Julian Assange's backers ordered to pay up sureties(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Julian Assange's backers ordered to pay up sureties
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19868355
13 comments
Shame they did not spot the chap was a cad before they risked their money.
You're assuming they are unhappy with the situation
...you'd assume so, otherwise they wouldn't have applied to the court to try and get their money back.
Answer this: Why would they apply to get their money back, knowing full well that they wouldn't? What would be a reasonable explanation for this action?
Why do people still support Assange?
1. He is facing sexual assault charges which he needs to answer.
2. He seems a bit crazed worrying about a massive conspiracy theory. He believes that US is the puppet master behind the Swedish charges. I might be wrong but he seems to think the US has pressured Sweden into getting some sex charges against him so they can then extradite him. This seems strange considering that the UK has deported a number of people to the states. People like the TVShack guy or the terror suspect sent a few days ago who hasn't been to states. The later hosted a website on a US server - has never visited the country.
3. He probably does need to face some action regarding his handling of the US cables. He started off doing something which I don't think was terribly wrong. He shone a light on the US behind the scenes in a controlled and sensible way. Then... he released all the cables unredacted endangering countless lives around the world. I don't know if this breaks any laws but I think he needs to be investigated for it.
I think the backers made a mistake backing him. I think him taking flight shows what kind of person he really is. By going to the Ecuador embassy he has traded a trial in Sweden for a comfy prison in London leaving backers thousands of pounds out of pocket.
1. He is facing sexual assault charges which he needs to answer.
2. He seems a bit crazed worrying about a massive conspiracy theory. He believes that US is the puppet master behind the Swedish charges. I might be wrong but he seems to think the US has pressured Sweden into getting some sex charges against him so they can then extradite him. This seems strange considering that the UK has deported a number of people to the states. People like the TVShack guy or the terror suspect sent a few days ago who hasn't been to states. The later hosted a website on a US server - has never visited the country.
3. He probably does need to face some action regarding his handling of the US cables. He started off doing something which I don't think was terribly wrong. He shone a light on the US behind the scenes in a controlled and sensible way. Then... he released all the cables unredacted endangering countless lives around the world. I don't know if this breaks any laws but I think he needs to be investigated for it.
I think the backers made a mistake backing him. I think him taking flight shows what kind of person he really is. By going to the Ecuador embassy he has traded a trial in Sweden for a comfy prison in London leaving backers thousands of pounds out of pocket.
> He is facing sexual assault charges
No, he is not, he's wanted for "questioning", no charges have been filed. And extradition for questioning, on allegations that seem very flimsy, is excessive to the point of making me doubt prosecutors' honesty.
All the weird things that happened around TPB trial before (chief investigator getting employed by the plaintiffs, judge being a member of pro-copyright association, another judge with speaking appointments for a different pro-copyright organization) don't help the way I view the Swedish justice system.
I'm no fan of Wikileaks, they have lost their way a long time ago and I don't think revealing the cables, or the video was particularly noble or furthered any noble causes. But it's also pretty clear to me that the guy is not being treated fairly, and probably won't be once extradited.
No, he is not, he's wanted for "questioning", no charges have been filed. And extradition for questioning, on allegations that seem very flimsy, is excessive to the point of making me doubt prosecutors' honesty.
All the weird things that happened around TPB trial before (chief investigator getting employed by the plaintiffs, judge being a member of pro-copyright association, another judge with speaking appointments for a different pro-copyright organization) don't help the way I view the Swedish justice system.
I'm no fan of Wikileaks, they have lost their way a long time ago and I don't think revealing the cables, or the video was particularly noble or furthered any noble causes. But it's also pretty clear to me that the guy is not being treated fairly, and probably won't be once extradited.
no charges have been filed
That's just an artifact of the terminology used by the Swedish legal system. Charges cannot be filed in absentia in Sweden. The act of formally charging someone comes after questioning and must be done with the person present.
That's just an artifact of the terminology used by the Swedish legal system. Charges cannot be filed in absentia in Sweden. The act of formally charging someone comes after questioning and must be done with the person present.
That is true but they could've questioned him in England, or even in the Ecuadorian embassy. They have questioned people outside of Sweden in other cases. It's the prosecutors "opinion" that he needs to be present in Sweden.
He isn't wanted simply for questioning in the US sense of the word. He's wanted for arrest and formal charging, it just so happens that in Sweden the step that must happen before that in the standard procedure is called 'questioning'. Do the police from one country even have authority to formally charge and arrest someone on foreign soil, let alone in the embassy of third of a nation while on foreign soil? Can you link to one of these other cases where that is happened?
Basically, I like him because his work led to more scoops with larger impacts than any other journalist in recent history.
he released all the cables unredacted endangering countless lives around the world
It's not like he singlehandedly and purposefully did that. In fact, he tried very hard to do the opposite. They were released because one of the encrypted files he sent a journalist was still floating around somewhere when that journalist published the key Assange gave him in a book.
I think the backers made a mistake backing him. I think him taking flight shows what kind of person he really is. By going to the Ecuador embassy he has traded a trial in Sweden for a comfy prison in London leaving backers thousands of pounds out of pocket.
When you back someone who (right or wrong) thinks his prosecution is an international conspiracy, you kind of expect that things aren't going to go by the book. If they didn't anticipate this, they're morons. But I think they did anticipate it, I haven’t seen anyone complaining.
he released all the cables unredacted endangering countless lives around the world
It's not like he singlehandedly and purposefully did that. In fact, he tried very hard to do the opposite. They were released because one of the encrypted files he sent a journalist was still floating around somewhere when that journalist published the key Assange gave him in a book.
I think the backers made a mistake backing him. I think him taking flight shows what kind of person he really is. By going to the Ecuador embassy he has traded a trial in Sweden for a comfy prison in London leaving backers thousands of pounds out of pocket.
When you back someone who (right or wrong) thinks his prosecution is an international conspiracy, you kind of expect that things aren't going to go by the book. If they didn't anticipate this, they're morons. But I think they did anticipate it, I haven’t seen anyone complaining.
The UK government is spending millions on a police stakeout of the embassy. While this is nominally about a sex offence, given what has been reported about what happened, is that really a good use of my tax money?
I've had belongings in excess of 5000 GBP stolen. All I got from the Met was a victim support letter, no more than 50p worth of paper, envelope and franking.
So to me there is clearly a political agenda in his persecution; there is a conspiracy against him. In defence of liberty and in opposition to government tyranny, I cannot, in good conscience, not support him, in some way.
PS: He is not a US citizen, and alleged crimes were not committed on US soil. By what right does the US investigate him?
I've had belongings in excess of 5000 GBP stolen. All I got from the Met was a victim support letter, no more than 50p worth of paper, envelope and franking.
So to me there is clearly a political agenda in his persecution; there is a conspiracy against him. In defence of liberty and in opposition to government tyranny, I cannot, in good conscience, not support him, in some way.
PS: He is not a US citizen, and alleged crimes were not committed on US soil. By what right does the US investigate him?
Some combination of your #2 and #3 answer your question. There are people who believe that what Wikileaks was doing was noble and that Assange is the victim of a conspiracy. So, they support him.
I can't see how they could have an expectation of anything different.