You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
News this morning, have we done this already?
Off to plead guilty an a deal that aquits him.
“reveal state crimes and you will be punished”.
Behave like a criminal and you'll be pursued like one? Given what he actually did, and the way he behaved I still find it weird that folks still treat him like some sort of folk hero in search of the truth instead of the narcissistic self dramatist who was willing to be a patsy for the Russian secret service in exchange for fame that he revealed himself to be. Weird
Both points can be true, y'know - it's not zero-sum.
In contrast to the Guardian release of information from Snowden, Wikileaks made little meaningful effort to sanitise the published information. As a result, people were almost certainly killed.
I have no sympathy for Assange, what he did wasn't journalism.
Strangely, he never leaked Russian information (except the US 2016 information that Russia provided).
Behave like a criminal and you’ll be pursued like one?
Slaughtering innocent civilians. journalists and the paramedics trying to treat them doesn't seem to count though. But maybe your ok with that as long as no one reveals what is being done in our names, or maybe you are ok with that whether you know or not.
As a result, people were almost certainly killed.
He revealed state sanctioned murder, against with some rather which washy excuse given by the yanks that he might have revealed information that put lives at risk without any evidence that was actually the case.
As for Assange's character I don't know what he is really like, I think there has been a massive campaign of character assassination, so we the general public have been fed a narrative which makes it impossible to know the truth.
It very much reminds me of the John Stalker case, and after he revealed the shoot to kill policy in NI, there was a massive media campaign to discredit him.
Both points can be true, y’know – it’s not zero-sum.
Oh sure, without a doubt, but in Assange's case. (unlike say Chelsea Manning or even Ed Snowdon) it's not. I think at some point early in his career that may have been true, but from about 2010 onwards when [for instance] he tried to persuade Manning to go from handing him documents to creating a fake user and password so that he could steal them himself, it very much stopped being the case. He and his ever dwindling band of apologists have essentially spent the time evading answering for the crimes he's alleged to have carried out.
Far from being a victim of the oppressive hand of govt desperate to silence him, or some attempt to suspend due process he's no more than a fugitive from it. For a man who apparently wants his day in court, he's spent a huge amount of energy evading ever having to do that.
against with some rather which washy excuse given by the yanks that he might have revealed information that put lives at risk without any evidence that was actually the case.
Recently the SAS were rightly criticised for trying to stop some of the remaining Afghan forces they had worked with, and who might have witnessed crimes being committed, from being re-settled in Britain. Assange's WikiLeaks, revealed some of those people's names.
He said at the time when Guardian journalists questioned whether this was ethical “Well, they’re informants. So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.” I question Assange's motives when he claims he was revealing US crimes when he was more than willing to put people in the firing line himself.
In contrast to the Guardian release of information from Snowden, Wikileaks made little meaningful effort to sanitise the published information. As a result, people were almost certainly killed.
I have no sympathy for Assange, what he did wasn’t journalism.
Mostly agreed, the Guardian freedom of the press line doesn't really apply as in execution this wasn't journalism.
I have some sympathy for him though, others have done far worse without being singled out to quite such an extent. The worst aspect of this really is that it allowed him to escape justice in Sweden.
Far from being a victim of the oppressive hand of govt desperate to silence him, or some attempt to suspend due process he’s no more than a fugitive from it. For a man who apparently wants his day in court, he’s spent a huge amount of energy evading ever having to do that.
Hands up everyone whose principles are worth spending your whole life in a small solitary cell in a US super max prison. What? Nobody??
Hands up everyone whose principles are worth spending your whole life in a small solitary cell in a US super max prison.
Hands up everybody who thinks that when they start creating false passwords on Pentagon computers to steal things the punishments for getting caught aren't going to be "stern" If he's innocent of hacking the Pentagon, or he thinks he's got a robust public interest defence, then let him have his day in court.
I'm just impressed that he managed to get married and have kids whilst being shut in a room in the embassy. What a player.
The whole thing was clearly a stitch up from start to finish. What he was accused of in the US is not a crime in many places and he would have faced the death penalty. The rape charges where a way to get him in custody ( not a crime in the UK either on a technicality) so he could be extradited ( illegally) to the US to face the death penalty for something that is not a crime in most places
I await further twists - I hope he is very sure of his guarantees
I’m just impressed that he managed to get married and have kids whilst being shut in a room in the embassy. What a player.
Point of order - the wedding was in Belmarsh prison! I assume she is not regulated as a British lawyer, because I'm not sure that sleeping with your client is something the SRA would look positively on!
The whole thing was clearly a stitch up from start to finish. What he was accused of in the US is not a crime in many places and he would have faced the death penalty.
But since extradition was granted must be a crime in the UK? And he's got previous convictions for espionage offences in Australia so not like he's wandered into this by accident... The UK courts were satisfied by the binding assurances of the USA that he would not face the death penalty.
The rape charges where a way to get him in custody ( not a crime in the UK either on a technicality) so he could be extradited ( illegally) to the US to face the death penalty for something that is not a crime in most places
I don't follow the details of his cases, but I'm very reluctant to suggest that rape charges are trumped up, even if the definition of rape is different in some countries. FWIW my understanding of what he was alleged to have done probably should be considered rape here, and may even be rape - I don't think anyone has tested the law on whether conditional consent would be considered to be the absence of consent if the condition was not met.
I await further twists – I hope he is very sure of his guarantees
Oh that sounds almost like his wife's "we need everyone watching his plane" level of paranoia.
What he was accused of in the US is not a crime in many places and he would have faced the death penalty.
The US authorities have said that they're not interested in prosecuting him for the information that Chelsea Manning passed him regardless of the contents (some of which was very highly classified ) he crossed the line into criminality by trying to persuade her to create for him a fake user and password - which is when I think she stopped having anything to do with him. The US authorities have said that they wouldn't pursue a death sentence.
The rape charges where a way to get him in custody ( not a crime in the UK either on a technicality)
The UK authorities weren't trying to arrest him on rape charges, the Swedish authorities were, and as have many legal experts have suggested, being in Swedish custody makes his extradition to the US less, not more likely, as both authorities would have to agree to it. Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld. He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, and at every stage, Assange had the assistance of top dollar legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK’s leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court. Assange has been given more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly “persecution” or a “witch-hunt”.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
But since extradition was granted must be a crime in the UK?
Nope - you would thjink so but thats not how extradition to the US works. If they say its a crime we are supposed to extradite . the extradition treaty with the US is very lopsided - they never extradite folk to other countries ( harry Dunn killer anyone?) but we just have to take their word that its a crime and the person they say they want did it. We are not able to look at the evidence
I did follow the details of the rape case. It would not be a crime in the UK. Maybe it should be but its clearly not.
Its completely obvious the whole farrago was about appeasing right wing hawks in the US.
The UK courts were satisfied by the binding assurances of the USA that he would not face the death penalty.
Im sure they were. I’m equally sure I personally would trust their assurances. The USA has a long record of lying and state sanctioned murder as Asange showed.
Its completely obvious the whole farrago was about appeasing right wing hawks in the US.
The whole farrago was created by a man desperate not to have to face to consequences of being a willing accomplice in the Russian secret services attempt to interfere with the 2016 election in exchange for fame and notoriety, while flinging any one that got in his way under a bus while he legged it.
I don't wish ill on many people, but Assange deserves all that he bought down upon himself.
You have bought the propaganda put out by those threatened by him
Nope, I'm just capable of reading public information from the courts that sets out very clearly the case against him and why every attempt by him to delay justice has failed at every hurdle. Again the US authorities aren't prosecuting him for the secrets revealed to him by Chelsea Manning (regardless of what his supporters tell you) they're prosecuting him for trying to steal from the Pentagon.
You may want to fantasize that he's some sort of hero for the truth, but the propaganda-free version of it is more sordid than that.
I await further twists – I hope he is very sure of his guarantees
I hope he is very sure of his personal security too. It is clear that no one wants to have him actually in court revealing gawd knows what else.
Better to release him then him have a nasty accident...
Hands up everybody who thinks that when they start creating false passwords on Pentagon computers to steal things the punishments for getting caught aren’t going to be “stern” If he’s innocent of hacking the Pentagon, or he thinks he’s got a robust public interest defence, then let him have his day in court.
But isnt the whole point of the American freedom thing, that the government cannot act without the will of the people. Due process and all that.
All information in America land is or can be subject to public scrutiny, and cannot or mustn't be hidden.
.
Unlike old blighty of course, where you bloody well do what you're told and dare not to question your betters.
.
Seems some here feel uncovering war crimes should be made illegal.
Unless of course those are Russian war crimes, or Chinese, or anyone who isnt in the 'West' club.
Seems some here feel uncovering war crimes should be made illegal.
Literally no one has said that. But claiming that Assange won't get a fair trial, or that the US courts are rigged against him is exactly the same argument that the MAGA/Trump supporters use about Trump hiding secret documents in his loo. If you want him standing trial for that, then you want Assange standing trial for doing the same ting, right?
Literally no one has said that.
No you have been very careful about avoiding mentioning the slaughter of innocent civilians as revealed by the documents he published, but you very much have a hard on for prosecuting whistle-blowers.
"stiches for snitches while murderers go free", isn't a moral code I can get behind.
The Swedes were going to drop the charges and Starmer told them 'don't you dare'. Be interesting to see if anyone tries to take credit for negotiating the deal.
But claiming that Assange won’t get a fair trial, or that the US courts are rigged against him
And no one has said that either. BY my understanding what he is accused of by both the swedes and the US would not be a crime here in the same way. the US is hardly a bastian of justice is it anyway?
I see the cult of Saint Julian is alive and well here. Not a surprise really.
Not that I followed this mess though was their a man/woman identified that was claiming rape?
Yes. A swede from many years ago and they dropped the case IIRC. It wouldn't even have been a crime in the UK under UK law I do not think, (although perhaps should be - our rape laws are a joke) Never tested in a court tho
Ah, good old STW, you already know what will be going on before clicking on the thread, and even a bonus point is awarded for getting Starmer's name in here and also blame at him for it 🤣
“stiches for snitches while murderers go free”, isn’t a moral code I can get behind.
Spending a decade and a half trying to persuade a succession of more and more senior judges that it's not technically rape in order to evade having your day in court to even try to clear your name isn't a moral code I can get behind either.
Its not rape under UK law
There were two cases. One as imnotvewrygood says ( and no protest at the time) . The other was that it was consensual sex but that he had lied to her about his relationship with another woman so consent withdrawn after the fact. Neither would be rape under UK law as withdrawing consent after the act is simply not a UK legal position. Shitbag behaviour for sure but not criminal under UK law.
Sweden is very much an outlier in that it allows rape prosecutions in cases where it was consensual at the time but consent withdrawn after the fact.
Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions, not everyone might know this.
TJ I think you may be down playing the rape charges. Two individuals, very similar cases. He wouldn’t wear a condom, stopped when the complainant requested he wear one. She woke up in the morning to him having unprotected sex with her.
This was in 2010. He continued to avoid prosecution for these crimes. They may not be crimes here (should be but that’s by the by). But I can’t go on holiday and commit a crime in another country and then try and get away with it because it’s not illegal here.
Assange appealed to the different courts, he lost, he then entered the Equador embassy.
The Swedish authorities dropped the case after the statute of limitations for the offences had expired.
possibly woodster. I don't remember more details.
Neither would be rape under UK law as withdrawing consent after the act is simply not a UK legal position.
Tj I really don't understand why you think this is defence? It didn't happen in the UK, so that is completely irrelevant
Shitbag behaviour for sure but not criminal under UK law.
Don't know if you read the court judgement that I linked to, but if you're saying stuff like this, then I guess not. He used the UK court system to avoid being extradited to Sweden so they could question him about a rape charge that the Swedish authorities charged him with. Unsuccessfully every time. He's not charged with rape under UK law, and really? Are you absolutely sure you want to go into to bat for a man who's claim for a decade and a half is trying to convince you that what he did wasn't technically rape, despite the fact that even the Supreme Court has effectively said to him "well, we disagree, but if you think so, go to Sweden and defend yourself". In the post-#metoo era how does that feel? Defending a douche-bag for starting to **** some-one when they were asleep, really? 'Cos that's the hill you're dying on here.
And to make it slightly ickier (if that was actually possible), that's the reason he used to avoid having his day in court in the US system, that y'know; Chelsea Manning took her hit for, plead public interest and went to Levenworth, thus proving to everyone that she has in fact got bigger balls than Assange.
But of course all that is smoke and mirrors, the reason I reckon Assange won't go anywhere near a US court is that all sorts of shit he doesn't want in the public domain would be revealed. All his contact with the Russian secret service, all his dealings with Israel Shamir. All that shit comes out. There's nothing worse than a grifter who pretends to be righteous.
Tj I really don’t understand why you think this is defence? It didn’t happen in the UK, so that is completely irrelevant
Because under UK law if its not a crime in the UK you cannot be extradited for it normally as I understand it apart from to the US where we have a very lopsided extradition treaty. The rape charges were to get him incarcerated so he could be extradited to the US ( IIRC they only appeared after the US went after him even tho the events were a while before????).
BUt I AM NOT DEFEENDING HIM on that at all. Merely pointing out its a very political case with decisions taken for political reasons. I also think he is a vainglorious effwit. doesn't stop the legal cases against him being dodgy at best. doesn't stop him being a sexual predator.
doesn’t stop the legal cases against him being dodgy at best.
It's not dodgy is the slightest. It's very very straight forward, and at every stage all the way to the Supreme court he's lost despite having some very expensive and some of the best human rights lawyers available in the UK. There's no other defendant in this sort of case who's been given this many opportunities, the UK court system has bent over backwards in a way that it wouldn't in any other case to be fair to him.
Some folks can't see the wood for the trees.
BUt I AM NOT DEFEENDING HIM on that at all. Merely pointing out its a very political case with decisions taken for political reasons.
uk judges pride themselves on their independence from political influence.
I also think he is a vainglorious effwit. doesn’t stop the legal cases against him being dodgy at best. doesn’t stop him being a sexual predator.
perhaps you should read the appeal court conclusion that:
1. At least one of the allegations against him would be rape in the UK, if proven.
2. All of the charges would fall under the requirement that their was “dual criminality” - we don’t need to call them the same thing.
But I can’t go on holiday and commit a crime in another country and then try and get away with it because it’s not illegal here.
actually you can (if you’ve got deep enough pockets for very good lawyers). Extradition treaties only require extradition where there is duality of the crime - ie the same course of action would have been illegal (not necessarily identical crimes) in both countries. This was an important legal point - but the judge, and then the appeal judges said “but this would be a crime in the UK”.
He seems to me to be a guy with a quite a few issues, he did good work and was happy to take the credit for exposing some terrible practices, but unable to take responsibility when his actions put others at risk as part of the fallout. And then there's the race charges.
Frankly I'm just glad he's gone.
And then there's this...