Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Riff Raff said:
Finlandia said:
Or then it depends on how much you trust the political and justice system. As I've said, I don't really care what happens, but this is not just another rape case in Sweden.
Can you provide any proof of this, or are you just going to trot out the same old conspiracy theory b
ks until we all give in through sheer boredom?There are no hard proof for or against, just what each and everyone thinks, I have my thoughts, you have yours.
WhereamI said:
As long as it takes I suspect.
Or until some journo gets hold of the true cost and puts it against what else could be done for the money. 
RYH64E said:
Maybe so, but being locked up in there isn't much better than being in prison, maybe worse as he has no release date and any eventual prison sentence (if any) would be served on top.
But at least he won't get shipped to the US from the embassy, yet.Finlandia said:
WhereamI said:
As long as it takes I suspect.
Or until some journo gets hold of the true cost and puts it against what else could be done for the money. WhereamI said:
Something tells me you aren't British. In which case I don't think you will understand, there will be some, perhaps many, who disagree with it but the Met will stay there until he comes out. That's how it works here.
No I'm not, lived there and still do at times though, and I pretty much agree with what you say, pig headed Brits 
Finlandia said:
WhereamI said:
Something tells me you aren't British. In which case I don't think you will understand, there will be some, perhaps many, who disagree with it but the Met will stay there until he comes out. That's how it works here.
No I'm not, lived there and still do at times though, and I pretty much agree with what you say, pig headed Brits WhereamI said:
Finlandia said:
But at least he won't get shipped to the US from the embassy, yet.
Nope, he won't get shipped to the US from Sweden either but you are too much of an apologist for this sad idiot to admit to that.Breadvan72 said:
I would say: principled Brits. I am not a Brit, but I do admire quite a lot about the Brits, including their commitment to the principle of the rule of law.
That's what I think too, I love the place and the way of life in general as well as the stand up for your ground mentality, hence the at the end.Abu Finlandia said:
I love the place and the way of life in general as well as the stand up for your ground mentality, hence the at the end.
Dear Mr Qatada at the end.I am so glad you like our country, legal aid system and accommodating lawyers who don't care who they are representing so long as they get paid. The rule of law can come in very handy.
Don't rush away. We need you here.
Yours regardless
Call Me Dave
Ozzie Osmond said:
Dear Mr Qatada
I am so glad you like our country, legal aid system and accommodating lawyers who don't care who they are representing so long as they get paid. The rule of law can come in very handy.
Don't rush away. We need you here.
Yours regardless
Call Me Dave
No, seriously, I like your beautiful country and way of life, and I'm not even a workshy benefits loving individual I am so glad you like our country, legal aid system and accommodating lawyers who don't care who they are representing so long as they get paid. The rule of law can come in very handy.
Don't rush away. We need you here.
Yours regardless
Call Me Dave
WhereamI said:
Finlandia said:
He won't for fear of being shipped to the US.
A fear that is unjustifiedFinlandia said:
There are quite a few cases, lastly the US lady who was a spy for Cuba and is now a resident of Sweden, plenty of people having had political asylum in Sweden for fear of torture and inhumane treatment in their home country or country of crime.
Not the same situation at all, but the first one is evidence that Sweden doesn't just extradite anyone the US wants.To be extradited you first have the be charged with something, which he hasn't been in the US. It needs to be something that would be an offence in the country that he was being extradited from, which could be a challenge given swedens media laws.
Of course we should remember that he was in Sweden in the first place because he thought it was the country from which he was least likely to be extradited to the US. It was only when they wanted him for rape that suddenly they became the country that he thought would extradite him.
Edited by WhereamI on Monday 27th May 20:18
"To be extradited you first have the be charged with something, which he hasn't been in the US. It needs to be something that would be an offence in the country that he was being extradited from, which could be a challenge given swedens media laws."
That clearly is not the case as he has not actually been charged by Sweden yet, the extradition from here was granted on the basis of a warrant for arrest for second round questioning that may or may not arise in charges being laid. That is the Swedish legal process.
If you consider that then I would say his concerns regarding US extradition attempts are well founded as it would seem easy to ask Sweden to pop him over purely on the basis they want him to answer some questions!
If Sweden wanted to solve this deadlock they could very easily do that questioning here or at the embassy and place charges or not. They could even if they wished go for trial in absentia and hand down sentencing.
To me the fact they didn't before this got out of control and subsequentely refuse to do so raises suspicion that firstly they have insufficient evidence and secondly that it is very likely politically motivated.
Arguing that they need his questioning to occur to be able to place the charges does not wash either as he has the right to silence in that questioning session so they either have sufficient evidence for trial or they don't and if they want to charge on a basis of refusal to answer questioning they already have that as well.
As for the last bit of your quote, you are aware that he was told the matter was closed only for it to be reopened after he left Sweden?
MOTORVATOR said:
WhereamI you seem to have the wrong end of the stick with this bit.
"To be extradited you first have the be charged with something, which he hasn't been in the US. It needs to be something that would be an offence in the country that he was being extradited from, which could be a challenge given swedens media laws."
That clearly is not the case as he has not actually been charged by Sweden yet, the extradition from here was granted on the basis of a warrant for arrest for second round questioning that may or may not arise in charges being laid. That is the Swedish legal process.
If you consider that then I would say his concerns regarding US extradition attempts are well founded as it would seem easy to ask Sweden to pop him over purely on the basis they want him to answer some questions!
If Sweden wanted to solve this deadlock they could very easily do that questioning here or at the embassy and place charges or not. They could even if they wished go for trial in absentia and hand down sentencing.
To me the fact they didn't before this got out of control and subsequentely refuse to do so raises suspicion that firstly they have insufficient evidence and secondly that it is very likely politically motivated.
Arguing that they need his questioning to occur to be able to place the charges does not wash either as he has the right to silence in that questioning session so they either have sufficient evidence for trial or they don't and if they want to charge on a basis of refusal to answer questioning they already have that as well.
As for the last bit of your quote, you are aware that he was told the matter was closed only for it to be reopened after he left Sweden?
These arguments have been gone over many times both here and elsewhere, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do them again. The fact remains that the correct legal process has been followed throughout and the only thing that supports his position is a conspiracy theory involving the elected governments of three major democracies."To be extradited you first have the be charged with something, which he hasn't been in the US. It needs to be something that would be an offence in the country that he was being extradited from, which could be a challenge given swedens media laws."
That clearly is not the case as he has not actually been charged by Sweden yet, the extradition from here was granted on the basis of a warrant for arrest for second round questioning that may or may not arise in charges being laid. That is the Swedish legal process.
If you consider that then I would say his concerns regarding US extradition attempts are well founded as it would seem easy to ask Sweden to pop him over purely on the basis they want him to answer some questions!
If Sweden wanted to solve this deadlock they could very easily do that questioning here or at the embassy and place charges or not. They could even if they wished go for trial in absentia and hand down sentencing.
To me the fact they didn't before this got out of control and subsequentely refuse to do so raises suspicion that firstly they have insufficient evidence and secondly that it is very likely politically motivated.
Arguing that they need his questioning to occur to be able to place the charges does not wash either as he has the right to silence in that questioning session so they either have sufficient evidence for trial or they don't and if they want to charge on a basis of refusal to answer questioning they already have that as well.
As for the last bit of your quote, you are aware that he was told the matter was closed only for it to be reopened after he left Sweden?
These are governments who regularly suffer the embarrassment of courts and their legal systems not supporting their positions in other cases and it really isn't credible that they would now.
But if you want to believe that it's all a big conspiracy nothing I say will change your view.
WhereamI said:
MOTORVATOR said:
WhereamI you seem to have the wrong end of the stick with this bit.
"To be extradited you first have the be charged with something, which he hasn't been in the US. It needs to be something that would be an offence in the country that he was being extradited from, which could be a challenge given swedens media laws."
That clearly is not the case as he has not actually been charged by Sweden yet, the extradition from here was granted on the basis of a warrant for arrest for second round questioning that may or may not arise in charges being laid. That is the Swedish legal process.
If you consider that then I would say his concerns regarding US extradition attempts are well founded as it would seem easy to ask Sweden to pop him over purely on the basis they want him to answer some questions!
If Sweden wanted to solve this deadlock they could very easily do that questioning here or at the embassy and place charges or not. They could even if they wished go for trial in absentia and hand down sentencing.
To me the fact they didn't before this got out of control and subsequentely refuse to do so raises suspicion that firstly they have insufficient evidence and secondly that it is very likely politically motivated.
Arguing that they need his questioning to occur to be able to place the charges does not wash either as he has the right to silence in that questioning session so they either have sufficient evidence for trial or they don't and if they want to charge on a basis of refusal to answer questioning they already have that as well.
As for the last bit of your quote, you are aware that he was told the matter was closed only for it to be reopened after he left Sweden?
These arguments have been gone over many times both here and elsewhere, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do them again. The fact remains that the correct legal process has been followed throughout and the only thing that supports his position is a conspiracy theory involving the elected governments of three major democracies."To be extradited you first have the be charged with something, which he hasn't been in the US. It needs to be something that would be an offence in the country that he was being extradited from, which could be a challenge given swedens media laws."
That clearly is not the case as he has not actually been charged by Sweden yet, the extradition from here was granted on the basis of a warrant for arrest for second round questioning that may or may not arise in charges being laid. That is the Swedish legal process.
If you consider that then I would say his concerns regarding US extradition attempts are well founded as it would seem easy to ask Sweden to pop him over purely on the basis they want him to answer some questions!
If Sweden wanted to solve this deadlock they could very easily do that questioning here or at the embassy and place charges or not. They could even if they wished go for trial in absentia and hand down sentencing.
To me the fact they didn't before this got out of control and subsequentely refuse to do so raises suspicion that firstly they have insufficient evidence and secondly that it is very likely politically motivated.
Arguing that they need his questioning to occur to be able to place the charges does not wash either as he has the right to silence in that questioning session so they either have sufficient evidence for trial or they don't and if they want to charge on a basis of refusal to answer questioning they already have that as well.
As for the last bit of your quote, you are aware that he was told the matter was closed only for it to be reopened after he left Sweden?
These are governments who regularly suffer the embarrassment of courts and their legal systems not supporting their positions in other cases and it really isn't credible that they would now.
But if you want to believe that it's all a big conspiracy nothing I say will change your view.
As for the Swedes we are experiencing building costs purely on the basis that Marianne Nye states that she will not question here "because of circumstances of the investigation" and refuses to expand on that. I fail to see what the difference is between an interview here or there and if it saves us a few bob then perhaps she should get on with it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff