Jesus that's a first!
Julian Assange cannot be extradited
- Thread starter Moley
- Start date
Jesus that's a first!
Hardly, I’ve posted that a few times recently, for instance, in the Kyle Rittenhous thread.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Whats bizarre is people like you keep repeating this line like a load of sheep as if its true, starting a war (regardless whether you think it was just or not) doesn't make people war criminals.
Slobodan milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al assad.... these are war criminals.
It is when the wrong country is attacked.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
When he was just exposing governments I think he did a public service, although he no doubt put people in real danger. However once he started getting involved in politics with his efforts in the 2016 US elections he just because a pawn of the very people he once claimed to want to expose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Ah right, which was the "right" country?
Saudi Arabia. Where the majority of the hijackers on 9/11 came from, including Bin Laden.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Na they're our "allies" xD
The Espionage Act is not limited to US citizens, and ever since 1961 (when the phrasing was changed) it has applied to acts of espionage and interference with US foreign relations committed outside the US. So Assange has no defence on those grounds.
In 1919, SCOTUS also ruled that the Act does not compromise 1st amendment freedoms. That issue has been hotly debated, but the SCOTUS ruling has never been overturned.
It's also true.
(Source).
There's no evidence that Assange is facing the rest of his life in solitary. He also has the right to serve his term in Australia, pending Australian government approval. That's a far better deal than most people get.
^^ This.
Last edited:
It's not a case of being governed by US laws. Every country in the world has legal authority to take legal action against people outside its borders who commit crimes against it.
Prince Andrew is not facing any charges in the US.
Last edited:
You are subject to the law of every country on Earth; usually, though, they can only carry out enforcement if you enter the country. Extradition treaties let countries obtain people in other countries that have broken their laws. In most cases these treaties are quite limited, however the UK has one of the world's most permissive (and one-sided) extradition treaties with the US.
Doing things like posting the personal details of soldiers/ex-solders on the internet isn't whistleblowing.
Why should the UK protect him. He isn't even a UK citizen, so he wouldn't be able to stay here even if they released him.
Last edited:
There's a huge difference between protecting him and simply releasing him from prison so he can leave the country of his own volition. Big difference.
The UK doesn't need to protect him, but neither should it bundle him on a plane to the US.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Has he got any money or assets? Can we bill him for the police coverage during the debacle of his sanctuary in the embassy? Hopefully the US will make his visit memorable.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US. It takes a lot of legal gymnastics to evade the legal obligations of an extradition treaty. The UK can't just say 'Nah, don't wanna.'
^^ This.
I wonder if the people complaining about Assange's potential extradition made the same aggrieved noises when Malaysia obligingly extradited Richard Huckle for prosecution in the UK despite the fact that none of his crimes were committed there.
How can that possibly be true, otherwise there would be a single universal age of consent, for example.
If a British 16-year-old sleeps with another British 16-year-old whilst living in Holland, they've "broken" the law in part of the US.
However the US will not care about this in any way, shape or form.
Similarly I can download some software that violates a copyright agreement, and would technically be illegal in the US. However if I'm not a US citizen and the company is not a US company, again, I have broken US law but they will have no agency or jurisdiction whatsoever.
How on Earth can you be subject to US law where no party is a US citizen or other entity constituted in the US? I understand you already said they will be unable to enforce, but I would strongly question whether you are at all subject to their laws in the first place.
"I wonder if the people complain about Assange's" alleged crimes against the US, are at all bothered about the fact that Anne Sacoolas will never set foot on UK soil despite being known to have killed a UK citizen through dangerous driving in the UK.
Or whether they just have a bee in their bonnet about Assange, as they have ably demonstrated throughout the thread. I do wonder whether such people are anti-whistleblowing in general, or simply believe that a person is automatically guilty when charged with "rape", etc. Because they seem to be very invested in their passionate dislike of Assange.
Most laws are territorial: you can only break them in the territory of the country, others aren't. The UK, btw, can prosecute you for paedophile sex acts commited abroad, as for FGM. Hacking is considered to be carried out in the territory of the server regardless of where the hacker (although it can be both).