Julian Assange Discussion
- Thread starter ocean59
- Start date
Recently there's been a lot of suspicion floating around that Julian Assange and Wikileaks has been compromised. At least one person I encountered online even suspects he may already be in US custody. I'll share where I found the information and copy it here.
_https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wikileaks_has_been_compromised_megathread/
There was also this observation:
_https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57xrk2/autism_alert_julian_assange_is_possibly_being/
What do you guys think?
_https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5cgwau/has_wikileaks_has_been_compromised_megathread/
There was also this observation:
_https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/57xrk2/autism_alert_julian_assange_is_possibly_being/
What do you guys think?
angelburst29
The Living Force
Not much of substance to this article, other than some photos but it just got Posted on Sputnik, with four articles below it.
Julian Assange Embassy Siege in Numbers
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201611171047549794-assange-embassy-sweden-questions/
Interesting also, that this was just Posted, as well. You mentioned this: "Here is the flight tracker for the jet, which just landed in Raleigh, North Carolina (around 11:00am EST):" Seems to be a lot of activity in NC lately?
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Resigns
https://sputniknews.com/us/201611171047550306-clapper-national-intelligence-director-resigns/
US intelligence director Clapper says he has submitted letter of resignation amid presidential transition - NBC News http://www.breakingnews.com/t/Sl
Referring to cyberattacks on US servers allegedly carried out by Russian hackers, Clapper said that he "does not expect a significant change in Russian behavior" when Trump becomes president.
Clapper's resignation comes at a time when President-elect Donald Trump remains undecided on his national security policy. Back in September 2016, two North Carolina men were arrested for their alleged roles in a hacking group responsible for breaching the email account of James Clapper and providing the contents to WikiLeaks.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201610081046123910-hacker-facing-charges-wikileaks/
The duo is accused of being part of the hacking group “Crackas With Attitude,” which allegedly social-engineered access to Clapper’s personal email, home telephone and internet account, as well as his wife’s Yahoo email account. Later, Yahoo News obtained a declassified summary of a report by the office of James Clapper. The report described RT and Sputnik news outlets as 'rabble-rousing, provocateur raconteurs'.
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201609301045850104-rt-sputnik-clapper-report/
James Clapper assumed office in 2010, becoming the 4th Director of National Intelligence. DETAILS TO FOLLOW
*****
This link below is from the Jim Stone's website. I don't take "his content" seriously 99% of the time. He tends to be overly dramatic while spending too much time on a Whoopee Cushion, in my opinion ... but in rare instances, you might find a rare gem in all his nonsense. He's of the opinion, Assange was kidnapped shortly after the Anderson visit? At the very end of the page, JS offers a link (pdf) to a "dead man switch" off his own server.
_http://82.221.129.208/basepages3.html
Julian Assange Embassy Siege in Numbers
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201611171047549794-assange-embassy-sweden-questions/
Interesting also, that this was just Posted, as well. You mentioned this: "Here is the flight tracker for the jet, which just landed in Raleigh, North Carolina (around 11:00am EST):" Seems to be a lot of activity in NC lately?
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper Resigns
https://sputniknews.com/us/201611171047550306-clapper-national-intelligence-director-resigns/
US intelligence director Clapper says he has submitted letter of resignation amid presidential transition - NBC News http://www.breakingnews.com/t/Sl
Referring to cyberattacks on US servers allegedly carried out by Russian hackers, Clapper said that he "does not expect a significant change in Russian behavior" when Trump becomes president.
Clapper's resignation comes at a time when President-elect Donald Trump remains undecided on his national security policy. Back in September 2016, two North Carolina men were arrested for their alleged roles in a hacking group responsible for breaching the email account of James Clapper and providing the contents to WikiLeaks.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201610081046123910-hacker-facing-charges-wikileaks/
The duo is accused of being part of the hacking group “Crackas With Attitude,” which allegedly social-engineered access to Clapper’s personal email, home telephone and internet account, as well as his wife’s Yahoo email account. Later, Yahoo News obtained a declassified summary of a report by the office of James Clapper. The report described RT and Sputnik news outlets as 'rabble-rousing, provocateur raconteurs'.
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201609301045850104-rt-sputnik-clapper-report/
James Clapper assumed office in 2010, becoming the 4th Director of National Intelligence. DETAILS TO FOLLOW
*****
This link below is from the Jim Stone's website. I don't take "his content" seriously 99% of the time. He tends to be overly dramatic while spending too much time on a Whoopee Cushion, in my opinion ... but in rare instances, you might find a rare gem in all his nonsense. He's of the opinion, Assange was kidnapped shortly after the Anderson visit? At the very end of the page, JS offers a link (pdf) to a "dead man switch" off his own server.
_http://82.221.129.208/basepages3.html
angelburst29
The Living Force
Ecuador's lead opposition candidate is offering a sharp break with ten years of leftist rule in the Andean country, vowing to remove Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from the nation's London embassy,
Ecuador opposition candidate vows to remove Assange, denounce Venezuela
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/world/story/0002/20170217/KBN15W1G1_1
Conservative former banker Guillermo Lasso is the opposition's frontrunner in Sunday's presidential election.
[...] In an interview at campaign headquarters in his humid coastal hometown of Guayaquil, Lasso vowed that within a month of taking office in May he would remove Assange from Ecuador's embassy, where he has been holed up since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over rape allegations.
"Ecuador had no business spending a single cent protecting someone who definitely leaked confidential information," Lasso said from his 24th-floor office at the headquarter, overlooking the Banco de Guayaquil where he was executive president from 1994 to 2012.
"I will take on the responsibility of inviting Mr. Assange to leave the Ecuadorean embassy at the latest 30 days after the start of our government," he added on Thursday afternoon. (Article continues.)
Ecuador’s Opposition Presidential Candidate Promises to Kick Out Assange
https://sputniknews.com/latam/201702171050801734-ecuador-lasso-assange-embassy/
Guillermo Lasso, a former banker, is running against former Vice President Lenin Moreno, who is expected to take the lead in the first round of the election on Sunday, but is predicted to fall short of winning by a large enough margin to avoid a second round in April. Analysts expect Lasso to fare better in the runoff.
Lasso, a right-wing candidate, would be a sharp departure from the leftist politics that have been in place throughout most of South America for the past decade.
As his first order of business, should he win the presidency and take office in May, Lasso has vowed to remove Assange from the embassy, thereby forcing the publisher’s extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over an alleged rape.
The rape allegation comes from Assange sleeping with two women in Sweden, separately, but during the same month. During one of the encounters, a condom reportedly broke. When the two women learned that he had slept with both of them, they went to the police to have him compelled to take an HIV test.
“Once they were at the police station and told their stories, the female police commissioner informed them that this all fell within ‘rape’ law, and soon thereafter—that Mr. Assange was going to be arrested. Ms. Ardin and Ms. Wilen were upset when they heard this,” the Observer reported in a detailed explanation of the rape case documents.
Many groups, including the Women Against Rape (WAR) organization, have long contended that the allegations are false, and simply an effort to get Assange into Sweden, where he would likely be extradited to the United States.
“We oppose the use of rape for political agendas which undermine protection and justice for both rape victim and accused. We are appalled that rape allegations may be manipulated to facilitate Mr Assange’s extradition or even rendition to the US where elected officials have called for his execution for his Wikileaks activities. How can anyone ignore this threat? WAR cannot. We oppose the death penalty for any crime, let alone when no charges have been brought,” Women Against Rape wrote on their website in 2011. The organization has an entire section of their website dedicated to what they assert is the political persecution of Assange.
Now, Ecuadorian presidential candidate Lasso has made Assange’s ouster a central point of his campaign, and has vowed to have him removed from the embassy within 30 days of his inauguration.
“Ecuador had no business spending a single cent protecting someone who definitely leaked confidential information,” Lasso said during an interview on Thursday afternoon. “I will take on the responsibility of inviting Mr. Assange to leave the Ecuadorean embassy at the latest 30 days after the start of our government.”
Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy on June 19, 2012, and applied for political asylum, which was granted. Since that time, the building has been encircled by police waiting to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden. Stockholm has not ruled out handing the publisher over to the United States.
Lasso has also vowed to take a firm stance against Venezuela, ironically demanding that they release their political prisoners, including Leopoldo Lopez.
New Clinton Emails? WikiLeaks Teasing Public With Mysterious 'Vault 7'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201702161050763732-wikileaks-clinton-emails/
WikiLeaks continues to tease the public with the alleged upcoming exposure of new explosive information. Apparently, it may have something to do with Hillary Clinton.
"WikiLeaks asked what is Vault 7, where is Vault 7, when is Vault 7. While the world waits for the 'why' and 'who', we assume that the answer as to 'when' is on February 19," a video released by Anonymous Scandinavia on Twitter says.
"What do Hillary Clinton, Google and WikiLeaks have to do with each other?… Is Hillary Clinton going to be prosecuted?" the video asks.
Zero Hedge reported Wednesday that WikiLeaks, an international non-profit organization that publishes news leaks and classified information has started releasing cryptic questions about the mysterious "Vault 7" on Twitter from February 4, 2017.
Every day the organization posted a question on Twitter with an image attached: "What, Where, When, Who, Why and How did WikiLeaks Acquire Vault 7?"
The riddle has prompted a lively debate among social media platform users. One of the assumptions was connected with the fact that on February 4 the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released "Part 6" of Hillary Clinton's email investigation documents.
Back in March 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email attachments from Hillary Clinton's private email server. The documents span from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
On July 22, 2016 a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to WikiLeaks also found its way to the public domain.
Furthermore, in October and November the organization released thousands of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta and the second part of DNC emails.
The hack was groundlessly blamed on Russia by then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, although no evidence was presented to confirm these claims. Julian Assange denied that Moscow could have had a hand in it.
In an exclusive interview with Sputnik former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray revealed in early November that the Podesta and DNC emails were not leaked by Russian hackers, but by a Washington insider.
"The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow," former British ambassador told Sputnik.
Some observers argue that the leak could have been the reason behind Hillary Clinton's resounding defeat in the 2016 presidential election.
The question then arises how an upcoming disclosure by WikiLeaks may affect the former Democratic presidential nominee.
Ecuador opposition candidate vows to remove Assange, denounce Venezuela
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/world/story/0002/20170217/KBN15W1G1_1
Conservative former banker Guillermo Lasso is the opposition's frontrunner in Sunday's presidential election.
[...] In an interview at campaign headquarters in his humid coastal hometown of Guayaquil, Lasso vowed that within a month of taking office in May he would remove Assange from Ecuador's embassy, where he has been holed up since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over rape allegations.
"Ecuador had no business spending a single cent protecting someone who definitely leaked confidential information," Lasso said from his 24th-floor office at the headquarter, overlooking the Banco de Guayaquil where he was executive president from 1994 to 2012.
"I will take on the responsibility of inviting Mr. Assange to leave the Ecuadorean embassy at the latest 30 days after the start of our government," he added on Thursday afternoon. (Article continues.)
Ecuador’s Opposition Presidential Candidate Promises to Kick Out Assange
https://sputniknews.com/latam/201702171050801734-ecuador-lasso-assange-embassy/
Guillermo Lasso, a former banker, is running against former Vice President Lenin Moreno, who is expected to take the lead in the first round of the election on Sunday, but is predicted to fall short of winning by a large enough margin to avoid a second round in April. Analysts expect Lasso to fare better in the runoff.
Lasso, a right-wing candidate, would be a sharp departure from the leftist politics that have been in place throughout most of South America for the past decade.
As his first order of business, should he win the presidency and take office in May, Lasso has vowed to remove Assange from the embassy, thereby forcing the publisher’s extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over an alleged rape.
The rape allegation comes from Assange sleeping with two women in Sweden, separately, but during the same month. During one of the encounters, a condom reportedly broke. When the two women learned that he had slept with both of them, they went to the police to have him compelled to take an HIV test.
“Once they were at the police station and told their stories, the female police commissioner informed them that this all fell within ‘rape’ law, and soon thereafter—that Mr. Assange was going to be arrested. Ms. Ardin and Ms. Wilen were upset when they heard this,” the Observer reported in a detailed explanation of the rape case documents.
Many groups, including the Women Against Rape (WAR) organization, have long contended that the allegations are false, and simply an effort to get Assange into Sweden, where he would likely be extradited to the United States.
“We oppose the use of rape for political agendas which undermine protection and justice for both rape victim and accused. We are appalled that rape allegations may be manipulated to facilitate Mr Assange’s extradition or even rendition to the US where elected officials have called for his execution for his Wikileaks activities. How can anyone ignore this threat? WAR cannot. We oppose the death penalty for any crime, let alone when no charges have been brought,” Women Against Rape wrote on their website in 2011. The organization has an entire section of their website dedicated to what they assert is the political persecution of Assange.
Now, Ecuadorian presidential candidate Lasso has made Assange’s ouster a central point of his campaign, and has vowed to have him removed from the embassy within 30 days of his inauguration.
“Ecuador had no business spending a single cent protecting someone who definitely leaked confidential information,” Lasso said during an interview on Thursday afternoon. “I will take on the responsibility of inviting Mr. Assange to leave the Ecuadorean embassy at the latest 30 days after the start of our government.”
Assange entered the Ecuadorian Embassy on June 19, 2012, and applied for political asylum, which was granted. Since that time, the building has been encircled by police waiting to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden. Stockholm has not ruled out handing the publisher over to the United States.
Lasso has also vowed to take a firm stance against Venezuela, ironically demanding that they release their political prisoners, including Leopoldo Lopez.
New Clinton Emails? WikiLeaks Teasing Public With Mysterious 'Vault 7'
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201702161050763732-wikileaks-clinton-emails/
WikiLeaks continues to tease the public with the alleged upcoming exposure of new explosive information. Apparently, it may have something to do with Hillary Clinton.
"WikiLeaks asked what is Vault 7, where is Vault 7, when is Vault 7. While the world waits for the 'why' and 'who', we assume that the answer as to 'when' is on February 19," a video released by Anonymous Scandinavia on Twitter says.
"What do Hillary Clinton, Google and WikiLeaks have to do with each other?… Is Hillary Clinton going to be prosecuted?" the video asks.
Zero Hedge reported Wednesday that WikiLeaks, an international non-profit organization that publishes news leaks and classified information has started releasing cryptic questions about the mysterious "Vault 7" on Twitter from February 4, 2017.
Every day the organization posted a question on Twitter with an image attached: "What, Where, When, Who, Why and How did WikiLeaks Acquire Vault 7?"
The riddle has prompted a lively debate among social media platform users. One of the assumptions was connected with the fact that on February 4 the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released "Part 6" of Hillary Clinton's email investigation documents.
Back in March 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email attachments from Hillary Clinton's private email server. The documents span from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
On July 22, 2016 a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to WikiLeaks also found its way to the public domain.
Furthermore, in October and November the organization released thousands of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta and the second part of DNC emails.
The hack was groundlessly blamed on Russia by then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, although no evidence was presented to confirm these claims. Julian Assange denied that Moscow could have had a hand in it.
In an exclusive interview with Sputnik former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray revealed in early November that the Podesta and DNC emails were not leaked by Russian hackers, but by a Washington insider.
"The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow," former British ambassador told Sputnik.
Some observers argue that the leak could have been the reason behind Hillary Clinton's resounding defeat in the 2016 presidential election.
The question then arises how an upcoming disclosure by WikiLeaks may affect the former Democratic presidential nominee.
angelburst29 said:
Not sure what to make of this. Here is a video on the subject that this guy puts his ideas to, as cryptic as it all is.
https://youtu.be/42Er4A0N8PU?ecver=1
angelburst29
The Living Force
After a marathon seven year legal stalemate, Swedish prosecutors have dumped their investigation into allegations of sexual assault against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. While a cause for celebration for the Australian computer programmer, who has spent five years confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, his ordeal is far from over.
The Plight of Assange: Rape Investigation Ends, Espionage Charges May Still Fly (Video)
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705191053777440-assange-legal-case-crimes/
Upon Marianne Ny's landmark announcement, an ebullient Assange took to Twitter to tweet his beaming visage, and his Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelsson, told local media the development was a "total victory," which meant Assange was "free to leave the embassy whenever he wants."
However, any champagne corks that may have detonated in the hours following Ny's declaration almost certainly did so prematurely. London's Metropolitan Police were quick to issue a statement of their own, saying the force remained "obliged" to execute an arrest warrant issued in 2012 by Westminster Magistrate's Court after Assange failed to surrender to authorities. In other words, Assange will still be arrested if he leaves the embassy — he remains wanted in the UK, albeit for a much less serious offense.
While the building is no longer subject to 24/7 police surveillance — forces were withdrawn in 2015, after controversy over the escalating cost of the exercise, believed to run to tens of millions of pounds — the super-recognizable Assange likely wouldn't get far in the streets of Knightsbridge before being collared.
In any event, Assange isn't likely to attempt to visit Harrods or Hyde Park — the very reason he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy was his well-grounded fear his arrest over the rape allegations would result in extradition to the US, to stand trial over WikiLeaks' publishing of leaked military documents and diplomatic cables.
US authorities began investigating WikiLeaks and Assange in 2010, after the organization published documents and other material provided to it by Chelsea Manning, including included the "Collateral Murder" video, which depicted United States soldiers fatally shooting 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 (17:46 min.)
While Manning has now been pardoned and released from prison, there's every indication the investigation remains ongoing — the ongoing proceedings against WikiLeaks were confirmed in a December 2015 court submission. Individuals with links to Assange have faced questioning by authorities, and investigators have even attempted to subpoena WikiLeaks' Twitter account. Moreover, in April CIA Director Mike Pompeo described WikiLeaks as a "hostile intelligence service."
There are suggestions Assange could be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act, on the basis he intended to sabotage the US, and endangered lives, by revealing confidential information. However, some legal observers have suggested it would be difficult to try Assange under the vaguely worded law, as it requires the government to conclusively demonstrate the accused intended to harm the US government or aid a foreign power — and as he, unlike Manning, isn't a US government employee, Assange is under no legal obligation to withhold classified documents from public view. As of May 2017, the US has never successfully prosecuted a non-government official for taking classified documents. In 2009, the first time civilians were charged under the Espionage Act, charges were dropped against two lobbyists accused of passing on classified information to Israel.
Moreover, in 1971 the US government unsuccessfully attempted to block publication of the Pentagon Papers in the mainstream media. Courts cited the First Amendment in striking down the application.
It appears that should Assange be extradited to the US, he has a potentially strong counter case. He could even point to President Donald Trump's previous attestation that he "loves" WikiLeaks — although given Trump's history of contradiction, and denial of previous statements, that may not be submissible in a court of law.
Assange Case Could Be Relaunched If He Returns to Sweden Before 2020
https://sputniknews.com/world/201705191053771630-swedish-prosecutors-assange-presser/
Earlier today, Director of Sweden's Public Prosecution Marianne Ny announced that the authority asked the court to revoke the warrant of arrest issued for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, bringing an end to the 7-year legal stand-off.
Swedish prosecutor told reporters that the case was dropped because there's no possibility of arresting Assange in "foreseeable future," not because Assange was found innocent.
"The decision to discontinue the preliminary investigation is not because we have been able to make a full assessment of the evidence in this case, but because we did not see any possibilities to advance the investigation forward," Public Prosecution Director Marianne Ny said in a televised press conference.
However, the prosecutor revealed that the authority could relaunch the investigation should Assange return to Sweden before 2020.
If Julian Assange were to return to Sweden before the statute of limitations for the crime elapses in August of 2020, the preliminary investigation could however be reopened," Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny said in a televised press conference.
UK Met Police Obliged to Arrest Assange if He Leaves Ecuador Embassy in London
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201705191053771550-uk-police-assange/
The UK Metropolitan Police said on Friday they were obliged to execute the arrest warrant of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should he leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
Earlier in the day director of Sweden’s Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to discontinue the country’s preliminary investigation into a rape allegation against Assange.
“Westminster Magistrates' Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following him failing to surrender to the court on the 29 June 2012. The Metropolitan Police Service is obliged to execute that warrant should he leave the Embassy,” the police said.
According to the statement, Assange remains “wanted for a much less serious offence. The MPS will provide a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence.”
The Plight of Assange: Rape Investigation Ends, Espionage Charges May Still Fly (Video)
https://sputniknews.com/military/201705191053777440-assange-legal-case-crimes/
Upon Marianne Ny's landmark announcement, an ebullient Assange took to Twitter to tweet his beaming visage, and his Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelsson, told local media the development was a "total victory," which meant Assange was "free to leave the embassy whenever he wants."
However, any champagne corks that may have detonated in the hours following Ny's declaration almost certainly did so prematurely. London's Metropolitan Police were quick to issue a statement of their own, saying the force remained "obliged" to execute an arrest warrant issued in 2012 by Westminster Magistrate's Court after Assange failed to surrender to authorities. In other words, Assange will still be arrested if he leaves the embassy — he remains wanted in the UK, albeit for a much less serious offense.
While the building is no longer subject to 24/7 police surveillance — forces were withdrawn in 2015, after controversy over the escalating cost of the exercise, believed to run to tens of millions of pounds — the super-recognizable Assange likely wouldn't get far in the streets of Knightsbridge before being collared.
In any event, Assange isn't likely to attempt to visit Harrods or Hyde Park — the very reason he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy was his well-grounded fear his arrest over the rape allegations would result in extradition to the US, to stand trial over WikiLeaks' publishing of leaked military documents and diplomatic cables.
US authorities began investigating WikiLeaks and Assange in 2010, after the organization published documents and other material provided to it by Chelsea Manning, including included the "Collateral Murder" video, which depicted United States soldiers fatally shooting 18 civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 (17:46 min.)
While Manning has now been pardoned and released from prison, there's every indication the investigation remains ongoing — the ongoing proceedings against WikiLeaks were confirmed in a December 2015 court submission. Individuals with links to Assange have faced questioning by authorities, and investigators have even attempted to subpoena WikiLeaks' Twitter account. Moreover, in April CIA Director Mike Pompeo described WikiLeaks as a "hostile intelligence service."
There are suggestions Assange could be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act, on the basis he intended to sabotage the US, and endangered lives, by revealing confidential information. However, some legal observers have suggested it would be difficult to try Assange under the vaguely worded law, as it requires the government to conclusively demonstrate the accused intended to harm the US government or aid a foreign power — and as he, unlike Manning, isn't a US government employee, Assange is under no legal obligation to withhold classified documents from public view. As of May 2017, the US has never successfully prosecuted a non-government official for taking classified documents. In 2009, the first time civilians were charged under the Espionage Act, charges were dropped against two lobbyists accused of passing on classified information to Israel.
Moreover, in 1971 the US government unsuccessfully attempted to block publication of the Pentagon Papers in the mainstream media. Courts cited the First Amendment in striking down the application.
It appears that should Assange be extradited to the US, he has a potentially strong counter case. He could even point to President Donald Trump's previous attestation that he "loves" WikiLeaks — although given Trump's history of contradiction, and denial of previous statements, that may not be submissible in a court of law.
Assange Case Could Be Relaunched If He Returns to Sweden Before 2020
https://sputniknews.com/world/201705191053771630-swedish-prosecutors-assange-presser/
Earlier today, Director of Sweden's Public Prosecution Marianne Ny announced that the authority asked the court to revoke the warrant of arrest issued for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, bringing an end to the 7-year legal stand-off.
Swedish prosecutor told reporters that the case was dropped because there's no possibility of arresting Assange in "foreseeable future," not because Assange was found innocent.
"The decision to discontinue the preliminary investigation is not because we have been able to make a full assessment of the evidence in this case, but because we did not see any possibilities to advance the investigation forward," Public Prosecution Director Marianne Ny said in a televised press conference.
However, the prosecutor revealed that the authority could relaunch the investigation should Assange return to Sweden before 2020.
If Julian Assange were to return to Sweden before the statute of limitations for the crime elapses in August of 2020, the preliminary investigation could however be reopened," Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny said in a televised press conference.
UK Met Police Obliged to Arrest Assange if He Leaves Ecuador Embassy in London
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201705191053771550-uk-police-assange/
The UK Metropolitan Police said on Friday they were obliged to execute the arrest warrant of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should he leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London.
Earlier in the day director of Sweden’s Public Prosecution Marianne Ny decided to discontinue the country’s preliminary investigation into a rape allegation against Assange.
“Westminster Magistrates' Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following him failing to surrender to the court on the 29 June 2012. The Metropolitan Police Service is obliged to execute that warrant should he leave the Embassy,” the police said.
According to the statement, Assange remains “wanted for a much less serious offence. The MPS will provide a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence.”
angelburst29
The Living Force
Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”.
Getting Assange: The Untold Story
http://www.globalresearch.ca/getting-assange-the-untold-story/5591118
Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.
This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden.
“It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.
It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.
The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.
Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.
These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.
In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistle blowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.
Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden‘s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.
Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. (Article continues.)
John Pilger speaks out on Julian Assange and Sweden (Tweets)
http://theduran.com/john-pilger-speaks-out-on-julian-assange-and-sweden/
But Pilger, like Assange is a man of principle and has consistently helped expose Assange’s plight to the wider world.
Pilger has released remarks on recent events concerning Sweden dropping its case against the Wikileaks founder.
Assange Tweeted his own remarks on the piece,
_https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866214754507001856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheduran.com%2Fjohn-pilger-speaks-out-on-julian-assange-and-sweden%2F
“Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”.
Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.
This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. “It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.
It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.
The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.
Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.
These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.
In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.
Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden’s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.
Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.
The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s ” founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.
Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.
Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.
For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation”, they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the “rape of two women”. The word “rape” can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.
Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”
Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.
On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.
At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.”
On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST – publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]”.
Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.
For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed “rape investigation” to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.
Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.
Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.
He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.
For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.
Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as “abnormal” and demanded she be replaced.
Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be “rendered” to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.
Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.
“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”
The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the “rape” allegations.
Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn’t she question him? Catch-22.
When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.
Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” The women were manipulated by police – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.
Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”
Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.
Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.
The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport – until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.
The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”
It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.
In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia’s Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.
I gave him Gareth Peirce’s letter about the threat to Assange’s rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.
For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.
Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.
The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian’s provider and source. Instead, the “scoop” became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper’s cover price.
With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.
Journalism students might well study this period to understand the most ubiquitous source of “fake news” – as from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and as an extension of the authority and power it courts and protects.
The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark’s memorable live-on-air interrogation in 2010. “Why don’t you just apologise to the women?” she demanded of Assange, followed by: “Do we have your word of honour that you won’t abscond?”
On the BBC’s Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed: “Are you a sexual predator?” Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.
“Would even Fox News have descended to that level?” wondered the American historian William Blum. “I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: ‘You mean including your mother?'”
Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Greta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case. She persisted in referring to the “charges” against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the “fact” that “leaders around the world” had condemned him. Among these “leaders” she included Trump’s CIA director. I asked her, “Are you a journalist?”.
The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit.” In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.
Ecuador’s decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador’s decision.
Ecuador’s embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague’s Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.
During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.
Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, “Sure beats a supermax.”
It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations – last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.
Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution endures in the heart of London.
The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?
If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us”.
Getting Assange: The Untold Story
http://www.globalresearch.ca/getting-assange-the-untold-story/5591118
Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.
This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden.
“It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.
It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.
The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.
Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.
These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.
In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistle blowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.
Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden‘s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.
Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. (Article continues.)
John Pilger speaks out on Julian Assange and Sweden (Tweets)
http://theduran.com/john-pilger-speaks-out-on-julian-assange-and-sweden/
But Pilger, like Assange is a man of principle and has consistently helped expose Assange’s plight to the wider world.
Pilger has released remarks on recent events concerning Sweden dropping its case against the Wikileaks founder.
Assange Tweeted his own remarks on the piece,
_https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866214754507001856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftheduran.com%2Fjohn-pilger-speaks-out-on-julian-assange-and-sweden%2F
“Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt. The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”.
Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.
This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. “It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along”.
It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the “Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch” foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.
The “mission” was to destroy the “trust” that was WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. This would be achieved with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.
Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.
These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistle blowers as “part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal”.
In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.
Few serious observers doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a “Manhunt target list”. Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the US following then Vice-President Joe Biden’s preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a “cyber-terrorist”.
Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution: “Can’t we just drone this guy.”
According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington’s bid to get Assange is “unprecedented in scale and nature”. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.
The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s ” founding virtue” or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.
Faced with this hurdle, the US Justice Department has contrived charges of “espionage”, “conspiracy to commit espionage”, “conversion” (theft of government property), “computer fraud and abuse” (computer hacking) and general “conspiracy”. The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.
Assange’s ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the “national security” investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was “active and ongoing” and would harm the “pending prosecution” of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show “appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security”. This is a kangaroo court.
For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a “rape investigation”, they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the “rape of two women”. The word “rape” can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.
Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape.” Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, “There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”
Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden’s imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor’s dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.
On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.
At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, “Ah, but she is not a lawyer.”
On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST – publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled “WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]”.
Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be “cut off” if Sweden sheltered him.
For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed “rape investigation” to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq “War Logs”, based on WikiLeaks’ disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.
Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol “red alert” normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.
Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.
He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.
For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.
Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as “abnormal” and demanded she be replaced.
Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be “rendered” to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.
Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” – including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.
“Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England,” wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, “clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.”
The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the “rape” allegations.
Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn’t she question him? Catch-22.
When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, “but the police were keen on getting a hold on him”. She was “shocked” when they arrested him because she only “wanted him to take [an HIV] test”. She “did not want to accuse JA of anything” and “it was the police who made up the charges”. In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been “railroaded by police and others around her”.
Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, “I have not been raped.” The women were manipulated by police – whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.
Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?”
Assange’s choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.
Supported by most of Latin America, the government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.
The Labor government of the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, had even threatened to take away his Australian passport – until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.
The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd: “Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions… it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.”
It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew “only what I read in the newspapers” about the details of the case.
In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative Member of Australia’s Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.
I gave him Gareth Peirce’s letter about the threat to Assange’s rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard government. Only his silence followed.
For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, and to the principle of free speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.
Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.
The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian’s provider and source. Instead, the “scoop” became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper’s cover price.
With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”.
Journalism students might well study this period to understand the most ubiquitous source of “fake news” – as from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and as an extension of the authority and power it courts and protects.
The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark’s memorable live-on-air interrogation in 2010. “Why don’t you just apologise to the women?” she demanded of Assange, followed by: “Do we have your word of honour that you won’t abscond?”
On the BBC’s Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed: “Are you a sexual predator?” Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.
“Would even Fox News have descended to that level?” wondered the American historian William Blum. “I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: ‘You mean including your mother?'”
Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Greta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case. She persisted in referring to the “charges” against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the “fact” that “leaders around the world” had condemned him. Among these “leaders” she included Trump’s CIA director. I asked her, “Are you a journalist?”.
The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014. “His case has been won lock, stock and barrel,” Gareth Peirce told me, “these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit.” In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.
Ecuador’s decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act, and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador’s decision.
Ecuador’s embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague’s Foreign Office threatened to violate the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.
During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.
Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied, “Sure beats a supermax.”
It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations – last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.
Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution endures in the heart of London.
The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the US delivers its extradition request to the British courts?
If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom, and all of us”.
angelburst29
The Living Force
The WikiLeaks has released another batch of CIA classified documents from the so-called Vault 7 project.
WikiLeaks Releases New Batch of CIA Documents on Hacking Tools
https://sputniknews.com/world/201706021054229410-wikileaks-cia-documents/
The WikiLeaks whistleblowing website released yet another batch of CIA classified documents from the so-called Vault 7 project, which has become the 10th publication of the agency's files dedicated to the hacking tools reportedly used by the intelligence service.
"Today, June 1st 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the "Pandemic" project of the CIA, a persistent implant for Microsoft Windows machines that share files (programs) with remote users in a local network," WikiLeaks said in a Thursday press release.
The Pandemic tool is used to replace files on a computer with their trojaned versions if the targeted computer downloads information within a local network from the infected one, the press release added.
WikiLeaks began releasing the documents of the Vault 7 on March 7, with the first full part comprising 8,761 documents. The previous release took place on May 19 and was dedicated to the "Athena" spyware.
WikiLeaks Releases New Batch of CIA Documents on Hacking Tools
https://sputniknews.com/world/201706021054229410-wikileaks-cia-documents/
The WikiLeaks whistleblowing website released yet another batch of CIA classified documents from the so-called Vault 7 project, which has become the 10th publication of the agency's files dedicated to the hacking tools reportedly used by the intelligence service.
"Today, June 1st 2017, WikiLeaks publishes documents from the "Pandemic" project of the CIA, a persistent implant for Microsoft Windows machines that share files (programs) with remote users in a local network," WikiLeaks said in a Thursday press release.
The Pandemic tool is used to replace files on a computer with their trojaned versions if the targeted computer downloads information within a local network from the infected one, the press release added.
WikiLeaks began releasing the documents of the Vault 7 on March 7, with the first full part comprising 8,761 documents. The previous release took place on May 19 and was dedicated to the "Athena" spyware.
angelburst29
The Living Force
angelburst29 said:
WikiLeaks just published details of a purported CIA operation that turns Windows file servers into covert attack machines that surreptitiously infect computers of interest inside a targeted network.
WikiLeaks says CIA’s “Pandemic” turns servers into infectious Patient Zero
https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/06/wikileaks-says-cias-pandemic-implant-turns-servers-into-malware-carriers/
“Pandemic,” as the implant is codenamed, turns file servers into a secret carrier of whatever malware CIA operatives want to install, according to documents published Thursday by WikiLeaks. When targeted computers attempt to access a file on the compromised server, Pandemic uses a clever bait-and-switch tactic to surreptitiously deliver malicious version of the requested file. The Trojan is then executed by the targeted computers. A user manual said Pandemic takes only 15 seconds to be installed. The documents didn’t describe precisely how Pandemic would get installed on a file server.
In a note accompanying Thursday’s release, WikiLeaks officials wrote:
CIA officials have never confirmed or refuted the authenticity of the documents released in the “Vault 7” series, which WikiLeaks claims includes confidential documents it obtained when the CIA “lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal.” Outside experts on malware, however, have said the documents appear to be legitimate. Security company Symantec has also definitively tied malware described in one Vault 7 release to a known hacking operation that has been penetrating governments and private industries around the world for years.
“Very specific use” - Documentation that accompanied Thursday’s release said that Pandemic is installed as a minifilter device driver. Jake Williams, a malware expert at Rendition InfoSec, told Ars that this means Pandemic would have to be signed by a valid digital certificate that was either bought or stolen by the operative, or it means the implant would have to be installed using an exploit that circumvented code-signing requirements. The driver-signing restriction and other technical details, he said, give the impression the tool isn’t in widespread use.
“This code looks like it was developed with a very specific use in mind,” he said. “Many larger organizations don’t use Windows file servers to serve files. They use special built storage devices (network attached storage). My guess here would be that this was designed to target a relatively small organization.”
Williams, who worked in the National Security Agency’s elite Tailored Access Operations hacking group until 2013, said Thursday’s release appeared to omit some of the documents operatives would need to use the Pandemic implant.
“If you handed me this tool, I don’t have enough information to make it go,” he said. “There’s more documentation than this. It’s anyone’s guess as to why it wasn’t released.”
The Vault 7 documents are a serious blow to the US intelligence community and its failed efforts to keep advanced software exploits confidential. Still, they aren’t as sensitive as a separate trove of NSA hacking tools published over the past nine months by a mysterious group calling itself the Shadow Brokers. Unlike the Vault 7 materials, the latter series of leaks includes all of the underlying exploit code, giving anyone the ability to wage potent attacks that were once the sole province of the world’s most sophisticated hacking operation. NSA attack tools, most of which are designed to work remotely on a wide range of computers, are generally much more advanced than the CIA counterparts, which usually are used in the field by agents who already have some level of access to targeted computers or networks.
Like previous Vault 7 releases, today’s leak is a critical blow to US intelligence interests. But it’s nowhere near as grave as the Shadow Brokers leaks.
JGeropoulas
The Living Force
Real Transparency
May 30, 2017 - Julian Assange tweeted: "Sweden finally handed over documents showing why it tried to extradite me. Now that's real transparency."
To appreciate what Sweden "released" check out the image found at both links below:
_https://twitter.com/JulianAssange
_https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDBEB8iLXkAAaiX3.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2Ffoia&docid=gM7apNW2e1j1hM&tbnid=VrJHbPH9kxtyOM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjYifqI0q_UAhXD7oMKHS0RDHgQMwgmKAAwAA..i&w=659&h=619&bih=601&biw=939&q=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDBEB8iLXkAAaiX3.jpg&ved=0ahUKEwjYifqI0q_UAhXD7oMKHS0RDHgQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
May 30, 2017 - Julian Assange tweeted: "Sweden finally handed over documents showing why it tried to extradite me. Now that's real transparency."
To appreciate what Sweden "released" check out the image found at both links below:
_https://twitter.com/JulianAssange
_https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDBEB8iLXkAAaiX3.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2Ffoia&docid=gM7apNW2e1j1hM&tbnid=VrJHbPH9kxtyOM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjYifqI0q_UAhXD7oMKHS0RDHgQMwgmKAAwAA..i&w=659&h=619&bih=601&biw=939&q=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FDBEB8iLXkAAaiX3.jpg&ved=0ahUKEwjYifqI0q_UAhXD7oMKHS0RDHgQMwgmKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8
angelburst29
The Living Force
Ever since June 19 2012, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge, London. Journalists and supporters flocked to the building to mark the fifth anniversary of the day he "moved in" – and hear Assange make a special announcement.
June 19 Marks Five Years of 'Illegal' Incarceration for Assange, But Also Hope
https://sputniknews.com/military/201706191054770136-assange-anniversary-embassy-pilger/
Assange — and his supporters around the world — undoubtedly breathed a simultaneous sigh of collective relief in May when, after a marathon seven year legal stalemate, Swedish prosecutors dumped their investigation into allegations of sexual assault into the 45-year old Australian computer programmer.
After all, the development would surely mean that Assange's ordeal — trapped day in, day out in a small room in an office that takes up a mere 2,153 square feet on a single floor of a residential house, with no access to outdoor space and no direct sunlight — was finally at an end.
However, it quickly became apparent Assange's problems were far from over.
London's Metropolitan Police — which had stood watch outside the Embassy's door 24 hours a day, seven days a week ever since he entered it, at an estimated cost to UK taxpayers of US$16.8 million (£13 million) between 2012 and 2015 alone — were quick to issue a statement of their own.
Chiefs said the force remained "obliged" to execute an arrest warrant issued in 2012 by Westminster Magistrate's Court after Assange failed to surrender to authorities. In other words, Assange will still be arrested if he leaves the embassy, as he remains wanted in the UK — albeit for a much less serious offense.
So dozens of Assange's advocates descended on the embassy June 19, to well-wish and hear the man himself make a "special announcement" on his ongoing imprisonment from the embassy balcony, a frequent host to Assange's "press conferences."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, those gathered were strongly supportive of WikiLeaks' controversial frontman.
Sputnik journalists present did not encounter a bad word said about Assange, with one fan referring to him as a "bringer of truth, who tells the truth the government won't" — another suggested he "spreads hope."
Likewise, the crowd was unanimous — Assange's prolonged period of effective incarceration in the claustrophobic confines of the embassy directly resulted from stubbornness on the part of the UK government.
"It's the government's choice to keep him here. All they have to do is call off the dogs, and it would save taxpayers loads of money. It's not Assange causing this problem, it's the government refusing to allow him freedom of movement," an attendee told Sputnik.
In addition to members of the public, two of Assange's most prominent public supporters — renowned LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and investigative journalist John Pilger — were also in attendance.
"He did not choose to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government. It is the responsibility of the British government to honor its obligations under the refugee convention, and allow Julian Assange safe passage. Currently, the British government is refusing to do that. They consistently refuse to offer guarantees he won't be extradited to the US, where he is likely to face very serious charges that could land him in prison for decades. They have made the situation worse via their intransigence," Mr. Tatchell told Sputnik.
Mr. Pilger likewise slammed the government for refusing to ensure Assange's freedom.
"The US has made it clear he will be extradited from the UK and they will put him behind bars in the kind of hellhole Chelsea Manning had to endure. Edward Snowden said Assange were on a manhunt target list. Those are very good reasons for him not to come out. He's been charged with nothing, the farcical Swedish case is gone, he's been vindicated. This is illegal, this is against international law, and this has been imposed on him. He should be given free passage out of the country immediately," Mr. Pilger told Sputnik.
Given the surging support on display, it's disappointment surely spread like wildfire throughout the gathered when Assange's legal team made clear he would not be speaking after all that lunchtime — although for reasons the assembled would surely welcome.
The announcement had not been canceled outright, merely postponed — due an "imminent meeting" hastily arranged with UK officials.
Melinda Taylor, head of Assange's legal team, said they received confirmation there will be a meeting with the British authorities, and neither they nor Assange wished to prejudice that meeting.
"There is no legal reason to keep Julian here. We'd say the UK arrest warrant has no basis for enforcement — he wasn't violating bail, he sought asylum here, which is a lawful right. His whereabouts have been known, he hasn't fled the jurisdiction, this isn't a bail violation. In any event, he's effectively served far more than the maximum sentence that would apply to a bail violation, which is 12 months. In all, Assange has suffered through seven years of arbitrary detention," Ms. Taylor told Sputnik.
The team are said to be optimistic a "satisfactory" outcome can be found which respects the British legal process and restores Assange's freedom and dignity.
June 19 Marks Five Years of 'Illegal' Incarceration for Assange, But Also Hope
https://sputniknews.com/military/201706191054770136-assange-anniversary-embassy-pilger/
Assange — and his supporters around the world — undoubtedly breathed a simultaneous sigh of collective relief in May when, after a marathon seven year legal stalemate, Swedish prosecutors dumped their investigation into allegations of sexual assault into the 45-year old Australian computer programmer.
After all, the development would surely mean that Assange's ordeal — trapped day in, day out in a small room in an office that takes up a mere 2,153 square feet on a single floor of a residential house, with no access to outdoor space and no direct sunlight — was finally at an end.
However, it quickly became apparent Assange's problems were far from over.
London's Metropolitan Police — which had stood watch outside the Embassy's door 24 hours a day, seven days a week ever since he entered it, at an estimated cost to UK taxpayers of US$16.8 million (£13 million) between 2012 and 2015 alone — were quick to issue a statement of their own.
Chiefs said the force remained "obliged" to execute an arrest warrant issued in 2012 by Westminster Magistrate's Court after Assange failed to surrender to authorities. In other words, Assange will still be arrested if he leaves the embassy, as he remains wanted in the UK — albeit for a much less serious offense.
So dozens of Assange's advocates descended on the embassy June 19, to well-wish and hear the man himself make a "special announcement" on his ongoing imprisonment from the embassy balcony, a frequent host to Assange's "press conferences."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, those gathered were strongly supportive of WikiLeaks' controversial frontman.
Sputnik journalists present did not encounter a bad word said about Assange, with one fan referring to him as a "bringer of truth, who tells the truth the government won't" — another suggested he "spreads hope."
Likewise, the crowd was unanimous — Assange's prolonged period of effective incarceration in the claustrophobic confines of the embassy directly resulted from stubbornness on the part of the UK government.
"It's the government's choice to keep him here. All they have to do is call off the dogs, and it would save taxpayers loads of money. It's not Assange causing this problem, it's the government refusing to allow him freedom of movement," an attendee told Sputnik.
In addition to members of the public, two of Assange's most prominent public supporters — renowned LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and investigative journalist John Pilger — were also in attendance.
"He did not choose to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government. It is the responsibility of the British government to honor its obligations under the refugee convention, and allow Julian Assange safe passage. Currently, the British government is refusing to do that. They consistently refuse to offer guarantees he won't be extradited to the US, where he is likely to face very serious charges that could land him in prison for decades. They have made the situation worse via their intransigence," Mr. Tatchell told Sputnik.
Mr. Pilger likewise slammed the government for refusing to ensure Assange's freedom.
"The US has made it clear he will be extradited from the UK and they will put him behind bars in the kind of hellhole Chelsea Manning had to endure. Edward Snowden said Assange were on a manhunt target list. Those are very good reasons for him not to come out. He's been charged with nothing, the farcical Swedish case is gone, he's been vindicated. This is illegal, this is against international law, and this has been imposed on him. He should be given free passage out of the country immediately," Mr. Pilger told Sputnik.
Given the surging support on display, it's disappointment surely spread like wildfire throughout the gathered when Assange's legal team made clear he would not be speaking after all that lunchtime — although for reasons the assembled would surely welcome.
The announcement had not been canceled outright, merely postponed — due an "imminent meeting" hastily arranged with UK officials.
Melinda Taylor, head of Assange's legal team, said they received confirmation there will be a meeting with the British authorities, and neither they nor Assange wished to prejudice that meeting.
"There is no legal reason to keep Julian here. We'd say the UK arrest warrant has no basis for enforcement — he wasn't violating bail, he sought asylum here, which is a lawful right. His whereabouts have been known, he hasn't fled the jurisdiction, this isn't a bail violation. In any event, he's effectively served far more than the maximum sentence that would apply to a bail violation, which is 12 months. In all, Assange has suffered through seven years of arbitrary detention," Ms. Taylor told Sputnik.
The team are said to be optimistic a "satisfactory" outcome can be found which respects the British legal process and restores Assange's freedom and dignity.
SocietyoftheSpectacle
Jedi Master
It may be the sex scandals and other Circus antics are all a smoke screen to
deter people from looking deeper into the Cult Known as the Family.
Richard Hall has just made a 4 part documentary into Assange,
The Video below contains a Possible shot of julian aged around 11,
along with a couple of interviews of Victims of the Cult,
Very strong MK feel about this group.
Apparently there is little to confirm that Assange was NOT in the Cult during his formative years.
I strongly recommend viewing the 2 interviews with Victims and Take special Note of their Mannerisms ,
Very Unemotional , very assange like,
https://youtu.be/K2WSI_M15-k
Part 2,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm4DqP4G7kU
part 3,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT53yd15b6I
Part 4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n0I3Fv_mQ
Quite an interesting Piece on the Family here,
A scientist who traces back to Oxford and Rutherford,
and More,
https://spidercatweb.blog/2016/08/07/meet-the-family/
deter people from looking deeper into the Cult Known as the Family.
Richard Hall has just made a 4 part documentary into Assange,
The Video below contains a Possible shot of julian aged around 11,
along with a couple of interviews of Victims of the Cult,
Very strong MK feel about this group.
Apparently there is little to confirm that Assange was NOT in the Cult during his formative years.
I strongly recommend viewing the 2 interviews with Victims and Take special Note of their Mannerisms ,
Very Unemotional , very assange like,
https://youtu.be/K2WSI_M15-k
Part 2,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm4DqP4G7kU
part 3,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT53yd15b6I
Part 4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n0I3Fv_mQ
Quite an interesting Piece on the Family here,
A scientist who traces back to Oxford and Rutherford,
and More,
https://spidercatweb.blog/2016/08/07/meet-the-family/
Divide by Zero
The Living Force
Thanks for the video link. They brought up a lot of things that bothered me about him.
We are learning more and more that most of the things that are public are fakes or turned into such.
I like their idea that Trump was chosen, so wikileaks was allowed to put down Hillary. I still feel that Trump is a part of a show to distractide, even if he doesn't know he is.
BTW, what happened to this big "vault 7" that was supposed to happen? All we heard is that the CIA hacks and fakes it. Ok, so what? Where is the specific stuff on bankers, etc that Assange bragged about when he put down 911?
Its tiring because so many people look up to him and Snowden as heroes. So far they are giving zeroes, things we already know.
We are learning more and more that most of the things that are public are fakes or turned into such.
I like their idea that Trump was chosen, so wikileaks was allowed to put down Hillary. I still feel that Trump is a part of a show to distractide, even if he doesn't know he is.
BTW, what happened to this big "vault 7" that was supposed to happen? All we heard is that the CIA hacks and fakes it. Ok, so what? Where is the specific stuff on bankers, etc that Assange bragged about when he put down 911?
Its tiring because so many people look up to him and Snowden as heroes. So far they are giving zeroes, things we already know.
SocietyoftheSpectacle
Jedi Master
I was thinking last night about the Creepy Dyed Blond Hair,
that left the kids Looking like the old film "Village of the Damned"
When I remembred how often it is said Dyed blonde hair,
is a part of the MK Ultra programming of Pop Stars.
A sign of Obedience I believe.
Might find out in this BOOK,
""The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave""
Link Below,
Can anybody Recommend this ?
http://www.whale.to/b/springmeier_formula.html
that left the kids Looking like the old film "Village of the Damned"
When I remembred how often it is said Dyed blonde hair,
is a part of the MK Ultra programming of Pop Stars.
A sign of Obedience I believe.
Might find out in this BOOK,
""The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave""
Link Below,
Can anybody Recommend this ?
http://www.whale.to/b/springmeier_formula.html