Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Lemming Train said:
La Liga said:
Lucas Ayde said:
Once he's in their custody, they'll hit him with more serious charges likely potentially carrying the death penalty.
We won't send him if he could potentially face the death penalty.You bring a whole new meaning to the definition of the word "naive".
La Liga said:
Lemming Train said:
La Liga said:
Lucas Ayde said:
Once he's in their custody, they'll hit him with more serious charges likely potentially carrying the death penalty.
We won't send him if he could potentially face the death penalty.You bring a whole new meaning to the definition of the word "naive".
skwdenyer said:
Regarding false accusations, how are we measuring those? The implication of calling, say, 5% false is that 95% are true. But IIRC only a relatively small proportion of all allegations proceed to trial. Of those that are dropped along the way, how is it to be determined that some (or even a significant proportion) are not also false?
https://fullfact.org/crime/how-many-reported-rapes... suggest instead that 50% of reports got to trial, and as of those 42% resulted in convictions.
Let's take that latter set of numbers for the sake of argument.
Using a very black-or-white approach to those stats, only 21% of allegations are proven to be "true." If 5% are proven to be "false" then what of the other 74%? Some or all of those could also be false. Or not....
I would expect there is a difference between a "false" accusation (one where the alleged victim knew there was no wrong doing) and a "not guilty" verdict (no proof that there was wrong doing even if the alleged victim felt there was).https://fullfact.org/crime/how-many-reported-rapes... suggest instead that 50% of reports got to trial, and as of those 42% resulted in convictions.
Let's take that latter set of numbers for the sake of argument.
Using a very black-or-white approach to those stats, only 21% of allegations are proven to be "true." If 5% are proven to be "false" then what of the other 74%? Some or all of those could also be false. Or not....
Lemming Train said:
La Liga said:
Lemming Train said:
La Liga said:
Lucas Ayde said:
Once he's in their custody, they'll hit him with more serious charges likely potentially carrying the death penalty.
We won't send him if he could potentially face the death penalty.You bring a whole new meaning to the definition of the word "naive".
So Sweden are considering if to reopen things, if they do and make an extradition request what's the order of things?
1. UK breaking bail, possible jail time
2. US extradition, possible hundreds of years given their sentencing
3. Sweden, death by meatballs
or is it first come, first served, or in order of seriousness?
1. UK breaking bail, possible jail time
2. US extradition, possible hundreds of years given their sentencing
3. Sweden, death by meatballs
or is it first come, first served, or in order of seriousness?
Sweden haven't got the memo because they're not sticking to the conspiracy.
They need to be told that the US have the extradition request in with the UK, so there's no need to re-open the fake rape allegation to extradite Assange so the US can extradite him from there, even though Sweden is also bound by the ECHR.
They need to be told that the US have the extradition request in with the UK, so there's no need to re-open the fake rape allegation to extradite Assange so the US can extradite him from there, even though Sweden is also bound by the ECHR.
Lentilist said:
Now that Assange is in custody, will we see Wikileaks publish encryption keys to the various "Insurance" files that have been previously released? There have been comments in the past about Assange having a Dead Man's Switch in the event of anything happening to him, and this situation would seem to fit the bill.
The 'insurance' encrypted files are a good few years old now, are they not?Whilst I wouldn't doubt that there could be some embarrassing stuff in there for the authorities, it wouldn't have the same impact as more current transgressions.
What I'd really like to hear is whether or not Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails. That would REALLY open a can of worms.
La Liga said:
Finlandia said:
Clearly you are in the ring corner of 'governments never do anything dirty and justice systems are faultless', I on the other hand am firmly in the other corner, 'all governments are more or less involved in dirty business and the justice systems are far from spotless'.
Clearly: La Liga said:
I don't think anyone is saying that governments aren't capable and haven't done shady things in the past...
As useful as me saying you're selectively taking information to turn 2+2 into 5.Then you also have to consider the fact that violent rapists seldom receive any punishment at all, why all the effort in chasing JA, he didn't torture the victims, he didn't rape them a knifepoint. I'm not saying that rapists should be let off if no violence was used, but why the effort to catch this one, when violent ones aren't chased even half as much?
It just doesn't add up, at all.
Finlandia said:
….
It just doesn't add up, at all.
What adds up even less is why Sweden didn't simply leave the problem for the US to sort, why did they feel the need to get involved when the US were already planning on arresting him for the Wikileaks stuff. Rather than making something up about a rape, it would have been much easier for them to quietly lobby the US to expose him for his political betrayal, unless of course the rape allegations were true It just doesn't add up, at all.
The Surveyor said:
Finlandia said:
….
It just doesn't add up, at all.
What adds up even less is why Sweden didn't simply leave the problem for the US to sort, why did they feel the need to get involved when the US were already planning on arresting him for the Wikileaks stuff. Rather than making something up about a rape, it would have been much easier for them to quietly lobby the US to expose him for his political betrayal, unless of course the rape allegations were true It just doesn't add up, at all.
Perhaps a personal vendetta for the ex minister to extract revenge.
Or perhaps there are simply allegations of crime that require investigation.
We cannot send someone to a country where it'd breach the ECHR.
We were only able to send Abu Hamza because we had assurances and our courts were satisfied he wouldn't be treated in a manner which would breach the ECHR.
Yes, once he is there the US could in theory go back on those assurances, but then they'd never be able to extradite someone from the UK and EU again.
Pretty obvious, but apparently a step beyond Lemming Train.
johnxjsc1985 said:
La Liga said:
on't get frustrated and lash out because you have no reply to what I said. It's only a forum.
Alan Duncan said that they would never send someone to a Country where they faced the death penalty.We were only able to send Abu Hamza because we had assurances and our courts were satisfied he wouldn't be treated in a manner which would breach the ECHR.
Yes, once he is there the US could in theory go back on those assurances, but then they'd never be able to extradite someone from the UK and EU again.
Pretty obvious, but apparently a step beyond Lemming Train.
Finlandia said:
What makes you think nothing shady was going on here? Alarm bells should be ringing when you hear about the shady ex minister stained by leaked documents wanting to reopen an already closed case against the man responsible for the leak.
They're might be something shady going on, but there's a world of difference between considering that a possibility and definitively stating it is so, as a few on this topic have. Finlandia said:
Then you also have to consider the fact that violent rapists seldom receive any punishment at all, why all the effort in chasing JA, he didn't torture the victims, he didn't rape them a knifepoint. I'm not saying that rapists should be let off if no violence was used, but why the effort to catch this one, when violent ones aren't chased even half as much?
I can't answer that as I don't really know anything about the Swedish criminal justice system. La Liga said:
Finlandia said:
What makes you think nothing shady was going on here? Alarm bells should be ringing when you hear about the shady ex minister stained by leaked documents wanting to reopen an already closed case against the man responsible for the leak.
They're might be something shady going on, but there's a world of difference between considering that a possibility and definitively stating it is so, as a few on this topic have. Finlandia said:
Then you also have to consider the fact that violent rapists seldom receive any punishment at all, why all the effort in chasing JA, he didn't torture the victims, he didn't rape them a knifepoint. I'm not saying that rapists should be let off if no violence was used, but why the effort to catch this one, when violent ones aren't chased even half as much?
I can't answer that as I don't really know anything about the Swedish criminal justice system. The Swedish justice system is a joke at best, and downright a disaster when it comes to rape. So why all the effort put on this particular case?
Oakey said:
What would they charge him with that carries the death penalty?
Lots of talk about the death penalty but no one has actually answered the question you ask. In theory I suppose being involved in the theft and publication of classified material could probably lead to the death penalty. However that hasn't happened for years."Indeed, no U.S. espionage case – including many involving much more sensitive information than released by WikiLeaks – has resulted in the death penalty since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953."
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/assange-death-penalt...
I don't think the US will even go after him for this particular crime as if they do they'd also have to go after the Guardian and NYT and then it becomes a freedom of press issue.
BlackLabel said:
I don't think the US will even go after him for this particular crime as if they do they'd also have to go after the Guardian and NYT and then it becomes a freedom of press issue.
“becomes”? This is almost entirely a freedom of the press issue. Tell the truth about America, pay the price.FWIW, I don't think the US would go for the death penalty for Assange, anyway. It would, however, like to lock him up for one of those 200+ year sentences, maybe with solitary confinement.
Simply to encourage others knowlegeable about US' illegal deeds - present and future - not to go leaking the info.
If Snowden hadn't made it to Russia, I'm pretty sure he'd have been snatched off the street before now. For the same purpose.
Simply to encourage others knowlegeable about US' illegal deeds - present and future - not to go leaking the info.
If Snowden hadn't made it to Russia, I'm pretty sure he'd have been snatched off the street before now. For the same purpose.
They wouldn’t go for the death penalty because it’d likely ruin any future extradition from the UK and Europe.
In terms of them upping the offences if he ends up there, I imagine that could be subject of legal challenge i.e. how does the UK, with its ECHR obligations, know that he’ll be treated in line with them if it’s not clear what offences and potential punishments he’ll face?
I think it’s a safe bet Snowden would be extradited if possible given what he did.
Not too many people have focused on the ECHR aspect which also seemingly binds Sweden. Or the Swedish judiciary who have apparently stepped in the way. Or been equally critical when it comes to speculating as to why three conspiring countries weren’t able to get the embassy to eject him earlier, prior to one allegation expiring and the EAW being withdrawn.
I don’t think it’s so outrageous to think he has actually committed a crime in relation to the US. Unless the indictment mentioned earlier is more fraud etc.
In terms of them upping the offences if he ends up there, I imagine that could be subject of legal challenge i.e. how does the UK, with its ECHR obligations, know that he’ll be treated in line with them if it’s not clear what offences and potential punishments he’ll face?
I think it’s a safe bet Snowden would be extradited if possible given what he did.
Finlanda said:
I have said it doesn't add up, and it seems very odd when you consider all the known the facts, even without considering the now deleted tweets and social media posting by the victims.
The Swedish justice system is a joke at best, and downright a disaster when it comes to rape. So why all the effort put on this particular case?
Victims don’t necessary behave how we’d objectively and rationally suspect. It’s easy to connect information to draw the conclusions we want to see. The Swedish justice system is a joke at best, and downright a disaster when it comes to rape. So why all the effort put on this particular case?
Not too many people have focused on the ECHR aspect which also seemingly binds Sweden. Or the Swedish judiciary who have apparently stepped in the way. Or been equally critical when it comes to speculating as to why three conspiring countries weren’t able to get the embassy to eject him earlier, prior to one allegation expiring and the EAW being withdrawn.
I don’t think it’s so outrageous to think he has actually committed a crime in relation to the US. Unless the indictment mentioned earlier is more fraud etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff