
Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach - ssorc
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48118908
======
yasp
Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to
the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of
events.

> _If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not
> simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is
> the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?_

> _Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations
> deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within
> limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare
> the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the
> Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the
> evidence and prepare the charges._

> _So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest
> warrant?_

> _Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was
> merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make
> clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest
> intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs
> who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish
> whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind
> trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid._

> _[...]_

[1] [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-
is-...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-
swedish-warrant/)

~~~
_petronius
This whole "if the accusation is real then why hasn't he been charged?"
pseudo-fact relies on a rather stubborn misunderstanding of the difference
between the Swedish legal system and the UK one. Assange can't be "charged" in
the sense that the Anglosphere thinks of it until he is physically present for
trail; that doesn't mean that the charges haven't been put to him or that
Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation.

Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it
misleading or outright false.

See:

1\. (2012) [https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-
mytho...](https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-
extradition-julian-assange)

2\. (2019)
[https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/11165977611288453...](https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1116597761128845312)

~~~
leereeves
> that Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation.

Ecuador started arranging for him to leave the embassy at least five months
ago.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-
says-u...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/06/ecuador-says-uk-has-
given-guarantees-for-assange-to-leave-embassy)

Why didn't Sweden have an extradition request ready? They had at least five
months to prepare one.

~~~
_petronius
Because Ecuador warned the US they would be kicking him out of the embassy,
but did not warn Sweden. I don't think that is in doubt at all.

The US does not need Sweden's involvement to extradite and try Assange. The
rape charges are separate and irrelevant to the charges he faces in the US,
and whether the UK would even grant his extradition to the US is not a sure
thing.

These two cases are unrelated, and the only reason they have been conflated is
a concerted effort on the part of Assange supporters to discredit the
accusations of sexual misconduct by lumping them in with his WikiLeaks
activities and make up a whole lot of guff about CIA plots rather than just
accept that he should face the criminal justice procedure for some shitty
personal behaviour on his part.

~~~
leereeves
> Ecuador warned the US they would be kicking him out of the embassy, but did
> not warn Sweden

Ecuador hardly needed to notify Sweden. It was international news. The
Guardian article from five months ago that I linked was just one of many. "No
one in the Swedish government reads international news" is not a credible
explanation.

I see two possible explanations:

1) Sweden doesn't place a high priority on prosecuting famous accused rapists
who've escaped justice for years, or

2) Sweden doesn't consider Assange a famous accused rapist who's escaped
justice for years.

~~~
_petronius
I don't think either of your "possible explanations" are borne out by the
evidence, but then there are a dozen other explanations that are both more
plausible, and whose truth-potential is not dependent on whether they make
sense to you personally.

~~~
leereeves
If the tweets you link are to be believed, we don't have to guess. Apparently
no one in the prosecutor's office reads the news.

I don't find that believable, but whatever.

~~~
9935c101ab17a66
I'm not sure why you place so much importance on this seemingly small detail
that, as far as I can tell, doesn't really have a broader contextual impact.
That being said, without knowing more about the situation, it's completely
believable that the prosecutor's office would not initiate legal action based
on rumours in the news, especially since there have been so many rumours and
predictions around what the Ecuadorian embassy intends to do with Assange and
when they intend to do it.

It really does look to me like you are grasping at straws, but maybe I've
missed something.

~~~
leereeves
Why would you assume I'm "grasping" for anything, or that I'm defending
Assange? Questioning the official story is not equivalent to being a fan.

I just realize Assange is a high-value target for political and legal attacks
(including false allegations), so I think people who unquestioningly believe
what they hear about him from official sources are naive. Haven't we all seen
enough to know that governments and the media don't always tell the truth?

And when Sweden cracked down on The Pirate Bay we saw that the Swedish
government is not immune to pressure from Washington.

All I'm saying is: wait for conclusive proof before leaping to conclusions.

------
Tycho
What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who
seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear
campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when
they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a
big-time _persona non grata_ of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at
face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the
second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest
in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare
more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty
tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots
lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.

~~~
ChrisSD
He provably skipped bail.

EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be
considered by anyone to be a "technicality".

~~~
roenxi
That is true, but he was hiding in an embassy for the best part of a decade.
That isn't a scheme to avoid 50 months in jail.

The jail sentence for skipping bail is the reasonable part of the whole story.
No question that it was about as bad a case of bail-skipping as could be
imagined.

The issue is more one of why exactly is the justice system involving itself in
his business. He didn't think he'd committed a crime in Sweden. His 'victims'
didn't think he needed to be arrested. The police didn't think he needed to be
arrested at the time either. The word 'rape' seems to be something of a
mistranslation on this one.

I gather (from Wikipedia) that he maintained he had consensual sex [0], so
it's going to be interesting, if he does get to Sweden before the US grabs
him, what actual evidence is involved.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Complaints_and_initial_investigation)

------
sschueller
While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper
medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on
London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-
Masri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case)

~~~
netcan
There may not _be_ and extradition case. It doesn't seem like Sweden is still
keen, and on balance, the US mightn't want him either at this point.

It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube
reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of
contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let
it go.

~~~
wybiral
> The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50
> times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight.
> It could be more convenient to let it go.

But America isn't a dictatorship so the decision isn't exactly up to him.
There's a whole legal system operating under their own framework that the
president doesn't have much control over.

~~~
roywiggins
He can always issue a pardon, which would end the entire thing.

~~~
michaelcampbell
Thanks; today I learned the US President can pardon a non-US-citizen. Your
post made me go look it up. I would never have thought...

~~~
roywiggins
The President can pardon all crimes against the United States- the citizenship
of the perpetrator doesn't come into it.

~~~
wybiral
Only federal crimes though, so if a state picked up any charges against him
the president can't do much about it.

~~~
astine
US States can't request extradition though because they can't maintain
diplomatic relations internationally.

------
inflatableDodo
Senator Joe Manchin explaining Assange's arrest, and some interesting ideas on
property;

>"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf.

>So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be
really good to get him back on United States soil.

>He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him."

[https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...](https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/1)

~~~
return1
get him back?

~~~
walshemj
Get him back [to the usa] - is implied

~~~
return1
he was in the USA?

------
sneak
> _Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in
> 2015 because time had run out._

I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to
that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is
factually inaccurate.

------
dleslie
I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players
recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to
see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political
posturing.

~~~
duxup
I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous
good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by
Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.

~~~
goodfight
Name one unbiased news source. We are in the age of information wars.

~~~
duxup
Crafting things to form their own narratives isn't bias, it is a choice.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Name one thing Wikileaks has posted that isn’t true, please, for citation on
your claim.

~~~
duxup
Their own tweets about what they're going to release and their actual actions,
their own characterization of the information, their choices not to release
some information.

I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when
choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence
what is "true".

Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I
killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing
so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't
true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.

------
NoblePublius
It’s not civil disobedience without accepting the consequences of one’s
actions.

~~~
kdtsh
Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily require rolling over when a power
you’re standing against assets itself. He can maintain his legal innocence and
moral standing if he wants to.

I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but
I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.

~~~
NoblePublius
It literally requires that. It’s what the “civil” part of the term means.
Otherwise it’s just disobedience. Go read Letter From An Alabama Jail.

~~~
kdtsh
It’s very debatable that that’s what the ‘civil’ means. Frankly, the term is
ambiguous, and really that ambiguity seems to be intentional - it can mean
many different things to many different people. I haven’t read Letter From An
Alabama Jail, but a person’s civil disobedience doesn’t stop being civil
disobedience because they don’t follow MLK’s formula.

------
guitarbill
> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost
> taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added.

Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's
continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).

~~~
Veen
You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not
cost £16m?

~~~
guitarbill
To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is
ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest
warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.

~~~
foldr
Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail?

I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away
with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I
don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.

~~~
guitarbill
I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of
them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them.

People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been
arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not,
probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police
operation and pandering to US relations.

[0]
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&)

~~~
foldr
>I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of
them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them.

So? It's only to be expected that more money will be spent on enforcing the
law when it's being flagrantly violated in the public eye.

I think in reality you object to any attempt to hold Assange to account for
skipping bail, and you'd be no happier if only, say, £10,000 had been spent in
attempting to do so. If you don't object to the law being enforced, I don't
think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent. It's up to
the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially
speaking.

The UN finding was daft, as Assange was not detained at all, and hence
obviously not arbitrarily detained. If you look into that in more detail,
you'll find a dissenting view by one member of the relevant panel - presumably
the only person with his or her head screwed on:

> The finding in Assange’s case is a surprising one. As a dissent by the
> working group’s Ukrainian member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, points out, there is
> a thin basis upon which to argue that Assange is detained in the Ecuadorean
> embassy. “Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the
> premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest,”
> Tochilovsky wrote. “Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the
> places where they evade arrest and detention.”

~~~
effie
> _" I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being
> spent."_

If you are UK taxpayer, you can.

> _" It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough,
> financially speaking."_ It is, but when they spend more than seems
> appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives
> pop up.

~~~
foldr
Skipping bail is a serious offense. The criminal justice system would collapse
if people were routinely able to skip bail without consequences. This point is
especially pertinent when the person who skips bail is in the public eye and
everyone can see him getting away with it.

As a UK taxpayer myself, I'm happy to see the rule of law eventually prevail
in this instance. It strikes me as stingy and short-sighted to value that
outcome at less than a few million pounds.

> It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then
> questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.

Not really. I'd use the Madeline McCann case as a comparison. Millions of
pounds of public money were spent looking for one missing girl who was (sadly)
quite unlikely to be alive. You can question whether that's money well spent.
But it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain why large amounts of money
sometimes get spent investigating cases that are extensively covered in the
news.

~~~
miemo
if a country charges a man with sleeping with another man, one which carries a
potential death sentence, and after bail he claims asylum in the west, would
you consider his skipping bail a perversion of justice?

~~~
foldr
It's not a possible scenario, since there are at least two reasons why a
European Arrest Warrant couldn't be issued in those circumstances.

(i) An EAW can only be issued for something that's a crime in the country that
issues it.

(ii) European countries can't extradite people who would face the death
penalty on conviction.

------
sneak
Reminder:

(the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.)

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://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-
goe...](https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-
on-rape-allegations/8099276)

~~~
contingencies
See also
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013)

------
wolco
This gives the US a year.

