I watched the "Four Corners," program last night
(29/07/2019) on Julian Assange - and thought
that he'd be a good topic for discussion on this
forum

It seems that he's being aggressively pursued by
the Trump Administration. Mr Trump famously
declared "I love WikiLeaks" during the 2016
election campaign as WikiLeaks began rolling out
a series of leaks damaging to Hillary Clinton.

Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and is now charged
with 17 counts of espionage and 1 count of hacking
and he faces a possible 175 years if he's extradited to
the US and found guilty.

The Obama Administration did look at the possiblity
of charging Mr Assange but decided that a prosecution
under the Espionage Act would be too problematic.
That it might open the door for journalists and
The New York Times to be charged.

What do posters think? Should Mr Assange be charged?
And Why? Why not?

Dear Foxy,

I think the guys from Monty Python would sum him up best by saying 'He's a naughty naughty boy!'

We must not forget he let us see American military might murdering civilians
We needed to see that
He should never be sent to America,unless Trump is in the dock with him
Yet I think the man in helping Trump, lost his near worship by some,including me
Let him go but to protect investigative journalist all over the world, no other reason

"JULIAN ASSANGE - HERO OR VILLAIN?"

Embrace the healing power of "AND".

He is charged with rape. Its more than interesting how the left manages to utterly ignore their own 'rules' when it suits. In the age of 'believe-all-women', suddenly when a leftish man is in the firing line, that rule no longer applies.

In the end he was in Ecuador's embassy to avoid having to face his Swedish 'victims'.

"The Obama Administration did look at the possiblity
of charging Mr Assange but decided that a prosecution
under the Espionage Act would be too problematic."

Well 4 Corners never said that, mainly because its rubbish. Assange sat in the embassy for the entire 2nd Obama term because he was (he says) fearful of being sent back to face trial by that administration. I understand that the whole 'story' these days is about Trump's pursuit of poor Julian but let's not totally ignore the facts.

Of course, if I was Assange I'd be totally terrified of ending up somewhere where the Clintons could get access to him. People who have the goods on the Clintons have been known to be 'suicided' with regularity. Latest example, Epstein.

So for poor Julian, a British gaol seems like the safest place to be right now

If we 'believe all women' then he is a rapist. Personally I don't know.

mhaze,

The rape charges were withdrawn. The women who accused
him of rape were found to be lying. One of them even gave
a party for him after the supposed rape. The prosecution
found that there was not enough evidence to charge him back
then and the charges were dropped. Today, Sweden has not
yet decided whether it will re-open the case. It will be
interesting to see if they do and who gets the first
crack at Assange - Sweden of the US?

Also, will Australia do anything for an Australian citizen?
Can they do anything?

cont'd ...

mhaze,

Why are you even raising the issue of the women
in this case. That appears so lame on your part.
Especially when we've seen cases of men being
falsely accused as in the case of actor John
Jarratt - whose supposed rape occurred 40 years
ago and Jarratt fought tooth and nail to prove his
innocence. It was consensual (same with Assange).
Jarratt was found innocent.

Geoffrey Rush won $2 million in his sexual misconduct
case.

Foxy,

What ?! Women lying ? Do you have evidence of that, or is it simply that they dropped their charges ? Have they re-accused him ? As for throwing a party for him, come on, Foxy, you surely know better. Sometimes I think you opportunists would say and write anything to win a point.

As for the rapist ('but he's our rapist') Assange, did any of the Wikileaks compromise anybody's lives ? Quite possibly, especially in Afghanistan. If so, what would you expect of the legal authorities of the countries they were from where putting someone's life in jeopardy is a capital offence ?

Either way, he's off to spend a long time locked up. If he's lucky to avoid the chair. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

Joe

Joe,

Both women admitted that they lied -
those many years ago. It was in the media, and
even the movie made at the time. Hence the dropping
of the charges by Swedish prosecutors. Use your
friend Google. ;-)

As we all know - liars are not just confined to one
gender.

As for the legalities involved in the case now?
We shall have to wait and see what the courts decide.
Where the line should be drawn on material that is
available and published by journalists, reporters
and the media in general.

Interesting case - and will it set a precedent.

JULIAN ASSANGE is just a smarty who has never done anything for anyone but JULIAN ASSANGE. What happens to him is of utterly no importance.

As for Trump now being for prosecuting him I think that makes the story pretty obvious. Before the election Trump had no access to the complete story, it would have been highly secret. Now he has been fully briefed & knows the facts.

Unlike many politicians of the left, Trump is happy to change tack on any subject, when evidence tells him he had the wrong slant on something.

Rather than try to use this as a weapon to attack him, you should admire his willingness to change his opinion when in receipt of different information.

Foxy wrote: "Both women admitted that they lied"

That's a straight out unadulterated lie. As in not true. As in standard Foxy.

The cases weren't dropped. One reached the statute of limitations as will the other in 2020. The Swedish police dropped the case because there wasn't any point in continuing it when Assange was hiding from justice in the Ecuadorian embassy.

But now that he's out, they are considering re-opening the case.

"Eva-Marie Persson, Sweden’s deputy director of public prosecutions, said at a news conference on Monday [13/5/2019] that there is still probable cause to suspect Assange of a crime in Sweden,"..

"Anna Ardin, [the first victim] has publicly identified herself. She told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that Mr. Assange was “a man who has a twisted attitude toward women.”

"Well 4 Corners never said that, mainly because its rubbish."

Another assertion that Foxy just hoped to get away with. Now called out she just drops it. Wow.

OK, wasn't suggesting Foxy was outright lying there. Just that the claims were outright lies and that its standard Foxy to fall for such things when it suits her.

Do we all understand the sex thing is minor in comparison to the charges against him
In Fact having read and researched that part long ago, he is charged only highlight only, because in that county failing to wear a condom is a crime
Both women said the sex was not forced on them, but on meeting each other filed because he did not wear a condom

Dear Foxy,

«Also, will Australia do anything for an Australian citizen?
Can they do anything?»

Not any more. It could when Assange was still under house arrest very close to a beach: it was easy then to send a naval ship, submarine or helicopter to rescue him under night's cover, but it did not, it wouldn't do it for me, it wouldn't do it for you either... unless of course you were a relative of a government-minister.

Neither hero nor villain, just an idiot: with all the money and following he had, he had ample opportunities to escape, including from the Ecuadorian embassy, so many years to prepare, so many eager to help, but he missed them all and even bitten the hand which fed him, preferring to stay and "prove" some silly point over his freedom.

Dear Belly,

Thanks for that - and spot on!

mhaze,

Wow, you're on a roll with "Get Foxy Day!"
You must have too much time on your hands
old chap.

What Deputy Director of Public Prosecution in
Sweden Eva-Marie Persson did say was -
"The investigation has not been resumed and we
don't know today whether it will be.
We cannot set a timetable for when such a decision
will be made."

Belly's point about not wearing a condom is very
relevant. As is the language that Swedes use - and
what they consider as " rape." is relevant also in
this case.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think it was a change of government in Ecuador
that prompted Assange's arrest in the UK.
The new government in Ecuador wants better
relations with the US. And of course humouring
Trump is important.

Dear Hassie,

Talking about Trump?

You say he loves information? You've got to be
kidding. He refers to any information as "fake
news" unless it's in his favour. Like he did
with WikiLeaks which he "Loved" when it
helped damage Hillary Clinton. Now Trump's
looking out for his own interests (who knows
what else is going to be revealed?).

Somewhere in Foxy's latest post to me there is an admission that when she said "Both women admitted that they lied" she was utterly, outrageously wrong.

And somewhere in Foxy's latest post to me there is an admission that when she said Obama had decided against pursuing poor Julian she was utterly, outrageously wrong.

But you have to know how to read Foxy-ese. Because she doesn't admit she was wrong. Never. She just drops the issue as though it never happened and moves on to other rubbish. I don't know why she can't just say, "oh I was misled by my sources" or some such. But it seems genetically impossible for her to do so. And she'll whine if someone like me refuses to just pretend she'd never said what see said.

She's now quoting the same women I did who is saying no decision has been made about re-opening the Assange prosecution. Logically, if the accusers had admitted they lied then no one would be considering opening the case.

Belly is somewhat right about the issue being condoms. Right and irrelevant. Firstly the second women said he penetrated her sans condom while she slept. Be that as it may, the incidents happened in Sweden and Swedish law applies. IF he did what is alleged, he broke the law and that's the end of it. That you or I might think it was a minor infraction is entirely beside the point.

As to Trump, the now unsealed indictment against Assange dates to long before Trump came to power

"Get Foxy Day!"

Its not about getting Foxy. Its about getting the truth. That Foxy and the truth are usually diametrically opposed is just happenstance.

mhaze,

Admitting when one is wrong is a character
strengthener. And my character is pretty
strong. So depending on my mood swings
I've been wrong many times. No question
about that. Are you so perfect?
I envy you if you are. Me? Depends on the
mood I'm in. Hence I give links and references
that can be checked - at least most of the time.

Now back to the topic.

Again to stop the accusations of my being wrong -
here are two links for posters to make up their
own minds: (How's that mhaze - we good?)
Be aware Sir, these are not my opinions - I am
referring you to professional sources - if you
disagree - attack them, not me. Thank You.
I think that's fair. I hope you understand English
or do I have to translate it for you?

http://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-29/trump-administration-after-assange-and-it-serves-as-a-warning/11350854

The charges against JA were a complete joke brought about by the left whinge Swedish socialists that assume that a man is guilty of rape unless the woman has given consent that is in writing, in triplicate, witnessed and notarized, and not later revoked when the woman changes her mind.

In spite of this, the US government would have nothing to charge him with if he had not directly involved himself with Bradley Manning firstly coaxing him to release files, then offering assistance to extract them effectively making him an accomplice in the offence for which Manning was sentenced to 35 years.

SM,

Thank You for that.
You've raised a very valid point.

Yes Shadow Minister I agree with Foxy well said

Foxy and Belly,

I appreciate your support, even if my assessment of the Swedish judicial system was somewhat tongue in cheek.

Shadow Minister,

And ours wasn't?

Well done.

Yep SM. I have to agree.

If St Julian hadn't broken any US laws then they wouldn't have anything to charge him on.

I think that's why I've never been charged by the government of Outer Mongolia ie I haven't broken any of their laws.

On the other hand, I sort of feel that sticking your unprotected cock in a sleeping women who'd told you the previous night that if its not on, its not on...well I'm pretty sure that'd be illegal in most parts of the civilised world.

probably Julian Assange's greatest achievement knowingly or unknowingly was to stop Hilary from becoming the US President. Hopefully some of his work will bring her to justice for her deceit and lies.

Gentlemen,

Julian Assange is not the most sympathetic of
characters. If a man flees a country based on
a credible rape allegation, he needs to answer
that charge in a court of law. Like John
Jarratt the actor did recently.

If a government alleges that a person or
organisation has conspired with a foreign power
to undermine that nation's electoral process it
should have the integrity to make that case in
public in a judicial proceeding.

But if a government uses such an allegation simply
as a pretext to try to silence a publisher of
information - and that is what WikiLeaks is -
it exposes potential or actual crimes by the government
itself, and the government needs to be held to
account first.

Every news organisation in the free world should be
terrified of an Assange prosecution under US law.

"If a government alleges that a person or
organisation has conspired with a foreign power
to undermine that nation's electoral process it
should have the integrity to make that case in
public in a judicial proceeding."

Oh man!

The US governments beef with Assange has exactly zero to do with what happened in 2016. Indeed the US was trying to extradite Assange before 2016. Its all about what he did with Bradley Manning when he stole US secrets and had them released causing significant detriment to the US security and probably a number of deaths. The issue is whether Assange merely received the stolen data or encouraged and assisted the theft.

I know there's a class of people for whom anything and everything is about Trump. But this is about what happened during Obama's term. The theft happened then. The indictment was initiated then. The unsealed indictment was created then. The Trump legal authorities are merely considering, should the opportunity occur, whether to follow-up on the charges levelled by Obama.

What Assange did or didn't do in regards to the Hillary crimes, has no bearing on any of this.

But I'm sure that there'll be massive numbers of people, including left-wing media, who'll try very hard to forget that it all is down to Obama and try very hard to spin it as Trump's baby.

The Obama Administration as I stated in my
opening post did look at the possibility of charging
Assange but decided that a prosecution under the
Espionage Act would be problematic. That it might
open the door for journalists and the Guardian, the
New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais and Der Speigel to
also be charged.

Manning down loaded 4 databases from US departments
and agencies between January and May 2010, the
indictment said, with the information being
provided to WikiLeaks. Selected and edited material from
WikiLeaks were published by the above listed media outlets.

The rape charge etc is a diversion. The sex was consensual and the
charge was because he did not wear a condom. It is a oddity of Swedish law.
I thought Sweden would be more concerned about the migrant rape problem.

The real question is that how does the US impose its laws in foreign countries.
That is the ONLY question to be resolved.

The Americans can't stand for their undemocratic hypocritical BS to be exposed for the rest of the world to see. An individual like Assange who puts the truth out there has to be delt with in no uncertain terms.

I once asked a well know communists and union official, while have a few in a Sydney pub; What's the difference between the Soviet Union and America? His reply was interesting; The Soviets are full of BS, and they know it, the Americans are full of BS, but they don't know it. Three parts pissed, but spoke the truth.

"The Obama Administration as I stated in my
opening post did look at the possibility of charging
Assange but decided that a prosecution under the
Espionage Act would be problematic. "

Foxy, I know your ABC source has made this assertion. And at the time that might have been arguable - especially in the Obama-is-a-god crowd.

But the fact is that a sealed indictment against Assnage has been held by the US Grand Jury since 2011. It remained sealed and unused because the US couldn't get access to the man himself. It was nonetheless held ready for the time it could be used. Obama didn't decide against prosecution, they just recognised that prosecution wasn't possible at that time. I know the subtlety of that difference will elude many.

The claims that this will affect other media is made-up and self-serving. Assange isn't charged with publishing stolen information (not a crime). He's charged with assisting in the theft (a crime).

Bazz wrote: " The sex was consensual and the
charge was because he did not wear a condom."

Not true..as in utterly wrong.

The one remaining charge involves this incident. Assange and a women go to her place. They have consensual sex. But he wants to have sex without a condom. She refuses and he eventually puts one on. Next morning she awakes to find him inside her without a condom ie having unprotected sex fully knowing the women had refused that the previous night. That's a crime in any civilised community. (note:that's the women story so not yet proven).
If such a thing had been done by someone like Bolt the only questions being asked would be where to build the gallows. But St Julian gets a pass from the woke crowd. The woman should just take one for the team.

mhaze,

I can see that you are a bit emotional about these
issues. I don't mean to upset you.

There are two separate issues being discussed.

As I stated previously - if a man flees a country
based on a credible rape allegation, he needs to answer
that charge in a court of law.

I don't have a problem with that.

The second issue is the one dealing with the US accusing
Assange with "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion."
Alleging that he assisted Manning in cracking a password
to help her infiltrate Pentagon computers and down
load material to share with WikiLeaks.

This was what the Obama found problematic. We have yet to
see what the final results of what the Trump Administration
does with this will be.

Personally I tend to think that it may open up a Pandora's
Box - seeing as other sources have also published this
material. But, who knows how this will all pan out.

Foxy,

That the FBI has a credible email / text trail to prove their case is more that sufficient to charge him with conspiracy to commit espionage.

The decision to lay charges does not lie with the President, it lies with the AG.

Hero

Foxy, the day you upset me, other by making inane errors of fact, is the day I'll give it away.

Its nice to see you've now dropped the utterly nonfactual claims that Assange was being pursued for what he did in 2016. Glad you caught and you're welcome.

Now for some more education...." I tend to think that it may open up a Pandora's Box - seeing as other sources have also published this
material."

Publishing isn't the issue. Once data is stolen then, under US law, its lawful to publish that data. This principle goes all the way back to at least the times of the Pentagon Papers. So none of the other outlets who published the stuff Bradley Manning stole after he'd passed it on to them, are in jeopardy. Equally Wilileaks isn't in legal trouble for doing so either. The problem is that the US government (Obama's government) beleived that Assange had encouraged him (Manning) to steal and may have provided material support in that theft. That's a very different thing to just publishing. That's why Assange is desperate to avoid a US trial

"What do posters think? Should Mr Assange be charged?
And Why? Why not?"

Oh. Ok.

No he shouldn't have been charged.
Reason: No basis for any of the charges.
- That's why the Obama administration never went ahead with the charges in the first place.

I'm not sure the real story has ever really come out.
It's deep state bureaucrats who are always out to get him, irrelevant of which President.
Whistleblowers, Secure Drop Boxes...

Wikileaks was effective in swaying a US presidential election with the the release of the Podesta files.
It also released the CIA's Vault 7 hacking tools.
Assange could implicate others in the murder of Seth Rich.

mhaze,

I am so relieved that I seem to have misread your posts
and that you are not at all upset. That there are other
reasons for attacking me and that they - are not a
display of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness
that a female poster like myself is used to encountering
on this forum. I am also pleased that you say you will
give it away when (and if) I do get to you.

So, when are you going?

LOL.

mhaze,

Sorry. Just a bit of fun to lighten things up.

No harm intended.

Your opinion is valued and respected.

"So, when are you going?"

When I've completed your education, and/or finally decided your ineducable. So a long way to go yet. :)

mhaze,

Thank You.

Look forward to learning from you.

Dear Critic,

«Hero»

"Who is a hero? He who controls his passions.” [Pirkei Avot 4:1]

http://bje.org.au/course/judaism/jewish-texts/pirkei-avot

---

Dear Foxy,

«Look forward to learning from you.»

Over the same link above:

"Who is wise? He who learns from every man"

Dear Yuyutsu,

Are you a Buddhist?

According to news reports Julian Assange's extradition
to the US will be decided by the UK courts in 2020.
We're told that the WikiLeaks founder will face a
five day hearing on the matter in 2020.

The UK's home secretary Sajid Javid approved an
extradition request from the US for Assange to face
criminal charges. But the final authority to obey
the request lies with the courts, which will hold
a full hearing some time after February 24th next year.

As Javid said - "I want to see justice done at all
times and we've got a legitimate extradition request,
so I've signed it, but the final decision is now with
the courts."

Assange has stated that - "175 years of my life is
effectively at stake." And, defended the actions of
WikiLeaks saying that the website was not involved
in hacking classified information and is -
"nothing but a publisher."

Mark Summers QC - the lawyer representing Assange said
the extradition case made by the US - "represents the
outrageous and full-frontal assault on journalistic
rights."

Assange is now serving a 50 week jail sentence in the
UK's Belmarsh prison for skipping bail.
Apparently he is very popular amongst the inmates - who
support him and feel he should not be extradited to the
US.

It looks like this discussion has now run its course.

I would like to Thank everyone who contributed.

And, I look forward to our next discussion.

You asked the wrong question. You should have asked "Where would you place Julian Assange on a scale of zero to Don Burke?".

US Home Secretary apparently has signed Julian
Assange's US extradition order.

However Assange's US extradition decision won't be
made by the UK until 2020.

Should be interesting how that will pan out.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion

I look forward to our next one.