Assange arrested

[Radium_Angel]

The man is, by many accounts (several biased) an asshole. But he is a hero, exposing the dirty filthy inhumane goings-on of the US gov't, and that needs to be done on a regular basis. Maybe...maybe, wake up the American people and get some proper change going on so Assange's role will no longer be needed because the gov'ts of the world will have cleaned up their act.

[Vanderburg]

There's a lot of lawyers here, apparently.

[ravenshrike]

So, having read the actual indictment, it has nothing to do with what he published. Instead, he is being charged with assisting Manning in attempts to hack greater access to documents on the SCIF. Allegedly Assange taught Manning how to use a linux program to grab the hash of a password for an account with greater access than Manning had, which Assange then attempted(It is unclear from the charging documents if he succeeded) to crack. This is much, much more than merely publishing received documents.

[Teddy07]

he wasted so many years hiding and still got arrested

[79wjd]

22 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

he wasted so many years hiding and still got arrested

That's usually how that works.

[Stefan Payne]

Carl Benjamin has done a pretty good analysis of that:

There is the Chance of a "good" Ending.

Maybe he gets a Pardon in 2024??

 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Well, if they extradite him to the US first, and he sees trial in the next four years, and Trump gets a second term, I think that there is a higher than usual chance that he could get a pardon, in which case we wouldn't extradite him back to the UK.

The trick now is for him to survive until trial in the US, which might be relatively hard given the people that he's pissed off.

Wait did Wikileaks leak anything that helped trump? Just wondering why you think trump would be likely to pardon him?

[JAKEBAB]

9 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Wait did Wikileaks leak anything that helped trump? Just wondering why you think trump would be likely to pardon him?

Wikileaks released the Hillary email archive if that counts.

[Brooksie359]

20 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

Wikileaks released the Hillary email archive if that counts.

Ok that makes sense then. Yeah I would assume that helped but not sure how much. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Can someone actually explain exactly what US laws he's supposed to have broken btw. I've never been very clear on that. AFAIK he's neither a US citizen nor as he a resident i the US. That means the US law should have no power over him, he's outside their jurisdiction and therefore is not subject to their laws...

EDIT : Here's the full indictment of what they are currently charging him with :

 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/press-release/file/1153481/download

 

Basically the charge is "conspiracy to commit computer intrusion", although that may change once he arrives in the US. 

The fact that he is not a US citizen and wasn't on US soil when committing these crimes doesn't matter to the US, all that matters is that they are the victims of said crimes.  At least that's their reasoning.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

So let me see: he was only wanted for a rape accusation in Sweeden and totally nothing to do with any US extradition nonsense, so no basis for his asylum, except he continued to be wanted after the Swedish charges were dropped and a US request surfaced the moment he was arrested in the UK? Am I forgetting something?

 

 

3 hours ago, Dogeystyle said:

Apparently he was a bad houseguest, and broke multiple rules Ecuador set in terms of his asylum request. 8 days ago the Ecuadorian president complained of his continued hacktivism and his terrible house manners, also coincidentally WL published papers that suggested Moreno's involvement in a Panama offshore account.

The main turning point in the Ecuador-Assange relationship is that there was a change in government in Ecuador, and the new government, while at first aligned with the previous one, quickly turned into undoing as much of Correa's legacy as possible, including his more defiant attitude towards the US. It didn't help that the governments of several other countries in the region which formed a common front with Ecuador on these issues also were replaced by more "US hinterland" leaning governments.

[straight_stewie]

58 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Wait did Wikileaks leak anything that helped trump? Just wondering why you think trump would be likely to pardon him? 

I'm sure that the Podesta and Hillary emails leaks hurt the Democrats quite a bit.

But that's only the smallest part of this: Trump has made a big deal about not liking what he deems as "fake news". By his own definition, Wikileaks would be the opposite of what he alleges is "fake news media". This is already huge news, Fox has been talking about it all day. All of the circus around his trial will force Trump to either relent on the so-called "fake news" front or back up his statements in a big way.

And I don't necessarily think that Trump is extremely likely to pardon Assange, nothing is set in stone here, I just think that is Assange' best chance of getting away with it.

[ravenshrike]

47 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

So let me see: he was only wanted for a rape accusation in Sweeden and totally nothing to do with any US extradition nonsense, so no basis for his asylum, except he continued to be wanted after the Swedish charges were dropped and a US request surfaced the moment he was arrested in the UK? Am I forgetting something?

He was wanted by the US the entire time. The UK was unwilling to arrest him over that. He was wanted by Sweden for charges. He was arrested in the UK for those and then released on bail until his extradition to Sweden hearing. Upon said hearing not going his way, he jumped bail and fled to the Ecuadorian embassy. The interesting thing is that the indictment reveals facts not previously public. Namely, that Assange did significantly more than merely receive whistleblown documents. Instead, he actively aided and abetted Manning in doing so including hacking attempts and that the US government has copies of the relevant chat logs.

[Commodus]

Wish people would drop the cult of personality surrounding Assange.  While there have been some important revelations from his data, he's not a hero, and he's not a journalist.

 

Journalists don't assist their sources in conducting hacks, even if it doesn't involve directly performing hacks.  Journalists actually vet their data to make sure that it wasn't obtained by a hostile actor (like Russia) and to make sure that the information won't put people in danger.  When Snowden was providing info to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, they combed over it to make sure they didn't reveal data that could jeopardize lives.  Assange?  He's not a journalist, he just dumps raw data.

 

For that matter, journalists who claim to be objective don't have their outlets parrot known false conspiracies (like the whole Seth Rich thing) and choose leaks solely to get one person elected.

 

While I'm not enthusiastic about the implications of the arrest for actual journalists, I don't have much sympathy for Assange.  He's an irresponsible, self-serving opportunist who has managed to convince the gullible that he's a saint.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Let's ignore the contents and context of his leaks, I agree this isn't the place for that debate.

 

The guy leaked confidential US military documents, the US government has a legitimate claim for him to stand trial. He also did skip bail here in England which again is a legitimate reason for an arrest warrant.

 

As I said, I seriously doubt the UK will agree to extradite him to anywhere pending a death sentence (although to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if I was proved wrong) but you can't deny that he did commit the crime. The evidence of that is public knowledge at this point.

 

The issue is we don't know if he broke any laws in acquiring that information.  It is not illegal to publish information you have been given, especially considering he did it in Australia as an Australian citizen.   And on top of that there are whistle blower protections that neither him nor manning were afforded.  I liken this to the megupload case. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The issue is we don't know if he broke any laws in acquiring that information.

According to the indictment he actively helped Manning to crack a DOD PC that she didn't have the password to.  See point 7 to 10 of the original paper that I linked in my previous post. (bottom half of page 2 - top half of page 3)

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Captain Chaos said:

According to the indictment he actively helped Manning gain access to a PC that she didn't have the password to.  See point 7 to 10 of the original paper that I linked in my previous post. 

That's right, according to the indictment.  What evidence is there to support that? 

 

The thing I hate the most about this case, and why I likened it to the Megauplaod case, is that basically as soon as any government decides they need to lynch someone, they only need to make up the crime.   I am not in favor of sending foreign citizens to any country to stand trial,  bring the evidence first or fuck off.

 

EDIT: the whole thing stinks, even the rape accusations sound like they were made up. With the authorities claiming they couldn't question him in the embassy but insisted he had to return.  What a load of shit (which was evidence in the end when they realised they weren't going to win on that one).

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Just now, mr moose said:

What evidence is there to support that?

Probably as much evidence as there was of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. 

[Delicieuxz]

17 hours ago, Commodus said:

Journalists don't assist their sources in conducting hacks, even if it doesn't involve directly performing hacks.  Journalists actually vet their data to make sure that it wasn't obtained by a hostile actor (like Russia) and to make sure that the information won't put people in danger.

Two things about that:

 

1. WikiLeaks knew where their information came from and thus have repeatedly stated that it didn't come from Russia but from US sources and a UK intermediary (Manning, Snowden, a DNC insider, Craig Murray).

 

2. It sounds as though you have "journalist" confused with "propagandist". A journalist reports information that is important for the public to know. A propagandist chooses to not report information that is important for the public to know based on it making the state look bad.

 

Quote

For that matter, journalists who claim to be objective don't have their outlets parrot known false conspiracies (like the whole Seth Rich thing) and choose leaks solely to get one person elected.

Uh, Seth Rich was actually murdered. That isn't a conspiracy. WikiLeaks didn't do anything other than acknowledge that he was murdered and offer $20,000 for information leading to the arrests of whoever was responsible.

 

WikiLeaks knows who their sources are, and so if Assange knew Seth Rich was a source for WikiLeaks (which isn't something Assange said) then it would be because Seth Rich was a source for WikiLeaks.

 

Your claiming that Assange parroted a conspiracy theory about Seth Rich is a conspiracy theory of your own, and your assertion that the nature of Seth Rich's murder is known, to be able to conclusively state that it was one thing and not another, is false. Since you think otherwise, you should contact the Washington D.C. police and tell them who the murderer is so that they can arrest them.

[Delicieuxz]

If the possible sentence that Assange is facing is a maximum of 5 years (which is reportedly the max sentence for the conspiracy charge), then that's a lot less than I think most everybody, certainly myself, was expecting. It's certainly a lot less than the 35 years that Manning was given.

 

Maybe the time that Assange stayed in the Ecuadorian embassy had an effect on reducing what he would be charged with due to legal teams and news organizations having time to reflect on hypothetical charges and the legal and moral basis for them, and concluding that there isn't any huge thing to come at him with.

 

Also, according to some reports, the charge Assange is facing, of trying to crack a password, is one that Obama decidedly chose to not prosecute Assange for, on the grounds that it would endanger journalism (which makes me wonder: What was Obama planning to prosecute Assange for if he got him?)

 

If the charge Assange is currently being faced with is dubious as some have reported, then I wonder if this is Trump, who said during the 2016 election campaign that he loves WikiLeaks and who certainly benefitted from WikiLeaks' disclosures, throwing Assange a bone:

 

Hypothetically, this makes Trump appear like he's tough against Assange, while the potential sentence is relatively small and, if the charge is dubious, maybe has a chance of being ruled against by a court, which would be doing Assange the favour of getting him out of the embassy and ending the US government's persecution of him.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

We'll its pretty common sense that if you mess with America like this, you tend to disappear. Everyone who does will eventually. 

[Master Delta Chief]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Wish people would drop the cult of personality surrounding Assange.  While there have been some important revelations from his data, he's not a hero, and he's not a journalist.

-----------------

While I'm not enthusiastic about the implications of the arrest for actual journalists, I don't have much sympathy for Assange.  He's an irresponsible, self-serving opportunist who has managed to convince the gullible that he's a saint.

Personally I don't see him as a hero either, but from my perspective, he did the right thing on leaking the atrocious acts the US (government) military committed during the Iraqi and Afghanistan war a few years ago (and also other information). Nevertheless, I'm still concerned about the two allegations from Sweden. If he did something wrong back there, he should prosecuted according to Swedish law and not just being extradited to a country where the death penalty is still put in place. 

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

-snip

Nevermind that the women who accused him of something merely wanted him tested for STD's because they thought that had caught something from him. The entirety of the "rape" accusations are 100% government fabricated excuses to arrest him and get him extradited to the US because it's somehow possible for a non-US citizen to commit treason, which the US government has accused him of.

 

Nevermind that the media has committed nothing short of a smear and misinformation campaign against wikileaks since the get-go. Down to the likes of CNN telling people that it would be illegal for them to view things on Wikileaks (which they very, very quietly corrected, knowing that people overwhelmingly go off of the first thing they saw) and that there are "special exemptions for journalists". Which is

A. Not True.

B. CNN qualifies on the same level of Journalism as Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

 

Nevermind that Wikileaks has never had to detract a statement or accusation. Unlike every major "news" outlet under the sun.

 

Let's just remember, if/when he is imprisoned, he will likely die in prison. The US government will make absolutely sure of that.

 

I can only hope that he has dead man switches in place to release information damning the majority of both parties of our government. Although I will not be surprised when the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, fail to report on it. Or only report on the information released against their "adversaries".

 

For those wanting sources, everything (source links) is available here:

https://www.minds.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/blog/julian-assange-is-a-hero-963104601888972800

[SpaceGhostC2C]

11 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

He was wanted by the US the entire time.

That's what Assange has been saying all this time, while being replied that it's all about Sweden and, later that it's all about him breaking his bail for the Sweden thing. We heard once and again that his allegations of it all beng about a US extradition was baseless paranoia.

 

 

[Beskamir]

17 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Let's ignore the contents and context of his leaks, I agree this isn't the place for that debate.

 

The guy leaked confidential US military documents, the US government has a legitimate claim for him to stand trial. He also did skip bail here in England which again is a legitimate reason for an arrest warrant.

 

As I said, I seriously doubt the UK will agree to extradite him to anywhere pending a death sentence (although to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if I was proved wrong) but you can't deny that he did commit the crime. The evidence of that is public knowledge at this point.

So if I find out that my neighbor has videos where he's murdering puppies but he classifies it as military secrets it's illegal for me to show the videos to anyone and thereby trying to get him to stop murdering puppies? (Obviously not the same thing but I thought a more amusing/outlandish parallel would be better received)