so the pell post is closed. Those on a witch-hunt got there man and can feel good about themselves, meanwhile the catholic church resumes doing what it has for hundreds of years and has even asked for an extra $20 billion in funding, which it will probably receive. They will also continue to obstruct and justice for victims. Witch-hunts only serve the self interests of those instigating them
Clearly the wrong thread for your post dude, … but anyway, what the hell are you talking about here?
How does the RCC have the nuts, let alone reason, to ask for funding at all, … from anyone, anywhere, … let alone any number ending in billion?
Isn’t chippyleaks when your carpenter uses your toilet?
wrong thread because the pell thread is closed
from the government of course
WTH are you taliking about though?
So why here?
If you are talking about RCC trying to extract 20 bill from the Gov for schools, (as I can now only assume), … that would belong in the politics thread.
This happened to me as a kid. When i got older and realised it was all bullshit i chose to stop practicing religion. I could choose to go back at any time. And if people want to disown you because you turn your back on religion then you have another choice to make.
We knew all about this . We didn’t need Wikileaks.
I for one wish the USA would pull their head in and keep out of international affairs. They cause trouble everywhere they intervene. However, you cannot have it both ways. Under a “fortress America” / neutral strategy, don’t expect them to do anything whatever about trouble anywhere else in the World and don’t expect them to respond when China and Russia intervene in the power vacuum the USA would leave behind.
Which do you want From Outside 50 ?
Many country pairs have extradition treaties and agreements Allan, its not like its just the evil US empire! In all, Australia has extradition agreements with about 75% of countries in the world and the US is probably about the same.
Countries with which Australia has extradition arrangementsEdit
- Through bilateral extradition treaties:
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam.
- Through inherited treaties (especially for former colonies etc):
Albania, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Romania, San Marino, and Yugoslavia.
- Through backing of warrants :
- Through the London Scheme (current and former Commonwealth of Nations member states):
Akrotiri and Dhekelia (the Sovereign base areas on the Island of Cyprus), Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Botswana, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Brunei Darussalam, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Dominica, Falkland Islands, Gambia, Ghana, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montserrat, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Sri Lanka, St Helena, Saint Helena, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe
- Through regulations (not treaty based):
Slovenia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Cambodia, Canada, Cook Islands, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Iceland, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu and Western Samoa.
You’d think you’d be safe in Estonia.
Did not equate extradition treaties ( where the person is located) to the US exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction ( a crime under US law no matter where the crime was committed)
The terms of an extradition treaty may affect the exercise of extra territorial jurisdiction
The terms and conditions of bilateral extradition treaties will be highly variable on a country by country basis - for instance, exclusions if the charge might attract the death penalty, if it is unlikely that the accused would receive a fair trial and punishement according to the legal standards of the extraditing country or if the action would not be recognised as criminal in the extraditing country ( e.g. homosexuality)
The terms of the UK/US extradition treaty are contoversial in the UK and I anticipate a legal dogfight about the precise terms as well as its legality under UK ( and European) law.
My guess is that the guilty plea on bail may be tactical for the legal stoush on extradition
why anywhere, are you telling me assange’s problems are not political? everything could be in the polical thread.
whatevs man. Just trying to understand what the point was.
Your post makes no sense at all, … be it here, or anywhere.
Had an extremely busy week - so apologies for the late reply. Mate, the purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with the information needed to make the best possible decisions about their lives, communities, societies and their governments. Wikileaks and Assange, undoubtedly does this. Assange doesn’t need to be sitting behind a desk at The Age writing political articles to be labelled a ‘journalist’. Again, journalism is an activity, a point you can’t or won’t comprehend.
He’s won a stack of journalism prizes since 2010, how does one do that if you’re not a journalist? I’m confused. Further, in the UK High Court ruling in 2011 on extradition to Sweden, one of the judges specifically described Assange as “…a journalist well known through his operation of Wikileaks”
25 weeks for being a narcissist? I’m still really confused.
This judge clear has an agenda and is being extremely disingenuous - how did Assange cost the tax payer £16m?? That would be the Met who installed one of the most invasive surveillance apparatuses surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy.
As for the mitigating circumstances being dismissed - it tells you all you need to know that this is politically motivated.
Greste’s article is self-serving and smacks of professional jealousy and is actually dangerous as it makes Assange more vulnerable to US prosecution. It’s pathetic given that Wikileaks advocated for Greste when he was imprisoned in Egypt.
I think you think I have a problem with Assange just because he’s not a journalist.
But he’s not.
Any more than me going out and finding a bunch of food and dumping it at your feet makes me a chef.
I don’t think that at all. Really I don’t. You say he isn’t a journalist and the reasons you give are pretty feeble - that’s what I’m questioning. Poor analogies don’t change the fact that he’s a journalist.
I don’t care how feeble you think my reasons are.
I’ve given you plenty.
You’ve given me, ‘but he is though’, and also ‘this guy says he is so it must be true.’