Julian Assange arrested in London - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

layman wrote:There is no doubt he skipped bail which is a crime.

The Breach of Bail Allegation Against Assange
The only legal issue generally thought to be outstanding for Julian Assange in the UK is a breach of bail conditions. However, a list circulated by Wikileaks to correct misconceptions has rightly stated:

“It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever “breached his bail”, “jumped bail”, absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time.”

In fact, bail is not actually breached unless there is a failure to meet bail conditions “without reasonable cause.”

This was mentioned in passing when Emma Arbuthnot ruled to uphold the arrest warrant for breach of bail:

“The offence of absconding by a person released on bail is set out in section 6 of the Bail Act. If a person who is on bail fails without reasonable cause to surrender he shall be guilty of an offence. On a straightforward reading of the section, which makes no mention of any underlying proceedings, 1. Mr Assange has been released on bail, 2. He has failed to surrender and 3. If he has no reasonable cause he will be guilty of an offence.”

The excerpt below from Page 2 of an earlier ruling from Judge Riddle ironically reflects the fact that there was indeed a reasonable cause and that the UK knew it. This reasonable cause was the universal human right to seek asylum, and it was exercised with unprecedented international notoriety. This was apparently not lost on whoever was directing the UK strategy, since it was a full nine days before his appearance was requested with a day’s notice at Belgravia Police Station, predictably followed the next day with an arrest warrant when he did not appear.

“On Tuesday, 19th June 2012 the police received notification that Mr Assange had presented himself to the Ecuador Embassy in London where he was claiming asylum. That same evening the police also received notification that Mr Assange was absent from his bail address. It is not in dispute that Mr Assange has remained at the Ecuador Embassy since 19th June. On Thursday, 28th June Sgt Humphries wrote to Mr Assange requiring him to surrender to the custody of police…

Mr Assange failed to surrender to police on 29th June 2012 at Belgravia Police Station at 11:30am, as required in the letters served on him. The same day a warrant for his arrest was issued at this court by Judge Purdy.” (emphasis added)

With respect to this summons, a statement from that day on the Wikileaks website mentions that “Mr Assange has been advised that he should decline to comply with the police request. This should not be considered any sign of disrespect. Under both international and domestic UK law asylum assessments take priority over extradition claims.”

Yet without such an arrest warrant, the UK would have no pretext to extract him from the embassy. Its awareness of lacking justification was then further shown by waiting another six weeks for Ecuador to fold under pressure to reject the asylum claim. Yet when it was finally obvious that asylum was about to be granted, they did in fact try their luck with a threat to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy in order to arrest him.

That obviously did not work. Waiting so long and then overplaying their hand was a reassuring indication that their wits didn’t quite measure up to their malice. Yet what else could they do, since it was obvious that international law took precedence on the world stage when he walked into the embassy? They had to pick their means and their moments to defy it, and then hope for the best.

The UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention referred to the question of bail in its 2015 ruling by stating in section 64 that

“the EAW [European arrest warrant] issued by Sweden is the current formal basis for Mr. Assange’s detention, although United Kingdom police have been instructed to arrest Mr. Assange even if the Swedish EAW falls away. In this regard, Mr. Assange continues to face arrest and detention for breaching his house arrest conditions (“bail conditions”) as a result of successfully exercising his right to seek asylum. However the conditions of his house arrest arise directly out of Sweden’s issuance of the EAW.”

The EAW has since been dropped along with Sweden’s investigation, in 2017. Yet the same UN ruling from 2015 had already admonished Britain to let him leave the embassy without arrest.

So however sliced, this bail “issue” has no more substance than a hole missing its doughnut.

After seven years of underlying nonsense about Assange’s legal status from Western governments and media, the UN was moved in December to directly counter it with a sobering declaration:

“States that are based upon and promote the rule of law do not like to be confronted with their own violations of the law, that is understandable. But when they honestly admit these violations, they do honour the very spirit of the rule of law, earn enhanced respect for doing so, and set worldwide commendable examples.”

Julian Assange is under siege with his life threatened by the US, for publishing truth disseminated by major outlets.

He is not a fugitive from British or any other kind of justice.

layman wrote:The allegations in Sweden expired actually. They were not dropped. Those women are inconvenient for the usual crowd of keyboard crusaders though....

What actually took place:

John Pilger wrote:Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying, "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever."

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.

At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer."

On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST - publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]".

Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed "rape investigation" to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq "War Logs", based on WikiLeaks' disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.

Finally, he was allowed to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals.

Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.

He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.

For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.

Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren, accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as "abnormal" and demanded she be replaced.

Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be "rendered" to the US if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US.

Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA "renditions" - including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.

"Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England," wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange, "clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights."

The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the "rape" allegations.

Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn't she question him? Catch-22.

When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, "but the police were keen on getting a hold on him". She was "shocked" when they arrested him because she only "wanted him to take [an HIV] test". She "did not want to accuse JA of anything" and "it was the police who made up the charges". In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been "railroaded by police and others around her".

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped." The women were manipulated by police - whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote: "The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?"

Assange's choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting- ... told-story
And Corbyn wants him tried for that bullshit? I guess Corbyn's the kind of guy that rolls over for liberals.
He addressed that bullshit AFTER saying Julian Assange shouldn't be extradited to the genocidal American regime. I guess his crime was saying that if the Swedes pursue the Swedish allegations he should answer them, just like....uhhhh...Assange's legal team.

Sivad, not sure if you've noticed, but you have this tendency of aligning yourself with the U.S. state dept lately.
skinster wrote:Sivad, not sure if you've noticed, but you have this tendency of aligning yourself with the U.S. state dept lately.

Well that's obviously bullshit but even it wasn't I could give a fuck. Where I come out on shit is determined by a commitment to honesty and fairness, if by coincidence that lines up with something the state department is pushing because the truth is convenient for them in that instance then so be it.

I don't trust any fucking politician ever ...because they're fucking politicians. They don't get the benefit of the doubt. The only way to keep politicians in line is to show them that you will drop their asses in a hot second at the first sign of weakness or betrayal. If you even catch a whiff of bullshit you need take their asses straight to the woodshed because if you don't they will start running game and playing you hard. You gotta be a pimp when it comes to politicians because they are whores by nature and you need a strong hand to keep those bitches in check.
Above is Mumbo jumbo. His lawyers didn’t even attempt a defence that his asylum claim takes precedence over the bail breech. He had no real case for asylum of course and was only accepted for political reasons.

Word is that Sweden may reopen the case now they are able to proceed - the real reason it was stopped.

Using a privileged position to try and worm out of justice is pretty low - whether it is a politician or a liberal darling like this.
layman wrote:Above is Mumbo jumbo.

:knife: Above is all well established fact. That Corbyn is too scared of the liberals to call it what it is, politically motivated malicious prosecution, tells me that Corbyn is just another politician exploiting a niche and not a serious reformer.
Dear Friends

Thank you for standing up with us in defending Julian Assange the publisher of WikiLeaks by participating at our actions outside Belmarsh prison, the Southwark Crown Court, Westminster Magistrates Court, standing in support of journalism on press freedom day, participating at our public meeting at Unite, and attending the public discussion 'Imperialism on Trial'. Our supportive actions continue in the next few weeks, please share the attacked infographics with your friends and families through social media. Also, consider writing to Julian in prison.

* Write to Julian Assange

Please consider writing to Julian Assange at Belmarsh Prison. Take care to address your letter correctly on a plain white envelope, writing on plain white paper. You must put your name and address at the back of the envelope. At the front you must write:

Mr Julian Assange
DOB: 3/7/1971
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB

Visit www.writejulian.com for details and infographics promoting this letter writing campaign. Follow us on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/WriteJulian

Upcoming actions:

Sunday 12th of May 2019 at 13:30
Free Julian Assange & Chelsea Manning
Public Meeting organised by the Socialist Equality Party
YMCA Indian Student Hostel
41 Fitzroy Square
London W1T 6AQ

Nearest Tube: Warren Street - Victoria or Northern Lines
For tickets (£2-5) available at https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/61225732815

Thursday 30th of May 2019 from 9 am
2nd US Extradition Hearing
No US Extradition Protest
Outside Westminster Magistrates Court
181 Marylebone Road nearest tube station: Marylebone, Edgware Road

Wednesday 12th of June 2019 from 9 am
3rd US Extradition Hearing
No US Extradition Protest
Outside Westminster Magistrates Court
181 Marylebone Road nearest tube station: Marylebone, Edgware Road

JADC (Julian Assange Defence Committee)
Grassroots solidarity for the WikiLeaks editor
skinster wrote:Good interview with Wikileaks ambassador, Joseph Farrell, and the guy who worked in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Thanks. Joseph Farrell says here clearly, that according to reliable sources, the judiciary in Sweden had been directed by the UK - CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) all those years to uphold and prolong the case; and ensure that Julian Assange will not be questioned in the UK.

This point alone, sheds light to two important facts: 1. The judiciary in Sweden was not independent. 2. The case (which did not lead to any charges against Assange) was politically motivated, and therefore entirely false.

Furthermore, the person (above) who claims 'He (Julian Assange) had no real case for asylum of course and was only accepted for political reasons.'
Doesn't know the first thing about the right of Asylum as specified by the international law.
Stardust wrote:Joseph Farrell says here clearly, that according to reliable sources, the judiciary in Sweden had been directed by the UK - CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) all those years to uphold and prolong the case; and ensure that Julian Assange will not be questioned in the UK.

More here:
SSDR wrote:@Stardust, He is just another anarchist of whom is in prison. He supports economic libertarianism, and has no socialist support.

Being a libertarian does not overshadow the fact that he revealed the truth about major crimes against humanity done by those in power, and whom should therefore be behind the bars now; not him.

Supporting the rights of a publisher and journalist, does not necessarily put one inline with his political / economic views.

The integrity of those who call themselves Socialists, but are not supporting Julian Assange in this historic moment; should justifiably be questioned.
@Stardust, So you personally believe that anyone who doesn't support Julian Assange is not a socialist? Why do you believe that? Julian Assange has nothing to do with economic socialism.

You don't need to state your opinionated questions to anybody. Nobody has to answer your non socialist questions. They are just opinionated statements due to not being in a socialist context.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13

Those who live by the sword (or gun) will die by t[…]

Blackface: Canada's Racist PM

So Trudeau is a literal racist. Who are these peo[…]



You haven't got one shred of evidence that proves[…]