Julian Assange: Last Chance.

Charges have been brought.

Attempts are being made to have him extradited to the US.

That is what matters...not MY opinion or YOURS.

 

If you do not like the fact that I think fair trials occur in the United States...you can go **** yourself.

 

Because that is what happens when charges are brought against an individual.

 

If it is 'non Crime,' no doubt his Lawyers will fight against extradition to the US on that basis. I'll wait to see if that happens and succeeds.

 

I was referring to the issue in Sweden as being a non-crime. Assange has no worries while in Sweden. Once in the U.S. however he won't need to have committed any crime because the Yanks will conjure up one and assign it to him.

 

My comment is still relevant. If the said allegations of what happened in Sweden amount to a non crime, then the Brits will not extradite. Problem is....Sweden has a very very very broad definition of what there constitutes 'rape.'

As for the Yanks, they have already nominated the charge and potential additional charges.

Despite what Assange delusionally believes about his Messiah status, he is not above the Law in Sweden or elsewhere.

 

Not true.

Yes, but there is no victim. If the Swedish courts want to pursue him on the basis of a "crime against the state" (which seems likely) the 'non-crime' is still a minor one and can't possibly warrant prison time. The only thing he can get for it is a fine and community service. The issues have been spelled out from the very beginning, it is the foreign news that have been embellishing the allegations to a level of pure fantasy. Here in Sweden, we know what the facts of the case are. It is the outside world that is in a frenzy over nothing.

They're making up laws as we speak. That is to say, they will be charging him for crimes that are not even legal by U.S. standards as is borne out by definition alone.

He has never claimed to be unwilling to face whatever charges Sweden decides to level at him. Sweden itself is no problem for him and he is aware of that.

The problem is (and has always been) that Sweden has its' lips up the crack of Washington's buttocks and is eager to please.

 

Of course it is true. If the Brit Court dealing with extradition is convinced that the Swedes have come up with allegations which in Sweden do not amount to a crime there, they will not allow extradition.

Well.....that is not an issue for the Brits. If there is enough evidence to substantiate the charges made under Swedish Law, then he will be extradited. It is not for the Brits to prejudge the outcome. Assange gets no special treatment. He will be dealt with like any other alleged 'rapist' the Swedes seek extradition for. Maybe the Swedes needs to look at their silly 'rape' Laws instead of you asking the Brits to make that judgement?

A Grand Jury already has him on one charge. Others have been mooted.

Que sera sera. Assange gets to go through exactly the same judicial machine everyone else has to. Nothing special about him at all.

 

You do not understand the rule of law, and you are utterly ignorant of the First Amendment and what it means. Your selective amnesia has you completely unaware of the Pentagon Papers and the various court decisions involved in that case.

Assange is the hero in the case BECAUSE he exposed the vicious crimes against humanity committed by the US government.

 

Your post reeks of ignorance. Inform yourself: https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/sex-lies-and-julian-assange/4156420

 

Extradition is covered by treaty. Many nations have claw back provisions or can refuse to give them up at all if they're likely to be subjected to the death penalty, for instance.

I'm not certain sweden has to cough him up though I am not familiar with their particular extradition treaty with either the UK or the US

 

Actually intentionally not using a condom when you know that's the deal would indeed be illegal in numerous US jurisdiction.
Same with a "kentucky lane change" where you're doing normal vaginal intercourse and "change lanes" so to speak unexpectedly and without prior permission.

 

I didn't say I believed in a one world government.
Treaties by definition are agreements between separate nations to abide by certain rules of common conduct.
They're an effort to keep the peace.

DO go on and explain then. Don't play the "i've got a secret" game.

Yes, extradition treaties are often multi-varied and reciprocal. Though as stated many nations work caveats into theirs.

 

Do you know what "J-walking" is? Is it a crime? What about "loitering"?

 

But he still is running from Sweden...even though YOU think he has no problem there.

Wonder why?

 

I understand the rule of law.

I an NOT ignorant of the First Amendment...and I do know what it means.

{quote] Your selective amnesia has you completely unaware of the Pentagon Papers and the various court decisions involved in that case.[/quote]

I know more about the Pentagon Papers than you think...and I understand the court decisions in that case.

What I do not understand is why you are so anxious that Assange NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL for the charges that have been brought against him.

If you want to think Assange is a hero...fine with me.

But serious charges have been filed against him...and I (apparently not you) want him to gest a fair trial.

 

The question is exactly what those "certain rules of common conduct" are. The devil is in the details.

I don't think he's necessarily a hero. But everything that's happening to him is wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's like he's facing the worst of ridiculous laws in the UK, Sweden, and the US, the worst of three worlds, so to speak.
(Ironically each of those things each of the those countries wants to punish him for wouldn't be seen as a crime in the other two countries)

But thanks to stupid extradition laws, he gets to face the worst of the craziness from all three countries.

 

What I don't understand is why you even want him to be brought to trial in the US.

Because running from Sweden was tantamount to running from the US.

Yes, Assange supporters don't have a problem with him facing the charges in Sweden.
The issue was that if he was sent to Sweden, the authorities there would then be able to extradite him to the US.

What part of that don't you get? It's been repeatedly explained to you over and over again.

Him being punished by the Swedish authorities (even if he doesn't deserve it) is almost entirely besides the point. Whatever prison time he might be likely to serve there is trivial compared to the issue of his extradition to the US.​

 

Assange supporters believe he is likely not to get a fair trial in the US.

In this particular situation, the existing law can be used in a way that is not fair.
(And that's even assuming there is no false evidence planted, or witnesses being coerced, which is another possibility)

 

They are allowed to "believe" whatever they want.

My guess, though, is that many of them do NOT want him to get a fair trial. They want him exonerated no matter what.

 

Many of them do not understand why he should be brought to trial in the first place.

I think we can agree here though that the trial in Sweden (if it even happens) is entirely besides the point.

And I hope you understand that bringing an innocent person to trial isn't just completely harmless.

 

Sweden aside: There are charges against him here. I want him to receive a fair trial on those charges.

I am confident that ANYONE can receive a fair trial in this country.

BOTTOM LINE: He may never be extradited to America...so it is all moot.

 

I've posted many unfair cases that happened in the US in the Law & Justice section in this forum.

Trials are not always fair. The existing laws allow prosecutors and judges to use all sorts of dirty tricks.

For example, one of the dirty tricks is punishing someone for something they were never convicted of in a trial, by catching them on another minor technicality of the law.

 

The fact that he was sentenced to nearly a whole year for jumping bail in the UK suggests otherwise.
That was very unusual, especially considering his peculiar circumstances.

(They knew exactly where he was the whole time he was gone, and he was practically being punished that entire time while he was seeking refuge, and even those accused of murder are usually not sentenced to a whole year if they jumped bail)

Especially since the official charges he was arrested on are not anywhere near as serious as real rape, and the judge should have realized that.
(I'm sure the defense must have explained to the judge the exact situation in Sweden)

Him being held so long in the UK will give the US plenty of time to go through the extradition process. And if they can't convince a judge in the UK to hand him over to the US, they'll always have a second chance with Sweden.

 

And you realize that the duly elected individual governments of each of those individual discrete nations held negotiations and conferences to come to those particular terms? They voted on them and ratified them.
You're acting like extradition is some sort of novel concept rather than a practice that extends back some time.