ADVERTISEMENT

Julian Assange Sentenced to 50 Weeks and Still Faces U.S. Charges

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,477
60,603
113
A British court sentenced Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, to 50 weeks in prison on Wednesday for jumping bail when he took refuge in Ecuador’s Embassy in London seven years ago.

His complex legal travails are far from over: The United States is seeking Mr. Assange’s extradition for prosecution there, and an initial hearing on that request is expected on Thursday. Officials in Sweden have left open the possibility that he could face criminal charges in that country, as well.

Mr. Assange faces a charge of conspiracy to hack into a Pentagon computer network; a federal indictment accuses him of helping an Army private to illegally download classified information in 2010, much of it about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which WikiLeaks then made public. He has denied the charge.

Mr. Assange, 47, was arrested on April 11 after the Ecuadorean government withdrew its protection of him and allowed the police to take him out of the embassy in London, where he had lived since 2012. The same day, he appeared in court and was convicted on the charge of skipping bail.

Advertisement

Mr. Assange, who is being held in Belmarsh Prison in East London, argued that he should not be jailed for the offense, because he was effectively imprisoned in the embassy. On Wednesday, in Southwark Crown Court in London, Judge Deborah Taylor rejected that claim.

“It’s difficult to envisage a more serious example of this offense,” she told Mr. Assange, British news organizations reported. “By hiding in the embassy you deliberately put yourself out of reach, while remaining in the U.K.”

Before he was sentenced, the court heard an apology letter by Mr. Assange, in which he said that he was “struggling with difficult circumstances.”

“I did what I thought at the time was the best or perhaps the only thing that I could have done,” he said, according to British news reports. “I regret the course that that has taken.”


His legal odyssey began in 2010, when prosecutors in Sweden sought to question him about alleged sexual assaults there, which he denies. Eventually, he had to post bail to remain free while fighting extradition to Sweden, which he insisted would then send him to the United States.

Mr. Assange took refuge in Ecuador’s embassy, violating the terms of his bail. Ecuador granted him asylum and, eventually, citizenship.

He continued his work from the embassy, and in 2016, WikiLeaks released thousands of emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the personal account of John D. Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, intending to harm her candidacy. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, concluded that the emails were stolen by Russian intelligence agents, which Mr. Assange denies.

The 2010 release of Pentagon records was made possible by Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning, the Army private who would later serve around seven years in prison for taking them. The indictment against Mr. Assange says he did not merely publish the material provided by Ms. Manning, but helped her in the hacking, which he disputes.

Mr. Assange insists that the government is seeking retribution for his exposure of misconduct and deception by American troops and officials.

Swedish prosecutors eventually dropped the case against Mr. Assange, calling it pointless to pursue it, but said they could revive it if he became available. Nevertheless the bail-jumping charge, and the threat of extradition to the United States, still hung over him.

Last month, Ecuador revoked his asylum and citizenship, citing a list of grievances that had made him an unwanted house guest, ranging from recent WikiLeaks releases to alleged ill manners, threats, hacking aimed at Ecuador, and abuse of embassy staff members and facilities.

Advertisement

Ecuador stopped sheltering Mr. Assange after “his repeated violations to international conventions and daily-life protocols,” President Lenin Moreno said in a statement on Twitter.

But Mr. Assange didn’t go easily: He resisted arrest and had to be restrained by British police officers, who struggled to handcuff him.

“This is unlawful, I’m not leaving,” he told them, according to the account given at the Westminster Magistrates Court, where Mr. Assange appeared later that day. In the end, he had to be dragged out of the embassy.

Mr. Assange, a man accustomed to celebrity and internet culture, has long fascinated and divided popular opinion: To supporters, he is a martyr for the cause of free speech, but others see him as a publicity-seeking criminal with strong ties to the Kremlin.

He has indicated that he would fight extradition, and the process promises to be a long one, further extending his saga.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
 
VIPS: Extradition of Julian Assange Threatens Us All
April 30, 2019 •

Retaliation against Julian Assange over the past decade plus replicates a pattern of ruthless political retaliation against whistleblowers, in particular those who reveal truths hidden by illegal secrecy, VIPS says.

DATE: April 30, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: The governments and people of the United Kingdom and the United States

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Extradition of Julian Assange Threatens Us All

On April 11, London police forcibly removed WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange from the embassy of Ecuador after that country’s president, Lenin Moreno, abruptly revoked his predecessor’s grant of asylum. The United States government immediately requested Assange’s extradition for prosecution under a charge of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Former U.S. Government officials promptly appeared in popular media offering soothing assurances that Assange’s arrest threatens neither constitutional rights nor the practice of journalism, and major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post fell into line.

Not So Fast

Others found reason for concern in the details of the indictment. Carie DeCel, a staff attorney for the Knight First Amendment Institute, noted that the indictment goes beyond simply stating the computer intrusion charge and “includes many more allegations that reach more broadly into typical journalistic practices, including communication with a source, encouraging a source to share information, and protecting a source.”

In an analysis of the indictment’s implications, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) observed that it includes an allegation that “Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure…including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning,” and that they “used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records.”

“These are not only legitimate but professionally advised journalistic practices for source protection,” notes POGO. It is worth noting that Manning had Top Secret clearance and did not need Assange’s assistance to gain access to databases, but only to hide her identity.

The indictment’s implied threat thus reaches beyond Assange and even beyond journalists. The threat to journalists and others does not vanish if they subsequently avoid practices identified in the government’s indictment. The NSA’s big bag of past communications offers abundant material from which to spin an indictment years later, and even circumstantial evidence can produce a conviction. Moreover, the secret landscape—a recent and arbitrary development—continually expands, making ever more of government off limits to public view.

When politician and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo labeled WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” he was describing the oft-stated duty of newspapers, “to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable.”

The Devil in the Big Picture

balance:

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/30/vips-extradition-of-julian-assange-threatens-us-all/
 
As I understand it. the maximum sentence for this offense is 1 year in prison.

So they basically threw the book at a guy who was justifiably afraid for his life.

F ck the UK.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT