It's time to address the pressing issue of Julian Assange's fate, as he faces a pivotal moment in his legal battle against extradition to the United States. While Assange may have faded from public consciousness over the past 11 years, his current plight forces us to confront critical questions about press freedom and the limits of state power.

 

Many may question why they should care about Assange's predicament, harboring reservations or outright disdain for him. Assange's polarizing persona and his involvement in controversial leaks, such as those related to the Hillary Clinton campaign, have fueled skepticism and antipathy, particularly within media circles. Additionally, some may view him as a pawn in geopolitical machinations, casting doubt on his journalistic integrity.

 

However, beneath the surface lies a fundamental principle at stake: the need for robust scrutiny of state power. The history of governmental overreach, intelligence failures, and human rights abuses underscores the necessity of holding the security state accountable. Whistleblowers like Assange, along with individuals such as Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, have played a vital role in exposing wrongdoing and fostering transparency.

 

Assange's hybrid role as an activist, journalist, publisher, and hacker further complicates the narrative. While his methods may be controversial, his contributions to public discourse cannot be dismissed lightly. Yet, he finds himself vilified by the state and targeted for prosecution, threatening the very essence of investigative journalism based on classified information.

 

The potential ramifications of Assange's extradition are dire. A successful prosecution could set a dangerous precedent, chilling investigative reporting and impeding the public's right to know. As James Goodale, a key figure in the Pentagon Papers case, warns, it could deliver a near-fatal blow to journalism grounded in uncovering government secrets.

 

Moreover, the extradition proceedings raise broader questions about justice and sovereignty. Would we tolerate the extradition of an American journalist for exposing sensitive information about another country's nuclear program? The answer is unequivocally no. Thus, Assange's continued legal battle is not just about his fate but also about safeguarding press freedom and upholding democratic principles.

 

As calls mount for Assange's release, including from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, it's time to heed their urgency. The prolonged persecution of Assange serves no purpose beyond silencing dissent and stifling accountability. Enough is enough. It's time to set Julian Assange free.

 

12.02.24

Source

 

Assange should never have even faced a question of deportation to the US, and shame on the UK for colluding in this IMO travesty of justice. Even the reason for his initial arrest stinks to the heavens.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Assange should never have even faced a question of deportation to the US, and shame on the UK for colluding in this IMO travesty of justice. Even the reason for his initial arrest stinks to the heavens.

 

Actions have consequences. It is clear from his behaviour over the years that Assange takes no responsibility or accountability for his actions.

 

Assange can have his freedom back after he’s stood trial, either found not guilty and released, or found guilty, sentenced and served his time.

“The prolonged persecution of Assange”

 

He’s locked up now because he jumped bail in an attempt to avoid the above.

 

A toxic narcissist who refuses to be held accountable under the law, it has familiar ring to it.

 

 

 

 

Interesting that this pops up right after Carlson's meeting with Putin, a few months after he interviewed Assange in Belmarsh, and when Crowdstrike and the Seth Rich murder and laptop are back in the news.  But you won't find them in the "acceptable sources".

 

 

 

53 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Actions have consequences. It is clear from his behaviour over the years that Assange takes no responsibility or accountability for his actions.

 

 

So he should be forcibly sent to a country he isn't a native of, and has committed no crime in? Wow.

 

If China comes calling for Americans to be forcibly sent to China for trial even though they've never been there? Send them over because you feel they acted without responsibility or accountability?

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

Interesting that this pops up right after Carlson's meeting with Putin, a few months after he interviewed Assange in Belmarsh, and when Crowdstrike and the Seth Rich murder and laptop are back in the news.  But you won't find them in the "acceptable sources".

 

 

 

Gawd, what’s it like living in the conspiracy universe?

4 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

 

So he should be forcibly sent to a country he isn't a native of, and has committed no crime in? Wow.

 

If China comes calling for Americans to be forcibly sent to China for trial even though they've never been there? Send them over because you feel they acted without responsibility or accountability?

 

The crimes that Assange is/was accused of committing concern Sweden and the US. China, Russia or any other nation should have been irrelevant, although for reasons best known to themselves, Ecuador decided to intervene.

 

To answer your question: No I don't think that Assange - or anyone else - should be forcibly extradited because they act irresponsibly and with an absence of accountability. I think that Assange should have been extradited to Sweden because he was accused of committing sexual assault and rape there. Whether Sweden subsequently extradited him to the US to face charges of  committing episonade and 'hacking' related crimes would be a matter for the Swedish courts to decide. Personally, I would hope that they would have done so.

 

You seem have already decided that Assange has committed no crime without hearing the evidence. Do you also believe that if someone flees a country where they are accused of committing a crime that should be the end of the matter? Wow indeed.

Edited February 12, 20242 yr by RayC
Rephrasing

23 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whether Sweden subsequently extradited him to the US to face charges of  committing episonade and 'hacking' related crimes would be a matter for the Swedish courts to decide. Personally, I would hope that they would have done so.

That’s not actually what would have happened.

 

Under the extradition treaty the UK has with Sweden, Assange could not have been sent to the U.S. without his extradition from Sweden to the U.S. having first been approved by both a Swedish and British court.

 

A piece detail in extradition that blew a gaping hole in Assange’s claim he did not want to go to Sweden for fear of being sent to the U.S. 

 

He was in truth safer from extradition to the U.S. had he gone to Sweden.

 

His purpose in not going to Sweden was clear, to avoid being held accountable for the alleged rape.

 

“Once the British authorities enforce the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, Sweden is bound by the so-called "Doctrine of Speciality" which means that Sweden cannot extradite him further to a third country, for example the USA, without permission from the UK.”

 

https://www.aklagare.se/en/media/press-service/the-assange-matter/can-assange-be-extradited-from-sweden-to-the-usa/

Edited February 12, 20242 yr by Chomper Higgot

2 hours ago, RayC said:

You seem have already decided that Assange has committed no crime without hearing the evidence.

 

I have decided that he is not an American citizen, never has been, has never been there, and they have absolutely no right to demand that he is taken there, akin to kidnapping. 

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Gawd, what’s it like living in the conspiracy universe?

 

Lately, it's been pretty prescient, thank you very much.

 

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Lately, it's been pretty prescient, thank you very much.

 

Confirmation bias has the better of you.

So he's stuck in Russia. A country with no press freedom at all. Seems fitting. Crimea river.

Edited February 12, 20242 yr by Jingthing

2 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

 

I have decided that he is not an American citizen, never has been, has never been there, and they have absolutely no right to demand that he is taken there, akin to kidnapping. 

 

Chomper has explained the extradition process which Assange would have faced in Sweden, so why was he so reluctant to go there and fight the rape charges?

 

To state the obvious, a person does not have to be a national of a country to commit a crime there. If the American authorities consider that Assange has committed a crime under US law, they have every right to ask for his extradition. The reference to kidnapping is laughable.

 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So he's stuck in Russia. A country with no press freedom at all. Seems fitting. Crimea river.

 

Huh ????

26 minutes ago, BenStark said:

 

Huh ????

Oops.

 Sorry, mixed him up with Snowden.