The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread

[LondonLax]

The current obstacle is that the guy is hiding in a foreign embassy.

[bickster]

what if the Swedish government was being tricked by Assange when he was actually guilty of a crime in the US? They would look pretty foolish if evidence came out and they couldn't send him to face those charges.

I have no doubt at all that the US are quite capable of coming up with a crime of which he can be found guilty. Amazed that you don't seem to. He has pissed their government off. Guantanamo Bay is full of people who are considered to have pissed the US govt off, and they have not been afforded what we would call a fair trial.

I don't see how Sweden would look foolish if they were to stick to some sort of guarantee in order to get what they claim to want: Assange tried for this wierd sexy thing.

Well why have an extradition treaty at all if you are going to pick and choose when to apply it?

That is the very nature of extradition treaties. Most European countries will not extradite if for example the sentence for the crime is punishable by death unless they get the expressed assurance that the death penalty will not be applied. Which in itself is interesting here as I've seen it written that JA's crime in the US is a possible death penalty crime. I'm fairly sure also that regardless of any extradition treaties it would be against the European Convention on Human Rights too.

So is JA's crime in the US a capital crime?

[Ads]

There is only one case of civilians being executed under the Espionage Act, the Rosenburgs in the 1950's.

Assange would not be executed.

[CrackpotForeigner]

So is JA's crime in the US a capital crime?

As I understand it, the Crime has been ordered, and those nice legal Guardians of Freedom are working night and day to make sure it's a really good one, complete with death penalty possibilities. As yet he hasn't been charged with anything at all.

[CrackpotForeigner]

There is only one case of civilians being executed under the Espionage Act, the Rosenburgs in the 1950's.

Assange would not be executed.

Phew! So it's only going to be life imprisonment. Ah, well, that's okay then, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Let's extradite him to the US immediately

[Ads]

If he has committed a crime, and there certainly is a case to answer, why should an indervidual be above that law and its consequences?

[CrackpotForeigner]

If he has committed a crime, and there certainly is a case to answer, why should an indervidual be above that law and its consequences?

I don't know where to start with this one.

A charge brought against someone by an aggrieved individual (e.g. robbery, assault) is one thing.

A charge brought against an individual by the state for something done sitting in front of his computer is another.

Do you really deny the need for government accountability? If so, you must deny that governments do things that are wrong.

[snowychap]

Why has a minor case like this come to extradition, and would it do so if JA wasn't such a high profile individual with powerful enemies?

The European arrest warrant and yes, probably.

[Ads]

Governments should be held to account. As should inderviduals. He is accussed of committing crimes. If one of them results in spending 20 years in a Colorado Supermax, then that is something an indervidual should have taken into account when embarking on their agenda.

[ml1dch]

If they actually want to interview him, and are not prepared to take the simple step of coming here to do that, then this would be a way of removing a current obstacle.

But I guess we all know that.

Two points, firstly even if they just wanted to question him I think it sets a pretty shocking precedent when suspects in a criminal investigation are permitted to decide on the terms and conditions of any questioning.

Secondly they don't just want to question him, they want to arrest him. Unless you think it will work that they arrest him and then just leave him in London, I expect they are still going to want him to go back to Sweden with them even if they do ask him some questions in London.

[bickster]

Governments should be held to account. As should inderviduals. He is accussed of committing crimes. If one of them results in spending 20 years in a Colorado Supermax, then that is something an indervidual should have taken into account when embarking on their agenda.

Hmmm, you see I don't have a problem with him being extradited to Sweden but as far as I'm aware he's only guilty of a crime in the USA because he used the internet, he didn't actually commit a crime in the country itself. I think that for me has very serious connotations. I don't like for one second like that the western world appears to have gone along with the assertion by the USA that it can govern the internet, it's hugely dangerous.

[Ads]

I dont think the Swedes coming here is indicitive of anything at all.

There is a Swedish warrant for his arrest, tested and upheld in the Swedish High Court and there is an EAW that has been upheld in the English High and Supreme Court.

There isn't much more to be done or can now be done. The man believes himself to be above the law.

They have of course already interviewed him on 31/08/10 and decided to take things further thereafter in September '10. Edit: I should also add that the Swedes no longer want to qiestion him, they want to charge him.

[Ads]

Governments should be held to account. As should inderviduals. He is accussed of committing crimes. If one of them results in spending 20 years in a Colorado Supermax, then that is something an indervidual should have taken into account when embarking on their agenda.

Hmmm, you see I don't have a problem with him being extradited to Sweden but as far as I'm aware he's only guilty of a crime in the USA because he used the internet, he didn't actually commit a crime in the country itself. I think that for me has very serious connotations. I don't like for one second like that the western world appears to have gone along with the assertion by the USA that it can govern the internet, it's hugely dangerous.

It will be an interesting point and an interesting trial given the First Amendment, however, rumours of a sealed indictment with a Grand Jury are just that at this point.

[CrackpotForeigner]

There isn't much more to be done or can now be done. The man believes himself to be above the law.

Too much Knight Rider, I think.

Assange believes himself to be innocent. Not "above the law".

The real problem is that the US govt is a law unto itself. If the last decade or so hasn't taught you that, you probably haven't been paying attention.

[ml1dch]

There isn't much more to be done or can now be done. The man believes himself to be above the law.

Too much Knight Rider, I think.

Assange believes himself to be innocent. Not "above the law".

The real problem is that the US govt is a law unto itself. If the last decade or so hasn't taught you that, you probably haven't been paying attention.

Yet you've not come up with a single reason what they have to do with the Swedish extradition request.

They might make a request to Sweden. They might make a request to the UK.

[Ads]

There isn't much more to be done or can now be done. The man believes himself to be above the law.

Too much Knight Rider, I think.

Assange believes himself to be innocent. Not "above the law".

The real problem is that the US govt is a law unto itself. If the last decade or so hasn't taught you that, you probably haven't been paying attention.

What has the US got to do with it? There has been no indictment or extradition request. It may well come, but it has not.

If a man believes himself to be innocent then he should defend himself in Court.

[CrackpotForeigner]

There isn't much more to be done or can now be done. The man believes himself to be above the law.

Too much Knight Rider, I think.

Assange believes himself to be innocent. Not "above the law".

The real problem is that the US govt is a law unto itself. If the last decade or so hasn't taught you that, you probably haven't been paying attention.

Yet you've not come up with a single reason what they have to do with the Swedish extradition request.

They might make a request to Sweden. They might make a request to the UK.

I haven't come up with a reason because I don't know. As I've said previously, all we know is that Assange feels his best interests are served by not going there. You may believe that this is because he is guilty and likely to be convicted of the charge, but I don't, and my reasons for THAT are:

- The case is full of holes, which I've tried to point out.

- Whatever the Swedes throw at him will be nothing compared to what the US plan for him.

[ml1dch]

Remind us again why it is full of holes? Because you think that because a woman agrees to sex with certain conditions that he should then be able to do as he pleases and ignore those conditions?

He challenged the arrest warrant when it was first issued. The decision was upheld. He's then challenged it several times in the UK and each time the decision was upheld. At all of them he was able to explain his legal arguments, all of which were considered when deciding to uphold the original decision.

There's now a valid European Arrest Warrant for him. Can we assume that you feel this should just be ignored? Are there any other people for whom arrest warrants exist that you think also should be able to just ignore them?

[snowychap]

If a man believes himself to be innocent then he should defend himself in Court.

That's the wrong way around, surely?

If the authorities believe someone to be guilty then they should prosecute him in court.

I know that in this case his flight makes that rather difficult for them to do but when things are a matter of criminal law then the emphasis should be on prosecutions proving their case, shouldn't it?

[CrackpotForeigner]

Remind us again why it is full of holes? Because you think that because a woman agrees to sex with certain conditions that he should then be able to do as he pleases and ignore those conditions?

He challenged the arrest warrant when it was first issued. The decision was upheld. He's then challenged it several times in the UK and each time the decision was upheld. At all of them he was able to explain his legal arguments, all of which were considered when deciding to uphold the original decision.

There's now a valid European Arrest Warrant for him. Can we assume that you feel this should just be ignored? Are there any other people for whom arrest warrants exist that you think also should be able to just ignore them?

Well I know that there are more worthy recipients of arrest warrants, and you probably do too, but let's leave that aside.

My main reason for doubting the validity of the case against him is that the behaviour of the so-called victims is inconsistent with what I regard as that of people who have a legitimate grievance against somebody. Watch the documentary if you really do want to understand why I'm sceptical of the validity of the case. You could also re-read one or two of my posts in the thread if you're still unsure.

There's a big difference between a court deciding that there's a case to answer and one finding someone guilty. As you know I suspect political interference in what has gone on so far, you obviously don't. Hey, let's disagree!