Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
stare decisis is (in common law countries)
That is true, but also a non sequitur.
Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
101–110 of 172 posts
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#102At this point, I believe the best outcome by far is if Assange is extradited to Sweden.
except he might thence be extradited to the US after facing the Swedish charges
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.
Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
...then get the trial declared a mistrial, and possibly get held in contempt by the judge for violating their duty as a juror.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#104Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.
None of the things he revealed can be classified as treason. War crimes maybe, treason no way. I also wonder why he never revealed any of Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine or Syria. Just a thought.
Sorry, but this is a nonsense. I grew up in a country where people made it a national sport of justifying one side's crimes by arguing that the other sides (Croats/Serbs/Bosniaks/etc) committed the crimes too. That's just stupid. So what if he's concentrated on one side, does it make it a less of a crime? Should he have not publish it, unless he had an equal amount of dirt on Russians on hands in the same time (Syria and Ukraine haven't even happen yet in the moment of these US leaks)? And finally, if it's wrong to concentrate only on one side's wrongdoing, does it mean that all other reporters - who report ONLY on Russians for years now - are guilty the same way?
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your view is irrelevant unless you can change the law.
Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
It's hard to use jury nullification to convict; it's usually used only to acquit. First, the judge won't usually allow charges that are outside the bounds of the law to even be presented to the jury. Second, even if the jury does convict of something outside the bounds of the law, it will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.
You don't want a jury deciding to convict people for things that the law doesn't say is illegal. You really don't. That's way too close to mob rule, and that often doesn't get applied only to the people that you think it should be applied to. You don't want a jury deciding that what you did is treason, even though the law doesn't say that it is.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
He ran to the UK... that's not the place you go if you're fleeing the long arm of the US. Assange long ago lost any credibility as far as I'm concerned. I think his statements are about crafting his own public narrative than really revealing any of his motivations / actual choices. Wikileaks repeatedly claimed they would release X information, and then simply didn't and wouldn't say a word. I'm not sure if they still…
He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning. After leaving, InterPol issued a Red Notice for Assange. This raised a red flag with Assange’s legal team that this was not just about rape accusations, and they decided to fight his extradition to Sweden fearing that he was being set up to be extradited to the United States. Wi…
>fight his extradition to Sweden fearing that he was being set up to be extradited to the United States.
He was afraid of being extradited to the US... so he chose to do that from the UK?
IIRC in Sweden it's actually harder to be extradited for crimes like espionage:
>Sweden’s extradition agreement with the United States, signed in 1961 and updated in 1983, prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense." The agreement does not specify what constitutes a "political offense." Whether the Swedish supreme court would rule to extradite Assange largely depends on what charges the secret U.S. grand jury brings against him.
>If Assange is accused of espionage, Sweden most certainly would not comply, as its courts have consistently determined that espionage constitutes a political offense. For example, in 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union, to the United States. Charged with espionage, Swedish courts ruled that those accusations amounted to the kind of "political offense" specified in the extradition agreement.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#107Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.
None of the things he revealed can be classified as treason. War crimes maybe, treason no way. I also wonder why he never revealed any of Russia's alleged crimes in Ukraine or Syria. Just a thought.
Wikileaks only publishes what is leaked to them.
They did publish the `Spy Files Russia` documents in 2017:
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#108I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
He ran to the UK... that's not the place you go if you're fleeing the long arm of the US. Assange long ago lost any credibility as far as I'm concerned. I think his statements are about crafting his own public narrative than really revealing any of his motivations / actual choices. Wikileaks repeatedly claimed they would release X information, and then simply didn't and wouldn't say a word. I'm not sure if they still…
That depends on how plucky the UK is feeling politically. There may be times when the UK feels like reminding the US who it was that actually invented Common Law jurisprudence. And then there may be times when all the Anglophone Commonwealth-allied nations (US GB CA AU NZ) want to prove the strength of their mutual friendship before the observers in the gallery.
Assange was holed up in Ecuador-in-London long enough for politics in both countries to change, but he may have had unreasonable expectations to begin with.
Snowden may not have been expecting to get stuck in Russia, either, but there he was, because every route between there and the place he claimed was his intended destination was so very willing to turn him over, via an expedited process.
At least the UK does the entire extradition hearing process. Even if the result is arriving at a predetermined conclusion via plausible rationale, there is some opportunity there, that one does not have if you enter US custody the instant the plane hits the taxiway.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily if they can get on the jury and use jury nullification. Or make this concept more well known to people who may be on the jury.
Jury nullification is hard to pull off though. I'm not sure Assange would have the support he'd need to guarantee a jury finding in his favor (assuming he's actually guilty of what he's accused of).
paulcole wasn't talking about Assange being convicted, but rather those whom Assange exposed.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recall that he originally fled Sweden to the UK. That is not the actions of a man who fears extradition to the US. That's the exact opposite course of action any sane person would take.
He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.
This was a lie told by his legal team and later walked back. In court his lawyer admitted the prosecutors had contacted him a week before in order to set up an interview with Assange.
> He [Assange's lawyer] then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying:
> “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”.
Coincidentally* Assange left the country on the 27th.