It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK court permits Assange extradition to US on spying charges

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Canny understand why we are giving them Assange when we would not give them McKinnon.

I would not give them the steam off my s**t until they produce Anne Sacoolas to answer for the murder of Harry Dunn.
edit on 11-12-2021 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You don't know what you're talking about.

The Pentagon Papers were ALL classified TOP SECRET.

Assange did the right and moral thing. His treatment for speaking truth to power illustrates what criminal organizations the British and US governments are.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Trump had 4 years to pardon him.


Can you pardon someone who hasn't been convicted yet? Serious question, I'm not sure how that works.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: face23785

You don't know what you're talking about.

The Pentagon Papers were ALL classified TOP SECRET.

Assange did the right and moral thing. His treatment for speaking truth to power illustrates what criminal organizations the British and US governments are.


The Pentagon Papers leak and publishing isn't an apples to apples comparison and here's why:

Assange is alleged to have conspired with Manning to steal and publish the documents, even helping him break into the computer system. There is a huge difference between that and the NY Times publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were stolen 2 years prior without their knowledge or help. It's a clear violation of 18 USC 793g. If you can read that law and explain to me how it's not a violation, I'd love to hear it.

It's also worth noting that the people who actually stole the Pentagon Papers were prosecuted. The only reason they didn't do time was due to a mistrial because of the shenanigans of the Nixon administration. The Pentagon Papers incident did not establish any precedent that the people who actually steal the documents are immune. Of course, that means the government has to prove Assange was involved with the theft. If they can't, he'll be found Not Guilty, at least on that charge.
edit on 11 12 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: face23785
To everyone defending this dirtbag because he exposed crimes and he's a "whistleblower," that would be great if that's all he did. He blanket released a metric ton of classified data, only a small portion of which was whistleblower-type material. The rest was legitimately classified. That's not what whistleblowers do. He's no different than Chelsea Manning, who should still be in prison.


That is not how protecting classified information works. He signed no such contract with the US government such as the SF 312 and is under no obligation to protect anything.


This would be a great point if he was being prosecuted for breaking a contract or failure to protect classified information. That's not what he's being prosecuted for.

I've been looking at 18 USC Chapter 37 and can't find where it says you're exempt from the law if you don't have a security clearance. Maybe you can point it out to me?


If he legitimately stole the information from a classified source or requested someone to go get classified information that they didn't already have, he would be liable also under espionage laws.


This is exactly what Assange is alleged to have done in the indictment.
edit on 11 12 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
Canny understand why we are giving them Assange when we would not give them McKinnon.


The Home Secretary of the time (a certain Theresa May) said McKinnon was too ill, and cited his human rights, which would be compromised because of his illness.

Assange has another appeal to lodge, so the legal process is not yet complete. Then it will be up to the Home Secretary (currently Patel) to confirm, or reject Assange's extradition.

Extradition to the US is often unsuccessful, so it's not a dead cert he'll be "on his way".



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Cheers for the info.

I would tell them straight that they are not getting anybody until they deliver Anne Sacoolas to answer for the murder of Harry Dunn.

If she is not returned to the UK to face trial and the US government refuse to grant an extradition we should not ever entertain them.

No ifs no buts no coconuts.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: paraphi

Cheers for the info.

I would tell them straight that they are not getting anybody until they deliver Anne Sacoolas to answer for the murder of Harry Dunn.

If she is not returned to the UK to face trial and the US government refuse to grant an extradition we should not ever entertain them.

No ifs no buts no coconuts.


I don't know much about the UK's laws but is that really a murder? Here you'd likely get negligent homicide, depending on the state, if you'd even get charged. It was an accident. Murder usually requires intent.

ETA: Doesn't make the death any less tragic.
edit on 11 12 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Its not murder that's just my hyperbole i suppose coz what she did was contemptible and cowardly.

She's charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

But she essentially fled the country to avoid authorities so as not to answer for her crime and avoid prosecution.

For all we know she was pissed as a fart driving that motor up the wrong side of the road when she killed poor Harry Dunn.

Ether way if we cannot get her back to answer to authorities cant see why we should give up Assange.

After all "one hand washes the other" and our nations are supposed to enjoy a "special relationship".
edit on 11-12-2021 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

Its not murder that's just my hyperbole i suppose coz what she did was contemptible and cowardly.

She's charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

But she essentially fled the country to avoid authorities so as not to answer for her crime and avoid prosecution.

For all we know she was pissed as a fart driving that motor up the wrong side of the road when she killed poor Harry Dunn.

Ether way if we cannot get her back to answer to authorities cant see why we should give up Assange.


The wikileaks article says she was breathalized at the scene, but doesn't mention the outcome. I would think if she failed it, they'd have noted it.

It also says she was in country only 3 weeks. It sounds like she did what a lot of US people do when they're new to the UK, absent-mindedly drive on the wrong side of the road out of force of habit. I know that happened a fair bit when I was stationed there. We had more than one guy on base get killed doing it. It's a terrible accident, but I'm not sure it should be criminal, unless there are further details that haven't been reported, like that she was on her phone or something like that.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Well if she has nothing to hide then why run?

Hardly the action of an innocent person.

Simple as that really.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

Well if she has nothing to hide then why run?

Hardly the action of an innocent person.

Simple as that really.



I doubt she knew enough about UK law to even be aware of whether she had done anything criminal or not

In light of that, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to insinuate that her reason for fleeing was that she knew she was guilty.

I couldn't tell you what she was thinking. I know when I was there, anti-US sentiment was high because of the Iraq war, and judging from what I see on here, that hasn't changed much. Maybe she felt like she was getting railroaded just because of who she is. I mean, do the UK authorities criminally charge every British national who causes a fatal traffic accident?



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

That's what Lawyers are for.

Like i said innocent people dont run away.

If you run from authorities you do so for a reason.

That reason being you have something to hide or are guilty as charged.

After all everyone is innocent until proven guilty here in the UK just like in the USA.

A fact im sure Mrs Sacoolas was well aware of.

And if you run away from a fatal traffic accident, or any traffic accident or collision, here in the UK or fail to present yourself to authorities a warrant will be issued for you arrest and the Police will also charge you with attempting to pervert the course of justice which carries up to a 5 year jail sentence if memory serves.
edit on 11-12-2021 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

People say the same thing about our 5th Amendment right not to testify. That that must mean you're guilty. It doesn't. And that really doesn't address the fact that she was likely completely clueless about the UK justice system.

I mean you yourself admitted you don't even know the exact details of what happened, and you're out here calling it a murder. I remember when it happened, people were calling for her head before any details were even known. They didn't care, they just wanted her to be charged no matter what. Maybe attitudes like that is why she ran, had no faith that she would get a fair trial.

Neither of us really knows.

Anyway, this is well off topic and your mind is clearly made up.
edit on 11 12 21 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I know that innocent people dont run away mate because it implies guilt.

She knows she done wrong hence the reason she choose to hide behind diplomatic immunity and extradition.

Why would she not get a fair trial?

She was charged with "causing death by dangerous driving" not touching up alter boys.

She should answer for her crimes and if you don't know that then i hope nobody ever kills your kid on a road and decides to skate off in to the sunset without answering as to why or how.
edit on 11-12-2021 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
Well if she has nothing to hide then why run?

Hardly the action of an innocent person.


Um, interestingly, the same could be said of Assange who ran away from accusations of rape and sexual misconduct, right into the Ecuadorian embassy. He did not fight to clear his name. I make no judgements, just an observation!

Anyway, with extradition, each party can decide to grant it, or not.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Same could be said indeed.

Im not a big Assange fan myself.

He's a piece on the chessboard of his own making all the same.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

He is just a journalist interested in the truth, they would have liked to kill him but he is too high profile. I am pretty sure our civilization is over bar the shouting. We have committed suicide.



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 10:39 PM
link   
He has just had a mini stroke; confirmed by an MRI.. He is now on anti stroke meds, if there is such a thing that works ?
nationalfile.com...



Julian Assange Has Stroke In British Prison Day After Court OK's Extradition To United States



posted on Dec, 11 2021 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

So they gave him the number four-shot.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join