Julian Assange’s extradition to the US has been approved by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel. He has 14 days to appeal. The courts found extradition would not be “incompatible with his human rights” and that while in the US “he will be treated appropriately”. He is wanted by US authorities over documents leaked in 2010 and 2011 relating to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which the US says broke the law and endangered lives. His legal team claimed the classified documents published by Wikileaks, exposed US wrongdoing and were in the public interest, revealing how the US military had killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents in Afghanistan, and thousands in Iraq.
He has been serving a jail sentence in the UK for breaching bail and prior to that sought asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London – so it’s been a decade long struggle to stave off extradition.
He was born 3 July 1971 3pm Townsville, Queensland with an 8th house Cancer Sun in an innovative and rebellious square to Uranus. With a wide-ish Yod of Pluto sextile Mercury inconjunct Mars in stubborn and contrary Aquarius which will make him bull-headed and wilful. He’s also got Saturn opposition Neptune Jupiter which is idealistic but unrealistic.
He has his Solar Arc Mars square his Sun in effect now and exact within four months which is a collision of sorts and upsetting. If his birth time is accurate then his Solar Arc Midheaven is also heading to conjunct his Uranus within months for a sharp change of direction.
The Eclipses are also this year tugging on his Scorpio Moon which faces him up to his past and tests the foundations on which he has built his life as well as bringing his image into the spotlight. The Lunar Eclipses last November and this May were also rattling his Jupiter in Scorpio perhaps hinting at over confidence.
But for all that he’ll remain cheerful with tr Pluto sextile his Jupiter on and off till late 2023. This July onwards looks like an upheaval and a shock; with a discouraging slog in 2023/2024. One way or another, one location or another, he won’t be singing and dancing for joy.
One mistake was to try to hide out in London – his astrocartography there is trapped, blocked, scary. New York oddly is much more comforting for him.
Locating his chart to London puts a trapped and furious Mars in the 8th; a domestically-restricted and tied down Pluto on the IC; a hidden 12th house Sun and and unstable Uranus in the 4th as well. Sweden is much the same.
Located to New York puts a more settled Sun in his 4th; fun everyday companions with Venus in the 3rd; Jupiter and Neptune in the 8th which could be lucky if unrealistic – and admittedly a not-good-for-health Pluto Uranus in the 6th.
See previous post for more detail: December 12 2021.
Personally, I’m glad things aren’t looking too great for Julian Assange. I hate that man with a passion. He and his conspiratorial associates helped ruin the 2016 U.S. Presidential election by sabotaging Hillary Clinton (one of my favorite Presidential candidates who I enthusiastically supported, campaigned, and voted for) and he’s also caused a number of other serious problems.
The only people who support that trouble maker are controversial individuals like Indian far-left activist and author Arundhati Roy, far-left and Putin-sympathizing journalist Alan MacLeod, Libertarians (who are some of the most uninformed people when it comes to geography or world affairs), Young Turks host Cenk Uygur (who’s not even taken seriously by real journalists).
Anyway, with regards to Julian Assange, Karma, please do your worst.
Is it about the what or the how? Whether anyone agrees with the messiness of Assange or not, at least we were afforded that privilege – to make a choice to agree or not however we want to slice and dice it – as opposed to not even being aware that, what was exposed, was even going on, in the name of democracy! To me anyway. Just saying!!
@ Jennifer E,
I feel the extradition is justified and any criminal charges pursued against him are also justified. Many people have used the “freedom of speech” argument to defend Assange. However, people sometimes fail to realize that nothing, not even “freedom of speech” is technically “free.” There are always consequences – regardless of action, course, or decision.
Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks and they violated the much needed privacy of U.S. Security by leaking and divulging information to the general public that wasn’t supposed to be shared. In other words, Assange was instrumental in creating many potential security risks – that’s not responsible “journalism,” that’s deliberate sabotage.
Chris. Thank you for your extensive comments on the article. I note neither you nor Marjorie have passed any judgement on Assange’s actions but merely set out details of his current predicament.
I understand the main criticism from editors of US newspapers, including ‘The Washington Post’ and ‘The New York Times’ as well as press freedom organisations, is the US government’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act of 1917 – characterising it as an attack on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which guarantees press protections). It is always tricky when the ‘freedom of the press’ is involved. Western democracies depend on it but then what to do when journalists go too far and reveal official state secrets which could undermine the security of a nation state!
The legal arguments are beyond me but Assange apparently challenged his extradition from the UK to the US on the three grounds: his mental health was not good and would detriorate further in a US prison, the offences for which he was indicted were political in nature, and he wouldn’t receive a fair hearing in a US court. The UK court ruled with the US court and the UK Secretary of State was given assurances that he would be treated properly and could even serve out any sentence in Australia, his country of birth.
So NOT OUR PROBLEM.
There is a possibility that the new Australian government may intervene in the Assange case, and request the return of their citizen to the country of his birth. Could you do a relocation chart to Sydney, Marjorie?
Assange’s Martian Yod would be conjunct the US Lunar Yod in Aquarius with Neptune sextile Mercury as the base.
‘What are the particular astrological factors that make London problematic, NYC positive for him?’
I was just wondering the same thing.
Thanks Marjorie, interesting as always and good point @Chris about redacting the documents to protect himself to some degree. Hindsight and all that ……
Your daily horoscope for Aquarius today applies to Julian even more than me (with my Aquarius Sun 15 degrees and Mercury Rx 2 degrees): “Loved ones and friends will admire your courage for being so outspoken, though at times they wonder about your lack of caution.” Thanks for letting me practice that here, without the political risks Assange took on to present his point of view!
I’m only a couple of years older than Assange, but with almost completely different natal astrology. Other than Pluto in Virgo and Uranus in Libra. Which make me sympathetic to his desire to expose official secrets that undermine human rights and dignity.
But he has done a lot to turn his self-image as a crusading yet tragic hero into a self-fulfilling prophecy, in the way he’s gone about his self-appointment mission. Especially with not redacting documents before releasing them, so that revealing the guilty doesn’t also threaten innocent people who happen to be mentioned.
I think if he had teamed up with someone with better strategic thinking about risks, he might have been able to set up his leaks in a way less personally dangerous to him.
On the reason given for the decision, it sounds like an appeal would be useless. “The U.S. government has it in for me and might kill me, and the lower court didn’t recognize that but you should.” This seems unlikely to convince new UK judges, when it didn’t win over the previous UK judges.
I’m used to seeing astrocartography in terms of lines such as where the Sun was overhead at the time I was born. Relocation chart – is that the same moment of birth, just at the other location whatever time of day it happens to be there?
What are the particular astrological factors that make London problematic, NYC positive for him?
Well, he’s more than the whistleblower he claims to be when he presents to the world the material from a Russian Hack that has been altered by them to change the outcome of the US election in furtherance of Putin’s hatred of Clinton.
He’s also a rapist, allegedly. But nonetheless, there are many who see him as a hero, many more who don’t. I don’t know what he’ll go through, but I hope the world gets a more accurate picture of who he is or will he continuted to be viewed as a “journalist?”
There’s no question that he’s a journalist.
A journalist is someone who, as the way they chose to make their living, gathers apparently factual information and publishes it in order to provide an audience with the newsworthy information.
There’s never been anyone who denied this is what he wanted to do, and what he actually did.
There’s also never been any question that what he published actually was newsworthy. The newsworthy nature of the publication is what got the government interested in punishing his journalistic efforts. Of course it’s journalism. It’s not any kind of anything else but journalism.
The question is whether or not this was heroic and good journalism, because it bravely exposed evils that governments were doing. Or whether it was unethical appalling journalism, because the exposes went way beyond what was needed to draw public attention to the problems, or because he published manipulated and stolen information.
But there’s no reasonable word for his entire career, other than “journalist.”
“Awful scumbag destructive journalist who degrades the profession of journalism, who recklessly, very harmfully published destructive information?” To some. But still, a journalist.
“Brave crusader for truth, integrity, civil rights and speaking up against corrupt power, journalism at its finest?” To some. But still, a journalist.
“He’s also a rapist, allegedly.”
The circumstances are far from crystal clear.
After the alleged unwanted sex, the next day the woman he had stayed with overnight continued to host him as planned at a seminar, and held a party for him in the evening. He stayed with her for another week. It’s certain that she complained to a friend that he hadn’t left, but he said she had never asked him to leave.
Between those times on the day after the alleged initial incident, with the other woman who later filed a complaint, he went to the cinema and she reported that they consensually made out in the back row, and then the next day, she invited him to her home and her bed, and her complaint said at the least the start of the sexual encounter was consensual.
He did not stay in Sweden nor return to Sweden for further interviews by officials investigating the complaints of these two women.
The investigation was called off and then reinstated amid public opinion controversy in Sweden.
Assange’s legal team pointed out that the alleged sexual misconduct crimes in Sweden do not meet the English definition of rape.
It it possible, even plausible, that he used coercive force to continue what were originally consensual sexual encounters, beyond the initial consent of the two Swedish women? Yes.
Is it possible, even plausible that he did NOT do, but hurt feelings, misunderstandings, and political opportunity to harm Wikileaks, were manipulated against him? Yes.
It is possible that whatever happened with these two women, is typical of how he treats women? Yes.
Is it possible that these were unusual situations for him, and not at all typical of how he treats women? Yes.
It is conconceivable that if he’d have cooperated with the Swedish investigation, the prosecutor would have decided to drop the case? Yes.
It is conceivable that if he’d cooperated, charges could have been brought, and he’d have had his day in court in Sweden on this matter? Yes.
It is possible that a Swedish court would have found him guilty, based on what we do know for sure? Yes.
It is possible that a Swedish court would have found him not guilty, based on what we do know for sure? Yes.
The point is, IT’S ALL an unclear and tangled muddle.
It takes a lot of mind-reading psychic voodoo miraculous prophecy to claim that we all know, FOR SURE, EXACTLY what happened, and how things might have gone differently IF ONLY things were different in the past.