Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Julian Assange - Extradition or Asylum?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • montgomery
    replied
    Speakng on the US's ordered extradition of Julian Assang:

    https://original.antiwar.com/Nozomi_...-at-all-costs/

    There's a wildcard to consider on whether it can happen. Assange likely knows everything there is to know on Trump's collusion with Russia during the election campaign. And now it makes perfect sense if it turns out that the US has chosen to move on Assange at this strange point in time, which has the potential of destroying Trump regardless of whether the Mueller report is kept secret!

    It's a seldom mentioned fact that the US Deep state would not sit still and be dismantled by a corporate psychopath such as Trump. The FBI are just fancy cops and they always will hold true to those ideals. They're not going to allow their country to go to hell all that easily. Comey is going to have the last laugh, be it provided by Assange or some other way.

    Leave a comment:


  • montgomery
    replied
    Trump says he loves Julian Assange and Wikileaks close to 140 times during his campaign speeches.

    Trump also said that he doesn't know anything about Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

    We can safely assume Trump's dead right on one or the other claim! Now it appears that Trump's legal team is going to have a 'father and son' qirh Julian and suggest a chance of a pardon if he stays quiet.

    As Trump drags the US deeper and deeper into the cesspool of corruption. The world gets to laugh about it but it might not be the last laugh, with a corporate psychopath for president and Bolton, the psychotic hawk at his side. Dog help us all!

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    I believe he was arrested for breaking bail though the US has apparently filed for extradition. I think the 'glow in dark medicine' with love from Uncle Vova is a real possibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freyr
    replied
    According to Reuters "Moreno took a dim view of Assange when he took office in 2017, ordering the Australian hacker to cut back his online political commentary, stop riding his skateboard in the halls of the embassy and clean up after his pet cat.

    Moreno’s government accused WikiLeaks of being behind an anonymous website that said Moreno’s brother had created offshore companies that his family used to fund a luxurious lifestyle in Europe while Moreno was a delegate to a U.N. agency."

    Sounds paranoid!

    Leave a comment:


  • Officer of Engineers
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    As far as I understand asylum rules, and I am no lawyer of any sort but have just the read laws, if a person may be killed by being sent home - or extradited - then you cannot send them home or extradite them. That does not mean that Assange cannot be extradited if the UK Government is given assurances he will not face a death sentence.
    That is not what is facing the extradiction court. It is not the court's job to determine what might happened. Assange has not been found guilty yet and is presumed innocent. It may well be that he would be found not guilty. If the extradiction courts have no say what happens after a finding of not guilty, then the extradiction courts have no say to what happens after a guilty finding. The court's job is to determine if the extradiction is valid, nothing else.

    Besides, Assange is not going to be executed. Since wikileaks have been created, he has made a lot of contacts that is an intelligence boom to the spooks. If anything, I worry about Russian visitors and some glow in the dark vials and make sure he washes his hands often.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 12 Apr 19,, 04:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    "US/NATO" whatever that means, was never in Crimea. Not one Western soldier stationed there or planning to "invade". You may as well tell me the aliens were trying to take over the Sevastopol base, which Moscow had a lease on until 2042 (agreed with their guy Yanukovych). Ukraine was not about to threaten that in 2014. The Muscovites themselves unilaterally terminated the lease in March 2014.
    Last edited by snapper; 11 Apr 19,, 21:32.

    Leave a comment:


  • montgomery
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Neither was 'Blitzkreig' allied military theory in 1940. Didn't matter a damn and France was lost. It does not matter what "your theory" may be - from 'the CIA/Bilderburg Group/lizard aliens' are behind every wrong if you ignore a real doctrine propounded by the Muscovite Chief of Staff which fooled alot of the world in Crimea, but was arguably not that 'new' but just a clearer statement of Soviet era KGB (as opposed to FSB as they call themselves now) intelligence doctrine.
    I'm not quite sure what points your making. But I will comment briefly on the Crimea. In retrospect I would say it was a bridge too far on the part of the US/Nato. It left Russia/Putin with no choice but to hold the referendum which I would suggest was guaranteed to go the way it did, and then hold on to the Crimea's strategic importance to Russia.

    I suggest that it's a done deal and one that can never be traded away to the US/Nato for other concessions.

    Otherwise, let's stay with Assange on this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    Originally posted by montgomery View Post
    Like I said, it's not my theory.
    Neither was 'Blitzkreig' allied military theory in 1940. Didn't matter a damn and France was lost. It does not matter what "your theory" may be - from 'the CIA/Bilderburg Group/lizard aliens' are behind every wrong if you ignore a real doctrine propounded by the Muscovite Chief of Staff which fooled alot of the world in Crimea, but was arguably not that 'new' but just a clearer statement of Soviet era KGB (as opposed to FSB as they call themselves now) intelligence doctrine.

    Leave a comment:


  • montgomery
    replied
    Originally posted by snapper View Post
    As far as I understand asylum rules, and I am no lawyer of any sort but have just the read laws, if a person may be killed by being sent home - or extradited - then you cannot send them home or extradite them. That does not mean that Assange cannot be extradited if the UK Government is given assurances he will not face a death sentence.
    That's not the way it read: The UK guaranteed that it wouldn't send Assange to any country that employs the death penalty or uses torture.

    Leave a comment:


  • montgomery
    replied
    Originally posted by Oracle View Post
    It could have been easy. File a court case and see it thorough. Or educate people and have foot marches in Washington.
    Educate people? Americans are already educated as much as they're going to be on the war/antiwar atmosphere in their country. The antiwar side is piss all right now.

    If Russian meddling in US elections had gotten any more serious, there could have been a war.
    No. And you've followed up with the reason why not. Finally!

    It'd have been the end of the world as we know it.
    That dual personality is leading to a lot of contradictions. Slow down.
    Last edited by montgomery; 11 Apr 19,, 18:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • montgomery
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Look up the Gerasimov doctrine of hybrid war. To me Wiki leaks only made sense after

    Panama papers leak followed a few years later. That was a way to get back at the Russians.



    Why do it when a Democrat was in office ?
    Like I said, it's not my theory.

    Wiki leaks is to embarass the US. Does not matter which party is in office. The target is all US.
    I don't disagree but Wikileaks was/is a lot more than just to embarrass the US. Unless you consider Nato as the US.

    Now if the Americans that cooperated in this affair didn't realise the larger game then that is sad.
    I would suggest that they knew exactly what they were doing. They were/are subversives who worked with a cause, and that being the antiwar cause, as you seemed to have suggested.

    Manning was released some time back. He's become a Ms. now
    Yeah, I know. And I guess that US law makes him immune from further prosecution? I wonder if she's going to have an active mouth on the whole affair, or she will be silenced?

    RT.com is going to have the best US rightist spin on this. And antiwar.com is too because they're not as antiwar as they are libertarian/right. And how the hell the left is going to spin it, I can't imagine yet? The US left is not the traditional left. I can only see a big crack widening within the Dem party.

    Leave a comment:


  • Oracle
    replied
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    I don't know what Assange's motivations are, I speculated it could be world peace.

    By putting out US communications across a period with the rest of the world, whatever plots cooked up would be compromised. Leading to less wars and hence peace ?
    It could have been easy. File a court case and see it thorough. Or educate people and have foot marches in Washington. Instead he colluded with an enemy country. And how did he accomplish those exactly? By locking himself up in a foreign embassy. When he came to his senses, it was too late.

    If Russian meddling in US elections had gotten any more serious, there could have been a war. That would not have led to peace. It'd have been the end of the world as we know it.

    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    The people doing the leaking were committed communists
    I was talking about lax security. You're talking about ideology. Back then, and even now, for some, fantasy is the epitome of ideology.

    Leave a comment:


  • snapper
    replied
    As far as I understand asylum rules, and I am no lawyer of any sort but have just the read laws, if a person may be killed by being sent home - or extradited - then you cannot send them home or extradite them. That does not mean that Assange cannot be extradited if the UK Government is given assurances he will not face a death sentence.

    Leave a comment:


  • montgomery
    replied
    There's a story at Reuters that says the UK has pledged to not send Assange to a country that has the death penalty or uses torture. Strange, considering that the UK moved on Assange to satisfy the US demand for extradition. This has to mean that the UK will have to reneg on the deal or at least get a guarantee from the US that it won't seek the death penalty.

    Will the EU have a role to play in what the UK decides to do with Assange? And more importantly, how will domestic US politics dictate the outcome? There's a lot at stake for both Trump and the Democrats.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKCN1RN135

    p.s. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/05...imov-doctrine/
    on the Gerasimov doctrine.
    Last edited by montgomery; 11 Apr 19,, 18:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • Double Edge
    replied
    Originally posted by montgomery View Post
    Maybe, but I'm a little confused on how you mean that. Could you expand on it a bit?
    Look up the Gerasimov doctrine of hybrid war. Another article. To me Wiki leaks only made sense after

    Panama papers leak followed a few years later. That was a way to get back at the Russians.

    Here's another popular argument that is claiming it was the left (Democrats) in the US that were behind it all. https://www.mintpressnews.com/silenc...ssange/243665/

    Agree or disagree with that, there's a ton of material there to discuss.
    Why do it when a Democrat was in office ?

    Wiki leaks is to embarass the US. Does not matter which party is in office. The target is all US.

    Now if the Americans that cooperated in this affair didn't realise the larger game then that is sad.

    Manning was released some time back. He's become a Ms. now
    Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Apr 19,, 03:07.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X