Serious question: how do you know it's "bogus"? There's no evidence either way. For all we know the guy could have been Assange's source, which would explain the raging hard-on the current administration has for extraditing Assange.
The question is, is there any factual proof that the claim is a fabrication, or is it all a big conspiracy theory? If Assange commits a crime, is it always made up because he ticked off the government? Merely claiming it's a trumped up charge for the sole reason that he's the Wikileaks guy is not a strong argument. (it's not a valid argument at all, I'd say).
I know these days we're all treating it as an established fact that Sweden's extradition request for Assange is actually a cover for him to be further extradited to the United States, but it has never actually been proven.
There is no evidence he helped her. Their main witness was a pedophile who lied to try get his own charges lessened. There is no case against Assange. The allegations are bogus.
Wow, that is a ridiculously suggestive hit piece you're linking to, but even that doesn't justify your claim, since even in that piece neither Assange (who isn't even quoted in it) nor his lawyer says anything of the kind.
It's merely his lawyer quoting the accusations, and the author trying to twist this into an admission of guilt because of, OMG, "the tone". And then there's you piling it on claiming it was Assange who said it, which is a complete fabrication, at least if you take that link as "evidence".
If you want to know where the skepticism is coming from: it comes from these kind of filthy propaganda tactics.
There are no known extradition orders from the Obama DoJ, and the feds have claimed they didn't want to bother with him in the Holder era. To believe he would be extradited to the US requires Assange's claimed extradition threat to have been real, but there's not only no evidence, but some evidence that suggests there never was one.
The position that there never was a sealed extradition request can be falsified with evidence of one, it's just that there currently is no evidence.
On what basis do you say that no extradition request has never been filed?
My understanding is that Assange and allies allege that there is probably a sealed one, and that there is a (leaked in Stratfor emails) sealed US indictment against him.
Extraordinary claims... A meme that has never made much sense to me. Anyway:
Think about this from the start: Assange has just become an enemy of the US due to wikileaks dumping a lot of official documents onto the Internet. Knowing this, Assange would be extra careful not to do anything that could lead to his arrest by a America-comliant government. Next thing we know, he's being accused of the one crime for which there can be almost by definition no corroborating witnesses, no forensic evidence, no signs of physical harm on the victim. What are the odds? And remember, they haven't even pressed the charges (that way they can deny the judicial system was actually compromised), this is just an excuse to get him into custody so he can then be officially extradited to the US.
Mishandling classified documents? Did Assange, an Australian citizen, somehow have a US security clearance?
It seems more likely this nonsense is being floated to help justify an illegal extradition to continue the United States Government's unconstitutional persecution of him.
You don't need to trust Assange or the Government.
Manning already stated that the allegation is categorally wrong. And there's no proof that they did it. But they still went with it, just to get him extradited. A common tactic.
Assange is wanted for questioning on allegations of sexual assault. Assange is a powerful and connected person, with strong support from a considerable percentage of the population. I am glad that that does not affect the legal process, and I would never want to live in a society where it did.
EDIT: The article says "He has been in a cell, under house arrest, or effectively detained at the Ecuadorian Embassy since December 2010."
This is patently a lie. He chooses to stay in the embassay of his own volition. How can anyone take this article seriously?
Another fact to consider is that embassy allowed Assange to be taken only after being assured by the UK government that there were no plans to extradite him to the US.
Of course that was a bald-faced lie, so why even make it?
Look, I generally buy into the theory that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely.
I am more than happy to concede that maybe these charges are politically motivated, and they are complete and utter trash: if that's the case, then clearly you could argue Assange is totally right to seek asylum. Good on him.
However, there is a chance these charges are genuine. I really hope nobody would try to argue otherwise. I don't pretend to know how large or small this chance is. As long as there is a chance I think Assange's actions do nobody any favors whatsoever.
reply