He's unlikely to come out of the embassy yet due to a bail violation, so who knows what's going to happen next. Will the US let him walk free?
I would urge caution when talking about the USA, not because we shouldn't talk about the US angle, but if it looks like a US politics thread, then the Mods will be all over us like a cheap suit
That being said, from the America angle, Assange didn't actually leak the material, he published it. That is a very clear distinction, and if you're familiar with that famous SCOTUS case: New York Times Vs. United States, back in the Pentagon Papers days, that distinction is made clear.
So what can the USA charge him with? Why aren't they going after the New York Times who also published some of the WikiLeaks material? Is it because of the 1st amendment?
Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock
He wasn't cleared of rape charges they were dropped, which isn't the same thing. Sweden basically said that they would need him there and they didn't think he would ever be there so saw no point in keeping it up. The charges could come back up if that changed. The title of the thread is wrong.
IGtR= wrote: Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock
When charges are cleared there is no case to answer for. If society doesnt accept that then justice is impossible, as implication of guilt cannot be washed away without trial and not all accusations end in trial.
IGtR= wrote: Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock
When charges are cleared there is no case to answer for. If society doesnt accept that then justice is impossible, as implication of guilt cannot be washed away without trial and not all accusations end in trial.
Assange should be set free.
Exactly this.
However, unlike a trial, charges can be laid again after they have been dropped.
IGtR= wrote: Can we change the title to "Investigation against Assange for Rape Dropped". He has not been cleared of anything, the investigators have just stopped. Cleared implied evidence vindicating him/jury acquitting him. Neither of these happened he just ran out the clock
When charges are cleared there is no case to answer for. If society doesnt accept that then justice is impossible, as implication of guilt cannot be washed away without trial and not all accusations end in trial.
Assange should be set free.
Assange has been free since he started hiding in an embassy.
jhe90 wrote: UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.
And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.
Is this really the issue you are focusing on? He's a valid political asylum seeker.
I'm no fan, but from a legal point of view this mess makes no sense. Given his openness to cooperation with Swedish investigators, both at the time and more recently, there's no real basis for insisting on extradition. Extradition on these trumped up charges is being used as a political tool, not a criminal justice one. 12 million has been spent on the police presence at the Ecuadorian Embassy and other effort over this period. The UK Government should be embarrassed for it's part in this, rather than still chomping at the bit.
jhe90 wrote: UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.
And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.
Is this really the issue you are focusing on? He's a valid political asylum seeker.
I'm no fan, but from a legal point of view this mess makes no sense. Given his openness to cooperation with Swedish investigators, both at the time and more recently, there's no real basis for insisting on extradition. Extradition on these trumped up charges is being used as a political tool, not a criminal justice one. 12 million has been spent on the police presence at the Ecuadorian Embassy and other effort over this period. The UK Government should be embarrassed for it's part in this, rather than still chomping at the bit.
France felt he wasn't a "valid political asylum seeker".
Let's be frank here. He's said he's "open to cooperation with Swedish investigators", but at virtually every turn he's said one thing while doing another.
IMO, a lot of people are letting their personal view of Assange cloud the facts here.
Let's look at these facts, and I've been following this case very closely.
The original prosecutor from Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer, but under Swedish law, another prosecutor, Ny, decided to take up the case. This is allowed under Swedish law.
Ny has a background of being linked to various feminist causes and or groups. Nothing wrong with that, but I would argue that as a motive for pursuing this case.
A European arrest warrant was issued, and Assange ended up in London, taking refuge in that embassay. It's important to note that at this stage, Asssange hadn't been charged with anything...
Ecuador lobbied hard to have Swedish police come over and interview Assange in London. Ecuador more or less rolled out the red carpet. Nothing happened. Months passed. Ecuador protested to the Swedish government, and eventually, the Swedish supreme court forced Ny to put up or shut up.
Assange was interviewed and was charged with nothing. The case was dropped.
The UK has taken the unusual step of accepting a European arrest warrant only if it is signed off by a court in future.
That is UK law. Make of that what you will.
I could also mention the uN tribunal that ruled in Assange's favour.
In short, this has been a kangaroo court from start to finish, and I say that as no great fan of Assange.
jhe90 wrote: UK still has a bone to pick about jumping bail and breaking our law.
And if we arrest him he ain't getting no bail a second time round.
Is this really the issue you are focusing on? He's a valid political asylum seeker.
I'm no fan, but from a legal point of view this mess makes no sense. Given his openness to cooperation with Swedish investigators, both at the time and more recently, there's no real basis for insisting on extradition. Extradition on these trumped up charges is being used as a political tool, not a criminal justice one. 12 million has been spent on the police presence at the Ecuadorian Embassy and other effort over this period. The UK Government should be embarrassed for it's part in this, rather than still chomping at the bit.
Who broke bail law in the United Kingdom.
Even if the other charges are dropped, that one he did comit, given his friends and all likely get a fine at most given how soft uk legal system is.
Worst he loses abit of cash...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: IMO, a lot of people are letting their personal view of Assange cloud the facts here.
Let's look at these facts, and I've been following this case very closely.
Clearly not if you think that it's just people "letting their personal view of Assange cloud the facts here".
The original prosecutor from Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer, but under Swedish law, another prosecutor, Ny, decided to take up the case. This is allowed under Swedish law.
Ny has a background of being linked to various feminist causes and or groups. Nothing wrong with that, but I would argue that as a motive for pursuing this case.
A European arrest warrant was issued, and Assange ended up in London, taking refuge in that embassay. It's important to note that at this stage, Asssange hadn't been charged with anything...
Ecuador lobbied hard to have Swedish police come over and interview Assange in London. Ecuador more or less rolled out the red carpet. Nothing happened. Months passed. Ecuador protested to the Swedish government, and eventually, the Swedish supreme court forced Ny to put up or shut up.
Wrong.
She made the argument that under Swedish law, she could not engage in a video interview of a suspect to take testimony over such a serious matter as sexual assault. She first made that argument in 2010.
In 2015, she changed her stance after having receiving criticism from other Swedish law practitioners.
Assange was interviewed and was charged with nothing. The case was dropped.
Wrong again.
Assange was interviewed in 2016, after the three lesser charges had their statute of limitations expire(two counts of sexual molestation and one count of unlawful coercion) because the Swedish prosecutor was never able to interview Assange.
The final charge of "lesser degree rape" has its statute of limitations expire in 2018.
Also, please note, that the announcement made was not that Assange was cleared of rape charges or anything like that. The arrest warrant for him was revoked. A specific statement was even made that "We are not making any pronouncement about guilt".
If he shows his head in Sweden before 2020, all bets are off however.
The UK has taken the unusual step of accepting a European arrest warrant only if it is signed off by a court in future.
That is UK law. Make of that what you will.
I could also mention the uN tribunal that ruled in Assange's favour.
So what?
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is what "ruled in Assange's favour". They tried to claim that this was a violation of Assange's human rights by the UK and Sweden, which is preposterous as he chose to evade arrest.
In short, this has been a kangaroo court from start to finish, and I say that as no great fan of Assange.
I don't think kangaroo court means what you think it means...
I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?
Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.
The US angle is also interesting. Assange's explanation for hiding out in an embassay for years has always been that America would try and haul him back to the USA, if the Swedes put the handcuffs on him.
There has been a lot of talk in the newspapers that Obama had charges secretly drawn up against Assange.
Last month, however, Jeff Sessions, who works for you know how, let the cat out of the bag when he talked about charging Assange. This is newspaper talk, but reportedly, a secret grand jury has already been assembled to take the charges forward...
This is unusual, given that wikileaks revelations about the Clinton campaign actually helped Trump, but Assange has said that Trump will pursue him as Trump needs to be seen to be his own man on this.
But what would they charge Assange with? Wikileaks didn't steal or leak the material, only published it, as did the New York times, and we know from the Pentagon Papers SCOTUS case (New York Times Vs. United States) that newspapers and groups like wikileaks have the protection of the 1st amendment, if they publish leaked material that is in the public interest, which it was...
I could be wrong on the legal side of things, but what could the USA charge Assange with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?
Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.
The case more or less boiled down to it being Assange's word against the word of the lady in question. That's a hard case to prove one way or another for any court of law.
@Kanluwen, Assange has been sitting in an embassay for years, Ecuador has lobbied hard to have Swedish police come to London, made every effort to accomodate their needs, and nothing happened for months.
Does that not strike you as unusual?
As for the UN judgement, that was the first time ever that the UK and Sweden failed to adhere to a ruling from that particular branch of the UN, even though previously they agreed to abide by its ruling. Again, does that not strike you as unusual?
As for the change in UK law with regard to only accepting a European arrest warrant from a judge, the rational given was that higher standards are needed to satisfy a court, rather than a prosecutor.
Again, does that not strike you as being unusual, that the UK would make this change as a result of the Assange case?
I try and keep an open mind, but I'm smelling a lot of horsegak from this case. Something doesn't add up.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The US angle is also interesting. Assange's explanation for hiding out in an embassay for years has always been that America would try and haul him back to the USA, if the Swedes put the handcuffs on him.
He also claimed that he has a child in France that the mother cut contact with him over "death threats" when he tried to seek political asylum there.
He also claimed that a "state party" had cut his internet access during the U.S. elections; neglecting to mention that it was Ecuador doing so because of the allegations of Russian tampering/targeted leaks utilizing WikiLeaks.
There has been a lot of talk in the newspapers that Obama had charges secretly drawn up against Assange.
There's also been a lot of talk in the newspapers about how Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim.
Last month, however, Jeff Sessions, who works for you know how, let the cat out of the bag when he talked about charging Assange. This is newspaper talk, but reportedly, a secret grand jury has already been assembled to take the charges forward...
This is unusual, given that wikileaks revelations about the Clinton campaign actually helped Trump, but Assange has said that Trump will pursue him as Trump needs to be seen to be his own man on this.
But what would they charge Assange with? Wikileaks didn't steal or leak the material, only published it, as did the New York times, and we know from the Pentagon Papers SCOTUS case (New York Times Vs. United States) that newspapers and groups like wikileaks have the protection of the 1st amendment, if they publish leaked material that is in the public interest, which it was...
I could be wrong on the legal side of things, but what could the USA charge Assange with?
Nothing. Which is why it kept being the case that Obama kept flat-out saying he wouldn't charge Assange and that the lunacy of Sweden extraditing him to the US to face espionage charges was just that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?
Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.
The case more or less boiled down to it being Assange's word against the word of the lady in question. That's a hard case to prove one way or another for any court of law.
Sure, but it's rather telling that Assange's "word" against the word of the lady in question is that she's unreliable since she founded Gothenburg's largest lesbian nightclub.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.
Replying to your first part.
For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?
I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Kanluwen, Assange has been sitting in an embassay for years, Ecuador has lobbied hard to have Swedish police come to London, made every effort to accomodate their needs, and nothing happened for months.
Does that not strike you as unusual?
Nope. Because for all you know the Ecuadorian embassy's "accommodations" were that you can talk to him but only for X amount of time and we can request you to leave at any point in time.
As for the UN judgement, that was the first time ever that the UK and Sweden failed to adhere to a ruling from that particular branch of the UN, even though previously they agreed to abide by its ruling. Again, does that not strike you as unusual?
Again, no.
This was willful incarceration for all intents and purposes. Assange CHOSE to skip out on his bail. He CHOSE to seek asylum at an embassy.
It's no different than any other individual who chooses to flee pursuit.
As for the change in UK law with regard to only accepting a European arrest warrant from a judge, the rational given was that higher standards are needed to satisfy a court, rather than a prosecutor.
Again, does that not strike you as being unusual, that the UK would make this change as a result of the Assange case?
No, because you generally don't have arrest warrants being issued by prosecutors. They get issued by the courts.
I try and keep an open mind, but I'm smelling a lot of horsegak from this case. Something doesn't add up.
You clearly don't try to keep an open mind. You've spent so long constantly ranting about CIA conspiracies that you're failing to see the forest for the trees.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The US angle is also interesting. Assange's explanation for hiding out in an embassay for years has always been that America would try and haul him back to the USA, if the Swedes put the handcuffs on him.
He also claimed that he has a child in France that the mother cut contact with him over "death threats" when he tried to seek political asylum there.
He also claimed that a "state party" had cut his internet access during the U.S. elections; neglecting to mention that it was Ecuador doing so because of the allegations of Russian tampering/targeted leaks utilizing WikiLeaks.
There has been a lot of talk in the newspapers that Obama had charges secretly drawn up against Assange.
There's also been a lot of talk in the newspapers about how Obama was a secret Kenyan Muslim.
Last month, however, Jeff Sessions, who works for you know how, let the cat out of the bag when he talked about charging Assange. This is newspaper talk, but reportedly, a secret grand jury has already been assembled to take the charges forward...
This is unusual, given that wikileaks revelations about the Clinton campaign actually helped Trump, but Assange has said that Trump will pursue him as Trump needs to be seen to be his own man on this.
But what would they charge Assange with? Wikileaks didn't steal or leak the material, only published it, as did the New York times, and we know from the Pentagon Papers SCOTUS case (New York Times Vs. United States) that newspapers and groups like wikileaks have the protection of the 1st amendment, if they publish leaked material that is in the public interest, which it was...
I could be wrong on the legal side of things, but what could the USA charge Assange with?
Nothing. Which is why it kept being the case that Obama kept flat-out saying he wouldn't charge Assange and that the lunacy of Sweden extraditing him to the US to face espionage charges was just that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I thought he pretty much admitted to stealthing, which is more and more recognized as a form of sexual assault and a crime. Was some of the difficulty prosecuting him due to the poorly defined nature of the crime he committed at the time he committed it?
Also, considering his prominence in the festering sore of the US election, I wonder if he isn't being released due to pressure from some intelligence community or another interested in tying up loose ends.
The case more or less boiled down to it being Assange's word against the word of the lady in question. That's a hard case to prove one way or another for any court of law.
Sure, but it's rather telling that Assange's "word" against the word of the lady in question is that she's unreliable since she founded Gothenburg's largest lesbian nightclub.
You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.
She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.
You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.
She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.
That's not why he made the allegation...
The documentary where that allegation was made, he tries to paint her as a woman who sleeps around.
Also, I find it hilarious that you neglect to mention that Assange made an "offer" to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. for the "investigation into his professional work".
Chelsea Manning is now free, having had her sentence commuted. But where's Assange? Hrrmmmmh...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.
Replying to your first part.
For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?
I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.
I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.
You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.
She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.
That's not why he made the allegation...
The documentary where that allegation was made, he tries to paint her as a woman who sleeps around.
Also, I find it hilarious that you neglect to mention that Assange made an "offer" to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. for the "investigation into his professional work".
Chelsea Manning is now free, having had her sentence commuted.
But where's Assange? Hrrmmmmh...
When Jeff Sessions, the average Joe from Texas, says that Assange could be charged, we ignore him.
When Jeff Sessions, the high ranking member of the Trump administration, says that Assange could be charged under US law, we have no reason to doubt him. Sessions' comments are a matter of public record.
So when Assange says he thinks the USA is out to get him, I have no reason to doubt Assange, in light of Sessions' comments.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.
Replying to your first part.
For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?
I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.
I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.
From what I can recall, there were a couple of allegations relating to this: a) He removed the condom during sex and finished on one of the women in question, without informing her of it. b) He pretended to put it on, never actually doing so, and just having at it knowing the woman was too heavily intoxicated to protest.
You don't have to be gay to work at, open, run, or buy a gay nightclub.
She founded a gay nightclub, so that makes her gay, wouldn't stand up on its own in any court of law I know, unless there was more evidence to support the view she was gay.
That's not why he made the allegation...
The documentary where that allegation was made, he tries to paint her as a woman who sleeps around.
Also, I find it hilarious that you neglect to mention that Assange made an "offer" to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning was granted clemency that he would agree to extradition to the U.S. for the "investigation into his professional work".
Chelsea Manning is now free, having had her sentence commuted. But where's Assange? Hrrmmmmh...
When Jeff Sessions, the average Joe from Texas, says that Assange could be charged, we ignore him.
When Jeff Sessions, the high ranking member of the Trump administration, says that Assange could be charged under US law, we have no reason to doubt him. Sessions' comments are a matter of public record.
So when Assange says he thinks the USA is out to get him, I have no reason to doubt Assange, in light of Sessions' comments.
Sorry, what was Jeff Sessions' role in the Obama administration?
What Jeff Sessions, the lawn gnome gone renegade, says now is irrelevant to the actual timeframe of the Swedish investigation and original leaks and the lunacy that Assange peddled then.
Sessions' comments, while a matter of public record, also had effectively no merit while he was just a representative of his state.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.
Replying to your first part.
For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?
I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.
I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.
This is the point that a lot of people have made: we don't know what really happened because ultimately, the case boils down to Assange's word against the word of the lady in question, which as you know, is hard for any court to prove guilt or innocence.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.
Replying to your first part.
For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?
I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.
I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.
This is the point that a lot of people have made: we don't know what really happened because ultimately, the case boils down to Assange's word against the word of the lady in question, which as you know, is hard for any court to prove guilt or innocence.
Which is why those cases tend to be, y'know, heavily investigated?
It says a lot about your attitude towards this case that you're giving credence to the man who literally reneged on his word(that's what paying bail is...) and instead fled to an embassy to avoid charges in a "he said, she said".
Yeah, Sessions was obviously not part of the Obama team, but then why would Sessions talk about going after Assange, the man who helped his boss win the White House?
It is obvious to me, that Sessions is picking up the baton from the Obama days and is going after Assange. Policy has been known to pass from POTUS to POTUS.
Vietnam passed from JFK to Johnson to Nixon. There is historical precedent for what Sessions is doing, and he wouldn't be doing it unless Trump gave him the green light.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: We've held foreign nationals for decades on less than that. If they didn't somehow hang themselves in their cells somehow.
Replying to your first part.
For the second, I thought I read somewhere that he admitted to removing the condom,,?
I'm not 100% sure on this, so don't shoot the messenger, but I have read on newspaper opinion articles, that Assange's DNA was never found on the condom in question, which as you know, would be impossible if he had used it.
I thought the whole crime is that he removed it before...Er, his DNA came into play.
This is the point that a lot of people have made: we don't know what really happened because ultimately, the case boils down to Assange's word against the word of the lady in question, which as you know, is hard for any court to prove guilt or innocence.
Which is why those cases tend to be, y'know, heavily investigated?
It says a lot about your attitude towards this case that you're giving credence to the man who literally reneged on his word(that's what paying bail is...) and instead fled to an embassy to avoid charges in a "he said, she said".
And cost his supporters quite abit of money. His bail was fairly substantial.
We sure can trust his word at times.
Kilkrazy wrote: Technically he was not cleared. The charges were dropped due to timing out.
Three of the charges were dropped due to timing out back in 2015.
What got announced was that the investigation tied to the arrest warrant that Assange evaded was being stopped. The charges tied to the arrest warrant don't statute out until 2020.
Kanluwen wrote:
It says a lot about your attitude towards this case that you're giving credence to the man who literally reneged on his word(that's what paying bail is...) and instead fled to an embassy to avoid charges in a "he said, she said".
He's claimed asylum in the same way any other asylum seeker does. He's been willing to aid the investigation byt not go to Sweden who refused to ruld out US extradition.
In his position (obey the law and risk getting black bagged) I'd probably have done the same thing. It's not about trying to avoid charges, it's about trying to avoid an unfaur extradition.
The whole thing seems a bit suspicious.
Incidentally I don't actually like the guy, but I can't see what else he could do.
Kanluwen wrote: It says a lot about your attitude towards this case that you're giving credence to the man who literally reneged on his word(that's what paying bail is...) and instead fled to an embassy to avoid charges in a "he said, she said".
He's claimed asylum in the same way any other asylum seeker does. He's been willing to aid the investigation byt not go to Sweden who refused to rule out US extradition.
Sweden refused to rule out extradition because Assange was making it conditional to his surrender, and he wanted an unconditional refusal for US extradition.
Sweden refused because, under their laws, they cannot allow any JUDICIAL decisions(extraditions require a hearing) to be predetermined.
In his position (obey the law and risk getting black bagged) I'd probably have done the same thing. It's not about trying to avoid charges, it's about trying to avoid an unfaur extradition.
The whole thing seems a bit suspicious.
It really isn't provided you actually followed the case beyond just skimming headlines or reading anything that skims over fine details like, y'know, judicial decisions can't be predetermined...
Incidentally I don't actually like the guy, but I can't see what else he could do.
Literally anything else.
It would have been one thing if a US tribunal was formed with the intention of hanging him high from day one...but under the Obama administration, the only real thing that was ever done was a detention order from the US to Sweden allowing the US to question him if he came into their custody.
But since day one of this whole farce, he's been hiding beyond the shield of "If the Swedes get me, they'll extradite me to the US to be killed as a spy!".
And people bought that narrative.
Oh, and let's not forget that the whole reason this thing was a Big Deal from the get-go? Is that the two women in question claimed that he infected them, knowingly, with a STD.
In all honesty, this case is a dead duck no matter how it spins. His lawyers can claim prejudice no matter where it gets heard at because it's been such a high profile case.
He's unlikely to come out of the embassy yet due to a bail violation, so who knows what's going to happen next. Will the US let him walk free?
He has been framed because he warned the world what the CIA is up to (And for any political dissidents elsewhere this is important to know whether the USA really supports a regime they're figthing against)
That is just as much a ludicrous narrative as absolutely believing his guilt. It is strange when one will dismiss women who claim to be sexually assaulted but then turn around and believe a pile of horsegak without evidence.
That is just as much a ludicrous narrative as absolutely believing his guilt. It is strange when one will dismiss women who claim to be sexually assaulted but then turn around and believe a pile of horsegak without evidence.
We know from historical and public records, going back to day 1 of the Republic, that the USA will kill, steal, bomb, poison, lie, cheat, deceive, murder, main, rob, and wage war, to protect its interests.
That is also true of the UK, France, Germany, any other country etc etc
So I'm not attacking America for that. It's the way of the world.
Point is this: it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the US government did frame Assange, because clearly, wikileaks is a thorn in the flesh of the USA, and the USA has done this before.
I'm not saying that it happened to Assange, but I'm also saying we shouldn't rule it out, given what we know about past activities of the US government.
I'm keeping an open mind. If I'm wrong about Assange, I'll be the first to put my hand up and admit I was wrong.
But someone else did and I responded to that, so perhaps multiple paragraphs defending something you didn't say isn't necessary? There is, unsurprisingly, a difference between "X is possible" and "X is an absolute".
Sweden refused because, under their laws, they cannot allow any JUDICIAL decisions(extraditions require a hearing) to be predetermined.
This. The government giving such a guarantee would be unconstitutional in more than one way. It is not the government's business to interfere in juridical investigations. Assange was asking that the Swedish government act in an unconstitutional manner because he was afraid that the Swedish government would act in an unconstitutional manner (extraditing him to the US), which is absolutely insane.
But someone else did and I responded to that, so perhaps multiple paragraphs defending something you didn't say isn't necessary? There is, unsurprisingly, a difference between "X is possible" and "X is an absolute".
Sweden refused because, under their laws, they cannot allow any JUDICIAL decisions(extraditions require a hearing) to be predetermined.
This. The government giving such a guarantee would be unconstitutional in more than one way. It is not the government's business to interfere in juridical investigations. Assange was asking that the Swedish government act in an unconstitutional manner because he was afraid that the Swedish government would act in an unconstitutional manner (extraditing him to the US), which is absolutely insane.
I can't speak for Sweden, but I can speak for the UK, and seeing as British policy these past decades has been to make the UK the 51st state of the USA, the UK would turn Assange over to the USA at the drop of a hat. So he's right to be worried about the British government.
To give a bit of perspective, this is the rationale offered by the "conspiracy camp" :
Spoiler:
World Socialist Website wrote:Sweden’s investigation into Julian Assange was a political frame-up from the outset
20 May 2017
On Friday, Swedish authorities announced they were dropping their investigation into sexual misconduct charges against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange. In fact, they have no case whatsoever and never did. The entire affair was a “dirty tricks” operation from the outset, aimed at discrediting and paralyzing WikiLeaks and creating conditions under which Assange could be extradited or abducted to the US, to be executed or condemned to a lifetime in prison.
WikiLeaks’ sole “crime” was to shed light on the illegal and murderous activities of American imperialism and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe.
The fraudulent “rape” charge campaign against Assange has been conducted over the past seven years by the combined forces of the American military-intelligence apparatus and media, on the one hand, and pseudo-left politics, on the other. The former has provided the muscle, while the latter has contributed the “brains” of the operation, legitimizing the attack against Assange every step of the way in the name of supposedly defending women from abuse.
The dropping of the Swedish investigation does not mean that the drive to suppress exposures of Washington’s criminality will come to a halt. Far from it. The terrain and conditions have simply shifted. The US authorities and their allies have not for one instant given up on the notion of making WikiLeaks an example.
The US has let it be known that it has prepared charges against Assange, and Washington would like to see Assange extradited to the US. The British authorities, moreover, said they would still arrest Assange if he left the Ecuadorian embassy, where he has been trapped for five years, for a breach of bail offense.
In his fascistic rant delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on April 13, Donald Trump’s CIA director, Michael Pompeo, asserted that “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service… It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is—a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” He further proclaimed, “We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.”
Threats of violence against Assange and WikiLeaks are nothing new. While former US Vice President Joseph Biden likened Assange to a “hi-tech terrorist,” former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said that the WikiLeaks founder “should be treated as an enemy combatant.”
Bob Beckel, Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale’s campaign manager in 1984 and a Fox News commentator, suggested subtlety, “This guy’s a traitor, he’s treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States… There’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”
Apologists for the persecution of WikiLeaks like to sneer at the notion of a “conspiracy” against the organization. Of course, there was a conspiracy, although there was hardly anything secret about it.
At the time of the opening of the investigation by Swedish authorities into Assange’s alleged misdeeds in 2010, a small army of FBI and Pentagon operatives, directed by Obama administration officials, was already working overtime figuring out how to shut down WikiLeaks and neutralize its leading personnel.
A Daily Beast article in September 2010 explained: “Dubbed the WikiLeaks War Room by some of its occupants, the round-the-clock operation is on high alert this month as WikiLeaks and its elusive leader, Julian Assange, threaten to release a second batch of thousands of classified American war logs from Afghanistan.”
An international arrest warrant was issued for Assange’s detention two months later, in regard to a case that had been appropriately dropped in August 2010 within 24 hours by Stockholm’s chief prosecutor Eva Finne. She had found there was no “reason to suspect that he [Assange] had committed rape.” Then, however, more powerful political forces intervened.
The facts are even more damning when the chronology is examined closely. On November 28, 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing 250,000 classified cables sent to the US State Department by consulates, embassies and missions between December 1966 and February 2010. The US government responded with outrage and threats. WikiLeaks was hit with financial and other kinds of systematic attacks.
Two days later, on November 30, Interpol, at the request of Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny, issued a Red Notice to 188 countries for Assange’s arrest in relation to the Swedish “preliminary investigation” (for which no charges or indictment existed). Interpol made the request public. Assange was detained by police in London on December 7.
Anyone with a shred of honesty or political acumen can put two and two together. The various US government agencies organized or took advantage of a sexual scandal, one of the very favorite methods of settling accounts in the American political establishment. News reports noted in December 2010 that “a smiling US Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the arrest [of Assange in London] ‘sounds like good news to me.’”
Naturally, cynical, self-satisfied idiots like Marina Hyde of the Guardian, the mouthpiece of the dregs of English liberalism, continue to insist that the case had merits. “I think we all learned a really important lesson here, which is that if you wait a really long time and absolutely refuse to face up to them, bad things go away,” she wrote Friday.
Hyde speaks for the feminist and ex-left elements who have junked their opposition, which never went terribly deep, to war and imperialism. The Assange case is yet another mechanism through which a layer of affluent former radicals has peeled off and made its way to the “other side,” a process that has been under way since the early 1990s.
One of the principal instigators of the attack on Assange in Sweden was lawyer and politician Claes Borgström, a member of the Social Democratic government from 2000 to 2007, the government that supported the US invasion of Afghanistan. Borgström, who became the lawyer for Assange’s accusers, served as the Social Democrats’ spokesperson on gender equality. He argued that all men were collectively responsible for violence against women and compared the entire gender to the Taliban. Borgström is now a member of the Left Party in Sweden.
Katha Pollitt of the Nation joined the campaign against Assange in 2010, arguing that “when it comes to rape, the left still doesn't get it.”
Socialist Worker, in “Defend WikiLeaks, don’t trivialize rape charges” (August 2012), claimed that “Assange and some of his supporters have refused to take the rape allegations seriously. His own lawyers have endorsed conspiracy theories calling the women a ‘honeytrap’… The rape accusations should never be trivialised or brushed aside.”
International Viewpoint, in September 2013, argued that “The call for Assange to face questioning on sexual assault allegations in Sweden is legitimate in itself.”
For the past several years, the international pseudo-left has barely mentioned Assange’s name. To appease their reactionary gender politics constituency, they would happily throw him to the wolves.
These “left” and liberal forces play an objective social role. The realities of neo-colonial invasion, occupation and war are far from pretty. If the thugs of the Pentagon and CIA were left to their own devices, forced to face the American public and justify their actions without any intermediaries or interpreters, they would be seen through almost immediately.
The services of the liberal media, like the New York Times and Washington Post, and a host of now well-to-do “leftists,” with credentials as one-time opponents of the system, are needed to sanctify the brutal process of imperialist subjugation—or political persecution in the case of WikiLeaks—by grounding it in “democracy,” “human rights” or “women’s rights.”
Discrediting all these elements is an essential political-educational task of the day.
David Walsh
Given that the New York Times published some of the same material as Wikileaks, why doesn't the US government go after the New York Times?
And the answer is obvious: SCOTUS will point to the 1st amendment, and the White House's case will get laughed out of court, just like what happened the last time the US government cited national security on leaked material that newspapers published.
And another thing, how the feth can Assange, as suggested in the above article, be a traitor to the USA?
To the best of my knowledge, Assange is not, and has never been a US citizen, nor has he ever sworn an oath of loyalty to the USA.
Espionage I can buy, but treason? We're entering the realms of fantasy here.
But someone else did and I responded to that, so perhaps multiple paragraphs defending something you didn't say isn't necessary? There is, unsurprisingly, a difference between "X is possible" and "X is an absolute".
Sweden refused because, under their laws, they cannot allow any JUDICIAL decisions(extraditions require a hearing) to be predetermined.
This. The government giving such a guarantee would be unconstitutional in more than one way. It is not the government's business to interfere in juridical investigations. Assange was asking that the Swedish government act in an unconstitutional manner because he was afraid that the Swedish government would act in an unconstitutional manner (extraditing him to the US), which is absolutely insane.
I can't speak for Sweden, but I can speak for the UK, and seeing as British policy these past decades has been to make the UK the 51st state of the USA, the UK would turn Assange over to the USA at the drop of a hat. So he's right to be worried about the British government.
Right, that's while he was under house arrest in the UK he was snatched up by a Black Ops FedEx unit...
I mean this in the nicest way possible here, but you really need to lay off the spy thrillers.
I'm assuming that he will now surrender to UK police to answer the change of failing to surrender to court now the Swedish police are no longer trying to extradite him? Ye right...
Steve steveson wrote: I'm assuming that he will now surrender to UK police to answer the change of failing to surrender to court now the Swedish police are no longer trying to extradite him? Ye right...
As far as I can see the "Swedish police" never said they are no longer trying to extradite him (I don't believe "the police" are the ones who decide that in the first place, but either way that has not been said as far as I can see, they simply aren't pursuing the investigation because they can't do anything if Assange isn't going to be going to Sweden).
Steve steveson wrote: I'm assuming that he will now surrender to UK police to answer the change of failing to surrender to court now the Swedish police are no longer trying to extradite him? Ye right...
Oh of course.
I mean, it's not as if his rhetoric is at all 'absolute transparency and accountability for everyone except me'
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If Assange is found guilty of these horrible crimes, then I'll be the first to condemn him, but it's an if, because we don't know what happened.
I make no allusion to guilt or not, but n0t_u is correct. Assange was never charged. As he was never charged, charges cannot be dropped. The title is willfully misleading and false. But hey, it's only rape we're talking about, so who cares? Clearly not DakkaDakka.
Steve steveson wrote: Well, the European arrest warrant no longer stands. But his supporters no interest in justice, only in a conspiracy which has no evidence.
The evidence in favour of Assange with regards to a conspiracy, is as long as my arm:
1. Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers in US history than any other POTUS. It's risible to suggest Assange wasn't on the list.
2. There are NO rape charges against Assange in Sweden. He was wanted for questioning, which is completely different.
3. The original prosecutor in Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer.
4. A New prosecutor then took up the case. The new prosecutor is known to support feminist causes and was a supporter of America's war on terror, as was a previous Swedish government.
5. The prosecutor in point 5, NOT a court, signed the European arrest warrant. UK law was CHANGED as a result of this, as the court's criteria is deemed to be higher than an individual prosecutor.
6. Assange has been questioned, but HAS STILL NOT BEEN CHARGED. Apologies for the caps, but it's worth highlighting that point.
7. Assange was questioned November 2016. This is May 2017. What's the hold up?
8. The condom that Assange allegedly wore in the incident in question with Anna Ardin, contains none of Assange's DNA.
9. Assange's DNA is present in the condom used with Sofia Wilen. Both parties agree they had consensual sex the first time, but the second time, Assange says it was consensual, Wilen says it was not. This is why it is hard for any judgement to be made one way or another.
10. After 5 years, despite the evidence being gathered, no decision was made as to Assange being charged.
11. The UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled in Assange's favour. The UN group told Sweden to put up or shut up. Sweden appealed the ruling, and lost again, then ignored it's ruling. The first time Sweden has ever done this, despite agreeing to its terms and conditions.
12. The Swedish supreme court, following legal action from Assange, told Ny, the second Swedish prosecutor, to put up or shut up.
13. After 6 years, still no charges against Assange. Sweden says it wants to question Assange, despite Assange being questioned twice.
14. I, the author of this comment, am of the opinion that that Swedes no they have no case, and rather than embarrass themselves by admitting this, they have allowed the statute of limitations to expire.
15. Jeff Sessions, that man who has zero authority in the USA, and who is definitely not part of the Trump administration, has said that arresting Assange is a priority.
But because people who believe that this man of zero authority shouldn't be taken at his word, anybody who beleives there is a conspiricacy against assange is wrong.
Never believe high ranking US officials. They just say things like arrest just for the fun of it
Steve steveson wrote: Well, the European arrest warrant no longer stands. But his supporters no interest in justice, only in a conspiracy which has no evidence.
He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.
If he want asylum and free passage put, he needs to face or work out a way to counter those.
They could pull all manner of trickery with fake passports, evasion and such but that would for one make him look bad, and B would mean the host nation he is with has alot of questions to answer.
Steve steveson wrote: Well, the European arrest warrant no longer stands. But his supporters no interest in justice, only in a conspiracy which has no evidence.
He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.
If he want asylum and free passage put, he needs to face or work out a way to counter those.
They could pull all manner of trickery with fake passports, evasion and such but that would for one make him look bad, and B would mean the host nation he is with has alot of questions to answer.
If the UK government was smart, and not hanging onto America's coat tails all the time, they could save themselves a lot of problems by waiving the charges, granting safe passage to Ecuador, and giving Assange 48 hours to get the hell out of the UK.
Steve steveson wrote: Well, the European arrest warrant no longer stands. But his supporters no interest in justice, only in a conspiracy which has no evidence.
He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.
If he want asylum and free passage put, he needs to face or work out a way to counter those.
They could pull all manner of trickery with fake passports, evasion and such but that would for one make him look bad, and B would mean the host nation he is with has alot of questions to answer.
If the UK government was smart, and not hanging onto America's coat tails all the time, they could save themselves a lot of problems by waiving the charges, granting safe passage to Ecuador, and giving Assange 48 hours to get the hell out of the UK.
That would be the sensible move.
Cheaper to. That or he pleads guilty to crimes, UK agrees and says pay a small fine for it on term he leaves quickly and does not come back for a good few years. Few hours in a small court and job done. Quick, simple, charges answered.
However he would also have to trust UK not to renage and pull a arrest you at airport move.
Though honestly I think anything like that be a embassy deal as Il be honest. They are more likely to get a deal he is.
I don't understand the bashing of the evidence? Why would the police give all the evidence to the media before a case even goes to trial? That's shooting yourself in the foot and then some. What the media knows is obviously not the whole story.
He has also not been charged because he is in a foreign embassy not really cooperating. Charging him will do little good.
What if he really did commit rape though? Were 'all' declaring him innocent due to his role, but plenty of people have had allegations against them that later turned out to be true but we didn't believe it at the time because the person was rich/famous/take your pick.
Steve steveson wrote: Well, the European arrest warrant no longer stands. But his supporters no interest in justice, only in a conspiracy which has no evidence.
The evidence in favour of Assange with regards to a conspiracy, is as long as my arm:
1. Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers in US history than any other POTUS. It's risible to suggest Assange wasn't on the list.
2. There are NO rape charges against Assange in Sweden. He was wanted for questioning, which is completely different.
3. The original prosecutor in Stockholm decided that Assange had no case to answer.
I really think you need to understand something important here: Under Swedish law, from what I can find, you cannot be charged or indicted until formally questioned and in custody.
You keep harping on the fact that he "hasn't been charged, he hasn't been charged, hasn't been chaaaaaaarged!". The Swedes are following their laws.
Kinda goes against your pants on head ridiculous "theory" that they made this whole thing up to get him and give him to the US, eh? They gave Assange warning that he was going to be arrested when he initially left Sweden.
Spoiler:
4. A New prosecutor then took up the case. The new prosecutor is known to support feminist causes and was a supporter of America's war on terror, as was a previous Swedish government.
5. The prosecutor in point 5, NOT a court, signed the European arrest warrant. UK law was CHANGED as a result of this, as the court's criteria is deemed to be higher than an individual prosecutor.
6. Assange has been questioned, but HAS STILL NOT BEEN CHARGED. Apologies for the caps, but it's worth highlighting that point.
7. Assange was questioned November 2016. This is May 2017. What's the hold up?
8. The condom that Assange allegedly wore in the incident in question with Anna Ardin, contains none of Assange's DNA.
9. Assange's DNA is present in the condom used with Sofia Wilen. Both parties agree they had consensual sex the first time, but the second time, Assange says it was consensual, Wilen says it was not. This is why it is hard for any judgement to be made one way or another.
10. After 5 years, despite the evidence being gathered, no decision was made as to Assange being charged.
11. The UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled in Assange's favour. The UN group told Sweden to put up or shut up. Sweden appealed the ruling, and lost again, then ignored it's ruling. The first time Sweden has ever done this, despite agreeing to its terms and conditions.
12. The Swedish supreme court, following legal action from Assange, told Ny, the second Swedish prosecutor, to put up or shut up.
13. After 6 years, still no charges against Assange. Sweden says it wants to question Assange, despite Assange being questioned twice.
14. I, the author of this comment, am of the opinion that that Swedes no they have no case, and rather than embarrass themselves by admitting this, they have allowed the statute of limitations to expire.
15. Jeff Sessions, that man who has zero authority in the USA, and who is definitely not part of the Trump administration, has said that arresting Assange is a priority.
But because people who believe that this man of zero authority shouldn't be taken at his word, anybody who beleives there is a conspiricacy against assange is wrong.
Never believe high ranking US officials. They just say things like arrest just for the fun of it
The point that you missed is that Assange is a man who literally cannot be taken at his word and you're taking him at his word. He made a statement to the Obama administration that if Chelsea Manning received a commuted sentence, he'd turn himself over to Sweden and agree to questioning as part of the US investigation into leaks. That statement was made BEFORE the Trump administration was actually a thing. He claimed that one of the two accusers isn't trustworthy because she sleeps around and is a lesbian. Etc Etc
There's a reason why people find it hard to believe Assange. At every turn, he has acted like a suspect on an episode of flipping Law & Order: SVU.
You also keep trying to make it sound like Sessions, the Lawn Gnome Gone Rogue, and his statements had any kind of influence prior to the Trump administration. He didn't.
And also, once again, you're wrong. The Swedes have removed the arrest warrant. They can, at any point in time, choose to reopen the investigation into the more serious charge since it doesn't statute out until 2020.
jhe90 wrote: He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.
Running away when on bail might not be as serious as being accused of rape, but it's still a crime. Making some sort of deal would probably be easiest for everyone - if it can be handled with a fine then handle it and leave it behind.
But whatever we might learn from watching Hollywood movies where the handsome hero evades police (escapes custody, prison etc) in order to prove his innocence, in real life crimes committed doing all that would still count. It's all nice and dandy that you found the video that proves you didn't murder your wife, but on the way you racked up "resisting arrest", "grand theft auto", "breaking and entering", "illegal wiretapping", "assault and battery" (well, it was the real bad guys henchmen so by movie logic they had it coming) and possibly killed the real bad guy which in legalese speak could even rank as "murder". No, you don't get out of jail free if you commit additional crimes in order to not go down for a crime you're - at least in your opinion - falsely accused of.
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?
And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.
IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Apparently not, given the people defending Assange without knowing anything about the case. Annoying the US by hosting the guy who helped leak their secrets is probably far more of a risk to Ecuador's government than whether or not Assange is guilty of a crime that the US government doesn't care about. Ecuador's decisions about Assange are almost certainly 100% based on his role in international politics, not evidence about anything related to the rape case.
jhe90 wrote: He still can be charged on beach of bail, however I'm sure that the embassy will work on some kind of deal or way to handle those charges.
Running away when on bail might not be as serious as being accused of rape, but it's still a crime. Making some sort of deal would probably be easiest for everyone - if it can be handled with a fine then handle it and leave it behind.
But whatever we might learn from watching Hollywood movies where the handsome hero evades police (escapes custody, prison etc) in order to prove his innocence, in real life crimes committed doing all that would still count. It's all nice and dandy that you found the video that proves you didn't murder your wife, but on the way you racked up "resisting arrest", "grand theft auto", "breaking and entering", "illegal wiretapping", "assault and battery" (well, it was the real bad guys henchmen so by movie logic they had it coming) and possibly killed the real bad guy which in legalese speak could even rank as "murder". No, you don't get out of jail free if you commit additional crimes in order to not go down for a crime you're - at least in your opinion - falsely accused of.
Easiest way. while Sweden is off his back, do a plea deal with UK, admit guilt, attend a quick hearing at a local court and pleed guilty, judge hands down a fine and some harsh words, Mr Assange, you have broke the law, flouted it, and such, get out the UK . pay fine, apcept the words.
Part of deal, he leaves UK., but to do so answers the UK charge, and thus he is out of the hole on the UK front.
then he is free to head off for asylum and bingo Assange is out his little sqaure hole.
Just avoid Sweden and Uk for a few years as a matter of sense, and as part of UK deal to make UK look like it "won"
That would be his good endgame.
he escapes pretty unscathed considering on that plan.
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?
And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.
IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.
if they thought his guilt was true yes, they would of probbly marched him into the waiting police van...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Apparently not, given the people defending Assange without knowing anything about the case. Annoying the US by hosting the guy who helped leak their secrets is probably far more of a risk to Ecuador's government than whether or not Assange is guilty of a crime that the US government doesn't care about. Ecuador's decisions about Assange are almost certainly 100% based on his role in international politics, not evidence about anything related to the rape case.
I'm not so sure these days. With Trump in the White House, annoying the USA and stealing American secrets doesn't seem to be a big deal to the average man in the street these days. It's accepted as standard practice in international affairs, but with rape, being the vile crime that it is, people's attitudes would be different IMO.
Yes, I accept the fact that South American nations have long resented the USA meddling in their affairs, so there is an element of Ecuador tweaking the USA's nose as payback, but even they would draw the line somewhere.
I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:
1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not
2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do
3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.
4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction
Ouze wrote: I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:
1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not
2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do
3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.
4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction
I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case. I totally agree that it doesn't mean he's innocent.
As for Wikileaks, they did the American people a great service by exposing facts about a person running for the USA's highest office, so that was in the public interest to have that in the open.
Ouze wrote: I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:
1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not
2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do
3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.
4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction
I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case. I totally agree that it doesn't mean he's innocent.
As for Wikileaks, they did the American people a great service by exposing facts about a person running for the USA's highest office, so that was in the public interest to have that in the open.
That trolling is underhanded now that we can't have US politics discussions any more.
Lets not forget Assange also publicized people's medical records, social security and financial information and even outed homosexuals in the always tolerant Saudi Arabia. This man has no journalistic integrity, he depends on the hard work of others so he can stroke his own ego. Remember the champion of transparency mention his talks with Farage or his organisation's connections to the Trump campaign. What a hypocrite. He also suspiciously only leaks certain information from even more suspicious 'sources', who knows how long ago he sold out. Might not be long before he has an accident. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to certain people.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Lets not forget Assange also publicized people's medical records, social security and financial information and even outed homosexuals in the always tolerant Saudi Arabia. This man has no journalistic integrity, he depends on the hard work of others so he can stroke his own ego. Remember the champion of transparency mention his talks with Farage or his organisation's connections to the Trump campaign. What a hypocrite. He also suspiciously only leaks certain information from even more suspicious 'sources', who knows how long ago he sold out. Might not be long before he has an accident. Now that he has outlived his usefulness to certain people.
that has one fair point, if you release information that causes x result you are the cause good or ill for whatever happens.
at end of day you do reep what you sow, yes he did that others who deserved it but it can happen to you as well/
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?
The Ecuadorean government were not interested in his guilt or not. They accepted him to capitalise on the anti US sentiment in south and Central America. They are using him, and the two women, as a political pawn.
And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.
I would love to know how you think the Ecuadorean government came to such an accurate decision with the only evidence being the word of the accused. They accepted him for political reasons. Nothing more nothing less. To claim they are standing up to the big mean USA and gain votes and prestige with zero risk.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case.
And ofc he still skipped bail in the UK - it's a legal agreement that you can remain free waiting for legal proceedings in exchange for putting up (usually) a sum of money as security for your good behavior. It was probably "only" police bail if he hadn't been formally charged yet (which he couldn't have been if Swedish law requires hearing him too before filing charges in a case like this) but still skipping bail.
It's a separate crime, though I'm not well enough versed in UK law to tell if it's serious enough that they'd want him arrested and put in jail, fined, or losing the deposit is enough punishment. But still a crime he undeniably committed and should have to clear up with the British.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case.
And ofc he still skipped bail in the UK - it's a legal agreement that you can remain free waiting for legal proceedings in exchange for putting up (usually) a sum of money as security for your good behavior. It was probably "only" police bail if he hadn't been formally charged yet (which he couldn't have been if Swedish law requires hearing him too before filing charges in a case like this) but still skipping bail.
It's a separate crime, though I'm not well enough versed in UK law to tell if it's serious enough that they'd want him arrested and put in jail, fined, or losing the deposit is enough punishment. But still a crime he undeniably committed and should have to clear up with the British.
The punishment is listed as a fine or up to a year in jail.
He already lost the deposit when he failed to show and broke his bail agreement I believe.
If there was a separate charge, and was arrested. He would not get bail and have to pending in a UK jail unto his trial date. Course pleed guilty and he would get a slap on wrist, its somthibf like 50% off tariff.. Likely result in a fine or harsh words. I doubt he would see jail, maybe suspended sentence or such.
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?
And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.
IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.
That's like a meta-meta-meta interpretation. The Swedes haven't released any evidence because Assange hasn't been arraigned, and your judgement is based on the Ecuadorian judgement of the non-existent Swedish judgement.
Ouze wrote: I don't know whether or not Julian Assange did or did not sexually assault someone, but my feelings are:
1.) I feel like he does have a journalistic shield to publish what he does, although his sources generally do not
2.) Whistleblowing wrongdoing is the right thing to do
3.) For the most part, what Wikileaks has done isn't #2. I feel like they mostly just act as a political tool for interested parties, leaking things that aren't actually wrongdoing. "Collateral murder", for example, doesn't actually depict murder by any reasonable definition.
4.) Having charges dropped is in no way "being cleared of the charges", and OP should feel bad about failing to make this distinction
I 100% agree that having charges dropped doesn't mean you're innocent, but on the other hand, in our western world, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of liberty and democracy, so with Assange not being charged, he should be free to go with regard to this case. I totally agree that it doesn't mean he's innocent.
The presumption of innocence does not mean that you are exempted from the rule of law.
As for Wikileaks, they did the American people a great service by exposing facts about a person running for the USA's highest office, so that was in the public interest to have that in the open.
I really don't know how you can spout nonsense like this and take yourself seriously.
Nothing that WikiLeaks or Assange did during the 2016 election was "a great service" to the American people. It was a great service to the dumpsterfire that is the current administration, which any idiot could have seen would be openly hostile towards him once in office as the Republicans were the main advocates of the whole "traitor" narrative during the Obama administration when it came to Assange.
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?
Funny you should say that, because one of the Ecuadorian Presidential candidates said that he would do exactly that...
Quoting from Wikipedia, cause it's fairly easy to find citable sources that way:
n the run-up to 2017 Ecuador's presidential elections, conservative candidate Guillermo Lasso promised that he "will cordially ask Senor Assange to leave" within 30 days of assuming office, should he be elected. The pro-business candidate said the country's London embassy "isn't a hotel" and that Ecuador is in no position to finance the Australian's stay there.
After preliminary results in the second round of Ecuador's presidential election showed that Lasso is poised to lose – the WikiLeaks founder responded using the same language."I cordially invite Lasso to leave Ecuador within 30 days (with or without his tax haven millions)," Assange tweeted, referring to the revelations made shortly before the vote.
And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.
IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.
And an important point that you're overlooking is that if they wanted to offer him safe haven from political posturing/witch hunts--they could just do that.
They don't need to pretend that he's not guilty of sexual assault or any other nonsense.
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
This isn't to be glib or appear obtuse, but honestly, what reputation? Assange's extended couch-surfing must be the reason why that country appears in about half the newspaper it does, nowadays.
And Ecuador have in the past refused extradition requests despite having treaties saying they must.
Also, to keep this current :
World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”
Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”
How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?
World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”
Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”
How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?
What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.
And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.
I'd be the first to admit that Assange is not a likeable person, an egomaniac, unpleasant etc etc
But we're going to condemn him for that? By that logic, half the world's population would need to be jailed.
Put aside your view of Assange the man, and judge this case on its own merits. That's what I'm doing, and that's what any court of law would do.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I have no legal background. I go only what I've read in the media and I balance that against my own knowledge and world viewpoint.
IMO, Assange has no case to answer. Is a he a rapist? I don't know, and I suspect we'll never know, because there are only two people who know the truth, and both are contradicting each other.
Has it occurred to you that if Assange is guilty of rape, then the government of Ecuador risks damaging Ecuador's reputation and staining its honour?
Don't you think that if Ecuador thought Assange was guilty, they would have thrown him on the street by now?
And yet, it seems that Ecuador has studied the case against Assange, looked at what Sweden is putting on the table, and decided that Assange has no case to answer, hence the granting of asylum for Assange.
IMO, that is an important point that has been overlooked.
That's like a meta-meta-meta interpretation. The Swedes haven't released any evidence because Assange hasn't been arraigned, and your judgement is based on the Ecuadorian judgement of the non-existent Swedish judgement.
I mean WTF, really?
Has the following occurred to you:
1. As the interview happened in the Ecuadorian embassy, we can deduce that a representative of the Ecuadorian government sat in as a neutral observer, and thus, were able to obtain information on what was said and drawn their own conclusions from this.
2. Ecuador would have read and followed the same newspapers and information as everybody else. Therefore, they would know, that the original prosecutor decided that Assange had no case to answer.
Ecuador again, may have drawn its own conclusions from this.
3. In its various diplomatic exchanges with Sweden, Ecuador may have access to information that Is denied to ordinary people like us.
To conclude, it is possible that the Ecuadorian decisions to keep Assange in their embassy is based on the above.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'd be the first to admit that Assange is not a likeable person, an egomaniac, unpleasant etc etc
But we're going to condemn him for that? By that logic, half the world's population would need to be jailed.
Put aside your view of Assange the man, and judge this case on its own merits. That's what I'm doing, and that's what any court of law would do.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge. I have no legal background. I go only what I've read in the media and I balance that against my own knowledge and world viewpoint.
IMO, Assange has no case to answer. Is a he a rapist? I don't know, and I suspect we'll never know, because there are only two people who know the truth, and both are contradicting each other.
If only there was some kind of system in which this sort of thing could he decided
World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”
Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”
How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?
What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.
And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”
Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”
How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?
What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.
And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time an cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
As said before he ain't exactly the nicest guy out there by any stretch.
Long as he answers the UK charges he is free to go however. Right now that's all that's got him trapped and stuck.
Its all on him to decide what to do next.
World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”
Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”
How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?
What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.
And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time an cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
As said before he ain't exactly the nicest guy out there by any stretch.
Long as he answers the UK charges he is free to go however. Right now that's all that's got him trapped and stuck.
Its all on him to decide what to do next.
True he managed to get the warrant dropped. I can see him staying in the embassy though. There is always the risk they put the warrant back up if hes out before the statue of limitations comes up again. Of course there might also be a risk on his life, he might know more than certain people like and then I'm not talking about the US.
Does anybody here seriously believe the American government and intelligence/security services do not want to extradite Assange? Or that Theresa May's government, with its fetish for Pro-Statist surveillance and authoritarianism, would not enthusiastically cooperate?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Does anybody here seriously believe the American government and intelligence/security services do not want to extradite Assange? Or that Theresa May's government, with its fetish for Pro-Statist surveillance and authoritarianism, would not enthusiastically cooperate?
Exactly. Have an exalt sir.
We know from recent media reports that potentially, the CIA has lost a major spying ring in China. Is it true? We may never know for years, if ever.
What has that to do with Assange? Well, you add the potential losses in China, and add that to whoever is leaking to WikiLeaks in the USA
and you have a climate of somebody in Washington wanting to clean house and make somebody carry the can for these setbacks.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Assange will be caught up in the cross-fire.
To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking
World Socialist Website wrote:Speaking from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London yesterday, WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said the “proper war is just commencing.”
Speaking in the aftermath of the Swedish Prosecution Authority dropping their investigation into bogus allegations of sexual assault, he added, “Today is an important victory for me and for the UN’s human rights system but it by no means erases the years of detention without charge in prison, under house arrest and almost five years here in this embassy without sunlight, seven years without charge while my children grew up without me. And that is not something I can forget, it is not something I can forgive.”
How can anyone support someone who sounds like such a douche?
What is douchey about this? 5 years locked inside is no joke.
And before you say 'he chose that', keep in mind that he's of the opinion that the alternative is an extra-judicial extradition to the United States on some very serious charges.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time an cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
As said before he ain't exactly the nicest guy out there by any stretch.
Long as he answers the UK charges he is free to go however. Right now that's all that's got him trapped and stuck.
Its all on him to decide what to do next.
True he managed to get the warrant dropped. I can see him staying in the embassy though. There is always the risk they put the warrant back up if hes out before the statue of limitations comes up again. Of course there might also be a risk on his life, he might know more than certain people like and then I'm not talking about the US.
True but he still has thr whole technically he would be arrested thr momment he shows his passport at Heathrow etc.
He is absconding from bail, so he has to answer/remove that one before his scot free escape can succeed. That's asuming his is valid in first place and if not he would need help from Australian embassy or maybe get somthibf like a refugee travel document, or in a real dick move make him a citizen at embassy and protect him under own passport/maybe diplomatic protection. Of course I doubt that trick would work at allm UK would never grant him immunity if pending charges.
And yes he aired alot of nations dirty Landry for all to see.
That's never gonna win you many friends in shadowy places.
ulgurstasta wrote: To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking
That was my bad, I put one "unconstitutional" too many in my post. It's not actually unconstitutional for the Swedish government to extradite Assange to the US, but it is to give any guarantees prior to trying his case.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.
Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.
ulgurstasta wrote: To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking
That was my bad, I put one "unconstitutional" too many in my post. It's not actually unconstitutional for the Swedish government to extradite Assange to the US, but it is to give any guarantees prior to trying his case.
More ridiculous matters regarding extradition have occured.
Trump is not popular in Sweden (to put it mildly). Telling him to go pound sand would probably play very well with the internal politics. Plus, there is precedence; the current government stood up to Saudi Arabia and told them to sod off when they demanded an apology for our foreign minister calling them a dictatorship.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Trump is not popular in Sweden (to put it mildly). Telling him to go pound sand would probably play very well with the internal politics. Plus, there is precedence; the current government stood up to Saudi Arabia and told them to sod off when they demanded an apology for our foreign minister calling them a dictatorship.
That may be so, but the Swedish government is irrelevant now that they're dropping the investigation.
Can you say the same about Theresa May's government? I doubt it. Theresa May can't afford to take a risk on her relations with the Trump administration with a General Election next month and 2 years of Brexit negotiations. We need Trump on our side, so if he asks for an extradition, May will grant it.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.
The reason of which is, again, because the Swedish government cannot promise the outcome of a judicial decision.
Extradition hearings require a judge. The judge makes a ruling.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's dangerously close to what Assange has been doing since day one.
Attack the victims, attack the victims, attack the victims.
Two women came forward to accuse him and the initial reason was to get the police to force him to take a test for STDs, as both women had a similar story regarding condoms/being boozed up with him.
He's since claimed that one of the women was sexually active and that the other was a boozehound.
Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.
So you know this much about the Swedish government, but not that Sweden can't promise the outcome of a judicial hearing?
ulgurstasta wrote: To the people here saying that it would be unconstitutional for Sweden to extradite people to the US, the Swedish government has a long history of not giving a crap about that little rule. We are the first to bend over when the CIA comes knocking
That was my bad, I put one "unconstitutional" too many in my post. It's not actually unconstitutional for the Swedish government to extradite Assange to the US, but it is to give any guarantees prior to trying his case.
More ridiculous matters regarding extradition have occured.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.
The reason of which is, again, because the Swedish government cannot promise the outcome of a judicial decision.
Extradition hearings require a judge. The judge makes a ruling.
Actually, in cases pertaining to extradition to non-EU countries the government has the final say. The same issue remains, however: the government cannot promise the outcome of an investigation prior to having considered the case, and they cannot consider the case because there has been no extradition request from the United States. The issue still comes down to Assange demanding that due process be flubbed in his favour because he doesn't trust due process. It's a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.
Yet his stay in the embassy is completely voluntary. Also why in God's name would you rule out extradition without a case about it, who knows what kind of evidence might be presented to successfully argue for extradition. Not that it matters anyway, because Chelsea Manning is free so he will already go to the US himself right?
Disciple of Fate wrote: This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.
Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.
Ah so please tell me why you think its complete fabrication. Have you been allowed to review the evidence the Swedish police has? No, so you're just going off what you hear in the media? So until you can prove to me you have an inside connection with access to the evidence its still douchey as feth. Victims of false rape accusations? You know how rare those are?
Ok, lets get a few things straight regarding everyone's opinions on Julian Assange's activities with Wikileaks, and the sexual assault accusations against him, so we know where everyone's personal biases lie.
1. Do you think he should face trial for the accusations of sexual assault against him?
2. Do you think he should be extradited to the US for the accusations of espionage and publishing classified material etc?
3. Do you think an extradition to the US is more likely in the event that he leaves the Embassy and is arrested (for whatever reason, breaking bail etc).
Answering for myself:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
I think he should face trial in Sweden for the accusations against him, but I think thats exactly what the US and UK governments want: the moment he steps outside, he'll be arrested for breaking bail or whatever reason, and an extradition request will be immediately submitted by the United States to the UK, and Theresa May will gladly capitulate. Until a guarantee can be given that he will not be extradited to the United States, I think it would be very foolish of Assange to step foot outside of the Embassy.
Considering that in the UK we seem to turn a blind eye to electoral fraud these days, dropping the bail charges against Assange wouldn't be that big a deal.
My taxes are getting wasted on police officers standing outside that damn embassy
If I were British PM, I'd stick him on the first plane to Ecuador and save the nation the hassle.
If the Yanks want him, then they can take it up with the Ecuadorians.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ok, lets get a few things straight regarding everyone's opinions on Julian Assange's activities with Wikileaks, and the sexual assault accusations against him, so we know where everyone's personal biases lie.
1. Do you think he should face trial for the accusations of sexual assault against him?
2. Do you think he should be extradited to the US for the accusations of espionage and publishing classified material etc?
3. Do you think an extradition to the US is more likely in the event that he leaves the Embassy and is arrested (for whatever reason, breaking bail etc).
Answering for myself:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
I think he should face trial in Sweden for the accusations against him, but I think thats exactly what the US and UK governments want: the moment he steps outside, he'll be arrested for breaking bail or whatever reason, and an extradition request will be immediately submitted by the United States to the UK, and Theresa May will gladly capitulate. Until a guarantee can be given that he will not be extradited to the United States, I think it would be very foolish of Assange to step foot outside of the Embassy.
And I think it's ridiculous to assume that he would have faced some kind of serious trial here in the US on espionage. The publishing/receipt of classified material likely would have been the charges he would have faced.
And considering that Chelsea Manning, the person who sent in a large amount of the material that WikiLeaks published, is a free woman now?
I think it's plain moronic to assume that there was some shadowy governmental plots afoot to discredit him.
He's done a bang-up job of that himself, what with him being the one(according to WikiLeaks staffers) insisting that things be titled like "Collateral Murder" or promising some kind of huge revelations during the run-up to the 2016 elections and the material effectively being...things that were already seen, just repackaged.
Actually, in cases pertaining to extradition to non-EU countries the government has the final say. The same issue remains, however: the government cannot promise the outcome of an investigation prior to having considered the case, and they cannot consider the case because there has been no extradition request from the United States. The issue still comes down to Assange demanding that due process be flubbed in his favour because he doesn't trust due process. It's a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance.
It's a wonderful way to get people in his favor though.
It lets him seem like he's being completely reasonable while in truth, he's just trying to get around the laws.
The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in ridiculously nebulous nefarious schemes. The whole reason why this story became such a big deal as well is because he's been pushing that narrative since the outset of these charges.
The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.
Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.
That wouldn't be a well considered or thoughtful way to take that; essentially you are saying "he won't play my game on the internet therefor I win", which isn't a very sound position.
The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.
Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.
You can think whatever you want.
At the end of the day, my thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with the case being discussed here.
This whole thing has been a farce since day one. And it's rather telling that rather than actually discuss the case, you've only chimed in to talk about extradition to the US or the UK government.
The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in nefarious schemes.
Right then, I'll just take your refusal to answer as confirmation that you're in favour of extradition to the US.
That wouldn't be a well considered or thoughtful way to take that; essentially you are saying "he won't play my game on the internet therefor I win", which isn't a very sound position.
No, I'm asking him to set out his position on 3 key points, and he's flatly refusing to do so. So what else can I do but make an assumption?
Kanluwen wrote: . And it's rather telling that rather than actually discuss the case, you've only chimed in to talk about extradition to the US or the UK government.
And I find it rather telling that you keep side stepping my question.
Are you or are you not in favour of extraditing Assange to the USA?
If you think this case is only about the sexual assault accusations then you're a fool. This has been a politicised case from the very beginning, because of who Assange is and the organisation he is involved with. The UK government wouldn't have invested millions in a Police operation if this were a mere sexual assault case.
Kanluwen wrote: . And it's rather telling that rather than actually discuss the case, you've only chimed in to talk about extradition to the US or the UK government.
And I find it rather telling that you keep side stepping my question.
Are you or are you not in favour of extraditing Assange to the USA?
What does that have to do with the sexual assault charges?
I don't care about him being extradited. I can't see any way, shape, or form of a fair trial coming out of this after as long as this has been going on.
If you think this case is only about the sexual assault accusations then you're a fool. This has been a politicised case from the very beginning, because of who Assange is and the organisation he is involved with. The UK government wouldn't have invested millions in a Police operation if this were a mere sexual assault case.
Once again:
This was politicized from the very beginning because Assange made it be. When the allegations initially surfaced, he immediately tried to tie it to intelligence agencies hiring the women in question (one of which was a volunteer for WikiLeaks) and make it a question of the plucky hero versus the evil shadow government conspiracies.
If this is not a politicised case, and Assange is making it all up about the USA and UK wanting to extradite him, then how do you explain the multi-million pound Policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside? Why would so many resources be expended on a mere sexual assault case?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If this is not a politicised case, and Assange is making it all up about the USA and UK wanting to extradite him, then how do you explain the multi-million pound Policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside? Why would so many resources be expended on a mere sexual assault case?
Did Assange secure a bail bond after having turned himself over to the Metropolitan Police?
Yes.
He broke that bond when he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy.
So not only is it a "mere sexual assault case"(and even that is debatable, as someone knowingly engaging in sex while having a STD is a HUGE deal and in some countries can actually result in additional charges if part of a sexual assault case--and in charges in general if not disclosing it to your partners) but it also becomes breaking the conditions of bail/bond and more.
I expect some actual numbers to back the "multi-million pound policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside" by the way.
I expect some actual numbers to back the "multi-million pound policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside" by the way.
Do you not read the news?
The cost of the operation, which began in June 2012, has reached about £10m, according to figures published last week.
The Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, told LBC radio on Tuesday: “We won’t talk about tactics, but we are reviewing what options we have. It is sucking our resources.”
Assange walked into the embassy on 19 June, 2012, in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sex assault and rape accusations, which he denies.
He has said he fears he will be extradited to the US to face charges relating to WikiLeaks’ publishing activities.
In August 2013, Ecuador granted him political asylum but the police are stationed outside the South Kensington building to arrest him if he leaves the building.
Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.
I expect some actual numbers to back the "multi-million pound policing operation to keep tabs on Assange and arrest him the minute he steps outside" by the way.
Do you not read the news?
Do you have anything more recent?
The cost of the operation, which began in June 2012, has reached about £10m, according to figures published last week.
The Met commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, told LBC radio on Tuesday: “We won’t talk about tactics, but we are reviewing what options we have. It is sucking our resources.”
Assange walked into the embassy on 19 June, 2012, in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sex assault and rape accusations, which he denies.
He has said he fears he will be extradited to the US to face charges relating to WikiLeaks’ publishing activities.
In August 2013, Ecuador granted him political asylum but the police are stationed outside the South Kensington building to arrest him if he leaves the building.
Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ok, lets get a few things straight regarding everyone's opinions on Julian Assange's activities with Wikileaks, and the sexual assault accusations against him, so we know where everyone's personal biases lie.
1. Do you think he should face trial for the accusations of sexual assault against him?
2. Do you think he should be extradited to the US for the accusations of espionage and publishing classified material etc?
3. Do you think an extradition to the US is more likely in the event that he leaves the Embassy and is arrested (for whatever reason, breaking bail etc).
Answering for myself:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
I think he should face trial in Sweden for the accusations against him, but I think thats exactly what the US and UK governments want: the moment he steps outside, he'll be arrested for breaking bail or whatever reason, and an extradition request will be immediately submitted by the United States to the UK, and Theresa May will gladly capitulate. Until a guarantee can be given that he will not be extradited to the United States, I think it would be very foolish of Assange to step foot outside of the Embassy.
My view.
Yes. If the Swedish can prove to a UK judge who has experience in extradition cases that the charges pr evidence is compelling enough to warrant it.
Let the experts decide.
No. Much as the guy is a ass. The charges are pretty shakey lets be honest.
Yes and no... I mean easier as in if in jail we can control him and know where he is, and have power over him.
In embassy's we can say whatever but not touch him.
However I believe the Swedish case has stronger grounds to warrant the extradition over US.
I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc
We even have people wanted for murder on the run.
Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.
And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.
I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc
We even have people wanted for murder on the run.
Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.
And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.
I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!
And I think that you need to reread what was posted.
Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.
Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.
"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc
We even have people wanted for murder on the run.
Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.
And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.
I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!
And I think that you need to reread what was posted.
Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.
Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.
"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".
At any rate, it's a huge waste of British taxpayers' money
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc
We even have people wanted for murder on the run.
Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.
And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.
I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!
And I think that you need to reread what was posted.
Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.
Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.
"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".
At any rate, it's a huge waste of British taxpayers' money
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Of course we won't see eye to eye on this; I'm not willfully blinding myself to certain bits based on some kind of "hunch" I'm having or whatever.
Remember that during Assange's "holiday" at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Metro Police had to be out in rather large numbers to deal with demonstrations/protests/whatever. You think that kind of work is free?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'd like to point out to non-British dakka members that in Britain, we have people skipping bail on a daily basis. Some are wanted for minor crimes, some are wanted for more serious crimes like assault and rape etc etc
We even have people wanted for murder on the run.
Millions of pounds, and hundreds of police man hours are not spent tracking these people down.
And yet, one Australian with a bad cut hair cut, holed up in an embassy, is enought to merit a £10 million operation.
I can smell bullgak a mile away and it's drifting in from Washington DC!
And I think that you need to reread what was posted.
Nowhere did it explicitly say that the 10million was strictly on surveillance.
Figures obtained by LBC under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Met spent £9m on policing the building to the end of October last year.
"Policing the building" can include much much more than "strictly surveillance".
At any rate, it's a huge waste of British taxpayers' money
I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Of course we won't see eye to eye on this; I'm not willfully blinding myself to certain bits based on some kind of "hunch" I'm having or whatever.
Remember that during Assange's "holiday" at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Metro Police had to be out in rather large numbers to deal with demonstrations/protests/whatever.
You think that kind of work is free?
True if we placed a arrest order on him at every airport, and passport check and flagged him for arrest and detention by border security he could not go anywhere outside uk. If he tried. Caught.
He is too distinctive to hide now.
No need to police, UK a island. No free land borders to cross. And you need to present id for a Irish ferry I'm sure even if just photo id.
He need a illegal passport to get out otherwise and that is a extra crime to his list and if caught. A serious offense.
He doesn't. Ecuador could issue him with a refugee passport and he could travel on that. It would be easy for boarder staff at airports and ports to miss him then as well.
He wasn't locked inside, he voluntarily remained in the embassy to evade a European arrest warrant. The alternative is not an extrajudicial extradition as Sweden still has something resembling laws! Him claiming that might have been a convenient cover.
If he leaves the embassy he is detained and sent to Sweden. He is then at a very real, and and very obvious given the refusal to rule it out, risk of extradition to the US.
The reason of which is, again, because the Swedish government cannot promise the outcome of a judicial decision.
Extradition hearings require a judge. The judge makes a ruling.
Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.
This is still douchey as hell. There was no detention, he was not in prison or under house arrest. He could have gone to Sweden at any time and cooperate with law enforcement. He very much chose this. Then talking about a rape case in which he is the prime suspect he says he cannot forget or forgive? Yeah when there is a possible rape victim involved that is incredibly douchey.
And if the rape case is a complete fabrication, which is seeming more likely with the distinct lack of evidence Sweden has had forthcoming, is it still douchey to be upset about that? Victims of false rape accusations are going to be upset even if the allegation doesn't have any political motivation at all.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's dangerously close to what Assange has been doing since day one.
Attack the victims, attack the victims, attack the victims.
Two women came forward to accuse him and the initial reason was to get the police to force him to take a test for STDs, as both women had a similar story regarding condoms/being boozed up with him.
He's since claimed that one of the women was sexually active and that the other was a boozehound.
There's two possibilities here.
1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.
2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.
Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.
Would the current Swedish or UK governments stand up to US pressure to hand over Assange to them on a silver platter? Don't even kid yourself.
So you know this much about the Swedish government, but not that Sweden can't promise the outcome of a judicial hearing?
Refer to my point above. The fact that Sweden legally can't make such a guarantee doesn't mean the threat of US extradition should be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone. One only has to look at the vitriol of public figures in the US towards him to see that the threat is not imagined.
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.
Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.
Not as much as you think it does.
Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.
The point that you're ignoring is this: There's a misconception that Assange has been accommodating and reasonable this whole time. If that were true, he wouldn't have made his surrender to the Swedish government conditional on them doing something that he (via his legal team) would know that the Swedish government cannot do as it is, effectively, unconscionable to the way their government works.
It's no different than some schmuck robbing a bank and demanding a helicopter to take him to a non-extradition country. The police will smile and nod; but that bird is not going to fly.
It's someone making unreasonable demands and then claiming "I tried to negotiate!" afterwards.
There's two possibilities here.
1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.
2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.
Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.
By your logic, Bill Cosby should be a free man.
The reason there is a "flagging investigation" is the Swedish government has not had realistic access to the main suspect since he left their country. Yeah yeah yeah, they questioned him in 2016 at the Ecuadorian embassy, but the times had to get shifted around so that his "legal team" could be there and he posted the transcripts of what was said and then had the audacity to claim that the Swedish investigators showed up and refused him access to his Swedish lawyers.
Refer to my point above. The fact that Sweden legally can't make such a guarantee doesn't mean the threat of US extradition should be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone. One only has to look at the vitriol of public figures in the US towards him to see that the threat is not imagined.
And, again, that "vitriol of public figures in the US towards him" was not as heavy during the Obama administration.
Assange helped galvanize the rhetoric of the Republican party against the Democrats. He's reaping what he sowed.
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.
The wonderful reality when a random guy decides to declare that he is the public face of an organization with the stated goal of publishing the dirt of major governments around the globe, only to turn around and complain that people are being "political" when it comes to anything involving him.
I guess the best thing you can do to avoid any criminal charges of any kind is to spend your life being an donkey-cave, because then you can claim that you never broke any laws and shouldn't be investigated and people are just being mean because you are an donkey-cave.
d-usa wrote: The wonderful reality when a random guy decides to declare that he is the public face of an organization with the stated goal of publishing the dirt of major governments around the globe, only to turn around and complain that people are being "political" when it comes to anything involving him.
I guess the best thing you can do to avoid any criminal charges of any kind is to spend your life being an donkey-cave, because then you can claim that you never broke any laws and shouldn't be investigated and people are just being mean because you are an donkey-cave.
The amount of bending over backward that is being done to defend Assange is baffling. He's no saint and has harmed innocent people in his efforts to get the 'truth' out. But for some reason the man who doesn't care about outing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia is beyond doubt when it comes to a rape case?
Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.
Not as much as you think it does.
Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.
How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?
The point that you're ignoring is this:
There's a misconception that Assange has been accommodating and reasonable this whole time. If that were true, he wouldn't have made his surrender to the Swedish government conditional on them doing something that he (via his legal team) would know that the Swedish government cannot do as it is, effectively, unconscionable to the way their government works.
It's no different than some schmuck robbing a bank and demanding a helicopter to take him to a non-extradition country. The police will smile and nod; but that bird is not going to fly.
It's someone making unreasonable demands and then claiming "I tried to negotiate!" afterwards.
There's two possibilities here.
1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.
2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.
Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.
By your logic, Bill Cosby should be a free man.
The reason there is a "flagging investigation" is the Swedish government has not had realistic access to the main suspect since he left their country.
Yeah yeah yeah, they questioned him in 2016 at the Ecuadorian embassy, but the times had to get shifted around so that his "legal team" could be there and he posted the transcripts of what was said and then had the audacity to claim that the Swedish investigators showed up and refused him access to his Swedish lawyers.
Refer to my point above. The fact that Sweden legally can't make such a guarantee doesn't mean the threat of US extradition should be dismissed out of hand. I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone. One only has to look at the vitriol of public figures in the US towards him to see that the threat is not imagined.
And, again, that "vitriol of public figures in the US towards him" was not as heavy during the Obama administration.
Assange helped galvanize the rhetoric of the Republican party against the Democrats. He's reaping what he sowed.
You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.
If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.
Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.
Not as much as you think it does.
Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.
How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?
How on earth is it a guarantee?
That's the point you keep glossing over.
You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.
Actually I keep arguing that for someone who whined about how governments are behaving in unlawful or shadowy ways, it's amazing how he wants a government to behave in exactly that way when it benefits him.
And the last part of your statement should really have told you all that needs to be said.
Sweden doesn't want to violate its own laws in a manner that is, essentially, compromising the principles of their judiciary.
If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
There's no point continuing the discussion with someone whose entire argument is based upon the idea that "Eventually, Sweden would have given him to the US so he should be kept safe!".
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.
???
Blame the edit system. I had pointed out some numbers regarding NYPD's security estimates for Trump Tower in NYC.
Simply put:
Don't spout off things like that without context. The 10 million GBP number being thrown about has, contextually, a very important caveat that you seemed to have missed in your quest to show how Assange has been "super duper wronged".
That caveat?
The 10 million GBP number is for "policing the Ecuadorian embassy" from June 2012 to October 2014.
As of right now, NYPD is ballparking a figure of close to $24million(with $7million being reimbursed by Congress) USD annuallyfor guarding Trump Tower just because Melania lives there and it's being used as a target for protesting/demonstrations.
Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.
Not as much as you think it does.
Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.
How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?
How on earth is it a guarantee?
That's the point you keep glossing over.
You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.
Actually I keep arguing that for someone who whined about how governments are behaving in unlawful or shadowy ways, it's amazing how he wants a government to behave in exactly that way when it benefits him.
And the last part of your statement should really have told you all that needs to be said.
Sweden doesn't want to violate its own laws in a manner that is, essentially, compromising the principles of their judiciary.
If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
There's no point continuing the discussion with someone whose entire argument is based upon the idea that "Eventually, Sweden would have given him to the US so he should be kept safe!".
Let's assume Assange surrenders himself and ends up in UK or Swedish custody. Do you honestly believe that the US will not request his extradition, and do you believe that such a request will not be complied with?
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.
???
Blame the edit system. I had pointed out some numbers regarding NYPD's security estimates for Trump Tower in NYC.
Simply put:
Don't spout off things like that without context. The 10 million GBP number being thrown about has, contextually, a very important caveat that you seemed to have missed in your quest to show how Assange has been "super duper wronged".
That caveat?
The 10 million GBP number is for "policing the Ecuadorian embassy" from June 2012 to October 2014.
As of right now, NYPD is ballparking a figure of close to $24million(with $7million being reimbursed by Congress) USD annuallyfor guarding Trump Tower just because Melania lives there and it's being used as a target for protesting/demonstrations.
The residence of the First Lady of the United States of America, the symbol of President Trump's considerable personal wealth, and in no small way a definitive symbol of his current presidency to the opposition.
Comparing the costs of protecting that gigantic tower from the vitriol of his detractors and very real enemies to the costs of constant 24 shifts and surveillance on a relatively insignificant south american embassy hosting someone that has jumped bail doesn't quite hold up.
Doesn't that support my point? The risk of him being extradited to the US is very real and entirely possible (and likely) should he step outside that Embassy.
Not as much as you think it does.
Look, I get that you think there's a possibility of it. Sure. There's a possibility of him having a decommissioned US satellite fall from orbit and striking him too. That doesn't mean it's likely.
How on earth is his eventual extradition to the US (by either the UK or Swedish governments) at all unlikely?
How on earth is it a guarantee?
That's the point you keep glossing over.
You keep arguing that Sweden has it's hands tied in the matter of extradition, that the judicial powers have the final say in an investigation that has been heavily political motivated with direct involvement of cabinet Ministers. This is simply not true. Swedish legislation gives the executive a 'wide discretion' when dealing with extradition matters. There could very easily be a way for Sweden to guarantee that extradition to a particular country would not be heard, or could be heard ex parte absentia. It is not that they absolutely can't, no way around it, it is that they don't want to work around it.
Actually I keep arguing that for someone who whined about how governments are behaving in unlawful or shadowy ways, it's amazing how he wants a government to behave in exactly that way when it benefits him.
And the last part of your statement should really have told you all that needs to be said.
Sweden doesn't want to violate its own laws in a manner that is, essentially, compromising the principles of their judiciary.
If you're going to bury you're head in the sand to avoid the political motivations behind this case I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
There's no point continuing the discussion with someone whose entire argument is based upon the idea that "Eventually, Sweden would have given him to the US so he should be kept safe!".
Let's assume Assange surrenders himself and ends up in UK or Swedish custody. Do you honestly believe that the US will not request his extradition, and do you believe that such a request will not be complied with?
A request might be made, but there is no guarantee that it would be complied with.
As someone in this very thread mentioned, Sweden isn't too fond of Trump.
So, as of November 2014(your article is dated February 2015 and the FOIA showed the figures up until the end of October the year before) over the course of 4 years the Met spent "about £10m" policing the Ecuadorian Embassy.
That doesn't necessarily, by the by, mean that all of that money was devoted to catching him or whatever nonsense. It would include things like riot/protest/assembly control costs, motorcade costs for the Ecuadorian ambassadorial staff, etc.
If you're going to make the argument that the 10 million cost and 24-hour police position is 'standard' for any embassy, especially a fairly minor one like Ecuador, the onus is on you to bring some comparative figures to support that.
???
Blame the edit system. I had pointed out some numbers regarding NYPD's security estimates for Trump Tower in NYC.
Simply put:
Don't spout off things like that without context. The 10 million GBP number being thrown about has, contextually, a very important caveat that you seemed to have missed in your quest to show how Assange has been "super duper wronged".
That caveat?
The 10 million GBP number is for "policing the Ecuadorian embassy" from June 2012 to October 2014.
As of right now, NYPD is ballparking a figure of close to $24million(with $7million being reimbursed by Congress) USD annuallyfor guarding Trump Tower just because Melania lives there and it's being used as a target for protesting/demonstrations.
The residence of the First Lady of the United States of America, the symbol of President Trump's considerable personal wealth, and in no small way a definitive symbol of his current presidency to the opposition.
Comparing the costs of protecting that gigantic tower from the vitriol of his detractors and very real enemies to the costs of constant 24 shifts and surveillance on a relatively insignificant south american embassy hosting someone that has jumped bail doesn't quite hold up.
A relatively insignificant South American embassy hosting "someone that has jumped bail" and made themselves a public front for WikiLeaks.
Say whatever you want at this juncture, but it's clear that you are extremely biased towards viewing this as a situation where everyone else is wrong but not Assange or his actions.
So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power? Is being involved with wikileaks blanket immunity to prosecution for any crime, or is there a point where Assange just has to face the charges like any other person?
There is absolutely no reason for the political pressure to renew and continue the investigation (direct from a cabinet Minister) unless there was an intention to earn some political gravitas with the US. Liberal Swedes may have no love for Trump, but there is no indication that the government has changed any agreement they had with the previous administration.
A relatively insignificant South American embassy hosting "someone that has jumped bail" and made themselves a public front for WikiLeaks.
Say whatever you want at this juncture, but it's clear that you are extremely biased towards viewing this as a situation where everyone else is wrong but not Assange or his actions.
My point was that the figure of 10 million pounds is certainly unusual if one was to assume that the motivation for detaining Assange was not political. People jump bail all the time, not even a fraction of the cost is spent pursuing them.
But we can leave off here, I doubt continuing like this will get us anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power? Is being involved with wikileaks blanket immunity to prosecution for any crime, or is there a point where Assange just has to face the charges like any other person?
The public doesn't really have access to much of the evidence garnered from the Swedish authorites, but what has been revealed isn't exactly foolproof. You'll have some diehards that would defend Assange against the US no matter the crime or evidence, and you'll have some vitriolic detractors so set on shutting him down they'll ignore any indication of innocence. As far as public support goes, I imagine the mere mention of anything related to child abuse would have his fans abandon him in short order. No matter how groundless such accusations were.
On top of that, there are many that will refuse to believe that their nation, or the US at least, could ever be involved in anything so underhanded. We've already seen a few of them in this thread, accusing others of essentially wearing tinfoil conspiracy hats for even suggesting that the motivation behind this ordeal is politics not justice.
1) The women involved in the investigation are telling the truth, contrary to Assange's version of events, and they are indeed victims.
2) The women involved are lying, or persuaded to participate in a groundless case, which is what Assange asserts, meaning that he is the victim.
Obviously, if the 2nd option is true then there is nothing 'douchey' about him being angry about it. There's no possible way to ascertain that outside of a court of law and, given that there is no version of events available to the public that paints Assange in those events in a damning light. That's not to say people should be asserting his innocence as a matter of fact, but in light of the flagging investigation any automatic assumptions of his guilt are completely groundless.
There's a third possibility. The women might genuinely believe their version of events, and believe they were violated by Assange, and at the same time Assange might genuinely believe he did nothing wrong, and received consent for everything he did. I don't know the details of case that well, but the charges aren't about rape drugs or use of threats that either did or did not happen, it's about molestation without consent and a possibly forced consent - these can be very difficult grey areas.
I sincerely doubt Assange has been huddled inside the building for this many years to avoid becoming embroiled in a lesser sex offence investigation alone.
I think people will do a hell of a lot more than Assange has done to avoid being labeled a rapist. Whether they did it or not that's a thing most people will fight like hell to avoid.
That said, Assange is certainly trying to avoid being extradited to the US, that is also part of his reaction to the attempt to extradite to Sweden. As to whether Sweden would actually do that is not known, certainly not to people in this thread, but its pretty clear that Assange thinks it likely and so it is almost certainly part of his motivations for acting as he has.
The whole reason why he was able to pull of this garbage from the get-go is because of people believing in ridiculously nebulous nefarious schemes.
The whole reason why this story became such a big deal as well is because he's been pushing that narrative since the outset of these charges.
You don't get put on Interpol's most wanted list for a broken condom, man. Don't tell me it wasn't political.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The amount of bending over backward that is being done to defend Assange is baffling. He's no saint and has harmed innocent people in his efforts to get the 'truth' out. But for some reason the man who doesn't care about outing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia is beyond doubt when it comes to a rape case?
Wikileaks gave a private release of information to Belarus, that identified pro-democracy actors in that country, many of whom are now political prisoners. They coordinated their DNC leaks to most benefit the Trump campaign (such as putting out salacious sounding, out of context quotes on emails about Clinton's Wall St speaches just hours after the Access Hollywood story broke), and of course they gave Trump campaign staffers forewarning of the leaks before they were made (Roger Stone knew of the Podesta emails a week before they were first released). The idea that wikileaks is just a neutral organisation trying to make governments transparent is past naive at this point.
Of course, that doesn't mean he should necessarily be extradited to the US, and he certainly shouldn't be facing the absurd jail times that were threatened at the time. But the defence some people have attempted that wikileaks acts neutrally towards all governments and all political parties isn't true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lord_blackfang wrote: You don't get put on Interpol's most wanted list for a broken condom, man. Don't tell me it wasn't political.
You've been misled. Interpol's "most wanted" list isn't like the FBI's most wanted or anything like that. Some parts of the internet tried to make it out that Assange was being put on a list alongside gangsters and serial killers, but those are silly parts of the internet that talk nonsense. What actually happened is that Sweden contacted interpol to have a "Red Notice" put out for Assange, this is a process that makes it known to all member countries that there is a warrant out for this person's arrest, so countries can identify these people and contact the country that issued the warrant. Pretty much anyone who jumps bail and leaves the country, or has an investigation conclude they need to return to that country to face charges will have a Red Notice put out on them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Humble Guardsman wrote: My point was that the figure of 10 million pounds is certainly unusual if one was to assume that the motivation for detaining Assange was not political. People jump bail all the time, not even a fraction of the cost is spent pursuing them.
There will be lots more money spent on high profile cases, regardless of the underlying crime. Between police and legal expenditure, the city of LA spent about 25 times more on the OJ trial than the average murder trial, because that's just how it works. High profile cases become more important, draw in more resources. And to a large extent it is money well spent, LA was a laughing stock for not getting a conviction on OJ, even if they'd gotten convictions on the next 100 murderers who came through, they were known for screwing up OJ. Imagine if one night Assange slipped away, and the UK admitted it had two officers working broken shifts because that's all the resources they had for this. It would make the country look like second amateurs.
Humble Guardsman wrote: There is absolutely no reason for the political pressure to renew and continue the investigation (direct from a cabinet Minister) unless there was an intention to earn some political gravitas with the US. Liberal Swedes may have no love for Trump, but there is no indication that the government has changed any agreement they had with the previous administration.
Ministerial interference in the judiciary's business is unconstitutional in Sweden, what Ygeman did was comment on the UNWGAD ruling because it's his job to comment on such things when asked by the press.
The assertion made in your first source that Sweden's status as a "Rechtstaat" is suffering because we're refusing to circumvent the principles of the Rechtstaat is absolutely insane. There's a bunch of other stuff in that source that I'd object to as well, but that'd be off-topic.
EDIT: To elaborate a bit on the Swedish domestic angle; in 2001 the Swedish government expelled two Egyptian-Swedish citizens and handed them over to the CIA. When this inevitably became public knowledge there was a public outcry and a major loss of prestige for the Social Democrats, who lost the 2006 election (the revelation was in late 2004 IIRC). The Social Democrats have been burned once already on extraditing people on spurious ground to the US. Add to that the fact that this already is a highly politicised case and that Assange is white and there is compelling interest for Sweden to NOT extradite him to the US
Peregrine wrote: So, here's a question: at what level of apparent guilt for what crime does the "OMG THE US MIGHT GET HIM" excuse lose its power? Is being involved with wikileaks blanket immunity to prosecution for any crime, or is there a point where Assange just has to face the charges like any other person?
The public doesn't really have access to much of the evidence garnered from the Swedish authorites, but what has been revealed isn't exactly foolproof. You'll have some diehards that would defend Assange against the US no matter the crime or evidence, and you'll have some vitriolic detractors so set on shutting him down they'll ignore any indication of innocence. As far as public support goes, I imagine the mere mention of anything related to child abuse would have his fans abandon him in short order. No matter how groundless such accusations were.
On top of that, there are many that will refuse to believe that their nation, or the US at least, could ever be involved in anything so underhanded. We've already seen a few of them in this thread, accusing others of essentially wearing tinfoil conspiracy hats for even suggesting that the motivation behind this ordeal is politics not justice.
The public includes you, so you have no proof that these accusations are either false or groundless. Did we seriously just go to "meh its just rape, now if it was pedophilia"? So his fans are perfectly ok with him dodging rape accusations but the line gets drawn at pedophilia? Really? I mean I know this is Dakka but
Disciple of Fate wrote: The amount of bending over backward that is being done to defend Assange is baffling. He's no saint and has harmed innocent people in his efforts to get the 'truth' out. But for some reason the man who doesn't care about outing homosexuals in Saudi Arabia is beyond doubt when it comes to a rape case?
Wikileaks gave a private release of information to Belarus, that identified pro-democracy actors in that country, many of whom are now political prisoners. They coordinated their DNC leaks to most benefit the Trump campaign (such as putting out salacious sounding, out of context quotes on emails about Clinton's Wall St speaches just hours after the Access Hollywood story broke), and of course they gave Trump campaign staffers forewarning of the leaks before they were made (Roger Stone knew of the Podesta emails a week before they were first released). The idea that wikileaks is just a neutral organisation trying to make governments transparent is past naive at this point.
Of course, that doesn't mean he should necessarily be extradited to the US, and he certainly shouldn't be facing the absurd jail times that were threatened at the time. But the defence some people have attempted that wikileaks acts neutrally towards all governments and all political parties isn't true.
True, Wikileaks is very slanted towards a certain set of nations and the involvement of certain people in the organization. Its hilarious that people defend this man as a whistle blower and champion of government transparency, when all he does is capitalize on the works of others such as Chelsea Manning. He doesn't even take the time to check anything before he just dumps it. For extra laughs, you should check out the tweet Wikileaks send to Snowden to accuse him of sucking up to Clinton while being neck deep up the Trump campaign: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/758781081072046080 Hypocrisy just doesn't begin to describe the immense irony.
I agree he should certainly not necessarily face extradition or absurd jail time. But I feel that he should need to be held accountable for leaking personal and private information of people who have done absolutely zero things wrong. 5 minutes of work could have prevented that harm, yet he couldn't even be bothered to protect the "little guy".
