Assange extradition judgment overturned

Written By: - Date published: 3:31 pm, December 12th, 2021 - 29 comments
Categories: blogs, journalism, Media, uk politics, us politics - Tags:

I should have known not to be hopeful. British justice is an oxymoron which makes a mockery of official references to our ‘like-minded countries’ in the Five Eyes. The decision by senior judges in the UK to overturn a previous court decision not to extradite Julian Assange to the US is an example of state persecution of a person with the courage to speak out against crimes of the state.

The decision is as shameful as it is wrong. John Pilger has more on what he describes as ‘the judicial kidnapping of Julian Assange.’

 

 

29 comments on “Assange extradition judgment overturned ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Byd0nz 1
    12 December 2021 at 4:26 pm

    What else could you expect from the UK and US rulers of the world mentality. Perhaps if he changed his name to Navalny he would become a hero and released immediately. Double standards is the name of the game for these De- mock- crazy nations.

  2. weston 2
    12 December 2021 at 6:48 pm

    Pricks !!

  3. Patricia Bremner 3
    12 December 2021 at 6:53 pm

    You have reminded me to contribute to Wikileaks.

    "Australia, where the bloody hell are you???"

    • Molly 3.1
      13 December 2021 at 12:24 pm

      I was just reading this article today by Abigail Shrier:

      What I told the students of Princeton – Show some self-respect and reclaim your freedom

      and I didn't know this about Wikipedia, but it does explain some inconsistencies I found on the site.

      But the larger point is, your will is being toyed with, subverted, manipulated. And in a fairly insidious manner. None of you will be shocked to hear that Google promotes certain search results in order to lead us to a certain perspective. But did you know that, for contested entries, Wikipedia assigns editors, some of whom are ideologically committed activists, many of whom have very particular views they want you to walk away with.

      If you form views based on those Wikipedia articles or reports by corrupt fact-checkers, if you act based on them, are you exercising freedom of will? Given that you’ve been spun and prodded along to a pre-determined conclusion by hidden persuaders, perhaps you aren’t. Perhaps you’re left in the same sorry state as the Moor of Venice: toyed with, subverted, manipulated. Acting out someone else’s plan, pointed in the direction that he wants you to walk.

      • Subliminal 3.1.1
        13 December 2021 at 1:18 pm

        I would always be cautious with using Wikipedia as a source and would be very surprised if such is allowable for any kind of academic paper. When I was teaching secondary pupils it was discouraged. Too easy to use as your first stop and then often one reading is all you have time for. Wikipedia is just as easy to manipulate as any social media with links that march you around in a potentially proscribed manner.

        • mpledger 3.1.1.1
          13 December 2021 at 1:34 pm

          I've used wikipedia as a source in an academic paper. Had no troubles at all. I wouldn't use it to source some issues but on plain facts it's ok.

        • Molly 3.1.1.2
          13 December 2021 at 1:35 pm

          Agree. The idea is good. The real world execution would always have compromises.

        • lprent 3.1.1.3
          13 December 2021 at 1:38 pm

          I would always be cautious with using Wikipedia as a source and would be very surprised if such is allowable for any kind of academic paper. When I was teaching secondary pupils it was discouraged.

          Sure. However we aren't exactly secondary school students. At least from what I see of the demographics on this site.

          Anyone who stops at just one source on anything critical is by definition is just as thick as a piece of 4×42. People who avoid going to look at opposed sources or who fail to examine their own ability to understand on anything that is crucial are generally known as born suckers.

          Not to mention that I personally have a very high scepticism about academic and scientific papers – having seen far too many that figured out the conclusion they wanted and then run all of the evidence through that lens. Anyone who treats them as gospel is just a gormless fool in my opinion.

          Generally I like Wikipedia because it has the same underlying protection that you find in academic papers – links to sources and quotations. That means you can dig into those while figuring out the crap factor of whatever you're reading.

          In fact it is often better – most academic papers and texts referred to are often inaccessible. Even then.. you'd be surprised at the number of errors I routinely find in even in engineering specifications that shouldn't have them. I usually test the bits that I have to rely on.

          Just the opinion of a non-academic with a few degrees and a lot of experience of not relying on much unless I can see the source materials.

          It is like everything other source – use with caution. And as you say keep it out of the hands of kids unless you want to see a lot blatant plagarism… Like I used to out of encyclopedias when I was at school.

          • Subliminal 3.1.1.3.1
            13 December 2021 at 2:22 pm

            Oh. Well then. Could be I'm wrong. Always been a bit wary of the editing process especially with anything to do with politics. I have used it as a link for an argument on this site (a geographical map) so I'm not against it as one source so long as wider reading also occurs.

  4. Barfly 4
    12 December 2021 at 7:18 pm

    This of course is far from over – am I right in thinking the final court will be the European Court of Justice?

  5. Blazer 5
    12 December 2021 at 7:41 pm

    Love to see what RL has to say about this.

    • francesca 5.1
      12 December 2021 at 11:06 pm

      He's always been a great defender of Assange

    • RedLogix 5.2
      12 December 2021 at 11:17 pm

      I've been out all day and only just got to this. Short answer – same as the OP.

      A useful distinction to make here is that as with virtually all nations – the US is irrationally sensitive about military security. If Wikileaks had stuck to the political domain Assange would not have been touched. This is not so in Russia or China where any criticism of the government is highly risky.

      Nonetheless Assange’s underhand treatment by the US has been disgusting and they and everyone else who carried water for them, really should have a long hard think about what has happened.

      • Subliminal 5.2.1
        13 December 2021 at 1:22 pm

        So no connection between political and military in your opinion? Even given the revolving door between the Pentagon, Whitehouse and military hardware manufacturing?

  6. roblogic 6
    12 December 2021 at 11:02 pm

    Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald made some scathing remarks. But this one struck me

    https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1469828414563446784?s=20

  7. francesca 7
    12 December 2021 at 11:11 pm

    This has always demonstrated to me the bankruptcy of our supposed independence.We rattle the sabres for human rights whenever it's an adversary of the US at fault.,but our moral cowardice (nice little phrase borrowed from Ad)is starkly exposed in the most craven way when it comes to Assange.He's begun to have strokes, I think he'll die in prison

    Imagine if Navalny died in prison

    • RedLogix 7.1
      12 December 2021 at 11:32 pm

      We rattle the sabres for human rights whenever it's an adversary of the US at fault

      Yes the hypocrisy is unsupportable and indefensible. Nonetheless for every Assange on the US account – there are literally thousands if not millions elsewhere in the world we never get to hear about or know their names even.

      Just because the US has lost it's way completely on the Assange story – does not mean it's adversaries are suddenly lily-white.

      • Blazer 7.1.1
        13 December 2021 at 2:01 am

        it might be indefensible…but you just can't help yourself…defending..it.

        • RedLogix 7.1.1.1
          13 December 2021 at 8:25 am

          Blatantly putting words into my mouth. Consider retracting.

        • Blazer 7.1.1.2
          13 December 2021 at 10:37 am

          'nonetheless'….everyones doing it!

          Boycott China over human rights.

          Turn a blind eye to Saudi Arabia ,when they murder someone in their own embassy.

          Wonderful world…beautiful …people.

    • alwyn 7.2
      13 December 2021 at 10:59 am

      "Imagine if Navalny died in prison"

      Putin would have cheered, clicked his heels and declared a National Holiday?

    • Obtrectator 7.3
      13 December 2021 at 11:29 am

      "Imagine if Navalny died in prison" That can't be far off, I should think.

  8. Tricledrown 8
    13 December 2021 at 9:51 am

    The US home of the free and Brave protector of democracy and freedom of speech.

  9. Stuart Munro 9
    13 December 2021 at 1:51 pm

    I wonder if some horse trade has not been arranged. The US under Biden, and the US under Trump are rather different beasts. Some tidy process that doesn't result in Assange's death in English custody in Belmarsh no doubt appeals to longer sighted English civil servants.

  10. UncookedSelachimorpha 10
    13 December 2021 at 4:34 pm

    Disappointing response from Ardern and a disappointing lack of interest from the media, in her 4pm press conference.

    She was asked if NZ would consider asylum for Assange. She simply replied "No".

    No explanation or justification, and annoyingly no one in the media asked her to justify her position.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.