Totally agree on the first. Totally agree on the second.
But let’s not imply the second somehow magically makes the first alright. Or that anything makes the first part alright, particularly when the UN and pretty much every human rights institution on the planet has said that solitary confinement is tantamount to torture.
Do you love to hear it when people also aren’t in contempt of court? Because that’s what refusing to testify is, pure and simple. If you or i don’t comply with a subpoena, we go to jail. So too did Manning.
It’s astounding to see a post on here where every single sentence is factually incorrect.
Good for you! Push those boundaries!
Well, it’s a budget. There’s no real loss, just projected income loss, because what you spend now has already been accounted for. The more you can justify spending this year will likely get you the same amount next year.
My gripe is with a judge who lays departmental spending at Assange’s feet when IMHO, they could have posted Barney Fife at the embassy door (and done an equally good job at his capture) and directed their resources to more important things like violent alt-right incels and scooter hoodlums.
Honestly, I say the same about US departments who send in the SWAT team to capture non-felons.
ETA: Edited for grammar, 'cuz it came out like people were mudering alt-right incels. Not that it wouldn’t be a net positive. /s
From an office that he was mooching in to custody, trial and prison for breach of bail conditions.
That’s how the criminal justice system seems to have worked here.
You might find some cold comfort in the fact that they said the money came out of the specific budget for protecting diplomats and embassies, anyway, and not the general budget.
Basically, they were always going to spend this money on watching embassies for disgruntled attackers, but they had to use more of it for the Ecuadorian embassy over watching for people mad at China or Russia or the US or wherever.
I think you’re right that it’s not really fair to put that already committed cost on one case.
You forgot the part involving extradition to the USA. You know there is an indictment awaiting him across the pond for hacking?
Listen, I’m not a fan of the guy. I was only pointing out that Ecuador deliberately made things unbearable for him during the past year. He wasn’t rubbing poo on the walls when he first started out there, was he? He started out a healthy, clean cut guy, and then seven years later he had the Howard Hughes look going on. Mission accomplished, Ecuador smoked him out of his hole.
You seem like you’re a lot of fun at the parties you aren’t invited to.
Factually incorrect how?
Jeez. Any more ‘enforced’ seclusion and this guy is gonna transform into Renfield.
I missed the bit where Ecuador owes him room and board in perpetuity?
Skip bail, head to jail.
It’s not unprecedented:
Pretty sure it was cat shit he was smearing over the walls. Not that that’s much better than the human variety of course.
To add some to the points you bring up.
So Assange was always at the mercy of UK courts in any extradition proceeding and any decent lawyer he retained would have explained this. So basically all this malarkey about extradition from Sweden was just a PR exercise to sway public opinion and to escape Swedish justice. That said, motivated reasoning is a helluva drug and Assange might very well have convinced himself of whatever happens to make him look good in this mess.
Sounds like he was the one making the Ecuadorians’ lives unbearable. When another country offers you sanctuary (not to mention free room and board) in their embassy then at least try to be a gracious guest.
Like someone else posted, Ecuador didn’t owe Assange a damn thing; by all credible accounts, it sounds like he took their kindness for weakness.
But he’s a rich White dude, so I guess that means he should get an automatic pass…
- humbled -
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
