SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the shoulda-taken-the-tea-chest-option-years-back dept.
Breaking: Met police confirm that Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy.
Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy seven years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.
The Met Police said he was arrested for failing to surrender to the court.
Ecuador's president Lenin Moreno said it withdrew Mr Assange's asylum after his repeated violations to international conventions.
But WikiLeaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Mr Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law".
[...] Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.
After his arrest for failing to surrender to the court, police said he had been further arrested on behalf of US authorities under an extradition warrant.
He doesn't look happy, to say the least.
Update: As this is a breaking story, more information is coming out regularly - one source that updates their reports frequently is Zero Hedge - thanks boru!
Previously: New Analysis of Swedish Police Report Confirms Julian Assange's Version in Sweden's Case
Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
UK Said Assange Would Not be Extradited If He Leaves Embassy Refuge
Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange
U.S. Ramping Up Probe Against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Says
Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:53PM (5 children)
You didn't even read the summary? USA has already filed an extradition request.
What kind of mental gymnastics is required to think that the USA wouldn't have extradited him from Sweden? The whole fake rape case **filed** to get him extradited!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:00PM (1 child)
Well, the fact that this stuff is all new. Chelsea Manning was only brought in for grand jury testimony a few months ago. If they had been planning this 10 years ago they would have squeezed her when it could have been part of a plea bargain. Now that Obama commuted her sentence not only can she plead the 5th (which she could not do if he had pardoned her) the worst they can do is hold her in contempt as long as the grand jury is empaneled and given that the feds have filed charges on assange the grand jury is no longer necessary.
I used to believe that. But now I've got experience with people like assange. They will grasp at any excuse to deny their own culpability. They are shameless liars. Anything bad is always the result of a conspiracy against them. They are pure as the driven snow, anybody who challenges them is corrupt.
Remember how we all rallied around Hans Reiser? We should have learned our lesson then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:49PM
This is incorrect. The charge he assisted with hacking/gaining access is based on chat logs with (then) Bradley Manning showing he assisted with the hacking, these have been public for years.
Here's an article on it from 2011 that shows the relevant conversation m=top" rel="url2html-8353">http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2011/12/military-assange-manning-collaborated-in-chats.html?gtm=top>m=top
There may be more that isn't public, but this is sufficient to show he was not merely a passive receiver.
Now you can argue it is unequal enforcement, that justice isn't blind, it's just deep state bent noses, that this shouldn't be pursued, that Trump should pardon him, etc. etc. and I would likely agree depending on specifics.
However the legal bar has been met.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:22PM (2 children)
What kind of mental gymnastics is required to think that the USA wouldn't have extradited him from Sweden?
He was in the UK, for a couple of years. He claimed he didn't want to get extradited to Sweden because the U.S. would extradite him from there.
Why wouldn't the U.S. simply extradite him from the UK? Why go through such an "elaborate sting operation" instead of extraditing in from the UK directly, before he skipped bail?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:49PM
The UK courts supervise extraditions to the US. Sweden's don't. In any country that has an 'extraordinary rendition' agreement with the US, American agents can just grab people off the street. They don't even need to inform the country that they are even there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:24PM
You have no idea about the difference between UK and Sweden, haven't you. It is funny how everytime a ill informed question is asked, and then it needs to be defended but the questions never stop because the more questions get asked more doubts are raised about what is giving rise to the question.
UK around 100 years ago sat on top of the world, setting up British law all over its colonies. They could not have their citizens being extradited to any of such colonies of petty crimes like killing savages and raping their women. Hence UK has one of the most difficult extradition laws.
And assange didn't run to UK. The rape cases were closed by the police. It is called filing final report in English law, the other being dilin of chargesheet. After wikileaks shared USA cables, within weeks those cases were reopened and extradition request filed and remote questioning request denied. And UK courts agreed to that extradition.
The fact is whether he even had sex or not is immaterial to how law has taken its course to put him in a corner from where he can't run away. That much is obvious. If a closed case can be reopened and then made.basis of extradition before questioning and without any new evidence and have UK courts approve it, then we are not living in a lawful society and you have yet to piss off the wrong people.