It is sad that they are sending this journalist to jail
Julian Assange is not a journalist.
Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
91–100 of 172 posts
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#92I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
He ran to the UK... that's not the place you go if you're fleeing the long arm of the US. Assange long ago lost any credibility as far as I'm concerned. I think his statements are about crafting his own public narrative than really revealing any of his motivations / actual choices. Wikileaks repeatedly claimed they would release X information, and then simply didn't and wouldn't say a word. I'm not sure if they still…
He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.
After leaving, InterPol issued a Red Notice for Assange. This raised a red flag with Assange’s legal team that this was not just about rape accusations, and they decided to fight his extradition to Sweden fearing that he was being set up to be extradited to the United States.
Wikileaks releases all of the information that they receive after it has been vetted and deemed worthy of publication.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#93I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
Recall that he originally fled Sweden to the UK. That is not the actions of a man who fears extradition to the US. That's the exact opposite course of action any sane person would take.
He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#94I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
The UK has substantially better extradition laws for the government. His choice to flee Sweden to go to the UK is certainly an odd one if his concern was avoiding extradition to the US.
He didn't run to the UK. He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was not wanted for questioning.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#95Keep in mind all the crimes by US officials that Assange revealed. In my view many of those crimes committed by officials are treason, yet all have been swept under the rug.
Which of his crimes looks like treason? He didn’t hack anything, his only “crime” is providing a publishing outlet. (And yes, Assange is highly biased and anti-American, which is not good, but publishing leaks shouldn’t be a crime.)
Do you have a source? Where is your proof that he did not attempt to gain unauthorized access to a federal computer? Genuinely asking because that is the exact crime he is being charged with.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#96I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
They're going to say espionage and then make everything classified and so he will have no defense and we will never be given proof. The funny thing is that he's currently being held for not being able to justify bail jumping but now that he's being extradited it justifies his bail jumping... Its absolutely crazy to watch how the law is basically completely fake at a certain level.
> is that he's currently being held for not being able to justify bail jumping
What justifications do you think there are in English law for failure to surrender to bail?
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither one is a particularly safe space if you're worried about the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an... > Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The forced repatriation was criticized because of the danger of torture…
Swedish policy has changed since 2001. I wonder if there are any more recent examples. But that was on par for the course for Sweden. Back during the Cold War, Sweden sent a lot of Latvians and Lithuanians back on request by the USSR. Sweden was desperately defending its status as a neutral country, and did not want to appear to take any sides. But the previous Swedish government decided to recognise Palestine as a s…
> All that besides, the US did not request his extradition until Trump became President. So he could have gone to Sweden, done his interview in the case, probably been let off with a fine, and then go on his merry way.
Assange had no way of knowing that. The Trump admin's extradition request was sealed (we only knew of its existence in advance because it accidentally leaked in another case's court filings).
That said, fleeing to the UK is a bit of a "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#98I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
Please don't say rape. That is spreading rumors. It was consensual sex without protection
"I'd like to buy your minivan for $5k" and then taking an entirely different car instead is not a consensual transaction.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#99I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
Please don't say rape. That is spreading rumors. It was consensual sex without protection
That's rape in English law and Swedish law.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
> ii) Offences 1-3 described in the EAW (set out at paragraph 3 above) did not meet the dual criminality test. None was a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged. As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape.
Here's a description. Sounds pretty rapey to me.
> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
But also see (78) onwards.
> 90 [...] R v B goes no further than deciding that failure to disclose HIV infection is not of itself relevant to consent under s.74. R v B does not permit Mr Assange to contend that, if he deceived AA as to whether he was using a condom or one that he had not damaged, that was irrelevant to the issue of AA's consent to sexual intercourse as a matter of the law of England and Wales or his belief in her consent. On each of those issues, it is clear that it is the prosecution case she did not consent and he had no or no reasonable belief in that consent. Those are issues to which s.74 and not s.76 is relevant; there is nothing in R v B which compels any other conclusion. Furthermore it does not matter whether the sexual contact is described as molestation, assault or, since it involved penile penetration, rape. The dual criminality issue is the absence of consent and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent. Those issues are the same regardless of the description of the conduct.
> Thus, if the question is whether what is set out in the EAW is an offence under the law of England and Wales, then it is in our view clear that it was; the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied.
Re: Julian Assange Appears in Court for U.S. Extradition Hearing
#100I guess this news gives Assange a valid reason for his bail-jumping. He was suspected of raping in Sweden. That was what he was bail-jumping for. But the real reason is the threat of his extradition to US for... what? revealing the war crime of the US? That shall never be a crime. War crime shall not be hidden. US shall be punished for obstructing the information of war crime.
Wouldn't he have been safer in Sweden than in the UK? If I were to bet on who were more likely to suck up to the Americans of the two, my money would be on the Brits.
He waited in Sweden for 5 weeks to be questioned and left after he was told that he was not wanted for questioning.
After he left InterPol issued an alert which made him fear that it was about more than the Swedish charges and that he would be extradited to the US.
Of course, he was not in custody in the UK and they had nothing to charge him with at first. Eventually he sough asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy because, of course, the would do to him exactly what they are doing now.