The funny thing is that he's currently being held for not being able to justify bail jumping but now that he's being extradited it justifies his bail jumping... Its absolutely crazy to watch how the law is basically completely fake at a certain level.
What justifications do you think there are in English law for failure to surrender to bail?
They're trying to get him for being an accomplice to specific computer crimes related to the acquisition of that information. Of course, the motivation is retribution for embarrassing the government.
Inconvenientl, being a journalist or acting in the interests of journalism does not bless a person's conduct with immunity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza_an...
> Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery were two Egyptian asylum-seekers who were deported to Egypt from Sweden on December 18, 2001, apparently following a request from the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The forced repatriation was criticized because of the danger of torture and ill treatment, and because the deportation decision was executed the same day without notifying the lawyers of the asylum seekers. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers.
Sweden was desperately defending its status as a neutral country, and did not want to appear to take any sides. But the previous Swedish government decided to recognise Palestine as a state, which strongly suggest they are done with that now.
All that besides, the US did not request his extradition until Trump became President. So he could have gone to Sweden, done his interview in the case, probably been let off with a fine, and then go on his merry way.
Assange had no way of knowing that. The Trump admin's extradition request was sealed (we only knew of its existence in advance because it accidentally leaked in another case's court filings).
That said, fleeing to the UK is a bit of a "out of the frying pan, into the fire" situation.
After he left InterPol issued an alert which made him fear that it was about more than the Swedish charges and that he would be extradited to the US.
Of course, he was not in custody in the UK and they had nothing to charge him with at first. Eventually he sough asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy because, of course, the would do to him exactly what they are doing now.
From WSJ:
> In the U.S. indictment, prosecutors alleged that in March 2010 Mr. Assange conspired to help former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning break into a U.S. Defense Department computer system by trying to help her crack a password.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/11/18306045/julian-assange-w...
Assange long ago lost any credibility as far as I'm concerned. I think his statements are about crafting his own public narrative than really revealing any of his motivations / actual choices. Wikileaks repeatedly claimed they would release X information, and then simply didn't and wouldn't say a word. I'm not sure if they still have a Facebook page but if you even asked about past claims the question would be quickly removed.
After leaving, InterPol issued a Red Notice for Assange. This raised a red flag with Assange’s legal team that this was not just about rape accusations, and they decided to fight his extradition to Sweden fearing that he was being set up to be extradited to the United States.
Wikileaks releases all of the information that they receive after it has been vetted and deemed worthy of publication.
He was afraid of being extradited to the US... so he chose to do that from the UK?
IIRC in Sweden it's actually harder to be extradited for crimes like espionage:
>Sweden’s extradition agreement with the United States, signed in 1961 and updated in 1983, prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense." The agreement does not specify what constitutes a "political offense." Whether the Swedish supreme court would rule to extradite Assange largely depends on what charges the secret U.S. grand jury brings against him.
>If Assange is accused of espionage, Sweden most certainly would not comply, as its courts have consistently determined that espionage constitutes a political offense. For example, in 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union, to the United States. Charged with espionage, Swedish courts ruled that those accusations amounted to the kind of "political offense" specified in the extradition agreement.
Assange was holed up in Ecuador-in-London long enough for politics in both countries to change, but he may have had unreasonable expectations to begin with.
Snowden may not have been expecting to get stuck in Russia, either, but there he was, because every route between there and the place he claimed was his intended destination was so very willing to turn him over, via an expedited process.
At least the UK does the entire extradition hearing process. Even if the result is arriving at a predetermined conclusion via plausible rationale, there is some opportunity there, that one does not have if you enter US custody the instant the plane hits the taxiway.
> He [Assange's lawyer] then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying:
> “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”.
Coincidentally* Assange left the country on the 27th.
If you did a similar thing to China or Russia, they would probably do everything in their power to secretly execute/assassinate you.
Even if you did it to a highly progressive European nation like UK, the government probably wouldn't celebrate you as a hero but would rather do everything in their power to put you behind bars regardless of if it were "conscienscious whistleblowing" or not.
But that doesn't mean you're wrong or that whats legal or moral or right even matters at this level. The powerful are immune to the law, we can all see it plainly these days.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
> ii) Offences 1-3 described in the EAW (set out at paragraph 3 above) did not meet the dual criminality test. None was a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged. As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape.
Here's a description. Sounds pretty rapey to me.
> As regards offence 1, AA said in her statement that she had offered the use of her apartment to Mr Assange from 11-14 August 2010 when she was away. She had returned on 13 August 2010 earlier than planned and then met him for the first time. They went out to dinner and returned to her apartment. As they drank tea, he started to fondle her leg which she welcomed. Everything happened fast. Mr Assange ripped off her clothes and at the same time broke her necklace. She tried to put her clothes on again, but Mr Assange had immediately removed them again. She had thought that she did not really want to continue, but it was too late to tell Mr Assange to stop as she had consented so far. Accordingly she let Mr Assange take off all her clothes. Thereafter they laid down on the bed naked with AA on her back and Mr Assange on top. Mr Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina, but she did not want him to do that as he was not using a condom. She therefore squeezed her legs together in order to avoid him penetrating her. She tried to reach several times for a condom which Mr Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without a condom. Mr Assange must have known it was a condom AA was reaching for and he had held her arms to stop her. After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together; AA told him she wanted him to put on a condom before he entered her. Mr Assange let go of AA's arms and put on a condom which AA found for him. AA felt a strong sense of unexpressed resistance on Mr Assange' s part against using a condom.
But also see (78) onwards.
> 90 [...] R v B goes no further than deciding that failure to disclose HIV infection is not of itself relevant to consent under s.74. R v B does not permit Mr Assange to contend that, if he deceived AA as to whether he was using a condom or one that he had not damaged, that was irrelevant to the issue of AA's consent to sexual intercourse as a matter of the law of England and Wales or his belief in her consent. On each of those issues, it is clear that it is the prosecution case she did not consent and he had no or no reasonable belief in that consent. Those are issues to which s.74 and not s.76 is relevant; there is nothing in R v B which compels any other conclusion. Furthermore it does not matter whether the sexual contact is described as molestation, assault or, since it involved penile penetration, rape. The dual criminality issue is the absence of consent and the absence of a reasonable belief in consent. Those issues are the same regardless of the description of the conduct.
> Thus, if the question is whether what is set out in the EAW is an offence under the law of England and Wales, then it is in our view clear that it was; the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied.
(In case it's not obvious, parent's first quote is the court's summary of Assange's case on appeal, not the court's own findings).
> On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
This is rape under UK law. Both the District and High Court judge agreed on this point.
[0] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html