ASSANGE GRANTED BAIL WikiLeaks supremo Julian Assange was granted bail on appeal by a London court this afternoon. After six days in jail he will be released with conditions, including a £240,000 surety. The next hearing in Sweden's attempt to extradite him in relation to alleged sex crimes against two women was scheduled for 11 January. However …
Erm, no he didn't. A Swedish court gave him *permission* to leave the country in early November IIRC.
It's also worth noting that he was arrested in the UK *by appointment*, i.e. he handed himself in voluntarily. Not exactly the behaviour of a man wishing to skip town, and most likely the reason for his bond being set.
He has a much greater chance of a fair trial in the UK than in the USA or Sweden.
His extradition can be blocked in the UK if they determine he's wanted for political reasons. Which he is.
He can get away scot free of charges in Sweden and still have to face charges in USA.
The USA will have him executed or imprisoned for 50+ years.
Do you really see him facing a worse punishment in the UK "g e" or do you, as i suspect, not know what you're talking about?
<Yawn> Oh, is that the I-see-a-conspiracy-behind-every-tree crowd flip-flopping again? First you lot claim that the nasty old Gov is banging him up so they can refuse him bail, stick him in solitary and hand him over to the Yanks at the drop of a hat. Then, when Assange gets bail, you immediately flip again and start saying it's only so the dreaded boogermen-assassins of the CIA can nail him in public! Please, just go lay down in a quiet, dark room for a while.
@Matt Bryant
are you saying that the CIA don't engange in such tactics?
The original poster may well be barking up the wrong tree, but you are definitely wrong if you think that they don't.
The US has significantly failed in their PR damage limitations exercises, in fact they seem to be making things worse for themselves (probably as a result of arrogance one assumes).
What makes you think that someone twat won't just say..
'fuck it, we're in it up to our necks, we might as well get our hands on the little bastard'
and order a black-op.
Oh, that's right, black-ops only exist in movies. <YAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWN>
Has everyone forgotten about Bradley Manning, the guy that gave Mr Assange all these juicy headline grabbing leaks?
Because Wikileaks sure as hell seems to have forgotten and that poor bastard will be spending Christmas in the slammer wondering if he will be executed for treason.
Alan Rushbridger, Editor of The Guardian
Simon Kelner, Editor of The Independent
Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC
Wait, they're not being indicted? I could have sworn I was reading the cables on the Guardian's website, and watching news broadcasts regarding the contents of them on BBC Breakfast.
"Stephens also claimed that Sweden will defer its molestation and rape investigation if the US brings such spying charges"
This line confirms the motive behind the prosecution of Julian Assange- don't smear his character USA if you have a problem , kill him. Then the world will see what goes on in the governments around the world.
Anon
And the UK has a policy of not extraditing where the subject is likely to end up being executed.
Being as Mr Assange's final destination is more likely than the US than Sweden and various newspapers and Congressmen have called for his prosecution under laws carrying the death penalty I think and hope it's unlikely that the extradition will succeed.
... is that the stage is set for a deal. The Americans say "if you extradite him, we promise not to kill him"; the British gov't proudly announces "Look, we won this concession from the Americans!"; then Assange goes off to do 20-to-life in a federal prison, and everyone saves face.
It's happened before, it'll happen again.
"Sweden's ongoing attempt to extradite Assange is not his only legal problem. His lawyer Mark Stephens said in an interview with David Frost over the weekend that a grand jury in Virginia has been secretly considering indicting Assange under the US Espionage Act."
That appears to be typical of US secrets and makes a mockery of US security. Uncle Sam has lost the plot and is doing itself great self harm with its pathetic posturing trying to defend the indefensible.
If you have secrets you have something bad to hide ..... for anything good one just loves to share.
Of course, Mark Stephens could claim anything he liked and people like you would lap it up unquestioningly. If it's a "secret" grand jury how would Mr Stephens know about it? And before you lot hyperventilate yourselves into space, the Espionage Act does not carry an automatic death sentence for the guilty.
your flight has been delayed. As you're a VIP, however, we've arranged a private jet for yourself. The route will need to take a slight detour over 2 USAF air bases, but we trust our pilot! Here he is now, Captain Osama "FireBelt" bin RiggedToBlow. Please, go strap yourself into your electric... err... powered chair and we'll take off as soon as the runway's been cleared of that awfully sharp titanium debris..."
"How can anyone consider him a flight risk - it would be professional and reputational suicide and probably massively damage Wikileaks."
Flight risk: he's not a UK citizen. I don't know the ins and outs of extradition treaties of Austrailia, UK, and Sweden, but not letting someone (especially a foreign national) leave the jurisdiction if there's a pending legal hearing seems pretty standard to me.
As for reputation, a lot of people would toss anything under a bus if it meant not going to prison. And with the clout this guy has, there'd be plenty of people that agreed. "He HAD to flee, otherwise the big, bad, USA was going to get him!"
"How can anyone consider him a flight risk - it would be professional and reputational suicide and probably massively damage Wikileaks.
By running it would effectly allow opponents and critics of Wikileaks to take the high ground."
Professional suicide? A professional what? Fencer of stolen informational/security/diplomatic secrets? High ground? What high ground is there for a self appointed trader in state secrets? He occupies a position midway between a number of categories; fence, thief, spy, warring state/organisation.
There is absolutely no high ground for him and, given that he has published state secrets of a number of states, he can expect only a good slapping, as can they all.
He is self appointed over the heads of the world community, don't forget that. He's asked for no authority whatever and, as is the case with ideologues, he is dangerous. Marx was an ideologue, he wanted only the best, ditto Jesus, ditto Muhammed, and so on. All ideologues do is turn their views into religions, which are then inflicted on millions in the form of death, starvation, maiming, torture and so on.
Putting aside the big objections to Tony Blair's war in Iraq (there were no WMD, there was no evidence to support the claim and some 7 years later we have found none), what he and Bush did by invading Iraq was to release Iran from the leash. In so doing we see a local superpower emerging, funded by the power of oil, rapidly developing a sophisticated arms industry with a capacity to launch weapons at and hit European countries and a nascent nuclear arms industry.
That's the law of unforeseen consequences, though it doesn't take an Einstein to work it out.
What is happening now is that various sources (including one placed close to the leadership of the People's Republic of China/PRC) are slowly being tracked down by a process of elimination. These sources will be punished, possibly by death, and this will discourage others. So the unofficial system of conflict regulation, namely knowledge of intentions and capabilities, is at risk because a group of soft pricks, schooled only in IT, having pretensions to journalism (which fig leaf claim here is akin to the claim 'satirical' in libellous US and UK magazines) feel they own the data, in the same way that the Pirate Bay feel they own MP3 data.
Later, they will themselves be owned, and moaning will not help.
Professional suicide? Is there a profession here? Espionage? Theft? Fencing? This is not so very much better than trading in arms.
if the (Sweedish) charges against him hold any water, they do seem flimsy to me.
But as long as he has not been found guilty of any crime, what legal right is there to hold him? If I were a UK judge I would be very wary of the chance that this is just to get him extradited to the US. Nice to see the beak at least trying to be impartial...
Enough with this "he's not been found guilty of anything" nonsense. If a court determines that there is sufficient evidence for someone to be tried and that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they might abscond before trial then they can be remanded in custody. There are currently about 15,000 people being held in UK prisons on this basis (roughly 20% of the prison population).
A similar process applies to extradition cases such as Assange. The fact that he (initially, at least) could not or would not give a permanent address in the UK hardly helps his cause.
I've no idea how strong the Swedish case is, neither I suspect do any of those posting here. But I see nothing upon which to build a mad conspiracy theory involving CIA black helicopters.
"if the (Sweedish) charges against him hold any water, they do seem flimsy to me."
Really? Have you done a search on them?
"She told the court the first complainant, identified only as Miss A, said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 this year in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home."
http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7570-the-charges-against-julian-assange
It appears that there is a consistent theme in both allegations, inasmuch that Assange is alleged, in different places, on different times, to have committed the same offence, namely having sex without a condom with a woman, on one occasion against her will, on another occasion without consulting the woman. That is not flimsy. You might want to say that these two women are in cahoots, but this dewy eyed defence is very often the sort of thing put up by people who can see no wrong in an individual, no matter how much evidence is produced to the contrary. Need I dig into the history box and show you some examples? Would you like some show and tell? Would you like some examples from forensic psychology on categories of offence, offender types and profiling? It's very specific, the failure to use condoms either lacking consent or being denied consent Will you deny point blank? I suspect from what I have read here that you and others will. I am far more cynical.
Sexual health and hygiene is particularly important in Scandinavian countries, whose people collectively understood the need to use condoms long before the advent of HIV, YMLT remember that as you read about events in the next few days.
What is needed is a proper trial, in the jurisdiction, where the evidence is, not the nay saying of a lot of people rooked by the thought of 'infowars' to change the world, because they feel that state secrets have the same status as MP3s and any other data they care to illicitly access and pirate.
Elsewhere another Reg poster claimed that, because the women are anarchists, they can't be trusted. This is a classic form of argumentum ad hominem, namely arguing against the person rather than the facts, plus it is a smear. In addition to this, no one has paid attention to the fact that rape victims rarely come forward and, when they do, they are very reluctant and feel extremely humiliated. It is most easy to deter them from going any further.
I've seen little sign if any of the pro leaking lobby sticking to facts, though I've seen a lot to suggest they believe they have a right and as self appointed protectors of several billion people I can see this becoming more than a little farcical. It's childish, ill thought out, lacking in a coherent supporting argument, beginning with initial premisses founded on empirical facts, running there from through an unbroken logical/theoretical chain of a priori justification and ending with some truth.
It will end in tears, I'm sure of that.
"two-bit dictatorship which adores bending over and being the US's bitch "
It was for 12 years but we got rid of that bunch back in the spring. The current lot are under the microscope right now, we wait with interest to see if there's a spine in whitehall now.
Signs are good IMO, McKinnon was all but strapped in and selecting his in flight meal but that seems to have stopped. Best sign is that the merkins don't like Cameron, they sure as hell liked their grinning glove puppet.
Sweden charges Assange while he is in Sweden
Sweden drops charges
Sweden reinstates charges when he is in UK
Assange arrested and held on those charges in UK
US indicates they want Assange on spy charges. Luckily he is already in custody in a friendly country that has an extradition treaty with US.
Sweden says we really don't want him if the Yanks want him that bad.
Assange gets flown over the pond by friendly FBI agents.
Sweden gets a really favourable financial payoff from the US Government.
OK, the last two have not happened yet, but is there any doubt in anyone's mind that it won't???
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
