13 ms·

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder jailed over bail breach

180 points by ssorc 7y ago

Anon84 7y ago
May they throw out the key
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
guitarbill 7y ago
> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added. Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).
- Veen 7y ago
  You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not cost £16m?
  - guitarbill 7y ago
    To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.
    - foldr 7y ago
      Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail? I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.
      - guitarbill 7y ago
        I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them. People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013& https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
        foldr 7y ago
        >I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them. So? It's only to be expected that more money will be spent on enforcing the law when it's being flagrantly violated in the public eye. I think in reality you object to any attempt to hold Assange to account for skipping bail, and you'd be no happier if only, say, £10,000 had been spent in attempting to do so. If you don't object to the law being enforced, I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent. It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking. The UN finding was daft, as Assange was not detained at all, and hence obviously not arbitrarily detained. If you look into that in more detail, you'll find a dissenting view by one member of the relevant panel - presumably the only person with his or her head screwed on: > The finding in Assange’s case is a surprising one. As a dissent by the working group’s Ukrainian member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, points out, there is a thin basis upon which to argue that Assange is detained in the Ecuadorean embassy. “Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest,” Tochilovsky wrote. “Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention.”
        effie 7y ago
        > "I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent." If you are UK taxpayer, you can. > "It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking." It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.
    - saalweachter 7y ago
      I will note that the "secret arrest warrant" (grand jury indictment) appears to have only existed for a little over a year; there is currently no evidence that one existed for the majority of Assange's residence in the embassy.
- mothsonasloth 7y ago
  Yea, £16m for a lucrative posting for a bobby just to stand around. The courts could have been forward thinking and left his bail-skipping as a misdemeanor.
sschueller 7y ago
While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
- Gaelan 7y ago
  Has the US ever “snatched up” someone from the middle of London?
  - hhh 7y ago
    [redacted]
  - cyphar 7y ago
    Not in London, but GP linked two examples (one in Macedonia and one in Italy). There are also many other examples of CIA-run extraordinary rendition[1]. However in these cases they were both done with co-operation from the local police (or military) and government as part of the US "war on terror" (abductions without local government approval have also happened in the past -- Mossad did this in the 1960s[2] -- but I don't recall a US example). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
    - primroot 7y ago
      Where is the cooperation here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case I really fail to see it.
      - cyphar 7y ago
        In the second sentence: > The case was picked by the international media as one of the better-documented cases of extraordinary rendition carried out in a joint operation by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) [emphasis added] A joint operation implies there was co-operation. I'm not saying the US has never conducted extraordinary rendition without local government involvement, just that the two examples aren't like that.
JeremyBanks 7y ago
[deleted]
- armenarmen 7y ago
  Well that’s just a touch melodramatic.
yasp 7y ago
Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events. > If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges? > Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges. > So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant? > Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. > [...] [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...
- Veen 7y ago
  The answer to Murray's questions is in the article. Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy. They are considering re-opening the investigation.
  - yasp 7y ago
    So was a warrant issued or not? In the US, at least, being "unable to formally notify [someone] of allegations" would not prevent a warrant from being issued.
    - akvadrako 7y ago
      This is not the US, so US legal customs are irrelevant.
wolco 7y ago
This gives the US a year.
sneak 7y ago
> Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out. I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
sneak 7y ago
Reminder: (the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.) On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom". On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him". According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]". On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)" On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing. On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper. On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...
- contingencies 7y ago
  See also https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
NoblePublius 7y ago
It’s not civil disobedience without accepting the consequences of one’s actions.
- kdtsh 7y ago
  Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily require rolling over when a power you’re standing against assets itself. He can maintain his legal innocence and moral standing if he wants to. I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
  - NoblePublius 7y ago
    It literally requires that. It’s what the “civil” part of the term means. Otherwise it’s just disobedience. Go read Letter From An Alabama Jail.
    - kdtsh 7y ago
      It’s very debatable that that’s what the ‘civil’ means. Frankly, the term is ambiguous, and really that ambiguity seems to be intentional - it can mean many different things to many different people. I haven’t read Letter From An Alabama Jail, but a person’s civil disobedience doesn’t stop being civil disobedience because they don’t follow MLK’s formula.
dleslie 7y ago
I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political posturing.
- duxup 7y ago
  I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.
  - dleslie 7y ago
    It's not necessary for him to be a popular martyr for him to be an effective martyr. There are many people who continue to hold him in high esteem, despite claims about his organization's ulterior motives.
  - goodfight 7y ago
    Name one unbiased news source. We are in the age of information wars.
    - duxup 7y ago
      Crafting things to form their own narratives isn't bias, it is a choice.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Name one thing Wikileaks has posted that isn’t true, please, for citation on your claim.
        duxup 7y ago
        Their own tweets about what they're going to release and their actual actions, their own characterization of the information, their choices not to release some information. I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence what is "true". Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Senator Joe Manchin explaining Assange's arrest, and some interesting ideas on property; >"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf. >So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil. >He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him." https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/1 https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...
- return1 7y ago
  get him back?
  - walshemj 7y ago
    Get him back [to the usa] - is implied
    - return1 7y ago
      he was in the USA?
Tycho 7y ago
What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time persona non grata of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.
- milquetoastaf 7y ago
  That's what happens you try to play the game of being an international power broker but fail miserably.
- ChrisSD 7y ago
  He provably skipped bail. EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
  - Tycho 7y ago
    Well done for missing the point.
    - ChrisSD 7y ago
      What is your point then? Sweden were pursuing their original case until he became a fugitive. If he hadn't run, he would (most likely) have been extradited to Sweden, not the US.
      - Tycho 7y ago
        The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.
Cheryl_Sanders 7y ago
How is it fair that Julian Assange is the one being arrested (not saying he shouldn't if he is guilty) meanwhile the people responsible for countless disgusting war crimes and corruption that Wikileaks exposed are off free? Shouldn't we focus on the real issues here?

180 points by ssorc 7y ago

Anon84 7y ago

May they throw out the key

dang 7y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

guitarbill 7y ago

> His continued residence at the embassy and bringing him to justice had cost taxpayers £16m, she [Judge Deborah Taylor] added. Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).

Veen 7y ago
You haven't said what is dishonest? Did they do their sums wrong? Did it not cost £16m?
- guitarbill 7y ago
  To imply he was responsible or even warranted such an expensive operation is ludicrous. Second, it's bad - but not unexpected - that the US' secret arrest warrant, which it turns out did exist, was not factored in.
  - foldr 7y ago
    Assange is not responsible for deliberately skipping bail? I'm somewhat shocked by the idea that people should be allowed to get away with breaking the law just because it would be expensive to catch them. I don't think many British people would agree with that attitude.
    - guitarbill 7y ago
      I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them. People also seem to be happy to forget the UN has found he has been arbitrarily detained [0]. The judge could have factored that in, she did not, probably to save face in light of a ridiculous 16 million pound police operation and pandering to US relations. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013& https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
      - foldr 7y ago
        >I imagine a few people a year skip bail, and I think it's fair to say most of them don't have a 16 million police operation thrown at them. So? It's only to be expected that more money will be spent on enforcing the law when it's being flagrantly violated in the public eye. I think in reality you object to any attempt to hold Assange to account for skipping bail, and you'd be no happier if only, say, £10,000 had been spent in attempting to do so. If you don't object to the law being enforced, I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent. It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking. The UN finding was daft, as Assange was not detained at all, and hence obviously not arbitrarily detained. If you look into that in more detail, you'll find a dissenting view by one member of the relevant panel - presumably the only person with his or her head screwed on: > The finding in Assange’s case is a surprising one. As a dissent by the working group’s Ukrainian member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, points out, there is a thin basis upon which to argue that Assange is detained in the Ecuadorean embassy. “Mr. Assange fled the bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest,” Tochilovsky wrote. “Indeed, fugitives are often self-confined within the places where they evade arrest and detention.”
        effie 7y ago
        > "I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent." If you are UK taxpayer, you can. > "It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking." It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    I will note that the "secret arrest warrant" (grand jury indictment) appears to have only existed for a little over a year; there is currently no evidence that one existed for the majority of Assange's residence in the embassy.
mothsonasloth 7y ago
Yea, £16m for a lucrative posting for a bobby just to stand around. The courts could have been forward thinking and left his bail-skipping as a misdemeanor.

sschueller 7y ago

While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

Gaelan 7y ago
Has the US ever “snatched up” someone from the middle of London?
- hhh 7y ago
  [redacted]
- cyphar 7y ago
  Not in London, but GP linked two examples (one in Macedonia and one in Italy). There are also many other examples of CIA-run extraordinary rendition[1]. However in these cases they were both done with co-operation from the local police (or military) and government as part of the US "war on terror" (abductions without local government approval have also happened in the past -- Mossad did this in the 1960s[2] -- but I don't recall a US example). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
  - primroot 7y ago
    Where is the cooperation here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case I really fail to see it.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      In the second sentence: > The case was picked by the international media as one of the better-documented cases of extraordinary rendition carried out in a joint operation by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) [emphasis added] A joint operation implies there was co-operation. I'm not saying the US has never conducted extraordinary rendition without local government involvement, just that the two examples aren't like that.

JeremyBanks 7y ago

[deleted]

armenarmen 7y ago
Well that’s just a touch melodramatic.

yasp 7y ago

Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events. > If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges? > Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges. > So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant? > Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid. > [...] [1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-the-swedish-warrant/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...

Veen 7y ago
The answer to Murray's questions is in the article. Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy. They are considering re-opening the investigation.
- yasp 7y ago
  So was a warrant issued or not? In the US, at least, being "unable to formally notify [someone] of allegations" would not prevent a warrant from being issued.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    This is not the US, so US legal customs are irrelevant.

wolco 7y ago

This gives the US a year.

sneak 7y ago

> Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out. I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.

sneak 7y ago

Reminder: (the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.) On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom". On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him". According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]". On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)" On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing. On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper. On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid. https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goes-public-on-rape-allegations/8099276 https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...

contingencies 7y ago
See also https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...

NoblePublius 7y ago

It’s not civil disobedience without accepting the consequences of one’s actions.

kdtsh 7y ago
Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily require rolling over when a power you’re standing against assets itself. He can maintain his legal innocence and moral standing if he wants to. I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
- NoblePublius 7y ago
  It literally requires that. It’s what the “civil” part of the term means. Otherwise it’s just disobedience. Go read Letter From An Alabama Jail.
  - kdtsh 7y ago
    It’s very debatable that that’s what the ‘civil’ means. Frankly, the term is ambiguous, and really that ambiguity seems to be intentional - it can mean many different things to many different people. I haven’t read Letter From An Alabama Jail, but a person’s civil disobedience doesn’t stop being civil disobedience because they don’t follow MLK’s formula.

dleslie 7y ago

I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political posturing.

duxup 7y ago
I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.
- dleslie 7y ago
  It's not necessary for him to be a popular martyr for him to be an effective martyr. There are many people who continue to hold him in high esteem, despite claims about his organization's ulterior motives.
- goodfight 7y ago
  Name one unbiased news source. We are in the age of information wars.
  - duxup 7y ago
    Crafting things to form their own narratives isn't bias, it is a choice.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Name one thing Wikileaks has posted that isn’t true, please, for citation on your claim.
      - duxup 7y ago
        Their own tweets about what they're going to release and their actual actions, their own characterization of the information, their choices not to release some information. I also really don't think it is a difficult concept to understand that when choosing what to release and what you don't release you can greatly influence what is "true". Let's say I was a military organization and I released some information that I killed 12 terrorists.... but I didn't say that I killed 200 civilians doing so. I could use your same argument "point out something I said that wasn't true"... but obviously I wasn't telling the whole story.

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Senator Joe Manchin explaining Assange's arrest, and some interesting ideas on property; >"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf. >So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil. >He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him." https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/1 https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...

return1 7y ago
get him back?
- walshemj 7y ago
  Get him back [to the usa] - is implied
  - return1 7y ago
    he was in the USA?

Tycho 7y ago

What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time persona non grata of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.

milquetoastaf 7y ago
That's what happens you try to play the game of being an international power broker but fail miserably.
ChrisSD 7y ago
He provably skipped bail. EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
- Tycho 7y ago
  Well done for missing the point.
  - ChrisSD 7y ago
    What is your point then? Sweden were pursuing their original case until he became a fugitive. If he hadn't run, he would (most likely) have been extradited to Sweden, not the US.
    - Tycho 7y ago
      The case was ridiculous. The way they pursued it was ridiculous. The way Sweden pursued extradition was ridiculous. The only lens through which it makes any sense is when you realise it’s a ruse to limit or remove his freedom, because he crossed the US government.

Cheryl_Sanders 7y ago

How is it fair that Julian Assange is the one being arrested (not saying he shouldn't if he is guilty) meanwhile the people responsible for countless disgusting war crimes and corruption that Wikileaks exposed are off free? Shouldn't we focus on the real issues here?