Soldato
He’s been treated exactly like the rapists and murders he’s been housed with in the Cat A section of Belmarsh for the last 4 years.
Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
No it cannot. There is no way either the UK or US governments will give me all the evidence for me to make an informed judgement and i would not expect them too. Send him home, let them deal with it.
You don't know that beyond reasonable doubt, stop kidding yourself.
And you think that is reasonable for breaking bail conditions?
Is it a good use of UK taxpayers money?
Caporegime
You don't need the US government or the UK government for you to go to the information that Assange released and see that it contains the details that @Werewolf says that it does.
Yes, I do. And you would if you cared enough to look.
This is a 100% unrealistic solution. As has been pointed out many times, the UK is bound under our own laws to hold him while the extradition process is completed. That's what this "treating him equally under the law" you said you wanted means.
Someone who has demonstrated they are a flight risk cannot reasonably be released on bail. His detention is entirely reasonable. The reason for the length of detention is because Assange keeps appealing against his deportation.
No, Assange has wasted a lot of government money through his actions. However, that's the necessary result of his actions. The alternative is that the UK abandon its commitment to its international agreements and the rule of law. But let's not lose sight of Assange's personal responsibility for all this, it is only because he chose to flee a fair trial for rape and instead squat in an embassy that this is happening now.
Soldato
No and no.
The U.K. should have just turned him over to the Aussies and let them sort it out.
Soldato
As others have said, that would equate to Assange being treated unequally under UK law.
Last edited:
Then how do you verify that the information you found on the internet is true?
That's laughable. all you have done is read what the internet says. You have not looked at any real evidence.
You dodged the question a usual. While a form of detention maybe reasonable (low security prison like others go to) or maybe some sort of house arrest, the way he is detained is not reasonable or cost effective.
He has not wasted any money, the authorities have chosen to do this.
Alleged actions.
All the UK should/need to do is reparative him under common law.
Again, let his own country deal with it!!!!!!!!!!
Caporegime
You're asking how I can verify that the things that are released on WikiLeaks are released on WikiLeaks? This is laughable. Put the tinfoil down. No-one is disputing that Assange released this information. He's proud of it.
How could low security prison be suitable for a proven flight risk? House arrest is even more laughable.
There is nothing "alleged" about this. Assange did jump bail. He did spend years hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy in order to avoid the extradition process begun by Sweden.
This is something you have made up in your head; it is not reflective of legal reality.
Last edited:
No, no one mentioned wikileaks. you are back peddling now. Lets see the evidence of the allegations made by those wanting him sent to the USA.
I agree, but what is in dispute (if take the time to read what said in the earlier post) is the the evidence that this information that had no "public interest" and actively put a lot of innocent people's lives at risk.
You know what a prison is right??? He can be held at a lower security level and at less cost but there should be no cost to taxpayers which you seem to ignore.
What the US is alleging. No-one is disputing he jumped bail.
No, it is however reflective of the lawful reality, maybe go learn the difference between the two.
Caporegime
You really do struggle to follow a conversation, huh? Actually, even what the US was to extradite him for is not in dispute but you jumped in two footed claiming that he hadn't released private information that put people at risk. This is trivially verifiable - pop over to WikiLeaks and see what he did.
What public interest do you think there was in releasing the name and address of a homosexual Saudi man?
Which wasn't what we were talking about. It is Assange's actions that have caused him to be in jail. He is in jail because he skipped bail. Had he not skipped bail he would not be in jail. The costs accrued because he skipped bail are the result of his actions.
I have literally no idea what you're trying to say here? First you say that Assange should be subject to the same law as everyone else, now you seem to want the UK to ignore the rule of law invent new rules for Assange and send him off to Australia. Which is it? Follow UK law and international treaty, and continue processing the extradition request for Assange; or ignore all that and send him to Australia?
I've took on board the replies to my last post.
I think if I found a file that made me so disgusted the killing of innocent men, women and children, the least of my thoughts would be to the people that are part of it.
My position is the UK should extradite him back to Australia. It shouldn't be a British decision of what to do with someone elses citizen. I think it's a dangerous precedent.
I think if I found a file that made me so disgusted the killing of innocent men, women and children, the least of my thoughts would be to the people that are part of it.
My position is the UK should extradite him back to Australia. It shouldn't be a British decision of what to do with someone elses citizen. I think it's a dangerous precedent.
Yes it is, lets see their evidence.
Again, your losing the plot. Go back through the thread to see werewolf's response that stated there is no public interest in what Assange released, which I disagree with and he said it put a lot of innocent lives at risk, which again is very questionable.
While I agree that his action of jumping bail should not go without consequences, the real issue here is that is being used as an excuse to do the US governments bidding, not what is the best interest in the UK etc.
Do you really think that every person in the UK who jumps bail (so called potential flight risk or not) should be locked in solitary, in a UK MAX security at great cost to UK taxpayers?
There is a difference in what is lawful and what is legal.
Here, I'll help you, hopefully you'll understand.
Lawful vs. Legal - Rephrasely
This article explores the differences between lawful and legal, and provides guidance on when to use each term.
rephrasely.com
Agree, seems like a lot of people just want to see people locked up at our expense because they either don't understand the evidence or they are just full of hate.
United States involvement in regime change - Wikipedia
It's not like the US doesn't have a track record of war crimes. The US establishment as managed to push the focus off them onto Assange.
Caporegime
Are you claiming that Assange did not leak the files? If not, then no, what the US are extraditing Assange for is not in dispute.
Dodging the question, huh? Do you think it is in the public interest to reveal the name and address of a homosexual Saudi man?
Assange has not been locked in solitary, except for a period during the peak of the Coronavirus pandemic when prisoners were separated to prevent the disease spreading. I think it's the legal necessity that the UK hold Assange in a manner in which his flight is not a risk. That is what they are doing.
If you just answer the question, then you point would be clearer. Do you think the UK should ignore their obligations under international treaty, and override UK law, in order to send Assange to Australia? If so, why don't you think they should treat Assange as equal under the law to everyone else?
Stop telling the truth or you'll be 'Assange'd'... Certain forum members will want you in solitary.United States involvement in regime change - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
It's not like the US doesn't have a track record of war crimes. The US establishment as managed to push the focus off them onto Assange.
Caporegime
But the majority of the people who Assange revealed the details of have nothing to do with any of this. Which is the problem with Assange, and WikiLeaks more broadly - they're completely reckless and irresponsible. Reasonable people can disagree about what secrets states are entitled to keep, but few people can agree that there should be none at all. The release of details of abuses by the US and others is a good thing; but that doesn't excuse the reckless release of everything that they can lay their hands on.
The UK cannot "extradite" Assange to Australia, because he is not accused of a crime in Australia, nor can they deport him to Australia without breaking international treaty and UK law. Where he is a citizen of is irrelevant, he is subject to UK law because he is in the UK. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US, and under UK law we are obligated to respect that treaty and process the extradition request under UK law. There is no dangerous precedent here, it's how extradition law usually works and this is a good thing because otherwise people from countries such as Russia which will not extradite their own citizens could carry on with complete impunity against extradition from anywhere in the world.
As discussed upthread there are a number of issues with UK extradition law that personally I'd like to see addressed, but it is the law as it stands.
Assange is not special, he is not entitled to special treatment, he is simply entitled to equal treatment under the law. Which is what he is getting, and what allows this whole thing to keep dragging on through round after round of appeals.
Lots of files have been leaked by lots of people over the years. Can you prove that what Assange did put innocent lives at risk and was not in the public interest?
No, Is that why Assange is in a UK super-max so the US can extradite him?
But it is unlawful as the maximum sentence for jumping bail is 12 months. They (the UK Government) are only doing what they are told, not what is right.
The lawful thing to do is exactly that, send him back to Australia. Plenty of examples of people being sent back to their country of origin.
Caporegime
Well done. So you accept that Assange released details not in the public interest. Good. Not sure why you feel the need to ask me whether I can prove that he did something you yourself accept.
What they're doing is following the law. He did serve his term for jumping bail; he's now being held because there are live extradition proceedings against him and because he jumped bail to avoid a fair trial for rape he is a flight risk. Had he not demonstrated that he was a flight risk, he would currently be under release on bail as he was the first time there were extradition proceedings against him. Holding people who are not suitable for bail is the normal procedure in such circumstances.
Were those people subject to live extradition requests?
The UK has the right to deport him under UK legal precedent. Assange also has the 'Right to Return' under international humanity laws.
Totally wrong, it both lawfully and morally relevant where he is a citizen of.
You yourself have proved that he is special and is answerable to the system that seeks to destroy him.
Agreed, deport him back home. But he is getting special treatment under pressure from the US.
Agreed, but you have already proved he is not getting this otherwise he would have been released after 12 months for the crime of jumping bail and will not get a fair trial when he gets to the US.