Dear Mhaze,

«If a scammer in India steals from an 80 yr old in Australia, he has committed an offence in Australia and we would, if we could, seek to bring him here for prosecution.»

That Australia would seek to bring him for prosecution is a no-brainer,
but why would India go along?
- It would of course, but only because scamming and stealing are criminal offences in India as well, and the scammer should have known that.
Same for refusing to return a child.

Online presence?
Suppose an Australian lady films herself online wearing a bikini on a Thai beach, which is perfectly legal there:
Could Saudi Arabia claim that due to her online presence she was breaking Saudi modesty laws and should therefore be extradited for prosecution in Saudi Arabia?

Well Saudi Arabia might request so, that we may even understand, but would Thailand take that request seriously?

Had someone in Chile been spying on Zambia, including online, and doing so did not contravene any Chilean laws, then surely nothing would have happened to them despite all of Zambia's protestations.

But if they spy against America instead... why would that be different?

Hi Foxy,

Yes I did read the links and found the information misleading to the point of dishonesty at times. That is why I suggested that you look at the court proceedings. You can freely obtain the judgements on line and get a good idea of the arguments presented and how convincing they were.

Were Mr Shipton not so gutless and faced his accusers, I suspect that he'd have been released by now, assuming that he'd only served a few years for sexual assault in Sweden.

Here's one for you Foxy

Wikileaks Reveals Alexei Navalny's US Funding as Washington Exploits His Death
http://youtu.be/0uRXkw3_0BE

What a dilemma.
Do you stand with Julian Assange's Wikileaks or do you stand with Alexei Navalny?

Some rumors going around that Navalny was killed with Novachuk.
- No idea whether there's any truth to it, I haven't dug too deep into it.
But I've also heard other rumors that Azov Battalion also has Novachuk.

http://twitter.com/RealGeorgeWebb1/status/1759897000991244477
One positive thing that has come out of the Navalny tragedy is we now know NATO has a supply of Novichok in Odessa for its Azov assassination squads. Same thing that killed Gonzo Lira. We know Putin sent Navalny to Berlin for treatment for a month, no personnel was suited up for Novichok exposure. Biden and NATO should be investigating Azov and Kolomoisky for a propaganda killing.

http://twitter.com/RealGeorgeWebb1/status/1759702278892830749
Ray McGovern delivers the juice - Navalny killed by MI6. I’m not in complete agreement with Ray. I believe that Ukrainian funders in US Congress wanted the high ground morally after the murder of Gonzalo Lira in Ukraine for the next 60 billion in subsidies, but Ray thinks it’s because of the Munich security conference which is also an excellent reason. Navalny’s wife was running around with the German male model, doesn’t really fit the tortured dissident false narrative.

.

The Assange trial seems to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”.

As I understand it, Assange revealed evidence of what many consider to be war crimes committed by US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “pot” being the US and the “kettle” Julian Assange – engaged in a dispute reminiscent of that of "David and Goliath".

According to an “Independent” article in 2010, Julian Assange is reported to have said in his defence :

“Governments around the world must not ‘shoot the messenger’ by attacking disclosures by WikiLeaks” – and he added that his whistle-blowing website deserves protection and has not cost a single life despite the claims of critics.

If Assange deserves to be extradited from the UK and tried in the US, it would seem that, by the same token, the US authorities also deserve to be extradited and tried in the Hague in the Netherlands by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

It seems clair that the proximate cause of the purported criminal action relates to the military intervention of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

.

"If Assange deserves to be extradited from the UK and tried in the US, it would seem that, by the same token, the US authorities also deserve to be extradited and tried in the Hague in the Netherlands by the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
- I second that motion.

.

Post Scriptum :

.

It’s difficult to imagine that the US authorities could ever be extradited and tried by the ICC in the Hague for purported war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the same token, it should be just as difficult to imagine that Julian Assange could ever be extradited and tried by the US courts.
Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition, Justice Jeremy Johnson previously represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence – both of which have a deep and long-lasting relationship with Washington’s intelligence and security services that are seeking Assange’s extradition.

Assange now faces a judge who has acted for and received security clearance from, some of those same intelligence and security services agencies.

Justice Jeremy Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder.

As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s case, this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest.

The verdict of His Majesty's High Court will inevitably attest not so much to the validity of Assange’s conviction than to the independence of the court in accomplishing its mission of justice.

.