Assange Wins Appeal Against US Extradition Order: Legal Battle Continues

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

They and their Commander in Chief should be on trial, not getting medals.

Who’s the ‘Commander in Chief’?

[SpaceKadet]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who’s the ‘Commander in Chief’?

That would be the POTUS.

 

Just to educate you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

That would be the POTUS.

 

Just to educate you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief

Oh, so it’s President Biden.

 

But he wasn’t President at the time of these alleged crimes.

 

So maybe you didn’t mean ‘Commander in Chief’?!

Go on, educate me, who were you referring to?

 

[SpaceKadet]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, so it’s President Biden.

 

But he wasn’t President at the time of these alleged crimes.

 

So maybe you didn’t mean ‘Commander in Chief’?!

Go on, educate me, who were you referring to?

 

C'mon CM. Don't play dumb. POTUS that was in charge when those atrocities were committed. Shoot a Reuters camera man, and you get a medal? Really? National security? Really? Life's in danger? Well, actually, life's been taken. Just listening to the cocpit conversaion makes you puke. So much arrogance and vitriol. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/21/2024 at 2:56 PM, impulse said:

 

He was never going to Sweden to face the sex assault charges.  He would have been extradited to the USA.

 

That was obvious and IMO it's very doubtful that the charges were genuine. One suspects they were invented to get him to Sweden where the US would have stepped in to extradite him to the US where they doubtless want to lock him up for his remaining lifetime as a warning to any journalist that would have the gall to expose US war crimes.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was obvious and IMO it's very doubtful that the charges were genuine. One suspects they were invented to get him to Sweden where the US would have stepped in to extradite him to the US where they doubtless want to lock him up for his remaining lifetime as a warning to any journalist that would have the gall to expose US war crimes.

Already debunked.

 

And he’s actively played a part in getting himself locked up.

 

He was, you might recall, released on bail.

 

How did going on the lam work out for him?

[impulse]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How did going on the lam work out for him?

 

Better than ending up in an illegal black site, the victim of an "extraordinary rendition".  Which were all the rage around that time.

 

He's still in the news, his case and cause still have international attention, and there's significant pressure on his own gub'ment to defend him.

 

Ask Epstein how things go when inconvenient people with inconvenient evidence end up in custody.  Oh...  Wait...

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Better than ending up in an illegal black site, the victim of an "extraordinary rendition".  Which were all the rage around that time.

 

He's still in the news, his case and cause still have international attention, and there's significant pressure on his own gub'ment to defend him.

 

Ask Epstein how things go when inconvenient people with inconvenient evidence end up in custody.  Oh...  Wait...

 

It must be exhausting dreaming up all this conspiracy nonsense, do you ever think the facts of Assange being given due process and his rights as demonstrated in the OP are worth paying any attention to?

[SpaceKadet]

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Already debunked.

Links from verifiable sources please.

[johng]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

the US where they doubtless want to lock him up for his remaining lifetime as a warning to any journalist that would have the gall to expose US war crimes.

 

Yes this is the core of the matter.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, SpaceKadet said:

Links from verifiable sources please.

Refer earlier link debunking the at risk of extradition from Sweden nonsense and here regarding at risk of torture/death penalty:

 

If you have evidence to the contrary do share it. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/06/13/uk-happy-wikileaks-assange-wont-face-death-penalty-or-torture-approves-us-extradition-request/?sh=2160c1232824

[SpaceKadet]

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Refer earlier link debunking the at risk of extradition from Sweden nonsense and here regarding at risk of torture/death penalty:

 

If you have evidence to the contrary do share it. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/06/13/uk-happy-wikileaks-assange-wont-face-death-penalty-or-torture-approves-us-extradition-request/?sh=2160c1232824

The article is written in a very vague wording.

What Javid belies is totally irrelevant as it has not happened yet, and does not reflect the reality. In fact the wording in the document from the US is also very vague. We all know that politicians and legal entities love to write with a lot of ambiguity just to cover their arses  and do what they please in the end.

 

Sorry for edit, 

Regarding the first link, what governments (i.e. politicians) and in this case åklagarmyndigheten says is not necessarily true what will eventually happen. Just quoting the law book is not the same as implementing it...

 

Remember the famous words of Bill C. "I have never had sex with that woman..." 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That was obvious and IMO it's very doubtful that the charges were genuine. One suspects they were invented to get him to Sweden where the US would have stepped in to extradite him to the US where they doubtless want to lock him up for his remaining lifetime as a warning to any journalist that would have the gall to expose US war crimes.

 

Why is obvious that the UK would have extradited Assange to Sweden so that Sweden, in turn, could extradite him to the UK?

 

Why would Sweden - a country admired for being largely free from corruption (see quote below) - embroil itself in a scandal by inventing charges against Assange? What's in it for them?

 

What evidence exists to support any of these opinions? Answer: None. As Chomper has correctly stated throughout this thread, it is all conspiratorial nonsense.

 

--------

 

"Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index scored Sweden at 82 on a scale from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("very clean"). When ranked by score, Sweden ranked 6th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector." (Source: Wikipedia).

 

[SpaceKadet]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Why is obvious that the UK would have extradited Assange to Sweden so that Sweden, in turn, could extradite him to the UK?

 

Why would Sweden - a country admired for being largely free from corruption (see quote below) - embroil itself in a scandal by inventing charges against Assange? What's in it for them?

 

What evidence exists to support any of these opinions? Answer: None. As Chomper has correctly stated throughout this thread, it is all conspiratorial nonsense.

 

--------

 

"Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index scored Sweden at 82 on a scale from 0 ("highly corrupt") to 100 ("very clean"). When ranked by score, Sweden ranked 6th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector." (Source: Wikipedia).

 

Because the US of A  is Sweden's overlord, and dictates to the Swedish government what to do in cases which they have an interest in.

He might not even have been extradited, but just disappeared. Some American alphabet agencies are very good at the disappearing thing. 

 

Remember the raid on TPB servers in 2006 and the following court case? The TPB did not break any Swedish law, and the primary judge was later found to be a legal consultant to RAAA. Coincidence? OH NO! Conspiracy theory CH would say.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Because the US of A  is Sweden's overlord, and dictates to the Swedish government what to do in cases which they have an interest in.

He might not even have been extradited, but just disappeared. Some American alphabet agencies are very good at the disappearing thing. 

 

Remember the raid on TPB servers in 2006 and the following court case? The TPB did not break any Swedish law, and the primary judge was later found to be a legal consultant to RAAA. Coincidence? OH NO! Conspiracy theory CH would say.

A surfeit of Jason Bourne movies is my bet.

 

[RayC]

6 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Because the US of A  is Sweden's overlord, and dictates to the Swedish government what to do in cases which they have an interest in.

He might not even have been extradited, but just disappeared. Some American alphabet agencies are very good at the disappearing thing. 

 

Remember the raid on TPB servers in 2006 and the following court case? The TPB did not break any Swedish law, and the primary judge was later found to be a legal consultant to RAAA. Coincidence? OH NO! Conspiracy theory CH would say.

 

"In April 2009, the website's founders–Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm–were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine." (Source: Wikipedia)

 

[SpaceKadet]

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

"In April 2009, the website's founders–Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm–were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine." (Source: Wikipedia)

 

Exactly, sentenced by the judge who at the same time was working for RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). No conflict of interest there, right?

 

Obviously you're just quoting dry data from Wikipedia, and are not aware of the full story or the follow-up. They were convicted on the bogus charges, but the best thing is that the police did not confiscate any of the TPB servers. They were located at a different locations and TPB was up 3 days later.

[Caldera]

On 5/21/2024 at 3:32 AM, Social Media said:

Recently, Biden mentioned considering Australia's request to drop the case against Assange, hinting at a possible diplomatic resolution.

 

Hopefully that's what will happen, this has been going on way too long. 

[Caldera]

On 5/21/2024 at 3:32 AM, Social Media said:

Recently, Biden mentioned considering Australia's request to drop the case against Assange, hinting at a possible diplomatic resolution.

 

Hopefully that's what will happen, this has been going on way too long. 

[Red Forever]

On 5/21/2024 at 5:36 AM, RayC said:

 

I agree with your sentiments but in Assange's case his confinement was, for the most part, of his own volition. Assange had the choice between facing charges of sexual assault in Sweden or breaking his UK bail conditions and escaping to the Ecuadorian embassy. He chose the latter course of action. He has no one to blame for those 'lost' 15 years but himself.

Wrong. With regard to the "sexual assault" the blame lies with the US. The charges were dropped when it was revealed that the "victim" was a CIA operative who laid the honey trap. 

[RayC]

6 hours ago, Red Forever said:

Wrong. With regard to the "sexual assault" the blame lies with the US. The charges were dropped when it was revealed that the "victim" was a CIA operative who laid the honey trap. 

 

Wrong.

 

Firstly, there were three victims not just one as you suggest. Secondly, the 'lesser' charges were dropped due to the stature of limitation in Swedish law (the charges effectively timed out). Thirdly, the Swedish prosecutor decided to drop the remaining charges and close the case because "the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed" but said that "the complainant had submitted a credible and reliable version of events". Hardly an admission that they believed Assange to be innocent.

[RayC]

21 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

Exactly, sentenced by the judge who at the same time was working for RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). No conflict of interest there, right?

 

Obviously you're just quoting dry data from Wikipedia, and are not aware of the full story or the follow-up. They were convicted on the bogus charges, but the best thing is that the police did not confiscate any of the TPB servers. They were located at a different locations and TPB was up 3 days later.

 

The appeal court concluded that “The Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.”

 

That's a pretty definite and unambiguous statement. What is bogus about It? Are you suggesting that PB didn't engage in illegal file sharing?

[SpaceKadet]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The appeal court concluded that “The Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service.”

 

That's a pretty definite and unambiguous statement. What is bogus about It? Are you suggesting that PB didn't engage in illegal file sharing?

Exactly, there were no illegal files hosted on their servers.

But that's totally off topic for this tread, so let's not bother continuing.

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Exactly, there were no illegal files hosted on their servers.

But that's totally off topic for this tread, so let's not bother continuing.

 

The only way that your statement can be true is if you redefine the word 'illegal'.

 

PB hosted files when they did not have permission to do so. The site broached companies' Intellectual Property Rights. This is illegal and a criminal offence.

[SpaceKadet]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The only way that your statement can be true is if you redefine the word 'illegal'.

 

PB hosted files when they did not have permission to do so. The site broached companies' Intellectual Property Rights. This is illegal and a criminal offence.

They did not need permission to host indexing files. The companies do not own IP rights for the indexes.

 

It is almost impossible to explain how torrents works to laymen. It's just beyond their comprehension level.

And let's face it, the legal entities in the court didn't had a clue about what was discussed.

 At that time I was following Peter Sunde's tweets from the court house. 

 

You're just quoting dry data from Wikipedia.

Try torrentfreak.com for real information about the trial. There is also a documentary made, "TPB AFK", but you would probably have to go The Pirate Bay to download it 

[RayC]

5 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

They did not need permission to host indexing files. The companies do not own IP rights for the indexes.

 

It is almost impossible to explain how torrents works to laymen. It's just beyond their comprehension level.

And let's face it, the legal entities in the court didn't had a clue about what was discussed.

 At that time I was following Peter Sunde's tweets from the court house. 

 

You're just quoting dry data from Wikipedia.

Try torrentfreak.com for real information about the trial. There is also a documentary made, "TPB AFK", but you would probably have to go The Pirate Bay to download it 

 

The concept of copyright infringement (see below) is imo an easy concept to grasp, although you seem to be unable or unwilling to accept it. Whether you believe it to be a 'just' law is completely irrelevant.

 

The simple fact is that a Swedish court and Appeal Court found PB guilty of copyright infringement. I imagine that the verdict would have been the same had the trial been held in the UK, US or Timbuktu although, of course, that is my opinion not a fact.

 

-----++++

"What is copyright infringement?

 

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."

 

 

[SpaceKadet]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

"What is copyright infringement?

 

As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."

So that does definitely not fit to what TPB was doing, and still do, BTW.

 

Interestingly:

 

"The trial took place in Sweden in 2009. The judge who presided over the case was Tomas Norström. However, his impartiality came under scrutiny as it was revealed that he was a member of pro-copyright organizations, leading to accusations of bias."

[RayC]

39 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

So that does definitely not fit to what TPB was doing, and still do, BTW.

 

Interestingly:

 

"The trial took place in Sweden in 2009. The judge who presided over the case was Tomas Norström. However, his impartiality came under scrutiny as it was revealed that he was a member of pro-copyright organizations, leading to accusations of bias."

 

Index files could be viewed as  derivatives. (I have no idea whether this formed part of the prosecution's case)

 

As you are no doubt aware, Judge Norstrom's impartially was the subject of an appeal. This appeal was heard and dismissed. It is also worth noting that there were two other judges in addition to Norstrom.

 

You might not agree with the verdict but the bottom line is that due process was followed according to Swedish law.

[SpaceKadet]

Yes, because the honorable judges are beyond all reproach and all the verdict are correct. Nordström was the presiding judge and controlled all the narrative. Who are we, the common plebs, to comment on such high standing people.

 

From Peters tweets during the trial it was quite clear how desperate judges were to find something to pin on TPB. The verdict was preordained by the Uber Lords that be. It was just the matter of finding a legal wording.

 

It's the cases like these that make me worried about judges impartiality in any given high profile case. There are always some hidden agendas.

 

BTW, all those million of dollars they were ordered to pay, never got paid, they simply didn't run TPB for profit and had no fortunes of their own as the prosecution speculated.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, SpaceKadet said:

Yes, because the honorable judges are beyond all reproach and all the verdict are correct. Nordström was the presiding judge and controlled all the narrative. Who are we, the common plebs, to comment on such high standing people.

 

From Peters tweets during the trial it was quite clear how desperate judges were to find something to pin on TPB. The verdict was preordained by the Uber Lords that be. It was just the matter of finding a legal wording.

 

It's the cases like these that make me worried about judges impartiality in any given high profile case. There are always some hidden agendas.

 

BTW, all those million of dollars they were ordered to pay, never got paid, they simply didn't run TPB for profit and had no fortunes of their own as the prosecution speculated.

 

The first court found Pirate Bay guilty, the Swedish Appeal Court upheld the verdict, the ECJ confirmed the verdict and, in a separate case, a UK court reached a similar conclusion.

 

Do you believe all these courts were following the same political motivated agenda? It all sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/15/pirate-bay-european-court-of-justice-rules-infringing-copyright-torrent-sites