Craig Murray's reaction is worth reading [1]. I realize he does not respond to the bail breach directly, but rather to what precipitated this chain of events.
> If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?
> Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.
> So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?
> Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.
This whole "if the accusation is real then why hasn't he been charged?" pseudo-fact relies on a rather stubborn misunderstanding of the difference between the Swedish legal system and the UK one. Assange can't be "charged" in the sense that the Anglosphere thinks of it until he is physically present for trail; that doesn't mean that the charges haven't been put to him or that Sweden isn't actively pursuing the investigation.
Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it misleading or outright false.
> In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. ... But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA.
Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom.
Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.
To be fair, this seems like a dishonest account of the situation. My understanding is that being "charged" in Sweden normally happens later in the process than in the USA/UK, so the fact that he wasn't "charged" isn't meaningful.
>All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.
Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.
What a disgraceful episode for our governments, the media, and the public who seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for a blatantly orchestrated smear campaign. I don’t understand what the hell goes through people’s minds when they see such blatantly trumped up and unprovable charges levied against a big-time persona non grata of the CIA/Pentagon and decide to take them at face value. No matter that the US sprung their secret extradition request the second he left asylum. No matter that of course Sweden has no genuine interest in pursuing the original ‘case’. No matter that the US will cynically prepare more charges to apply once he’s on their soil. Apparently these sorts of dirty tricks are absolutely fine. Every step of the way we’ll have useful idiots lecturing us on the technicalities of the Swedish legal code.
Is there a timeline of when the public turned against him. One which compares it to the spread of information/propaganda about his involvement with helping Trump win the election? I wonder if that was a key event in people becoming willing to accept any other information/propaganda that casts Assange in a negative light.
While I am saddened by this decision I hope he now is able to get proper medical care and fight the case against extradition. As long as he is not on London streets the US can't just snatch him up. [1] [2]
There may not be and extradition case. It doesn't seem like Sweden is still keen, and on balance, the US mightn't want him either at this point.
It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go.
> Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.
I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
I suspect that the USA isn't keen to make him a martyr, and that key players recognize the minimal value in prosecuting him now. It will be interesting to see how they utilize this nearly year-long reprieve from Assange's political posturing.
I'm not sure many folks would think of him as a martyr. A lot of the previous good will about leaking important documents seems to have been washed away by Wikileak's crafting things to form their own narratives.
Civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily require rolling over when a power you’re standing against assets itself. He can maintain his legal innocence and moral standing if he wants to.
I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
(the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.)
On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.
[+] [-] yasp|7 years ago|reply
> If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?
> Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.
> So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?
> Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.
> [...]
[1] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/so-where-is-...
[+] [-] _petronius|7 years ago|reply
Much of the commentary around the legal aspects of Assange's case it misleading or outright false.
See:
1. (2012) https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mytho...
2. (2019) https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/11165977611288453...
[+] [-] droithomme|7 years ago|reply
Interesting, this is the first I heard about the DNA evidence, which is compelling. The prosecutor's dropping of this charge is reasonable given the lack of any DNA present on the sabotaged condom.
Also should mention that Craig Murray is a personal friend of Julian Assange, something his blog readers are well aware of. Murray is the one who testified he personally collected the DNC email leak from a disgruntled DNC employee in Washington DC and hand couriered it across the Atlantic where he handed it over to Assange. This leak origin account contradicts the Russian hacker narrative regarding the DNC email leak.
[+] [-] akvadrako|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Veen|7 years ago|reply
Prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he was staying in the embassy.
They are considering re-opening the investigation.
[+] [-] PaulRobinson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IIAOPSW|7 years ago|reply
Considering how well its working, I'd say they're left looking pretty smart.
[+] [-] jmkni|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tycho|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisSD|7 years ago|reply
EDIT: And tbh I'm not sure how the original arrest warrant for rape could be considered by anyone to be a "technicality".
[+] [-] SkyBelow|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milquetoastaf|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fit2rule|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sschueller|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
[+] [-] netcan|7 years ago|reply
It's not a guaranteed conviction. The president has an embarrassing YouTube reel where he "loves WikiLeaks" 50 times. It'll drag the contents of contentious leaks back into the spotlight. It could be more convenient to let it go.
[+] [-] Gaelan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fit2rule|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|7 years ago|reply
>"I understand they, I understand they intervened on our behalf.
>So we're going to extradite him and we're going to get him back, it'll be really good to get him back on United States soil.
>He's our property. So we can get the facts and the truth from him."
https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/1116322371781058561/video/...
[+] [-] return1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|7 years ago|reply
I expect better from the BBC. He was never charged with anything related to that investigation. There were no such charges to drop; this statement is factually inaccurate.
[+] [-] dleslie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoblePublius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kdtsh|7 years ago|reply
I’m sure he is fully aware that his actions have put his life in danger, but I’m also sure he doesn’t believe he should accept this fact without fighting.
[+] [-] guitarbill|7 years ago|reply
Disgracefully dishonest in multiple ways. Not to mention, the police force's continued incompetence should have no bearing (maybe it didn't).
[+] [-] Veen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mothsonasloth|7 years ago|reply
The courts could have been forward thinking and left his bail-skipping as a misdemeanor.
[+] [-] Cheryl_Sanders|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JeremyBanks|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] armenarmen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Anon84|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] sneak|7 years ago|reply
(the following in quote marks are direct quotes from the alleged victims.)
On 17 August, SW wrote "JA did not want to use a condom".
On 20 August, while at the police station, SW wrote that she "did not want to put any charges on Julian Assange" but that "the police were keen on getting their hands on him".
According to the statement she was "chocked (sic shocked) when they arrested him" because she "only wanted him to take [an STD test]".
On 21 August, SW wrote that she "did not want to accuse" Julian Assange "for anything" and that it was the "police who made up the charges (sic)"
On 23 August, SW wrote that it was the police, not herself, who started the whole thing.
On 26 August, AA wrote that they ought to sell their stories for money to a newspaper.
On 28 August, AA wrote that they had a contact on the biggest Swedish tabloid and SW wrote that their lawyer negotiated with the tabloid.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-07/julian-assange-goe...
[+] [-] contingencies|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolco|7 years ago|reply