Julian Assange

[NeurotrashWarrior]

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

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.

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'.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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?

I very much doubt Assange's prosecution will at any point tie back to the 2016 leaks and the Mueller investigation (not least because the US apparently still refuses to prosecute for merely publishing info).

We'll see how that statement ages, but I am pretty confident.

Manning was encouraged to obtain the password of a co-worker with higher clearance and security privileges.

No. Not according to the indictment.

'The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.'

theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/

Thank you for all the analysis going on here, from all sides. Eye opening and brain bending, as always.

There's also superseding indictments to come, it seems.

Better wait for those.

There's also superseding indictments to come, it seems. Better wait for those.

Sure. Nothing as entertaining as watching both sides, the #Resistance and #MAGA, both wait for some magical bullet that will resolve it all for them and restore the US to its mythical, unbesmirched greatness.

And in the case of Assange, they're even both on the same side.

www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

"Both complainants say they did not report him to the police for prosecution but only to require him to have an STD test. However, his Swedish lawyer has been shown evidence of their text messages which indicate that they were concerned to obtain money by going to a tabloid newspaper and were motivated by other matters including a desire for revenge."

www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-charges/special-report-std-fears-sparked-case-against-wikileaks-boss-idUSTRE6B669H20101207

"The women went to the police together after they failed to persuade Assange to go to a doctor after separate sexual encounters with him in August, according to these people, who include former close associates of Assange who have since fallen out with him."

andyoldlabour

Ive just been reading the 2010 Guardian article youve linked above & given the amount of nuanced reporting, Im surprised you've just quoted what seems an uncorroborated claim and allegation about two women by someone with clear understandable bias eg Assange's lawyer.

Rowan, basically the same words were used in the Reuters article, the two women did not originally report a crime.

He's a weird creepy guy, but he shouldn't be extradited to the US.

Rowan, basically the same words were used in the Reuters article, the two women did not originally report a crime.

If you went to the police to tell them you want to find someone who hit you in the face, the police may tell you that they will help you find the person and that when they do, they can charge them with a crime.

What would you do?