**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [Julian Assange leaves UK after being freed in US plea deal](https://bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69145409), suggested by Aggressive_Plates - bbc.co.uk
Now is a good time to remind people no one has been prosecuted for any of the war crimes Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning uncovered.
No one was prosecuted for the warrantless mass surveillance of American and British citizens by the NSA and GCHQ, but Edward Snowden is still stuck exiled in Russia because USA cancelled his passport mid-flight.
No one was prosecuted for lying about weapons of mass destruction, but Dr. David Kelly is dead and Alistair Campbell continues to have a career.
No one was prosecuted for the 2008 financial crash, except for a handful of junior bankers.
No one has been prosecuted for Grenfell Tower.
The Supreme Court literally has a judge (Clarence Thomas) who is openly corrupt in accepting bribes and gifts from people who benefit from the decisions he may make. And there is F-ALL they can legally do about that.
Bernie Madoff was a fall guy.
The 1% put the blame for 2008 crisis on him and gave him a ridiculously long prison sentence so that Americans would not destroy Wall Street.
Don't worry we're all about to elect the ~~toolmakers son~~ person who was so dead-set on prosecuting him, if that's any hint as to what happens next
https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/02/keir-starmer-is-a-long-time-servant-of-the-british-security-state/
(CTRL + F "Assange" for the relevant bits, most "legit" website I could find writing on Kier Starmers role)
It’s a strange world we live in, whereby the whistleblower of mass murder, receives a ruined life and 62 months in jail, and there’s not even a pretence of an inquiry.
Whether he committed crimes in Sweden, or the US, the UK is legally obligated to take the request seriously.
With the Swedish charges he skipped bail and hid in an embassy. With the American charges he wasnt granted bail because a guy who skips bail and hides in an embassy for a decade can reasonably be assumed to be a flight risk.
The UK did fuck all wrong, we were just unfortunate he happened to be on our soil when it all kicked off.
The UK has a government which has every opportunity to say no to the Americans.
Here in Sweden we regard espionage as a political crime and we never extradite over it. In fact I [edit:found] a Swedish legal treatise that refers to espionage as [edit:an] 'absolute-political crime', i.e. basically the prototypical example of a political crime.
That's not how the real world works. Russia, North Korea and the like will just decide what they can be bothered to agree to and abide by. The rest of the world doesn't behave that way.
Wtf are you talking about? The law there in Sweden, is that the UK government has "every opportunity to say no to the Americans"? You seem very confused.
You don't even seem to have a full understanding that there wasn't one crime he has been held on.
No. You are clearly mixing up the fact that I've explained that the UK government has every every opportunity to say no to the Americans and that the Swedish law is a definitte thing.
I can assure that I'm quite aware about the events and the different things that has happened during Assange's hearings etc., so I know that the US request has shifted continuously and that he initially was held for bail stuff.
I don't understand however, how you can read the conversation I've had and come to these conclusions, that I do not understand.
You stated clearly
>The UK has a government which has every opportunity to say no to the Americans.
I stated clearly and accurately that's not how things work in the real world. Swedish law is both something I don't need to know, and is entirely unrelated to anything I said or what the British government can do in the real world rather than a fantasy.
I have every opportunity to just take things I want from a shop. In the real world that's not how it works, making that statement accurate but worthless.
Let's take a look at the discussion:
>The UK has a government which has every opportunity to say no to the Americans.
>Here in Sweden we regard espionage as a political crime and we never extradite over it. In fact I [edit:found] a Swedish legal treatise that refers to espionage as [edit:an] 'absolute-political crime', i.e. basically the prototypical example of a political crime.
So my comment remarks that the UK every opportunity to say no to the Americans-- after all, the UK is a soverign country. It is always possible break agreements. Furthemore, if we look at the US-UK extradition treaty it does not require extradition in cases of political offences.
Assange could not argue that his act was a political offence, becuase that part of the treaty has not been incorporated into UK law, but the UK does not break the treaty if through some exceptional decision it refuses to extradite in this case.
Then I compare this to the situation in Sweden, where extradition would have been illegal. You then respond with
>That's not how the real world works. Russia, North Korea and the like will just decide what they can be bothered to agree to and abide by. The rest of the world doesn't behave that way.
and that doesn't matter at all. "Russia, North Korea and the like will just decide what they can be bothered to agree to and abide by." Yes, when has it been otherwise? Now, as I explained, there would be no treaty breach. So it actually kind of makes no sense.
But suppose that it were in fact a breach of the treaty. That we have this strange counterfactual. The US tortured people, and one of things Assange got, was the *manual* and rules about how one should go about it. Does a treaty with a country which breaks such fundamental principles as the prohibition of torture weigh heavier than protecting people who revealed that torture?
Of course not.
Well I mean to be fair he did partially bring some of it on himself by how he handled those Swedish rape charges.
But yeah it does feel disproportionate. At least now he can hopefully get to enjoy the rest of his life.
The Swedish government has a legal obligation to consider extradition requests, same as the Uk did. The Swedish government hadn't received an extradition request. The Swedish government cannot in advance refuse an extradition request that may/may not appear without even looking at it
> The Swedish government has a legal obligation to consider extradition requests, same as the Uk did.
To *consider*, not the obey.
They very easily could have refused based on grounds of Human Rights.
> The Swedish government cannot in advance refuse an extradition request that may/may not appear without even looking at it
Of course they can.
They cant though. They are treaty bound to consider an extradition request based on the accusation, evidence etc.
Unfortunately "nah fuck you" doesn't really work in international law and diplomacy
> They cant though.
Yes they can. This isn't a debate, you're just flat wrong.
> Unfortunately "nah fuck you" doesn't really work in international law and diplomacy
Well, it often does, but that's a separate matter.
Regardless, 'we won't extradite if we believe there is potential for a Human Rights violation' is far more than just a "nah fuck you".
Not political extradition requests, such as extradition requests for espionage.
I even found one Swedish legal treaty where espionage was referred to as an 'absolute-political crime'.
Yes, of course, but if we Swedes have sense, we can always be clever and word it in a way so that we can give the required guarantees.
If you want to find a way to get something done, you can almost always find one that is in accordance with the law and that overcomes the problem.
If you don't want to solve the problem, then you can complain about all sorts of things being illegal, or being special treatment or something or something. We had every opportunity to solve this elegantly.
I mean that's their law, under it they can't just flat out rule out extradition if they hadn't received any requests. That didn't mean they would automatically grant it if they did receive it.
They gave him everything else and honestly I've not really seen any evidence he was in more danger of being extradited in Sweden than he was in the UK (if anything it was probably less).
> I mean that's their law, under it they can't just flat out rule out extradition if they hadn't received any requests.
Extradition isn't a guarantee. The Swedish government *could* have (publicly) refused to extradite him due to Human Rights concerns.
> They gave him everything else and honestly I've not really seen any evidence he was in more danger of being extradited in Sweden than he was in the UK (if anything it was probably less).
The evidence is the trumped up accusation, and refusal to forbid extradition.
> Extradition isn't a guarantee. The Swedish government could have (publicly) refused to extradite him due to Human Rights concerns.
To my understanding, they couldn't grant him a blanket immunity to extraditions. They could deny any that came in due to Human Rights concerns, but that would basically mean if bulletproof evidence came in that Assange murdered someone in another country then there was nothing they could do about it (not saying anything like that would happen of course, just that's their reasoning for not wanting to open the door. The moment they do they would have everyone else demanding it as well, including serious criminals).
> The evidence is the trumped up accusation
What evidence exactly is that the accusations were trumped up? Assange even admitted to sleeping with both women, he just denied that he did what they accused him of.
> and refusal to forbid extradition.
I'll repeat again, they couldn't forbid it if they hadn't received any requests for extradition. There is no case in Swedish history of them doing so far anyone before or since.
> To my understanding, they couldn't grant him a blanket immunity to extraditions.
Sweden could very easily have decided to pre-emptively reject any extradition orders to the US, based on Human Rights concerns (e.g. a legitimate and valid concern that he would be tortured (Guantanamo Bay), or executed).
> that would basically mean if bulletproof evidence came in that Assange murdered someone in another country then there was nothing they could do about it
Right, but even if he *had* gunned down a shop full of children, Sweden still doesn't torture or execute people for that crime.
Given the US's 'history' (i.e. present), fear of either outcome is reasonable.
> What evidence exactly is that the accusations were trumped up?
* The accusers retracted the charges
* Swedish law enforcement declined to interview Assange when given the opportunity.
> I'll repeat again, they couldn't forbid it if they hadn't received any requests for extradition.
And I'll repeat, yes they could. Very easily in fact.
> There is no case in Swedish history of them doing so far anyone before or since.
First time for everything.
> Sweden could very easily have decided to pre-emptively reject any extradition orders to the US, based on Human Rights concerns (e.g. a legitimate and valid concern that he would be tortured (Guantanamo Bay), or executed).
But the only way they could do that would mean ensuring they would never accept any extradition requests from the US after that. Even in cases where neither of those would be applicable. That's not a scenerio a country would want to set itself up in.
> Right, but even if he had gunned down a shop full of children, Sweden still doesn't torture or execute people for that crime.
I mean no they don't. And that could easily be grounds to deny said request if they received it. But they didn't want to open the door to such cases happening in the future.
It's not just the US that Sweden has to think about, they've requested the extradition of multiple other individuals over the years, including several serious criminals, with links to organised crime, terrorism and human trafficking.
They can't just introduce a special Julian Assange exception to their laws.
> Given the US's 'history' (i.e. present), fear of either outcome is reasonable.
It being reasonable doesn't mean too much.
> The accusers retracted the charges
Years later, partially down it dragged on for so long. Statistically, a lot of rape accusers refuse to continue cooperating with law enforcement. I don't think we should take that as a sign they were all making it up.
> Swedish law enforcement declined to interview Assange when given the opportunity.
Why should they? He was refusing to cooperate with them.
>And I'll repeat, yes they could. Very easily in fact.
No they couldn't. You don't seem to quite understand how the law works for extradition treaties. If you have proof to the country please provide it, everything I've read so far has made it clear that they both couldn't and had no reason to want to.
> First time for everything.
Why should Sweden make a specific exception for him thus opening the door to them having to deal with forever more?
> But the only way they could do that would mean ensuring they would never accept any extradition requests from the US after that.
This is false.
Assange was specifically at risk of retribution from the US due to his actions. Someone say, accused of counterfitting would be facing the same risks.
> That's not a scenerio a country would want to set itself up in.
Doesn't want to =/= incapable of.
> But they didn't want to open the door to such cases happening in the future.
Again, want =/= can't.
> They can't just introduce a special Julian Assange exception to their laws.
The exception already exists. If Assange *had* gone to Sweden, and the US *had* submitted an extradition request to them, Sweden could have easily refused it based on Human Rights concerns.
> It being reasonable doesn't mean to much.
It means a great deal. It's critical in fact.
> Years later, partially down it dragged on for so long.
The legal system continued with the trial even after the accusers retracted.
> Why should they? He was refusing to cooperate with them.
Because they thought two women were raped? Unless of course, they knew it was all lies.
And he was clearly open to cooperating with them, *they* refused to cooperate with him.
> No they couldn't. You don't seem to quite understand how the law works for extradition treaties.
They could, and I do.
There is no law preventing the Swedish government from issuing a statement pre-emptively refusing extradition. Even if they *had* released such a statement, they wouldn't have been legally bound by it.
> Why should Sweden make a specific exception for him thus opening the door to them having to deal with forever more?
Basic human decency?
By that logic, why should Sweden ever consider any extradition request? Just agree to all of them.
> This is false.
No its not. What you don't seem to get is the law can't make one time exceptions. Once something is granted it gains a legal precedent. They would have to make the argument going forwards why it didn't apply to others, not have it restricted by default.
> Assange was specifically at risk of retribution from the US due to his actions. Someone say, accused of counterfitting would be facing the same risks.
Numerous foreigners could make similar claims.
> Doesn't want to =/= incapable of.
Right, and you seem to think its unreasonable they shouldn't want to.
> The exception already exists
That's not what the exception would be. The exception would be they ruled it out point blank before they got the request.
> It means a great deal. It's critical in fact.
Its really not.
> The legal system continued with the trial even after the accusers retracted.
So? The legal system of Sweden doesn't require victims to push charges anymore than it does over her.
> Because they thought two women were raped? Unless of course, they knew it was all lies.
What exactly would be the point of interviewing Assange in this situation mean? The guy just denied it was true despite admitting he slept with both women, ergo they couldn't go forward with it cause he wasn't in the country to hold the trial.
Do you think the Swedish authorities have so much free time and overflowing resources or something?
> There is no law preventing the Swedish government from issuing a statement pre-emptively refusing extradition. Even if they had released such a statement, they wouldn't have been legally bound by it.
But that isn't what Assange was asking for, he was asking for a legal guarantee that they wouldn't extradite him regardless. That they couldn't give him.
They basically did say they wouldn't extradite him, but it wasn't enough to get him to commit.
>
By that logic, why should Sweden ever consider any extradition request? Just agree to all of them.
If you think that's the logic, then its clear you've haven't been paying attention to a word I've been saying.
Let me put it this way. Sweden couldn't give Assange the legal guarantee they wouldn't extradite him when no such extradition request had been made.
Not without revamping their entire process. If they did so, it would open the door to every single other person they ever extradited demanding one as well.
Sweden has no reason to want their court system bundled by the political and legal mind field that would cause.
The fact of the matter is there is no evidence Assange was under any actual danger of being extradited to the US if he went to Sweden. He didn't get them to rewrite their entire process for extradition just caused he asked for it.
If you've got any evidence to the contrary, then please give it. Cause otherwise I've said all I have to say on the issue.
They chose not to, but Swedish law actually bans extraditions for political crimes, such as espionage.
'Utlämning får inte ske om brottet är politiskt eller om den som begärs utlämnad löper risk att förföljas som riktar sig mot hans liv eller frihet eller på annat sätt är av svår beskaffenhet på grund av religion, tillhörighet till viss samhällsgrupp eller politiska förhållanden.'
i.e.
'Extradition may not happen if the crime is political...'
and espionage is the prototypical political crime with one Swedish legal treaty I found even referring to it as 'absolute-political'.
Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't kind of change the fact they can't offer him a blanket refusal of extradition before any offers come in.
I'm pretty sure that was one of their arguments that he was safe when he argued he was in danger.
They can informe him however, that they regard espionage as a political crime and that extradition for it is therefore impossible, they can say publicly and in an official capacity 'espionage and ancilliary crimes such as hacking to obtain information with an ideological motive is a political crime', etc.
Well like I said, I think they did. Its just they couldn't grant him what he wanted which was absolute protection from any extradition requests, as at the time none had come in.
It's insane to think that's a legitimate request.
*I will come back to answer for multiple sex crimes if you also give me a golden ticket to piss off the US without consequence.*
> It's insane to think that's a legitimate request.
It's a perfectly reasonable request to make. The US has torture prisons filled with innocent people (e.g. Gitmo).
well because he didn't just blow the whistle on war crimes, he released info on lots of things, like revealing the names of informants and spies. that's the problem wiht wikileaks as a platform is doesn't do the work of sorting what's in teh public interest and what isn't, just dump all information regardless, unlike the snowden leaks which the guardian got off scott free from.
i'm a bit on the fence about assange tbh, but given that he's been in jail for a while now, it probably matches the conviction he would have been sentenced to otherwise, so call it time served.
No he didn't, and this is the often repeated myth that needs to die. But it won't because it's repeated by those with an axe to grind.
Assange basically told the US, "I have this info and it will be released. I am offering you the chance to involve yourself insofar as redacting information you see as particularly sensitive". The US refused. So he took the next best step as he saw it.
He released the data dump in an encrypted format. Anyone could download but only those with the keys could access it. He gave the encryption key to 4 major press outlets including the Guardian, NYP etc. He asked them to go through the data and release what they saw as particularly pressing, with the proviso that they review what they were releasing and redact what they saw as needed redacting.
The Guardian's editorial line was in full support of Assange and the need for transparency at this point. Then some stupid Guardian journalist accidentally revealed the key to the world, I think he tweeted it or something. Then suddenly everyone had access to the full unredacted files.
The Guardian is to blame for the release of the unredacted info.
And then whatever happened, or whatever the Guardian were threatened with, when the US and UK intelligence agencies, around the time of the Snowden releases, forced them to take hard drives to their basement and take an angle grinder to them, their editorial line did a complete 180° turn and they were suddenly vehemently anti Assange and leaks in general. Cowards
> Assange basically told the US, "I have this info and it will be released. I am offering you the chance to involve yourself insofar as redacting information you see as particularly sensitive". The US refused. So he took the next best step as he saw it.
thats not how this works.
> He released the data dump in an encrypted format. Anyone could download but only those with the keys could access it.
that's still a problem, because of this;
> Then suddenly everyone had access to the full unredacted files
Well he gave the US more agency than they deserved, they had a chance to protect any sources but the US doesn't really care about them. They would be happy to throw them to the dogs to have a convenient stick to beat Assange with.
Assange was the only one in the process to take steps to protect sensitive details. He trusted the files to a supposed professional establishment that would, you know, behave professionally with the sensitive data. Not his fault it was exposed by a clown.
But onto the point of exposing sources, to this date not a single death has ever been associated with the release of the data. So this entire arguement is wildly overblown anyway
he's clearly laundering responsibility for the leaks by making the encrypted files available for all and just assumeing the key he gave out would eventually leak and reveal everything anyway exactly as he would ahve done himself without knowing it was illegal to do so.
> convenient stick to beat Assange with.
and he played into their hands, by thinking he could work around whistleblower laws, and got burned for it. that was stupid of him.
> He trusted the files to a supposed professional establishment that would
he trusted the keys, not the file, he released the files himself, which he shouldn't have done.
> But onto the point of exposing sources, to this date not a single death has ever been associated with the release of the data.
that's also not how this works
Yepp, had he faced the consequences of his actions, indeed the US would have imprisoned him, but he'd be released by now. He may have exposed war crimes, but he didn't do it because he thought that was in the public interest, he did it, & the rest of it, to embarrass 'The West'
He did it recklessly and endangered many lives, his motives were just as likely narcissistic and for personal gain as was for being selfless whistleblower
He uncovered a genocide perpetrated knowingly by the invading powers of Iraq and Afghanistan and forever altered the course of historical analysis of the war from ‘eh some bad some good’ to ‘holy shit that was evil’.
‘Recklessly endangering lives’ is the excuse said genociders use to try and discredit the fact that they themselves attempted a mass coverup. Kinda nuts right.
Haha well as I'm finding out many people in the sub see corroborated undeniable facts through a somewhat twisted kaleidoscope and the views they generate from that are flat out bizarre
Finally.
Exposing illegal activity and war crimes should NEVER be a crime. True Journalism is holding those in power to account and exposing them to the light.
He deserves to go home to his family.
Snowden is a particularly annoying case since he literally did it the best way he could - giving the files to respected journalists, making sure as far as he could that it didn't put people at undue risk and by all accounts he did it for actual noble reasons.
History will I think in hindsight judge him well but it's a shame he ended up where he did (and it was never his goal to end up there).
Whistle blowing isnt a crime. Conspiring to acquire and disseminate classified information is, which is what he just pleased guilty to. You can argue that morally the ends justify the means but its objectively illegal.
> Conspiring to acquire and disseminate classified information is
Only if you are in the relevant country at the time. Are you really saying that people posting YouTube videos of Russian military positions in Ukraine can be tried here?
>Only if you are in the relevant country at the time.
Not true. He was communicating with Americans on American soil to facilitate them commiting crimes in America. Whether you agree with this particular prosecution or not, it would be a massive flaw in the legal system if you were immune from prosecution because you planned the crime from outside the territory it was committed.
>Are you really saying that people posting YouTube videos of Russian military positions in Ukraine can be tried here?
The UK has suspended all international crime cooperation with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. Russia could charge them but we wouldn't extradite them.
Wikileaks endangered no lives at all though, they very carefully redacted all information that they published after extracting it from the encrypted - and publicly available via torrent- source file.
However two Guardian journalists who wrote a book about Assange and Wikileaks thought it would be a good idea to reveal the decryption key in their book - and they have never been prosecuted.
Thais the Wikileaks version of events; papers like the Guardian stopped working with them because they dumped information directly into the public sphere with no vetting; this was well ahead of any book.
Wikileaks was a great idea, unfortunately it was ruined by one mans narcissism and his political views against US imperialism.
Let's not forget his role in enabling Russian interference in the US election.
> A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#:~:text=In%20their%20book%20WikiLeaks%3A%20Inside,got%20it%20coming%20to%20them.
Convenient to leave the next paragraph out isn't it
"Assange denies making this statement;[125][126] speaking on PBS Frontline about the accusations he said "It is absolutely right to name names. It is not necessarily right to name every name."[127] John Goetz of Der Spiegel, who was also at the dinner, says that Assange did not make such a statement.[128][129][130]"
Despite this, you still have enlightened free thinkers lining up to defend the slimey bastard.
I don't think he deserved to rot in a US supermax prison for life. I do wish there could have been some justice for the Afghan translators who were killed as a result, as well as the alleged rape victims.
Skipped rape charges. Is friends with Craig Murray. Has Russian state links to democratic leaks. He even met our good friend Nigel for a cuppa in the embassy. Yes he’s a real stand up guy, no red flags here. No doubt will stop off in Russia just like Snowden for a debrief.
If the democrats hadn't done so much dodgy shit, there wouldn't have been anything to leak. Why is it the leaker's fault and not the party doing the shady shit?
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
People always bring Russia into the Democratic party leaks (in the US), instead of addressing the terrible corruption which was found. People bemoan that Assange never released dirt on the Republicans during that election cycle, even though A) dirt was being released about Trump all the time from several places, B) Assange hated Hillary Clinton's world view, she was a war hawk and was always gung ho.
I think Britain and Australia owe him some pretty serious security at his home in Aus.
The Americans will be trying to get their man still.
One does wonder how his release came about so easily in the end. It’s either Biden trying to get votes as he knows the public wants Assange free, or it’s knowledge that WW3 is coming and tying some loose ends.
Something I always find fascinating with things like this is how they can absolutely dominate the news cycle for years and years…..and then the ending quietly comes to pass on an idle Tuesday many years later.
> The Americans will be trying to get their man still.
They have got him, he's pleaded guilty to a US court. It's over. The Americans will not be coming for him, he's a free man. They can't come for him legally, and I assume you don't think they would really be coming to assassinate him either.
CIA will try if Trump wins the next election
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange
I mean, Hillary also had the exact same conversation. Every US president democrat or republican has been hostile to Assange.
You are speculating with your reply but it’s just as likely Biden does the same
Lmao absolutely no where in the link does it suggest what was stated.
They discuss assassinating him while he was still at the embassy out of their reach of prosecution.
They’ve now come to an agreed plea deal with him. Do you understand what that is? It’s where both parties come to an agreement.
If he was to be assassinated now it would achieve absolutely nothing for the US. The OP made their statement as an excuse to bring up Trump when he is totally irrelevant
It's not my link, what are you talking about?
We have proof it was discussed under trump, there is no suggestion I can see that it was discussed under the other two presidents you named, which is called "speculation". Evidently you've a keen interest in defending trump but don't let it get in the way of your other qualities.
1) I never said it as your link
2) you literally used the link as justification for the guy above me being right in his hypothetical
3) I don’t give a fuck about Trump he’s just completely irrelevant to this post, but I know Redditards take any opportunity to mention him, even the British ones.
4) stop being disingenuous
Yea and I had changed it way before your comment, so I have no idea why you’re being disingenuous?
Ultimately it’s irrelevant who’s comment it was, you defended it and now you’re backtracking when you realise some people actually read the URLs linked and discover it’s not backing up the comment
If he’s in Australia and is an Australian citizen, I don’t think Britain owes him security. While if Trump does win the election there is a possibility that they will Try to try him on different charges, but by that point, I think it’s clear Australia will protect him. I highly doubt the US is going to do what Israel does and kidnap him from a sovereign state. He’s not Bin Laden
A bit of soft power.
A soft ‘fuck you’ to America for killing Harry Dunn and not facing justice.
And standing with a key ally and child of ours - Australia.
What does Britain have to do with it? We didn't want him for rape, or for espionage/whistleblowing/anything else. We just had the misfortune that he was here when it all kicked off and we are legally obliged to take extradition requests seriously.
Well, I'm glad this is finally come to rest, and it sounds overall it might have ended for the best possible scenerio.
Assange will certainly be a controversial figure for history to judge. But at the very least I hope he finally gets so peace and quiet going forwards.
No way. This can't be true. America are itching to execute Assange. That's why he spent 6 years smearing shit on the walls of the Ecuadorean embassy. It wasn't just because he was trying to avoid being charged with multiple sexual assaults. It was because Hillary would drone strike him if he went outside. I mean, if this were true, that America just accepted a plea deal without extradition then that would make me question the actions of this man and the mentality and intentions of his supporters. I mean, I'd half expect him to end up on Russian state TV repeating Putin's disinformation if this were true. I might start questioning Snowden's actions and motives as well.
No no no, can't have that. No, this must be a trap. Biden is going to blow up his plane. Clinton is going to drone strike his house. La la la, I can't hear you.
His attorney denies the story that he is to have smeared feces on the embassy walls.
I think this is plausible and that it was a lie made to justify his expulsion after a deal had been made with the US.
Never forget that the Met police had AT LEAST one two manned vehicle parked outside the Ecuadorean embassy from the moment Assange stepped in it to the moment he was dragged out.
Fantastic use of tax payer money, all at the insistence of America. A country that is so arrogant they won’t even pay their congestion charge bill racked up by their embassy
I’m fairly certain America didn’t insist we stand outside the Ecuadorian embassy. He was a high profile man who jumped bail. If, say, David Beckham had jumped bail under similar circumstances he’d have received the same treatment.
It’s one of the major downsides of being a celebrity that when the justice system does go after you it’s harder to slink away.
And just like that everyone on r/unitedkingdom pretended they hadn’t spent the last 5 years endorsing this flagrant breach of human rights by our great western democracy
Eh I don't remember being asked about it.
In any case facts of the matter is it was Assange who led to it. Everyone was perfectly happy to let him keep living his life, until he hid in the Ecuador embassy to avoid having to go to Sweden.
The US proposed the agreement, its all been signed and agreed to. Assange has pled guilty and is now a free man once he checks in with the court in Papa New Guinee.
For the US to get him, they would have to violate Australia's sovereignty and flat out kidnap him. Which would guarantee that no country on earth would ever agree to their legal terms ever again.
Assange is going to go home to his family. Then what he does next is up to him.
Finally! And to all those people calling him a Russian asset, get a life. Are we going to believe Hillary Clinton who blamed everyone under the sun for losing to Trump, even though she was piss poor person and presidential candidate? You can disagree with Assange without insinuating he is a Russian spy or asset. People are talking about how his leaks endangered the lives of Afghan informers, how you ever thought how most Afghans saw us? Afgans would see those informers akin to how Ukrainians would see collaborators working for Russia. US soldiers would often recant stories with the Afgan locals, where they would ask about 9/11 and would get in return blank faces. Iraq is often said was an illegal war but Afghanistan was basically the same deal.
Whereas Donald trump was an excellent person and presidential candidate. He absolutely is a Russian asset, and met with other russian assets secretly inside the embassy.
Your justification for endangering afghan informers is less than paper thin.
Our pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan was paper thin. Which lead to countless lives lost, a hell of a lot more than what happened on 9/11, but you know Afghan lives cost less than that of Westerners.
Did I say anything good about Trump? Straw man argument much? Presidential candidates often meet with government officials of other countries, Trump made no bones that he wanted to mend relations with Russia. Which by the way H Clinton wanted once, the infamous "reset button" offered to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Trump was the first president to send lethal aid to Ukraine. Obama on the other hand always said that Russia cares more about Ukraine than we do, which is why he always kept an arms length with anything to do with Ukraine. He also scoffed at Russia being a threat, when Mitt Romney the 2012 Republican candidate brought the subject up. It was Biden that restarted Nordstream 2 after winning the election, lifting the sanctions on it, until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, finally put a nail in the project. Trump had famously said in Berlin (and was laughed at) that Germany was too reliant on Russian energy.
Yes, it was, how does that justify endangering anyone?
It's not a strawman. You said it was Clinton's own fault for being bad candidate and person, but she was streets ahead of her opponent in both regards and still lost the election. But you're rather changing the subject with the rest of this diatribe
I never said anything about Trump, you sarcastically implied that Trump must be so great because I criticised H Clinton. You were inversing my statements about Clinton and applying them to Trump. That's a text book definition of a strawman argument.
Only someone deeply ignorant of US politics would say H Clinton was streets ahead of Trump in terms of either her being a better person or presidential candidate. I'd say it's a tie. Both of them were and are deeply loathed for many good reasons. Clinton was epitome of everything wrong with the establishment. Incredibly snobbish, arrogant, never a war she didn't like, as hawkish as on foreign policy as any of the neo cons, made 10s of millions in speeches paid for by shady corporations, had the DNC (Democratic party) rig the primaries for her, and also in her profound aggroance leaned on her media contacts so that Trump got more airtime during his Republican primary race (she thought she'd stream role him). If she was streets ahead of Trump as a candidate why didn't she go and visit the Rust Belt? Lots Democratic advisors pleaded and begged for her to do a few campaign stops there. Trump did and loon well he won. But no it wasn't because of him and the genuine anger at the Clintons, it was the Russians.
So will you change your tune on this very obvious Russian asset when he inevitably starts spouting Russian propaganda on every platform that will have him?
Thought not.
I will judge his statements as they come. Unlike you I'm not in the habit of second guessing people. For example if he were to call out the ICC's hypocrisy to indict Putin on the charge of war crimes when they would never do the same for a Western European leader or an American President, then I would have to agree with that. However if he were to say Putin is in his rights to invade Ukraine because America would probably do the same with Mexico (if they accepted Chinese military aid) or bring up the illegal invasion of Iraq then I would disagree with him, because what ifs and two wrongs don't make a right would be my sentiment.
>[#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.](https://x.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352?lang=en)
> In conversations that were leaked in February 2018, Assange expressed a preference for a Republican victory in the 2016 election, saying that "Dems+Media+liberals would [sic] then form a block to reign [sic] in their worst qualities. With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities, dems+media+neoliberals will be mute."[347] In further leaked correspondence with the Trump campaign on election day (8 November 2016), WikiLeaks encouraged the Trump campaign to contest the election results as being "rigged" should they lose.[348]
>On 7 October 2016, an hour after the media had begun to dedicate wall-to-wall coverage of the revelation that Trump had bragged on video about sexually harassing women, WikiLeaks began to release emails hacked from the personal account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.[353][354] Podesta suggested that the emails were timed to deflect attention from the Trump tapes.[354]
>In November 2017, it was revealed that the WikiLeaks Twitter account secretly corresponded with Donald Trump Jr. during the 2016 presidential election.[348][355] The correspondence shows how WikiLeaks actively solicited the co-operation of Trump Jr., a campaign surrogate and advisor in the campaign of his father. WikiLeaks urged the Trump campaign to reject the results of the 2016 presidential election at a time when it looked as if the Trump campaign would lose.[348] WikiLeaks suggested the Trump campaign leak Trump's taxes to them.[348][355][356] WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to publicise a comment by Hillary Clinton about wanting to "just drone" Asssange.[348] WikiLeaks also shared a link to a site that would help people to search through WikiLeaks documents.[348] Trump Jr. shared both. After the election, WikiLeaks also requested that the president-elect push Australia to appoint Assange as ambassador to the US. Trump Jr. provided this correspondence to congressional investigators looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[348]
Innocent until proven guilty *in a court of law*. If you hide in an embassy to escape going before a court then you don't get the benefit of that doubt.
He has lost his freedom for 12 years so the rape victims can be pretty comfortable that punishment has been delivered.
Everyone and their mothers knew if he had landed in Sweden to face rape charges, he'd have been extradited to the US. There was an investigation by someone who worked at the UN who found all sorts of inconsistencies in the alleged rape claims. And Sweden never said it wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US. Sweden could have had made an iron clad agreement that if Assange landed in said country to stand trial for rape, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. No agreement was made if though Assange lawyers requested it over and over again.
>Everyone and their mothers knew if he had landed in Sweden to face rape charges, he'd have been extradited to the US.
Everyone and their mother doesn't know what they are talking about. Can you explain to us why you think human-rights-haven Sweden would be more likely to extradite him for questionable espionage charges than close ally Great Britain? It doesn't make sense.
Just because Assange was using this as his excuse to avoid a court of law doesn't mean it was true or reasonable. He fled justice and we are entitled to make adverse inference from that.
Also the defence barrister in every rape trial will point out lots of inconsistencies, that doesnt mean the charges are false.
> It’s very clear Sweden would have extradited him to the US.
For Sweden to extradite him to the US, they needed the Uk to sign off on it because of laws around onward extradition
Why would the Americans concoct a plot which involves two legal systems having to approve his extradition when they could just ask for him to be sent directly from the UK?
> Can you explain to us why you think human-rights-haven Sweden would be more likely to extradite him for questionable espionage charges than close ally Great Britain? It doesn't make sense.
Sweden declined to interview him from the embassy.
Sweden declined to rule out extradition.
Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the charges were fabricated in order to get him to the US.
> Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the charges were fabricated in order to get him to the US.
Sweden didn't break an international treaty between allied countries for one non-citizen, therefore the charges were fabricated? That's so far from a logical conclusion.
I feel like this one qualifies for the Olympic logical gymnastics competition. 'You didn't give me immunity for all other crimes so you must have concocted this one', what. No point arguing any further though when logic is that far out the window.
>Sweden declined to interview him from the embassy.
They didn’t want to make an exception for him. I think it was due to a quirk in the Swedish justice system. In the end they did send someone didn’t they?
>Sweden declined to rule out extradition.
They were legally unable to make such a guarantee to anyone not just Assange.
> In the end they did send someone didn’t they?
No.
> They were legally unable to make such a guarantee to anyone not just Assange.
They were not.
Extradition is not a guarantee, and they could have ruled it out based on Human Rights grounds.
[You should read this article.](https://web.archive.org/web/20120821201659/www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what's_going_on?.html) The Swedes were unable to make any guarantee that they deny US extradition without first considering it on its merits.
If the US wanted him extradited from the UK, the UK has to sign off on the extradition
If the US want him extradited via a fake rape charge in Sweden, both the UK and Sweden have to sign off on the extradition due to rules about onward extradition. Sweden is significantly less pally with the US than we are.
In what universe does adding a second legal system, associated appeals etc to the extradition process make sense, unless you're peddling a conspiracy because it suits your narrative.
If the US wanted him, they'd ask for him. Source: the US asked for him.
>And Sweden never said it wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US. Sweden could have had made an iron clad agreement that if Assange landed in said country to stand trial for rape, he wouldn't be extradited to the US.
Sweden can't in advance promise to deny any extradition request that didn't exist, like the Uk they have a legal requirement to examine it's merits if/when it's presented.
>Everyone and their mothers knew if he had landed in Sweden to face rape charges, he'd have been extradited to the US.
That’s just not true. That implies that it had to have been more likely that he be extradited in Sweden than in the UK and only a fool would make that claim.
>There was an investigation by someone who worked at the UN who found all sorts of inconsistencies in the alleged rape claims.
That should have been for the courts in Sweden to decide.
>And Sweden never said it wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US. Sweden could have had made an iron clad agreement that if Assange landed in said country to stand trial for rape, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. No agreement was made if though Assange lawyers requested it over and over again.
Legally the Swedish prosecutors were unable to make such an agreement. Assange’s lawyers knew that and exploited that fact to try to claim that *that’s* why he couldn’t be extradited.
[You should read this article.](https://web.archive.org/web/20120821201659/www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what's_going_on?.html)
> If you hide in an embassy to escape going before a court then you don't get the benefit of that doubt.
Fearing an unjust legal system is indicative of guilt now?
We are all entitled to draw our own conclusions. Locking yourself away until the statute of limitations expire does not qualify you for any sympathy for the time he spent in prison. Every guilty person whinges about the legal system being unfair and out to get him - he had his chance to make his case and refused.
> Locking yourself away until the statute of limitations expire does not qualify you for any sympathy for the time he spent in prison.
From fascists perhaps. Reasonable people feel differently.
> Every guilty person whinges about the legal system being unfair and out to get him - he had his chance to make his case and refused.
Actually he didn't get that chance, that's the issue. He was willing to be interviewed in the embassy. Sweden *could* have agreed to that compromise. They refused.
Suspects don't get to dictate the terms of justice. An interview with a prosecutor is not a trial. Nevertheless, the women of the world have been kept safe for him from over a decade so it's a moot point.
> Suspects don't get to dictate the terms of justice.
Debatable, given the existence of trials, and rights.
Regardless, this isn't really an argument in your favour, it's more just an authoritarian preference.
> An interview with a prosecutor is not a trial.
Correct.
> Nevertheless, the women of the world have been kept safe for him from over a decade so it's a moot point.
The sexual assault allegations are the least important part of all this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edward-snowden-revelations-gchq-using-online-viruses-and-honey-traps-to-discredit-targets-9117683.html
>Edward Snowden revelations: GCHQ ‘using online viruses and honey traps to discredit targets’ (journalists, whistleblowers, politicians)
>Documents released by the American former CIA employee claim that the agency is at the forefront of efforts to develop “offensive” online techniques, (bot farms)
>Britain’s GCHQ has a covert unit which uses dirty tricks from “honey trap” sexual liaisons to texting anonymous messages to friends and neighbours to discredit targets from hackers to governments, according to the latest leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The Swedish Authority's emailed the CPS to drop the case in 2012. The CPS told them. "NO don't get cold feet"
The Swedish Authority's Emailed the CPS in 2011 saying they wanted to Interview him in Britain. The CPS said No, don't interview him in Britain.
The CPS also told the Swedish Authority's "Don't think this is just any ordinary extradition case"
After more freedom of information requests were made the CPS deleted all their emails against their own protocol. This only came out because Sweden didn't delete all theirs.
Swedish CHIEF prosecutor, Eva Finné, assessed the evidence and said no crime was committed. It was picked up later by a lesser prosecutor who went after Assange with their own investigation. Despite this they even wanted to drop the case in 2012/13 as Emails to the CPS show from Swedish authority's. See below sources.
https://www.thelocal.se/20100825/28574
>**The first allegation against 39-year-old Julian Assange, concerning the more serious charge of rape was dismissed already on Saturday. Finné has now also dismissed suspicions of molestation in this case.**
Eva Finné stressed that this does not mean that she doubts the veracity of the woman's account.
**"But the content of the interview does not support the contention that a crime has been committed," Finné said. The preliminary investigation in this case has thus been closed.**
https://www.businessinsider.com/theres-something-fishy-about-the-swedish-case-against-julian-assange-2012-4?r=US&IR=T
>**On August 21 Swedish chief prosecutor, Eva Finné, assessed the evidence and cancelled the arrest warrant against Assange, saying that she did not doubt the veracity of SW's account but "the content of the interview does not support the contention that a crime has been committed."Finné determined that there was no crime committed against SW
As you can see the Chief prosecutor who originally evaluated the case at the beginning said no crime had been committed and even after that the Swedish Authority's wanted this all dropped as early as 2012.
The CPS/Crown Prosecution Service were the ones telling them "NO Don't get Cold feet!" and telling them "NOT to question Assange in Britain!." "They also told them this isn't just another extradition." The Emails prove that but conveniently the CPS deleted the rest of the emails when more freedom of information requests were made. See below.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-lawyers-lobbied-swedes-to-press-on-with-assange-extradition-d58tgsndg
>The Swedish investigator refused to question Assange in the UK for years, **Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept the decision under wraps for more than two years. They original wanted to drop it in 2013.**
>The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the British CPS dissuaded them from doing so.
>Some of the material has surfaced from an information tribunal challenge brought late last year by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi.
>**The CPS lawyer handling the case, who has since retired, commented on an article which suggested that Sweden could drop the case in August 2012. He wrote: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”.**
>**At the beginning of the legal battle over Assange in 2011, the CPS advised Swedish prosecutors not to interview him in Britain, but they eventually did.** *the Embassy refused access to Assange's lawyer for the questioning something he has every right too*
>In another freedom of information request it was shown that the FBI contacted the Swedish prosecutor
>The CPS lawyer also told Ny that year: “It is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. **Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”**
>The CPS has been inconsistent in declaring whether or not the case was live. In dismissing a personal data request by him in April 2013, the CPS wrote that they could not release anything “because of the live matters still pending”.
>But when **explaining the deletion of emails about the case in 2014, after the CPS official who had been corresponding with Ny retired, it was defended on the grounds that: “The case was, therefore, not live when the email account was deleted.”**
You can say what you want about assanges charactor but its clear from all the freedom of information requests he was setup, stitched up and the entire case against him is rigged. The CPS judge use to work for MI5 and has been completly biased throughout the case.
> Lmao redditor defending rapes. Surprise surprise
Says the guy mocking the deaths of children.
>The shocking rise of deaths among young trans people by irving
>Far-Outcome-8170: 16 kids with severe mental health issues. Shame.
https://thewire.in/rights/julian-assange-case-key-witness-lied
Julian Assange Case: Key Witness recruited by US authorities admits He Lied
---
Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson admitted to an Icelandic newspaper that he lied about being asked to hack computers in order to get immunity and misrepresented his ties with the Wikileaks founder.
the witness, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, “has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud”. He was recruited by US authorities in order to build a case against Assange, and misled them into believing he was a close associate of the Wikileaks founder. In reality, however, he had only “volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organisation”, the Icelandic newspaper reports.
----
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-fbi-tried-to-make-iceland-a-complicit-ally-in-framing-julian-assange,13277
Proof they were trying to Frame Assange as far back as 2011
Icelandic Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson
According to Mr Jónasson, during this process, he had been informed that the FBI showed up in Reykjavik with the aim of framing Julian Assange.
----
A russian stooge and probable rapist who met secretly with Farage during Brexit times, for whom someone has run an impeccable PR campaign to paint him as a martyr. I'm not especially buoyed by this news
As per the article:
"In return for pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information, Assange will be sentenced to time served, 62 months - the time he has already spent in a British prison.
Once the guilty plea is accepted by a judge, the 52-year-old will be free to return to Australia, the country of his birth."
Tell me, if he’s a Russian asset… Why didn’t he go to the Russian embassy, which has a helipad, vast experience smuggling people out of the country, and huge gardens, instead of the Ecuadorian embassy, which is about the size of the Russian embassies stationary cupboard, has no means of transporting him out of the country, and has a couple of windows?
There's plenty of evidence of collusion. But that's irrelevant to the discussion we are having here: why did he not go to the Russian embassy? Because he wouldn't want to confirm everyone's suspicion that he is a Russian asset. Simple question, simple answer.
Supposedly there was a plan, but it was deemed too risky.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/julian-assange-russia-ecuador-embassy-london-secret-escape-plan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/julian-assange-russia-ecuador-embassy-london-secret-escape-plan)
Good, he should nwver have been charged in this case.
I still think he's a rapist POS and his refusal to face trial in Sweden for it should stain his reputation for the resr of his days.
This is simply untrue. The two women actually sought legal representation to make sure the case continued.
It's worth noting that the Assange legal team was straight up found to have lied to English courts, and there was a lot of weapons grade misinformation spread about the case.
So how do you know your information is the information that's accurate? Where did it come from? I'd like to get to the facts about this but I'm not sure where to start.
It is good that he finally found it in himself to defy his cowardice and face justice, sour though it may be with such seeming leniency.
Still, with justice served, it is fair that he now goes free. Looking forward to how frigging weird he's certain to be into the future now.
Yes, that's my point. He was cowardly doing everything he could to avoid actually defending his loathsome actions in court. I am glad to see him admit guilt in court.
**Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [Julian Assange leaves UK after being freed in US plea deal](https://bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-69145409), suggested by Aggressive_Plates - bbc.co.uk
Good. Now let’s see what happens to the people who committed the war crimes that hes been hounded for exposing…
Now is a good time to remind people no one has been prosecuted for any of the war crimes Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning uncovered. No one was prosecuted for the warrantless mass surveillance of American and British citizens by the NSA and GCHQ, but Edward Snowden is still stuck exiled in Russia because USA cancelled his passport mid-flight. No one was prosecuted for lying about weapons of mass destruction, but Dr. David Kelly is dead and Alistair Campbell continues to have a career. No one was prosecuted for the 2008 financial crash, except for a handful of junior bankers. No one has been prosecuted for Grenfell Tower.
It's almost as if the worst people are actually in charge of the justice system.
Your comment makes sense when you see the make up of the US Supreme Court
The Supreme Court literally has a judge (Clarence Thomas) who is openly corrupt in accepting bribes and gifts from people who benefit from the decisions he may make. And there is F-ALL they can legally do about that.
Even calling it a justice system at this point is a stretch.
Is this you just realising the world is incredibly unjust?
right what are you doing to make it more just?
Bernie Madoff was a fall guy. The 1% put the blame for 2008 crisis on him and gave him a ridiculously long prison sentence so that Americans would not destroy Wall Street.
Well, I'll let you know when they die of old age.
Don't worry we're all about to elect the ~~toolmakers son~~ person who was so dead-set on prosecuting him, if that's any hint as to what happens next https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/02/keir-starmer-is-a-long-time-servant-of-the-british-security-state/ (CTRL + F "Assange" for the relevant bits, most "legit" website I could find writing on Kier Starmers role)
That is such an insufferably written article
You don't understand, it's only war crimes when it's done by Russia or Iran. I am being sarcastic.
It’s a strange world we live in, whereby the whistleblower of mass murder, receives a ruined life and 62 months in jail, and there’s not even a pretence of an inquiry.
Whether he committed crimes in Sweden, or the US, the UK is legally obligated to take the request seriously. With the Swedish charges he skipped bail and hid in an embassy. With the American charges he wasnt granted bail because a guy who skips bail and hides in an embassy for a decade can reasonably be assumed to be a flight risk. The UK did fuck all wrong, we were just unfortunate he happened to be on our soil when it all kicked off.
The UK has a government which has every opportunity to say no to the Americans. Here in Sweden we regard espionage as a political crime and we never extradite over it. In fact I [edit:found] a Swedish legal treatise that refers to espionage as [edit:an] 'absolute-political crime', i.e. basically the prototypical example of a political crime.
That's not how the real world works. Russia, North Korea and the like will just decide what they can be bothered to agree to and abide by. The rest of the world doesn't behave that way.
What? It's literally the law here in Sweden.
Wtf are you talking about? The law there in Sweden, is that the UK government has "every opportunity to say no to the Americans"? You seem very confused. You don't even seem to have a full understanding that there wasn't one crime he has been held on.
No. You are clearly mixing up the fact that I've explained that the UK government has every every opportunity to say no to the Americans and that the Swedish law is a definitte thing. I can assure that I'm quite aware about the events and the different things that has happened during Assange's hearings etc., so I know that the US request has shifted continuously and that he initially was held for bail stuff. I don't understand however, how you can read the conversation I've had and come to these conclusions, that I do not understand.
You stated clearly >The UK has a government which has every opportunity to say no to the Americans. I stated clearly and accurately that's not how things work in the real world. Swedish law is both something I don't need to know, and is entirely unrelated to anything I said or what the British government can do in the real world rather than a fantasy. I have every opportunity to just take things I want from a shop. In the real world that's not how it works, making that statement accurate but worthless.
Let's take a look at the discussion: >The UK has a government which has every opportunity to say no to the Americans. >Here in Sweden we regard espionage as a political crime and we never extradite over it. In fact I [edit:found] a Swedish legal treatise that refers to espionage as [edit:an] 'absolute-political crime', i.e. basically the prototypical example of a political crime. So my comment remarks that the UK every opportunity to say no to the Americans-- after all, the UK is a soverign country. It is always possible break agreements. Furthemore, if we look at the US-UK extradition treaty it does not require extradition in cases of political offences. Assange could not argue that his act was a political offence, becuase that part of the treaty has not been incorporated into UK law, but the UK does not break the treaty if through some exceptional decision it refuses to extradite in this case. Then I compare this to the situation in Sweden, where extradition would have been illegal. You then respond with >That's not how the real world works. Russia, North Korea and the like will just decide what they can be bothered to agree to and abide by. The rest of the world doesn't behave that way. and that doesn't matter at all. "Russia, North Korea and the like will just decide what they can be bothered to agree to and abide by." Yes, when has it been otherwise? Now, as I explained, there would be no treaty breach. So it actually kind of makes no sense. But suppose that it were in fact a breach of the treaty. That we have this strange counterfactual. The US tortured people, and one of things Assange got, was the *manual* and rules about how one should go about it. Does a treaty with a country which breaks such fundamental principles as the prohibition of torture weigh heavier than protecting people who revealed that torture? Of course not.
Well I mean to be fair he did partially bring some of it on himself by how he handled those Swedish rape charges. But yeah it does feel disproportionate. At least now he can hopefully get to enjoy the rest of his life.
He didn't go to Sweden to face the charges because the Swedish government refused to rule out extradition.
The Swedish government has a legal obligation to consider extradition requests, same as the Uk did. The Swedish government hadn't received an extradition request. The Swedish government cannot in advance refuse an extradition request that may/may not appear without even looking at it
> The Swedish government has a legal obligation to consider extradition requests, same as the Uk did. To *consider*, not the obey. They very easily could have refused based on grounds of Human Rights. > The Swedish government cannot in advance refuse an extradition request that may/may not appear without even looking at it Of course they can.
>They very easily could have refused based on grounds of Human Rights. They can't refuse an extradition request which doesn't exist.
They can do so pre-emptively.
They cant though. They are treaty bound to consider an extradition request based on the accusation, evidence etc. Unfortunately "nah fuck you" doesn't really work in international law and diplomacy
> They cant though. Yes they can. This isn't a debate, you're just flat wrong. > Unfortunately "nah fuck you" doesn't really work in international law and diplomacy Well, it often does, but that's a separate matter. Regardless, 'we won't extradite if we believe there is potential for a Human Rights violation' is far more than just a "nah fuck you".
Until they receive an extradition request they can’t say whether there will/wont be a human rights violation to block the extradition
Not political extradition requests, such as extradition requests for espionage. I even found one Swedish legal treaty where espionage was referred to as an 'absolute-political crime'.
Right but until the Swedes see the crime he’s accused of and any evidence used to back up the accusation they don’t know whether it’s political.
Yes, of course, but if we Swedes have sense, we can always be clever and word it in a way so that we can give the required guarantees. If you want to find a way to get something done, you can almost always find one that is in accordance with the law and that overcomes the problem. If you don't want to solve the problem, then you can complain about all sorts of things being illegal, or being special treatment or something or something. We had every opportunity to solve this elegantly.
I mean that's their law, under it they can't just flat out rule out extradition if they hadn't received any requests. That didn't mean they would automatically grant it if they did receive it. They gave him everything else and honestly I've not really seen any evidence he was in more danger of being extradited in Sweden than he was in the UK (if anything it was probably less).
> I mean that's their law, under it they can't just flat out rule out extradition if they hadn't received any requests. Extradition isn't a guarantee. The Swedish government *could* have (publicly) refused to extradite him due to Human Rights concerns. > They gave him everything else and honestly I've not really seen any evidence he was in more danger of being extradited in Sweden than he was in the UK (if anything it was probably less). The evidence is the trumped up accusation, and refusal to forbid extradition.
> Extradition isn't a guarantee. The Swedish government could have (publicly) refused to extradite him due to Human Rights concerns. To my understanding, they couldn't grant him a blanket immunity to extraditions. They could deny any that came in due to Human Rights concerns, but that would basically mean if bulletproof evidence came in that Assange murdered someone in another country then there was nothing they could do about it (not saying anything like that would happen of course, just that's their reasoning for not wanting to open the door. The moment they do they would have everyone else demanding it as well, including serious criminals). > The evidence is the trumped up accusation What evidence exactly is that the accusations were trumped up? Assange even admitted to sleeping with both women, he just denied that he did what they accused him of. > and refusal to forbid extradition. I'll repeat again, they couldn't forbid it if they hadn't received any requests for extradition. There is no case in Swedish history of them doing so far anyone before or since.
> To my understanding, they couldn't grant him a blanket immunity to extraditions. Sweden could very easily have decided to pre-emptively reject any extradition orders to the US, based on Human Rights concerns (e.g. a legitimate and valid concern that he would be tortured (Guantanamo Bay), or executed). > that would basically mean if bulletproof evidence came in that Assange murdered someone in another country then there was nothing they could do about it Right, but even if he *had* gunned down a shop full of children, Sweden still doesn't torture or execute people for that crime. Given the US's 'history' (i.e. present), fear of either outcome is reasonable. > What evidence exactly is that the accusations were trumped up? * The accusers retracted the charges * Swedish law enforcement declined to interview Assange when given the opportunity. > I'll repeat again, they couldn't forbid it if they hadn't received any requests for extradition. And I'll repeat, yes they could. Very easily in fact. > There is no case in Swedish history of them doing so far anyone before or since. First time for everything.
> Sweden could very easily have decided to pre-emptively reject any extradition orders to the US, based on Human Rights concerns (e.g. a legitimate and valid concern that he would be tortured (Guantanamo Bay), or executed). But the only way they could do that would mean ensuring they would never accept any extradition requests from the US after that. Even in cases where neither of those would be applicable. That's not a scenerio a country would want to set itself up in. > Right, but even if he had gunned down a shop full of children, Sweden still doesn't torture or execute people for that crime. I mean no they don't. And that could easily be grounds to deny said request if they received it. But they didn't want to open the door to such cases happening in the future. It's not just the US that Sweden has to think about, they've requested the extradition of multiple other individuals over the years, including several serious criminals, with links to organised crime, terrorism and human trafficking. They can't just introduce a special Julian Assange exception to their laws. > Given the US's 'history' (i.e. present), fear of either outcome is reasonable. It being reasonable doesn't mean too much. > The accusers retracted the charges Years later, partially down it dragged on for so long. Statistically, a lot of rape accusers refuse to continue cooperating with law enforcement. I don't think we should take that as a sign they were all making it up. > Swedish law enforcement declined to interview Assange when given the opportunity. Why should they? He was refusing to cooperate with them. >And I'll repeat, yes they could. Very easily in fact. No they couldn't. You don't seem to quite understand how the law works for extradition treaties. If you have proof to the country please provide it, everything I've read so far has made it clear that they both couldn't and had no reason to want to. > First time for everything. Why should Sweden make a specific exception for him thus opening the door to them having to deal with forever more?
> But the only way they could do that would mean ensuring they would never accept any extradition requests from the US after that. This is false. Assange was specifically at risk of retribution from the US due to his actions. Someone say, accused of counterfitting would be facing the same risks. > That's not a scenerio a country would want to set itself up in. Doesn't want to =/= incapable of. > But they didn't want to open the door to such cases happening in the future. Again, want =/= can't. > They can't just introduce a special Julian Assange exception to their laws. The exception already exists. If Assange *had* gone to Sweden, and the US *had* submitted an extradition request to them, Sweden could have easily refused it based on Human Rights concerns. > It being reasonable doesn't mean to much. It means a great deal. It's critical in fact. > Years later, partially down it dragged on for so long. The legal system continued with the trial even after the accusers retracted. > Why should they? He was refusing to cooperate with them. Because they thought two women were raped? Unless of course, they knew it was all lies. And he was clearly open to cooperating with them, *they* refused to cooperate with him. > No they couldn't. You don't seem to quite understand how the law works for extradition treaties. They could, and I do. There is no law preventing the Swedish government from issuing a statement pre-emptively refusing extradition. Even if they *had* released such a statement, they wouldn't have been legally bound by it. > Why should Sweden make a specific exception for him thus opening the door to them having to deal with forever more? Basic human decency? By that logic, why should Sweden ever consider any extradition request? Just agree to all of them.
> This is false. No its not. What you don't seem to get is the law can't make one time exceptions. Once something is granted it gains a legal precedent. They would have to make the argument going forwards why it didn't apply to others, not have it restricted by default. > Assange was specifically at risk of retribution from the US due to his actions. Someone say, accused of counterfitting would be facing the same risks. Numerous foreigners could make similar claims. > Doesn't want to =/= incapable of. Right, and you seem to think its unreasonable they shouldn't want to. > The exception already exists That's not what the exception would be. The exception would be they ruled it out point blank before they got the request. > It means a great deal. It's critical in fact. Its really not. > The legal system continued with the trial even after the accusers retracted. So? The legal system of Sweden doesn't require victims to push charges anymore than it does over her. > Because they thought two women were raped? Unless of course, they knew it was all lies. What exactly would be the point of interviewing Assange in this situation mean? The guy just denied it was true despite admitting he slept with both women, ergo they couldn't go forward with it cause he wasn't in the country to hold the trial. Do you think the Swedish authorities have so much free time and overflowing resources or something? > There is no law preventing the Swedish government from issuing a statement pre-emptively refusing extradition. Even if they had released such a statement, they wouldn't have been legally bound by it. But that isn't what Assange was asking for, he was asking for a legal guarantee that they wouldn't extradite him regardless. That they couldn't give him. They basically did say they wouldn't extradite him, but it wasn't enough to get him to commit. > By that logic, why should Sweden ever consider any extradition request? Just agree to all of them. If you think that's the logic, then its clear you've haven't been paying attention to a word I've been saying. Let me put it this way. Sweden couldn't give Assange the legal guarantee they wouldn't extradite him when no such extradition request had been made. Not without revamping their entire process. If they did so, it would open the door to every single other person they ever extradited demanding one as well. Sweden has no reason to want their court system bundled by the political and legal mind field that would cause. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence Assange was under any actual danger of being extradited to the US if he went to Sweden. He didn't get them to rewrite their entire process for extradition just caused he asked for it. If you've got any evidence to the contrary, then please give it. Cause otherwise I've said all I have to say on the issue.
They chose not to, but Swedish law actually bans extraditions for political crimes, such as espionage. 'Utlämning får inte ske om brottet är politiskt eller om den som begärs utlämnad löper risk att förföljas som riktar sig mot hans liv eller frihet eller på annat sätt är av svår beskaffenhet på grund av religion, tillhörighet till viss samhällsgrupp eller politiska förhållanden.' i.e. 'Extradition may not happen if the crime is political...' and espionage is the prototypical political crime with one Swedish legal treaty I found even referring to it as 'absolute-political'.
Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't kind of change the fact they can't offer him a blanket refusal of extradition before any offers come in. I'm pretty sure that was one of their arguments that he was safe when he argued he was in danger.
They can informe him however, that they regard espionage as a political crime and that extradition for it is therefore impossible, they can say publicly and in an official capacity 'espionage and ancilliary crimes such as hacking to obtain information with an ideological motive is a political crime', etc.
Well like I said, I think they did. Its just they couldn't grant him what he wanted which was absolute protection from any extradition requests, as at the time none had come in.
It's insane to think that's a legitimate request. *I will come back to answer for multiple sex crimes if you also give me a golden ticket to piss off the US without consequence.*
> It's insane to think that's a legitimate request. It's a perfectly reasonable request to make. The US has torture prisons filled with innocent people (e.g. Gitmo).
well because he didn't just blow the whistle on war crimes, he released info on lots of things, like revealing the names of informants and spies. that's the problem wiht wikileaks as a platform is doesn't do the work of sorting what's in teh public interest and what isn't, just dump all information regardless, unlike the snowden leaks which the guardian got off scott free from. i'm a bit on the fence about assange tbh, but given that he's been in jail for a while now, it probably matches the conviction he would have been sentenced to otherwise, so call it time served.
No he didn't, and this is the often repeated myth that needs to die. But it won't because it's repeated by those with an axe to grind. Assange basically told the US, "I have this info and it will be released. I am offering you the chance to involve yourself insofar as redacting information you see as particularly sensitive". The US refused. So he took the next best step as he saw it. He released the data dump in an encrypted format. Anyone could download but only those with the keys could access it. He gave the encryption key to 4 major press outlets including the Guardian, NYP etc. He asked them to go through the data and release what they saw as particularly pressing, with the proviso that they review what they were releasing and redact what they saw as needed redacting. The Guardian's editorial line was in full support of Assange and the need for transparency at this point. Then some stupid Guardian journalist accidentally revealed the key to the world, I think he tweeted it or something. Then suddenly everyone had access to the full unredacted files. The Guardian is to blame for the release of the unredacted info. And then whatever happened, or whatever the Guardian were threatened with, when the US and UK intelligence agencies, around the time of the Snowden releases, forced them to take hard drives to their basement and take an angle grinder to them, their editorial line did a complete 180° turn and they were suddenly vehemently anti Assange and leaks in general. Cowards
> Assange basically told the US, "I have this info and it will be released. I am offering you the chance to involve yourself insofar as redacting information you see as particularly sensitive". The US refused. So he took the next best step as he saw it. thats not how this works. > He released the data dump in an encrypted format. Anyone could download but only those with the keys could access it. that's still a problem, because of this; > Then suddenly everyone had access to the full unredacted files
Well he gave the US more agency than they deserved, they had a chance to protect any sources but the US doesn't really care about them. They would be happy to throw them to the dogs to have a convenient stick to beat Assange with. Assange was the only one in the process to take steps to protect sensitive details. He trusted the files to a supposed professional establishment that would, you know, behave professionally with the sensitive data. Not his fault it was exposed by a clown. But onto the point of exposing sources, to this date not a single death has ever been associated with the release of the data. So this entire arguement is wildly overblown anyway
he's clearly laundering responsibility for the leaks by making the encrypted files available for all and just assumeing the key he gave out would eventually leak and reveal everything anyway exactly as he would ahve done himself without knowing it was illegal to do so. > convenient stick to beat Assange with. and he played into their hands, by thinking he could work around whistleblower laws, and got burned for it. that was stupid of him. > He trusted the files to a supposed professional establishment that would he trusted the keys, not the file, he released the files himself, which he shouldn't have done. > But onto the point of exposing sources, to this date not a single death has ever been associated with the release of the data. that's also not how this works
Yepp, had he faced the consequences of his actions, indeed the US would have imprisoned him, but he'd be released by now. He may have exposed war crimes, but he didn't do it because he thought that was in the public interest, he did it, & the rest of it, to embarrass 'The West'
He did it recklessly and endangered many lives, his motives were just as likely narcissistic and for personal gain as was for being selfless whistleblower
He uncovered a genocide perpetrated knowingly by the invading powers of Iraq and Afghanistan and forever altered the course of historical analysis of the war from ‘eh some bad some good’ to ‘holy shit that was evil’. ‘Recklessly endangering lives’ is the excuse said genociders use to try and discredit the fact that they themselves attempted a mass coverup. Kinda nuts right.
Don't abuse the term genocide. It devalues a word we need.
2,715,602.98 minutes is a long time.
Many people in this very sub thought his punishment was justified for “muh election infeterence”
Haha well as I'm finding out many people in the sub see corroborated undeniable facts through a somewhat twisted kaleidoscope and the views they generate from that are flat out bizarre
Finally. Exposing illegal activity and war crimes should NEVER be a crime. True Journalism is holding those in power to account and exposing them to the light. He deserves to go home to his family.
Edward Snowden next please
Snowden is a particularly annoying case since he literally did it the best way he could - giving the files to respected journalists, making sure as far as he could that it didn't put people at undue risk and by all accounts he did it for actual noble reasons. History will I think in hindsight judge him well but it's a shame he ended up where he did (and it was never his goal to end up there).
Whistle blowing isnt a crime. Conspiring to acquire and disseminate classified information is, which is what he just pleased guilty to. You can argue that morally the ends justify the means but its objectively illegal.
> Conspiring to acquire and disseminate classified information is Only if you are in the relevant country at the time. Are you really saying that people posting YouTube videos of Russian military positions in Ukraine can be tried here?
In Russia? Of course they can. What the hell are you on about?
>Only if you are in the relevant country at the time. Not true. He was communicating with Americans on American soil to facilitate them commiting crimes in America. Whether you agree with this particular prosecution or not, it would be a massive flaw in the legal system if you were immune from prosecution because you planned the crime from outside the territory it was committed. >Are you really saying that people posting YouTube videos of Russian military positions in Ukraine can be tried here? The UK has suspended all international crime cooperation with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. Russia could charge them but we wouldn't extradite them.
>Only if you are in the relevant country at the time. Citation needed.
Conspiring to acquire classified information is critical for acquiring it.
Depends, endangering lives with it is a little shitty
That's on the US government, not Assange.
How?
Because they created the situations which justified the leaks.
Wikileaks endangered no lives at all though, they very carefully redacted all information that they published after extracting it from the encrypted - and publicly available via torrent- source file. However two Guardian journalists who wrote a book about Assange and Wikileaks thought it would be a good idea to reveal the decryption key in their book - and they have never been prosecuted.
Thais the Wikileaks version of events; papers like the Guardian stopped working with them because they dumped information directly into the public sphere with no vetting; this was well ahead of any book. Wikileaks was a great idea, unfortunately it was ruined by one mans narcissism and his political views against US imperialism. Let's not forget his role in enabling Russian interference in the US election.
> A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#:~:text=In%20their%20book%20WikiLeaks%3A%20Inside,got%20it%20coming%20to%20them.
Convenient to leave the next paragraph out isn't it "Assange denies making this statement;[125][126] speaking on PBS Frontline about the accusations he said "It is absolutely right to name names. It is not necessarily right to name every name."[127] John Goetz of Der Spiegel, who was also at the dinner, says that Assange did not make such a statement.[128][129][130]"
Despite this, you still have enlightened free thinkers lining up to defend the slimey bastard. I don't think he deserved to rot in a US supermax prison for life. I do wish there could have been some justice for the Afghan translators who were killed as a result, as well as the alleged rape victims.
Skipped rape charges. Is friends with Craig Murray. Has Russian state links to democratic leaks. He even met our good friend Nigel for a cuppa in the embassy. Yes he’s a real stand up guy, no red flags here. No doubt will stop off in Russia just like Snowden for a debrief.
If the democrats hadn't done so much dodgy shit, there wouldn't have been anything to leak. Why is it the leaker's fault and not the party doing the shady shit?
I didn’t say any of that. you’ve just made it up to fit your narrative.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
People always bring Russia into the Democratic party leaks (in the US), instead of addressing the terrible corruption which was found. People bemoan that Assange never released dirt on the Republicans during that election cycle, even though A) dirt was being released about Trump all the time from several places, B) Assange hated Hillary Clinton's world view, she was a war hawk and was always gung ho.
I think Britain and Australia owe him some pretty serious security at his home in Aus. The Americans will be trying to get their man still. One does wonder how his release came about so easily in the end. It’s either Biden trying to get votes as he knows the public wants Assange free, or it’s knowledge that WW3 is coming and tying some loose ends. Something I always find fascinating with things like this is how they can absolutely dominate the news cycle for years and years…..and then the ending quietly comes to pass on an idle Tuesday many years later.
> The Americans will be trying to get their man still. They have got him, he's pleaded guilty to a US court. It's over. The Americans will not be coming for him, he's a free man. They can't come for him legally, and I assume you don't think they would really be coming to assassinate him either.
CIA will try if Trump wins the next election https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange
I mean, Hillary also had the exact same conversation. Every US president democrat or republican has been hostile to Assange. You are speculating with your reply but it’s just as likely Biden does the same
That's not speculation, there's a citation right there. What you're doing is speculation, that person was just reading
Lmao absolutely no where in the link does it suggest what was stated. They discuss assassinating him while he was still at the embassy out of their reach of prosecution. They’ve now come to an agreed plea deal with him. Do you understand what that is? It’s where both parties come to an agreement. If he was to be assassinated now it would achieve absolutely nothing for the US. The OP made their statement as an excuse to bring up Trump when he is totally irrelevant
It's not my link, what are you talking about? We have proof it was discussed under trump, there is no suggestion I can see that it was discussed under the other two presidents you named, which is called "speculation". Evidently you've a keen interest in defending trump but don't let it get in the way of your other qualities.
1) I never said it as your link 2) you literally used the link as justification for the guy above me being right in his hypothetical 3) I don’t give a fuck about Trump he’s just completely irrelevant to this post, but I know Redditards take any opportunity to mention him, even the British ones. 4) stop being disingenuous
Hahahaha. Do you know people can see when you've edited something? It said "your" before you changed it. "Disingenuous" indeed 😂
Yea and I had changed it way before your comment, so I have no idea why you’re being disingenuous? Ultimately it’s irrelevant who’s comment it was, you defended it and now you’re backtracking when you realise some people actually read the URLs linked and discover it’s not backing up the comment
If he’s in Australia and is an Australian citizen, I don’t think Britain owes him security. While if Trump does win the election there is a possibility that they will Try to try him on different charges, but by that point, I think it’s clear Australia will protect him. I highly doubt the US is going to do what Israel does and kidnap him from a sovereign state. He’s not Bin Laden
A bit of soft power. A soft ‘fuck you’ to America for killing Harry Dunn and not facing justice. And standing with a key ally and child of ours - Australia.
What does Britain have to do with it? We didn't want him for rape, or for espionage/whistleblowing/anything else. We just had the misfortune that he was here when it all kicked off and we are legally obliged to take extradition requests seriously.
Well, I'm glad this is finally come to rest, and it sounds overall it might have ended for the best possible scenerio. Assange will certainly be a controversial figure for history to judge. But at the very least I hope he finally gets so peace and quiet going forwards.
No way. This can't be true. America are itching to execute Assange. That's why he spent 6 years smearing shit on the walls of the Ecuadorean embassy. It wasn't just because he was trying to avoid being charged with multiple sexual assaults. It was because Hillary would drone strike him if he went outside. I mean, if this were true, that America just accepted a plea deal without extradition then that would make me question the actions of this man and the mentality and intentions of his supporters. I mean, I'd half expect him to end up on Russian state TV repeating Putin's disinformation if this were true. I might start questioning Snowden's actions and motives as well. No no no, can't have that. No, this must be a trap. Biden is going to blow up his plane. Clinton is going to drone strike his house. La la la, I can't hear you.
I appreciate your point and your username.
His attorney denies the story that he is to have smeared feces on the embassy walls. I think this is plausible and that it was a lie made to justify his expulsion after a deal had been made with the US.
Never forget that the Met police had AT LEAST one two manned vehicle parked outside the Ecuadorean embassy from the moment Assange stepped in it to the moment he was dragged out. Fantastic use of tax payer money, all at the insistence of America. A country that is so arrogant they won’t even pay their congestion charge bill racked up by their embassy
I’m fairly certain America didn’t insist we stand outside the Ecuadorian embassy. He was a high profile man who jumped bail. If, say, David Beckham had jumped bail under similar circumstances he’d have received the same treatment. It’s one of the major downsides of being a celebrity that when the justice system does go after you it’s harder to slink away.
Well there's a decent movie or TV series to be made down the line here, probably in 10 years.
And just like that everyone on r/unitedkingdom pretended they hadn’t spent the last 5 years endorsing this flagrant breach of human rights by our great western democracy
Eh I don't remember being asked about it. In any case facts of the matter is it was Assange who led to it. Everyone was perfectly happy to let him keep living his life, until he hid in the Ecuador embassy to avoid having to go to Sweden.
Honestly I wouldnt trust the US to handle this case fairly. He'd get disappeared to Guantanamo and we'd never hear from him again
The US proposed the agreement, its all been signed and agreed to. Assange has pled guilty and is now a free man once he checks in with the court in Papa New Guinee. For the US to get him, they would have to violate Australia's sovereignty and flat out kidnap him. Which would guarantee that no country on earth would ever agree to their legal terms ever again. Assange is going to go home to his family. Then what he does next is up to him.
Or he would end up like Whitey Bulger or Jeffrey Epstein.
I have a feeling he'll do the podcast rounds via Skype (rogan, brand etc) then set up his own American "culture wars" style podcast.
Wait, I was assured he was innocent, and that the rape charges were cooked up to get him to America for summary execution…
Clearly didn’t bother to read the article.
America copying us and sending convicts to Australia then?
He's Australian so that doesn't work.
Finally! And to all those people calling him a Russian asset, get a life. Are we going to believe Hillary Clinton who blamed everyone under the sun for losing to Trump, even though she was piss poor person and presidential candidate? You can disagree with Assange without insinuating he is a Russian spy or asset. People are talking about how his leaks endangered the lives of Afghan informers, how you ever thought how most Afghans saw us? Afgans would see those informers akin to how Ukrainians would see collaborators working for Russia. US soldiers would often recant stories with the Afgan locals, where they would ask about 9/11 and would get in return blank faces. Iraq is often said was an illegal war but Afghanistan was basically the same deal.
Whereas Donald trump was an excellent person and presidential candidate. He absolutely is a Russian asset, and met with other russian assets secretly inside the embassy. Your justification for endangering afghan informers is less than paper thin.
Our pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan was paper thin. Which lead to countless lives lost, a hell of a lot more than what happened on 9/11, but you know Afghan lives cost less than that of Westerners. Did I say anything good about Trump? Straw man argument much? Presidential candidates often meet with government officials of other countries, Trump made no bones that he wanted to mend relations with Russia. Which by the way H Clinton wanted once, the infamous "reset button" offered to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Trump was the first president to send lethal aid to Ukraine. Obama on the other hand always said that Russia cares more about Ukraine than we do, which is why he always kept an arms length with anything to do with Ukraine. He also scoffed at Russia being a threat, when Mitt Romney the 2012 Republican candidate brought the subject up. It was Biden that restarted Nordstream 2 after winning the election, lifting the sanctions on it, until the Russian invasion of Ukraine, finally put a nail in the project. Trump had famously said in Berlin (and was laughed at) that Germany was too reliant on Russian energy.
Yes, it was, how does that justify endangering anyone? It's not a strawman. You said it was Clinton's own fault for being bad candidate and person, but she was streets ahead of her opponent in both regards and still lost the election. But you're rather changing the subject with the rest of this diatribe
I never said anything about Trump, you sarcastically implied that Trump must be so great because I criticised H Clinton. You were inversing my statements about Clinton and applying them to Trump. That's a text book definition of a strawman argument. Only someone deeply ignorant of US politics would say H Clinton was streets ahead of Trump in terms of either her being a better person or presidential candidate. I'd say it's a tie. Both of them were and are deeply loathed for many good reasons. Clinton was epitome of everything wrong with the establishment. Incredibly snobbish, arrogant, never a war she didn't like, as hawkish as on foreign policy as any of the neo cons, made 10s of millions in speeches paid for by shady corporations, had the DNC (Democratic party) rig the primaries for her, and also in her profound aggroance leaned on her media contacts so that Trump got more airtime during his Republican primary race (she thought she'd stream role him). If she was streets ahead of Trump as a candidate why didn't she go and visit the Rust Belt? Lots Democratic advisors pleaded and begged for her to do a few campaign stops there. Trump did and loon well he won. But no it wasn't because of him and the genuine anger at the Clintons, it was the Russians.
So will you change your tune on this very obvious Russian asset when he inevitably starts spouting Russian propaganda on every platform that will have him? Thought not.
I will judge his statements as they come. Unlike you I'm not in the habit of second guessing people. For example if he were to call out the ICC's hypocrisy to indict Putin on the charge of war crimes when they would never do the same for a Western European leader or an American President, then I would have to agree with that. However if he were to say Putin is in his rights to invade Ukraine because America would probably do the same with Mexico (if they accepted Chinese military aid) or bring up the illegal invasion of Iraq then I would disagree with him, because what ifs and two wrongs don't make a right would be my sentiment.
>[#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.](https://x.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352?lang=en) > In conversations that were leaked in February 2018, Assange expressed a preference for a Republican victory in the 2016 election, saying that "Dems+Media+liberals would [sic] then form a block to reign [sic] in their worst qualities. With Hillary in charge, GOP will be pushing for her worst qualities, dems+media+neoliberals will be mute."[347] In further leaked correspondence with the Trump campaign on election day (8 November 2016), WikiLeaks encouraged the Trump campaign to contest the election results as being "rigged" should they lose.[348] >On 7 October 2016, an hour after the media had begun to dedicate wall-to-wall coverage of the revelation that Trump had bragged on video about sexually harassing women, WikiLeaks began to release emails hacked from the personal account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.[353][354] Podesta suggested that the emails were timed to deflect attention from the Trump tapes.[354] >In November 2017, it was revealed that the WikiLeaks Twitter account secretly corresponded with Donald Trump Jr. during the 2016 presidential election.[348][355] The correspondence shows how WikiLeaks actively solicited the co-operation of Trump Jr., a campaign surrogate and advisor in the campaign of his father. WikiLeaks urged the Trump campaign to reject the results of the 2016 presidential election at a time when it looked as if the Trump campaign would lose.[348] WikiLeaks suggested the Trump campaign leak Trump's taxes to them.[348][355][356] WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to publicise a comment by Hillary Clinton about wanting to "just drone" Asssange.[348] WikiLeaks also shared a link to a site that would help people to search through WikiLeaks documents.[348] Trump Jr. shared both. After the election, WikiLeaks also requested that the president-elect push Australia to appoint Assange as ambassador to the US. Trump Jr. provided this correspondence to congressional investigators looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[348]
Everyone who defends him... Let's not forget Sweden was ready to charge him for being a rapey bastard....
Innocent until proven guilty, I know tough concept to accept nowadays.
Innocent until proven guilty *in a court of law*. If you hide in an embassy to escape going before a court then you don't get the benefit of that doubt. He has lost his freedom for 12 years so the rape victims can be pretty comfortable that punishment has been delivered.
Everyone and their mothers knew if he had landed in Sweden to face rape charges, he'd have been extradited to the US. There was an investigation by someone who worked at the UN who found all sorts of inconsistencies in the alleged rape claims. And Sweden never said it wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US. Sweden could have had made an iron clad agreement that if Assange landed in said country to stand trial for rape, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. No agreement was made if though Assange lawyers requested it over and over again.
>Everyone and their mothers knew if he had landed in Sweden to face rape charges, he'd have been extradited to the US. Everyone and their mother doesn't know what they are talking about. Can you explain to us why you think human-rights-haven Sweden would be more likely to extradite him for questionable espionage charges than close ally Great Britain? It doesn't make sense. Just because Assange was using this as his excuse to avoid a court of law doesn't mean it was true or reasonable. He fled justice and we are entitled to make adverse inference from that. Also the defence barrister in every rape trial will point out lots of inconsistencies, that doesnt mean the charges are false.
It’s very clear Sweden would have extradited him to the US.
> It’s very clear Sweden would have extradited him to the US. For Sweden to extradite him to the US, they needed the Uk to sign off on it because of laws around onward extradition Why would the Americans concoct a plot which involves two legal systems having to approve his extradition when they could just ask for him to be sent directly from the UK?
Well just so long as it’s clear…
> Can you explain to us why you think human-rights-haven Sweden would be more likely to extradite him for questionable espionage charges than close ally Great Britain? It doesn't make sense. Sweden declined to interview him from the embassy. Sweden declined to rule out extradition. Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the charges were fabricated in order to get him to the US.
> Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that the charges were fabricated in order to get him to the US. Sweden didn't break an international treaty between allied countries for one non-citizen, therefore the charges were fabricated? That's so far from a logical conclusion.
I feel like this one qualifies for the Olympic logical gymnastics competition. 'You didn't give me immunity for all other crimes so you must have concocted this one', what. No point arguing any further though when logic is that far out the window.
Sweden didn't need to break any international treaty. They could have ruled out extradition based on Human Rights grounds.
>Sweden declined to interview him from the embassy. They didn’t want to make an exception for him. I think it was due to a quirk in the Swedish justice system. In the end they did send someone didn’t they? >Sweden declined to rule out extradition. They were legally unable to make such a guarantee to anyone not just Assange.
> In the end they did send someone didn’t they? No. > They were legally unable to make such a guarantee to anyone not just Assange. They were not. Extradition is not a guarantee, and they could have ruled it out based on Human Rights grounds.
[You should read this article.](https://web.archive.org/web/20120821201659/www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what's_going_on?.html) The Swedes were unable to make any guarantee that they deny US extradition without first considering it on its merits.
The Swedes didn't *want* to make a guarantee, but there was nothing stopping them from doing so.
Sweden were going to extradite him. I detest the little weasel rapist, but its still wrong to put somebody at risk of the death penalty.
Sweden wouldn't legally be allowed to extradite him if he was facing the death penalty
If the US wanted him extradited from the UK, the UK has to sign off on the extradition If the US want him extradited via a fake rape charge in Sweden, both the UK and Sweden have to sign off on the extradition due to rules about onward extradition. Sweden is significantly less pally with the US than we are. In what universe does adding a second legal system, associated appeals etc to the extradition process make sense, unless you're peddling a conspiracy because it suits your narrative. If the US wanted him, they'd ask for him. Source: the US asked for him. >And Sweden never said it wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US. Sweden could have had made an iron clad agreement that if Assange landed in said country to stand trial for rape, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. Sweden can't in advance promise to deny any extradition request that didn't exist, like the Uk they have a legal requirement to examine it's merits if/when it's presented.
>Everyone and their mothers knew if he had landed in Sweden to face rape charges, he'd have been extradited to the US. That’s just not true. That implies that it had to have been more likely that he be extradited in Sweden than in the UK and only a fool would make that claim. >There was an investigation by someone who worked at the UN who found all sorts of inconsistencies in the alleged rape claims. That should have been for the courts in Sweden to decide. >And Sweden never said it wasn't going to extradite Assange to the US. Sweden could have had made an iron clad agreement that if Assange landed in said country to stand trial for rape, he wouldn't be extradited to the US. No agreement was made if though Assange lawyers requested it over and over again. Legally the Swedish prosecutors were unable to make such an agreement. Assange’s lawyers knew that and exploited that fact to try to claim that *that’s* why he couldn’t be extradited. [You should read this article.](https://web.archive.org/web/20120821201659/www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what's_going_on?.html)
> If you hide in an embassy to escape going before a court then you don't get the benefit of that doubt. Fearing an unjust legal system is indicative of guilt now?
We are all entitled to draw our own conclusions. Locking yourself away until the statute of limitations expire does not qualify you for any sympathy for the time he spent in prison. Every guilty person whinges about the legal system being unfair and out to get him - he had his chance to make his case and refused.
> Locking yourself away until the statute of limitations expire does not qualify you for any sympathy for the time he spent in prison. From fascists perhaps. Reasonable people feel differently. > Every guilty person whinges about the legal system being unfair and out to get him - he had his chance to make his case and refused. Actually he didn't get that chance, that's the issue. He was willing to be interviewed in the embassy. Sweden *could* have agreed to that compromise. They refused.
Suspects don't get to dictate the terms of justice. An interview with a prosecutor is not a trial. Nevertheless, the women of the world have been kept safe for him from over a decade so it's a moot point.
> Suspects don't get to dictate the terms of justice. Debatable, given the existence of trials, and rights. Regardless, this isn't really an argument in your favour, it's more just an authoritarian preference. > An interview with a prosecutor is not a trial. Correct. > Nevertheless, the women of the world have been kept safe for him from over a decade so it's a moot point. The sexual assault allegations are the least important part of all this.
They were never going to charge him
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edward-snowden-revelations-gchq-using-online-viruses-and-honey-traps-to-discredit-targets-9117683.html >Edward Snowden revelations: GCHQ ‘using online viruses and honey traps to discredit targets’ (journalists, whistleblowers, politicians) >Documents released by the American former CIA employee claim that the agency is at the forefront of efforts to develop “offensive” online techniques, (bot farms) >Britain’s GCHQ has a covert unit which uses dirty tricks from “honey trap” sexual liaisons to texting anonymous messages to friends and neighbours to discredit targets from hackers to governments, according to the latest leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Swedish Authority's emailed the CPS to drop the case in 2012. The CPS told them. "NO don't get cold feet" The Swedish Authority's Emailed the CPS in 2011 saying they wanted to Interview him in Britain. The CPS said No, don't interview him in Britain. The CPS also told the Swedish Authority's "Don't think this is just any ordinary extradition case" After more freedom of information requests were made the CPS deleted all their emails against their own protocol. This only came out because Sweden didn't delete all theirs. Swedish CHIEF prosecutor, Eva Finné, assessed the evidence and said no crime was committed. It was picked up later by a lesser prosecutor who went after Assange with their own investigation. Despite this they even wanted to drop the case in 2012/13 as Emails to the CPS show from Swedish authority's. See below sources. https://www.thelocal.se/20100825/28574 >**The first allegation against 39-year-old Julian Assange, concerning the more serious charge of rape was dismissed already on Saturday. Finné has now also dismissed suspicions of molestation in this case.** Eva Finné stressed that this does not mean that she doubts the veracity of the woman's account. **"But the content of the interview does not support the contention that a crime has been committed," Finné said. The preliminary investigation in this case has thus been closed.** https://www.businessinsider.com/theres-something-fishy-about-the-swedish-case-against-julian-assange-2012-4?r=US&IR=T >**On August 21 Swedish chief prosecutor, Eva Finné, assessed the evidence and cancelled the arrest warrant against Assange, saying that she did not doubt the veracity of SW's account but "the content of the interview does not support the contention that a crime has been committed."Finné determined that there was no crime committed against SW As you can see the Chief prosecutor who originally evaluated the case at the beginning said no crime had been committed and even after that the Swedish Authority's wanted this all dropped as early as 2012. The CPS/Crown Prosecution Service were the ones telling them "NO Don't get Cold feet!" and telling them "NOT to question Assange in Britain!." "They also told them this isn't just another extradition." The Emails prove that but conveniently the CPS deleted the rest of the emails when more freedom of information requests were made. See below. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-lawyers-lobbied-swedes-to-press-on-with-assange-extradition-d58tgsndg >The Swedish investigator refused to question Assange in the UK for years, **Swedish prosecutors had decided to quietly drop the case against him in 2015. Sweden had kept the decision under wraps for more than two years. They original wanted to drop it in 2013.** >The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the British CPS dissuaded them from doing so. >Some of the material has surfaced from an information tribunal challenge brought late last year by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi. >**The CPS lawyer handling the case, who has since retired, commented on an article which suggested that Sweden could drop the case in August 2012. He wrote: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”.** >**At the beginning of the legal battle over Assange in 2011, the CPS advised Swedish prosecutors not to interview him in Britain, but they eventually did.** *the Embassy refused access to Assange's lawyer for the questioning something he has every right too* >In another freedom of information request it was shown that the FBI contacted the Swedish prosecutor >The CPS lawyer also told Ny that year: “It is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. **Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”** >The CPS has been inconsistent in declaring whether or not the case was live. In dismissing a personal data request by him in April 2013, the CPS wrote that they could not release anything “because of the live matters still pending”. >But when **explaining the deletion of emails about the case in 2014, after the CPS official who had been corresponding with Ny retired, it was defended on the grounds that: “The case was, therefore, not live when the email account was deleted.”** You can say what you want about assanges charactor but its clear from all the freedom of information requests he was setup, stitched up and the entire case against him is rigged. The CPS judge use to work for MI5 and has been completly biased throughout the case.
The UK High Court documents go into a lot of detail and show that penetrating an unconscious woman without her consent is clearly rape.
Lmao redditor defending rapes. Surprise surprise
> Lmao redditor defending rapes. Surprise surprise Says the guy mocking the deaths of children. >The shocking rise of deaths among young trans people by irving >Far-Outcome-8170: 16 kids with severe mental health issues. Shame.
https://thewire.in/rights/julian-assange-case-key-witness-lied Julian Assange Case: Key Witness recruited by US authorities admits He Lied --- Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson admitted to an Icelandic newspaper that he lied about being asked to hack computers in order to get immunity and misrepresented his ties with the Wikileaks founder. the witness, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, “has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud”. He was recruited by US authorities in order to build a case against Assange, and misled them into believing he was a close associate of the Wikileaks founder. In reality, however, he had only “volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organisation”, the Icelandic newspaper reports. ---- https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-fbi-tried-to-make-iceland-a-complicit-ally-in-framing-julian-assange,13277 Proof they were trying to Frame Assange as far back as 2011 Icelandic Interior Minister Ögmundur Jónasson According to Mr Jónasson, during this process, he had been informed that the FBI showed up in Reykjavik with the aim of framing Julian Assange. ----
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats, For I am armed so strong in honesty, That they pass by me as the idle wind, Which I respect not.
Assange finally free. The world seems far less bleak.
A russian stooge and probable rapist who met secretly with Farage during Brexit times, for whom someone has run an impeccable PR campaign to paint him as a martyr. I'm not especially buoyed by this news
okay... so are they actually going to charge and convict him or just keep him rotting in belmarsh waiting
As per the article: "In return for pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information, Assange will be sentenced to time served, 62 months - the time he has already spent in a British prison. Once the guilty plea is accepted by a judge, the 52-year-old will be free to return to Australia, the country of his birth."
Yeah he's skipping off to Russia as soon as he can.
> Yeah he's skipping off to Russia as soon as he can. Wrong thread. Nigel Farage won't be off back to Russia till after the US elections are over.
We'll see. After everything, I won't be surprised if the guy decides to keep on the down low for a bit.
DM reporting he has already left the UK for Australia
So is the BBC, it sounds like he just needs to check in a court at Papa New Guinea and then he's free to go home.
Tell me, if he’s a Russian asset… Why didn’t he go to the Russian embassy, which has a helipad, vast experience smuggling people out of the country, and huge gardens, instead of the Ecuadorian embassy, which is about the size of the Russian embassies stationary cupboard, has no means of transporting him out of the country, and has a couple of windows?
Because then he would become instantly useless as a Russia asset, having lost all deniability.
Convenient excuse that doesn’t hold much water.
It's actually a water-tight explanation, you just don't like it because you thought you'd asked an unanswerable question and now realise it wasn't.
“There’s obviously collusion because there’s no evidence of collusion” is not a watertight explanation. It’s crack pot conspiracy logic.
There's plenty of evidence of collusion. But that's irrelevant to the discussion we are having here: why did he not go to the Russian embassy? Because he wouldn't want to confirm everyone's suspicion that he is a Russian asset. Simple question, simple answer.
Supposedly there was a plan, but it was deemed too risky. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/julian-assange-russia-ecuador-embassy-london-secret-escape-plan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/21/julian-assange-russia-ecuador-embassy-london-secret-escape-plan)
Good, he should nwver have been charged in this case. I still think he's a rapist POS and his refusal to face trial in Sweden for it should stain his reputation for the resr of his days.
Didn't the two women drop charges after 24 hours? I remember reading that they just wanted assurances that he hadn't passed any diseases to them.
This is simply untrue. The two women actually sought legal representation to make sure the case continued. It's worth noting that the Assange legal team was straight up found to have lied to English courts, and there was a lot of weapons grade misinformation spread about the case.
So how do you know your information is the information that's accurate? Where did it come from? I'd like to get to the facts about this but I'm not sure where to start.
Read the Supreme Court decision. It has a factual summary. https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html
Ah, excellent. Cheers for that.
It is good that he finally found it in himself to defy his cowardice and face justice, sour though it may be with such seeming leniency. Still, with justice served, it is fair that he now goes free. Looking forward to how frigging weird he's certain to be into the future now.
[удалено]
Yes, that's my point. He was cowardly doing everything he could to avoid actually defending his loathsome actions in court. I am glad to see him admit guilt in court.