Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[Biggy Stardust]

AJL308 said:

He was never on Ecuadorian soil.

So you are suggesting that the US would carry out an assassination of a foreign national who was a fugitive from US justice outside of it's own territory? I think you are somewhat deluded in that opinion.

Wasn't the killing of Bin Laden an assassination of a foreign national outside US territory?

The US can be a bit naughty when it chooses.

[AJL308]

Biggy Stardust said:

AJL308 said:

He was never on Ecuadorian soil.

So you are suggesting that the US would carry out an assassination of a foreign national who was a fugitive from US justice outside of it's own territory? I think you are somewhat deluded in that opinion.

Wasn't the killing of Bin Laden an assassination of a foreign national outside US territory?

The US can be a bit naughty when it chooses.

Really? That's the best you can do? You don't genuinely see these as comparable, surely?

[Kent Border Kenny]

AJL308 said:

Really? That's the best you can do? You don't genuinely see these as comparable, surely?

It answers the question that you asked though, they do do it, so now the only question is how low down in terms of criminality does the policy go.

[DeejRC]

So, Ive just caught a bit of this on the 1pm news. I didn’t realise we even had him, let alone in Belmarsh.
I don’t follow this thread or even the story, so I was a little surprised about the above.

A) Why do we have this twit?
B) Why can’t we offload him to the Swedes or anyone else?

Why on Earth is this bloke our problem??

[Taylor James]

AJL308 said:

Tacking an immediate and serious threat, presumably?

See 'Iranian nuclear scientists' deaths' versus 'Salisbury poisonings' versus George Blake/Kim Philby for reference to the different approaches.

[AJL308]

Kent Border Kenny said:

AJL308 said:

Really? That's the best you can do? You don't genuinely see these as comparable, surely?

It answers the question that you asked though, they do do it, so now the only question is how low down in terms of criminality does the policy go.

In the context of some minor criminal who they want extradited, no they don't. In the context of the most significant terrorist and promoter of terrorism who had personally caused the biggest single loss of life incident on US soil since Pearl Harbour and who had openly declared war on the US and who was considered as an enemy combatant then, yes, they do. The two are not remotely comparable though.

The suggestion that the US would murder a national of a friendly country whilst he was the territory of a third friendly country and was under the protection of a fourth friendly nation simply because he was a fugitive (who they'd likely get hold of lawfully anyway) is deluded at best. Can you name a single incident where they have attempted that in, say, the past fifty years, let alone achieved it?

[AJL308]

DeejRC said:

So, Ive just caught a bit of this on the 1pm news. I didn’t realise we even had him, let alone in Belmarsh.
I don’t follow this thread or even the story, so I was a little surprised about the above.

A) Why do we have this twit?
B) Why can’t we offload him to the Swedes or anyone else?

Why on Earth is this bloke our problem??

A) because he skipped bail here and hid in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years so that he didn't have to face rape charges in Sweden before being arrested and sentenced for 50 weeks for said bail skipping.
B) because the charges in Sweden were dropped or became time barred and we didn't have the balls to tell the Ecuadorians that their harbouring of him was an abuse of their consular privilege and go into their embassy to get him. The UK does not recognise claims for "political asylum".

He's "our problem" because he is here, unfortunately. Hopefully the US will refine their case and we'll send him over there.

[anonymous-user]

Bail refused pending appeal by the US - this is no surprise given the history of bail jumping.

[Bonefish Blues]

...but all the Foreign Embassies had their front doors locked, just in case

[vaud]

AJL308 said:

The UK does not recognise claims for "political asylum".

Don't we?

[AJL308]

vaud said:

AJL308 said:

The UK does not recognise claims for "political asylum".

Don't we?

Not according to the judgement in his case given on Monday.

[anonymous-user]

The UK recognises claims for asylum on various grounds. One of those is the risk of persecution for political reasons. Being prosecuted for breaking the criminal law is not, absent good evidence to the contrary, a ground for asylum.

Ecuador chose to shelter Assange in its London Embassy. The UK could have sent police in to get him but chose not to do so for Diplomatic reasons.

[MrBig]

We should have handed him over years ago. God only knows the cost to the taxpayer of protecting the narcissistic egotist.

As a collective, is the general opinion that his shenanigans have been in the public interest?

[AJL308]

MrBig said:

We should have handed him over years ago. God only knows the cost to the taxpayer of protecting the narcissistic egotist.

As a collective, is the general opinion that his shenanigans have been in the public interest?

Very little that he has done has been in the public interest as far as I can see. There is perhaps a case to argue that releasing details of alleged war crimes is in the public interest - although, as with any journalist, he must take the risk of jail depending upon how that information came to him. Indiscriminately releasing tens of thousands of illegally obtained classified documents with no attempt to redact the names of people who may be put at risk of serious harm or death is reprehensible and is most certainly not the work of any sort of "journalist". It should be noted that most of the charges the US wish to bring only relate to the documents containing names of people so they are not simply throwing the book at him.

He is no journalist; he is an egotistical, narcissistic computer hacker who harbours severe personality disorders. He is a criminal who thinks he's above the law and thinks he has the right to do as he pleases. A Federal Supermax facility is the right place for him.

[DeejRC]

Well I don’t especially feel the need to be ranty against him, I just regard him as a twit. Can’t we tell him to just bugger off and leave him to his own devices?
I rather suspect we didn’t go into the Ecuador gaff because whilst he was there we didn’t have to care! Do they want him back at all?

[anonymous-user]

The Ecuador farce cost the taxpayer a lot of money because the Embassy had police monitoring it in case Assange legged it.

[Gecko1978]

AJL308 said:

He was never on Ecuadorian soil.

So you are suggesting that the US would carry out an assassination of a foreign national who was a fugitive from US justice outside of it's own territory? I think you are somewhat deluded in that opinion.

He was in one place all the time the embassy of a foreign state which as I understand is in effect their soil. An I deliberately did not say assassination because ot sounds all to James bond. But lets say the US really wanted assange back. Then maybe they spoke to Ecuador who agreed to push him out and then the british arrested him meaning he could not flee an then informally it was agreed they would allow extradition to the US.

Now the final part has not happened yet but it might. I am saying simply if a state actor wants you badly enough and they have resources they are getting you. Russia and the ME have form for milling rivals and North Korea also. UK not so much the US have killed Iranian generals in iraq I recall. So it does go on but Assange is not a general making nuclear weapons he is now by all accounts a broken man with mental health issues....seems the US have still won.

[anonymous-user]

An Embassy is NOT the territory of the state it represents. That is a myth.

[Kent Border Kenny]

AJL308 said:

In the context of some minor criminal who they want extradited, no they don't. In the context of the most significant terrorist and promoter of terrorism who had personally caused the biggest single loss of life incident on US soil since Pearl Harbour and who had openly declared war on the US and who was considered as an enemy combatant then, yes, they do. The two are not remotely comparable though.

The suggestion that the US would murder a national of a friendly country whilst he was the territory of a third friendly country and was under the protection of a fourth friendly nation simply because he was a fugitive (who they'd likely get hold of lawfully anyway) is deluded at best. Can you name a single incident where they have attempted that in, say, the past fifty years, let alone achieved it?

I’m not claiming that they have, so no, I’ve no interest in trawling the web to find out.

[Gecko1978]

Breadvan72 said:

An Embassy is NOT the territory of the state it represents. That is a myth.

Thanks for clarifying