4 ms·

What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. That said, if the Americans wanted to drag this out further, they'd simply drag it out further,

What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. That said, if the Americans wanted to drag this out further, they'd simply drag it out further, so it seems highly unlikely this is some ploy, however it's not impossible. Assange is more easily "forgotten" if they actually managed to imprison him in The States. But we'll see. I'll only completely believe it once he touches down in Australia.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 2y ago
> What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK. This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this. And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.
- steve_gh 2y ago
  I think this is quid pro quo for the Harry Dunn case, which interestingly reached a final conclusion a week or so ago in the Coroner's court.
netsharc 2y ago
In the context of the elections, it seems like the US government/Biden admin "fucking" with Assange would probably be detrimental, considering parts of the MAGA movement is "We <3 Russia"/susceptible to Russian propaganda - and Assange is Russia-friendly since he apparently got Hillary's emails from them. They can twist it as Democrats being the warmongers (yeah it requires insane logic-bending, but hey, MAGA are experts at that) and Assange the pro-peace leaker. So MAGA would probably take up his cause, but with the Biden admin freeing him (fingers crossed), that's one less thing they can use against Biden in the elections.
- nailer 2y ago
  The Trump Russiagate conspiracy was a hoax. The Secretary of State not responding to the Libyan consulate’s security concerns prior to the attack is a serious matter and the source of the documents is not the issue.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    > The Trump Russiagate conspiracy was a hoax. Ah, an appropriate example of bending logic and serious ignoring of many facts to end up with this conclusion...
    - nailer 2y ago
      Unverified after all the investigations: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-trump-intelligence-russia/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-trump-intelligence-rus... One step less than 'hoax' but it's Snopes and they lean left.
- mistermann 2y ago
  I find it very interesting how you: a) think b) (mis)use the English language For clarity: do you believe that your cognition on this matter is logically, ontologically, and epistemically flawless? I hope your seeming high level of confidence is resilient enough to answer this simple question directly, without engaging in rhetoric, meme magic, evasion, misdirection, silence, etc which in my experience is the standard behavior of the normative conditioned Western human mind when it is put into such a situation.
  - kome 2y ago
    holly fucking shit, you are SO patronizing. their comment is ok, and i fully understood their logic. I cannot say the same about yours.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > holly fucking shit, you are SO patronizing. Perhaps (it is a subjective matter, in more ways than one, and some more importantly than others). What of it? Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy? Don't forget, lives are literally on the line. (Something else I find funny: sometimes lives being on the line is important, other times it is not. It is amazing how inconsistent humans are, even on the very most important matters.) > their comment is ok Is this to say that it suffers in no way regarding the specific phenomena that I am asking about? And if not: - what does "is ok" mean, precisely? - do you believe that it does not suffer in any of these ways? > and i fully understood their logic. If you did not, would you necessarily be able to know? (Can you realize the architectural problem you are in?) > I cannot say the same about yours. What specific "logic" of mine are you referring to here?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 2y ago

> What would the actual consequence be? Almost certainly nothing. One of the key things blocking extradition from the UK to the US is that UK law doesn't let them extradite if the person will be tortured, executed, or won't receive a fair trial in the destination country. This isn't something that politicians can bypass, except by changing the law; judges are not political appointees in the UK. This means the extradition process from the UK to the US relies on the UK receiving assurances, and the courts accepting them, because the US has always followed its agreements in the past. To me it seems unlikely the US would want to jeopardise this. And what would the benefit be? They've already shown they have the power to ruin people's lives at will, effectively imprisoning them in an embassy for a decade. That seems like a deterrent that will scare off most journalists.

steve_gh 2y ago
I think this is quid pro quo for the Harry Dunn case, which interestingly reached a final conclusion a week or so ago in the Coroner's court.

netsharc 2y ago

In the context of the elections, it seems like the US government/Biden admin "fucking" with Assange would probably be detrimental, considering parts of the MAGA movement is "We <3 Russia"/susceptible to Russian propaganda - and Assange is Russia-friendly since he apparently got Hillary's emails from them. They can twist it as Democrats being the warmongers (yeah it requires insane logic-bending, but hey, MAGA are experts at that) and Assange the pro-peace leaker. So MAGA would probably take up his cause, but with the Biden admin freeing him (fingers crossed), that's one less thing they can use against Biden in the elections.

nailer 2y ago
The Trump Russiagate conspiracy was a hoax. The Secretary of State not responding to the Libyan consulate’s security concerns prior to the attack is a serious matter and the source of the documents is not the issue.
- netsharc 2y ago
  > The Trump Russiagate conspiracy was a hoax. Ah, an appropriate example of bending logic and serious ignoring of many facts to end up with this conclusion...
  - nailer 2y ago
    Unverified after all the investigations: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-trump-intelligence-russia/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-trump-intelligence-rus... One step less than 'hoax' but it's Snopes and they lean left.
mistermann 2y ago
I find it very interesting how you: a) think b) (mis)use the English language For clarity: do you believe that your cognition on this matter is logically, ontologically, and epistemically flawless? I hope your seeming high level of confidence is resilient enough to answer this simple question directly, without engaging in rhetoric, meme magic, evasion, misdirection, silence, etc which in my experience is the standard behavior of the normative conditioned Western human mind when it is put into such a situation.
- kome 2y ago
  holly fucking shit, you are SO patronizing. their comment is ok, and i fully understood their logic. I cannot say the same about yours.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > holly fucking shit, you are SO patronizing. Perhaps (it is a subjective matter, in more ways than one, and some more importantly than others). What of it? Or another way of looking at it: which is more important in the big (geopolitical or otherwise) scheme of things...politeness (deceit, ignorance, rhetoric, etc) or truth/accuracy? Don't forget, lives are literally on the line. (Something else I find funny: sometimes lives being on the line is important, other times it is not. It is amazing how inconsistent humans are, even on the very most important matters.) > their comment is ok Is this to say that it suffers in no way regarding the specific phenomena that I am asking about? And if not: - what does "is ok" mean, precisely? - do you believe that it does not suffer in any of these ways? > and i fully understood their logic. If you did not, would you necessarily be able to know? (Can you realize the architectural problem you are in?) > I cannot say the same about yours. What specific "logic" of mine are you referring to here?