On a related note: while out for a walk last summer with the missus, we noticed that someone had cut a channel in the pavement (probably with a Stihl saw) to take the charging cable for his doorstep-parked Tesla. I wonder if he got permission to do that. Or maybe it was a case of "It's easier to get forgiveness than to get permission".
Do that around my way and you are likely to hit one of the fibre/telecom cables running the length of the pavement along my road :)
"It was there when we moved in, Guv."
It does, however, make it a lawful detention under Article 5(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, pending a fair trial as required under Article 6.
That one is complicated because he was not in the USA when he released that informaton.
Anyone daft enough to fork out £120,000 for a vehicle knowing it'll lose more than half its value as soon as it's driven away deserves all they get.
It's like drawing out £80,000 in cash, dropping it into a garden incinerator and setting fire to it.
It was different ecuadorian people that initiall allowed him asylum and later let the pom cops have him.
Irrelevant to Jack's question.
He still owes £60k on a car for which he has only been offered £40k, and falling by £1k each week. :)
That is only because the question was structured so as to imply that there is no other lawful reason to hold somebody in prison except for having been tried and sentenced.
The only complication is that the USA has to get him into US territory before they can try him for breaking US law.
Half his problem is clearly that he went into debt to acquire a wasting asset. That was compounded by his choice of an EV as that "asset" and now he's flailing at the world blaming everyone but himself for his own stupidity.
His question did nothing of the sort.
He was making the point that he has never seen a TRIAL on the allegations.
He can't be breaking US law if he was never in the US when he did what he did.
Exactly my point. A trial is not the only reason that somebody may lawfully be held in prison. Being a flight risk before trial is also a lawful reason. The trial follows on from that, but may take a long time coming.
Of course he can, if that is what the US law says and I would expect a law against hacking to cover actions anywhere in the world.
Your point is irrelevant to Jack's question.
Irrelevant to the fact that Assange has never had a trial.
So you are seriously claiming that any country can proclaim that any action any foreigner does outside its territory is illegal ? BULLSHIT.
He never did any hacking. He RECIEVED information and made it publicly available.
Of course they can. Governments can pass any law they can get through their legislature. Enforcing that law outside their own territory is the problem.
He is charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, i.e. hacking. However, the espionage charges are another law that it would be reasonable to expect would not be restricted to actions within the country.
Doesnt make it legal.
He never did anything like that. That's just the usual stupid ambit claim that the yank legal system gets up to so they can plea bargain.
No country gets any say about what foreigners do outside their country
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required