Julian Assange cannot be extradited

Mr Jack said:
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).
Click to expand...
That's because you're a UK citizen. You are subject to the laws of your own country as well as the "law of the land", i.e. the law where you are committing acts.

If you weren't a UK citizen or committing acts in the UK, the UK would not be prosecuting you for FGM, paedophilia or most other crimes under UK law. Unless the victim were a UK person or entity.

So your statement that everybody is subject to the laws of every country, needs some heavy qualification added. Because otherwise it's just not true.
 
Mr Jack said:
You don't have to be a UK citizen
Click to expand...
OK, please give an example of the UK enforcing applying its laws against foreign nationals resident in foreign countries, where the act did not involve a UK citizen or entity constituted in the UK.

And then I'll believe you. As noted, for any enforcement action they would have to wait for the person to enter the UK first.

So can you give an example of a person arrested by the UK under UK law (excluding European arrest warrants and the like), where the UK detained this person for a crime they committed under UK law, that person not being a UK citizen or residing in the UK, and not involving a UK citizen or entity.

That is to say, an example of the UK enforcing its own law internationally, not at the request of any other country or due to any treaty or agreement between countries.

I'm looking for an example of the UK applying it's law to foreign nationals on foreign soil, without link to the UK.

Give me any such example and you'll have proved that all peoples of the world are subject to UK law, wherever they are.

I'll wait.
 
Including people resident in the UK is some pretty huge moving of the goalposts there, also what the law says and what is actually enforced are not the same.
 
FoxEye said:
OK, please give an example of the UK enforcing applying its laws against foreign nationals resident in foreign countries, where the act did not involve a UK citizen or entity constituted in the UK.

And then I'll believe you. As noted, for any enforcement action they would have to wait for the person to enter the UK first.

So can you give an example of a person arrested by the UK under UK law (excluding European arrest warrants and the like), where the UK detained this person for a crime they committed under UK law, that person not being a UK citizen or residing in the UK, and not involving a UK citizen or entity.

That is to say, an example of the UK enforcing its own law internationally, not at the request of any other country or due to any treaty or agreement between countries.

I'm looking for an example of the UK applying it's law to foreign nationals on foreign soil, without link to the UK.

Give me any such example and you'll have proved that all peoples of the world are subject to UK law, wherever they are.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Would captured fighters in countries like Afghanistan qualify? I'm not sure if we have bought any back to the UK to face charges under our laws but I could see it being possible. We probably just deferred to the US as why take on the political problem of jailing them here.
 
Mr Jack said:
Including people resident in the UK is some pretty huge moving of the goalposts there, also what the law says and what is actually enforced are not the same.
Click to expand...
I'm not moving the goalposts.

You made a blanket statement that everybody is subject to the laws of all countries.

You did not qualify that in *any* way. Not a single qualification on your part. You said every persons is subject to the laws of every country.

Can you imagine what a nightmare that would be? It would be entirely stupid.
 
The US need to pull their head in when it comes to people in other countries.

They are bad enough trying to tax US citizens who don't live in the US.

Sadly some American attitudes I see come across like a throwback to how probably the British people thought during our empire days i.e. like the world owes them something.
 
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably too risky to just release him now. He has nutters supporting and opposing him.
 
Australia don't want him back, they are relying on the British judicial system to make sure that happens.
 
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're not necessarily, though the internet changes things a bit - when you stick stuff online then you are (potentially) involving US citizens or British citizens etc..

If you set up a gambling or poker website and don't prevent US citizens from participating then you'll fall foul of US law regardless of the jurisdiction you're based in so really want to prevent them from using your site if you're known and travel to the US or even have a flight that stops there (as some gambling execs have found out in the past). The UK similarly tries to police gambling though in the UK's case they want to tax offshore providers based on the money they've made from UK residents - this has also meant some providers won't accept UK customers.

In the case of WikiLeaks the things disclosed belonged to the US, the US alleges that Assange conspired with the Intelligence analyst who provided the information & assisted them in cracking a password + provided targets for a hacking group to attack ergo he's facing various espionage chanrges.
 
Julian Assange just might get his day in court after all!

'WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange closer to being extradited to the US, after UK court decision.'

A British judge has formally approved the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States, to face spying charges.

The order was issued during a brief hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, as Assange watched by video link from Belmarsh Prison.

The order, which brings extradition closer, comes after the UK Supreme Court last month refused Assange permission to appeal against a lower court's ruling that he could be extradited.

Britain's Home Secretary Priti Patel will now decide whether to grant the extradition.
Click to expand...

With a robust defence already prepared—'It wasn't me guv, I didn't do nuffink illegal!'—Assange will surely relish this opportunity to prove his innocence.
 
Aww, does this mean the poor little darlin' is going to be held in Belmarsh a little longer. Such a shame. If only he hadn't proved he was a flight risk, hey? He could be swanning around in the Spring sunshine with his rich London friends.
 
*UK Interior Minister Priti Patel Has Certified the Extradition of Wikileaks Julian Assange to the United States — PA
*UK Home Office: UK Courts Have Not that It Would Be Oppressive, Unjust or an Abuse of Process to Extradite Assange
*UK Home Office: UK Courts Have Not Found that Extradition Would Be Incompatible With His Human Rights
*UK Home Office: Whilst in the US, UK Courts Expect Assange to Be Treated Appropriately, Including in Relation to His Health
*UK Home Office: Assange Retains the Normal 14-Day Right to Appeal

*Wikileaks Says on Assange Extradition: This Is a Dark Day for Press Freedom and British Democracy
*Wikileaks Says on Assange Extradition: Today Is Not the End of the Fight, We Will Appeal Through Legal System
 
Last edited:
0007 said:
*UK Interior Minister Priti Patel Has Certified the Extradition of Wikileaks Julian Assange to the United States — PA
*UK Home Office: UK Courts Have Not that It Would Be Oppressive, Unjust or an Abuse of Process to Extradite Assange
*UK Home Office: UK Courts Have Not Found that Extradition Would Be Incompatible With His Human Rights
*UK Home Office: Whilst in the US, UK Courts Expect Assange to Be Treated Appropriately, Including in Relation to His Health
*UK Home Office: Assange Retains the Normal 14-Day Right to Appeal

*Wikileaks Says on Assange Extradition: This Is a Dark Day for Press Freedom and British Democracy
*Wikileaks Says on Assange Extradition: Today Is Not the End of the Fight, We Will Appeal Through Legal System
Click to expand...

You love to see it!

:D
 
News was suggesting virginia is the destination because of a good chance that there are government employees/their relations on the potential jury,
also chosen for Depp stuff (although supposedly for other reason)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom