Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,183 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19507
Advertisements
The maximum sentence was one year, however he has already served a couple of weeks, so he was given elevan and a half months.
After the 50 weeks are up, Assange can be held on remand whilst he continues to fight extradition, the extradition pricess can take as long as two years, and any time on remand will be taken off anby future sentence he is given following extradition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions.
The 47-year-old was found guilty of breaching the Bail Act last month after his arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy.
He took refuge in the London embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations, which he has denied.
In a letter read to the court, Assange said he had found himself "struggling with difficult circumstances".
He apologised to those who "consider I've disrespected them", a packed Southwark Crown Court heard.
"I did what I thought at the time was the best or perhaps the only thing that I could have done," he said.
In mitigation, Mark Summers QC had said his client was "gripped" by fears of rendition to the US over the years because of his work with whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.
"As threats rained down on him from America, they overshadowed everything," he said.
The maximum sentence was one year, however he has already served a couple of weeks, so he was given elevan and a half months.
After the 50 weeks are up, Assange can be held on remand whilst he continues to fight extradition, the extradition pricess can take as long as two years, and any time on remand will be taken off anby future sentence he is given following extradition.
So let's get this straight.
He was jailed for the maximum he could be, for breaching bail from charges that were dropped. That's right yes? The charges he broke bail over are no longer standing, nor have been for years(?).
Of course, if he wasn't incarcerated over this bail breach, then he wouldn't be restricted from leaving the UK (indeed I'd suspect his visitors visa is long expired).
Anyone think the whole purpose of this is to hold him pending extradition? For what exact charges is the extradition? Conspiracy to crack a password to a classified government computer system. That sounds kinda hokey to me. Indeed here's the filing https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr...ing-conspiracy
Now we know the Manning and Assange never actually cracked that password (because Manning was caught tried, had no reason to lie that they did not).
I dunno, seems like the UK is acting as a US guard dog on this one. Assange's credibility isn't good, his neutrality is compromised, but, he did expose some serious wrongdoings in Afghanistan, Iraq, and within the US and world generally, I mean we know from Snowdon Merkels phone was compromised, but we previously knew Kofi Annan was tapped by the NSA because of Manning/Assange.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,183 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
So let's get this straight.
He was jailed for the maximum he could be, for breaching bail from charges that were dropped. That's right yes? The charges he broke bail over are no longer standing, nor have been for years(?).
Of course, if he wasn't incarcerated over this bail breach, then he wouldn't be restricted from leaving the UK (indeed I'd suspect his visitors visa is long expired).
Anyone think the whole purpose of this is to hold him pending extradition? For what exact charges is the extradition? Conspiracy to crack a password to a classified government computer system. That sounds kinda hokey to me. Indeed here's the filing https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr...ing-conspiracy
Now we know the Manning and Assange never actually cracked that password (because Manning was caught tried, had no reason to lie that they did not).
I dunno, seems like the UK is acting as a US guard dog on this one. Assange's credibility isn't good, his neutrality is compromised, but, he did expose some serious wrongdoings in Afghanistan, Iraq, and within the US and world generally, I mean we know from Snowdon Merkels phone was compromised, but we previously knew Kofi Annan was tapped by the NSA because of Manning/Assange.
It's not really the way the Courts look at it, if you are told to do somehing by a Court and don't do it you will be brought back and punished, and not adhering to bail conditions is a criminal offence.
Personally I would be happy for Assange to go to Sweden and then the Swedes can decide what they want to do with him, as he's an Australian Citizen who was wanted by Sweden and the US, ad who has been hiding in Ecuador's Embassy in London.
Assange is not really Britain's problem, we were dragged in to all of this and it has landed us with a bill of £13 million in terms of policing, which is tax payers money which could have been spent elsewhere.
From a British perspective the sooner he is extradited the better, as he's cost us a fortune and even more money will now be spent on High Court cases and numerous appeals against extradition, however his appeals in relation to Swedish extradition were already rejected, so we might be able to get him to Sweden under a similar extradition to last time without wasting as much resources.
It's not really the way the Courts look at it, if you are told to do somehing by a Court and don't do it you will be brought back and punished, and not adhering to bail conditions is a criminal offence.
Yeah, the law is an ass, but this is particularly ass like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Personally I would be happy for Assange to go to Sweden and then the Swedes can decide what they want to do with him, as he's an Australian Citizen who was wanted by Sweden and the US, ad who has been hiding in Ecuador's Embassy in London.
That's obsolete, Sweden don't have any reason to want him, there's no case for him to answer in Sweden. All charges were dropped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Assange is not really Britain's problem, we were dragged in to all of this and it has landed us with a bill of £13 million in terms of policing, which is tax payers money which could have been spent elsewhere.
We made Assange our problem, we continue to keep him our problem, at least for the next 50 weeks, plus pending extradition to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
I
From a British perspective the sooner he is extradited the better, as he's cost us a fortune and even more money will now be spent on High Court cases and numerous appeals against extradition, however his appeals in relation to Swedish extradition were already rejected, so we might be able to get him to Sweden under a similar extradition to last time without wasting as much resources.
You know we could just send him back to Oz, his Visa is certainly expired, he has no reason to be in the UK, the bail skip can be commuted to time served (given there are no criminal charges or actions oending). Send him home, let them deal with it. It's only because we want to be involved that he's still in the UK.
Yeah, the law is an ass, but this is particularly ass like.
That's obsolete, Sweden don't have any reason to want him, there's no case for him to answer in Sweden. All charges were dropped.
We made Assange our problem, we continue to keep him our problem, at least for the next 50 weeks, plus pending extradition to the US.
You know we could just send him back to Oz, his Visa is certainly expired, he has no reason to be in the UK, the bail skip can be commuted to time served (given there are no criminal charges or actions oending). Send him home, let them deal with it. It's only because we want to be involved that he's still in the UK.
My understanding is that Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into Assange because there was no way of charging him as he was in the Embassy and the statute of limitations had expired.
They may well raise a new investigation and if Assange has nothing to hide then surely he would willingly go back to answer any charges.
I share your concern about the UK being the USA's poodle but at the same time I'm not happy with someone claiming diplomatic refuge rather than face a court of law in another EU country.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,183 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Yeah, the law is an ass, but this is particularly ass like.
That's obsolete, Sweden don't have any reason to want him, there's no case for him to answer in Sweden. All charges were dropped.
We made Assange our problem, we continue to keep him our problem, at least for the next 50 weeks, plus pending extradition to the US.
You know we could just send him back to Oz, his Visa is certainly expired, he has no reason to be in the UK, the bail skip can be commuted to time served (given there are no criminal charges or actions oending). Send him home, let them deal with it. It's only because we want to be involved that he's still in the UK.
I think the Swedes were considering reopening the case, and a case involving sexual assault would be the more serious extradition case, so would take precedence.
Although I do agree, and as far as I am concerned he can go back to Oz, and then we can stop spending tax payers money on someone who didn't really commit a crime in the UK in the first place.
It's cost us £13.2 million on policing, and has cost Ecuador a further £5 million and then you have all the court cases and appeals which may take up to two years and the costs of keeping him in HMP Belmarsh, a high security prison.
My understanding is that Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into Assange because there was no way of charging him as he was in the Embassy and the statute of limitations had expired.
They may well raise a new investigation and if Assange has nothing to hide then surely he would willingly go back to answer any charges.
I share your concern about the UK being the USA's poodle but at the same time I'm not happy with someone claiming diplomatic refuge rather than face a court of law in another EU country.
That understanding is pretty bogus, typically criminal charges aren't dropped because its hard to arrest the accused. If that was the case El Chapo would still be free. You can be charged without being arrested, then an arrest warrant is issued, that can be used for extradition purposes.
If Swedens Statute of Limitations has expired, its expired. You can't reopen an investigation once it's gone. Had he been charged, then obviously the statute does not apply, given there is an open case prior to expiry of the time needed to charge.
I'm fine with someone claiming asylum in an embassy if they are concerned that they are being pursued out of political malice, and there's no evidence (especially given the hokey extradition charge) that the case is not politically motivated. That's the whole point of political asylum, it doesn't become invalid because it's being used against "us" (us being the UK/EU/US), I mean the 60s-80s political dissidents from the Warsaw Pact were probably viewed very similar to Assange (and Snowdon) in their own countries, and they often faced similar kinds of charges for whistleblowing similar kinds of cover-ups and violations.
That understanding is pretty bogus, typically criminal charges aren't dropped because its hard to arrest the accused. If that was the case El Chapo would still be free. You can be charged without being arrested, then an arrest warrant is issued, that can be used for extradition purposes.
If Swedens Statute of Limitations has expired, its expired. You can't reopen an investigation once it's gone. Had he been charged, then obviously the statute does not apply, given there is an open case prior to expiry of the time needed to charge.
I'm fine with someone claiming asylum in an embassy if they are concerned that they are being pursued out of political malice, and there's no evidence (especially given the hokey extradition charge) that the case is not politically motivated. That's the whole point of political asylum, it doesn't become invalid because it's being used against "us" (us being the UK/EU/US), I mean the 60s-80s political dissidents from the Warsaw Pact were probably viewed very similar to Assange (and Snowdon) in their own countries, and they often faced similar kinds of charges for whistleblowing similar kinds of cover-ups and violations.
Except Swedish prosecutors have indicated they could re-open the case.
Perhaps they have new evidence we don't know anything about.
Anyway,the idea that Assange fled from Swedish law because he risked being extradited to the US is preposterous nonsense. http://www.newstatesman.com/david-al...ge-extradition
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
