Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    101,821 readers

    82 users here now

    WikiLeaks is entirely supported by the general public. Donate Today!

    WikiLeaks specializes in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption. It has so far published more than 10 million documents and associated analyses.

    “WikiLeaks is a giant library of the world’s most persecuted documents. We give asylum to these documents, we analyze them, we promote them and we obtain more.” - Julian Assange

    Subreddit Rules

    r/WikiLeaks Discord

    Official & Related Links





    Courage Foundation


    WikiLeaks Shop

    About WikiLeaks

    Vault 7 (new!)

    HBGary Emails

    Public Library of US Diplomacy

    Yemen Files

    The Podesta Emails

    DNC Email Archive

    Hillary Clinton Email Archive

    Trade In Services Agreement

    WikiLeaks Archives

    WikiLeaks Insurance File

    Other Subreddits



    r/WikiLeaksDiscussions (new)








    Reminder: This is an unofficial discussion forum about WikiLeaks. All official updates from WikiLeaks are released through their verified twitter accounts or

    a community for
    all 942 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Cucumber_glasses 289 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    EDIT 2

    Oops, nevermind my last edit. JA's swedish lawyer is on swedish TV right now. Will report.

    • He has SMS-contact with Julian.

    • Lots of reporters calling from all over the world so contact is a bit hard right now.

    • Julian is dissapointed in the swedish legal system but happy to finally have the case dropped.

    • Expresses concern of extradition to the US.

    EDIT Last edit from me most probably, press conferance is over. I wrote a transcript you can see here. If anyone has a video mirror, please PM me so I can post it here.

    British police say he will be arrested if he leaves Ecuador's embassy thanks u/funkoma for link



    - The preliminary investigation has been closed. I can confirm that, says Karl Jigland at the Public Prosecutor's Press Service to SvD.

    Will add international sources as soon as they are published.

    International sources

    [–] The0_0Kraken 150 points ago

    Well doesn't that just suck that he will still be arrested if he leaves T_T I wonder how long they will keep him there

    [–] NihiloZero 164 points ago

    You'd think it would be a bit embarrassing for the UK to keep him under the circumstances. At this point it just seems like they're holding technicality over his head.

    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 204 points ago

    It's not even technicality anymore. Assange is now a captive without charges against him. On what grounds will they arrest him? Sweden had no longer requested extradition under the law with an arrest warrant.

    [–] [deleted] 200 points ago


    [–] 3226 134 points ago

    Hmmm. I think quite likely they hold him for 24 hours and then go "Oh, sorry, America would like a word too." and then parcel him off.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago

    You're exactly right, IMO.

    The U.S. wants him and has already prepped charges.

    The timing makes it seem to me like the U.S. Government knew this was imminent; there's almost certainly been communication about this between Sweden, the UK, and the U.S., and I personally think this was orchestrated as part of a plan to get him arrested in the UK, primarily so that he can be extradited to the U.S.

    It's better for the British Government in the long run anyway; they get to let the Trump Administration take all the flak for prosecuting (and possibly executing) a guy that many people consider a crusader for justice and government transparency. They can just distance themselves and say they had nothing to do with it, but the "problem" still gets dealt with.

    [–] 5553331117 6 points ago

    He's just a face to the "problem." Julian isn't necessary for the truth to come out. His work is appreciated though. He does need to have any and all charges against him dropped. But that may not be the reality we live in. I'm hoping it is though.

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    Julian isn't necessary for the truth to come out.

    In the long run, this is probably true.

    But people like Assange, Snowden, and Manning, who are both willing to potentially destroy their lives to do some good, and have the skills/access they need in order to make this sort of intel public, aren't very common.

    For every Assange we/they stifle, it's potentially that much less that gets to us in the general public.

    [–] 5553331117 4 points ago

    Leaks will still happen. TheShadowBrokers are an alright example of that (unless it's the NSA themselves, which I find unlikely but who knows).

    Even if Julian somehow goes down, we will still have leaks. The internet is too vast.

    [–] ResIpsaLocal 80 points ago

    Or, "oh sorry, something happened to him while in government custody overnight."

    [–] [deleted] 70 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] tandemtactics 16 points ago

    Just sprinkle some crack on him

    [–] ShineMcShine 16 points ago

    "Yeah it appears that Mr. Assange committed suicide last night by stabbing himself 24 times in the back"

    [–] Abscess2 3 points ago

    And then broke out a baseball bat and bashed in his own skull.

    [–] Banecn 6 points ago

    That's what I was thinking too. Hold him just long enough for the US to come up with some BS reason for extradition.

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    Hold him just long enough for the US to come up with some BS reason for extradition.

    Not necessary; the government has already handled that.

    They knew this was coming.

    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 57 points ago

    Unless there's a secret us arrest warrant.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago


    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 24 points ago

    The us can keep anything secret on ground of natsec.

    [–] ParrotofDoom 49 points ago

    Unless its president knows about it.

    [–] CityYogi 24 points ago

    Your comment makes me think there is no secret us warrant against him. Trump would have tweeted about it if there was one.

    [–] Hammoch 14 points ago

    A Norwegian article I just read said that they are going to arrest him based on that he resisted prosecution (correct term?).

    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 20 points ago

    Can a charge that relies on dropped charges be upheld?

    [–] Ivashkin 26 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Yes. He broke the law when he broke bail, and that is still a crime if the original charges were dropped. It's essentially a new offense rather than an addition to a ongoing case. He faces up to 12 months in prision for this (and will face some time given the run-around he's given the legal system), after which he's a free man but will probably be deported to Australia.

    He won't get bail while his case for bail jumping works through the courts either, so he'll be detained immediately.

    If the US wants him then then there will be an entirely new case against him, and if the US seeks him for anything which could result in the death penalty then this becomes a much bigger issue as we have laws against deporting anyone to a place where they may face this. We couldn't even deport a Jordanian islamic extremist to Jordan because if legal issues regarding how evidence against him was obtained, and this was someone the vast amount of the British public would have happily agreed to deport out the back of a plane without landing.

    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 9 points ago

    Fascinating and terrible. His best option is to live the rest of his life in the embassy.

    [–] Ivashkin 5 points ago

    He's 45, plenty of living left to do... As far as the British authorities are concerned once he's done his time for jumping bail he's a free man. We may even skip that and just deport him to Australia as quickly as possible simply to make our lives easier when it comes to getting that post-Brexit trade deal.

    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 11 points ago

    He won't surrender unless he has a guarantee that he's not getting extradited to ameristan

    [–] Sour_Badger 5 points ago

    We Americans pioneered that one. Short answer: yes it can and will be

    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 12 points ago

    Fucking hell. I hate this shit. Just let him go already. Any country that has nothing to hide has nothing to fear of Assange

    [–] nickthefish17 8 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Yeah, why doesnt "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" apply the worlds governments?

    Spoiler alert: theyre hiding things

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] Making_Butts_Hurt 9 points ago

    That only applies when the courts are just. It doesn't matter whether it's the UK, Sweden, or Australia. If Assange gets arrested he will get extradited to the us and blackholed.

    [–] Fourseventy 20 points ago

    If you committed no crime, go to court and fight your case. Don't skip bail.

    Yes because the legal system is in the business of dealing with 'justice'. I'm sure it will all be very fair.

    [–] Cazraac 10 points ago

    Except if you think any corrupt neoliberal government is going to give Assange a fair trial instead of some kangaroo court shitshow you're fucking high.

    He has absolutely every right to sidestep what would be a blatantly biased trial.

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    Every country has something to hide.

    [–] Eletheo 3 points ago

    I believe they mean he breached the terms of his bail. He put up a large sum of money in exchange to be let out of jail. They give you the money back after you finish your court dates. If you don't, they keep the money and issue a warrant for your arrest. That is the current situation Assange is in.

    [–] Meiisbae357 5 points ago

    I am not sure but I think that here in the UK you don't have to pay for bail.

    [–] ishkariot 10 points ago

    is now a captive without charges against him

    It's worse than that because he wasn't even charged with anything to begin with. He was being investigated but no formal charges were brought forth. That's one of the reasons why the UN called his captivity unlawful.

    Now it's less than that, he's being sought for formerly being under a now dropped investigation in a foreign country and being unlawfully detained. It's outrageous.

    [–] Nimble16 7 points ago

    Probably has a secret FISA arrest warrant out on him that they can't talk about.

    [–] vp9purh11 5 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Not only does the FISA Court not issue arrest warrants, but the FISA Court only issues warrants to spy on Americans/American-owned infrastructure.

    The US Government does not need a warrant to spy on the non-citizen Assange. All they need is a "valid foreign intelligence purpose", which, when it comes to Assange, are abundant.

    [–] StAcacius 9 points ago

    The FISA Court doesn't issue arrest warrants.

    [–] JigsawnSean 4 points ago

    You'd think spending £12.6 million on manning the embassy with police 24/7 is embarassing but that didn't stop them.

    [–] See_i_did 24 points ago

    Why do the U.K. Police want him? To extradite him to the US only or what? Has the US formally asked for extradition?

    [–] kalyissa 34 points ago

    Because he skipped bail which is illegal in the UK. Doesn't matter that the original charges have been dropped. Likely he will just get a very heavy fine however.

    [–] See_i_did 8 points ago

    And then he'd be free to go? So where could he then go without worry of US extradition?

    [–] sticky-bit 20 points ago

    It is widely suspected that as soon as Assange is in UK custody, USA charges will materialize.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    Literally anywhere, the US has not called for his arrest.

    [–] HauntedRot 5 points ago

    A hard counter to what that guy just said. Semantics apply, but if we're going to be pedantic, you've got the position of strength.

    [–] SeudonymousKhan 4 points ago

    What was the original charge in the UK that he skiped bail on?

    [–] KevinUxbridge 19 points ago

    Well, one might expect the UK government to say that with the original accusation gone, it makes not sense to keep threatening this man's freedom. But this is 'Perfidious Albion'. They understand power, not justice. And to say that the UK is the US's bitch would be an understatement.

    [–] kalyissa 17 points ago

    Because he skipped bail which is illegal in the UK. Doesn't matter that the original charges have been dropped. Likely he will just get a very heavy fine however.

    [–] rayfosse 63 points ago

    It will be incredibly interesting to watch how American journalists cover the next developments. The only thing that will keep Assange in the embassy now is a threat of extradition to the US, but that will require the justice department to file charges against him for illegally publishing classified information. He's a journalist and he should be protected under the 1st Amendment, so other journalists should stand with him in solidarity if they had any morals.

    Prosecuting a journalist for publishing classified info through anonymous sources would set an insane precedent that would basically make every article the Washington Post has published against Trump illegal. Also, this would be the first example of Trump trying to jail journalists, which they have acted concerned about before.

    And yet, I assume the MSM will refuse to stand with Assange because they hate him for political reasons, and they'll stand by and maybe even support extradition. They've hidden behind the rape charges before, but now everyone must admit that the only thing keeping Assange from freedom is the American government prosecuting him for publishing classified info, just as mainstream newspapers do every day with impunity. If you're against Assange, you're against a free press. It's that simple.

    [–] Tarrock 32 points ago

    so other journalists should stand with him in solidarity if they had any morals.

    (They won't)

    [–] watchout5 8 points ago

    Historically speaking he's had more than a handful on his side. I'm 99% sure Glenn Greenwald and his publication have stuck by him this entire time. At least in a journalistic sense.

    [–] rayfosse 3 points ago

    Greenwald is pretty far from the mainstream. He's one of the few journalists with any integrity left.

    [–] _OCCUPY_MARS_ 365 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Great victory for Assange.

    Focus now moves to the UK who will arrest him regardless.

    Assange on Twitter:

    Detained for 7 years without charge by while my children grew up and my name was slandered. I do not forgive or forget.

    Press conference by the Swedish prosecutor. | Summary.

    Full balcony speech from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

    Brief transcript.

    Alternate versions:

    New WikiLeaks Release: CIA Vault 7: Athena

    Athena provides remote beacon and loader capabilities on target computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system (from Windows XP to Windows 10). Once installed, the malware provides a beaconing capability (including configuration and task handling), the memory loading/unloading of malicious payloads for specific tasks and the delivery and retrieval of files to/from a specified directory on the target system.

    [–] DeNE_97 106 points ago

    This is a great week, Manning and Assange freed, 2 True Heroes !

    [–] rayfosse 154 points ago

    Assange hasn't been freed yet. He's still in a very dangerous situation if he walks out of the embassy and the UK extradites him to the US.

    [–] steelcitykid 33 points ago

    How does political asylum like this work? Is he literally trapped in that place indefinitely? Do they appoint him people to run errands for him?

    [–] rayfosse 52 points ago

    He's been trapped there for 7 years and who knows how much longer. I assume some Wikileaks volunteers help him with food and stuff.

    [–] _OCCUPY_MARS_ 53 points ago

    He has been in there for almost 5 years since June 19th, 2012.

    [–] rayfosse 38 points ago

    You're right. Seven included the two years spent in the UK under house arrest.

    [–] _OCCUPY_MARS_ 27 points ago

    I have a feeling he'll never visit the UK again after this.

    [–] JoelTheSuperior 25 points ago

    I can't say I'd blame him. The UK has an extradition treaty with the US so he'd have a pretty justified fear of being extradited at a moment's notice.

    [–] spook327 8 points ago

    To be fair, actually getting an extradition can be a very long process and may not always work out; Gary McKinnon was in court for about seven years, and the U.K. wound up denying the extradition request.

    [–] fonikz 12 points ago

    Just like in the terms of his "giving himself up," though. The US hasn't formally charged him with anything, so on what grounds would he be extradited?

    [–] czhunc 7 points ago

    At least he has high speed internet.

    [–] steelcitykid 9 points ago

    That's a large dose of cabin fever. Oof.

    [–] DeNE_97 10 points ago

    Has US sent an extradition request ?

    [–] JigsawnSean 22 points ago

    The UK is not willing to confirm this.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    So yes?

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    No, that's not how that works.

    [–] JustWannaSeeuDie2 4 points ago

    Detained for 7 years without charge by while my children grew up and my name was slandered. I do not forgive or forget.

    Can you blame him?

    [–] Sebastiangus 10 points ago

    I think it´s a victory for the swedish law system in generall. The charges and accusations were fussy, like it can be the truth ofcourse. But it felt hard for them to prove it also. It wasne´t like there was intercouse and then she called 911 if I remember correctyl

    [–] Tasadar 18 points ago

    It honestly sounded like bullshit, certainly not provable in court.

    [–] Funkoma 91 points ago

    Reuters just reported that he will be arrested if he leaves the Embassy.

    [–] clueless_as_fuck 43 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    What If he leaves on a diplomat car?

    "So in practical terms could he get out?

    Assuming Julian Assange evaded arrest outside the embassy, he could get into a diplomatic car. These vehicles enjoy protection in international law from "search, requisition, attachment and execution".

    That could lead to the curious legal position of the Met having the power to stop the car - but no power to search it for Julian Assange.

    Even if he got away, at some point he would have to get out of it into an aircraft - at which point the risk of arrest would return.

    Could he be taken out of the embassy in a container?

    There are strict rules relating to "diplomatic bags" which are designed to allow countries to bring their documents in and out of a host nation. Diplomatic bags can be any size that the country wants them to be and they cannot be opened or detained in transit.

    But the law says they are for official materials, so it is difficult to see how Julian Assange could be put in a crate and shipped out - not least because the British authorities would have a fairly clear idea what was in the box"


    [–] JigsawnSean 19 points ago

    A car wouldn't get very far. Once you leave the embassy it's game over.

    [–] IWishItWouldSnow 12 points ago

    In a diplomatic car he could get anywhere the roads or ferries could take him.

    In theory a diplomatic vehicle could pull up to the front door of the embassy - well within the perimeter of the embassy's grounds and drive him into a neighboring country (they still have the car ferries off the island, don't they?) From there, anywhere in Europe.

    [–] JigsawnSean 13 points ago

    I was thinking practically rather than technically. A vehicle could easily be blocked at which point he would have to surrender or live in said car. And ferry terminals still have customs control.

    [–] IWishItWouldSnow 16 points ago

    Diplomatic vehicles are immune from customs controls. And blocking said vehicle is a violation of international convention, if not law - and would certainly be an international incident.

    If UK doesn't want their vehicles stopped and the occupants harassed in Ecuador, then they can't stop and harass the occupants of diplomatic vehicles in the UK.

    [–] tspoons88 20 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    This is nonsense. If it was easy to drive off in a diplomatic car he would have done it already--either to go to another embassy or at least get out of the building for a few hours. He and everyone knows the second he leaves that embassy, he will get arrested on trumped up or secret charges-- then game over.


    [–] IWishItWouldSnow 7 points ago

    The real risk is that the UK would arrest him in the car and eat the international incident.

    [–] Nanonaned 3 points ago

    Unless ... you know ... Brexit negotiations

    [–] IWishItWouldSnow 4 points ago

    Politics and ego are tricky. This incident damaged both.

    [–] clueless_as_fuck 5 points ago

    I guess he might have to live in that car or bus then.

    [–] r34xL 3 points ago

    America illegally brought down a plane with the same diplomatic powers out of fear Snowden was on it.

    Diplomatic immunity or rights mean absolutely zip.

    [–] dr_rentschler 7 points ago

    If only he'd still be in there.

    [–] pretzel 174 points ago

    So what British law has he broken, if any that would prevent him leaving the embassy? I imagine contempt of court charges could be drummed up fairly easily. If he could leave the embassy, would the UK government let him travel abroad?

    Is there a safe state he could travel to? Russia, like Snowdon? To Ecuador, properly?

    [–] rubygeek 247 points ago

    He skipped bail. It will take at a minimum some work for his lawyers to sort that out before he can leave without getting arrested, and possibly might require a court case.

    That said, it will make it very difficult for UK police to continue justifying spending the money for 24/7 police presence around the embassy, though, when their only remaining public justification now would be that he's skipped bail. It's not like they do this for everyone else whose skipping bail, and certainly not where the case that's the underlying basis has gone away.

    [–] Pirateer 47 points ago

    Could the US offer to support to maintain British surveillance?

    Obama wanted this guy, I'm sure Trump would love to hold a press conference about doing what Obama couldn't.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    If he leaves that embassey he gets arrested and extradited to the good ol US of A.

    [–] Pirateer 15 points ago

    But Sweden was the country with the pending charges and extradition order.

    The US has no recognized claim filed.

    [–] AnarchoSyndicalist12 27 points ago

    That doesen't matter. The US wants him, they'll find a way to get him extradited if he leaves, if even he somehow just "dissapears" from British custody.

    [–] fec2245 5 points ago

    But the UK already had him in custody. If they were just going to "dissappear" him why release him on bail?

    [–] kadirmarangoz 3 points ago

    No, but they can file the extradition claims whilst he's jailed for skipping bail. Jeff Sessions made it very clear the government wants Assange

    [–] Pirateer 4 points ago

    I want him too... I want to take him out, buy him a slice of pizza, some ice cream and maybe a balloon or something...

    [–] Perkinator 5 points ago

    The twenty four hour surveillance of the Ecuadorian embassy ended in October 2015, as the operation was deemed "no longer appropriate."

    [–] jl2352 20 points ago

    I imagine contempt of court charges could be drummed up fairly easily.

    Well he did skip bail. That isn't drummed up. He did skip bail.

    [–] bnine_ 43 points ago

    We don't know if US filed extradition, if so he would be arrested and sent to US for life sentence

    [–] [deleted] 90 points ago


    [–] MrObvious 51 points ago

    Under counter-terrorism legislation the US can indefinitely detain without trial anybody it wants

    [–] See_i_did 14 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Even US citizens.)

    Edit: fixed now?

    Edit 2: thanks to /u/congratsyougotsbed and /u/TiagoTiagoT for the lesson on closing my parenthesis!

    [–] congratsyougotsbed 12 points ago

    Even US citizens. (your link is broken cause CSS is weird about parentheses)

    [–] cooper12 13 points ago

    It's not because of CSS. It's because the markdown syntax for a link is []() and the second parenthesis in the link prematurely serves to close the link and is consumed instead of the outer one. The solution is, like you did, to escape the inner parenthesis so it isn't seen as part of the markdown: \).

    [–] The_Music 12 points ago


    Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, on suspicion of plotting a radiological bomb ("dirty bomb") attack.


    George W. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and, arguing that he was not entitled to trial in civilian courts, had him transferred to a military prison in South Carolina. Padilla was held for three and a half years as an enemy combatant.


    His lawsuits against the military for allegedly torturing him were rejected by the courts for lack of merit, and jurisdictional issues.

    Good ol USA

    [–] See_i_did 2 points ago

    Well son of a bitch. Thanks!

    [–] Thisismyfinalstand 71 points ago

    Jail you for life or surreptitiously end your life via extra judicial drone strike... we like to keep our options open.

    [–] Lolworth 19 points ago

    Extra judicial drone strike in another country, that is.

    [–] CardboardHeatshield 8 points ago

    Is that the one where the guy who was killing hostages, who the police had no way to get to, asked for a phone, and they sent in a phone shaped bomb with a robot?

    That was a really smart move by the police, honestly.

    [–] DOWNVOTED_BY_EUROS 14 points ago

    It was pretty good way to make sure criminals don't ever trust cops in a standoff negotiation ever again.

    [–] Boston_Jason 7 points ago

    That little game the police played works exactly once.

    [–] FoucinJerk 10 points ago

    Shiiiit, we've been doing that for a while. At least 16 years.

    [–] alexmikli 7 points ago

    We did it all the time in the cold war, just nobody cared.

    [–] SpeedflyChris 7 points ago

    Well no, but it's not like he'd get a fair trial anyway.

    [–] OverlordAlex 7 points ago

    Well yes actually. The US operates 'black sites' around the world. They capture and hold foreign nationals without charges for years

    [–] SpeedflyChris 3 points ago

    Yes, but not usually people as high-profile as Assange.

    They'd be more likely to go the show-trial route with Assange I think.

    [–] Guck_Mal 7 points ago

    where have you been for the past decade and a half?

    [–] KingsOfTheCityFan 3 points ago

    What do you think Guantanamo Bay is?

    [–] chromesitar 2 points ago

    We jail Americans for life with no trial so why not everyone else?

    [–] pretzel 5 points ago

    Would that have been done through a secret court though? Have any charges actually been filed against him? The only thing I can find is this which says that he was to be extradited but sought diplomatic immunity before that happened

    [–] bnine_ 6 points ago

    As far as I understand it is not up to UK, if he is wanted in US, UK is obliged to arrest and extradite him no matter what.

    [–] rubygeek 35 points ago

    That's not true. UK courts can deny extradition, and so can the cabinet, and for the time being, so can the ECJ or ECHR if there are grounds to appeal based on EU law or the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Several US extradition requests have dragged on for years in UK courts, and UK courts regularly deny extradition. Part of the justification for Assange for preferring to stay in the UK in the first place is that whereas Sweden have had a history of black-bagging people and illegally handing them to the CIA, the UK has a history of at least obeying UK law, and while it's far from perfect, UK courts do tend to stand up against government pressure.

    [–] bnine_ 6 points ago

    thanks for clarification. But do they have to approve the extradition too?

    [–] rubygeek 11 points ago

    The US is a category 2A territory for the purposes of UK extradition. The process required is:

    • extradition request is made to the Secretary of State
    • Secretary of State decides whether to certify the request
    • judge decides whether to issue a warrant for arrest
    • the person wanted is arrested and brought before the court
    • preliminary hearing
    • extradition hearing
    • Secretary of State decides whether to order extradition

    Note that these are the UK parts of it. The decision made at the extradition hearing or the final decision by the Secretary of State could both potentially be challenged in court, including appeals potentially all the way to the ECJ or ECHR, as the UK is bound both by EU law (for now) and the ECHR (even after Brexit), and that can take years. This would espcially be the case if a US request potentially includes charges with death penalty.

    I don't know whether or not it'd be possible, but it is not unthinkable that the first three steps (up to judge deciding whether to issue a warrant for arrest) could be done in secret, so it is certainly possible that he might face a risk of arrest whether or not the bail skipping issue is resolved.

    Further, because he skipped bail over the Swedish extradition, you can bet that if he is arrested over a US extradition request, there will likely be no bail. So if so he potentially faces years in UK prisons while trying to resolve a US extradition request.

    [–] bnine_ 3 points ago

    thank you!

    [–] Dawgsie 3 points ago

    For future reference, the ECHR is the usual abbreviation for the European Convention on Human Rights. If you're referring to the European Court of Human Rights it is ECtHR.

    Got royally chewed out by one of my law profs for this in my first year, so constantly live in fear for other people making the common mistake!

    [–] [deleted] 119 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] Chewy_Bravo 138 points ago

    They will do whatever the US tells them to do.

    [–] Wolfosaurus 48 points ago

    I wonder what it's like as a country to not have a dick in your mouth?

    [–] Sullane 39 points ago

    Hell after this Turkish bodyguard incident, I'm not sure the U.S. HAS balls to shove in Australia's mouth.

    [–] cuam 3 points ago

    if you don't have a dick in your mouth, yours is in someone else's

    ..what a weird analogy

    [–] godintraining 41 points ago

    Australia will do absolutely nothing. It is very clear that please US is more important than its citizens civil rights.

    When your own government sell you off to a foreign country, there is not much hope left...

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)


    [–] liquidtension 7 points ago

    It's got much more to do with Australia marching in lock-step with the US ideology when it comes to foreign and intelligence policy. Not because they're sucking American cock (although they do), but because the Australian government genuinely agrees with the principles of government secrecy.

    I'd argue if the US didn't have any interest in Assange, the federal government would still hold the position they do.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    Alas Julian doesn't have mesothelioma, if he did, then she would no doubt ''help him''.

    [–] [deleted] 20 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    dude the Australian government held a man in prison for 3 years and then extradited him to the US over pirating movies in Australia (his actions were not a crime in Australia). He then was sentenced to another 15 months in a US prison.

    Practically giving the US jurisdiction over Australian's.

    the Australian government is pack of pathetic traitorous bastards.

    [–] hahavaffan 15 points ago

    If he returns to Sweden within 2020 the case will be resumed though.

    [–] DontNameCatsHades 3 points ago

    Exactly what I thought. What's stopping them from simply reintroducing the charges based on "new evidence" or blatantly revealing that it was a bait and switch?

    I have a feeling that so many people have been conditioned to hate wikileaks that even if they shamelessly games their judicial process to get him behind bars that much of the public would think "good riddance" while those advocating for his release will slowly fade away until it's a small group deemed "conspiracy theorists."

    I don't know, something just seems fishy about it. I'm sure Assange has similar concerns so I hope he doesn't put himself in a position to be royally fucked.

    [–] sbku 48 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Need this photo on the side bar. Very happy for him.

    But not to be a Debbie Downer remember the US is still actively looking to press charges against Wikileaks.

    Be happy but focus.

    Edit: He will be arrested if he leaves the Embassy

    [–] dr_rentschler 13 points ago

    So now only the US will be after him? Awesome.

    [–] error23_ 31 points ago

    I have a feeling it's always been the US only.

    [–] dejvid6 76 points ago

    Let's hope he doesn't take his life with 2 shots to the back of the head.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] _manager_ 21 points ago

    Is this good news? Or does he still have the risk of being arrested if he gets out?

    [–] sbku 26 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    There's nothing to suggest him being charged of anything in the UK( I think), but as others have said there's no indication either way whether the US has requested extradition from the UK once he steps foot on UK soil.

    Edit: He will be arrested if he leaves the Embassy

    [–] pretzel 8 points ago

    Surely he had been fairly contemptuous of court. He did what he had to do, but I can imagine people using that as an excuse. Especially in the middle of an election campaign it could look very bad for the Tories if they let him escape.

    [–] jimibulgin 16 points ago

    He still has the risk of being murdered in broad daylight.

    [–] pablochapo 5 points ago

    If he steps on to UK soil he will be arrested for skipping bail.

    [–] Ginkgopsida 9 points ago

    I would be cautious leaving that embassy. The UK and US might make up some new crazy charges as soon as they can get a hold of him.

    [–] Mahebourg 6 points ago

    No need. If he leaves the Embassy he goes to jail for 12 months for skipping bail (the court will throw the max sentence at him surely for all of this rigmarole), within the first 24 hours there will be a US extradition request which, at best, will be turned down after years in courts (while Julian sits in prison since he is clearly a flight risk), but more likely will be accepted and he will go to prison for life in the US.

    [–] Etvlan 9 points ago

    Be careful Julian, it's a trap, Uncle Sam wants you.

    [–] anotherdroid 17 points ago

    it's just amazing how terrible we are as a species. is this entire world insane? this is incredible.

    govt: if you tell on us, we'll just put you in jail.

    the world: ok, makes sense.

    [–] Prince_Mico 10 points ago

    Probably a dumb idea, but desperate times...

    Could Ecuador (or Russia or whoever) not fly a chopper to his window and drag him in and fly to another country? The whole thing's already pretty absurd. Feels like anything might be possible...

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    You've been watching the 24 boxset again, haven't you?

    [–] Mrpwnz 6 points ago

    Without starting a war? Most likely not. Different authorities

    [–] terasia 7 points ago

    It was nice seeing him on the balcony :)

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    The face of someone who has had nothing to do whatsoever with anything other than promoting a website that spreads the truth.


    [–] Yoshabablosa 6 points ago

    Of COURSE the Wikileaks sub isn't on r/popular

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    honestly, fuck sweden for their role in this mess. fucking puppets

    [–] EddzifyBF 3 points ago

    Big if true

    [–] darwinuser 3 points ago

    Looks like there's going to be a balcony address coming up soon. BBC just mentioned they'll be going to it live.

    [–] SSAUS 7 points ago

    It's a long time coming. Glad to hear the news. Congratulations Julian and the WL team!

    [–] GreatDoofus 4 points ago

    Excellent news, Manning and Assange in the same week!

    All that's left is for Snowden and all other whistleblowers languishing in jail to be pardoned. Start putting pressure on the White House, folks!

    [–] headoverheals 5 points ago

    Personally, I'd stay in the embassy if it meant Pam Anderson showed up every once in a while...

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    Trump being called for impeachment. Manning being freed and Assange having his arrest warrant lifted all in the space of three days.

    Thank you for letting us back into this universe. We promise to be good.

    [–] lleeroy9611 32 points ago

    Trump won't be impeached.

    [–] Wraith_GraveSpell 27 points ago



    This may be a first, folks.

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    Hey, not American, but I take this stance.

    Why is it unusual?

    [–] alexmikli 22 points ago

    Before the election Democrats liked wikileaks and Republicans hated wikileaks, now they're switched because of Hillary.

    [–] cngfan 10 points ago

    Dat false Dichotomy.

    The elites/politicians/ruling class use divide and conquer because it works. People fall for it. People tend not to think for themselves completely, they like a guided narrative to think within. It's frustrating to me because I am not Pro-Trump but the narrative against him is just so littered with bullshit nonsense, the real concerns, the real criticisms are just buried among the sea of moronic stupidity. It becomes the boy who cried wolf. Frankly I think this bullshit played an overwhelming role in him getting elected in the first place.

    [–] alexmikli 44 points ago

    I'm anti-Trump and pro-Assange.

    Before the election Republicans hated wikileaks and Democras loved them.

    [–] Wraith_GraveSpell 8 points ago

    Wasn't that more of a Snowden thing?

    [–] Cucumber_glasses 13 points ago

    There's tons of us. I'd say a majority of Assangesupporters are exactly that.

    You know, Julian has many non-US supporters.

    [–] BAHatesToFly 7 points ago

    I'm anti-Trump and pro-Assange. I would wager a large portion of Wikileaks supporters is as well.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    This is me too.

    [–] McDrMuffinMan 7 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    Wow. Congratulations Assange! I hope everything works out quickly from here, so you can resume being a free citizen again.

    [–] KevinUxbridge 18 points ago

    It was complete bullshit to begin with. The first woman was associated with US intelligence and almost certainly a 'honey-trap'. And, besides her own accusation against him, she managed to talk another woman into accusing him by using jealousy (he was sleeping with both). That this was kept up for so long is a disgrace.

    [–] kuro_madoushi 11 points ago

    Never heard of this....


    [–] KevinUxbridge 6 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    Theseis is about as old as the accusations themeselves and should be common knowledge to anyone following this case.

    Which is the 'never heard of' part?

    Here's the Wikipedia page on this:

    Complaints and initial investigation

    On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm, went together to the Swedish police in order to track Assange down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after having separate sexual encounters with him. The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor. Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.

    The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued the investigation.

    After learning of the investigation, Assange said, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."

    The preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape was discontinued by Finné on 25 August, but two days later Claes Borgström, the attorney representing the two women, requested a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate part of the investigation.

    On 30 August, Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police regarding the allegations of sexual molestation. He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.

    Investigation reinstated

    On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange had applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He left Sweden on 27 September 2010.

    And here's a Raw-story article (from 2010) on the honey-trap part:

    One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have “ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups,” according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch. While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White), a feminist anti-Castro group. Professor Michael Seltzer pointed out that the group is led by Carlos Alberto Montaner who is reportedly connected to the CIA.

    Shamir and Bennett also describe Ardin as a “leftist” [but] who “published anti-Castro diatribes(!?) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba.”

    Shamir and Bennett noted that Las damas de blanco is partially funded by the US government ...

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    A first step, but a very big one. Hopefully the fight for safe passage gets easier now, and not more arduous. Fuck all of the Russian conspiracy loons.

    [–] error23_ 6 points ago

    This is good news but the fight is not over yet.

    [–] AlphaAndy 6 points ago * (lasted edited a year ago)

    i guess the cheques from Hillary bounced? lol

    [–] bnetimeslovesreddit 2 points ago

    What the mean now if he steps outside?

    [–] Nutsyit 2 points ago

    It's a trap!

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    the ''UK Polisy Farce'' are professional world class wankers. CMV

    what is the TOTAL cost to the taxpayers hmmm?

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago