News: 1585160107

And that, in a nutshell, is Assange.

A parasite.

Keep him in jail.

For his own safety, of course.

Hmmm.

He absconded from Sweden before they could arrest him, then fled to the Embassy when his appeals failed and now wants out?

Hmmm what's the odds he would do a runner?

I think the last paragraph is a bit harsh. I also think Assange is a nob but he shouldn't get extradited as the stated aim of wikileaks is needed these days because no one in the main stream media dares to challenge those in power anymore.

I also think Assange is a nob

why ? Do you know him ? If it's only because it has been repeated over-and-over by some media, don't you think it could be an organised smear campaign ? Did he get the chance to tell his version of the story ? Actually, what IS the story about (the rape thing was bogus from the start and the Swedes dropped it anyway) ?

Insulting someone should at minimum bear some justification.

He shit on his mates that put up money for his bail for a start. Would you trust him?

Then because he is a coward he imposed his own prison sentence instead of proving his innocence.

Extradite him. NOW. Wikileaks will surive without him. Well it has done so far hasn't it?

Cheers… Ishy

That's not how justice works. I agree he should have to prove his innocence (or be found guilty) for the other crimes. It's a real slippery slope getting justice by other means.

Also I know he isn't wikileaks but get with the program, this is all about setting an example to other people who won't even consider helping whistle blowers. It's called fear and it should not be used by governments on the people.

No, he does not have to prove his innocence. That is assumed until proven otherwise.

I am afraid he does have to prove his innosence in this case. He is being made an example of - to stop other whistle blowers. In any event, innocent or not - he is going down.

Prove his own innocence?

Wow. You'd think if he was innocent he would has stayed in Sweden and faced his accusers. Instead he did a runner with the help of his lawyer who probably figured it would blow over and he'd be forgotten. Only he didn't count on how much of a prat Julian really was.

The only people who see Julian as a martyr are the same boys and girls who live in their parent's basement and believe all of the boogeyman conspiracy theories out on the internet.

This was never about Wikileaks. The US want him because there's allegedly evidence that he helped Manning with the theft. This was produced at Manning's Article 32 hearing, however during the trial, Manning plead guilty to those counts so that the evidence never came to see the light of day at trial.

This has nothing to do with the distribution of the material. The Ellsberg SCOTUS decision already set a high bar for that and the US DoJ isn't going to risk raising it further.

The "prove your own innocence" is the term used by the person I was replying to. Please try to keep up I know it's difficult when there are multiple comments but it really isn't that difficult. As for Sweden the whole case was questionable however I agree he should have stayed and faced whatever the court and jury decided. The US want him to make an example the same as they always do, maybe they could make an example of the killer that fled the UK or is justice a one way street?

Sweden has an inquisitorial justice system, not an adversarial one.

Therefore, there is no jury. The guilt of the accused is assessed by the magistrates who judge the case. As Sweden's magistrates are politically appointed, it has a well deserved reputation for its courts being anything but impartial when the case in question has political ramifications. What they did to the founders of The Pirate Bay is an excellent example of the problem.

Sweden is also known for happily handing over two "persons of interest" to the CIA for rendition to a black prison, regardless of the fact that the two people had Swedish citizenship. No courts were involved in the process.

Having been set up by two young women who are lifelong members of the social democrat party here in Sweden and seeing that the two girls would be represented by a friendly lawyer who is a senior member of the same party, I think Assange had every right to fear that he would be handed over to the USA without so much as a word if he stayed in Sweden.

" He shit on his mates ... Would you trust him? ... he is a coward "

you are a clueless moron (why would it be important whether I trust him or not ? Trust him for what ?) who accuses without proof. No wonder you had been banned from ElReg.

There's not been much in the media about the trial so you might be forgiven for thinking it's just another day; the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute clearly thinks there's something very wrong with the treatment of the accused and the way the trial is being conducted - https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=c05c57ee-1fee-47dc-99f9-26824208a750. I suggest you read Craig Murray's recent articles as an honourable journalist actually present in court - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

..don't you think it could be an organised smear campaign ?

or it could be an organised PR campaign on the part of team Assange. On which point, from the article-

..which is obviously highly dangerous for someone who is susceptible."

Not obvious to me why Assange would be any more susceptible to Covd than any other prisoner. Or if his current isolation arrangements might be safer than those on the outside. But seems like a variation on the previous claim that being in prison meant he was being denied medical treatment. Weinstein's had heart surgery, and now apparently Covid, and is being treated..

Did he get the chance to tell his version of the story ?

As the Eye would say, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. There have been news & magazine articles, books, movies, statues.. He's told many versions of his story.

When has Wikileaks EVER challenged Trump? You can claim they were all about challenging those in power before Trump became president, repeatedly posting leaks from inside the US government and then the DNC and Clinton's campaign.

The mainstream media has done plenty to "challenge those in power" as far as Trump goes, they are constantly digging up more malfeasance, to the point that people have just become numb to it. Maybe you think they could do more, but Wikileaks sure isn't going to lead the charge there.

Despite all the stuff the NYT, WSJ, Wapo etc. have found or had leaked to them, Wikileaks has been utterly silent when it comes to releasing any information that makes Trump or his administration look bad. If you think they are a neutral "against all those in power" player you are living in a fantasy world.

I guess they feel they're not needed at the moment. What with Trump doing everything he can to make himself look bad they're kind of redundant...

The MSM has gone after Trump since he took the oath of office.

Why? Because he did the one thing he wasn't supposed to do. Win the election.

Love him or hate him, he's had a target on his back and when you actually look at the claims and evidence, it doesn't stand up to the light of day.

Trump is Trump. At the end of the day, he's showing he's a better POTUS than Clinton could have ever hoped to be and has reversed a lot of Obama's mistakes.

The WSJ has been probably the most neutral paper when it comes to Trump. And I've been a subscriber to the WSJ for over 30 years.

To the extent that this is true (which is not very far, but it has a kernel of truth), it's worth remembering that the same was broadly true of the last occupant: the MSM went after Obama since he took the oath of office, for the precisely the same reasons!

It's what the media does.

Sure, Fox is sycophantic towards Trump and was/is hostile to Obama, but I'm have a hard time remembering when Obama got the full sycophant treatment from the allegedly left-wing media (drone strikes, etc.)

It is entirely possible that some of the "going after Trump" stuff is caused by, I dunno, stuff Trump does / does not do.

And to those who applaud Assange for wikileaks: compare and contrast with the way Snowden disclosed his leaks, notably avoiding naming people, unlike Assange who jeopardize people by dumping without editing out extraneous material (which is what the media does.).

Erm releasing leaks where the government of the united states has done wrong. I think you are confusing the puppet presidents with those who have the actual power. I really don't understand how people don't understand that the government and what it does has very little to do with elected representatives.

Not convinced about that. I've seen Trump called more rude things over the total arse he has made of pandemic deflection in the last couple of weeks than in the whole previous year, just about.

It seems like more of the US is passing the WTF threshold that I passed through when he was (sort of) elected. Mind you, his approval rating is nearly 50%....I don't think I'm ever going to understand that, unless they're just making up the numbers.

...he can always go into solitary confinement.

It's looking like we're just handing control over the US now. I understand why the US wants to punish him, Assange revealed a lot of very bad behavior and internationally illegal actions by the US so it's understandable but helping cover their mess up is not a good thing.

Except he didn't just "reveal" it - he actively encouraged and taught Manning how to steal the information which is the main driver.

Much like Snowden is the one the US are after but Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras aren't.

Only burdon on extradition is to prove that what he did was a crime in the UK as well, which I'm fairly certain they'll demonstrate that it is.

Curses! Foiled again!