Bumped.
No surprise here - looks like Assange was up to his old tricks even while a guest of the Ecuadorians: How Julian Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election meddling | CNN Politics
So Sweden decides it doesn’t really need to investigate Assange after all.
Sweden drops Julian Assange Investigation.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you at this astounding development. :rolleyes:
Why, it’s almost as if that if he were as innocent as he claimed, he could have been done with the matter YEARS ago instead of helping install a fascist dictatorship in the world’s largest nuclear power.
Did you miss the bit where as soon as Assange was taken into British custody for the Swedish “charges” that the US immediately begin extradition procedures? This has gone down exactly the way Assange said it would.
I’m pretty sure Assange has also said he was going to either be executed or sent to Guantanamo. I think you have a very generous definition of “exactly.”
“I never thought leopards would eat my face.”
With about a decade intervening from the act to the today, I can see the prosecution having testimony problems. A rule of thumb if you have a losing criminal case is to stall, stall, delay and stall in hopes that the witnesses wander off or get the I forgets.
Add to this that at some point pre-trial detention is no longer in proportion to the matter at hand, particularly of the solitary nature of part of that detention has harmed the prisoner’s mental capacity.
In other words, continued prosecution of a babbling idiot who has been quasi-detained for many years might not have the optics that Sweden wants to deal with, so the testimony issue makes for a handy solution.
British judge denies US request to extradite Assange:
The judge ordered that he be kept in custody while the US appeals his discharge. They have 14 days to lodge an appeal.
However, he is applying for bail, and the bail application will be made on Wednesday.
District Judge Baraitser said Assange’s extradition would be “oppressive” because of his mental health and the conditions he would face under “special administrative measures” in US detention, and at the ADX Florence prison.
She told the court that he would be in “conditions of near total isolation” and without the factors needed to moderate his suicide risk, meaning that the extradition can be barred under section 91 of the Extradition Action 2003.
The law states that when “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him, the judge must order the person’s discharge”.
The court heard that Assange has been held at HMP Belmarsh in London since April 2019, and has been under a care plan for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm for the duration of his imprisonment.
Medical notes record numerous occasions of him telling a prison psychologist and other medical staff that he has suicidal or self-harming thoughts, felt despairing or hopeless and had plans to end his life, the judge said.
Assange has contacted the Samaritan’s phone service on several occasions and a razor blade was found in his cell in 2019.
District Judge Baraitser said she had accepted experts’ findings that Assange suffers from a recurrent depressive disorder, which is sometimes accompanied by psychotic features.
She said she also accepted the opinion that Assange suffers from autism spectrum disorder, “albeit high-functioning”, and Asperger’s syndrome.
Nitpick: Asperger’s has been diagnostically merged with ASD in DSM-5, and anyway, you wouldn’t have been able to have both diagnoses simultaneously (i.e., there may have been a diagnostic update from one to the other) prior to that.
Is the DSM relevant in the UK? I know the British Psychological Society is really not a fan of it, in fact they are openly critical of it.
They apparently use International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) instead.
Fair enough. I withdraw my nitpick as ICD-10 still has a separate Asperger’s diagnosis.
ICD-10 makes more sense IMHO. It says that with Aperger’s a person “displays no delay in language or cognitive development, which differentiates asperger syndrome from autism”.
Any reports if Assange finger-paints the walls of his London prison cell with his own feces (or anyone else’s feces for that matter) or was that only for the benefit of his former Ecuadorian hosts?
And not even 6 years after the OP started this thread (which was only 6 years after Wikileaks published the Chelsea Manning leaks):
Julian Assange’s extradition from UK to US approved by home secretary
Appeal likely after Priti Patel gives green light to extradition of WikiLeaks co-founder
Here’s more:
UK court rejects Assange’s appeal for extradition to the US . Reporters Without Borders says Julian Assange is “dangerously close” to being extradited to the US.
If convicted, the Australian citizen faces 175 years in prison for espionage. Last month the Australian Prime Minister commented, "“Nothing is served from the ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange.”
This thread started 9’ish years ago, but is certainly relevant today because there has been a lot of publicized or high profile espionage act cases. I have not followed the Assange story in a long time. I’m surprised DOJ(?), or whoever it is, is still trying to extradite him. As the article in the post above states:
if extradited to the US, [Assange] would be the first publisher prosecuted under the Espionage Act
What are the thoughts of using the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange? Or, has anyone changed their mind over the years about this.
Factually, I think he clearly violated the espionage act - he disseminated classified info that he knew might be harmful to the US. But certainly did not violate the spirit (original purpose) of the act. Originally, in WW1, the point was to criminalize spying (espionage - passing secrets to other countries) and the acts short of spying but that led up to spying (taking/retaining/ or disseminating information related to national defense - because it might end up in our enemies hands and we want to stop you). It was all about spying.
So, Assange is not a spy and wasn’t getting the classified info to be a spy, I think that’s agreed. With that said, in the last decade (Obama, then Trump), the espionage act has been used to criminalize non-spies - leakers of classified information by creatively charging them with the “acts leading up to be a spy” part of the espionage act. While not within the spirit of the act, it’s been broadly accepted application. But only against the actual people who took/retained/disseminated the documents. Never has the press been charged for reporting what they were given. Now DOJ wants to take it a step even further. While it’s debatable whether Assange is press (and gets 1st Amendment rights), he’s clearly not the originator of the stolen information and is just “publishing” what someone else stole. Does it matter?
I’m sure this has been discussed in this thread, but I searched on “publisher” and that last appeared in (2018). It’s still very relevant in light of Trump and others being charged with acts leading up to espionage.