Yes, and it's not just usual ignorance, but they seem to be proud about their ignorance in a way that makes them behave irrationally and become offensive. For example how people downvote me in this thread, right now, although I got this treatment in many other venues, and in real life as well.
And of course the "argument" that language changes doesn't hold water. They are not merely using different words, they are de-facto eliminating the word that describes a "theory". People who actually make scientific hypothesis and scientific theories use the word correctly, it's the ignorants who can't use it, and who quite often will utter phrases like "X is just a theory!", like somehow that should lessen X.
That unfortunately doesn't make it easy to see where those requests are coming from, especially given that the vast majority of Chrome(ium) developers are from Google.
10 minutes expected time on an extradution that is unecessary. I think they have already made up their mind. The best case scenario is that he will never be seen again, the worst? they will kill him.
This topic tends to cause people with no knowledge or experience of the English legal system to come out with some crazy stuff.
Firstly, judgements in England are typically delivered orally. The ten minutes refers to the time taken to read out the judgement in open court, not the time taken to deliberate.
Secondly, and this is a very important point that people here tend to forget, this has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.
Here are the facts: Sweden issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) for Assange, and want him to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. As a member of the EU, the UK is obliged to transfer him to Sweden, as per the conditions of the warrant. The EAW is very useful, and makes a lot of sense: EU citizens can move and live between EU member states freely, and the EAW is an extension of that.
It is not of relevance to the English courts whether Assange is guilty or not: that's for the Swedish courts to ascertain. It is widely accepted amongst legal circles that Assange's defence is very weak. His defence team are trying to get him off on a technicality - the treaty that governs EU arrest warrants states that requests must be made by "competent judicial authorities", and they're arguing that the Swedish prosecutor isn't a "judicial" official.
That's it. That's all they have. Not honouring the EAW would have huge implications for extradition cases across Europe. I think it's quite likely Assange will be handed over to Sweden, but not because of some vendata or conspiracy - simply because he has no case with regards to his extradition. Assange could very well be totally innocent, but that's a matter he should argue in Sweden where the alleged offence was committed, not the UK.
While I agree that killing him would probably create more problems than it solves the facts remain.
a) judgement will be given 1 hour after the court building so thats still not much time .
Here are the facts:
Sweden is trying to extradite him for the purpose of questioning, but they have refused all offers to question him via telephone or video call, despite it being a completely legal method under Swedish law.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's lawyer tells CBS News that rape and sexual molestation allegations against his client in Sweden are a "stitch up," and the Swedish prosecutor's failure to provide him with documentation on the claims, or any evidence, makes it impossible to begin crafting a legal response.
Call it what you want, I call it Bullst
If charged, the following trial would be held in secret.
Well if Assange's lawyer thinks the Swedish prosecutor has no case, he must be right!
I don't really like it either, but there's a rationale for rape trials to be secret. One of the biggest reasons rape victims don't press charges is because they don't want to face the enormous public scrutiny into their personal lives that always comes with a rape trial. At least in America, the most common legal defense against rape is to attack the victim's credibility and publicly brand her a slut. It's emotional blackmail but it works, which is why most rapes go completely unreported and why Kobe Bryant, for instance, is still a free man.
If Assange was going to be framed by the authorities, it wouldn't be in Sweden of all places, and it would be for something like tax evasion, not rape. It's way easier to go after troublesome public figures on tax charges.
>Well if Assange's lawyer thinks the Swedish prosecutor has no case, he must be right!
er...thats not what was said at all.
however, sticking with the point:its good practise for lawyers to present their case to the other side before trial, Assanges lawyers are saying they arent being given the chance to formulate a defence due to malpractise of the prosecution.
Really? Do you really think a democratic country like the UK, Sweden, or the US would be so stupid as to kill such a lightning rod figure? We're not talking about backwater banana republics here, these are G20 countries with well-established legal systems.
From what I've read, he's not facing treatment any different from anyone else in this situation([1] and [2]).
It all appears to be by the book. This is not a railroading, as there have been much back and forth and waffling by the Swedish authorities whether there was a crime and whether to continue the investigation.
I think people see a conspiracy where there is none.
Absolutely. You cannot kill such an emblematic figure like Assange without making a martyr of him. You must not kill the guy, you must kill his credibility.
In my experience, NMap hasn't been the best at identifying smartphones and other mobile devices. So from my point of view, yes, this would help. I don't know NMap's goals on that, though.
