101–110 of 396 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure about 'secret charges' but there are these recent charges. [1] [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/20/politics/julian-assange-wi...
What base do these have? Assange isn't a US citizen, so he can't be charged for treason like Snowden and Manning. He just gained information and published it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange agenda was always anti-Americanism at expense of everyone else, so he just stayed true to himself. Many of his then liberal supporters were turning a blind eye to this, until it spectacularly bit them in the ass.
What about the "Macron leak"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assange agenda was always anti-Americanism at expense of everyone else, so he just stayed true to himself. Many of his then liberal supporters were turning a blind eye to this, until it spectacularly bit them in the ass.
What about the "Macron leak"?
What about the secret US charges? I honestly don't understand how in our democracy there is even such a concept as "secret charges". It just sounds mind-bogglingly corrupt and out of place.
I have a feeling that there's enough material to put him on trial in USA and he has gone tit-tat with many three-letter agencies. They have a long memory and don't like challengers. Whether he gets convicted or not that's another thing.
I wonder if the UK taxpayer will be asking some questions about the justifications of policing the embassy? A pretty abysmal ROI. So, will the police presence now simply disappear?
No. He is wanted by the UK courts for failing to appear when on bail and so will be arrested if he leaves the embassy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The defendant could choose not to answer any questions, so would it change anything?
It's one of the fundamentals of the Swedish legal system, you can't be sentenced in your absence or at least not without being heard
That is very very bad for Sweden because it proves that it was a low class political game so Sweden cannot be viewed as an independent state.
No it does not prove any such thing.
David Allen Green, Law and policy commentator at @FT: >It is now easier for US to obtain Assange's extradition, if they (ever) wanted it. >Now only UK's consent required, not UK and Sweden. https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/86550564980685619...
Part of that fear was presumably based in the unusual persistence of the Swedish prosecutor, which implied something odd was going on. But that "something odd" might simply have been the prosecutors ambitions.
In any case, UK courts have a history of taking extradition hearings very seriously, and there are ample opportunities to appeal both to UK courts, the ECHR, and (for the time being) to the ECJ, so it'd by no means be easy to get him from the UK direct.
I wonder if the UK taxpayer will be asking some questions about the justifications of policing the embassy? A pretty abysmal ROI. So, will the police presence now simply disappear?
There are endless reasons against, but just to state an obvious one: prosecution should not depend on the subject's ability to raise the costs for the government–both because it would create an incentive for such shenanigans, as well further tilting the justice system in favour of the rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it does not prove any such thing.
It was blindingly obvious that it was. Sweden's reputation took a huge hit because of this incident, and rightly so. They should have resolved the matter within 6 months. But it became such a hot potato that they were willing to sacrifice a man's live, and demonstrated to the world that principles and truth is inconsequential when the bully is sitting on your chest. The stench of this shit will cling to Sweden for ge…
If he was innocent why didn't he go back to Sweden and face the charges?
All the stuff about the risk of US extraditing him in nonsense, they'd find it easier to do from the UK.
All he did is use political asylum to avoid facing charges of a sexual assault.