to wait for one man, Assange to come out of the embassy, does seem like a lot, given that we currently appear to be importing any number of unknown individuals, who have already committed worse crimes in the UK.
One has to wonder WHY the UK, and Sweden, possibly even the US, are wasting so much time, effort, and taxpayers cash on acquiring this one particular individual?
Rape is no joke, but some recently imported individuals have committed far worse crimes, and yet the government lets them remain in the UK (and not holed up in an embassy either) There is possibly much more to this, than we are being told.
Problem is he has a following of One has to wonder WHY the UK, and Sweden, possibly even the US, are wasting so much time, effort, and taxpayers cash on acquiring this one particular individual?
Rape is no joke, but some recently imported individuals have committed far worse crimes, and yet the government lets them remain in the UK (and not holed up in an embassy either) There is possibly much more to this, than we are being told.
wits who think breaking the law is totally OK, so we let him off or we don't.Personally I don't like the guy or anything he stands for, if he is so up "transparency and freedom" I really think he should stop trying to being above the law and deal with the democratic legal issues that await him, he has made his bed.
Derek Smith said:
///ajd said:
At 08:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1zAKZhCOlg
What a twunt
I have wondered why the US don't just declare their intent to arrest/prosecute him for his breaches of US security laws - which I assume he has broken with his actions.
The UK could then just arrest him & deport him to the US when he comes out.
If he doesn't come out he's there for ever. End of story - his choice, face justice or else.
If - for example - Person A had murdered someone in the US, they would have broken the law. If they then fled to the UK, the US could then say "please can you arrest and deport Person A" so they can face trial. Person A could hide in an embassy etc., but I fail to see the problem with the UK arresting them and deporting them once they leave the embassy. They are free to leave the embassy and face trial at any time. He even admits the crime he has committed against the US. He is choosing to avoid facing the consequences, even though the US have not even declared an interest to do anything!
The UN have made themselves look like prize muppets.
I think the point is that this is not supposed to be about the US, at least according to the US and Sweden. But I see you feel this is but a smokescreen.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1zAKZhCOlg
What a twunt
I have wondered why the US don't just declare their intent to arrest/prosecute him for his breaches of US security laws - which I assume he has broken with his actions.
The UK could then just arrest him & deport him to the US when he comes out.
If he doesn't come out he's there for ever. End of story - his choice, face justice or else.
If - for example - Person A had murdered someone in the US, they would have broken the law. If they then fled to the UK, the US could then say "please can you arrest and deport Person A" so they can face trial. Person A could hide in an embassy etc., but I fail to see the problem with the UK arresting them and deporting them once they leave the embassy. They are free to leave the embassy and face trial at any time. He even admits the crime he has committed against the US. He is choosing to avoid facing the consequences, even though the US have not even declared an interest to do anything!
The UN have made themselves look like prize muppets.
No one is arguing, I think, that Assange is the sort of person one would want as a son-in-law. He appears to be quite obnoxious. But then again, he might be quite right in what he says about the incident with the two women. If the situation with the reports of the offences are as reported, it suggests there are some odd facts of the case. There is certainly some cause for concern.
Further, if the Swedes are being straight and all they want to do is to interview Assange, then I believe he has stated he will make himself available.
Does anyone not believe that the extradition is merely a route to extradition to the US on a separate matter?
Whilst there is no publicly available evidence that the US has put pressure on Sweden, or that Assange's claim this was a 'honey trap' is correct, the history of the CIA would tend to suggest that they would do something. What does need evidence is any claim that it is not involved.
Firstly the US could agree what it wants with the UK anyway? Why would it not just do that. He's in the UK, so why not just lay down the charges? What does going via Sweden add to anything?
Secondly this suggests the Swedish thing is not related to the US, so is probably a genuine case to at least be investigated and maybe tried for. So why should he not face those charges?
Given what the CIA have done in the past, I fail to see why they would need something so elaborate, convoluted and ultimately ineffective for 3 years!
Zod said:
Scuffers said:
how about we just bill Sweden for these costs? that might re-focus their attention to either put up and commit to NOT extradite him to the US or shut up and drop it.
why? What has Sweden done wrong?Surely the US could ask the UK just as much as Sweden. Isn't this just a total smoke screen for the scrote?
kitz said:
Elroy Blue said:
I don't do prejudice (you seem good at it). I deal in facts. Snowdon is a traitorous individual who wanted to show 'truth and justice'. His principles however, didn't stretch very far when he choose to live in a violently oppressive country.
Assange went through every criminal court in the land. Every court rejected his argument. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant, just like thousands of others. He's too much of a coward to face his accusers. He just happens to be a despicable individual as well.
As you deal in facts ...which country is he a traitor to ...?Assange went through every criminal court in the land. Every court rejected his argument. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant, just like thousands of others. He's too much of a coward to face his accusers. He just happens to be a despicable individual as well.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 5th February 12:41
REALIST123 said:
kitz said:
Elroy Blue said:
I don't do prejudice (you seem good at it). I deal in facts. Snowdon is a traitorous individual who wanted to show 'truth and justice'. His principles however, didn't stretch very far when he choose to live in a violently oppressive country.
Assange went through every criminal court in the land. Every court rejected his argument. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant, just like thousands of others. He's too much of a coward to face his accusers. He just happens to be a despicable individual as well.
As you deal in facts ...which country is he a traitor to ...?Assange went through every criminal court in the land. Every court rejected his argument. He is wanted on a European arrest warrant, just like thousands of others. He's too much of a coward to face his accusers. He just happens to be a despicable individual as well.
Edited by Elroy Blue on Friday 5th February 12:41
The equivalent would be if you - as I assume a UK citizen - stole the TOP SECRET UK EYES ONLY blueprints of a UK trident warhead, and published them on the internet. That would be breaking the law and pretty clearly not in the interests of the UK. I think the words "traitor" and "despicable" could be applied here. In Assange case, not least to some of the agents both he and snowden will have placed in mortal danger.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff