7 ms·

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

180 points by ssorc 7y ago

sschueller 7y ago
While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
- Gaelan 7y ago
  Has the US ever “snatched up” someone from the middle of London?
  - cyphar 7y ago
    Not in London, but GP linked two examples (one in Macedonia and one in Italy). There are also many other examples of CIA-run extraordinary rendition[1]. However in these cases they were both done with co-operation from the local police (or military) and government as part of the US "war on terror" (abductions without local government approval have also happened in the past -- Mossad did this in the 1960s[2] -- but I don't recall a US example). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
    - primroot 7y ago
      Where is the cooperation here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case I really fail to see it.
      - cyphar 7y ago
        In the second sentence: > The case was picked by the international media as one of the better-documented cases of extraordinary rendition carried out in a joint operation by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) [emphasis added] A joint operation implies there was co-operation. I'm not saying the US has never conducted extraordinary rendition without local government involvement, just that the two examples aren't like that.
        primroot 7y ago
        You are right then. I missed it because I was focusing on the way the Italian judiciary handled the case afterwards, which indicates the clandestine nature of the co-operation.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      Going to throw out there that they've done the same in Sweden as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
  - hhh 7y ago
    [redacted]
  - freeflight 7y ago
    They've done it in countries to which they are way less "aligned" than the UK [0] and the UK has historically been the US's strongest partner on all things "national security/terrorism". In that context, I wouldn't really be surprised if it's happened before, tho the blowback potential, if it should become public, would be massive so it will probably be kept under extremely tight wraps. [0] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/20-extraordinary-facts-about-cia-extraordinary-rendition-and-secret-detention https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/20-extraordina...
    - monocasa 7y ago
      For whatever reason, the UK has been extremely against extraordinary rendition despite being aligned with the US. It was a decent sized scandal that rendition flights had even just refueled in Diego Garcia (a UK territory). These sorts of things can't be looked at in terms of broad 'alignment'.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Come on, they also went through Prestwick Airport, just outside Glasgow. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-told-to-stay-off-us-plane-at-prestwick-airport-bt7r9nz0z https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-told-to-stay-off-u... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/29/msps-demand-action-over-use-of-scottish-airports-for-rendition https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/29/msps-demand-... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22680924 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22680924
        monocasa 7y ago
        Word, I didn't see that last year. So yes, even just refueling is something the MSPs demand action over. Not sure why that's worthy of "come on" like it invalidates my point.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >even just refueling is something the MSPs demand action over. Yep, Members of the Scottish Parliament have been pissed off. Scottish police were blocked from doing anything however. Westminster unfortunately rides roughshod over both of them and has been a supporter of the rendition flights, as noted in the article from The Times. >"The CIA has been accused of using Scottish airports to facilitate the transfer of terrorism suspects to overseas black sites for interrogation and torture. >A report by Westminster’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) says that MI5 or MI6 was involved in at least 50 rendition operations."
- netcan 7y ago
  There may not be and extradition case. It doesn't seem like Sweden is still keen, and on balance, the US mightn't want him either at this point. It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go.
  - wybiral 7y ago
    > The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go. But America isn't a dictatorship so the decision isn't exactly up to him. There's a whole legal system operating under their own framework that the president doesn't have much control over.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      He can always issue a pardon, which would end the entire thing.
      - michaelcampbell 7y ago
        Thanks; today I learned the US President can pardon a non-US-citizen. Your post made me go look it up. I would never have thought...
        roywiggins 7y ago
        The President can pardon all crimes against the United States- the citizenship of the perpetrator doesn't come into it.
        wybiral 7y ago
        Only federal crimes though, so if a state picked up any charges against him the president can't do much about it.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  Corollary: As long as he is in a maximum security prison controlled by imperial powers, the public will not be aware of the brainwashing/programming/coercion he is going to be subjected to .. Will we see the same Assange in 50 weeks? This is more than enough time for the masters of MK ULTRA to subvert his will and turn him into a puppet.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I'm trying to decide if this line of thinking is scary or wondrous.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      I think its wondrous that anyone things its okay to ignore Guantanamo and the hundred other CIA black sites where this kind of activity is the norm. Its also scary.
      - michaelcampbell 7y ago
        If this is happening at G'mo, it sucks. I haven't heard of any unbelievable turns of faith out of there that brainwashing would cause.
        fit2rule 7y ago
        Of course you wouldn't know - this is why these sites are operated clandestinely, and you - the American people - will never know what your government is doing in your name at these sites. Just like the people of the UK don't know what is being done, in the name of their ruler, in sites such as Belmarsh. Those who find this incredible, might want to look - for themselves - at Belmarsh's long history of being a used as a programming site. The idea of Assange becoming the subject of mind control procedures in Belmarsh is, unfortunately, not un-realistic. The UK and its master, the USA, has a long history of these kinds of activities in cases where it is politically expedient .. if this is unreal to you, I suggest you have a milquetoast view of the intelligence community. Read the Wikileaks.
JeremyBanks 7y ago
[deleted]
- armenarmen 7y ago
  Well that’s just a touch melodramatic.
Anon84 7y ago
May they throw out the key
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
guitarbill 7y ago
> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added. Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).
- Veen 7y ago
  You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not cost £16m?
  - guitarbill 7y ago
    To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.
    - foldr 7y ago
      Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail? I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.
      - guitarbill 7y ago
        I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them. People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013& https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
        7y ago
yasp 7y ago
Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events. > If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges? > Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges. > So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant? > Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. > [...] [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...
- Veen 7y ago
  The answer to Murray's questions is in the article. Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy. They are considering re-opening the investigation.
  - yasp 7y ago
    So was a warrant issued or not? In the US, at least, being "unable to formally notify [someone] of allegations" would not prevent a warrant from being issued.
    - akvadrako 7y ago
      This is not the US, so US legal customs are irrelevant.
wolco 7y ago
This gives the US a year.
sneak 7y ago
> Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out. I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
sneak 7y ago
Reminder: (the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.) On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom". On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him". According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]". On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)" On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing. On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper. On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...
- contingencies 7y ago
  See also https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
NoblePublius 7y ago
It’s not civil disobedience without accepting the consequences of one’s actions.
- kdtsh 7y ago
  Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily require rolling over when a power you’re standing against assets itself. He can maintain his legal innocence and moral standing if he wants to. I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
  - NoblePublius 7y ago
    It literally requires that. It’s what the “civil” part of the term means. Otherwise it’s just disobedience. Go read Letter From An Alabama Jail.
    - kdtsh 7y ago
      It’s very debatable that that’s what the ‘civil’ means. Frankly, the term is ambiguous, and really that ambiguity seems to be intentional - it can mean many different things to many different people. I haven’t read Letter From An Alabama Jail, but a person’s civil disobedience doesn’t stop being civil disobedience because they don’t follow MLK’s formula.
dleslie 7y ago
I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political posturing.
- duxup 7y ago
  I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.
  - dleslie 7y ago
    It's not necessary for him to be a popular martyr for him to be an effective martyr. There are many people who continue to hold him in high esteem, despite claims about his organization's ulterior motives.
  - goodfight 7y ago
    Name one unbiased news source. We are in the age of information wars.
    - duxup 7y ago
      Crafting things to form their own narratives isn't bias, it is a choice.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Name one thing Wikileaks has posted that isn’t true, please, for citation on your claim.
        duxup 7y ago
        Their own tweets about what they're going to release and their actual actions, their own characterization of the information, their choices not to release some information. I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence what is "true". Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Senator Joe Manchin explaining Assange's arrest, and some interesting ideas on property; >"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf. >So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil. >He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him." https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/1 https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...
- return1 7y ago
  get him back?
  - walshemj 7y ago
    Get him back [to the usa] - is implied
    - return1 7y ago
      he was in the USA?
Tycho 7y ago
What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time persona non grata of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.
- milquetoastaf 7y ago
  That's what happens you try to play the game of being an international power broker but fail miserably.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  He provably skipped bail. EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
  - Tycho 7y ago
    Well done for missing the point.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      What is your point then? Sweden were pursuing their original case until he became a fugitive. If he hadn't run, he would (most likely) have been extradited to Sweden, not the US.
      - Tycho 7y ago
        The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.
Cheryl_Sanders 7y ago
How is it fair that Julian Assange is the one being arrested (not saying he shouldn't if he is guilty) meanwhile the people responsible for countless disgusting war crimes and corruption that Wikileaks exposed are off free? Shouldn't we focus on the real issues here?

180 points by ssorc 7y ago

While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

Gaelan 7y ago
Has the US ever “snatched up” someone from the middle of London?
- cyphar 7y ago
  Not in London, but GP linked two examples (one in Macedonia and one in Italy). There are also many other examples of CIA-run extraordinary rendition[1]. However in these cases they were both done with co-operation from the local police (or military) and government as part of the US "war on terror" (abductions without local government approval have also happened in the past -- Mossad did this in the 1960s[2] -- but I don't recall a US example). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
  - primroot 7y ago
    Where is the cooperation here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case I really fail to see it.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      In the second sentence: > The case was picked by the international media as one of the better-documented cases of extraordinary rendition carried out in a joint operation by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) [emphasis added] A joint operation implies there was co-operation. I'm not saying the US has never conducted extraordinary rendition without local government involvement, just that the two examples aren't like that.
      - primroot 7y ago
        You are right then. I missed it because I was focusing on the way the Italian judiciary handled the case afterwards, which indicates the clandestine nature of the co-operation.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    Going to throw out there that they've done the same in Sweden as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
- hhh 7y ago
  [redacted]
- freeflight 7y ago
  They've done it in countries to which they are way less "aligned" than the UK [0] and the UK has historically been the US's strongest partner on all things "national security/terrorism". In that context, I wouldn't really be surprised if it's happened before, tho the blowback potential, if it should become public, would be massive so it will probably be kept under extremely tight wraps. [0] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/20-extraordinary-facts-about-cia-extraordinary-rendition-and-secret-detention https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/20-extraordina...
  - monocasa 7y ago
    For whatever reason, the UK has been extremely against extraordinary rendition despite being aligned with the US. It was a decent sized scandal that rendition flights had even just refueled in Diego Garcia (a UK territory). These sorts of things can't be looked at in terms of broad 'alignment'.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Come on, they also went through Prestwick Airport, just outside Glasgow. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-told-to-stay-off-us-plane-at-prestwick-airport-bt7r9nz0z https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-told-to-stay-off-u... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/29/msps-demand-action-over-use-of-scottish-airports-for-rendition https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/29/msps-demand-... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22680924 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22680924
      - monocasa 7y ago
        Word, I didn't see that last year. So yes, even just refueling is something the MSPs demand action over. Not sure why that's worthy of "come on" like it invalidates my point.
        inflatableDodo 7y ago
        >even just refueling is something the MSPs demand action over. Yep, Members of the Scottish Parliament have been pissed off. Scottish police were blocked from doing anything however. Westminster unfortunately rides roughshod over both of them and has been a supporter of the rendition flights, as noted in the article from The Times. >"The CIA has been accused of using Scottish airports to facilitate the transfer of terrorism suspects to overseas black sites for interrogation and torture. >A report by Westminster’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) says that MI5 or MI6 was involved in at least 50 rendition operations."
netcan 7y ago
There may not be and extradition case. It doesn't seem like Sweden is still keen, and on balance, the US mightn't want him either at this point. It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go.
- wybiral 7y ago
  > The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go. But America isn't a dictatorship so the decision isn't exactly up to him. There's a whole legal system operating under their own framework that the president doesn't have much control over.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    He can always issue a pardon, which would end the entire thing.
    - michaelcampbell 7y ago
      Thanks; today I learned the US President can pardon a non-US-citizen. Your post made me go look it up. I would never have thought...
      - roywiggins 7y ago
        The President can pardon all crimes against the United States- the citizenship of the perpetrator doesn't come into it.
        wybiral 7y ago
        Only federal crimes though, so if a state picked up any charges against him the president can't do much about it.
fit2rule 7y ago
Corollary: As long as he is in a maximum security prison controlled by imperial powers, the public will not be aware of the brainwashing/programming/coercion he is going to be subjected to .. Will we see the same Assange in 50 weeks? This is more than enough time for the masters of MK ULTRA to subvert his will and turn him into a puppet.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  I'm trying to decide if this line of thinking is scary or wondrous.
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    I think its wondrous that anyone things its okay to ignore Guantanamo and the hundred other CIA black sites where this kind of activity is the norm. Its also scary.
    - michaelcampbell 7y ago
      If this is happening at G'mo, it sucks. I haven't heard of any unbelievable turns of faith out of there that brainwashing would cause.
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        Of course you wouldn't know - this is why these sites are operated clandestinely, and you - the American people - will never know what your government is doing in your name at these sites. Just like the people of the UK don't know what is being done, in the name of their ruler, in sites such as Belmarsh. Those who find this incredible, might want to look - for themselves - at Belmarsh's long history of being a used as a programming site. The idea of Assange becoming the subject of mind control procedures in Belmarsh is, unfortunately, not un-realistic. The UK and its master, the USA, has a long history of these kinds of activities in cases where it is politically expedient .. if this is unreal to you, I suggest you have a milquetoast view of the intelligence community. Read the Wikileaks.

JeremyBanks 7y ago

[deleted]

armenarmen 7y ago
Well that’s just a touch melodramatic.

Anon84 7y ago

May they throw out the key

dang 7y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

guitarbill 7y ago

> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added. Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).

Veen 7y ago
You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not cost £16m?
- guitarbill 7y ago
  To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.
  - foldr 7y ago
    Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail? I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.
    - guitarbill 7y ago
      I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them. People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013& https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
      - 7y ago

yasp 7y ago

Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events. > If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges? > Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges. > So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant? > Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. > [...] [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...

Veen 7y ago
The answer to Murray's questions is in the article. Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy. They are considering re-opening the investigation.
- yasp 7y ago
  So was a warrant issued or not? In the US, at least, being "unable to formally notify [someone] of allegations" would not prevent a warrant from being issued.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    This is not the US, so US legal customs are irrelevant.

wolco 7y ago

This gives the US a year.

sneak 7y ago

> Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out. I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.

sneak 7y ago

Reminder: (the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.) On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom". On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him". According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]". On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)" On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing. On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper. On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...

contingencies 7y ago
See also https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

NoblePublius 7y ago

It’s not civil disobedience without accepting the consequences of one’s actions.

kdtsh 7y ago
Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily require rolling over when a power you’re standing against assets itself. He can maintain his legal innocence and moral standing if he wants to. I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
- NoblePublius 7y ago
  It literally requires that. It’s what the “civil” part of the term means. Otherwise it’s just disobedience. Go read Letter From An Alabama Jail.
  - kdtsh 7y ago
    It’s very debatable that that’s what the ‘civil’ means. Frankly, the term is ambiguous, and really that ambiguity seems to be intentional - it can mean many different things to many different people. I haven’t read Letter From An Alabama Jail, but a person’s civil disobedience doesn’t stop being civil disobedience because they don’t follow MLK’s formula.

dleslie 7y ago

I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political posturing.

duxup 7y ago
I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.
- dleslie 7y ago
  It's not necessary for him to be a popular martyr for him to be an effective martyr. There are many people who continue to hold him in high esteem, despite claims about his organization's ulterior motives.
- goodfight 7y ago
  Name one unbiased news source. We are in the age of information wars.
  - duxup 7y ago
    Crafting things to form their own narratives isn't bias, it is a choice.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Name one thing Wikileaks has posted that isn’t true, please, for citation on your claim.
      - duxup 7y ago
        Their own tweets about what they're going to release and their actual actions, their own characterization of the information, their choices not to release some information. I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence what is "true". Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Senator Joe Manchin explaining Assange's arrest, and some interesting ideas on property; >"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf. >So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil. >He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him." https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/1 https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...

return1 7y ago
get him back?
- walshemj 7y ago
  Get him back [to the usa] - is implied
  - return1 7y ago
    he was in the USA?

Tycho 7y ago

What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time persona non grata of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.

milquetoastaf 7y ago
That's what happens you try to play the game of being an international power broker but fail miserably.
ChrisSD 7y ago
He provably skipped bail. EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
- Tycho 7y ago
  Well done for missing the point.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    What is your point then? Sweden were pursuing their original case until he became a fugitive. If he hadn't run, he would (most likely) have been extradited to Sweden, not the US.
    - Tycho 7y ago
      The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.

Cheryl_Sanders 7y ago

How is it fair that Julian Assange is the one being arrested (not saying he shouldn't if he is guilty) meanwhile the people responsible for countless disgusting war crimes and corruption that Wikileaks exposed are off free? Shouldn't we focus on the real issues here?