Julian Assange

[NeurotrashWarrior]

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47891737

Several facts that are missing from the conversation here:

1. Julian Assange was investigated by Sweden, but he was never charged. They wanted to interview him, to determine whether there was a point in charging him.

1. The US pressured Sweden to not close the Assange investigation. www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show

(Even regarding the initial opening of the investigation, initially a prosecutor dropped the rape case (not the molestation case), a superior prosecutor stepped in).

'Ny, who does not normally act for the prosecution in individual cases, overruled Finné and resumed the preliminary investigation into allegations of rape against SW on September 1.'

www.businessinsider.com/theres-something-fishy-about-the-swedish-case-against-julian-assange-2012-4?IR=T

1. Ecuador has been pressured by the US to give up Assange for YEARS. And the new president is more easily intimidated or bribed. So spare me the 'Ah, they just wanted to kick him out' sillyness.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6911925/U-S-pressure-Ecuador-yields-Assange-arrest-bond-deal-help-struggling-economy.html

1. Assange is indicted for trying (apparently NOT succeeding) in helping Manning crack some password, so that Manning would have been able to leak the information they had access to via Manning's work account, via another account. TO PROTECT THE SOURCE, Manning. It had nothing to do with hacking and everything to do with trying to protect a source, which a journalist is allowed to do.

(Manning leaked misconduct like a video of US Army shooting dead Reuters reporters from a heicopter and then shooting dead the people running to the shot journalists to rescue them.)

1. The precedent that is set is not only that a journalist can be prosecuted for doing what journalists routinely do, if the government does not like the leak (no issues with leaks that help the government, obviously), but also, that any country can get a journalist of another country and publishing in and from another country extradited, if the country feels its laws and secrets were somehow violated by their own law. So China could, by analogy, get a NYT journalist extradited who got secret info from the Chinese government in a way China considers illegal.

You can think Assange is a piece of shit, but bending reality and facts to your preconceptions is not on.

deepwatersolo people seem to have cognitive dissonance when it comes to our government versus other governments. If Russia or China arrested a whistleblower, the media would immediately run with the angle that they were falsely arrested by the government. The possibility that they may actually be guilty of a crime and were legitimately arrested wouldn't even come into it. In this country, that happens the other way. For some reason I can't work out, people think that the Assange arrest was legitimate and that he will be given a fair trial. The possibility that he has been targeted by the government and had trumped up charges thrown at him as punishment for his whistleblowing doesn't even seem to be considered as a possibility. It's a bit of subtle racism I think, obviously it's ok when OUR government do something like this, but Russia or China or Iran isn't allowed to because their systems can't be trusted.

Just to be clear. Assange is now indicted for trying (and apparently failing) to help Manning keep their identity secret when leaking stuff like:
->this video that shows how the Reuters journos and the rescue team were killed without any actual threat to the US soldiers who decided to shoot them from the helicopter:

->the fact that the US hid the true number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah, ARDuke, I hear you. But people could at least acknowledge that the OBAMA administration who had all that info refused to prosecute Assange, saying it sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom. (Obama also pardoned Manning).

Instead, all those glorious '#Resisters' now side with the Trump administration. You can't make this shit up.

And this country who gets their soldiers to gun down innocent journalists can apparently be trusted to give Assange a fair trial. And people are gullible enough to believe it. You couldn't make it up.

Wasn't he living in the women's toilets at the Ecuadorian Embassy? Another man in the wrong place.

Yes! I read this yesterday (I think it was in The Guardian but not 100% sure). His original room in the embassy was too noisy due to being near the road. So he moved himself into the women's loos and they had to remove the toilet so he could fit in there! Instantly thought, 'What IS this obsession with women's toilets?' closely followed by 'Well he won't be popular on FWR then '

Obama is just as vile as Trump imo and doesn't care about press freedom either, as he refused to pardon Edward Snowden for blowing the whistles on the crimes the NSA were committing. Again if a Russian whistleblower exposed the FSB or the GRU committing crimes, would we accept that the whistleblower had committed a crime and should stand trial? As usual it is one rule for our government, and another for the rest of the world.

The original bail was £93,500. So I suppose £10k here, £10k there - just the price of a nice family holiday for these people. I’d like them to give me £10k for nothing.

He shouldn't get the label of whistle blower or freedom fighter. If he had been less lazy and actually looked at the documents, releasing the bad ones and being careful about the other information (names of security staff or interpreters), then maybe.

He just dumped thousands of confidential documents, without even looking at them, made the journalists do the hard work, while he went for the glory. It's totally different than Edward Snowdon, who had a particular concern and the evidence to back it up.

Where did the female staff pee then? (Sorry I’m in bed with flu and can’t get my brain around the ‘big stuff’).

As usual it is one rule for our government, and another for the rest of the world.

I get your point, and I am not happy about Obama's track record regarding whistle blowers. At all. But ffs, in this case there is a very clear distinction between the Obama admin and the Trump admin, and the whole Democratic establishment (from Neera Tanden to Chuck Shumer) break for Trump? And this board too?

I can already see 10 years down the road and the UK will extradite Janice Turner for disclosing in 'The Times' that some mass murdering woman in the US is actually a male, which will then be against US law... And I will come back to this board and write in bold letters:
I TOLD YOU SO!

No really. I'm at a loss.

I'd be more than happy for him to serve his sentence for bail-jumping then be deported to Australia who can keep him.

We wouldn’t be though. When a previous Prime Minister (we change them as regularly as undies here) was questioned about him they essentially said we didn’t want him back and he is an utter embarrassment. I doubt he would want to return here, we don’t tolerate utter dicks.

He shouldn't get the label of whistle blower or freedom fighter. If he had been less lazy and actually looked at the documents, releasing the bad ones and being careful about the other information (names of security staff or interpreters), then maybe.

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.

From a Labour Lord

Charlie Falconer @ lordcfalconer
Once Ecuador removed Assange’s immunity there were no choices for government. The choices were for law enforcement agencies - police and CPS. Couldn’t be basis for not proceeding with Bail offences. And US extradition is for criminal justice system to decide not government.

Several facts that are missing from the conversation here:

1. Julian Assange was investigated by Sweden, but he was never charged. They wanted to interview him, to determine whether there was a point in charging him.

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

2. The US pressured Sweden to not close the Assange investigation

This is a lie. The link provided gives no evidence for this. The second source is a piece of prejudicial shit. "Assange had consensual sex with the women...." - They say otherwise.

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

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.

The prospective extradition charge concerns hacking. As the Canadians are having difficulty explaining to the Chinese at the moment, an extradition hearing is not a trial.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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