Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
BlackLabel said:
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...
A nice simple max-5-years charge is a politically-acceptable one against which to extradite him. It has to be 5 years IIRC because below that the offence is not extraditable? What happens when they have him, of course..."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...
La Liga said:
...
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.
So, where is he being extradited to and on what charges? 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.
Edited by grumbledoak on Thursday 11th April 20:26
grumbledoak said:
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.
So, where is he being extradited to and on what charges?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.
Turns out the US didn't need to get the Swedes to get two women to make fake rape allegations and conspire the UK government / judiciary to uphold the arrest warrant, after all...
La Liga said:
xcept 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?
Thought as much; the more evidence I provide of what you claim is not the case, the more you move the deflect, rather than address the preponderance of facts.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?
I might as well ask you for the actual evidence of the alleged rape cases in Sweden.
La Liga said:
his it appears: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/fi...
So, not to Sweden over sexual allegations then?grumbledoak said:
La Liga said:
his it appears: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/fi...
So, not to Sweden over sexual allegations then?Escapegoat said:
La Liga said:
xcept 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?
Thought as much; the more evidence I provide of what you claim is not the case, the more you move the deflect, rather than address the preponderance of facts.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?
I might as well ask you for the actual evidence of the alleged rape cases in Sweden.
I like the approach. You can't provide evidence so that becomes my fault because I'd deflect it if you could / did. A bit obvious.
The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
La Liga said:
o just pub speculation then, thought so.
The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
False rape allegations are quite commonplace, some of them even end in sentencing of the innocent, and only later come to light as false and made up.The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
Finlandia said:
La Liga said:
o just pub speculation then, thought so.
The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
False rape allegations are quite commonplace, some of them even end in sentencing of the innocent, and only later come to light as false and made up.The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
Besides, the original comment I replied two proposed it was the government who 'found two women' to make the allegations, as if the government had somehow got two women to make complaints.
Ian Geary said:
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...
Exactly. Bizarre though, or naive in the extreme?
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...
Exactly. Bizarre though, or naive in the extreme?
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?
La Liga said:
Finlandia said:
La Liga said:
o just pub speculation then, thought so.
The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
False rape allegations are quite commonplace, some of them even end in sentencing of the innocent, and only later come to light as false and made up.The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
Besides, the original comment I replied two proposed it was the government who 'found two women' to make the allegations, as if the government had somehow got two women to make complaints.
JA then left Sweden, sometime after that the girls had a new attorney, and this is where it gets really interesting, the new attorney was the former minister of justice between 2000-2006 and his companion in the law firm. This happens to be when Sweden was being helpful with the CIA rendition flights, which was leaked by Wikileaks. The companion in the law firm was the one to push for a reopening of the case in September 2010.
All a bit too political for my liking.
Finlandia said:
La Liga said:
Finlandia said:
La Liga said:
o just pub speculation then, thought so.
The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
False rape allegations are quite commonplace, some of them even end in sentencing of the innocent, and only later come to light as false and made up.The rape allegation had to satisfy a court to justify a EAW - naturally part of the conspiracy - as well as the prima facie details available.
Besides, the original comment I replied two proposed it was the government who 'found two women' to make the allegations, as if the government had somehow got two women to make complaints.
JA then left Sweden, sometime after that the girls had a new attorney, and this is where it gets really interesting, the new attorney was the former minister of justice between 2000-2006 and his companion in the law firm. This happens to be when Sweden was being helpful with the CIA rendition flights, which was leaked by Wikileaks. The companion in the law firm was the one to push for a reopening of the case in September 2010.
All a bit too political for my liking.
Finlandia said:
False rape allegations are quite commonplace, some of them even end in sentencing of the innocent, and only later come to light as false and made up.
They aren’t commonplace, it’s a myth fuelled by the media exposure that false accusations receive vs actual accusations.If you have figures that disprove then it would be interesting to review them but I’ve seen nothing that proves the statement above.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 11th April 22:55
smeared poo on the embassy walls, allegedly
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/11/julian-assange-smea...
how pleasant
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/11/julian-assange-smea...
how pleasant
kev1974 said:
smeared poo on the embassy walls, allegedly
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/11/julian-assange-smea...
how pleasant
“The politician did not make it clear if Assange used his own poo for the alleged smear campaign.”https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/11/julian-assange-smea...
how pleasant
LOL.
La Liga said:
t's also interesting because the Swedes interviewed him in the UK and subsequently discontinued the investigation and EAW, but those details don't help the conspiracy narrative so they get omitted.
The Swedish DA refused to interview JA in London for years, after the Court of Appeal pushed the DA to do it, a time was set and finally JA was interviewed in November -16. In May -17 the DA put the investigation to rest, but the evidence against JA is still as strong as ever and the process may be reopened if JA makes himself available before the deadline of prosecution for the alleged crime, in August -20.cookie118 said:
They aren’t commonplace, it’s a myth that they are fuelled by the media exposure that false accusations receive vs actual accusations.
If you have figures that disprove then it would be interesting to review them but I’ve seen anything that proves the statement above.
According to studies 5% of the rape accusations are false.If you have figures that disprove then it would be interesting to review them but I’ve seen anything that proves the statement above.
There’s some suggestion from the Guardian the Swedes wanted to interview him much sooner but were discouraged from doing so by the CPS. I don’t know how it works in Sweden, but once they’d interviewed him could they have not charged him if it was political or worse to keep the EAW active? Who knows? Without having some inquiry or objective, intrusive look at that whole side of it we need to be cautious about adding too much weight to information sources.
Regarding false allegations, you need to add another dimension to them. That is that the further along the investigation, the more likely the allegations are discontinued.
Regarding false allegations, you need to add another dimension to them. That is that the further along the investigation, the more likely the allegations are discontinued.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff