Originally posted by WOM
View Post
-
See ursus's link above -
Hence the subtext of the charge is to render all inquiry into military secrets a de facto criminal offence. How does that not scare you?Comment
-
US prosecutors often act as if it does (except when the President is involved) and are sometimes supported by the courts. That said, if the single email that has been cited is the only evidence here, that would be a stretch even bythe usual standards of aggressive US Attorneys.I dunno, only if the word "conspiracy" has a massively different meaning in US legal speak than it does in actual EnglishComment
-
ad hoc, that Mark Curtis tweet has been deletedComment
-
Sorry. Didn't see that. And if I were the Swede's, I'd pull out the stops to see the charges re-filed. Statutes should have no bearing when you know who the suspect is and where he's holed up trying to avoid you.Originally posted by ad hoc View PostComment
-
Some commentators seem to believe he was in cahoots with Russia to steal stuff from the Clinton campaign. Is that right?Comment
-
We don't know, and that doesn't form part of the current indictment, at least as so far as been reported.Comment
-
What did that Mark Curtis tweet say, before deletion?Comment
-
I paraphrase a half remembered tweet
The US charging someone for publishing a story outside the US is the height of imperial arrogance. Will the UK start handing journalists to Moscow and Riyadh next?Comment
-
So, to recap: the accusation in Sweden is valid, so he should be extradited. And the accusation in the US is bullshit, so he should not be extradited. And you've decided this on the basis of what, exactly?Originally posted by ad hoc View PostComment
-
It's fair to take that as a working hypothesis on the basis that you should normally believe women who accuse someone of rape, and you should normally not have a whole lot of faith in US authorities and prosecutors on very much, but particularly on national security issues, and even less when it looks like a crackdown on freedom of the press.Comment
-
Well the Sweden one is important and should go to court. Rape needs to be prosecuted and guilt/innocence established. I don't know if the accusation is valid but I believe it needs to be paid attention to.
The US one seems about the flimsiest pretext for an extradition that it's possible to imagine I mean it probably has to be looked at by a judge anyway but I assume he/she will throw it out. I hope also they will demand the US pay expenses for wasting the court's timeComment
-
You do recognize that that's totally arbitrary? Regardless of what you think about a) women or b) the US, neither of those is immutable fact.Comment
-
(or what SB said)Comment
-
-
Well, yes. But if he's not extradited to the US to face it, it's not much good.Comment
-
What do you mean? If it is a frivolous charge designed to silence (as it certainly seems on the surface) a judge in the UK will refuse to extradite him. Why does he need to face a US court to determine that?Comment
-
100% with sb and ad hoc on this.Comment
-
A UK judge will decide whether EITHER charge is valid or frivolous, no? It's entirely possible both are frivolous charges meant to silence. Accusation is not guilt in either case.Comment
-
-
No. It's not ok to talk about the Sweden accusations in that wayComment
-
Why not?Comment
-
His defence seems to be that sleep fucking is consensual. Fuck him.Comment
-
I think the charge of rape is still within the Swedish SoL. Based on what someone else said on the internet, somewhere ...Originally posted by WOM View PostComment
Comment