RugbyRebels

So who gets first dibs on him, Sweden or the US?

Zhivago wrote:So who gets first dibs on him, Sweden or the US?

Haven't the swedish charges been dropped? Isn't first dibs ours for skipping bail?

Banquo wrote:

Zhivago wrote:So who gets first dibs on him, Sweden or the US?

Haven't the swedish charges been dropped? Isn't first dibs ours for skipping bail?

I think they'll reopen the case in Sweden. Yeah ours first I guess.

Dark day for journalism though re the US extradition order.

I think Ecuador got sick of him waging internet warrior war on sovereign state business from his bedroom at their embassy.

morepork wrote:I think Ecuador got sick of him waging internet warrior war on sovereign state business from his bedroom at their embassy.

and indeed trying to sue Ecuador

Whatever Ecuador hoped to gain by hiding Assange has not come to pass

Dianne Abbot was on Today earlier, she made an absurd case and suggested rape was only a trivial matter anyway

Abbott was dreadful.

Charlie Falconer sums up the situation neatly - "Once Ecuador removed Assange’s immunity there were no choices for government. The choices were for law enforcement agencies - police and CPS. Couldn’t be basis for not proceeding with Bail offences. And US extradition is for criminal justice system to decide not government"

fivepointer wrote:Abbott was dreadful.

Charlie Falconer sums up the situation neatly - "Once Ecuador removed Assange’s immunity there were no choices for government. The choices were for law enforcement agencies - police and CPS. Couldn’t be basis for not proceeding with Bail offences. And US extradition is for criminal justice system to decide not government"

Yep. Ol’ Charlie has hit the nail on the head.

That pale little goblin spent seven years beating off in a bedsit. He must be half mad with deprivation.

morepork wrote:That pale little goblin spent seven years beating off in a bedsit. He must be half mad with deprivation.

Seemingly standard behaviour for Australian and Kiwi visitors to London

Outsmarted by Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... -wikileaks


THE FUCKING STATE OF YOU, JULES.


PS: I know you're reading this, rowan. Did you cry into your cornflakes when you read this?

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:That pale little goblin spent seven years beating off in a bedsit. He must be half mad with deprivation.

Seemingly standard behaviour for Australian and Kiwi visitors to London

No extradition to US..(.appeal pending.)
Menkel elf indeed the concern. Seems to be a catch-all atm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55528241

Galfon wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:That pale little goblin spent seven years beating off in a bedsit. He must be half mad with deprivation.

Seemingly standard behaviour for Australian and Kiwi visitors to London

No extradition to US..(.appeal pending.)
Menkel elf indeed the concern. Seems to be a catch-all atm.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55528241

Many defendants might like to use that defence. I don't know I'm jumping up and down to see him sent to the US, the agreements we have with the US on this are not based on equality, they keep killers from being sent here, and yet that's a flimsy excuse not to extradite

Good news on the individual human level (unless it gets overturned on appeal, and why wouldn't it?).

Bad news for anyone thinking of exposing the crimes of the powerful.

Why at an individual level? Or put another way, will every other defendant and even jailed person be allowed to state they've got a case of I don't want to face prosecution or didn't want to and be spared the justice system henceforth?

Or are we simply saying it's a no to extraditing to the USA, and not that this should only apply to Assange? If it's simply not being done because Assange is sad that's not even close to good enough for me, send him on his way.

And many people expose the rich and powerful, most don't end up with this problem, and indeed Assange could have avoided this problem were he not quite such a craven attention seeker and had showed some modicum of responsibility

Digby wrote:Why at an individual level? Or put another way, will every other defendant and even jailed person be allowed to state they've got a case of I don't want to face prosecution or didn't want to and be spared the justice system henceforth?

Or are we simply saying it's a no to extraditing to the USA, and not that this should only apply to Assange? If it's simply not being done because Assange is sad that's not even close to good enough for me, send him on his way.

And many people expose the rich and powerful, most don't end up with this problem, and indeed Assange could have avoided this problem were he not quite such a craven attention seeker and had showed some modicum of responsibility

It's less a defence of being sad, more that the judge doesn't trust the US prison system to be able to prevent Assange from committing suicide. Not sure whether that's a genuine concern of actual suicide or an Epstein-esque "suicide".

Clicked on the BBC link and was entirely unsurprised to see in the court drawings that Assange is one of those twats who doesn't cover his nose with his mask.

Not sure that Assange being an attention-seeking twat is a good reason for him to face punishment though.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why at an individual level? Or put another way, will every other defendant and even jailed person be allowed to state they've got a case of I don't want to face prosecution or didn't want to and be spared the justice system henceforth?

Or are we simply saying it's a no to extraditing to the USA, and not that this should only apply to Assange? If it's simply not being done because Assange is sad that's not even close to good enough for me, send him on his way.

And many people expose the rich and powerful, most don't end up with this problem, and indeed Assange could have avoided this problem were he not quite such a craven attention seeker and had showed some modicum of responsibility

It's less a defence of being sad, more that the judge doesn't trust the US prison system to be able to prevent Assange from committing suicide. Not sure whether that's a genuine concern of actual suicide or an Epstein-esque "suicide".

Clicked on the BBC link and was entirely unsurprised to see in the court drawings that Assange is one of those twats who doesn't cover his nose with his mask.

Not sure that Assange being an attention-seeking twat is a good reason for him to face punishment though.

Puja

And if other defendants and/or prisoners say they're considering self-harm do they then gain some concessions from the justice system? If he's threatening self-harm give him a leaflet on not doing it and send him on his way, if he harms himself so be it

And being an attention seeking prat is a good reason to face punishment, much of the information he disseminated was hugely embarrassing and that's fine and even to be encouraged as part of free speech, some of it was simply dangerous to those involved and that's not okay. But he didn't want to spend the time reviewing what he had and being careful about what was released because that wouldn't have garnered him such levels of attention. He has a fair point it was too much information for him to review, but he could have worked with/alongside many media outlets to have taken a safer more considered approach.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Why at an individual level? Or put another way, will every other defendant and even jailed person be allowed to state they've got a case of I don't want to face prosecution or didn't want to and be spared the justice system henceforth?

Or are we simply saying it's a no to extraditing to the USA, and not that this should only apply to Assange? If it's simply not being done because Assange is sad that's not even close to good enough for me, send him on his way.

And many people expose the rich and powerful, most don't end up with this problem, and indeed Assange could have avoided this problem were he not quite such a craven attention seeker and had showed some modicum of responsibility

It's less a defence of being sad, more that the judge doesn't trust the US prison system to be able to prevent Assange from committing suicide. Not sure whether that's a genuine concern of actual suicide or an Epstein-esque "suicide".

Clicked on the BBC link and was entirely unsurprised to see in the court drawings that Assange is one of those twats who doesn't cover his nose with his mask.

Not sure that Assange being an attention-seeking twat is a good reason for him to face punishment though.

Puja

And if other defendants and/or prisoners say they're considering self-harm do they then gain some concessions from the justice system? If he's threatening self-harm give him a leaflet on not doing it and send him on his way, if he harms himself so be it

And being an attention seeking prat is a good reason to face punishment, much of the information he disseminated was hugely embarrassing and that's fine and even to be encouraged as part of free speech, some of it was simply dangerous to those involved and that's not okay. But he didn't want to spend the time reviewing what he had and being careful about what was released because that wouldn't have garnered him such levels of attention. He has a fair point it was too much information for him to review, but he could have worked with/alongside many media outlets to have taken a safer more considered approach.

I think the point is that we don't have the death penalty in the UK, especially not for the crime of "embarrassing the USA" (which let's face it, they care far more about than anything allegedly dangerous that was released). If the judge thinks there's a reasonable chance that the US prisons can't or won't prevent him dying (whether by his own hand or "by his own hand"), then we shouldn't be sending him there and he should stay in prison here where we trust our standards.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's less a defence of being sad, more that the judge doesn't trust the US prison system to be able to prevent Assange from committing suicide. Not sure whether that's a genuine concern of actual suicide or an Epstein-esque "suicide".

Clicked on the BBC link and was entirely unsurprised to see in the court drawings that Assange is one of those twats who doesn't cover his nose with his mask.

Not sure that Assange being an attention-seeking twat is a good reason for him to face punishment though.

Puja

And if other defendants and/or prisoners say they're considering self-harm do they then gain some concessions from the justice system? If he's threatening self-harm give him a leaflet on not doing it and send him on his way, if he harms himself so be it

And being an attention seeking prat is a good reason to face punishment, much of the information he disseminated was hugely embarrassing and that's fine and even to be encouraged as part of free speech, some of it was simply dangerous to those involved and that's not okay. But he didn't want to spend the time reviewing what he had and being careful about what was released because that wouldn't have garnered him such levels of attention. He has a fair point it was too much information for him to review, but he could have worked with/alongside many media outlets to have taken a safer more considered approach.

I think the point is that we don't have the death penalty in the UK, especially not for the crime of "embarrassing the USA" (which let's face it, they care far more about than anything allegedly dangerous that was released). If the judge thinks there's a reasonable chance that the US prisons can't or won't prevent him dying (whether by his own hand or "by his own hand"), then we shouldn't be sending him there and he should stay in prison here where we trust our standards.

Puja

So if someone before the court or in jail threatens self-harm set them free? Or at least don't prosecute to begin with? It seems on the face of it an easy get out, unless we're going down the path of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and lobotomising them in lieu of jail time

If we deem the USA not to be a suitable standard of jail for all persons who might be extradited so be it, there's perhaps a case to be argued there, especially depending no what jail they might throw people into. if we're just doing this on an one off or ad-hoc basis I'm much more disposed to saying it's a daft ruling and if we're happy to send people to face justice in the USA then send Assange

Assange obtained that information through espionage. Effectively Bradley Manning extracted data and handed it to a third party,
Despite knowing that it was highly classified.

If Assange helped Manning do that, then he is in serious shit. I’d cheerfully see him extradited on the basis that he has cost us enough money over the past decade with his grandstanding.

Sandydragon wrote:Assange obtained that information through espionage. Effectively Bradley Manning extracted data and handed it to a third party,
Despite knowing that it was highly classified.

If Assange helped Manning do that, then he is in serious shit. I’d cheerfully see him extradited on the basis that he has cost us enough money over the past decade with his grandstanding.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/yes ... journalist

You're coming across more right wing than The Spectator. Have a gold star.

Digby wrote:Why at an individual level? Or put another way, will every other defendant and even jailed person be allowed to state they've got a case of I don't want to face prosecution or didn't want to and be spared the justice system henceforth?

Or are we simply saying it's a no to extraditing to the USA, and not that this should only apply to Assange? If it's simply not being done because Assange is sad that's not even close to good enough for me, send him on his way.

And many people expose the rich and powerful, most don't end up with this problem, and indeed Assange could have avoided this problem were he not quite such a craven attention seeker and had showed some modicum of responsibility

On an individual level in that one human being has suffered far too much already.

It's quite clear to me that justice here should involve dealing with those who perpetrate or cover up war crimes rather than those who expose them.

Sandydragon wrote:Assange obtained that information through espionage. Effectively Bradley Manning extracted data and handed it to a third party,
Despite knowing that it was highly classified.

If Assange helped Manning do that, then he is in serious shit. I’d cheerfully see him extradited on the basis that he has cost us enough money over the past decade with his grandstanding.

Interesting moral perspective. Assuming you actually mean that, I hope you never have any power over me.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Why at an individual level? Or put another way, will every other defendant and even jailed person be allowed to state they've got a case of I don't want to face prosecution or didn't want to and be spared the justice system henceforth?

Or are we simply saying it's a no to extraditing to the USA, and not that this should only apply to Assange? If it's simply not being done because Assange is sad that's not even close to good enough for me, send him on his way.

And many people expose the rich and powerful, most don't end up with this problem, and indeed Assange could have avoided this problem were he not quite such a craven attention seeker and had showed some modicum of responsibility

On an individual level in that one human being has suffered far too much already.

It's quite clear to me that justice here should involve dealing with those who perpetrate or cover up war crimes rather than those who expose them.

Suffered because he withdrew to an embassy to avoid the charges in the first place? If that's suffering he did it to himself and I've roughly sod all sympathy, if anything it's vexing because he's cost us a lot of wasted time and money, and he gets no leeway for being an entitled prick

If we're sending him to a place that doesn't have sufficient standards of justice then fine, don't send him, but I think typically we don't state that about the US and I'm not interested in making Assange an exception