Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
Can we stop with the amateur legal opinions please? International extradition is very complex. It's like people arguing about climate change who aren't climate scientists.
If you stop with the unfounded and unprovable conspiracy theory....at least what I'm saying is directly referenced in Swedish legislation and clearly and easily shown and understood. It's not even complex in this regard as it's very clearly demarcated in the Swedish legislation. Unlike claims of secret US arrest warrants etc....
I haven't claimed there are secret arrest warrants.
There are many sources to the claim that there is an ongoing investigation into wikileaks. From the EFF, to Wikileaks lawyers, to the facts that the US seized complete communications data from Wikileaks staff in the US in secret, to previous administration statements, to a march 2015 court statement that there is still an ongoing investigation into Wikileaks http://www.smh.com.au/world/court-reveals-fbi-still-investigating-wikileaks-julian-assange-20150305-13vuwj.html. Etc etc.
It is frankly bizarre to believe that this isn't going on and it is certainly not a 'conspiracy theory' to think it's likely or possible.
Last edited:
Again, you complain that I won't answer your loaded question either way you want. Furthermore, you give undue credit to assange's views as if they define reality. Assange being paranoid about the US means nothing as to whether the US are actually doing anything, or whether any future events may occur. It certainly has no meaningful position as a defense strategy against an entirely unrelated matter.
You are very naive if you think he would be in a better position without the rape charge if the USA wanted to extradite him. It would be easier for the USA to extradite him from the uk than Sweden, and we are generally more likely to approve it. When it comes to the actual extradition process, while it is true that politics makes the final decision, that occurs after the judicial process, and if the judiciary rejects it, there is little politicians can do.
As to your point about assange's lawyers, I am not ignoring it, just not giving it undue value, especially without a meaningful source. Separating lawyer's advice from client's opinion is hard enough without seeing the level of law dodging going on in this case. Assange has tried to circumvent, subvert and plain old ignore the law in both Sweden and the uk, these actions do not support the idea that he is a victim, but that he is guilty.
Please see my comment above as to why it is not meaningless paranoia on Assange's part.
I am not claiming to be a legal expert. I don't know which situation is better for Assange. What I do know is that there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming legal consensus on this. It is a grey area. I am saying it's plausible therefore that Assange's legal advice is honestly given.
I think his concerns are understandable, reasonable, and rational and so is his asylum claim. Given those extraordinary circumstances, I think it is right for the prosecutor to question him in the UK (if that's what you mean by circumventing due process). It is an entirely reasonable and practical accommodation which should have happened a long time ago.
They've invaded more countries in the past 20 years than anyone else I can think of. They wage a coverts ops war across half the globe including friendly nations. The Russians killed someone on our own soil and we've done diddly-squat. I think if the Americans really wanted to they would do and be damned with the consequences. This is the same Obama who was going to close Gitmo all that time again and here we are - the same Obama who has overseen a surge in covert actions and locking up whatever Manning etc.
Do you really think the US would care - do you think the world would really care?
Do you think Assange should just face his actions - I think you do - but he's making himself look very very guilty.
Last edited:
I don't think that is inevitable, but I honestly don't know how I would feel in that scenario. I think at that point it would be a good time to focus on whether Sweden can make a statement about their position on whether they view Wikileaks as a political/journalistic organisation as this would inform us of their possible actions with regard to extradition requests.
It also depends on the status of the Wikileaks investigation at that point. If Assange believes that would be closed in the near future, it might be fair for him to wait a bit longer, and then go to Sweden once the investigation was over.
I think it's more likely that once the evidence in the case becomes clear and accessible to Assange's lawyers (possibly as a result of this week's court case in Sweden) the case will be dropped.
No-one said there wasn't an ongoing DOJ investigation into wikileaks...however to say that Assange is in imminent threat of extradition if he goes to Sweden is indeed an unfounded conspiracy theory. It has nothing to support it and a lot against it. For example recent evidence sjphiesxa distinct lack of interest in Assange by US authorities:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/court-r...wikileaks-julian-assange-20150305-13vuwj.html
It is commonly held that the U.S. Administration is well aware of the difficulties of bringing charges to Assange and therefore the investigation whilst ongoing is not looking (if it ever was) at bringing specific charges against Assange...and even if it did, Swedish and UK law is very clear on the difficulties the U.S. Would have in securing an extradition.
These are easily verifiable facts, not some pie in the sky amateur hour theatrics.
Last edited:
Ridiculous. There is an ongoing investigation, I have said it's possible the US would seek his extradition when legally possible (i.e. once the sexual assault case is resolved). I have not said this will happen 100% but that it is rational for Assange to fear this given the potential outcome.
This is not conspiracy, it is a perfectly reasonable position which was discussed on Newsnight this very evening where the host was discussing this very scenario. Or maybe Newsnight is engaging in conspiracy too?
Maybe try reading what I said?
Last edited:
Why is satisfying assange's paranoia more important to you than justice for victims of sexual violence? That is the implication of what you are saying here. You are, in essence, saying that wikileaks is more important than the victims of rape.
Wikileaks may well be more important (ethically speaking) than one victim but that is for another thread. But it is not Wikileaks who they want to prosecute - it's Assange. So the Wikileaks line is irrelevant and I don't know why people protect him using that logic.
The question would be one of a trade-off between satisfying an asylum claim and rape justice. That is not a trivial decision.
But I stated I don't know how I would feel in that situation because I honestly don't.
Also why is it paranoia if the BBC are seriously discussing the exact scenario this very evening?
Last edited:
It's demonstrably not possible to extradite Assange under current treaties for any potential charges that could possibly be bought by US prosecutors...it's nit a rational reason for not surrendering to a legally upheld warrant.
It was Assange's Lawyer who was discussing it as it being a risk...Hardly objective and the scenario wasn't discussed seriously, it was hardly mentioned..what was mentioned was exoneration by Sweden and free passage by the UK.
I did and it appears you are supporting the notion that because of his position he should get special treatment in answering to very serious criminal allegations.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
Well the title was early.