Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London

[nuckin_futz]

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London

 

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

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".

 

Home Secretary Sajid Javid tweeted: "I can confirm Julian Assange is now in police custody and rightly facing justice in the UK.

 

"I would like to thank Ecuador for its cooperation & metpoliceuk for its professionalism. No one is above the law."

 

Mr Assange, 47, had refused to leave the embassy, claiming if he did he would be extradited to the United States for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks.

 

Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

 

Mr Assange would remain in custody at a central London police station, before appearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court "as soon as is possible", the statement added.

 

UK foreign minister Sir Alan Duncan said the arrest followed "extensive dialogue between our two countries".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737

 

[Lancaster]

He will be "suicided" while in custody.... so I guess RIP to him.  

[DrJockitch]

This will be an interesting political football in the United States made all the more unpredictable by the irrational narcissistic cheeto monster who will think the whole thing has to do with him.

 

[CBH1926]

Looks like Fort Leavenworth will be getting a new tenant.

[Ronaldoescobar]

Depends on how much he has on the democrats.. Could be charges dropped or a pardon in the near future. A lot of Trumps base is behind Assange so the pressure will be on the President.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Ronaldoescobar

[Warhippy]

He helped Trump get elected.

 

No chance anything bad happens to him.

 

I could go in to far greater detail because I had and have differing views on this regarding why he was in hiding  vs how his program elected Trump with Russian help but I cannot see much of ar Eason for the US to actually pursue any serious  criminal proceedings against him

Edited April 11, 2019 by Warhippy

[Tystick]

Interested to see everyone's views on this

[aliboy]

From what I saw in that clip it looked like he had aged about 20 years.

[Generational.EP40]

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Generational.EP40

[Generational.EP40]

 

[JM_]

I might be in the minority on this, but I don't see this character as any kind of hero, or Snowden either. Assange was an information broker far more than a "journalist" imo, and Snowden was happy to release classified files that he admitted that he had no idea what was in them, which makes him a dangerous fool. 

[Warhippy]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I might be in the minority on this, but I don't see this character as any kind of hero, or Snowden either. Assange was an information broker far more than a "journalist" imo, and Snowden was happy to release classified files that he admitted that he had no idea what was in them, which makes him a dangerous fool. 

At first, I felt as though the US wanted to make him disappear.  The trumped up "rape" charges which the victim herself refuted were crap.  Assange was making the US look very very bad.  Very specifically the democratic wing of the US and former Bush appointees.  He exposed some very shady things in the US from the Bush to Obama regimes.  He was visibly doing damage by exposing the truth.  That truth was initially unfiltered and he looked like a hero

 

When Hillary said she wanted him gone things ramped up.

 

During the election he magically found ONLY dirt on the dems, ONLY regarding X or Y but somehow, someway never anything about the republicans who have been outing themselves since.  I find it very hard to believe a man with this kind of information had no idea of the meetings with Russia, no idea the fraud, sexual issues, white nationalist sympathies, AIPAC connections and corporate grifting were occurring on the other side of the fence.

 

That effectively made him far less than what he originally was.  he was getting help and he was intentionally swaying an election because of his position and condition with the US government and knew that if Hillary won his luck would have run out.  He helped one man who he is now set to run up against at some point win an election and I find it very hard to fathom that trump will treat him harshly at all.

 

The UK and US services spoke to the Ecuadorian leader and were granted entrance to the embassy after they publicly withdrew his asylum.  Most noticeable in this is the silence now on the formerly very vocal Russian defence of Assange's asylum.

 

This whole thing puts Assange as possibly the most visible political football in modern history between no less than 4 or 5 nations but I find ti hard to feel any sympathy for him anymore knowing who helped him, and how his help shifted the lives of so many

Edited April 11, 2019 by Warhippy

[RUPERTKBD]

Honestly, I'm struggling to build up any kind of interest one way or another. I don't see him as a the paragon of truth, as some people do. His favoring of a US political candidate because of his personal dislike for the other, tarnishes any suggestion of impartiality, IMO.

 

If he's guilty of something, he should be charged and punished accordingly. If he's not, he should be happy to not have to hide in a foreign embassy.

[coastal.view]

not really interested

but i believe he is under indictment in the usa

so international treaties will kick in

and unless the uk wants him for something

he'll end up being shipped to the usa for proceedings

 

trump is unlikely to directly intervene at this stage

or may face his own legal issues as a result

he may feel he is vindicated from obstruction

but certainly does not wish to face a new round of accusations due to this guy

 

[Generational.EP40]

35 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Honestly, I'm struggling to build up any kind of interest one way or another. I don't see him as a the paragon of truth, as some people do. His favoring of a US political candidate because of his personal dislike for the other, tarnishes any suggestion of impartiality, IMO.

 

If he's guilty of something, he should be charged and punished accordingly. If he's not, he should be happy to not have to hide in a foreign embassy.

Lol the same people saying this didn’t have a problem when he and Wikileaks were supportive of Obama when he initially ran for office.

 

 

...idk, I feel that truth telling whistle blowers aren’t criminals especially those with 100% reporting accuracy (have never had to retract a single statement). It’s funny they get labelled as such only when they expose corrupt politicians and political parties/regimes. The latter aren’t the problem though or the criminals/corrupt supposedly. Rather it’s the ones that shed light on them.

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

Lol the same people saying this didn’t have a problem when he and Wikileaks were supportive of Obama when he initially ran for office.

 

 

...idk, I feel that truth telling whistle blowers aren’t criminals especially those with 100% reporting accuracy (have never had to retract a single statement). It’s funny they get labelled as such only when they expose corrupt politicians and political parties/regimes. The latter aren’t the problem though or the criminals/corrupt supposedly. Rather it’s the ones that shed light on them.

I'll be honest: I don't recall this. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'll hazard a guess that he didn't release a bunch of damaging, illegally obtained e-mails from the McCain or Romney campaigns.

 

As far as Assange being a "criminal", it's kind of a grey area for me. I think there are a lot of self-serving laws put in place by politicians to protect them from scrutiny over things that they do, which might be considered highly unethical by the average person.

 

That being said, I just don't have the energy or the inclination to dig into everything that Assange may, or may not have released and whether he may, or may not have put American security at risk in doing so. In this case, i (reluctantly) leave it to the courts to decide.

 

the good news for JA, is that the US Supreme Court is now sympathetic to Donald Trump and Donald trump has reason to be sympathetic to Julian Assange, so....

[Toews]

16 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

Lol the same people saying this didn’t have a problem when he and Wikileaks were supportive of Obama when he initially ran for office.

 

 

...idk, I feel that truth telling whistle blowers aren’t criminals especially those with 100% reporting accuracy (have never had to retract a single statement). It’s funny they get labelled as such only when they expose corrupt politicians and political parties/regimes. The latter aren’t the problem though or the criminals/corrupt supposedly. Rather it’s the ones that shed light on them.

I didn't know that the bar for "100% reporting accuracy" is never having to retract a single statement. Poor Alex Jones, until recently when he had to blame "psychosis" for his Sandy Hook conspiracies, he too had this impressive "100% reporting accuracy", having never retracted his "report" on gay frogs and Hillary being a lesbian robot.  

Edited April 11, 2019 by Toews

[Generational.EP40]

1 minute ago, Toews said:

I didn't know that the bar for "100% reporting accuracy" is never having to retract a single statement. Poor Alex Jones, until recently when he had to blame "psychosis" for his Sandy Hook conspiracies, he too had this impressive "100% reporting accuracy", having never retracted his story about gay frogs and Hillary being a lesbian robot. 

Are you high?

[Toews]

2 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

Are you high?

I think I might have to be to make sense of your posts.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

At first, I felt as though the US wanted to make him disappear.  The trumped up "rape" charges which the victim herself refuted were crap.  Assange was making the US look very very bad.  Very specifically the democratic wing of the US and former Bush appointees.  He exposed some very shady things in the US from the Bush to Obama regimes.  He was visibly doing damage by exposing the truth.  That truth was initially unfiltered and he looked like a hero

 

When Hillary said she wanted him gone things ramped up.

 

During the election he magically found ONLY dirt on the dems, ONLY regarding X or Y but somehow, someway never anything about the republicans who have been outing themselves since.  I find it very hard to believe a man with this kind of information had no idea of the meetings with Russia, no idea the fraud, sexual issues, white nationalist sympathies, AIPAC connections and corporate grifting were occurring on the other side of the fence.

 

That effectively made him far less than what he originally was.  he was getting help and he was intentionally swaying an election because of his position and condition with the US government and knew that if Hillary won his luck would have run out.  He helped one man who he is now set to run up against at some point win an election and I find it very hard to fathom that trump will treat him harshly at all.

 

The UK and US services spoke to the Ecuadorian leader and were granted entrance to the embassy after they publicly withdrew his asylum.  Most noticeable in this is the silence now on the formerly very vocal Russian defence of Assange's asylum.

 

This whole thing puts Assange as possibly the most visible political football in modern history between no less than 4 or 5 nations but I find ti hard to feel any sympathy for him anymore knowing who helped him, and how his help shifted the lives of so many

well said.

 

He's going try, and he'll get lots of help too, to use a 1st amendment defence. But its not a free speech issue that he's going to be charged for, its likely going to be conspiracy related to breaking into a government computer by providing password hacking software and/or assistance. No journalist would ever get away with actively being part of theft of information like that. Its one thing to speak about things, or release a document that you received anonymously, its another to be part of the theft.

 

Not only that, as you point out he helps whatever side is best for him. We have no idea what he's withheld either, so we all might have been played for years on what he chose to release or not. 

 

There's no hero here.