- This topic has 69 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Who seriously believes Assange is going to get a fair trial in America? He does not have the remotest hope in hell of being acquitted in a politically motivated trial.
I would find it easier to have a partisan opinion on it if I knew whether or not Julian Assange and Priti Patel preferred chocolate hob nobs to the original classic hob nob.
That’s my way of saying I don’t think it’s a clear-cut issue, btw.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"This is right. Especially the last paragraph:
“Assange’s extradition has exposed the hollowness of liberal-elite platitudes about press freedom. It has shown the Biden administration to be no more liberal than its Trumpist predecessor. And it has undercut the pompous claims of mainstream-media journalists. They claim to speak truth to power, but their silence on Assange is deafening.”
Disagree with most of your assessments of American Presidents, Clive.
Don’t be taken in by Reagan either. Mrs Thatcher had a schoolgirl crush on him but he was more than prepared to work against British interests if he wanted. His administration’s support during the Falklands War was lukewarm at best, for example.
His Vice President made no secret of allying America with Germany against Britain when he took over, as the final volume of Charles Moore’s excellent biography of Mrs Thatcher makes clear.
And Reagan over ruled the vile jean kilpatrick over the falklands and he was the president. By no measures whatsoever was he “anti British”
Just because they don’t agree with every stance we wish to take doesn’t mean they are “anti”. Did thatchers fury over Grenada make her anti American or wilson not joining the Vietnam war?
I can’t think of one president since the war who was openly hostile to the uk. Maybe yoj would have to go back to Woodrow wilson (who certainly was)
“Who seriously believes Assange is going to get a fair trial in America? He does not have the remotest hope in hell of being acquitted in a politically motivated trial”.
——————————
It is perfectly possible – or even probable – that the people most “politically motivated” are Assange and his closest supporters.
Doing some good is no excuse for doing wrong.
Putin won’t be able to get a fair trial, let’s not bother to hold him to account.
Value Is EverythingThe American courts have gone against the administration any number of times. They are independent and that’s pretty well that
The biggest example of post war America not backing Britain has been missed but they arguably had a very fair point
Moores bios are good. Strangely I liked the first volume best but will say haven’t worked right through the third. Biggest fault in the volumes is that some pieces go on and on and on. Westland was about 150 pages which was way too much
“ They are independent and that’s pretty well that”
More drivel, I’m afraid, Clive.
Why do you think Trump rushed through the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court? The right now has a 6-3 majority on that august body.
American law is anything but impartial.
The American political system is a mess.
It was initially loosely based on various European models as it (often wrongly) perceived them to be at the time of its inception, but all the checks and balances – Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, Presidential veto – just created a rat’s nest which is still open to abuse.
Maybe my analysis is way off, but if it is it is one which nevertheless stole me a Grade A in my American Politics A level in 1981!
Fascinating subject, but a crazy, crazy executive/legislative/judicial political system.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"You should think a bit before spouting off glad
Ever heard of watergate ?
That’s the appointments not the actual law you are talking about. Once appointed they obviously have to follow the law
And the president can’t just go and change around the appointed judges to suit them before any particular case
“Why do you think Trump rushed through the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court?
The right now has a 6-3 majority on that august body.”So, what is your actual point that you are making, Glad?
However, despite your referenced statistic (6-3), here’s a recent Supreme Court decision that went against Trump himself.
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON, Feb 22 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday brought a formal end to former President Donald Trump’s request to block the release of White House records sought by the Democratic-led congressional panel investigating last year’s deadly attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.
The court’s decision to formally reject Trump’s appeal follows its Jan. 19 order that led to the documents being handed over to the House of Representatives investigative committee by the federal agency that stores government and historical records.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 9 upheld a lower court ruling that Trump had no basis to challenge President Joe Biden’s decision to allow the records to be handed over to the House of Representatives select committee. Trump then appealed to the Supreme Court
Trump and his allies have waged an ongoing legal battle with the House select committee seeking to block access to documents and witnesses. Trump has sought to invoke a legal principle known as executive privilege, which protects the confidentially of some internal White House communications, a stance rejected by lower courts.
The House committee has said it needed the records to understand any role Trump may have played in fomenting the violence that unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021. His supporters stormed the Capitol in a failed bid to prevent Congress from formally certifying Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
The committee asked the National Archives to produce visitor logs, phone records and written communications between his advisers.
“Who seriously believes Assange is going to get a fair trial in America? He does not have the remotest hope in hell of being acquitted in a politically motivated trial.”
Given the enormous amount of media exposure over the years and the fact that he’s not an American citizen (as opposed to Snowden) it can be argued that he may not get a “fair” trail as required under the American Constitution.
But, in my view, the actual extradition process and decisions made by UK’s courts and the Home Secretary were not only politically motivated, but also are clear examples of bias and double-standard.
My argument is based on the following:
(1) January, 2021: UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser blocks extradition of Assange to US.
But, she explicitly concluded that Mr Assange should answer allegations that he aided and abetted hacking, theft and the disclosure of the identities of informants working for the US security agencies – disclosures that endangered their lives.
In English law, according to BBC’s legal correspondent Dominic Casciani, that would be enough for him to be charged with a crime here – and so the route was open for Assange to face trial for the same in the US.
But British extradition law also requires a judge to consider his health.
And so, in the judge’s conclusion, the US was incapable of preventing him from attempting to take his own life.
Therefore, the legal requirement to treat Mr Assange humanely trumps the seriousness of the case that the judge acknowledges he should answer.NOTE: The judge’s decision is very similar to the one made in October 2012 by then-Home Secretary Teresa May in the case involving Gary McKinnon who even admitted to hacking US govrnment’s computers. She blocked the extradition, saying:
“After careful consideration of all of the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights.”
(2) The US appealed the decision and, in December 2021, the High Court in London ruled that Assange could be extradited to the US to face the charges.
(3) Assange’s legal team tried to appeal but, in March 2022, the UK Supreme Court REFUSED Assange PERMISSION to APEAL.
– why the refusal? Where’s the due process?(4) On 17 June 2022, Home Secretary Priti Patel approved the extradition.
– again, why? Couldn’t the Home Secretary follow Teresa May’s decision in 2012?
– or, is it because McKinnon is a British national and Assange is not?Fair question, Turkoman, and I am certainly not holding up the UK one as any paragon of virtue.
But any written Constitution that ties itself up in knots and is arguably based on a mistaken interpretation (at time of writing) of those prevailing in European countries at the time is heading for trouble.
Well, that’s what I wrote in my 1981 A level exam paper and it got me the Grade A I needed to read Law at Warwick university – and get to go racing all over the Midlands!
Doesn’t mean I was right, though!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Well, ID, what it means to me is that you must have had presented your argument in a most intelligent and articulate manner to deserve an “A”…congrats!
Cheers!
I consider it my finest academic moment – it was all downhill after that!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.