Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange to face extradition

The SWP have never been a significant political force.
Relative to the left's political grouplets of course. But yea I agree with Balbi that we should keep our voices down cos we've only just managed to round up a few panicked ones and coax them back into the paper sales thread.
 
Julian Assange is hiding in an embassy because after repeated attempts to prevent it in court, it was ruled that he would be extradited to Sweden to face allegations/charges of an equivalency to rape. Should he be extradited, he will face charges/allegations.

Once that case is concluded, the following may happen.

The U.S may apply for extradition, and it will be examined by the Swedish High Court who, after a previous case, do not extradite to the U.S. However, Britain will also have to authorise any extradition as they got Assange to Sweden, but only if Sweden approve the extradition requirement.

Sweden cannot give Assange the immunity from extradition which he has demanded for his return to Sweden, as Swedish law states it will be decided on the evidence presented. They will not change their laws to suit his requirements.

At present there are no requests for the extradition of Julian Assange outstanding, for his time in Sweden or the United Kingdom, from any country. There have been media comments by hawkish Senators, and from Julian himself, regarding how wanted he is.

Bradley Manning has been incarcerated for 1092 days.
 
London local news last night claimed that the Met's policing around the embassy has already cost over £3m. There followed an item detailing the closure of tens of police stations around GL undertaken in order to achieve savings that are hoped, eventually, to total £16m.

Hmmm
 
the US employing black ops including murder on a pretty much daily basis

The maın problem as I see ıt ıs that most Amerıcans and Brıts are sımply unaware of thıs, or at least of ıts extent.

That's why they thınk ıt ıs somehow ımplausıble that the CIA mıght actually have--gasp--sleeper agents ın deep cover throughout the world, prepared for eventualıtıes such as thıs one.

They just have no ıdea of how the world works. And I'm not just talkıng about obvıous ıdıots lıke TruXta eıther.
 
London local news last night claimed that the Met's policing around the embassy has already cost over £3m. There followed an item detailing the closure of tens of police stations around GL undertaken in order to achieve savings that are hoped, eventually, to total £16m.

If the Brıtısh people had any prıde they'd storm the embassy, free Assange, and carry hım shoulder hıgh through the streets.
 
Because someone won't face them in an open court in a jurisdiction with an independent judiciary.

Hah! ''Independent judıcıary'' ındeed.

We saw exactly what the US-UK thınks of ındependent judıcıarıes whıle they were threatenıng and brıbıng the members of the UN to drag them ınto theır bloodbath.

So Balbı, to answer your questıon: Hell no, he shouldn't gıve hımself up. He'd stand more chance of a faır trıal wıth Ordeal by Fıre.
 
You dont need to believe there are thousands of US sleeper agents out there to believe the case against Assange is dodgy as shit. Nor do you have to believe he is a lovely man, and the sole hero of wikileaks.

That the US would like to fuck him over in any way they can is surely undeniable, and that they can exert influence over foreign governments and legal processes to do so is, surely again, a simple statement of fact.It is highly unlikely that anyone other than Assange would have faced any charges for the alleged offences as stated, certainly not to the extent of seeking extradition proceedings.

Thus, Assange's fear of persecution is well-founded - ie, 'genuine' and objectively reasonable.
 
Just to get this straight, I am sexist for refusing to unconditionally condemn Julian Assange?
Nobody's asking you to find him guilty of rape. He's innocent until proven guilty. What he is to be condemned for is making a run for it instead of answering the charges. Making a run for it to Britain, a country with closer ties to the US than Sweden.
 
You dont need to believe there are thousands of US sleeper agents out there to believe the case against Assange is dodgy as shit. Nor do you have to believe he is a lovely man, and the sole hero of wikileaks.

That the US would like to fuck him over in any way they can is surely undeniable, and that they can exert influence over foreign governments and legal processes to do so is, surely again, a simple statement of fact.It is highly unlikely that anyone other than Assange would have faced any charges for the alleged offences as stated, certainly not to the extent of seeking extradition proceedings.

Thus, Assange's fear of persecution is well-founded - ie, 'genuine' and objectively reasonable.
Looks like a level of obliqueness where a bullet/equivalent or more straightforward smear would have done compared to any of the CIA schemes that have subsequently come to light I'm aware of.
 
Looks like a level of obliqueness where a bullet/equivalent or more straightforward smear would have done compared to any of the CIA schemes that have subsequently come to light I'm aware of.
really? This is a fucking brilliant smear (if it is one), perfect. Look at all the lefties lining up to slate him! Much much better than having him offed (becoming a hero, with an Oliver Stone movie showing how Bush did it following shortly thereafter).
 
But that's not news is it? That's just confirming what we had every good reason to believe all along.
What else might we have good reason to believe all along? That they'd set up - or grossly manipulate a situation involving - someone who they have explicitly stated is an enemy?
 
really? This is a fucking brilliant smear (if it is one), perfect. Look at all the lefties lining up to slate him! Much much better than having him offed (becoming a hero, with an Oliver Stone movie showing how Bush did it following shortly thereafter).
Really. Brings in several other actors/agencies and nowhere near as straightforward as planting something incriminating but even more damning in the eyes of his perceived constituency.
 
What else might we have good reason to believe all along? That they'd set up - or grossly manipulate a situation involving - someone who they have explicitly stated is an enemy?
They do it all the time. I don't have any problems accepting that the CIA and world powers etc are every bit as dire as painted.
 
Really. Brings in several other actors/agencies and nowhere near as straightforward as planting something incriminating but even more damning in the eyes of his perceived constituency.
What could they plant? Kiddie porn? Everyone would just go 'its a plant'

This situation requires no great skills or many agencies. Clearly the US already have strong links with other western governments, police forces and state agencies - that is the precise basis of how they work. So that they could simply pull a couple of strings to make all this happen, it is quite plausible.
 
Back
Top Bottom