Since Julian Assange's removal from the Ecuadorian Embassy and his recent jail sentence for skipping bail, there is discussion about what will happen.   In you opinion, if requested, should he be extradited to the US?  

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.  

Apply due legal process.

 

If his extradition is approved by a court and he fails to have it overthrown on appeal, then yes extradite him.

 

If his extradition is not approved by a court or he wins an appeal don’t extradite him.

 

 

 

Due legal process, I hope , without interference by the "intelligence agencies" from both UK and USA.

He may have assisted Chelsea Manning get the information, but did he actually hack the system??

IMO his crime was exposing the lies by the "coalition of the willing". 

Yes

No! The world and especially the US themselves need to start accepting they do not always get what they want. 

 

I am wondering when the generals and decision makers in the US government mass killings of innocent civilians, and subsequently attempted coverups, then exposed in wiki leaks, are going to be extradited to the countries where the victims' families reside. Why is it all so one sided? 

 

You can say "war is war" all you want. But covering up civilian death numbers is not "war", it is outright crime and proves the depths of their prevarication and deception.  

 

Edited May 5, 20197 yr by utalkin2me

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

Yes

The information was from Chelsea Manning, are you saying that Assange physically hacked the system??

 

1 minute ago, utalkin2me said:

No! The world and especially the US themselves need to start accepting they do not always get what they want. 

 

I am wondering when the generals and decision makers in the US government mass killings of innocent civilians, and subsequently attempted coverups, then reported in wiki leaks, are going to be extradited to the countries where the victims' families reside. Why is it all so one sided? 

 

Not only the generals, but about the leaders of the "coalition of the willing" countries (including several Australian Prime Ministers who sanctioned troops being involved) facing the War Crimes Tribunal/Court 

A post containing off topic deflection comments has been removed as well as the off topic reply. 

Should be given a Pulitzer for journalism and a hero parade. 

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

The information was from Chelsea Manning, are you saying that Assange physically hacked the system??

 

You are taking a rather myopic view of what constitutes a crime. Take time to read up on Criminal Conspiracy and why it is considered as serious if not more so than the crime being conspired. 

10 hours ago, Scott said:

Please feel free to leave a comment.  

I did try! 555

Yes he should  and then banged up for the rest of his natural life. 

No.  He should not be extradited. 

Should Assange be extradited?

I do not agree with the people who think he is a hero, fully agree with him being jailed in the UK.

He broke UK  law, correct decision to jail him for that, but no way should the UK bow to any US demands to extradite him, let him serve his sentence then allow him to go free.

Edited May 5, 20197 yr by colinneil

He should be.

He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system and received a massive amount of lucrative information in return.

 

And if you think he (and WikiLeaks) isn't making money from that (and other "leaks") then you really need to get an education. (A couple years ago it was reported they were making $9-10 million a year - that was known about - not including whatever they were able to hide - got to love Bitcoin when you are a crook.)

If Assange was a Russian or Chinese or Iranian agent, there'd be NO question about it and he certainly wouldn't be viewed as some kind of hero.

 

As well, think about it. If you worked at a bank and I helped you crack a password that let you send me millions of dollars - would you think I was totally innocent of any wrong doing ?

NO, you wouldn't. You would consider me, at the very least, to be complicit and more likely to be the mastermind of the crime.

Also keep in mind that Assange was a convicted criminal long before he started Wikileaks (having been convicted in his native Australia for various hacking crimes). He isn't some "white knight" valiantly defending free speech.

He is a criminal that makes money off of stealing people's secrets and then exposing them (or not) for profit.

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Yes

Are you serious?

 

Anyone that has the mindset that Assange should be extradited is a mouthpiece for the establishment.

 

Oh...how good the goverment's propaganda and narratives get absorbed into people's thinking...

 

Glad I'm not brainwashed.

13 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

He should be.

He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system and received a massive amount of lucrative information in return.

 

And if you think he (and WikiLeaks) isn't making money from that (and other "leaks") then you really need to get an education. (A couple years ago it was reported they were making $9-10 million a year - that was known about - not including whatever they were able to hide - got to love Bitcoin when you are a crook.)

If Assange was a Russian or Chinese or Iranian agent, there'd be NO question about it and he certainly wouldn't be viewed as some kind of hero.

 

As well, think about it. If you worked at a bank and I helped you crack a password that let you send me millions of dollars - would you think I was totally innocent of any wrong doing ?

NO, you wouldn't. You would consider me, at the very least, to be complicit and more likely to be the mastermind of the crime.

Also keep in mind that Assange was a convicted criminal long before he started Wikileaks (having been convicted in his native Australia for various hacking crimes). He isn't some "white knight" valiantly defending free speech.

He is a criminal that makes money off of stealing people's secrets and then exposing them (or not) for profit.

 

Such a hypocrite blowing the horn of the television’s free programming.

 

Why hypocrite you may ask?   He made information regarding the wrong doings of governments available for us to see. Yet, you are going off on convictions and criminal acts....

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

He should be.

He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system and received a massive amount of lucrative information in return.

 

And if you think he (and WikiLeaks) isn't making money from that (and other "leaks") then you really need to get an education. (A couple years ago it was reported they were making $9-10 million a year - that was known about - not including whatever they were able to hide - got to love Bitcoin when you are a crook.)

If Assange was a Russian or Chinese or Iranian agent, there'd be NO question about it and he certainly wouldn't be viewed as some kind of hero.

 

As well, think about it. If you worked at a bank and I helped you crack a password that let you send me millions of dollars - would you think I was totally innocent of any wrong doing ?

NO, you wouldn't. You would consider me, at the very least, to be complicit and more likely to be the mastermind of the crime.

Also keep in mind that Assange was a convicted criminal long before he started Wikileaks (having been convicted in his native Australia for various hacking crimes). He isn't some "white knight" valiantly defending free speech.

He is a criminal that makes money off of stealing people's secrets and then exposing them (or not) for profit.

very well said.  You may have added that he is a delusional, narcissistic ego manic and those that follow him and agree with him are naive in the ways of the World and what ensures the very freedoms that they enjoy. 

No, Chelsea Manning was an insider, she had all the required passwords as part of her job

 

Wish it weren't so, but then again Assange was a real thorn in the backside of the deep state so I'm not holding my breath that he will be extradited to America.

9 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

...those that follow him and agree with him are naive in the ways of the World and what ensures the very freedoms that they enjoy.

There is no freedom without transparency. 

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

There is no freedom without transparency. 

Funny because a good deal of Trump voters want to see Assange extradited and imprisoned for life in some CIA blacksite, yet it was a lot of the leaked state department cables that bit HRC in the azz during the 2016 campaign

Edited May 5, 20197 yr by sukhumvitneon

32 minutes ago, Kerryd said:

He should be.

He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system and received a massive amount of lucrative information in return.

 

And if you think he (and WikiLeaks) isn't making money from that (and other "leaks") then you really need to get an education. (A couple years ago it was reported they were making $9-10 million a year - that was known about - not including whatever they were able to hide - got to love Bitcoin when you are a crook.)

If Assange was a Russian or Chinese or Iranian agent, there'd be NO question about it and he certainly wouldn't be viewed as some kind of hero.

 

As well, think about it. If you worked at a bank and I helped you crack a password that let you send me millions of dollars - would you think I was totally innocent of any wrong doing ?

NO, you wouldn't. You would consider me, at the very least, to be complicit and more likely to be the mastermind of the crime.

Also keep in mind that Assange was a convicted criminal long before he started Wikileaks (having been convicted in his native Australia for various hacking crimes). He isn't some "white knight" valiantly defending free speech.

He is a criminal that makes money off of stealing people's secrets and then exposing them (or not) for profit.

Kerry!!!  Looked high and low for you for years.  When did you get back to posting on TV?  Good to see you, mate.  Now, if I may disagree with you . . . 

 

As of this date Assange has not been convicted of espionage.  Charged, perhaps, but convicted, no.  I would suggest everyone refrain from stating as fact that which has yet to be proven as fact.

 

Why, in heaven's name, should Wilileaks be precluded from making money?  And why insinuate that the fact that Wikileaks makes money is 'dirty'?  And where is there any evidence that Wikileaks are crooks?  Beliefs need to be separated from facts no matter how much someone wishes something to truly be as they'd like.

 

I'm amazed that anyone would fall for the idea that Assange is an agent for any foreign government.  Of course, if he's accused to indeed be a foreign agent why must it only be an agent of the currently portrayed enemies of the U.S.?  It's an age old tactic when trying to tarnish someone to accuse them of associations with bad actors.  Why is it such a successful tactic?  Because those making the accusations know that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove one way or the other.  But it does work wonders in casting doubts amongst those undecided looking for truth who cannot know one way or the other.  On this one, ask yourselves if you're being played.

 

Perhaps this is a better analogy . . . If you worked at a bank and had access to information which implicated the bank in wrongdoing and I helped you to release that information would I be a crook?

 

The logic in the last statement is so completely twisted since it's conclusion is based on too many false assumptions.

 

And as another poster here commented (and I'll paraphrase), what is it with all of these people who are so willing to condemn those who expose the criminal wrongdoings of government and other institutions or individuals?  Blows my mind.

6 minutes ago, sukhumvitneon said:

Funny because a good deal of Trump voters want to see Assange extradited and imprisoned for life in some CIA blacksite, yet it was a lot of the leaked state department cables that bit HRC in the azz during the 2016 campaign

It's known as having your cake and eating it too

8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

There is no freedom without transparency. 

As I say, naive. There has never been, nor will there ever be, or could be, true transparency in protecting freedom. To believe that there can be is to believe in a unrealistic World, where all is bright and beautiful and no bad people. bad governments, terrorists, religious fanatics, dictators, crooks, fraudsters, mafias etc.  

4 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

As I say, naive. There has never been, nor will there ever be, or could be, true transparency in protecting freedom. To believe that there can be is to believe in a unrealistic World, where all is bright and beautiful and no bad people. bad governments, terrorists, religious fanatics, dictators, crooks, fraudsters, mafias etc.  

So ignoring corruption is the best strategy?

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Apply due legal process.

 

If his extradition is approved by a court and he fails to have it overthrown on appeal, then yes extradite him.

 

If his extradition is not approved by a court or he wins an appeal don’t extradite him.

 

 

 

Totally agree...

 

But if the Swedes do also bring extradition charges they should take preference.

 

If the extradition request(s) fail he should be kicked out the UK and nether be allowed to return.  

1 hour ago, colinneil said:

I do not agree with the people who think he is a hero, fully agree with him being jailed in the UK.

So you believe that elected officials should not be accountable for their actions - like Thailand?

Strange how folks want to imprison someone who has told the truth by telling them their government has lied to them. ????

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm amazed that anyone would fall for the idea that Assange is an agent for any foreign government. 

It's a great indicator of where they are getting their "independent" news & views from 

Edited May 5, 20197 yr by CGW

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Kerry!!!  Looked high and low for you for years.  When did you get back to posting on TV?  Good to see you, mate.  Now, if I may disagree with you . . . 

 

As of this date Assange has not been convicted of espionage.  Charged, perhaps, but convicted, no.  I would suggest everyone refrain from stating as fact that which has yet to be proven as fact.

 

Why, in heaven's name, should Wilileaks be precluded from making money?  And why insinuate that the fact that Wikileaks makes money is 'dirty'?  And where is there any evidence that Wikileaks are crooks?  Beliefs need to be separated from facts no matter how much someone wishes something to truly be as they'd like.

 

I'm amazed that anyone would fall for the idea that Assange is an agent for any foreign government.  Of course, if he's accused to indeed be a foreign agent why must it only be an agent of the currently portrayed enemies of the U.S.?  It's an age old tactic when trying to tarnish someone to accuse them of associations with bad actors.  Why is it such a successful tactic?  Because those making the accusations know that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove one way or the other.  But it does work wonders in casting doubts amongst those undecided looking for truth who cannot know one way or the other.  On this one, ask yourselves if you're being played.

 

Perhaps this is a better analogy . . . If you worked at a bank and had access to information which implicated the bank in wrongdoing and I helped you to release that information would I be a crook?

 

The logic in the last statement is so completely twisted since it's conclusion is based on too many false assumptions.

 

And as another poster here commented (and I'll paraphrase), what is it with all of these people who are so willing to condemn those who expose the criminal wrongdoings of government and other institutions or individuals?  Blows my mind.

Hogwash.

 

Those making accusations that Farage is an agent of a foreign power (Russia) want him to stand trial in open court of law.

 

Those who claim his innocence are keen that he does not stand trial.

 

I say, follow the due process of the law.