21–30 of 160 posts
I'd like the press to shine a light on the lawyer who was so keen to get Sweden to pursue the case. I'm sure he prefers being nameless.
It wasn't a lawyer, it was the Swedish prosecutor that did this, and it wasn't a 'he' but a 'she' (Marianne Ny). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
The Lauri Love case proves there’s zero probability of Assange being extradited to the US. He’s wanted here for skipping bail. The government can’t let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do it.
I don't think it proves that. I think that the US would like to get their hands on JA a lot more than they ever wanted to get their hands on Lauri Love.
I don't like when things that are clearly not nation state issues is written about as if it was nation state issues.
The Lauri Love case proves there’s zero probability of Assange being extradited to the US. He’s wanted here for skipping bail. The government can’t let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do it.
The principle is a fig leaf on top of a political issue. This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies.
This is much more complex than a lone hacker being persecuted by an oppressive US government. There is suspicion that Wikileaks is one arm of Russian propaganda, and while I do not know if this is true or not, it does turn the entire Assange story into an intricate mess of international politics and power plays.
While circumstantial, the timeline of WL threatening to release leaked Putin documents (~2010, IIRC), never releasing those docs, then getting spots on RT is fairly damning, as well as the Russian bot amplification of WL document drops, especially during the 2016 election.
i believe that this is actually the case rather than longstanding collaboration based on WL originating as a russian intelligence program. anything is possible, of course.
The Lauri Love case proves there’s zero probability of Assange being extradited to the US. He’s wanted here for skipping bail. The government can’t let the precedent be set that you can get away with it, or everyone would do it.
“Everyone” is not going to have an embassy aiding and abetting you; and any diplomat or spy worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country. The principle is a fig leaf on top of a political issue. This situation will not change until a different party gets in power, carrying a different view of the UK’s relationship with their traditional military allies.
I’m not sure the PM actually has the power to do that. Assange is wanted right now for skipping bail. No government is going to pass an Act declaring that not-a-crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions. (EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)
Foreign embassies generally don't permit random alleged criminals to claim sanctuary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wasn't a lawyer, it was the Swedish prosecutor that did this, and it wasn't a 'he' but a 'she' (Marianne Ny). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
That's not who the parent is talking about - who was on the UK side, the person who retired and caused their email archives to get deleted.
And for the longest time the UK was if not outright promoting the idea that the Swedes wanted the case to be continued definitely not denying that and claiming that instead the UK was pushing things forward.
The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks / Assange. But because America badly wanted to suppress Wikileaks and its ilk from future revelations, Britain has persisted in its surrogate prosecution of Assange. I wonder, is there no blowback among Brits for the Crown so baldly adopti…
That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions. (EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)