Top British official orders Julian Assange's extradition to U.S.

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

The British government on Friday ordered WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition to the United States to face espionage and hacking charges. Assange has 14 days to appeal the decision, the British Home Office said. Assange has been held in a London prison since 2019, after seven years evading arrest in the Ecuadoran Embassy. His attorneys argued that he was at high risk of suicide under the restrictions he might face while in U.S. custody.

The Home Office said in a statement that “the UK courts have not found that it would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process to extradite Mr Assange. Nor have they found that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression, and that whilst in the US he will be treated appropriately, including in relation to his health.” Priti Patel, the British home secretary, signed the extradition order.

The home secretary is the final authority on extradition in the British system — though Assange has other legal avenues he can pursue to block the move, and experts say his arrival in the United States is far from imminent. The Home Office said Assange “will only be surrendered to the requesting state when all avenues of legal challenge are exhausted.”

Assange could ask Britain’s highest court to hear more arguments before his extradition, or he could pursue an appeal in the European Court of Human Rights. Each court would have to agree to hear Assange’s appeal, which is not guaranteed. As part of the extradition proceedings, the top British court in December accepted the U.S. government’s assurances about specific safety measures it would implement for Assange. The court refused to hear Assange’s appeal on that point in March.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/17/julian-assange-extradition-home-office/

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This is great news

[Magoo48]

4. I believe the man has had more than his pound of flesh carved away.

I think when any information about how our taxes are being spent and what’s being done in our names is made public is good for our common welfare.

How is it so thrilling to some that another human will be incarcerated for life?

[Colbert]

80. Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers)

Exactly!! As Daniel Ellsberg has stated, “Whatever Julian Assange is guilty of, I’m guilty of.” In fact, Ellsberg thinks the government case against Assange is even more sinister than his own case - because Assange is a publisher, like Katherine Graham.

And the administrations going after Assange are no better than the NixonWhite House in that regard

[Cha]

31. Yes it is! Fucking Fascist POS helped trump get elected..

Among other SHIT. Fucking meddler.

Ex-Ecuador President: Assange Helped Trump Get Elected From London Embassy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-helped-trump-get-elected-from-london-embassy-says-former-ecuador-president

💙💛

[oioioi]

35. it's terribly annoying, I know

but the charges against him have nothing to do with the election. The Guardian and New York Times published the same material, and the US-UK extradition treaty expressly prohibits extradition of political prisoners. The Saudi solution for annoying journalists would be an easier approach - cuts through the red tape, so to speak...

[Cha]

39. Yes, I know.. Assange is a POS.

💙💛

[paleotn]

52. Political prisoner???

BAWWAAAhHAHAHHAHhahahaa!

Now THAT'S funny.

[oioioi]

64. If Assange's ongoing arbitrary detention and solitary confinement amuse you...

Here's some more entertainment, should you be so inclined:

UN Rapporteur on torture: “Julian Assange is a political prisoner.”

Remember the cold-blooded shooting of Iraqi civilians in Collateral Murder? Remember torture in Guantanamo Bay? Remember the political corruption revealed by the diplomatic cables? Those were some of the stories that broke the news back in 2010 as major international papers from The New York Times to The Guardian to Der Spiegel teamed up with WikiLeaks to expose US war crimes and a long list of shameful truths that our governments had kept secret.

Ten years down the road, the man who made these possible is fighting for his freedom in shocking indifference, kept in solitary confinement in a high-security prison and subjected to a trial that independent experts qualify as a sham for those very popular publications of the 2010 era WikiLeaks. EXB got access to the court hearings that will decide on his fate: if the court decides to greenlight his extradition to the U.S., where he’ll face 175 years imprisonment over his alleged role in revealing to the public classified documents that exposed acts of torture, war crimes and misconduct committed by the US and their allies.

https://www.exberliner.com/berlin/nils-melzer-assange/


A Recap Of Julian Assange: Political Prisoner By Proxy

Wikileaks captured the attention of journalists, activists, and governments around the world when the anti-secrecy organization published millions of classified diplomatic cables and documents related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a series of releases throughout 2010.

Amid the political fallout from the leaked documents — some of which revealed startling duplicity by Pakistan and alarming apparent human rights violations by U.S. soldiers abroad — interest grew about the man behind Wikileaks.

https://nyulocal.com/a-recap-of-julian-assange-political-prisoner-by-proxy-47ca0e7c2a51


President of Mexico today: "Julian Assange is a political prisoner and should be released"

Link to tweet

The persecution of Julian Assange

The 18 charges laid against Assange in the US relate to the publication by WikiLeaks in 2010 of leaked official documents, many of them showing that the US and UK were responsible for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one has been brought to justice for those crimes.

Instead, the US has defined Assange’s journalism as espionage - and by implication asserted a right to seize any journalist in the world who takes on the US national security state - and in a series of extradition hearings, the British courts have given their blessing.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/show-trial-julian-assange-book


Nils Melzer: the political persecution of Julian Assange

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being made an example of by the US government to deter investigative journalists from exposing state abuses, the current UN Special Rapporteur on torture says.

Nearly 12 years ago Wikileaks published the Afghan War Diary, one of the biggest leaks in US military history. More documents would folliow, exposing state secrets and allowing journalists to scrutinise and hold politicians to account.

To avoid extradition to the States to face espionage charges, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, before Ecuador turned him over to Britain in 2019. He is currently in Belmarsh Prison in south-east London.

Nils Melzer, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Torture initially declined to get involved in Assange’s case. But as he writes in his new book The Trial of Julian Assange, when he started to look closely at the facts he found Assange to be a victim of political persecution.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018830266/nils-melzer-the-political-persecution-of-julian-assange


Why the Julian Assange case is the most important battle for press freedom of our time

Assange is being extradited because his organization, WikiLeaks, released the "Iraq War Logs" in October 2010, which documented numerous US war crimes — including video images of the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and 10 other unarmed civilians in the "collateral murder" video, the routine torture of Iraqi prisoners, the covering up of thousands of civilian deaths and the killing of nearly 700 civilians who had approached too closely to U.S. checkpoints. He is also being targeted by U.S. authorities for other leaks, especially those that exposed the hacking tools used by the CIA known as Vault 7, which enables the spy agency to compromise cars, smart TVs, web browsers and the operating systems of most smartphones, as well as operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS and Linux.

If Assange is extradited and found guilty of publishing classified material, it will set a legal precedent that will effectively end national security reporting, allowing the government to use the Espionage Act to charge any reporter who possesses classified documents, and any whistleblower who leaks classified information.

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/29/why-the-julian-assange-case-is-the-most-important-battle-for-press-freedom-of-our-time/


The plot to destroy Julian Assange

For more than a decade, the US government and its allies have sought to destroy Julian Assange. They have smeared him and his work, hounded him with spurious charges and imprisoned him. causing his mental and physical health to collapse.

Thanks to a recent investigative report from Yahoo! News, we now know that this campaign of persecution included explicit discussions within the CIA about the possibility of kidnapping or assassinating him. According to a former senior counterintelligence official, discussion of plans to kidnap or kill Assange took place “at the highest levels” of the Trump administration, and “[t]here seemed to be no boundaries” as to what was considered.

The US government has had Assange in its sights since the 2010 release of the Afghan war logs and Iraq war logs. Assange and his organisation, WikiLeaks, have exposed the crimes of the US empire in the Middle East and beyond. The empire now wants revenge, and to make an example of him for anyone else considering speaking out.

For the CIA, the ongoing release of the “Vault 7” documents, which began in 2017, prompted an escalation of this campaign of persecution. The Vault 7 documents, the largest leaks in CIA history, contain sensitive information on the CIA’s hacking and electronic spying tools, detailing the agency’s ability to hack into various consumer electronic devices. This includes turning smart TVs into listening devices and hijacking the vehicle control systems of modern cars and trucks.

https://redflag.org.au/article/plot-destroy-julian-assange

Hopefully gave you the giggles

[paleotn]

68. Whatever.

[oioioi]

70. Well argued!

I defer accordingly. Have a good weekend

[paleotn]

71. Not the same to you.

[orangecrush]

76. ROTFLMAO

Another Putin puppet in deep shit.

[Itchinjim]

2. 😁😁😁😁

[hlthe2b]

3. A new chapter in the saga. Will Pamela Anderson and his other loving supporters be there

to greet him? Act II to commence with a new flurry of propaganda, no doubt.

[msfiddlestix]

20. lol. I forgot all about her... that was so weird.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. I forget, are we supposed to like this guy or not like this guy?

I can't keep up.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I remember the

"Assange wars" along with the "RT wars".

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. I seem to remember there were some pretty good knock down fights about this guy.

[Cha]

34. Yeah, I was on Team Assange is freaking

asshole.

My Team was right although in the minority.

Ex-Ecuador President: Assange Helped Trump Get Elected From London Embassy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-helped-trump-get-elected-from-london-embassy-says-former-ecuador-president

💙💛

[paleotn]

55. He'd do anything for money. Anything.

In my mind, he's no better than Bob Hanssen or John Walker. Like those "individuals", he deserves to spend the rest of his days staring at the walls of his suite at Supermax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker

[Cha]

57. Thank you, paleoth! I agree.

💙💛

[Joinfortmill]

9. Lol. He knows a lot, I think about the 2016 Trump campaign.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. He's a Trump enabler

Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2022, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[Cha]

36. Exactly... a Fucking Meddler in the 2016

"election".

Ex-Ecuador President: Assange Helped Trump Get Elected From London Embassy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-helped-trump-get-elected-from-london-embassy-says-former-ecuador-president

💙💛

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. Ok.

So we're supposed to like him and support his extradition?
Or not like him but still support his extradition?
Or not like him and oppose his extradition?
Or like him but oppose his extradition?

Have I covered all the bases?

It's so confusing.

[xocetaceans]

12. It's not really about the man. Instead, it's about the constitutional freedom of the press....

The extradition of Julian Assange must be condemned by all who believe in press freedom
Trevor Timm

The British home secretary has formally approved the extradition of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States, in the latest development in a dangerous and misguided criminal prosecution that has the potential to criminalize national security journalism in the United States.

Previously, a major coalition of civil liberties organizations, including Freedom of the Press Foundation, implored U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the case against Assange in the name of protecting the rights of journalists everywhere. So, too, have the editors of major news outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post.

By continuing to extradite Assange, the Biden DOJ is ignoring the dire warnings of virtually every major civil liberties and human rights organization in the country that the case will do irreparable damage to basic press freedom rights of U.S. reporters.

The prosecution, which includes 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, covers events that took place more than a decade ago, but was brought only under the Trump administration — after the Obama Department of Justice reportedly considered charges but dismissed them for their dangerous First Amendment implications.

...

https://freedom.press/news/the-extradition-of-julian-assange-must-be-condemned-by-all-who-believe-in-press-freedom/

The Prosecution of Julian Assange Absolutely Threatens Freedom of the Press
The Biden administration should abandon a course that could lead to the criminalization of whistleblowers and investigative journalism.
By John Nichols
December 20, 2021

The Constitution does not prohibit assaults on freedom of the press because the notoriously vain founders were fond of the printers, who in the first years of the Republic produced what President George Washington decried as “diabolical…outrages on common decency.”

Washington’s thin-skinned successor, John Adams, had one printer arrested for allegedly libeling the president “in a manner tending to excite sedition and opposition to the laws.” Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to “write, print, utter or publish…malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States.” He then had one of his leading critics, Matthew Lyon, tried and jailed after the representative from Vermont derided the second president’s “ridiculous pomp.” Lyon, it was charged, was “a malicious and seditious person, and of a depraved mind and a wicked and diabolical disposition.” Thomas Jefferson, no stranger to scandal, was similarly uncharitable. He deplored “the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.”

In other words, the founders rebuked the print publishers of their day with language every bit as venomous as that employed by contemporary US officials when they speak of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher whom the Biden administration proposes to try on espionage charges stemming from the 2010 publication of evidence of “Collateral Murder” atrocities committed by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Assange attracts bipartisan acrimony. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has labeled him “a high-tech terrorist.” Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, whose 2016 campaign was the target of WikiLeaks data dumps, has said, “The bottom line is [Assange] has to answer for what he has done, at least as it’s been charged.”

Last week, a court in the United Kingdom determined that Assange could be extradited to the United States to face prosecution by the Department of Justice for allegedly engaging in a hacking conspiracy with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to reveal classified information.

...

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/assange-freedom-press/

The people here who wish to see Assange prosecuted seem willing to throw away freedom of the press.

[Beastly Boy]

14. He is being extradited for suspicion of distributing stolen property, not for being a journalist.

Like all freedoms afforded by the US Constitution, freedom of the press is not absolute.

I am not willing to throw away freedom of the press, AND I wish to see Assange have his day in court. I don't see a contradiction in wanting both.

[oioioi]

16. The information at the base of the prosecution was *provided* by a US Servicemember

He is not even a US citizen - can you say "human rights violation"?

[Beastly Boy]

21. The information was "provided" to Assange by Manning, as well as a known Russian spy outfit.

Assange is not facing accusations of larceny, he is facing charges for peddling of stolen goods, pardon the analogy.

And have you heard of Colombian cartel bosses being extradited to the US for breaking US laws? I have. Sure I can say "human rights violations", but that would be meaningless in this case.

[oioioi]

23. Yeah, nah.

ALL of the charges in the unsealed indictments relate to information that came from Manning. Information which was redacted and released with the cooperation of major global news organizations:

In 2010, Assange was contacted by Chelsea Manning, who gave him classified information containing various military operations conducted by the US government abroad. The material included the Baghdad airstrike of 2007, Granai Airstrike of 2009, the Iraq War Logs, Afghan War Diaries, and the Afghan War Logs, among others.[8] Some of these documents were published by WikiLeaks and leaked to other major media houses including The Guardian between 2010 and 2011.

The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional. The new charges relate to obtaining and publishing the secret documents. Most of these charges relate to obtaining the secret documents. The three charges related to publication concern documents which revealed the names of sources in dangerous places putting them "at a grave and imminent risk" of harm or detention. The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as WikiLeaks, also without government authorisation. It also said it is not clear how WikiLeaks' publications are legally different from other publications of classified information.[46][47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Indictments_and_possible_extradition_to_the_US

Oh yeah and I assume you'll be OK being deported to Colombia for maligning a Colombian citizen online? Yeah, nah. Thought not.

[Beastly Boy]

27. You bet! Distributing stolen property directly relates to, drumroll please, property Manning stole

One of the charges against Manning:

UCMJ 134 (General article): 24 counts... Title 18 of the United States Code § 641: Embezzlement and Theft of Public Money, Property or Records.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning

One of the charges against Assange:

After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world

I fail to see how your assumptions have anything to do with what I posted previously, but, to make things clear, I would not be one bit surprised to get extradited to Colombia if I were a Colombian citizen who is stupid enough to violate Colombian law and get caught. Not expecting this obvious outcome would be crossing the line between stupid and delusional.

[oioioi]

28. So we agree that Russia is not mentioned in the charges, that's a start - remaining fallacies...

BEFORE publishing the leaked cables, Wikileaks released and reviewed them with the Guardian and other major news organizations (who published them simultaneously). Strangely enough, they aren't being charged.

So there's no problem extraditing you to Colombia IF you were a Colombian citizen. (even, apparently, if Colombian law was being applied to you vexatiously and capriciously), how about the fact that Assange is being extradited to the US when he is NOT a US citizen?

The Obama administration had debated charging Assange under the Espionage Act but decided against it out of fear that it would have a negative effect on investigative journalism and could be unconstitutional. The new charges relate to obtaining and publishing the secret documents. Most of these charges relate to obtaining the secret documents. The three charges related to publication concern documents which revealed the names of sources in dangerous places putting them "at a grave and imminent risk" of harm or detention. The New York Times commented that it and other news organisations obtained the same documents as WikiLeaks, also without government authorisation. It also said it is not clear how WikiLeaks' publications are legally different from other publications of classified information.[46][47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Indictments_and_possible_extradition_to_the_US

I guess we'll catch you in Bogotá, then - if you're not placed into solitary confinement like Assange, that is.

Enlightenment is just around the corner.

[Beastly Boy]

32. I have no idea why you are so intent on hypothetically extraditing me to Colombia.

It is a false equivalency no matter how you look at it, so please stop with this silliness if you want to be taken seriously.

I am not concerned what debates took place before the indictments, nor am I willing to speculate on who else published the leaked documents. It is indisputable that Manning was the keeper of the stolen documents and Assange was the facilitator of their distribution. No amount of deflection will change these two facts, and no other parties who may have or have not otherwise debated or participated add any additional relevance to the charge of theft filed against Manning and the charge of unlawfully receiving and publishing the stolen property filed against Assange, the Espionage Act notwithstanding. Nor am I impresed with a news organization being unclear on a legal matter, but thanks for the quote, irrelevant as it is, anyway.

And just to show there are no hard feelings, let's talk about enlightenment some other time, when bringing it up wouldn't be so awkward.

[Cha]

42. Bloody Well Said!

💙💛

[oioioi]

43. Because extraditing you to Colombia for maligning their drug lords would help you empathize

with a person being extradited to a country of which he is not a citizen for doing the exact same thing that every major newspaper in the world does.

Have a good one. I do hope you have a chance to reflect on this matter and reconsider your position, because it isn't consistent with an enlightened thinker, which you evidently are.

[paleotn]

56. One word.....Supermax.

Lets hope the "journalist" enjoys his stay for the rest of his miserable days. "Enlightened" my ass.

[Beastly Boy]

60. I still don't get the proposition.

Let's assume, for kicks and giggles, that I maligned a Colombian drug lord. Let's assume that maligning a drug lord is an extraditable offense that is punishable by law in Colombia. Let's assume the US doesn't give me any recourse to fight the extradition. Let's assume I got extradited to Colombia. Let's assume there are no defense lawyers in Colombia. Let's assume that the Colombian government is being run by the aforementioned drug lord. Let's assume that the US, knowing all of this being real, has an extradition treaty with a messed up country like this, with no protections for its citizens once they are extradited.

That's a hell of a lot of ridiculous assumptions to begin with. But hey, kicks and giggles.

How would ending up in a lawless country with no functioning government and no legal protections to speak of, make me empathise with an entitled fugitive from justice who has every right and protection of both the US and international laws, who is being extradited to have his day in court, with full legal representation and a robust judiciary separated from the influences of the executive and legislative branches, let alone extra-judiciary criminal elements?

Hell, I would envy the lucky son of a bitch with the greenest of all envies!

[oioioi]

62. LOL

this surely isn't serious...

"How would ending up in a lawless country with no functioning government and no legal protections to speak of, make me empathise with an entitled fugitive from justice who has every right and protection of both the US and international laws, who is being extradited to have his day in court, with full legal representation and a robust judiciary separated from the influences of the executive and legislative branches, let alone extra-judiciary criminal elements?"



Now you're just trolling me, I fear.

Fun chatting with you. Have a good one.

[Beastly Boy]

67. But of course it isn't serious!

What fugitive from justice would seriously empathise with Assange's extradition to the US of all places?

[paleotn]

58. It's an interesting version of "whataboutism"

I don't give two shits about who published what for the exact reasons you so eloquently wrote.

Lock his ass up! I have a very short fuse when it comes to espionage that damages my country. Guess I'm funny that way.

[oioioi]

61. With all due respect, you *should* give a shit

Deportation of a US citizen to Colombia for slagging Colombian drug lords online is practically the same thing that is being done to Assange right now.

I understand your ire and patriotic outrage, but suggest that perhaps it would be better directed towards those who would lie to you about the necessity of invading somebody else's country on false pretexts then doing whatever it took to cover up the fact that your taxes were being deployed towards the cold-blooded shooting of a journalist, unarmed adults and children on a dusty street from a circling Apache helicopter

Have a good one

[paleotn]

72. I don't.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/the-charges-against-julian-assange-explained

Those who steal classified data for kicks, profit or simply self aggrandizement should be boiled. Lucky for them there's ADX Florence. Maybe he can strike up a secret convo with John Walker. Two sides of the same coin.

Don't have a good one.

[oioioi]

74. Hey, if apathy works best for you...

then who am I to argue? 200,000 or so Iraqis may have begged to differ if they were still alive to debate the point, but as you say - whatever.

Cheerio.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. "distributing stolen property" is a damn weird way of putting it

"17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse"

So, no "property" involved. Not even "intellectual property".

The U.S. Department of Justice has indicted Australian national Assange, 50, on 18 charges, centering on allegations that he aided and abetted former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning's efforts to leak classified documents and committed a crime by publishing them on the internet. The documents showed the U.S. military killed civilians and did not report the incidents.
...
The U.S. government maintains Assange is guilty of "straightforward" criminality for hacking and then publishing secret military and intelligence information that put secret U.S. sources at risk of torture or death in places from Iraq to China.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/06/17/wikileaks-julian-assange-extradition-u-s-face-spying-charges-priti-patel/9957335002/

Some of the stuff he revealed, like the murder of civilians, needed to be revealed. He may have been careless with other details he published at the same time. It is not, however, "straightforward" criminality.

He was later a partisan asshole for supporting and enabling Trump through publishing the stuff Russia hacked. But he is sadly not charged with anything for that.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Manning was charged with stealing government property.

Manning was ultimately charged with 22 specified offenses, including communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source, and the most serious of the charges, aiding the enemy.[1] Other charges included violations of the Espionage Act of 1917, stealing U.S. government property, charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and charges related to the failure to obey lawful general orders under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Manning entered guilty pleas to 10 of 22 specified offenses in February 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning

Assange is charged with obtaining this property from Manning

Specifically, the superseding indictment alleges that Assange conspired with Manning; obtained from Manning and aided and abetted her in obtaining classified information with reason to believe that the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation;

and making it available for conspicuous consumption

After agreeing to receive classified documents from Manning and aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents, the superseding indictment charges that Assange then published on WikiLeaks classified documents that contained the unredacted names of human sources who provided information to United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to U.S. State Department diplomats around the world.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment

If, in your mind, this doesn't constitute distributing stolen property, feel free to come up with a description that doesn't sound so weird to you. I am ok with that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. You can call it "disclosing (national defense) information", like the charges do

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

"Count 1: Conspiracy to Obtain, Receive, and Disclose National Defense Information"

Yes, that's not "distributing stolen property" (the classic legal definition of 'steal' is "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" - copying information is not stealing). "Distributing stolen property" is what a fence does.

[Beastly Boy]

48. Since Manning was charged earlier with stealing the said document in a sparate indictment,

If it's OK with you, may I call it "aiding, abetting, and causing Manning to provide classified documents", previously referred to as stolen government property?

Just as the charges against Manning and Assange were referring to them.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_charges_in_United_States_v._Manning
and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-charged-18-count-superseding-indictment

If not, your description will do just fine, as long as we agree that the instance quoted by you is one of several, some of them referring to "Theft of Public Money, Property or RecordsTheft" by Manning and "aiding, abetting and causing Manning to provide classified documents" by Assange.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Your wiki calls them 'records', not property. "Stolen government property" is your own phrase

It refers to U.S. Code § 641, which says
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof ..."
So that includes "conveys" (which, since a copy was made, fits better than "steals". The US government did make a specific claim that the records were "'things of value" to it.

And it doesn't matter that you previously referred to the records as "stolen government property"; it's whether that was what lawyers said. Which they didn't.

[Beastly Boy]

75. Ok, it took me a while, but here's the actual press release of Manning's verdict:

https://archive.org/details/742271-13-31-news-release-pfc-manning-verdict-announced/mode/2up?view=theater

The phrase "steal, purloin or knowingly convert to his use or the use of another a record or thing of value" appears at least five times in the verdict:
-Specifications 4, 6, on page 2 of the press release
-Specification 8 on page 3 of the press release
-Specification 12, on page 4 of the press release
-Specification 16 on page 5 of the press release

Neither one of the above instances makes a distinction between "steal", "purloin" or "convert to his use", and none make a distinction between "record" and "thing of value". For the purpose of describing the violation, these terms are identical and with no distinction from one another. In all of the above instances Manning was found guilty.

This is what the actual verdict states.

So it is perfectly accurate to describe Manning's offenses as stealing the records. And I doubt that anyone remotely reasonable would suggest that the above referred to stolen records are not government property.

In addition, at least 3 other sources reporting on the verdict refer to Manning's offenses as "stealing" or "theft":
https://www.wired.com/2011/03/bradley-manning-more-charge/
https://popularresistance.org/us-v-pfc-manning-breakdown-on-the-imminent-verdict/
https://heavy.com/news/2013/07/army-pfc-bradley-manning-verdict/#:~:text=A%20judge%20acquitted%20Army%20Pfc.%20Bradley%20Manning%2C%2025%2C,Bradley%20Manning%20Was%20Acquitted%20of%20Aiding%20the%20Enemy

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. Well, QED

No one calls them 'property'. "Steal" is just one of the possibilities in the actual law, and not the appropriate one (because the government was not permanently deprived of them).

But I can see you want to use the weird terms to move the discussion away from a form of journalism (disclosing classified government information) and towards something that doesn't sound like journalism ( "distributing stolen property" ).

[Beastly Boy]

81. Interesting that you bring up journalism into this.

I gave you three examples of journalism that ought to sound like journalism to you, because it is, that refer to a charge that Manning was convicted of stealing, or theft. (I hope you do not intend to split hairs any further and insist that stealing is not the same as theft). None of these sources found this description weird in any way. You, on the other hand, insist, despite the examples I gave, that this description is not appropriate and give a pretty weak reason why you think it isn't (because the government was not permanently deprived of them. Of course the government was permanently deprived of its exclusive ownership of the records in question!).

I, on the other hand, am not a journalist, never pretended to engage in journalism and, frankly, don't see how criminal charges can be conflated with journalism in any context. My description of the charge ("distributing stolen property" ) is neither legal nor journalistic. Yet it is accurate, as I demonstrated with references to both the law and journalism. Insisting that a description of the charge must mimic the legal description of it precisely or it doesn't count is pretty ridiculous (imagine insisting that a criminally negligent homicide cannot be called murder because nobody referred to it as murder. Now that would be weird, wouldn't it?)

Regardless, the Manning verdict found it appropriate to not make a distinction between "steal", "purloin" or "convert to his use", making them interchangeable for the purpose of describing the offense. Therefore, it is beyond question that my use of the term "steal" is perfectly accurate, even as far as legal descriptions go, and by using it I am not in any way, shape or form, deflecting (but I appreciate your euphemism of "moving discussion away" anyway).

Likewise, just because no one we are aware of called the records in question "property", it is ridiculous to conclude that these documents stop being government property for this reason. It is equally ridiculous to insist that Assange did not engage in distributing the stolen records (perhaps, since this distribution was indiscriminate and widespread, it would be more appropriate to use "broadcast" here, but I can easily see you raising objections to this term as well) because you find this term inappropriate. BTW, "disclosing classified government information" is far less accurate to describe what Assange did than "distributing" is, but since this is a matter of personal preferences, I will not attempt to invalidate the appropriateness of your description.

So, let me spare you any further parsing and nitpicking: both Manning and and Assange (allegedly) committed crimes. If you are not satisfied with my description of their crimes, I will not hold it against you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. You said it is "for suspicion of distributing stolen property, not for being a journalist"

My point is that your special private phrase "distributing stolen property" is misleading. The charges against Assange are not about property; they're about government defense information, and Assange's stance is that he was acting as a journalist when he published the information. There is obviously a case to be made there (as the Obama administration thought), and newspapers and TV published some of the information too - informing us of unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians, for instance, that the government tried to cover up. The charges are not about that the information belonged to the government (if he'd published internal government statistics on crop growth, no-one would give a shit); the government case is that the publishing endangered US government informants and agents.

The legal definition of stealing is clearly flying over your head, so I won't try to explain it any more.

[Cha]

38. Thaks Again! You answered my question

in my previous post!

I'll read this now..

💙💛

[Cha]

37. Thanks, BB.. what " property did

he steal"?

Ex-Ecuador President: Assange Helped Trump Get Elected From London Embassy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/assange-helped-trump-get-elected-from-london-embassy-says-former-ecuador-president

💙💛

[Beastly Boy]

41. Aloha Cha!

Manning was charged with stealing government property (the classified documents he later forwarded to Assange), among other things.

[Cha]

44. Aloha & Mahalo to you, BB!

After I posted that question I read your other posts and got a clear picture of what went on.. Of course he did.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years and served 7 after stealing the Gov Docs.

💙💛

[oioioi]

25. +1 it's amazing how easily political persecution of a journalist becomes OK when it suits.

Apparently it's an egregious crime to reveal the fact that the DNC stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders (even though none of the charges are related to that).

"Lock him up! Lock him up"!

Just cut him up with a bone saw why don't yas?

[xocetaceans]

49. Yes, it seems to be partisanship over principle.

Collateral Murder
Overview

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

...

https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/

It was good that Wikileaks published what happened. W's war was an illegal war of aggression that killed many, many people.

Documented civilian deaths from violence

186,265 – 209,502

Further analysis of the WikiLeaks' Iraq War Logs
may add 10,000 civilian deaths.

...

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Casualties

US & Coalition fatalities from 2003 to 2020: 4910

US wounded from 2003 to 2020: 32455

http://icasualties.org/

[oioioi]

59. Assange has been inappropriately vilified (which suits the PTB just fine)

As you point out, the actions he exposed were disgraceful. They were also shared with major news outlets and published simultaneously - but only he was charged.

He is hated here because he published John Podesta's emails from the 2016 primaries. These were obtained by a simple phish. To suggest that this required a Russian intelligence operation is risible.

What Podesta's emails did reveal was that the DNC was hobbling Bernie Sanders' chances of winning the primary, which resulted in Wasserman-Schultz stepping down:

The chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has announced her resignation on the eve of the party’s convention, dealing a blow to hopes of demonstrating unity in the face of the threat from Donald Trump.

Schultz said she would step down after the convention. She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favouring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic party,” Sanders said in a statement, adding that the party leadership must “always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders

The incredible irony is that Assange - jerk though he might be - should be applauded for exposing this stuff, not reviled. But instead people parrot meaningless nonsense about Russian collaboration and how he didn't bathe or look after his cat properly. It's depressingly familiar to watch how readily taken in folks are by demonstrably false but well-orchestrated propaganda. It's like the tails side of the trump coin.

[xocetaceans]

63. Thanks for the link.

All that happened then is something that I mostly remember; the debate scheduling, etc.

The interesting thing to me is that some people are so willing to forget their principles. About the same small group always crops up to act seemingly as an anti-Assange chorus if news of Assange breaks. The larger issue of freedom of the press never comes up in their discussions. It's as if they cannot think past this one situation to the ramifications of such a prosecution.

Anyway, thanks for the refresher on the earlier situation. It's important to keep the events straight.

[oioioi]

65. Yes, it's remarkable how malleable the views of supposedly progressive thinkers are

I find it disappointing. The cheerleading and applause for Assange's ongoing persecution seems eerily reminiscent of a "hang Mike Pence" chant.

Orwell himself would be impressed, I'm quite sure.

Thanks for adding a voice of dissent - and to bring some intelligence to the discussion - it's not easy sometimes.

[Qutzupalotl]

13. I don't like him and I fully support his extradition.

I don't care what you do.

Wikileaks is tied to Russian intelligence. Assange facing charges here will let more details be made public about Russia's attack on our 2016 election.

[oioioi]

24. Yeah, nah.

Don't expect to learn anything new from the illegal extradition and torture of Assange. ALL of the charges relate to his dealings with Chelsea Manning (who was prosecuted for stealing and leaking the information).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Indictments_and_possible_extradition_to_the_US

[EX500rider]

26. "the illegal extradition and torture of Assange"

Britain's courts ruled he could be extradited, that sounds the opposite of illegal.

What "torture"?

And "Freedom of the Press" does not extend to publishing secret US govt documents without repercussion.

[oioioi]

29. Happy to enlighten you

On Torture:
Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and two medical experts visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019, concluding that his treatment constituted psychological torture, a form of torture aimed at destroying the personality of an individual

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316471/#bib2

On Legality:
Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, stated that what Assange is accused of doing is factually different from, but legally similar to what professional journalists do.[53] Vladeck also said the Espionage Act charges could provide Assange with an argument against extradition under the US-UK treaty, as there is an exemption in the treaty for political offences.[47] Forbes magazine stated that the US government created an outcry among journalists in its indictment of Assange as the US sought to debate whether Assange was a journalist or not.[54] Suzanne Nossel of PEN America said it was immaterial whether Assange was a journalist or publisher and pointed instead to First Amendment concerns.[

On Freedom:
As to your own definition of the limits on freedom of the press, then why is Assange prosecuted for publishing the SAME information that the Guardian and other news outlets did at the same time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange#Publication_of_material_from_Manning

This is political persecution and yes - it is torture. Any other questions before we put your blindfold back on?

[EX500rider]

33. So him just being in a UK prison like anybody who breaks the law in the UK is "torture" lol

Maybe he shouldn't have skipped out on his UK court date, that will get you arrested just about anywhere.

Just because some other org broke the law does not mean Assange didn't. He had a US grand jury add 17 espionage charges related to his involvement with Chelsea Manning.

[oioioi]

40. Yeah, nah - he's not in a UK prison "like anybody who breaks the law"

Painting a picture of progressively severe suffering inflicted on Mr. Assange from his prolonged solitary confinement, the Special Rapporteur upheld that it not only amounts to arbitrary detention, but also to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Moreover, since April 2019, Mr. Assange has been held in near total isolation at Belmarsh.

“The British authorities initially detained Mr. Assange on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by Sweden in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct that have since been formally dropped due to lack of evidence”, said Mr. Melzer.

“Today, he is detained for exclusively preventative purposes, to ensure his presence during the ongoing US extradition trial, a proceeding which may well last several years”.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/12/1079542

Good to know that blindfold feels comfortable on you

[EX500rider]

47. Yeah, no

Assange was charged with breaching the Bail Act 1976 and was found guilty. That's what happens when you skip court dates when out on bail for charges of sexual misconduct.
He is also being held on the extradition charge now.

[oioioi]

51. No. Nope. n-o-p-e

The only basis for his detention right now is the extradition request.

Mr Assange was jailed for 50 weeks in May 2019 for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

He sought refuge in the embassy for seven years from 2012 until he was arrested in April 2019.

At the time he fled to the embassy, he had been facing extradition to Sweden on allegations of sexual assault which he denied. That case was later dropped.

Despite serving his sentence for breaching bail conditions, Mr Assange remains in prison while he fights extradition because of his history of absconding.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59608641

Assange is a political prisoner. Don't worry, you won't be blinded by that undeniable truth should you decide to look at it. Correcting your standpoint based on seeing the facts more clearly isn't fatal

[EX500rider]

66. He's a prisoner because he broke the law.

Publishing military documents that have not been released without permission is illegal.

[oioioi]

69. Well then, when can we expect the editors of the Guardian, NYT and other papers

that published the exact same information in collaboration with Assange to be thrown in prison and put into solitary confinement?

Actually, it was Chelsea Manning who was in breach of law and oath. The media, including those referenced above published the documents. This is how a "free press" is supposed to work, although it's increasingly clear in this day and age, that has diminishing importance relative to partisan political agendas.

If you truly cannot (or will not) see the obvious fallacy of your position here then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to help you, sorry - I tried

[MarineCombatEngineer]

73. My post was a tongue in cheek post, not meant to be taken seriously.

I really have no opinion, nor do I care about the issue.

[paleotn]

50. I wanted him hung up by his "buster browns" long before Trump.

I'd chip in for a special wing at ADX Florence if it housed the likes of Assange and Eric Snowden.

[Joinfortmill]

8. So, if he is extradited we could learn a lot, if he isn't killed first, including..

Trump 2016 campaign, Russia's involvement in campaign hijinks, dark foreign campaign money, and secret communications between Trump and Putin.

[ultralite001]

15. Let's not forget the Julian Assange/Roger Stone connection...

[link:https://web.archive.org/web/20200429224014/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/us/politics/roger-stone-julian-assange.html|]

That is all...

[oioioi]

17. Right so he's a political prisoner then. Got it.

[Cha]

45. Thanks.. I had forgotten about that..

Assange's such a slimy POS.

💙💛

[orangecrush]

77. Let's all hope

He doesn't try to escape by jumping out of the plane on the way over here.

That would be tragic.

[oioioi]

83. Tragic, indeed...

A street in front of the Saudi embassy in Washington DC has been renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, whose murder by Saudi agents caused shock around the world.

The local government in the US capital said it had changed the name to Jamal Khashoggi Way to ensure the dissident's memory "cannot be covered up".

US intelligence concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the killing. He denied this.

Next month, he will hold his first talks with US President Joe Biden.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61831193

[BumRushDaShow]

54. And also don't forget Stone's supposed "go-between" Randy Credico

(and I saw this Ari Melber interview )

[greenjar_01]

18. Wikileaks was the first salvo in Putin's Trump campaign

Believe that.

[orangecrush]

84. THIS

[mcar]

46. Good