111–120 of 173 posts
In 50 years, people will look in disgust and utter disbelief at our treatment of Assange. Or maybe this is too optimistic. Maybe our grandsons will indeed understand us. They will understand us too well, and be ashamed of us.
He will be forgotten in ten years. And for a good reason.
There is a double standard. I doubt that the wife of the US diplomat will ever be extradited to the UK after killing a UK citizens. [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-crash-parents...
That's not a political offense though, that's a hit and run. She could have been extradited for that if she didn't have diplomatic immunity, however, does the US ever extradite someone to a foreign country? I mean the hypothetical scenario of e.g. Bush or Obama being tried for war crimes in The Hague has come up at some point; iirc the statement then was that the US would send in the military to get them out again. A…
“[The American Service Members Protection Act] authorizes the U.S. president to use ‘all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.’ This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the ‘Hague Invasion Act.’”
But it doesn’t apply to all Americans. Technically, it only applies to Americans connected to the military, although I would expect similar efforts to apply for several other important people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist. And so that also is a factor.
I don’t think it should be a factor at this stage. Assange will get the time to argue he’s a journalist in the US. However, I’m sure the judge will be influenced by her estimate of how likely Assange’s defense is to win their case.
The UK at least is a common law country with historical connections to the US and a common language. I would expect a UK judge to do a better job of applying US law than a judge from a civil law country.
Yes, the inconvenience of being extradited and spending time in jail should mean something, but in practice the courts don’t give that a lot of weight. They just say they’ve balanced the relevant factors and made a decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is he if not a journalist? He is not accused of leaking documents himself, but of facilitating their dissemination. Sounds more or less like the textbook definition of journalism to me.
So the issue with Assange was that he never showed any "limitation of harm" when he chose not to redact any of the content. It's a pretty core tenant of journalism ethics. Those sort of subtleties are important when you're going to be arguing in front of a judge.
Bear in mind that with Lauri Love, while the case was lost in 2016 and a judge ruled that he could be extradited, it then went to the high court and was overturned two years later.
>Baraitser then capped it all by saying the February hearing will be held, not at the comparatively open and accessible Westminster Magistrates Court where we were, but at Belmarsh Magistrates Court, the grim high security facility used for preliminary legal processing of terrorists, attached to the maximum security prison where Assange is being held. There are only six seats for the public in even the largest court…
Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered, I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent design. This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the perceived ideals of the "free world".
It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China. And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed. (Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>objectivity + >considered within the spectrum What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case is a total farce , and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceu…
One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as bein…