Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
minimoog said:
Word on the tweet is that the Ecuadorian embassy are about to kick him out.
He'll probably be in a Trump Tower suite by xmas.
No he won't. He is still wanted in this Country and will be arrested (and rightly so) as soon as he leaves the embassy. He'll probably be in a Trump Tower suite by xmas.
In my view the embassy should have been entered and the police should have removed him. Harbouring fugitives is a gross abuse of consular status.
AJL308 said:
No he won't. He is still wanted in this Country and will be arrested (and rightly so) as soon as he leaves the embassy.
In my view the embassy should have been entered and the police should have removed him. Harbouring fugitives is a gross abuse of consular status.
Is he still actually in there? Has he been spirited away in the dead of night in a diplomatic packing crate?In my view the embassy should have been entered and the police should have removed him. Harbouring fugitives is a gross abuse of consular status.
AJL308 said:
minimoog said:
Word on the tweet is that the Ecuadorian embassy are about to kick him out.
He'll probably be in a Trump Tower suite by xmas.
No he won't. He is still wanted in this Country and will be arrested (and rightly so) as soon as he leaves the embassy. He'll probably be in a Trump Tower suite by xmas.
In my view the embassy should have been entered and the police should have removed him. Harbouring fugitives is a gross abuse of consular status.
AJL308 said:
minimoog said:
Word on the tweet is that the Ecuadorian embassy are about to kick him out.
He'll probably be in a Trump Tower suite by xmas.
No he won't. He is still wanted in this Country and will be arrested (and rightly so) as soon as he leaves the embassy. He'll probably be in a Trump Tower suite by xmas.
In my view the embassy should have been entered and the police should have removed him. Harbouring fugitives is a gross abuse of consular status.
Oh, not that old cobblers again! The US sets up a convoluted plan to get Assange away from the country that is most closely allied with the US (the UK) and send him to Sweden, so that he could be unlawfully sent on from there - by a country that tends to honour international rules, one such rule being that if X is sent to Y for crime Z he cannot then be sent off somewhere else for something else. Yep, that plan makes perfect sense!
Breadvan72 said:
Oh, not that old cobblers again! The US sets up a convoluted plan to get Assange away from the country that is most closely allied with the US (the UK) and send him to Sweden, so that he could be unlawfully sent on from there - by a country that tends to honour international rules, one such rule being that if X is sent to Y for crime Z he cannot then be sent off somewhere else for something else. Yep, that plan makes perfect sense!
Shhh. You just need a tin foil chapeau. Then you'll get it. Breadvan72 said:
Oh, not that old cobblers again! The US sets up a convoluted plan to get Assange away from the country that is most closely allied with the US (the UK) and send him to Sweden, so that he could be unlawfully sent on from there - by a country that tends to honour international rules, one such rule being that if X is sent to Y for crime Z he cannot then be sent off somewhere else for something else. Yep, that plan makes perfect sense!
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/You really think they wouldnt allow the US to spirit him away illegally given how badly the US wants to get their hands on him??
Your faith in government is way higher than mine.
I am with most others in that if there is a prima facie case to answer in a matter of rape, the suspect should go to trial, subject to legal exemptions. I can see no logical nor legal argument against it.
Then we get the waters muddied by the USA. I can see their point of view but we all know that when the mood takes them, a little inconvenience such as habeas corpus can be ignored. They have a cavalier attitude to human rights when the mood takes them.
There is little if anything we can trust in this matter. The circumstances of the rape allegation are confusing and from reports it would appear that there was pressure exerted to restart the action against him, but who knows. Certainly not me. The best thing is for Assange to return to face the charge before the statute of limitations ends. He suggests the charge is just a vehicle to ensure he returns to the USA. In that matter there appears to be some support for his view.
The only thing we can be sure of is that the USA would not use someone who believes they are the victim of a rape for their own ends regardless of its legality, or the effect on the victim.
I am firm in the opinion that rape allegations should be investigated thoroughly and that if there's a case, it should be pursued. I also believe that legal procedures are sacrosanct and that a law should not be ignored just because it give the enquiry some problems.
I hope my confusion in the matter comes over.
Then we get the waters muddied by the USA. I can see their point of view but we all know that when the mood takes them, a little inconvenience such as habeas corpus can be ignored. They have a cavalier attitude to human rights when the mood takes them.
There is little if anything we can trust in this matter. The circumstances of the rape allegation are confusing and from reports it would appear that there was pressure exerted to restart the action against him, but who knows. Certainly not me. The best thing is for Assange to return to face the charge before the statute of limitations ends. He suggests the charge is just a vehicle to ensure he returns to the USA. In that matter there appears to be some support for his view.
The only thing we can be sure of is that the USA would not use someone who believes they are the victim of a rape for their own ends regardless of its legality, or the effect on the victim.
I am firm in the opinion that rape allegations should be investigated thoroughly and that if there's a case, it should be pursued. I also believe that legal procedures are sacrosanct and that a law should not be ignored just because it give the enquiry some problems.
I hope my confusion in the matter comes over.
4x4Tyke said:
frankenstein12 said:
You really think they wouldnt allow the US to spirit him away illegally given how badly the US wants to get their hands on him??
I no fan of the USA, but that is nonsense.Derek Smith said:
I am with most others in that if there is a prima facie case to answer in a matter of rape, the suspect should go to trial, subject to legal exemptions. I can see no logical nor legal argument against it.
Then we get the waters muddied by the USA. I can see their point of view but we all know that when the mood takes them, a little inconvenience such as habeas corpus can be ignored. They have a cavalier attitude to human rights when the mood takes them.
There is little if anything we can trust in this matter. The circumstances of the rape allegation are confusing and from reports it would appear that there was pressure exerted to restart the action against him, but who knows. Certainly not me. The best thing is for Assange to return to face the charge before the statute of limitations ends. He suggests the charge is just a vehicle to ensure he returns to the USA. In that matter there appears to be some support for his view.
The only thing we can be sure of is that the USA would not use someone who believes they are the victim of a rape for their own ends regardless of its legality, or the effect on the victim.
I am firm in the opinion that rape allegations should be investigated thoroughly and that if there's a case, it should be pursued. I also believe that legal procedures are sacrosanct and that a law should not be ignored just because it give the enquiry some problems.
I hope my confusion in the matter comes over.
This is mostly my view but where my perspective changed more solidly in favour of Assange is that he apparently made numerous offers to be interviewed by the authorities either via video link or within the embassy to assist with their investigation and they refused.Then we get the waters muddied by the USA. I can see their point of view but we all know that when the mood takes them, a little inconvenience such as habeas corpus can be ignored. They have a cavalier attitude to human rights when the mood takes them.
There is little if anything we can trust in this matter. The circumstances of the rape allegation are confusing and from reports it would appear that there was pressure exerted to restart the action against him, but who knows. Certainly not me. The best thing is for Assange to return to face the charge before the statute of limitations ends. He suggests the charge is just a vehicle to ensure he returns to the USA. In that matter there appears to be some support for his view.
The only thing we can be sure of is that the USA would not use someone who believes they are the victim of a rape for their own ends regardless of its legality, or the effect on the victim.
I am firm in the opinion that rape allegations should be investigated thoroughly and that if there's a case, it should be pursued. I also believe that legal procedures are sacrosanct and that a law should not be ignored just because it give the enquiry some problems.
I hope my confusion in the matter comes over.
If they felt that justice to be served were that important they would have done so as then they could have either dismissed the investigation or formally charged him with rape.
frankenstein12 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Oh, not that old cobblers again! The US sets up a convoluted plan to get Assange away from the country that is most closely allied with the US (the UK) and send him to Sweden, so that he could be unlawfully sent on from there - by a country that tends to honour international rules, one such rule being that if X is sent to Y for crime Z he cannot then be sent off somewhere else for something else. Yep, that plan makes perfect sense!
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/You really think they wouldnt allow the US to spirit him away illegally given how badly the US wants to get their hands on him??
Your faith in government is way higher than mine.
Note also that there was a period in which Assange was facing questions but was staying with a friend. He could have been snatched at any time without ruffling diplomatic feathers if anyone wanted to snatch him. Do you know what Governments do when they really want to snatch someone? They snatch them. See rendition in general, and the Vanunu case for an example from a while back. What they do not so is stage elaborate legal processes that could go either way.
Also, if you were going to frame someone, why not present actual charges rather than just set up an investigation?
Conspiracy theories usually break down because they involve convoluted and contingent schemes, and ignore the rule that simplest is best. This one is no exception.
Assange has managed to portray himself as being an edgy, out there, counter-cultural smash the State warrior. He has conned many to see him as a hero. He appears in reality to be a self serving individual who may also have acted as a tool, witting or unwitting, of Russian policy.
jmorgan said:
Curious over the comments for a "remote" interview. Would that satisfy legal needs and process for Sweden?
e.g. If the Police wanted me for questioning over serious allegations, would they accept me skyping them from a villa on the Costa Lot?
I don't think they use Skype, but yes, interviews have been done remotely before.e.g. If the Police wanted me for questioning over serious allegations, would they accept me skyping them from a villa on the Costa Lot?
Breadvan72 said:
You are missing an obvious point. Assange was and is in the UK. The UK is the nation traditionally closest in alliance to the US, and has a record of assisting the US in, for example, unlawful renditions. Therefore the suggestion of a plot to get Assange OUT of the UK to a country that is less closely allied with the US and has a generally good record on international compliance is just daft. The plot also assumes that not only are Governments dodgy (which they can be) but that the courts are not independent in either the UK or Sweden. Fanciful stuff.
Note also that there was a period in which Assange was facing questions but was staying with a friend. He could have been snatched at any time without ruffling diplomatic feathers if anyone wanted to snatch him. Do you know what Governments do when they really want to snatch someone? They snatch them. See rendition in general, and the Vanunu case for an example from a while back. What they do not so is stage elaborate legal processes that could go either way.
Also, if you were going to frame someone, why not present actual charges rather than just set up an investigation?
Conspiracy theories usually break down because they involve convoluted and contingent schemes, and ignore the rule that simplest is best. This one is no exception.
Assange has managed to portray himself as being an edgy, out there, counter-cultural smash the State warrior. He has conned many to see him as a hero. He appears in reality to be a self serving individual who may also have acted as a tool, witting or unwitting, of Russian policy.
Whether or not the US would drag him out of Sweden, it is very strange to people the lengths the Swedes have gone to to get someone extraditied who is guilty, at worst, of removing a condom during concensual sex. I have direct experience of the Scandinavian justice system in relation to sex crime and rape allegations and it is highly stacked against investigation, prosecution, trial or conviction. Note also that there was a period in which Assange was facing questions but was staying with a friend. He could have been snatched at any time without ruffling diplomatic feathers if anyone wanted to snatch him. Do you know what Governments do when they really want to snatch someone? They snatch them. See rendition in general, and the Vanunu case for an example from a while back. What they do not so is stage elaborate legal processes that could go either way.
Also, if you were going to frame someone, why not present actual charges rather than just set up an investigation?
Conspiracy theories usually break down because they involve convoluted and contingent schemes, and ignore the rule that simplest is best. This one is no exception.
Assange has managed to portray himself as being an edgy, out there, counter-cultural smash the State warrior. He has conned many to see him as a hero. He appears in reality to be a self serving individual who may also have acted as a tool, witting or unwitting, of Russian policy.
There is something very, very fishy about the Swedes' actions in this matter...
jshell said:
Whether or not the US would drag him out of Sweden, it is very strange to people the lengths the Swedes have gone to to get someone extraditied who is guilty, at worst, of removing a condom during concensual sex. I have direct experience of the Scandinavian justice system in relation to sex crime and rape allegations and it is highly stacked against investigation, prosecution, trial or conviction.
There is something very, very fishy about the Swedes' actions in this matter...
Nonsense, withdrawn consent is rape, and the UK extradition judge accepted there was a case to answer.There is something very, very fishy about the Swedes' actions in this matter...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff