Julian Assange arrested after Ecuador withdraws asylum.

[Vympel]

I guess I have to mod this shit:

RE: The Unz Review. As the wikipedia article indicates, Unz personally is clearly a right-wing whackjob, that does not give anyone licence to tar any columnist on the entire website as a 'conspiracy theorist', and certainly not to tar a poster as a 'fasicst piece of shit' for linking same. No one who knows jack shit about absolutely anything would consider Norman Finklestein of all people of being a fascist or a conspiracy theorist - and yet he's been a contributor to the Unz Review as well. This is not to say that Karlin's assertions are necessarily true. If you wish to impugn Karlin's credibility, you may do so (the article is thinly sourced, for one). Just not with guilt-by-association attacks referencing the views of others on the platform on which he writes.

(This does not change that the platform is clearly full of whackjobs, however.)

Outside of being a mod, there is no evidence whatsoever that Julian Assange "worked with Russian intelligence", either knowingly or unknowingly. The evidence free assertions of US national security state apparatchiks are worth no more than the assertions of any other state security service - i.e. very little.

[mr friendly guy]

If Assange is not doing journalism because he only leaked one side, ie only leaking the dirt on the DNC, then by that same logic the Washington Post isn't journalism either based on the numerous calls for war in Iraq they made (did they point out the evidence was bullshit). But we all know a double standard will be applied here.

[Coop D'etat]

Assange was arrested for failing to appear, tried and convicted of that this week (quirk of UK bail law is there is no adjournments for a failure to attend court charge, the trial happens right when they bring you to court).

Currently he's being held for a May 22nd sentencing hearing, not the American arrest warrant for his May 2nd extradition hearing.

Reports that he's been arrested and held for failure to attend court are in fact, entirely accurate. A charge he's been found guilty of and did not bother to attempt and effective defense for, with his barrister apparently instructed to engage in some cheap theatrics in their closing argument rather than properly attempt to prove a defense, hence the trial judge got quite pissy with him.

Incidentally, he appears to be entitled to apply for bail between now and his sentencing. I'd imagine with minimal prospect of success given the lengths he went to abscond from court last time.

[Crazedwraith]

BBC

Julian Assange should not be extradited to US - Jeremy Corbyn
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said the UK government should not extradite Julian Assange to the US, where he faces a computer hacking charge.

The Wikileaks co-founder was arrested for a separate charge at Ecuador's London embassy on Thursday, where he had been granted asylum since 2012.

Mr Corbyn said Assange should not be extradited "for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan".

Meanwhile, Ecuador's leader expressed anger at how Assange had behaved.

Australian-born Assange, 47, sought refuge in the Knightsbridge embassy seven years ago, to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped. But Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum and invited the police to arrest Assange on Thursday.

After his dramatic arrest, he was taken to Westminster Magistrates' Court and found guilty of a British charge of breaching bail. He spent Thursday night in custody and is facing up to 12 months in prison for that conviction.

The Met said it cost an estimated £13.2m to police Ecuador's London embassy between June 2012 and October 2015, when the force withdrew the physical presence of officers.

The Swedish authorities are now considering whether to reopen an investigation into the allegations of sexual assault, which Assange denies.

The US government has also charged him with allegations of conspiracy to break into a computer, relating to a massive leak of classified US government documents. The UK will decide whether to extradite Assange, and if he was convicted, he could face up to five years in jail.

Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that "this is all about Wikileaks and all of that embarrassing information about the activities of the American military and security services that was made public".

But she said Assange should also face the criminal justice system if the Swedish government charged him.

Swedish prosecutors dropped a rape investigation into Assange into 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of the allegations - a necessary step in proceeding with the case - while he remained in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Assange battle 'now political'
In a tweet, Mr Corbyn shared a video said to be of Pentagon footage - which had been released by Wikileaks - of a 2007 air strike which implicated US military in the killing of civilians and two journalists.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but Mr Corbyn's intervention "means the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal".

The editor of Wikileaks, Kristinn Hrafnsson, has expressed fears that the US could file more serious charges against Assange, and that if he was convicted he could be behind bars for "decades".

Mr Hrafnsson added that Assange had been thrown "overboard" by Ecuador - and the country was "horrible" to treat him like that.

'He was a problem'
Meanwhile in Ecuador, President Lenin Moreno criticised Assange, claiming that after spending seven years in the country's embassy he had dismissed Ecuador by describing it as an insignificant country.

"We had treated him as a guest," he said. "But not anymore."

Ecuador's ambassador to the UK, Jaime Marchan, also previously said Assange had been "continually a problem" while he was living in the embassy.

Meanwhile, a man who is alleged to have links with Assange has been arrested while trying to leave Ecuador, the country's officials said.

The man - who has been identified by supporters as a Swedish software developer called Ola Bini - had been trying to board a flight to Japan.

Assange is due to face a hearing over his possible extradition to the US on 2 May.

During a briefing at the White House following Assange's arrest, US President Donald Trump was asked by reporters if he stood by remarks that he made during his election campaign when he said he loved Wikileaks.

"I know nothing about Wikileaks," said Mr Trump. "It's not my thing."

He added: "I've been seeing what happened with Assange and that will be a determination, I would imagine, mostly by the attorney general, who's doing an excellent job."

Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, said they would be fighting the extradition request. She said it set a "dangerous precedent" where any journalist could face US charges for "publishing truthful information about the United States".

She said she had visited Assange in the police cells where he thanked supporters and said: "I told you so."

Assange had predicted that he would face extradition to the US if he left the embassy.

Meanwhile, Australia said it had received a request for consular assistance after Assange was taken from the embassy.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Assange will not get "special treatment" and will have to "make his way through whatever comes his way in terms of the justice system".

The arrest was welcomed by the government on Thursday. Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons: "This goes to show that in the UK, no-one is above the law."

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the arrest was the result of "years of careful diplomacy" and that it was "not acceptable" for someone to "escape facing justice".

Assange set up Wikileaks in 2006 with the aim of obtaining and publishing confidential documents and images.

The organisation hit the headlines four years later when it released footage of US soldiers killing civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.

Former US intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning was arrested in 2010 for disclosing more than 700,000 confidential documents, videos and diplomatic cables to the anti-secrecy website. She said she only did so to spark debates about foreign policy, but US officials said the leak put lives at risk.

She was found guilty by a court martial in 2013 of charges including espionage. However, her jail sentence was later commuted.

Manning was recently jailed for refusing to testify before an investigation into Wikileaks' role in revealing the secret files.

[Solauren]

Is there an Interpol warrant out for Assange?

[The Romulan Republic]

Vymple: I acknowledge your decision as a moderator, and that some of my rhetoric towards Wild Zontargs was probably a step too far. I apologize to him and to the board for that. But it does not change my personal view that articles in what amounts to a Neo-Nazi outlet are inherently lacking in credibility. Even if the author is not personally a fascist, their decision to write for and professionally associate themselves with an anti-Semitic outlet suggests either ignorance about their associates or a lack of personal integrity, and neither reflects well on them as a journalist. I stand by that view. I realize that I will probably get in trouble for posting this, but it is a matter of moral principle and of personal integrity to me to do so. If rejecting the credibility of articles in a Holocaust denier's paper is an offense on this board, then take whatever disciplinary action you deem fit.

If Assange is not doing journalism because he only leaked one side, ie only leaking the dirt on the DNC, then by that same logic the Washington Post isn't journalism either based on the numerous calls for war in Iraq they made (did they point out the evidence was bullshit). But we all know a double standard will be applied here.

Now, see, THIS is poisoning the well- preemptively asserting that I will employ a double-standard to prejudice the argument against me before I even post a reply.

As to the Washington Post- I can't reasonably go back and read every pre-Iraq War article to verify the accuracy of that statement, nor am I sure to what extent the same people are running the post now. But no, I don't think that anyone who works simply to bolster one party or country's official line can be considered a true journalist. I know that stating my actual position will not stop people on this board from putting words in my mouth and then attacking the strawman, but I want my actual position on the record so the lying is at least obvious.

Assange's activities are firmly and totally uncontroversially journalism, and that a bunch of delusional people are still salty because they think he personally stopped Saint Hillary from assuming her rightful throne is totally irrelevant to that fact. It's extremely cool watching people wax lyrical about what a grave threat Trump is to press freedom cheer Trump as he goes after Assange for activities which any journalist engages in, though.

Is this directed at me? Or just a broad-strokes smear of anyone who disagrees with you? Either way, I must consider it dishonest.

While I can't speak for every one of Assange's critics (and, unlike you, am not arrogant enough to try), I certainly never regarded Hillary as a "Saint" or considered her entitled to the Presidency, and I can quote probably several hundred posts from the 2016 primary threads alone to prove it- but I do think that she had a right to a fair and lawful election not marred by illegal foreign interference, and she was denied that, to the detriment of America and the world. And b) I am not "cheer(ing) Trump as he goes after Assange". Trump can suck my dick. Even on the rare occassions that he does the right thing, generally by chance or for the wrong reasons, he can still suck my dick. As much as I'd like to see Assange questioned and called as a witness in the Russia probe, I don't trust Trump not to either a) pardon him, or more likely b) execute him to tie up a loose end and "prove" that collusion is a hoax (and people like you would just eat that up).

I stated what I think should happen to him, but I will reiterate/elaborate: he should serve his time for skipping bail. Which contrary to your assertion is in fact the original charge for which he was arrested, and which is an entirely legitimate and lawful charge because, no, you don't have the right to skip bail even if you are innocent, just like you don't have the right to obstruct justice even if you are innocent. I think he should be questioned in the UK regarding 2016 (not tortured or "enhanced interrogated", questioned), then extradited back to Sweden if they want to reopen the investigation for rape. Let him stand a fair trial in Sweden for rape, and undergo whatever fate the Swedish justice system sees fit. He should not be extradited to the US. I wouldn't extradite anyone to the current US "Justice" system, because I don't believe that even bad people deserve to go to hell.

The salt from numerous dipshit establishment journalists who hate him stems mostly from that fact, together with sheer personal animus. I also love the return of the same old bullshit anti-Wikileaks propaganda which have been stock in trade of the US government for a decade - i.e. the totally baseless claim that wikileaks has somehow 'endangered lives' "(no evidence for this claim has ever been presented).

The assertion that his arrest was for 'skipping bail' is - unsurprisingly - totally false. He's in custody until May 2 pending an extradition hearing for extradition to the US on an indictment prepared by the Trump DOJ relating to his activities with Chelsea Manning.

The media is unsurprisngly already getting the story wrong, alleging the indictment they've released is for 'hacking'. It is not. Dan Froomkin:

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/111 ... 41120?s=20

The words “hack” or “hacking” do not appear even ONCE in the text of the Assange indictment or the press release. So why are all the news headlines using it? They’ve been snookered by a press release HEADLINE.

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/111 ... 11808?s=20

Julian #Assange has been charged with conspiracy to commit journalism. The free press has not ducked a bullet here; it’s taken one to the chest. 1/7

Here are the “manners and means of the conspiracy" from the indictment. There are only four of them. 2/7

1) “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate…” THEY USED AN ENCRYPTED TEXTING APP TO COMMUNICATE 3/7

2) "Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs...” THEY FOLLOWED STANDARD INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM PROTOCOLS 4/7

3) “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States.” A JOURNALIST ASKED A SOURCE FOR MORE 5/7

And 4) “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.” THEY USED THE INTERWEBS 6/7

Additionally, Manning “copied a Linux operating system to a CD” HEAVEN FORBID and provided Assange with part of a password to a system she already had access to and ask him to crack it and he didn’t succeed. FAIL 7/7

Further:

https://www.justsecurity.org/63595/assa ... s-freedom/

If the Justice Department had filed an indictment focused more narrowly on the alleged hacking, none of this would warrant much comment. The Justice Department would present its evidence; Assange would defend himself; and few people would raise concerns about the prosecution’s implications for press freedom. The problem is that the indictment seems to have been drafted not just to justify the prosecution of Assange but to tar legitimate journalistic activities by association with Assange’s alleged crime.

The indictment characterizes everyday journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy. Cultivating a source, protecting a source’s identity, communicating with a source securely—the indictment describes all of these activities as the “manners and means” of the conspiracy. The Justice Department says that Assange and Manning communicated using an encrypted chat service, but most national-security journalists communicate with sources using encrypted channels. It says that Assange and Manning “took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure,” but taking measures to protect their sources’ identities is something that national-security journalists do all the time, for good reason. It says that Assange created “a special folder on a cloud drop box of Wikileaks” to allow Manning to share files with him, but many major news organizations use SecureDrop and other similar software to allow sources to share files with them securely.

And yet further:

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the ... -freedoms/

So much of what has been reported today about this indictment has been false. Two facts in particular have been utterly distorted by the DOJ and then misreported by numerous media organizations.

The first crucial fact about the indictment is that its key allegation – that Assange did not merely receive classified documents from Chelsea Manning but tried to help her crack a password in order to cover her tracks – is not new. It was long known by the Obama DOJ and was explicitly part of Manning’s trial, yet the Obama DOJ – not exactly renowned for being stalwart guardians of press freedoms – concluded it could not and should not prosecute Assange because indicting him would pose serious threats to press freedom. In sum, today’s indictment contains no new evidence or facts about Assange’s actions; all of it has been known for years.

The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As long-time Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “the factual allegations…boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identify of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

That’s why the indictment poses such a grave threat to press freedom. It characterizes as a felony many actions that journalists are not just permitted but required to take in order to conduct sensitive reporting in the digital age.

Defending Julian Assange by attacking "the Media" for fake news. Because we all know the media are a homogenous evil hive mind (except of course the ones who agree with Russia). Definitely the position of someone who cares about the freedom of journalists.

While there are actions undertaken by journalists that may be legal in some contexts but not in others, I do think that one has to be careful, when acting against hostile espionage or against criminals who also happen to be (at least by a loose definition) journalists, not to set precedents, even unintentionally, that could limit the freedom of the press. That is a legitimate concern.

However, even if you DO consider Assange a journalist and not a spy, he should not be praised or glorified or defended. He's still a hypocritical tool of some very bad people (they just happen to be bad people that the part of the "anti-establishment" crowd who lack actual principles like because they're against the people they don't like), and a possible rapist who skipped bail to thwart due process. So I reiterate- give him the same due process as anyone else accused of a crime. Have him serve his term for hearing bail, having him go through an extradition hearing (my preferred outcome being that he not be extradited to the US), and then send him back to Sweden to stand trial for rape if they decide they want to prosecute him. None of that endangers the freedom of the press in any way. But if he does end up in a cell for a few years, I'm not going to be shedding any tears, because he is a wicked man who has deliberately and significantly helped the spread of global neo-fascism. And, again, may be a rapist.

[mr friendly guy]

If Assange is not doing journalism because he only leaked one side, ie only leaking the dirt on the DNC, then by that same logic the Washington Post isn't journalism either based on the numerous calls for war in Iraq they made (did they point out the evidence was bullshit). But we all know a double standard will be applied here.

Now, see, THIS is poisoning the well- preemptively asserting that I will employ a double-standard to prejudice the argument against me before I even post a reply.

Unless I have time travel capability, I am pretty sure I am responding to your earlier statements rather than preemptive assertions. To wit, from your own words.

"For my part, all I will say is that whether his actions should qualify as criminal or not, Assange should not be given the dignity of being considered a journalist. Journalists are supposed to have certain standards (even if they sometimes don't live up to them). Like not leaking classified information that will endanger innocent lives. Or not directly coordinating with a political campaign. Assange isn't interested in the truth, because if he was, he would have leaked information damaging to both Hillary and Trump, rather than clearly favoring one party, as desired by his Kremlin puppet masters. He is not a principled crusader for the truth- he is a political hack masquerading as a principled whistle-blower."

WaPo is cited because they wrote shit loads of articles calling for regime change, with the "irrefutable" (their words) evidence. I guess since we know Iraq at the time no longer had WMDs WaPo was a hack propaganda for this particular US policy. I think when one side is clearly wrong, but WaPo describes their case as "irrefutable" its kind of fits the standard you yourself laid out of "clearly favouring one party", no? The evidence for WMDs was bullshit, and not everyone fell for it.

As to the Washington Post- I can't reasonably go back and read every pre-Iraq War article to verify the accuracy of that statement, nor am I sure to what extent the same people are running the post now. But no, I don't think that anyone who works simply to bolster one party or country's official line can be considered a true journalist. I know that stating my actual position will not stop people on this board from putting words in my mouth and then attacking the strawman, but I want my actual position on the record so the lying is at least obvious.

Its run by Jeff Bezos now, who is anti Trump. Doesn't change the fact by the same standards that Assange is not a journalist (ie showing one side of the issue), WaPo also falls flat by the same metric.

[Vympel]

Vymple: I acknowledge your decision as a moderator, and that some of my rhetoric towards Wild Zontargs was probably a step too far. I apologize to him and to the board for that. But it does not change my personal view that articles in what amounts to a Neo-Nazi outlet are inherently lacking in credibility. Even if the author is not personally a fascist, their decision to write for and professionally associate themselves with an anti-Semitic outlet suggests either ignorance about their associates or a lack of personal integrity, and neither reflects well on them as a journalist. I stand by that view. I realize that I will probably get in trouble for posting this, but it is a matter of moral principle and of personal integrity to me to do so. If rejecting the credibility of articles in a Holocaust denier's paper is an offense on this board, then take whatever disciplinary action you deem fit.

A lack of personal integrity is irrelevant to whether what they're writing is accurate. You're free to point it out, but it goes nowhere towards the issue of credibility of assertions being made.

Is this directed at me? Or just a broad-strokes smear of anyone who disagrees with you? Either way, I must consider it dishonest.

While I can't speak for every one of Assange's critics (and, unlike you, am not arrogant enough to try), I certainly never regarded Hillary as a "Saint" or considered her entitled to the Presidency, and I can quote probably several hundred posts from the 2016 primary threads alone to prove it- but I do think that she had a right to a fair and lawful election not marred by illegal foreign interference, and she was denied that, to the detriment of America and the world. And b) I am not "cheer(ing) Trump as he goes after Assange". Trump can suck my dick. Even on the rare occassions that he does the right thing, generally by chance or for the wrong reasons, he can still suck my dick. As much as I'd like to see Assange questioned and called as a witness in the Russia probe, I don't trust Trump not to either a) pardon him, or more likely b) execute him to tie up a loose end and "prove" that collusion is a hoax (and people like you would just eat that up).

I stated what I think should happen to him, but I will reiterate/elaborate: he should serve his time for skipping bail. Which contrary to your assertion is in fact the original charge for which he was arrested, and which is an entirely legitimate and lawful charge because, no, you don't have the right to skip bail even if you are innocent, just like you don't have the right to obstruct justice even if you are innocent. I think he should be questioned in the UK regarding 2016 (not tortured or "enhanced interrogated", questioned), then extradited back to Sweden if they want to reopen the investigation for rape. Let him stand a fair trial in Sweden for rape, and undergo whatever fate the Swedish justice system sees fit. He should not be extradited to the US. I wouldn't extradite anyone to the current US "Justice" system, because I don't believe that even bad people deserve to go to hell.

It's a broad-strokes attack on the numerous people celebrating Assange's arrest and possible extradition to the United States.

Defending Julian Assange by attacking "the Media" for fake news. Because we all know the media are a homogenous evil hive mind (except of course the ones who agree with Russia). Definitely the position of someone who cares about the freedom of journalists.

If you weren't so preoccupied with making otiose references to 'Russia' like you always seem to do, you might understand that referencing 'the media' as doing a thing is very, very, very common shorthand in media criticism discourse, but sure, go on calling Dan Froomkin a Russian stooge or whatever.

Contrary to your beliefs, the media does engage in 'fake news', very often, and sometimes with truly disastrous results. This is a glaringly obvious, uncontroversial fact, and it doesn't matter who that 'fake news' effects or harms, its still fake and it still has the effect of misleading the public.

While there are actions undertaken by journalists that may be legal in some contexts but not in others, I do think that one has to be careful, when acting against hostile espionage or against criminals who also happen to be (at least by a loose definition) journalists, not to set precedents, even unintentionally, that could limit the freedom of the press. That is a legitimate concern.

However, even if you DO consider Assange a journalist and not a spy, he should not be praised or glorified or defended. He's still a hypocritical tool of some very bad people (they just happen to be bad people that the part of the "anti-establishment" crowd who lack actual principles like because they're against the people they don't like), and a possible rapist who skipped bail to thwart due process. So I reiterate- give him the same due process as anyone else accused of a crime. Have him serve his term for hearing bail, having him go through an extradition hearing (my preferred outcome being that he not be extradited to the US), and then send him back to Sweden to stand trial for rape if they decide they want to prosecute him. None of that endangers the freedom of the press in any way. But if he does end up in a cell for a few years, I'm not going to be shedding any tears, because he is a wicked man who has deliberately and significantly helped the spread of global neo-fascism. And, again, may be a rapist.

As above, the issue is extradition to the US, not the allegations in Sweden (which aren't even active, I note).

[Coop D'etat]

The Swedish allegations are what he skipped bail on, which is the reason he was arrested and is presently being held. So yeah, they're actually pretty relevant to the matter at hand. The American extradition request at this point is pretty much piggybacking on top of his apprehension for absconding on his release which would still place him in custody even if the American's weren't at all interested in him.

[Ralin]

As above, the issue is extradition to the US, not the allegations in Sweden (which aren't even active, I note).

They aren't 'active' because the the investigation was suspended and the arrest warrant revoked for the stated reason that Rapey McRapeface managed to avoid being arrested for so long that they weren't able to actually complete the investigation. They also went on to state that the investigation (and charges) could be resumed as soon Swedish police managed to lay hands on Rapelstiltskin. Could in this case almost certainly means will be. It’s been less than two days since Rapey McRapeface was arrested, and it happened on a Thursday.

Can’t help but think that you phrased it that way to downplay the fact that he’s a rapist who should have been put on trial for all the raping he does several year ago.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Swedish allegations are what he skipped bail on, which is the reason he was arrested and is presently being held. So yeah, they're actually pretty relevant to the matter at hand. The American extradition request at this point is pretty much piggybacking on top of his apprehension for absconding on his release which would still place him in custody even if the American's weren't at all interested in him.

Pretty much, yeah.

And as I noted, one of the articles I posted mentioned that the lawyer for one of the accused is trying to get the rape case reopened now that Assange is no longer hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Assange's activities are firmly and totally uncontroversially journalism, and that a bunch of delusional people are still salty because they think he personally stopped Saint Hillary from assuming her rightful throne is totally irrelevant to that fact. It's extremely cool watching people wax lyrical about what a grave threat Trump is to press freedom cheer Trump as he goes after Assange for activities which any journalist engages in, though.

The salt from numerous dipshit establishment journalists who hate him stems mostly from that fact, together with sheer personal animus. I also love the return of the same old bullshit anti-Wikileaks propaganda which have been stock in trade of the US government for a decade - i.e. the totally baseless claim that wikileaks has somehow 'endangered lives' "(no evidence for this claim has ever been presented).

The assertion that his arrest was for 'skipping bail' is - unsurprisingly - totally false. He's in custody until May 2 pending an extradition hearing for extradition to the US on an indictment prepared by the Trump DOJ relating to his activities with Chelsea Manning.

The media is unsurprisngly already getting the story wrong, alleging the indictment they've released is for 'hacking'. It is not. Dan Froomkin:

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/111 ... 41120?s=20

The words “hack” or “hacking” do not appear even ONCE in the text of the Assange indictment or the press release. So why are all the news headlines using it? They’ve been snookered by a press release HEADLINE.

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/111 ... 11808?s=20

Julian #Assange has been charged with conspiracy to commit journalism. The free press has not ducked a bullet here; it’s taken one to the chest. 1/7

Here are the “manners and means of the conspiracy" from the indictment. There are only four of them. 2/7

1) “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate…” THEY USED AN ENCRYPTED TEXTING APP TO COMMUNICATE 3/7

2) "Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs...” THEY FOLLOWED STANDARD INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM PROTOCOLS 4/7

3) “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange encouraged Manning to provide information and records from departments and agencies of the United States.” A JOURNALIST ASKED A SOURCE FOR MORE 5/7

And 4) “It was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.” THEY USED THE INTERWEBS 6/7

Additionally, Manning “copied a Linux operating system to a CD” HEAVEN FORBID and provided Assange with part of a password to a system she already had access to and ask him to crack it and he didn’t succeed. FAIL 7/7

Further:

https://www.justsecurity.org/63595/assa ... s-freedom/

If the Justice Department had filed an indictment focused more narrowly on the alleged hacking, none of this would warrant much comment. The Justice Department would present its evidence; Assange would defend himself; and few people would raise concerns about the prosecution’s implications for press freedom. The problem is that the indictment seems to have been drafted not just to justify the prosecution of Assange but to tar legitimate journalistic activities by association with Assange’s alleged crime.

The indictment characterizes everyday journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy. Cultivating a source, protecting a source’s identity, communicating with a source securely—the indictment describes all of these activities as the “manners and means” of the conspiracy. The Justice Department says that Assange and Manning communicated using an encrypted chat service, but most national-security journalists communicate with sources using encrypted channels. It says that Assange and Manning “took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure,” but taking measures to protect their sources’ identities is something that national-security journalists do all the time, for good reason. It says that Assange created “a special folder on a cloud drop box of Wikileaks” to allow Manning to share files with him, but many major news organizations use SecureDrop and other similar software to allow sources to share files with them securely.

And yet further:

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the ... -freedoms/

So much of what has been reported today about this indictment has been false. Two facts in particular have been utterly distorted by the DOJ and then misreported by numerous media organizations.

The first crucial fact about the indictment is that its key allegation – that Assange did not merely receive classified documents from Chelsea Manning but tried to help her crack a password in order to cover her tracks – is not new. It was long known by the Obama DOJ and was explicitly part of Manning’s trial, yet the Obama DOJ – not exactly renowned for being stalwart guardians of press freedoms – concluded it could not and should not prosecute Assange because indicting him would pose serious threats to press freedom. In sum, today’s indictment contains no new evidence or facts about Assange’s actions; all of it has been known for years.

The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different user name so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As long-time Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “the factual allegations…boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identify of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

That’s why the indictment poses such a grave threat to press freedom. It characterizes as a felony many actions that journalists are not just permitted but required to take in order to conduct sensitive reporting in the digital age.

Wow.... you are really that stupid aren't you? Assange is -either literally or by proxy- a Russian intelligence asset and you are defending him. It is his information manipulation that has gotten much of the west into the internal shit it has right now, and he is a witness/fellow criminal on at least ONE US trial (Stone's to be specific)...

[Vympel]

The Swedish allegations are what he skipped bail on, which is the reason he was arrested and is presently being held. So yeah, they're actually pretty relevant to the matter at hand. The American extradition request at this point is pretty much piggybacking on top of his apprehension for absconding on his release which would still place him in custody even if the American's weren't at all interested in him.

They're not relevant in the slightest to what I'm talking about. This isn't a major controversy because of the Swedish allegations, it's a controversy because the US wants to extradite him on dubius grounds. This repeated 'but Sweden!' is a red herring to the issue of actual concern. No one is running around saying 'rape allegations in Sweden shouldn't be investigated'.

They aren't 'active' because the the investigation was suspended and the arrest warrant revoked for the stated reason that Rapey McRapeface managed to avoid being arrested for so long that they weren't able to actually complete the investigation. They also went on to state that the investigation (and charges) could be resumed as soon Swedish police managed to lay hands on Rapelstiltskin. Could in this case almost certainly means will be. It’s been less than two days since Rapey McRapeface was arrested, and it happened on a Thursday.

Can’t help but think that you phrased it that way to downplay the fact that he’s a rapist who should have been put on trial for all the raping he does several year ago.

I can't help but think you guys keep talking about rape allegations like it's the primary issue here and not his extradition to the US on dubious charges because it's easier to talk about rape charges against an unlikable, problematic man than deal with the patently authoritarian nature of the US charges, which numerous journalists and press freedom organisations have sounded the alarm about.

The idea that Assange has been ejected from the embassy because of the Swedish investigation or that this is somehow the primary issue here is patent bullshit and I'm not going to entertain that for one second. His extradition to the US is the primary concern, because that's what endangers press freedoms, and that's what the actual public discourse (some of which I quoted) is actually about. You want to talk about how he should go to Sweden? Knock yourself out but that's not what his extradition hearing is for. His potential extradition to the US is the problematic part of this case. Not Sweden.

Wow.... you are really that stupid aren't you? Assange is -either literally or by proxy- a Russian intelligence asset and you are defending him.

Prove he's a 'Russian intelligence asset'.

(also, I thought Trump was a traitor in hock to Moscow? Why is he seeking the extradition of a fellow intelligence asset? Oh yeah, because that theory was fucking stupid)

It is his information manipulation that has gotten much of the west into the internal shit it has right now, and he is a witness/fellow criminal on at least ONE US trial (Stone's to be specific)...

His 'information manipulation'? You mean publishing shit that embarasses powerful people? This is illegal now, is it? Also, go ahead and point out where in Roger Stone's indictment Julian Assange has any relevant involvement in what Stone is actually accused of doing.

But yeah, love watching the anti-Trump Resistance (TM) line up behind Trump's DOJ authoritarianism.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vymple: No one here is supporting Trump, American intelligence and law enforcement's pursuit of Assange and the reasons for it long predate Trump's "Presidency", and the US did not arrest him, nor was he arrested for anything to do with the US. He was arrested for skipping bail in a rape investigation, a crime which he factually committed and was found guilty of. His extradition or lack thereof will be determined by the British legal system (again, for the record, I am against it).

Your desperate Whataboutism attempts to say "No, the Resistance are the REAL Trumpers" are pathetic, offensive, and dishonest, as well as deeply hypocritical coming from a man who constantly echoes Trump's attacks on the free press and supports his narrative on Collusion and the Mueller probe pretty much lock step.

Stop lying. Or don't, its your call. But if you accuse me of supporting Trumpism, my next post will be a lot less polite.

[Vympel]

Vymple: No one here is supporting Trump, American intelligence and law enforcement's pursuit of Assange and the reasons for it long predate Trump's "Presidency", and the US did not arrest him, nor was he arrested for anything to do with the US. He was arrested for skipping bail in a rape investigation, a crime which he factually committed and was found guilty of. His extradition or lack thereof will be determined by the British legal system (again, for the record, I am against it).

This is baffling because basically all of it is either wrong or missing the point.

1. No, law enforcement's pursuit of Assange doesn't predate Trump's Presidency. The Obama DOJ pursued the idea about charging him but expressly decided against it because of the danger it poses to press freedom. The decision to pursue him comes entirely from the Trump DOJ.

2. That the US didn't arrest him is totally irrelevant. This isn't about the fact he was arrested or by whom. It's about that immediately after he was arrested, the US put in an extradition warrant for him based on dubious charges that numerous journalists and press freedom advocates have argued amount to the criminalistion of normal journalistic activities which could be used as a precedent to go after other, less unlikable people.

(EDIT: he was further arrested after his initial arrest, on that extradition warrant)

Those are the facts. That is the problem with this case. It is no answer to either of these issues to go:

"But he's a rapist!"

It's a total red herring. No one who has raised concerns about this is talking about rape.

Your desperate Whataboutism attempts to say "No, the Resistance are the REAL Trumpers" are pathetic, offensive, and dishonest, as well as deeply hypocritical coming from a man who constantly echoes Trump's attacks on the free press and supports his narrative on Collusion and the Mueller probe pretty much lock step.

There's nothing dishonest about it, you just think it is because you're totally ignorant of the actual facts of the case, i.e. your totally wrong claim that this extradition attempt isn't a product of the Trump administration's - and the Trump administration alone - decisions. So you're basically unwittingly throwing in your lot with Trump's DOJ.

Also, the 'free press' shovels absolute horsehsit all the time. They handed Trump a gift by selling a 3-year long spy novel fairy tale bunch of horseshit that fizzled out into fuck all, and apparently I'm to blame for pointing it out? It's my fault that there's no goddamn indictments about 'collusion', is it? It's my fault that Mueller didn't establish that any such thing occurred?

It's not an assault on press freedom to call them out and criticise them for telling bullshit stories and getting people's hopes up with ridiculous stories about how the President might be a Russian intelligence asset. It is an assault on press freedom to criminalise actions that are an assault on the core of how investigative journalism functions.

Stop lying. Or don't, its your call. But if you accuse me of supporting Trumpism, my next post will be a lot less polite.

Why don't you read literally any article about this so you're across the timeline and who the actual decision makers are?

[The Romulan Republic]

This is baffling because basically all of it is either wrong or missing the point.

1. No, law enforcement's pursuit of Assange doesn't predate Trump's Presidency. The Obama DOJ pursued the idea about charging him but expressly decided against it because of the danger it poses to press freedom. The decision to pursue him comes entirely from the Trump DOJ.

There were certainly elements of the American government that wanted to pursue Assange before Trump, but I acknowledge that he was not actually indicted by the Obama DOJ. It doesn't change the fact that there are reasons for indicting him that predate Trump, and that the cause of his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy, and of his initial arrest, has fuck-all to do with Trump so far as you or anyone else has established.

2. That the US didn't arrest him is totally irrelevant. This isn't about the fact he was arrested or by whom. It's about that immediately after he was arrested, the US put in an extradition warrant for him based on dubious charges that numerous journalists and press freedom advocates have argued amount to the criminalistion of normal journalistic activities which could be used as a precedent to go after other, less unlikable people.

Except you're seemingly trying to portray his arrest as a despotic act, and those who support his arrest as Trumpers. So yeah, it does matter that he was arrested by the UK for something that had nothing to do with the US or his "journalism", and that it was an entirely legitimate charge. You are trying to obfuscate, but that's the truth.

(EDIT: he was further arrested after his initial arrest, on that extradition warrant)

I presume that this is standard procedure if a country with which the UK has an extradition treaty requests an extradition? Whether he ultimately is extradited will be determined by the British legal system. For the record, as I have repeatedly stated and you have ignored, I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION TO THE US.

Those are the facts. That is the problem with this case. It is no answer to either of these issues to go:

"But he's a rapist!"

It's a total red herring. No one who has raised concerns about this is talking about rape.

Liar.

The initial reason for his arrest is directly related to the rape allegations, as is the reason he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the first place. And that is certainly a topic of discussion for everyone here who isn't one of his apologists. Allegations you continue to try to downplay. I won't say that he is definitely a rapist, but he is a suspected/accused/possible rapist, and that should be investigated thoroughly.

Is "the women must be lying" really the hill you want to die on here?

There's nothing dishonest about it, you just think it is because you're totally ignorant of the actual facts of the case, i.e. your totally wrong claim that this extradition attempt isn't a product of the Trump administration's - and the Trump administration alone - decisions. So you're basically unwittingly throwing in your lot with Trump's DOJ.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXTRADITION OF ASSANGE TO THE UNITED STATES, YOU PUTINIST LIAR.

Seriously. Quote me supporting the extradition of Assange to the US, now, or concede.

Also, the 'free press' shovels absolute horsehsit all the time. They handed Trump a gift by selling a 3-year long spy novel fairy tale bunch of horseshit that fizzled out into fuck all, and apparently I'm to blame for pointing it out? It's my fault that there's no goddamn indictments about 'collusion', is it? It's my fault that Mueller didn't establish that any such thing occurred?

Don't try to derail the thread so you can keep repeating the Barr line. You want to talk Mueller, make a new thread.

But since you bring it up: Collusion happened. We know it because Trump and others admitted to it and discussed it in communications which are public fucking record. Mueller may not have been able to prove anything that would amount to a criminal conspiracy- but that is not a vindication of Trump, so much as a damning indictment of the inadequacy of US law.

It's not an assault on press freedom to call them out and criticise them for telling bullshit stories and getting people's hopes up with ridiculous stories about how the President might be a Russian intelligence asset. It is an assault on press freedom to criminalise actions that are an assault on the core of how investigative journalism functions.

I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE's EXTRADITION TO THE US.

Why don't you read literally any article about this so you're across the timeline and who the actual decision makers are?

Coming to a different conclusion than you is not the same as ignorance. But when unprincipled cowards can't justify their position on facts, they resort to personal smears.

[Vympel]

There were certainly elements of the American government that wanted to pursue Assange before Trump, but I acknowledge that he was not actually indicted by the Obama DOJ. It doesn't change the fact that there are reasons for indicting him that predate Trump, and that the cause of his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy, and of his initial arrest, has fuck-all to do with Trump so far as you or anyone else has established.

If only literally anything about the reasons this case is problematic turned on the particulars of his arrest. Which it doesn't.

Except you're seemingly trying to portray his arrest as a despotic act, and those who support his arrest as Trumpers. So yeah, it does matter that he was arrested by the UK for something that had nothing to do with the US or his "journalism", and that it was an entirely legitimate charge. You are trying to obfuscate, but that's the truth.

His extradition is a despotic act. His arrest by the UK in relation thereto is enabling it. It's a totally irrelevant distinction. Anyone who supports his extradition is carrying water for Trump. Is that clear enough?

I presume that this is standard procedure if a country with which the UK has an extradition treaty requests an extradition? Whether he ultimately is extradited will be determined by the British legal system. For the record, as I have repeatedly stated and you have ignored, I DO NOT SUPPORT ASSANGE'S EXTRADITION TO THE US.

Then why the fuck do you insist on arguing with me and telling outright lies about what I'm saying? As you do right here:

Liar.

The initial reason for his arrest is directly related to the rape allegations, as is the reason he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the first place.

Can you fucking read? This is infuriating. Here's what I said:

No one who has raised concerns about this is talking about rape.

What part of this is fucking unclear to you? The people who have raised concerns about Assange's extradition to the fucking United States are not talking about rape!

So your above comment is off-topic nonsense. It's like you're deliberately distorting everything I fucking say. It's a fucking outrageous level of bad faith.

And that is certainly a topic of discussion for everyone here who isn't one of his apologists. Allegations you continue to try to downplay. I won't say that he is definitely a rapist, but he is a suspected/accused/possible rapist, and that should be investigated thoroughly.

Is "the women must be lying" really the hill you want to die on here?

What the fuck?

Where the fuck did I say anything about "the women must be lying"? I'm 'downplaying' nothing. It. Is. Not. Relevant. To. His. EXTRADITION.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXTRADITION OF ASSANGE TO THE UNITED STATES, YOU PUTINIST LIAR.

Oh go fuck yourself TRR. Nothing we're talking about has anything to do with Putin, your "Putinist" smear is just engaging in your typical hysterical horseshit.

Seriously. Quote me supporting the extradition of Assange to the US, now, or concede.

Quote me saying Assange's accusers are lying, or concede.

Don't try to derail the thread so you can keep repeating the Barr line. You want to talk Mueller, make a new thread.

But since you bring it up:

ROFL YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP! Apropos of nothing. Here, here's you, bringing it up:

coming from a man who constantly echoes Trump's attacks on the free press and supports his narrative on Collusion and the Mueller probe pretty much lock step.

Do you not remember what you post?

Collusion happened. We know it because Trump and others admitted to it and discussed it in communications which are public fucking record.

LOL, no they didn't. This is fantasy.

Mueller may not have been able to prove anything that would amount to a criminal conspiracy- but that is not a vindication of Trump, so much as a damning indictment of the inadequacy of US law.

LOL. "Collusion happened" but it's the US legal system's fault* they couldn't charge on any of it. What an amazing rationalization.

*I guess because it's too concerned about, you know, actual evidence.

Coming to a different conclusion than you is not the same as ignorance. But when unprincipled cowards can't justify their position on facts, they resort to personal smears.

You really have no sense of self-awareness at all, do you? How many flagrantly off-topic smears have you employed in this argument so far?

This is the most ridiculous display I've seen in a long time. From the start, my post has been about how the US pursuit of him is authoritarian and a threat to press freedom. You come in with all this totally irrelevant-to-his-extradition horseshit about the Sweden allegations, and instead of just admitting that's not what I'm talking about at all, use that as a tool to launch flagrantly dishonest attacks alleging I'm engaging in disbelief of rape accusers.

It's some fucking heinous shit. And you wonder why, when confronted with this, I conclude you're actually trying to provide cover for his extradition? Yeah a real mystery, that!

[Ralin]

So Vympel, simple yes or no question. Do you think Assange should have been arrested for violating his bail? Do you think he should remain under arrest and be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together and reopen their investigation?

[Vympel]

So Vympel, simple yes or no question. Do you think Assange should have been arrested for violating his bail?

Bail-jumping is a minor crime, so why not? It's of no great consequence or wider importance.

Do you think he should remain under arrest and be extradited to Sweden once the prosecutors there get their act together and reopen their investigation?

Why the hell not? It's extradition to the US that is the issue, not Sweden.

[Ralin]

Bail-jumping is a minor crime, so why not? It's of no great consequence or wider importance.

So that's a yes?

[Vympel]

So that's a yes?

Are you having difficulty interpreting that statement as something other than a yes? Do people often say "why not" as a no?

[Ralin]

Are you having difficulty interpreting that statement as something other than a yes? Do people often say "why not" as a no?

Are we going to answer each other's questions with questions all night?

[Vympel]

Are we going to answer each other's questions with questions all night?

Only if you think this is an episode of Law and Order. You can't seriously be telling me I'm somehow being ambiguous. They're both clearly affirmative answers.

[K. A. Pital]

There were certainly elements of the American government that wanted to pursue Assange before Trump, but I acknowledge that he was not actually indicted by the Obama DOJ. It doesn't change the fact that there are reasons for indicting him that predate Trump, and that the cause of his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy, and of his initial arrest, has fuck-all to do with Trump so far as you or anyone else has established.

Then try to stay consistent. And "elements of the American government" who wanted to pursue Assange weren't the ones you in your right mind would want to associate with, or?

"There are reasons"? Are you now declaring "truths" on behalf of a country, TRR?

[Elfdart]

Outside of being a mod, there is no evidence whatsoever that Julian Assange "worked with Russian intelligence", either knowingly or unknowingly. The evidence free assertions of US national security state apparatchiks are worth no more than the assertions of any other state security service - i.e. very little.

Wikileaks released some pretty damning evidence that Putin was personally neck deep in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, so the very idea that they are somehow in bed with Teh Rooskieeeeez is so mind-numbingly stupid that one can't help but wonder how the nutjobs advancing this conspiracy theory can shit unassisted. It's like accusing Woodward & Bernstein of being agents for the Nixon White House!