Slashdot Mirror
Assange Talk Spurs UK Judges To Boycott Legal Conference
An anonymous reader writes The Commonwealth Law Conference in Glasgow was subjected to walk outs and boycott once it became known that Julian Assange was to appear by video link from the Ecuadorian embassy to give a talk at the conference. The Guardian reports that, "Judges from Scotland, England and Wales and the UK supreme court had agreed to speak at or chair other sessions but withdrew – in some cases after arriving at the conference centre– when they found out about Assange's appearance. Among those to boycott the conference were the most senior judge in Scotland, Lord Gill, and two judges on the supreme court, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge. A spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland said: "The conference programme was changed to include Mr Assange's participation at short notice and without consultation. Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him. "Under these circumstances, the lord president, Lord Gill, and the other Scottish judicial officeholders in attendance have withdrawn from the conference." A spokesman for the UK supreme court added: "Lord Neuberger and Lord Hodge share the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and his fellow senior Scottish judges ... "As a result of this unfortunate development, they trust that delegates will understand their decision to withdraw from the conference. ..." A spokesman for judiciary of England and Wales said: "The lord chief justice shares the concerns expressed by Lord Gill and Lord Neuberger ... He agreed with the position taken by both, and the judges of England and Wales also withdrew from the conference. ...""
Maybe not so much a boycott as the judges being careful not to break the rules. IANAL, but there a lots of rules that prohibit the communication between defendants and judges, at least in US law, and I presume it's similar in GB.
Given what we know about groups like JTRIG, spook groups that make false victim claims, fake evidence, use 'honeypots' (i.e. women offering sex),
The whole legal system is on trial. Several UK judges have permitted evidence in secret from the spooks, which denies the right of the defendant to challenge it, so they're not exactly an innocent group here of perfect people defending the basis of law.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/edward-snowden-interview/exclusive-snowden-docs-show-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091
"British spies have developed "dirty tricks" for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into "honey traps.""
"Documents taken from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden and exclusively obtained by NBC News describe techniques developed by a secret British spy unit called the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) as part of a growing mission to go on offense and attack adversaries ranging from Iran to the hacktivists of Anonymous. According to the documents, which come from presentations prepped in 2010 and 2012 for NSA cyber spy conferences, the agency's goal was to "destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt" enemies by "discrediting" them, planting misinformation and shutting down their communications. "
Name one government that actually is in touch with their civilians. Everybody I spoke with is pro-Assange (on- and offline) not one government is...
No he isn't, regardless of how much you want him to be. But it is interesting how many have bought into his PR bullshit while ignoring the fact that if the US wanted him, they had ample opportunity to get him from the UK in the years before he fled into the embassy.
Assange fled UK jurisdiction to avoid being legally extradited by a recognised court of the land - so yes, he is a fugitive. So your example is complete rubbish because its not equivalent to the Assange situation at all - if the chief justice of Scotland appeared in front of a court in Iran and the court ruled against him, and then he fled Iran, then yes he would be a fugitive.
The UK handled everything per the law. They received an extradition request from a country they have a treaty with regarding this. They are required by the treaty to deal with these, they can't ignore them. So they reviewed it in court, to make sure it was a valid request per the treaty and decided it was. He appealed and the case moved up the chain until the high court heard it and decided that this extradition request is legitimate under the treaty, the UK has no standing to refuse.
Up until this point, Assanage was in no trouble in the UK, he hadn't broken UK law, they were just acting based on the extradition request. However then he fled. That is now a violation of UK law. He violated the conditions of his bail. That makes him a criminal in the UK. Skipping bail doesn't make you a "political prisoner" it makes you a standard criminal.
Does the chief justice of Scotland have any outstanding warrants for his arrest in Iran? And is the chief justice planning to address Iranians in Iran?
If both of these are true, then Iranian judges would be well within their right, and perhaps following their obligations, to boycott any conference that the chief justice of Scotland is to present to.
But that is not the case here. Assange is a fugitive from the UK, where he absconded a lawful order for his detention and extradition. He firmly placed himself on the wrong side of the law in the UK, and it is entirely appropriate that judges in the UK do not appear to give legitimacy as someone who can opine on UK laws while simultaneously refusing to be subject to UK laws.
Most people in the UK haven't got the first fucking clue who he is. When they discover he's yet another whining Auzzie who thinks he can come to the UK and conspire against our allies (the USA), with his self-important "look at me mummy" attitude, they're going to burn the fucking embassy down to get him out.
Again, the issue is NOT what other countries want.
While in the UK, under an English court's bail, he breached his bail conditions.
Everything else is a side-issue to whether he's actually a fugitive in the UK or not. Any country with an interest can register it and we'll send him on as and when the law requires. But, at the moment, he's committed a UK crime on UK soil, and stupidly against a UK court.
If he gets out of the embassy, he'll be arrested FOR THAT INSTANTLY PROVABLE CHARGE first. Then we'll worry about everything else but - pretty much - we'd agreed (and it was legally correct for us to agree without changes to existing laws to accommodate that) to extradite him to Sweden. We made them go back several times to dot their i's and cross their t's in that regard and refused to release him to them until it was done. That's sorted.
So he'll come out. Be arrested. Stand charge for skipping bail (evidence is overwhelming including by his own admission - because him being in the embassy is a breach of bail conditions in and of itself - and it's quite obvious it was a wilful violation). Then we'll hand him over to Sweden as we're legally required to (now that they've sorted out the paperwork, but as a member of the EU policing laws we would always have been eventually subject to doing so anyway - the US is a different matter entirely that would need a court's approval, and that court would be the one in Sweden, not the UK). Then whatever happens to him is Sweden's problem. If they extradite him to the US, they better do it REALLY carefully or else Sweden will be in breach of the same EU policing laws that it's using to get hold of him in the first place (they would have to reasonably ensure his life was not endangered by doing so, for instance).
But, first and foremost, he's a wanted CRIMINAL in the UK for skipping bail (we don't really use the word fugitive). It's like getting Al Capone on tax evasion, but cross-territory. And all the UK care about is the bail. Everything else is someone else's problem because we're not dealing direct with any US transfer where the only real scrutiny of human rights, etc. need take place (it's laid down in law that we can assume other EU member provide adequate human rights to comply with UK law, for example).
"On the other hand Julian is not a fugitive from the British police"
Yes, he is.
He skipped bail imposed by a UK court.
That these judges were required to show "loyalty" to their government by walking out, instead of asserting the independence of the judiciary
No, they showed loyalty to the judicial system by not allowing it to be railroaded into becoming part of a piece of political theatre.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
A fugitive is the antithesis of the organisation, conference and attendees. It's a conference for and about the legal profession. As far as I'm aware, Assange has zero legal qualifications whatsoever.
That's like saying you should invite a convicted paedophile to your school safety talk, or a rapist to your rape counselling group. Maybe it SOUNDS good and fair and balanced, but the practicality is insanely stupid.
Criminals (and Assange is one, legally speaking, in the UK for skipping UK court bail) DO NOT get a say in how their justice system handles them, or invited to conferences about the legal profession. Reasonable outsiders make sure the law is fair and balanced for all, but the criminals themselves? No.
the US is a different matter entirely that would need a court's approval, and that court would be the one in Sweden, not the UK
Are you sure about that? Doesn't the extradition treaty between Sweden and the UK explicitly prevent extraditing people who have already been extradited? Sweden would have to deport him before he could be subject to further extradition requests.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Firstly, the UK judiciary is not the UK government. I case you haven't grasped the concept of an independant judiciary, this is something we take quite seriously in the UK, and judges fiercly defend their independence from government (often to the chagrin of the government, c.f. the governments struggles to deport certain islamic preachers).
Secondly, what part of "Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice" do you not understand? That is a legal fact, and judges are bound to act appropriately. It would be entirely inappropriate for judges to sit there and be addressed by someone who has a current valid arrest warrant for a serious crime outstanding against them.
Thirdly, speak for yourself. I don't like Assange, and I'm certainly not the only person in the UK who feels that way. WikiLeaks may have done some good by bringing certain information to light (although even there it could have done better, a bit more care about what was released and how it was released would have given a lot less ammunition to people who don't want to respect people's freedoms and rights, and possibly lead to better outcomes for people like Bradley Manning), but Assange himself is a hypocrite and a coward, and I'd deport him in a second if I had any say in the matter.
Oh no... it's the future.
He is a political refugee, he has sought and been granted political asylum by Ecuador. So at least one sovereign nation has called BS on the political witch hunt.
No sir I dont like it.
I'm anti-Assange.
He skipped UK bail. Up until then, I thought he was just an idiot, now he's a criminal idiot.
However, if anything, technically protecting Assange could be seen as protecting a suspected rapist, no?
Sorry, but he's no hero. The stuff from Wikileaks is a bunch of useless junk that didn't change anything. Snowden did a hundred times more at a hundred times the risk. The quicker he gives up, is arrested, spends time in a UK jail and then gets passed away to another country (legally) and stops me paying my part of MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF TAX to capture him legally, the better.
I have zero sympathy for him. He was going through the courts, doing things legally, and spouting his mouth off. When he exhausted every possible appeal that way and STILL we found it legal to extradite him, he fled UK bail. My sympathy wasn't all that great for him all that time, anyway, but ended at that moment. The UK did its best to find a way out for him, but legally we are OBLIGED to hand him over, and we didn't just fabricate that law at the last moment for this case. That's the end of the matter.
And when he's released, he'll stand his charge of skipping bail, be extradited anyway, and then NOTHING will happen if what he says is true.
Assange is a troll, and a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic one at that. Everyone knows you don't feed trolls!!
The matter of the extradition treaty between UK & Sweden preventing further extradition sounds like a matter for a court in Sweden to decide.
So it looks like OP was correct, extradition to the USA would need a court's approval, and that court would be the one in Sweden....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Indeed, speaks volumes about our corrupted 'judges' doesn't it.
No it doesn't! Quite the opposite, the judges acted with the highest probity in this instance. Read the pertinent sentence in the summary again: "Mr Assange is, as a matter of law, currently a fugitive from justice, and it would therefore not be appropriate for judges to be addressed by him." Their participation would have been corrupt. [Emphasis added]
We cannot from this action determine if they have antipathy or sympathy for Assange and his cause. And that's just the point. On a purely personal basis they might support him as much as you or I. But they were there as judges and as such they are required to put aside their personal opinions and act as the ethics of their high office demands.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Anyone with the least grasp of what a conflict of interest is, should know that, whatever the opinion of those judges, they did the professional thing to do: left a colloquial event in order to prevent influence of informal statements from a very likely candidate to be heard in their courts. Simple as that
Assange himself is a hypocrite and a coward, and I'd deport him in a second if I had any say in the matter.
Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone.
Apart from your dislike for Assange (which is a personal opinon your welcome to of course, I simply don't share it), I think your comment is bang on the money.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
There are examples enough that prove that mass-surveillance is hurting the public (i.e. swatting people over funny and misinterpreted facebook posts, reporters that where researching stuff, writers doing research...), I have yet to see evidence that the documents released by Edward Snowden actually hurting someone... And please don't tell me that the false positives are to neglect as we really need mass-surveillance to keep fighting the terrorist. By saying that you just as well may say: I'm a sheep and I give in to the politics of fear.
I don't see why his being an alleged criminal means they aren't allowed to simply listen to him.
Do they put their fingers in their ears when they're presiding over a trial?
Actually, that might explain a few things...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He is, the "embassies are sovereign soil" thing is a myth, not fact. Add to that fact that the Ecuadorian Embassy is a rented flat in a shared building and I'm sure the owner will dispute the fact that its Ecuadorian soil...
Ecuador
No. Ecuador opposes everything that Assange stands for. Ecuador is a repressive country, with a muzzled press, and a poor human rights record. They are simply using Assage as a stick to poke the US/UK in the eye.
I don't see why his being an alleged criminal means they aren't allowed to simply listen to him.
He is more than an alleged criminal. There is a warrant out for his arrest and he is seeking asylum in a foreign embassy. The judges are correct, his current status is that of being a fugitive. Since it is possible that Great Britain may one day extradite, it would be improper for them to share the stage (even if he is doing so remotely) with him. If nothing else, it would question whether they, the judges, could be impartial if his case came to trial.
Name one government that actually is in touch with their civilians. Everybody I spoke with is pro-Assange (on- and offline) not one government is...
Well, since governments are responsible for upholding the law, until he has his day in court, it makes sense that governments would not be pro-Assange. The man is accused of releasing state secrets and threatening to release more. From a government perspective, he is involved in espionage. Why would you expect them to be supportive of him?
Because, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Assange is not on British soil.
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
For countries that have their embassy in the UK, them asserting that the embassy is their own soil doesn't have any effect. Sweden still needs to deport Assange from the UK as that is where he is as far as the UK is concerned. The Swedes could start extradition proceedings with Ecuador if they wanted but the UK would arrest him when he left the embassy and the extradition from Equador would have no effect. The UK doesn't need to extradite him from Equador either. They just need Equador to give him up to UK authorities.
The slightly more interesting case might be a UK embassy on the soil of a country who does say that embassies are the soil of the sending country. Because there are probably a few cases where it could matter - e.g. accident insurance that applies only in the UK - i.e. not for travel. If you fell and broke your leg in a UK embassy somewhere else in the world could you claim? The UK courts would probably say no even if the foreign country said "actually that building is in the UK".
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Did you read what the statement said?
It's nothing to do with him being "an alleged criminal", it's to do with him being currently a fugitive from justice. And they aren't "simply listening to them". They are attending a conference where he is addressing them.
I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.
Our politicians are the only people I am aware of that are anti-Assange.
You lead a very sheltered life and rarely read slashdot. Am I right?
"Fortunately the UK has judges of the calibre of Lords Gill, Neuberger and Hodge who, on trusts, would require an actual criminal offence or some other lawful reason, and evidence sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof, before deporting anyone."
It's important to note that the British courts have already upheld Assange's extradition at all levels up to the highest courts in the land, and so all of those judges you list would also chuck him out in a second if he wasn't hiding behind diplomatic protection in the Ecuadorian embassy. Actually it's more correct to say that they already have done that, since no further legal action is required or indeed possible to effect his extradition. But I take your point on my opinions of Assange, that wasn't the most constructive bit of the post.
Oh no... it's the future.
with the rest of the UK.
They seem mostly to be concerned with protecting peadophiles rather than their constituants. Our politicians are the only people I am aware of that are anti-Assange.
The vast majority of the UK don't give two shits about Assange assuming they have heard of him at all with most know nothing more than he's some bloke from the internet who is holed up in some Embassy because of some reason or another.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
> Firstly, the UK judiciary is not the UK government. I case you haven't grasped the concept of an independant judiciary, this is something we take quite seriously in > the UK, and judges fiercly defend their independence from government (often to the chagrin of the government, c.f. the governments struggles to deport certain
> islamic preachers).
The ones who are not tory party members or relations of tory party members take that independence seriously , sadly there are quite a few tory affiliated judges
and as anyone who reads private eye will know they often let their mates off.
Cheers
Amias
[site]
He is wanted in the UK for violating bail. Judges should only interact with criminals in the court where everything said is a matter of public record (and subject to strict accounting). Allowing judges to talk to criminals in other settings sounds like a good recipe for legalised bribery.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Assange isn't a fugitive on the basis of a charge regarding his involvements with Wikilieaks. He is a fugitive from an arrest warrant pertaining to a charge of rape. Whether he is guilty or innocent has yet to be determined by a court of law, hence the need for the judges to remain, and be seen to remain, entirely impartial. If those that have sympathy with him attend then and those that don't stay away than it guarantees him an unsympathetic judge if it ever comes to trial. That's not exactly in his best interest or the interest of justice in general. This is quite clearly the right thing to do, especially if those judges have any sympathy for Assange.
-- Gaxx
You realise you are stating wild theories with zero evidence as if they were facts?
accused of criminal or civil offences
You mean like an automatic or non-automatic ATM? Way to show you haven't the first clue what you are talking about. You do understand that any offence is criminal, yeah?
routinely address the presiding judge as a matter of procedure
Are you European (where accused to routinely address judges as a matter of procedure), or just plain ignorant of common law legal procedure? An accused rarely (there are exceptions, such as when an accused is unrepresented) addresses a presiding judge (as opposed to examining counsel) directly.
Maybe you can argue a fugitive is not a person present in the courtroom ...
Well golly gosh ... I dunno ... that might make just a teency eency bit of difference, dontcha think?
The quote you cited makes it clear the judge forgot his place in the judicial system. Despite the honorary title 'Lord' he or she is not "the law."
Now you're babbling ... He or she is not "the law" ... wow such scintilating insight.
The quote he cited was not from one of the judges but from a spokesperson for the Judicial Office for Scotland. And if anything it makes it clear the judges did remember their place in the judicial system ... they're judges duh! It's akward at least, if not outright unacceptable, for judges to attend a lecture given by a fugitive from the law and potentially enter into public discussion. The Lord Chief Justice for England and Wales agrees, how can you not get it? No ... lemme guess ...
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
I guess it's true: You learn something new every day.
I stand corrected.
Its amusing how all four of the points you raise are false:
1. The initial prosecutor threw the case out, but a second senior prosecutor took up the case on request from the victims.
2. Assange was not told he was free to leave Sweden, infact his lawyer was specifically told they wanted to talk to him again and he should contact the police before leaving Sweden.
3. No Swedish or Interpol law was contravened by the issuance of Assanges warrant - infact, this is exactly the sort of use they are for.
4. All UK courts where this case has been argued has actually both affirmed the legality of the arrest warrant, and affirmed the right of the Swedish to issue it. No UK court has ruled it illegal, and most certainly no UK court has said what you claim they have said.
How about you get your facts in order before claiming bullshit, k?
Until they get rid of those stupid, girly wigs, I have no interest in what UK judges say. Tossers.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Assange is accused of releasing state secrets of a country of which he is neither a citizen or resident, in which he was not present in when he released them, from which he never sought or received a security clearance, and to which he never gave a secrecy oath or signed an NDA.
By what stretch of the imagination do you think he is, or should be, obligated to keep those secrets?
Imagine all the people...
No one in their right mind would release information to them. First, it's a long prison term under the best circumstances, and then you have all of that blood on your conscience.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
A fugitive is the antithesis of the organisation, conference and attendees. It's a conference for and about the legal profession. As far as I'm aware, Assange has zero legal qualifications whatsoever.
He's involved in whistleblower activity detailing alleged abuses of the legal system and his status as a fugitive is likely to be linked to this more than the supposed rape accusations. But even assuming the rape accusation to be sound, his activity in whistleblowing makes him definitely relevant "for and about the legal profession".
That's like saying you should invite a convicted paedophile to your school safety talk, or a rapist to your rape counselling group. Maybe it SOUNDS good and fair and balanced, but the practicality is insanely stupid.
Why insanely stupid? It might give some insight on why these people did what they did. It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of having a look at the other side to try to understand. You seem to imply that merely listening to them would mean justifying them or giving them reason, which is not the case.
Criminals (and Assange is one, legally speaking, in the UK for skipping UK court bail) DO NOT get a say in how their justice system handles them, or invited to conferences about the legal profession. Reasonable outsiders make sure the law is fair and balanced for all, but the criminals themselves? No.
Talking at a conference does not in any way imply "having a say" in anything. Whoever wants to write laws fair, balanced and effective has to meet the criminals too to be able to better understand why some crimes happen, how to prevent them and/or mitigate them.
So, why not?
loyalty is an antiquated concept. Loyalty implies a sacrifice of autonomy and critical thinking. A loyal dog will protect its master regardless of whether or not the master is truly worth protecting. Loyalty is a component of social or group-identity. Often loyalty is part of a pyramidal power structure. Those at the top demand loyalty from those at the bottom in order to maintain their control over the bottom. Loyalty is already a divisive and conflict oriented mentality. An independent rational critical thinker has no need for loyalty. They will form alliances with those who share the same values, but the "loyalty" is to the values, not to the persons they are in alliance with.
Think of all the uses of loyalty. Knights are loyal to their king, employees loyal to the company they work for, sons and daughters loyal to their parents, and relatives loyal to the family. In all these cases, that which is "loyal" is placing blind trust in something they do not really know to be trust worthy. They have to turn off their critical scrutiny in order to be loyal...
By what stretch of the imagination do you think he is, or should be, obligated to keep those secrets?
Absolutely none. He has no legal requirement not to publish the classified information of another country, as you pointed out. But that's not what he is in legal hot water for.
When someone can offer some proof otherwise - "zOMG Sweden must have made all this up this because the CIA has nude pictures of their bikini team and I heard this is 100% true from a dude on reddit" does not count - I will gladly listen.
"95% of all Slashdot
You could shut up long enough the read TFS and TFA and do some Googling and get a list of the judges instead of posting with your head up your arse.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Spoiled, petulant children break things and storm out of the room when it's clear they won't get their way.
Assange was not in a room, but your point's taken.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You don 't understand Assange's role in Wikileaks. He's the spokesperson. He doesn't actually get his hands dirty by releasing shit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Ecuador opposes everything that Assange stands for.
No, I don't!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
+1, for the quick outbreak of common sense.
... because I have better things to do than listen to that pasty son of a bitch rattle on as if he's actually a productive individual.
Assange talks about things Wikileaks has done AFTER they have done it. He's the SPOKSEPERSON. He's said numerous times the HE, HIMSELF, has not released any documents.
Assange is useless as tits on a boar hog.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Assange is accused of releasing state secrets of a country of which he is neither a citizen or resident, in which he was not present in when he released them, from which he never sought or received a security clearance, and to which he never gave a secrecy oath or signed an NDA.
By what stretch of the imagination do you think he is, or should be, obligated to keep those secrets?
Did he come by those state secrets through legal means? Maybe, maybe not, that is what a trial could tell. Did he violate any laws from the countries involved with the possession of classified information? Many countries make it illegal to be in possession of classified materials one is not legally entitled to be in possession of. Again, that would take a court to decide. Finally, is he a willing accomplice to a crime in obtaining and disclosing this information? He may not have signed an oath or an NDA, but somebody might have done so. If so, he could, depending on the laws of said country, been an accomplice. Another thing for a court to decide.
The question shouldn't be about in what way is he obligated to keep or not to keep those secrets, but instead, whether or not he was involved, in any way, with espionage. Most "spies" don't do the actual theft of state secrets, either. The legal question to be answered is whether or not he is guilty of espionage and the answer either you, or me, or anybody else might give, doesn't really matter, it is a decision for the courts who hold jurisdiction to decide.
It seems that it is not in dispute that he willingly was in possession of and disclosed confidential information. You take the position that he has the moral, if not legal right to do so. Fine, if he took a moral stand and felt compelled to release the information as a matter of conscience, fine. But people take moral stands all the time and are willing to suffer the consequences. Why should he be different?
The word 'criminal' should surely only be applied *after* he has been tried and convicted (and while it seems very likely he would be so convicted, there is presumably some small chance he could be found 'not guilty').
All your ghosts are just false positives.
He's breached bail conditions in the UK. That makes him a fugitive from justice in the UK.
Whether he's committed a crime in another country is totally fucking irrelevant.
The judges can't listen to him because it would compromise their integrity - the absolute fucking opposite reason of your alleged moral corruption.
This isn't even fucking complicated, you're just skipping past the obvious in a blind frenzy to defend Assange.
My position is that there's no legitimate reason for Assange to be subject to US laws in any way whatsoever. Do you consider yourself subject to China's laws regarding to advocating for democracy? Should a UK citizen be subject to Saudi laws regarding pornography or not being muslim?
If Australia has a law obligating him to keep the secrets of third-party, non-Australian, governments; any charges or legal proceedings should be taking place in Australia. For the US to presume to export its laws beyond its own borders is absurd. And its subversion of both the British and Swedish legal systems (And the latters' willingness to do along with it.) is full-out sickening.
Imagine all the people...
Maybe Lord Lucan could appear next year...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yeah, I remember him. Putting all those Russian secret papers online for everyone to read.
I mean, he said he was going to do that, so I'm sure he followed through with it. Right?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Oh they seem to be doing just to stick it to the US, that describes most political asylum anyways.
No sir I dont like it.
I think this is the opposite of probity. A judge shall be impartial and have no preconceived opinions. Assange has not been tried, and the prosecution may well be wrong.
Sure, this is not a trial of Assange, and the judges do not have the same obligation to remain neutral toward Assange. They do not want to give the impression of colluding with fugitives, since that could undermine the public confidence in the legal system. But the judges instead give the impression of not understanding, or of pretending not to understand what is going on, and that is well suited to saw doubt about their competence as judges.
Now the judges seem biased in favor of the established powers, blind to the allegations of abuse of powers. I am not reassured.
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.
I can!
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
[The judges] do not want to give the impression of colluding with fugitives, since that could undermine the public confidence in the legal system.
You've just hit the nail on the head. Bear in mind they were not merely listening to Mr Assange, but were to appear along with him as fellow speakers.
But the judges instead give the impression of not understanding ... what is going on.
I was under the impression that they had, in effect, been ambushed. The inclusion of Mr Assange as a fellow speaker was, to quote the Judicial Office, "at short notice and without consultation." So they freely admit they did not know this was going to happen. (If this is what you meant by not understanding what is going on).
Now the judges seem biased in favor of the established powers, blind to the allegations of abuse of powers.
They should seem so only to those ignorant of the reason the judges felt compelled to withdraw. Since you have enunciated that reason so succinctly, you of all people ought not to succumb to that unfounded interpretation.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
What Russian secret papers do you refer to? What does Wikileaks have on Russia that it hasn't (yet) published?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
interesting point.
why was he on bail?
Every one of the AC's points is incorrect except the first: There is no "charge of rape".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
There is a world of difference between being interviewed on a TV program which is probably seen by judges, and being invited to deliver a lecture to a conference of judges.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Assange discovers corruption in politics, police, and judiciary, etc.
He then makes some evidence of this public.
Then they attack him, in corrupt ways.
And then he flees into an embassy.
And top commenters here argue he should just bow to corrupt systems,
follow some "laws", as if they were not corrupt.
These commenters are stupid or corrupt, obviously.
The man is accused of releasing state secrets and threatening to release more.
No he's not, he is accused of rape. That is the accusation from which he is running away. As far as I'm aware, there have, so far been no formal charges of releasing state secrets.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Not the text, "just the amount of "nested" quote marks"! It's hard to keep count, but I think we're left with two un-closed quote contexts at the end.
The man is accused of releasing state secrets and threatening to release more.
No he's not, he is accused of rape. That is the accusation from which he is running away. As far as I'm aware, there have, so far been no formal charges of releasing state secrets.
No, he is being accused of being in position of releasing state secrets by countries the UK has extradition treaties with. However, neither that or the rape allegations are what make him a fugitive. The fact that he skipped bail is what makes him a fugitive. The other charges, espionage, rape, etc., still need to be proven in a court of law. The bail skipping is a matter of record and does not.
So in the UK all people who skip bail are being watched 24/7 up to the tunes of 20 million pounds and counting? Please.. :-)
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
In 2010, Assange threatened to post on Wikileaks a trove of information about Russia, Putin, his administration, and important businessmen. This information was going to do a lot of damage to all concerned. The material never showed up.
Go to Wikileaks, and view their Russian section. It has just normal run of the mill postings, such as who was a creditor/borrower from the failed banks. Nothing really damaging to anyone, let alone Putin or Russia as a whole.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
There's pretty good evidence that he committed sex crimes while in Sweden, and Sweden went through the proper legal channels to extradite him from the UK. The UK judiciary agrees that Sweden has a perfectly good extradition case, and therefore ordered his extradition. I assume the bail was so he could be free during the extradition case. When Assange finished losing appeals, he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy, breaching the bail conditions.
It is not legally possible to say he was guilty of sex crimes in Sweden; it is legally possible to say that Sweden made a valid extradition request, it was considered by UK judges, and so it is definite that Assange is a fugitive from justice.
This has nothing to do with Wikileaks. It's entirely possible for a person to do a great service for humanity and be a criminal when off the clock (not that I'm saying here whether he's a criminal, or did a great service).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Assange has not been tried for alleged crimes committed in Sweden, but that's irrelevant. The judges didn't refuse to hear him on that basis. They are well aware that being accused of crimes is not the same as being convicted, and they do not presume he's guilty on any charges Sweden wishes to press.
Assange is a fugitive from justice, in that he fled rather than submit himself to legal authorities for legal proceedings. There is no question about that. He was ordered to present himself, and he went to the Ecuadorian embassy instead, where he remains. That's why the judges are staying away.
The UK has not abused its legal power with respect to Assange. His extradition warrant was reviewed by the UK judiciary and found to be correct. The alleged actions would be crimes in the UK. The UK has behaved correctly in this case. From what I've read, Sweden has probably acted correctly, but that's irrelevant here.
You don't seem to have any respect for the law, when it is impartially and correctly carried out. I don't think you're a good judge of judges.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Releasing state secrets would not make him a criminal in the US. Depending on how much he cooperated with Manning, he might be guilty of espionage. AFAIK, there have been no charges made by the US (as opposed to grandstanding politicians).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I didn't hear that any UK judge called him a criminal. They did call him a fugitive from justice, which he is. If he is convicted of that, he may well be legally considered a criminal in the UK (I don't know the details here).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Assange's fugitive status is entirely based on the sex crime accusations from Sweden, and the carefully examined extradition request. AFAIK, nobody else has charged him with anything, and there are no other extradition requests. The US may or may not have legal reason to charge him with espionage and make an extradition request, but AFAIK has done nothing about it.
If Assange gives himself up, then he would no longer be a fugitive from justice, and once all UK legalities were out of the way could legitimately speak at such a conference. Until the legalities are dealt with, it would be improper for judges to listen to him.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
so the only crime he is accused of is not going home to Sweden?
so they can send him to the us.
to be executed.
for publishing the collateral murder video.
sounds like he's a political refugee to me.
but none of that explains what crime he is supposed to have committed in the UK to be on bail there in the first place. in order to be a fugative from UK justice like you said.
you seem convinced he is a fugative from UK justice.
what part of UK justice are you referring to specifically?
I would expect people to recognize a self-aggrandizing narcissist who cares nothing about the people he [Assange] harms for what he is.
I have yet to see evidence that the documents released by Edward Snowden actually hurting someone...
You responded to a comment about Assange with a straw man argument about Snowden. The OP said nothing about Snowden. You do know that Snowden refuted Assange's and Wikileaks' methods of release, right? (Watch the documentary!) So... back to Assange, do you have anything to say that is on the topic of him being "a self-aggrandizing narcissist who cares nothing about the people he harms"?
Calm down and take your meds. The US is doing nothing to bring him in. You're wildly speculating, and ignoring the fact that it would be easier to get him extradited from the UK than from Sweden.
The crimes he is accused of happened in Sweden, and would be considered crimes in the UK, and Sweden submitted a perfectly valid extradition request. It is therefore the UK's duty to hand him over to Swedish authorities. The crime he committed in the UK was jumping bail, and I don't know if they'd even bother trying him for that, but they do have to bring him in.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What part of the police force surrounding him for the last couple of years and the UK justice system attempting to violate international law by invading another country to get him out makes you think when they actually get hold of him they'll be sending him to Sweden?
What part of the UK police not violating international law don't you get? If they wanted to, they could warn the embassy, walk in, grab Assange, and walk out. Diplomatic immunity is not intended to allow an Ecuadorian embassy to keep a fugitive from justice that has Australian nationality, is in the UK, and is wanted in Sweden. Doubtless the international lawyers would argue about it, but the UK certainly has the ability to do that and some (not necessarily enough) legal justification. (Going into an embassy uninvited does not constitute invading that country. The embassy is on UK soil, although it has protected status.)
Assange was in the UK for some time. At no point did any UK authorities even hint at picking him up and sending him to the US, and the US didn't ask. Given the UK lapdog status, the US probably could have had him extradited to the US to face some sort of espionage charge.
The only reason getting him out of the UK was ever brought up was a perfectly standard legal procedure that would end in his going to Sweden. If the US wanted him that bad, they would either have already kidnapped him or filed charges and asked for extradition. Since they have not made any such move while Assange was in Sweden, or the UK, why would they do anything until Sweden filed an extradition request, and it slowly made its way through the English legal system?
The police watching the Ecuadorian embassy are probably there because it's a publicized case with that's politically hot.
There's a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the UK wants to send him to Sweden, and any speculation about US involvement would have to account for why the US has not gotten involved until now.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
then you missed the bit about the us getting involved and requesting his arrest shortly before he was granted asylum.
and if that is all they needed to do. then the 10s of millions of dollars they have spent on policig waiting for him to come out is definately criminal.