Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
MOTORVATOR said:
...
What I find strange in watching your comments on here is that you continually appear to belittle any mention of possible collusion between our government agencies when the whole reason for bringing the Justice and Security act in was to allow exactly that to continue to take place without fear of question.
...
No, I am mocking the suggestions of an absurd plan to get Assange to Sweden on what were not even charges in order to get him to the US. It's just too daft. I expect my tax dollar to be used for better evil plans than that. What I find strange in watching your comments on here is that you continually appear to belittle any mention of possible collusion between our government agencies when the whole reason for bringing the Justice and Security act in was to allow exactly that to continue to take place without fear of question.
...
Tinfoil accusations (I use them, too) need testing.
It was conspiracy and not tinfoil that brought down Morales' plane in 2013, sans Snowden, alas. That was a combination of gungho Mericans* and four flacid European governments. Each of those had mysteriously mislaid their Diplomatic Rights 101 booklets at the very hour they were needed. Go figure.
* Who had been baited by Assange
It was conspiracy and not tinfoil that brought down Morales' plane in 2013, sans Snowden, alas. That was a combination of gungho Mericans* and four flacid European governments. Each of those had mysteriously mislaid their Diplomatic Rights 101 booklets at the very hour they were needed. Go figure.
* Who had been baited by Assange
The thing for me is that having observed the arguments for and against conspiracy on this thread it does appear as though both sides are becoming as ludicrous as the other.
For me anyone considering that our respective government agencies haven't discussed the 'Assange' problem, beyond the extradition for a rape charge, at length is naive.
In that respect the conspiracy backers have a point but probably not in the extremes suggested.
And the argument of it being ultra simplistic to extradite a person for political ends from here to USA is an extreme view. There are numerous barriers to doing so as well as a political need to avoid it.
Whether those barriers are truly as high with a Sweden to USA extradition was my question and one that I am sure has been discussed in high places.
For me anyone considering that our respective government agencies haven't discussed the 'Assange' problem, beyond the extradition for a rape charge, at length is naive.
In that respect the conspiracy backers have a point but probably not in the extremes suggested.
And the argument of it being ultra simplistic to extradite a person for political ends from here to USA is an extreme view. There are numerous barriers to doing so as well as a political need to avoid it.
Whether those barriers are truly as high with a Sweden to USA extradition was my question and one that I am sure has been discussed in high places.
The basic obstacle is that it would be unlawful for Sweden to extradite Assange to the USA if it had received him on extradition from the UK. Extradition is to facilitate the criminal process in the receiving country. It can't lawfully be used as a platform for other things. Thus the evil plan only works if Sweden is prepared to flout international law. Sweden does that a lot, right?
Has Assange pissed some Governments off? Yes. Do Governments do dodgy deeds? Yes. But the notional conspiracy here is just too clunky and daft to be credible.
Has Assange pissed some Governments off? Yes. Do Governments do dodgy deeds? Yes. But the notional conspiracy here is just too clunky and daft to be credible.
Breadvan72 said:
There is no rule of public international law that precludes a national of country A from being extradited by country B to country C. In any event, Assange isn't Swedish, so if the non existent rule that you mention existed the US would be as stuck with Sweden as with the UK.
Reality check:
Which of the UK and Sweden has the closest relationship with the US? The UK.
Which of the UK and Sweden has the easiest extradition procedures with the US? The UK.
Which of the UK and Sweden has a recent record of assisting the US in shenanigans (rendition)? The UK.
Getting the drift?
And which country has a history of clandestine rendition flights to the US UK Or Sweden? A clue: Its not the UK.Reality check:
Which of the UK and Sweden has the closest relationship with the US? The UK.
Which of the UK and Sweden has the easiest extradition procedures with the US? The UK.
Which of the UK and Sweden has a recent record of assisting the US in shenanigans (rendition)? The UK.
Getting the drift?
Breadvan72 said:
Far from obtuse, and on the contrary a direct and clear answer to your question, but it does not fit with your tinfoil hat view. Ease of extradition from the UK to Sweden is not an issue, because the supposed evil plot is to persuade Sweden to break international law by accepting the extradition from the UK for X and then extradite to the US for Y. My point is that if the US and the UK had a wicked plan then the wicked plan would be easily accomplished without adding in Sweden.
Actually froma legal and public relations standpoint it is far easier for the UK to simply hand him over to sweden under investigation of a criminal offense and allow Sweden to then hand him to the US than for the UK to simply hand him to the US ourselves as the UK government would not want that kind of publicity as like most they know if the US got their hands on Assange it will turn into a full on s
tshow for all involved as the US will lock him up and throw away the key causing a huge PR issue for themselves and anyone else involved in helping getring him locked up.How quickly people forget what happened with Snowden and the lengths the US and EU countries went to to get him back on US soil.
You again assume that Sweden, which was rightly criticised when it helped the US with rendition, would be willing to do something obviously unlawful. The publicity hit for Sweden would be just as bad as that for the UK.
In terms of which country got more involved with US chicanery, both got involved with rendition. The UK also got involved more directly with torture.
In terms of which country got more involved with US chicanery, both got involved with rendition. The UK also got involved more directly with torture.
Breadvan72 said:
Both, IIRC. Some naughty CIA flights refuelled at Brize Norton, IIRC.
On one hand you are right on another you are wrong. A great many rendition flights landed in the UK (over 1000 apparently) however it would appear that none of the flights ever had prisoners on board the aircraft at the time as its suspected the UK government were not prepared to go that far in assisting the US services.On the other hand Sweden is known to have allowed rendition flights to land and take off WITH rendition prisoners on board.
Breadvan72 said:
You again assume that Sweden, which was rightly criticised when it helped the US with rendition, would be willing to do something obviously unlawful. The publicity hit for Sweden would be just as bad as that for the UK.
In terms of which country got more involved with US chicanery, both got involved with rendition. The UK also got involved more directly with torture.
Yes and no. Publicity would be bad for both that much is true and correct however in Sweden the press are much more tightly controlled by government and the story could be killed off much faster and much more easily than here in the UK. In terms of which country got more involved with US chicanery, both got involved with rendition. The UK also got involved more directly with torture.
It is also worth note that the UK are sticklers for following EU law and legislation and would not want to fall foul of EU human rights laws as no doubt any minister who could be associated with a rendition flight in the UK would be fired and the government would be sued and would likely lose.
Oh also all this kicked off in 2010 which was a GE year. No political party would have risked a rendition flight in or around a GE year for the obvious reasons of what a political nightmare it would create for them.
Whether it was in the run up or soon after the election and in the case of the 2010 election it was the coalition government with the lib dems who would not have taken kindly to being associated with rendition flights which in turn could have resulted in a major political crisis.
Edited by frankenstein12 on Tuesday 14th November 17:40
By "EU human rights laws" do you mean the ECHR? If I had a quid for every time that I have explained patiently to someone on PH that the ECHR is not an EU thing (I sometimes add, to annoy them more, that the ECHR was mostly drafted by a Tory Home Secretary/Lord Chancellor) I would be quite wealthy. Defying human rights laws would be a vote winner for Tories. Rendering people would also be a vote winner with many sections of the public, and in 2010 Assange was a hero of the left. Now he is a hero of the right.
Breadvan72 said:
By "EU human rights laws" do you mean the ECHR? If I had a quid for every time that I have explained patiently to someone on PH that the ECHR is not an EU thing (I sometimes add, to annoy them more, that the ECHR was mostly drafted by a Tory Home Secretary/Lord Chancellor) I would be quite wealthy. Defying human rights laws would be a vote winner for Tories. Rendering people would also be a vote winner with many sections of the public, and in 2010 Assange was a hero of the left. Now he is a hero of the right.
I do Soooo apologise for not being 100% correct. Its actually a treaty amongst all European countries rather than just those within the EU.It WOULD NOT be a winner for the Tories.
Is it that hard for you to understand they were in coalition with the Lib Dems at the time redntion would have been on the cards and the Lib Dems would have screamed blue bloody murder about rendition flights regardless of who was on the flights and it would possibly have led to a collapse of the coalition which was very fragile to begin with.
Its also not the case that conservative voters would have been happy to Assange on a rendition flight to the USA because much as you may believe conservatives are evil monsters they are firm believers in rule of law.
Really? Is that why Amber Rudd is facing a contempt of court beef for flouting a court order? Is that why Theresa May as Home Secretary argued that Ministerial rules trumped Statute? Need I go on? Back in the days of Lord Kilmuir (architect of the ECHR), many senior Tories supported the rule of law. These days, maybe not so much.
As for "not 100% correct", is that a new way of saying "100% wrong"? Top tip: obtain information before expressing opinions.
As for "not 100% correct", is that a new way of saying "100% wrong"? Top tip: obtain information before expressing opinions.
Breadvan72 said:
BTW, is the deal that the UK was too moral to stick Assange on a flight, but not too moral to connive to have him sent to Sweden? Your argument is laughable bullst from start to finish. You were doing better defending Trump on the Trump thread, and you were doing terribly there.
I never said the UK was moral. There is a huge difference between the UK allowing a rendition flight from the UK to complying with a lawful request to extradite a person to sweden over allegations of rape from where Sweden could decide to hand him over to the US.t from start to finish. You were doing better defending Trump on the Trump thread, and you were doing terribly there.what i did say was that its about perception. The UK handing Assange voer to the US themselves would land the UK gov in a world of s
t PR wise and possibly would have affected the GE results or the coalition government the other would have been the UK gov saying "All we did was complied witha legal reqeust from Sweden to hand over someone accused of rape. "How were we to know they would hand him over to the US, we strongly condemn Swedens actions" Bullet dodged and it becomes Swedens problem.
Its called deniability.
Its great to engage with people whos primary argument seems to be to fling insults and belittle others. This forum really has gone downhill.
Gandahar said:
Quite a few celebrities are now digging a tunnel into the embassy.
If it was a film it would be called the Great Ecuadorean Escape.
I can just seen Harvey Fingerthemstein failing to jump over the wall on his Triumph motorbike.
Good luck chaps!
He’s doing panto this Christmas...If it was a film it would be called the Great Ecuadorean Escape.
I can just seen Harvey Fingerthemstein failing to jump over the wall on his Triumph motorbike.
Good luck chaps!
And here relaxing by cleaning up sweat in the embassy gym...
bhstewie said:
That tweet is worthy of a direct quote...hstewie said:tweet said:
Next time you feel self conscious about basically anything in your life ever remember Julian Assange literally DM’d the son of a president of a country that wants to arrest him and asked him to pressure a wholly separate sovereign state to make him an Ambassador
Umm.. something about pot and kettle here.. https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/931532670...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff