https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
QuoteJulian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy seven years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.
The Metropolitan Police said he had been taken into custody and will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court "as soon as is possible".
:cheers:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2019/apr/11/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-arrested-at-the-ecuadorean-embassy-live-updates
QuoteEcuador's President Lenin Moreno has issued a video explaining his decision to withdraw Julian Assange's asylum status after seven years. Moreno complained about Assange's behaviour and accused him of being involved in "interfering in internal affairs of other states" while in the embassy.
He said the asylum of Assange "is unsustainable and no longer viable" because he had repeatedly violated "clear cut provisions of the conventions of on diplomatic asylum", citing the recent leak of Vatican documents by Wikileaks.
The statement continued:
"The patience of Ecuador has reached its limit on the behaviour of Mr Assange. He installed electronic and distortion equipment not allowed. He blocked the security cameras of the Ecuadorian mission in London. He has confronted and mistreated guards. He had accessed the security files of our embassy without permission. He claimed to be isolated and rejected the internet connection offered by the embassy and yet he had a mobile phone with which he communicated with the outside world.
"While Ecuador upheld the generous conditions of his asylum, Mr Assange legally challenged in three difference instances the legality of the protocol. In all cases the relevant judicial authorities have validated Ecuador's position in line with our strong commitment to human rights and international law.
"I requested Great Britain to guarantee that Mr Assange would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty. The British government has confirmed it in writing, in accordance with its own rules.
"Finally, two days ago, Wikileaks, Mr Assange's allied organisation, threatened the government of Ecuador. My government has nothing to fear and does not act under threats. Ecuador is guided by the principles of law, complies with international law and protects the interests of Ecuadorians."
:cheers:
What an absolute arse.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D33nxOwW4AE6d5l?format=jpg&name=medium)
Assange is an ass, but I don't see a path to charging him in the US that doesn't set some very bad precedents. Let him do his time in the UK for breaking bail, and then let him sink into oblivion while frantically trying to make himself relevant again.
Apparently we do want him.
From same guardian link above
Quote
US Justice department says Assange faces five years in jail
The US Justice Department has confirmed that it issued a extradition request for Assange "in connection with a federal charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion for agreeing to break a password to a classified US government computer".
In a statement it cited court documents unsealed today, that show the charge relates to "Assange's alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States".
Womp womp
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
:lol: Cute.
Anyway, he's one of those figures that has had friends and enemies on all parts of the political spectrum. I was never a fan. But then again I'm not part of the Populist Right, as you should know.
Seven years? Blows my mind that he's been there that long. Time really does fly.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Sarah Palin called him a traitor ( I don't think she knows what that word meant), and then claimed that Assange is "all about freedom". It's weird, but conservatives have reversed themselves on a bunch of people in the Trump era. Like Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2019, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Sarah Palin called him a traitor ( I don't think she knows what that word meant), and then claimed that Assange is "all about freedom". It's weird, but conservatives have reversed themselves on a bunch of people in the Trump era. Like Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Well that's quite a coincidence, since I've reversed myself on Sarah Palin over the same time period.
Yep. Glad she's been more quiet lately.
Quote from: Barrister on April 11, 2019, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2019, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Sarah Palin called him a traitor ( I don't think she knows what that word meant), and then claimed that Assange is "all about freedom". It's weird, but conservatives have reversed themselves on a bunch of people in the Trump era. Like Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Well that's quite a coincidence, since I've reversed myself on Sarah Palin over the same time period.
Why did it take so long? I reversed my opinion of her between when McCain announced her as a pick and her first speech as VP pick.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Of course, Assange was also on good terms with Chelsea Manning.
It's Womanning now :sleep:
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 09:43:04 AM
It's Womanning now :sleep:
Actually I believe she is now Miss Sitting in Solitary.
Womp womp
I thought Assange and Wikileaks were sincere at one point. I was a moron.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2019, 09:38:27 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Of course, Assange was also on good terms with Chelsea Manning.
It's a beautiful friendship.
BTW we need one of the German posters to post about this AFD politican scandal. Apparently one of their MP got busted being on Russian payroll/influence. He is tied with a lots of ties to a Polish and Hungarian MP who are on Russian payroll as well.
Does someone have a good breakdown somewhere of why I should like or hate him? I haven't paid much attention to this story over the years.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 11, 2019, 10:01:53 AM
Does someone have a good breakdown somewhere of why I should like or hate him? I haven't paid much attention to this story over the years.
It's much easier if you just blindly follow me, and dislike him.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 11, 2019, 10:01:53 AM
Does someone have a good breakdown somewhere of why I should like or hate him? I haven't paid much attention to this story over the years.
Here's the guardian summary of the last 7 years: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/how-ecuador-lost-patience-with-houseguest-julian-assange
Assange's asylum was Correa's idea, as part of his (left) populist agenda of anti-western posturing. His successor, notwithstanding his first name, is more pragmatic and understandably viewed Assange as an annoyance, an embarrassment, and an inconvenience.
This isn't exactly that, but pretty much encapsulates why I think he is a tool now, and why I've thought he was a tool all along:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/?fbclid=IwAR2WF6i5TY4Wb2r1klCP1FL925ieenKWqcGGQvJMijX-OiRYlAl4jNiTXnk
The separatist-led Catalan government has been quick to condemn the arrest, so I guess that's as much confirmation as I needed that he's a cunt.
But well, it's been obvious for a few years that he's a pawn of illiberal forces.
He is supposed to be for transparency and freedom of information but goes out of his way to defend totalitarian regimes and hide all damaging information not about his targets. He is the opposite of what he presents himself as.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2019, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 11, 2019, 09:33:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2019, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 08:37:20 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 11, 2019, 08:30:36 AM
Womp womp
Actually, isn't he supposed to be a good guy now from your side's point of view? He has never smeared Russia even once, actively helped Russian efforts to hinder Clinton, and in general was hell-bent on causing as much trouble to pre-Trump USA as possible.
Sarah Palin called him a traitor ( I don't think she knows what that word meant), and then claimed that Assange is "all about freedom". It's weird, but conservatives have reversed themselves on a bunch of people in the Trump era. Like Putin and Kim Jong Un.
Well that's quite a coincidence, since I've reversed myself on Sarah Palin over the same time period.
Why did it take so long? I reversed my opinion of her between when McCain announced her as a pick and her first speech as VP pick.
Her speech was fine, it was her interviews that were a disaster.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2019, 09:37:22 AM
Why did it take so long? I reversed my opinion of her between when McCain announced her as a pick and her first speech as VP pick.
I think throughout the 2008 election period I thought the media was fairly ridiculous in how they covered Palin. It was clear she wasn't a polished politician, but she had an undeniable charisma also.
She lost me after the election. First when she resigned as Governor of Alaska without even completing her first term, then as she started endorsing all kinds of right-wing quackery like birtherism.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D34hvrVXoAAhT_2.jpg:large)
Part of the charges is that he criminally concealed that Manning was his souce? And that he asked for more documents? :hmm:
At this rate they'll turn Assange into a martyr for press freedom.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 11, 2019, 12:07:07 PM
Part of the charges is that he criminally concealed that Manning was his souce? And that he asked for more documents? :hmm:
At this rate they'll turn Assange into a martyr for press freedom.
He very well could have been. That ship sailed long ago though.
Quote from: Tamas on April 11, 2019, 10:01:46 AM
BTW we need one of the German posters to post about this AFD politican scandal. Apparently one of their MP got busted being on Russian payroll/influence. He is tied with a lots of ties to a Polish and Hungarian MP who are on Russian payroll as well.
Wot's all this then?
Quote from: Legbiter on April 11, 2019, 12:07:07 PM
Part of the charges is that he criminally concealed that Manning was his souce? And that he asked for more documents? :hmm:
It's a conspiracy charge. The underlying crime is unauthorized access to a protected computer. Because it is a conspiracy charge, you need to allege an agreement and common purpose among the conspirators. The concealment of names etc. goes to state of mind on the conspirators.
Quote from: Barrister on April 11, 2019, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2019, 09:37:22 AM
Why did it take so long? I reversed my opinion of her between when McCain announced her as a pick and her first speech as VP pick.
I think throughout the 2008 election period I thought the media was fairly ridiculous in how they covered Palin. It was clear she wasn't a polished politician, but she had an undeniable charisma also.
She lost me after the election. First when she resigned as Governor of Alaska without even completing her first term, then as she started endorsing all kinds of right-wing quackery like birtherism.
I know you are a true believer when it comes to all things conservative, but it is quite a revelation that she lost you only after the election.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 11, 2019, 04:31:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 11, 2019, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2019, 09:37:22 AM
Why did it take so long? I reversed my opinion of her between when McCain announced her as a pick and her first speech as VP pick.
I think throughout the 2008 election period I thought the media was fairly ridiculous in how they covered Palin. It was clear she wasn't a polished politician, but she had an undeniable charisma also.
She lost me after the election. First when she resigned as Governor of Alaska without even completing her first term, then as she started endorsing all kinds of right-wing quackery like birtherism.
I know you are a true believer when it comes to all things conservative, but it is quite a revelation that she lost you only after the election.
It became clear she wasn't that well educated on the issues, but I figured she'd still do just fine as Veep - go out make some speeches, show the flag, that kind of thing.
As mentioned, it was attaching herself to all kinds of dubious right wing quackers that turned me off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 11, 2019, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 11, 2019, 12:07:07 PM
Part of the charges is that he criminally concealed that Manning was his souce? And that he asked for more documents? :hmm:
It's a conspiracy charge. The underlying crime is unauthorized access to a protected computer. Because it is a conspiracy charge, you need to allege an agreement and common purpose among the conspirators. The concealment of names etc. goes to state of mind on the conspirators.
Yeah, if they can show that Assange aided or encouraged the crime, he's in trouble. If he just received the fruits of the crime later and hide the source, I don't see how that's conspiracy.
I thought the NYT case involving the Pentagon Papers established this, but it turns out the government misconduct caused the case to be thrown out, so it isn't the precedent I thought it was.
Quote from: Valmy on April 11, 2019, 12:21:42 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on April 11, 2019, 12:07:07 PM
At this rate they'll turn Assange into a martyr for press freedom.
He very well could have been. That ship sailed long ago though.
That's largely why so many people supported him initially--they thought he was indeed a champion of freedom of speech and the press.
Quote from: Barrister on April 11, 2019, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2019, 09:37:22 AM
Why did it take so long? I reversed my opinion of her between when McCain announced her as a pick and her first speech as VP pick.
I think throughout the 2008 election period I thought the media was fairly ridiculous in how they covered Palin. It was clear she wasn't a polished politician, but she had an undeniable charisma also.
She lost me after the election. First when she resigned as Governor of Alaska without even completing her first term, then as she started endorsing all kinds of right-wing quackery like birtherism.
So maybe the media, as usual, was right to malign her.
I don't know. Mr Assange went into the embassy to escape prison. Yet he locked himself up for seven years, and still have to face criminal prosecution. It is almost like he added seven years to his prison sentence.
Awww, good old Corbyn. He and his Shadow Home Secretary are in full Defend Assange The Hero mode.
Diane Abbott clearly has nothing to do.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/uk-blocks-assange-extradition-due-to-suicide-risk-poor-us-jail-conditions/
US to appeal, Assange's lawyers seek his release.
Kind of embarrassing that was the reason they refused extradition but it is not like it is untrue that our prisons are inhumane.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2021, 11:20:35 PM
Kind of embarrassing that was the reason they refused extradition but it is not like it is untrue that our prisons are inhumane.
It's also not true that British jails don't see suicides. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-suicide-rate-rise-jail-prison-probation-ombudsman-annual-report-a9150351.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-suicide-rate-rise-jail-prison-probation-ombudsman-annual-report-a9150351.html)
Prisoner suicide is a problem all systems face, but I'd need to see statistics (not anecdotes, like the British judge used) to evaluate her judgement.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/14/julian-assange-more-than-60-australian-mps-urge-us-to-let-wikileaks-founder-walk-free
QuoteJulian Assange: more than 60 Australian MPs urge US to let WikiLeaks founder walk free
More than 60 Australian federal politicians have explicitly called on the US to drop the prosecution of Julian Assange, warning of "a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia" if the WikiLeaks founder is extradited.
With a small cross-party delegation due to fly to Washington next week, the Guardian can reveal that the lobbying trip has won the open support of 63 members of Australia's House of Representatives and Senate.
In a letter, the 63 MPs and senators said they stood in support of the trip to the US and were "resolutely of the view that the prosecution and incarceration of the Australian citizen Julian Assange must end".
They said the matter had "dragged on for over a decade" and it was "wrong for Mr Assange to be further persecuted and denied his liberty when one considers the duration and circumstances of the detention he has already suffered.
"It serves no purpose, it is unjust, and we say clearly – as friends should always be honest with friends – that the prolonged pursuit of Mr Assange wears away at the substantial foundation of regard and respect that Australians have for the justice system of the United States of America," the letter said.
Assange remains in Belmarsh prison in London as he fights a US attempt to extradite him to face charges – including under the Espionage Act. The charges are in connection with the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as diplomatic cables, in 2010 and 2011.
Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 and remained there until 2019. The Australian citizen was arrested when Ecuador revoked his diplomatic status and has been in jail since then, amid a series of legal challenges against the US extradition bid.
The Australian MPs and senators said they agreed with comments by the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, that "enough is enough ... and that nothing is served from the ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange".
They also welcomed the recent backing of the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, saying this bipartisan position was "matched by the wide cross-party and independent support within the Australian parliament itself, which in turn reflects the strongly held views of the Australian community".
"Let there be no doubt that if Julian Assange is removed from the United Kingdom to the United States there will a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia."
The letter was organised by the co-conveners of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group: the independent MP Andrew Wilkie, the Labor MP Josh Wilson, the Liberal MP Bridget Archer, and the Greens senator David Shoebridge.
The total number of signatories – 63 Australian federal politicians – reflects an increasing cross-party consensus on the issue. It compares with 48 who signed a letter to the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in April.
New backers of the cause include Shayne Neumann and Louise Pratt of the governing Labor party, and Melissa Price of the opposition Coalition.
The Australian politicians noted "with gratitude the considerable support in the United States for an end to the legal pursuit of Mr Assange from members of Congress, human rights advocates, academics, and civil society, and from within the US media in defence of free speech and independent journalism".
"On that basis we ask Congresspeople, members of the press, and other relevant civil society stakeholders in the United States to speak up now in supporting an end to the prosecution and detention of Julian Assange," they wrote.
The Australian politicians said they believed the "right and best course of action" would be for the US Department of Justice to cease the prosecution.
...
I don't understand. Isn't the reason this has 'dragged on for over a decade' that he chose to evade a trial by hiding out for nearly a decade?
I wonder what the big urgency is now.
Also, this is something that a US judge would take into consideration when sentencing.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2021, 11:28:23 PMQuote from: Valmy on January 04, 2021, 11:20:35 PMKind of embarrassing that was the reason they refused extradition but it is not like it is untrue that our prisons are inhumane.
It's also not true that British jails don't see suicides. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-suicide-rate-rise-jail-prison-probation-ombudsman-annual-report-a9150351.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-suicide-rate-rise-jail-prison-probation-ombudsman-annual-report-a9150351.html)
Prisoner suicide is a problem all systems face, but I'd need to see statistics (not anecdotes, like the British judge used) to evaluate her judgement.
You might also prefer to read the actual judgement rather than a short newspaper report (helpfully the link to the decision is in the report) before evaluating the judge's decision. If you had, you would see that it was based on the risk to Assage of the the specific prison (Florida ADX)and the risk taht he would be placed be under Special Administrative Measures. The judge also took account of evidence given by professionals as to Assage's mental health and risk of suicide. The reference to Epstein (and others) is in the context of it being impossible to prevent suicide by a determined individual but the important part of the decsion relates to the risk of Assage trying to commmit suicide in a particualar prison.
FWIW none of the recent Americans who have committed the sort of crimes Assange is accused of have been sent to ADX Florence.
The only sort of people in the espionage field who ended up at ADX Florence were guys who were U.S. intelligence or counterintelligence agents who turned double agents for the Soviets or Russia--specifically Richard Hanssen and Aldrich Ames.
I always thought the espionage case against Assange was dubious. By all means prosecute the folks with clearance doing the dumping.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2023, 04:43:59 PMI always thought the espionage case against Assange was dubious. By all means prosecute the folks with clearance doing the dumping.
I think how dubious it is depends on his motivation. If he always were what he claimed to be, a facilitator for whistleblowers, then it's a pretty dubious case. If he always were or at some point became the asset of Russian intelligence, to be a legitimate front for spreading damaging leaked intel, then I think it's not that dubious. It would be super not dubious if he put some stuff on WikiLeaks, but also kept the other stuff under wraps and sent it straight to Moscow.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 14, 2023, 04:43:59 PMI always thought the espionage case against Assange was dubious. By all means prosecute the folks with clearance doing the dumping.
Depends on the evidence, no?
There is certainly a lot of circumstantial evidence publicly available linking Assange to the Russian government. Running a "media" or faux whistleblower group as a front organization for FSB intelligence gathering is not a defense to espionage charges; quite the opposite.
I never followed Assange and wikileaks that closely...
How well established is it that he was using his position as head of a whistleblower organization to funnel sensitive intelligence directly to the FSB rather than simply being the whistleblower he claimed to be?
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 10:25:03 AMI never followed Assange and wikileaks that closely...
How well established is it that he was using his position as head of a whistleblower organization to funnel sensitive intelligence directly to the FSB rather than simply being the whistleblower he claimed to be?
As far as I know, it's pure speculation by me. I've never heard that theory before, it just something that occurred to me as a possibility. However, it's just a logical conclusion: if Assange was a front for FSB airing embarrassing intel, then surely it would be a huge waste to have him air intel that was much more useful for FSB and FSB only to know secretly. Given that there were some people who rightly or wrongly believed he was a legit whistleblower, some intel would be coming to him first, rather than from FSB after they already filtered through what they wanted to keep and what they wanted to air.
Yeah it makes sense hypothetically. The question is whether he was an FSB asset or a true believer (or both somehow), and in what order.
I would also not read into anything from the official charges. From the very beginning, with the original rape charges, this felt like a spy drama where the public story felt like the tip of the iceberg, with intelligence insiders knowing much more. What Assange is currently charged with may be the bare minimum US feels like disclosing. In the spy game, just letting your enemy know what you know is leaking valuable intel.
Quote from: Jacob on September 15, 2023, 10:25:03 AMI never followed Assange and wikileaks that closely...
How well established is it that he was using his position as head of a whistleblower organization to funnel sensitive intelligence directly to the FSB rather than simply being the whistleblower he claimed to be?
I always thought it was more the other way round, that he was used for laundering Russian intelligence.
I think to start with there were genuine leaks/whistleblowers but at a certain point (post-Snowden) there was clearly an angle to Assange which made genuine leaks harder to come by.
I think that what the USG wants to charge him with is more inciting illegal espionage than publishing leaked material. The case appears to me to be pretty weak, though. It is telling that it wasn't until the Trump administration that the US DoJ decided to indict.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 15, 2023, 10:01:14 AMDepends on the evidence, no?
There is certainly a lot of circumstantial evidence publicly available linking Assange to the Russian government. Running a "media" or faux whistleblower group as a front organization for FSB intelligence gathering is not a defense to espionage charges; quite the opposite.
Please direct me to this circumstantial evidence.
He leaked hacked info obtained from Russian military intelligence
He delclined to publish a huge leak from the Russian Interior Ministry
His TV show ran on RT (Russian state media)
That's just what I recall from the top of my head
Thanks. #2 is a real doozy.
With Assange's appeal to US extradition taking place this week - the Guardian has been out in force about how this represents a fundamental threat to press freedom.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/18/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-why-he-should-not-be-extradited
QuoteThe Guardian view on Julian Assange: why he should not be extradited
Sending him to be tried in the United States would be an unacceptable act against the WikiLeaks founder – and against journalism
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/18/julian-assange-press-freedom-wikileaks-uk-high-court
QuoteWe have seen Assange's plight in a UK prison, but extraditing him this week would be a disaster for us all
It is vital not to forget about the man – and the repercussions for press freedom if the high court says he can be sent to the US
Coverage of the artpiece to destroy art for him hasn't been as rosy.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/13/im-not-trying-to-destroy-art-says-man-planning-to-do-just-that-if-assange-dies-in-jail
QuoteI'm not trying to destroy art, says man planning to do just that if Assange dies in jail
Andrei Molodkin believes WikiLeaks founder will be freed, leaving $45m of precious artworks unscathed
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/feb/13/andrei-molodkin-julian-assange-dissolving-art-in-acid
QuoteThreatening to dissolve masterpieces in acid is a pathetically banal stunt for our shallow times
Russian artist Andrei Molodkin will destroy works by Picasso, Rembrandt and Warhol if Julian Assange dies in prison. It's an unoriginal idea born of art-historical ignorance
Not to forget former editor, Alan Rusbridger (who almost financially ruined the Guardian), and current editor of Prospect:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/64791/enough-is-enoughits-time-to-set-julian-assange-free
I remember (or did I dream it?) when some guy wanted to be buried with a van Gogh, and there was some brouhaha. My understanding is that generally paintings like that aren't protected legally, so who cares if he destroys them?
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2024, 12:59:13 PMI remember (or did I dream it?) when some guy wanted to be buried with a van Gogh, and there was some brouhaha. My understanding is that generally paintings like that aren't protected legally, so who cares if he destroys them?
Odd take for a history forum.
I've been ready for this guy to stop being talked about for about 10 years.
Also, I have never really bought into the journalism argument. Journalists aren't allowed to help people hack into government servers, in the UK or the U.S.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2024, 04:28:39 PMAlso, I have never really bought into the journalism argument. Journalists aren't allowed to help people hack into government servers, in the UK or the U.S.
Is there a line in your mind between Assange and the NYT w/ the Pentagon Papers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2024, 04:44:55 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2024, 04:28:39 PMAlso, I have never really bought into the journalism argument. Journalists aren't allowed to help people hack into government servers, in the UK or the U.S.
Is there a line in your mind between Assange and the NYT w/ the Pentagon Papers?
Yeah, you don't prosecute news outlets for publishing things leaked to them as passive recipients, even if the person leaking it to them broke the law to do so. That is also AFAIK the legal consensus in America.
But if the NYT hired a computer hacker to break into DoD computers the NYT's managers who cooked up the scheme would face serious criminal charges. The indictment against Assange accuses him of providing actual technical help to Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash. You cross the line as a journalist when you help pick the lock.
The NYT didn't help Daniel Ellsberg walk the report out of the Pentagon, they simply published what he gave them.
Now, I have not taken a significant interest in Assange's tedious case (I view him as a rabble rouser and a Russian asset), so I don't know how strong the government's case is on those facts. But we do have a court system here to adjudicate things like that and an extradition treaty with Britain.
I was not aware of that.
As far as I am aware everything Assange is charged with in the indictment is because it is alleged he helped with the actual breach of the classified data. I don't believe, given previous Supreme Court rulings, a prosecution would get very far if they were going after him simply because he passively received stuff another person stole and then published it.
Although I think some of that has never been fully litigated because cases like Ellsberg's ended up hinging on the government doing illegal things to build its case against him and his charges being dismissed for that reason.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2024, 06:25:37 PMAlthough I think some of that has never been fully litigated because cases like Ellsberg's ended up hinging on the government doing illegal things to build its case against him and his charges being dismissed for that reason.
The NYT case was fully litigated. Ellsberg's criminal trial is the case where the prosecution case was tossed due to the illegal activities of some people investigating it.
Quote from: grumbler on February 19, 2024, 09:15:59 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 19, 2024, 06:25:37 PMAlthough I think some of that has never been fully litigated because cases like Ellsberg's ended up hinging on the government doing illegal things to build its case against him and his charges being dismissed for that reason.
The NYT case was fully litigated. Ellsberg's criminal trial is the case where the prosecution case was tossed due to the illegal activities of some people investigating it.
The NYT case wasn't criminal, it was around a government injunction--Ellsberg's case is more comparable to Assange's because it was an Espionage Act case, which the NYT was an entity was never prosecuted under the Espionage Act. I also specifically said it was Ellsberg's case that had not been fully litigated, since it was not carried to a judgment due to the government's illegal evidence collection in his case.