Julian Assange Arrested

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by motomonkey, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. motomonkey

    motomonkey [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,412
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Ecuador has withdrawn protection for Assange over "repeated violations of international law"




    He is now being held by British police until a large enough bonfire can be assembled to toast him properly.
     
    RogueTadhg likes this.
  2. Soulstorm brew

    Soulstorm brew n00b

    Messages:
    38
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2019
    Sold out to the highest bidder , Oz should be just as ashamed as the UK for letting this happen.

    He did need to get out of the embassy as obviously his health was deteriorating , but this was not the way.

    Sad day for whistle blowers.
     
  3. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    946
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Assange hasn't violated any law. According the US Supreme Court, which ruled against the US government regarding the Pentagon Papers, a media organization is allowed to publish classified US military documents for the purpose of informing the public:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers#The_Nixon_administration's_restraint_of_the_media



    Assange has only spoken the truth, and leaking confidential documents isn't a crime but is something freely done by US news organizations.

    Assange is a hero. The US government seeking him is entirely due to wanting retribution for exposing a lot of truth about the US government and undermining its image and reputation. There is nothing legal about what the US government is doing towards Assange.

    'He did nothing wrong' - Giuliani Says Assange Should Not Be Prosecuted

    It's illegal to steal documents, but it isn't illegal to publish them once receiving them from somebody else.




    Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds
    UN human rights panel rejects British appeal to overturn ruling that Julian Assange is being ‘arbitrarily detained’
    UN experts call for Assange's unconditional release as he loses last appeal over restrictive rules
    UN expert on torture calls on Ecuador to ‘abstain from expelling Assange’
    'Greatest traitor in Ecuadorian history': Former President Correa slams Moreno over Assange's arrest
    ‘Dark moment for press freedom’: Edward Snowden responds to Assange arrest


    The UK police have confirmed that Assange was arrested under an extradition warrant from the US.




    If Assange were to be tried in a public US court, his freedom would be all-but guaranteed. But, if he's tried in a private military court, then who knows what the outcome will be.

    This shows, though, that "freedom of speech" doesn't really exist in the US, and that it's only a platitude while the US actually operates out of 'might makes right', and mobster rule.

    If it weren't for Snowden and Assange, we'd be in the dark about US surveillance and hacking activities, and people on LTT and elsewhere would still be calling those claims crazy conspiracy theories and laughing at people who say it's happening. We wouldn't even know that we need to be careful and protect ourselves, or how to, without those documents leaking. We'd also be more war-mongering if they hadn't leaked because we'd be experiencing a false perception of thinking that the US' geopolitical challengers are doing all these things but that the US (which is doing them more than anyone else) is some noble power that is not doing them.

    Even with all the information released by WikiLeaks and those who delivered documents to them, people in the US and West are still strongly practising denial about what is going on and how extensive the US' bad faith practices go. And with all the information that has leaked, the extent of what the US is doing still goes leagues beyond what has been proven through leaked documents.

    This is a very dark day for 'freedom of speech' and truth-lovers all around the world - one in which the rights of supposedly free people and the rule of law have been trampled and have been dealt a blow for everyone.


     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  4. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,434
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    The problem with Assuange is that nobody wants to burn the leakers. Because its the leakers who broke oaths and laws. But some people like some leaks & leakers and hate other leaks and leakers. So they focus on Assuange instead helped by bureaucrats that have a vested interest in not having government nonsense exposed.
     
    Gottfried Leibnizzle likes this.
  5. elite.mafia

    elite.mafia Broke Back [H]

    Messages:
    11,271
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Wasn't Assange originally hiding in the embassy because he had some sexual assault charges against him...?
     
  6. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    946
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Assange was wanted for questioning but was never charged. At least one of the women responsible for the case starting regretted making the accusation and I think also said that she was pushed into making a case. The case was eventually dropped.
     
    Manny Calavera likes this.
  7. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    He was never charged because he fled the country and evaded officials and then eventually hid in that Ecuadoran embassy for years.

    This is completely false. You're looking at some conspiracy Q types as sources if you're reading this stuff.

    Because he ran out the clock on the statue of limitations for the original charges and not because someone changed their mind regarding the case.
     
  8. Auer

    Auer Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    498
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2018
    Can't wait to hear him sing to save his rapist ass from hard time.
     
    doublejack likes this.
  9. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    946
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    People can be charged whether they're present or not. He was never charged because the investigation never concluded that he raped the woman. Swedish authorities were invited to question Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy for the longest time, but they refused until the very end.

    Also, I think the accusation against him was that he had sex without a condom despite being told to use one, not that he forcefully raped the woman.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  10. naib

    naib [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,255
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    do we need to dig out the original thread (from this forum) on this topic.

    He potentially did something in Sweden, which is classed as rape in Sweden
    He fled to the UK and obfuscated the discussion that this was about extradition to the USA.... NOTE: UK has stronger extraditions to US, NOTE: UK has extraditions to Sweden.
    He was questioned in the UK with possible extradition to Sweden to be questioned on the rape allegations.
    He skipped bail an hid in Ecuadorian embassy, breaking UK law

    NOT once at this point had the USA applied to either Sweden or UK for extradition

    The clock on the Sweden case ran down and thus the charges were dropped BUT the charges of breaking UK law were still valid

    USA requested extradition

    ...

    We are now where we are today
     
  11. Comixbooks

    Comixbooks Ignore Me

    Messages:
    12,820
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    What did this guy do wrong again besides leaking stuff?
     
  12. naib

    naib [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,255
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Supposedly fondled a sleeping woman in Sweden (classes as rape) AND skipped bail in the UK

    One was an accusation, one is a crime.

    The 2017 extradition to the US the UK received (remember Sweden NEVER received one) was because of Chelsea Manning crime involvement
     
  13. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,434
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    This^^^. If its important enough to leak its important enough to go to jail for. Or be sued for breaching whatever contract or NDA you signed. Although not murdered. Quit blaming Assuage because you don't want leakers punished because you don't want your pet leaker punished.
     
  14. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Nope. Read the link about the 2016 interview. The Swedish investigator actually went to the embassy in 2016 to talk to him and actually was on site there:

    Yeah that is from 2011, read the link from the 2016 interview dude.

    And the UK authorities recommending the Swedish authorities to not interview him in the embassy is very different from what you were claiming about the Swedes altogether refusing to interview him there too.

    Actually it does and refutes your earlier comments since you were claiming the Swedes refused to interview him despite earlier invitations to do so full stop.

    Whoops, my bad allegations. Ones that he ran from but still totally false allegations right?

    But you still think its all about condom use and is really just a forced claim the woman didn't even want to make and just randomly decided to drop on her own right?

    I haven't lied about anything here, worst you could say I did was use charges instead of allegations in a sentence meanwhile you're quoting the Qult conspriacies wholesale while shifting goal posts and going full denialist but go ahead and go into full spin mode that'll convince everyone here right?

    No thoughts either on how Assange lied about how he'd vacate the embassy when Manning was released years ago too?
     
  15. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,710
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Part of the problem with Assange/Wikileaks is their methods.

    The free press is supposed to challenge the government and keep them honest. Traditionally the likes of the Washington Post and the New York Times have taken this job very seriously.

    Before reputable news organizations like these publish anything - however - they thoroughly scrub it to make sure lives are not being put at risk based on their story.

    WikiLeaks does none of this. They just dump raw source documents on a site and let whatever happens happen.

    It is unclear the Pentagon papers era supreme Court decision applies here. There is also the fact that he is a foreign national in possession of U.S. state secrets with the intent to distribute them which may trigger all sorts of spy statutes.

    The case is nowhere near as clear as you suggest.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
    Revdarian, Tsumi, elite.mafia and 4 others like this.
  16. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,951
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    He’s not an American citizen, not on soil that America has dominion over. On what basis can he be extradited?

    Is he being declared an enemy of the state (military)?

    Sure, he broke American laws....but?????
     
  17. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,710
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    You don't have to physically be on the soil of a country to have committed crimes in that country, depending on how the statutes are written.

    Extradition can be tricky in many cases though.

    As an example, take a hacker that compromises a system in the US from elsewhere and uses the data to commit financial crimes. The U.S. would (and has) seek extradition in cases like this.

    Way too many of them are in Russia though, which makes extradition nearly impossible.
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  18. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,951
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    He is not representing another nation though. So it really strains any traditional meaning of spy or espionage. He’s just a guy. The media here in America can call him a Russian actor, but that doesn’t make it true. He may in fact get funding from Russian actors, but he gets a hell of a lot of money from American citizens too.

    The government is obligated to attack him, which I fully understand. You can’t condone this type of behavior. Even citizen Trump may have approved of his behavior, but as President Trump he has to condemn it.

    It’s a strange new world for sure. Very interested to see what happens.
     
  19. Nebell

    Nebell [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,553
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    I live in Sweden and here's the thing. If you're accused of rape, you're basically fucked unless you have some really, really, really good proof.
    That proof doesn't include recordings, as recording someone without their knowledge is a crime.
     
    BlueFireIce likes this.
  20. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,951
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    You are being charged with the act of the breech, which occurred on American soil. People just came to him.

    I think Kim Dotcom was some technicality like that, it wasn’t the data on his servers. It was that he was paying top traffic creators here in America. Sending the check to America was the method for going after him. I think that’s what happened at least.
     
  21. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    946
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    What kind of logic is that? It's the fact that the information I posted is from 2011 while your article (which doesn't contradict what I wrote) is from 2016 is what proves what you claimed to be false, and what I claimed to be true.

    It doesn't matter that Swedish authorities finally interviewed Assange in 2016 after having refused to interview him sooner despite Assange offering to be interviewed. It matters that Assange had offered to be interviewed in the Ecuadorian embassy while possibly for charges were still present and that Sweden had not done so, apparently under the advice of the UK government.


    It actually doesn't. All your BBC link shows is that Assange was finally interviewed in 2016. What my link shows is that Assange had offered to be interviewed while he could still be charged and that it hadn't happened - and that the UK government was advising Sweden to not do so.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...nd-sweden-agree-he-ll-be-questioned-in-london

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/19/uk-resisted-julian-assange-questioned-london-emails

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...en-julian-assange-embassy-20150313-story.html

    "On Friday, Swedish prosecutors reversed their long refusal to question Assange inside his London bolt hole, citing the five-year statute of limitations on some of the allegations against him.

    One of Assange's defense lawyers, Per Samuelson, called the about-face "a great victory for Julian Assange," and indicated the 43-year-old Australian would likely agree to be questioned.

    "This is something we've demanded for over four years," Samuelson told The Associated Press after speaking to Assange on Friday. "Julian Assange wants to be interviewed so he can be exonerated."


    Assange offered to be interviewed by Sweden in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012. Sweden had refused and was advised by the UK government to refuse to interview Assange in London.

    You were wrong about this.


    Assange applied for asylum to avoid extradition to the US.


    I'm pretty sure your usage of "charges" after already having it pointed out to you that there have been no charges was a lie. Also, you were wrong in claiming that Sweden hadn't refused to interview Assange before the statute of limitations on the case expired. The offer was there, Sweden refused to act on it. Your doubling-down on showing an article about Assange being interviewed in 2016 as if it means something when it doesn't makes it look like you're trying to pass off a lie about Sweden choosing to not interview Assange despite him having made the offer.


    Maybe I was mistaken about one of the women making accusations against Assange because all the article from a certain point onward only mention a single accuser against Assange. Who was the other woman and where did her accusation disappear to?


    That's not something I've made an argument about, so why would I randomly start trying to argue it? It looks like I got a couple of details wrong, but so did you: You were wrong on multiple counts and that's proven.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  22. FrgMstr

    FrgMstr Just Plain Mean Staff Member

    Messages:
    48,086
    Joined:
    May 18, 1997
    Stay on topic please.
     
    AceGoober, Revdarian and Jim Kim like this.
  23. westrock2000

    westrock2000 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,951
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Consider these big 3 document dumps:
    Pedestal emails
    DNC emails
    Those are emails from private entities. Not government organizations.

    Snowden documents. Wikileaks, or perhaps it was The Intercept (publisher) did go to the NSA before releasing the material and ask if there was anything that should be redacted.

    If anything, the Snowden documents may have been a huge advantage for the American Intellugence community because everyone took that as face value. The intelligence community didn’t strongly disavow, and now we all think America “see’s all”.
     
  24. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    You were claiming they never interviewed him and refused to do so full stop dude. That is the logic that is wrong here. And newer info is always going to take precedent over old info.

    Which is again also very different from your earlier claims that the Swedes were the refusing to do to it. You can certainly speculate about why the UK authorities wouldn't want them to do it then but to say the Swedes wouldn't do it for unknown reasons, or to try to infer they were being dishonest and not really following up properly, is totally wrong here.

    No that is your goal post shift. You were claiming earlier they never did it ever. Then it suddenly became all about what happened in 2011 and anything afterwards just doesn't matter because reasons.

    That was his claim, and part of his conspiracy nonsense, but he only ran initially from the Swedish investigators. He ended up seeking asylum because nothing else was working.

    Except I didn't claim that at all. I was responding to your comment that they never interviewed him or even really tried to at all.

    Maaaaybe?? You certainly aren't giving her any benefit of the doubt here at all are you?

    I dunno off hand but does that really matter? Why dismiss or downplay any one of them at all here?
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  25. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    946
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Assange offered to be interviewed in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 and Sweden refused to do so and then finally changed their willingness. Look at my previous post for more info I added to it. You were wrong.

    A newer article that doesn't touch upon that fact has no relevance.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
    BlueFireIce and Jim Kim like this.
  26. viivo

    viivo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,041
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    What's the point of yet another argument over this guy?

    Every debate ever on this topic:
    Left: Assange kind of bad for many reasons.
    Right: Assange good for one reason.
     
    Auer likes this.
  27. mesyn191

    mesyn191 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,983
    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    And when they finally did look what happened: their questions were screened by embassy staff and they weren't even allowed to question him directly.

    Did you miss that part too earlier when I mentioned the 2016 interview? I called it a joke for pretty clear cut reasons. Its probably why the UK authorities recommended against it in 2011 because they knew what would happen.

    I saw it. That is just you being more pedantic in your spin and goal post shifting.

    You're still essentially stuck trying to pretend anything after 2011 didn't happen involving this issue and that whole approach to things just isn't going to work with me or really anyone.
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  28. Soulstorm brew

    Soulstorm brew n00b

    Messages:
    38
    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2019
    Mr Assange details notes taken by his lawyers at a Swedish police station after they were allowed to read text messages sent between SW and AA — the two women who made allegations against the WikiLeaks founder.

    According to Mr Assange's statement the text messages included the following:

    • On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
    • On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
    • According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
    • On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
    • On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
    • On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
    • On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.


    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276
     
    AceGoober and Delicieuxz like this.
  29. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    27,710
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    FTFY :p
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  30. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,752
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    So.. according to the news radio here in Texas, Assange isn't being charged with publishing sensitive information delivered to him.

    They have made the case that he helped a lower level person with access to pentagon/intelligence computers hack/gain access to information she was not cleared for with the sole purpose of delivering it to him for publication.

    That is what he is looking to be tried for.

    I think it's fair to say they are MORE hot about it because he turned around and published said information. But that's not what the extradition is all about.
     
  31. Delicieuxz

    Delicieuxz Gawd

    Messages:
    946
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    I can't even figure out what you could be referring to, and so it appears to me that it's you who's goalpost-shifting and trying to side-step the fact that you are wrong.

    The claim I made, which you repeatedly argued, and which has now been proven to be true, is this:

    "Swedish authorities were invited to question Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy for the longest time, but they refused until the very end."


    And for proof that I was correct:

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...en-julian-assange-embassy-20150313-story.html

    "On Friday, Swedish prosecutors reversed their long refusal to question Assange inside his London bolt hole, citing the five-year statute of limitations on some of the allegations against him.

    One of Assange's defense lawyers, Per Samuelson, called the about-face "a great victory for Julian Assange," and indicated the 43-year-old Australian would likely agree to be questioned.

    "This is something we've demanded for over four years," Samuelson told The Associated Press after speaking to Assange on Friday. "Julian Assange wants to be interviewed so he can be exonerated."
     
  32. motomonkey

    motomonkey [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,412
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Because now that he’s been arrested, the arguments can finally be resolved. He’s going to be crucified or justified.
     
  33. filip

    filip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,581
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    So are they releasing the data dump they where going to? Or did I misunderstand that.
     
  34. Grimlaking

    Grimlaking 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,752
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    That's any debate for any topic man.

    Peanut butter
    Crunchy lovers: Crunchy peanut butter is better for many reasons.
    Smooth lovers: Crunchy is bad for reasons.


    Dodge Demon
    Drag Car Lovers: This car ROCKS for REASONS!
    Environmentalists: Every time your floor it a Glacier melts!

    High end CPU lovers.
    AMD Preference: AMD CPU'Z ARE DA BEST!
    Intel Preference: INTEL CPU'Z ARE DA BEST!

    Video card fans.
    NVIDIA: MAN MY CARDS ARE THE FASTEST!
    AMD: Mine are cheaper... but I run an NVIDIA card... but in my wife's system she has an amd card.


    And so on...
     
    Verado likes this.
  35. Ur_Mom

    Ur_Mom I'm Not Serious

    Messages:
    19,640
    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    It is what the extradition is about, but they are doing the "broken taillight" kind of thing. Oh, we'll get you on this because we know we can't get you on this other stuff. Like Al Capone and getting him for tax fraud or whatever.

    The guy is a creepy dude, he published information (good) but in the wrong way (bad) to help keep a government from being too overpowering (which seems to be a hit or miss thing with many people - voice assistants is invasion of privacy but government doing it is ok because they only target "criminals").

    However, at this point - try him in a court of law. Let the system work. If he's innocent, he'll be free of those accusations. He'll be able to afford a good lawyer. Of course, he may have let a Clinton secret slip and may commit suicide by 3 shots to the back of the head while in the shower. ;)
     
  36. Auer

    Auer Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    498
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2018
    Most likely he'll get poked by a Russian polonium umbrella if he starts sharing....
     
  37. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,002
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
     
  38. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,305
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    FWIW, it was the Guardian and either the Times or WaPo as I recall. The Intercept started before the docs were exhausted, but it was quite a while after the first reports on Snowden, though to be clear, articles definitely appeared on the Intercept (back when they primarily did reporting)
     
  39. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,471
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    No it's not.

    If someone commits a crime, they should face the consequences. If they are innocent, then they deserve their freedom. That man was wanted because he had been charged. He shoulda stopped being a pussy long ago and faced his accusers.

    Wikileaks and Assange were not whistleblowers, they were an outlet for the information the whistleblowers outed. Now we get a chance to find out what the real charges are which is also good.
     
  40. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,471
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    ..........That you know of.

    You are correct, a media outlet can publish what someone else stole. But both Snowden and Manning did violate the law, one has been tried and found guilty. If the US has evidence that Assange had something to do with Manning's crimes, then Assange didn't just receive and publish, he conspired to commit the crimes.

    Now I don't have that evidence so I can't say that this is the reality. I also don't think you can say if they have that evidence.

    Moreover, in Snowden's case, he outed British Secrets as well as US Secrets and it's possible that English Law is in play as well. The Brits might try to take their pound of flesh off Assange's ass before handing him over to the US. Or maybe they won't hand him over at all. The US Supreme Court and it's rulings may have no bearing at all on what Assange faces.

    Just some things for you to think about.
     
    Revdarian, Krenum and Delicieuxz like this.