Julian Assange arrested in Ecuadorian Embassy

[Tarrou]

I'm pretty disgusted with the UK government for doing this

but nothing surprises me anymore

 

[Red Defence]

I'm pretty disgusted with the UK government for doing this

but nothing surprises me anymore

For doing what exactly?

 

[Tarrou]

For doing what exactly?

arresting Assange, keep up

 

[Red Defence]

arresting Assange, keep up

You think he should have been let off absconding bail then?

 

[Tarrou]

You think he should have been let off absconding bail then?

as I understood it the charges in Sweden got dropped anyway

What do we care now? Just let him go

 

[11101]

I'm pretty disgusted with the UK government for doing this

but nothing surprises me anymore

They've been quite clear they wanted to arrest him all along. It's only happened today because the Ecuadorians have finally had enough of him too.

 

[Tarrou]

They've been quite clear they wanted to arrest him all along. It's only happened today because the Ecuadorians have finally had enough of him too.

Why though? What does it have to do with us? We're just pandering to the US government IMO

 

[F-Red]

Why though? What does it have to do with us? We're just pandering to the US government IMO

They've asked us to extradite him as well as the skipping bail offence, once Ecuador have decided that an asylum claim is no longer valid, what did you expect to happen? There would be more questions asked if he wasn't arrested.

 

[Red Defence]

as I understood it the charges in Sweden got dropped anyway

What do we care now? Just let him go

Doesn’t matter. If you drop charges against him for absconding bail then you should drop charges for everyone who absconds bail. He’s not a special case. He has to answer to the same law that the rest of us have to answer to.

 

[Tarrou]

They've asked us to extradite him as well as the skipping bail offence, once Ecuador have decided that an asylum claim is no longer valid, what did you expect to happen? There would be more questions asked if he wasn't arrested.

I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit as I'm expecting us to extradite too. But maybe we'll just give him a slap on the wrist and send him on his merry way.

 

[Tarrou]

Doesn’t matter. If you drop charges against him for absconding bail then you should drop charges for everyone who absconds bail. He’s not a special case. He has to answer to the same law that the rest of us have to answer to.

Fair enough, good point. I'm getting ahead of myself a bit here, lets see if they extradite him or not. I don't think we should though.

 

[antihenry]

They've asked us to extradite him as well as the skipping bail offence, once Ecuador have decided that an asylum claim is no longer valid, what did you expect to happen? There would be more questions asked if he wasn't arrested.

After seven years they've suddenly realized that an asylum claim is no longer valid? What were they doing all those years and what has changed?

 

[F-Red]

After seven years they've suddenly realized that an asylum claim is no longer valid? What were they doing all those years and what has changed?

What has changed? The president of Ecuador.

 

[F-Red]

I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit as I'm expecting us to extradite too. But maybe we'll just give him a slap on the wrist and send him on his merry way.

Honestly, it's nothing to do with the UK or something the UK should get involved with. We should extradite to the USA where he's committed an offence there, and let the courts in the USA take their course of action.

 

[Red Defence]

Fair enough, good point. I'm getting ahead of myself a bit here, lets see if they extradite him or not. I don't think we should though.

He’ll get a few months in prison here for absconding, just as you or I would, but the good thing about that is he gets all the (free) medical care he needs and he looks like he needs some.

 

[Eboue]

He’ll get a few months in prison here for absconding, just as you or I would, but the good thing about that is he gets all the (free) medical care he needs and he looks like he needs some.

Yeah well done to the US for helping him, they're the good guys in this whole situation.

 

[Red Defence]

Yeah well done to the US for helping him, they're the good guys in this whole situation.

Did you mean well done to Ecuador because they’re the ones that kicked him out.

 

[Eboue]

Did you mean well done to Ecuador because they’re the ones that kicked him out.

This was a worthwhile post, thanks.

 

[Red Defence]

This was a worthwhile post, thanks.

I know. You’re welcome.

 

[Snow]

Fair enough, good point. I'm getting ahead of myself a bit here, lets see if they extradite him or not. I don't think we should though.

Heard a news editor talking about this with another coworker and he said something about there being a law preventing extradition because of the death penalty in the US.

 

[RORY65]

as I understood it the charges in Sweden got dropped anyway

What do we care now? Just let him go

As far as I was aware they were only dropped as they thought it was impossible to serve him notice but that the investigation against him would be re-opened if he returned to Sweden before the end of the statute of limitation (presumably he will have to go back for the lesser absconding jail charge). Does anyone know if that's correct or if I've got that wrong?

 

[balaks]

They have immediately reopened the sexual assault case. I have zero sympathy for this man.

 

[Tarrou]

As far as I was aware they were only dropped as they thought it was impossible to serve him notice but that the investigation against him would be re-opened if he returned to Sweden before the end of the statute of limitation (presumably he will have to go back for the lesser absconding jail charge). Does anyone know if that's correct or if I've got that wrong?

He wasn't even accused of rape by the women who came forward right? They just wanted him tested for STD's and somehow that escalated into an extradition case which seems bizarre to me

We should just stay out of it

 

[mariachi-19]

God I love Australia

 

[Florida Man]

as I understood it the charges in Sweden got dropped anyway

What do we care now? Just let him go

Extradition treaties, man. Probably a host of other deals between the two countries as well. It was Ecuador who kicked him out anyway.

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

the Only foreigner Donald J Cheeto lets into the USA is his freaking wife from Soviet Yugoslavia!!!! am I right folks?

 

[berbatrick]

Soviet Yugoslavia

Tito reading Joy Ann Reid's twitter feed, 2018, colourised

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The replies really complete it.

 

[horsechoker]

God I love Australia

Democracy manifest

 

[Smores]

They have immediately reopened the sexual assault case. I have zero sympathy for this man.

Making a leap that he's guilty aren't you? We should hand him over to Sweden if they want him but feck the US we all know they just want revenge for him helping to expose their wrongdoing.

I can't see much reason why anyone would be a whistleblower these days, none of them had much impact despite the public anger and they're all punished or on the run for doing the right thing.

 

[balaks]

Making a leap that he's guilty aren't you? We should hand him over to Sweden if they want him but feck the US we all know they just want revenge for him helping to expose their wrongdoing.

I can't see much reason why anyone would be a whistleblower these days, none of them had much impact despite the public anger and they're all punished or on the run for doing the right thing.

I didn't say that - he has fled from the investigation - that in itself is pretty disgraceful. I don't know if he is guity or innocent but what I do know is that he should face whatever evidence they have and fight it in court.
My feelings towards him are not really anything to do with the wikileaks thing - however I also feel that was pretty dubious and would question the motives.

 

[mancan92]

You have to be pretty naive to believe that the guy actually was even involved in any sexual assault. The US government have been trying every sort of media and political to discredit and arrest this guy, trying to make him out to be some sort of terrorist. Seems to have worked on a few in here.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I didn't say that - he has fled from the investigation - that in itself is pretty disgraceful. I don't know if he is guity or innocent but what I do know is that he should face whatever evidence they have and fight it in court.
My feelings towards him are not really anything to do with the wikileaks thing - however I also feel that was pretty dubious and would question the motives.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find people who don't think he deserves some form of punishment for avoiding court proceedings on the sexual assault charges but Assange's point has always been that he wouldn't receive a (fair) trial as he would immediately be extradited to the US on a different matter, whistleblowing. It's hard to treat them separately.

 

[That'sHernandez]

You have to be pretty naive to believe that the guy actually was even involved in any sexual assault. The US government have been trying every sort of media and political to discredit and arrest this guy, trying to make him out to be some sort of terrorist. Seems to have worked on a few in here.

Actually I think sexual assault allegations should be taken seriously and not discredited because the man who allegedly committed them purports to be some kind of defender of the people and a soldier of transparency. What’s more, anyone who puts other people in danger while doing that is kind of a knob.

He discredited himself by going on the run for 7 years. If there were no charges to answer, he wouldn’t have felt a need to run away from them.

 

[mancan92]

Actually I think sexual assault allegations should be taken seriously and not discredited because the man who allegedly committed them purports to be some kind of defender of the people and a soldier of transparency. What’s more, anyone who puts other people in danger while doing that is kind of a knob.

He discredited himself by going on the run for 7 years. If there were no charges to answer, he wouldn’t have felt a need to run away from them.

Umm did you not read what I wrote? Sweden dropped the charges so unless he gets convicted it's also a dangerous presidence for you to assume his guilt. Especially since he has the entire US secret service trying using every political and social trick to make him into a demon so they can finally put him in prison for ousting them.

Personally it looks really naive to believe he is some sort of evil person considering the powers he is fighting against. The reason he ran is because he believed they were trying to use that to extradite him back to the US. If you were in his shoes you would probably run aswell.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Umm did you not read what I wrote? Sweden dropped the charges so unless he gets convicted it's also a dangerous presidence for you to assume his guilt. Especially since he has the entire US secret service trying using every political and social trick to make him into a demon so they can finally put him in prison for ousting them.

Personally it looks really naive to believe he is some sort of evil person considering the powers he is fighting against. The reason he ran is because he believed they were trying to use that to extradite him back to the US. If you were in his shoes you would probably run aswell.

Sweden only dropped the investigation because they didn't see an opportunity to prosecute any time soon due to his self-imposed incarceration to avoid the charges. It's ironic you're calling people naive while being ignorant or purposely ignorant to the reason the investigation was dropped. The most serious allegation can still be investigated and charges brought until 2020.

At what point have I presumed guilt? I've only said he should face the judiciary process for the alleged sexual assault.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The first crucial fact about the indictment is that its key allegation – that Assange did not merely receive classified documents from Chelsea Manning but tried to help her crack a password in order to cover her tracks – is not new. It was long known by the Obama DOJ and was explicitly part of Manning’s trial, yet the Obama DOJ – not exactly renowned for being stalwart guardians of press freedoms – concluded it could not and should not prosecute Assange because indicting him would pose serious threats to press freedom. In sum, today’s indictment contains no new evidence or facts about Assange’s actions; all of it has been known for years.

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

In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As long-time Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “the factual allegations…boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

...
The U.S. Government has been determined to indict Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since at least 2010, when the group published hundreds of thousands of war logs and diplomatic cables revealing numerous war crimes and other acts of corruption by the U.S., the U.K. and other governments around the world. To achieve that goal, the Obama DOJ empaneled a Grand Jury in 2011 and conducted a sweeping investigation into WikiLeaks, Assange and Manning.

But in 2013, the Obama DOJ concluded that it could not prosecute Assange in connection with publication of those documents because there was no way to distinguish what WikiLeaks did from what the New York Times, the Guardian and numerous media outlets around the world routinely do: namely, work with sources to publish classified documents.

...

Beginning in early 2017, the most reactionary Trump officials were determined to do what the Obama DOJ refused to do: indict Assange in connection with publication of the Manning documents.

As the New York Times reported late last year, “Soon after he took over as C.I.A. director, [current Secretary of State] Mike Pompeo privately told lawmakers about a new target for American spies: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.” The Times added that “Mr. Pompeo and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions unleashed an aggressive campaign against Mr. Assange, reversing an Obama-era view of WikiLeaks as a journalistic entity.”

In April, 2017, Pompeo, while still CIA chief, delivered a deranged speechproclaiming that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.”

Whatever else is true about the indictment, substantial parts of the document explicitly characterize as criminal exactly the actions that journalists routinely engage in with their sources, and thus constitutes a dangerous attempt to criminalize investigative journalism.

The indictment, for instance, places great emphasis on Assange’s alleged encouragement that Manning – after she already turned over hundreds of thousands of classified documents – try to get more documents for WikiLeaks to publish. The indictment claims that “discussions also reflect Assange actively encouraging Manning to provide more information. During an exchange, Manning told Assange that ‘after this upload, that’s all I really have got left.’ To which Assange replied, ‘curious eyes never run dry in my experience.’”

But encouraging sources to obtain more information is something journalists do routinely. Indeed, it would be a breach of one’s journalistic duties not to ask vital sources with access to classified information if they could provide even more information so as to allow more complete reporting. If a source comes to a journalist with information, it is entirely common and expected that the journalist would reply: can you also get me X, Y and Z to complete the story or to make it better? As Edward Snowden said this morning, “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.”

By longstanding first amendment tradition, third parties such as news organisations — even an unconventional one like WikiLeaks — are not prosecuted for publishing leaked material, even if the person who gave it to them broke the law. So, Holder is working on the theory that WikiLeaks"colluded" with Manning, acting not as a passive recipient, but as an active participant in persuading Manning to give up the goods.

The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction to be made. How did the Guardian, equally, not “collude” with WikiLeaks in obtaining the cables? How did the New York Times not “collude” with the Guardian when the Guardian gave the Times a copy following Assange’s decision to cut the Times out of the latest document dump?

For that matter, I don’t see how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn’t the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him?

 

[Sky1981]

Some people think this is abour sexual abuse or bond?

 

[mancan92]

Sweden only dropped the investigation because they didn't see an opportunity to prosecute any time soon due to his self-imposed incarceration to avoid the charges. It's ironic you're calling people naive while being ignorant or purposely ignorant to the reason the investigation was dropped. The most serious allegation can still be investigated and charges brought until 2020.

At what point have I presumed guilt? I've only said he should face the judiciary process for the alleged sexual assault.

I've read that but again that is the statement to the media but lets actually see if anything comes off it before we use it as a stick to beat him with. Since as I've mentioned the powers that he is working against are bigger than we can comprehend, thats why I keep mentioning to you that the biggest factor is that you have the US secret services using every trick they know to get him in prison. That knowledge should be enough for you to wait on your need to rush to get him to trial

 

[That'sHernandez]

I've read that but again that is the statement to the media but lets actually see if anything comes off it before we use it as a stick to beat him with. Since as I've mentioned the powers that he is working against are bigger than we can comprehend, thats why I keep mentioning to you that the biggest factor is that you have the US secret services using every trick they know to get him in prison. That knowledge should be enough for you to wait on your need to rush to get him to trial

I'm sorry but I don't consider the alleged victim of a rape requesting that the investigation into Assange is resumed, without any prior knowledge of his impending arrest, to be an appendage of the American Secret Services. Any attempt to diminish these allegations is disgraceful to be quite honest, Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face charges and a trial.