
Julian Assange extradition judge refuses request for delay - eth0up
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/21/julian-assange-extradition-judge-refuses-request-for-delay-wikileaks
======
TazeTSchnitzel
Just think: if he'd not tried to flee rape allegations in Sweden, he'd be free
(or at least in a much more favourable situation) right now. Despite all the
crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made extradition to the US
_less_ likely: two legal systems would need to approve (Sweden and UK), not
just the UK.

~~~
pytester
>Despite all the crap he said, being extradited to Sweden would have made
extradition to the US less likely

He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands
of the US. Given that A) he had access to better legal advice than is
generally dispensed by random strangers on the internet and B) the part about
the US trying to snare him in spite of _multiple_ denials ended up being 100%
true I'm inclined to believe that he was probably on the mark.

~~~
LiquidSky
>He was called crazy for stating that it was a ruse to get him into the hands
of the US.

And he was crazy. Fleeing to the UK, America's staunches ally with a long
history of cooperation with US law enforcement, especially in cases of
extradition, in order to avoid possible extradition in Sweden is simply not
sane.

Even taking the assumptions you're working with, that the Sweden charges were
a ruse to allow Assange to be extradited, the argument fails because Assange
fled this supposed conspiracy to a jurisdiction that is 100% guaranteed to
cooperate in extraditing him to the US.

>he had access to better legal advice than is generally dispensed by random
strangers on the internet

Considering the predicament his apparently genius legal counsel's advice put
him in over the last decade, I'd say that's not a given at all. It seems much
more like he's acting out of panic and desperation rather than some carefully-
crafted legal strategy.

~~~
aaron_m04
He fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK. Big difference.

------
thefounder
>>... and warned of a bleak future for journalists publishing “truthful
information” contrary to US interests.

I wonder if that wasn't always the case.

~~~
ehsankia
I don't want to live in a world were "journalists" just dump any sensitive
information they get their hands out with complete disregard for what harms it
can cause, and doing nothing to actually vet the information beforehand.

If that's a "bleak future" then let it be.

~~~
thefounder
Yeah, we need a master to vet and gate the information before it is released
to the public, right?

~~~
ehsankia
The Guardian, WP and NYT did just fine with Snowden's material.

So I guess in your mind it would also be perfectly fine if someone tool all
your data including your passwords and released it to the public, right?

~~~
jakeogh
Re filters: How would you know? Maybe you dont want to know?

[https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg)

~~~
ehsankia
If you really believe that three different papers actively hit crucial
information, then there's not much I can say that would convince you otherwise
honestly.

~~~
jakeogh
What if you just didnt check? It's the rule, not the exception that these
orginizations are filters. Access to original sources breaks their hold on
deciding what is real.

[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/3599](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599)
[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/10052](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10052)
[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/50332](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/50332)
[https://wikileaks.org/podesta-
emails/emailid/32795](https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795)

------
modsrgovshills
40 points 10 comments 1 hour and not on the front page.

Nothing to see here folks.

------
coldtea
Of course he does

