Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[///ajd]

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.

Edited by Elroy Blue on Friday 5th February 12:41

As you deal in facts ...which country is he a traitor to ...?

And what facts have you to support your assertion that's he's despicable?

As an Australian, you could argue his betrayal of the US was in direct conflict with his countries close intelligence links to the US. Further, they exposed '5 eyes' intel in any case - which of course includes Australia - so in fact he was directly compromising intelligence information related to his own state of origin.

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.

[Scuffers]

///ajd said:

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?

I just don't get what sweden has got to do with extradition to the US.

Surely the US could ask the UK just as much as Sweden. Isn't this just a total smoke screen for the scrote?

because we won't extradite to the US unless charges have been filed, Sweden has done so in the past.

[///ajd]

Scuffers said:

///ajd said:

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?

I just don't get what sweden has got to do with extradition to the US.

Surely the US could ask the UK just as much as Sweden. Isn't this just a total smoke screen for the scrote?

because we won't extradite to the US unless charges have been filed, Sweden has done so in the past.

Ah OK, thanks.

Could charges be filed? If the US can get UK hackers deported and arrested (that Gary bloke springs to mind), is it so difficult to make a case against Assange? Do we know why no charges have been filed? Is he that difficult to pin specific evidence on? I would have thought his many broadcasts would suggest quite clearly that he has compromised US sensitive material? Or is only his source Bradley "technically" guilty?

[Scuffers]

///ajd said:

Ah OK, thanks.

Could charges be filed? If the US can get UK hackers deported and arrested (that Gary bloke springs to mind), is it so difficult to make a case against Assange? Do we know why no charges have been filed? Is he that difficult to pin specific evidence on? I would have thought his many broadcasts would suggest quite clearly that he has compromised US sensitive material? Or is only his source Bradley "technically" guilty?

well, yes, but what can they charge him with? he's not a US citizen, he was not employed by a US company, etc etc. it would be the same as the US inditing a news reader.

put simply, he has committed no crime.

[PHmember]

Slightly off topic but I PMSL when Julian said 'Can someone close that man up?' - it's the new 'PUT YOUR MOUTH SHUT!' 😂

[Derek Smith]

///ajd said:

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!

The CIA have shown little concern for legal niceties in the past and one would assume they are not particularly bothered with just cause with regards Assange.

He has harmed the USA, and by some degree, but from what I understand any charge will be difficult to phrase. That, of course, would not particularly bother the USA because as soon as he's extradited he'll be kept in custody until such time as he's tried, and they'll be in no hurry.

Whatever, the USA refuse to say that they will not ask for extradition if he's taken to Sweden. He has not been charged there, so extradition purely for questioning seems a bit OTT to me.

[///ajd]

Scuffers said:

///ajd said:

Ah OK, thanks.

Could charges be filed? If the US can get UK hackers deported and arrested (that Gary bloke springs to mind), is it so difficult to make a case against Assange? Do we know why no charges have been filed? Is he that difficult to pin specific evidence on? I would have thought his many broadcasts would suggest quite clearly that he has compromised US sensitive material? Or is only his source Bradley "technically" guilty?

well, yes, but what can they charge him with? he's not a US citizen, he was not employed by a US company, etc etc. it would be the same as the US inditing a news reader.

put simply, he has committed no crime.

OK, yes I see that now from wiki, its a bit of a grey area...

---

Potential criminal prosecution[edit]
The U.S. Justice Department began a criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange soon after the leak of diplomatic cables began.[99][100] Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed the investigation was "not saber-rattling", but was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation."[100] The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act of 1917, an action which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[99][101] Several Supreme Court cases (e.g. Bartnicki v. Vopper) have established previously that the American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves violate any laws in acquiring it.[102] Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that method is also difficult.[103] Any prosecution of Assange would require extraditing him to the United States, a procedure made more complicated and potentially delayed by any preceding extradition to Sweden.[104] One of Assange's lawyers, however, says they are fighting extradition to Sweden because it might result in his extradition to the United States.[105] Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria [Virginia]" meeting to consider criminal charges for the WikiLeaks case.[106]

In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not stated what Australian laws may have been violated by WikiLeaks, but then Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is illegal in foreign countries.[107] Gillard later clarified her statement as referring to "the original theft of the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange."[108] Spencer Zifcak, president of Liberty Victoria, an Australian civil liberties group, notes that without a charge or a trial completed, it is inappropriate to state that WikiLeaks is guilty of illegal activities.[109]

On threats by various governments toward Julian Assange, legal expert Ben Saul argues that Assange is the target of a global smear campaign to demonise him as a criminal or as a terrorist, without any legal basis.[110] The U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights has issued a statement emphasizing its alarm at the "multiple examples of legal overreach and irregularities" in his arrest.[111]

---

I must admit, if someone handed me the (stolen) blueprints of a nuclear weapon, and then I helped upload that onto the internet for all to download, I would expect to be in some sort of trouble/broken some law. This is what assange has effectively done.

[Starfighter]

If he has posted technical details of weapons systems then he would be in breach of ITAR and the US has form for using their courts if details include US systems even on non-US people working outside the USA and for non-US companies.

[///ajd]

Starfighter said:

If he has posted technical details of weapons systems then he would be in breach of ITAR and the US has form for using their courts if details include US systems even on non-US people working outside the USA and for non-US companies.

Exactly.

You could argue the in cockpit footage of the AH-64 strike - especially if the HUD symobology was not redacted, which I believe it was not - easily breaks ITAR rules. Assange published this, did he not - or at least his wikileaks allowed it to be published and he was therefore complicit to some extent.

[Murph7355]

Ekona said:

...
I hope he strolls out the door, the Met nick him and pop him on a plane to Sweden who spend an entire day questioning him on the rape, before handing him over to the Yanks....

I'd be most amused if he came out, was arrested, packed off to Sweden and a Swedish court found him not guilty and let him go.

For an egotist like him it would be the single biggest bursting of his bubble that could happen. All his protests and spurious claims proven unfounded, 3yrs holed up in an embassy for nothing, credibility totally shot.

Alternatively the Swedish court find him guilty, he gets the exact same sentence as any other rapist there and is let out in line with standard practice. Again, treated just like everyone else would be, credibility shot on multiple fronts (not least of which because he'd be outed as a rapist in Swedish law) etc.

If he had any backbone he'd man up and face his accusers.

[glazbagun]

Murph7355 said:

I'd be most amused if he came out, was arrested, packed off to Sweden and a Swedish court found him not guilty and let him go.

If he had any backbone he'd man up and face his accusers.

Is he not wanted for questioning? And has he not said he's happy to be questioned where he is but that he won't leave for fear of being bundled into a black car and sent to the US illegaly?

Strikes me so far that it's a case of state jobsworths vs one mans paranoia rather than him refusing to face the music.

[Derek Smith]

glazbagun said:

Is he not wanted for questioning? And has he not said he's happy to be questioned where he is but that he won't leave for fear of being bundled into a black car and sent to the US illegaly?

Strikes me so far that it's a case of state jobsworths vs one mans paranoia rather than him refusing to face the music.

I think paranoia requires delusion. I think there's little doubt that he will be, as you state, bundled into a car and [eventually] sent to the USA despite not being charged with any offence in any country.

[Murph7355]

glazbagun said:

Is he not wanted for questioning? And has he not said he's happy to be questioned where he is but that he won't leave for fear of being bundled into a black car and sent to the US illegaly?

Strikes me so far that it's a case of state jobsworths vs one mans paranoia rather than him refusing to face the music.

States should kowtow to an accused rapist?

I wouldn't be happy if taxpayer money was spent sending state officials abroad to question an accused rapist when there are arrangements in place for said individual simply to be sent home to be questioned.

Imagine the political damage if he were released and bundled off to the US. 3x governments (UK, US and Swedish) would suddenly increase the credibility of the tin foil hatters more than anything his wikileaks naivety ever did.

There's only one scenario Assange has more to lose than the rest in this game - if he's convicted of rape.

[DJFish]

Bearing in mind he probably walks around wearing a tin-foil hat, he seems to dislike other forms of protection, if only he had spent his time watching daytime TV instead of leaking state secrets he'd know to:


As is often the case, Assange tends to polarise people's opinions, can it be so unbelievable that someone is capable of doing bad things as well as (arguably) good?

[Scuffers]

///ajd said:

Starfighter said:

If he has posted technical details of weapons systems then he would be in breach of ITAR and the US has form for using their courts if details include US systems even on non-US people working outside the USA and for non-US companies.

Exactly.

You could argue the in cockpit footage of the AH-64 strike - especially if the HUD symobology was not redacted, which I believe it was not - easily breaks ITAR rules. Assange published this, did he not - or at least his wikileaks allowed it to be published and he was therefore complicit to some extent.

the flip side to this is that without said video going public, we would never have know that the truth of the deaths of the journalists (and civilians) was at the hands of a trigger happy US pilot.

wikileaks has not published the designs of the nuclear deterrent, or anything of the sort, you might have a stronger case with Snowdon, in which case, why is the Guardian journalists being pursued by the US?

[///ajd]

Scuffers said:

///ajd said:

Starfighter said:

If he has posted technical details of weapons systems then he would be in breach of ITAR and the US has form for using their courts if details include US systems even on non-US people working outside the USA and for non-US companies.

Exactly.

You could argue the in cockpit footage of the AH-64 strike - especially if the HUD symobology was not redacted, which I believe it was not - easily breaks ITAR rules. Assange published this, did he not - or at least his wikileaks allowed it to be published and he was therefore complicit to some extent.

the flip side to this is that without said video going public, we would never have know that the truth of the deaths of the journalists (and civilians) was at the hands of a trigger happy US pilot.

wikileaks has not published the designs of the nuclear deterrent, or anything of the sort, you might have a stronger case with Snowdon, in which case, why is the Guardian journalists being pursued by the US?

I agree, and the footage should have been made public - arguably the US should have put its hands up; I assume it was a military cock up rather than deliberate attack of journos however.

wikileaks may not have published nuclear weapons info, but the damage created by leaking classified information can be very severe. I'm not sure exactly what has been leaked by wikileaks, or what more may still come.

which guardian journo is being pursued by by the US?

[glazbagun]

Murph7355 said:

States should kowtow to an accused rapist?

Kowtow? When did hubris like this ever matter in investigating crime?

"Sorry to hear you've been raped, love. Can't question your alleged rapist though, the rotter refuses to fly to this country and I'll be damned if I'll boost his ego and cost the state a few hundred quid by goingnto his place to investigate it. But, hey, I really care and getting justice for you is absolutely my priority here, honest."

Murph7355 said:

I wouldn't be happy if taxpayer money was spent sending state officials abroad to question an accused rapist when there are arrangements in place for said individual simply to be sent home to be questioned.

His hiding in an embassy is as legal as the extradition process, but rather than the state paying to send officers to question him you'd rather they paid to fly him to them after burning a few hundred thousand in legal fees?

Police go abroad in their investigations all the time. They could also publicly announce that they would not extradide him to the US over wikileaks, which would remove the obstacle of his defence just as Jordan officially agreed not to use evidence gained through torture.

I don't like the guy, but the way this thing has been handled has been farcical.

[Transmitter Man]

Was it Wikileaks that opened up the can of worms proving that the UK government were indeed complicit in the US rendition flights in and out of on Diego Garcia?

Phil

[Scuffers]

Transmitter Man said:

Was it Wikileaks that opened up the can of worms proving that the UK government were indeed complicit in the US rendition flights in and out of on Diego Garcia?

Phil

yes.

[Transmitter Man]

Seems to me like one or two people jumping on the we hate Mr Wiki bandwagon and brushing aside all the good work he and his colleagues around the world have done.

I was outside the embassy at one of his first speeches to the media a few years back shortly after he took up residence as I lived round the corner and wanted to find out what all the fuss was about what with the TV cameras.

Seems to me that after his revelations western governments have actually committed crimes as against his alleged crime.

Phil