11 ms·
What crimes did he commit? Honest question. I heard that someone accused him of being a rapist but then dropped the charges so I guess it was false. What else i
by fxbl0i 7y ago
What crimes did he commit? Honest question. I heard that someone accused him of being a rapist but then dropped the charges so I guess it was false. What else is there?
- 0x54D5 7y agoHe skipped bail. That is a crime. He literally locked himself up for 7 years for something that in the UK would never have been as severe as 7 years of imprisonment.
- josteink 7y agoFleeing the arrest for fake rape-allegations staged by the CIA. I can’t see why anyone would do that if they valued their own personal security. /s
- toby- 7y agoSkipping bail; failing to surrender to the court after he was previously released on bail. The sexual assault case against him in Sweden has since been dropped, but the warrant for skipping bail is still active.
- askmike 7y agoThough given his situation and the quite likely extradition to the US, who wouldn't have done the same? Technically something criminal but..
- stingraycharles 7y agoWhy would he be extradited to the US instead of Sweden?
- garmaine 7y agoBecause the he has already been indicted in the US on secret charges, but presumably something Patriot Act related due to Wikileaks involvement with the Iraq war. Remember, the US government views Wikileaks the same as ISIS.
- nagVenkat 7y agoIf I were a betting man, I would probably say this is not true. He most certainly got indicted for interfering in 2016 election and hacking Clinton/DNC emails. I don’t have a horse in this race. Just follow this as I think it is very entertaining. Edit: It could be both!
- nagVenkat 7y agoLooks like I lost. He is being charged for the dissemination of classified material.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tirpen 7y agoIf he was extradited to Sweden, he would shortly be extradited from Sweden to the US. The Swedish government always folds like a wet paper towel as soon as the US asks for anything.
- erk__ 7y agoIt is not up to the Swedish government if he gets extradited, it is up to the courts.
- village-idiot 7y agoAnd nobody should want governments to have a say in who gets extradited, even though it may be a popular idea in a few politically charged cases. Best to leave criminal justice systems as far from politics as possible.
- ionised 7y agoThe Collateral Murder leaks that showed the United States guilty of war crimes.
- kakarot 7y agoI don't particularly classify that as a heinous crime.
- pmyteh 7y agoIt isn't heinous; it carries a maximum penalty of two years (which is actually one year, given automatic release) and normally much less than that. The courts do, though, take a dim view of scofflaws. And especially those who successfully evade proceedings by doing so. And even more so those who put the authorities to trouble to bring them back to the court. So my guess is that there will be a trial on it, followed by a sentence in the upper end of that range.
- kakarot 7y agoIn Assange's situation, I would have made the same gamble. It's only logical to hedge a potentially decade-long sentence with a likely inescapable two year sentence. When the charges are bogus and you know that they are being used to censor your work, which positively impacts the lives of millions of people, you may also consider it your civil duty to evade a wrongful arrest. I'm incapable of providing a good reason why Assange should have just submitted to the bogus rape charges. And the fact that sympathizing with him in this regard in an open forum has a high chance of impacting my civil freedoms at some point in the future just magnifies the impact of the work he was trying to achieve when all of this started.
- FireBeyond 7y agoSo, in the initial phase, he gets to decide that charges against him are bogus, and that he doesn't need to submit? I think this description is a little too martyring for my liking. I'd love to know what civil freedoms of yours you believe are going to be impinged by virtue of this post.
- kakarot 7y ago> So, in the initial phase, he gets to decide that charges against him are bogus, and that he doesn't need to submit? Are you supposed to let your accuser have 100% say in whether you are guilty, even if you believe the system is rigged against you and you are acting in good faith? Such an attitude is subservient and enables totalitarian governments to operate under the guise of justice. You have to understand that nothing gives any body of government legitimacy just because other governments recognize it. The only thing that gives your government power is your permission as a citizen. My country was founded on this sentiment. When Martin Luther King said:[0] "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law," he was not thinking of whistleblowers and the fact that their greatest impact on society comes from maintaining their sovereignty in spite of globally coordinated efforts to censor and imprison them. Assange was operating in good faith that his life's work might end the moment he stepped foot back in Sweden. He chose not to recognize the authority of a State he was actively politically engaged with. Countries do this every day. Just because he doesn't have an army behind him to legitimize his claim to sovereignty, doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to that claim and the right to achieve his sovereignty by any means that can be ethically justified. To claim that he does not get the right to decide for himself, as all men do, whether to recognize what a particular group of people with guns and land command of him, is to claim that he is not human, because that is a natural human right. I have personally been the victim of an illegal charge despite overwhelming evidence in my favor, and received the maximum possible fines and jail sentence. Going to jail made sense because I wanted to just get my life back on track after my government destroyed it, as soon as possible. But it was not the morally responsible thing to do. I didn't even commit the crime I was convicted for. The morally responsible thing to do would have been to not submit myself to the illegitimate city government which prosecuted me. > I'd love to know what civil freedoms of yours you believe are going to be impinged by virtue of this post. Any number of things. My country asks for social media accounts when applying for a passport, sure it's optional now, but give it time. Automation and machine analysis will ensure my Hacker News account factors into my Social Credit score. If you get out from under your rock you would see similar things happening in many countries across the globe. [0] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
- celticninja 7y agobreaching bail is not actually a criminal offence https://greenandblackcross.org/guides/should-i-ignore-police-bail/2-breaching-bail-conditions-is-not-a-crime/ https://greenandblackcross.org/guides/should-i-ignore-police...
- cadlin 7y agoThat article says, "Failure to surrender, ie. not turning up on the date given on your bail sheet (whether to a court or to return to a police station) is a crime." What's not a crime is breaching the conditions of your bail, e.g. you can't go to political protests if you're released on bail.
- DanBC 7y agoPeople interested in bail in England and Wales might be interested in the CPS page, which sets out who can get bail and why, and what counts as surrendering for bail or not: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail In particular, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail#a19 https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail#a19 This shows that breaching your bail conditions means you may be arrested and either re-bailed, or taken into custody.
- ascorbic 7y agoThat article is about police bail. Assange was bailed by the courts. The breach of court bail is an offence punishable by up to 12 months imprisonment.
- blisterpeanuts 7y agoAt this point, his "crime" is simply evading arrest. It will be interesting to see what they charge him with to justify a seven year siege.
- Angostura 7y ago> It will be interesting to see what they charge him with to justify a seven year siege. I think only Assange and Ecuador really had it in their power to alter the length of the "siege", I don't think the Met Police were going to simply say "whatevs" once he had skipped bail.
- julsimon 7y agoAbsolutely. So much for "heinous crimes", hey?
- hardlianotion 7y agoThey will charge him with jumping bail. Someone contributor here says that carries max 2 years.
- matt4077 7y agoIf you spent a decade hiding in the basement because you're afraid of the neighbour's cat... ...it's not the cat's fault, and the cat doesn't have to prove that it is a vicious killer one needs to hide from.
- DavidVoid 7y agoWhat you've heard is false. The investigation was dropped simply because there was no way to proceed with the investigation with him still hiding away in the embassy. The investigation will be reopened if he returns to Sweden before August 2020 when the statute of limitations expires for the minor rape allegation. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39973864 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39973864
- draugadrotten 7y agoYou are misrepresenting the article or may not understand the finer details here. One example: Ny says they "Sweden did not expect Ecuador's co-operation in formally notifying Mr Assange of the allegations against him", yet that makes it clear that Sweden has not attempted to formally notifying Mr Assange.
- doctorfoo 7y agoNo, they chose not to interview him at the embassy or via weblink, because had they done so, the case would have been closed. They rather keep it open.
- matt4077 7y agoAccused criminals don't get to set the rules. There are many jurisdictions where criminal trials in absentia are not possible, legally. That's mostly to the benefit of the accused.
- kkarakk 7y ago>That's mostly to the benefit of the accused. How? if they can get a conviction they should get the conviction. For eg, Vijay Mallya from india was convicted of a crime and india is now seeking his extradition. how does it make sense that you keep the case open?
- matt4077 7y agoMostly it's due to the accused's right to confront the accusations and be heard. There is also a lot of ugly history of using trial in absentia to, for example, get rid of political enemies: quickly convene a trial and convict them while they are abroad, avoiding a long trial allowing them to make their case and forcing them into exile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia Note that Mallya has not been convicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Mallya#Accusations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Mallya#Accusations He is charged with different crimes and therefore there is a warrant out, and a request for extradition: "When he failed to appear, the Supreme Court said the contempt case would only proceed further after he is produced before the court". There are also multiple court verdicts in favour of banks and business partners, but those are all civil law, not criminal.
- matt4077 7y ago> [..] but then dropped the charges so I guess it was false. There are many reasons for dropping charges besides "she obviously lied". One of the reason might be that nobody wants to get all this attention and ensuing insults and death threats. In this specific case, there wasn't even much debate over facts, only law. She refused to have sex without a condom, then woke up to him having sex with her, without a condom.
- dahfizz 7y agoThere has to be more than one accusation to prove guilt. Did police get any physical evidence?
- sievebrain 7y agoThat isn't "facts"! There was tons of evidence at the time that the women were lying, the charges were dropped because there was zero chance of any conviction given their behaviour. How quickly people forget! Reasons the women were lying: the first had tweeted and texted about how happy she was to have slept with Assange. She later tried to destroy this evidence after deciding she'd been "raped", a decision that was triggered by meeting another woman he'd also slept with and getting mad she wasn't the one. The reason Assange went to the embassy after the charges were resurrected is that it was obvious the case was a dud as it has already been dropped due to the hopeless case of the witnesses. So why did Sweden suddenly decide to try again? Assange was right to judge it as being politically motivated.
- X-Istence 7y agoThe charges were suspended under Swedish law, however they can be brought back, they haven't been outright dropped.
- garmaine 7y agoThe state prosecutor accused him of being a rapist. The alleged victim didn't accuse him of anything and only went to the police in an attempt to contact him to tell him to be tested for STDs since the condom broke. The state prosecutor found a way to twist that into a rape charge under Sweden's laws, even though the purported victim disagreed. Those charges were later dropped. The only "crime" he committed was refusing to cooperate and fleeing the country, since he saw this only as a pretext to get him in custody for US extradition, which objectively was the case (the US wasn't hiding its attempts to get him extradited).
- blkhawk 7y agoHe did not "flee" the country - he asked and was allowed to leave - the rape case was later reopened while he was in the UK and a European arrest warrant was issued by Sweden. That was extremely strange and suspicious so he resisted the extradition first legally then by fleeing into the embassy. And in there he deteriorated greatly - spiraled into conspiracy and paranoia.
- hopler 7y agoAre you claiming that the police report is false or the Guardian is mistaken? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange...
- garmaine 7y agoThe Guardian was mistaken, according to the alleged victim's own statements at the time.
- Tomte 7y ago> The alleged victim didn't accuse him of anything and only went to the police in an attempt to contact him to tell him to be tested for STDs since the condom broke. Strange how her lawyer today told the press that the victim hopes that Sweden re-opens the rape case. Definitely no ill will towards Assange, only concern for his health.
- smcl 7y agoI don't think OP is taking a position either way on whether Assange was guilty or not. It's that regardless of the outcome of the rape allegations against him in Sweden, we learned more about the shady goings on in our government due to the drops that were leaked to Wikileaks.
- Kiro 7y agoIt was dropped due to technicalities.