7 ms·

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 conv

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 any case. 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. This would have been embarrassing for the US. One country doing something decent and calling another out on the whole indecency of the whole case. Not a good look after a decade plus of legal limbo with no end in sight. And of course the man actually being extradited (as unlikely as that would have been at this point) would just refocus the attention on all the embarrassing things that Wikileaks actually leaked that have caused this whole vindictive attitude towards Assange. All that stuff being rehashed in court rooms and the media for months on end was not going to end well. So, the US grudgingly finally doing the right thing via a plea deal seems like a good face saving compromise that just ends this now.

tetris11 2y ago
> 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 constituents. His backbone has a restitution coefficient somewhere in the Oort cloud.
- davedx 2y ago
  Labour just said they’ll enforce the warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest. You find that lacking backbone?
  - locallost 2y ago
    Starmer has absolutely no opinions on anything other than not rattling the cage of conservative voters. This makes him broadly acceptable, but long term nobody is truly supporting him.
  - zadler 2y ago
    Have to see if they actually do it. Saying it means very little, it’s not a controversial position.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Yes. He's dragged his feet on the Gaza war and on this for as long as he possibly could, but has increasingly faced outrage in more left-leaning areas and areas with more Muslim voters and all his policy stances appear to be calculated on the basis of what will win more votes/lose fewer votes rather than any kind of backbone. Nothing happens until he has more to lose by doing nothing.
  - PlutoIsAPlanet 2y ago
    Keir Starmer is a human rights lawyer, would be a bit weird for him to suddenly have no regard for international law where many human rights (ECHR) come from and likely divide his party. Not saying he's got a backbone, but he's just going for the easier option that keeps his party united.
- kybernetikos 2y ago
  He's also got a background as a human rights lawyer. He probably has a lot of personal interest in cases like this.
  - bob88jg 2y ago
    He literally started the UK side of the persecution - starmer is a cop, always has been always will be....
- 317070 2y ago
  FWIW, I am one of his constituents in Camden, and he helped us out tremendously in a pickle with Home Office when the latest war in Ukraine broke out. The issue went from 6 months in limbo to being resolved within a week. I am not commenting on the backbone, but he is definitely there for his constituents.
- vintermann 2y ago
  He is also personally responsible for the persecution of Assange. He was head of Crown Prosecution Services in the UK at the time we know (from Stefania Maurizi's FOIA requests) they actually threatened Sweden when Sweden wanted to drop the case. Wet blanked doesn't begin to cover it. I honestly think he's an entryist trying to tank the Labour party on the behalf of some British spy-lord. He's failing, but that's more the Tories' fault.
  - zadler 2y ago
    The spy lord is Tony Blair
  - baud147258 2y ago
    > an entryist trying to tank the Labour party on the behalf of some British spy-lord I'm far from following current UK politics, but I've heard the same thing about Liz Truss...
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Do you happen to have these FOIA requests, and what kind of threats against Sweden were these? My attempts to find them by searching the internet have failed.
    - tetris11 2y ago
      https://skwawkbox.org/2023/02/01/swedish-prosecutors-joined-starmers-cps-in-destroying-huge-evidence-in-assange-case/ https://skwawkbox.org/2023/02/01/swedish-prosecutors-joined-...
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    What is an entryist?
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Have you actually read their policies? There are plenty of big changes. Maybe you are referring to them not stating that they will change taxes significantly? Well, yeah no shit. a) they can't, taxes are at their highest level since WW2, and b) they don't want to destabilise things like Truss did. I think his biggest issue is that his voice sounds a bit wet and that makes people think he is wet.
  - omnimus 2y ago
    He is Tony Blair / New Left all over again. Labour bleached from left wing policies. Nothing will change as they are on board to keep status quo. This (just like the New Left) will pave way for even more populist right candidates get in to power. Namely it paves way for Farage to be PM.
    - bad_good_guy 2y ago
      Good, Tony Blair / New Labour were amazing for the country.
      - hardlianotion 2y ago
        I am always very curious of hugely enthusiastic New Labour supporters. Happy to share my own opinion, but what are the achievements you laude them for, and what failures are they to be weighed against?
        gnfargbl 2y ago
        Off the top of my head: saving the NHS from decades of under-investment; introducing the National Minimum Wage; putting in place a huge school repair programme; ending the Troubles in NI; writing off the debts of poorer countries; Scottish devolution; and, for the majority of their term at least, fiscal stability and consistent economic growth. The other side of the coin is, of course, the Iraq War. We needn't debate that, because we'll surely violently agree, but let's not pretend the Blair/Brown partnership didn't lead to many positive things for the UK. It did.
- dmje 2y ago
  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 brings. At least it'll be the end of the current horrorshow.
  - GordonS 2y ago
    I'm sorry, but I find this kind of ridiculous - Starmer is being pretty clear about the kind of man he is. Fervent capitalist, previous member of the CIA-linked Trilateral Commission, notorious U-turner, War on Drugs(TM) supporter, outright liar, genocide supporter, and absolutely completely beholden to Israel (he has even said he'll put Israel lobbiests into the highest echelons of gov - he's practically a foreign agent at this point). He's telling you who he is, so please believe him - the idea that this man will become PM and then suddenly turn into Jeremy Corbyn is, frankly, delusional. I can understand why someone would want to believe that, but in all likelihood we're just getting more of the same.
    - Closi 2y ago
      People on the whole don't want a Jeremy Corbyn anyway - he led his party to the biggest labour defeat since 1935. Don't know why the labour party would want to replicate that shit-show.
      - GordonS 2y ago
        He was smeared with false antisemitism claims, hence the massive defeat. One of those involved in the smearing was... Starmer. Corbyn was never going to be "allowed" to be Prime Minister. Also, listen to his recent interview where he says he was asked by a committee if he would guarantee to be 100% behind any military action instigated by Israel.
        fathyb 2y ago
- rjzzleep 2y ago
  I would genuinely love to know which media your parent watches and reads to come to such a conclusion. It is remarkable. I've never heard such a statement about Stamer, but it's clear that I don't read the same sources.
hoseja 2y ago
Yeah, now they can give him aggressive cancer without it looking too bad.
hn_throwaway_69 2y ago
>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.
- vidarh 2y ago
  Pleading guilty under the threat of either continued incarceration in inhuman conditions or extradition somewhere that could potentially murder you says nothing about guilt in anything but strict legal terms. It's a coerced plea.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Aren't all pleas basically coerced pleas though? The entire point is that you plead guilty to a lesser punishment in order to avoid the chance of a much more severe punishment.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      When accompanied by promises of a less punishment: Yes. And so I think even with a guilty please, there ought to be a requirement for the prosecution to prove the case. Maybe lower the bar a little bit, but not much. And that is indeed how pleas work most places. Few jurisdictions have US-style plea bargains where the prosecutor can negotiate large "discounts" to the potential maximum sentencing and get judges to agree. To me, a country that allows that and where they are frequently taken does not have a functioning justice system. There's also a significant difference with respect to the coercion when sentences are long, and when the possible variation in sentence length is huge, and the US stands out as particularly bad with respect to both of those factors as well.
    - mnw21cam 2y ago
      The usual standard in the UK is for a sentence to get a reduction of around 1/3 for a guilty plea. The situation I hear of in the US where people are threatened with a 537 year sentence if they plead not guilty or a 3 month sentence if they plead guilty is a travesty and surely leads to vast levels of injustice.
denton-scratch 2y ago
> At least the current Labour leader strikes me as a decent man with some actual principles and backbone You are speaking of the "human rights lawyer" who at best acquiesced in Starmer being locked up in Belmarsh. You are speaking of the man who became Labour leader on the strength of six promises, all of which he repudiated as soon as he was leader. He doesn't have a principled bone in his body.
moffkalast 2y ago
[flagged]
cryptica 2y ago
The US treatment of Assange did a lot of damage to the reputation of the US government internationally and also within the US itself. It contributed to a general feeling of institutional decay, decay of the media, decay of law and order which has caused a loss of trust in the current system.
sobellian 2y ago
In the USA defendants are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. I'm sure Sweden has similar protections. Assange denied himself that right by evading authorities and fighting extradition. The former is wholly inexcusable. The latter is his right, but to then complain about not receiving a trial places the justice system in a catch-22. I do think it's right to accept a guilty plea and time served, but it's hardly a story of exoneration for Assange.
igravious 2y ago
> 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 any case. 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. If you knew anything about British politics you'd know that this is horseshit.

tetris11 2y ago

> 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 constituents. His backbone has a restitution coefficient somewhere in the Oort cloud.

davedx 2y ago
Labour just said they’ll enforce the warrant for Netanyahu’s arrest. You find that lacking backbone?
- locallost 2y ago
  Starmer has absolutely no opinions on anything other than not rattling the cage of conservative voters. This makes him broadly acceptable, but long term nobody is truly supporting him.
- zadler 2y ago
  Have to see if they actually do it. Saying it means very little, it’s not a controversial position.
- vidarh 2y ago
  Yes. He's dragged his feet on the Gaza war and on this for as long as he possibly could, but has increasingly faced outrage in more left-leaning areas and areas with more Muslim voters and all his policy stances appear to be calculated on the basis of what will win more votes/lose fewer votes rather than any kind of backbone. Nothing happens until he has more to lose by doing nothing.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 2y ago
  Keir Starmer is a human rights lawyer, would be a bit weird for him to suddenly have no regard for international law where many human rights (ECHR) come from and likely divide his party. Not saying he's got a backbone, but he's just going for the easier option that keeps his party united.
kybernetikos 2y ago
He's also got a background as a human rights lawyer. He probably has a lot of personal interest in cases like this.
- bob88jg 2y ago
  He literally started the UK side of the persecution - starmer is a cop, always has been always will be....
317070 2y ago
FWIW, I am one of his constituents in Camden, and he helped us out tremendously in a pickle with Home Office when the latest war in Ukraine broke out. The issue went from 6 months in limbo to being resolved within a week. I am not commenting on the backbone, but he is definitely there for his constituents.
vintermann 2y ago
He is also personally responsible for the persecution of Assange. He was head of Crown Prosecution Services in the UK at the time we know (from Stefania Maurizi's FOIA requests) they actually threatened Sweden when Sweden wanted to drop the case. Wet blanked doesn't begin to cover it. I honestly think he's an entryist trying to tank the Labour party on the behalf of some British spy-lord. He's failing, but that's more the Tories' fault.
- zadler 2y ago
  The spy lord is Tony Blair
- baud147258 2y ago
  > an entryist trying to tank the Labour party on the behalf of some British spy-lord I'm far from following current UK politics, but I've heard the same thing about Liz Truss...
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Do you happen to have these FOIA requests, and what kind of threats against Sweden were these? My attempts to find them by searching the internet have failed.
  - tetris11 2y ago
    https://skwawkbox.org/2023/02/01/swedish-prosecutors-joined-starmers-cps-in-destroying-huge-evidence-in-assange-case/ https://skwawkbox.org/2023/02/01/swedish-prosecutors-joined-...
- CRConrad 2y ago
  What is an entryist?
IshKebab 2y ago
Have you actually read their policies? There are plenty of big changes. Maybe you are referring to them not stating that they will change taxes significantly? Well, yeah no shit. a) they can't, taxes are at their highest level since WW2, and b) they don't want to destabilise things like Truss did. I think his biggest issue is that his voice sounds a bit wet and that makes people think he is wet.
- omnimus 2y ago
  He is Tony Blair / New Left all over again. Labour bleached from left wing policies. Nothing will change as they are on board to keep status quo. This (just like the New Left) will pave way for even more populist right candidates get in to power. Namely it paves way for Farage to be PM.
  - bad_good_guy 2y ago
    Good, Tony Blair / New Labour were amazing for the country.
    - hardlianotion 2y ago
      I am always very curious of hugely enthusiastic New Labour supporters. Happy to share my own opinion, but what are the achievements you laude them for, and what failures are they to be weighed against?
      - gnfargbl 2y ago
        Off the top of my head: saving the NHS from decades of under-investment; introducing the National Minimum Wage; putting in place a huge school repair programme; ending the Troubles in NI; writing off the debts of poorer countries; Scottish devolution; and, for the majority of their term at least, fiscal stability and consistent economic growth. The other side of the coin is, of course, the Iraq War. We needn't debate that, because we'll surely violently agree, but let's not pretend the Blair/Brown partnership didn't lead to many positive things for the UK. It did.
dmje 2y ago
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 brings. At least it'll be the end of the current horrorshow.
- GordonS 2y ago
  I'm sorry, but I find this kind of ridiculous - Starmer is being pretty clear about the kind of man he is. Fervent capitalist, previous member of the CIA-linked Trilateral Commission, notorious U-turner, War on Drugs(TM) supporter, outright liar, genocide supporter, and absolutely completely beholden to Israel (he has even said he'll put Israel lobbiests into the highest echelons of gov - he's practically a foreign agent at this point). He's telling you who he is, so please believe him - the idea that this man will become PM and then suddenly turn into Jeremy Corbyn is, frankly, delusional. I can understand why someone would want to believe that, but in all likelihood we're just getting more of the same.
  - Closi 2y ago
    People on the whole don't want a Jeremy Corbyn anyway - he led his party to the biggest labour defeat since 1935. Don't know why the labour party would want to replicate that shit-show.
    - GordonS 2y ago
      He was smeared with false antisemitism claims, hence the massive defeat. One of those involved in the smearing was... Starmer. Corbyn was never going to be "allowed" to be Prime Minister. Also, listen to his recent interview where he says he was asked by a committee if he would guarantee to be 100% behind any military action instigated by Israel.
      - fathyb 2y ago
rjzzleep 2y ago
I would genuinely love to know which media your parent watches and reads to come to such a conclusion. It is remarkable. I've never heard such a statement about Stamer, but it's clear that I don't read the same sources.

hoseja 2y ago

Yeah, now they can give him aggressive cancer without it looking too bad.

hn_throwaway_69 2y ago

>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.

vidarh 2y ago
Pleading guilty under the threat of either continued incarceration in inhuman conditions or extradition somewhere that could potentially murder you says nothing about guilt in anything but strict legal terms. It's a coerced plea.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Aren't all pleas basically coerced pleas though? The entire point is that you plead guilty to a lesser punishment in order to avoid the chance of a much more severe punishment.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    When accompanied by promises of a less punishment: Yes. And so I think even with a guilty please, there ought to be a requirement for the prosecution to prove the case. Maybe lower the bar a little bit, but not much. And that is indeed how pleas work most places. Few jurisdictions have US-style plea bargains where the prosecutor can negotiate large "discounts" to the potential maximum sentencing and get judges to agree. To me, a country that allows that and where they are frequently taken does not have a functioning justice system. There's also a significant difference with respect to the coercion when sentences are long, and when the possible variation in sentence length is huge, and the US stands out as particularly bad with respect to both of those factors as well.
  - mnw21cam 2y ago
    The usual standard in the UK is for a sentence to get a reduction of around 1/3 for a guilty plea. The situation I hear of in the US where people are threatened with a 537 year sentence if they plead not guilty or a 3 month sentence if they plead guilty is a travesty and surely leads to vast levels of injustice.

denton-scratch 2y ago

> At least the current Labour leader strikes me as a decent man with some actual principles and backbone You are speaking of the "human rights lawyer" who at best acquiesced in Starmer being locked up in Belmarsh. You are speaking of the man who became Labour leader on the strength of six promises, all of which he repudiated as soon as he was leader. He doesn't have a principled bone in his body.

moffkalast 2y ago

[flagged]

cryptica 2y ago

The US treatment of Assange did a lot of damage to the reputation of the US government internationally and also within the US itself. It contributed to a general feeling of institutional decay, decay of the media, decay of law and order which has caused a loss of trust in the current system.

sobellian 2y ago

In the USA defendants are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial. I'm sure Sweden has similar protections. Assange denied himself that right by evading authorities and fighting extradition. The former is wholly inexcusable. The latter is his right, but to then complain about not receiving a trial places the justice system in a catch-22. I do think it's right to accept a guilty plea and time served, but it's hardly a story of exoneration for Assange.

igravious 2y ago

> 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 any case. 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. If you knew anything about British politics you'd know that this is horseshit.