He certainly should be freed. He has done nothing wrong unless truth telling is wrong.

Julian Assange should NOT be freed; nor should he be allowed to serve whatever sentence he gets in Australia. That our generally pussifed government is offering him no support speaks volumes, as does the Biden government's continuing pursuit of Assange, just as the Trump administration did. The Yankee Trump-haters should ponder on that. Bet they don't lambast Biden as they did Trump. As for Australians, we shouldn't get shirty over the punishment of someone who has brought shame on our country.

Peter Bowden does not decide what the people of the US and the rest of the world had the right to know - fortunately!

Let us look at the following scenario:

An Australian lady, while strip-dancing in a Thai nightclub, speaks dirtily of the prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h).
Saudi government demands her extradition on the grounds of breaking Saudia's modesty laws.
She has broken neither Australian nor Thai law.
She has never been to Saudi Arabia.

Would Australia agree for Thailand to extradite her to Saudi Arabia?

Obviously not!

So what's the difference?

When it comes to America we have no choice, we depend on them, we especially need their nukes to defend us against Chinese attack/invasion. We do not similarly depend on Saudi Arabia, that's the difference, the whole difference!

ttn: As for Australians, we shouldn't get shirty over the punishment of someone who has brought shame on our country.

If a Country does something shameful, & someone exposes that thing, by you reckoning, the person that exposed the Shameful thing the Country did is a Criminal.

Have I got that right?

How can an Australian citizen who was probably not even living in the US at the time that he committed this bogus "crime" be rightly accused with breaking any American laws, especially "treason".

Julian Assange should be allowed to return home to
Australia. I can't understand why he's being held in
Britain and what the crime is that he's been charged
with to still be held in custody.

As for the US and their demands - that should
be up to our PM to decide whether he will oblige the
US or not. Assange is an Australian citizen and he
is entitled to the protection that his government
should provide. He has done nothing wrong - except tell
the truth that was given to him by an American.

Is that American in jail?

So, what has Assange actually done ? If he published sensitive information be it right or wrong, publishing sensitive information he did & for that he has served enough time.
Let him go & make him promise not to stick his nose into sensitive information ever again.
If he writes a novel about this he'll be a multi-millionaire overnight & he should be happy with that.
Let him live somewhere out of the reach of Australia & the USA.

To Jayb, and other posters who are constantly having a go at other people's opinions. I don't give a toss whether you agree or disagree with my opinions. I don't intend to change them any more than you are prepared to change your opinions. Just say what you think on the matter, and move on. None of our opinions are going to make a damn of difference to what happens to Assange anyway. And that includes the ideological ramblings of Peter Bowden. Get over yourselves.

The charges against Assange aren't about the publishing of the stolen data but that he encouraged espionage and/or instigated espionage and/or actually took part in espionage. If he merely received the stolen data from Bradley Manning and published it there would never have been a problem.

But it is alleged, he did much more than just publish as above. the charge is that he had some part in the theft by Manning. Silly claims that Australia has any say in this is ignorant. The things he's charged with took place overseas and against another country. In the same way that the Australian government has no roll if a citizen is charged with stealing in another country, we have no roll here.

Besides, do we really want to bring a rapist back into this country?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

ttn:To Jayb, and other posters who are constantly having a go at other people's opinions. I don't give a toss whether you agree or disagree with my opinions. I don't intend to change them.

I have no problem with your opinion. Your opinion is yours. I didn't ask you to change it. I only asked a question, for the sake of clarity, that all.

There is no need to go off Half Cocked about mine or anyone else's opinion. Strewth, young fella settle down. Firing up makes you look like a Goose. Ay.

Yes, mhaze, there is also the Swedish incident that would have had the wrath of the usual suspects brought down upon any other 'white, privileged Australian male'. This bloke is not just a naughty boy: he is a low life and enemy of the US, and by default, Australia and the West. Even the Labor party hasn't gone it to bat for him.

It's clearly the loony left, anti-American mob that's making a fuss over this nasty piece of work.

..unless truth telling is wrong.
ateday,
In a society full of sane people that'd be the right thing but when you have what we have where people can't handle the truth then muzzling them is for the good of all the good !

ttbn: there is also the Swedish incident that would have had the wrath of the usual suspects brought down upon any other 'white, privileged Australian male'.

Didn't she admit she had been coerced by the yanks. Now she has withdrawn her complaint. So that's that. What the Poms have got him for is absconding Bail.

Those who want Assange jailed in the US are strangely silent on real political crimes like Myanmar and Belarus. Perhaps they prefer easy targets. This saga and the prosecution of Bernard Collaery shows illiberal governments don't like being caught out acting dishonestly. What they are seeking is revenge not justice.

If Assange is extradited and he serves an additional term longer than Manning I think it will set back US relationships with the rest of the world. Their London embassy could become a focal point for that anger. They should be careful what they wish for.

JA is just a revolting narcissist. Frankly I couldn't give a rats if he is innocent or guilty: Either way, I hope he rots in jail. For me it is comforting to see truly horrible people get their comeuppance.

Julian Assange is not a rapist. Those Swedish charges were trumped-up in order to get Assange to Sweden where he could be extradited to the US. The women's testimony was manipulated and once they realised how they were being played they withdrew their complaint. The complaint was never one of rape in the first place.

Assange has committed no crime. He has bravely and selflessly revealed the USA's dirty war secrets and the world owes him a debt of gratitude. The US government is determined to extract revenge and in one way or another to end Assange's life. It's also hellbent on sending a powerful warning to all other journalists. If you air our dirty laundry to the world, we'll come after you and we won't stop until we've destroyed you.

The Australian government and opposition's spineless acquiescence in the face of this appalling travesty of justice just goes to show how shamelessly Australia kowtows to its American masters!

If Assange had simply published leaked information he could be charged.

However, the emails between him and Bradley Manning clearly showed that he not only cajoled him into hacking the system but instructed him on how to do this. This makes him an accomplice.

"Julian Assange is not a rapist. Those Swedish charges were trumped-up in order to get Assange to Sweden where he could be extradited to the US. The women's testimony was manipulated and once they realised how they were being played they withdrew their complaint. The complaint was never one of rape in the first place".

Now there's a super-dooper conspiracy theory. Assange is not a rapist (Just Bronwyn's opinion. No trial to provide a conclusion one way or the other). The mighty US has nothing better to do than persecute a single individual. The women's testimony was manipulated (Who says? Apart from Bronwyn). Why was the complaint withdrawn? "Played" or not, what sort of women would withdraw a complaint that attracts enormous sympathy. And if the complaint was "never one of rape in the first place", what was it. Bronwyn indicates that she knows more than all those newshounds and activists keen to bring down a white, privileged male, but she has no evidence of anything she claims.

Her whole post is just another manic blurt, topped off by her final comments attacking Australia and nonsense about America being our master.

ttbn: Now there's a super-dooper conspiracy theory. Assange is not a rapist.

I have it on good authority. The Manager of a Woman's Shelter. I quote, "Any man, accused of Rape must go to jail, weather he did it or not. If he didn't do it, it make up for the ones that did & got away with it." End of quote.

I think that the sympathy and concern for wrongful conviction held by some would turn on its head were George Pell responsible for Wikileaks. I guess the truth is that I have the same feelings for Julian as some have for George, so the question of guilt or innocence has no relevance for me.

ttbn

Unlike you, I don't rely on mainstream media for my information. All my claims are verifiable. Just because they're new to your blinkered eyes, doesn't mean they're fabricated conspiracy theories.

In regards to the rape allegations, Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, had the following to say: “I speak fluent Swedish and was able to read all the original documents. I could hardly believe my eyes. According to the testimony of the woman in question, a rape had never taken place at all. And not only that: the woman’s testimony was later changed by the Stockholm Police without her involvement in order to somehow make it sound like a possible rape. I have all the documents in my possession, the emails, the text messages.”

The sex was consensual. Neither of the two women involved accused Assange of rape. They merely wanted him to take an STD test. They had approached the police about compelling him to comply. “I did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange,” texted one of them on Aug. 20 while she was still at the police station, but “the police were keen on getting their hands on him.” She said she felt “railroaded by the police.”

Bronwyn,

You say, "All my claims are verifiable". 

So, would you kindly verify them for us as you are the only one who knows where they are.

I don't rely on the MSM for anything, by the way. Another wild guess on your part.

I'm looking forward to your proof of what you claim to actually know.

shadowminister

<< emails between him and Bradley Manning clearly showed that he not only cajoled him into hacking the system but instructed him on how to do this. >>

Perhaps you can provide a quote from these emails that 'clearly shows' Assange instructing Manning. If you can't, I suggest you stop passing on pure suppositioin as though it is the incontrovertible truth, which it most certainly isn't.

Civil rights attorney and member of Assange's legal team, Michael Ratner, observed: “Prosecutors in the Bradley Manning case revealed internet chat logs between Manning and an unnamed person at WikiLeaks who they said colluded with Manning by helping the accused traitor engineer a reverse password. Without supporting evidence, prosecutors claimed the unnamed person was Assange. Both Manning and Assange denied it."

Manning was a whistleblower, Assange a publisher. There was no collusion between them. The 'unnamed person' was obviously not Assange. If it was, that particular piece of evidence would have been brandished from the rooftops. Instead, it remains hidden. Manning is just one more person the US prosecution is using to go after Assange.

The case against Assange is on very shaky ground. One of the main prosecution witnesses has recently been proven to have lied. There really is no case, but that won't stop the US from throwing all its resources into having Assange locked away and his life destroyed. He's been held up as an example of what will happen to anyone else who dares to publish classified documents the government wants kept hidden from public view.

If his case were so strong then why did he spend seven years hiding in an embassy and wasting many millions of taxpayers money? At least George had the integrity to face a trial, although Julian may have a bit of trouble getting his Ecuadorian flat mates to attest to his good fame and character.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-latin-america-47956607

ttbn

<< So, would you kindly verify them for us as you are the only one who knows where they are. >>

I've already provided evidence to counter specific claims made on this thread and will continue to do so. I provide directly relevant and authoritative quotes which are easily verifiable. If you're going to continue to imply that I'm a liar ... and Nils Melzer too ... then you need to provide hard evidence to back up your claim.

Please stop telling me to do something which you yourself have no intention (or capacity) of doing.

Bronwyn,

So you read something in Wikipedia that someone called Nils Melzer said, and you believe it. He might be telling the truth, or he might not. You are, apparently believing him because you want to. You have form.

Are you really that naive? Unless you were with this character when he visited Assange, you are in no better position to know the truth than I am. You have verified nothing.

As for what I post, I have given my OPINION on what I think should happen to Assange. Some people will agree with me, others will disagree with me. No problems with that. And I don't have to 'verify' my opinions. Nobody has to.

But, when you claim to have special insights into everything, as you invariably do, you need to expect requests for proof. Heresay from a person most people has never heard of is not proof.

Giving an opinion, no matter how iffy, on a blog set up for opinions, is fine. But anonymous posters like us, claiming to have more knowledge or qualifications than others have no credibility.

Dear Bronwyn,

Prof. Nils Melzer's background speaks for itself.
Thank You for drawing our attention to him.
His credentials are impeccable as is his knowledge
of the Assange case. The following interview is
revealing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDWw-IFH7s4

The treatment of Assange is a disgrace. It needs to
stop NOW.

Gosh, and when George got shoved in the clink some people were saying we should respect the courts, at least until the High Court acquitted him. Now George has to live a restricted life in his own country to protect him from some people. Yet Jules hides from the courts for seven years and it's all okay because the courts are all corrupt. The Ecuadorian's said that they surrendered Assange because he was such a revolting and abusive person, yet that isn't true because Julian says it's all crap. Same with the women alleging assault. All rubbish.

Hang on, I get it now. It's all about believing one person's story against the evidence of many. So with Pell it's about disregarding all the evidence and testimony of the defence because the accuser is so believable despite inconsistencies in his story. Similarly, with Jules it's about believing him and disregarding any testimony or evidence against him because he is such a great guy. Funnily enough, I feel about as much sympathy for him as I did for the likes of Bernie Madoff or Jeffrey Epstein.

Yes Fester, hypocrisy writ large. The fortunately few Bronwyns are a part of the price we pay for democracy and freedom of speech. And the fact that Assange has been isolated for almost a decade by a usually weak system, with no complaints or attempts to interfere by Australia, says all that needs to said about this obnoxious person.

He should have dealt with much earlier in the interests of justice; but he has his 'supporters' to blame for his lingering in limbo.

Well ttbn, I would be kidding myself to think that I could determine Assange's guilt or innocence. Assessing his guilt or innocence is the task of the justice system, and Jules hid from the process for seven years. It was enough to get him off sexual assault charges via the statute of limitations, but it looks as if he may face charges of computer hacking and espionage in the US. Why is that bad? Can't he argue his case there as George did here? Wasn't George portrayed as a terrible coward hiding in the Vatican? Was there any criticism of his trial? I remember some of Jules' fans saying that the guilty verdict against Pell should be respected, detailing the thoroughness and fairness of his trial, as well as the eminence of the presiding judges. So why is it different for Jules?

As a chump on the net all I can do is try to get an idea of his character, and all can come up with thus far is that of a gutless narcissistic pig.

Assange Is the living example that entrepreneurship is too often a reckless cause chasing a secure existence.

Being classified on the fourth level of the standard description of the entrepreneur, viz;
“Innovator/Revolutionary (attains growth through innovation)”, that might accurately categorise him as a terrorist could/should also be categorised as an entrepreneur, (one would think).

Seems strange in a way though, the Yanks who are renowned for heaping praise on their own entrepreneurial elite, chase down a fellow entrepreneur for the kill.

Unfortunately the author doesn’t pose a question within this article, but simply makes a biased statement.
A meaningful question could be accurately posed as this: Should Assange be treated as a terrorist or should he be treated as a failed entrepreneur?

The Americans have a very recent history treating their own failed home grown entrepreneurs with kid gloves.

The 2007/8 global financial crisis is the obvious. After all, they were responsible for the evaporation of over three trillion dollars of the superannuation funds belonging to the working classes, and escaped scott free.

The empirical evidence in the equation of outcomes for Assange, is too limited to be fair and supportive of justice, in my view.

Dan.

Fester

One would think that Communist China, where no one gets a fair trial, wanted to extradite Assange, not America, the leader of the free world, and the country accusing the man of offences against it. But of course Bronwyn in the past has made excuses for China, and objected to criticism of China, so it's not surprising in her case. It's all about hatred of the West - the only society that provides the haters a safe environment to do their hating.

For anyone really interested in the Assange case
instead of flapping your jaws, how about reading
what international law experts like Nils Meltzer
have to say. He's been investigating the Assasnge case
for quite some time. It certainly can't hurt to get
up to date with all the facts instead of relying only
on ignorant and mis-informed opinions that are not
evidence based.

The following link is worth a read:

http://republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-meltzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

cont'd ...

My typo. Sorry.

Here's the link again:

http://republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

Foxy

Thanks for posting those links ... at least someone on this site knows how to access reliable sources!

Fester

<< If his case were so strong then why did he spend seven years hiding in an embassy and wasting many millions of taxpayers money? >>

The Ecuadorian government offered Assange political asylum when they saw his own government was doing nothing to protect him from being extradited to the US. The Ecuadorian embassy was the only place where Assange would be safe, which he was, until elections in Ecuador ushered in a US-compliant government who immediately handed him over to British authorities. Assange has committed no crime. He should not have had to seek refuge in any embassy or to now be held in British custody. As for the money spent on his incarceration, you need to ask the British and American governments about that. And successive Australian governments too for that matter. Gillard, Turnbull and Morrison were all asked to intercede on his behalf. All refused.

<< At least George had the integrity to face a trial, although Julian may have a bit of trouble getting his Ecuadorian flat mates to attest to his good fame and character. >>

Assange has the integrity and courage to face a fair trial. What he is facing is anything but fair. It’s a full-scale witch hunt built on shaky and fabricated evidence. Assange doesn’t stand a chance.
President Moreno was being visited and pressured by US government officials. He placed Assange in solitary confinement and coutoff all outside communication. He allowed the CIA to spy on Assange and his lawyers. His claims about Assange’s hygiene are fanciful and nothing more than deliberate lies to besmirch Assange’s character.
To liken Assange with George Pell demonstrates your ignorance of what Assange has done for the world. He has revealed to us all the truth of the crimes committed by the ruling establishment. Pell is part of the establishment. He’s committed no such public service. All he’s done is fought to cover up the truth and to save his own skin.

Dear Bronwyn,

I've pre-ordered the book by Nils Melzer -
"The trial of Julian Assange: A Study of Persecution,"
which comes out in February 2022, I believe it's
going to be a shocker. However, well worth a read for
anyone interested in learning the truth of this sorry
saga.

The assertion of Jules' fans is that he wont get a fair trial in the US. I am sure there are many eminent lawyers with a range of opinions on this matter. The US is seeking extradition of Assange because of evidence that he has committed criminal offences. The UK High Court has heard the extradition case and agrees that Assange has a case to answer and that it has no reason to refuse his extradition.

<Assange has the integrity and courage to face a fair trial.>

Well he sure fooled me into thinking he was a despicable coward. As for "establishment" Pell, he spent well over a year in the clink, presumably before his "establishment" mates in the High Court let him off, so obviously the Vic Court Judges are plebs. Boy, Jules' fans are sounding like closet Q Anoners. When Tom Hanks got covid on the Gold Coast, one of my work mates told me that he had really been arrested on paedophilia charges. When I asked about Tom's trial sometime later I got told that the rich and powerful are able to avoid facing justice. Just like George I guess.

There will always be a range of opinion on any matter, which is why we need a judicial process when the matter is possibly a criminal offence. Jules might be a golden boy to some, but to me he is a cowardly abusive narcissist with poo on his hands.

A "cowardly abusive narcissist" is a good description of this evil person whose true character we have been reminded of the the lowlifes who support him.

A "cowardly abusive narcissist" is a good description of this evil person whose true character we have been reminded of the the lowlifes who support him.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 29 December 2021 7:54:14 AM

That comment from ttbn sounds like a good example of "what you say is what you are".

However, why are various other publishers not also being locked up and extradited with Assange?
I first heard about the secret information when it was published in print and television news media, none of which has ever been owned or controlled by Assange.

I personally would not do what Manning and Assange did but that's not the point.
The point is that Assange did not break any Law yet he is being held in a British jail, likely at Her Majesty's Pleasure, or has the military and judiciary taken over the UK?

I consider I owe my freedom to US citizens and their military who came so far to fight and win the bloody battles of WWII, but it's some other element of international society that's now chasing Assange.

In this day and age especially there is dire need to be honest and fair and humane, decent, and peaceful

Yes..* In this day and age especially there is dire need to be honest and fair and humane, decent, and peaceful..*(jf Aus,).

But the question of what becomes of Assange is much more broader than that: It involves the future of our own personal liberties and freedoms to both speak the truth, and to actually know the truth, all of it.

I think I’m not far off the mark to claim we are living in an invasive modern form of Dictatorship, and it’s called Democracy.

Our own leaders are part of the collusive leadership of it, and since the events leading to Assange and his future, we have witnessed the continuance of the duplicitous nature of our Democracy in many ways, apart from COVID strangulation of many Democratic rights and normal expectations surrounding our traditions of Democratic rule, we witnessed the Panama Papers with its spotlight on the scorch of the wealthy who live totally outside the realities of rule applicable to most of us.

It was those actions and outcomes of the surrogate rulers above, Assange was focused on, and it is those alone who are vindictively aligned against him now.
This is not Justice, it is pay-back.

Dan

<A "cowardly abusive narcissist" is a good description of this evil person whose true character we have been reminded of the the lowlifes who support him.>

I disagree that you can infer a person's character based on whether or not they believe Jules not guilty (or George for that matter). What I would suggest is that your belief in the guilt or innocence of someone might relate to whether you like them or not. So if you think Jules is a golden boy then a conspiracy of four countries, three judicial systems, as well as some embassy employees (certainly the cleaners), might be plausible. It might also seem plausible that golden boy Jules has been held at Her Majesty's pleasure for the past few years unlawfully.

I don't like Jules at all. I've known a few narcissists in my time and he ticks all the boxes. As for his guilt or innocence I think the best place to determine such a question is in court, not by the thumbs of his friends and foes. Pell didn't chicken out in the Vatican for several years, visited by a string of celebrities and regularly holding court to say he was being persecuted for being a Catholic priest and would not get a fair trial. He didn't take a bog in the Sistine Chapel and chuck his poo at the walls either.

I rang to thank Barnaby Joyce for advocating for Julian Assange's release and the dropping of the US charges. Barnaby spoke out while in the US showing some gumption, totally lacking in the PM. He called out the ridiculous charges made against JA most notably the fact that he published damning material supplied to Wikileaks of US war crimes as the journalists at the UK Guardian did. But also he said quite rightly that JA has not committed any crime in the UK and is being held against any semblance of justice. So although I would have many differences of political opinion with BJ on this one he has my full support.

annb,
Well done and well said.

Ditto!

If he were 'merican having exposing Chinese misconduct, the(USA) would be up in arms to defend him.
Alas, he's an Australian

Well, if he'd bitten the hand that feeds him he'd have long ago succumbed to an umbrella gun, polonium tea or Novichok aftershave, yet he fears an independent justice system in a liberal democracy. Jules is a victim of his own paranoia. At least one of his victims is telling her story. Maybe he thinks that others are like him? That would explain quite a deal.

https://news.in-24.com/world/218753.html

Fester

<< At least one of his victims is telling her story. >>

You’ve linked to an almost incoherent article. It does nothing to enhance Anna Ardin’s status as a credible witness, which I presume was your intention in posting it.

The article Foxy linked to gives a much clearer and more accurate account of the so-called ‘rape’ charges. Did you read it?

https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange

The first woman did not accuse Assange of rape. Yet two hours after her statement to police, a Swedish tabloid had announced Assange was suspected of not just one, but two 'rapes'. The second woman to make the claim, Anna, hadn't even made her claim of 'rape' to police at that stage. She only did so the following day. The earlier statement by the other woman was rewritten by police. The claims of ‘rape’ were clearly fabricated. There was obvious collusion between media, police and government agencies. This is the real story. Anna’s pathetic sob story of her treatment on social media is an irrelevant side show.

I posted because AA wanted to make it clear that she wasn't hired by the CIA and wanted to give her account of the abuse. The sexual assault cases were discontinued because Jules hid from justice in an embassy for several years, something George wouldn't do. This article outlines the abuse the sa victims got from Jules and his fans for speaking out, including a death threat. Foxy links to a person who wasn't present at the assaults, a sucky sucky Jules fan happy to take his hero's side. Ewww!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9163289/Julian-Assanges-victims-break-silence.html

The facts speak for themselves:

http://dw.com/en/the-case-of-julian-assange-rule-of-aw-undermined/a-57260909

<< The facts speak for themselves >>

They do, Foxy ... and thank you for posting them!

And thanks also for alerting us to the release in February of Nil Melzer's book, "The trial of Julian Assange: A Study of Persecution".

No doubt, Fester will have it on his reading list!

What fascinates me is the great variance of opinion of the fellow. This journalist writes a very unfavourable piece on creepy Jules, yet he does not think that he should be extradited.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8774327/Before-judge-morality-WikiLeaks-read-devastating-expose-first.html

I think him cowardly and paranoid and believe that all his legal troubles would have been long resolved had he the courage and character of someone like George. His torment is all his own making, and his vile treatment and disregard of others voids me of pity.

Dear Bronwyn,

Happy New Year!

Hopefully this one will be better than the last.

As for Fester's choice in reading material?
I doubt whether his interests extend very far
judging from his posts and his vocabulary.
He also seems to be a staunch supporter of
former cardinal George Pell who was told by
Rome to return to Australia and face the
accusations.

Pell had the power of the church behind him. He
had the best lawyers that money could buy. He
had the support of famous people - he had a
good run and was handled with kid gloves.
Yet a jury found him guilty. He had a good run
and managed to get off on a legal technicality.
A totally different scenario from the one that
Julian Assange is facing.

It shall be interesting to see what the final outcome
will be.

I've reserved the book by Nils Melzer. It should be
quite informative.

We all have our opinions of how things are, but how do you know it's true? Melzer may be a brilliant lawyer, but does that make him irrefutable? Dr Evatt was a brilliant lawyer, but when he read the letter from Molotov in the parliament, people thought, "What a gullible chump!". Foxy, you have an opinion of the Pell saga as do I, and our opinions differ. You see him as getting off on a technicality. The High Court judges saw it differently.

https://lsj.com.au/articles/understanding-the-high-courts-acquittal-of-cardinal-george-pell/

What Jules would have gone through by being tried in Sweden for sexual assault and in the US for hacking and espionage is likely much less than he has brought upon himself with his cowardice. It would have been far more edifying for him to exhibit a bit of dignity and courage as George did.

Fester,

I happen to know people who know George Pell rather well.
His reputation in Ballarat was well known, as well as in Sydney.
He was not exonerated. The High Court judges went according
to what they perceived was the law. Pell got off on a technicality.
There's justice and there's the law. That's why the statue
wears a blindfold.

As for Nils Melzer. He's more than just a lawyer. If you're
really interested in getting to the truth of the Assange case
get hold of his book - the man has been working on this case
for many years - and he is an expert in the field.

Anyhoo - I suspect we shall have to agree to disagree on this.

cont'd ...

Fester,

Here's a link on the subject of Pell:

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

"In contrast the complainant has been believed by a jury,
by a majority judgement and by a substantial body of
public opinion."

Foxy,

The technicality in Pell's case was that there was reasonable doubt about his guilt: I think it comes up quite a bit with not guilty verdicts. A friend of my mother's was one of Pell's parishioners many years ago and could not stand the fellow. I'm sure some people would see Pell rot in prison because they didn't like him. I'd be happy to see Jules rot in prison because I think he is revolting, but that wouldn't be justice. Nor would it be justice to withdraw all charges against Jules based on the pleas of his fans. To quote one commentator on Pell's case:

"Public opinion about the High Court’s decision and Cardinal Pell’s legacy in the church more broadly is unlikely to reach anything like the unanimity of the seven High Court judges. Viewed in this context, perhaps the most important feature of the case is its demonstration of the importance of courts that are independent and apolitical."

https://www.gnl.com.au/articles/2020/may/george-pell-case/

Jules needs to stop cowering in the shadows, George up and face justice. He's spent over ten years cowering. Manning only served seven years. Why would Jules get longer?

Foxy

And a happy new year to you too!

Fester

Assange did not hide to avoid rape charges. He made many offers to testify in London or via video link. The Swedish authorities weren’t interested. Their only aim was to entice him to Sweden where they could then extradite him to the US.

Assange is no coward. He sought political asylum to avoid extradition where he knew life imprisonment in brutal and unsurvivable conditions would await him.

Assange did not 'burn his bridges' with his Ecuadorian hosts. There was a change of government in Ecuador and the new government was amenable to economic inducement and as such betrayed Assange to the US.

The DNC emails were not hacked ... by the Russians or by anyone else. They were leaked by an insider.

Assange did not collude with the Russian government. He published their documents and revealed their secrets too.

Assange assiduously redacted the vast majority of the documents he published. Nobody has ever been harmed as a result of WikiLeaks publications.

The Daily Mail is a rightwing tabloid of dubious credibility. If this is your go-to source, it’s little wonder you’re so poorly informed.

Bronwyn,

We see things and make our own interpretations. The Swedish prosecutors had enough evidence for a trial, so there was little point in conducting further interviews.

<The DNC emails were not hacked ... by the Russians or by anyone else. They were leaked by an insider.>

That isn't the generally accepted view, and wasn't the view of investigators nor the judge who dismissed a subsequent lawsuit.

<Assange is no coward. He sought political asylum to avoid extradition where he knew life imprisonment in brutal and unsurvivable conditions would await him.>

Given what happened to Chelsea Manning I would think that very unlikely. Chelsea received a Presidential pardon. She didn't have her 35 year sentence commuted to gender reassignment surgery. Jules' conduct strikes me as paranoid and cowardly.

As with Pell, people will have a range of views about Jules' guilt. My contention is that the fairest way to determine guilt is via a judicial process. BTW, I like Daily Mail articles because they usually have comments which I enjoy reading. I believe it might be another year before Jules' appeal against extradition is heard. That will make it over eleven years of self-imposed incarceration. What a silly chump!

You just don't get it, Fester, Assange is fighting for his life. The US ruling and intelligence establishment will not rest until he is made to pay the ultimate price for having had the audacity and the nerve to reveal the depths of their corruption and the extent of their war crimes. The hatred they have for him and their determination to hold him up as an example to anyone else thinking to do the same runs much deeper than it did for Manning. The two sentences will not be at all comparable. But like Foxy, I will now admit that I must agree to disagree with you on this issue. I cannot compete with the Daily Mail. Its smear campaign has blinded you to reason.

Bronwyn,

Different interpretations, that is all. I find the contrast between Pell and Assange interesting. Pell didn't hide from justice. He wasn't dragged kicking and screaming. We didn't get a constant stream of reports of his deteriorating health and concerns that he would be tortured and murdered were he to face justice. There was also no hate campaign against Pell's alleged victims. Pell faced trial when he was widely believed to be trying to hide abuses by the Catholic clergy. Assange would face trial when he is widely regarded as exposing injustice. Despite all the hatred, Pell got a fair judicial process, so why wouldn't Assange?

I get the impression that Jules is a bit of a conspiracy nutter. As to whether he is a pathetic coward, I have gotten that impression from his conduct. He keeps saying that he has the courage to face justice, so why doesn't he?

Fester, Assange will never receive a fair trial. He's committed no crime. This case is not about justice. It's about the US extracting revenge and sending a chilling and threatening warning to all journalists and whistle-blowers. We the public will suffer, as journalists and witnesses of government crimes fear to act as truth-tellers and to expose wrong-doing. We will be kept in the dark, apart from the brave few who are still prepared to risk their lives. This is a dark time for all truth-seekers, which should be all of us.

The UN rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, explains why the US government has been so determined to control all aspects of this show-trial. “The choice of location is not by coincidence, because the jury members must be chosen in proportion to the local population, and 85 percent of Alexandria residents work in the national security community—at the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Department and the State Department. When people are tried for harming national security in front of a jury like that, the verdict is clear from the very beginning. The cases are always tried in front of the same judge behind closed doors and on the strength of classified evidence. No one has ever been acquitted there on a similar case.” (7 September 2020)

There will never be justice for Julian Assange. He has millions of supporters around the world, but they will never be enough to overcome the all-powerful intelligence, military and legal stranglehold of the US government.

So much for democracy.

Thanks Bronwyn.

Even though I think Jules a pretty horrible person, I would would have great sympathy for him were he in the danger you outline. I think the main difference in our views here is that I don't see the conspiracies and I think that the justice systems in Sweden, the UK and the US are fair. However, you have convinced me that Jules actually believes the conspiracy theories, and that makes me very sorry for him. It also makes me annoyed at his friends and associates, as they seem to be feeding his delusions (hopefully not for personal gain!). I hope he can use his mental state to get a substantial mitigation for any sentence he gets as I think he has put himself through far more than Swedish and US justice would have. He is bonkers.

Whatever Assange is according to opinion, he is innocent according to Law.

JF, were some here talking about George, they might say, "Whatever George is according to Law, he is guilty according to my opinion.". Jules is innocent according to Law, but a trial in the US might find otherwise. He avoided a trial for sexual assault charges, but does avoiding charges make you innocent of them? Innocent according to Law perhaps, but in that instance he is innocent by a legal technicality.

Fester,

Talking about legal technicalities:

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156

Foxy,

Why not look at the High Court judgement?

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

The conviction was quashed because there was reasonable doubt. That is a legal technicality in as much as any not guilty verdict is a legal technicality. My idea of getting off on a legal technicality is hiding in an embassy until the statute of limitations comes into play.

As for Jules having done no harm and done nothing wrong, he did put people's lives in danger and incur expenses in removing persons from the danger he put them in. As an analogy, consider this scenario: I am concerned about road safety for cyclists, so I go for a drive and play chicken with some cyclists. Some crash with damage to their bikes and injuries that aren't too serious. Other are able to avoid collision. When arrested, I claim that my actions were to raise awareness of the dangerous conditions faced by cyclists on our roads and would ultimately make the roads safer. I answer the suggestion that I might have killed someone with the comment, "Then it would be their fault because they know the risk they take when they go for a ride.".

Would you think that I had done no harm and done nothing wrong? To make it easier for you, imagine that George Pell was driving.

Fester,

The complainant was believed by a jury, by a majority
judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.
The High Court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed
the offences. It asked whether the two majority
judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing
Pell's earlier appeal made an error about the nature of
the correct legal principles or their application.

Pell got off on a legal technicality. His past record
in Ballarat and elsewhere - speaks for itself. The man's
a turd and although you can't polish a turd (unless its
fossilized) sprinkling glitter on it will not prevent
the stench.

Fester,

You seem to be indicating that if you yourself got hold of some stolen whistle-blower information about crime committed by China and the CCP, and you publish it, China has the right to extradite you from Australia?
Even though you have never been in China?

Foxy,

Pell faced the legal process and was acquitted by it. No legal technicality. That people have their own opinion of his guilt is how things are, and a good reason why we need a legal system that attempts to determine guilt objectively. In contrast to George, Jules is too gutless to face a legal process.

JF

If I released information about Chinese agents that put their lives and the lives of their families in danger, causing the Chinese government to expend resources to save those people, I would likely have broken Chinese laws. If there were an extradition treaty between China and Australia I would expect China to try and have me extradited to face trial. To think it okay to put lives in danger because they are in another country doesn't sit well with me. I think such action morally reprehensible, regardless of the motive.

Fester,

Tobacco companies put lives at risk in other countries, where taxpayers fund Medicare cancer treatment and undertaker tax deductions.
Assange is innocent and his speaking the truth has killed nobody.

Julian Assange has already been put through enough. To go after him further is nothing more than a desire for ongoing punishment. Yet with our political leaders and their actions, the punishment is often low to zero. I have no problem with Julian Assange being freed, and I think the message is clear, if you do anything like Julian Assange has been accused of, don't expect to get off lightly. You'll face punishment in a range of ways, shapes and formats.

"Assange is innocent and his speaking the truth has killed nobody."

Says who? Jules? According to the Guardian he said, "Well, they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them.".

Jules is responsible for releasing the identities of hundreds of operatives and informants in countries where torture and murder are not uncommon consequences for such people, their families and associates. Some of the people named by Wikileaks are missing, and it is plausible that they have suffered horrible deaths. Is Jules innocent because he wasn't there? Should he be released without even a trial because some people think he has been through enough and committed no crime?

Jules is a revolting abusive narcissist who has been cowering from justice for over a decade. His irresponsible and callous conduct has very plausibly resulted in the the torture and death of many people. Justice is long overdue for this pathetic creep.

Fester,

Get over your hatred of Assange or produce evidence beyond doubt of what you say.

You seem to be forgetting the political lies and illegal attack and war chasing non existent WMD's, causing death of 100,000 plus civilians plus servicemen and women.

JF,

People were probably tortured and murdered as a result of Jules revealing their identities. Whatever good he might have done is no justification for the harm he did to people. He needs to stand trial for his actions.

Fester

JF is absolutely correct. As he said, you do need to need to get over your irrational hatred of Assange and if you can't do that you need to produce evidence to substantiate your claims.

Again, as JF has pointed out, Assange has revealed to the world the war crimes of Western governments which have killed, maimed and displaced millions of innocent people. His revelations might actually end the impunity with which western imperialist governments have hidden and gotten away with these crimes. If he achieves this, he will have saved many millions more lives than the few he's purported to have risked.

No person anywhere has been harmed as a result of the WikiLeaks revelations. US intelligence would have leaked it to the mainstream media and it would have been shouted from every rooftop had that been the case. If you're going to persist with these defamatory lies, you need to start providing substantive evidence of the harm you allege has been done.

I would quit now if I was you, Fester. Every time you post, you just dig yourself a deeper hole.

Fester,

Probably?

The illegal and unjustified invasion and war caused people to be tortured and murdered and mangled.

I don't agree with messing with military secrets like Assange did, but he is still innocent. He should be released immediately.

Bronwyn

Jules wont be condemned by my opinion nor exonerated by yours.

JF

I look at what happened in Vietnam and think the US crazy going into Iraq and Afghanistan. The troops go in with good intentions and end up hating the people they are sent in to help. I don't see the US as an evil empire. I think it more the machinations of the military industrial complex.

Jules was exposing the brutality of soldiers in such conflicts, which to me is no revelation, but in doing so he unnecessarily revealed the names of covert operatives and informants. That in my view is the primary reason why the US want him. Jules is arguing that he wasn't the one who revealed the names (he blames journos from the Guardian) and claims that no one was harmed as a result. The US is arguing otherwise.

There is a very large amount of information to work through and I feel that a judicial process is the only way to properly assess it. I can see why Jules is so scared. What he is alleged to have done is horrible and I believe that he would get a very long sentence. I think that Jules is well aware of his guilt, and coward that he is he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to face justice.

I think it would be common behaviour for innocent people to kick and scream while being dragged anywhere.

"I think it would be common behaviour for innocent people to kick and scream while being dragged anywhere."

Or to hide in an embassy for seven years. Or to accuse your victims of being part of an international conspiracy and stand by while your fans attack them, even threatening to kill them. Or constantly complain of health concerns due to the persecution you are being subjected to. Or spend millions in donations of your gullible fans on legal support. Or hack into computers of ex-colleagues to remove records of conversations with them.

You can read the evidence that the US presented at his extradition hearing:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

At the above hearing Jules avoided extradition because of his health concerns. Not so lucky in December, maybe because he has been observed in Broadmarsh since January. At both hearings the judges agreed that Jules had a number of serious criminal charges to answer for.

In contrast to Jules, George faced a very weak case and could easily have avoided extradition had he chosen to. But for George, extradition wasn't necessary, because unlike Jules, George has integrity, courage, and a belief in his innocence.