Assange's friends who put up bail

t4tomo

Why are they now moaning that they have to pay up? He skipped bail FFS.

Whatever the merits or the mnotivation of the charges against him, if you puit up bail and the charged doen't show up then you pay up - in the good old days you had to put the cash up front.

Pursue Mr Assange for it rather than moan about how unfair it is.

It also says a lot about how the arrogant selfish self styled guru of free information values his friendships.

Thanks for putting up the cash, but I'm off for ferarro Roche with the Ecudorian Ambassador

SimonAH

......AFAIK he's not famous for being a nice person in his personal life. However I'm fully behind him at the moment.

Plus of course, his backers can afford it.

The Rookie

From what I've read he's a revolting little sh!t....did he sexually assault the girl, I don't know but there is no good reason for him not to go through the due process like anyone else.....

As for his backers, tough, most only did it for the percieved positive publicity anyway!

rjsterry

I didn't think they were moaning as such, but no doubt it is being spun as such by interested parties. All seems fairly straightforward to me: bail is posted; suspect skips bail; bail is forfeited. Heard one of the bailers (? bailees?) being interviewed on R4, and while he wasn't exactly happy about losing the money, he did say that he would rather Assange had skipped bail than been extradited.

Hoopdriver

SimonAH wrote:

......AFAIK he's not famous for being a nice person in his personal life. However I'm fully behind him at the moment.

Plus of course, his backers can afford it.

It is all very well to want to support the idea of disclosure but what about the women in Sweden who have made some very serious sexual assault charges against him. Do they not count? Or are they expendable as casualties in the higher quest for 'truth'.

And have you ever been to Ecuador or for that matter know much about the country or its government? I have. They are hardly beacons of enlightenment or transparency or freedom of the press - yet suddenly they are Assange's great mates, his colleagues in the quest for justice and truth and transparency in government.

What bollocks.

He needs to go to Sweden and face the charges.

Sweden is hardly an oppressive regime. This whole thing is disgraceful.

bompington

Yeah, I'm really glad he's escaped getting sent to that oppressive, socially backward bastion of right-wing authoritarianism.... Sweden :roll:

bobinski

I dont't see that they are "moaning". They made some valid points at the hearing. DJ Riddle clearly agreed with some of what they said taking it into account and reducing some of the amounts when making his order. And there are some interesting points here.Sureties or securities are normally ordered when a defendant is a flight risk, that is they may flee the Jurisdiction of the English courts. Assange had given up his passport etc and the police/secret services and press interest in him etc suggested he was unlikely to find a way to leave the UK. Apparently, no one enviaged he would seek asylum at an Embassy but Dj Riddle found this was no diferrent to fleeing the uk courts jurisdiction...

"What is undoubtedly unique is that the defendant sought, and has apparently been granted, asylum by Ecuador," the chief magistrate said. "It was suggested that the defendant is simply seeking an alternative legal process. However, in principle I see no difference between seeking refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy, and taking flight to that country."

and that the sureties had failed in their duty to prevent this happening.

Could the sureties have realistically anticipated Assange doing so and the being granted asylum by Equador? Its an interesting question. No one else appears to have anticipated this development, not least our police and secret services and those of the Americans and the Swedish authorities who all have an interest in him. Anyway, Riddle found against the sureties saying they should have prevented what happened whilst at the same time aknowledging they had kept in contact with Assange as best they could. No doubt they will be considering whether they can appeal his ruling.

Where is the moaning?

t4tomo

bobinski wrote:

I dont't see that they are "moaning".
Where is the moaning?

here: Vaughan Smith moaning:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/914462-julian-assanges-friends-foot-94-000-bill-for-his-bail-skipping

If Assange had anything about him he'd reimbuse his friends.

Whilst Sweden is no bad place to seek legal justice / redress I'm sure his thinking is if he gets sent to Sweden its next stop the States who are a bit less liberal, especially when someone has made them look a bit of a tit.

Hoopdriver

So far he is not facing any charges in the US.

he is, however, facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

This business about hypothetical charges in the US and even more hypothetical extradition strikes me, and I dare say a good many others, as a smokescreen to avoid facing some serious criminal charges in Sweden.

Cleat Eastwood

Hoopdriver wrote:

what about the women in Sweden who have made some very serious sexual assault charges against him.

I'm not sure they did, did they. The rape charges were added by the police - the women initially didnt claim assault of any kind. A stitch up is a stitch up whether you like the guy or not. I think he looks like john inman too much anyway - but in an ironic twist his catchphrase is "i'm not free"

SimonAH

Hoopdriver wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

......AFAIK he's not famous for being a nice person in his personal life. However I'm fully behind him at the moment.

Plus of course, his backers can afford it.

It is all very well to want to support the idea of disclosure but what about the women in Sweden who have made some very serious sexual assault charges against him. Do they not count? Or are they expendable as casualties in the higher quest for 'truth'.

And have you ever been to Ecuador or for that matter know much about the country or its government? I have. They are hardly beacons of enlightenment or transparency or freedom of the press - yet suddenly they are Assange's great mates, his colleagues in the quest for justice and truth and transparency in government.

What bollocks.

He needs to go to Sweden and face the charges.

Sweden is hardly an oppressive regime. This whole thing is disgraceful.

It is difficult I grant.

My concern, and I think, validly, his concern is that regardless of the validity of the charges against him in Sweden (and given the timing of the allegations there must be at least a little niggle?) his route would be UK, Sweden, USA. Final destination, please recall, a nation where the most senior and powerful of figures were baying for his execution only a little while ago.

He has personally embarrassed too many heavy hitters. The response from them was not "Sorry, I know we broke the law / contravened protocol / did bad BUT here are some excuses and we won't do it again" it was "Put to death the guy that told".

Regardless of whether you like him as a human, he can't be allowed to get thrown into that cage.

Regarding the women in Sweden, yes, he should face charges, but given the circumstances this could be done on neutral ground? I believe that the Ecuadorians have offered to host an enquiry?
If a Swedish court found him demonstrably guilty of sex crimes and said that they would lock him up for them in Sweden I can't see anyone having any objections and I'm sure that the Ecuadorians would release him into Swedish custody.

And finally, of course Ecuador is far from lilly white - the offering of asylum is purely a political manouvre as there is an internal power struggle going on, and scoring a point off the USA (and that is the only reason it was offered) is a political point internally in Ecuador. It is not important that it is Ecuador that is offering the sanctuary, it is only important that someone is.

We, on the other hand, would be perfectly happy to hand him over to the USA - or if that is politically unpalatable due to the likelihood of his being strapped to a gurney, get him off our soil so that we can tell the Yanks that there is nothing we can do, sorry.

bobinski

t4tomo wrote:

bobinski wrote:

I dont't see that they are "moaning".
Where is the moaning?

here: Vaughan Smith moaning:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/914462-julian-assanges-friends-foot-94-000-bill-for-his-bail-skipping

That's a moan?!? And is that it? In my day lad we knew how to moan

gabriel959

Hoopdriver wrote:

So far he is not facing any charges in the US.

he is, however, facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

This business about hypothetical charges in the US and even more hypothetical extradition strikes me, and I dare say a good many others, as a smokescreen to avoid facing some serious criminal charges in Sweden.

It isn't like Bradley Manning is facing charges in the US either but he has been imprisoned without trial for more than 900 days.

bompington

Can anyone please explain to me why he can (hypothetically) be extradited to the US from Sweden but not the UK? I'm absolutely sure that the Assange groupies who go on about this being the reason to get him to Sweden are exactly the same ones who will go on happily all day about how unjust the UK-US extradition treaty is and how easy it is for the US to get people extradited from here to there...

Hoopdriver

gabriel959 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

So far he is not facing any charges in the US.

he is, however, facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

This business about hypothetical charges in the US and even more hypothetical extradition strikes me, and I dare say a good many others, as a smokescreen to avoid facing some serious criminal charges in Sweden.

It isn't like Bradley Manning is facing charges in the US either but he has been imprisoned without trial for more than 900 days.

He is facing charges - just not a trial et, and yes, that is wrong.

Nevertheless in Assange's case we are talking about Sweden.

Hoopdriver

SimonAH wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

......AFAIK he's not famous for being a nice person in his personal life. However I'm fully behind him at the moment.

Plus of course, his backers can afford it.

It is all very well to want to support the idea of disclosure but what about the women in Sweden who have made some very serious sexual assault charges against him. Do they not count? Or are they expendable as casualties in the higher quest for 'truth'.

And have you ever been to Ecuador or for that matter know much about the country or its government? I have. They are hardly beacons of enlightenment or transparency or freedom of the press - yet suddenly they are Assange's great mates, his colleagues in the quest for justice and truth and transparency in government.

What bollocks.

He needs to go to Sweden and face the charges.

Sweden is hardly an oppressive regime. This whole thing is disgraceful.

It is difficult I grant.

My concern, and I think, validly, his concern is that regardless of the validity of the charges against him in Sweden (and given the timing of the allegations there must be at least a little niggle?) his route would be UK, Sweden, USA. Final destination, please recall, a nation where the most senior and powerful of figures were baying for his execution only a little while ago.

He has personally embarrassed too many heavy hitters. The response from them was not "Sorry, I know we broke the law / contravened protocol / did bad BUT here are some excuses and we won't do it again" it was "Put to death the guy that told".

Regardless of whether you like him as a human, he can't be allowed to get thrown into that cage.

Regarding the women in Sweden, yes, he should face charges, but given the circumstances this could be done on neutral ground? I believe that the Ecuadorians have offered to host an enquiry?
If a Swedish court found him demonstrably guilty of sex crimes and said that they would lock him up for them in Sweden I can't see anyone having any objections and I'm sure that the Ecuadorians would release him into Swedish custody.

And finally, of course Ecuador is far from lilly white - the offering of asylum is purely a political manouvre as there is an internal power struggle going on, and scoring a point off the USA (and that is the only reason it was offered) is a political point internally in Ecuador. It is not important that it is Ecuador that is offering the sanctuary, it is only important that someone is.

We, on the other hand, would be perfectly happy to hand him over to the USA - or if that is politically unpalatable due to the likelihood of his being strapped to a gurney, get him off our soil so that we can tell the Yanks that there is nothing we can do, sorry.

Neutral ground?

My God, what could be more neutral than Sweden?

I am glad you noticed that Ecuador is 'far from lilly white' - a euphemism if ever there was one - but why is it so important that someone offer this man sanctuary from a sexual assault charge that is being pressed in an EU country famous for its respect for human rights and political neutrality?

rjsterry

Hoopdriver wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

So far he is not facing any charges in the US.

he is, however, facing allegations of sexual assault in Sweden.

This business about hypothetical charges in the US and even more hypothetical extradition strikes me, and I dare say a good many others, as a smokescreen to avoid facing some serious criminal charges in Sweden.

It isn't like Bradley Manning is facing charges in the US either but he has been imprisoned without trial for more than 900 days.

He is facing charges - just not a trial et, and yes, that is wrong.

Nevertheless in Assange's case we are talking about Sweden.

Whilst I think Manning should be treated properly, I have a bit of a problem with the idea that him divulging a vast quantity of classified information is some sort of great humanitarian act. At the time, thew general response seemed
to be that while there were a few surprises, the documents mainly confirmed what most suspected.

bobinski

bompington wrote:

Can anyone please explain to me why he can (hypothetically) be extradited to the US from Sweden but not the UK? I'm absolutely sure that the Assange groupies who go on about this being the reason to get him to Sweden are exactly the same ones who will go on happily all day about how unjust the UK-US extradition treaty is and how easy it is for the US to get people extradited from here to there...

He cannot be extradited from here to the USA because our courts have already ordered his extradition to Sweden and that will take priority. As I understand it there was nothing to prevent the US seeking his extradition before Sweden did subjet to a proper application, due process etc in so far as it exists for extradtions to the US.
BUT, the US has a special extradition arrangement with Sweden-FAST TRACK TEMPORARY SURRENDER-and the fear is the US will seek his extradition from Sweden once he arrives on Swedeish territory.
Sweden is not perhaps the Liberal Democracy we all think we know. Its due process in criminal investigations has been criticised by Amnesty international not least because those under investigation and not yet charged can be kept incommunicado for weeks. This is one of the things Assange and his supporters fear. And then he may not be charged and instead secretly removed to the US who have made clear to Sweden the UK and Australia that they want him and will prosecute him for Wikileaks.

I don't hold a candle for Assange. I doubt I would like him if I met him. I have no idea whether he committed those sex offences in Sweden or whether he is manipulating and taking advantage of the emerging situation to avoid prosecution. But his situation has been complicated by the manner of the swedish authorities investigation, criticised by some of their own prosecutors, what appears to be a hasty extradition application, and no real guarrantee he would be prosecuted in Sweden and all against the backdrop of Wikileaks and the public stated desire of the American authorities to prosecute him and if some have their way, execute him. Its no wonder then that people get worked up about it and that some do so for political gain. But for my part I fear that extradition to sweden will be swiftly followed by removal to the US.

Hoopdriver

I see. And so the women who Assange allegedly assaulted will just have to get on with their lives and make a few sacrifices for what you perceive as the greater good?

SimonAH

@Hoopdriver.

Yes, Sweden is a neutral and stable country, as is the UK. Theoretically both are very safe countries if you are under their jurisdiction. Unfortunately both are also subject to enormous US pressure and will, generally, submit to that pressure where they can do so without losing too much face.

The USA cannot, in this matter, be considered safe for Julian Assange as they have openly threatened his life.

The UK would could not have handed him to the USA easily as there wasn't (I believe) a clear criminal case to answer - and the rabid frothings coming from the States at the time would have caused rather an outcry had they just handed him over. The sudden convenient appearance of the Swedish charges allows us to get him off UK soil and make the problem go away.

Would the Swedes hand him over to the USA? I don't honestly know. Would he get snagged in transit? Again I don't know - but Uncle Sam is certainly happy to bend the regs if he wants based on recent performance (rendition anyone?)

If the issue is the Swedish accusations then why not try him in the Ecuadorian Embassy? Ticks that box. If he's found substantively guilty then bang him up in Sweden - or in Ecuador?

The treatment of Manning is a totally different issue.

What Manning did was a clear breach of the law, he was a serving army member and bound by the US equivalent of the official secrets act, and should / can / surely will be prosectuted on some variant of a spying charge. Keeping him in a hole for three years whilst they work out how to do that is not right, but not surprising given the grinding speed that the US judicial system works at.

Assange however is a different cut from the roast.

Like him or loathe him, what he did was to publish some received confidential information, and protect his sources.

Unfortunately that information is massively embarrasing to some unbelievably powerful people in a superpower with a bit of a dodgy record recently for running rough shod over human rights.

Take it from another direction and imagine he'd really p*ssed off the rulers of Ecuador and was hiding in the US embassy against being extradited to face a convenient charge of flashing in Panama...?

Hoopdriver

Better idea yet - why not try him in Sweden where the offenses allegedly took place? They are famously respectful of human rights and as politically neutral as they come.

As for threatening his life who, other than Assange himself, has raised the specter of the death penalty? There are, as yet, no charges pending against him in the US. Let alone a prosecutor demanding the death penalty. This is just more smokescreen.

bobinski

Hoopdriver wrote:

I see. And so the women who Assange allegedly assaulted will just have to get on with their lives and make a few sacrifices for what you perceive as the greater good?

I am not sure its just Assanges "fault" that we have reached a point where what you suggest may happen, however devious and manipulative he is. The Swedish authorities were given the option to question him here, not uncommon, and declined to do so. This is one of the reasons another swedish prosecutor criticised colleagues. Inevitable then that extradition was the only alternative unless he returned voluntarily knowing the Americans want him etc

So, yes, what you describe may follow but only because events have moved on and other things are at play...

SimonAH

Hoopdriver wrote:

Better idea yet - why not try him in Sweden where the offenses allegedly took place? They are famously respectful of human rights and as politically neutral as they come.

As for threatening his life who, other than Assange himself, has raised the specter of the death penalty? There are, as yet, no charges pending against him in the US. Let alone a prosecutor demanding the death penalty. This is just more smokescreen.

Part one, did you read Bobinski's informed post at all?

Part two, OK, it is unlikely that JA would realistically face a syringe (although it was certainly called for from quite a few directions at the time) but the odds on him ever getting out of solitary could be written with a sledgehammer on a grain of rice.

Hoopdriver

SimonAH wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Better idea yet - why not try him in Sweden where the offenses allegedly took place? They are famously respectful of human rights and as politically neutral as they come.

As for threatening his life who, other than Assange himself, has raised the specter of the death penalty? There are, as yet, no charges pending against him in the US. Let alone a prosecutor demanding the death penalty. This is just more smokescreen.

Part one, did you read Bobinski's informed post at all?

Part two, OK, it is unlikely that JA would realistically face a syringe (although it was certainly called for from quite a few directions at the time) but the odds on him ever getting out of solitary could be written with a sledgehammer on a grain of rice.

Yes, I read the other post and yawned throughout. No doubt the guy would have Sweden appear to be a Nordic version of North Korea if it suited his argument. So what? Let's get back to the real world.

And as I have pointed out, there are no charges pending against Assange. There are very definite and very serious charges pending against him in Sweden - he should face those and not hide behind a smokescreen.

bobinski

Hoopdriver wrote:

Better idea yet - why not try him in Sweden where the offenses allegedly took place? They are famously respectful of human rights and as politically neutral as they come.

As for threatening his life who, other than Assange himself, has raised the specter of the death penalty? There are, as yet, no charges pending against him in the US. Let alone a prosecutor demanding the death penalty. This is just more smokescreen.

No, not everyone agrees sweden is as you describe. I am not sure being held incommuicado for weeks, no access to the outside world, whilst under investigation suggests an enlightened respectul judicial system. And what once/if he is tried there? what then, whether acquitted or convicted? Unless Sweden guarrantees to reject any request for extradition from the US the likelyhood is he will be extradited. Swden has so far refused all requests to confirm it will refuse such an application.

Nor are they politically neutral especially when it come sto the US.

Assange is under investigation the US and, in part, for alleged conspiracy with Manning...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-inten ... 24e1l.html

and policticians across the political devide in the US have said that once tried and convicted he should be executed. A prosecutor will only get his or her chance to make the same request once/if he is convicted.

Its a mess isnt it?

SimonAH

Hoopdriver wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Better idea yet - why not try him in Sweden where the offenses allegedly took place? They are famously respectful of human rights and as politically neutral as they come.

As for threatening his life who, other than Assange himself, has raised the specter of the death penalty? There are, as yet, no charges pending against him in the US. Let alone a prosecutor demanding the death penalty. This is just more smokescreen.

Part one, did you read Bobinski's informed post at all?

Part two, OK, it is unlikely that JA would realistically face a syringe (although it was certainly called for from quite a few directions at the time) but the odds on him ever getting out of solitary could be written with a sledgehammer on a grain of rice.

Yes, I read the other post and yawned throughout. No doubt the guy would have Sweden appear to be a Nordic version of North Korea if it suited his argument. So what? Let's get back to the real world.

And as I have pointed out, there are no charges pending against Assange. There are very definite and very serious charges pending against him in Sweden - he should face those and not hide behind a smokescreen.

OK. You hang on to that.

bobinski

Part one, did you read Bobinski's informed post at all?


Yes, I read the other post and yawned throughout. No doubt the guy would have Sweden appear to be a Nordic version of North Korea if it suited his argument. So what? Let's get back to the real world.


Nahh, there is much in Sweden to admire. Just a shame that they didnt take the opportunity to investigate the allegations against Assange by questioning him in the UK. Now Assange can point to the example of the Pirate Bay guy who was extradited from cambodia to sweden and held incommunicado for several weeks pending investigation and pre charge. That doesnt make Sweden a Nordic North Korea but it does make me feel uneasy about what will happen to Assange especially with the US waiting to nab him when they can.

jedster

In all honesty, although no country is perfect, how many countries respect human rights more than Sweden? We have our own extradition issues with the US and have a history of draconian powers to deal with terrorists (for example). Ecuador? Give me strength.

Assange is excused of serious sexual assault. Sweden is one of the countries where I would be most confident of getting a fair trial. The whole thing is ridiculous.

TBH, I suspect of Sweden dropped the charges there would be as much chance of us extraditing him to the US as Sweden IF THE US AUTHORITIES PRESENTED A CASE. And of course there is no chance of him being executed - US would have to guarantee that the death penalty would be off the menu before any European country could extradite.

paul_mck

pure stitch up, just like the case against the IMF president. Didnt matter it was a load of crap the US or whoever orchestrated it got what they wanted.

sex case = extradited to Sweden = extradited to USA = no more Assange.

Typical yanks in this case.

rjsterry

Why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US if he is wanted in connection with the Bradley Manning case? The "threats to his life" are based on comments from politicians looking to grab a bit of air time, not by the US government. And still nobody has put forward any convincing "for the greater good" argument to justify him publishing classified information.

paul_mck

I think in this day and age the powers that be need a little shake up. 2 wars with questionable motives, and countless interference in other countries and indeed our own shouldnt be let to lie. The papers these days arent up to the job imo and people as individuals have no real power. So while I might not agree with wikileaks per se, I think a bit of cage rattling does no real harm.