

Julian Assange's backers ordered to pay up sureties - comm_it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19868355

======
AndrewDucker
As you'd expect. They covered his bail, and it's payable if he flees, which he
did.

I can't see how they could have an expectation of anything different.

~~~
bdfh42
Shame they did not spot the chap was a cad before they risked their money.

~~~
mike-cardwell
You're assuming they are unhappy with the situation

~~~
objclxt
...you'd assume so, otherwise they wouldn't have applied to the court to try
and get their money back.

~~~
mike-cardwell
Answer this: Why would they apply to get their money back, knowing full well
that they wouldn't? What would be a reasonable explanation for this action?

------
bobsy
Why do people still support Assange?

1\. He is facing sexual assault charges which he needs to answer.

2\. He seems a bit crazed worrying about a massive conspiracy theory. He
believes that US is the puppet master behind the Swedish charges. I might be
wrong but he seems to think the US has pressured Sweden into getting some sex
charges against him so they can then extradite him. This seems strange
considering that the UK has deported a number of people to the states. People
like the TVShack guy or the terror suspect sent a few days ago who hasn't been
to states. The later hosted a website on a US server - has never visited the
country.

3\. He probably does need to face some action regarding his handling of the US
cables. He started off doing something which I don't think was terribly wrong.
He shone a light on the US behind the scenes in a controlled and sensible way.
Then... he released all the cables unredacted endangering countless lives
around the world. I don't know if this breaks any laws but I think he needs to
be investigated for it.

I think the backers made a mistake backing him. I think him taking flight
shows what kind of person he really is. By going to the Ecuador embassy he has
traded a trial in Sweden for a comfy prison in London leaving backers
thousands of pounds out of pocket.

~~~
spindritf
> He is facing sexual assault charges

No, he is not, he's wanted for "questioning", no charges have been filed. And
extradition for questioning, on allegations that seem very flimsy, is
excessive to the point of making me doubt prosecutors' honesty.

All the weird things that happened around TPB trial before (chief investigator
getting employed by the plaintiffs, judge being a member of pro-copyright
association, another judge with speaking appointments for a different pro-
copyright organization) don't help the way I view the Swedish justice system.

I'm no fan of Wikileaks, they have lost their way a long time ago and I don't
think revealing the cables, or the video was particularly noble or furthered
any noble causes. But it's also pretty clear to me that the guy is not being
treated fairly, and probably won't be once extradited.

~~~
dagw
_no charges have been filed_

That's just an artifact of the terminology used by the Swedish legal system.
Charges cannot be filed in absentia in Sweden. The act of formally charging
someone comes after questioning and must be done with the person present.

~~~
spindritf
That is true but they could've questioned him in England, or even in the
Ecuadorian embassy. They have questioned people outside of Sweden in other
cases. It's the prosecutors "opinion" that he needs to be present in Sweden.

~~~
dagw
He isn't wanted simply for questioning in the US sense of the word. He's
wanted for arrest and formal charging, it just so happens that in Sweden the
step that must happen before that in the standard procedure is called
'questioning'. Do the police from one country even have authority to formally
charge and arrest someone on foreign soil, let alone in the embassy of third
of a nation while on foreign soil? Can you link to one of these other cases
where that is happened?

