Assange argues that U.S. charges against him are 'political' and a bar to his extradition

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post



Britain should block the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States on grounds that the prosecution is politically motivated and the charges against him amount to political offenses — two factors that by treaty would bar his handover, Assange’s legal team said Monday in a London court.

Assange, who co-founded the anti-secrecy site WikiLeaks, was charged in May with violating the Espionage Act for his role in soliciting and publishing hundreds of thousands of secret military documents and diplomatic cables in 2010. The disclosures at the time roiled the Obama administration, which feared upsetting relations with foreign allies and endangering sources in battle zones. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused WikiLeaks of carrying out an “attack” on the international community.

Assange, 48, has also drawn controversy for his role in publishing material hacked from the Democratic Party by the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. He has not been charged with crimes related to that incident. Instead he faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one for conspiracy to hack a military computer.

The use of the Espionage Act is also controversial because it is seen as opening a door to the potential prosecution of journalists for publishing classified government secrets — and a worrisome assault on press freedom.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/assange-argues-that-us-charges-against-him-are-political-and-a-bar-to-his-extradition/2019/10/21/edf4b428-f406-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

---

It's like a Monday evening news dump.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Interfering in an election is a criminal act, not political. Sides do not matter. . . . nt

[BumRushDaShow]

2. I expect that England is going to keep him for awhile

due to his skipping bail and then Sweden might have a crack at him after that. So it may be awhile before he ever gets back here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Might be good of England to run out the clock until the Maggot's DoJ gets turfed. . . . nt

[BumRushDaShow]

4. +1

[flibbitygiblets]

5. I can't wait for this smug tool to get what he deserves

[BumRushDaShow]

6. Takes a lot to get you fuming.

[Devil Child]

7. Well Mr. Assange, you can make your case in court n/t

[Haggis for Breakfast]

8. ASSange is NO journalist.

He's a sniveling, whiny little opportunist. He thought he was a player on the world stage. He was wrong. He thought he could hack into governments secret documents, reveal them to the world and he would be hailed as some sort of counter-revolutionary hero.
He was wrong about that, too.

Now, he's going to see just how much he over-played his hand.

[Aussie105]

10. Basically, WikiLeaks was meant to reveal a lot of stuff governments wanted to keep hidden.

And lot of people thought that was a good idea. Transparency in government business always is.

Now, if Assange had managed to keep himself anonymous, he's be in the clear.

Instead, he stood up and claimed hero status. Stupid move. Very.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

11. He also thought that if he cozied up to trumpie

he could be appointed as Australian Ambassador. Apparently, he failed to realize that Scott Morrison would be the one to make that call, and Scottie isn't too keen on Jules in the first place.

[ck4829]

14. Unfortunately, that "meant to" stopped when he started picking sides

Transparency in government is indeed a good idea and there are other organizations that still live up to that.

This only works when you are a check on power though, Assange started allying with power instead. He editorialized against the Democratic party. Made me realize if someone leaked something about Republicans to Assange, he'd probably just say who leaked it rather than the contents of the leak.

And as we saw, the Russian government GAVE Wikileaks the hacked info on the DNC. Wikileaks is no longer a check on government power, but now a tool of it.

[PSPS]

9. "it is seen as opening a door to the potential prosecution of journalists"

Utter hogwash. Assange is no journalist. He willingly published virtually everything he could get with no journalistic process whatsoever (i.e., verification, fact checking, etc.) And many of the items turned out to be forgeries designed solely to manipulate the election.

[Roy Rolling]

12. Why oppose his statement?

Of course it's political!

But it isn't because politics is the perpetrator, the American political system is the "victim" and being targeted by criminals.

They can't be separated.

It's a casual relationship, not a causal relationship. Conflating the two is propaganda 101.

[ck4829]

13. Weird, not a single mention of that "insurance file" he released back in, what, 2012

in the event of something like this.

[Nitram]

15. Whistleblowers who publicly revealed secret government documents in the past have always understood

that what they did was illegal. They had the guts to do what they believed in and pay the price. But Assange does not act on principle. He has an agenda, and it is strongly anti-American.