Julian Assange to go free in guilty plea deal with US WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been freed from prison in the UK after agreeing to plead guilty to just one count of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defense information, brought against him by the United States. Uncle Sam previously filed more than a dozen counts. Assange has spent the past five years in a …
Shame the investigators of that alleged crime didn't follow correct procedure and interview him in London which was offered repeatedly. There is also a lot more to it than your of the cuff comment with no basis in reality.
Have a read if you want. You might be surprised at what really happened and why.
https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/
Don't believe everything you read in the media.
It's a shame the instigator of that alleged crime fled abroad to the UK to avoid the charges, was arrested under a European arrest warrant, and lost an extradition case resulting in him being sent back to face the charges. At which point he voluntarily hid in an embassy for literally years to avoid the charges.
He's a moron. If you were going to pick a country to hide from the US then I would point out that any person with a functioning brain would put the UK as being one of the last countries on the planet to hide in. Any sane person would head over towards a non extradition country, or Russia or China.
Why? because the first thing a victim of sexual assault is going to do is to look up comment in relation to an allegation against an Australian in Sweden with many other factors? There are many reasons people don't report these assaults such as low conviction rates, having your life scrutinised, having to give evidence in from of your abuser, not being believed and I can tell you with zero doubt Assange is not a factor. You yourself by saying this are cheapening the abuse, reasons for not reporting them and making a mockery of it. Very sad that you said this.
He didn't flee. Read the link.
He was arrested and released with case closed. A new investigator re-opened it a week later. Assange offered to be interviewed again. They rejected. He asked if he could leave Sweden and was told yes and did. He offered to return to Sweden which was also rejected. Two days later the arrest warrant was issued. What would you do after trying to accommodate the prosecutor they default to a warrant. What would that tell you about their intention? Offers were made multiple times for an interview in London which is something Swedish prosecutors do. It took till 2016 and even after that not all charges were outside of the time limit. The prosecutors decided not to take further action. Not Assange and not because he was in an embassy.
He wasn't hiding in the UK. He was hiding in an ambassy from being deported to Sweden then to the US. The law has no protections from a European arrest warrant. Now you know this do you still think the same way? Thankfully as shown by how long this has dragged out the UK is actually a pretty good country to hide in because we have a rule of law politicians can't just circumnavigate whether they like it or not. See Rwanda as an example.
This post has been deleted by its author
So... No innocent until proven guilty then?
I'm not sure that running from the police and leaving the country in which you're accused (which had no extradition agreement with the US) for another country (which very much DOES have an extradition agreement with the US) is the best look for someone claiming innocence.
Everything he was arrested and imprisoned for in the UK was entirely his own doing (running from a European arrest warrant, breaking house arrest etc) and was very much not innocent of.
“No innocent until proven guilty then?”
I do believe that once someone pleads guilty, nobody has to prove anything.
Keep in mind he has to plead in front of an American judge. Certainly the prosecution has asked for time already served but the judge is never obliged to do anything anybody asks.
I have said before, it would serve the whiney, GUILTY little bitch right to finally face justice and be told to get his ass out of there, all the years he spent blubbering and sniveling to actual journalists were wasted for nothing.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"...So... No innocent until proven guilty then?"
Playing hide-and-seek in an embassy to avoid the consequenses of your [alleged] criminal actions, or to run down the clock on the statute of limitations, wouldn't be considered the action of an innocent man.
A rapist who managed to escape conviction is still a rapist. Everything Assange does shows he's a sneaky turd, so I for one have no problem believing he'd sexually assault someone.
Thing is the opposite is true. It took the Swedish prosecutor till 2016 to interview him in London despite repeated offers. There were also still charges that could have been followed up on at that time but the prosecutor chose not to.
He had already been arrested, questioned and no charges were to be brought in Sweden. Then another prosecutor took up the case and an offer was made by Assange to return to Sweden which was rejected. Then two days later a European arrest warrant was issued.
Maybe some consider it a conspiracy theory that Sweden were working at the request of the US government but that's what the facts are telling me.
It took the Swedish prosecutor till 2016 to interview him in London despite repeated offers
Those 'offers' were pure make believe as they were subject to conditions they knew very well not to be acceptable to the Swedish prosecutor as it would set dangerous precedents in Sweden. The reason the charges were not followed up was also because the complainants withdrew their complain. Whether that was due to the online abuse they were subjected to by Assange supporters remains an open question.
Those charges no longer apply. Why they no longer apply is something that people with strong views about him like to fight about, and I don't have those strong views so I'm not going to go into any more detail about that. However, Sweden no longer has an extradition request for him so, once the US court work is done, he would be free to go to Australia.
The person you are replying to is making a joke, appearing to mistake the reference to "Manning" to refer to "Bernard Manning", a 70s era British standup comedian, very fat, very blue, rather than "Chelsea Manning". Chelsea Manning was a US soldier (airman?) who leaked secrets to a journalist (Julian Assange). Soldiers who leak secrets are de facto traitors, regardless of whether the leaking was worthy/necessary/good for the world.
In theory the federal judge could reject the plea deal and sentence him to something up to the maximum. Though that judge is going to piss off a lot of people by doing so, including the DOJ. Biden would then have to pardon him or commute the sentence to what he has already served.
That's not how it works in the U.S. The President essentially has the last say and Biden has already come to the conclusion that sentencing Assange would alienate an important ally (Australia) and maybe even two (UK). Both nations contend that the intelligence agencies in the U.S. were careless and that their citizens should not face the death penalty because of this.
Even if a judge wants to ignore the plea bargain Biden would simply pardon him.
This post has been deleted by its author
Indeed, it costs a lot of money to have Assange locked up in the UK awaiting extradition and I am still unsure why the MOJ choose to keep him locked up in Belmarsh a Cat A prison, which is usually where you hold people who have been tried and sentenced to a serious offenses such as murder or terrorism and are doing long stretches.
Im not saying he should be put in Cat D open conditions as he did have history of trying to evade arrest, but a closed Cat C prison place is costing us tax pay much less money than ones in Cat A. And its very rare for prisoners to escape from closed conditions.
That's not how it works in the U.S. The President essentially has the last say and Biden has already come to the conclusion that sentencing Assange would alienate an important ally (Australia) and maybe even two (UK).
Three of the five eyes were watching closely. Who may have been keen to sentence Assange to discourage other leakers. But the sentencing part is still to come, and also like most stuff involving Assange, a bit bizarre-
The deal - which will see him plead guilty to one charge of the Espionage Act - is expected to be finalised in a court in the Northern Mariana Islands on Wednesday, 26 June
With the guilty person being allowed to choose the venue. Or maybe the venue was chosen to create a challeng for any journalists wanting to cover the court appearence. Which I'm guessing will be in Guam. At which point the Judge could sentence him to 1yr in jail for the lolz, or 25yrs because they'll soon habeus the corpus. Or it'll be boring and the plea deal will just be for the self-imposed time served.
But the alleged sex offender was dutifully booted out of the UK, hopefully never to return. Which may also crimp his style when it comes to publicity tours and his usually shameless self-promotion.
A can't reject the plea deal and immediately sentence him. A judge could reject the plea deal, but that would mean Assange would not be pleading guilty. That's very rare, and would only happen if there was some disagreement on the terms of the plea deal (as happened with Hunter Biden)
With Assange on his way to Australia, a reunion with Michi anytime soon is unlikely
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michi_(cat)
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/11/europe/julian-assange-cat-fate-gbr-intl-trnd/index.html
Ulbricht's a drug dealer. Nobody gives a toss about him, therefore there's no political benefit to giving him a pardon.
Yeah I know Trump said he'd pardon him if Libertarians voted for him, but pigs will fly etc
Almost every single spy agency around the world will be seeking access to all electronic devices in his environment until the day he dies.
He will probably seek out somewhere in Oz that is the equivalent of the "United States National Radio Quiet Zone" for privacy.
EDIT: I just found it the " <a href="https://www.atnf.csiro.au/projects/askap/ARQZWA.html>Australian Radio Quiet Zone WA (ARQZWA)</a>" (check out the picture, it looks to be in the middle of nowhere).
I don't think so, he needs attention like a drug addict needs a fix.
If I were him I'd broadcast as much as possible, using the Enver Hoxha approach in the 'Inside Man' movie :).
Yes, it was one of those genre-redefining movies. A bit like The Usual Suspects did when it was brought out, which was a new take on a genre that had until then mainly consisted of gangsters chasing each other.
I don't think so, he needs attention like a drug addict needs a fix.
I don't think it's working. We might be interested because there's a bit of an IT angle. But even though the story is 'front page' on the Bbc's 'news' site, the story isn't in the top 10 most viewed. Not sure if that list is localised, ie top 10 in the UK or will change when the US wakes up. But always fun to look at to see what viewers are interested in, even though that can sometimes be depressing.
He will never be able to stop wondering if the US, or some other country he crossed, is going to try and spoil his day. The US used to pick people up off the streets in Europe and spirit them away to be tortured in other countries after all. Extraordinary rendition, as they used to call it.
Falling out of windows is the Russian method, therefore he should be safe on that aspect. Suicide, on the other hand .... so I suspect he'll be painted as depressive and maniac by the mainstream media in the near future. And when the suicide arrives nobody will be surprised and the Anonymous Cowards of ElReg will happily "I told you so " .
Depends on what he knows. I don't think they confided him their secrets so he's probably no threat. I also believe they sucked him dry on all he knew about the NSA and its operations. There's nothing more they can learn from him.
He may still be a useful pawn but there are plenty of those to go around. One American soldier got sprung in a trap in Russia last year. If even soldiers are stupid enough to travel to Russia then there must be an almost limitless number of other fools there for the Russians to harvest.
UK prisons healthcare is handled by the NHS, and actually is probably better than what you would get on the outside unless you normally pay for private healthcare.
There are regular visits by doctors to the prison so prisoner probably get to see a GP more than most people get. And for anything serious where the prison healthcare wing can't cope, they transfer the prisoner to a NHS hospital handcuffed to a couple of guards. And since the hospital doesn't particular want a convict with 2 guards hanging around scaring other patient for any longer than necessary they probably get bumped up to the top of the list.
... transfer the prisoner to a NHS hospital handcuffed to a couple of guard...
I actually witnessed that earlier this year while I was waiting for a CT scan in Winchester hospital. A bloke came in handcuffed by prison guard from HMP Winchester (which is actually just across the road from the hospital); the bloke wasn't particularly pleasant looking, but the prison guard was definitely not someone you would want to meet in a dark alley at midnight!
"as those girls spoke up many days later"
That's always a concern when investigating such allegation. However it was something that should have been settled in court, assuming the Swedish equivalent of the DPP decided to press charges. Whether or not TPTB would have decided to take it to court in the normal course of events, once he did a runner they had little alternative but to issue an extradition warrant.
So after 13 years, exactly what was always was going to happen has happened - except he's even pleading guilty to try to cut that short.
He was imprisoned for 1 year for skipping bail, prior to that everything was entirely self-imposed, and then he was held until he could stand trial in the US, and then he will serve a prison sentence (already done, by a technicality of his non-cooperation) and then he will be made to return to Australia and probably won't be allowed to travel most other countries ever again. And at no point has anyone bothered to assassinate him as claimed.
It's like that bit in The Big Bang Theory where Amy points out that Indiana Jones is totally irrelevant to the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. Without him, the Germans would have still found the Ark, opened it, and died.
The only downside - please tell me that the terms of his deal mean he can't make public statements. I've been enjoying the last few years without hearing from him.
Haven't seen the film in a long time, but didn't Indy get the plane which was to take the Ark back to Germany blown up? In which case it would've probably been opened up by top men there who would have been melted/immolated. So Indy probably increased the length of the war from his actions. (Actually thinking about the film was set before WW2, so he probably could of stopped it if he hadn't blown up the plane).
Of course you can imagine any version of the film you like. Perhaps the film's version of Hitler would have some sort of supernatural precautions in place which Belloc, in his hubris, omitted.
And if Indy hadn't been present at the climax, the US wouldn't have been able to crate the Ark up and store it in their big warehouse.1
Or perhaps Indy just made things worse. That's still a satisfying plot, defeating the action-hero arc even while indulging in action-hero excess. And it's a plot which, in many variations, was not uncommon in the pulp (pre-code) comics and novels which Raiders is an homage to.
1And it wouldn't have inspired Warehouse 13, which was occasionally diverting.
How do you know they were civillians? The group were mostly armed. As is clear in the footage that Wikileaks eventually released. The original 'Collaterol Murder' video does edit some of the weapons out.
They may have broken their rules of engagement. But engaging armed people in a combat zone (they were providing flank-guard for a convoy that was being engaged) is not a war crime, so there'd be nothing to prosecute them for.
The video even has the gunner shout out "RPG!" as the cameraman pokes his camera round the corner of the building. So unless you believe they were top actors - getting their evidence in for the video, then they clearly committed no warcrime.
How do you know they were civillians? The group were mostly armed. As is clear in the footage that Wikileaks eventually released. The original 'Collaterol Murder' video does edit some of the weapons out.
This is one of the reasons I lost respect for Assange and Wikileaks. The 'Collateral Murder' video was heavily editorialised to create a false narrative. Reporting should be reporting the events as happened, not spinning reality. I think the full video stands as a good example of the fog of war and the challenges the military faces. The initial engagement I think was justified because the camera looked like it could have been an RPG, and the Apache had been tracking the group who did have an RPG. I think the follow-on attacks were more questionable, but that's how war goes.
and once in Australia, the US of A$$, waits a little and then submits new charges and extradites him for life imprisonment !
There's no real need. Unless he's got off his private jet in Australia and absconded again, he's heading for Saipan or Guam and his sentencing hearing on the 26th June. So after many years of avoiding justice and extradition to the US, he'll be in US custody. Then he'll find out if he can trust the terms of the plea deal. I doubt the US will try to bring additional charges, or jail him, but stranger things have happened. Politically, the US has both freed Assange, and convicted him, and now he's no longer a UK problem.
Like NZ with Fat Bastard, and Canada with Meng, pissing a whole lot of your tax payers money down the dunny, is what happens when you get a hardon when the US invites you to join one of its quasi political show trial extraditions.
The massive boner the NZ police poodles sprung was just cringe worthy. They launched a whole black helicopter, swat team, near cinematic parody attack on fat bastard and his family in the middle of the night. Fucking grotesque. Thank god there was anything better for them to be doing with the time and money eh?
Seems about fair now. Let him go now he is broken and has learnt to love Big Brother.
The short clip on X of him boarding a plane was a bit shocking. He looks just like an old 'lag'.
12 years? 5 in Belmarsh and 7 in the embassy. No way is the infamy worth that. And it seems odd to his type, but the clever ones amongst us avoid attention like the plague.
I have a vision of him meeting Julia (Manning) in a park one day and he says to her() "I told them to do it to you".
Oh bugger, I was looking forward to his extradition, silly claims of being a journalist, grandstanding and general "look at me. I'm special" fuckwittery. Ah well, hopefully he will make lots of those noises in Australia and we can finally forget all about him.
I see he is still full of it...crowdfunding for his $500,000 jet fare...that's one hell of a charter fee, double the usual rates.
Yes, we know what he did. What is the legal justification for the USA's actions?
If the biggest bully gets to ride roughshod over international law then we are all screwed. For example, it means that Putin was entirely within his rights to poison people here in the UK.
Who wants that?
No, that question doesn't trouble me. The question that troubles me is how can one person's hubris result in such a massive waste of public resource?
The legality was established by the relevant courts long ago.
And by the way, your Putin analogy is utter bollocks.
He IS the biggest bully who DOES ride roughshod over international law, if you can't see that then you would appear to be a serial apologist for the worlds loony tunes or just a windup merchant.
Which is it?
No you haven't actually made excuses.
What you have done is call into question the legality of the whole process of which it is fact that it has been argued in our top ( Supreme) court and found to be valid that, in principle and through bi lateral agreement he can be extradited to the US.
Isn't that clear enough for you? Or are you just labouring the point again out of a sense of mischief? And if you can draw some parallel of this situation with Putin, all the better?
Funnily enough, not simply accepting an argument from authority. That is the part of that seems entirely unreasonable to me. Particularly as that authority is the highest court in our land.
As the whole purpose of our courts is to establish what is reasonable within the scope of our laws you would appear to be putting him above that, but of course, not actually making any excuse.
Just simply muddying the waters while trying to appear reasonable.
The how and why are both covered under extradition legislation. It has been described, specific to this case, and in general, several times. It is the job of the court to read those laws, interpret the situation, and determine, then explain, why it applies. If you're looking for the legal explanation, it makes sense to get it in its full details from there, which is why others have suggested that you do so.
In short, the United States does not have any special consideration in the process, and any country could make a similar claim if they can claim and prove that they were the victim of a crime. To use your own example, Russia can and has used these requests numerous times. Sometimes, they have done it to get actual criminals. Sometimes, they have done it to try to get noncriminals, and the countries often reject those requests. In neither case would extrajudicial killings be permissible, and when countries do that, as many have done, it is a crime and could, depending on the methods and purposes, be considered an act of war. Often, the consequences for doing it are not as strong as I would like them to be, but that is not comparable at any level to the normal, legal process of extradition. If you want to know more, many good textbooks on international law and law enforcement are available for your perusal. If you want to know more specific to this case, many court decisions and applications from lawyers are similarly available.
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the extradition was legal.
What would be more relevant to this thread is whether the US Supreme Court would have ruled on the jurisdictional question. Why does the US claim hegemony over offshore offences by non-US persons? And also, would the US Supreme Court have ruled on Assange's First Amendment rights as a journalist? These questions will not now be answered.
He is not a US citizen and his acts were not committed in US territory. (I believe, correct me if I'm mistaken.) So what part of US jurisdiction applies here?
When Manning confessed, the prosecutors said that they had logs from her computer and her testimony that Assange gave material help in getting the data off the US government servers.
This means Assange would then be an accomplice in a crime of computer misuse - or whatever the US law is for unauthorised access to a computer system. Plus of course that being a repository of classified data, would also be treason/espionage for Manning, and espionage for a foreigner. I believe that UK computer law has the crime committed where the computer you hack into is located - so that puts the crime in US jurisdiction.
Of course the US has better protection for journalists than the UK does. So if Manning just handed over the data, then I believe publishing it wouldn't be a crime. If Assange could argue that he was a journalist - and maybe not even need to do that because of second amendment rights. But the second amendment doesn't protect you from stealing the data in the first place.
Whether a jury would buy whatever logs and statements from Manning the US could put together is another matter. But if the crime is hacking a server in London, then it was committed in London and so is subject to UK law. And so with a server in the US. Would that mean the UK couldn't prosecute someone for hacking only servers in say China, even if they did it here? Or have they actually committed the crime in two places at once?
Their argument was that they were the victim, and if they are, they can request to extradite. If I break into your computer, steal your financial information, then your money, but I'm not in your country, then your country can request my country or any other country through which I might pass to arrest me and send me over. They may even do this if they think I have done the crime but don't know it for certain, as the point of extradition is that I still need to face trial if I am sent over. My country might refuse, and there are many different reasons for them to do so. Mr. Assange's lawyers tried several. Your argument that extradition simply doesn't apply at all is much more difficult to argue as it is incorrect.
THat may all be true but Julian has never set foot on american soil
CowHorseFrog,
That doesn't matter. The crime happened in the US, because that's where the servers were, and that's where the data was physically. In this case it's even clearer, because Assange wasn't accused of hacking the server himself, but taking part in a conspiracy to do with Manning. Who was in the US at the time.
There have been agreements made in the past, where someone is tried (and serves their sentence if convicted) in their own country, because it would be disproportinate to send them off for trial overseas.
just like Saudi Arabia cannot arreset people in the west for unislamic activities.
Firstly the "crime" of being un-islamic is being committed where you physically are. With computer crime it's happening in at least two places at once, as I stated above. Where you are, and where the target of the crime is.
Secondly the Saudis can make anything they want illegal, anywhere they want. But extradition only works if you can get other states to agree with you, and surrender people to you. A very quick Google suggests the UK and US don't have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia. Some countries have laws that they won't extradite their citizens - I beileve that's written into the Russian consitituion, for example.
Finally there are further protections even where countries do have an extradition treaty. An offence is only extraditable if it has dual-criminality. It's got to be a crime in both countries, or you don't get sent for trial. Assange tried to argue that the Swedes had some special definition of rape that was extra minor and not rape in other countries. The British High Court ruled that the offences they sought him for would also be classed as rape under UK law - and so he failed his appeal.
However the Swedes do have a rule that they won't extradite for political crimes. So if Assange had been in Sweden he could have been extradited to the US for computer misuse / hacking, but not for the higher sentence offence of espionage - because then the Swedes wouldn't have been allowed to surrender him.
I aint: That doesn't matter. The crime happened in the US, because that's where the servers were, and that's where the data was physically. In this case it's even clearer, because Assange wasn't accused of hacking the server himself, but taking part in a conspiracy to do with Manning. Who was in the US at the time.
cow:
What about the videos that Julian helped show the world of american soldiers killing locals in iraq because they can ?
Those are also murder, and yet what happened to those find upstanding americans ?
Cow,
The 'Collaterol Murder' video was incredibly badly named. Since it doesn't show a murder. Admittedly Wikileaks and Assange edited out the guns that the group the helicopter shot at were carrying in the original version. Only releasing the full video later, when they got found out. But the group they shot at actually did have an RPG. Even if they weren't planning to use it on that helicopter. The pilots thougth tey were being engaged by an RPG when they fired back. And since the US were fighting irregular forces, who didn't wear uniforms, they were entitled to engage armed people in civilian clothes during combat operations.
Hence it was a mistake to shoot the camerman, not a murder. It's quite possible their continuing attack was disproportionate - except they didn't know they'd shot a cameraman. So presumably they continued engaging what they thought was an RPG team - while they were acting as flank-guard for a convoy that were under attack.
In this case, Assange directly lied.
You can criticise what the crew did. They don't come across as nice people on the tape. But then they were genuinely in combat and helicopters do get shot down by RPGs. You can criticise the US for being there in the first place. But to edit the video and call people murderers was a lie.
If you aide in compromising US military computers, and disseminate classified US information, you committed a crime in US eyes.
I am not aware of a single country that would believe differently about their own territory either.
Your physical location is irrelevant. Same as pushing a button in China to bring down the NSA, it's still a crime in the US, a crime you can be extradited for (co-operation from the Chinese may be difficult, however!) but then fleeing to a US-allied and un-involved country at that point would be the dumbest thing ever because they'll extradite you from there far easier than your home-turf (especially if what you did was not a crime in Australia, as stated here!).
You can commit crimes in jurisdictions that are not the one you are seated in, it's a basic tenet of law. It's literally the primary PURPOSE of extradition!
If I steal Windows source code and distribute it worldwide, Microsoft are hardly likely to say "Oh, well, nothing we can do." They'll prosecute in a US jurisdiction and if I'm in an allied country with an extradition agreement... there's a chance they'll be able to extradite me for such things.
Honestly, the alternative would be the dumbest situation ever, and nobody would ever face any consequences for crimes that aren't crimes in the country they happen to be in... throw a grenade across a border and kill a load of foreigners... sorry mate... nobody died in our jurisdiction and having the grenade wasn't illegal.
Also, funny how all the Assange fans are posting as AC today...
That's typical of the demonising propaganda bollocks which Assange has faced ever since America decided to teach him a lesson for spilling the beans on America's slaughter.
I have never been a fan of Assange as a person. But I supported what he and WikiLeaks were doing, can recognise a witch hunt when I see one.
Big words... all this talk from americans about justice,...
and yet not one of them talks about due justice to the americans who murdered and tortured iraqis on those videos leaked by wikileaks...
So where is their justice ?
We all have been confirmed why america refuses to hand over american soldiers who have committed cold blooded murder while "serving" overseas.
... who at least indirectly blames him (well wikileaks anyway) for Hilary Clinton losing? Not that I like her very much but she would have been orders of magnitude better than the orange turd. At that time he was not in prison; he was still operating wikileaks from his hideout in that embassy. (Sure Comey takes the brunt of the blame for this but this guy had a role to play, no doubt supported by Mother Russia!)
goodbye and thanks for nothing... apart from some giant sized policing/legal bills.
And what did he do to deserve so long detained.
Well... Sweden issues european arrest warrent for him in connection with an alledged rape
British plod duely pick him up and extradition begins...... and so the judge releases him on bail (1 million pounds)
Loses all the appeals and on the eve of being sent to Sweden... hides in an embassy (Bail money is lost at this point)
7 years later , kicked out of embassy(after pissing off the ambassodor and a change of government), and arrested
Sentenced to 1 yr in jail for bail jumping.
US extradition warrent arrives..... appeals begin, Assange asks for bail while appealing the warrent .. judge laughs.
Finally released today after a guilty plea entered and deported.
The sad thing is, that if he'd gone back to Sweden in the first place , theres every chance the court would have found no case to answer, and even if they did find him guilty he'd get a 2 yr sentence and released after a year for good behaviour(and then deported)
12: 57: Julian Assange on true function of the endless war
From Afghanistan to Hillary Clinton’s emails: WikiLeaks major document dumps
If we look only at the release of classified files etc (not at the allegations of sexual misconduct), then the outcome is still unsettling. Why? Because a supposed journalist is being forced/coerced into admitting espionage crimes in order to be free.
I do not know how he came to be in possession of said files, or if he coerced or instructed Manning etc to divulge said files.
I make no observations of him as a person, but if journalists are still under threat of espionage charges, this sets a dangerous precident that could affect journalism and those who seek to share the truth in the future.
This reminds me of the very excellent Sorkin series "The Newsroom" which features a related storyline.
"Where Julian get the 1/2m for a corporate jet flight ?"
The Australian government apparently. But he's grifting on social media already...
https://www.ft.com/content/465b6f96-65db-4295-9aee-ef9c1339a992
“This is finally over,” Stella Assange, the wife of the WikiLeaks founder, told the BBC.
Assange’s chartered jet landed in Bangkok on Tuesday and was due to continue on to Saipan. Ms Assange launched an “emergency appeal” on social media for $520,000 that she said Assange was “obligated to pay back to the Australian government” for the flight.
1.) Even the most hardened criminal, given enough time in the wilderness, will find exile intolerable.
2.) Good intentions and a commitment to civic duty are easily snuffed by a sufficiently implacable bureaucracy.
3.) People can simultaneously be both stellar exemplars and remarkable cads.
4.) The coexistence of these two states in one individual doesn't necessarily need to be separated temporally.
What a long strange trip it has been.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
