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: 0, Troll) by bradley13 on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:48PM (38 children)
I don't comment on the green site often, but I commented on this, and collected troll mods. I wonder what Soylentils think.
Assange did good work with Wikileaks, years ago. Then he grew an inflated ego, and (um, literally) screwed around. Rather than face any charges (which, iirc, were never formally filed), he fled.
Ultimately, he imprisoned himself for 8 long years.
I have no idea whether the US would have tried to extradite him from Sweden. Maybe they would have, if Sweden had actually charged him with a crime. But in the meantime, the Swedish case has ended. And the UK can't charge him with much more than skipping a court appearance, which is pretty trivial. He should have long since left the embassy.
And now this. Ecuador has finally had enough, and tells him to leave. Rather than acting like an adult, and walking out with some dignity, he has to be carried out like a child throwing a tantrum. Pathetic.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:54PM
Not that my opinion will garner much support, but I agree with you. Assange ended up being his own worst enemy. His ego and his dick got him into trouble, and now neither are of much help to him.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:55PM
Try reddit on your third attempt, you might find your people there.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:02PM (5 children)
The Swedish case didn't end as far as I know, it's more like they paused it due to not being able to investigate further in a manner of their choosing -- they couldn't interrogate/question him in a manner/place they wanted to and they assumed he was staying at the embassy indefinitely so he was out of reach for them. But from what the local news sources said here they could re-open the case again if an opportunity or possibility presented itself. Personally I doubt that they will, but one never knows.
Interestingly if he had gone to Sweden in the first place instead of mucking about in the UK and then fleeing to the embassy he would have been free a long time ago. No matter which sex-crime he had been charged with his sentence would have been served years ago by now.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:51PM (2 children)
The Swedish prosecutor could have sent someone to interview him at the embassy. She was forced to resign because she didn't do that.
If he had gone to Sweden, they would have turned him over to the US immediately. Ask Chelsea Manning how that goes.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:31PM (1 child)
What? Did you red-pill again? They didn't want to interview him at a foreign embassy cause they have no control of the location. Why is that so hard to grasp? Who was forced to resign? Marianne Ny? She retired due to old age, the retirement age in Sweden is 65 which she passed. Why exactly would Sweden have turned Assange over to the US immediately? They are a lackey for sure like most of the western world but they are not complete toadies. I'm sure that with the proper paper work and such it could have been a thing. And what does Chelsea Manning have to do with it? I'm fairly sure that Manning hasn't been anywhere near Sweden when (s)he was about to get arrested. As far as I know Sweden has nothing to do with Manning what so ever.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Friday April 12 2019, @04:01AM
Keep in mind that all of that happened after the allegation was investigated by police in Sweden WHILE HE WAS IN SWEDEN, found to be baseless, and closed. He was told he was free to go.
Meanwhile, the woman he was supposed to have victimized recanted and formally refused to cooperate with prosecution..
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:24PM (1 child)
Looks like they have reopened the sexual-assault case according to an update in the ZeroHedge link TFS [zerohedge.com]:
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:40PM
Odd. That is not what the prosecuting authority are saying via their homepage, and I would trust them more then some news site. They say they are looking into it and that they might do it. But not that they have or will. But then they have about a year or so left to decide so it's not like they have to hurry up all to much.
https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter--press/press-releases/?newsId=0A298F4C7F9646B9 [aklagare.se]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:08PM (14 children)
Correction: Ecuador made a deal with the UK, and the UK made a deal with the U.S. Maybe Ecuador even made a deal with the U.S.
When was the appropriate time for Assange to stride out? Ecuador pretended that they weren't going to evict him (see last previous story) and have given a bullshit excuse for doing so.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:31PM (12 children)
"When was the appropriate time for Assange to stride out?"
At latest, he still could have done this when they came to get him. Did you not see the video? They literally had to carry him out of the embassy, him thrashing and fussing the whole way. Seriously, have some dignity, man.
As for the extradition - it was long suspected that the US would try, but it's not a slam dunk. Even though the UK is the US's little puppet, the UK still has laws. And (AFAIK, IANAL, etc.) one of those laws is that extradition only happens if the act of which he is accused is actually a crime in the UK. They'll have to prove that in court, before they can extradite him.
On the US side: You have to love all the secrecy. Secret charges, a secret extradition request. Secret government, the hallmark of a functioning democracy. /sarc And what, exactly, are they going to charge him with? It can't be espionage, because he's not the one who stole the secrets, he's just the publisher. And as a publisher he is not answerable to US law, because he's not a US citizen, and did not do his work in the US.
Assuming he gets some good legal help, which is likely (if he can stop being an entitled a**hole, and not piss off his helpers), he is in a position to make the governments look really stupid here, which can only help Wikileaks' cause. Frankly, he should have walked out of the embassy this years ago, voluntarily, instead of cowering in the Ecuadorian embassy until he overstayed his welcome.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:27PM (1 child)
He was holed up in a room with almost daily harassment from the embassy officials. His only companion a cat was forced up for adoption. He kept his sanity under such pressure a lot of people commit suicide. A lot. And he undertook a task that had the fucking biggest big brother wanting to unperson him. Several countries that routinely roll over innocent people's dead body like it is the fuel of their economy. He doesn't owe a damn class to anyone. I am willing to believe that from his perspective the people who have come to get him have a lot less class than him. What have YOU done in your life that you are passing judgments on him, though?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:39PM
(Score: 4, Informative) by canopic jug on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:11PM (9 children)
At latest, he still could have done this when they came to get him. Did you not see the video? They literally had to carry him out of the embassy, him thrashing and fussing the whole way. Seriously, have some dignity, man.
You appear to be mistakenly assuming that the cops are there to do things fairly or justly.
Swollen knees are among the ailments he is suffering from as a result of illegal confinement. I'd expect he can barely walk, perhaps only a shuffle. The whole purpose of frog marching him out the door is to make him look bad. That's what perp walks are for, to humiliate and harrass the person being detained, as well as to provide fodder for a propaganda campaign against him. So even if his legs had been healthy, they'd have still walked him out like that. Being semi-crippled and in pain just makes it that much easier to rough him up and make him look bad. Already mainstream media is doing what it can to parrot flat out lies and fill in with insinuations where a lie would get caught out.
Again, a perp walk is not about getting a suspect to the vehicle, it's a showy, public display put on by the arresting officers. The frog march is done to deny him a dignified exit, and they'll do that no matter whether he is healthy or not. The screwed up knees just allow the cops to hurt him badly in the process while pretending not to, as you can see in some of the photos with the cops apparently snickering at the display.
Whatever. After a kangaroo court in the UK, it'll be off to the US for a secret trial with a secret court and secret evidence. The "hacking" accusation is just a placeholder to allow the UK court to claim plausible deniability for later when the US throws the book at him.
How many tens of millions has the UK wasted staking out the embassy? It's not like there's a series of crime waves there due to slashed police funding.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:36PM (8 children)
Now I'm confused. I thought that Assange voluntarily entered the Ecuadorian embassy after requesting (not being offered, asking for) asylum there.
How is that "illegal confinement." By that logic, every time I enter my home (where I chose to be), I'm being illegally confined, right? Those deep state fuckers are really oppressing me!
Do you even read the stuff you write, or is it all just stream of consciousness that's flies out, never to be considered (or previewed) again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:43PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 12 2019, @04:05AM (1 child)
Much in the way we are all free to dive into the wood chipper at any time.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Friday April 12 2019, @04:20AM
l'appel du vide^Wdéchiquetage de bois
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:00PM (2 children)
Come back when the United Nations agree with your case, you whiny little nazi bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:13PM (1 child)
WTF are you blathering on about?
illegal (adj.) [oxforddictionaries.com]:
confinement(n) [oxforddictionaries.com]:
Let's start with "illegal." Assange was granted asylum by the government of Ecuador. A grant of asylum [wikipedia.org] is not illegal, nor is the person (in this case, Assange) granted asylum prevented from revoking such asylum. What's more, The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] (Section 14) states:
So. Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador. That is, according to the UN, Assange's right and perfectly legal.
On to your claim that Assange was confined [oxforddictionaries.com]. Assange was never restricted by the Ecuadorians from leaving the embassy. In fact, they've wanted him to leave for quite some time. Assange was free to leave at any time, so he was not confined.
Whatever you may think about Assange, the UK, the US and Sweden and the efforts to prosecute him, Assange was never "illegally confined" in the Ecuadorian embassy.
tl;dr: You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 12 2019, @04:07AM
He was constructively confined by the UK. Look up the legal concept of "construction".
(Score: 1, Troll) by canopic jug on Friday April 12 2019, @04:14AM (1 child)
How is that "illegal confinement." By that logic, every time I enter my home (where I chose to be), I'm being illegally confined, right? Those deep state fuckers are really oppressing me!
Not confused, just lying. I recognize that you are paid to spread specific lies. That particular lie was debunked again three years ago by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which said that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention [ohchr.org]. Arbitrary detention is illegal and the positions of the UK, Sweden, and the US which kept him there formed conditions for abitrary detention.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @12:46PM
Paid? Really? I wouldn't mind getting paid. What other "lies" should I tell so I can get paid?
(Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:39PM
Ecuador made a deal with the UK
On learning that the UK were arresting him for a DEFINITE UK crime committed on UK soil against UK courts, the UK then received a legal request from the US that the US said ages ago they would be filing.
He now goes to court to argue why they shouldn't comply with that request. And he might be extradited AFTER he's convicted and served his time in the UK (I'm not sure the UK can say to the US "Keep him another year to serve out the UK sentence too, then we don't have to move him around" but I may be wrong).
It's by no means a done-deal, but why the UK should be tarnished when they could have done a LOT worse, totally legally, and certainly a ton more highly illegally, I can't fathom. They are the ones sticking to the exact letter of their laws. They sent the Swedish extradition requests back THREE TIMES before they even bothered to try and arrest him first-time-around. And he's cost them a fortune in policing costs on a crime that he definitely, absolutely, 100% committed against them (skipping bail).
The UK is just the middle-man here. Sure, the other two are our allies (well... at least until Brexit for one of them, but I assume we have other agreements in place with them). But from what I see we aren't aiding either or them - if anything we're being absolute pains in the butt making sure they dot their i's and cross their t's.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:24PM (4 children)
A person facing rape charges (that weren't filled) doesn't do that. Now a a person facing political persecution on the other hand...
(Score: 2) by ledow on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:50PM (3 children)
Doesn't hide in an embassy of a country, shortly after being questioned about such things, yelling about all kinds of collusion and extradition after having deliberately gone to a country highly allied to both Sweden and the US, with extradition agreements with both upon request.
They also don't piss off their hosts, who are literally just one phone call away from having him arrested at any time, over a number of issues, over a number of years, and continue to try to evade and cause trouble for their security detail. While harping on in public, from balconies, about injustices they perceive elsewhere almost once a week or more for 7 years. They also don't then involve themselves into deeper political scandal years later with those same entities over even more things.
He can't shut up.
He doesn't like being out of the public eye.
He has no respect towards those who paid bail, offered him sanctuary, those who were implicated in the same leaks he managed (and went to jail themselves), and gave him a platform on which to speak.
He's not a persecuted political figure. He's a narcissistic conspiracy theorist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:31PM (1 child)
conspiracy theorist? what a stupid bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:47PM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:58PM
Well, since you were clearly wrong the other day when you thought that the Wikileaks' announcement that he was about to be given up was just more grandstanding by him... No, I'll just assume you're wrong this time too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:49PM
... behind the scenes 'robust' discussions betwixt the relevant Ecuadorian politicos and the US? (Now, let us show you these photos and videos and listen to these taped conversations, and then there are these curious financial matters our spooks uncovered..or, just the usual bung..)
... 'sail bys' of the Pacific fleet? (hey, we just happened to be steaming by on the way home....Btw, nice little country you have there, it would be a real shame if something nasty were to happen to it...what's that Skip? ISIL training camps in the Pastaza province?)
As I'll bet it had bugger all to do with his antics inside the embassy...
The cocky little shit played a game against the 'Big Boys', and lost, considering who he was up against and the alleged intelligence he had access to, he should have known that the rules of the game he was playing are 'there are no rules'.
From the intelligence, he's sufficiently aware of what fate awaits him now...hence the 'drama'..
Indeed..just as well I've already a decent supply of popcorn laid in for the ongoing Brexit circus, I can now afford to waste some on this (not that unexpected) amusing diversion of a sideshow.
I do so love me some Spectacle...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:54PM
Update (9:35 am ET): With Assange in custody, Sweden appears to be reviving its prosecution of Assange on rape charges (stemming from him allegedly having unprotected sex against his consenting partners' wishes).
Elisabeth Massi Fritz, a lawyer who represents one of Assange’s accusers in Sweden, has submitted a request to Sweden prosecutor’s office for the investigation to resume, according to local media reports.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/julian-assange-arrested-london [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:44PM
That's the party line, but it doesn't track.
The charges in Sweden were investigated in Sweden, found to be baseless, so he was told he was free to go. So he went. The whole thing was exactly one of those "I consented, but I didn't CONSENT consent" matters that have drew such criticism on U.S. college campuses. Then in a procedure that Swedish authorities have since called irregular and improper, a Swedish prosecutor suddenlt decided to reanimate the dead issue and demand that he return to Sweden, and started the whole extradition.
Assange believed the whole thing at that point was a thinly veiled ploy to extradite him to the U.S. for a little creative extra-legal justice so he took asylum.
And here, years later, before the ink is even dry on the order withdrawing that asylum, it looks like he's U.S.A. bound, just as he predicted/feared.
As for his behavior while in the Embassy, it's called "stir crazy" and he is far from the first person to have that condition.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday April 13 2019, @04:07PM
It seems that you were wrong, in part:
Assange's arrest was designed to make sure he didn't press a mysterious panic button he said would bring dire consequences for Ecuador [thisisinsider.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]