News5 mins ago
Don't Extradite Assange
All he did was tell the truth. If you agree, please sign;
https:/
https:/
Answers
Regardless of the rights/wrongs of Mr Assange and his leakages, we ought to be extraditing exactly nobody to the US unless/until they start some reciprocity.
The US views extradition as a strictly one-way process - never, ever rendering up one of their citizens (or even residents) to legitimate trial in another country.
For a start, tell them they can have Mr Assange when the UK gets Anne Sacoolas.
The US views extradition as a strictly one-way process - never, ever rendering up one of their citizens (or even residents) to legitimate trial in another country.
For a start, tell them they can have Mr Assange when the UK gets Anne Sacoolas.
His health, unsurprisingly after over a decade of incarceration, is shot, the most recent pictures of him show the appearance of an old, infirm man.
If he is sent to the States it is a forgone conclusion that he will given a life sentence (over 100 years) So his deportation is effectively sending him to his death. The only thing to spare him would be a pardon, possibly Trump would do that, but the present shower, never.
Meanwhile the UK is harbouring in hotels, & feeding, thousands of young men who claim asylum from alleged torture & imprisonment.
Strange world!
If he is sent to the States it is a forgone conclusion that he will given a life sentence (over 100 years) So his deportation is effectively sending him to his death. The only thing to spare him would be a pardon, possibly Trump would do that, but the present shower, never.
Meanwhile the UK is harbouring in hotels, & feeding, thousands of young men who claim asylum from alleged torture & imprisonment.
Strange world!
"a decade of incarceration"
didnt he do the majority of that himself? if so i find it difficult to feel sorry for him over it. I was just reading wiki, and i find it hard to believe you'd be so lenient of any other foreign asylum seeker in this country seeking to evade trial
" So his deportation is effectively sending him to his death." The US are going to kill him? or if he's found guilty he'll spend the rest of his life in prison? Again, i find it difficult to believe you'd care so much about someone found guilty of a crime here being sent to prison for a whole life term, and wouldnt term it as being sent to their death
didnt he do the majority of that himself? if so i find it difficult to feel sorry for him over it. I was just reading wiki, and i find it hard to believe you'd be so lenient of any other foreign asylum seeker in this country seeking to evade trial
" So his deportation is effectively sending him to his death." The US are going to kill him? or if he's found guilty he'll spend the rest of his life in prison? Again, i find it difficult to believe you'd care so much about someone found guilty of a crime here being sent to prison for a whole life term, and wouldnt term it as being sent to their death
I am uncomfortable with his extradition only because really Chelsea/Bradley Manning was the chief culprit and as Assange is not American it’s hard to see how he’s guilty of treason if that is the charge.
He may have exposed some US malpractices early on, or at least had them handed to him on a plate, but most of his actions have been irresponsible - carried under the false flag of “freedom of information”
Don’t see why a Trump administration would be any easier on him than any other. “America first” is “America first”
He may have exposed some US malpractices early on, or at least had them handed to him on a plate, but most of his actions have been irresponsible - carried under the false flag of “freedom of information”
Don’t see why a Trump administration would be any easier on him than any other. “America first” is “America first”
-- answer removed --
Further to my post on this thread re governments committing criminal acts – if you accept this as being OK, then you must accept the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to be a legitimate act by the Saudi Arabian authorities.
You cannot pick and choose which governments’ criminal acts you deem acceptable, and which you think abhorrent.
You cannot pick and choose which governments’ criminal acts you deem acceptable, and which you think abhorrent.
//You cannot pick and choose which governments’ criminal acts you deem acceptable, and which you think abhorrent.//
But you can - and we very often do.
Sometimes criminal acts are seen as "justifiable" for various reasons. At its simplest, the police often exceed the speed limit and jump red lights whilst in pursuit of criminals. Almost everybody sees that as acceptable. The government may order troops to war in furtherance of the national interest. Those troops may kill or injure people. Again, most people would see that as acceptable (provided the "national interest" was agreeable to them). These actions would otherwise be criminal acts, but they are excused.
I'm not arguing the merits of the particular criminal acts you are talking about here (principally because I'm not entirely clear what they are). But is simplistic and naive to suggest that criminal acts by governments must always be condemned.
The problem with Mr Assange is that he has taken it upon himself to decide what are acceptable actions by governments and what are not. But he's gone much further than that. He has published enormous amounts of material, the exact content and implications of which he could not possible be aware of. He's done so because he could, not because he needed to.
But you can - and we very often do.
Sometimes criminal acts are seen as "justifiable" for various reasons. At its simplest, the police often exceed the speed limit and jump red lights whilst in pursuit of criminals. Almost everybody sees that as acceptable. The government may order troops to war in furtherance of the national interest. Those troops may kill or injure people. Again, most people would see that as acceptable (provided the "national interest" was agreeable to them). These actions would otherwise be criminal acts, but they are excused.
I'm not arguing the merits of the particular criminal acts you are talking about here (principally because I'm not entirely clear what they are). But is simplistic and naive to suggest that criminal acts by governments must always be condemned.
The problem with Mr Assange is that he has taken it upon himself to decide what are acceptable actions by governments and what are not. But he's gone much further than that. He has published enormous amounts of material, the exact content and implications of which he could not possible be aware of. He's done so because he could, not because he needed to.
NJ do you want to rewrite all that?
a criminal act remains a criminal act innit
EVEN if the govt says - foo
there is NO part in the CPS charging process (inc public interest) where a minister can say - "this isnt in the public interest you know"....and the CPS says, "yes yes minister. Can I have a pay rise?". Or else Boris would have done it over the booze. You should know, you were part of it once , werent you?
As for war being a criminal act - erm no from at least Grotius, 1630
grotius de jure belli ac pacis
and probably aquinas 1280 - concerning the just war ( Aquinas not being part of English Law)
silly me
role of home secretary in extradition ?
Home Secretary's role in extradition
Under the 2003 Act, the Home Secretary's role is to sign extradition orders.
he has no judicial function at all...
silly me: no wonder I never made it in Law
a criminal act remains a criminal act innit
EVEN if the govt says - foo
there is NO part in the CPS charging process (inc public interest) where a minister can say - "this isnt in the public interest you know"....and the CPS says, "yes yes minister. Can I have a pay rise?". Or else Boris would have done it over the booze. You should know, you were part of it once , werent you?
As for war being a criminal act - erm no from at least Grotius, 1630
grotius de jure belli ac pacis
and probably aquinas 1280 - concerning the just war ( Aquinas not being part of English Law)
silly me
role of home secretary in extradition ?
Home Secretary's role in extradition
Under the 2003 Act, the Home Secretary's role is to sign extradition orders.
he has no judicial function at all...
silly me: no wonder I never made it in Law
A lot of support, & some facts from his wife;
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football13 mins ago
Met Officer Threatened To Arrest A...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.