He had sex in Sweden with a woman who consented to having sex, but not without a condom, and at some point he took off the condom.
As I remember, that led to England seeking his arrest to be extradited to Sweden for this sex crime. Since he was stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, Britain stationed officers outside it for years in case he stepped out. Ostensibly, for justice in this sex crime.
Everyone knew the real reasons were to extradite him to the US, but the US was totally silent on him, until minutes before the statue of limitations would have run out.
The US' charge was that Assange offered to run John the Ripper on a hash Bradley Manning gave him. Which, I mean, who among us have never run a hash in john the ripper?
It's been astounding to see such incongruity between the heft with which the US can use its muscle against a target, and the thin veil of weak crimes the legal systems would admit to investigating.
If Sweden, the UK, and the US would have been transparent that they were colluding to imprison him for publishing, I wouldn't have become so cynical.
Here it is: He was sent a Windows NT password hash, he ran hashcat over it, couldn't successfully reverse it, and gave up.
That's it.
Prosecuting him for this "heinous crime against the state" has cost US and UK taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
At the time of this "crime" occurring he was not physically in the USA, not a citizen of the USA, and hence not subject to its laws.
Unless you think the USA is the world government and can police anyone, anywhere, for anything?
A link to the "tools of the crime": https://github.com/hashcat/hashcat
Yeah..? He played an active role with his conspirator lol. He doesn't pretend to be some fool who accidentally got involved so there is no reason for you to do so on his behalf by trying to deny his crimes.
>At the time of this "crime" occurring he was not physically in the USA, not a citizen of the USA, and hence not subject to its laws.
An abused claim. Plenty of Russian hackers aren't US citizens or in the US when they commit credit card fraud or launch ransomware attacks but obviously they are still able to be charged under US law (or the law of any country they attack). And no one can seriously argue otherwise. Sitting in a different jurisdiction doesn't mean you can't be charged with a crime. For example, the South American drug lord isn't free to traffic drugs into Europe just because he isn't in Europe or a European citizen. That would be stupid and isn't how the world works.
>Unless you think the USA is the world government and can police anyone, anywhere, for anything?
US law can apply to the whole world if the US wants to enforce it (and so do most countries for plenty of crimes like cybercrime, terrorism, money laundering).
>Prosecuting him for this "heinous crime against the state" has cost US and UK taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
I mean sure; trying any person for a crime cost money. Not really relevant.
