Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013

Post by crdoconnor » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 3:54 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #53

randcraw wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it. In light of Assange's political activity, and now the astonishing level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him…

He was charged with rape and molestation. Those are crimes. But if you want to call them "infractions" I suppose that is up to you. To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors. That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just becau…

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 3:55 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #42

revelation wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't even a UK case. What do they care if Sweden wants to drop it?

Loss of face. They put so much money (10M+!) in they would look like idiots if they eventually decided to drop it and Assange gets to make a victory lap on the way to Paddington Station to catch the Express to Heathrow.

Post by untog » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #61

untog wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was charged with rape and molestation. Those are crimes. But if you want to call them "infractions" I suppose that is up to you. To look at your logic in the reverse direction, you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime, because it will be a false accusation trumped up by state actors. That doesn't stand up to any logical scrutiny. Just becau…

> you are basically implying that in light of Assange's political activity he cannot be credibly accused of any crime No, I think he was implying that until he's been successfully using the phrase "a crime that was committed" is premature. It is still alleged. If you want to know who did say "in light of Assange's political activity this crime is likely not credible" well... that would inconveniently be GCHQ: https:/…

Post by ryanlol » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #25

gaius wrote: post #15

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.

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Feb 12, 2018, 4:01 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #58

toyg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

> and any diplomat ... worth his/her salt already has procedures to skip the country. It’s called diplomatic immunity. Diplomats don’t have secret plans for bailing out of countries because they don’t need them. Diplomats don’t hide in embassies. They walk onto airplanes and fly home.