6 ms·

Skipping 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,

by toby- 8y ago

Skipping 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 8y ago
Though given his situation and the quite likely extradition to the US, who wouldn't have done the same? Technically something criminal but..
- stingraycharles 8y ago
  Why would he be extradited to the US instead of Sweden?
  - garmaine 8y ago
    Because 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 8y ago
      If 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 8y ago
        Looks like I lost. He is being charged for the dissemination of classified material.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - tirpen 8y ago
    If 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__ 8y ago
      It is not up to the Swedish government if he gets extradited, it is up to the courts.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        And 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 8y ago
    The Collateral Murder leaks that showed the United States guilty of war crimes.
kakarot 8y ago
I don't particularly classify that as a heinous crime.
- pmyteh 8y ago
  It 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 8y ago
    In 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 8y ago
      So, 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 8y 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 8y ago
breaching 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 8y ago
  That 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 8y ago
  People 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 ago
  That 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.

by toby- 8y ago

askmike 8y ago

Though given his situation and the quite likely extradition to the US, who wouldn't have done the same? Technically something criminal but..

stingraycharles 8y ago
Why would he be extradited to the US instead of Sweden?
- garmaine 8y ago
  Because 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 8y ago
    If 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 8y ago
      Looks like I lost. He is being charged for the dissemination of classified material.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- tirpen 8y ago
  If 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__ 8y ago
    It is not up to the Swedish government if he gets extradited, it is up to the courts.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      And 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 8y ago
  The Collateral Murder leaks that showed the United States guilty of war crimes.

kakarot 8y ago

I don't particularly classify that as a heinous crime.

pmyteh 8y ago
It 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 8y ago
  In 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 8y ago
    So, 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 8y 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 8y ago

breaching 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 8y ago
That 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 8y ago
People 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 ago
That 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.