Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 793
    MEMBERS
  • 41326
    MESSAGES
  • 92
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Dopey Donald   America - all of it

Started 7/26/19 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 7807 views.
Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

Feb-11

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-20

In reply toRe: msg 46
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-20

In reply toRe: msg 47
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-21

Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

Feb-21

He is showing his age! Also being a Parasite  himself.....not his favourite biopic, but it makes him an expert judge.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Feb-22

Gone with the Wind is hardly PC...

MEDDLY

From: MEDDLY

Feb-22

Haven't seen the movie in a while but it kinda "glorified" the Traitorous Confederacy.

BerrySteph

From: BerrySteph

Mar-1

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

A court in London heard an allegation that Julian Assange was offered a presidential pardon if he agreed to say that Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails.

Trivial shit.

Far more important is that UK law is apparently being trashed in order to torture Assange and send him down for 175 years.

From Day 4 - Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day Four 

Craig Murray makes a powerful case that Assange's extradition is political and British law does apply.

Let me put this as neutrally as possible. If you could fairly state that Lewis’s argument was much more logical, rational and intuitive than Fitzgerald’s, you could understand why Lewis did not need an interruption while Fitzgerald had to be continually interrupted for “clarification”. But in fact it was Lewis who was making out the case that the provisions of the very treaty under which the extradition is being made, do not in fact apply, a logical step which I suggest the man on the Clapham omnibus might reason to need rather more testing than Fitzgerald’s assertion to the contrary. Baraitser’s comparative harassment of Fitzgerald when he had the prosecution on the ropes was straight out of the Stalin show trial playbook.

The defence did not mention it, and I do not know if it features in their written arguments, but I thought Lewis’s point that these could not be political offences, because Julian Assange was not in the USA when he committed them, was breathtakingly dishonest. The USA claims universal jurisdiction. Assange is being charged with crimes of publishing committed while he was outside the USA. The USA claims the right to charge anyone of any nationality, anywhere in the world, who harms US interests. They also in addition here claim that as the materials could be seen on the internet in the USA, there was an offence in the USA. At the same time to claim this could not be a political offence as the crime was committed outside the USA is, as Edward Fitzgerald might say, on the face of it absurd. Which curiously Baraitser did not pick up on.

Lewis’s argument that the Treaty does not have any standing in English law is not something he just made up. Nigel Farage did not materialise from nowhere. There is in truth a long tradition in English law that even a treaty signed and ratified with some bloody Johnny Foreigner country, can in no way bind an English court. Lewis could and did spout reams and reams of judgements from old beetroot faced judges holding forth to say exactly that in the House of Lords, before going off to shoot grouse and spank the footman’s son. Lewis was especially fond of the Tin Council case.

There is of course a contrary and more enlightened tradition, and a number of judgements that say the exact opposite, mostly more recent. This is why there was so much repetitive argument as each side piled up more and more volumes of “authorities” on their side of the case.

The difficulty for Lewis – and for Baraitser – is that this case is not analogous to me buying a Mars bar and then going to court because an International Treaty on Mars Bars says mine is too small.

Rather the 2003 Extradition Act is an Enabling Act on which extradition treaties then depend. You can’t thus extradite under the 2003 Act without the Treaty. So the Extradition Treaty of 2007 in a very real sense becomes an executive instrument legally required to authorise the extradition. For the executing authorities to breach the terms of the necessary executive instrument under which they are acting, simply has to be an abuse of process. So the Extradition Treaty owing to its type and its necessity for legal action, is in fact incorporated in English Law by the Extradition Act of 2003 on which it depends.

The Extradition Treaty is a necessary precondition of the extradition, whereas a Mars Bar Treaty is not a necessary precondition to buying the Mars Bar.

That is as plain as I can put it. I do hope that is comprehensible.

It is of course difficult for Lewis that on the same day the Court of Appeal was ruling against the construction of the Heathrow Third Runway, partly because of its incompatibility with the Paris Agreement of 2016, despite the latter not being fully incorporated into English law by the Climate Change Act of 2008.

VITAL PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

It is intensely embarrassing for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) when an English court repudiates the application of a
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Di (amina046)

From: Di (amina046)

Mar-9

TOP