Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested

04-15-2019 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Of course JA reason to be worried. The idea that its anything like 100% certain he will go to the USA, receive a fair trial and then do a maximum of a few years if found guilty is strains credulity. Just as he had reason to be worried that if he fell into the hands of the authorities then the USA would seek to extradite him.
You're ineducable, chez. As explained above, the US probably couldn't extradite him from Sweden due to the bi-criminality rule.
04-15-2019 , 03:14 PM
I know that - what are you talking about ?

That's one of the reasons I support the extradition to Sweden being given priority by the politicians.
04-15-2019 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
The responsible officer of government in the UK is the Home Secretary, who can of course take advice from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. They all have to follow the law, they aren't a law unto themselves. And no, Assange has no reason to be worried about heavier charges being added, it's all made up to rally the fanbois. The US can only apply to add lesser charges, not greater ones, and the charges must arise from the same facts. That is the whole point of the rule of specialty, which is fundamental to extradition law.
from article 18, an extradited person can be tried for:

Quote:
any offense for which the executive authority of the Requested
State waives the rule of specialty and thereby consents to the
person's detention, trial, or punishment. For the purpose of this
subparagraph:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/187784.pdf

Does the waiver of the rule of specialty have to be made before extradition or can it be done after extradition? And why would a country ever want to waive this rule? It just seems strange for there to be a clause that allows for what seems to (admittedly at a first glance by a layman) allow for the unilateral waiver of the rule of specialty by the executive branch. It's obviously a good and important principle of extradition law. But it can be waived by the executive branch of the country from which extradition is sought? Why is this waiver in place and under what circumstances is it used?

Thanks for talking about this btw, it's interesting.
04-15-2019 , 03:33 PM
The US can only apply to add lesser charges, not greater ones, and the charges must arise from the same facts. That is the whole point of the rule of specialty, which is fundamental to extradition law.

So, does this mean that lesser charges individually leading to a lower sentence? Could they charge him with 50 "lesser" counts each carrying a 6 mos. max - but tag him with 25 years after he's found guilty on each count?

MM MD
04-15-2019 , 04:16 PM
How's the rule off Law working out for those Tax returns? Or even getting any documents from the WH to the House of Representatives? 1%? 10? 50% 100% No its ****ing zero.

Lawbros Lmao.
04-15-2019 , 04:17 PM
I dunno maybe I was in a different universe this week when T SAID TO BREAK THE LAW AND I'LL PARDON YOU.
04-18-2019 , 04:54 AM
Quote:
'Despotic' Assange insulted staff and smeared faeces on embassy walls, Ecuadorian president claims
https://www.thejournal.ie/julian-ass...95722-Apr2019/
04-18-2019 , 09:31 AM
Here's Debra Messing - noted liberal - raising money and awareness for Koko the chimpanzee - who also has been known to smear feces on walls. Hypocrite much?

/Greenwald
04-18-2019 , 09:57 AM
Maybe that was even on purpose, but I can't not say: Koko was a gorilla. (She died last year)
04-18-2019 , 10:07 AM
There can be more than one Koko. Gorillas aren't known for feces so I went with chimp.
04-18-2019 , 10:12 AM
I'm kind of a primate nerd and I can't be stopped here: Ok, cool, but I have been in a crowd at the LA zoo that was the target of flying gorilla poop.
04-18-2019 , 10:17 AM
Sounds like the Ecuadorians took the idea of a smear campaign a bit too literally.
04-19-2019 , 09:57 AM
I assume if they had it to do over Ecuador would have recused themselves entirely from this situation.

I don’t really remember the providence so feel free to correct me but wasn’t it essentially hosting a random dude that had nothing to do with Ecuador in a country that is not Ecuador, wanted by a country/countries that are not Ecuador.

Certainly an argument might have been made at the time regarding protecting journalistic principles but I don’t think many people have seen that pony remain stable with the aid of time.

I think the currently filed us charges seem ridiculous but I don’t give two ****s about Assange who was too smart by half. His gambit was to ride the wave of being a global propaganda tool to international fame and notoriety. He certainly thought the world would save him for his “courageous” actions so all he had to do was hang out for a bit before he was a bullet proof global superstar.

He was never hanging out in an Ecuadorian embassy just to protect his freedom. He was simply waiting on his curtain call. He has himself to blame for a massive percentage of how things have unfolded in his life over the last ten years. I am just not going to care if he is jammed up in court proceedings for another year.
04-19-2019 , 10:36 AM
So apparently Assange was granted Ecuadorian citizenship, and according to this guy it's illegal or unconstitutional for them to hand over Ecuadorian citizens to a foreign government.

04-19-2019 , 11:29 AM
hate to see it
04-19-2019 , 02:13 PM
I wonder what the Saudi's would do if someone smeared feces inside one of their embassies?
04-19-2019 , 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by campfirewest
I wonder what the Saudi's would do if someone smeared feces inside one of their embassies?
If a Pakistani maid did it, they'd execute her.

If a Saudi prince did it, they'd have the maid clean it up. Then probably execute her. Equal punishment.

MM MD
04-19-2019 , 05:59 PM
They'd make sure it was the Prince's favorite maid. That will teach him.

      
m