501–510 of 1001 posts
JULIAN ASSANGE IS FREE Julian Assange is free. He left Belmarsh maximum security prison on the morning of 24 June, after having spent 1901 days there. He was granted bail by the High Court in London and was released at Stanstead airport during the afternoon, where he boarded a plane and departed the UK. This is the result of a global campaign that spanned grass-roots organisers, press freedom campaigners, legislators…
i love just your last line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At least the current Labour leader strikes me as a decent man with some actual principles and backbone and this would fundamentally be a decent thing to do. (massive sidetrack, but I can't let this sentence go unpunished) The current labour leader is the lamest duck in a group of wet blankets. His policies revolve around not being as corrupt as the Tories whilst doing virtually nothing else to better his constituen…
The question is whether his backbone will grow back once he's in power. I'm in two minds. In our house I'm of the opinion that Labour should go "Full Left" and be strong and confident about it; my wife thinks they should get in using whatever means possible (including the slightly pathetic not-very-left agenda they're currently sporting) and then hope they'll make proper changes once in. Let's see what 4th July bring…
Campaign on a platform of comprimise and sensible polices to attract moderate voters... And then just completely ignore everything you said you would do...
This is the exact opposite of what we should encourage from politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL but the judge can't both reject the plea deal and sentence him, since rejecting the plea deal invalidates the guilty plea. Rejecting it and remanding him to custody would cause a diplomatic incident. He's not out of the woods yet by any means, but if they reached a deal his lawyers are confident in, I wouldn't be worried about the judge. They are supposed to deffer to international law if US is a party to the t…
I don't think law, justice or even diplomacy are very relevant for most of this case. 1900 days in isolation (human rights violation), falsly accused of rape with the goal to extradite to the US, jailed outside of the US on behalf of the US (but not officially), and just the simple fact that a journalist gets jail time for exposing war crimes. Yeah, this has nothing to do with law or justice. This is about a handful…
Good, this was getting majorly embarrassing for all countries still involved with this legal mess. The man dying in prison stuck in legal limbo without any conviction whatsoever (innocent until proven guilty and all that) would have been a PR disaster for the UK. And of course there's also the issue that the UK is very likely to get a new government that would have likely been leaning to just letting the man go in an…
>innocent until proven guilty and all that To be fair, he was refusing to face trial. And he is expected to plead guilty, so he isn't innocent. That said, there may be legitimate questions about whether the United States should be entitled to exercise jurisdiction over foreign nationals who are not physically present in the jurisdiction for national security offences.
[flagged]
No, the damage is done and this is a better deterrent than if they'd killed him. Now any journalist knows that if they annoy the wrong people, they could have their lives and family completely destroyed right out in public and all done perfectly "legally".
This entire case was a catastrophic show of hand in how the justice systems across the west have been weaponized and used against the values it proclaims to protect.
[flagged]
Legitimate? The case was a disgrace to the Swedish justice system, as many legal experts have commented.
No doubt non-Swedish legal experts with no clue about Swedish laws or the Swedish justice system, meaning their opinions which are based on how the legal system in their own country works, are completely null and void.