Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ads

The Assange/Wikileaks/Manning Thread

Recommended Posts

I don't think he is saying that Snowy. I think what Ads is trying to say is...

I'll wait and see what he says as I don't agree that is what he has been saying (with the generalisms, mention of 'spending 20 years in a Colorado Supermax' and so on).

But, as I said at the end of my post to which you replied, the point about which I was asking the question is a general point not something specifically related to the Assange business.

I mention prison only in response to suggestions that he might face the death penalty. He would not and I mention the Rosenburgs as the only civilian case to be executed under the Espionage Act.

Regardless of what US authorities may think of Assange’s actions, there is a world away from forcing a political agenda to embarrass and helping give the Soviets the bomb. (Not that I would have executed the Rosenburgs, I am not in favour of the death penalty under any circumstances).

The point being that we’re all talking about the US and their role in this, however, we’re all merely speculating. There is no extradition request currently in existence and no indictments have been handed down.

Going back to your original question regarding the allegations from AA and SW, my point is that this is a Swedish case, involving Swedish victims under Swedish jurisdiction. Assange was aware in September 2010 that the Swedish prosecutor wanted to speak with him to formally charge him.

It is therefore not for Assange (who is the accused, not the victim) to dictate when and where this happens.

If I have a client and a Third Party alleges fraud, I meet the challenge as quickly and as robustly as possible. This is what I personally think Assange should do. He would like defeat the charges should charges have been brought under SOA in England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What has the US got to do with it?

It must be clear to everyone that for the UK to have 30 police outside the embassy, with written instructions to seize Assange at all costs, with (photographed) reference to the involvement of the ant-terrorist squad, and with the Foreign Secretary making a written a threat to breach the Vienna Convention on embassies and diplomatic protection, means the real issue is absolutely not about the Swedes wanting to question him, or him jumping bail. It is not even remotely imaginable that such a level of response would ever be mounted for either of those two things.

What then is it?

Is there some extremely serious crime in Sweden or the UK which has been kept from us?

Or is it part of the US' campaign to hunt down people involved with Wikileaks, undermine their support, cut of their funding by instructing banks not to process payments to them, imprison them with or without trial in conditions which amount to torture, and so on?

Or is there some other explanation? Because it's certainly not about the warrant.

He has been accused of rape. Rape in the UK carries a life sentence.

I would suggest it is a very serious crime and given the media spot light, our obligations re: EAW, that this is something that not only has to be taken seriously, but also seen to be taken seriously.

We all know that at some point the US will become involved, but at this point there is only conjecture about what those charges may be and whether they would stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He has been accused of rape. Rape in the UK carries a life sentence.

I would suggest it is a very serious crime and given the media spot light, our obligations re: EAW, that this is something that not only has to be taken seriously, but also seen to be taken seriously.

We all know that at some point the US will become involved, but at this point there is only conjecture about what those charges may be and whether they would stick.

If you've read the accounts of what took place, you will know that it is not by the wildest stretch of the imagination something which could attract a life sentence either here or Sweden, if he were found guilty. By linking the idea of a life sentence with the accusations, you give the impression of trying to exaggerate. The accusations are serious, and need to be answered; but it doesn't help to exaggerate.

As for the US, you're right that they will become involved. But it does not follow that because they have so far not made clear what they intend to do, everyone should proceed as though they will do nothing. If Sweden were to guarantee that he will not be extradited, who's the loser? Only the US, and only if they secretly plan to lay charges but have concealed that. If they don't intend to do so, as you and others appear to suggest we should assume, then what's the downside? That someone will be seen to have had his demand accepted? That the dignity of the law is somehow demeaned? It's nonsense, it really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a client and a Third Party alleges fraud, I meet the challenge as quickly and as robustly as possible.

Only because it will help you hit your chargeable hours target. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a client and a Third Party alleges fraud, I meet the challenge as quickly and as robustly as possible.

Only because it will help you hit your chargeable hours target. :P

Cynic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have a client and a Third Party alleges fraud, I meet the challenge as quickly and as robustly as possible.

Only because it will help you hit your chargeable hours target. :P

Cynic!

That's not a denial, then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont need a fraud Defence to help reach the billable hours target. 7.30 is the aim but with an assistant its routine to hit between 24 and 30. Costs targets are the important ones.

Grafter me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've blocked Gary McKinnon's extradition. Good work from Theresa May. Alan Johnson is not happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the US have declared Assange an "Enemy of the State" ("Enemy of the Abuse of State Power" might be more accurate, but never mind), I wonder if anyone has changed their mind about whether the US might be out to get him in some way.

Too bad the Nobel Peace Prize crowd didn't have the balls to give it to Manning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the US have declared Assange an "Enemy of the State" ("Enemy of the Abuse of State Power" might be more accurate, but never mind), I wonder if anyone has changed their mind about whether the US might be out to get him in some way.

Too bad the Nobel Peace Prize crowd didn't have the balls to give it to Manning.

Yes. I understand the term implies that someone will be treated under the (US) rules of war, and may in their view be killed or detained without trial.

In this light, the claims that because they have not yet applied for extradition they aren't interested in him, look a bit hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange planning to run for the Australian senate.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-looks-to-contest-senate-election-20121212-2ba43.html#poll

73% of people reading the article (in the well-respected Sydney Morning Herald) saying they'd vote for him. The discussion below the poll is quite interesting: Like a summary of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he (upon election) is going to video conference to the Senate?

This really is going nowhere..... another publicity stunt. He really is a prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he (upon election) is going to video conference to the Senate?

This really is going nowhere..... another publicity stunt. He really is a prick.

You're in good company. (Well, maybe not GOOD company, but you have company). Your views are repeated and repudiated over and over if you read the article and discussion thread. I don't expect you to read it, though, because you must already know far more than I do about it all to be able to be so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit unfair........

Well, you do seem pretty sure, you don't offer any evidence to back up your view that it's a "publicity stunt" that's "going nowhere", or that "he really is a prick", and you don't seem interested in reading the article. If you really do know much more than I do, please be generous with your explanations and sources.

Fwiw I have no idea whether or not he's a "prick" and I don't particularly care. This isn't about hero-worship, it's about providing dissenting voices and "keeping the bastards honest" as the Aussies say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well lets just pick apart the practicalities of the situation shall we?

  1. He is currently in hiding in a foregin embassy in the UK.
  2. If he leaves said hiding place he will have his collar felt and sent on a little trip to Sweeden to answer those pesky rape allegations that he refused to answer. (Except out of the window of said hiding place - his excuse? That other nasty country who have made no formal requests to the UK or Sweden to extradite will extradite him to the US)
  3. He is not in Australia, and as popular as his twitter or facebook or whatever else may be that cannot be taken to directly correlate to popular support - neither can the 77% who said they would vote for him. I have no idea of the political affiliation of the paper so don't speak from a position of knowledge, but a poll on the Guardian webiste in the UK for example. is hardly representative of the population as a whole.
  4. Even if he DOES manage to somehow manage to fight a succesful campaign, he is still hiding in an Embassy in the UK - so couldnt DO anything about anything anyway.

What else can this be OTHER than a publicity stunt?

I would have hoped most of the above was too obvious to warrnat discussion but clearly not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â