Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[singlecoil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18260914


"Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences.

The judgement was reached by a majority of five to two, the court's president, Lord Phillips, told the hearing.

Mr Assange's lawyers had asked the UK's highest court to block his removal, arguing that a European arrest warrant issued against him was "invalid".

But the court ruled the extradition request had been "lawfully made". "

[singlecoil]

Pommygranite said:

Colonial said:

wolves_wanderer said:

pacman1 said:

I think people should remember he's done the world a favour with Wikileaks, uncovering the uncoverable. The yanks really aren't happy. And I think that's a good thing.

quite. I mean, what's the odd rape here and there anyway?

It is not rape as recognised under any laws except for Sweden.

This. He's not some hammer and duct tape rapist. I understand it's a question of condom or not, which I understand is a troubling subject but the actual sex was consensual.

If that means that they agreed that he should use a condom, and he then did not, I would consider that the sex that took place was in fact non-consensual.

[singlecoil]

Marf said:

singlecoil said:

If that means that they agreed that he should use a condom, and he then did not, I would consider that the sex that took place was in fact non-consensual.

Go an examine the facts of the case, it's all out there on the net. I'd explain it but frankly I'm tired to putting to bed rumour and chinese whispers about the case.

I'm sorry, I hadn't meant to give the impression that I was that interested in the case. I'm certainly not inclined to delve into Google on a quest for more information which may or may not be correct.

I'll assume from your answer that my understanding of what took place was wrong, however I still think it was a reasonable understanding given the information presented above.

[singlecoil]

Marf said:

Well with the greatest respect, perhaps before commenting on something you're not interested in you should perhaps not rely on third hand whispers from an internet forum

I don't think your response shows any respect at all. I merely commented on what had been written a couple of posts above, and prefaced it with an 'if', IOW, 'if it is true'. As I doubt there were any independent witnesses at the events in question, then I don't know how we are going to know for certain what took place, so everything that has been said about it can be given the same credence as "third hand whispers".

[singlecoil]

Marf said:

singlecoil said:

I don't think your response shows any respect at all.

Fair enough, I think I showed respect. If I'd called you a "f-cking idiot for not reading up on the case before commenting" then I think that would have been a response lacking respect. In the grand scheme of PH what I said to you was incredibly tame.

Indeed, and if I had called you a high-horse-riding tt in response, that also wouldn't have shown a lot of respect. Shall we leave it at that?

[singlecoil]

Marf said:

Settle petal. Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning did we??

So, you're not content to leave it at that then. It's obvious that you are greatly interested in this subject, and feel that you 'own' it. But you don't.

It's also obvious that you are a conspiracy theorist. You are the one that most needs to stick to the 'facts' of the matter, such as they are, rather than constructing elaborate behind-the-scenes scenarios of political malfeasance.

[singlecoil]

Marf said:

I don't feel I own the subject, nor am I a conspiracy theorist. It is however your prerogative to believe what you want about me, so feel free to keep on keeping on.

Whoops, touched a nerve

[singlecoil]

Murph7355 said:

Personally I don't think wiki leaks has or will change anything. It's mildly amusing at times to see people in power hoisted by their own petard. But this has always happened over time, and for the truly "powerful" the outcome is always the same, with the odd exception dotted about (e.g. Nixon. Though he hardly died poor now did he).