8 ms·

The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no person

The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks / Assange. But because America badly wanted to suppress Wikileaks and its ilk from future revelations, Britain has persisted in its surrogate prosecution of Assange. I wonder, is there no blowback among Brits for the Crown so baldly adopting the role of America's attack dog? Or is that de rigueur now?

saiya-jin 9y ago
Is this surprising at all? I recall when Bush jr told those fairy tales about Iraq WMD in UN, everybody stared in disbelief how badly he/they tried to desperately create a pretext for a massive invasion/declaring a war to a sovereign nation without any solid reason. I recall well how Germans and French who opposed were openly mocked by US politicians and media (french fries -> freedom fries, anybody?). UK was the only nation who stood by US in this joke of a politics without questions, and were very happy to begin invasion along US. I mean come on, that's not more than 15 years ago and was well covered by all major media.
jacquesm 9y ago
I don't think it is that simple. You thumb your nose at a judge at your own peril, regardless of how much merit there was to the original case and regardless of where your sympathies lie with respect to WL and Assange the fact is that there is absolutely no way the UK govt/judicial branch would let a known fugitive skip like this even after the original case was dropped. It is bordering on the farcical how much money they have spent on this and just because of that they eventually have to show a result. The only other alternative is that Assange leaves the embassy in a coffin.
- revelation 9y ago
  This isn't even a UK case. What do they care if Sweden wants to drop it?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Loss of face. They put so much money (10M+!) in they would look like idiots if they eventually decided to drop it and Assange gets to make a victory lap on the way to Paddington Station to catch the Express to Heathrow.
    - test1235 9y ago
      They already look like idiots.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      There was a warrant out for the guys arrest as far as I'm aware. IYO should we simply let people with arrest warrants walk free? The correct place to answer the justice question is in a law court. Basically you're asking the UK to [publicly and openly] forgo the rule of law. Yes, it's highly annoying that Assange's actions have led to this cost in seeking to fulfil the warrant to have him answer for this alleged crime. But I can't see how we can maintain rule of law if we let people who have allegations to answer in court simply hunker down for a bit and avoid having to do so. The British legal system may look like idiots to you, but that's immaterial. What they look like if the let Assange walk free is a system in which the rule of law doesn't apply to people who can muster the right social supporters.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        I'm not asking for anything merely giving a possible explanation of what drives the continued stand-off. It should be clear to all parties by now that nothing is to be gained from continuing it and yet it is continued. I totally understand the British governments perspective.
      - belorn 9y ago
        All part of government should operate to maximize their appointed goals within a specified budget. Should we let all departments operate without budget considerations? For road and rail maintenance, is it acceptable to simply let some problems be left alone if the cost goes beyond budget? Police do not spend infinitive amount of resources on all crimes. Those 10M+ represent assaults that don't get investigated, ironically also sexual assaults. How many future crimes, murders, rapes, or theft is the UK allowing because funding to stop those criminals are being spent on this single case? The Assange case is like the government building a hospital in the middle of London, employing thousands of employees and treating exactly 1 patient. Telling them to not do so is not to forgo having health care or telling them to disband government, but rather demanding that government funding is held to some minimal standard. Can we have a rule of law while accused criminals of crimes that has a maximum of 4 years jail time, who then can run to a embassy, be granted asylum, and 8 years later have the case dropped? Is that such an massive loophole? How many potential criminals should we expect to use such loophole over the next 100 years? My prediction: 1 if we count this case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A
- randcraw 9y ago
  I think 'farcical' appeared in the rear-view mirror years ago. The word that springs to my mind more closely resembles 'Dreyfus'. Another alternative (to a coffin) is the expiration of the statute of limitations on the charges against Assange. Britain may choose to refile/renew them indefinitely, but it now appears that they'll do so alone, without collaboration from Sweden. I think eventually the political odor of this will sufficiently embarrass the Brit electorate and the CPS' charges will finally expire, with more whimper than bang.
  - lancepioch 9y ago
    I thought that the statue of limitations requires you to not leave or flee. Since he's in the embassy, isn't he technically on foreign soil?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      I'm not familiar with the UK system, but this is certainly not the norm for western legal systems.
      - FireBeyond 9y ago
        There are some caveats, I believe. Go to an extradition treaty country? Clock keeps running. Go somewhere that you "can't be reached"? Clock is paused. Again, similar reasoning. At least in the UK.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      It's not foreign soil, but it is inviolable.
  - OskarS 9y ago
    Dreyfus was an army officer who was tried and convicted for treason, sentenced to life and sent to Devil's Island to be imprisoned and tortured, for the sole reason that he was a Jew (and a convenient scapegoat for a crime obviously committed by someone else). It was a disgusting display of virulent anti-Semitism that prefigured the Vichy Regime and one of the most shameful events in French history. Comparing Assange to Dreyfus is obscene.
- koolba 9y ago
  There’s the third option of him leaving in a diplomatic bag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Assange isn't a document or an article.
    - vinay427 9y ago
      Diplomatic bags have, in various instances, been used to transport people. The bag can essentially be any sort of container. This was usually against their will, but Assange may find it agreeable.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Please cite a believable example in modern times. I'm pretty sure that if this was an actual option that the Ecuadorians would have jumped at it.
        vinay427 9y ago
        These are from the Wikipedia article in the comment you replied to: --- > In 1964, a Moroccan-born Israeli double agent named Mordechai Ben Masoud Louk (also known as Josef Dahan) was drugged, bound, and placed in a diplomatic mailing crate at the Egyptian Embassy in Rome, but was rescued by Italian authorities.[4] The box that he had been sealed into "had almost certainly been used before for human cargo,"[5] including possibly for an Egyptian military official who had defected to Italy several years before but then disappeared without a trace before reappearing under Egyptian custody and facing trial. > In the 1984 Dikko Affair, a former Nigerian government minister, Umaru Dikko, was kidnapped and placed in a shipping crate in an attempt to transport him from the United Kingdom back to Nigeria for trial.[4] However, it was not marked as a diplomatic bag, which allowed British customs to open it.[4] --- The Egyptian diplomatic box "almost certainly" worked as intended, and it is quite believable that the Nigerian diplomatic crate would have worked without the obvious omission.
untog 9y ago
That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions. (EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)
- barrkel 9y ago
  Foreign embassies generally don't permit random alleged criminals to claim sanctuary.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    Unless it happens to suit whatever goal the host state wants to pursue.
- js8 9y ago
  Isn't it right of any government to grant sanctuary, though?
  - notahacker 9y ago
    It's the right of any government not to have police enter their embassy without permission, but not their right to retrospectively grant immunity from prosecution under UK or European law to anyone they choose to. Not setting that precedent is likely one of the main reasons the UK wasted so much money on policing.
- randcraw 9y ago
  Crime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it. In light of Assange's political activity, and now the astonishing level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1) awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up), and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
greggarious 9y ago
>The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks They're members of Five Eyes and NATO. So yes, they do have a "personal stake".
mmjaa 9y ago
I think you need to take a closer look at the Coalition - Five Eyes nations, plus a few lap dogs - and see just how nefarious the relationship has become. Australian Defence Force troops, for example, are a puppet military force deployed in places where it would be illegal to have American troops. ADF can get away with doing a lot of things the Americans cannot - just like their counterparts in the Israeli Defence Forces. The truth of the matter is, there really is an inner state within our states, consisting of the coalition of military entities, and yes: they do rely on each other to do each others' dirty work. This should come as no surprise to any citizen of a Five-Eyes state; the new world order is well and truly upon us.

saiya-jin 9y ago

Is this surprising at all? I recall when Bush jr told those fairy tales about Iraq WMD in UN, everybody stared in disbelief how badly he/they tried to desperately create a pretext for a massive invasion/declaring a war to a sovereign nation without any solid reason. I recall well how Germans and French who opposed were openly mocked by US politicians and media (french fries -> freedom fries, anybody?). UK was the only nation who stood by US in this joke of a politics without questions, and were very happy to begin invasion along US. I mean come on, that's not more than 15 years ago and was well covered by all major media.

jacquesm 9y ago

I don't think it is that simple. You thumb your nose at a judge at your own peril, regardless of how much merit there was to the original case and regardless of where your sympathies lie with respect to WL and Assange the fact is that there is absolutely no way the UK govt/judicial branch would let a known fugitive skip like this even after the original case was dropped. It is bordering on the farcical how much money they have spent on this and just because of that they eventually have to show a result. The only other alternative is that Assange leaves the embassy in a coffin.

revelation 9y ago
This isn't even a UK case. What do they care if Sweden wants to drop it?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Loss of face. They put so much money (10M+!) in they would look like idiots if they eventually decided to drop it and Assange gets to make a victory lap on the way to Paddington Station to catch the Express to Heathrow.
  - test1235 9y ago
    They already look like idiots.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    There was a warrant out for the guys arrest as far as I'm aware. IYO should we simply let people with arrest warrants walk free? The correct place to answer the justice question is in a law court. Basically you're asking the UK to [publicly and openly] forgo the rule of law. Yes, it's highly annoying that Assange's actions have led to this cost in seeking to fulfil the warrant to have him answer for this alleged crime. But I can't see how we can maintain rule of law if we let people who have allegations to answer in court simply hunker down for a bit and avoid having to do so. The British legal system may look like idiots to you, but that's immaterial. What they look like if the let Assange walk free is a system in which the rule of law doesn't apply to people who can muster the right social supporters.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      I'm not asking for anything merely giving a possible explanation of what drives the continued stand-off. It should be clear to all parties by now that nothing is to be gained from continuing it and yet it is continued. I totally understand the British governments perspective.
    - belorn 9y ago
      All part of government should operate to maximize their appointed goals within a specified budget. Should we let all departments operate without budget considerations? For road and rail maintenance, is it acceptable to simply let some problems be left alone if the cost goes beyond budget? Police do not spend infinitive amount of resources on all crimes. Those 10M+ represent assaults that don't get investigated, ironically also sexual assaults. How many future crimes, murders, rapes, or theft is the UK allowing because funding to stop those criminals are being spent on this single case? The Assange case is like the government building a hospital in the middle of London, employing thousands of employees and treating exactly 1 patient. Telling them to not do so is not to forgo having health care or telling them to disband government, but rather demanding that government funding is held to some minimal standard. Can we have a rule of law while accused criminals of crimes that has a maximum of 4 years jail time, who then can run to a embassy, be granted asylum, and 8 years later have the case dropped? Is that such an massive loophole? How many potential criminals should we expect to use such loophole over the next 100 years? My prediction: 1 if we count this case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5zEb1oS9A
randcraw 9y ago
I think 'farcical' appeared in the rear-view mirror years ago. The word that springs to my mind more closely resembles 'Dreyfus'. Another alternative (to a coffin) is the expiration of the statute of limitations on the charges against Assange. Britain may choose to refile/renew them indefinitely, but it now appears that they'll do so alone, without collaboration from Sweden. I think eventually the political odor of this will sufficiently embarrass the Brit electorate and the CPS' charges will finally expire, with more whimper than bang.
- lancepioch 9y ago
  I thought that the statue of limitations requires you to not leave or flee. Since he's in the embassy, isn't he technically on foreign soil?
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    I'm not familiar with the UK system, but this is certainly not the norm for western legal systems.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      There are some caveats, I believe. Go to an extradition treaty country? Clock keeps running. Go somewhere that you "can't be reached"? Clock is paused. Again, similar reasoning. At least in the UK.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    It's not foreign soil, but it is inviolable.
- OskarS 9y ago
  Dreyfus was an army officer who was tried and convicted for treason, sentenced to life and sent to Devil's Island to be imprisoned and tortured, for the sole reason that he was a Jew (and a convenient scapegoat for a crime obviously committed by someone else). It was a disgusting display of virulent anti-Semitism that prefigured the Vichy Regime and one of the most shameful events in French history. Comparing Assange to Dreyfus is obscene.
koolba 9y ago
There’s the third option of him leaving in a diplomatic bag: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_bag
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Assange isn't a document or an article.
  - vinay427 9y ago
    Diplomatic bags have, in various instances, been used to transport people. The bag can essentially be any sort of container. This was usually against their will, but Assange may find it agreeable.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Please cite a believable example in modern times. I'm pretty sure that if this was an actual option that the Ecuadorians would have jumped at it.
      - vinay427 9y ago
        These are from the Wikipedia article in the comment you replied to: --- > In 1964, a Moroccan-born Israeli double agent named Mordechai Ben Masoud Louk (also known as Josef Dahan) was drugged, bound, and placed in a diplomatic mailing crate at the Egyptian Embassy in Rome, but was rescued by Italian authorities.[4] The box that he had been sealed into "had almost certainly been used before for human cargo,"[5] including possibly for an Egyptian military official who had defected to Italy several years before but then disappeared without a trace before reappearing under Egyptian custody and facing trial. > In the 1984 Dikko Affair, a former Nigerian government minister, Umaru Dikko, was kidnapped and placed in a shipping crate in an attempt to transport him from the United Kingdom back to Nigeria for trial.[4] However, it was not marked as a diplomatic bag, which allowed British customs to open it.[4] --- The Egyptian diplomatic box "almost certainly" worked as intended, and it is quite believable that the Nigerian diplomatic crate would have worked without the obvious omission.

untog 9y ago

That's one way of looking at it. Another: a warrant was issued for his arrest in relation to a crime that was accused. He used a foreign embassy to avoid that arrest. Giving up would not be setting a fantastic precedent for future alleged criminals who do not wish to answer questions. (EDIT: changed "committed" to "accused" as per discussion below)

barrkel 9y ago
Foreign embassies generally don't permit random alleged criminals to claim sanctuary.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  Unless it happens to suit whatever goal the host state wants to pursue.
js8 9y ago
Isn't it right of any government to grant sanctuary, though?
- notahacker 9y ago
  It's the right of any government not to have police enter their embassy without permission, but not their right to retrospectively grant immunity from prosecution under UK or European law to anyone they choose to. Not setting that precedent is likely one of the main reasons the UK wasted so much money on policing.
randcraw 9y ago
Crime? I'm aware only that a charge was made against Assange by an individual for an infraction that had nothing to do with Wikileaks. This is strikingly convenient since it bypasses the introduction of any Wikileak-related evidence in Assange's prosecution, and thus prohibits it. In light of Assange's political activity, and now the astonishing level of CPS persistence in pursuing him, the Swedish charge against him appears: 1) awfully convenient, 2) increasingly implausible (i.e. politically trumped up), and of course, 3) not a crime until his guilt is proven.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

greggarious 9y ago

>The persistence of the British CPS in pursuing Assange shows how tight the militaries are between the US and Commonwealth nations. AFAIK, Britain had no personal stake in Wikileaks They're members of Five Eyes and NATO. So yes, they do have a "personal stake".

mmjaa 9y ago

I think you need to take a closer look at the Coalition - Five Eyes nations, plus a few lap dogs - and see just how nefarious the relationship has become. Australian Defence Force troops, for example, are a puppet military force deployed in places where it would be illegal to have American troops. ADF can get away with doing a lot of things the Americans cannot - just like their counterparts in the Israeli Defence Forces. The truth of the matter is, there really is an inner state within our states, consisting of the coalition of military entities, and yes: they do rely on each other to do each others' dirty work. This should come as no surprise to any citizen of a Five-Eyes state; the new world order is well and truly upon us.