WikiLeaks founder on Interpol's most wanted list... for rape?

"Oh, indeed."

Paleo: (to the jury) Well, you see, Julie-Julie thought he should keep crashing on my couch and eating my food. I thought otherwise.

P: Do you get it!?

UG: (nervous) Yes, you have a lot of guns

P: Good, because I will strip down and show you all over again.

~18 secs in.

Shoal07 wrote:

P: Do you get it!?

UG: (nervous) Yes, you have a lot of guns

P: Good, because I will strip down and show you all over again.

~18 secs in.

If that means I'm boning Lana, great.

How can the UK Supreme Court rule for Assange to be extradited without him being charged but rule against Pinochet extradition for war crimes?

Apparently he can still appeal to the supreme court and the European court of human rights. He's probably not going anywhere soon.

Notice how even the BBC is trying to smear him:

Mr Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, did not attend the hearing in central London. His lawyer later told reporters he had been "stuck in traffic".

Note the scare quotes? Not only do they get to suggest he's irresponsible, but also that he's lying.

This is absolutely ridiculous, and it's absolutely a political decision. Extraditing someone for questioning is so far beyond the pale it's insane. He's been held without even being charged with a crime for all these months.

Extraditing someone for questioning is so far beyond the pale it's insane.

The Swedes could have just executed him with a UAV.

Malor wrote:

Notice how even the BBC is trying to smear him:

As much as the BBC are supposed to be impartial, they're probably better as an example never to blindly trust any source as being impartial.

That said, I can appreciate it being a hard job to communicate anything without some bias, people are always 'leaking' subtext in what they say/how they say it.

Scare quotes? Did you read the article, Malor? Did you notice how quotes were used all through it?

Lord Phillips, the court's president, said a majority of five justices to two had ruled against Mr Assange.

The court ruled the extradition request had been "lawfully made".

However, Mr Assange has 14 days to challenge the ruling and his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, said his lawyers would be asking the court to reconsider.

Mr Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, did not attend the hearing in central London. His lawyer later told reporters he had been "stuck in traffic".

Following the hearing, he tweeted: "We got the news not hoped for."

The Wikileaks website published material from leaked diplomatic cables, embarrassing several governments.

The role of judges in cases like Julian Assange's appeal is to listen to the points being put forward by both sides and decide who has the best argument.

But Mr Assange's legal team are suggesting that didn't happen in this case.

They appear to think he has lost his appeal because the judgement from the UK's highest court is based on a point which was neither heard nor argued in the case.

If this is so, the Supreme Court will find itself in the extraordinary position of having ruled against Mr Assange on a point that his lawyers did not have a chance to consider or respond to.

If true, that would mean the judgement is arguably unfair - and that is why in two weeks' time the court could be in the unprecedented position of having to reopen the case.

The 40-year-old Australian is accused of raping one woman and "sexually molesting and coercing" another in Stockholm in August 2010, but he claims the allegations against him are politically motivated.

His lawyers had asked the court to block his extradition, arguing that a European arrest warrant issued against him was "invalid and unenforceable".

The key legal question was whether the Swedish prosecutor who issued it had the "judicial authority" to do so under the 2003 Extradition Act - or whether the words gave that power only to a court or a judge.

That's just a part of it, and I count 5 instances just in that section of the same use of quotes. 3 of them would be in favor of Assange if you read them as scare quotes.

Of course, you could just view them as short quotations meant to reduce word count. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Edit - Yeah, I forgot. No, Malor, I am not in favor of his extradition, nor do I worship the British legal system, nor do I oppose the work that Wikileaks is doing, nor do I think he should be extradited to the US. I just don't think we can draw meaningful inferences based on bog-standard English journalistic practices.

Robear wrote:

Scare quotes? Did you read the article, Malor? Did you notice how quotes were used all through it?

Exactly. Those aren't scare quotes. They're quotation marks, denoting what someone said. You know, like using correct grammar and all.

These are "scare quotes".

These are demonstrating that thing said earlier, when Assange's lawyer said he was "stuck in traffic".

Following the hearing, he tweeted: "We got the news not hoped for."

That filthy LIAR!

Having read some coverage of the ruling (and the opinions by the court) I'm very curious to see what happens. This goes to a pretty salient point on the interdependence of European legal systems that I'm amazed has not been addressed before.

As mentioned above in Robear's quote, the crux of the controversy is that in Sweden prosecutors file for extradition, while in the UK it is the judges that file. Prosecutors have an obvious bias towards the guilt of the accused party, and it is this point that the judges seem to be stuck on. While it is unlikely that the court will overturn the ruling it was astounding that this point, which was not brought up by either prosecution or defense during the proceedings, was the base for their decisions and will very likely at least give grounds for the appeal.

I thought it was interesting that they didn't require that he be deported immediately, which they could have. Instead, they gave him time to appeal. That's pretty decent.

The whole setup sounds interesting to me, from an admittedly limited amount of research.

The court found on evidence / points not made during arguments, which is unusual in itself. Then they give time for appeal, which is good of them, but opens them up to an appeal in which they would potentially be ruling against themselves if their ruling changes upon appeal with arguments presented on the point that they ruled on the first time. Incredibly embarrassing. The whole thing feels rather awkward.

Jolly Bill wrote:

The whole setup sounds interesting to me, from an admittedly limited amount of research.

The court found on evidence / points not made during arguments, which is unusual in itself. Then they give time for appeal, which is good of them, but opens them up to an appeal in which they would potentially be ruling against themselves if their ruling changes upon appeal with arguments presented on the point that they ruled on the first time. Incredibly embarrassing. The whole thing feels rather awkward.

Any justice system that allows itself to risk embarrassment of proving itself wrong gets points from me.

It's almost as if the UK government is being asked to do something it doesn't really want to do.

You really think the Crown Courts are *that* independent? This is the country that has more surveillance technology per square kilometer than any other in the world... If they wanted him gone, he'd have been bundled out covertly months ago.

Or, that it's being asked to do something that it wants to do very much, but it's having a hell of a hard time inventing a plausible excuse for doing so.

edit: inserted a missing word.

What, like nobody would notice?

Wouldn't really matter if they noticed, as long as he was back in Sweden. I mean, on the one hand, you have the BBC deployed as an arm of the government to subtly smear him, but on the other hand, you can't believe that the courts are under the control of the government? Seriously?

Wouldn't matter as long as they got him to Sweden before it was noticed.

The BBC exists at the sufferance of the UK government, and they reflect its attitudes, by and large. It's not Pravda, but it's not Al Jazeera, either. It has the explicit mission of spreading the British view of things to the world.

And perhaps Britain believes in projecting at least the illusion that they're governed by the rule of law. If they just start grabbing extremely famous people off the street, ones known to be hated by the US, and bundle them off to Sweden for completely bogus reasons, then they're too obviously our lapdogs.

By doing it this way, they can pretend to be fair and impartial, while ending up with the same ridiculous result.

Malor wrote:

The BBC exists at the sufferance of the UK government, and they reflect its attitudes, by and large. It's not Pravda, but it's not Al Jazeera, either. It has the explicit mission of spreading the British view of things to the world.

And perhaps Britain believes in projecting at least the illusion that they're governed by the rule of law. If they just start grabbing extremely famous people off the street, ones known to be hated by the US, and bundle them off to Sweden for completely bogus reasons, then they're too obviously our lapdogs.

By doing it this way, they can pretend to be fair and impartial, while ending up with the same ridiculous result.

I would suggest that if you're pretending to be fair and impartial well enough that it looks to an outside observer that you're being fair and impartial, aren't you actually being fair and impartial at that point?

Since they're not being fair and impartial, the question's kind of moot. They're going through the motions of justice, without actually being just.

Well, it's taking them an awful long time...

aka:

it's having a hell of a hard time inventing a plausible excuse for doing so.

I *love* that style of post with your avatar, Scratched. Perfect.