Julian Assange

A tale of two Sk8trKidz:

• Sky is 10 and wants to go to the Olympics:

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/get-inspired/47558160

• Julian is 47 and won't be going to the Olympics:

elpais.com/internacional/2019/04/13/actualidad/1555189138_144555.html

'The Obama administration made a decision that it couldn't prosecute Assange ... Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman, told The Washington Post in 2013.'

www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/opinion/julian-assange-wikileaks-first-amendment.html

Why not take it up with Matthew Miller, Boom? Maybe the former Justice Department spokesman under Obama spread fake news, when going on the record with the WaPo in 2013.

deep, sorry, I'm not sure I understand - are you saying there isn't a 2013 statement and you're actually extrapolating from 3rd party reports?

I don't understand Boom. Are you saying Foriegn Policy and Washington Post are Fake News?

Supporters have twigged that Assange has a better chance of escaping extradition if he goes to Sweden, so they've switched tack and started pretending to care about the rape investigation.

They sicken me with their faux concern about the two women's right to justice. It is obvious that this it is just about saving Assange's skin.

deep, sorry, I'm not sure I understand - are you saying there isn't a 2013 statement and you're actually extrapolating from 3rd party reports?

ARDuke In your opinion as a man who has commented about his views of prostituted women

He cannot be protected from trial for his serious sexual crimes against these women. Well, he can,but he shouldn't be.

He is clearly a very ill man. He has spent the last seven years running campaigns whilst.inside the embassy abusing the staff and decorating the walls.

Conflating issues

I go from statements from various articles:

'The Obama administration had an institutional policy that concluded prosecuting Assange for the mere publication of classified documents was too controversial and legally risky: A successful prosecution could serve as the foundation for future misuse of that authority to clamp down on more traditional media outlets.'

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/prosecuting-julian-assange-puts-free-press-risk/576166/

'But the Obama administration never charged Assange for his role in orchestrating the leaks of classified material, spanning millions of diplomatic cables, military documents, and a video of a helicopter attack on civilians in Baghdad.
The Obama administration feared that going after Assange would create a dangerous precedent for journalists.'

foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/11/julian-assanges-legal-trouble-explained/

Greenwald states a similar thing on the intercept (Title: As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom) and links to a WaPo article I cannot access (Title: Julian Assange unlikely to face US charges over...)

theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/

deep my point was more that you probably can’t take a statement like that at face value. But I’m not aware of the statement you’re referring.

Sorry but you're wrong. Corrupt governments who commit war crimes generally don't give the dissidents who exposed their war crimes a fair trial. At best he will be given a show trial with the outcome determined in advance.

He has money and lawyers so he will get a fair trial in the US.

The other question would be, Is he fit to stand trial? He'll be getting his psychiatric assessment in Belmarsh and high time too.

There is also the matter of what he knows about the Clinton emails and would the present administration want to give him a platform?

There may even be the ironic prospect of extradition to Ecuador to faces charges of attempting to undermine democracy there.

Smotheroffive it's all very well saying he should stand trial but given his situation do you really think he would get a fair trial? If a whistleblower leaked footage of the Assad regime murdering civilians and the next thing we knew the regime had arrested that whistleblower on sexual assault charges everyone would say it was trumped up charges. Why aren't more people realizing that's what is likely happening to Assange?

deep when did the Obama administration explicitly lay out that they would not go after Assange?

In 2013. If your point is that whatever the Obama administration stated should have been taken at face value and a sealed indictment was never in the cards after that statement, I'd like to remind you that people in the Obama administration have been caught lying. E.g. Clapper lied to the Senate under oath that US citizens were not indiscriminately spied on. (When proven a lie, though a felony, of course, nothing happened to him.)

The fact that Sweden was not even informed about the actions due to take place so that it could have considered seeking his extradition for possible charges of rape tells us that when big boys are playing toy soldiers no one cares how many lady figures are brushed off the table.

Big politics doesn't give a shit about actual people, particularly women and children? Glad Jess Philips has caught up. I understood that back in the 90's when I heard Allbright (a 'big gal' btw) say the 500 000 dead Iraqi children were worth it. What took her so long?

deep when did the Obama administration explicitly lay out that they would not go after Assange?

but also that the media reporting on this has been quite unslanted

Camilla Long in today's Sunday Times pointed out that John Humprhies, of all unlikely people, conducted an interview with Diane Abbott using words of one syllable coaxing an unwilling Abbott to finally make mention of the rape charges.

Jess Phillips MP Guardian article:

'Julian Assange’s case makes it clear women’s rights are still secondary to political games'
(extract)
"Last week, once again, the political establishment slapped us around the face. Enter, stage left, everyone’s favourite Targaryen lookalike, Julian Assange. If there was ever a case that needed the exercise of nuance and intelligent politics it is that of Assange. His expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequent arrest for skipping bail have underlined how little the political class from left and right give a toss about women’s safety.

Sexual crimes are so much easier to loathe when they are done by marauding barbarians in the theatre of war
In the sparring match about the case between Diane Abbott and Sajid Javid, in parliament on Thursday, neither of them mentioned the fact that Assange has, for seven years, evaded accusations of sexual violence in Sweden. Two women have waited years for their cases to be answered and yet until Javid and Abbott were challenged by other MPs, neither mentioned that in fact the country to which Assange was evading extradition was Sweden.

Advertisement

Both talked about Ecuador, the US and issues of hacking. Javid was giddy to have helped the US get their man, Abbott was appalled that the UK government would assist the US in capturing a man who has become a beacon of natural blond light for truth-seekers who only like to see the half of the truth that suits them.

The fact that Sweden was not even informed about the actions due to take place so that it could have considered seeking his extradition for possible charges of rape tells us that when big boys are playing toy soldiers no one cares how many lady figures are brushed off the table.

expected the Tory government to react the way it did; I expect very little from it. I was disappointed by the Labour party’s official response, which didn’t even doff its cap to the nuance of a situation that also involves multiple accusations of serious sexual crimes. I get that they think Assange did some good things, but the man is not a hero. The Labour response could have been balanced and thoughtful and made a statement about how important it is that women who come forward deserve access to justice." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/14/julian-assange-case-makes-clear-womens-rights-secondary-political-games

Well BoomBoom, the fact of the matter is that it turned out the Obama administration, though for quite some time ambiguous on the issue, had never made a sealed indictment against Assange and they explicitly layed out they were unable to do so as this precedent would endanger press freedom.

By contrast, the Trump administration decided to actually secretly indict Assange (something many believed Ovama‘s admin had done), and this sealed indictment by the Trump administration, was last year accidentally revealed by an only sloppily redacted publication of some government correspondence.

I agree it would all be much easier for everyone, if Secret, sealed indictments weren‘t a thing and governments were transparent about whom they plan to get extradited and whom not so everyone knows whether they need asylumn or not. But, alas, we do not live in a perfect world, nor in one where governments aim for being transparent.

there is a reason Obama's administration (who was quite vindictive in their prosecution of whitleblowers) did not indict Assange citing problems this would create for the freedom of the press.

What’s? Assange was in Ecuador’s embassy for seven years trying to avoid extradition to the US. Obama was President for the vast majority of that time.

On a positive note I am quite surprised that not only have labour women MPs felt able to challenge Corbyn about this dismissal of the rape charges but also that the media reporting on this has been quite unslanted. (Good interview with Lord Faulkner explaining how the Swedsih extradition request if reactivated would take precedence over the American one).

Is this change of public tone (7 years ago the media was really dismissive of there being any thing of interest it two women seeking justice against sexual violence). Not sure if that if as a result of #MeToo or a number of younger women MPs.

I really do begin to think that Assange was / is so desparate to be a hero for a cause he didn't actually further, rather than go down in history for being a sexually predator that his has concocted this whole story line to big up his importance.

And for the conspiracy theorist he is only, ie he is relatively unimportant, being sought by the US on computer hacking charges which has a maximum sentence of 5 years. Comparing him to Chelsea Manning who took the real risks and took the legal consquences in a military court (which is why the conditions and sentence were so severe as the armed forces have to enforce their control over their troops and support staff) is laughable.

Assange isn't in fact in legal terms as important to the US as Gary McKinnon was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon And country who has its computer systems hacked would try and get the person responsible extradited from whatever country they are in.

Its amazing how decade after decade the show boating charlatons always gather a retinue of hangers on who seem to want some sort of charismatic leader, whereas the people who do the real work of uncovering information government and large corporation dont want us to know are usually not seeking the limelight.

I suspect Assange is longing to go to the US and enhance his reputation which on a professional leval had been trashed by the shockingly dangerous way he just dumped info, and is why so many journalist no longer want to work with him.

He needs to stand trial for rape.

It's up to Sweden what they do with him.

He's a security risk to every country because of his abilities to reach into a country's security services.

Can we stop any extradition,based on his leaks/whistle-blowing?

Observer:
'Failure to extradite Assange to Sweden would endorse ‘rape culture’, say women’s groups
Campaigners fear rape allegations are being overlooked as US case against WikiLeaks co-founder takes centre stage'
(extract)
Women’s groups have added to pressure on Sajid Javid to ensure Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden. Failure to do so would effectively endorse “rape culture”, they claim.

A coalition of campaigners representing survivors of sexual violence urged the home secretary to focus on the unresolved rape allegations emanating from Sweden against Assange. They fear that US charges – relating to WikiLeaks’ disclosures – may be given priority in the UK.

The United States has filed a provisional extradition request for Assange while Sweden continues to weigh up whether to reopen an investigation into rape and sexual assault allegations against the 47-year-old co-founder of WikiLeaks. On occasions, when there are competing extradition requests, the home secretary decides which country should take priority." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/13/women-groups-say-extradite-julian-assange-to-sweden?CMP=share_btn_tw

You cannot at once argue that Trump is a fascist and then argue that he'll uphold the spirit of the law when the law already gives him dictatorial power.

Right? I mean there is a reason Obama's administration (who was quite vindictive in their prosecution of whitleblowers) did not indict Assange citing problems this would create for the freedom of the press.

And now establishment Democrats side with Trump over Obama on this. (Also: if Trump is such a fascist menace, why do they wave through every single military budget increase and cheer him on whenever he wants to bomb something? It is all patently absurd, really.)

It's pretty obvious that some people wouldn't know objectivity if it bit them on the bum.

Meanwhile, CNN say JA is now in Belmarsh.

(What you get when you show yourself to be a flight risk. No cushy open prison for you, M'lad.)

You cannot at once argue that Trump is a fascist and then argue that he'll uphold the spirit of the law when the law already gives him dictatorial power.

Which is it? Trump's justice department is fair and upholds the spirit and letter if the Constitution? Or, because he is the right-wing president illegally elected to subvert the rule of law, all bets are off as to how his justice dept will treat Assange once Assange is on the country.

Remember that this is an administration that puts ch8ldren in camps.