Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay

We would hope so, but that may likely not necessarily be true.

Extradition could take place without real adequate evidence. Remember, he'd only have a right to a trial in the country he's finally extradited to.

 

You will, if there are extradition treaties and extradition is granted, or if you are arrested there in China or North Korea. Of course, you can always do an Assange, become an outlaw and cop the consequences.

 

Extradition for Political reasons is against the law in the UK.

 

Or you can turn yourself in and sometimes still face injustice.

I'll also point out there have been numerous cases where people, even though they turned themselves in, were still denied bail. I've posted a few stories about that in this forum. It even happened to one person in my family.

 

Nope. Unlike you, I have faith in what has stood the test of time and what has been adopted even in America......a Judicial System where the Rule of Law is dominant. Mate, relax, have a beer. The Rule of Law will look after Assange far better than he is managing. He has branded himself as an outlaw......you will say martyr and that is exactly what he wants and feeds off.

Take a chill pill. All will be well.

 

I don't.

Maybe you've been ignoring stories posted in the Law & Justice section.
Injustice can happen, and then often nobody cares. Certainly someone like you wouldn't be, in this case.

 

Gawd. To surrender to the Law does not mean Justice goes out the window. Okay, I am sure that there have been occasions when an alleged outlaw has handed themself in, but by that act alone does not mean they get bail.

In the case of Assange, he was given bail, and he then kicked sand at the UK Judicial System from Ecuador. Ergo......No more bail for Julian. Gee, how surprising, ey?

 

Sure, I have never ventured to that Section. Sure, injustice does occur, even with those on Death Row and later executed but were innocent. But.....not in the case of Assange. He is where he is entirely of his own making.

 

It can in specific cases like this.

Of course Assange trusting the law is what got him in trouble in the first place, isn't that true?
If, hypothetically he had just tried running away in the first place, and not turning himself in, he would not now have gotten a 1-year prison sentence for breeching bail.
And going back further than that, he trusted that rule of law would be respected in the US and they would not go after him. That was until there was a secret leak that they very likely were about to go after him.

Something which many people like you had denied in debates on this forum at the time, but which has now been proven true.
Assange critics blamed him for being paranoid and causing his own problems by hiding in that embassy for nothing. Or said he must have been making it all up to avoid charges for committing a rape.

Maybe he would not have so openly basked in celebrity status (years before the embassy) if he had known revealing leaks could be so dangerous.

 

Sorry Mate. You are not making sense, so for the moment, I'll politely retire.

 

Oh, and by the way, that bail was excessively set, because the investigations in Sweden were misrepresented to the court in the UK, as well as the public at the time.

They just knew he was being accused of "sexual violation", with critical details being withheld, which left the implication that it was real rape.
Just another example of injustice there.

 

While you are correct that they have been no help at all, any idea that Assange and his team were refusing help from the Australian Government goes up in smoke. They are actively asking for it.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...mid-growing-health-fears-20191028-p534xw.html

The potential for 15 years without trial for reporting war crimes. Well the West is becoming the as bad as the worse it has ever reported.

 

But why should he even be held in prison right now?
There's no justifiable reason. At least certainly not from what information has so far been made publicly available.

 

I would have thought that, if for no other reason, his team could get him released because of the amount of time he is being help in jail without charge. - that is held in jail while they decide whether it is lawful to extradite him to the US.

 

Is that a philosophical question?

 

It was worse than that. He was told he was free to leave Sweden that there were no charges. IMO people who are still saying all is above board are either ignorant, naive in the extreme or complicit.

 

The rule of law in the US and most western jurisdictions is dead in the water. It has been for years, thanks in part to your hero John Yoo and other unprincipled men like him.

If the rule of law were operable, Britain would have released Assange after the UN declared his detention in violation of international law several years ago.

The Swedish police told Assange he was free to leave the country regarding the rape matter, and he did. The rest is history.

Your faith is grossly misplaced. How can you have faith in a system operated by pathological liars and torturers?

 

Mostly the US and the UK.

You're the only one who is focusing on Assange's personality here.

I like the way you say "right or wrong" as if the moral legitimacy of the process is just an afterthought.

Except none of this would be happening if the individual in question were someone other than Assange.

There never would have been phony "rape" charges as a pretext to get Assange into US custody IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This entire process is the fruit of that poisoned tree. And it's obvious. Painfully obvious.

 

Proof is how knowledge comes into being. Without proof, there is no knowledge - only speculation and inference. Wikileaks provided proof of many things which people suspected, but did not know. And that is why the elites hate Assange so much. Because Assange's publishing undid much of the "plausible deniability" that elite lies depend upon.

 

Thank you for admitting, albeit unintentionally, that your position is ultimately a faith-based one.

 

There is no reason to have faith in a system that is controlled by Assange's enemies.

 

A good question.

 

The only thing I fault Assange for is not being smarter. He should have known they would come for him, try to destroy him, and that they would use whatever means possible to achieve that end. He should have been better prepared, and he should have been more careful.

 

Well, actually, from what I've researched into, it looks like the "sexual violation" thing may purely have been a coincidence and not had anything directly to do with other countries wanting him. (The two Swedish women were each angry when they found out he had been two-timing them with the other)

However, Assange did not and could not have known that at the time, and even if it was a coincidence it's still possible going to Sweden could have still opened him up to extradition.

He offered to do everything to cooperate with the investigation that would not involve risking his extradition from Sweden to another country. Having the Swedish prosecutor visit him in the embassy, interview with Swedish authorities by teleconference, giving them any blood samples they may have wanted, even at one point offering to go to Sweden if the government would give a guarantee that he would not be extradited. The Swedish authorities never took him up on any of those offers.

 

He trusted rule of law, until it started becoming apparent that he probably shouldn't.

Like I stated before, if he had just remained anonymous and kept his activities secret, or if he had just not turned himself in to begin with and run away from the UK, he might not be in the trouble he now finds himself in.

The breeching bail charges are, ironically, actually for turning himself in and then deciding to try to flee and seek refuge into the embassy after it became apparent there was a reason to. If, hypothetically, he had just ran away and then been caught, he would not now be facing a breech of bail sentence.

Also numerous case precedents have decided in the past it does not matter how or why you were brought into a country, once you're in that country you are subject to their jurisdiction, and any other country they then decide to send you to.
With those type of precedents and lack of individual legal guarantees, Assange had good reason (at the time) for not wanting to go to Sweden.