9 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

nothing 'humble' about it.  The man is a traitorous moron, responsible for the death of probably hundreds and for compromising the safety of us all and should be in jail forever. If he kills himself, so be it.  His choice. 

He is not from US so how can he be a traitor? He is australian and broke no australian law.

 

I have not seen any evidence he caused any deaths, do you have any link?

 

I also think he is a moron, but what you and I think of him personally is not relevant.

5 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Yes, and they are always right, right?  

Well a judge can only go with what is presented. If it was wrong defence should have cross examined better or provided other evidence.

 

Thats how courts work, both sides present their case and a judge determines it. 

 

You think she should disregard evidence and just go with a hunch?

8 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

it was based on her opinion, about something that is impossible to prove. 

It is my understanding that the “giving of opinions” is the job description for a judge. What are you on about?

4 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

nothing 'humble' about it.  The man is a traitorous moron, responsible for the death of probably hundreds and for compromising the safety of us all and should be in jail forever. If he kills himself, so be it.  His choice. 

" ...responsible for the death of probably hundreds..." Probably, possibly, maybe, rumor has it ... I want government and individual wrongful actions exposed to public view not protected by a vail of secrecy. But I recognize we disagree on many views concerning approaches to government.

49 minutes ago, dexterm said:

So you approve of a gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew mowing down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime, do you? Have any of them been charged in a military court?

 

Such crimes would have remained dirty secrets until Chelsea Manning and Assange bravely exposed them.

 

Assange deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, not this disgraceful sordid persecution, just because he embarrassed some cowardly war criminals with the truth. That's what freedom of speech and of the press should be all about in a democracy

If you want to condemn somebody, go after the politicians, they send people to war not the generals. War is dirty from the moment it starts. Don't blame the people who have to clean up the mess created by politicians.

5 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Yes, and they are always right, right?  

Are you implying that any judge’s rulings and opinions are 100% right all the time? In the real world the answer is no - hence things called appellate courts. Again what are you on about in this thread?

The USA would really like to punish him ,just to deter anyone else

from revealing their dirty secrets that they get up to around the World,

of which they have many....

regards Worgeordie

 

2 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

The USA would really like to punish him ,just to deter anyone else

from revealing their dirty secrets that they get up to around the World,

of which there are have many....

regards Worgeordie

 

 

6 minutes ago, Sujo said:

An opinion she got from reading his psychologist reports. So based on the facts presented to her.

Probably you have a different opinion on Thai courts when they make decisions.

In any country judges are put there by politicians. They help their (political) friends when they are in power en skrew the ruling parties when their friends are in the opposition.

4 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Probably you have a different opinion on Thai courts when they make decisions.

In any country judges are put there by politicians. They help their (political) friends when they are in power en skrew the ruling parties when their friends are in the opposition.

It isnt in thailand. Judges in UK are appointed using a process involving the bar association who recommend, or not.

 

UK, like australia has very little influence on who is appointed to the bench.

27 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Are you implying that any judge’s rulings and opinions are 100% right all the time? In the real world the answer is no - hence things called appellate courts. Again what are you on about in this thread?

It was sarcasm,  i wouldn't put their rulings and opinions any higher than 50% right, at least in the UK, and that maybe generous. . 

31 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

" ...responsible for the death of probably hundreds..." Probably, possibly, maybe, rumor has it ... I want government and individual wrongful actions exposed to public view not protected by a vail of secrecy. But I recognize we disagree on many views concerning approaches to government.

well we have freedom of speech, apparently, so that's okay with me. 

38 minutes ago, mikebike said:

It is my understanding that the “giving of opinions” is the job description for a judge. What are you on about?

Just because they do that doesn't mean that they are always right. That's why we have several tiers of Appeal, because they get things wrong, as in this case. They are placed there by society to act on behalf of society and for its wellbeing.  They don't always do that, in fact, they get it wrong quite a lot of the time, hence full Appeal Courts contesting the decisions and opinions of  lower level judges.  

15 hours ago, Pilotman said:

and that changes things why? Its a bad decision, made for a spurious and indefensible reason, accepted by some naïve,  liberal do gooder judge. 

 

What do you know about the magistrate to call her "liberal do gooder"?  What are your qualifications to  call it a bad decision as "spurious and indefensible"?  Do you understand that she applied the law as written? You disagree and because of that you offer insults. There are some weaknesses in the UK and EU judicial systems, but one of the strengths is that the courts are not politicized as they are in the USA. You want a political ruling, not a judicial ruling.

 

Where were you when she was attacked as being right wing and uncaring  for her earlier rulings?  Here is an example from 2019   http://johnpilger.com/articles/did-this-happen-in-the-home-of-magna-carta-

 

I don't like this Assange, and consider him an opportunistic, manipulative bully who plays the victim. However, this magistrate interpreted the law as she was trained to do. If she is in error her decision will be  reversed.

1 hour ago, Pilotman said:

nothing 'humble' about it.  The man is a traitorous moron, responsible for the death of probably hundreds and for compromising the safety of us all and should be in jail forever. If he kills himself, so be it.  His choice. 

For a start as a non-US citizen he can't be a traitor.

 

Secondly it has been well-documented that no one was put at risk as a result of the release of the information (the key word is 'information', NOT 'intelligence'- there is a huge difference.) 

 

Thirdly I am not defending him personally- I consider him to be an oily little opportunistic egotist.

 

The coverups of the war crimes were a disgrace- exposing them was the right thing to do. Lets remember that PMC members who committed war crimes in Iraq have just been pardoned by the current President.

 

The US Gov't has outed more of its CIA members by mistake in the past and put their lives at risk, NOT Assange.

 

He has hardly made the word more unsafe, merely exposed the shenanigan's of successive Govts and embarrassed them.

17 hours ago, Tropicalevo said:

Yeah, Yeah. Please do not send me to the USA - I might have to kill myself!

So why is he not dead?

This scumbag is a con artist and he has conned again. More expense to the UK taxpayers.

He screwed his lawyer and she had two kids.

He has screwed the UK legal system for a few million £ more.

He is not a journalist and he is not innocent.

What a disgusting comment

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

It isnt in thailand. Judges in UK are appointed using a process involving the bar association who recommend, or not.

 

UK, like australia has very little influence on who is appointed to the bench.

And pigs can fly? 

5 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

What do you know about the magistrate to call her "liberal do gooder"?  What are your qualifications to  call it a bad decision as "spurious and indefensible"?  Do you understand that she applied the law as written? You disagree and because of that you offer insults. There are some weaknesses in the UK and EU judicial systems, but one of the strengths is that the courts are not politicized as they are in the USA. You want a political ruling, not a judicial ruling.

 

Where were you when she was attacked as being right wing and uncaring  for her earlier rulings?  Here is an example from 2019   http://johnpilger.com/articles/did-this-happen-in-the-home-of-magna-carta-

 

I don't like this Assange, and consider him an opportunistic, manipulative bully who plays the victim. However, this magistrate interpreted the law as she was trained to do. If she is in error her decision will be  reversed.

European courts not politicized? Dream on. 

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

Yes, and they are always right, right?  

Do you really need this explaining? If one appoints an expert witness one generally believes what they say and acts upon it, which is the correct legal process. 

1 hour ago, Pilotman said:

well we have freedom of speech, apparently, so that's okay with me. 

Yep, and Freedom of the Press among the other enumerated American “Freedoms”.

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge ruled on Monday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges including breaking a spying law, saying his mental health problems meant he would be at risk of suicide.

 

Huh?  I'll bet Jeffrey Epstein would have loved such a judgement!

4 minutes ago, mlmcleod said:

LONDON (Reuters) - A British judge ruled on Monday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges including breaking a spying law, saying his mental health problems meant he would be at risk of suicide.

 

Huh?  I'll bet Jeffrey Epstein would have loved such a judgement!

Didn't know Epstein was extradited on a spying charge.

17 hours ago, Pilotman said:

Its called getting off due to Judge  stupidity. 

Not at all. The judge has heard ALL the evidence, something that none of us have seen or heard.

 

She made her decision (a good one IMHO), gave the verdict, and that is that.

 

If the prosecution wishes to proceed further they can appeal the judges decision. If they don't appeal that should be the end of it. If they appeal, then AFAIR the case is reviewed at a higher court.

 

 

If a new judge disagrees with the first court judgement, IIRC the judge can order a retrial.

 

If the appeal fails, I think there is one more higher court that they can try.

4 hours ago, SomchaiCNX said:

He is not a journalist, he is a nutter that grew up in a very religious environment. Should be dealt with in a military court.

 

Do you understand that a military court judges only military personnel and NOT civilians.

43 minutes ago, katatonic said:

Do you really need this explaining? If one appoints an expert witness one generally believes what they say and acts upon it, which is the correct legal process. 

well you know the definition of 'expert' :  'ex' is a has been, 'spurt' is a big drip

so the 'logic' of this judge and this decision is that Assange has a case to answer in law and  therefore the application for extradition is correct.   The US consider him a flight risk, which he has proved that he is, therefore he must be kepi under maximum security.  Maximum security means he may want to kill himself, (his choice) therefore he can't be extradited to face justice unless he is under less security, where he may push off (which he will) .  So, he has a case to answer, but he will not answer for it because the poor didums may top himself. The law is an ass. 

2 hours ago, SomchaiCNX said:

If you want to condemn somebody, go after the politicians, they send people to war not the generals. War is dirty from the moment it starts. Don't blame the people who have to clean up the mess created by politicians.

 

 

3 hours ago, dexterm said:
So you approve of a gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew mowing down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime, do you? Have any of them been charged in a military court?

 

So who, in your opinion ordered the gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew to mow down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime?

 

The politicians, or the guys who completely ignored the rules of war and their military superiors who covered up the war crime.

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

 

3 hours ago, dexterm said:
So you approve of a gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew mowing down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime, do you? Have any of them been charged in a military court?

 

So who, in your opinion ordered the gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew to mow down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime?

 

The politicians, or the guys who completely ignored the rules of war and their military superiors who covered up the war crime.

That, if I may so, is irrelevant to this debate on his extradition.  If he goes to the States he will get a chance to argue his case in Court.  the problem here is that  this judgement stops the normal course of Justice and in that regard must be considered as wrong headed. 

3 hours ago, Pilotman said:

nothing 'humble' about it.  The man is a traitorous moron, responsible for the death of probably hundreds and for compromising the safety of us all and should be in jail forever. If he kills himself, so be it.  His choice. 

Responsible for the deaths of “probably” hundreds you claim.

 

All he did was expose the lies and coverup of the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

George W went into Iraq on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction. Because a Saudi attacked the USA.

But because he was just a puppet for his dad and others in the oil business, attacking Saudi Arabia was no go, but he had to be seen doing nothing. 
 

As a result, kids like these were shot up and orphaned, and the US lied about it, but Julian exposed the murder and the lies. 

 

Exposing the truth about shooting unarmed children isn’t being a traitor, it is simply the right thing to do. 
Very easy to sit in a helicopter with big guns and radar plucking of innocent people. There is nothing heroic about it. 
It is murder.
 

 

27 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

 

3 hours ago, dexterm said:
So you approve of a gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew mowing down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime, do you? Have any of them been charged in a military court?

 

So who, in your opinion ordered the gung-ho US Apache helicopter crew to mow down 11 innocent civilians, then their superiors covering up the war crime?

 

The politicians, or the guys who completely ignored the rules of war and their military superiors who covered up the war crime.

 

There was a heap more than eleven. It was just that Julian leaked this one for all to see. 
 

The irony of the US claiming Assange caused people to die while they were shooting kids from a helicopter.

 

George W also started the war in Afghanistan. As similar case in by Australian soldiers there has just been exposed, shot and killed innocent unarmed kids, then the official report cleared them, but the truth is in the video. 
 

https://www.google.co.th/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiC29ezoITuAhWLXSsKHY91BIQQtwIwAXoECAEQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2020-03-16%2Fvideo-shows-afghan-man-shot-at-close-range-by-australian-sas%2F12028512&usg=AOvVaw0PUz0MxsgY3H_h_RzGP6Gp