The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread

[peterms]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

If it's (say) the US being a rotten bad thing, then forget about all the rapey stuff, it's all made up.

Let's be clear, the seizure of Assange is nothing to do with the Swedish allegations.  The Swedes weren't even told.  It is entirely to do with the US.

Many people who would have defended Assange were very much put off by the nature of the accusations about rape (which started, oddly, not as a claim of rape but a request to get the police to require him to take an STD test following consensual sex).  Others have said that he should answer the accusations, and that a way should be found to allow this to happen without putting him at risk of seizure by the US. 

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

So it's completely irrelevant

No it isn't. When was the last time you heard on the news about that story? Point proven. 

Thsi story will be forgotten very soon just like that. 

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Let's be clear, the seizure of Assange is nothing to do with the Swedish allegations.  The Swedes weren't even told.  It is entirely to do with the US.

Many people who would have defended Assange were very much put off by the nature of the accusations about rape (which started, oddly, not as a claim of rape but a request to get the police to require him to take an STD test following consensual sex).  Others have said that he should answer the accusations, and that a way should be found to allow this to happen without putting him at risk of seizure by the US. 

As I understand it, he was initially arrested in the UK and released on bail, as a result of the Swedish rape allegations (whatever their merits). He illegally skipped bail, breaking UK law. His supporters claim that was because the US wanted to get him. But the US had not issued at that time, and their policy at that time was not to, issue any extradition warrant. Obama's policy was to stay away, because of freedom of speech the first amendment. There was no US warrant when he hid. In 2018, it was accidentally released by a US court filing made in error that an indictment had been made in 2017. AT that point, fears of being wanted by the US became reality. But up until that point, and certainly in 2012 when he his, there was no US warrant and none for another 5 years. He could have faced the Swedish rape charges. But he hid.

His supporters say, well the Swedes could have visited him in the embassy. But people don't get to set the terms of their own interviews under criminal proceedings. It is not reasonable to set conditions on the Swedish Gov't or police, by Assange - to seek guarantees about extradition for alleged other crimes in another jurisdiction, or else he will not submit to questioning about rape allegations.

So in the early part of his hiding away, I have zero sympathy with him. I don't buy the conspiracy that the US would have got him then - if that were valid, the US could simply have issued a request for his arrest (as they have just done) to the UK. But they didn't. There was no indictment. He was hiding from the Swedes at that point.

A change of US administration, further hacking attempts by wikileaks, election interference etc. has subsequently gone on. An indictment has in 2017 (or 18) been issued. At that point, he is hiding from the US and Sweden. The Swedish situation lapsed and was put on hold due to his non-co-operation, and then he's hiding only from the US.

The change of Ecuador gov't, following elections once the previous ultra left wing ant-US bloke had to run away and hide in Belgium for allegations of (I think) either involvement in killing a rival or corruption was it?  - anyway, that saw a still left wing, but not so anti US gov't come in. They say Wikileaks started hacking them, they also say he breached his obligations ...etc. They removed his immunity (perhaps under request from the Trump admin, who knows, perhaps to curry favour, perhaps because the embassy was totally hacked off with Assange..whatever.

His loss of immunity and the US indictment, his previous breach of UK law saw him arrested by the UK police. The courts will now deal with any/all requests for extradition. The US request is for computer hacking. It is not for freedom of speech, or publishing classified data. As Bicks said, that's a 5 year gig.

So, I think the rape thing should be re-activated, as that's what the alleged victim has said she wants. From the start, he should have faced that music. skipping bail and hiding to me was a pretence and he was aided by some numpty "celebs" and an anti-US Ecuador Gov't eager to tweak the tail of the US, for domestic consumption.

The issue about the posting of the classified data, publishing (he's not a journalist) is partly troubling - freedom to publish true info is, or ought to be protected. But also, by not reposnsibly filtering what was published, wikileaks was beyond reckless with other people's lives. We know of the death penalty for gays, the oppressive nature of China and Russia in dealing with people who contact or work with the West, the risk to Afghan interpreters etc. These people were put at serious risk by what Wikileaks published. It was grossly, appallingly irresponsible, and that's where they differ from say the NYT or the Gruaniad. It's good that "we" know of some of the stuff that's gone on due to US actions etc., but it's at a cost to the future prospects of life for many people who are essentially innocent victims of wikileaks and Assange's zeal. Sympathy is misplaced, therefore, I think.

So, no those who say it's always been about the US, I don't think so. Right now, yes... mostly.

 

[chrisp65]

So, right now as it stands, he's hidden in a cupboard for seven years to avoid a five year sentence?

[villakram]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

As I understand it, he was initially arrested in the UK and released on bail, as a result of the Swedish rape allegations (whatever their merits). He illegally skipped bail, breaking UK law. His supporters claim that was because the US wanted to get him. But the US had not issued at that time, and their policy at that time was not to, issue any extradition warrant. Obama's policy was to stay away, because of freedom of speech the first amendment. There was no US warrant when he hid. In 2018, it was accidentally released by a US court filing made in error that an indictment had been made in 2017. AT that point, fears of being wanted by the US became reality. But up until that point, and certainly in 2012 when he his, there was no US warrant and none for another 5 years. He could have faced the Swedish rape charges. But he hid.

His supporters say, well the Swedes could have visited him in the embassy. But people don't get to set the terms of their own interviews under criminal proceedings. It is not reasonable to set conditions on the Swedish Gov't or police, by Assange - to seek guarantees about extradition for alleged other crimes in another jurisdiction, or else he will not submit to questioning about rape allegations.

So in the early part of his hiding away, I have zero sympathy with him. I don't buy the conspiracy that the US would have got him then - if that were valid, the US could simply have issued a request for his arrest (as they have just done) to the UK. But they didn't. There was no indictment. He was hiding from the Swedes at that point.

A change of US administration, further hacking attempts by wikileaks, election interference etc. has subsequently gone on. An indictment has in 2017 (or 18) been issued. At that point, he is hiding from the US and Sweden. The Swedish situation lapsed and was put on hold due to his non-co-operation, and then he's hiding only from the US.

The change of Ecuador gov't, following elections once the previous ultra left wing ant-US bloke had to run away and hide in Belgium for allegations of (I think) either involvement in killing a rival or corruption was it?  - anyway, that saw a still left wing, but not so anti US gov't come in. They say Wikileaks started hacking them, they also say he breached his obligations ...etc. They removed his immunity (perhaps under request from the Trump admin, who knows, perhaps to curry favour, perhaps because the embassy was totally hacked off with Assange..whatever.

His loss of immunity and the US indictment, his previous breach of UK law saw him arrested by the UK police. The courts will now deal with any/all requests for extradition. The US request is for computer hacking. It is not for freedom of speech, or publishing classified data. As Bicks said, that's a 5 year gig.

So, I think the rape thing should be re-activated, as that's what the alleged victim has said she wants. From the start, he should have faced that music. skipping bail and hiding to me was a pretence and he was aided by some numpty "celebs" and an anti-US Ecuador Gov't eager to tweak the tail of the US, for domestic consumption.

The issue about the posting of the classified data, publishing (he's not a journalist) is partly troubling - freedom to publish true info is, or ought to be protected. But also, by not reposnsibly filtering what was published, wikileaks was beyond reckless with other people's lives. We know of the death penalty for gays, the oppressive nature of China and Russia in dealing with people who contact or work with the West, the risk to Afghan interpreters etc. These people were put at serious risk by what Wikileaks published. It was grossly, appallingly irresponsible, and that's where they differ from say the NYT or the Gruaniad. It's good that "we" know of some of the stuff that's gone on due to US actions etc., but it's at a cost to the future prospects of life for many people who are essentially innocent victims of wikileaks and Assange's zeal. Sympathy is misplaced, therefore, I think.

So, no those who say it's always been about the US, I don't think so. Right now, yes... mostly.

 

A number of elected members of the US congress AND members of the government AND members of the national security state publicity stated that Assange should be "Renditioned" or assassinated due to national security concerns and the threat to Freedom & Democracy (tm). Snowden had similar said about him, thereafter. Meanwhile, Manning was being actively tortured by the same US government.

"innocent victims of wikileaks and Assange...", wow! That's a proper leap down the rabbit hole that.

[peterms]

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

There was no US warrant when he hid. In 2018, it was accidentally released by a US court filing made in error that an indictment had been made in 2017. AT that point, fears of being wanted by the US became reality. But up until that point, and certainly in 2012 when he his, there was no US warrant and none for another 5 years.

It was known way back in 2010, for example reported here, that they were seeking to prosecute him and had empanelled a grand jury.  To say that there was no indictment at that point is true, and also wholly irrelevant - the point is that he reasonably feared being charged by and extradited to the US.

Quote

Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents this year, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalize the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

But while prosecutors have used such laws to go after leakers and hackers, they have never successfully prosecuted recipients of leaked information for passing it on to others — an activity that can fall under the First Amendment’s strong protections of speech and press freedoms.

Last week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he had just authorized investigators to take “significant” steps, declining to specify them. This week, one of Mr. Assange’s lawyers in Britain said they had “heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly impaneled grand jury” in northern Virginia.

Justice Department officials have declined to discuss any grand jury activity. But in interviews, people familiar with the case said the department appeared to be attracted to the possibility of prosecuting Mr. Assange as a co-conspirator to the leaking because it is under intense pressure to make an example of him as a deterrent to further mass leaking of electronic documents over the Internet.

 

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

It is not reasonable to set conditions on the Swedish Gov't or police, by Assange

In normal situations, yes.  In a situation where someone reasonably fears being transferred to the US to face secret charges, and offers a means of being interviewed, it would simply be practical for the Swedish authorities to agree the proposed arrangement.  Instead, they refused, and claimed that it was not possible for them to do so - which turned out to be a lie.  Why, it's almost as though they were less concerned about intervieewing him, than physically getting hold of him.

34 minutes ago, blandy said:

The US request is for computer hacking. It is not for freedom of speech, or publishing classified data. As Bicks said, that's a 5 year gig.

No, it's not for hacking.  It is for conspiracy to enable Manning to conceal his activity in accessing a computer to which he already had access, by cracking a password so he could log in under another name.  As I said in response to Bicks, the US can add further charges once they get him back.  Anyone who thinks they have speant all this time and effort to get hold of him only in order to press the charge that has been made public really needs to think a bit harder about it.  Why they want him is because of the publication of evidence of US war crimes, and what they aim to achieve is to frighten others off doing similar.

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

These people were put at serious risk by what Wikileaks published

That argument was apparently explored fully in the Manning case, and was found not to be the case - though it's easy to see why it should have been a concern.  Assange was apparently not very concerned about that, which reflects very poorly on him.

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sympathy is misplaced, therefore, I think.

It's not a case of sympathy.  He sounds like a right arse, and someone who is very difficult to be around.  It's about the principle, the precedent, and the consequences.  Here's a view from the right wing, to balance the ones from the left:

Quote

You Don’t Have to Love Assange to Fear His Prosecution

...Shamefully, those stuck in journalism’s cheap seats are unlikely to side with Assange, even though they wrote stories based on what he published on Wikileaks. They’ll drift along with the government’s nod and wink that this is all a one-off against Julian, and those who play by the government’s unspoken rules are still safe.

They’ll self-righteously proclaim that Assange going to jail is sad but unfortunately necessary, claiming he just took things too far. The Daily Beast’s take on all this, for example, is headlined in TMZ-esque tones: “Unkempt, Heavily Bearded Julian Assange No Longer Has Embassy Cat For Company.”

They will miss the big picture: where previous cases avoided delineating the precise balancing point between the government’s need to protect information, the right to expose information, and the media’s right to publish it, an Assange prosecution will create new precedents, weapons for clever future prosecutors. It will be one of those turning points journalists working under future press restrictions will cite when remembering the good old days.

 

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

(he's not a journalist)

I disagree

[Xela]

58 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So, right now as it stands, he's hidden in a cupboard for seven years to avoid a five year sentence?

He also towards the end refused to wash and smeared faeces up the wall. I mean, the cheek! I may do that at work but i'd never do it at an embassy! I'm not an animal.

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

The US request is for computer hacking.

Quote

The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity.

But because the DOJ issued a press release with a headline that claimed that Assange was accused of “hacking” crimes, media outlets mindlessly repeated this claim even though the indictment contains no such allegation. It merely accuses Assange of trying to help Manning avoid detection. That’s not “hacking.” That’s called a core obligation of journalism.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/

[bickster]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

No it isn't. When was the last time you heard on the news about that story? Point proven. 

Thsi story will be forgotten very soon just like that. 

3

All stories news stories have a shelf life. I haven't heard much about the Salisbury Poisoners in the last six months and they are more relevant than the Khashoggi murder (just)

The Khashoggi murder has no relation to a US Extradition request for Julian Assange. There are literally no parallels to be drawn, one is a perfectly legitimate request by a foreign country for the extradition of someone suspected of being complicit in the theft and dissemination of classified material, the other is the murder of a Saudi born journalist on Saudi soil by a team of Saudi's where no extradition request was ever made. 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

It was known way back in 2010, for example reported here, that they were seeking to prosecute him and had empanelled a grand jury.  To say that there was no indictment at that point is true, and also wholly irrelevant - the point is that he reasonably feared being charged by and extradited to the US.

I agree with some of what your wider posts suggests, but not this bit.

The US authorities looking at whether he'd broken any of their laws is normal process. Particularly in issues of classified material.

Of course some people in the US and even (or especially) in official roles were livid etc. but to me, fear of being prosecuted for a crime someone commits is not a defence of them hiding from any such prosecution (though no case for prosecution had been put in his case). No wrongdoing, no fear.

The Manning thing I read about earlier at work. The indictment that I read suggested he was believed to have encouraged/acted with Manning to have committed code cracking - which is hacking basically - to spoof or bypass or whatever the security of the files - to access more classified material. Some aspects of the indictment are worrying, wrt publishers generally "printing" true information - as Marv's link shows (and in contradiction of that woeful blog post's claim you put up, the media is rightly on the press and journalism angle).

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

All stories news stories have a shelf life. I haven't heard much about the Salisbury Poisoners in the last six months and they are more relevant than the Khashoggi murder (just)

The Khashoggi murder has no relation to a US Extradition request for Julian Assange. There are literally no parallels to be drawn, one is a perfectly legitimate request by a foreign country for the extradition of someone suspected of being complicit in the theft and dissemination of classified material, the other is the murder of a Saudi born journalist on Saudi soil by a team of Saudi's where no extradition request was ever made. 

You just proven my point. The media make these stories disappear just like this story once the us have him. 

[Chindie]

42 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

You just proven my point. The media make these stories disappear just like this story once the us have him. 

The media wants people watching and reading. People eventually tire of stories, and moreover eventually stories stop moving on. The Khashoggi case basically got rinsed clean of whatever going to happen with it to this point, I don't think you can expect the news and papers to continually run stories along the lines of 'Saudi Arabia murdered a journalist they didn't like and there's nothing new to report about it, just like the was nothing new to report about it yesterday, or last week, or last month...'. Even if they are actively investigating things independently, you can't expect the story to be featured in perpetuity while they try to dig things up. Even publications like Private Eye, which is unusual in that it's less driven by being an out and out 'news' business and is infamously supportive of investigative journalism, will go months and even years between updates on stories it feels are really quite important.

Assange's case will stop getting reported on when it inevitably hits a lull. Assuming he does get extradited to the US, once there the story will stop while the gears of the justice system move, and come up again at the key moments. Just as any other big story would. The Gary McKinnon case sent on for ages and regularly disappeared from the headlines only to return at the major talking points.

The idea the media actively hides a case like Assange is daft.

[Demitri_C]

13 hours ago, Chindie said:

The media wants people watching and reading. People eventually tire of stories, and moreover eventually stories stop moving on. The Khashoggi case basically got rinsed clean of whatever going to happen with it to this point, I don't think you can expect the news and papers to continually run stories along the lines of 'Saudi Arabia murdered a journalist they didn't like and there's nothing new to report about it, just like the was nothing new to report about it yesterday, or last week, or last month...'. Even if they are actively investigating things independently, you can't expect the story to be featured in perpetuity while they try to dig things up. Even publications like Private Eye, which is unusual in that it's less driven by being an out and out 'news' business and is infamously supportive of investigative journalism, will go months and even years between updates on stories it feels are really quite important.

Assange's case will stop getting reported on when it inevitably hits a lull. Assuming he does get extradited to the US, once there the story will stop while the gears of the justice system move, and come up again at the key moments. Just as any other big story would. The Gary McKinnon case sent on for ages and regularly disappeared from the headlines only to return at the major talking points.

The idea the media actively hides a case like Assange is daft.

I reckon and I am confident of this. We won't ever hear about Assange again if the US gets a hold of him. 

[VILLAMARV]

For me, it's a real test of whether people can see past the personality politics era. History is littered with influential people who did bad things or were guilty of some quite heinous things, yet the point of principle is what they are judged by. I'm sure I will have quoted Mandela or Ghandhi at some point, yet no one tends to reply with pointing out their flaws as individuals when talking about their wider impact on our existence. Yet I feel the two things are getting conflated in this issue.

Assange has made a lot of enemies. He seems to be the sort of person who does so easily. He may well be a sexual pervert of some kind and he should face those charges - given one thing which the accused absolutely can and should demand - that he be treated fairly by the legal system(s) and given a fair trial(s). Rightly or wrongly that was the point he was arguing and is still arguing wherever the extradition warrants have come from. We can, and will, disagree about whether that is a fair and relevant claim to make or even build a defense around. And that's fair enough, we all see things differently.

We need to be careful though I think not to resort to suggestions that supporters of him in his position don't think rape is important or that in taking a principled stand it in some way means people worried about a legal precedent are downplaying rape. not aimed at anyone here, but the front page of The Heil today does exactly that. I think it's also worth noting that every time you read or hear the phrase 'Assange supporter' it may be beneficial to hear 'Supporter of Press Freedoms' instead. That way, no-one is being mislead. I am not a Nyland supporter am I? I'm a Villa fan.

Quote

The Daily Mail accuses the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, of downplaying the allegations of sexual assault made against him in Sweden, which he denies. It says she displayed a "warped Stalinist worldview" in which crimes can be ignored and expunged as long as you are political bedfellows.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47917041

Just because some people are detestable, it doesn't mean they can't be correct about something and just because there are people we may like, it doesn't mean they are right about everything. Yet we live in a time where people rave about the latest Adam Curtis documentary but then, to touch on what Dem is saying, seem to forget it by tea-time. Outraged at the footage of Journalists and civilians being gunned down in the street from helicopters and the laughter that accompanied it, yet happy to hand over the guy who broke the story to the people who committed the crimes. Crimes which, by anyone's standards, are surely of similar severity to even a sexual assault or rape. In 2010 alone - murder, torture - beating, burning, electrocuting and raping prisoners, child prostitution, along with exposing US involvement in Yemen, UK training Bangladeshi 'death squads', US ambivalence towards Red Cross claims of torture by Indian security forces in Kashmir, China hacking Google, UK secret deals with the US in the Iraq probe, The Pope refusing to let Vatican officials testify in the child abuse investigation into the Catholic Church, Cables showing a US backed coup in Honduras, Secret US troops operating illegally in Pakistan and more. The paper that had a headline that read "Hard to believe she's just 16! Kendall Jenner looks older than her years as she shows off her model shape in stunning bikini shoot". Or without a hint of irony when pillorying Brass Eye preceded that with close ups of the 'bikini princesses' when Beatrice and Eugenie were barely older than 10. They are suggesting Abbott is downplaying rape in suggesting we should not extradite him to the US? And with no extradition order on the table yet from Sweden?That's what I'd call a 'warped view' myself. So **** right off Daily Mail.

He absolutely acted recklessly with that information imho. I think we would be seeing a much more supportive press if he understood or agreed with the reasons for censorship before release. He appears to have fallen out with every publication he has teamed up with and ostracised himself. Hislop's comments on him particularly interesting in going from 'friend' to 'foe' I thought. He seems to revel in the limelight and seems a very antagonistic individual. Sometimes we have to stick up for people we don't like though.

Quote

“From a legal perspective, the media may not want this to be the test case,” says Dan Abrams, NBC’s legal analyst and the founder of the Mediaite blog. “This example is almost a classic law school worst-case scenario for testing the bounds of the First Amendment. [Journalists] think it’s within his rights to do have done it, but they think he ought not to have done it. That’s the fundamental tension in the way the media’s covering the story, and the tepid defenses.”

Newsweek in 2011

Yet it has become a test case. Possibly even THE test case for the digital age.

If and when Sweden put the extradition order in, surely the question for the UK courts will be more complicated than the thing most of us would answer yes to in an instant - 'Should he face the allegations of rape?'

To ignore the very real possibility of him being handed over to the US by Sweden, regardless of the outcome of the soon to be re-opened rape investigation, would be short-sighted. To ignore Trump's treatment of Manning right now, the clear and obvious motive, the fact that they can add charges at any point he would be in their custody, the secrecy of the court he would be put in front of and the fact that they still run the illegal prison facility he helped to bring to the public attention, the ambiguity in the wording of the patriot act regarding labelling people terrorists and so on would make a mockery of the information he helped bring to the public domain imo. And set a very dangerous precedent if he ends up being extradited to the US on the charges he is currently being charged with. 

Back in 2010 (same article as above)

Quote

conservatives are calling for Assange’s head, in some cases literally. Sarah Palin urged that Assange be “pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders,” and The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol wants the U.S. to “use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators.” And many are also inclined to prosecute the newspapers that worked with Assange. Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Bush administration attorney general Michael Mukasey argue for using the Espionage Act of 1917—which has never been used against a publisher before—to prosecute Assange and have suggested that The New York Times, which published material from WikiLeaks, could potentially be prosecuted as well.

And this weeks NYT

Quote

In recent years, prosecutors have begun far more regularly charging officials with leaking information to reporters under the Espionage Act, a World War I-era law. It criminalizes the disclosure of potentially damaging national security secrets to someone not authorized to receive them. On its face, the Espionage Act could also be used to prosecute reporters who publish government secrets.

While many legal scholars believe that prosecuting reporters for doing their jobs would violate the First Amendment, the prospect has never been tested in court because the government has never charged a journalist under that law. The rumblings about prosecuting Mr. Assange raised the possibility that prosecutors could violate that norm and try to establish that publishing government secrets can be a crime.

The clamour to have him not recognised as a journalist becomes a little clearer imo, despite the numerous journalism awards and nobel peace prize nominations. It is hard for me to understand the distinction between the publishing of information and the publishing of information.

After writing and releasing The End of America, which highlighted the rise of fascist precursors under the Bush (Jr) administration, Naomi Wolf had to fend off the usual moronic responses of why don't you leave then? - why don't you just go and live in Russia? I think I am right in saying that her response was, "When they start locking up journalists. That's when I'll leave".

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I reckon and I am confident of this. We won't ever hear about Assange again if the US gets a hold of him. 

He imprisoned himself for the last 7 years and barely a month has gone by in that time when he hasn't been in the news. There is absolutely no chance of that stopping

[Demitri_C]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

He imprisoned himself for the last 7 years and barely a month has gone by in that time when he hasn't been in the news. There is absolutely no chance of that stopping

We will nicks you might be right or I might. They can easily make him disappear if they want him to. Just like these rape allegations that conviently came after the leaks and now they want to re open the case. 

[VILLAMARV]

18 hours ago, bickster said:

The Khashoggi murder has no relation to a US Extradition request for Julian Assange.

Apart from my hilarious witticism on page 12 of course

[Chindie]

28 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I reckon and I am confident of this. We won't ever hear about Assange again if the US gets a hold of him. 

He's the editor in chief of an infamous and influential news outlet that specialises in leaking confidential information of the powerful.

Even if the US wants to put him in a deep dark hole to forget about him, which they probably won't given they'll want to be seen to bringing justice to a wrongdoer and will be fully aware every infraction against him is going to gone over with a microscope, it wouldn't happen. He's a man who literally has his own platform. He will be in the news for quite some time to come, on and off.

For what it's worth, I actually don't think he should be extradited to the US unless they can put a bloody good argument he's broken the law. He should be going back to Sweden sharpish though.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

He should be going back to Sweden sharpish though.

I would imagine this is UK Govts prefered conclusion to this if the truth be known. The extradition is fairly easy in comparison to the US one. Extradition to the US is going to take up years of UK court time in appeals and technical legal arguments