UK Signs Julian Assange's US extradition papers

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
The UK is ready to turn over Assange before it even gets to the courts.

The UK still hasn't left the EU three years after the vote.

It seems the British government jumps when the US cracks the whip. As for the people of Britain, they can go pound sand.

No, there's a long history and precedent of the UK courts refusing similar cases - see Gary McKinnon, Ordtech, Matrix-Churchil, Birmingham Four, Space Research Council etc...

The US tried to extradite my uncle twice for selling £50m of artillery fuses to Iraq and building their Supergun - the first time the judge released them from jail due to inability to receive a fair trial in the US, when the US tried to extradite him a second time, the courts revealed the US was covering up that they worked for CIA and revealed the US's role in them breaking their own arms embargo in Iraq..

There's a decent chance of avoiding extradition if his legal team push the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of press, public interest immunity defence, inability to receive a fair trial in the US as a jury would be compromised, deterioration of mental/physical health.

a reply to: bastion

I totally agree with what you have said. There is quite a lot of ignorance around the extradition process displayed by some folk, and the fact that it's judicial process and not political. There is absolutely no guarantee that Assange will be extradited.

Clearly, Assange should have been extradited to Sweden as legal process was followed to its end, but that’s another story.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: pravdaseeker
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Well it looks like everything Julian and Wikileaks were afraid would happen, has happened, or will happen.

UK signs Julian Assange's US extradition papers

Looks like they are going to turn Julian into the 21st century Nelson Mandela type person who gets locked up forever over dodgy charges.

Pravdaseeker

There's another thread already up about this. As an aside, you mentioned Mandela. He actually was a terrorist, he organized attacks and helped make the bombs that killed innocent people. If it wasn't for Mandela and the anc many of us wouldn't have blood on our hands. He and that vile thing called Winnie were the ones who created necklacing. You ever see it done first hand, I have. It makes you realize what true evil looks like, which would be Nelson and Winnie. I could tell you a lot more about Nelson, but I suggest you read up on his real history, maybe read his manifesto. Learn where he went and for what when he got out in Feb 1990. He may have appeared to be reformed, but he wasn't, far from it. The only reason he didn't continue to kill was because his handlers wouldn't allow it.

I also seem to remember that Winnie was charged with rape of minors, sexual assault and ritual murder as well as 87 counts of extortion, fraud and embezzlement. Both sets of crimes, of which she was convicted. Those two are just shining examples eh?

Cheers - Dave

Dude, you gotta make a thread about that. I never knew any of that.


Also, Assange is innocent of any crimes as far as i can tell. I think he could have a pretty good case against several country’s governments at this point.

I wholeheartedly agree with your first point.

Regarding your second point, I thought the distinction was that Assange is being accused of conspiracy by coordinating with Manning, etc, and encouraging or showing how to extract the information. Not that he just received it on his desk one day and published it?

But it's been some time since I looked properly into the details...

a reply to: Xtrozero

en.wikipedia.org... this i think?

The July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrikes were a series of air-to-ground attacks conducted by a team of two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, New Baghdad during the Iraqi insurgency which followed the Iraq War. On April 5, 2010, the attacks received worldwide coverage and controversy following the release of 39 minutes of gunsight footage by the Internet whistleblower website WikiLeaks. The footage was portrayed as classified,[7] but its confessed leaker, U.S. Army soldier Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, testified in 2013 that the video was not classified.[8] The video, which WikiLeaks titled Collateral Murder, showed that the crew encountered a firefight and laughed at some of the casualties, some of whom were civilians and reporters. An anonymous U.S. military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage,[9] which provoked global discussion on the legality and morality of the attacks. In the first strike, the crews of two Apaches directed 30 mm cannon fire at a group of ten Iraqi men, including some armed men, standing where insurgents earlier that day had shot at an American Humvee with small arms fire. Among the group were two Iraqi war correspondents working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen. Seven men (including Noor-Eldeen) were killed during this first strike; Saeed Chmagh, who was injured, later died in hospital. The second strike, also using 30 mm rounds, was directed at a van whose driver, Saleh Matasher Tomal, appeared to happen to drive by and who proceeded to help the wounded Chmagh. However, in the long version of the video this van was targeted prior to the first engagement by one Apache (Crazyhorse 1/8) as it traveled south toward the Reuters employees who were, simultaneously, targeted by the other Apache (Crazyhorse 1/9) as they walked north on the same road toward the van. Minutes after the first engagement ended the van returned traveling in an opposite direction (north) once again on this same road. Two men assisting in the rescue effort were from a group of five standing at an intersection – seen in the upper right corner of the video when the Reuters employees arrive in the courtyard – reported to Apaches as being a second position combatants were using to attack the Humvee. Both of these men, Chmagh and Tomal, were killed in the second strike, and two of Tomal's children were badly wounded. In a third strike, Apache pilots watched people, including some armed men, run into a building and engaged that building with several AGM-114 Hellfire missiles.

think it was only the press getting 30mmed and hellfired that would be the war crime allegation

In a June 7, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Raffi Khatchadourian addressed several issues involved in determining the legality of the attacks, including "proportionality", "positive identification" ("reasonable certainty" that the target has hostile intent), and "the treatment of casualties during an ongoing military operation".[104] Mark Taylor, an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told Al Jazeera "there's a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed." He added, "I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough."[105] An article at Gawker stated that Reuters reporter Luke Baker had written an article claiming that the airstrikes may have been war crimes, but Reuters refused to run the story. Reuters responded, "It is absolutely untrue that this story was spiked. It was sent back for more reporting in an effort to incorporate a wider range of experts. The story was then overtaken by a more updated one out of Washington that incorporated reporting from the original piece."[106]

so yeah that i think is what the poster was talking about but dont think it went anywhere legal wise

What a suprise! Everything Assange said, is coming true! At the time when he said he was in the embassy because he was worried about being exdradited, all his haters said this was rubbish and a lie. Now we know this is not the case.

As for being in prison for skipping bail, they put him in Prison Belmarsh, which is a Category A men's prison!

It's an absolute joke! As long as we have people who look at their governments as mini Gods, they will always get away with the horrors they do!

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Good. He has a better chance of survival and freedom in the US than the UK. Also I don't see what crimes he has broken in the UK which they could keep him imprisoned for.

On U.S. soil, Clinton's goons have free reign.
I don't think this move is good for his well being.

originally posted by: Metallicus
A non-US citizen operating OUTSIDE of the United States can be charged with laws from a country that he hasn't even been in before? This is complete BS. What if one of us all of a sudden broke E.U. laws for internet or some such horse crap while living peacefully in the U.S. minding our own damn business? Is our Government going to extradite us for breaking a law in another country?

I find this entire sordid affair an affront to liberty.

I'm with you on this one.

And to make matters worse, they're trying to charge him for crimes that could bring a maximum of 175 years.

We have to ask ourselves as a country, are we OK with the government going after journalists for life in prison for giving us a story? We all know that mainstream media is feeding us BS, essentially a fourth branch of the government... Do we think we're going to get any real news if the government goes after those who expose the truth?

And this is all because he attempted to crack a password, allegedly. If they were modestly trying to address that, it would be one thing... But they're using the opportunity to crucify the dude. This is not punishment equal to the crime, this is them sending a message "don't embarrass us". Don't worry government, no one embarrasses you worse than you do yourselves. This case is just adding to it.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What a suprise! Everything Assange said, is coming true! At the time when he said he was in the embassy because he was worried about being exdradited, all his haters said this was rubbish and a lie. Now we know this is not the case.

As for being in prison for skipping bail, they put him in Prison Belmarsh, which is a Category A men's prison!

What he said was predictable. He's no soothsayer.

It was predictable that the US would apply for extradition at some stage. It was predictable that he would be arrested for a criminal offence in the UK, and duly uncastrated for that offence.

He ran into the Ecuadorian embassy to escape extradition to Sweden, where he was wanted for rape of a sleeping woman, amongst other offences. He did not want to go to Sweden because he feared being rendered from there, but that’s been long debunked.

His extradition hearing is set for February next year.

Mean while pompeo will be busy meddling in any future UK elections.

Maybe the U.K. will just exchange assange for him.

originally posted by: paraphi
and duly uncastrated for that offence.

Is that what auto-suggest offered when you were trying to type "incarcerated"?
I'm not sure that medical science is up to uncastrating people yet.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pravdaseeker

Looks like they are going to turn Julian into the 21st century Nelson Mandela type person who gets locked up forever over dodgy charges.

How dodgy are the charges if what he did was basically espionage?

What did he do differently than CNN or MSNBC???

He didn't bribe the head echelons of the FBI...


Oh wait...


ETA: on the "uncastrated" question you may wish to look up Trans- gender, uncastration is happening now

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Is that what auto-suggest offered when you were trying to type "incarcerated"?

Ah, yes. Spelling auto-correct can be problematic if you don’t check, eh? I meant incarcerated, and not uncastrated. Incidentally, uncastrated just means intact or (er) not castrated.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
What a suprise! Everything Assange said, is coming true! At the time when he said he was in the embassy because he was worried about being exdradited, all his haters said this was rubbish and a lie. Now we know this is not the case.

As for being in prison for skipping bail, they put him in Prison Belmarsh, which is a Category A men's prison!

What he said was predictable. He's no soothsayer.

It was predictable that the US would apply for extradition at some stage. It was predictable that he would be arrested for a criminal offence in the UK, and duly uncastrated for that offence.

He ran into the Ecuadorian embassy to escape extradition to Sweden, where he was wanted for rape of a sleeping woman, amongst other offences. He did not want to go to Sweden because he feared being rendered from there, but that’s been long debunked.

The only reason he ran into the embassy was nothing to do with the case in Sweden. He always said he was willing and open to talk to the Swedish authorities about the case, but not in Sweden, because chances are, he will be exdradited to the U.S.

If it was so predictable, then why were the haters saying there was no truth in what he was saying regarding the fear of being exdradited, and he was just using that as an excuse?

And you think he should be exdradited to America to face these sociopathic criminals?

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
The UK is ready to turn over Assange before it even gets to the courts.

The UK still hasn't left the EU three years after the vote.

It seems the British government jumps when the US cracks the whip. As for the people of Britain, they can go pound sand.

No, there's a long history and precedent of the UK courts refusing similar cases - see Gary McKinnon, Ordtech, Matrix-Churchil, Birmingham Four, Space Research Council etc...

The US tried to extradite my uncle twice for selling £50m of artillery fuses to Iraq and building their Supergun - the first time the judge released them from jail due to inability to receive a fair trial in the US, when the US tried to extradite him a second time, the courts revealed the US was covering up that they worked for CIA and revealed the US's role in them breaking their own arms embargo in Iraq..

There's a decent chance of avoiding extradition if his legal team push the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of press, public interest immunity defence, inability to receive a fair trial in the US as a jury would be compromised, deterioration of mental/physical health.

Your Uncle was Gerald Bull?

originally posted by: a325nt

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Good. He has a better chance of survival and freedom in the US than the UK. Also I don't see what crimes he has broken in the UK which they could keep him imprisoned for.

On U.S. soil, Clinton's goons have free reign.
I don't think this move is good for his well being.

Well luckily for Assange Clinton goons no longer run the U.S.

a reply to: Iscool

That’s whataboutery this is about Assange, it doesn’t matter if some in India gets away with raping a US woman in London, or if Clinton broke the law.

What do you say, well Bill Clinton broke the law so there can be no more law?

This is about wiki leaks and the US showing that the law will catch up with you if you get hold of secret documents and recklessly release them to the world because you think it’s your duty to.

It’s not, it’s illegal and you broke the law.

Idiot would be a free man now if he handed himself in and faced up instead of hiding in an embassy for 6 years.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't remember the entire story so probably shouldn't have commented. Seems (what I remember people saying at the time) both of them did expose a few shocking things that government and military were doing that most people would consider "bad". I'm sure you are correct though.

Shocking would be an attack on a van from a helo in what appeared to be unarmed civilians, including two Reuters employees. Shocking as in internal embassy transmissions of not very flowery discussions about our allies, and shocking as in TS information about who/where we have people working for our agencies as to what I think are the top 3.

All in all not whistle-blower stuff. The helo attack was incorrectly identified as combatant, but being in that arena I could tell you stories that you would not believe what it takes to get a strike of any kind, so it wasn't a system that indiscriminately killed people, but as it has always been since forever, war is dangerous. The embassy stuff just put egg on our face for a while and the other stuff put people in danger. ]

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
The UK is ready to turn over Assange before it even gets to the courts.

The UK still hasn't left the EU three years after the vote.

It seems the British government jumps when the US cracks the whip. As for the people of Britain, they can go pound sand.

No, there's a long history and precedent of the UK courts refusing similar cases - see Gary McKinnon, Ordtech, Matrix-Churchil, Birmingham Four, Space Research Council etc...

The US tried to extradite my uncle twice for selling £50m of artillery fuses to Iraq and building their Supergun - the first time the judge released them from jail due to inability to receive a fair trial in the US, when the US tried to extradite him a second time, the courts revealed the US was covering up that they worked for CIA and revealed the US's role in them breaking their own arms embargo in Iraq..

There's a decent chance of avoiding extradition if his legal team push the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of press, public interest immunity defence, inability to receive a fair trial in the US as a jury would be compromised, deterioration of mental/physical health.

Your Uncle was Gerald Bull?

Worked for him, Stewart Blackledge head of Space Research council exporting the Iraqi supergun via his company, was murdered a few years back for it.

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I found the original "Insurance" file's SHA-256, SHA-1, and MD5 from 2010

SHA-256: 15BAC5E815A38A998F4705945BD41975B736E7C723CFE851B9ED0E50C49316B4
SHA-1: cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c
MD5: 94a032849b1f446e3a1ed06cf4867a56

a reply to: pravdaseeker

My open letter to the Australian and American Governments.


Julian Assange is Australian and not a US citizen.

The alleged criminal acts Assange committed all occurred outside the US.

If the Australian government permits the United States to prosecute Assange, anyone anywhere in the world who publishes information that the US government deems to be classified, could be prosecuted by the US for espionage.” This places all Australain citizens in Australia at risk of arrest in Australia by a so called friendly country.

Would the Australian government allow Russia, China, North Korea, Syria or Iran to extradite an Australian citizen back to these countries on the basis they are accused by those countries of espionage by publishing documents which are secrets in those countries?

Any charges laid against Assange in the United States will, be motivated more by a desire to protect government secrecy than by the desire to impose justice on an Australian citzen. It is this government secrecy which should be on trial here, not freedom of the press.

Does not the First Amendment to the American Constitution says “Congress shall make no law… limiting the freedom of the press?

Wikileaks is "the intelligence agency" of the people.

Citizens of all so called 'free' countries have every right to know what policies and practices their own government follows. Surely it would be insane to claim otherwise?