Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Julian Assange arrested in Ecuadorian Embassy
- Thread starter T_Model101
- Start date
Pathetic.
Probably the biggest scandal of this decade. Yes it's only one life but the implications are insane.
Think he'll get a fair trial in the US?
Nope
Hardly.
Media have him guilty already.
And they criticize other countries about press freedom? It's hypocrisy of the highest order. And they just held a summit on democracy?
It's piss funny.
well said. They are bullshitters of the highest order.
Freedom of speech!
Unless you expose our war crimes.
Unless you expose our war crimes.
Let the show trial begin.
What is he supposed to be charged with in the US? He is not American, he did not steal the docs.
Computer hacking conspiracy apparently.
Actually 18 charges…
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...radite-wikileaks-founder-julian-assa-rcna8331
Didn't expect that...
nah...popspone it till Trumps back
I suppose Farage and Sean Hannity will be called to testify at his trial now.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
She would have approved his execution if she could have. Absolute evil cnut.
Good riddance.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
massive attack on journalism in the UK. many journalists finally grew a pair and put their names to the anti-extradition petition. also has support from human right groups, academics, and free speech advocates from across the political spectrum.
not a word about Russian war crimes from any British representative please. it's obvious they don't care about exposing war crimes but only about using the horror of war crimes for their own political capital.
Last edited:
Is this a done deal or does he have any appeals left?
Just waiting for Romano's here we go, then it should be official.
has one more appeal I think. I never liked Assange personally but for me the principle here is too enormous to let personality get in the way. the weight of opinion worth listening to, like Ellsberg for example, is on Assange's side.
She seems to be on a mission to pack as much evil shit into her time in power as possible.
Have to agree, his alleged sexual assaults turned me off to him, but the principle is too important.
The fact that Ellsberg has popped up today reminds me to rewatch The Post.
If he can stall for a couple of years, maybe his guy will be back in the White House to pardon him.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
yeah, and his whole messianic thing was a bit much. but even the Australian government has now advocated on his behalf.
if his guy was the devil it wouldn't make a difference here. not sure how much of Assange's guy Trump is when he directed the intelligence services to kill him in London, though.
the free speech union and the libertarians in the conservative party will surely make a fuss wont they?
I meant, if he can go to the US and stall within the US system (trial, conviction, appeal, 2nd appeal etc). That's at least 2-3 years of litigation at which point a new US President will probably be in office.
oh sorry misread you. i don't see Trump pardoning him if he does get reelected. it's a kind of carrot he dangles in front of part of his base, or did, whenever he wanted a ratings boost. he did the same with Snowden once or twice. then again Trump does get off on being the modern day emperor in the arena whose thumb decides individual fates.
i just think given the weight of international opinion and the fact that the newly elected Australian government has made approaches, that this isn't really the US' fault... yet. the UK should kill it dead in the water. Patel only wakes up in the morning to deport people though so not much chance of that. it's also just a really stupid PR own goal. when you're trying to rally the world around Russian war crimes, this is not a good look. pardoning him would be the obvious move because then we could say "this is how we treat journalists in the west", even if it rings a bit hollow.
I know I am hypocritical and inconsistent but Assange is such a creep that I don't care what happens to him, meanwhile I wish we would pardon Snowden and give him a ticker tape parade when he comes home.
How can WikiLeaks say he's not a criminal and hasn't committed a crime when releasing classified information is literally a crime?
Like we can argue all day and night about whether it should be a crime or not, but the reality is that it currently is a crime and so surely he is by definition a criminal. It has already been ruled on that leaking classified info does not have any First Amendment protections.
Like we can argue all day and night about whether it should be a crime or not, but the reality is that it currently is a crime and so surely he is by definition a criminal. It has already been ruled on that leaking classified info does not have any First Amendment protections.
That is an absolutely mindless argument. All investigative journalists uncovering state level corruption or crime will rely upon classified information gained from whistleblowers' disclosures. It is why there are - in countries that at least want to project the image of a meaningful democracy - certain whistleblower protections and certain journalistic protections are in place, with journalists tasked with weighing the public's need to know.
With WL disclosures, published all over the mainstream press, there was an obvious case of the public's need to know.
Look at Daniel Ellsberg. He wasn't imprisoned, though they did want to go after him using that Espionage Act. No one will get a fair trial charged under the Espionage Act.
The smaller crime (disclosure of classified information) becomes fully justified when exposing a much bigger crime. There are plenty of instances where you may have to break the law to prevent or expose a bigger crime. That being said, in civilised societies there should already be legal protections in order to inform the public of what is being done in the name of the people.
If you actually read the post you replied to, I clearly caveated it by saying we can argue day and night about whether it should be a crime or not - that's not the point of my post it's a completely separate issue. Currently whatever our thoughts on the matter, it is a crime therefore he is a criminal. The course of action here would be to campaign for the amendment of the espionage act to stop this being a crime. But you can't declare yourself not a criminal after committing a crime on the basis that you think the law is dumb. That's a mindless argument.
If we go with what you're saying journalists and publishers from the NYT, Guardian, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, etc. could (and by your logic) should be charged. WL did not leak the information, but received it. And then those mainstream outlets received the material from WL. We know who blew the whistle, and they were duly made an example of by the US.
And if we go with the crime is a crime is a crime doctrine, should higher ups in the military not be brought before the Hague, Bush and Blair, the psychologists and the military and political personnel overseeing the Guantanamo concentration camps?
They published the information. They didn't write a story inspired by 'a source has told us XYZ happens' they straight up published classified documents for everyone to see.
I'm not arguing with you about who should be charged with what, I think the law itself is dumb and should be changed, but by definition he is a criminal. If it were me and I were trying to drum up public support especially given some of the more egregious things he's been accused of in Sweden then I'd be appealing to the public about how stupid and anti-democratic the law is rather than saying I didn't break a law that I very demonstrably did.
How long has he spent locked up already at this stage?
There are regulations that protects whistleblower. Just a matter of which side you want to enforce.