3 ms·

"Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court" This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here

"Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court" This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508528 https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnesty-international-monitors-not-able-to-observe-the-assange-hearing/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/why-are-amnes... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24505438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24505438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24503896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27881936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27881936 I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law

SilverBirch 4y ago
I think this really lays it out clearly now where you're coming from. I point to a whole series of judgements that lay out in clear legal text why and how they came to the decision to extradite Assange and you reply with essentially a claim that one of the most respected judges in the country is biased because he's friends with a government minister. Guess what? That is literally not evidence. It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.