Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraw asylum

1641

Zorya wrote:

A few examples of those expressing support for Assange and contempt for this extra-territorial rendition include...

Would that include extradition to Sweden if another request comes in ? Corbyn and Abbott have already rowed back on this. I bet a lot of the others would as well. Not Pilger though - he is Assange's alter ego.

Zorya

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Slavery, Hitler, and torture references aside, the Swedes should get a priority on him. Also the US charges against him quite rightly have journalists worried.

Highlighted in this editorial here in the Guardian (from the Observer)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/14/the-observer-view-on-extraditing-julian-assange

The Guardian were falling over themselves to get the scoop from Assange in 2007 - 2010.

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

Would that include extradition to Sweden if another request comes in ? Corbyn and Abbott have already rowed back on this. I bet a lot of the others would as well. Not Pilger though - he is Assange's alter ego.

I already said he should have been tried for the allegations in Sweden. He should be extradicted to Sweden. The allegations there are farcical.

The Enbalmer

biko wrote:

Democratic senator from the south would avoid allusions to slavery.

It goes to show that in America Democrats are morons.

1641

Zorya wrote:

The Guardian were falling over themselves to get the scoop from Assange in 2007 - 2010.

Yes, as were the New York Times and others. But he fell out with them all because of dishonesty - and failure to accept any responsibility, eg, the un-redacted Afghan files.
I agree that Wiki did good work in its early days. You could say that his arrogance made Wiki - but it also went on to destroy it.

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

Yes, as were the New York Times and others. But he fell out with them all because of dishonesty - and failure to accept any responsibility, eg, the un-redacted Afghan files.
I agree that Wiki did good work in its early days. You could say that his arrogance made Wiki - but it also went on to destroy it.

We will just leave it at agreeing to disagree on the later days, that's fine.
The charge for the purpose of extradiction, however, refers to the 2010 leaks ie the early days with Manning (and the Guardian and the New York Times and others.)

StinkyMunkey

Ironic how some see Assange as a warrior for free press, bringing to light the crimes of others.

But totally ignore the fact that he himself broke the law and ran and hid like a little bitch.

I could respect the guy if he stood by his beliefs and faced his accusers, but he didn't, he purports to be someone outing wrongdoers but is above facing the law himself.

If this guy was innocent of the charges laid against him, he should have stood up in a court of law and defended himself. But then again his supporters would have you believe that every court to try him would be corrupt.

I accept the consequences for all my actions and would be tried and punished if I broke the law, I guess the law doesn't apply to Assange.

recedite

Zorya wrote: »

I already said he should have been tried for the allegations in Sweden. He should be extradicted to Sweden. The allegations there are farcical.

Sweden won't touch him. They were put under pressure by the Obama administration (remember Obama's War on Wikileaks) to arrest him on minor charges, so that he could ultimately be extradited from Sweden to the USA. The so-called "rape" was something to with Assange not using a condom during consensual sex.


Now that Sweden has dropped the charges (minor charges expire quickly) there is no way they will have anything more to do with it.
They tried to withdraw from the extradition proceedings in 2013 but UK would not allow it. When the charges expired in 2017 the Swedes were able to breathe a sigh of relief.


Assange is the hot potato that no European country wants to be left holding.
British MP's are now desperate to extradite Assange to Sweden, even though Sweden does not want him. Because that would look good for them, whereas if they extradite him to the USA it will look very bad. The voters could turn on them.

A cross-party group of more than 70 British members of Parliament is urging the government to ensure Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden if the Swedish government makes a request.
We are writing to request that you do everything you can to champion action that will ensure that Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden in the event Sweden makes an extradition request.

https://www.politico.eu/article/julian-assange-british-mps-urge-government-to-prioritize-extradition-to-sweden/

Kidchameleon

1641 wrote: »

but it also went on to destroy it.

They are still going strong

Zorya

recedite wrote: »

Sweden won't touch him. They were put under pressure by the Obama administration (remember Obama's War on Wikileaks) to arrest him on minor charges, so that he could ultimately be extradited from Sweden to the USA. The so-called "rape" was something to with Assange not using a condom during consensual sex.


Now that Sweden has dropped the charges (minor charges expire quickly) there is no way they will have anything more to do with it.
They tried to withdraw from the extradition proceedings in 2013 but UK would not allow it. When the charges expired in 2017 the Swedes were able to breathe a sigh of relief.

I know. I've put in links already to the details of the rape, the activities in the aftermath etc.

They will probably reopen charges. Anna Ardin has been amped up by the attention and wil probably go with it. The facts of the case however have been recorded online despite many tweet and text deletions by the accusers and the evidence is thus very flimsy.

1641

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They are still going strong

Not with credibility or any reputation for being disinterested. They are political players.

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

Not with credibility or any reputation for being disinterested. They are political players.

Just one example of a totally bona fide apolitical player in the media?

1641

Zorya wrote: »

I know. I've put in links already to the details of the rape, the activities in the aftermath etc.

They will probably reopen charges. Anna Ardin has been amped up by the attention and wil probably go with it. The facts of the case however have been recorded online despite many tweet and text deletions by the accusers and the evidence is thus very flimsy.

If the evidence is/was flimsy he should have faced the charges - of course, he should have faced them anyway. He blamed them then on a "feminist conspiracy". The stuff about it being a ruse to get him to the US is bogus propaganda by WIKI acting on his behalf. He just saw himself as to too important to be wasting time answering to charges from silly little women. He was a world superhero in his own mind.

Kidchameleon

1641 wrote: »

Not with credibility or any reputation for being disinterested. They are political players.

Again, we only here about what the establishment want us to hear about. How many reports did you see on Vault 7 for example? What about the Russian spy files? Wikileaks are far from biased. They are one of the few news sources left with their integrity intact.

Zorya

1641 wrote: »

If the evidence is/was flimsy he should have faced the charges - of course, he should have faced them anyway. He blamed them then on a "feminist conspiracy". The stuff about it being a ruse to get him to the US is bogus propaganda by WIKI acting on his behalf. He just saw himself as to too important to be wasting time answering to charges from silly little women. He was a world superhero in his own mind.

You must not have read the story correctly. he presented himself for questioning in Sweden as many times as asked and remained in the country until told he was free to go. He also presented himself to UK authorities.

The feminist line is silly overkill, but I guess I can understand some of the angle given that Ardin wrote a blog about seven steps for getting even with a guy who dumped you

I think he was correct to assume that the rape allegation was a ruse to get him extradited to US.

Still, he should go to Sweden. I would like to see the trial.

Dohnjoe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Again, we only here about what the establishment want us to hear about. How many reports did you see on Vault 7 for example? What about the Russian spy files? Wikileaks are far from biased. They are one of the few news sources left with their integrity intact.

They are now considered highly partisan, which means they selectively leak

I actually used to donate to them in the early days, but they've gone downhill since. If an alternative group was setup and started leaked info only about e.g. Russia, Corbyn, socialist leaders in S America, then it would receive equal criticism

There has to be some ethics, principles, an attempt at impartiality, otherwise they lose credibility

All of that is a sideshow to the callous and reckless attitude they had towards putting people in grave danger through their leaks. They could have redacted social security numbers, people's suicide attempts, medical records, etc.. nope, they left it in. Debate on bias aside, that had no justification, and reflects badly on Assange

1641

Zorya wrote: »

You must not have read the story correctly. he presented himself for questioning in Sweden as many times as asked and remained in the country until told he was free to go. He also presented himself to UK authorities.

The feminist line is silly overkill, but I guess I can understand some of the angle given that Ardin wrote a blog about seven steps for getting even with a guy who dumped you

I think he was correct to assume that the rape allegation was a ruse to get him extradited to US.

Still, he should go to Sweden. I would like to see the trial.

I don't know the details but I understand the account is disputed - and you have given one version. This is from Wikipedia:
"According to one source his departure was with the permission of the Swedish authorities. Another source claims that the Swedish authorities notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest on that same day."



You say he presented himself to the UK authorities. He also said he would respect the decisions of the court and was released on bail. When decisions went against him he appealed all the way to the Supreme court. When this went against him he skipped bail - and the rest is history. So not exactly cooperative.


If Sweden reissues extradition can we assume he will now jump at the chance to return to answer the rape charges. After all they are "flimsy" and he can no longer hide behind the excuse that they are a ruse to extradite him to the US - seeing as the UK already has a US extradition warrant?

highgiant1985

at least his cat is ok!

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/wikileaks-confirms-assanges-cat-is-safe-917573.html

eagle eye

1641 wrote:

You say he presented himself to the UK authorities. He also said he would respect the decisions of the court and was released on bail. When decisions went against him he appealed all the way to the Supreme court. When this went against him he skipped bail - and the rest is history. So not exactly cooperative.

I cannot understand and how you criticise somebody for appealing to higher courts. That would set what they are there for, everybody has the right to appeal.

1641 wrote:

If Sweden reissues extradition can we assume he will now jump at the chance to return to answer the rape charges. After all they are "flimsy" and he can no longer hide behind the excuse that they are a ruse to extradite him to the US - seeing as the UK already has a US extradition warrant?

What if he beats the British extradition case?
Does he go back and face the charges without guarantees about being extradited to the US?

Kidchameleon

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are now considered highly partisan, which means they selectively leak

They can be considered whatever the hell those who dictate the narrative want them to be considered. Does not make them so. A quick glance of their most recent publications shows they are on nobody's side (except of course the common man).

1641

eagle eye wrote: »

I cannot understand and how you criticise somebody for appealing to higher courts. That would set what they are there for, everybody has the right to appeal.


What if he beats the British extradition case?
Does he go back and face the charges without guarantees about being extradited to the US?

The Supreme court reference is to show he did all he could to avoid facing the rape charges. He proclaimed he would accept the court verdict - did he - or did he skip bail and run away and hide?



Why did he run away from the "flimsy" rape charges. If the charges are reinstated will he now welcome the opportunity to clear his name? Will he decline his right to challenge a Swedish extradition warrant - and take the opportunity to defend himself in open court? He runs the risk of US charges in Sweden but he faces the certainty of them in the UK.

biko

As I understand it, Assange was never afraid to stand trial in Sweden. The sentence for rape there is ridiculously low, varying from low years, even months, to no jail at all. One example

But he knows the Swedes are sockpuppets for the US and is afraid to get extradited there.
Unfortunately for him the UK is equally eager to please the US so he's really between a rock and a hard place now.

Kidchameleon

1641 wrote: »

Why did he run away from the "flimsy" rape charges

Because they are not flimsy rape charges. They are a BS excuse to take the man and his organization down. If the powers that be wanted him convicted of being from Mars they would do it. The rape charges are completely false. He had consensual sex with those women.

1641

biko wrote: »

As I understand it, Assange was never afraid to stand trial in Sweden. The sentence for rape there is ridiculously low, varying from low years, even months, to no jail at all. One example

But he knows the Swedes are sockpuppets for the US and is afraid to get extradited there.
Unfortunately for him the UK is equally eager to please the US so he's really between a rock and a hard place now.

Really? I think that understanding may have come form Assange/Wiki as self justification (as the "radical feminist conspiracy" ploy was not flying well). In a strong defence of Assange against extradition to the US and in a generally pro-Assange editorial, The Observer today dismisses this rape trial defence :


"He has dismissed the charges as a “radical feminist conspiracy” and tried to smear the complainants as acting on behalf of the CIA. His excuse for refusing to face trial in Sweden – that he would then face extradition to the US – has always been hogwash." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/14/the-observer-view-on-extraditing-julian-assange

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Because they are not flimsy rape charges. They are a BS excuse to take the man and his organization down. If the powers that be wanted him convicted of being from Mars they would do it. The rape charges are completely false. He had consensual sex with those women.

I would prefer the charges to be heard before a real judge and jury, rather than yourself, Your Honour!

Kidchameleon

1641 wrote: »

I would prefer the charges to be heard before a real judge and jury, rather than yourself, Your Honour!

Your missing the point. He will not get a fair trial. It is a smokescreen. I do hope you are not on the jury, you seem to have made up your mind!

1641

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Your missing the point. He will not get a fair trial. It is a smokescreen. I do hope you are not on the jury, you seem to have made up your mind!

Actually, I haven't. But you clearly have (Your Honour!):

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Because they are not flimsy rape charges. They are a BS excuse to take the man and his organization down. If the powers that be wanted him convicted of being from Mars they would do it. The rape charges are completely false. He had consensual sex with those women.

Venom

1641 wrote: »

Actually, I haven't. But you clearly have (Your Honour!):

The charges are not what could be considered rock solid either.



https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

1641

Venom wrote: »

The charges are not what could be considered rock solid either.

So he should just go and face them and clear his name.

eagle eye

I'll post this again because none of the anti-Assange crew seemed to see it.

Amazing that details of torture and war crimes were revealed yet nobody has ever been charged. The whistleblowers are the serious criminals in all this apparently and not the individuals whose crimes were covered up.

Venom

1641 wrote: »

So he should just go and face them and clear his name.

Yeah with a 100% guarantee to be extradited to the US afterwards. I don't think anyone with two brain cells to rub together is going to risk that trip. If Sweden is so concerned with justice, why not give him a cast iron deal that extradition to the states is completely off the table?