Wikileaks founder Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition

Tell that to Erroll Flynn. From the 30s through the 50s he was a giant Hollywood star. Before long, the mafia found a girl under the age of consent who was ready to testify that he'd taken advantage of her in exchange for payment. To Flynn's credit, rather than pay the extortion money they were demanding, he fought it. The newspapers had a field day.

And it didn't do him a whit of good. As soon as the judge found Flynn "not guilty", the mafia had another girl ready to tell the same story. By then the public already had their doubts about if Flynn was guilty or innocent, and rather than have a second witness making the same claims right after the first, he paid up.

Sound familiar?

And this case seems all the more fishy. Assange is being accused immediately after embarrassing the most powerful military in the world. His actions have threatened the careers of men who are in the habit of ordering men killed. Having a man silenced by a smear campaign probably feels merciful to them, by comparison. And of course, they're protecting their troops in the process, or you can't blame them for seeing it that way. At the very least, he's a threat to the mission. And these are men who routinely eliminate threats to the mission by whatever method generates results.

In short, they have the means and the motive, and frame jobs like Assange is claiming this is are documented history. From where I stand, either Assange's story or the prosecutions both seem plausible. If Assange's version is true, and I were in his shoes, I wouldn't expect a fair trial in Sweden either.

= = = = = = = = = = = =

More coincidences that aren't solid evidence but make you wonder:

And your assuming that because I don't heap the amount of hero worship on this guy that most everyone else that has posted does that I am incapable of being an impartial juror, which is false.

I wil admit I have no love assange, more to the point I think he is exactly the type of person who is capable of the crimes for which he is accused, but I also have never said he is guilty, only that I find his motivations for not wanting to prove his innocence suspect.

Everything assange has said and done in the past would leave me to believe he would jump at the chance to go into a court of law where he was trying to be railroaded with a false accusation and complete embarrass the ones responsible, especially given the type of crime he is accused of is notoriously hard to prosecute when it's a he said-she said case.

So do I think Assange's reticence to go and prove his innocence a bit suspect? Yes. Would I say this is proof of guilt? No, but it certainly gives me pause.

As for you not believing I have served on a jury, good for you. You would be wrong, but good for you.

The Guardian has a live blog with updates summarising everything said during the Supreme Court hearing

Day One: Julian Assange extradition appeal at supreme court - live blog

Day Two: Julian Assange extradition appeal at supreme court - day two live blog

Now I don't want you to be on a jury because you're incapable of getting the point.

Nope, I never mentioned hero worship. I certainly don't have any.

I'm just pointing out that you're prejudging his guilt because he is fighting extradition and because he is julian assange.

Not to mention that you have the idiotic opinion that people have to "prove their innocence," which really makes me doubt that you were on a jury. I was already leaning that way simply based on who you are, but now i have more confirmation (see how that works?)

Well... Your suspicions sound suspiciously like the supposition of guilt.

But then again, in the real world where false accusations, underhanded proceedings and evidence tampering takes place all the time, I don't find "lawyering up" to be all that suspicious so much as a legal right. If Assange were to say that he wouldn't testify against himself, I'd say that's a right as well, but somewhat more suspicious, however he hasn't even done that, he's actually volunteered for questioning, just not on Swedish soil. Why that isn't enough for the prosecution is beyond me.

For the record, I don't really care much for Assange either, yet I find his case and background of interest. I don't think that amounts to hero worship on my part, and I'm honestly don't see any such idolatry of him in this thread.

You're also presuming much about Assange. Why anyone would want a case to go to trial just so they could use the court as a stage to embarrass the prosecution is beyond me, why go through all of that energy and risk the chance of angering a judge or a juror in the process? No, it's much more sane to resist such theatrics and follow a safer, methodical approach of legal defense, hopefully by never even going to trial in the first place.

See, no. No no no. No no no no no no no. Getting in front of a jury is bad, because juries, like soylent green, are people. People can be confused and wowed and misled, even if you are 100% innocent. If you absolutely, positively did nothing wrong at all, and you have a note from the baby Jesus saying you didn't do it that has been accepted into evidence, you still want to avoid trial if at all possible under most circumstances.

Exactly where did I say he had to prove he was innocent? I said his actions were suspect and made me doubt his motives. That is nowhere near saying he had to prove his innocence.

Fellonearth I'm presuming much on assange based on his previous actions. This guy is a showboater who likes to expose corruption in any form. This would seem the very golden opportunity to do that in a very public platform since the international community would probably be taking notice of his trial.

Motorfirebox so your saying the trial by a jury of your peers has absolutely no merit at all and should be something that is feared by everyone?

Well, I have some doubts, but it is not easy to think of a better system. I would be especially happy to have a jury comprising of rational and independent thinkers, but not all people are like that. In fact, most of us tend to agree with each other a bit too much.

Right here, champ.

No, he's not saying that, and it's ridiculous of you to allege that that is what he's saying.

He's saying that it is perfectly rational to want to avoid a jury trial if you can.

Let's assume you are quite innocent of what you have been accused of. If you avoid a trial, your chances of being wrongfully convicted are zero. If you face a jury trial, your chances of being wrongfully convicted rise from zero to something positive.

It is perfectly rational for an innocent person to seek to avoid a trial if one can be avoided through legal means.

I say this without being a person who hero-worships Assange. Just so we're clear about that.

Yes! That is totally, absolutely what I'm saying and anyone who disagrees is a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Thanks. I feel like I'm living in a cuckoo clock sometimes.

You're welcome.

It sounds so reasonable *ahem* to say of someone, "Well, they're sure acting guilty!"

And then to leap (or sidle) over to "So why don't they just take it to trial and demonstrate that they're not guilty! What do they have to hide?"

And that's exactly how the justice system is meant not to work.

You have never been on trial, have you? Had the police and the prosecutor throw multiple felony and misdemeanor counts at you, to see what sticks, in order to scare you into a plea deal so you wouldn't sue the city for false arrest, civil rights violations and damages since the erratic-driving guy (likely drunk or high) that almost smashed into your car was - oops - an off-duty cop?

I'm guessing not, because if you had you would understand why a talented, aggressive lawyer that pursues every valid line of defense on your behalf is worth every penny to a totally innocent man looking at 20 years in prison for doing nothing illegal whatsoever, especially when there are decision makers in the system with an axe to grind.

PS - every time I've been called for jury duty - six times in two states so far - I have been dismissed when either the prosecutor or defense find out I'm college educated, or that I know a lot of lawyers. IME neither side wants smart people who can think for themselves, nor anyone with any familiarity with how the legal system works, or the law itself.

Do you think you'd get a "jury of your peers" that way?

I sure don't. As the old joke goes: " in a jury trial you are trusting your life's future to a dozen people who weren't smart enough to avoid jury duty". True or not, it's something to think about, especially if you're facing trumped-up charges and over-zealous prosecutors who care a lot more about maintaining their 98% conviction percentage than your innocence.

Jeebus, I'm really missing Reprobate's contributions to this board right about now.

Well hey now, I'm going to have to cut you off here. You expect us to take in all that on your? I mean, you also being from Australia (the land of convicts and Assange) are naturally suspicious.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)