Jump to content

Assange fathered two children while holed up in embassy, lawyer says


webfact

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He ran and hid in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, there was at the time no extradition request from the US.

 

But don’t let facts get in the way.

Assange always said he would not oppose his extradition to Sweden IF this government would garantee not to hand him out to the US. Sweden refused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s not how extradition works, but nevertheless by all means send the bill anyway.

The system is flawed and needs updating. A recent FoI request showed UK taxpayers spent GBP 12M ensuring Assange remained holed up in the Embassy. UK taxpayers didn't want him there & nor did HMG so why on earth should they pay the bill....& how much bigger is it now that he's in Belmarsh?

Edited by evadgib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Assange always said he would not oppose his extradition to Sweden IF this government would garantee not to hand him out to the US. Sweden refused.

And quite rightly so.

 

People under investigation don’t get the right to dictate to the justice systems the terms under which they, the suspect, gets to be investigated and/or held.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The system is flawed and needs updating. A recent FoI request showed UK taxpayers spent GBP 12M ensuring Assange remained holed up in the Embassy. UK taxpayers didn't want him there & nor did HMG so why on earth should they pay the bill....& how much bigger is it now that he's in Belmarsh?

Well like I said, I’m all for sending the bill to Australia.

 

But you Mia an important point, Assange jumped bail and then proceeded to thumb his nose at the justice system holding court from the windows of the Ecuadorian Embassy.

 

You might think allowing a fugitive from the law to so very publicly flaunt the law is a good idea. The authorities don’t see it that way. I agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You might think allowing a fugitive from the law to so very publicly flaunt the law is a good idea. The authorities don’t see it that way. I agree with them.

The ongoing extradition to the USA has nothing to do with that, nothing at all, but is for publishing news as a journalist. And a journalist should not be charged for publishing news.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And quite rightly so.

 

People under investigation don’t get the right to dictate to the justice systems the terms under which they, the suspect, gets to be investigated and/or held.

 

They certainly do.

 

He was not charged. If police want to question you then you can dictate when and where and how. If they dont agree you are under no obligation at all to answer.

 

So yes, anyone can and does dictate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well like I said, I’m all for sending the bill to Australia.

 

But you Mia an important point, Assange jumped bail and then proceeded to thumb his nose at the justice system holding court from the windows of the Ecuadorian Embassy.

 

You might think allowing a fugitive from the law to so very publicly flaunt the law is a good idea. The authorities don’t see it that way. I agree with them.

Taking refuge in a consulate to avoid being extradited purely for questioning, because sweden refused to say he wont be sent to US is totally reasonable in my view.

 

Dont forget his only crime is jumping bail from questioning, not from any crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

The ongoing extradition to the USA has nothing to do with that, nothing at all, but is for publishing news as a journalist. And a journalist should not be charged for publishing news.

Further, if it is ok for him to be charged for that then if justice is to be served then every news outlet that published it should be charged. You know, justice and all that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

They certainly do.

 

He was not charged. If police want to question you then you can dictate when and where and how. If they dont agree you are under no obligation at all to answer.

 

So yes, anyone can and does dictate it.

You are obliged to attend if extradited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

Taking refuge in a consulate to avoid being extradited purely for questioning, because sweden refused to say he wont be sent to US is totally reasonable in my view.

 

Dont forget his only crime is jumping bail from questioning, not from any crime.

Jumping bail is Contempt of Court, a very serious crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, yuyiinthesky said:

The ongoing extradition to the USA has nothing to do with that, nothing at all, but is for publishing news as a journalist. And a journalist should not be charged for publishing news.

He’s not a journalist.

 

If he believes he is then he can make that case during his defense in an open court of law.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And he’s fighting another now.

 

I look forward to it’s conclusion.

I think Sweden has withdrawn the request for him to be extradited.

Sweden drops Julian Assange rape investigation

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/19/sweden-drops-julian-assange-investigation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.











×
×
  • Create New...