25 posts / 0 new
Last post

Don’t try to lock Julian Assange up​

Far more sinister, though, would be a threat to prosecute whoever it was who took these leaks and passed them on. Pretty much, this is what the United States attorney general Jeff Sessions did last week, and yet you’d have been forgiven for missing an outraged howl from the free world’s media. Because there wasn’t one. Because he was talking about Julian Assange.

Nobody likes Assange any more.


CIA Chief Pompeo 'Declares War on Free Speech' - Assange

"When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher such as WikiLeaks as a 'fraud', 'coward' and 'enemy,' it puts all journalists on notice, or should..."


alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Fuck Assange. I used to have a positive opinion of him but after the last American election,he can rot in a hole for all I care.



So I clicked on Assange's original article, published in the Washington Post, and found something even more interesting - him saying he has the same mission as the New York Times and the Post, because they both speak truth to power.

So what do you think; Is he serious? Because this sure sounds a lot different than what we are used to hearing about the lying western media.

Though a couple of things in there aren't quite true. He doesn't always redact people's names in order to protect them from reprisals. And he hasn't always wanted information to be published, as shown by his threats against The Guardian when they published information he did not want them to.

By this time, The Times’s relationship with our source had gone from wary to hostile. I talked to Assange by phone a few times and heard out his complaints. He was angry that we declined to link our online coverage of the War Logs to the WikiLeaks Web site, a decision we made because we feared — rightly, as it turned out — that its trove would contain the names of low-level informants and make them Taliban targets. “Where’s the respect?” he demanded. “Where’s the respect?”

Or when he threatened The Guardian for publishing details of the Swedish accusations against him, forcing him to admit that in fact there was no "honey trap", as he had claimed.

And from his Post opinion piece, this:

Vested interests deflect from the facts that WikiLeaks publishes by demonizing its brave staff and me. We are mischaracterized as America-hating servants to hostile foreign powers. But in fact I harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of America. WikiLeaks’ sole interest is expressing constitutionally protected truths, which I remain convinced is the cornerstone of the United States’ remarkable liberty, success and greatness.

I do think it is an abuse of this whole situation for the U.S. to be seeking charges while Assange is pinned down like this, but he definitely seems to be playing to both sides as it serves his purpose.

One could take from that that he is right; he is the same as elements in mainstream media, just not in the way he wants us to think.

Rev Pesky

Swedish investigation of Assange dropped

Sweden's top prosecutor said Friday she is dropping an investigation into a rape claim against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, bringing to an end a seven-year legal stand-off. 

The Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement that Marianne Ny "has decided to discontinue the investigation."

...Friday's announcement means Assange is no longer under any investigation in Sweden.

He is still wanted in Britain for jumping bail, and London's police service has said he will be arrested if he leaves the embassy, though officials also appeared to hint on Friday that this is not a top priority. 

"Mr. Assange remains wanted for a much less serious offence," than the original rape charge, the Metropolitan Police Service said in a statement. 

"The MPS will provide a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence." 

Is it okay to point out there never was a rape charge against Assange? He was being investigated, and the Swedish prosecutor wanted to talk to him, but he was never charged.

Need one also point out that it was the USA that wanted him, and the whole thing was nothing more than an attempt to get him to a place where he could be extradited to the USA. I don't know what kind of a person Assange is, but it is clear to me that the whole thing was about the USA wanting him.

Now the UK, without even looking shame-faced, have changed their story to 'he jumped bail' and so he's still subject to arrest. Never mind that a UN panel has sided with Assange, calling his situation 'arbitrary detention'.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has found a surprising ally — a little known United Nations panel that has decided he has been unfairly detained in Britain while seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden to answer allegations of sexual misconduct.

...Swedish officials said Thursday the UN panel report concludes Assange has been a victim of an "arbitrary detention," apparently because he has been unable to leave the embassy without fear of being immediately taken into custody by British police armed with a European arrest warrant.

Britain said it had never arbitrarily detained Assange and that the Australian had voluntarily avoided arrest by jumping bail to flee to the embassy.

But the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled in Assange's favour, Sweden said.

Time for the UK to give it up. They're not fooling anyone.



Actually no, it is not valid to point that out. The fact is under Swedish law they are not allowed to lay a charge until they have done that investigation, so the fact it is an accusation is of the same weight.

And not showing up to court is a valid charge in its own right, even if he waited out the rape charge.

Or maybe you can explain how him assaulting someone while she was sleeping, and not using a condom when he was told to figure into that grand U.S. scheme to extradite him. They didn't make him do that.

(even if he did claim it was a "honey trap" and later admit he was lying about his victims)


'I Do Not Forgive Or Forget': Assange Responds After Swedish Prosecutors Drop Rape Case

"Detained for 7 years without charge while my children grew up and my name was slandered. I do not forgive or forget,' Assange tweeted. Assange is due to give a public statement shortly, after rape allegations were dropped by Swedish prosecutors on Friday."


Assange Case Dropped LIVE UPDATES

"Defeated French presidential candidate Jean Luc Melenchon, who voiced support for Assange tweeted: 'We were right to support him.' 

As were Chomsky, Snowden and many other people worldwide

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Actually no, it is not valid to point that out. The fact is under Swedish law they are not allowed to lay a charge until they have done that investigation, so the fact it is an accusation is of the same weight.

Do you mean to say that no charge can be layed in Sweden until the suspect has been questioned by police? What if somenone is arrested and then won't speak? Would that mean the suspect couldn't be charged?

An accusation is the 'same weight'? Really? So if I accuse someone of something, that's the same thing as them being charged with a crime. Must come in handy for people to get back at their neighbours for that night they played loud music into the morning hours.

And you are stating clearly that a crime was committed, so what was the point of continuing to investigate when the whole story was not only available to Swedish police, but the whole world including you?

It seems to me that probably isn't a correct interpretation of Swedish law.



This isn't the original source I heard it from, but lays it out in similar fashion. They cannot charge him until they have spoken with him:

"Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. 

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”).  Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested."

Maybe it is a misunderstanding of Swedish law. Let me know if you find out that is the case.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Maybe it is a misunderstanding of Swedish law. Let me know if you find out that is the case.

What it is is one person's opinion. Note that the UN panel dealing with Assange's arrest in the UK said it was an 'arbitrary' action. That means they had no justification for it. So that is a different opinion.

​The writer of the posted article also tried to downplay the likelihood of Assange being extradited from Sweden, suggesting that it would be more difficult that being extradited from the UK. The difference of course is that Assange was not charged with any crime in the UK, nor in the USA for that matter, making it seem a bit odd that he could, or would, be extradited from the UK. On the other hand, in Sweden, where Assange is not a citizen, they didn't have to extradite him. All they had to do was deport him, and let the USA authorities know in advance. That would have turned the trick alright. 

​The writer of the article you posted is a legal eagle, and as such is well versed in advocacy. That's what he was doing in the article. He, like you, doesn't like Assange, which is perfectly acceptable. However, when you let that dislike befog the perfectly clear agenda of having Assange end up in the USA, with a lifetime in prison the likely result (remember Chelsea Manning?) you've gone too far.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Has Assange been charged with anything in the U.S?  Would that be a necessary first step to extradition?


'No Longer Swedish Matter' - Assange's Lawyer on Dropping Investigation Into WikiLeaks Founder

"The truth is, once they heard Julian Assange last year, they were convinced, as I have been...he's an innocent man and the case has been closed. If they had any hard evidence against him they would never have dropped their case. He gave a very good explanation. This was consensual sex between two adults and nothing else. He's a free man from a Swedish point of view. There is a concrete threat from the United States. It's totally false to say he's avoiding Swedish justice. He's an innocent man, he's not evaded Swedish justice at all and he has received political asylum to protect him from ending up in the United States."

WikiLeaks Co-Founder Assange 'Happy To Engage With US Justice Department' (and vid)

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has given a public statement after rape allegations made against him were  dropped by Swedish prosecutors on Friday."


Julian Assange Rape Allegations: The Story Behind The Saga


'No Rape Allegations' - Typical Secret Services Ploy - Ex-CIA Officer on Assange

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Assange's case is kind of interesting because it seems that even on babble, it's perfectly OK to suggest or imply that the women who accused him of sexual assault were just opportunistic liars (or worse).

Feminism is important, but defending Assange against "empire" is evidently even MORE important.  We have bigger fish to fry than two women who should, I guess, shut their mouths and stop doing Uncle Sam's dirty work for him.


The fact that they cannot just lay a charge from Sweden is not just one person's opinion. Again let me know if you have serious information to contradict what I posted.
And magoo, yes I'm not too surprised that assange attacked his victims. Too bad others can't seem to get the distinction between the US actions and assanges actions.


Getting Assange: The Untold Story  -  by John Pilger

"Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt... Kartrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote:  'The allegations against (Assange) are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction. The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.'

For amost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder..."


It has more to do with the fact assange seems determined to wait out the statute of limitations. In fact several of the rape accusations lapsed in the last year. As for these ones, they remain completely valid for several years, and can be revived if assange leaves the embassy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Too bad others can't seem to get the distinction between the US actions and assanges actions.

It's not even clear what those "U.S. actions" even amount to.  If I'm not mistaken, there are no charges against him in the U.S., no U.S. warrants for his arrest, and the U.S. has not made any extradition requests.

So right now those "U.S. actions" = "someone's overactive imagination".

And meanwhile we're supposed to get out the good bubbly because another priveleged man has been "vindicated".  He's Julian Assanghomeshi.  Yay, right?  It's OK to cheer this time, right?


I accept that there is something there, actually. Otherwise why the refusals to come and interview Assange at the embassy, and why no guarantee that he would not face extradition?

It might not be proof, but there is enough smoke there that it is actually justification for him to stay in the embassy, IMO. Even if there isn't enough there to justify him attacking his victims, and acting like he is without fault here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Otherwise why the refusals to come and interview Assange at the embassy, and why no guarantee that he would not face extradition?

Does Sweden have an extradition agreement with the U.S.?  And if so, could they have unilaterally broken it, for Assange?  Of course, as a sovereign state, they could, but what would that mean for that agreement?

And meanwhile, are there U.S. charges, warrants or extradition agreements already on record?  Or are we all just imagining that surely there will be?  Even Roman Polanski is hiding from an ACTUAL warrant, not just a bogeyman.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Well, there was a lot of speculation, with some basis, that A-G Holder had prepared a secret indictment of Assange, but let's disregard that and stick to news since Trump became president. On April 20, CNN reported that "US officials familiar with the matter" told it that charges against Assange "have been prepared". On April 21, The Guardian reported that "The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is now a “priority” for the US, the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has said." This doesn't look like imagination to me, Magoo.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I don't doubt either you or your sources.  But charges, warrants and extradition requests don't need to wait for anything.  Either or any could have been made official yesterday, if not today.  Surely they're not waiting for him to get on a jet before saying "wait, wait, wait!  We have a charge prepared!!"


But there is the hope that he is more likely to step out if he doesn't know for sure he is going to get disappeared into some black site.

As an example, Assange seems to be opening up the champagne even though nothing has really changed. The Swedish warrant can be revived as soon as he leaves. They only shelved it because they have gone as far as they can until he does leave.

So yes, there is a good reason why the Americans might be holding their cards.


My hunch is that Snowden might soon be getting a roommate in Russia, that is, if Assange can get there.


Ecuador Asks UK PM Theresa May To Give Assange Safe Passage

"Ecuador's government has asked Britain to give WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange safe passage to the South American country to allow him asylum there. 'The UK has refused to confirm or deny whether it has already received a US extradition warrant for Julian Assange. Focus now moves to the UK,' WikiLeaks tweeted.'

Human Rights Jurist: Those Exposed By WikiLeaks Should Be Investigated Not Assange

"Since the Swedish prosecutors dropped the charges against Assange, it is time to shift focus on 'what really matters' - the US investigation that is taking place."