Assange to go!

[potatolord]

To be fair, the guy he stiffed said he was okay with it. Not sure he'd be up for doing it again though.

Really? He is more forgiving than i am!

I remember the guarantors moaning about having to oay out, but saw nothing more recent. Ta for the update.

 

[plasmahal]

He isn't in solitary confinement.

Pretty much is... He is locked alone in a 6' by 12' cell for 20 or more hours a day — his reading limited and his mail censored.

Do you think the UK should not extradite people to the US?

Yes of course as long as human rights are not being violated.

Do you think his current imprisonment, conditions and location are reasonable?

Could he not be held elsewhere under different conditions?

 

[Mr Jack]

Do you think his current imprisonment, conditions and location are reasonable?

Despite dubious reports widely circulated on the internet, there's no good reason to believe he's being held under anything other than the normal conditions for a high security jail in the UK. Do I think that's okay? Well, no, actually - I think the treatment of prisoners in the UK is not up to par and many improvements should be made to our crumbling, overcrowded prisons. However, I don't think the treatment of Assange is any worse than that of other prisoners.

Could he not be held elsewhere under different conditions?

No, I don't think so. His behaviour has necessitated his treatment. He has been in Belmarsh for the last four years only because of his decision to run away and hide in an embassy rather than face a fair trial for rape. Otherwise, as with the first time he was facing extradition, he would have been able to be released on bail and while he would face some restriction on his activities would be living a decent and largely normally life outside of prison. He brought this on himself.

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

Do you think being kept indefinitely in solitary confinement in the UK's maximum security prison, bearing in mind he's not on remand etc?

If house arrest is not part of the enforcement options available to the authorities, what are we supposed to do, rewrite our legal code, restructure the prison system and police force to accommodate a non-national who has given the UK 2 fingers and already shown himself to be a flight risk? He is where he is because of his own actions and if he's not happy about that, tough. He needs to take some responsibility for his actions instead of running away like a 7 year old

Mr Jack has explained why he's being held in prison. If he wasn't a flight risk and had proved that he is prepared to be subject to UK law, do you think he wouldn't be on bail, or in an open prison?
I'm sure the prison service is very keen on imposing the lowest security possible to every inmate, if nothing else, to save money

 

[plasmahal]

If house arrest is not part of the enforcement options available to the authorities, what are we supposed to do, rewrite our legal code, restructure the prison system and police force to accommodate a non-national who has given the UK 2 fingers and already shown himself to be a flight risk? He is where he is because of his own actions and if he's not happy about that, tough. He needs to take some responsibility for his actions instead of running away like a 7 year old

Mr Jack has explained why he's being held in prison. If he wasn't a flight risk and had proved that he is prepared to be subject to UK law, do you think he wouldn't be on bail, or in an open prison?
I'm sure the prison service is very keen on imposing the lowest security possible to every inmate, if nothing else, to save money

I'm not saying he should be free. Do you think the way he is imprisoned at the moment is 100% reasonable?

 

[Pipe & Slippers]

I'm not saying he should be free. Do you think the way he is imprisoned at the moment is 100% reasonable?

Neither you nor I know the exact reasons, and neither are we party to the risk assessments that will have been done
I'd like to assume that the prison service know what they are doing and are acting on guidelines that have ben set, ultimately by parliament, and these are applied equally in the same manner to all prisoners, so yes, it is reasonable

 

[plasmahal]

Neither you nor I know the exact reasons, and neither are we party to the risk assessments that will have been done
I'd like to assume that the prison service know what they are doing and are acting on guidelines that have ben set, ultimately by parliament, and these are applied equally in the same manner to all prisoners, so yes, it is reasonable

Thanks for answering.

While we don't have all the information, we do know he's being held in the UK for jumping bail, for which he's served more than the maximum time. Where he is and the way he's held is unreasonable based on what we are allowed to know. It seems to be certain, that influences on the government etc are being used due to who he is, therefore I see him as a political prisoner.

I would prefer to see him deported/extradited back to Australia to be dealt with accordingly there.

 

[Mr Jack]

I would prefer to see him deported/extradited back to Australia to be dealt with accordingly there.

But he can't be. The UK has a legal duty to hold him until the extradition proceedings with the US are completed; that's the nature of our treaty with the US and the nature of extradition proceedings in general. Australia hasn't tried to extradite him, and he can't be deported whilst he is under extradition proceedings with the US. There is no role for Australia here (although the US did say that if he was found guilty he would be permitted to serve his sentence in an Australian jail so he might end up there eventually).

 

[FoxEye]

Neither the UK nor the US want anything good to happen to Assange, and I suspect they'd both be over the moon if he died in jail.

Both countries want to ramp up towards total surveillance of their whole populace; both want to restrict freedoms and spy on literally everything you do.

Both want to keep the public in the dark about all the crappy things they've done and continue to do against your interests.

Thus for both of them, Assange being denied freedom, healthcare, dignity, etc, etc, is great. It serves to show others what happens to you if you oppose the government and try to tell the world what they're up to. They very much want us to know that if you expose govt abuses, you rot in jail, you lose. You lose everything. So you'd better not try to expose them; just let them get on with turning into a police state, slowly, incrementally, but surely.

 

[Werewolf]

No he's being "denied freedom" because he tried to run from the courts.

He's not being denied healthcare.

And what dignity he's lost has largely been through his own choices, such as running whilst on bail and proving to every legal system in the world that he is not someone you can trust to turn up to court when he has promised to do si.

You'd think he was Jesus by the way some people talk about him, rather he's just a very naughty boy.

 

[BowdonUK]

I can understand general confusion about the Assange situation. But I'm not sure where some people are coming from when they think of it as a black and white situation.

If you were given information by insiders in the US that told of war crimes, and you decided to expose it to the public, don't you think you'd be on the American government target list, that they would try to discredit you?

 

[Werewolf]

I can think that they might, but I also suspect it's at least as possible that he's an idiot (at the least) who when he realised he'd done something that wrong he ran rather than trying to deal with it.

And then when he realised he wasn't going to be able to avoid facing that, he ran again into an embassy.

And then he was a terrible guest at the place that was allowing him to stay.

Almost like there is a common thread in his behaviour.

IIRC he wasn't the first person that Wikileaks asked to be their public face, but he may have been the one to have jumped at the chance without considering what it meant.

 

[Mr Jack]

Both want to keep the public in the dark about all the crappy things they've done and continue to do against your interests.

I'm sure they do. And Assange/WikiLeaks did do good in revealing some of the things that the US and others had got up to. The trouble is that Assange/WikiLeaks, unlike others who have discovered misdeeds, do not behave responsibility in how they publicise and curate information discovered. They didn't just reveal information regarding the documented misbehaviours; they also recklessly dumped everything they found onto the internet. Reasonable people can disagree where exactly the right of the state to keep sensitive details secret lies but few believe that it has none at all. The lack of any responsibility at all in the behaviour of WikiLeaks moves it from the clear blue sky of whistleblowers into the moral grey. I can't see a single justifiable reason for publishing the personal details of teen rape victims, or the home address of a man arrested for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia.

Thus for both of them, Assange being denied freedom, healthcare, dignity, etc, etc, is great. It serves to show others what happens to you if you oppose the government and try to tell the world what they're up to. They very much want us to know that if you expose govt abuses, you rot in jail, you lose. You lose everything. So you'd better not try to expose them; just let them get on with turning into a police state, slowly, incrementally, but surely.

Assange is not being denied healthcare. His freedom was restricted more by his choice to hide in an embassy to avoid a fair trial for rape than by anything governments have done to him. Remember it was only in 2019 that the extradition request was received. The time from 2012 to 2019 was entirely down to Assange. He cannot claim that the big mean government was oppressing him when he was hiding in a room entirely of his own volition and time in jail for skipping bail is just how it goes down.

I do have concerns about the same areas as you, I just don't agree that Assange and WikiLeaks are a particularly effective agents for change. Their irresponsibility undermines the good work that they do.

If you were given information by insiders in the US that told of war crimes, and you decided to expose it to the public, don't you think you'd be on the American government target list, that they would try to discredit you?

Usually when someone leaves a country on the same day charges against them are enacted then spends the best part of a decade hiding in a small room, all in order to avoid facing a fair trial for a crime in a country widely recognised to have a first class, independent, justice system one tends to conclude that this at least points to a likelihood of guilt. And, frankly, I don't find the idea that the US somehow managed to turn two enthusiastic WikiLeaks supporters against Assange, persuaded them to make false allegations against him, then persuaded the Swedish government to press for extradition on these charges remotely credible. Especially when all this occurred at a time when the US wasn't making any attempt to extradite Assange themselves. But, since Assange has managed to avoid that fair trial through his actions we won't ever get to see whether the allegations against him stand up in court.

IIRC he wasn't the first person that Wikileaks asked to be their public face, but he may have been the one to have jumped at the chance without considering what it meant.

WikiLeaks was founded by Assange.

 

[BowdonUK]

Usually when someone leaves a country on the same day charges against them are enacted then spends the best part of a decade hiding in a small room, all in order to avoid facing a fair trial for a crime in a country widely recognised to have a first class, independent, justice system one tends to conclude that this at least points to a likelihood of guilt. And, frankly, I don't find the idea that the US somehow managed to turn two enthusiastic WikiLeaks supporters against Assange, persuaded them to make false allegations against him, then persuaded the Swedish government to press for extradition on these charges remotely credible. Especially when all this occurred at a time when the US wasn't making any attempt to extradite Assange themselves. But, since Assange has managed to avoid that fair trial through his actions we won't ever get to see whether the allegations against him stand up in court.

The US at that time wasn't sure what to charge him with. In the end they are saying he's a traitor, even though he's not American.

So you don't think the US had anyone inside wikileaks?

The Swedish charges seems like a very convenient excuse to hold him while the US makes its mind up about what to do about him.

I suspect they were tracking Assange way before the leaks happened. They would have seen he was a trouble maker in their eyes so would have wanted to dissuade him.

Assange weakness was for women, the oldest bait in the book. Many WW2 stories like this.

Would have preferred wikileaks didn't exist?

 

[Werewolf]

Where your theory about the Swedish charges being a plan by the Americans falls over is that IIRC Sweden is harder to get an extradition from, so if Assange had simply gone to Sweden to face the charges he would have been in a far better position than staying in the UK, even if he hadn't wasted years voluntarily hiding in a small room because he broke his bail conditions for long enough for the US to decide to try and extradite him.
He might even have been able to claim asylum in Sweden and got a small country to stay in rather than a small room.

IIRC the UK is normally one of the easiest countries for the US to get an extradition from.

 

[Vexr]

This is just laughable. You only need to scroll back a page to see that there is plenty of disagreement in this thread, as there has been for the entire 2000+ post run of the thread. Even more pathetic is the pretence that this is some anti-conservative affair when many of the most vocal defenders of Assange in this thread are on the left. OCUK isn't the bastion of the right that it used to be; but it's still a long way from being a left wing forum. What actually happens is that those who cannot hold their own with arguments quickly run away, sometimes going and posting cheap memes in the Random Images thread instead where they know that they won't have to defend the dribble they post.

It's a good book. Kind of ironic to reference such a socialist polemic from a writer known for his uncritical support of the Soviets after barking about an imagined consensus against conservatives, but there we go.

Have you considered actually making an argument, instead of just whining about how difficult it all is?

That was someone else's take I quoted on the Speaker's Corner about it being anti-conservative, which seemed close enough to the truth from what little I've seen of it. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm conservative in the same sense, or that in conservative philosophy is where the basis of defence of Assange lies. There are clearer examples of this forum being heavily one sided, say on Brexit, where open mockery and contempt is order of the day for anyone still 'gammon', which I personally haven't found to be the case IRL / elsewhere I've frequented online.

At least we agree on Grapes of Wrath. I found Jack London similarly compelling. On the other hand I can't deny there are events happening that appear to be vindicating Ayn Rand.

I'll admit to wandering in to a thread / issues I'm ill-prepared to address or commit to arguing about, usually after a good few cold ones. I've had to commit to arguments IRL though with people close to me after certain decisions I made during the pandemic baffled and exasperated them. Can't say I enjoyed it and am eager to repeat it, despite eventually 'winning', so I'm usually focused on lighter affairs these days.

 

[PlacidCasual]

The US UK Extradition Treaty is an affront to justice. As was the EU Arrest Warrant. The Assange case is a rotting sore at the heart of our democracy All of the state actors involved have acted in a despicable fashion and because the man is odious he's guilty in every ones mind and thus we don't need to apply the standards we would hope for ourselves. ******* hypocrisy from start to finish.

 

[BowdonUK]

The only place Assange should be extradited to is Australia.

 

[Mr Jack]

The US UK Extradition Treaty is an affront to justice. The Assange case is a rotting sore at the heart of our democracy All of the state actors involved have acted in a despicable fashion and because the man is odious he's guilty in every ones mind and thus we don't need to apply the standards we would hope for ourselves. ******* hypocrisy from start to finish.

Assange has spent years dragging his case through a long series of appeals. What more should the justice system do here? He's had every opportunity to find reasons to prevent his extradition and failed to do so.

As was the EU Arrest Warrant.

What is your objection to that?

 

[Hagar]

The only place Assange should be extradited to is Australia.

I would relish him going back to Oz however they don't particularly want him back and they would probably send him to the USA anyway. We appear to be the soft option for desperate characters likely to bring everyone into disrepute and are expected to fund their lifestyle as well.

How many spies died or were imprisoned due to his rash reporting?