Assange will agree to US extradition in exchange for Manning ‘clemency’ - WikiLeaks

a reply to: ignorant_ape

OK.

The UK is in a difficult position where Mr Assange is concerned, because he has quite a considerable amount of support here. When you add to that the fact that our government is already on very shaky ground with its population, and has been for some time, regarding matters like our liberties, privacy, shady behaviour during the lead up to the Iraq campaign, not to mention the fact that there are links between certain private interests, government programs and the terror networks against which we are lead to believe we are at some kind of war, AND the fact that we are spending our money on things we should not be, the aforementioned included, in place of things we should be (NHS, frontline services, better social care and other issues besides) there are a great many reasons why the UK government would not want to be seen to take a stern approach to Mr Assange.

Simply put, Mr Assange is such a public detractor from the status quo, that his direct removal by our government, to the United States, would represent far too much of a risk of exposing even more people in this country to the reality before them, that their nation is owned from beneath them, by entities which do not care either for them, or the country as a whole, but only for what can be made out of them, what profit lay in them to be pillaged.

There would, in short, be public outcry if he were just whisked off to some political prison unit without so much as a by your leave. But, if Sweden can get him sent THERE, to answer an accusation of rape which is in part from a CIA operative and former handler for narco terrorist proxies in South America (the crucial detail of which will be left out of nearly all the widely read press on the subject), and THEY elect to send him to the US, then it would be something that the UK government could wash their hands of, without necessarily being seen as the bad guy.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ignorant_ape

from a CIA operative and former handler for narco terrorist proxies in South America (the crucial detail of which will be left out of nearly all the widely read press on the subject).

Do you have a citation for that?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

Here is a great article, with plenty of links and information on the subject.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Turns out she was not the handler, but that she was involved with several groups and individuals in the anti-Castro groups, many of which were US funded... sound familiar?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: ignorant_ape

The charges Assange is facing in Sweden were invented by Sweden to have a legal means to detain him, so that the US could get him extradited.

Assange doesn't play games. He's got a perfect track record so far.

Therefor, I'm inclined to take him seriously.

Spot on. The Sweden charges are just a ploy in order to get him extradited to the US, its plain as day to see that.

I give assange much respect for offering himself up for the clemency of manning, and I hope all ends well, for both.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Sweden doesn't give a # about Snowden, they are acting on the behest of the US.

Anyways....

FBI has active criminal case against WikiLeaks’ Assange – court documents

www.rt.com...

Precisely

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
According to RT:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would leave his Ecuadorian embassy refuge and accept extradition to the US if whistleblower Chelsea Manning was granted clemency, the media organization has suggested.

I thought Obama was already considering this. That is a bold move!

I'd love to say more, but a bit speechless.

Link

It's a very bold move seeing as it's Sweden that wants to extradite him isn't it?

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Rosinitiate

sigh - does the US have an arrest warrant ?

sweden does - why is that ?

Some fabricated rape charges wasn't it? Or something like that.

But more than one high ranking US official has said they would request extradition if they could get it from Ecuador, which they had said no anyway, so why bother with the warrant?

They damn well knew he wouldn't set foot in the US until some kind of agreement was made.

~Tenth

How do you know they are fabricated? The woman in question says she didn't consent to unprotected sex, her claim is that he penetrated her (unprotected) anyway. That's sexual assault if correct - or do you have a different moral code that means the law doesn't actually mean anything if you don't agree with it?