[POLITICS] Julian Assange Arrested

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

https://edition.cnn.com/uk/live-news/julian-assange-arrest-dle-gbr-intl/index.html

So, the Ecuadoran Embassy evicted Assange and handed him over to British police, who confirmed he was arrested "on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act."

So, Assange is pretty well fucked, since the US has been looking for any excuse to get a hold of him for a while now, and being extradited to the US is the thing he fears most.

The real question is if any of those threats of having some serious data to drop that was being held just in case something happens to Assange were true or not.

I'm almost sure he prepared some dirt for that exact turn of events. There's question against whom.

And thus Journalism dies :(

I am in favor of Wikileaks in theory because it holds governments accountable.

Because of Wikileaks and Snowden, we found out about the whole NSA wire tapping of Phones and Social Media which is very Orwellian.

MrCalavera:
I'm almost sure he prepared some dirt for that exact turn of events. There's question against whom.

Maybe we'll finally find out what's in those "insurance files" wikileaks spread around.

Schadrach:

So, the Ecuadoran Embassy evicted Assange and handed him over to British police, who confirmed he was arrested "on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act."

Let us please note that he was officially arrested for "failing to surrender himself to the court", when he skipped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 rather than to answer questions regarding a sexual assault case against him. He's a rich and influential person: he can pull those sorts of strings.

It was only later it was announced he is also being detained due to an extradition request from the USA, which he will have to answer for after any potential case against him in the UK is dealt with.

Samtemdo8:
about the whole NASA

Think you mean NSA. Unless NASA is up to something with their satellites. 0_0

Hawki:

Samtemdo8:
about the whole NASA

Think you mean NSA. Unless NASA is up to something with their satellites. 0_0

Yeah NSA. Cursed acronyms :P

Samtemdo8:
And thus Journalism dies :(

I am in favor of Wikileaks in theory because it holds governments accountable.

Right. Accountability. Let's think about that for a minute.

Because this whole sad and sorry affair seems to me to involve a guy accused of sexual assault who does everything in his power to not even have to submit to a police interview, including using his power and influence to flee a jurisdiction. Julian Assange revealed himself to be a model of accountability avoidance.

The USA could have thrown down an extradition request at any time, but he had no problems swanning around Western countries where he could have been extradited. He suddenly starts singing this tune about victimisation only when he's asked to answer a different accusation. So, bluntly, fuck Julian Assange, because any sympathy I have that the USA would clearly love to make an example of him falls well short of my disgust and contempt for his behaviour avoiding judicial process.

Frankly, I think this could be great for Wikileaks, which may be significantly stronger without the toxicity, paranoia and agendas of Julian Assange.

Agema:

Samtemdo8:
And thus Journalism dies :(

I am in favor of Wikileaks in theory because it holds governments accountable.

Right. Accountability. Let's think about that for a minute.

Because this whole sad and sorry affair seems to me to involve a guy accused of sexual assault who does everything in his power to not even have to submit to a police interview, including using his power and influence to flee a jurisdiction. Julian Assange revealed himself to be a model of accountability avoidance.

The USA could have thrown down an extradition request at any time, but he had no problems swanning around Western countries where he could have been extradited. He suddenly starts singing this tune about victimisation only when he's asked to answer a different accusation. So, bluntly, fuck Julian Assange, because any sympathy I have that the USA would clearly love to make an example of him falls well short of my disgust and contempt for his behaviour avoiding judicial process.

Frankly, I think this could be great for Wikileaks, which may be significantly stronger without the toxicity, paranoia and agendas of Julian Assange.

Not to mention the propaganda he released in favor of trump during the 2016 elections. He played a large role in the whole email server thing and even claimed to have hacked info from the republicans but refused to release it and only released stuff from the democrats. Hes a tool.

Agema:
Let us please note that he was officially arrested for "failing to surrender himself to the court", when he skipped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 rather than to answer questions regarding a sexual assault case against him. He's a rich and influential person: he can pull those sorts of strings.

It was only later it was announced he is also being detained due to an extradition request from the USA, which he will have to answer for after any potential case against him in the UK is dealt with.

Let us also note that Interpol had a "red notice"[1] out for him since at least March 2011, so his claims regarding the whole thing being a pretext to hand him over to the US are quite possibly accurate.

Especially when you consider that the accusation was made, investigated, dropped, he was told he could leave Sweden without issue and then picked back up again afterward. And also that one of the women involved in that sexual assault case had ties to the CIA. It was dropped again afterward, one charge for procedural reasons, the other after Sweden's chief prosecutor questioned him at the Ecuadoran embassy.

Funny that - he's being held for failing to appear before a British court regarding a Swedish charge that had been dropped, picked back up, and then dropped again, the net result of which will be that he's being sent to the US due to a "red notice" that was possibly already in place before any of this happened. His maximum sentence in the UK is 12 months.

As an exercise for the reader, how common is it to issue an international arrest warrant for nonviolent sexual assault? Hint: it happens way less often than you think, especially when we're talking about "and then I stopped consenting during the act" cases like Assange's.

Agema:
Frankly, I think this could be great for Wikileaks, which may be significantly stronger without the toxicity, paranoia and agendas of Julian Assange.

Possible, or it could basically collapse. Who knows? More importantly, will any "insurance" get released?

Agema:

The USA could have thrown down an extradition request at any time, but he had no problems swanning around Western countries where he could have been extradited.

Such a "red notice" is known to have existed since at least March 2011 (we don't have a firm date on when it was issued available but do know for certain it was already in effect by then), and the accusations against him were picked back up after being dropped just a few months prior. It's not a massive stretch to suspect that he might not have been wrong to suggest the whole thing was a pretext to hand him over to the US.

Worgen:

Not to mention the propaganda he released in favor of trump during the 2016 elections.

You mean the Podesta and DNC email leaks? Or was there some other propaganda? His private chats from that era in which he expressed pro-GOP views weren't released to a broader audience until long after the election.

Worgen:
even claimed to have hacked info from the republicans but refused to release it and only released stuff from the democrats. Hes a tool.

I've heard that claimed before, but I've never actually seen the source of him claiming to have hacked GOP info but refusing to release it.

[1] a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action - no actual charges mentioned

Shame it didn't happen during a Democrat's Presidency. Trump might just pardon the guy.

Fuck Assange.

Saelune:
Shame it didn't happen during a Democrat's Presidency. Trump might just pardon the guy.

Fuck Assange.

Thus compromising press freedoms for nothing?

Can't say I like Assange on a personal level and he has long proven that Wikileaks was anything but impartial when it comes to the information it chose to release but nevertheless they did offer insight into a lot of confidential information about human rights violations of Western governments that the public had a right to know about

His arrest is iffy at best, especially now shortly after the equally unjustified arrest of Chelsea Manning. The protection of whistleblowers is important. Even if I will concede that Assange has hardly been a force for good recently.

Samtemdo8:
And thus Journalism dies :(

I am in favor of Wikileaks in theory because it holds governments accountable.

Because of Wikileaks and Snowden, we found out about the whole NSA wire tapping of Phones and Social Media which is very Orwellian.

You're confusing 2 very different and separate events. Snowden's whistleblowing had absolutely nothing to do with Assange and Wikileaks. Though I don't blame you as it's actually very common.

Snowden leaked documents through tradition press outlets regarding the various NSA overreaches and secret programs that were blatantly constitutional; it was done in an attempt to right wrongs in the current system and handled in a manner consistent with what might be considered "best practice" (lol). The documents leaked were chosen for both being necessary to expose the wrongdoing while also limited to ensure that unrelated sensitive data was minimized.

Wikileaks' initial documents about the US came from Chelsey Manning, a (former) member of the US Army. The leaks contained pretty much anything and everything ranging from info on the US spying on other world leaders (Germany for instance) to identifying information of US personnel and assests in other countries to specs for classified military communications. There was no editing done; it was just released to do as much damage to the US as possible. Wikileaks has followed this up with "interesting" actions such as criticizing[1] the release of the Panama Papers that exposed massive financial wrongdoing by many countries and elites across the globe to selectively releasing information received directly from Russian Intelligence damaging to only one side of a US presidential election.[2] They claim to stand for complete transparency, but their actions show them to be following their own private agenda. Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

For those that care: ACLU Comment on Julian Assange Arrest

This is why Assange is being extradited:

Avnger:
Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

As if that's not true of any news organization?

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

As if that's not true of any news organization?

I never said one way or another on that. It's rather funny that you have to use the actions of those news organizations that you constantly deride as a defense for Assange though.

I included it because it is a rather interesting statement from Assange who claims to stand for complete transparency... A true advocate of complete transparency wouldn't be unilaterally deciding what's "interesting" to the public; they'd let the public decide that for themselves.

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

As if that's not true of any news organization?

I never said one way or another on that. It's rather funny that you have to use the actions of those news organizations that you constantly deride as a defense for Assange though.

No, literally any news organization. If I was speaking only of CNN et al., I'd have said so.

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

As if that's not true of any news organization?

That is sort of the definition of news, interesting information about recent events, or perhaps recent information about interesting events. If something isn't interesting to people, it really isn't news.

The "wiki" in "wikileaks" implies a public aspect, you can't really hide information generated by public interaction. The "leaks" in "wikileaks" implies it's information is being released because someone was hiding it.

I think you may have meant to imply what I'm saying in the first place, but I feel it's worth expressing, wikileaks acting like any news organization and deciding what to publish and what not to publish betrays the name Wikileaks twice.

tstorm823:

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:
Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

As if that's not true of any news organization?

That is sort of the definition of news, interesting information about recent events, or perhaps recent information about interesting events. If something isn't interesting to people, it really isn't news.

The "wiki" in "wikileaks" implies a public aspect, you can't really hide information generated by public interaction. The "leaks" in "wikileaks" implies it's information is being released because someone was hiding it.

I think you may have meant to imply what I'm saying in the first place, but I feel it's worth expressing, wikileaks acting like any news organization and deciding what to publish and what not to publish betrays the name Wikileaks twice.

Sure. But then, it's not against the law to have a not very accurately named organization. Otherwise it'd be Roger Ailes (and others) detained for "Fox News Corporation".

PsychedelicDiamond:
Can't say I like Assange on a personal level and he has long proven that Wikileaks was anything but impartial when it comes to the information it chose to release but nevertheless they did offer insight into a lot of confidential information about human rights violations of Western governments that the public had a right to know about

His arrest is iffy at best, especially now shortly after the equally unjustified arrest of Chelsea Manning. The protection of whistleblowers is important. Even if I will concede that Assange has hardly been a force for good recently.

^That in a nutshell.

The arrest is without merit, boiling down to "We don't like whistleblowers".

Given Trump's hatred of the press, I expect to see Assange spend the rest of his life behind bars in the US. Even though Assange helped Trump's campaign win.

Ah America, you keep using that word "freedom". I don't think it means what you think it means.

PsychedelicDiamond:
His arrest is iffy at best...

There's nothing iffy or complicated about breaking bail and fleeing due court process: it's a crime. There's one hell of a prime facie case against him for that, no matter what other alleged crimes he may or may not have done. One that he willingly brought on himself.

Schadrach:
Let us also note that Interpol had a "red notice"[1] out for him since at least March 2011, so his claims regarding the whole thing being a pretext to hand him over to the US are quite possibly accurate.

He was already in the UK, so upon receipt of a suitable request and evidence of criminality from the US government, he could have been picked up at any time and the case processed through normal legal channels. There was never any need for a pretext of a sexual assault case, it's a red herring.

And also that one of the women involved in that sexual assault case had ties to the CIA.

Pfah. Sure, and I've got ties to the president of Botswana if you really wanted to fabricate a case through a few degrees of separation and conspiracy theory.

She's a political activist. Of course she's likely to end up with some involvement with political groups and scenes which will include people with sensitive backgrounds. But knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone who was once in the CIA does not make a person a CIA stooge.

[1] a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action - no actual charges mentioned

skywolfblue:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Can't say I like Assange on a personal level and he has long proven that Wikileaks was anything but impartial when it comes to the information it chose to release but nevertheless they did offer insight into a lot of confidential information about human rights violations of Western governments that the public had a right to know about

His arrest is iffy at best, especially now shortly after the equally unjustified arrest of Chelsea Manning. The protection of whistleblowers is important. Even if I will concede that Assange has hardly been a force for good recently.

^That in a nutshell.

The arrest is without merit, boiling down to "We don't like whistleblowers".

Given Trump's hatred of the press, I expect to see Assange spend the rest of his life behind bars in the US. Even though Assange helped Trump's campaign win.

Ah America, you keep using that word "freedom". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Clearly it means take away other people's rights so I can do whatever I want

I assume we were just looking for a main export for the post-Brexit US-UK trade deal. They give us chlorinated chickens, we give them Julian Assanges. Obviously we'll probably run out first.

Baffle2:
I assume we were just looking for a main export for the post-Brexit US-UK trade deal. They give us chlorinated chickens, we give them Julian Assanges. Obviously we'll probably run out first.

Turn that n upsides down, scramble the letters and you turn Assange into sausages

According to the newly unsealed indictment made public on Thursday, in early March 2010, Assange agreed to help Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, with cracking an administrative password to the military's classified internet system. Getting access to the password would have made it harder for investigators to track Manning as the source of the information being posted by Wikileaks.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/julian-assange-chelsea-manning-intertwined/story?id=62344376

If true, yes that would definitely be considered " merit" for both Manning and Assange.

Like I stated earlier, theft is theft. Leaking information you have be granted access to = leak, breaking in illegally to something you do not have access to = stealing.

In addition, I see Assange as nothing more than a disgusting poo singling monkey who cannot even be bothered to care for his cat. Seriously what sort of person does things like this?!

Julian Assange ?smeared poo over embassy walls?, says Ecuadorian minister

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/11/julian-assange-smeared-poo-embassy-walls-says-ecuadorian-minister-9169870/

That list also insisted Assange take charge of the "well-being, food, hygiene and proper care" of his pet tabby cat or risk its being given away to an animal shelter.
He had apparently not been consistent in cleaning up after the poor thing, which was known to sit at the window wearing a natty little necktie.
Assange is now understood to have given "Embassy Cat" away to ensure it has a freer life elsewhere but the pair used to regularly pose together on Instagram.

The memo also demanded the guest clean his own bathroom and do his own laundry, warning that the embassy would cease paying for the cost of his stay as of 1 December 2018.

https://www.indy100.com/article/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy-hygiene-8865371

and of course he tore the place up while there:

Workers say that the WikiLeaks founder has ruined the embassy floors by skateboarding through the halls, playing soccer on the grounds, and not consistently cleaning up after his cat.
Earlier in October, the embassy posted strict housekeeping rules for Assange, telling him to take better care of his bathroom and potentially lose his cat if he doesn't take better care of it. The embassy also said it would stop paying for his medical bills and would stop paying for costs related to his housing.

https://www.thisisinsider.com/julian-assange-skateboarding-ecuador-embassy-floors-2018-11

No wonder he was kicked out, he seems to not show anyone or anything respect. Sure would be nice to have someone provide you with free room and board for years like that eh? He should be sued for costs.

This guy is an asshole who used stolen property as a weapon picking and choosing what and when to release to fit his agenda. I do not feel sorry for the guy, nothing of value is lost here.

Seanchaidh:
For those that care: ACLU Comment on Julian Assange Arrest

This is why Assange is being extradited:

Avnger:
Assange himself has stated that they sit on stories if he considers them "not interesting."

As if that's not true of any news organization?

The issue here of course is anyone even remotely surprised by this? Look at what has been unsealed already that the US government and military has done, this is far from being the worst. It does not matter if this is released, people have had a crap ton of information already released and they are willing to turn a blind eye to that as well as anything else that happens and this isn't going to surprise them or change anyone's minds.

The US has been responsible for so many horrific things, what exactly does releasing this specific one change here that none of the others had not? The people who care about this happening are already pissed, the ones who don't are not going to suddenly start caring because of this incident. They didn't care when Carter "riled up some Muslims" (Their words not mine) by arming them, training them and then lying to them and betraying them. The people didn't care when Bill Clinton bombed that aspirin factory and Bin Laden vowed to get revenge for those children's deaths. No they only started to care when he attacked the twin towers but even then, they still refuse to accept that it was US previous actions harming others that lead up to that day. This isn't going to change anything is the issue here. The US government is still going to do horrible things and bury it. We will still have Starship troopers level of patriotism and military worship engulfing the United States, hell if anything it has gotten WORSE since this incident, not better. By electing trump they are moving even far more extreme than they had previously in that direction.

Nothing changed for the better, if anything it is only getting much much worse. So nothing was even accomplished here by realising this in the first place really except those releasing it have their lives ruined.

trunkage:
Turn that n upsides down, scramble the letters and you turn Assange into sausages

That must be that enhanced interrogation I've heard about. Seriously, imagine having to eat sausages.

Its funny because I'd forgotten he was even alive.

So, it turned out those "insurance files" data includes a huge amount of unredacted information about ordinary people involved in criminal proceedings or in debt, including the names and personal details of rape victims and people with gay-sex convictions in Saudi Arabia which could be used to identify and locate them. Who was surprised?

I've said it before. Assange is literal human garbage who has never, ever demonstrated any genuine care for the actual human rights or circumstances of people affected by government oppression (or anyone for that matter, given the denial of justice to his own alleged victims).

The desire to expose human rights violations by the US and other western governments is great. But here's the thing. People not knowing isn't the problem. People know that the US government tortures people, and that this torture includes things like sexual assault (and that people have died because of it). It's been exposed enough times that anyone who doesn't know is never going to. People know that the "war on terror" has killed innocent people, including many children. What's needed isn't more useless data, it's someone who can actually make people in Western countries care about what that data implies and create an appetite for actual political change. Julian Assange isn't that person, in large part because he is personally trash, and you have to ignore that to support him at this point.

Agema:

She's a political activist. Of course she's likely to end up with some involvement with political groups and scenes which will include people with sensitive backgrounds. But knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone who was once in the CIA does not make a person a CIA stooge.

Considering that she got close enough to Julian Assange to have sex with him, one wonders why the CIA didn't do anything with that golden opportunity to get Assange out of the way but waited a few weeks before (supposedly) drumming up fake rape charges against him. And yes, I realize I just spent more time thinking logically about that then Assange's rabid defenders ever have.

Also, I feel a smug satisfaction with the fact that Assange is now in custody and that he was too much of a trashy coward to face his arrest with dignity. As has already been pointed out by others, it is the worst kind of two-faced that demand that everyone else is publicly accountable, only to hide and refuse to co-operate when accused of wrongdoing yourself.

Agema:

He was already in the UK, so upon receipt of a suitable request and evidence of criminality from the US government, he could have been picked up at any time and the case processed through normal legal channels. There was never any need for a pretext of a sexual assault case, it's a red herring.

The notice they used didn't specify charges, it was what they call a "red notice" which is basically "arrest them and hold them pending a request for further legal action", there's not proof of criminality or even a list of charges attached to it, it's arrest them and we'll send you why we needed them arrested and what to do with them later.

The fun part is that he's charged with not appearing before a British court regarding a Swedish charge that has since been dropped, and as a result will be shipped off to the US within the year to face the charges this is all really about. Or do you think his case in Sweden would have been reopened and chased across international lines if he were an otherwise uninteresting schmuck? I wonder how many cases of nonviolent sexual assault that's happened to?

Agema:
She's a political activist. Of course she's likely to end up with some involvement with political groups and scenes which will include people with sensitive backgrounds. But knowing someone who knows someone who knows someone who was once in the CIA does not make a person a CIA stooge.

All I'm suggesting is that it's not beyond the pale to want a good reason to keep someone in custody under local law instead of arresting a famous journalist and holding them pending charges and an extradition order from a foreign power whose angry with him for reporting their secrets. Especially if you're an elected official. Once he's in the system it's less of a public spectacle to extradite him.

Schadrach:
The notice they used didn't specify charges, it was what they call a "red notice" which is basically "arrest them and hold them pending a request for further legal action", there's not proof of criminality or even a list of charges attached to it, it's arrest them and we'll send you why we needed them arrested and what to do with them later.

It doesn't matter. He's happily jet-setting around Western countries that have extradition treaties with the USA despite the fact that the USA could theoretically hit him with charges that would see him arrested at any moment - investigations were announced against him in 2010. He's apparently not worried about it all... until suddenly he's asked to answer a sexual assault case.

Never mind that but were he held on behalf of a request from Sweden, the UK would have been obliged to return him to Swedish jurisdiction, so the USA would have to extradite him from Sweden. Hell, had Assange just gone to Sweden for his police interview, he might well have been free and able to jet off to wherever his millions could take him within a few days anyway.

The fun part is that he's charged with not appearing before a British court regarding a Swedish charge that has since been dropped

It doesn't really matter whether the charges against him were dropped in Sweden. If a guy were caught driving 100mph in a 40mph zone suspected of fleeing the scene of a robbery, were he subsequently found innocent of the robbery it wouldn't magically erase his speeding offence as well.

Or do you think his case in Sweden would have been reopened and chased across international lines if he were an otherwise uninteresting schmuck? I wonder how many cases of nonviolent sexual assault that's happened to?

That looks to me like trying to rhetorically make something seem suspicious without putting up real facts to show it is.

All I'm suggesting is that it's not beyond the pale to want a good reason to keep someone in custody under local law instead of arresting a famous journalist and holding them pending charges and an extradition order from a foreign power whose angry with him for reporting their secrets. Especially if you're an elected official. Once he's in the system it's less of a public spectacle to extradite him.

I agree it's not impossible - but it seems a stretch. Firstly, arresting Assange would be front page news under any circumstance. Secondly, there's no need to hold a man in a country when he's regularly popping in and out of countries he could be extradited from anyway (despite knowing a case might be prepared against him). I mean, unless maybe he knew it was safe because he or an associate were spying on the DoJ and knew when they'd be ready - but that would kind of mean he's guilty.

Lil devils x:

The issue here of course is anyone even remotely surprised by this? Look at what has been unsealed already that the US government and military has done, this is far from being the worst. It does not matter if this is released, people have had a crap ton of information already released and they are willing to turn a blind eye to that as well as anything else that happens and this isn't going to surprise them or change anyone's minds.

The US has been responsible for so many horrific things, what exactly does releasing this specific one change here that none of the others had not? The people who care about this happening are already pissed, the ones who don't are not going to suddenly start caring because of this incident. They didn't care when Carter "riled up some Muslims" (Their words not mine) by arming them, training them and then lying to them and betraying them. The people didn't care when Bill Clinton bombed that aspirin factory and Bin Laden vowed to get revenge for those children's deaths. No they only started to care when he attacked the twin towers but even then, they still refuse to accept that it was US previous actions harming others that lead up to that day. This isn't going to change anything is the issue here. The US government is still going to do horrible things and bury it. We will still have Starship troopers level of patriotism and military worship engulfing the United States, hell if anything it has gotten WORSE since this incident, not better. By electing trump they are moving even far more extreme than they had previously in that direction.

Nothing changed for the better, if anything it is only getting much much worse. So nothing was even accomplished here by realising this in the first place really except those releasing it have their lives ruined.

That's not really how propaganda works-- and that is what we're dealing with. It's not about constructing a rational argument, wherein someone is hopeless if one exists and it hasn't moved them. If people do not accept a rational argument, it does not indicate that they won't ever care about the issue. In this case, we must work against the ability to excuse the destructive behaviors of the Imperial United States as abnormal or somehow 'in the past'. That means as much information as possible, as much stuff to point to as possible and as current as possible. Like when people today buy hook, line, and sinker the Western establishment media narrative on Honduras or Venezuela even though Western establishment media has a track record of repeating the shameless lies told by the State Dept. and Pentagon about such things. The extradition of Assange threatens the ability to even tell a story other than the lies promoted by our government on behalf of our ruling class, and repeated by the ruling class's media outlets.

Agema:
Never mind that but were he held on behalf of a request from Sweden, the UK would have been obliged to return him to Swedish jurisdiction, so the USA would have to extradite him from Sweden. Hell, had Assange just gone to Sweden for his police interview, he might well have been free and able to jet off to wherever his millions could take him within a few days anyway.

That, and it's highly unlikely he would face any major consequences in Sweden. Even if convicted. And it's less likely he would be extradited from them than he would be in the UK. There's a certain irony in all this. Instead he locked himself up in an embassy for nearly 7 years hoping that somehow the British would just let him go. Apparently, Ecuador grew tired of his nonsense and decided that it was time for him to go. And I really can't blame them.

It's a shame about wikileaks. This could have been a good decentralized, unbiased, and uncorrupted platform that would have served whistle blowers well. But unfortunately, Julian seems he wants to be an edgy teenage anarchist who selectively uses information for his gain.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here