Assange fails to delay extradition hearing as date set for February An emotional and clean-shaven Julian Assange has appeared in court to request more time and resources to prepare his defence against extradition to from the UK to the US on espionage charges. Assange said today he was unable to properly prepare his defence at the case management hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, in …
Assange was convicted of skipping bail and should have been released on 22nd Sept.
His CRIME was to show the USA killing civilians, currently he's not been charged under any UK, Swedish or Australian law.
What justice do you suggest for a political prisoner such as Assange?
Political prisoner my arse.
He CHOSE to go in to that embassy and skip bail. Regardless of the reasons for it, he committed the crime. He will not be allowed out until the end of the trial because funnily enough someone who has already skipped bail is considered (quite rightly) to be a flight risk.
I think they're threatening to lock him up for encouraging others to, and then aiding them to, extract data from a classified military system unauthorised. (Oh, who he then let face justice on their own while he hid out in an embassy while being a wanted man on unrelated charges).
I don't know what movies you've been watching, but anything I've ever seen suggests that that might be a) a bad idea, b) likely to end in charges and imprisonment and c) highly unlikely to be completely neutralised by finding something in there that people didn't want you to find.
I mean, really... who on Earth ever expects that to end well, even if you discovered the president was really an alien?
All Assange, Snowden and Manning have proven is that if you want to whistleblow classified military information, DO NOT let it get traced back to you in any way, shape or form unless you want to spend your life in prison, an embassy or at the behest of the Russians. Oh, and never let Assange/Wikileaks know who you are because he'll drop you in it, or release information that may get you killed.
Honestly, they're the most pathetic band of amateurs that I've ever seen... calling them journalists or political activists gives others a bad name. Like The Daily Star and the IRA.
Releasing classified information is only a crime if your job depends on you not doing it, eg Snowden and Manning. But publishing little-known facts is not, in and of itself, a crime. It's what newspapers do all the time. Not one journalist from the Guardian was prosecuted for publishing Snowden's revelations.
channelswimmer,
No, being a journalist isn't a crime. Though a journalist also takes responsibilty for what they release and what they keep confidential. Rather than Julian's excuse for publishing people's names and grid references from the Afghan war logs which was that he couldn't be bothered.
However hacking into government classified systems yourself is a crime. And he's accused of helping Manning to do that - which is espionage. Manning said that as part of her confession. Though I don't know what detail that goes into - I seem to remember that the US are still going to have to prove that the IRC chat logs match to Assange.
If you haven't studied all of the raw data yourself then your opinion isn't worth much. You're not in his shoes and you almost certainly don't have even an iota of insight into the reality of his situation. You cannot gain a useful insight glimpsing at headlines or reading opinion pieces.
You have to examine the records yourself thoroughly and that's difficult given many aren't readily available nor easy to find. Then you can draw meaningful conclusions.
There are sufficient irregularities in both the Swedish, US, Ecuadorean and the British legal processes to justify Assange concluding he's unlikely to fair a fair trial. There's also more than enough to rule in political motivation. Every single country has jumped through hoops, bent the rules, abused grey areas and even directly violated legal protocol to get at Assange and anyone else associated with him or wikileaks.
Here is an example of an irregularity in the US legal system:
The charges state (paraphrased) that Assange entered into agreement with Manning to crack a password stored on a DoD system. If you then read the evidence which includes transcripts, that did not happen.
The password was not stored on a DoD system. It was a re-transmitted copy. This misleadingly suggests Assange's presence on the DoD system which never happened. The transcripts show that Manning asked someone, possibly Assange, if they could crack a hash of a password hashed in a windows format. The unknown person responded they have some setup that might make it possible. Manning then gave the hash, apparently a partial hash and the unknown party said they would hand it across to someone to look at. There was no agreement made, no trade and no purposes stated. It was not stated what system the hash was from. This was a very minor exchange among much more banter. The only other mention of it was when the unknown party asked if there was anymore information about the mystery hash that had been given over completely out of the blue. That was the end of it, it wasn't mentioned again in the available evidence.
It's a conspiracy to do something charge. That's not a conspiracy to do something charge. If they had the evidence of him doing something then it would not be a conspiracy charge.
When you have a legal charge that within the same legal package the supporting evidence can be shown to unequivocally disprove the charge where the court signed off on it and it is now being used to try to extradite Assange then how can you possibly claim the legal process against Assange is entirely above board? You cannot say such a thing when we have absolute proof that charges are being cooked up against him. The press does not report these irregularities that are very easy to find.
This is the kind of thing that has been happening with other countries. I can cite a number of irregularities and I have not studied all of the material that broadly. His situation is not helped by that sometimes his lawyers are rubbish, though his limited access to better lawyers is no excuse for the irregularities elsewhere.
I could not imagine anyone in that situation having any faith in the legal processes of these countries. I wouldn't trust them. After reading what I've read I'd scarper. I wouldn't have anything to do with the courts even if I were innocent. I'd get away at the earliest opportunity.
While the irregularities in the legal process take a lot of study there are some obvious tells that his treatment is politically motivated.
The head of the Home Office gave a statement expressing that he believed Assange should face justice and then gave a political reason for it: Wikileaks. He also spoke with the presumption of guilt on all charges.
The president of Ecuador in a long video cited many reasons for kicking Assange out with the one that stuck out being being that he was upset about an article wikileaks wrote about the pope. Ecuador revoking his asylum status broke international conventions. They didn't have a legal reason to do it. They came up with excuses but nothing legally valid. They then immediately handed over his property to the US with the openly stated intention of helping them with their extradition case against him, the reason he was given asylum in the first place.
It's no coincidence that at the same time Ecuador got around $10B in foreign assistance. He was cashed in. Selling political refugees back to the countries that are after them is one of the worst ways in which you can violate international treaty on asylum. Ecuador should be classed as effectively non-signatory to those conventions.
He is a political prisoner, there's absolutely no doubt about it. The evidence comes straight from the horses mouth. Political leaders aren't shy about admitting they're after him because of his journalism. They'll do what politicians always do, "we're not after him because of his journalism, we're after him because of his [describes activity that turns out to be journalism]".
You'll start to change your tune when they go after other people standing up for your rights that you happen to agree with.
"They then immediately handed over his property to the US with the openly stated intention of helping them with their extradition case against him, the reason he was given asylum in the first place.
It's no coincidence that at the same time Ecuador got around $10B in foreign assistance."
Although I don't fully agree with you, that bit does stand out as being rather similar to the latest Trump/Ukraine shenanigans.
"Assange was convicted of skipping bail and should have been released on 22nd Sept"
As I understand it he was "released" following his sentence. His time was done and he was no longer held for that conviction.
He was however remanded in custody for the extradition charge, and his previous skipping of bail prevented the granting of bail in this instance.
and the judge seemed to be being briefed rather too closely by the US Embassy representatives
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
Possibly Craig Murray's first hand account is wrong, I'll leave it to the 77th Brigade to reply
"Legal Fees"
This is something I've wondered myself.
I have no doubt he still has his "supporters" to assist in this regard and the lawyer may (note I said may) be doing some or all pro bono for exposure to enhance further prospects. I mean the bloke has no income that I'm aware of.
But given that you shat all over your friends who put up their money for your bail, I feel I have to ask, just who is paying your legal fees?
He'll probably pay that from the same resource he helped Manning from as he promised. Oh no, wait, he didn't. He just let her sink once he had what he wanted.
Yeah I'm sick of the entire debacle. No-one is coming out of this looking particularly good, I suppose the legal lot are happy as they're being paid. Now the bail thing is sorted then I'd be happy for him to be deported back to Oz unless Sweden still want him. I'm no fan of his, but I'm sure if he gets extradited to the US then he's on a hiding to nothing - plea bargin or found guilty.
When this all started, Obama was president. When he left office, he pardoned Manning, Assange's alleged co-conspirator.
If Assange had turned himself in and been extradited to Sweden, would he have been extradited to the US eventually? Less likely than from the UK, I'd guess. And even if he had been extradited to the US, Assange might have been pardoned by Obama, along with Manning. If I were in Assange's shoes, I'd rather have Obama than Trump holding the power of pardon over me.
So, Assange's "strategy" has resulted in years of self-imposed "house arrest" in the embassy, followed by UK jail time for skipping bail, and, if he gets extradited, possibly many years in prison in the US. No, not a good strategy, I'd say.
Paris because he clearly didn't think his actions through. Exit strategy? Nope.
If I were in Assange's shoes, I'd rather have Obama than Trump holding the power of pardon over me.
WikiLeaks helped Trump get elected. Trump is a rather shameless and unrepentant about his chronyism, and willing to throw his own government's interest under the bus for any reason at all. Depending on how far gone Assange is, he might have an easy road to a presidential pardon.
"possibly many years in prison in the US."
I would think that he'd only be imprisoned for a few days ending in him leaving with his nose and toes at the same altitude. Assuming he makes it to sentencing and it doesn't just happen in pretrial holding ala Epstein.
Doesn't even have to be assassination, Assange clearly requires mental health care, and I would't put it past the US to press him beyond the breaking point (Even just being in a US prison might be enough)
Assange clearly requires mental health care
Or he's just trying to garner sympathy with this crap where he's struggling to provide his name. I don't buy it, I think he wants the UK court to take pity on him and say "we can't extradite this delicate snowflake".
As a US taxpayer I'd rather not have to pay to take this wingnut to trial and potentially house him in prison for years, I wish the UK would just deport him to Australia and let them decide what to do with him. The situation he's in currently is 100% of his own making, no one made him hide out in the Eucadorian embassy for years. He sentenced himself to that confinement.
I wish the UK would just deport him to Australia and let them decide what to do with him.
Sorry old chap. We had to stop transportation to the colonies. Dashed human rights and all that, dontcherknow...
On the other hand, as a UK taxpayer - I'd say we've already wasted enough time and money on him. I'm disappointed the Swedes didn't take him off our hands - because I'm much more worried about those 2 women getting their day in court than I am the US government.
I'm much more worried about those 2 women getting their day in court
And that, ladies & gents, is the one untold story. We've seen plenty of Assange and the ever repeating debates between detractors and fans, but the true question is what happened in Sweden that made him run away so quickly and then come up with this bizarre idea of abusing the asylum system - what was he so afraid of? To me, all the noise of "fear of unjust prosecution" rings hollow and felt a bit like Trump's habit of starting a fire in a different corner if he doesn't like the headlines.
I think knowledge what really happened in Sweden will really not do St. Jules' image much good.
"Sorry old chap. We had to stop transportation to the colonies. Dashed human rights and all that, dontcherknow..."
Incorrect. We still deport people back to the country where they have citizenship. Assange is an Aussie citizen who arrived in the UK bearing and presenting an Aussie passport.
"Or he's just trying to garner sympathy with this crap where he's struggling to provide his name. I don't buy it, I think he wants the UK court to take pity on him and say "we can't extradite this delicate snowflake"."
Much more likely IMO. He seemed perfectly cogent when holding press conferences claiming arbitrary detention. I suspect this is his version of putting a pair of underpants on his head, sticking 2 pencils up his nose and saying wibble a lot.
once he is extradited...
Well he is a proven flight risk, so he has 0 chance of bail.
Ignoring that, if I were the US and found him guilty, just give him a slap on the wrist, tell him not to do it again and deport him.
Then all his whining and self imprisionment will make him look even more stupid than he does now.
Ignoring that, if I were the US and found him guilty, just give him a slap on the wrist, tell him not to do it again and deport him.
That seems unlikely. Not necessarily as the current Commander in Chief is often petty and vindictive when he feels under attack or feels he's something to gain.
I think that it's been seeping into some branches of government for some time.
There is only one "leather outfit + ball gag" outfit in this relationship and it is _our_ size.
And yet, our government hurtles toward closer tied up ties once their free to offer whatever asked for a trade deal.
It's so masochistel and one sided a relationship, it can only be something someone with a public school education could comfortably enjoy.
personally, I'd concentrate on fighting the extradition on the grounds that the US needs to (a) ensure the death penalty is not in play, (b) that any sentence handed down is compatible with ECHR views on "humane" and (c) that no additional charges can be added to the sheet once he is in the US.
No matter how much Boris and chums want to stick their tongues up Trumps backside, these things are legally valid, not politically valid.
The US will either have to give undertakings (which they really hate) or face the prospect of the extradition being thrown out of court.
It's happened more times than you may think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_S%C3%B6ring
is a good starting point for some facts, rather than hyperbole ....
Did they? Wikileaks is gone because it's not a real investigative news agency - it's an organization with its own political aims run without any real oversight. It will return when its owners think it's time again to disseminate some useful propaganda - once again taking advantage of some "useful idiots" around.
Snowden did much more than Assange ever did - and without Assange personal aims.
"Wikileaks is gone because it's not a real investigative news agency - it's an organization with its own political aims run without any real oversight."
So, the same as every tabloid on the planet then. Your point?
"Snowden did much more than Assange ever did - and without Assange personal aims."
It's a competition now, seriously?!?
Or are you just bad mouthing people who hold different views to you?
This makes sobering reading:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/
First they came for the journalists and I did not speak out because I was not a journalist.
We have no idea what they did after that.
:(
Certainly, if I wanted to sober up, I'd read that load of waffle first, because likely I'd fall asleep and then wake up sober as anything.
US people openly in court being conferred with by the prosecution lawyer, a guy representing a country who wants to see Assange extradited to the US in this exact case! OMG! What a conspiracy!
But first let's pad out with five paragraphs about how terrible a guy looks in court and how it must be torture (prison isn't nice, torture it's not). And a known flight risk is kept in prison until he's extradited, how terrible, a prison where he's... imprisoned! Of all things! After skipping bail for years, what did you expect?
The Assange fandom really does take things too far in building this guy up.
"Assange was incoherent" - no shit, he's been incoherent for at least the last decade. If you wanted to protest at your treatment, you could have done, in front of the world's press, in open court, recorded. Instead he waffled and started rambling nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if he was whatever the medical term for stir crazy - he choose to sit in a hovel for 7 years, and he's just spent nearly a year in prison. I'd be amazed if he appeared anywhere near "normal".
But playing the crazy will just get him committed, not released. It won't let him off any crimes. And I guarantee 100% that the next time he's not having his every word scrutinised by lawyers that he'll mouth off to the cameras like he always has done. He's a Twit, Premium Edition, with all the DLC.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what Assange may have done (innocent unless proven guilty still applies), the fact that actual hearing* will take place in Belmarsh seems very strange to me. There are few seats for the public to view cases (as pointed out in Murray's blog), and (as you would expect), security is tight on those who would like to view. This does not look like justice being seen to be done - if this hearing took place in a "proper" court, why not the actual hearing?
*The prosecution insistence on a specific date, and very tight limits on the time allowed for the defence case to be put, also seems disproportionate.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
