HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can someone explain to me...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:48 PM

Can someone explain to me what Julian Assange has been charged with in the US

That would cause anyone to extradite him to the US? Has anyone in the US asked to have him extradited here? I'm pretty sure if President Obama or the CIA wanted Assange quietly killed, it could be done the same way we took down Osama bin Laden.

I don't understand all this tizzy over the welfare of Assange.

91 replies, 6492 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can someone explain to me what Julian Assange has been charged with in the US (Original post)
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 OP
pnwmom Aug 2012 #1
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #2
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #16
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #22
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #42
pnwmom Aug 2012 #52
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #55
pnwmom Aug 2012 #58
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #61
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #43
pnwmom Aug 2012 #54
Pholus Aug 2012 #60
pnwmom Aug 2012 #66
Pholus Aug 2012 #83
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #68
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #72
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #38
pnwmom Aug 2012 #50
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #70
pnwmom Aug 2012 #73
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #75
pnwmom Aug 2012 #76
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #77
pnwmom Aug 2012 #78
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #82
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #79
treestar Aug 2012 #84
treestar Aug 2012 #26
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #44
dballance Aug 2012 #81
unblock Aug 2012 #3
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #4
unblock Aug 2012 #5
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #12
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #47
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #57
treestar Aug 2012 #85
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #6
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #7
Cleita Aug 2012 #8
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #9
Cleita Aug 2012 #10
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #11
Cleita Aug 2012 #13
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #17
Cleita Aug 2012 #19
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #24
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #49
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #14
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #20
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #27
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #31
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #36
Robb Aug 2012 #41
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #39
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #40
sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #51
Cleita Aug 2012 #21
AntiFascist Aug 2012 #28
Cleita Aug 2012 #29
mmonk Aug 2012 #15
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #23
MrMickeysMom Aug 2012 #46
whistler162 Aug 2012 #18
treestar Aug 2012 #25
still_one Aug 2012 #30
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #32
still_one Aug 2012 #33
treestar Aug 2012 #86
DJ13 Aug 2012 #34
atreides1 Aug 2012 #35
SidDithers Aug 2012 #37
Aerows Aug 2012 #45
freshwest Aug 2012 #48
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #62
freshwest Aug 2012 #63
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #64
freshwest Aug 2012 #67
Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #80
treestar Aug 2012 #87
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #65
freshwest Aug 2012 #69
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #71
xchrom Aug 2012 #53
Matariki Aug 2012 #56
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #59
cemaphonic Aug 2012 #74
Zorra Aug 2012 #88
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #89
Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #90
WonderGrunion Aug 2012 #91

Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:51 PM

1. He's been charged with nothing, no Administration official has requested

his extradition, and John Conyers -- among others -- has said he sees no laws under which Assange could be charged.

I think Assange is playing the martyr here, in order to gain support on the rape charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:55 PM

2. That's what it seems to me as well.

But the way some are going on about the peril Assange's life because of the US death penalty made me think I was missing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:29 PM

16. Assange's US attorney has seen the Grand Jury Documents which was seated by the DOJ to

get an indictment of Assange on charges of Espionage. John Conyers actually opposed these efforts saying that he sees no laws that could justify this. I like the way you mis-characterized Conyers' reasons for saying what he did.

Otoh, the Vice President of the US has called Assange a terrorist. Several Elected officials have called for his assassination. Others, such as Diane Feinstein has written to the DOJ demanding that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

Several Republicans have called for him to be arrested and brought here for trial.

To say that there is no threat of him being indicted and prosecuted here is simply to ignore the facts. Let them disband the GJ, let those elected officials who are calling for his prosecution retract their statements and THEN maybe, people will believe the attempt to deny these facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:35 PM

22. Are there ANY charges or an extradition filing by the US government?

Politicians...even Democratic ones, spout off about falsehoods all the time. Show me any actual charges or extradition filings and maybe I won't look at it as some elaborate conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to AntiFascist (Reply #42)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:34 PM

52. Why would that be odd? They're not all allies of the U.S. Some of them

would love to cooperate with Assange in casting aspersions on the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:41 PM

55. Sorry I forgot the sarcasm smiley...


it's not odd at all, just trying to demonstrate that some liberal-minded governments are taking the theory seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #55)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:55 PM

58. They're either taking the theory seriously,

or they find it in their best interest to appear to do so.

My gut feeling is that the women's statements seem genuine. I think that if the US was behind this, we wouldn't be having arguments about whether condom-less sex constituted rape, or whether he deliberately shredded a condom, or whether -- if you had sex the night before -- can you then insert yourself the next morning without permission.

I think if the CIA was behind this, the victims would say more appropriate and consistent "victim-like" things. As it is, at least one of the women described what had happened to her in terms that fit the term rape, but yet she wasn't sure it was rape. What kind of CIA plant would be acting like this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #58)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:33 PM

61. Whoa, wait a minuto...


the rape charge is one thing, but the Ecuadorian foreign minister is concerned that Assange will get extradited to the US. The other South American foreign ministers are siding with him. Whether or not the rape victims are CIA operatives is beside the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #22)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:11 PM

43. Is there any reason why there is a Grand Jury seated by the DOJ which is being asked to indict

an international, multi award winning journalist for Espionage?

Any idea why top US Officials are calling for this prosecution and in some cases the assassination (and we do do that now, so it's certainly something to take seriously coming from an elected US official) of the same journalist?

As for whether they have succeeded or not, there have been reports of a sealed indictment which the US will neither confirm nor deny.

If you can explain all of this, and why the US will not state whether or not it intends to extradite him? A simple 'no' would suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #43)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:37 PM

54. Show me the link from a reputable source showing this and I'll be happy to discuss this.

And please let us know who these top US officials are that are calling for his assassination.

How the heck do you expect anyone to explain a "sealed indictment which the US will neither confirm nor deny"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Pholus (Reply #60)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 12:59 AM

66. I just looked at the first one again, and it's just a rehash of Assange's claims.

The fact that there is a Grand Jury trying to link Manning to Assange is no surprise. Manning can't be prosecuted for the Wikileaks unless they can prove a tie to Wikileaks or Assange. That doesn't imply that the Obama administration has any legal grounds on which to prosecute Assange. Manning was a soldier who had a job to keep those documents confidential, not to hand them over to Assange. Assange, on the other hand, had no obligation to the US at all.

Do any of your multitude of articles address Assange's legal liability, rather than just Mannings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:05 AM

83. It's never the law so why bother with details, it's the prosecutor.

The particular law violated doesn't matter and there is always something to find (Capone and tax evasion for example). The attitude of the prosecutor matters critically.

Examples?

About the Bushies, lots of specific crimes but no investigations or prosecutions -- Holder says: "Need to look forward not backwards"

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/07/21/obama-rejects-probe-bush-era-torture-%E2%80%9Cneed-look-forward-not-backwards%E2%80%9D

About Assange? When asked how an Australian could be prosecuted, Holder says: "Let me be very clear, it is not saber rattling."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905973.html

And of course it goes without saying that your "you got nothing" argument depends critically on ignorance of the fact that sealed indictments may remain sealed until the named person is in custody. And that grand jury investigations are empanelled to last 18 months extendable by 6 more months. Soooooo. Holder makes a direct threat about this in December 2010 and 18 months later is June 2012.

How conveeeeeenient when one adds it over the timeline of the extradition hearings... http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/world/europe/assange-extradition-timeline/index.html

I have my popcorn out and I'm now waiting patiently. See, if Assange ends up flying into JFK in cuffs I got more than a few self-bets about who here will rapidly shift from "prove it, it won't happen" to "he's guilty, hang the scum."

And on that day I figure I'll know the identities of more than a few paid trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #54)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:33 AM

68. Have you read any of the leaked Stratfor emails? It was revealed in those leaks that a sealed

indictment exists. Whether true or not, if I were the subject of that conversation, I would believe it.

As for who called for his assassination? Here is a partial list of US Officials mostly, who called him a 'terrorist' who should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and those who called for his assassination. In Canada, Flanagan was forced to retract his statement, but no one in the US has been asked to do so. Too bad to see any Democrat involved in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Marriage_and_child_custody_issues

Calls for Assange's assassination

On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination. Flanagan later retracted his comments, after a Vancouver lawyer filed a complaint with the Calgary Police against Harper, and Canadian nationals filed complaint with the ombudsman of CBC news.

On 1 December 2010, Republican Mike Huckabee called for those behind the leak of the cables to be executed, a view partly supported by Kathleen McFarland, former Pentagon advisor under Nixon, Ford and Reagan and current Fox News national security expert.

On 6 December 2010, during a segment of the Fox Business show Follow The Money, Fox News political commentator and analyst Bob Beckel stated: "A dead man can't leak stuff. This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States...And I'm not for the death penalty, so...there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." Other guests on the programme agreed.

Assange responded on the Guardian newspaper website to a reader's question about Flanagan's remarks, by contending that "Mr. Flanagan and the others seriously making these statements should be charged with incitement to commit murder."

Members of US Congress call for Espionage Act prosecution

On 29 November 2010, Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) wrote to the Attorney General, Eric Holder, asking that Assange should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that he should be declared a terrorist.

The same day, King also wrote to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, requesting that she designate Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I’m also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization", King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.

"By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,” he said. “To me, they are a clear and present danger to America."

On 30 November 2010, on Fox News, Rep. King repeated his assertions that Wikileaks was a terrorist organisation; he continued to repeat these assertions on other news media channels for the following week.

On 2 December 2010, Senator Feinstein and Senator Kit Bond, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), sent a joint-letter to Attorney General Holder, asking him to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act , offering to "close those gaps in the law" if the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) found it difficult to apply the law to Assange's case. In televised interviews Senators Bond and Feinstein stated that:

"We believe that Mr. Assange's conduct is espionage and that his actions fall under the elements of this section of law....Therefore, we urge that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act."

On 7 December 2010, Senator Dianne Feinstein published an editorial commentary on Assange entitled "Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act". Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty, although in practice the US has not executed anyone for a crime other than murder since 1962.


Vice President Biden stated that Wikileaks was more similar to a terrorist organization than to the Pentagon Papers case. And Sarah Palin, former VP nominee had this to say: On 30 November 2010, former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for Assange to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders".

And there are of course all those influenced by these outrageous and irresponsible remarks from elected officials, causing Assange, his son and his mother to receive death threats.

It's sad to see any Democrat mixed in with the radical right wingers who of course always hated Wikileaks. But no one in authority in this government, as happened in Canada, has said a word to deter these irrational statements coming from US Government officials.

With no official condemnation of these dangerous statements, it is assumed the US Government agrees. Especially since the DOJ appointed the GJ to get an indictment for Espionage.

He has every reason to fear being disappeared. Until someone responsible in our government does what Canada did, and makes it clear, these are not the opinions of the US Govt. But how can they? They have a GJ seated that says the opposite.

And go google the Stratfor email leaks if you want to know more. His life is most definitely in danger. As well as his freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:53 AM

72. Yes, charges in a sealed indictment according to the leaked Stratfor emails.

See the Stratfor emails

UNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.

In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ''We have a sealed indictment on Assange.''

''If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.'' … Stratfor's Chris Farnham on Assange. Photo: AP

He underlined the sensitivity of the information - apparently obtained from a US government source - with warnings to ''Pls protect'' and ''Not for pub''.


Revealed: US plans to charge Assange


Whistle blowers and the FOIA are the only thing keeping this country somewhat honest anymore. We sure can't depend on our elected officials, with the exception of a very few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:11 PM

38. Links please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:32 PM

50. The only Grand Jury I've heard of is investigating Manning. They have to prove his connection

to Assange/Wikileaks, in order to prosecute Manning, so Assange would be involved to that degree. But I've never heard that they've obtained an indictment of Assange or they even tried to. And under what law they would proceed? Do you have link for that?

And so what if some crazy Repubs call for his assassination? That has no bearing on what Obama would do.

The Grand Jury won't disband till its done with its investigation of Manning, and Democratic officials can't force idiot Republicans to retract any statements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:47 AM

70. You are wrong. The GJ in Virginia was seated for the purpose of indicting Assange on Espionage

charges. Any doubt about that was gone after the revelations in the leaked Stratfor Emails:

See the Stratfor emails

UNITED STATES prosecutors have drawn up secret charges against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, according to a confidential email obtained from the private US intelligence company Stratfor.

In an internal email to Stratfor analysts on January 26 last year, the vice-president of intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks with the comment: ''We have a sealed indictment on Assange.''

''If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't think I'd have too much of a problem.'' … Stratfor's Chris Farnham on Assange. Photo: AP

He underlined the sensitivity of the information - apparently obtained from a US government source - with warnings to ''Pls protect'' and ''Not for pub''.


Revealed: US plans to charge Assange


His US attorneys have spoken publicly about it, and have shown the documentation they have in their possession showing it to be a fact.

John Conyers and a few others have condemned any attempt to charge him with a crime, but who listens to Liberals in this country?

There really is no doubt about it. He needs to stay far away from any country that might be willing, as Sweden eg, has in the past, hand over anyone to the US in its current state, a country that murders suspects without trial, that tortures still, that holds people indefinitely without trial or charges.

Maybe some day the rule of law will be restored, Habeas Corpus also, and the US will no longer be viewed as the world's least trusted nation which it now is. Assange like anyone else getting this information is justifiably fearful of being in the now infamous clutches of this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #70)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:55 AM

73. How do we know these emails are genuine? Do we have anything beyond Assange's say-so?

"This is a deplorable, unfortunate – and illegal – breach of privacy," the Stratfor’s CEO George Friedman said in a statement, warning that some of the emails may have been "forged." To be sure, we're in new territory here. The latest leak has set off a round of debate over the ethics of publishing information alleged to have been stolen. Members of the hacker collective Anonymous claim to have passed the emails to WikiLeaks; WikiLeaks maintains it does not know the identity of the leaker(s) and stands by its policy of not commenting on its sources.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228#ixzz24FgONDz2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:07 AM

75. What else are they going to say? Notice, he says 'may have been'. Are you really denying

the existence of that GJ? Even the DOJ doesn't deny it. No wonder the agents who have been stopping Wikileaks supporters around the world, confessed they did not want to give their names because they were afraid of Anonymous. I have not seen any Anonymous releases that have been proven to be false yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #75)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:11 AM

76. No, I'm not. I'm saying that we don't know if Manning is the only target

or if Assange also is.

We also don't know, if Assange is being targeted, what charges they are considering. What if they charge him with information theft, based on his giving advice to Manning on how to break the password codes (not just being passive publishers of information)?

Do you think anyone should be able to steal anyone's information and publish it without any consequences?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #76)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:45 AM

77. Manning has been charged with crimes. There is no GJ necessary AFTER

someone has been charged. The GJ is for Assange. Manning is past that stage.

What if they charge him with information theft, based on his giving advice to Manning on how to break the password codes


If you read the chat logs with Manning you would know that Manning was an expert and needed no advice from anyone on how to break password codes. He was an Intelligence Analyst and was very, very good at his job.

He had complete access to all those files, a matter that has yet to be investigated. Because if anyone is at fault here, and this has been raised many times, it was the shocking lack of security that made it so easy for anyone who worked there as Manning did, to access all those files. But no one has been held accountable for that.

If they charge him with that, they will simply look ridiculous. Manning, before he was arrested, while talking on the chat logs explained how he accessed the material before he ever contacted Wikileaks.

As for trying to accuse a News Organization of stealing the info passed on to them by Whistle Blowers, if they try that, then they will have to charge every Journalist in the country also. A fact that has been pointed out many times and of which they are aware according to reports. 'We will run up against the 1st Amendment, this is going to be very difficult'.

Joe Lieberman otoh, believes they SHOULD 'investigate the NYT and WAPO, La Monde, Der Spiegel and every other newspaper who published the same material. What a chilling thing for a US Senator to even think, let alone say publicly for all the world to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #77)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:04 AM

78. This is what I was referring to:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/28/stratfor-email-hints-u-s-may-have-already-indicted-wikileaks-assange/

But the pre-trial hearing of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning has already exposed evidence the U.S. government could use to accuse him of more active information theft: a log of instant messenger chats with Assange obtained from the Army private’s computer seems to show the Australian offering to help Manning crack a password-protected account to anonymously access classified data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #78)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 07:00 AM

82. Wikileaks had over 2,000 employees/volunteers working for them.

There is no way for them to know who was responding to Manning. But even if it was Assange, every journalist who has a source speaks to that source.

Woodward and Bernstein spoke regularly to Deep Throat and they asked him losts of questions. Were they trying to get him to talk more than he had already? He contacted them. Just as Manning contacted Wikileaks. And airc from the Manning chat logs, the only advice he asked for and received was related to Wikileaks system. But I intend to read them again just in case I am not remembering correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:06 AM

79. From an article 3 days ago...


But, as the Herald revealed yesterday, Australia's Washington embassy reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year". A spokesman for Senator Carr acknowledged yesterday that WikiLeaks could be linked to that investigation but insisted that did not mean the US was intent on extraditing Mr Assange.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-secret-assange-files-20120818-24f9c.html#ixzz24Fx12DbD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:08 AM

84. Wow, can't trust Julian's supporters on anything

The grand jury is not even going after him. Like an idiot, I believed them when they claimed a grand jury was trying to indict him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:44 PM

26. +1 an excellent summation in a few sentences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #26)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:13 PM

44. It would have been if it had put Conyers' comments in context. Conyers was actually

outraged over the fact that the US was planning to indict Assange, and made those remarks in response to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:54 AM

81. There are NO charges of any kind against Assange anywhere.

Not rape, not sexual misconduct. ZIP, ZERO, NADA. The Swedes just want to "question" him according to them. Something that is regularly done by law enforcement officials traveling to where the suspect is located and not through extradition. This has been offered to the Swedes as an option by Ecuador and roundly refused.

So this whole process has been unusual. The Swedes could have easily traveled to the UK to question him to gather evidence in their quest to determine whether or not to file charges. Then based on the evidence file charges and request extradition.

So there is no reason for him to play martyr on the basis of any current charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:55 PM

3. "quietly" killed? "quietly"?

what exactly about the way we took down osama bin laden was "quiet"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #3)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 07:57 PM

4. Ok, it was hardly quiet

But if we wanted Assange dead without a trial, he's not exactly keeping a low profile. One predator drone would shut him up forever and I haven't seen any indication that is even being considered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:02 PM

5. yeah, i don't think they really want to kill him. too heavy-handed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:25 PM

12. I don't think they even want to have him arrested.

But there seems to be a belief roaming around that he's facing the death penalty in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:24 PM

47. If you had read the CIA memos leaked to Wikileaks & published by them on their site you would

know what their plans were to shut him up. It was interesting to read a conversation between agents discussing how to silence Wikileaks. They dismissed the old 'suicide' routine and settled on 'smear him with a sex scandal'.

Droning brown people is one thing, no one much cares in the Western World about them. But droning an Australian who is more popular around the world than the US Congress and each and every one of the leaders of the Western world, is another.

So they settled on the Sex Scandal, which appears to be the latest thing and in their minds, just as effective as 'suicide' as far as accomplishing their goal. I imagine they may be having second thoughts about that, which is why he definitely needs to stay out of their hands until we the people can restore some rule of law and democracy in our countries.

Cardinal Mindszenty remained in the US Embassy for 15 years until the political tide changed. Assange may have to do the same thing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:55 PM

57. They're not going to blast him with a Hellfire from a Predator - he's in the middle of London!

London's full of white people, and the current norms say you're only allowed to murder by remote control in areas of brown people.

My guess is they're going to make him stew for several months in the Equadorian embassy, eventually relent and let him go to Equador, then have some guy stab him with an icepick a la Trotsky once he's over there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:10 AM

85. And by now it would be so obvious

This is one of the crazier claims. One thing he's succeeded in is getting himself noticed by enough people - he can't just be taken out without it getting noticed.

As I said before, if he's ever missing, it is now just as likely he set it up himself - moreso, in order to "embarrass" the US, which seems to be an obsession of his.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:03 PM

6. That is a double top secret.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #6)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:12 PM

7. I believe Assange just Wikileaked that the Germans...

bombed Pearl Harbor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:12 PM

8. Read this.

The Australian government seems to think Assange is in danger of extradition to the USA.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz23pUkDi00

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that "the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".

The embassy noted media reports that a US federal grand jury had been empanelled in Alexandria, Virginia, to pursue the WikiLeaks case and that US government officials "cannot lawfully confirm to us the existence of the grand jury".

Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US constitution.

The cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high-level US advice on "the direction and likely outcome of the investigation" and "reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange".



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange-cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html#ixzz24EGmEuxu

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:16 PM

9. Sounds like Australian for BS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:19 PM

10. Apparently, you and others have already make up your minds, put the guy on

trial and passed sentence. No need for me to be here anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #10)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:23 PM

11. On trial for what?

He hasn't been charged with anything in the United States. Absolutely nothing!!!

I think he's guilty of being an unmitigated asshole, but if that were a crime in the US the entire republican party would be behind bars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #11)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:26 PM

13. Now you are talking and when they

put the entire Republican Party behind bars, then maybe the might have a case against Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:29 PM

17. My point is, I don't think anyone is seriously looking at making a case against Assange

I've just heard a lot of outrage and conjecture from his supporters that make it seem like we're going to put him in Gitmo until we can waterboard him to death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:33 PM

19. Assange and others seem to think there is a danger.

What will you say if it all happens as they believe so? The Ecuadorans are also sticking their necks out here. I don't think this would be so if they didn't have some solid information about the intent of the countries involved here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #19)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:39 PM

24. I seem to think I have a winning lottery ticket in the back of my junk drawer

It doesn't make it any more real. No charges have been filed against assange in the US. No extradition order has been filed to have Assange brought to the US. If the US wanted to file charges or extradite him, they would be pretty upfront and obvious about it. Hell, President Obama could use it in stump speeches during the election to make himself look tough on "America's Enemies (tm)".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #9)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:28 PM

49. Why do you ask questions you don't want answers to?

Being impervious to facts doesn't make them go away. I do love these threads though as they provide an opportunity to provide readers with facts.

Do you object to the fact that Wikileaks exposed the crimes of the Bush War criminals btw? I can't understand Democrats not fully supporting this after eight long years of wishing someone would. Did you always think it would be wrong to expose Bush's War Crime or the Corruption of Wall Street?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:28 PM

14. Your post is ridiculous...


and the thread is being treated as such.

Why don't you look him up on Wikipedia? Everything you want to know is explained there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:33 PM

20. According to Wikipedia, the justice department in 2010 was looking if charges

should be filed against him. Considering that was two years ago, I'm pretty sure they decided not to file charges.

That shows me that I'm right. No charges have been filed against him in the US and no extradition order has been filed by the US government.

Whose post is ridiculous now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #20)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:45 PM

27. What about reports of a sealed indictment from 2011?

Things may be progressing slowly, but secretly.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/wikileaks-stratfor-emails-a-secret-indictment-against-assange-20120228

The same analyst continues in another email: "I look forward to Manning and Assange facing a bajillion-thousand counts of espionage." A final note from yet another Sratfor analyst, sent after the arrest of 16 Anonymous hacktivists last July: "These assholes should get the death sentence, along with their hero Julian=Assange."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #27)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:55 PM

31. It sounds more like puffery by Fred Burton to make him look more "in-the-know"

to potential clients. This story contains no actual government sources or reports to back Burton's statements up. If the US government had an indictment against Assange, there would be no value in keeping it secret. The President would gain more by publicly campaigning on indicting Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:01 PM

36. Oh really?

Surprisingly, even in the Australian government Assange has supporters.

Obama might gain some points within the far right, but are they really going to vote for him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:45 PM

41. That's actually an interesting angle I hadn't considered.

If the US government had an indictment against Assange, there would be no value in keeping it secret.


I think you're onto a good point there. The government has Manning, who allegedly acted alone. If there was evidence Assange helped in any material, prosecutable way, he's been easy enough to indict and extradite from the UK since 2010. Why wait? Why keep it secret?

I'm increasingly convinced there's nothing Assange has that the US government wants or needs -- including the man himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #27)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:13 PM

39. You realize, don't you, that the Stratfor escapade ended up being a sting, with the hackers arrested

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #39)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:34 PM

40. Then you should notify WikiLeaks and Assange of your brilliant revelation so that they don't worry..


much of the delay has been due to the "complexity of the charges and an ongoing <DoD> investigation" of Bradley Manning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #20)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:32 PM

51. I agree with the other commenter, but such posts are useful. Regardless of how ridiculous it may

be or how insincere the questions, which was obvious btw (you didn't really think you were fooling us did you ) these threads provide a great opportunity to post the facts for those who are sincerely looking for information.

So thank you for the opportunity, otherwise I would have to compose OPs and I do not have that much time right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #14)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:34 PM

21. Yes, because Wikipedia is such a reliable source these days

what with hackers busy scrubbing facts these days. I know you mean well, but Wikipedia just isn't very reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:47 PM

28. I was referring also to the references...


the wiki entry is still well referenced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:48 PM

29. Okay, I didn't mean to jump on you.

I just haven't been trusting wiki these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:28 PM

15. He has a conscience.

I'm not sure that is allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #15)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:37 PM

23. Not allowed by who?

We haven't filed any charges or extradition papers against Assange. He's bloviating against a persecution that isn't happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #23)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:22 PM

46. You seem quite confident...

I'm not sure why, since there has been so much vitriol about a role in which Wiki Leaks acted as the only unbiased media we have to reveal what Bradley Manning has been unjustifiably tortured for disclosing.

There's something wrong with the U.S. in this case. Assange is not "bloviating" against a persecution that isn't happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:31 PM

18. Shhhh.... must not bring the truth into the Assange

deification!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:43 PM

25. Sarah Palin called for his death!

I mean we all know that Sarah Palin is in charge of the DOJ!

They are going to take him and disappear him extrajudicially! He embarrassed the MIC and must die!

He saved us all and started the Arab Spring and the PTB hate him for it!!!!!1

He is the victim of designing women, falsely accusing him of sexual improprieties under the law of the Feminist Taliban in Sweden (a country which will do anything to get hold of him for the sole purpose of handing him over to the murderous US regime!!!11)



This had been a preview of the ravings you will get in response to your question!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:54 PM

30. He is charged with exposing governments hypocrisy and incompetence. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #30)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:56 PM

32. Charged by who???

There is no US charges or extradition filings against Assange. If they wanted to take him, they could get him. He's not exactly in hiding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:58 PM

33. That is why they are so pissed at him. How could what I said be a real charge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:13 AM

86. One thing Julian is good at

Is lying to the supporters and getting them to believe it and then go and spread it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:59 PM

34. If he's in no danger of extradition

Why all the fuss about invading the Embassy and removing him?

There seems to be more to this than you want to admit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 08:59 PM

35. Nothing that I'm aware of

But honestly when has something like the law stopped the US from rendition?

And they don't want him dead, dead he can't tell them where his information came from!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 09:06 PM

37. DU rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:19 PM

45. GITMO exists

And he has released cables that reveal State secrets.

This is not difficult.

He is not a US citizen, and has no protections for the charges of releasing State secrets.

Do you think he wouldn't be locked up tighter than Bradley Manning, who IS a US citizen, if they got their hands on him?

If you do not, you think very little of our military and our intelligence community. I don't think it is right, but they would be idiotic to not lock him up tighter than a drum if they got their hands on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:28 PM

48. Sweden has this 'not charged but we wanna talk to you' think going. They seem to have started this.

There are treaties and EU matters. I'm certainly not one to know what their laws are over there. There is a warrant of some kind, AFAIK. Odd to have one without charges, but, it's Europe. Sweden kicked this to the UK who has signed a treaty. Not because of Assange, it wasn't invented for him.

I'm not sure why the UK says he skipped bail and they want to take him in. There was a fund drive, remember? So Assange and his attorneys certainly screwed the UK on that one, I guess.

On what charges? Do people in Europe make bail over not volunteering to talk? I admit being confused as I only know a bit about American law, that applies on our shores, between our own citizens. You have to be arraigned to post bail. And the charges are WHAT in the UK?

Right now this drama is playing out and we don't know if it's about Assange or Wikileaks, but the latter is important to the public, not Julian. The world wants the dirty laundry exposed, in hope of that knowledge leading to.. Not sure what they expect... a New Age?

The USA could charge him because of the Bradley Manning matter. If Assange HIMSELF can be proven responsible. It's possible that Manning is counting on Assange or Wikileaks to help his case. I truly hate what has happened to Manning.

But is it about Assange? Wikileaks, like Anonymous, has no CEO, no owner. It's a lof connections on the world wide web. It's ten times worse than a corporation as far as proving who is in control. They are not incorporated, AFAIK.

Corporations are arranged to do good and bad things for the owners, share holders, employees whatever. Is there a profit being made by Wikileaks? They aren't chartered anywhere, are they?

They don't even own a web address, they go around the world and move their data. They don't even own their servers but they are allowed to operate on servers in different countries. That is the closest they come to a physical address.

Just what is this thing, a group of whistle blowers, journalists who have been brushed off by corporate media? Those voices must be heard to give us the information we need to change our lives.

There is the money angle, the BofA issue on another thread. That's really sexy, sure enough, the favorite villains of the day, the 'banksters.' When we look for them, those who talk about it go back centuries and I won't even say the names of who they say is responsible because it's all CT. The secret villains who run the world and always have, etc.

I'd really like the USA to come out and make an official statement. We have not had any at all. Just people popping off, people close to the case, and Assange saying the UK and USA are out to get him for what appears to be public relations, not a real cause.

This may get settled in a few weeks as this story continues. It may drag out for years. I wonder what we're missing while we follow it. We've got the GOP and the Christian Nationalists taking over state after state and all eyes are on London.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #48)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 11:40 PM

62. Nope. Assange is not wanted for a nice chat but to face criminal process in Sweden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #62)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 12:11 AM

63. 'Criminal process' is very vague. That's the reason for the doubts. Charge him and be done with it.

We can't chase people around in the USA unless we have a crime. And probable cause.

This needs to be in terms everyone can understand. Tom DeLay was not only charged, but tried and convicted and is running loose. He did more damage to the world with the installation of Bush and the destruction of the state of Texas and other places than almost anyone since Nixon.

This appears out of balance that's where CT takes over. Is he or is he not wanted in relation to the trial of Bradley Manning? What is his crime in the eyes of the USA? Making us look bad? After Bush?

There is no reason for the USA to extradite him for trial. There is no reason for American politicans to run their mouths about him, or news people. This is what gives fodder to those who refuse to believe that he is being treated fairly and that there is some evil USA/UK game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #63)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 12:20 AM

64. No, really, it isn't very vague.

The only reason it seems vague is because Americans have utter ignorance of the legal process in other countries. See the following (more than four paragraphs because most of it is quoting the public-domain High Court judgement on extradition):

Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.

He is wanted for arrest.

This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.

It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.

Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:


140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:

"6. A domestic warrant for arrest was upheld 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.

"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.

"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.

"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.

"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #64)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:21 AM

67. I wrote upthread, this is a EU matter and we do not know in the law of the EU. So I asked. Thanks.

'Warrant for his arrest' is sufficient for an American to grasp. As we have that in place here, but it was not framed in those terms, it may have led to suspicion.

What appears to be on the minds of Americans is that Assange would be handled as a Bush era rendition victim, complete with torture and murder. Some say it's not about rape. I don't see why we are blamed for this. Or the UK. Do you think we'd do that to him?

Assange claims to be victim of a scheme by Americans to deprive him of his human rights and to stop certain truths coming out. despite wild calls for his death or prosecution by politicians in 2010, Eric Holder speaking for the DOJ did not think there was a case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html?_r=1

Daniel Ellsberg, American peace activist, supports Assange getting asylum from Ecuador. This makes me wonder, not the CT. Do you believe Ellsberg is wrong?

TIA if you have an opinion on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #67)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 03:41 AM

80. It's not an "EU matter"; it's a Swedish matter.

The law differs between EU countries. The UK for instance has a common law legal system, like the US; charges are brought following the initial arrest and a date for preliminary hearing and indictment is set. If the investigation up to that point finds insufficient evidence for prosecution, the charges are dropped and no indictment is brought. This is not the case in Sweden; in Sweden, following the inintial arrest, the investigators examine the evidence and decide on that basis whether there is sufficient evidence for prosecution. If there is, then the accused is brought before a magistrate for interrogation and then formally charged. Charges happen in the Swedish system at the stage that corresponds to indictment in common-law systems. If this case were occurring in the UK, or the US, Assange would already be charged.

Assange is not the victim of any scheme by Americans; he is sought by Sweden for arrest and probable trial on charges of rape and sexual assault. This is a criminal and not a political matter. Should he face trial the odds are about even that he would be acquitted on the charges; in any case, for him to pretend that this is about freedom of speech, or political persecution, rather than about him trying to avoid a Swedish trial on charges of sexual assault and rape, is disingenuous and rather disgusting, honestly.

I happen to think Ellsberg is quite wrong. I think that Assange's seeking asylum from Ecuador is an abuse of the process. He is wanted on criminal charges; he is not a political refugee. He is not sought by the US for extradition in any matter related to his publication of classified materials; he is not a US citizen, Wikileaks' servers were never US-hosted. The US has no legal basis or standing for any prosecution of Assange, nor to seek his extradition. Such extradition would in any case be denied if sought. The extradition treaty between Sweden and the US exempts persons accused of political crimes from extradition; further, any extradition on charges which might result in the death penalty will be denied by any EU state as being in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. And Ecuador has a far from sterling record on issues of free speech, press freedom, or indeed extradition--see Ecuador's current extradition of Alexander Barankov, a Belorussian blogger wanted for prosecution in his home country for exposing corruption in the police force; the Ecuadoreans decided to turn him over after a visit by the Belorussian trade minister, probably as a quid pro quo in some trade deal. Assange should be very worried he may find himself as a similar bargaining chip in future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #80)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:16 AM

87. I'm beginning to think he's crazy, because at this point

staying imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy of London for life is worse than even serving a sentence in Sweden. And he claim to be not guilty, too. So this is all about getting attention, and for what? It's just his ego.

He will milk it for all it is worth. When he's going to Sweden, another chance to get in the news and be the martyr. All through the trial and appeals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #63)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 12:50 AM

65. ... In the Swedish system formal indictment takes place at a very late stage in proceedings,

In the Swedish system formal indictment takes place at a very late stage in proceedings, following a second and final interview with the suspect, and in the case of a person in pre-trial detention, trial must follow within two weeks ...

However, the High Court has held that Assange does stand accused of the four offences (including rape) for which his extradition is sought. It is a requirement of the Extradition Act 2003 that the warrant contains a statement that the person in respect of whom extradition is sought stand "accused" of the offence(s) set out in the warrant. There is no doubt that the European Arrest Warrant issued in Sweden did contain such a statement.

Assange sought to argue, first in the Magistrates Court, then in the High Court, that it is not enough that the statement is made, but the statement must also be true; and that he has not in fact been accused of any offence in Sweden because he had not been formally charged and so criminal proceedings had not yet commenced. He lost that argument ...

Why doesn't Sweden interview Assange in London? (Anya Palmer)
http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co

The Swedish criminal justice procedure is not directly comparable to the English system most of us know. The differences were used by Assange's legal team during his contest of the warrant. The bottom line is that Assange is wanted by the Swedish so that they can take him into custody and begin process against him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #65)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:37 AM

69. TY. And another member explained there is a warrant for his arrest.

I asked him a few questions above in Reply #67 if you have time you may want to answer, if he does not want to do so.

I think 'arrest warrant,' proves this is serious. The questions I asked after looking up and seeing the incendiary comments made in the USA, but not by the people who would charge him and the link I provided in Reply #67show him unlikely to be in danger from the Obama administration.

I got them from the updated Wiki page on Assange, and Ellsberg has continued to support him. I paid less attention to the page and more to the sources cited there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange#Members_of_US_Congress_call_for_Espionage_Act_prosecution

My mind is not made up on this. I don't think Obama is Shrub 2. So some may think that opinion has colored my judgment. But I also believe that Ellsberg is not senile, either.

That.s why I am undecided. I hope in these discussions we may come to some conclusions. I respect all views, if made respectfully to each other. We are all presumed to be progressive and to have different histories and views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #69)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:49 AM

71. The only power, that Congress has, is to pass laws. Power to prosecute is in the Executive branch.

The Courts are a third branch of government, distinct from Congress or the Executive branch

It doesn't matter whether or not various folk in Congress think somebody ought to be prosecuted. They don't have the power to prosecute anyone, nor do they have the power to try cases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:35 PM

53. All that needs to happen is an allegation of something

Icky enough to ruin him.

He has no way in a 'he said - she said' trial or interrogation to wipe away doubts to his character.

Would the US try him on top of that - yes - provided they get the charges right.

As it is 'centrists' who actually believe the rule of law is applied equitably or who want others to believe Sweden is a paragon of western liberal justice - are succeeding in helping a big giant lie - that this is about rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:42 PM

56. Democracy Now had a good interview with Daniel Elsberg about Assange

He mentioned the possibility of a secret indictment waiting for him in the US. The interview is worth a listen.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/17/daniel_ellsberg_i_congratulate_ecuador_for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Tue Aug 21, 2012, 10:58 PM

59. Assange has already been the subject of a grand jury investigation in the US.

It's not that he hasn't been charged, it's that any charges produced by that grand jury are sealed, therefore we're not privy to them.

Those are the U.S.'s hole cards, and my bet is that the U.S. was waiting until Assange was in Sweden to unseal and announce the charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 01:58 AM

74. No charges, just speculation

I don't see extradition to the US as a likely scenario either. The Pentagon Papers precedent, and the fact that he is not a US citizen and wasn't operating out of the US would seriously limit the scope of any Wikileaks-related charges that could be brought. No charges have been brought against the NYT or The Guardian, after all. And Sweden is bound by EU rules not to extradite when there is a risk of the death penalty, and has domestic restriction against extraditing for political crimes.

And I agree - if the US really was really willing to endure the shitstorm from grabbing him illegally, he's a hell of a lot safer in Sweden or the UK than Ecuador, given our long history of not giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks about doing whatever we want in Latin America.

The tizzy is because people love a story of an underdog fighting TPTB and coming out on top, and because Assange is exceptionally skilled at PR and has managed to conflate his personal legal problems with his professional activities in many people's minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Wed Aug 22, 2012, 09:26 AM

88. LOL! Um, no, sorry. Our President cannot kill Julian "the same way we took down Osama bin Laden."

That's ludicrous. Bin Laden was complicit in murdering thousands of innocent people. Julian is trying to stop innocent people from being murdered.

Do you have any idea what kind of international shitstorm would happen if Julian were murdered in any manner right now? Especially by US Navy Seals storming the British Embassy. Yuh, that'll work.


"I don't understand all this tizzy over the welfare of Assange."


No offense, but that's completely obvious. There's a lot of information out there about this subject, and there have been numerous threads on the subject on DU.

If you can't understand the "tizzy", you are either seriously uninformed on the subject, or you are simply being obtuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Original post)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:08 PM

89. So, reading through this entire thread, the answer is "No, I can't explain it."

I've seen speculation about some private sector security jackass saying he knows about a super-secret indictment, but nothing from any government official that confirms there is any charges against Assange in the US. With no charges, there can be no extradition to the US.

Finally, it would help Obama in the polls with independents to go after Assange and present him as a foreign boogeyman spy-master that Obama wants to take down instead of keeping any indictment sealed.

Tempest in a teapot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WonderGrunion (Reply #89)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

90. User posts OP asking for explanation for something, rejects all explanations offered.



PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Poll_Blind (Reply #90)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:14 PM

91. But it's a rejection with keen analysis.

And honestly, no one could tell me about any actual charges against Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread