Assange Arrested

It really doesn’t here. The issue is whether or not you believe Assange should be punished, and effectively sentenced to death for publishing truthful information. His character has absolutely ■■■■ all to do with it, in fact, his character is used by people like you to to assuage your own misgivings on his treatment - “well, he’s a dirty, narcissistic, rapey scumbag who smears feces on walls and doesn’t look after his kitty”, this is the character assassination that the MSM have dished out to Assange for the past half a decade because they are trying to dehumanise and desensitise the horrors that are being administered to him.

Should Assange be effectively sentenced to death for publishing the truth? That’s the only issue.


I’m going to return to this but why do you think Seth Rich is a conspiracy theory? You do realise that the forensic evidence points to the data transfer being done locally and not the hack theory that so many espouse.

This is the opinion of Bill Binney and Ray McGovern, two VIPS members and former intel officers, Binney in particular being one of the most decorated NSA employees. Assange himself states that his source was not Russia and that he is sure there was a hack of the DNC servers by Russia but that it isn’t his source.

1 Like

He broke the Law and I believe in the rule of Law. There is a lot of things to happen before Jules gets to USA, and while they do have a farking crazy President, they do have Laws and Jules will get his day in Court being defended by the best on offer.

I find it hard to believe you think he will be murdered.

You’re hilarious.

  1. What effing law(s) has he broken?
  2. You say you believe in the ‘rule of law’ that’s hilarious because UK/Sweden/Ecuador/U.S have trampled and disregarded a dozen laws, domestic and international on their treatment of Assange. It’s OK if the State breaks the law - is that the way of it?
  3. As I said in (2) - you think the U.S gives a ■■■■ about the ‘rule of law’? He is going to be tried in the Espionage court (EDVA), no one has ever successfully defended themselves. Take it from John Kiriakou, a former CIA whistle blower who was convicted of leaking CIA torture programs. IF Assange is extradited to the U.S, he will never see the light of day unless there are mass protests.
1 Like

Are you serious ? He aided and abetted the bloke/sheila who hacked and stole confidential information about all sorts of things.

Jules alleged commits a crime in Sweden, but before he can be arrested, he flees to UK, then breaks bail and hides in the Ecuador Embassy for seven years, until he ■■■■■■ them off and his cat shat on the carpet. USA has asked for extradition and it will get tested in an UK Court. you are just very paranoid.

USA have Laws and he will get a trial, unlike if he was charged in Russia, China or North Korea.

Kiriakou pleaded guilty and served 24 months jail. He broke the farking Law, and got time for the crime. More paranoid stuff from you.

I’m dead serious. How did Assange “aid and abet” Manning? How? Have you actually read the indictment because it seems as though you’re parroting the Trump DOJ. Assange was trying to secure Manning’s anonymity by trying to get her to log in as an administrator and not under her User ID - she already had top security access to get all the information she needed. What Assange does there is run of the mill investigative journalist stuff - it would have been a dereliction of his duty not to try and further safeguard Manning’s identity.

Wrong again. He was allowed to leave Sweden because the original chief prosecutor - Eva Finne, dropped the case and said “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape”. Assange stayed in Sweden for 5 weeks! He left to go to the UK and it was only after that a second prosecutor reopened the case (based on no new evidence) and issued a Euro arrest warrant which was fought in the UK courts until he lost at the Supreme Court. He fought this in the UK courts because Sweden never gave him assurances that he wouldn’t be extradited to the U.S. When he lost his final appeal to the UK Supreme Court, he then sought to seek asylum at the Ecuador embassy - do you think Ecuador just gives out political asylum status to any random off the street? Engage your brain. Asylum was always based on the risk that Assange would be a political prisoner in the U.S with the potential to receive cruel and inhuman punishment.

USA have laws…lol and they have repeatedly shown they are willing to trample all over them! Do you even know the details with Kiriakou? He wasn’t even allowed to mount a defence ffs! All the material needed to defend himself was classified, the Judge would not allow any declassification to mount any sort of defence so he had no choice!

That’s such a dogmatic, dishonest way of looking at this. When those who reveal criminal activity are punished and the people who break the law are walking around freely - well that’s when you know we’re ruled by criminals.


In part because Fox admitted they made it up.

Partly because Assange was still talking with his source after Rich was dead.

Partly because the intel services of multiple nations, not just the US, came to the conclusion it was Russia. There was contention within VIPS about B & M’s conclusions about the metadata.

Partly because the DOJ and intel services led by Trump partisans who would be motivated to pursue it are not. Though I don’t believe everything is about partisan affiliation anyway.

Partly because even if she wasn’t the best candidate I have seen I don’t think she’d have a DNC staffer killed.

Partly because it was brought to us by the team that thought Hillary was also running a child sex den out of a basement that doesn’t exist.

I shouldn’t have to state the obvious but since there seems to be confusion here we go.

I don’t think he should die. Making me type that is silly, but if you have been reading my posts thinking that then let’s put it to bed. We should make a t-shirt to commemorate the moment.

I don’t want him to be mistreated. Another t-shirt.

I’m entirely up in the air about about the US charges, particularly the new charges. I don’t have the definitive opinion you think I do there.

Neither do I have a definitive “he is guilty” opinion on the Swedish charges, if that is also not clear. I have Miss Gibbons about them, if I may play with your more sensible word? Plenty of sympathy for the questions raised about that process by you and others.

But I am not going to jump immediately from Miss Gibbons to Mr Gibbons. To assuming the legal and political systems of four generally well run countries (US, UK, Sweden, Australia) are, at multiple levels, so broken as to be operating as a kind of criminal cartel. Also Ecuador if we include the expulsion from the embassy.

Speaking of which, going into the Ecuadorian Embassy was his choice and his mistake. I think he failed Wikileaks in making that decision. That was a character moment.

So to re-iterate. To be the despised Queen of the Harpies. I think character does matter. It will always matter. It impacts everything we do in life, it certainly will in the kind of life Assange has led and in the decisions he will have had to make along the way. I’m surprised that rather banal assertion triggers a reaction. I would expect it to be ignored as the forum equivalent of a linoleum floor in a hospital. I think statements to the contrary are purely convenience. But again to be clear that is also entirely separate to whether I think he should be charged. You also shouldn’t worry yourself over what I think, as I am entirely inconsequential in this and most matters. I’m a potato reading an upside down book in a field full of flowers, drinking Jovian sun spots and remembering Mrs Gibbons.

Assange is a DH, but he’s an Australian DH who is entitled to the support of the Australian government. Even David Hicks got more support than J Assange has. If they can arbitrarily cut a citizen off because he/she is ‘difficult’ then what is there to stop the government from abandoning any Australian citizen?


Think the Government has stated that he will get the same support as everyone else, whatever that may mean.

David Hicks father generated a groundswell of sympathy for Hicks in Australia and the stars were also aligned in his case - the Brits had successfully challenged the US legal system to get some of their people out; the US did not want an Australian challenge and were trying to get Western citizens out of Guantanamo. However , their price was that Hicks should do time in Australia. The only problem was that Hicks had not committed a crime under Australian law. Eventually some sort of deal was arranged.
Assange does not generate the same support in Australia ( although it is big among the US press, the Australian journos are not active) Australia is about to extradite an Iranian to the US and is careful not to antagonise our great and powerful friend across the water.
The best that Assange can expect from Australia is standard consular support that he receives his full rights as a prisoner under various international conventions and that he is regularly visited by consular officials. This is usually done by some poor sod at junior consular level and is unlikely to involve the High Commissioner/ Ambassador.

It means fark all.


Neither has Assange AFAIK? Remember Gillard was pushing to strip Assange of his citizenship in her eagerness to please her U.S puppet masters but she was swiftly rebuked as this would have been highly illegal.

I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of Australian’s who are quite sympathetic to Assange’s plight - his father John Shipton recently appeared on 60 Minutes, beseeching the public to do what they could to help his son. The results of that poll surveyed showed around 85% being in favour of Assange returning home.

Is that first sentence based on you knowing something? Because the best Assange can expect would be direct intervention from the PM or the High Commissioner, appealing to his/her UK and U.S counterparts as Bob Carr recently noted in the Guardian.

Question - why is it that Assange is currently at the supermax prison Belmarsh which is reserved for extremely dangerous criminals i.e. murders for merely ‘skipping bail’? That goes directly against the principle of proportionality no?


How do you come to that conclusion? I’m curious.

The mistake part I assume? Rather than the choice.

In unfairly simple nerd terms because Star Trek II is better than Star Trek III. Or in terms of the movie worth watching because Spock is the hero, not Khan.

In still unfairly simple but more clear (perhaps more clearly annoying) terms I think he used Wikileaks as a shield rather than being a shield for Wikileaks.

I think that to, as much as possible, separate questions over Julian Assange from questions over Wikileaks he needed to go to Sweden. That Sweden was the place to see those charges through. I fundamentally do not like that he didn’t, regardless of the merits of those charges.

If the US then made its move as he said they would then that would be the place to confront that.

I understand that he was faced with what he would consider an ugly choice.

As to the first point, the US wanted to get Hicks off their hands and send him back to Australia ( as the Brits did with their citizens) . The sticking point in the deal was that there appeared to be a requirement that Hicks undergo some sort of sentence in Australia. The complication was that Hicks could not be charged and sentenced under Australian law. In the end Hicks voluntarily agreed to some sort of non custodial restrictions for a fixed term.
It had nothing to do with an extradition treaty, which, in the case of Assange, involves UK law…
AND the US wants Asange and to charge him under US law.
There is little to no precedent for Assange in regard to Hicks treatment. And the Australian journalists seem to be sitting on their hands. Whether you like it or not, Assange’s greatest support is in the US and Greg Barns here is pretty much a voice in the wilderness.
Australia takes the general position that - other than in exceptional circumstances ( as in the Bali death sentences) - it will not become involved when Australians commit crimes abroad other than to offer standard consular support. That is what the Australian Government is saying on the public record so far about Assange - meaning that an Australian consular official will be assigned to ensure that his rights under the law of that country are respected.
There is a strong case to be made that Australia should seek to join the UK legal extradition proceedings as an interested third party, to ensure that the UK upholds the letter of the law.


You think it’s noble to willingly subject yourself to a corrupt system that you have absolutely no faith in?

It’s not what I’d call it.

And maybe you are right. Though neither Sweden nor the UK are Saudi Arabia.

It would have eliminated whatever remaining possibility there was that he was just another guy leveraging what power, influence, or friends he had to avoid accusations of sexual misconduct.

I do agree that Australia should be a much louder presence in the process, given the stakes with the Trump admin bringing forward charges. I think that is essential.

No, Sweden isn’t Saudi Arabia.

I guess you either believe the Sweden charges were trumped up to give the US access to him or you don’t.


There was a story going round that Assange wanted to avoid being subject to Sweden’s relatively permissive extradition treaty arrangements with the US.
There is also a story going round that the fresh and extensive US charges against Assange were necessarily declared by a specified date, after the UK rejected a request to invoke a waiver under the extradition treaty - to the effect that the US did not need to specify all charges.
So, now that the charges involve significant issues in the US, Assange is attracting political as well as media support.
However, in Australia and the UK he is unlikely to be forgiven in political circles for publishing Five Eyes material owned by them and for compromising the lives of their spooks.