Judge puts Assange behind bars ahead of extradition hearing Wikileaks editor Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates Court he would not consent to extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for alleged sexual offences. Assange said he would fight proceedings from the UK. Wikileaks meanwhile said legal action against its spokesman would have no effect on its publishing programme. It …
Erm, Canadian Nutters, maybe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtIafdoH_g
Example of unstable folks?
Bit more...http://www.scribd.com/doc/41076931/CIA-Response-to-Assange-Assassination-FOIA
What happened to "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?" Maybe it's only applicable in the 51'st state of the Union.
''Bail was refused because of fears he could be a target for unstable people.''
Then, surely, he should have been offered police protection, not locked away!
Do they really think that we are that stupid or are they only interested in convincing Daily Mail & Sun readers ? -- or even more frighteningly: convincing themselves ?
He was actually refused bail because he's an enormous flight-risk. Proven by when the judge asked him where he lived he came up with all sorts of stupid answers, and then lastly Australia where he hasn't lived since the dawn of time.
Basically he got himself locked up by virtue of being a mouthy t**t with no fixed abode.
Wrong - those in power don't do the dirty work themselves, they've lackeys to do it for them.
That's one major reason why WikiLeaks has to be put down:
It exposes such things as the connection between the real operatives and their shit-kicking lackeys (for instance the poor infantry soldiers who have take the brunt of evil and undemocratic decisions).
There's always exceptions and I accept Palin is one. However, history shows that backroom deals and decisions are far more common (it's easier for the gutless not to be up front or publicly exposed).
These matters I take some interest in. I once 'won' a conscription ballot for a war in which my government entered into on an outright lie--a lie that we strongly suspected at the time, but it took another 30 years for definitive documentary proof of the lie to emerge. In the meantime a lot of poor unfortunate 'shit-kickers' were killed. I am still extremely bitter about it and always will be.
Were the liars charged with treason? Of course not, secret lies and such are all considered just part of the secret diplomatic banter--just a means to an end within the so-called democratic process.
Had WikiLeaks been around at the time then things would have been very different--of that there is no doubt.
The Bourgeoisie have always kept us Proles complicit by nefarious means and they exist in a utopia of corruption. All Wikileaks is doing is confirming what we either already know or have long suspected.
However my original comment was a jovial, throw away jib of paper thin comedic value.
No need to read anything more into it.
Oh and please remember to use the Warning: Troll alert "Stupicon" next time.
Right, essentially we agree.
Perhaps my difference is that I long for the those days in '68/'69 when for a brief moment we Proles actually had the Bourgeoisie running scared.
But alas the world has changed, we now expect and accept as norm gutter morals from our leaders. Even with WikiLeaks 'proof' we Proles no longer have the stomach for any action, 'tis even hard to maintain cynicism.
... you mean the US "intelligence community"?
Come on, these cables were available to someone with the intelligence clearance of a feckin' *private*. Do you seriously think that the Iranian intelligence services didn't already know this stuff?
The real issue here is how much material was (a) written down (when it never should have been at all), and (b) shared with everybugger in the US security forces whether or not they had any conceivable need to know about it. After 9/11 the Americans went absolutely berserk with "sharing" intel internally, and now they're seeing the downside of that approach. About time too.
"Bail was refused on grounds that Assange has access to finance, the case is serious and he could fail to surrender"
Those would be the finances they have frozen in Switzerland, and the not surrendering like he did this morning as arranged?
Looks like it's who you know which is important, not what you know!
Good luck Julian, I don't fancy your chances, I bet there are a few phone calls going on from the US embassy right now. Swedish extradition on dubious charges might be least of your worries.
What ? This is a first. You mean those nice high value white collar insider dealers and the like that the SFO frequently let off the hook don't have access to finance..... hmmm but they usually get bail, don't they......?
And don't the aforementioned scrotes usually get to keep their passports and frequently get to do a runner to somewhere with no extradition treaty ?
Political ? Much ?
"Bail was refused on grounds that Assange has access to finance, the case is serious and he could fail to surrender."
But, didn't he surrender himself to Police for his "Arrest" anyway - by appointment. Seems a feeble excuse for "The Americans want him locked up" to me.
Oh, and to all those commentards who've quoted "Bail was refused because of fears he could be a target for unstable people."
Where does it say that??
Aren't you reading the same article as I am?
Or do you just make it up in your heads?
When I read on the BBC that Assange had been refused bail for his own protection, I laughed - I guessed that what was reported was some discussion between the magistrate (who is not a lawyer) and someone else.
Coming to El Reg several hours later, I wasn't too surprised to read that it was the prosecution that proposed this ludicrous justification for refusing bail, and that it was eventually refused once the clerk of the court (who IS a lawyer) had the opportunity to point out that:
If the police are allowed to arrest people who they deem to be in danger, and to hold them (subject to legal process) until they are no longer in danger; and if the police are further allowed (as, in fact, they are) to arrest people who they deem to be dangerous, and to hold them (subject to legal process) until they cease to be dangerous, then...
The conclusion is left as an exercise for the student.
Beer for the first El Reg insider who posts here (or maybe to Wikileaks?) the name of the clueless idiot who originally simply copied the BBC story here.
Would some idiot claim treason against Assange. To educate you, one has to be a citizen of a country to commit treason against it. Assange is an Australian citizen.
Go look the word treason up in a dictionary, which is a big book with lots of words and their meanings in it, and also readily available on line.
Reality is a bitch eh?
I presume you are also calling for the editors of 5 of the worlds major newspapers who are publishing these leaks to be charged with treason too?
Your'e an ignoramus.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
