Julian Assange

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

To be honest, I'm not much interested in your idea of what is justified. We live in different worlds.

The point I was making is that comparing Western behaviour in Iraq (wrong, immoral and illegal) with Russian action in Grozny and Aleppo (wrong, illegal, immoral and bestial) is stupid.

Grozny


Aleppo



And anyone who even begins to justify Putin's handling of political and press opponents yet claims to be a democrat is living in a weird place.

[Axholme Lion]

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Islamic terrorism MUST be destroyed at all costs.

[silent majority]

It seems the rape charge wasn't dropped in Sweden, it was 'set aside' because of his unavailability. I'd expect that to have priority over other charges.

A bit of info on the 'rape' charges here SM

''On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm,[4][5] jointly went to the Swedish police not seeking to bring charges against Assange but in order to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after their separate sexual encounters with him.[6] The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor.[7] Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.[8]''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

If you read the full article it might explain things a bit more. But this is not what I would call consensual. Strange behaviour. And strangely enough one of the women complains about not being able to get him out of her flat, something I'm sure the Ecuadorian Embassy can understand.

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

[RedJ]

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Islamic terrorism MUST be destroyed at all costs.

So would you have felt it okay for foreign armed forces to level Londonderry and Belfast in order to root out the IRA?

[albie]

BST,

In your haste to link Assange to a pro-Russian agenda, you ignore the Mueller finding that no evidential case currently exists.
That is not a small problem, and if the US authorities now seek extradition, they must have undisclosed information not made available to Mueller.

They have not made that information available, so until they do the UK have no sound legal grounds to support extradition to a country with a record of known human rights abuses.

I tend to agree with your point about the absence of WikiLeaks expose of Russian affairs.
WikiLeaks has been asymmetric in the disclosure of information. Whether that amounts to a political agenda remains to be seen.

WikiLeaks can only publicise the evidence it has...if no evidence is held against other countries there is little more to be said.
If you believe WikiLeaks holds information against other countries but is choosing not to publish, then please give supporting reference to that material.

The point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Complaining about what ISN'T there does not detract from what IS there!

You refer to China...in fact WikiLeaks did flag up issues on the issue of Tibet:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/mar/19/digitalmedia.tibet

Not your issue I know, but a critical take on China.

It takes a certain form of gullibility not to see an agenda here.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Ancient Romans weren't above a bit of gratuitous slaughter, but even they felt ashamed when they flattened the city of Carthage, which had been their main enemy for a hundred years.

One of their leading senators and historians said, "They made of it a desert and called it 'peace'."

The point being, if you become savages to beat savages, what is the point of winning?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie. I'll take your point on Tibet. I didn't do my homework. Although, as I say, it's odd that they have released nothing on what is the single greatest human rights abuses of this century that's going on right now in Xinjiang.

Regarding Mueller, we've no idea what he found as yet. His report has not been published. And since he was investigating only criminal activity, and I've already said that I'm not claiming Wikileaks did anything criminal in the 2016 campaign (rather that they willingly acted as a facilitator of Trump-supporting data from Russia) it's an odd point to make. I suspect, (although I have nothing more than the evidence that's out in the media) that they worked closely with Farage to time the release of information helpful to Trump, and to give his campaign pre-warninv that the anti-Clinton information was coming.

Regarding whether Wikileaks has other information about other countries and individuals, I have no idea and that is a very silly comment for you to make - how could I possibly know that? My point was, obviously, that it stretches belief to the point of incredulity that they should have only "found" evidence that damaged Clinton, and hence aided Russia's foreign policy objective of getting Trump into the White House. The idea that they would have been able to find no data on Trump had they gone looking for it requires something of a suspension of disbelief. There IS evidence that Russia hacked the Republican National Congress files in 2016, but interestingly, Wikileaks were either not given that, or chose not to release it.

Now, I have no problem with Wikileakd publicising information about war crimes committed in Iraq. That, in isolation, is a public service. But the example used by Abbott and Corbyn, of 18 people illegally killed there by an American attack, horrific as it is, pales into insignificance at the side of what has been done in Aleppo. Of which they have found and released precisely zero.

All of which supports the one point I've been making. That Wikileaks is, in my opinion, NOT an organisation that aims to expose crime and misdeeds in a balanced way. It is an organisation with a very specific aim and modus operandi. Which is to target particular countries and individuals. And to act hand-in-glove with Russia in doing so, in order to advance Russian foreign policy. And Assange is NOT a crusading freedoms fighter. He has spent a decade serving specifically anti-West interests.

[Glyn_Wigley]

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Islamic terrorism MUST be destroyed at all costs.

I do love the smell of scorched earth in the morning.

[wilts rover]

The charges against Julian Assange are an assault on press freedom experts say...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-charges-press-freedom-journalism

It seems a strange argument advanced by a particular poster that Assange is guilty of something or other because of the political content of what he released rather than the legality of the act publishing itself.

You can criticise foreign governments for their atrocities but not learn about any that yours have done. Isn't that what happens in totalitarian regimes? Someone has been reading too many right-wing conspiracy theory websites...

[wilts rover]

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Islamic terrorism MUST be destroyed at all costs.

They were called freedom fighters when we were arming and training them. That went well didn't it.

Maybe you should be asking where their arms and funding comes from? And why the UK government has refused to release the report into that because it might be 'embarrassing'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

If you're aiming that post at me, I suggest you look a little more carefully at what I've written.

I've not said anything about Assange being guilty because of his political position. I've said he shouldn't be kept from prosecution because of his perceived position as a crusader for truth. Which appears to be the argument coming from the Labour front bench.

[wilts rover]

Billy

Thanks for passing on your contribution from the Labour front bench but you appear to be in contradiction with both Diane Abbott (on the Today show) and Emily Thornberry (on Any Questions) both of whom said he should face the sexual assault convictions in Sweden.

Forgive me again for misreading your posts about Assange's alleged connections with Russia and pushing Russia's foreign policy interests and assuming that relates to you commenting on his presumed political position (you will notice I don't agree or disagree with on that) but why go into great detail about it if you don't believe it is relevant?

Why should Assange be extradited for publishing evidence of US atrocities and embarassing the US government when Gary McKinnon - an actual computer hacker - was not?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

Right.

The Labour front bench has said (and you repeat) that Assange faces extradition to the USA because he exposed war crimes.

Well, that's an opinion, but it's not supported by the actual extradition request. The extradition request says nothing about publication, but rather that he is wanted for his involvement in illegally accessing classified data.

The Labour front bench and others are saying that Assange must not be extradited because the result would be to chill the atmosphere in which "journalists" feel able to expose wrongdoing by the Govt. Abbott and Corbyn haven't been particularly clear on this, but in essence, they are saying there is an over-riding public interest (his role as a publisher) which trumps (sic) the usual need to follow up the prosecution of an alleged crime (his alleged role in the actual illegal procurement of the data).

Now. Stick with me on a brief diversion. This should help clear your confusion.

Interesting that you raise the case of McKinnon. The argument that the UK Govt used in denying that request was that there was an overriding issue which transcended the usual argument on following through the prosecution. Namely, McKinnon's mental health issues. For what it's worth, I entirely agreed with that assessment.

Back to Assange.

Hopefully, you'll see my point now. Whether you approve or deny the extradition request to the USA is nothing to do with an assessment of his guilt. It is entirely to do with whether you think there is an overriding reason to deny the request.

The Labour front bench argue that there is, because he is a journalist exposing wrongdoing.

I think there isn't, because he's a Russian agent, ONE-SIDELY exposing data that is helpful to Russian foreign policy.

Clear enough?

However, if the Swedes have re-opened the rape case, all this is now superceded, because an extradition request on that subject should take precedence.

[DonnyOsmond]

Rape = Bad

Releasing incriminating videos of US killing civilians and journalists = Good

Simple as that. He should be sent to Sweden. Any country/government should be held accountable for any wrongdoings that they've commitment and they shouldn't then treat whistleblowers as the bad guys i.e. Snowden.

[albie]

BST,

You have misunderstood the legal point at issue.

If Assange actively commissioned criminal acts in the US, while based in the UK, there needs to be a reason why he should be transferred to the US, rather than face charges in the UK.

You say;
"Hopefully, you'll see my point now. Whether you approve or deny the extradition request to the USA is nothing to do with an assessment of his guilt.  It is entirely to do with whether you think there is an overriding reason to deny the request."
It is not about a reason to deny the request...it is about whether there are legal grounds to approve it!

The English courts do not have to decide on Assange’s innocence or guilt when it comes to the US indictment, but on whether his extradition meets the correct “dual criminality” legal test:
namely, that the allegations of which he is accused constituted a criminal offence in the UK at the time.

In addition, there is the question of whether it is possible to receive a fair trial in the US.
I take it that you agree that the US Justice system is unlikely to deliver a trial free from political influence?

As we speak, Sweden have not re-opened the original case. Until they do, there is no point talking about extradition to Sweden, unless it is a political consideration. There is no legal basis for this at present.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie, once again, I think we are talking at crossed purposes.

When I was talking about allowing or denying the extradition request, I wasn't talking about the LEGAL decision. I was talking about the POLITICAL decision. At the end of the process, assuming the US warrant is valid, it is the Home Secretary who will decide if there is an overriding reason to deny the extradition.

This is the issue that the Labour front bench has raised. This is the point I've been talking about, so I don't know what brings you to introduce the legal points.

As for the possibility of Assange getting a fair trial in America, no, I agree. After all, the Attorney General there is the stooge of the man that Assange put in the White House. So I suspect any trial would have all sorts of political pressures associated with it.

Finally, regarding the Swedish rape issue, I was taking my lead from Wilts pointing out that two of Labour's leading team have said he should be sent there. I assumed the Swedes had re-opened the case, otherwise why would Abbott and Thornberry have said that?

[SydneyRover]

Julian Assange is a whistle blower journalist, there are sexual assault charges in Sweden and possible extradition to the US to answer charges of hacking. I'm not sure any of this should be mixed, matched or conflated to satisfy other observations regarding to whom he answers. I have no problem with him answering charges in Sweden provided his lawyers are given the full facts of the case and it is not used as a blind to extradite him to the US. He is a whistle blower and showed the world the gruesome details of what appear to be war-crimes by US troops in Iraq, he should be applauded for doing this. War crimes committed by other countries should not affect whether he is or isn't extradited nor should whether he is of good character or not. I would not agree to him being extradited to face a bunch of add-on charges, everything should be out in the open and if there is a sniff of underhandedness by the US then it shouldn't happen.

Apologies if this has already been covered have been off-line for a few days.

[ravenrover]

My understanding re the rape allegation is that one  case has been dismissed but the other remains live It us up to Sweden to decide if they want to extradite him based on the 2nd case

[BillyStubbsTears]

Interesting stuff. Assange was being watched by a security company while in the Ecuadorian embassy and they have records of him having numerous meetings with known Russian hackers and Kremlin agents. And video footage of an embassy guard taking delivery of a package from a masked courier a few hours before Wikileaks contacted Russian hackers to say that they had received the files.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html?__twitter_impression=true