Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Escapegoat said:
AJL308 said:
That's not correct either as we could not extradite him to somewhere which would extradite him on contrary to his Human rights.
And, in fact, I think it is the case that any country we extradited him to would need our permission to extradite him elsewhere.
Another wooden spoon prize! This time for being completely oblivious (perhaps you're just 'forgetful') to illegal movements of all sorts of troublesome types. CIA snatching people off the streets in Italy, Sweden's complicity re the Egyptians, those N379P landings in Scotland that Jack Straw feigned ignorance of...etc.And, in fact, I think it is the case that any country we extradited him to would need our permission to extradite him elsewhere.
For those (La Liga) trying to deflect with the 'crazy conspiracy nonsense', here's a quote:
JackStraw said:
Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop.
Which was later shown to be false: Belhadj, Boudchar and many others we don't know about (because we were careful not to ask any questions about the 'passengers' in those aircraft).You want more? How about the debacle when the US government persuaded the French, Spanish and Italian governments to force a presidential plane to land in Europe to try to catch Snowden?
ts bigger than Equador, if the Yanks really wanted him they would have had him years ago.REALIST123 said:
It’s perfectly clear that multiple governments have been conspiring against this individual for years. How can you doubt that?
Because there doesn't appear to be any proof that it's the case. Why would I not doubt something if I don't see proof? People speculating about something doesn't make it true. REALIST123 said:
It’s also clear that there is much more than a couple of sexual offence investigations; were unlikely to ever be given the truth on that one especially if Assange is now silenced.
He's not been silenced for the last 7 years, and despite all his 'whistle blowing' influence and the reach of Wikileaks, hasn't managed (as I am aware) to get any evidence from three apparently conspiring governments and judiciaries. La Liga said:
ou could argue that deflection is providing unrelated examples and quotes.
I don't think anyone is saying that governments aren't capable and haven't done shady things in the past, so the quotes don't serve to counter anything anyone has written.
The premise that multiple governments (over 7 years so there's been the 'handing over' of the conspiracy) along with multiple judiciaries, are willing to conspire against an individual, is what seems flawed to me. That and the best way they could manage was a convoluted mess which means they've not got what they wanted. So they're able to keep this from leaking (with actual evidence) despite it involving so many people over such a long time, but not able to put together better plan and weren't able to lean on Ecuador with withdraw his asylum earlier.
Sounds more likely than there simply being a couple of sexual offence investigations...
Ultimately if you and others are asserting that there's a deviation from the norm (legal processes etc aren't being correctly followed), then it's down to you to prove.
(shrug) I've given you examples of exactly where the US and UK governments have deviated from norms and legal process when pursuing people like Assange. I've shown how pro-establishment people like you claim "conspiracy theory" to lie and deflect.I don't think anyone is saying that governments aren't capable and haven't done shady things in the past, so the quotes don't serve to counter anything anyone has written.
The premise that multiple governments (over 7 years so there's been the 'handing over' of the conspiracy) along with multiple judiciaries, are willing to conspire against an individual, is what seems flawed to me. That and the best way they could manage was a convoluted mess which means they've not got what they wanted. So they're able to keep this from leaking (with actual evidence) despite it involving so many people over such a long time, but not able to put together better plan and weren't able to lean on Ecuador with withdraw his asylum earlier.
Sounds more likely than there simply being a couple of sexual offence investigations...
Ultimately if you and others are asserting that there's a deviation from the norm (legal processes etc aren't being correctly followed), then it's down to you to prove.
As you certainly know, many illegal and abnormal arrangements between US/UK/Western governments have been shown, thanks to Snowden and Assange. And yes, those practices and policies are long-standing and the networks have survived many changes of personnel over decades.
Not sure how you can say the Snowden flight debacle is irrelevant to understanding Assange's situation with a straight face.
Halb said:
BlackLabel said:
But with Trump in charge, will what he faces in the US be a continuation of the show?
johnxjsc1985 said:
Alan Duncan said we don't extradite people to Countries that have the death penalty that's isn't quite right is it.
I wonder if Wikileaks have a few surprises up their sleeves
Was that the actual verbatim quote? We don't extradite people to places where they may face the death penalty. I wonder if Wikileaks have a few surprises up their sleeves
We clearly do extradite people to such countries as we extradite to the USA which has it so if that is the quote it is wrong.
Escapegoat said:
(shrug) I've given you examples of exactly where the US and UK governments have deviated from norms and legal process when pursuing people like Assange. I've shown how pro-establishment people like you claim "conspiracy theory" to lie and deflect.
As you certainly know, many illegal and abnormal arrangements between US/UK/Western governments have been shown, thanks to Snowden and Assange. And yes, those practices and policies are long-standing and the networks have survived many changes of personnel over decades.
Not sure how you can say the Snowden flight debacle is irrelevant to understanding Assange's situation with a straight face.
Providing unrelated examples doesn't prove this one. As you certainly know, many illegal and abnormal arrangements between US/UK/Western governments have been shown, thanks to Snowden and Assange. And yes, those practices and policies are long-standing and the networks have survived many changes of personnel over decades.
Not sure how you can say the Snowden flight debacle is irrelevant to understanding Assange's situation with a straight face.
'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
KrazyIvan said:
untakenname said:
In the seven years he was there didn't he even consider trying to escape? He could have worn a disguise or had a body double make a distraction or simply dug a hole in that time.
Having seen him today, he could have walked out in yellow waterproofs as the fking fishermans friend.
La Liga said:
roviding unrelated examples doesn't prove this one.
'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
Except you've just swapped subjects instead of objects! Nice strawman. 'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
More appropriate would be: Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics, and on his wife, and in his exams. Therefore, when looking at some oddness on his tax return, it's sensible to suspect that he cheated on that, too.
Let me know if you can't see the difference between my example and yours. I can always draw some diagrams.
Escapegoat said:
La Liga said:
roviding unrelated examples doesn't prove this one.
'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
Except you've just swapped subjects instead of objects! Nice strawman. 'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
More appropriate would be: Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics, and on his wife, and in his exams. Therefore, when looking at some oddness on his tax return, it's sensible to suspect that he cheated on that, too.
Let me know if you can't see the difference between my example and yours. I can always draw some diagrams.
Regardless, you need to operate with implication and innuendo. "Oh the government have done bad things before" - compelling stuff.
Do you have any actual evidence relating to this specific matter, or is it just pub speculation?
https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/status/11163907...
Trump.....
“I love WikiLeaks!” 10/10/16
"It's been amazing what's coming out on WikiLeaks" 10/13/16
"What about all the WikiLeaks?” 10/26/16
"I mean, this WikiLeaks is fascinating." 10/29/16
“This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove” 10/31/16
“Boy I love reading those WikiLeaks,” 11/04
Trump.....
“I love WikiLeaks!” 10/10/16
"It's been amazing what's coming out on WikiLeaks" 10/13/16
"What about all the WikiLeaks?” 10/26/16
"I mean, this WikiLeaks is fascinating." 10/29/16
“This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove” 10/31/16
“Boy I love reading those WikiLeaks,” 11/04
Irony Alert!
Assange is in this hot water solely because of his organisation's efforts to secure and make public exactly the type of evidence you are calling for...
bizarre...
More appropriate would be: Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics, and on his wife, and in his exams. Therefore, when looking at some oddness on his tax return, it's sensible to suspect that he cheated on that, too.
Let me know if you can't see the difference between my example and yours. I can always draw some diagrams.Except the respective governments and judiciary don't cheat anywhere near the proportions of your hypothetical Chambers modification.
Regardless, you need to operate with implication and innuendo. "Oh the government have done bad things before" - compelling stuff.
Do you have any actual evidence relating to this specific matter, or is it just pub speculation?
Assange is in this hot water solely because of his organisation's efforts to secure and make public exactly the type of evidence you are calling for...
bizarre...
La Liga said:
Escapegoat said:
La Liga said:
roviding unrelated examples doesn't prove this one.
'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
Except you've just swapped subjects instead of objects! Nice strawman. 'Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics therefore it proves my theory that Usain Bolt cheated because athletes have shown they will cheat.'
I'm not pro establishment, I'm pro evidence and facts.
More appropriate would be: Dwain Chambers cheated in athletics, and on his wife, and in his exams. Therefore, when looking at some oddness on his tax return, it's sensible to suspect that he cheated on that, too.
Let me know if you can't see the difference between my example and yours. I can always draw some diagrams.
Regardless, you need to operate with implication and innuendo. "Oh the government have done bad things before" - compelling stuff.
Do you have any actual evidence relating to this specific matter, or is it just pub speculation?
Looks like the Americans are not charging him for publishing state secrets - guess they'd have to go after the press too if that was the case - but for computer hacking instead. The maximum sentence for this is 5 years in prison.
"Prosecutors accused Assange of working with Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Iraq in 2010, to crack a government computer password and access a vast trove of classified U.S. military and diplomatic reports and cables that were subsequently disclosed through WikiLeaks.
If convicted on the conspiracy charge, Assange, 47, could face five years in prison. It wasn’t immediately clear if he would face additional U.S. charges now that he is custody."
https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-britain-julian...
"Prosecutors accused Assange of working with Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Iraq in 2010, to crack a government computer password and access a vast trove of classified U.S. military and diplomatic reports and cables that were subsequently disclosed through WikiLeaks.
If convicted on the conspiracy charge, Assange, 47, could face five years in prison. It wasn’t immediately clear if he would face additional U.S. charges now that he is custody."
https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-britain-julian...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff