BS: Assange release

Subject: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 04:09 AM

Assange release
Link Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/media/julian-assange
Explainer: who is Julian Assange and what are the details of his plea deal?

After five years in jail, Julian Assange is expected to plead guilty to a single charge that will allow him to walk free and return to Australia

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 04:10 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/media/julian-assange

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 06:50 AM

I think some of what he did may have endangered some US covert operations but some of them did need reporting! The way the US authorities went after him was far too aggressive and I understand why he did not want to be imprisoned there. Still, he is in Australia now and his battle seems to be over. Let's hope he, or his family, are not targeted by yet another covert op :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 07:05 AM

”Still, he is in Australia now and his battle seems to be over. Let's hope he, or his family, are not targeted by yet another covert op :-(“

Exactly my thoughts too, Dave. He will need to take steps to protect himself from now on, probably for the rest of his life.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: gillymor
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 07:40 AM

And here's hoping the Aussies require him to register as a sex offender.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:14 AM

Why would he gillymor? He was never tried, let alone found guilty, of any sex offences.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: gillymor
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:17 AM

He ran out the clock on that one. I just hope the Austalian press keep people informed of his history of sexual predation so that no more innocents are harmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:36 AM

Doesn’t the legal principle of ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ still apply under US law?

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: gillymor
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:47 AM

Just make people aware so they can make their own decisions. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter in his vincinity.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:48 AM

he is innocent if he never been prosecuted and never been found guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 10:00 AM

he is innocent if he never been prosecuted

What a naive view of the world! How sweet. [not]

His role as a journalist was destroyed when he started releasing materials to benefit one political party over another in a way that changed history. Or do you think the world was better off after having Trump as president for four years? Trump: "I love Wikileaks!" after they leaked DNC emails (but didn't do a corresponding dump of RNC - that would have been balanced, or tried to appear so.)

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 10:26 AM

SRS, I was replying to Gilly’s comment, ”And here's hoping the Aussies require him to register as a sex offender.”

Unless Australian law differs to UK law in this regard, there can be no ‘requirement’ to be registered as a sex-offender, because he has not been tried and convicted of a sex offence. Whether or not someone ‘wouldn’t want my/their daughter in his vicinity’ is a completely separate issue, and it’s the individual’s prerogative to make a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 10:50 AM

I was replying to Dick's "he's innocent" remark. I edited it for clarity (so you can see what I was responding to). But they won't be able to register him as a sex offender if he wasn't convicted, that is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 11:06 AM

That is the law in the uk you are innocent until proved guilty,it is not naive it is factual, the director of public prosecutions is trained to assess if there is a case, that will succeed ,he knows better than you or gilly mor.
HE IS NOT A SEX OFFENDER IF A CASE IS NOT BROUGHT AGAINST HIM,THEY WILL NOT BRING A CASE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THEY DO NOT THINK THERE IS SUFFICENT EVIDENCE ,THAT MEANS HS IS NOT GUILTY.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 11:26 AM

Thanks SRS.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 11:33 AM

The facts are that in any democratic country ,if the DPP decides not to bring the person to court they are not guilty or innocent.,that is because the DPP, thinks there is not enough evidence, that means legally he is innocent or not guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 01:07 PM

The way the US undercover services went after him, I have doubts as to the validity of the charges anyway. I am not saying he is innocent (or guilty!) just that I would not be at all surprised if it turned out that covert ops had a hand in the allegations.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 01:26 PM

You'll have to look into the Bradley/Chelsea Manning part of the story to get into more of the law enforcement side of things also.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 01:31 PM

To be clear, the rape allegations were in Sweden and not the UK.

Who is Julian Assange? What was he charged with and why is he now a 'free man'?

"He was accused of sexual assault in Sweden and espionage offences in the US.

"In 2010, he was arrested in the UK over the Swedish charges.

"What did Sweden charge Assange with? One count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, one count of rape

"Assange denied the allegations, claiming they were part of a plot to discredit him and extradite him to the US — whose military secrets he'd exposed on his WikiLeaks website."

....

"Swedish authorities dropped the sexual assault charges against Assange in November 2019.

"At the time, the Swedish Prosecution Authority said the corroborating evidence had weakened considerably 'due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question'."

I agree with gillymor. The only reason the rape charges were dropped was because Assange was avoiding facing all of the different allegations against him by hiding away in the Ecuadorian embassy, i.e. being a whimpering little mouse and not a real man who faces the consequences of his actions. He also put lives in danger and claimed to be a journalist, which he isn't, in my opinion.

Frankly, I wouldn't want him anywhere near anyone I know and I wish he was still somewhere, anywhere outside of Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 01:36 PM

Manning supplied a lot of documents to Wikileaks while on active service (I think!) It seems, to me, to be the bigger crime. Her treatment was harsh though and gave credence to Assange's fear of trial in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 01:49 PM

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one but not everyone wants to see anyone else's. Facts are sacred and if we stick to proven facts we cannot go far wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 01:55 PM

Talking of which...

Are you sure that was the ONLY reason, Helen? Have you been privy to discussions in the Swedish prosecution service that the rest of us are not aware of?

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 02:02 PM

Dave the Gnome, stick to the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 02:40 PM

"Swedish authorities dropped the sexual assault charges against Assange in November 2019.
in legal terms he is then not guilty and not a sex offender.
those are facts not opinions

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 03:01 PM

Which is why I quoted the ABC (Oz) news article. My point was that the charges were in Sweden and not the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 03:20 PM

Also from the ABC article: "Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for breaching his bail conditions relating to the Swedish sex assault charges." So the reason he was never convicted was that he never fronted up to court, which means that he has not been *proven* either innocent or guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 04:07 PM

he has not been proven guilty .
Rule of law In Sweden, anyone suspected of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.
so the abc article is incorrect, under swedish law he would be innocent until proven guilty. therefore he is innocent under swedish law

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 04:21 PM

It doesn't mean he IS in actual fact innocent of the crime. It just means he hasn't been *proven* to be either innocent or guilty and yes, I agree he is innocent until proven guilty but skipping bail means he did not go to court.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 04:38 PM

I am sticking to facts and asking you a question. Are you sure that "The only reason the rape charges were dropped was because Assange was avoiding facing all of the different allegations against him by hiding away in the Ecuadorian embassy"? (My emphasis on the "only") I would have thought that they had more reasons than that to drop the charges but I am happy to be corrected if you can provide evidence of this "fact"

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 06:58 PM

From what I heard of the women behind the complaints (I'm being careful not to call it 'testimony') he had definite sexual proclivities which could be defined as a version of rape (alhough not forcible by my standards of definition). They didn't sound as if they were used to ensnare him by the authorities, but rather as if he was able to bypass them by the magnitude of the intelligence charges and the sources of the intelligence charges.

Last night PBS news interviewed two intelligence experts who were diametrically opposed to each other as to the gravity of the intelligence charges and what he deserved as a result. I heard no references to the sex issues. Once I was aware of them, I didn't forget them. They sounded as if he would be a good candidate for "Law & Order, SVU".

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Charmion
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:22 PM

Julian Assange was never a journalist. He was an information broker who intercepted materials that whistle-blowers wanted to release and cut separate deals with news outlets — incidentally not including the previous holders of that material.

A nasty, opportunistic piece of work with a spectacularly performative line of activism.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 08:30 PM

Precisely. A perfect 10 for that summation.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: rich-joy
Date: 26 Jun 24 - 10:44 PM

Personally, I'd prefer to have MORE information about what all our Governments (both elected and their employees, AND Shadow / Deep State) are up to "in our name".   
Whistle Blowers are one of the few avenues the general populace have of gleaning ANYthing, especially when Freedom of Information (FoI) lines of inquiry have become such a joke. Ditto the MSM.
Still, each to their own .....

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 02:02 AM

The replies here on this forum ,tell more about the people posting than anything else.
I agree with rich joy.

on the subject of sex offences, see below
legally he is innocent ,you cannot legally be innocent and guilty. if the rule of law is not paramount, then we are back to the days of lynch mobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 02:28 AM

He did not go to court, yet for 5 years he has been deprived of his freedom, that is in itself a punishment.
the DPP knows better than anyone on this forum, whether charges are likely to succeed, and no charges have been brought ,yet he has had 5 years of lack of freedom,

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 02:45 AM

There is a difference between proven innocent and presumed innocent until proven guilty. Legal terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 03:11 AM

As I type this, Christiane Amanpour is interviewing Nina Khruscheva about the possible fate of Evan Gershkovich, a genuine journalist, genuinely innocent of the trumped up charges he's being tried on 1000 miles from Moscow. They're exploring the chances that he'll be used as a bargaining chip for an assassin.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: The Sandman
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 03:28 AM

Helen the DPP is not prosecuting Assange, he would be prosecuting if he thought he would win the case, that inidcates to me that he does not think he would win the case so he thinks that he cannot prove guilt, yet he was without freedom for 5 years.
This is about Assange, please start a different thread about Evan Gershkovich, does he not deserve a different thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 04:26 AM

No one ever has to be proven innocent. That is enshrined in international law. The terms used in court after a case is tried are guilty or not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. But legal niceties are not really the point here.

Assange, like it or not, is now free. He has had his liberty curtailed for a number of years, including prison time. As I said earlier, I think that his actions could have endangered lives but, as it turned out, they didn't. They also served to show up the darker side of approved government actions. Where is the line between government approved killings and terrorism? Perhaps that is a different discussion. Anyway, Assange did wrong, he served time, he is now free. I understand his reluctance to be tried in the US and I believe that, in the end, justice has been served.

The serial abuse case was not and will never be brought to trial. I, for one, will not be party to trial by social media. I hope that most on here would do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 04:54 AM

On a point of order, and with no wish to become embroiled in any kind of argey -bargey with anyone, in British criminal law, a defendant does not have to ‘prove’ his innocence, it is the responsibility of the Prosecution to prove guilt, and there is no such verdict as ‘Innocent’ available to the courts, only ‘Guilty’, or ‘Not Guilty’. The burden of proof of guilt in criminal law is ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’, not ‘absolute certainty’. So a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ does not indicate the absolute certainty of innocence, merely that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to prove guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. By the same token, a verdict of ‘Guilty’ does not indicate the absolute certainty of guilt, only that the defendant is guilty ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’.

The plain, unvarnished truth is that the only ones who actually know whether Assange committed the sexual offences of which he was accused are his accusers, and Assange himself. Certainly none of us here have the faintest idea whether, in fact, he did it or not.

Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 04:56 AM

Sorry Dave, looks like you posted while I was composing my piece elsewhere. Looks like we agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 05:14 AM

As I said above:

Also from the ABC article: "Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for breaching his bail conditions relating to the Swedish sex assault charges." So the reason he was never convicted was that he never fronted up to court, which means that he has not been *proven* either innocent or guilty.

He therefore will live the rest of his little weaselly life with the "presumed innocent" tag because he never went to court, the case was not tried, no verdict was returned.

Whatevs!

I just feel sorry for his alleged sexual victims who have to live with knowing he will never be tried for his alleged sexual crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 05:28 AM

The point is, Helen, that even if he had gone to trial, his innocence would never have been proven. Just guilty or not guilty. Even if the verdict had been not guilty he would still have been subject to the type of speculation we are seeing here. Facts are what matter, not opinions. Now, you have had your say, you believe him guilty. Others believe him innocent until proven otherwise. There is little else to discuss on that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Helen
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 06:49 AM

Just keep on misinterpreting what I am saying if it gives you your jollies. It obviously doesn't matter how many times and in how many ways I try to explain it because you have decided what I am saying in direct contradiction to what I am in fact saying.

Go for it!

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 06:54 AM

Go on then, Helen - What have I misinterpreted?

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 08:41 AM

Helen & Charmion made the necessary points. Others simply quote standard ways of declaiming that someone either never was in court or was not formally indicted AND convicted.
I will add that "proven guilty" is legalistic shorthand jargon to convey that some jury (or judge in some cases) has decided one way or another.

Often, the way a jury votes is not in line with the facts. (O.J. Simpson comes to mind. At least 2 members of his jury admitted that they planned all along to vote 'innocent'.)
I do wish there was a better way to describe 'not convicted' other than 'innocent'.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 10:17 AM

I repeat, the plain, unvarnished truth is that the only ones who actually know whether Assange committed the sexual offences of which he was accused are his accusers, and Assange himself. Certainly none of us here have the faintest idea whether, in fact, he did it or not.

I can see nothing you, or anyone else, can argue against there, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 11:44 AM

There is a lot of hair-splitting going on in this thread and talking at cross purposes. We understand the nuance of "innocent" versus "not guilty."

At this point, I'm much less concerned with the allegations of sexual abuse (from here that sounded fabricated in order to find some way to detain Assange) than the vast harm he did with Wikileaks.

I think that his actions could have endangered lives but, as it turned out, they didn't.

We can't possibly know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 12:00 PM

> I do wish there was a better way to describe 'not convicted'
> other than 'innocent'.

I am no lawyer, but "innocent" seems to me to be a strict subset of "not guilty". Civil cases are judged on the balance of probability, but in criminal cases the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" finds much use. This leaves room for the Scots verdict "not proven" (often translated as "not guilty, but don't do it again").

Again, IANAL.

Subject: RE: BS: Assange release
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 24 - 12:28 PM

The BBC News reported that none of the personel mentioned in Wikileaks were affected. Maybe they were but I can only go off what I hear. If anyone can enlighten me, I am happy to accept other sources.