Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,556
Assange to go!
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
If Assange and Wikileaks are not journalists then neither are the majority of the corporate press and BBC who just regurgitate whatever comes from Downing Street/White House on such matters. Journalist/publisher, it doesn't matter - Assange & Wikileaks have done more in exposing the crimes and duplicity of governments around the world than all the corporate hacks combined many times over and they deserve to be protected as a result.
50 weeks for jumping bail over an arrest warrant for a case that was later dropped and where charges have never been brought? That sounds reasonable? The UN rightly think it was extreme too.
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24552&LangID
You don't have round-the-clock surveillance on someone for years costing millions over something as trivial as a bail charge unless it's political in nature. Is it normal for the CPS to intervene with their Swedish counterparts to tell them not to drop the case which they were going to do years earlier?
"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!!!”.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...p-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show
It's judicial persecution as the UN Special Rapportuer for Torture has commented.
If the Russians had dragged a journalist/publisher/whatever out of the UK embassy in Moscow to face trial for the crime of publishing true information imagine the response.
Compelling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don
Yeah. the Swedes eh, couldn't drop it quick enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/13/sweden-reopens-case-against-julian-assange
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/13/sweden-reopens-case-against-julian-assange
Dropped, reopened, dropped, reopened...what a joke.
They could have proceeded with the case when he made himself available in Sweden at the time. They could have questioned him in the embassy years prior or over videolink, but refused. They could have prosecuted him in absentia, but didn't.
It has been deliberately placed on the back burner for years as the UN have said. They have gone out of their way not to bring the case to a close.
No charges have ever been brought. It's ********.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,556
Sorry, where have the "U.N said" that the rape case against Assange was deliberately "put on the back burner"?
Or are you putting 2+2 together to get 576?
I paraphrased the opinion of the UN Special Rapportuer for Torture interviewed here. They have dragged their feet every step of the way.
"So when the Swedes initiated legal proceedings or a preliminary investigation against him for sexual offenses, it's important to know that once the complainant had informed the police, immediately after that, the public was informed and Assange actually was never questioned by the police before the public was informed and he learned about these allegations in the press. He was in Sweden at the time and immediately went to a police station himself and said, "Could I please make my statement and participate in this?" Because Swedish law actually even prohibits the publication of the name of the complainant and the suspected offender in a sexual offense case. His statement was taken and two or three days later, the prosecutor closed the case saying that there was no evidence for any crime having been committed at all. Now, just a day or two later, it was reopened by a different prosecutor and Mr. Assange voluntarily stayed on in Sweden for three weeks saying, "I'm at the disposal of the prosecution for any questions you have to ask." And when he had the commitment in London and he had to leave, he asked the prosecutor whether he was allowed to leave, which was confirmed, and so he was authorized to leave and he left the country. And as soon as he was basically in the UK, Sweden started to ask--issued an arrest warrant against him and claimed that he had tried to avoid it, to avoid question. And they had asked him to come back to Sweden for questioning. And then Mr. Assange became a little bit suspicious and asked, "Well, I thought we had dealt with this, so what's the issue?" And he was afraid that he was just being called back so Sweden could surrender him to the US. And here I have to open a parenthesis. We have to know that Sweden has had a history of surrendering people to the CIA without any due process from Sweden. In 2001 I believe, Sweden surrendered two Egyptian nationals who had been recognized asylum seekers in Sweden without any due process to the CIA on Stockholm Airport and they were flown to Egypt and were tortured there. So, Assange had a credible fear that this could happen to him. And so he asked Sweden to guarantee that they would not extradite him to the US if he came for questioning on the sexual offense cases. Sweden consistently refused to give this guarantee. Then Assange said, "Well, I'm not going to come to Sweden if you can't guarantee that, but I'm going to be at your disposal for questioning through video link," which Sweden refused, although they practiced this in multiple other cases at the same time. Then Assange said, "Well, if you want--don't want to question me through video link, you can come to London and question me here in the presence of my lawyer." And the--Sweden again refused to do that and insisted on having him extradited to Sweden and without a guarantee on--against further extradition to the US."
And here:
"Well, initially, Ecuador obviously was--offered him refuge and asylum status and was not part of that, but there are emails that have been published where the British Crime Prosecution Service actually encourages the Swedes not to get "cold feet" when they wanted to close this investigation and to maintain that pressure on Mr. Assange. And the way it has been conducted, I don't see any explanation on how a prosecutor could maintain an investigation like this, a preliminary investigation without ever pressing charges, without any evidence being produced unless there are some ulterior motives."
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/461420-julian-assange-prison-torture/
Here's the UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in their first ruling in Assange's favour:
"At the outset, the Working Group notes with concern that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty ever since 7 December 2010 to this date as a result of both the actions and inactions of the State of Sweden and the UK"
"The Working Group also views that there has been a substantial failure to exercise due diligence on the part of the concerned States with regard to the performance of the criminal administration, given the following factual elements: (1) in the case of Mr. Assange, after more than five years’ of time lapse, he is still left even before the stage of preliminary investigation with no predictability as to whether and when a formal process of any judicial dealing would commence; (2) despite that it is left to the initial choice of the Swedish prosecution as to what mode of investigation would best suit the purpose of criminal justice, the exercise and implementation of the investigation method should be conducted in compliance with the rule of proportionality, including undertaking to explore alternative ways of administering justice; (3) unlike other suspects in general whose whereabouts are either unknown or unidentifiable and whose spirit of cooperation is non-existent, Mr. Assange, while staying under constant and highly intrusive surveillance, has continued to express his willingness to participate in the criminal investigation; (4) as a consequence, his situation now has become both excessive and unnecessary. From a time perspective, it is worse than if he had appeared in Sweden for questioning and possible legal proceeding when first summoned to do so"
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E
Last edited:
Caporegime
Evidence please.
(Source).
The arrest warrant was only dropped in 2017, when the Swedish chief prosecutor concluded that there was no realistic opportunity of getting Assange to face court (since he was hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy).
The warrant was reinstated when Assange was arrested after Ecuador expelled him from its embassy, in scenes reminiscent of the capture of Saddam Hussein.
You want me to give you evidence of a negative? No charges have ever been brought - that's a fact. It has never advanced past the preliminary stages of investigation.
They could have proceeded with the investigation, but chose not to. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapportuer for Torture support what I am saying.
How are they irresponsible? You are disputing he has risked everything? He's spent 7 years being arbitrarily detained in an embassy, is now in a maximum security prison with hardened criminals and faces extradition to the US to spend the rest of his life in prison for publishing information.
They have to verify the material they get as genuine and determine the legitimacy of the source first before publishing. They have set up a system to publish leaks that ensures the protection and anonymity of the sources which has been successful to date. Anyone could do that? Clearly not - look at the Intercept whose incompetence in handling leaks has led to a few whistle blowers being caught by the gov now.
I'm only interested in their publishing record which is the most important thing. All that stuff is a distraction from the core issue here that a publisher/journalist (it doesn't matter what you call him) is being prosecuted for publishing genuine information.
The UN disagrees with you and have said that he was arbitrarily detained recognising the validity of his claiming asylum to avoid extradition to the US. It was nothing to do with the 'rape' allegations. As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said:
“With all due respect, sir, but Mr. Assange was about as free to leave as someone who is sitting on a rubber boat in a shark pool.”
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/31/seg_1_julian_assange_please_update
Eh? You paint what he describes as judicial persecution as legitimate criticism? Seven years arbitrarily detained and now in a max security prison facing life imprisonment in the US is 'legitimate criticism'?
...and then this narrative completely fell apart when Russia published a video showing Assange in perfect health, laughing and mixing freely with fellow inmates. Oops!
They said he had the effects of psychological torture. Since that video, where he is far from looking healthy by the way given clear weight loss, he was moved to the prison ward. Given all he has gone through I'm not surprised it has taken such a toll mentally.
Yeah, that's all there is to it. A near max sentence for a minor charge of bail-skipping and nothing at all do with the political factors around the case. 24/7 365 days a year surveillance of a bail skipper for 7 years is completely standard police procedure and not at all grossly disproportionate.
Again, whatever you may feel about Assange and Wikileaks, why are going out of your way to justify his treatment and prosecution? If Assange is prosecuted for publishing information any journalist/publisher around the world can be. Can't you see that?
He chose to enter the embassy of his own free will, after losing multiple court cases in a mature democracy with a legal system renowned for fairness, and refused to leave.
Assange's detention was entirely self imposed as a direct response to his unwillingness to face justice, and nothing more.
The rest is just apologia and nonsense.
He was on the run for 7 years after skipping bail, the punishment is isn't disproportionate at all. They have to watch him now because he is to high profile to be left.
At the point the UK will be trying to offload him asap. He put himself in this situation. Why would the UK NOT hand him over to the US? He isn't a citizen and the UK owes him nothing or has any reason to protect him. The US won't execute him for hacking.
I'll take the view of the legal experts of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention who ruled twice in Assange's favour and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture over yours.
A "mature democracy and a legal system renowned for fairness" that is in the process of extraditing a journalist/publisher to face life imprisonment in the US...
Don
Did someone seriously use RT as a source?
And I'll happily declare them wrong and misguided in their judgement, ignoring the actions of Assange and trampling over the rights of the rape victims for justice.
Refusing to leave a building you chose to enter voluntarily because you lost a series of court cases isn't arbitrary detention, its petulent immaturity.
Don
Indeed and the insinuation that the U.K. was arbitrarily detaining him that they used as a basis for their decision had no basis in reality.
Caporegime
Assange has published material without any regard for his sources. He is also on record saying he doesn't care about the consequences of his information dumps, even if it results in the death of informants:
(Source).
Correction: he willingly entered an embassy and refused to leave. He was so determined to remain that Ecuador had to kick him out!
...here he is in perfect health, smiling and chatting freely with fellow inmates!
Since the extradition order has yet to be assessed by a British court, and since this won't happen until next year, and since the USA has not given any indication as to what consequences Assange might face if he's found guilty at an American trial, you literally have no basis whatsoever for these claims.
In other words, basic stuff that people in the mainstream media do every day.
The incompetence of The Intercept does not change anything.
I don't care what you're interested in, the fact remains that Wikileaks has a clear track record of lying, spreading fake news., and fuelling conspiracy theories.
This completely refuses the claim that they've never needed to retract anything, and demolishes the assertion that they're always right. It also shows that they have an agenda, and they'll ignore the truth in order to push that agenda.
It means that Wikileaks is not a trustworthy organisation.
Yeah, well they're entitled to their opinion.
If it had nothing to do with the rape allegations, why did he only take refuge in the embassy after he was bailed over the rape allegations? Why didn't he take refuge earlier? He wandered around the UK freely, without a care in the world, until the rape allegations caught him out.
So he was free to leave. Glad we've agreed on that at last. The 'shark pool' analogy fails, because Assange was not in fear of his life. It was a bail-jumping case, remember?
No, I'm referring to the criticism he's received from governments, indivciduals, and other groups around the world.
You misspelled 'voluntarily obtaining asylum.'
No, that's what he gets for jumping bail, remember?
Evidence please.
But it's magically cleared up! What a relief for good old Julian!
I'm only justifying the treatment he's received for jumping bail, which I consider perfectly reasonable.
How many journalists are doing what Assange did, and how many are being prosecuted for it? Just remind me.
Throughout the entire 7 years that Assange hid in the embassy, journalists continued to go about their business in the usual way, facing no more opposition than they normally faced. Nothing changed.
Dont even need to have such a long winded argument, he is not a journalist. Someone will have to prove he is one for that to be true, it's a bit like the argument with torrent sites, they're just providing a space for other people to publish their links.
Rape victims? What 'rape victims'? If there had been victims charges would have been made, but there haven't.
Please explain to me why these allegations haven't progressed passed the preliminary stage. Baaaaaaaa. Sheep.
You just swallow any old drivel the government preaches.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,556
Pretty hard to charge someone for rape when you can't even arrest them because they hide in an embassy.
And your counter-argument is what exactly?
It's not an 'insinuation' by the way, it's a fact. The UN has ruled in Assange's favour TWICE declalring his mistreatment as arbitrary detention.
You clearly dislike that opinion. Take it up with the UN.