Julian Assange

One of the videos that Assange leaked showed US soldiers gunning down jouranlists. Think about that and let it sink in. He revealed that our closest ally gets their forces to open fire on unarmed, civilian journalists. And we're treating him like the criminal. Ask yourself if this happened in Russia and Putin arrested a whistleblower on "rape allegations" after he had exposed a video of Russian forces killing journalists. Would you still feel the same?

Manning had the access, had the data

No.

Manning was encouraged to obtain the password of a co-worker with higher clearance and security privileges. Manning got the first few characters by looking over the co-workers' shoulder. This was passed to Assange's team "to crack". By signing with the the co-worker's password, Manning was able to steal four databases. These databases were what Wikileaks fished through, looking for juicy material to 'publish'.

As for Assange....well, hacking password protected government computers ain't journalism.

That is not what he did, though. Manning had the access, had the data. Had Assange managed to crack the password (and it looks like he didn't), all that would have done is protect his source.

Jess Phillips @ Jessphillips
The fact that Assange has evaded charges of sexual violence and skipped bail should be opposed by the Labour Party. I'm sure it is, I'd like to hear it

Dissent within the ranks.

There are multiple issues here which are all important. Corbyn and Abbott choose to neglect to talk about some 'because Iraq'.

Now I think what happened in Iraq was appalling. I was always against the invasion. I do think the US human rights abuses are abhorrent.

That doesn't mean you neglect other important issues though.

That is not what he is indicted for, though. He is basically indicted for (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to help a source protect their identity.
And that is the precedent that will be set.

That is a lot more tricky, I hadn't realised the specifics. However, I am also uncomfortable with affording someone the protections journalists need and deserve without expecting them to take the same kind of responsibility a journalist would be expected to. Should he be allowed to pick the right to protect his sources but not be held accountable for putting people in danger, and being killed, by his being sloppy?

It will hard for genuine whistleblowers, and real journalists, if they are grouped in with people irresponsibly splurging out all the information they can access with no thought or consideration. These two got hold of information that contained a serious concern (US troops shooting citizens) but laziness and arrogance made the story all about them instead, allowing the misconduct to fall into a side note in an arrogant man soap opera. What a waste.

The whole Roger Stone/Trump/Wikileaks love in may be about to implode.

I'd imagine it's even more squeaky bum time in the whitehouse

I suspect this all ties into the cases Robert Mueller has farmed out to various districts to prosecute.

As for Assange....well, hacking password protected government computers ain't journalism. That's spying. If he's done that, well then he deserves to have the book thrown at him.

Re Sweden and being pressured by the US.

Sweden also happens to be a member of the EU. And the ECHR. This is important. Sweden has both legal obligations plus there is rising concern in the EU over the US's handling of the Saudi Journalist case. They fear the implications for journalism. Thus if the EU as a whole have concerns about the extradition of Assange to the US, and Sweden stand firm against it, the EU are likely to stand firm behind them. And in this sense it makes it much more difficult for the US to extert pressure on Sweden without a counter action from the EU.

This case is likely to become a huge issue along these lines and quite possibly one which pits the EU against the US. It depends on what other charges the US might be considering. If there is something connected with Mueller then that opens up a whole other can of worms, which might have wider ramifications in turns of EU politics.

The case is extremely complex, and its being overly simplified which helps no one and certainly doesn't say much about the standard of journalism there is about at the moment!

Considering that Manning, though pardoned is currently under arrest again, for not cooperating with what I presume is the prosecution of Assange, I would be surprised if Assange got extradited to Sweden first to stand trial there. I guess, where it goes from here may also be an indication, whether authorities ever gave a shit about justice for the two women, or whether it was just a pretext.
I have my theory on this. But we will see.

Again, what pressure? Are they going to throw the Volvos and the Billy Bookcases in the Hudson?

It can be economic pressure. It can be pressure in the form of withholding secret service information. That is what NATO countries currently do with Austria (though for differnt reasons). Pressure in the form of stopping all kinds of cooperations (Turkey pressured Austria to be less antagonistic towards Erdogan, for example, by vetoing all kinds of trainings with NATO, which is part of the KFOR training).

The US just puts pressure on the EU, including Austria and Sweden, regarding the Nord Stream pipeline, even though it has no legal grounds to do so.

www.montelnews.com/en/story/ec-says-us-pressure-over-nord-stream-2-unacceptable/975212

Maybe you should start reading newspapers?

David Allen Green@davidallengreen
Thread on Assange and Sweden.

Because of misinformation.

1.

The Swedes seem not to have been told in advance of arrest.

The Swedish prosecutor expressed surprise and were unprepared.

Whatever US and Ecuador knew in advance, Sweden was not.

2.

The investigation into the rape allegation in Sweden can be resumed at any time before the limitation period expires.

That expiry will not be until August 2020.

3.

The complainant of the alleged rape can request that the investigation be resumed.

Yesterday her lawyer, the estimable @ElisabethMFritz, did so.

4.

After the request, the Swedish prosecuting body has now confirmed it is reviewing whether to resume the investigation and thereby extradition request.

It is commendable that this was announced the same day as the arrest and complainant's request.

update on the Assange case from Sweden

5.

My 2012 long-read at @newststesman on the Swedish allegations and Assange is at Newstatesman Article from 2012

I think the post has lasted well.

6.

Some further points:

Assange not been charged yet, but that is because Swedish criminal process only charges before trial. See my post for explanation.

The allegation was not dismissed but put aside because of his non-availability, and can be resumed once he is available.

7.

It will be for the UK court to decide whether to grant priority to a Swedish extradition request or the US one.

Imo, the Swedish one more likely because of historic request and pending limitation period.

8.

The complainant via her lawyer is anxious for the case to be brought do that she can have closure after waiting for ten years.

Any fair-minded person must see the force in this.

9.

This is not to presume guilt - that is entirely a matter for the Swedish court.

And one can object to the US request (which I do).

But there is no good reason to oppose the Swedish request if it comes.

10.

And if US seeks extradition after any Swedish trial (and any sentence), then Assange will still have protection of ECHR in opposing US extradition.

And any extradition may require consent of both Sweden and UK.

11.

Therefore any decision to extradite Assange onward to the United States would be subject to legal challenges in both Sweden and England, as well as at Strasbourg.

12 & ends (for now).

ps 1

As always, there is a huge amount of self-serving misinformation circulated at every stage of anything to do with Assange.

Do not take anything from him or his supporters about the legal process unless independently verified.

This was learned the hard way in 2012.

ps 2

I think Assange would be well advised to surrender to any Swedish extradition, as given the consent of both UK and Sweden would then seem to be needed (and therefore be legally challengeable if given), he would be in a stronger legal position re a US extradition request.

ps 3

To show balance I will concede this to Assange supporters.

There can be no good reason if (as it appears) Sweden (and complainant's lawyer) were not informed in advance of pending arrest.

All the more credit for the lawyer and the prosecuting body to react the same day.

ps 3

To show balance I will concede this to Assange supporters.

There can be no good reason if (as it appears) Sweden (and complainant's lawyer) were not informed in advance of pending arrest.

All the more credit for the lawyer and the prosecuting body to react the same day.

ps 5

For clarity: there were initially two complainants and a number of allegations.

However, all but one complaint is now time-barred for investigation/prosecution because of Assange's unavailability.

Only one allegation, the most serious, is still within limitation period.

ps 6

This tweet is from the other complainant against Assange, who has waived her anonymity.

All her complaints are now time-barred and so the investigation has closed.

Anna Ardin @ therealardin
I would be very surprised & sad if Julian is handed over to the US. For me this was never about anything else than his misconduct against me/women and his refusal to take responsibility for this. Too bad my case could never be investigated properly, but it’s already been closed.

Why, in the context of the legal reality of the Swedish case, did Abbott actively CHOOSE to completely ignore it in the official Labour statement. Why was it done to a Labour backbencher to make the only reference to it in yesterday's HoC's debate?

Given that if the case is reopened in Sweden, and this does effectively potentially offer more protection for Assange and is a really good argument for our ongoing membership of the ECHR's, why don't Labour make this argument?

This whole characterisation of Assange as persecuted is bollocks.

So the Labour Front Bench buy the 'conspiracy' theories around Assange? They consider that avoiding investigations of rape offences as an irrelevance that people need to move on from?

Meanwhile, the judge tells Assange that he behaves like a narcissist who will lie if it serves his interests. The judge added that his weasly defence was laughable.

The Conservatives meanwhile are cock-a-hoop that the Brexit debacle isn't headline news and that Labour's Front Bench (not Labour MPs in general) have put the spotlight on themselves.

Personally, I don't like what I see about the Labour team at the top. It confirms my suspicion that they will
overlook/minimise/ignore
violence against women and girls, when it suits.

www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/04/julian-assange-s-arrest-raises-question-of-what-happened-to-james-the-cat.html

The claim that President Moreno is corrupt is not a fact.

Well, the fact is that he secured economic help for his country just prior to Assange being kicked out. You may choose to not call it corruption, in the hope that he won't make money personally with the deals this money will buy, but it sure looks like a 'quid pro quo'.

And so to the kicker: The idea that a sovereign nation is supposed to give guarantees to a criminal suspect that any future extradition request will be ignored in defiance of the law, by instructing the judges to do so.
What shit is this?

If it is a political prosecution, no country is obliged to extradite. Same goes for offenses where capital punishment may loom.

Sweden is a neutral country. It is. It just is.

You cannot be that naive. Neutral countries can be and have been pressured by the US before. Switzerland is neutral and yet was pressured by the US to change its banking laws.

www.ft.com/content/890a4262-c795-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f

And so to the kicker: The idea that a sovereign nation is supposed to give guarantees to a criminal suspect that any future extradition request will be ignored in defiance of the law, by instructing the judges to do so.

What shit is this?

Why did Equador take him into the consulate in the first place? Don't you have to have links with the country in order to get help?

Political asylum, which is what Ecuador gave Assange, does not require any 'prior links'. Never has. That would be crazy.

The claim that President Moreno is corrupt is not a fact.

JA has not been charged in Sweden because under their system charge cannot come until the prosecutor's ivestigation is complete. Not unlike Scotland.

An ally is someone who is in an alliance. An alliance is a treaty. That is what it means. The Partnership for Peace includes Russia and the Stalinist dictatorship of Belarus. Quite what that has to do with the price of fish is anyone's guess.

Sweden is a neutral country. It is. It just is. So is the Republic of Ireland, which also has good relations with the USA and remains neutral despite this.

Again, what pressure? Are they going to throw the Volvos and the Billy Bookcases in the Hudson?

The 'Big' charges we have yet to hear concern Trump and the Clinton emails. We await the new AG's attitude to those.

On what grounds would that be? Not even the current administration goes down the road that mere publishing of information constitutes a crime.

Small details which have bugged me about this:

Why did Equador take him into the consulate in the first place? Don't you have to have links with the country in order to get help?

Do embassy's have little flats in them, just incase someone needs a bed for a night (or many)? Would he have been a tenant paying rent?

Why do the papers keep saying he's unwell? Has he gone stir crazy after being in solitary for years? Isn't that to have been expected? Like, wound't he have been better off in a jail with face to face contact with people and access to medical help?

The whole thing i bizarre and I cannot get my head around it at all.

He would be happy to be tried for an alleged offence committed in Sweden against two Swedes, but in a different country of his choosing.

Actually, he just wanted a guarantee not to be extradited to the US by Sweden, prior to going there in order to be interviewed so that Sweden could decide whether to prosecute. Sweden would not give this guarantee.

Let's stick to the facts.

That is the Swedish inquisitorial system. They wanted to interview him but he went to inordinate lengths to prevent this.

That does not change the fact that Assange has never been charged as many here and elsewhere constantly and falsely repeat.

The US pressured Sweden to not close the Assange investigation. This is a lie.

Right. I am sorry, the CPS of the UK did pressure Sweden (CPS also tried to dissuade Sweden from interviewing him in the embassy). Sorry, my certainly totally unfounded biases that make me view the UK as the US's poodle got the better of me.

There follows more evidence-free character assasination of President Lenin Moreno, who is 'suceptible to bribery.' The reality is that Correra is up to his eyebrows in a Brazillian bribery scandal.

Correra being corrupt doen not make Moreno 'non corrupt', they may just bow to different pressures. The article I linked to OUTLINES that Ecuador got a bond deal just prior to the extradition.

What is this "US Pressure" on Sweden? Sweden is a neutral country not a treaty ally of the USA.

Right. Because you have to be a 'treaty ally (whatever that means, Sweden is associated with NATO via the partnership for peace if you mean a defense treaty)' of the US to be successfully pressured by them. (Fun fact: Swedish prime minister Olof Palme was pressured by the US to take a harder line on Russia before he was offed.)

It provides diplomatic services precisely because it is a neutral country, just like the Swiss, who are also not allies of the US.

Breathtaking arrogance of the man: He would be happy to be tried for an alleged offence committed in Sweden against two Swedes, but in a different country of his choosing. (Criminal justice does not work like this. Ask Jack Shepherd.)

The claim that he would be 'likely to be imprisoned for life' is more evidence-free fantasy. He can only be extradited on a charge sheet supplied to the UK and can only face those charges. Politically motivated charges can be contested. His supporters are calling the extradition proceedings a 'prosecution.' This is another lie.

The 'Big' charges we have yet to hear concern Trump and the Clinton emails. We await the new AG's attitude to those.

Sweden, a neutral country

This is not correct. Sweden has very close intelligence and diplomatic ties with the US. It even provides US diplomatic services in some countries where the US doesn't have a presence, one example being North Korea.

Assange always said he was happy to be trialled for the rape charges which he believes to be false but not in Sweden due to their close relationship and extradition treaty with the US.

The Americans have already added more charges and he's likely to be imprisoned for life if extradited.