Assange bailed again

Extradition battle rumbles on

By Christopher Williams, 11th January 2011

Julian Assange has been bailed again by a London magistrate ahead of a full extradition hearing next month.

The WikiLeaks founder walked free from Belmarsh Magistrates' Court this morning following a brief hearing, in which only minor changes were made to his bail conditions.

Assange, who is wanted by Swedish authorities over sex crime allegations, which he denies, will now be allowed to stay in London immediately prior to the next hearing, scheduled for 7 February. Since his release from prison in December he has been confined to the Norfolk estate of Vaughan Smith, a wealthy journalist and former army officer.

Outside court, Assange said: "Our work with WikiLeaks continues unabated and we are stepping up our publishing of materials related to Cablegate."

He added that his lawyers will release basic details of their arguments against extradition later today. [Update: it's available here (pdf)]

While out on bail the 39-year-old Australian has signed a major book deal and expressed hope that the WikiLeaks manifesto and his account of a year of releases of classified US material will become "one of the unifying documents of our generation". ®

Bootnote

Also at court this morning was heiress/socialite/humanitarian Jemima Goldsmith, who reported to her Twitter followers: "Attending court today, as requested by Assange's lawyers. Taking my American-born stepdaughter along for the experience."

Goldsmith has taken up Assange's cause despite having been described in a 2008 WikiLeaks editorial concerning her family's attempts to use British courts to silence the press as "social climber Jemima Khan" [her then-surname]. The mind boggles.

What you need to know about cloud backup

COMMENTS

House Rules Send Corrections

All Reader Comments (57)

Highly Rated

Posted Tuesday 11th January 2011 13:55 GMT

Loyal Commenter

So...

"Look quite simply put, Assange is a sociopath."

Does that count as libel, or slander, I can't remember which is which...

Also, I'd suggest reading the wikipedia page on logical fallacies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Right there, under the third item (Irrelevant conclusion), you'll find the special case of 'argumentum ad hominem'. Read this entry, then go away and learn how to structure a logical argument.

BTW, if you think you can tell anything about the personality of an adult who you have not met by speculation surrounding their childhood circumstances, may I suggest some other discredited ideas you may be interested in, such as phrenology, anthropometry, intelligent design and phlogiston theory.

Posted Tuesday 11th January 2011 14:32 GMT

The BigYin

Straw man

"Placing faith in a sociopath is a sign of a weak mind."

I think that's the one. Unless you have evidence that Assange is a sociopath of course.

Assange and his followers have IMHO been a bit childish at times and they are certainly playing the PR to the max, but unfortunately the world needs Wikileaks, cryptome etc. When one has government hires securing the services of "dancing boys" and covering it up, one has a serious problem. A mature person would, of course, censure the culprits like any other padeo; but instead our masters see no real issue with it and cover it up.

It takes something like Wikileaks to get the truth out.

Then there is undue pressure applied to democracies to implement draconian laws (e.g. USA making outrageous demands on Spain). Once again we (the public) need something like Wikileaks to get the truth out.

Assange may or may not have issues, but that does not detract from the good which has come from Wikileaks.

Posted Tuesday 11th January 2011 13:55 GMT

Anonymous Coward

Questions for Grumby

Gumbey wrote "As another poster pointed out... Assange is a convict."

What precisely has he been convicted of? When and in which court?

Gumby also uttered "There's nothing wrong with Whistle Blowing when you've got something. But there's nothing here"

Then why are prominent people in the US calling for his execution? Why is the US DOJ intimidating Twitter to reveal 'evidence' for their phishing expedition? You can't have it both ways.