Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
johnfm said:
Remind me why Scotland Yard feel the need to continue to stake out the place?
If their aim is to catch the bloke, they're better off letting him get out of there anyway.
Who exactly are we serving by spending millions posting police outside there all day?
You serve Uncle Sam. And Until Uncle Sam decides he's had enough, this will go on. Even if all charges are dropped in the end, JA would be rather daft to walk out the front door of that embassy. He's essentially in a more-comfortable-than-avg. prison.If their aim is to catch the bloke, they're better off letting him get out of there anyway.
Who exactly are we serving by spending millions posting police outside there all day?
RYH64E said:
scherzkeks said:
He's essentially in a more-comfortable-than-avg. prison.
Serving an indefinite sentence with no chance of parole or time off for good behaviour...Once the Swedish statute of limitations expires can't he just p
s off back to Australia?rohrl said:
Once the Swedish statute of limitations expires can't he just ps off back to Australia?
He's still on the hook for absconding from bail in the UK - so he's probably looking at some more porridge when he's finished his humitas (or whatever it is they have for breakfast in Ecuador)s off back to Australia?Moominator said:
Andy Zarse said:
No, he should be treated exactly the same as anyone else. I note he wasn't worried about extradition from Sweden to the US before he had the "struggle cuddles" with those women who accused him. He needs to face the music and argue against the evidence presented in court.
So if you had leaked alot of classified information aboutthe US would you risk it? eharding said:
He's still on the hook for absconding from bail in the UK - so he's probably looking at some more porridge when he's finished his humitas (or whatever it is they have for breakfast in Ecuador)
I expect if he manages to stay in the embassy and in doing so sidesteps Swedish Justice, the US can activate its extradition treaty with the UK and we will send him packing stateside. Don't think he'll get much UK public support for avoiding his extradition.Andy Zarse said:
No and especially not if I was a rapist! He'd have to be bonkers to go there. Still, iot's nice to see he isn't getting any special treatment, and is being dealt with the same as anyone else.
in the context of the UK understanding of rape, please justify this statement.He is not a rapist, the allegations are about him sleeping with two women and allegedly not wearing a condom, not that he forced them to have sex with him.
He was questioned in Sweden over this before he left the country, only then did they decide to resurrect the investigation and call for his extradition, timing was very 'interesting' to put it mildly.
Now, I am not a supporter of him personally, he's an arrogant narcissist, however, his paranoia about being bundled off to the US is pretty well supported.
If the Swedish authorities really wanted to resolve this case, they could have done easily in the first few weeks of the reports being made, they chose to drop it.
They also had the opportunity to interview him in the UK (before he bolted to the embassy), they chose not to.
Several years on, and it's still stalemate.
Honestly think this is as clear cut as you seem to think?
Look what the US have done to Bradley Manning (35 years etc), you think they are going to play fair and by the rules?
Andy Zarse said:
No, he should be treated exactly the same as anyone else. I note he wasn't worried about extradition from Sweden to the US before he had the "struggle cuddles" with those women who accused him. He needs to face the music and argue against the evidence presented in court.
...and if he's found not guilty of rape, do you think the accusers name should be revealed?What do you think should happen to Assange if he is found not guilty with regards extradition?
Foppo said:
Agee with the above post.Has Sweden lost the plot or are they so under the thumb of the USA?
You have to be desperate to end up with rape charges in Sweden.It is a set up and Assange might have his own agenda we are entitled to proper information.Listen to what President Kennedy used to say about secrets.In the end it cost him his live.
If you call an extradition treaty under the thumb, then yes, they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_State...You have to be desperate to end up with rape charges in Sweden.It is a set up and Assange might have his own agenda we are entitled to proper information.Listen to what President Kennedy used to say about secrets.In the end it cost him his live.
Phil
Scuffers said:
in the context of the UK understanding of rape, please justify this statement.
He is not a rapist, the allegations are about him sleeping with two women and allegedly not wearing a condom, not that he forced them to have sex with him.
He was questioned in Sweden over this before he left the country, only then did they decide to resurrect the investigation and call for his extradition, timing was very 'interesting' to put it mildly.
Now, I am not a supporter of him personally, he's an arrogant narcissist, however, his paranoia about being bundled off to the US is pretty well supported.
If the Swedish authorities really wanted to resolve this case, they could have done easily in the first few weeks of the reports being made, they chose to drop it.
They also had the opportunity to interview him in the UK (before he bolted to the embassy), they chose not to.
Several years on, and it's still stalemate.
Honestly think this is as clear cut as you seem to think?
Look what the US have done to Bradley Manning (35 years etc), you think they are going to play fair and by the rules?
Good post, but I am not so sure what your personal perception of him as an arrogant narcissist has to do with anything? Do you know him personally? He's provided an outlet for transparency, which serves you and I in the end. He is not a rapist, the allegations are about him sleeping with two women and allegedly not wearing a condom, not that he forced them to have sex with him.
He was questioned in Sweden over this before he left the country, only then did they decide to resurrect the investigation and call for his extradition, timing was very 'interesting' to put it mildly.
Now, I am not a supporter of him personally, he's an arrogant narcissist, however, his paranoia about being bundled off to the US is pretty well supported.
If the Swedish authorities really wanted to resolve this case, they could have done easily in the first few weeks of the reports being made, they chose to drop it.
They also had the opportunity to interview him in the UK (before he bolted to the embassy), they chose not to.
Several years on, and it's still stalemate.
Honestly think this is as clear cut as you seem to think?
Look what the US have done to Bradley Manning (35 years etc), you think they are going to play fair and by the rules?
Not directed at you, but I think the question here is that if a government is acting illegaly, is it illegal to leak evidence of this to the public? That was a central question in the Ellsburg case (Ellsberg ofc supports Assange, Manning, and Snowden).
In a real functioning democracy, the answer to the above question should be rather self-evident.
scherzkeks said:
Good post, but I am not so sure what your personal perception of him as an arrogant narcissist has to do with anything? Do you know him personally? He's provided an outlet for transparency, which serves you and I in the end.
Not directed at you, but I think the question here is that if a government is acting illegaly, is it illegal to leak evidence of this to the public? That was a central question in the Ellsburg case (Ellsberg ofc supports Assange, Manning, and Snowden).
In a real functioning democracy, the answer to the above question should be rather self-evident.
I tend to agree...Not directed at you, but I think the question here is that if a government is acting illegaly, is it illegal to leak evidence of this to the public? That was a central question in the Ellsburg case (Ellsberg ofc supports Assange, Manning, and Snowden).
In a real functioning democracy, the answer to the above question should be rather self-evident.
there is a fine line between being a traitor and a whistle-blower, the problem with Wikileaks is that whatever they published *could* cause people to be places in danger, and even if the reason for releasing such was valid, the outcome may well not be.
Long and short of it is the US (and other) Governments need to be more honest and open, especially when mistakes are made (shooting journalists etc), hiding stuff like this is effectively and open invite to get hacked.
Back to Assange, this whole problem is down to the Yanks trying to get their mitts on him without going through the regular legal channels, if they want him extradited, they should be forced to apply in line with existing agreements, the problem is they know full well they have nothing on him to justify that.
So, we then get to the standoff we have now.
Can someone who supports the "this is a sneaky US plan to grab him" theory please explain why the US did not seek to extradite Assange when he was at liberty and at large in the UK, and maybe also ponder which of the two, Sweden or the UK, is the closest ally of the US with a proven history of assisting the US in murky doings?
Wikileaks has done much good and some (possibly quite serious) harm. I am all in favour of open government, but even democracies need some secrets. Assange appears to have no principles. He does not leak information about the (not very attractive) Ecuadorian government, because it shelters him.
Wikileaks has done much good and some (possibly quite serious) harm. I am all in favour of open government, but even democracies need some secrets. Assange appears to have no principles. He does not leak information about the (not very attractive) Ecuadorian government, because it shelters him.
Breadvan72 said:
Can someone who supports the "this is a sneaky US plan to grab him" theory please explain why the US did not seek to extradite Assange when he was at liberty and at large in the UK, and maybe also ponder which of the two, Sweden or the UK, is the closest ally of the US with a proven history of assisting the US in murky doings?
simple explanation is they do not have anything they can support a charge that's extraditable from the UK.During the Manning case, they tried really hard to get Manning to give them enough on Assange to indict him, but seemingly failed.
I am assuming their treaty with Denmark is different to the UK? (or we are talking special rendition? - tin foil hat in place!)
Transmitter Man said:
Andy Zarse said:
No, he should be treated exactly the same as anyone else. I note he wasn't worried about extradition from Sweden to the US before he had the "struggle cuddles" with those women who accused him. He needs to face the music and argue against the evidence presented in court.
...and if he's found not guilty of rape, do you think the accusers name should be revealed?What do you think should happen to Assange if he is found not guilty with regards extradition?
How do you mean "not guilty with regards extradition "? That doesn't seem to make any sense?
Scuffers said:
Breadvan72 said:
Can someone who supports the "this is a sneaky US plan to grab him" theory please explain why the US did not seek to extradite Assange when he was at liberty and at large in the UK, and maybe also ponder which of the two, Sweden or the UK, is the closest ally of the US with a proven history of assisting the US in murky doings?
simple explanation is they do not have anything they can support a charge that's extraditable from the UK.During the Manning case, they tried really hard to get Manning to give them enough on Assange to indict him, but seemingly failed.
I am assuming their treaty with Denmark is different to the UK? (or we are talking special rendition? - tin foil hat in place!)
I am not sure why you think Denmark has anything to do with this. Sweden's extradition arrangements with the US are not as favourable to the US as is the UK's notoriously generous (to the US) extradition treaty with the US. Here is another point: Sweden is bound by international law NOT to extradite Assange to the US because of the way in which intra-EU extradition works. Sweden is a country with a record of complying with international law (the UK usually complies, but lately not so much). The UK formerly illegally assisted the US with extraordinary renditions. It has since stopped doing this (and paid very large sums to compensate victims of its illegal actions). Sweden has not, AFAIK, assisted the US in this way.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 4th September 08:00
You might want to read this then Breadvan:
Wikipedia said:
In December 2001 Swedish police detained Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden. The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P. They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to extensive investigate reports by Swedish programme "Kalla fakta".
Wikipedia said:
On 21 February 2008, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted (despite previous government denials) that two U.S. extraordinary rendition flights had stopped on Diego Garcia in 2002, a U.K. territory.
I think, on balance I'd feel a bit safer in the UK.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff