Here's a slightly different take.

Julian Assange, like [i]Il Duce[/i], thinks the rules don't apply to him. He's egotistical and self-centered, every bit the "spoiled brat" Ecuador's President Moreno described him as being when, after giving him political asylum in their London Embassy for seven years, the Ecuadorians got sick of Assange disregarding the conditions of his being allowed to stay there, revoked his asylum, and invited the UK authorities in to remove him. Apparently Assange just didn't get that "My house, my rules" actually [i]did[/i] apply to him when he was staying in someone else's house at their sufferance. He probably still doesn't think it's "equitable."

Besides, my sainted mother thought not only that he was a self-centered little malignancy, but also a physically repulsive creature whose pallid appearance reminded her of some sort of fungus. None of this is good grounds for locking him up, of course. Having him stood against the nearest wall and shot, maybe, but not locked up.

As to why it's a good thing to have him locked up at present, his seven years of mooching off the Ecuadorians included failing to appear in court as he had agreed to do as a condition of being released from custody. Of course, thinking the rules don't apply to him, he didn't think failing to appear was that big a deal. Courts of law, however, take a dim view of this sort of thing. Bail jumpers are, [i]ipso facto[/i], flight risks, hence often kept locked up while they have legal matters pending. And Julian Assange does have legal matters pending. The US has requested his extradition. The original charges against him weren't all that serious, but now a whole laundry list of much heavier charges has been added, and he's looking at the prospect of being locked up for the rest of his life.

Julian Assange's next court date is December 19. His extradition hearing is scheduled for February. He is likely to appear in court for these.

Re: MH17
 

[url=https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@107091/jit-releases-witness/]JIT releases witness appeal MH17[/url][quote]The JIT witness call of June 2019 showed that the leadership of the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (DPR) maintained contact with Russian officials about military support in Eastern Ukraine. Recent analysis of information obtained by the JIT, including witness statements by former DPR-members, revealed that Russian influence on the DPR went beyond military support. This is supported by recorded telephone calls between the leaders of the DPR and high-ranking Russian officials.
<snip>
The indications of close ties between Russian government officials and leaders of the DPR raise questions about their possible involvement in the deployment of the BUK-TELAR, which brought down flight MH17 on 17 July 2014. The JIT already concluded this BUK TELAR originated from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade, a unit of the Russian armed forces from Kursk in the Russian Federation. The JIT is looking for witnesses who can share information about those who commanded the deployment of this BUK-TELAR.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;530462]Here's a slightly different take.

Julian Assange, like [I]Il Duce[/I], thinks the rules don't apply to him. He's egotistical and self-centered, every bit the "spoiled brat" Ecuador's President Moreno described him as being when, after giving him political asylum in their London Embassy for seven years, the Ecuadorians got sick of Assange disregarding the conditions of his being allowed to stay there, revoked his asylum, and invited the UK authorities in to remove him. Apparently Assange just didn't get that "My house, my rules" actually [I]did[/I] apply to him when he was staying in someone else's house at their sufferance. He probably still doesn't think it's "equitable."

Besides, my sainted mother thought not only that he was a self-centered little malignancy, but also a physically repulsive creature whose pallid appearance reminded her of some sort of fungus. None of this is good grounds for locking him up, of course. Having him stood against the nearest wall and shot, maybe, but not locked up.

As to why it's a good thing to have him locked up at present, his seven years of mooching off the Ecuadorians included failing to appear in court as he had agreed to do as a condition of being released from custody. Of course, thinking the rules don't apply to him, he didn't think failing to appear was that big a deal. Courts of law, however, take a dim view of this sort of thing. Bail jumpers are, [I]ipso facto[/I], flight risks, hence often kept locked up while they have legal matters pending. And Julian Assange does have legal matters pending. The US has requested his extradition. The original charges against him weren't all that serious, but now a whole laundry list of much heavier charges has been added, and he's looking at the prospect of being locked up for the rest of his life.

Julian Assange's next court date is December 19. His extradition hearing is scheduled for February. He is likely to appear in court for these.[/QUOTE]


I am a bit confused. What is he now supposed to get accused of?

[QUOTE=Till;530594]I am a bit confused. What is he now supposed to get accused of?[/QUOTE]

Offending DrS's personal standards of modesty and decorum, apparently. Clearly behaving in a manner which DrS deems egotistical is a capital crime worthy of rendition, solitary confinement and slow torture to death.

I find it rather telling that the [url=https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/assange-in-court/]obviously extralegal farce constituted by the UK "legal proceedings"[/url] does not in any way appear to offend the good Doctor's sense of propriety. Being an apologist for The Empire requires a strict adherence to double standards, it would seem.

[QUOTE=Till;530594]I am a bit confused. What is he now supposed to get accused of?[/QUOTE]
He is charged with threatening the entrenched power and money structures of the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex, and of the US Empire in general. These are the same charges lodged against Manning and Snowden.

[quote=Till;530594]I am a bit confused. What is he now supposed to get accused of?[/quote]
In case you're interested in what will actually matter in court, you can read the [url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6024842/Assange-superseding-indictment.pdf]superseding indictment[/url] that was unsealed in May 2019. It alleges that Assange did not merely [i]receive and publish[/i] classified information (which, stipulating that he is a journalist, he could not be prosecuted for), but that he [i]solicited[/i] disclosure of classified information, and [i]actively participated[/i] in obtaining and attempting to obtain it.

He had originally been charged with [url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download]conspiracy to commit computer intrusion[/url], which carried a maximum five-year sentence. The espionage charges carry a maximum of ten years for each count, and there are 17 counts.

The DOJ has already bungled the case WRT the sealed superseding indictment -- they inadvertently revealed its existence in another, unrelated court filing. Oops!

IMO the espionage charges are a stretch. I'm sure Assange's legal counsel will argue at the extradition hearing that the espionage charges are politically motivated. Now I'm generally averse to going into the motives for making allegations, on the grounds that the merits of the complaint are the important thing. However, in a UK extradition hearing, whether the charges are politically motivated, or are political in nature, is pertinent. If the UK court finds that the charges are political in nature, it could deny the extradition request.

I'm pretty sure that, had the DOJ stuck with the computer intrusion charge, there would have been no problem getting Assange extradited, tried and convicted, and salted away for up to five years.

My feelings on the matter are very much mixed. I am very concerned about the DOJ's "creative" use of espionage charges, and would be immensely satisfied if the extradition request were denied on the grounds that they amount to political persecution. However, I would be chagrined at a loathsome little cockroach like Assange once again scuttling away instead of being slapped down. I would, however, blame the Admin if the UK rejected the extradition request.

I would contrast the present case to the Pentagon Papers case. Daniel Ellsberg decided to make public the results of a study he had worked on extensively, showing that the US government had lied to the people about the Vietnam War. He went to the papers -- they didn't come to him. After the contents began appearing in the NYT in 1971, the government tried to stop publication by means of a restraining order. Other papers then published, and the government got injunctions against each in turn. The US Supreme Court soon said, in a 6-3 decision in the case of [i]New York Times Co. v. United States[/i], that the government couldn't do that, and the papers couldn't be punished for publishing the information. Amusingly, the ruling came on June 30, 1971, in close proximity to Independence Day (July 4).

AFAIK there was never any allegation that the papers solicited or participated in the removal of classified information from its lawful repositories.

As to Daniel Ellsberg, he turned himself in and faced the charges against him. Fortunately for him, the government decided they didn't have to play fair. The prosecutorial misconduct was so egregious, in fact (including government thugs breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office to try to get dirt on Ellsberg), that the entire case was dismissed, and Ellsberg walked. It would not surprise me if something similar happened with Assange -- assuming he actually faces charges in the US.

BTW there are many in the US who, to this day, consider Ellsberg a "traitor" for disclosing the Pentagon Papers to the American public. I am not among them.

[url=https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/the-opcw-and-douma-chemical-weapons-watchdog-accused-of-evidence-tampering-by-its-own-inspectors/]The OPCW and Douma: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Accused of Evidence-Tampering by Its Own Inspectors[/url] | Counterpunch

[url=https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/opcw-whistleblowers-management-manipulated-reports-douma-chemical-weapon-attack-was-staged.html]OPCW Whistleblowers: Management Manipulated Reports - Douma 'Chemical Weapon Attack' Was Staged[/url] | Moon of Alabama

[url=https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/11/17/the-hugely-important-opcw-scandal-keeps-unfolding-heres-why-no-ones-talking-about-it/]The Hugely Important OPCW Scandal Keeps Unfolding. Here’s Why No One’s Talking About It[/url] | Caitlin Johnstone
Reader comment: “The interesting part is the US spooks, presumably without Trump's blessing, pressuring the OPCW. The whole charade was orchestrated because Trump wanted out of Syria IIRC. If that isn’t confirmation of a deep state, friendly with Al Qaeda no less, I dunno what is. In anything approaching a sane world that would be every headline.”

So the watch dogs have been muzzled, repeatedly. As I recall, this was another "incident" which the "noble" White Helmets played a big role in promoting.

[url=https://apnews.com/3da4fb3671004679a91a7d4ae9ab4e57]US angers Palestinians with reversal on Israeli settlements[/url][quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday said it no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be a violation of international law, reversing four decades of American policy and further undermining the Palestinians’ effort to gain statehood.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. is repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that held that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are "inconsistent with international law."
<snip>
The 1978 legal opinion on settlements is known as the Hansell Memorandum. It had been the basis for more than 40 years of carefully worded U.S. opposition to settlement construction that had varied in its tone and strength, depending on the president’s position.

The international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal based in part on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bars an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population to occupied territory.[/quote]

Julian Assange is officially off the hook on the Swedish rape allegation. It can reasonably argued that this is a textbook example of the idea (as expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his [i]Letter from Birmingham Jail[/i]), that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

The [url=https://www.aklagare.se/globalassets/dokument/ovriga-dokument/decision_19nov.pdf]translation of the prosecutor's decision[/url] says (my emphasis),[quote]The injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events. Her statements have been
coherent, extensive and detailed.

In some areas, the parties have provided consistent information while in others they have entirely
different perceptions of events.

It can be confirmed that support for the injured party’s assertion – and therefore of the alleged
criminal act – is now deemed to have weakened, [b]largely due to the long period of time that has
elapsed since the events in question.[/b]

In my overall assessment, the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that that
there is no longer any reason to continue the preliminary investigation. It cannot be assumed that
further inquiries will change the evidential situation in any significant manner. The preliminary
investigation is therefore discontinued.[/quote]

Re. Assange - indeed, now that the UK/US governments have him in their clutches in "he ain't never getting out" fashion, the pretxt provided by the trumped-up Swedish rape charges is dispensible. Thanks, Sweden, you've done your job in this multiyear extralegal farce. I mean, consider the wording in the "we are closing the case" ruling:

"The injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events."

How can such testimony be deemed "credible and reliable" in the utter absence of independently verifiable *evidence* supporting it? Similar with the tell-word "injured" - absent actual evidence, this is a mere *allegation* of injury in the legal sense. Promoting hearsay into evidence amounts throwing away pretty much the entire basis of post-medieval western jurisprudence.