back to article Assange psychiatrist misled judge over parentage of his kids, US tells High Court

Julian Assange's psychiatrist misled a judge when he delivered a report stating the WikiLeaks founder would be suicidal if extradited to the US for trial, lawyers for the US government have said. Barrister James Lewis QC told the Lord Chief Justice yesterday that crucial reports were flawed because it did not clearly state …

  1. Snowy Silver badge
    Flame

    Putting Assange aside.

    Depression and suicide do not follow logic!!

    Happy people with everything to live for do fall into depression and try to commit suicide. Having something to live for is not a bar to depression and suicide.

    You could say that someone with a lot to live for is someone who can fall into depression as they have a lot they can worry about!

    1. LDS Silver badge

      Re: Putting Assange aside.

      Assange would kill everybody around him before killing the only person he really cares about - himself.

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        Assange would kill everybody around him before killing the only person he really cares about - himself.

        That also sounds like quite a few types in governments around the world.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Putting Assange aside.

          "Let the Bodies Pile High in their Thousands."

        2. DanceMan

          Re: Putting Assange aside.

          That also sounds like quite a few types in (governments) corporations around the world.

          FTFY

      2. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        Well, I support what he did and I think he has been and is being treated appallingly, but I have to confess that as a person, I get the impression he's a bit of a dick. Nonetheless, your comment is rather harsh.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Putting Assange aside.

          Well, I support what he did and I think he has been and is being treated appallingly

          As appallingly as the Taliban treated the people who's names and GPS coordinates he released? No comparison.

          They would have been executed, probably along with their families without any form of trial. He's arguing that he shouldn't have a trial.

          1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

            Re: Putting Assange aside.

            Well, I still support what he did. The laissez-faire attitude to redaction comes under the "him being a dick" part.

          2. Azamino

            Re: Putting Assange aside.

            Do you have any proof of that allegation?

            I have yet to read of any convincing examples of people being killed due to leaks released by Assange.

            In the meantime we are still waiting on the serious allegations of war crimes reveals by WikiLeaks to be tested in a court of law.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Putting Assange aside.

              Is anybody killed do the releasing to releasing secrets, Should be considered natural fall out from the creation of a secret in the 1st place.

              East each actor plays that inevitable role is a Is irrelevant.

              The situation was created By The Secret. Revealing of secrets is the eventual natural conclusion Is of any strategy of Relying on obscurity and deception..

              That's like blaming the guy who got crushed by the giants snowball, and obsolving the one who pushed it down the hill , Even though the one pushed it down the hill had Is seen the same initial behavior produce similar results in the past.

              1. Twanky Silver badge

                Re: Putting Assange aside.

                Umm... I didn't realise AMFM1 could post anonymously.

                1. Evil Auditor
                  Thumb Up

                  Re: Putting Assange aside.

                  That's not AMFM1. Our martian makes much more sense than the AC here.

              2. John Robson Silver badge

                Re: Putting Assange aside.

                Should be considered natural fall out from the creation of a secret in the 1st place.

                So the Afghans who helped translate for us, their deaths are their own fault for helping westerners?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Putting Assange aside.

              the allegation is people 'could have been killed'. Like: we had to kill that bad, bad guy, otherwise, a lot of people would have been killed...

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Putting Assange aside.

            Responsibility to all humanity for transparency And integrity regarding information, Superseed the Is superficial demands of of nation.

            Specific campaigns of order ( ie nations ,culture ,and law) and the utility of preserving them ,

            come and go.

            They only seem Authoritative through the illusion of familiarity through the illusion of familiarity , and limitations of scale in observation.

            At some uncertain point in the future, All existing nations are forgotten while humans continue on oblivious to anything that nation ever stood for, Unless the current permutation Ultimately results in extinction,, rather than overturn.

            Can humans once again destroy their own institutions before they are destroyed by them?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Putting Assange aside.

          Being a dick isn't a criminal offense though.

          1. maddoxx

            Re: Putting Assange aside.

            and that is why he should be not send to the US, but I don't need to like him

            I don´t believe he will be a true John Mcafee killing himself

            5 years in US during trial

            175 years in Australia in jail

            might be little fun

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Putting Assange aside.

            but showing that a big bully has a small dick is a criminal offense. And if it isn't yet, we can make it so.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Putting Assange aside.

      Oh, I agree, but narcissists tend not to trend towards suicide.

      It's more or less a conflict of interest.

      1. Blackjack Silver badge

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        False.

        People who have a big ego can suicide if they suddenly lose everything because they just can't stand it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        >>narcissists tend not to

        Hmmmm.... Hunter S. Thompson immediately comes to mind.

        I'm not sure that suicide risk should be a factor in determining an extradition.

        On the other hand... incarcerated suicide seems to be a real problem.

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

    3. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

      Re: Putting Assange aside.

      Is the US lawyer arguing that people with children don't kill themselves?

      They do

    4. Blackjack Silver badge

      Re: Putting Assange aside.

      True.

      In fact having a family can be a cause of suicide.

      1. Cederic Silver badge

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        Losing access to their children has cost many men their lives.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Putting Assange aside.

          I have kids and if I was restricted from seeing them because my wife wanted a divorce over something trivial, it would probably push me to the edge.

    5. Lee D

      Re: Putting Assange aside.

      Depression does not mean that you can commit a crime and excuse yourself from justice, either.

      1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        *Definition of "crime" may vary depending on the vested interests of the state defining it. The standard variable rate will apply to all justice transactions. The morality of your government may go down as well as up. Terms and conditions apply.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        that's determined by whether or not you prove to avoid violent campaigns Of artificial enforcement, that create and maintain the concept of Justice as authoritative.

        sociees It's run by the most successful Scapegoaters and manipulators and scam artists.. yesterdays predators who escaped justice , became today's enshrined leaders and protected visionaries society looks up to.

        After a few generations of indoctrination might becomes right.

        That's hierarchical societies in a nutshell.

    6. X5-332960073452
      Headmaster

      Re: Putting Assange aside.

      Depression and suicide do not follow logic!!

      Happy people with everything to live for do fall into depression and try to commit suicide. Having something to live for is not a bar to depression and suicide.

      You could say that someone with a lot to live for is someone who can fall into depression as they have a lot they can worry about!

      Could do with a few commas

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Putting Assange aside.

        Surely they do, they are are outward expressions of a internaly realized Failure-of-environment to be symbiotic Unto an individuals needs.

        It's a realization, Is that what you are is not supported by the environment and Must Become invalidated and disassociated from Is the current Complex idea that is you, To make room to build a new perspective and way of measuring reality.

        If you can die I inwardly without killing your physical body, You can rebuild yourself absent the legacy Conditioning that led to your breakdown in the 1st place.

        Or, You can disstabilize your environment to create unpredictability and thus Create hope.

        Depression creates a desperation we need to overcome our conditioning and try new things.

        It's inconvenient to society but absolutely crucial to brushel to long term development.

        Keeps us from fooling ourselves and to thinking things are perfect so that we don't stagnant And continue to create the necessary disruption to social institutionlism to keep to keep development Moving.

  2. alain williams Silver badge

    How about ...

    the USA put a fraction of the energy that they are putting in to extradite Assange into prosecuting those soldiers who shot & killed civilians from that helicopter.

    They will not do it - which is gross hypocrisy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How about ...

      You may want to find the version NOT edited by Wikileaks.

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: How about ...

        And there's the problem right there. Had our Julian contented himself with published leaked data I'd be a bit more supportive. But by manipulating data to suit his own narrative he immediately ruined any trust in the authenticity of the leaks. His self-importance trashed his own reputation and severely dented that of Wikileaks, a tragedy as Wikileaks did good work.

        1. Franco Silver badge

          Re: How about ...

          The very fact that everyone knows who Assange is weakens every part of his own arguments. If he was a true journalist (as he claims) he wouldn't seek the limelight and would have protected his sources, meaning that no one would know who Chelsea Manning was either.

          1. Phones Sheridan Bronze badge

            Re: How about ...

            "no one would know who Chelsea Manning was..."

            I think you might be confusing Julian Assange and Adrian Lamo

            1. Franco Silver badge

              Re: How about ...

              Great post, defend Assange for his lack of protection of Manning by citing someone else that he threw under a bus.

              1. Phones Sheridan Bronze badge

                Re: How about ...

                Funny, I don't recall defending anyone, just pointing out I think you might be mistaken, by confusing one person for another.

              2. genghis_uk Silver badge

                Re: How about ...

                From the Wikipedia entry for Lamo:

                -------

                In May 2010, Lamo reported to U.S. Army authorities that Chelsea Manning, then Bradley Manning, had claimed to have leaked a large body of classified documents, including 260,000 classified United States diplomatic cables.

                Lamo stated, in an article written by Kevin Poulsen in Wired magazine, that he would not have turned Manning in "if lives weren't in danger ...

                WikiLeaks responded by denouncing Lamo and Poulsen as "notorious felons, informers & manipulators", and said: "journalists should take care."

                According to Andy Greenberg of Forbes, Lamo was a volunteer "adversary characterization" analyst for Project Vigilant, a Florida-based semi-secret government contractor, which encouraged him to inform the government about the alleged WikiLeaks source. The head of Project Vigilant, Chet Uber, claimed, "I'm the one who called the U.S. government ... All the people who say that Adrian is a narc, he did a patriotic thing. He sees all kinds of hacks, and he was seriously worried about people dying.

                -------

                I think Assange is a narcissistic cockwomble of the first order but he did not turn Manning in. Sorry if this goes against your established belief

                1. Franco Silver badge

                  Re: How about ...

                  Never said he did, I stated that he did not defend Manning (until recently when he started trying to use a pardon for Manning as a bargaining chip). My position is and will continue to be that Assange and Wikileaks are NOT journalists because their sources don't get protected and they don't redact PII from their leaks.

                  1. veti Silver badge

                    Re: How about ...

                    They do redact PII from their published leaks. The problem with Assange is that he was never content with just publishing stuff. He editorialised on it. He broke one of the cardinal rules of journalism, by making stories about himself.

                    We saw this all too clearly during the 2016 election, when he - obviously in concert with the Trump campaign - managed the Clinton email leaks over a period of weeks, teasing highlights in advance. That wasn't simple publicity, that was active campaigning.

                    Having said that, that doesn't make him "not a journalist". Just not a very good or trustworthy one.

                    And finally, what's with the whole "is he a journalist?" question anyway? Neither US nor UK law gives a damn about that. Journalists, contrary to common belief, are not a specially protected class.

                    1. Franco Silver badge

                      Re: How about ...

                      It's his usual argument, I'm a journalist not a hacker. His supporters hail him as a champion of free speech and privacy.

                      They may have started redacting PII more recently, they have received massive criticism for not doing it in the past including medical records, credit card numbers and social security numbers. I pay very little attention to their leaks, for precisely the reasons you give in your post, they only leak what fits their narrative.

                      1. This post has been deleted by its author

                        1. Franco Silver badge

                          Re: How about ...

                          I didn't mix up Assange and Lamo, I am well aware of the fact that Lamo turned Manning in. I stand by what I said, Assange and Wikileaks do not do enough to protect their sources.

                          As for downvotes, someone is clearly so upset with my posts that they've taken the time to downvote every post I've made in the last 3 months, so I'd save the lollipop for them.

                          1. saline_solution

                            Re: How about ...

                            So, Manning gets dobbed in by Lamo and goes to jail.

                            What did you expect Assange to do at this point? Break her out?

        2. idiot taxpayer here again

          Re: How about ...

          @ Androgynous Cupboard

          Plus the fact that he shit on his friends who put up and lost a lot of money to secure his bail... That does not do much for gaining trust does it.

          So at the end of the day, thanks to his massive sense of self importance, he dumped this entire barrel of shit on himself.

          And just why hasn't he been deported back to Australia?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: How about ...

            And just why hasn't he been deported back to Australia?

            Maybe Oz is diplomatically trying its level best to prevent that from happening?

      2. Graham Cobb Silver badge

        Re: How about ...

        We need journalists. It would be great if they were good journalists but even bad journalists must be protected from the vengeance of the state.

        Every journalist has an agenda. I don't read The Sun, but I would stand up for the rights of the Sun to print material they believed was showing malfeasance, even if they had edited it to make it look worse. In that case, the authorities should publish the full material to show that the conclusions were wrong. Not try to prosecute the Sun.

        Public debate is the answer to bad journalism - not legal action.

        1. Wellyboot Silver badge

          Re: How about ...

          >>>Public debate is the answer to bad journalism - not legal action.<<<

          I agree, up to the point where bad journalism turns into 'Pushing an agenda' at which point they are just another mouthpiece for whatever vested interest and deserve zero special exemptions.

          1. a pressbutton

            Re: How about ...

            "at which point they are just another mouthpiece for whatever vested interest and deserve zero special exemptions."

            ... I can tell your dad reads the telegraph too.

            1. Wellyboot Silver badge

              Re: How about ...

              There's a reasonably high chance of it being the torygraph or the grauniad given his age and socio-economic group :)

              Solid journalism does appear in both of those venerable old rags from time to time, MP expenses (Telegraph) and Phone hacking (Guardian) both shone bright lights on serious malpractice and we need a lot more journos doing this instead of following managments agenda.

              Every news outlet in the UK has a well know set of biases, enough in fact to provide Private Eye with an ongoing column of their recent hypocritical outpourings and or dubious links.

          2. veti Silver badge

            Re: How about ...

            And they get zero special exemptions. "Oh, you're a journalist? Case dismissed." - is a phrase not used in a courtroom in the US or UK, ever.

            Journalists are subject to exactly the same laws as the rest of us. To the extent that there are rights - such as the right to protect your sources - those rights are available to anyone in the same circumstances. It's not about who or what you are, it's about what you're doing.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How about ...

          We need journalists. It would be great if they were good journalists but even bad journalists must be protected from the vengeance of the state.

          Journalists should be protected.

          Releasing names and GPS coordinates of people who have helped assist allied forces so the Taliban can execute them and their families is not journalism, and it is criminally irresponsible.

          He's upset about being the prospect of being prosecuted? I think there are plenty of people who would be upset that they and their families were executed without trial. You know, if they weren't dead.

          1. Graham Cobb Silver badge

            Re: How about ...

            Bad judgement? Yes. Irresponsible? Yes. But the people responsible for the killings were the Taliban who committed them.

            I don't like Assange, or the way Wikileaks changed after the Russian support, but that doesn't make these acts criminal. Or are you suggesting Dominic Raab should be personally prosecuted for the deaths of the Afghans who worked for the UK and were killed by the Taliban?

          2. veti Silver badge

            Re: How about ...

            Citation needed.

            Link to a WikiLeaks post with that sort of info unredacted. Or to a news report proving there was, at one time, such a post.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: How about ...

            They threw away any respect for their own life when They chose to associate and incorporate themselves Into the effort.

            They made the gamble. They just didn't get away with avoiding paying the piper. Is established in your preferred standards Anta others to do anything , getting Avoid the blood sacrifice Required to intimidate people into being ruled, is the exception in human history not the rule.

            That's how sacrifice works. Is either Your life has no meaning except to serve this purpose and would constitute a waste if you were not to die for externally sorted ambitions of social engineering, or you demonstrate suicidal self destructive behavior By Retaining subscription to that purpose.

            Neither of which is anything to be idolizing.

            You can't have it both ways.

          4. saline_solution

            Re: How about ...

            Can you present some evidence that anyone has been executed by the Taliban because of Wikileaks work?

        3. TimMaher Silver badge
          Unhappy

          “Read all about it”

          “Read all about it.

          News of the World,

          News of the World”

          Regrettably, sometimes legal action against gutter snipe is necessary.

          But not to just protect the state.

          Upvoted for your position generally though.

          1. Wellyboot Silver badge

            Re: “Read all about it”

            That scandal and the damage it caused should have resulted in jail time for far more of those involved than it did.

            Systematic phone hacking against anyone who came to their attention for almost any reason is so far outside 'reasonable in the circumstances' as to be reprehensible.

        4. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: How about ...

          Graham, I take your point, but the Sun has an editor and a legal department and works under the shadow of OFCOM. When they get it wrong (and boy do they) there are consequences.

          The Mirror might be a better example - when they published doctored photos from Afghanistan, Piers Moron had no choice to to fall on his sword. When Assange did it? Nothing. Citizen Journalists can be trustworthy even without this accountability - think Bellingcat. But Wikileaks under Assange comprehensively lost my trust.

          1. Graham Cobb Silver badge

            Re: How about ...

            That is exactly my point. Journalists should not be prosecuted for these issues. The accountability is that reputations (of publications and of individuals) suffer. Which is the correct result and, in your case, seems to have led to exactly the same result for both the Mirror and Wikileaks.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: How about ...

          I upvoted you, but on reflection, I would downvote you for the 2nd bold, i.e. "even if they had edited it to make it look worse". This is commonly used by media, without having to resort to lies. They 'only' amplify the message, right, pile up the facts to support their point, leave out the inconvenients bits that don't support the narrative, and I'm supposed to applaud them, because they didn't lie, they 'just' edited it make it look worse'?! To me, this manipulation is no different to a straight lie, and it's a slippery slope too.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How about ...

      But it ended up looking like the helicopter incident was just an excuse to release a lot of information - some of which put precariously placed people, who had nothing to do with the helicopter incident, in danger.

      Assange's Act is often compared to Ellsberg's releasing the RAND report - but actually it is very different. The RAND report was a secret coherent and well researched report exactly on the state of the Vietnam War.

      Assange's trove was taken at random from the entire collection of US State Department secret cables. As a result, the helicopter incident part of it was overwhelmed and had insignificant effect.

      1. scrubber

        Re: How about ...

        The US not only murdered journalists but committed war crimes by attacking first responders.

        Whatever bad stuff you think Assange did is infinitely outweighed by releasing this information to the public.

  3. Outski Silver badge

    Option 3

    Since our current Home Secretary seems to be of the opinion that immigrants=bad, can we not just revoke any visa he has, ship him back to Aus and let them and the yanks sort out the whole mess?

    1. Franco Silver badge

      Re: Option 3

      (Genuine Question) Does he go back to Australia or Sweden? I don't know if the rules for deportation are return to home country or country of origin (I.e. where he came to the UK from).

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: Option 3

        A country in which they could probably claim citizenship, if one can be determined - or guessed.

        So anyone with multiple citizenship can be deported "back" to any of those countries, even if they've never actually been there in their lives. Even if they've given it up.

        Ms Patel has deported quite a few people to countries they've never visited, let alone have any ties or even speak the language on the basis that their grandparents were born there so they have a right to citizenship.

        Under her rules we should deport her to Uganda, and Boris to the USA.

        It's insane, and inhuman.

        1. Wellyboot Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Option 3

          How far back are we going with this?

          Stripping British nationality from and then deporting people with foreign ancestors would result in the UK becoming a very quiet place.

          I agree with your sentiment.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Option 3

          Absolutely correct. I was born overseas but have lived in the UK for almost 30 years and have a family here. I, and my kids after me, will always be second class citizens because of this - we can be deported, while others can not.

          When my mind wanders I sometimes consider filing anonymous terrorist charges against every member of parliament eligible for foreign citizenship. You never know, a few might stick and if I could get Patel, Rees-Mogg or Truss deported it would be a result. Farage is descended from Hugenots, and I bet that pig Yaxley-Lennon has a bit of foreign in him somewhere....

      2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Option 3

        (Genuine Question) Does he go back to Australia or Sweden? I don't know if the rules for deportation are return to home country or country of origin (I.e. where he came to the UK from).

        I guess that's a future question to be settled. AFAIK it's to a place where they have citizenship, or could gain/regain it, and is generally considered safe. I think it can also depend on how a person ended up in the UK, ie if you try to visit a country without a visa, or for work rather than tourism, you can be refused entry and sent back. Which is more along the lines of France's ability to arrest a trawler, but not stop the migrant boat crossings. Those enter the country illegally, and could be returned to France.

        Assange entered the UK legally, overstayed his welcome, and is now detained while the extradition process plays out. Once it has, then the UK could start deportation proceedings, probably to Australia given his ties. But now he's got more kids, most recently to his lawyer. The first kid & wife was apparently French, the latest two presumably born in the UK.

        So Assange would seem to have a few choices, probably not Ecuador given that offer was revoked. Australia would seem the most logical, and they seem willing to take him. But I guess deportation could be challenged given his new family ties to the UK. I guess there could be more politics, if Assange carries on being detained pending deportation. Or once the extradition case is done, he gets deported to Australia, and can then apply to enter the UK legally to rejoin his new family.. Assuming he actually wants to stay in the UK.

        1. Outski Silver badge

          Re: Option 3

          I think they actually have to have citizenship.

          A couple of the aspects of the Shamema Begum case are that a) it is contrary to international law to render someone stateless by withdrawal of their only/native citizenship and that b) a State cannot render someone stateless on the grounds that they may be able to claim citizenship of another country (in Begum's case, Bangladesh, who have said "not on your nelly")

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Option 3

            Correct on both counts, but unfortunately International Law does not apply to todays Britain.

            1. Chris 15
              Happy

              Well

              I'm note sure how much that the 'establishment' have ever viewed themselves as subject to international law...

    2. DevOpsTimothyC Bronze badge

      Re: Option 3

      How about 3a where they get on with the trial where he appears by video link and once that kangaroo court is done then the deportation to Australia can happen (assuming they will have him).

      If people disagree about the kangaroo court part I'm up for a good laugh on reasons why it wouldn't be.

  4. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Spanners Silver badge
      Boffin

      @msobkow

      However, the death of someone convicted of journalism is a loss to society. If, like some very rich and powerful people in the USA, you also feel that the US government should not be scrutinised and their criminal actions should not be exposed, you are dangerously wrong.

      The thing that has protected the, nominally, democratic world from much of the turmoil that has affected everywhere from China and the happily late USSR to much of the middle east has been a free and investigative press.

      Bearded, redneck, Trump supporters will not save the USA. They will make it worse. The US will be protected by those who expose criminals. If the USA survives, people like Manning, Snowden and Assange will be in its history books as heroes. The autocrats who vilify them will be the villains.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        Journalism?

        Assange never acted like a journalist. He was just looking for grandstanding while publishing everything without any thought about the consequences of his acts on other people.

        Something that any good journalist would do.

        Probably one day Zuckerberg will ask him to run Facebook News....

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Re: Journalism?

          "He was just looking for grandstanding while publishing everything without any thought about the consequences of his acts on other people."

          So you think he was acting like Boris?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @msobkow

        Convicted of journalism? Assange?

        LOL.

  5. Scott Broukell

    Like him or loathe him, he did play a part in shedding light on some pretty serious matters. But from a purely humanitarian perspective he sure as hell puts himself, and those close to him, through the mill over his beliefs!

    Personally I would not wish any harm, psychiatric or otherwise , upon him.

    My hope is that this can be swiftly resolved to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Seemingly endless retribution would seem not to achieve a great deal either way in this instance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      My view is that he started Wikileaks only to put a gloss of legitimacy on his previous illegal activities, and I have seen very little over the years to change that opinion - any "good" that came from his activities was buried under what he did himself.

      That's also why the US left him alone for so long: he was busy knotting his own noose.

      1. Bartholomew Bronze badge
        Flame

        > My view is that he started Wikileaks only to put a gloss of legitimacy on his previous illegal activities, and I have seen very little over the years to change that opinion

        Technically DoD DARPA unintentionally created Wikileaks by ..., well Mudge tells the story better than anyone else ever could - 2 minutes 45 seconds in up until 11 mins 17 secs on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSR-b9yuTbM&t=165s

    2. FuzzyTheBear

      delays delays

      He's done all he can to delay the whole proceedings. Had he manned up , fessed up , he might be free by now. facing the music pays big time.

  6. Jim Mitchell Silver badge

    At what point does the possibility of suicide merit changing the lawful punishment for crime? If he was a serial killer, would the judge still rule this way? If it was a speeding ticket with a $200 fine?

    1. ShabWeasel

      Pretty much the difference between receiving psychiatric care or killing yourself in a prison cell (possibly at a US black site).

      As with those judged 'criminally insane' (excuse the term - I don't know what the current terminology is), if his mental state is considered to have improved sufficiently in the future then he can stand trial for his supposed crimes.

      Just because a person is accused (or even convicted) of a crime, it doesn't justify depriving them of simple compassion and necessary healthcare.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I think the whole song and dance about black sites is utter baloney.

        There is no way the US would be able to stick him in a black site with so much press attention focused on him, and he knows it. It's just part of his "poor me, look at me I'm a martyr" routine and I'm not buying it for a second.

        1. FeepingCreature

          They'd just do it anyway. Press attention didn't do shit about Guantanamo.

          1. SundogUK Silver badge

            Guantanamo isn't a black site (we've all been talking about it for decades, haven't we?) They are quite open about what goes on there.

        2. Cederic Silver badge

          I agree. The way the US are treating people that wandered through their nation's parliament building taking selfies tells us they'd happily torture Assange without even bothering with a black site.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            They are bring treated with a slap on wrist.

            They committed treason for an orange nazi shitbag and should be fucking hanging.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              They committed treason for an orange nazi shitbag and should be fucking hanging.

              Is that you, Mr Epps? None of them have been charged with treason, mostly minor offences like trespass.

              1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

                *Can* you be charged with treason other than in a state of war? I don't know much about US legal matters...

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  *Can* you be charged with treason other than in a state of war? I don't know much about US legal matters...

                  According to wiki, it looks like it-

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States#Federal

                  Definition: In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort...

                  ... Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow of the government or to resist its laws. Enemies are subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.

                  So I guess it could have been used against the Seattle insurrectionists. But most of those weren't prosecuted on account of them being 'peaceful protestors'. Such is US politics. Insurrection is also illegal, but despite media reporting, no charges. That might be easier to charge Epps with given video evidence of him encouraging crowds to 'storm' the Capitol. But for whatever reason, he doesn't seem to have been arrested or charged.

                  Stuff like this doesn't help either-

                  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10146629/Lincoln-Project-admits-dressing-fake-Youngkin-backers-racist-Unite-Right-garb.html

                  Online sleuths named two of the five agitators as Camden Layton, the finance director for Virginia Young Democrats, and Colleen Wachenfeld, another Virginia Democratic employee whose background on Twitter was a picture of McAuliffe at a campaign event.

                  Which seems a little odd given the DM refers to the Lincoln Project as "a group of anti-Trump Republicans"

    2. Zare

      What crime? What are you talking about? He is not convicted of any crime by US. He exposed war crimes. That is not a crime, committing war crimes is a crime.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yawn. Google is your friend. Or, for the more privacy inclined, Duck Duck Go. I'm really not going to walk into that dead argument again - it's all online.

      2. Stork Silver badge

        You are right. At the moment the question is if he can be sent to stand trial in the US. So far the only offence I think he has been found guilty in is jumping bail, I expect that to be a crime

        1. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

          ah yes, but jumping bail for an offence that he hadn't actually committed? The Swedes dropped the charges.

          1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

            Dropping charges does not mean that no offence was committed, as you're well aware in this case. Please stop distorting the facts here, it doesn't help anyone.

            1. Phones Sheridan Bronze badge

              Considering the two women involved both stated no rape took place, the odds are pretty good that no offence was committed.

              https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

              I'm also sure you're aware of the legal position of innocent unless proven guilty.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                There's a two step here. First, there was the complaint by the women which was merely there to ask Assange to get himself tested, like any decent person would (which leads to a possibility that Assange has STDs and knows about them, but that's as much speculation as everything else in this saga).

                It was his refusal that triggered consequences under Swedish law, and at that point it became irrelevant if the women withdrew their complaint or not, where you also have to ask if they really did withdrew that voluntarily or only under pressure by viciously online attacks by Assange supporters who apparently share his lack of decency.

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. This post has been deleted by its author

              3. gnasher729 Silver badge

                Somehow I can't find this to be a reliable source. Swedish court would be much more reliable, and according to the Swedish court there was at least sexual harassment. And you are "innocent until proven guilty" in court. Avoiding going to court by absconding from the country and then holing up in some embassy for years doesn't make you innocent.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  If anything, it gives very much the impression of the opposite..

          2. idiot taxpayer here again

            But, if memory serves, he jump bail before the charges were dropped. Nor do we know whether he committed the offences he was charged with. They run out of time. That was the whole point of holing himself up in the embassy.

            1. 2460 Something

              The whole point of hiding in the embassy was because he was quite sure that as soon as he touched down in Sweden, the US would lodge an extradition request and charges would be dropped. The primary reason being that it would be much harder for the US to extradite him from the UK. As soon as the US realised they were not going to be able to get him via Sweden, they lodged an extradition request and Sweden dropped all charges.

              Ultimately whether you like him or not, he should be as protected as any other journalist, plenty of the ones in this country distort and manipulate fact to tell their own story, he was exposing many many US atrocities and war crimes. That doesn't mean he is a nice person, frankly he sounds like a proper muppet, it also doesn't mean the US should be allowed to be anywhere near him.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Yawn. We've been over this about a 1000 times. As friend of the US, the UK is a far easier country to extradite someone from than Sweden. It's utter BS.

                1. Phones Sheridan Bronze badge

                  And yet Sweden has form when it comes to secretly and under the table performing illegal extraditions https://www.thelocal.se/20090119/17020/ https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/eu0107/7.htm

                  Go on downvote away.

            2. This post has been deleted by its author

          3. Richard 12 Silver badge

            Jumping bail is a criminal act

            It doesn't matter whether or not he's actually guilty of the alleged rape.

            He jumped bail, deliberately and explicitly to "run out the clock". The charges were only dropped because time ran out to interview him. Sweden can't charge you until you've been interviewed.

            If he'd actually thought himself innocent then he'd have faced questioning in Sweden and never travelled to a third country in the first place, and if he was genuinely worried about being extradited to the USA then he certainly wouldn't have gone to the one with the most one-sided extradition treaty with the USA.

            Either he's incredibly stupid, or he really did rape one or both of those women. There aren't any other likely possibilities.

            I'm quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's one of the most idiotic idiots ever to stupid, but he still broke the actual law and is a convicted criminal.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

          4. gnasher729 Silver badge

            Charges were dropped because the time limit for pressing charges ran out. The way he acted to prevent going to court, it is common sense that he was guilty as hell.

            And jumping bail is a criminal offence, whether you are guilty of the original crime or not. So it was always obvious that as soon as he left the embassy, he would be arrested and later convicted in the UK.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Messy

    First things first. Assange is a narcissistic douchebag. Having kids in his situation was another narcissistic act. Gawd knows what the mother was thinking.

    He deserves everything he gets for his proven crimes (bail jumping in the UK). Ideally he would be tried for his alleged crime in Sweden but their statute of limitations has passed. I dont believe he should be tried for publishing a whistleblowers account of war crimes - as much as he got recognition for it - he was just the conduit.

    In short I support anything that keeps minor douchebag away from the major US douchebags who commited war crimes and are now trying to deflect blame onto someone else rather than addressing their own culpability.

    Deny the extradition request on whatever grounds you like, make Asshat serve his contempt of court sentence, then deport his ass back to Australia and let him be someone elses problem.

    1. Youngone Silver badge

      Re: Messy

      Gawd knows what the mother was thinking.

      Yes, that was my first thought. Imagine thinking having not one, but two children with Julian Assange was a good idea?

      It beggars belief.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Messy

        Well, if nothing else we've established that Julian Assange really doesn't like condoms.

    2. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: Messy

      "I dont believe he should be tried for publishing a whistleblowers account of war crimes - as much as he got recognition for it - he was just the conduit."

      The US case is that he conspired with Bradley Manning to illegally access US government computers to steal data. His role as a publisher is irrelevant.

  8. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    CIA conspirarcies?

    One might suggest that the idea that CIA might harm, or threaten to harm, his kids is a tad on the paranoid side.

    But you have to ask yourself, not whether it's true, but whether it's a reasonable belief. And given the CIA track record, it's more than reasonable.

    The US legal system is a pile of crud. No-one should be extradited to the US for any reason whatsoever. If the crime is serious enough, charge them in the courts of the country where they're being held.

    1. You aint sin me, roit Silver badge

      Re: CIA conspirarcies?

      While I wouldn't put it past the CIA to be thinking about assassination, coercion, and threats, in fact I'd be very surprised if they hadn't, I don't think killing him or any of his relations would further their ambitions. In fact probably the opposite.

      I don't think they need to silence him, he's already splurged all he knows. He's just not important anymore. Locking him up would be their revenge. In the meantime, belittling him is a PR exercise, though Assange does a fair job of that himself... two children while holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy is hardly responsible behaviour. Indeed, it looks like a cynical ploy to avoid deportation: "Don't separate me from my children"!

      If he were Russian though he'd be dead by now. Assassination is definitely Putin's thing, pour encourager les autres...

  9. martinusher Silver badge

    I see that the system works

    Not the legal system, of course, but the reputation management system -- or rather the reputation destruction system.

    What you have with Assange is a prisoner who has been held for years in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison without charges (at least with dubious charges**). Letting him go would be a problem. Extraditing him would also be a problem because the crime he's being accused of -- publishing classified material -- is not really a crime in the US (and to complicate things further the offences didn't take place in the US). There's a desperate need to make him 'disappear', and a prerequisite for this is to first make him a non-person. This is done by turning him into an object of public hate -- "a narcissistic douchebag that only started Wikileaks for self-promotion". This may or may not be true; I personally doubt it because its all part of the general pattern of undermining his character as a way of undermining his ability to defend himself. (Its almost surprising that Wikileaks wasn't found to be a major distribution site for kiddie porn but then that might be a bit too blatant.)

    Anyway, I'm not falling for it. I don't know the man but recognize a major injustice when I see it.

    (**If you're into history then you'll notice that even during the height of the purges in the USSR during the 1930s everything was legal, charges, proceedings, what have you. Knowing you've been legally railroaded rather than just railroaded is small comfort to the victims.)

    1. mevets Bronze badge

      Re: I see that the system works

      Julian has done all sorts of useful things; but unless there was a divine intervention or some sort of turkey-baster-artificial-insemination, solitary does not appear to have been part of his sentence.

      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

        Re: I see that the system works

        some sort of turkey-baster-artificial-insemination

        Thanks for that visual, on a Friday.

        Has anyone seen the mind bleach?

        :)

    2. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: I see that the system works

      "...the crime he's being accused of -- publishing classified material..."

      This is not true. The crime he is being accused of is conspiring with Bradley Manning to break in to US government computers and steal classified material.

      1. martinusher Silver badge

        Re: I see that the system works

        >The crime he is being accused of is conspiring with Bradley Manning to break in to US government computers and steal classified material.

        Thin gruel indeed. Criminal conspiracy in the US could be just a conversation on the subject, not an actual act or preparatory act. You'll never know the answers to "what computer?" and "what information?" because that will be classified. If you've ever been in the same room as a system carrying classified material then you'd know that these systems are not connected to the Internet and you'd have to give up your phone and any other technology you're carrying. You'll need to be accompanied by an appropriately cleared member of staff at all times -- that includes the rest rooms -- so realistically the only way to get anything out would to be what Manning did, to be a low level worker who exploited the inevitable gaps in security. Once on the outside there will be no way in.

        But then "government computer" could be a clerk's terminal at the Social Security office.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I see that the system works

      Assange is a prisoner who has been held for years in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison without charges

      Really? I must have missed that. When has he ever been locked up in a place he couldn't walk out of other than after the whole embassy shambles?

  10. DS999 Silver badge
    Trollface

    Man that guy

    Really does NOT like condoms!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Man that guy

      I have the impression the loathing is mutual .

      1. Ken Shabby

        Re: Man that guy

        Seems he prefers the Cheese and Tuna flavoured ones.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Convicted Felon.

    Deport him.

  12. saline_solution

    Independent, informed comment

    Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, gives a very different picture of the Assange affair than you would read in the newspapers. But then he did actually investigate the matter, rather than simply regurgitating the government line.

    https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

    1. MGJ

      Re: Independent, informed comment

      Which Government's line?

    2. Franco Silver badge

      Re: Independent, informed comment

      Independent? He was hired by Assange's lawyers.

      1. Phones Sheridan Bronze badge

        Re: Independent, informed comment

        Care to share where you saw he was hired by Assange's lawyers?

        I can see that Assange's lawyers asked him to review the case, because that is literally his job at the UN.

        1. Franco Silver badge

          Re: Independent, informed comment

          Lawyer 101. Do not ask a question you do not already know the answer to. Do not hire expert witnesses who won't come down on your side.

          1. mevets Bronze badge

            Re: Independent, informed comment

            Members of the legal profession have ethical allegiances that vary very much by country. Assuming the worst of a UN lawyer, that is that they would behave like an American lawyer, is a foul insult.

            Few free countries are burdened with a justice system as corrupt as the one the Americans suffer under.

            1. Franco Silver badge

              Re: Independent, informed comment

              Eh? I said nothing about Melzer's behavior or ethics, and he isn't a lawyer anyway but a Professor of International Law (not the same thing). I was merely making the point that Assange's lawyers would not have asked him (or anyone else) for their opinions on the case if they did not think the answers they got were favourable to Assange.

              I didn't mention it in my previous post, but seeing as you have opened the door to Melzer's character, he was very heavily criticised by one of the women from the original case in Sweden. She accused him of victim-blaming and defamation and demanded his resignation.

              1. Phones Sheridan Bronze badge

                Re: Independent, informed comment

                "She accused him of victim-blaming and defamation and demanded his resignation.".

                Come on, if you are going to pick and choose quotes from Wikipedia, at least also link to his open response to that accusation .

                1. Franco Silver badge

                  Re: Independent, informed comment

                  I would, but you and your fellow Assange devotees would then pick and choose the bits of my response that you don't like and attack that. Pretty much like Wikileaks = Assange unless they get caught doing something shady, and then it was someone else. For example, not redacting PII from their leaks.

                  1. This post has been deleted by its author

                    1. Franco Silver badge

                      Re: Independent, informed comment

                      Seriously, you want me to grow up when you're offering lollipops? Why not just call me butthurt and be done with it?

                      I have defended my position multiple times in this thread. Assange is not a journalist, nor is anyone at Wikileaks. They do not protect their sources properly, they do not redact PII from their leaks and the choice of material they leak is clearly in some cases motivated by political considerations. Assange is also prone to editiorialising on the material he leaks.

                      They are clearly aware from the statements made regarding arbitrary detention that they have some sympathy at the UN, and as I stated no lawyer worthy of the name is going to ask for a review of a case by anyone without knowing that the results of said review will suit their narrative. The very fact that the person who did the review had to apologise to the woman involved undermines his status.

          2. saline_solution

            Re: Independent, informed comment

            Perhaps Assange's lawyers asked Melzer to investigate because they were confident that his treatment by the US and UK governments fits the definition of psychological torture.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Independent, informed comment

              He's (according to international law) actually been in Ecuador for most of this time, so I'm not quite sure why you're blaming the US and UK for psychological torture.

              1. saline_solution

                Re: Independent, informed comment

                You didn't actually read the linked article before commenting, did you?

  13. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Assange was at least right on one count when hiding in the Embassy: the question wasn't would he be extradited to Sweden, but would he be to the US. The "Sweden affair" seemed to be a smoke screen.

    Previously the US offered to send Assange to a prison in his native Australia to serve the sentence

    "Considered innocent before being proven guilty".... right.

    I have no sympathy for this guy. But the action of the US against him is appalling. The US caused directly or indirectly the death of 300,000+ Iraqi civilians, and nobody had to stand trial for that. Now the US is running against the guy who showed the World some of the war crimes committed by the US Army - crimes that unsurprisingly the Pentagon tried to whitewash.

    1. s2bu

      He would have been a LOT better off going back to Sweden to face the charges than to stay in the UK. The UK has a close relationship with the US. Sweden? Not so much.

      1. 2460 Something

        Not so, Sweden has happily handed people over to the CIA, without any judicial process, who were subsequently tortured https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/05/cia-rendition-help-european-leaders.

      2. saline_solution

        According to Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Assange's lawyers "made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden – in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. The Swedes declined to provide such a guarantee by arguing that the U.S. had not made a formal request for extradition... Such diplomatic assurances are a routine international practice."

        https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

    2. Stork Silver badge

      I think you are wrong.

      As I understand how things work, extraditions are by first come, first served. IOW, Sweden's request would have to be rejected or withdrawn for the US one to be considered, which is what happened due to the time passed.

      Had JA not legged it he would most likely had been sent to Sweden and the US would have to extradite him from there - which is likely more difficult than from the UK (does not say much).

      The Sweden affair is messy, but sexual misconduct cases often are. And with my impression of AS' personality I do not see it as unlikely that the women have a genuine complaint.

  14. scrubber

    sed 's/h/sh/g' <<< "hit how"

    The US forensically going through a used diaper is the perfect visual for this entire situation.

  15. Whitter
    Meh

    What is a Judge's role here?

    "...Judge Baraitser would have ruled differently. Lewis argued that having one's own children to protect and raise can reduce the risk of suicide..."

    I assume that clinician(s) gave the court one (or more) expert evaluations on suicide risk. The judge then ruled. But this barrister is inferring that the judge would have re-evaluted the suicide risk themselves under the impression that judges are more expert at psychology than psycologists? Sounds more like a slurr on the Judge than anything else.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: What is a Judge's role here?

      This expert was hired by the defence.

      The judge is required to evaluate their evidence and compare it with that provided by the prosecution.

      That is quite literally their job, and they do not like it when expert witnesses "lie by omission"

  16. joe bixflics

    'having one's own children to protect and raise can reduce the risk of suicide' Oh, absolutely. As does owning a $300k Lamborghini. First thing they teach you in Psychiatry school.

    1. Rob Daglish Bronze badge

      Third. Numbers one and two are where the coffee machine and the toilets are.

  17. Helcat

    Ignoring Assange for a moment:

    This 'Lewis' person is telling us what a UK judge would think had they not been told something by a psychiatrist? I am going to assume said psychiatrist is, indeed, a mental health professional who is qualified to assess peoples mental health here.

    So 'Lewis' is also a qualified psychiatrist? Doubt it. Did they have an independent psychiatrist assess said mental health? Doesn't seem like it.

    Do US courts care about agreements made outside of the US in order to get someone into the US to stand trial? Well, no, they don't (as was reported some years back). They also don't care if crimes were committed outside of the US to get the accused into court. This includes kidnapping, so lying isn't really an issue to them. They might honour an agreement, but there's nothing binding them to do so: It's not really their business. Also: Has Australia agreed to imprison someone on behalf of the US? I believe the answer there was 'no' and I've seen nothing to say that's changed (not that I've looked into that very hard).

    So this doesn't seem that convincing. I'd go with a firm 'no' to Lewis on this one. They can challenge the court's decision, but telling us what a Judge would say implies they don't have anything better to present as an argument.

    Flip side: This is Assange we're talking about. Isn't he in gaol yet? When is he getting kicked out of the UK? Please: Send him back to Australia and let him be their headache, not ours! After he's served his time for jumping bail, of course.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The US wants Assange ? i say give him to 'em and save us the cost of his jail upkeep.

    BUT in return we get Anne Sacoolas - she actually DID kill someone !!

  19. JohnG

    Was Wikileaks leaks of Afghanistan patrol reports, without redacting details of informants worse than the recent leaks by western governments of details of those who worked for them in Afghanistan and then leaving them behind, in the scramble to leave the country?

    1. Citizen of Nowhere

      Nope. Both are pretty much inexcusable.

  20. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Wouldn't that increase the risk?

    Judge says "having children to protect and raise reduces risk of suicide". (Edit: Never mind, it's some asshole from the US pretending they know what the judge would have said. Nevertheless... I'll leave this anyway:)

    The judge is not a psychiatrist. They should ask an expert about that. To me, I would think having children that you know you will probably never see again would INCREASE risk of suicide (never seeing them again either because of being stuck in either a hellish US prison, or an Australian prison (hellish or not; I don't know if AU follows the US's low prison standards or not).) But, I'm not an expert either. To me it seems inappropriate of the judge to have said they would have changed their decision based on their opinion of how psychology works, rather than saying they would have thought this was possible and asked a medical expert further questions about it.

  21. Twanky Silver badge

    Evil

    Back in the High Court yesterday, Fitzgerald suggested that the reason Stella Morris (the children's mother) wasn't identified in Professor Kopelman's report on Assange's mental state was in case the CIA decided to injure or murder her or the children instead of the WikiLeaker.

    That is just daft.

    It does not really matter whether you think the CIA is evil enough to murder Mr Assange's children or their mother. Do you think they're incompetent enough not to have known that they're his kids without Prof Kopelman's report?

    1. Grunchy

      Re: Evil

      The CIA probably surveiled him fathering those very children with one of their spy satellites. That’s how they got Osama you know, I saw the scene in the dark 30 movie!!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    psychiatrist misled judge over parentage of his kids, US tells High Court

    a bit late to the who's kids' party ;)

  23. Grunchy

    I’ve been watching some of these police chase videos wherein the cops spot some hapless motorist mistakenly speeding or turn without indicating or missed a stop sign, then discover there are motorists in such despair they will destroy their own car, and anybody’s around them, and risk life and limb in a last-chance desperate bid to evade that $75 levy and attendant social stigma of being forced to admit, “I ran a yellow light.”

    So yeah it’s plausible that Assange would drink arsenic to avoid facing responsibility for his actions, in a world where people are ready to die before capitulating to any social requirement of maintaining their auto insurance policy.

  24. FlamingDeath Silver badge

    Does anyone hear that

    Echo......echo.....echo.....

    bubble

    pop

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange helped Trump

    Unforgivable

    Throw away the key on that charge alone.

  26. Conundrum1885
    Alien

    Assange

    The main reason for following this case is that I have good reason to believe that Assange is hoarding truly astounding information on UAPs.

    It seems he won't or can't release it because there are things worse than getting extradited.

    Seems that well before the Nimitz photos and videos aired there were rumblings on Wikileaks about strange objects following US Navy

    ships, tampering with nuclear missiles, interfering with radar and other such things.

    It seems this has been going on since July 1945, in fact the day before the Trinity device was tested several reports of strange craft were

    reported in the area and other reports exist with a TBR (75y) date sometime next year.

    I've actually had a close encounter before and to this day it remains unexplained.

    Can only guess that it was as terrified of me as I was of it.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can't he just buy an autism diagnosis like everyone else?

  28. msobkow Silver badge

    Oh, yes, because the Americans would do something crazy like kidnap or kill the kids of a high profile figure in the news that is already embarassing them with his evasive tactics to escape justice. I realize the Americans may be vengeful over national security, but I hardly think they're going to go after kids and risk the blowback from doing so.

    Assange and his lawyers are playing games.

    Time for that clown to face justice. Enough with this nonsense. Face the courts, do your time in Australia, and get it over with, you coward.

  29. DomDF
    Mushroom

    Americans

    A pity the Americans didn't follow though with their plan to have him assassinated in the UK. It would have given me another reason to despise them.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021