Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 The reason we won't extradite anyone to face the death penalty is quite simple. We don't believe in the death sentence as a form of justice. Er, no. English law retained the death penalty even after murder ceased to be a capital offence, until Others intruded. What anyone 'believes'- at least in this context- is irrelevant. Either it's the law or it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Er, no. English law retained the death penalty even after murder ceased to be a capital offence, until Others intruded. That's the first time I've ever heard the Westminster Parliament referred to as "others" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I find the whole thing rather bizarre. I mean, Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US, which is no weaker than that of ours. If, as he claims, the US want to extradite him for the Wikileak website, then surely they would just apply for his extradition from the UK rather than doubling the legal process to get him extradited via another country. Furthermore, it is worth noting that no extradition can or will be made from an EU country to a country that intends to seek the death penalty in any case. Prosecutors must drop that punishment option before any extradition can or will be agreed. The title of this thread is misleading, given that asylum has NOT been given, so maybe it should be changed to reflect the true nature of this developing story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 That's the first time I've ever heard the Westminster Parliament referred to as "others" ... No. The "Others" are extra-territorial institutions of European origin. They should have no role in UK law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I find the whole thing rather bizarre. I mean, Sweden has an extradition treaty with the US, which is no weaker than that of ours. If, as he claims, the US want to extradite him for the Wikileak website, then surely they would just apply for his extradition from the UK rather than doubling the legal process to get him extradited via another country. Furthermore, it is worth noting that no extradition can or will be made from an EU country to a country that intends to seek the death penalty in any case. Prosecutors must drop that punishment option before any extradition can or will be agreed. The title of this thread is misleading, given that asylum has NOT been given, so maybe it should be changed to reflect the true nature of this developing story. But if they requested extradition on a lesser offence what is to stop them charging him with more serious offences (which could carry the death penalty) once they have him in the USA Which is not to say that I don't think he should be extradited - I think he should - whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant - he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions - hiding behind Ecuador's embassy door makes him appear ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 But if they requested extradition on a lesser offence what is to stop them charging him with more serious offences (which could carry the death penalty) once they have him in the USA Which is not to say that I don't think he should be extradited - I think he should - whether he is guilty or not is irrelevant - he should be prepared to face the consequences of his actions - hiding behind Ecuador's embassy door makes him appear ridiculous Extraditions are not taken lightly. Evidence would have to be produce, first and foremost, to convince the courts to sign the extradition papers. As I am no expert in these matters, I couldn't possibly expand on your hoodwinked theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 he's so innocent, he's running away to live anon where nobody can bring him to trial to plead his innocence. makes perfect sense.......if you're guilty. Tzipi Livni wasn't too keen on pleading her innocence after a warrant was signed in London. Makes perfect sense..........................if you're guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saunaman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Regardless of the legalities , methinks that we all have a vested interest in what happens to Julian Assange , given that our own leaders are trying to clamp down on whistleblowers via the "Enterprise etc" bill , by adding the words "public interest" to make it harder for any of us to whistle-blow in the future . Also find the sex allegations a bit dodgy - didn't DSK lose his job at the IMF due to sex charges , only for Barry Manilow to get his job instead ?? Finally , am loving the fact that the bbc didn't have enough of their own footage and had to rely on a brief RT clip , must have killed them to show that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Assange should be given asylum in England. You deserve him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric_Collins Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I like how the media are throwing the quote about on how he's wanted for treason in America. Seeing how this assange is Swedish how can he have committed treason , don't you need to be say American to commit treason in America ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.