12 ms·

Not in an American court, for a non-American citizen, for something that happened 10 years ago. It just isn’t as interesting as you think it is. And it is get

Not in an American court, for a non-American citizen, for something that happened 10 years ago. It just isn’t as interesting as you think it is. And it is getting coverage! It just isn’t front page news.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. And it isn't getting any major oublisher coverage, searching "Julian Assange" on both DDG and Google news shows only Democracy Now covering the story.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. Yes, the USA is charging him. It would be very odd for extradition hearings on US federal charges to be heard in a US court, and, in fact, these are not. Assange is not on trial, and the process he is currently undergoing in is not in an American court, though there are charges pending that he would face in a US court if that process completes as the US prefers. I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition. > I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point? I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial. > the only trial left is the US one. The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed. The next part was using those charges to request his extradition. At this point you could say the extradition hearing is not a part of his trial, but it is only happening because of the trial and the US is the reason he is in prison currently. I'd write this off as weird pedantry but you're accusing me of lying for some reason.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed No, that's neither the first step of the process (even the formal legal process) nor any step of the trial.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        This entire conversation would be much more productive if you did more than just say I'm wrong or lying. All of this seems like parts of the pretrial layed out by the US constitutional criminal procedure. I guess you could distinguish trial from pretrial, but if that was your point you really could have just stated that right away.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Jesus christ stop this. It doesn't matter whether it's the "first" step or an "early" step. It doesn't matter if the entire process is being summed up as "trial", even though parts of the process are not technically part of the trail.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. And it isn't getting any major oublisher coverage, searching "Julian Assange" on both DDG and Google news shows only Democracy Now covering the story.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Yes in an American court, they are the ones charging him with these crimes. Yes, the USA is charging him. It would be very odd for extradition hearings on US federal charges to be heard in a US court, and, in fact, these are not. Assange is not on trial, and the process he is currently undergoing in is not in an American court, though there are charges pending that he would face in a US court if that process completes as the US prefers. I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Assange is set to face trial in a US court, and that is the only reason he is facing extradition. > I can see you arguing that that's not important, but falsely denying the assertion that its not in a US court is...I mean, what's even the point? I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. His trial for skipping bail in the UK is long over, the only trial left is the US one.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I am arguing that it is important and view the extradition hearing as part of his larger US trial. The extradition hearing is factually not part of his US trial. > the only trial left is the US one. The US charges are the only ones that he is currently known to be facing a potential future trial for, sure. But “potential future” and “actual current” are not the same thing.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed. The next part was using those charges to request his extradition. At this point you could say the extradition hearing is not a part of his trial, but it is only happening because of the trial and the US is the reason he is in prison currently. I'd write this off as weird pedantry but you're accusing me of lying for some reason.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The first step of the trial was for charges to be filed No, that's neither the first step of the process (even the formal legal process) nor any step of the trial.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        This entire conversation would be much more productive if you did more than just say I'm wrong or lying. All of this seems like parts of the pretrial layed out by the US constitutional criminal procedure. I guess you could distinguish trial from pretrial, but if that was your point you really could have just stated that right away.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        Jesus christ stop this. It doesn't matter whether it's the "first" step or an "early" step. It doesn't matter if the entire process is being summed up as "trial", even though parts of the process are not technically part of the trail.