SURVEY: Should Assange be extradited?

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Find out who he was actually working for. 

There are investigations and  seal indictment's involving JA.This is another reason why the USA would want him extradited 

 

WikiLeaks said Wednesday that U.S. prosecutors have begun offering immunity in exchange for the testimony of individuals associated with the website’s publication of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/23/wikileaks-doj-offering-immunity-exchange-testimony/

[marcusarelus]

Growing Body of Law Allows Prosecution of Foreign Citizens on U.S. Soil

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/nyregion/growing-body-of-law-allows-prosecution-of-foreign-citizens-on-us-soil.html

[manarak]

9 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Noriega was arrested in Panama brought to the USA and tried in an American court.  El Chapo was extradited to America for crimes in Mexico and America and tried in America. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/world/el-chapo-extradited-mexico.html

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/indictment-of-joaquin-guzman-loera-el-chapo/821/

Next

exactly. ARRESTED, not EXTRADITED.

 

[Tagged]

I am willing to put anybody who risk our free world for anyone elses profit! Yes! 

 

But is it the right thing to do? Not my table! And glad it is not! 

[RJRS1301]

9 hours ago, whitemouse said:

Please say you are kidding! You do not know the one cornerstone of US' legal system?

 

'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.'

 

Bench trial or Jury trial both require establishing guilt beyond doubt, here:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt

 

Read my earlier response. I said “think” please , I did not make a statement big difference. Read what was written before launching an attack. Try some basic comprehension please.

Also read where I thanked anther poster for informing me. 

I did not claim to know the American system, there are other systems besides the US one, believe it or not. 

[RJRS1301]

38 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Read my earlier response. I said “think” please , I did not make a statement big difference. Read what was written before launching an attack. Try some basic comprehension please.

Also read where I thanked an0ther poster for informing me. 

I did not claim to know the American system, there are other systems besides the US one, believe it or not. 

Also having sat in on a few trials by jury in the US, I did not hear the judges inform the jury that their verdict had to be "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", this instruction in Australia, UK and NZ is part of the judges instructions to the jury prior to them retiring to consider their verdict

[marcusarelus]

8 hours ago, manarak said:

exactly. ARRESTED, not EXTRADITED.

 

Exactly wrong.

El Chapo, Mexican Drug Kingpin, Is Extradited to U.S

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/world/el-chapo-extradited-mexico.html

[Srikcir]

17 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

You would be at their mercy

Not in your sense.

In US judicial system Assange would be at the 'mercy' of the unanimous vote of 12 jurists, who owe the judge nothing except to follow legal and constitutional court instructions, that is required for conviction.

Assange's defense attorney has the obligation to assure that the jury is fair and unbiased (well to the extent that Assange can get favorably-biased prospective jurists accepted by the prosecution versus prosecution's ability to detect and challenge such potential defense favorable jurists).

I don't think Assange will request (as is his right to do so), a judgement by the court judge. As we saw in the trial of Manafort, there is no 'slam dunk' by the US prosecution for convictions largely because of jury trials. During trial the judge is essentially a referee whose primary duty is to resolve judicial procedural matters and render appropriate sentencing in the case of conviction according to judicial guidelines. Note again that in the Manafort sentencing, the judge acted independently to the prosecution's recommended long-term sentencing to order a much shorter term.

[Solinvictus]

Lots of comments..sure..

 

However, this isnt that difficult to understand.

 

He was a journalist doing journalism. All of their works have never been discredited...

 

Its 1984. Even after a beer or a laugh...I'd never choose to jail someone who did such a beneficial act to society.

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Solinvictus said:

Lots of comments..sure..

 

However, this isnt that difficult to understand.

 

He was a journalist doing journalism. All of their works have never been discredited...

 

Its 1984. Even after a beer or a laugh...I'd never choose to jail someone who did such a beneficial act to society.

 

Publishing information wholesale, without context or commentary is hardly journalism. Or at the very least, not a prime example of such. The way some countries and regimes never get "covered" by such a justice warrior, despite their transgressions being on a whole different level is suspect.

[tifino]

He simply converted what were embedded military cover ups,  into public domain... 

 

But really; the US would have been just as equally into Wiki'so encrypted domain,  as was Wikipedia into theirs. 

The US could have nipped the Wikipedia leaks in the bud anytime they wished! But they didn't want to...

[Solinvictus]

49 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Publishing information wholesale, without context or commentary is hardly journalism. Or at the very least, not a prime example of such. The way some countries and regimes never get "covered" by such a justice warrior, despite their transgressions being on a whole different level is suspect.

What do you mean "without context or commentary"?

 

***

Assange: Hey! Here is evidence of killing civilians..

You: ..another justice warrior...

 

 

In regards to some countries and not others, well, I believe Wikileaks did release a variety of evidence implicating quite a few different countries or regimes on various matters. Correct me if that is wrong.

[usviphotography]

Only if the UK is likewise willing to extradite to Russia any British reporter who writes a story which relies on illegally obtained information about that government. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Start extraditing all your reporters to every country around the world's whose security apparatus is offended or embarrassed. It would still be unconscionable behavior, but at least the Brits could still claim they have some semblance of an independent government and are not just the paid help of the American Deep State. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

What do you mean "without context or commentary"?

 

***

Assange: Hey! Here is evidence of killing civilians..

You: ..another justice warrior...

 

 

In regards to some countries and not others, well, I believe Wikileaks did release a variety of evidence implicating quite a few different countries or regimes on various matters. Correct me if that is wrong.

 

Kindly stop twisting my words. But thanks all the same for demonstrating what context means, while doing so.

 

Wikileaks materials, for whatever reasons, mostly reference issues related to Western governments. At the same time, there's a distinct lack of materials dealing with even worse regimes, widely acknowledged for their mistreatment of civilians and disregard for human rights etc.

[tifino]

Fresh breaking News on aussie tv; that the Swedes have just re-opened the so-called rape case!

 

 

Well, would you believe?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Assange now has to switch his line of argument.

 

When he went into hiding to evade justice he claimed his extradition to Sweden to face charges of rape was a pretext to him being (by means never explained) extradited from Sweden to the US.

 

Now we learn Swedish prosecutors have re-opened the investigation against Assange for alleged rape.

 

Charges, an investigation and possible imprisonment that will almost certainly delay Assange’s extradition to the US.

 

Watch as he flips his arguments on this.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[tifino]

considering that not only we got our first leak about the Swedes over an hour ago, courtesy of Australian television;

and that T.V. World News has now just come online with a new Thread about it...

 

maybe it is also a ripe time to create a new parallel universe Thread - to Survey whether JA should instead be Extradited to Sweden?

 

and... which Extradition is more likely?

[piewarmer]

On 5/9/2019 at 9:36 AM, Morch said:

 

Publishing information wholesale, without context or commentary is hardly journalism. Or at the very least, not a prime example of such. The way some countries and regimes never get "covered" by such a justice warrior, despite their transgressions being on a whole different level is suspect.

Wikileaks has published Russian, Chinese shameful secrets as well.....as long as it's not made up (like the MSM did with Russiagate)

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, piewarmer said:

Wikileaks has published Russian, Chinese shameful secrets as well.....as long as it's not made up (like the MSM did with Russiagate)

 

I don't recall there was much of that, actually. Certainly not on-par with the amount of material published in relation to Western countries and governments. And I'll pass on you conspiracy theory bit, thanks.

[Dumbastheycome]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't recall there was much of that, actually. Certainly not on-par with the amount of material published in relation to Western countries and governments. And I'll pass on you conspiracy theory bit, thanks.

Negative  hyperbole' as  usual.  Cite a proper  rebuttal with content!

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Negative  hyperbole' as  usual.  Cite a proper  rebuttal with content!

 

Didn't see any such citing on the post replied to either. No comments on that one, though, eh?

 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Didn't see any such citing on the post replied to either. No comments on that one, though, eh?

 

And the  other?   Publish that if  you so wish.

[mauGR1]

58 minutes ago, tifino said:

considering that not only we got our first leak about the Swedes over an hour ago, courtesy of Australian television;

and that T.V. World News has now just come online with a new Thread about it...

 

maybe it is also a ripe time to create a new parallel universe Thread - to Survey whether JA should instead be Extradited to Sweden?

 

and... which Extradition is more likely?

I may be wrong, but if Sweden can manage to have JA extradited, it will be easier for the US to put their hands on him.

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I may be wrong, but if Sweden can manage to have JA extradited, it will be easier for the US to put their hands on him.

Why?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I may be wrong, but if Sweden can manage to have JA extradited, it will be easier for the US to put their hands on him.

Why?

..Just a gut feeling, that the public opinion in UK could be more in favour of JA being released.

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I may be wrong, but if Sweden can manage to have JA extradited, it will be easier for the US to put their hands on him.

You are wrong.

 

An extradition from the U.K. to Sweden would be enacted through a court order.

 

Assange would be in Sweden under order of a U.K. court.

 

The extradition relates only to the charges laid and any further extradition must be put before the U.K. court.

 

Assange’s claim that he could be extradited to Sweden and from there to the US was always hogwash.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

..Just a gut feeling, that the public opinion in UK could be more in favour of JA being released.

At what point during an extradition hearing does the public get to offer their opinion?

 

And when do members of the public holding a different opinion get to take the stand?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are wrong.

 

An extradition from the U.K. to Sweden would be enacted through a court order.

 

Assange would be in Sweden under order of a U.K. court.

 

The extradition relates only to the charges laid and any further extradition must be put before the U.K. court.

 

Assange’s claim that he could be extradited to Sweden and from there to the US was always hogwash.

 

 

On legal terms you are probably right, but it seems to me that you have a lot of faith in the law.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

At what point during an extradition hearing does the public get to offer their opinion?

 

And when do members of the public holding a different opinion get to take the stand?

Like it or not, the public opinion has a weight.