6 ms·

Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

66 points by eth0up 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago
Of course he does
techntoke 7y ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-was-joking-about-loving-wikileaks-sarah-sanders-says-n994296 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-was-joki... Wondering if Trump will try to get involved to influence his 2020 campaign.
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Just think: if he'd not tried to flee rape allegations in Sweden, he'd be free (or at least in a much more favourable situation) right now. Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US less likely: two legal systems would need to approve (Sweden and UK), not just the UK.
- acqq 7y ago
  Sweden is not stronger than the U.S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    And they'd get Sweden (at risk of egregious violation of EU law) instead of the UK (steadfast US ally, in NATO, Iraq War) to do this, why?
    - mantap 7y ago
      UK courts are fiercely independent and wouldn't be swayed by domestic or international pressure. There's zero chance the UK govt will prevent his extradition but he has a reasonably good chance the courts will stop it on human rights grounds, it does appear to be a political extradition.
- krustyburger 7y ago
  Why do you think the UK would have had to agree once he was in Swedish custody?
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    That's just how extradition law works: you're on loan, not given over forever, and in particular in the EU, you can't use a European Arrest Warrant just to grab someone so you can extradite them outside the EU without asking the origin state's permission, unless you're seriously implying he'd be black-bagged.
    - acqq 7y ago
      > in particular in the EU Then add Brexit to this mix and stir.
- pytester 7y ago
  >Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US less likely He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands of the US. Given that A) he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet and B) the part about the US trying to snare him in spite of multiple denials ended up being 100% true I'm inclined to believe that he was probably on the mark.
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    and C) https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
  - LiquidSky 7y ago
    >He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands of the US. And he was crazy. Fleeing to the UK, America's staunches ally with a long history of cooperation with US law enforcement, especially in cases of extradition, in order to avoid possible extradition in Sweden is simply not sane. Even taking the assumptions you're working with, that the Sweden charges were a ruse to allow Assange to be extradited, the argument fails because Assange fled this supposed conspiracy to a jurisdiction that is 100% guaranteed to cooperate in extraditing him to the US. >he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet Considering the predicament his apparently genius legal counsel's advice put him in over the last decade, I'd say that's not a given at all. It seems much more like he's acting out of panic and desperation rather than some carefully-crafted legal strategy.
    - aaron_m04 7y ago
      He fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. Big difference.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    If the US was going to fabricate allegations against him, why in Sweden and not in the UK?
thefounder 7y ago
>>... and warned of a bleak future for journalists publishing “truthful information” contrary to US interests. I wonder if that wasn't always the case.
- ehsankia 7y ago
  I don't want to live in a world were "journalists" just dump any sensitive information they get their hands out with complete disregard for what harms it can cause, and doing nothing to actually vet the information beforehand. If that's a "bleak future" then let it be.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    Yeah, we need a master to vet and gate the information before it is released to the public, right?
    - ehsankia 7y ago
      The Guardian, WP and NYT did just fine with Snowden's material. So I guess in your mind it would also be perfectly fine if someone tool all your data including your passwords and released it to the public, right?
      - jakeogh 7y ago
        Re filters: How would you know? Maybe you dont want to know? https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg
        ehsankia 7y ago
        If you really believe that three different papers actively hit crucial information, then there's not much I can say that would convince you otherwise honestly.
        7y ago
modsrgovshills 7y ago
40 points 10 comments 1 hour and not on the front page. Nothing to see here folks.

66 points by eth0up 7y ago

Of course he does

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-was-joking-about-loving-wikileaks-sarah-sanders-says-n994296 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-was-joki... Wondering if Trump will try to get involved to influence his 2020 campaign.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

Just think: if he'd not tried to flee rape allegations in Sweden, he'd be free (or at least in a much more favourable situation) right now. Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US less likely: two legal systems would need to approve (Sweden and UK), not just the UK.

acqq 7y ago
Sweden is not stronger than the U.S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Sweden
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  And they'd get Sweden (at risk of egregious violation of EU law) instead of the UK (steadfast US ally, in NATO, Iraq War) to do this, why?
  - mantap 7y ago
    UK courts are fiercely independent and wouldn't be swayed by domestic or international pressure. There's zero chance the UK govt will prevent his extradition but he has a reasonably good chance the courts will stop it on human rights grounds, it does appear to be a political extradition.
krustyburger 7y ago
Why do you think the UK would have had to agree once he was in Swedish custody?
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  That's just how extradition law works: you're on loan, not given over forever, and in particular in the EU, you can't use a European Arrest Warrant just to grab someone so you can extradite them outside the EU without asking the origin state's permission, unless you're seriously implying he'd be black-bagged.
  - acqq 7y ago
    > in particular in the EU Then add Brexit to this mix and stir.
pytester 7y ago
>Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US less likely He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands of the US. Given that A) he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet and B) the part about the US trying to snare him in spite of multiple denials ended up being 100% true I'm inclined to believe that he was probably on the mark.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  and C) https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-...
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  >He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands of the US. And he was crazy. Fleeing to the UK, America's staunches ally with a long history of cooperation with US law enforcement, especially in cases of extradition, in order to avoid possible extradition in Sweden is simply not sane. Even taking the assumptions you're working with, that the Sweden charges were a ruse to allow Assange to be extradited, the argument fails because Assange fled this supposed conspiracy to a jurisdiction that is 100% guaranteed to cooperate in extraditing him to the US. >he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet Considering the predicament his apparently genius legal counsel's advice put him in over the last decade, I'd say that's not a given at all. It seems much more like he's acting out of panic and desperation rather than some carefully-crafted legal strategy.
  - aaron_m04 7y ago
    He fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. Big difference.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  If the US was going to fabricate allegations against him, why in Sweden and not in the UK?

thefounder 7y ago

>>... and warned of a bleak future for journalists publishing “truthful information” contrary to US interests. I wonder if that wasn't always the case.

ehsankia 7y ago
I don't want to live in a world were "journalists" just dump any sensitive information they get their hands out with complete disregard for what harms it can cause, and doing nothing to actually vet the information beforehand. If that's a "bleak future" then let it be.
- thefounder 7y ago
  Yeah, we need a master to vet and gate the information before it is released to the public, right?
  - ehsankia 7y ago
    The Guardian, WP and NYT did just fine with Snowden's material. So I guess in your mind it would also be perfectly fine if someone tool all your data including your passwords and released it to the public, right?
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      Re filters: How would you know? Maybe you dont want to know? https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg
      - ehsankia 7y ago
        If you really believe that three different papers actively hit crucial information, then there's not much I can say that would convince you otherwise honestly.
        7y ago

modsrgovshills 7y ago

40 points 10 comments 1 hour and not on the front page. Nothing to see here folks.