Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
That is correct. Assange is due to be released unless the US can win on appeal from the supposedly corrupt* District Judge who decided that he should NOT be extradited. For reasons that are blindingly obvious to all but fanatics, Assange remains in custody until the appeal is determined. If he was released pending the appeal he would do a runner and the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The US starts one nil down when it opens the appeal. After the appeal to the High Court there will remain a further chance of appeal by the losing party, with permission, to the Supreme Court. Assange utilised all of his appeal rights when Sweden wanted him. He cannot complain that the US exhausts all of its appeal rights before the case concludes.
* Not corrupt at all, save in the deranged minds of the fanbois.
* Not corrupt at all, save in the deranged minds of the fanbois.
Breadvan72 said:
craig_m67 said:
Is that correct, the reason?
I wonder what more there is to that, seems like a very long, expensive reason not to just pop in and simply collar him.
It is correct. Sending the rozzers in would have breached Diplomatic Convention and caused a big international hoo ha.I wonder what more there is to that, seems like a very long, expensive reason not to just pop in and simply collar him.
craig_m67 said:
Breadvan72 said:
The UK could have sent police in to get him but chose not to do so for Diplomatic reasons.
Is that correct, the reason?I wonder what more there is to that, seems like a very long, expensive reason not to just pop in and simply collar him.
Oilchange said:
I suspect they didn't go in to nab him because they knew that the rape (?) charges were, in my opinion, fabricated in order to bring him to custody somewhere that the US could extradite him.
That makes no sense at all. The US could extradite him from the UK at least as easily as they could from Sweden.How exactly would bringing sexual assault charges in Sweden assist in any way?
Are you alleging that the complainants in Sweden were working for the US in some way? Do you have any evidence for that?
Like most conspiracy theories, yours doesn’t appear to hold up at all to even a cursory inspection.
Kent Border Kenny said:
Oilchange said:
I suspect they didn't go in to nab him because they knew that the rape (?) charges were, in my opinion, fabricated in order to bring him to custody somewhere that the US could extradite him.
That makes no sense at all. The US could extradite him from the UK at least as easily as they could from Sweden.How exactly would bringing sexual assault charges in Sweden assist in any way?
Are you alleging that the complainants in Sweden were working for the US in some way? Do you have any evidence for that?
Like most conspiracy theories, yours doesn’t appear to hold up at all to even a cursory inspection.
Breadvan72 said:
Oilchange said:
I suspect they didn't go in to nab him because they knew that the rape (?) charges were, as I understand it, fabricated in order to bring him to custody somewhere that the US could extradite him.
Hey genius, he could be extradited from the UK. Derrr. Oilchange said:
So not in custody in the UK, not extradited to the US from the UK and free to come and go in the UK. However, in Sweden his situation might have been different?
I think the US were playing games and the UK wasn't playing those legal shenanigans, just allowing due process.
Yes, it would have been far harder to extradite him from Sweden as they would have wanted to try him for the alleged assaults there.I think the US were playing games and the UK wasn't playing those legal shenanigans, just allowing due process.
But no, he was not free to come and go, he had surrendered his passport,Maud was being monitored while he was appealing against extradition.
You seem to be intent here on changing the facts to match something that you have chosen to believe is true. Is that not the wrong way round, should you not examine the facts first?
Kent Border Kenny said:
Yes, it would have been far harder to extradite him from Sweden as they would have wanted to try him for the alleged assaults there.
But no, he was not free to come and go, he had surrendered his passport,Maud was being monitored while he was appealing against extradition.
You seem to be intent here on changing the facts to match something that you have chosen to believe is true. Is that not the wrong way round, should you not examine the facts first?
Calm down, I am picking up on my reading where I left off a while back. But no, he was not free to come and go, he had surrendered his passport,Maud was being monitored while he was appealing against extradition.
You seem to be intent here on changing the facts to match something that you have chosen to believe is true. Is that not the wrong way round, should you not examine the facts first?
One can still come and go within the UK without a passport right?
If he had gone on trial in Sweden the US wouldn't have had to hunt him down because he would have fled right?
Anyway, I have serious reservations about the charges against him from the Swedish based on the flimsy reasons they chose to drop them (repeatedly) as well as the extradition because they were 'not proportionate to the costs and seriousness of the crime'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)
I am not defending the guy btw
Oilchange said:
Calm down, I am picking up on my reading where I left off a while back.
One can still come and go within the UK without a passport right?
If he had gone on trial in Sweden the US wouldn't have had to hunt him down because he would have fled right?
Anyway, I have serious reservations about the charges against him from the Swedish based on the flimsy reasons they chose to drop them (repeatedly) as well as the extradition because they were 'not proportionate to the costs and seriousness of the crime'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)
I am not defending the guy btw
No, he wasn’t free to come and go, he had to stay where he said he would, and would have regularly been reporting in to the police.One can still come and go within the UK without a passport right?
If he had gone on trial in Sweden the US wouldn't have had to hunt him down because he would have fled right?
Anyway, I have serious reservations about the charges against him from the Swedish based on the flimsy reasons they chose to drop them (repeatedly) as well as the extradition because they were 'not proportionate to the costs and seriousness of the crime'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange)
I am not defending the guy btw
The “flimsy” reasons were not flimsy, there was no prospect of a successful prosecution after he’d been on the run for so many years.
I have to admit, I find the psychology of you conspiracy theorists fascinating. You fixate on such clear falsehoods, and then jump to another when shown that the first was wrong.
I do wonder what’s behind it.
Kent Border Kenny said:
No, he wasn’t free to come and go, he had to stay where he said he would, and would have regularly been reporting in to the police.
The “flimsy” reasons were not flimsy, there was no prospect of a successful prosecution after he’d been on the run for so many years.
I have to admit, I find the psychology of you conspiracy theorists fascinating. You fixate on such clear falsehoods, and then jump to another when shown that the first was wrong.
I do wonder what’s behind it.
And yet still free to come and go, which is what I meant. I didn't mean a quick jaunt over to Tibet for some mountain climbing, perhaps I should have clarified.The “flimsy” reasons were not flimsy, there was no prospect of a successful prosecution after he’d been on the run for so many years.
I have to admit, I find the psychology of you conspiracy theorists fascinating. You fixate on such clear falsehoods, and then jump to another when shown that the first was wrong.
I do wonder what’s behind it.
And yes the reasons were really flimsy and the charges were dropped by more than one prosecutor and then re appeared. Pressure was clearly being applied to get him into custody.
I am clearly mad for questioning stuff, obviously. Far too easy just to label people as conspiracy theorists and nutters.
I'm not going to argue with you, I have drawn a few conclusions but am happy to be shown to be wrong. So show me.
... but when you say
"Yes, it would have been far harder to extradite him from Sweden as they would have wanted to try him for the alleged assaults there"
then I wonder how much Swedish legal training you have and whether you know what diplomatic levers were being pulled in Sweden and the US.
Of course you may be right but a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff