Wikileaks founder Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition

Wikileaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal

I really wish the BoA stuff would have leaked. Now it's looking increasingly unlikely we'll ever see that payload.

hopefully his trial is fair and speedy and the truth of his guilt or innocence can finally be determined in a court of law, rather than the court of public opinion.

True justice usually includes not treating an accusation as proof of guilt. He gets a trial. And he hasn't been accused of rape, last I checked. He's been accused of "3rd Degree Sexual Assault" which the press has taken the liberty of upgrading to rape, since we don't have that lesser crime in US law. He's been accused of being a condom-refusing/sabotaging asshole.

And both the witnesses the Swedish government is basing it's allegations on tried to withdraw their charges, but the DA didn't allow it.

Maybe he's guilty. Maybe it's a frame up. Now he gets his day in court.

Fair enough.

I can't agree with you on thinking badly of Assange for publishing proof of misconduct. Really. Think about it for a second. "He's a bad man for not respecting that someone wanted the proof of their misdeeds to stay secret." Well of course they tried to keep that secret. And someone blew the whistle on them and he agreed to publish. Isn't that what reporters are supposed to do?

If it were the other way around, and BofA was on trial for what the documents disclosed, would "but you weren't supposed to know we did that! Someone ratted on us!" be winning any sympathy?

what if he's being framed, which seems likely? I'm concerned about the BofA stuff also. Please lets not have another Dominique Strauss Kahn situation here.

...Yikes. Anyway.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The timing of the accusations seems incredibly suspect. That isn't proof, though, and neither is the accusers' apparent wish to withdraw charges (there are, after all, plenty of women who are reticent to bring charges of rape even when the accused isn't the focus of international attention). But... the timing is really suspect.

Wikileaks' Julian Assange seeks Supreme Court hearing

I'm pretty sure that I can care about both. You would do well to re-think your own comments about people putting words in others' mouths, since that's exactly what you're doing to me in this post.

But you took your ball and went home, so it's moot.

I hope that Julian Assange has justice served to him. I simply also wish (since I can hold more than one thought at a time) that dirt on Bank of America had been released.

Have fun with your fingers in your ears.

Assange appeals 'invalid' warrant at Supreme Court

Jess Christ assange, fucking go to your damn trial let them prove or disprove the accusations against you and get this over with.


Though with how harder is fighting this, I'm starting to think more and more the accusations have merit and he just doesn't want I own up to what he did.

That's really not how legal systems work.

I hope you're never called for jury duty.

Why? Because I don't buy into his paranoid delusions of secret world powers trying to lock him up?

If he would just go, let the legal process do what it is supposed to do this can all be done and over with. If this is simply a smear campaign it will come out in a trial, if it is not and there is validity to the charges against assange then that will come out to and he will be punished according to the law.

No, because fighting an accusation (or extradition) isn't a sign of guilt. Hopefully you'll never be accused of anything.

Yeah, no. Resisting extradition by using any and all means necessary (presuming innocence) is entirely understandable, particularly if there is the appearance of bias and prejudice if such a trial were to take place. Having a prosecutor acting as judge, issuing an arrest warrant in a case she's previously been involved with certainly appears to demonstrate that if such a case were it to come to trial, it would be tainted by a lack of impartiality in bringing (a presumably innocent) Assange to face such charges. If anything, it actually seems to support Assange's assertion that he is being politically targeted.

What you're essentially saying is that Assange should just bend over and take it from a prosecutor who has a huge strap-on-hard-on for him. I don't know about you, but given the option of staying put or having to face charges for an alleged crime (presuming you are innocent) where Jane Law is acting as sheriff and judge, I'd rather stay put.

You've earned a demerit. Now go do some push-ups.

No, because if you think "mounting a vigorous legal defense" = "guilt" then you really don't belong anywhere near a jury.

Fighting extradition to prevent having to go through legal proceedings is not a legal defense in my opinion.

However, it is probably a worthwhile tactic if he is guilty since the longer the distance he can put between the supposed event and his going to trial for it the more likely the case against him will be.

As far as everyone else, I am assuming by the responses that you think assange will not get a fair shot.

I don't think that, hence why I view the motives behind his stalling his extradition as suspect.

And to clarify, I don't think because someone puts up a fight when they are accused of something they are automatically guilty, I do however think that because this is assange putting up the fight that there might be something to the allegations.

Yes. Please never be on a jury.

Too late, already be on 2, it's funny though that because my opinion of this situation differs from everyone else's it's automatically assumed I would not be an impartial juror or prone to basing my verdict on a whim.

If people want to think someone with as much media attention as assange will get railroaded in a court of law, then have that verdict upheld under the closer scrutiny of an appeal(which would be sure to follow) with the entire world watching then I would flip that around and ask you to never serve on a jury. Crackpot conspiracy theories like the one assange has cooked up for his situation only happens in movies.

No. People don't think you should be on a jury because you're assuming guilt based on who the man is. And the fact that he's fighting extradition. Legally.

BTW, I don't believe you've been on 2 juries based on who you are as well as on your other posts.

So let me get this straight, normal everyday kind of guy fights extradition (but not too hard) for a crime he hasn't been charged with (this is for questioning, remember!), pointing out a conflict of interest in the issuance of the warrant, is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Julian Assange, a well-known guy who has many political enemies who'd like to see him go down, fights extradition for the same reasons reason (with the additional claim he is being targeted for political reasons), he's presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Wow Sallen, that's the very definition of prejudice, hence the hopes of members (including myself) that you will never end up sitting in a jury (I guess that's again now). You might as well just come out and say you think he did it and save us the trouble wrangling over the legality of the proceedings.

Also, if fighting extradition is not a legal defense, then why, oh why is Assange's lawyer getting paid to make a perfectly good defense for him not to be extradited? Seems to me that's called good legal defense.