Wikileaks founder Julian Assange 'buoyed by support'

[reorg]

Source: BBC News UK

... Five countries are now involved in a complex diplomatic saga but Mrs Assange said: "It's not complicated. It's a very simple issue.

"A legitimate, registered, multi award-winning media organisation and its editor have legally published the truth about the biggest superpower in the world and embarrassed them and exposed them for wrongdoing - war crimes, corruption and fraud.

"The case against him in Sweden coincided with the release of these documents and has no basis in fact, if you look at the evidence and the way the Swedish prosecution has run the case.

"The whole exercise has been set up to smear and silence the truth and those countries with their snouts in the trough with America have fallen into line. Ecuador, whose snout isn't in the trough, has not fallen into line." ...

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18577345

---

As far as I know, someone who is granted political asylum receives a passport and the same treatment as any national of that state.

Ecuador apparently does not extradite Ecuadorian nationals:

[div class="excerpt"]LEY DE EXTRADICION

...
Art. 4 - En ningún caso se concederá la extradición de un ecuatoriano, su
juzgamiento se sujetará a las leyes del Ecuador. ...

http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/sp/ecu/sp_ecu-ext-law-leyext.pdf

There are other, strong protections in that law, such as unequivocally ruling out extradition to countries that don't offer guarantees against imposing the death penalty, torture and inhuman treatment. A life sentence without possibiliy of parole is widely considered inhuman, for instance, except in the US.

The Ecuadorian law also explicitly and unambiguously rules out extradition in political cases. Whereas such characterizations may be a matter of interpretation, anyway, the Swedish extradition law allows for the following exceptions:

[div class="excerpt"]Section 6
Extradition may not be granted for a political offence.
If the act also constitutes a non-political offence, extradition may be granted for that offence, provided, in the particular case, the act is predominantly of a non-political nature.
The first paragraph does not apply where rejection on this ground would be contrary to an international agreement applying between Sweden and the requesting state.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/download/77809ec6.pdf?major=1&minor=15435&cn=attachmentDuplicator_0_attachment

[snot]

1. K&R'd.

[clang1]

2. Mrs Assange is correct

simplest OBVIOUS explanations apply here. It is all very SIMPLE. Nothing complex to this. See it with your own eyes. Smell it, I do.


... Five countries are now involved in a complex diplomatic saga but Mrs Assange said: "It's not complicated. It's a very simple issue.

[teddy51]

3. I think this whole thing is about getting Assange to the US to face charges!

[snot]

20. Confirmation that US & Sweden have been discussing extradition to the US since at least

Dec., 2010: "Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources. . . . His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence."

More at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html .

See also http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/grand_jury/wikileaks_grand_jury_seven_civilians_targeted_by_fbi_for_criminal_activity_and_espionage.html .

And this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/20/julian-assange-right-asylum .

[clang1]

50. Yep. Assange stepped on the head of a snake

that needs to be SMASHED. Because it is rotting our country from the inside out. None of this is American.

[treestar]

4. Then go to Sweden and face it

This guy is really manipulating people - people who hate the US, etc. Now why would Sweden bother to persecutee this poor leaker for his actions against the US? This guy has it all set up in his mind, but the house of cards falls immediately. Sorry to see many people being fooled, since they want to believe the US is so terrible and corrupt.

[clang1]

5. You point fingers in the wrong places

'people who hate the US, etc. Now '

You are part of the problem. No solution. Whaw whaw everybody hates America. Wake up man.

[treestar]

8. Then explain why Sweden ( a country with a progressive system if there ever was one)

Is supposedly so hot to go after this guy, in order to punish him for his activities against the US? When the US is not even doing it.

And why is leaking our documents such a good thing in and of itself?

Maybe the Swedes just really think he violated their law and it has nothing to do with his activities in leaking our documents.

But people who want to believe the US is evil and corrupt and in the hands of corporatist fascists want to believe it is a good thing to have US classified documents leaked, that it punked the US and they get a lot of emotional satisfaction out of it. Too bad they have to support a misogynist to get that satisfaction (not for once liberals believes the women are liars and try to attack their character).

That is what makes this case so interesting. Julian is in no danger. But you can see him manipulating the system and his supporters for all he's worth.

[clang1]

11. Let someone else answer you, you present nothing new and seem to be asleep even. n/t

[RobertEarl]

53. Treestar premise is:

And why is leaking our documents such a good thing in and of itself?


Which I take to say that Treestar opposes Wikileaks. And so you are correct to just ignore Treestar.

[teddy51]

12. And how do you know Julian is in no danger? Is that sort of like Bradley Manning is in no danger?

[jeff47]

15. Because the SCOTUS says he can't be charged.

Manning leaked classified information, and the US can put him on trial for that.

Assange didn't leak anything. He published information that was leaked to him. First amendment means he can't be charged, just like the SCOTUS ruled in the Pentagon Papers.

[teddy51]

18. Except that I wouldn't trust either SCOTUS or the US Government to keep there word.

[treestar]

23. Now if that isn't anti-US derangement syndrome, I don't know what is

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/nick-cohen-julian-assange-paranoia?newsfeed=true

. But WikiLeaks was in effect a newspaper. From the 1970s, when the New York Times printed the Pentagon Papers, to today's accounts of secret prisons and the bugging of US citizens, the American courts "have made clear that the First Amendment protects independent third parties who publish classified information". Maybe the authorities could prosecute Assange for alleged links with hackers. I don't know – unlike Assange, I cannot see the future. But why would they bother to imprison him when he is making such a good job of discrediting himself?

So the fact that he can't even be charged is answers with an allegation that the US will not follow the rule of law in this particular case? How so? How are we going to disappear and hang Julian without trial when all eyes are on us as he's done such a great job of getting attention? Why would Sweden comply? Of course we keep our word and we follow the rule of law. The attempts by the Bush Administration to do things like that were struck down by the courts.

[LeftyMom]

31. Flag on the play. Adapted right wing meme. 10 yards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" ("BDS&quot is a pejorative political neologism coined by Charles Krauthammer, an American conservative political columnist and former psychiatrist,[1] in a 2003 column. The term has been used in newspaper columns and editorials, on talk radio, by commentators in the mainstream press, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Fox News Channel, and in the blogosphere.

Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush". This term is most closely associated with liberal reaction to Bush policies past and present. [2][3] While Krauthammer's column was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (e.g., "What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state&quot , the term indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic. The term has been widely adopted by other writers in the political arena.[4][5][6]

[treestar]

36. So it's also used for any one

There's Obama Derangement Syndrome too. It is the hatred of any one or thing or country so much that one jumps on anything that will support that conclusion.

Assuming the US will not basically follow a rule of law when there are courts and trials every day? That's going into derangement territory. Our system may not be perfect, but we do not have kangaroo courts and courts that do not follow the law at all. We have a right to jury trial, appeals, rights to counsel, rights to speedy trial, and there is a Constitution and a ton of case law supporting that, and that law is used daily in the U.S.

Persecution is where you are thrown in jail without trial - if the leaked up on country was China or Russia or many third world countries - there might be a claim. But Australia, Sweden, the US and the UK - people don't have persecution claims against countries like that.

[LeftyMom]

39. It's still cribbing a stupid idea from Charles freakin' Krauthammer.

If you can't argue your case without implying that your opponents are crazy, than you need to go back and revamp your argument.

[clang1]

44. Yep. Quite a piece of work there, eh? and in more ways than one. n/t

[clang1]

46. Let me explain to you what US derangement syndrome is

it is torture, murder, kidnapping, a slew of things, and war of choice. That is what the 'derangment' syndrome is. I am going to tell you something else: DO NOT EVER POINT THE FINGER AT ME AS THE ISSUE HERE. You have no right and you are wrong. you have no morality or standing to do so. PERIOD

[jeff47]

43. There was no word granted

It's a long-standing SCOTUS ruling that has been reaffirmed multiple times. There is no promise involved.

If the US believed it had a reason to arrest Assange, why wouldn't they charge him now? The UK would very quickly rubber-stamp the extradition and he'd be in US hands. Waiting until he gets to Sweden makes absolutely no sense. There's no up-side for the US.

[ljm2002]

62. Yet our own Defense Secretary weighed in...

....stating that it was "good news" that Assange had been arrested in London. Why would he even care, if the arrest was only about a trivial misdemeanor-level sex charge in Sweden? Answer: he wouldn't.

Also, in spite of your faith in our First Amendment protections, our own Vice President has called Assange a "high-tech terrorist". So there must be some reason he is considered an enemy of the state, that goes beyond the First Amendment issues.

I think the issue is that Assange figured out a way to facilitate anonymous leaks, such that even the reporters involved do not know who their sources are. So then there is no way for the government to pressure them to reveal their sources, therefore making it easier to reveal secrets.

[clang1]

63. Very good point. They expose themselves just as greedy salivating people usually do

Did they really believe that the World was just going to stand by and not say anything? The arrogance of this just astounds me. It continually astounds the entire World in fact.

[jeff47]

65. So your evidence is the Defense Secretary doesn't like the guy.

Boy that's massively compelling!! And the VP doesn't like him either. Ooooooo.



You'd have a point if the publishers of the Pentagon Papers were in jail. After all, lots of people in the Nixon administration said all sorts of mean things about them. Yet they aren't in jail. Nor are the publishers of the hundreds of other leaks per year.

Again, this conspiracy theory makes no sense because there's no need to wait for Assange to arrive in Sweden to go after him. The UK would extradite Prince Charles if we asked them to.

[ljm2002]

66. Assange was nabbed in the UK...

...based on his being listed as a high-priority criminal on the Interpol list. Since the (never yet filed) charges against him were minor, at the misdemeanor level in Sweden (i.e.: no use of force, nor rape, were ever claimed by the women involved), one has to wonder why he was on such an important list and why such energy was expended in his capture? And why, indeed, was our Secretary of Defense so happy about his capture?

Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is of course meant to dismiss concerns about this case. The UK would most certainly not extradite Prince Charles if we asked them to. Even for British nationals of lesser rank, ask around, or do some research: you'll find that the UK has a much better record of protecting its own citizens abroad through their embassies, than does our own country. And their current heir to the throne? Puhleeze.

Of course, Assange is not Prince Charles, nor is he a British national (although Australia is part of the Commonwealth, if memory serves). However, you keep stating your own opinion of who is more likely to extradite Assange, without providing any proof. Yet we have had reports of diplomatic negotiations regarding extraditing Assange from Sweden, and you think we should ignore those as "conspiracy theories". Here is an excerpt from another post in this thread:

Dec., 2010: "Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources. . . . His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence."

More at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html .

So are you claiming that the Independent doesn't source its stories? or that they have bought into a "conspiracy theory"? or that the diplomatic sources were just making stuff up?

[clang1]

69. All too many people are just plain drones that do not appear to think n/t

[jeff47]

70. Again, waiting for Sweden to act makes completely no sense.

You can throw out all the innuendo you'd like. It still doesn't make sense to wait for Sweden. If the US had a case and wanted to prosecute, it is easier to extradite Assange from the UK. The Swedes would bother to read the request, where as the British would just rubber-stamp it.

And why, indeed, was our Secretary of Defense so happy about his capture?

Would you be happy if Karl Rove was arrested? If you don't like someone, you will likely experience schadenfreude when they get in legal trouble.

Btw....who exactly can the Secretary of Defense prosecute? That list doesn't include Assange.

The UK would most certainly not extradite Prince Charles if we asked them to.

Wow you found the hyperbole! Congratulations!

Even for British nationals of lesser rank, ask around, or do some research: you'll find that the UK has a much better record of protecting its own citizens abroad through their embassies

Now, how does the argument that the UK protects it's citizens from extradition apply to Assange, who is an Australian? And no, Australia is no more a part of the UK than the US is.

However, you keep stating your own opinion of who is more likely to extradite Assange, without providing any proof.

I have found 0 cases in the last 40 years where the UK denied a US extradition request. There have been conditions set on extradition, specifically no death penalty, but the suspect was still extradited after those conditions were met. If you want to claim it would be easier to extradite from Sweden, you are going to have to show lots of past difficulties extraditing from the UK to the US

So are you claiming that the Independent doesn't source its stories?

No, I'm claiming their story is utterly illogical. There is nothing preventing the US from extraditing Assange from the UK. Therefore there is no reason to wait until Sweden gets him.

[ljm2002]

72. There is no need to show "past difficulties"...

...in extraditing from the UK. We already have at least one report of diplomatic negotiations between the US and Sweden. You have yet to refute that report -- just claiming it is "illogical" does not refute the report.

Anyway -- obviously we are not seeing this case in the same way. Good day to you.

[jeff47]

73. So slap them blinders on?

The entire basis of your argument is that the US would not be able to successfully extradite Assange from the UK.

You provide no reason why Assange would be different from the many other successful extraditions to the US from the UK. And why his case would break our 100% success record.

The US talking with Sweden doesn't matter when you are trying to argue difficulties extraditing from the UK. You have to show there would be difficulties.

[ljm2002]

74. You are wrong about "my entire argument"...

...since my argument is based on what has been reported, not on what difficulties there might be should the US request extradition from the UK.

There have been no reports that the US asked for extradition from the UK.

[reorg]

75. you didn't look if you "have found 0 cases"

... government figures show that between 2004-11, 112 extradition requests were made by the US to Britain. Of those, 73 defendants were extradited while seven cases were discharged, with the remainder still unresolved.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/americas/claims-uk-us-extradition-pact-lopsided-but-some-legal-experts-disagree

versus

It is not clear how Sweden might respond to any US request for his temporary surrender to the US, if American charges were laid against him on arrival in Sweden. The present conservative Swedish Government has a history of acceding to all US rendition requests during the War on Terror. - Tony Kevin, retired Australian diplomat

http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

... it is hard to see how Sweden, acting strictly in accordance with its own laws on extradition, could contemplate acceding to any US request to hand over Mr Assange.

But Sweden’s track record in recent years in cases where extradition or forcible return to another country would result in human rights abuse is not one that would give Mr Assange any comfort.

In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights intervened to overturn a Swedish decision to deport two Syrian men, brothers, who were wanted in Syria over alleged ‘honour killings’. The Swedish authorities, having received information that the death penalty was unlikely to be imposed on the brothers, ordered that they been returned to Syria. The European Court upheld the brother’s argument that they feared persecution on return to Syria and noted that the Swedish government had been prepared to act on incomplete information and vague assurances from the Syrian embassy.

Four years earlier in December 2001, the Swedish authorities, again acting after obtaining assurances from Egypt that two asylum seekers would not be subjected to torture and would receive a fair trial, handed over Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, to the Americans who transferred the men to Cairo.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44710.html

It doesn't matter anyhow. The US may or may not have good reasons not to have sought Assange's extradition yet. That doesn't mean they won't be able to do it whenever it suits them.

[clang1]

68. Pffft

it's not evidence. IT IS HIS OR HER OWN EYES. Learn the difference. Maybe then what you write will make more sense.

[jeff47]

71. Apparently you don't believe eyewitnesses provide evidence.

Since what they saw was with HIS OR HER OWN EYES!!!!!1!!!!!eleven!!!

[treestar]

22. Because in the US you get a trial

As astounding as it may sound, the US does not disappear people. Bradley Manning has a right to a trial. It is part of the supporters' hysteria that Bradley Manning is not getting the benefit of the rule of law. He is. They simply try to exaggerate the conditions under which he is kept as part of their pro-Wikileaks hysteria. Julian would do better than Manning, since he would not be subject to military law.

This is a house of cards built up to make everyone feel like julian is some misunderstood hero. Sorry to see the way people fall for it.

[teddy51]

27. Not a fair trial perhaps, but a kangaroo court trial (just ask his lawyers).

[treestar]

29. We do not have "kangaroo courts"

here. The rules of evidence apply. We can challenge court rulings on appeal. We can even challenge the laws we are prosecuted under. There a like a million lawyers in the US and while people complain about that, there wouldn't be if courts were just "kangaroo" courts. We have a system of state and federal laws and courts and mostly we apply them.

[daaron]

33. How terribly, cruelly naive. Better hope nobody you care about -->

has to face the U.S.'s 2-tiered justice system - either civilian or military. Your faith is sadly misplaced, and any one of us out here in the U.S. living our lives and facing this reality can see right through the jingoism.

[treestar]

37. Good grief!

There's no point in debating someone on these terms. Does ANY nation have a rule of law or a system of justice?

You're living in a sad place you don't have to. Things are much brighter than you think they are.

If you're going to make it personal, well, some case not turning out as you wanted hardly condemns the whole system, and people are not objective about their personal experiences. Nobody thinks they are guilty or liable. And there are more than 2 tiers in most places (if by that you mean levels of appeal).

[clang1]

49. Makes no sense

Though I do understand this question:
re: Does ANY nation have a rule of law or a system of justice?

Yes. Julian Assange is trying to find one to live in.

[reorg]

41. no, 95% of all cases are resolved through plea bargaining

often with false confessions or false testimony extracted through threats of harsh punishment and spurious or no other evidence.

All that is needed is a false allegation for instance by a computer criminal who seeks to shorten a long prison sentence he may be threatened with, and a pliant jury full of hate for Assange just like certain posters here.

95 percent of American criminal defendants are tried under a system entirely different from the one we learn about in school and argue about in politics

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/12/why_innocent_people_confess.html

In a February 2012 poll, under President Obama's leadership, 70% of Americans (53% liberal Democrats and 67% moderate or conservative Democrats) replied they approve the continued operation of Guantanamo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-finds-broad-support-for-obamas-counterterrorism-policies/2012/02/07/gIQAFrSEyQ_story.html

[Vidar]

60. Nonsense: The Supreme Court is our best example of a kangaroo court.

[clang1]

48. BOLD FACED LIES

We've already seen the bodies. TRY AGAIN

[teddy51]

6. The US is terrible and corrupt, that has been witnessed over and over again. Why should

he go to Sweden, when Sweden will probably turn him over to the US.

[jeff47]

17. Because if your theory was correct, the UK would have already extradited him to the US.

There's no need to send him to Sweden for extradition. The UK would happily do so. So would Australia.

[Iggy]

13. Uhhhhhhh

I see... if you publish embarrasing or damning info about the U.S., if you don't buy into U.S.
exceptionalism, if you're not OK with torture and rendition-- that makes you a HATER.

what a weak load.

bullcrap meter is off the chart.

[treestar]

25. No, you're merely saying Julian should get away with publishing our documents

Since the Ellsberg case, he cannot be punished for that anyway.

So yes it is derangement of rabid anti US hatred to say we would prosecute someone with no law to prosecute them under. Just ridiculous. The BS is that.

Why are you so eager for the US to be embarrassed and willing to see Julian's actions as that? What has Julian done to stop "torture and rendition" (if that is indeed what he allegedly exposed, which is very likely in question also).

[daaron]

34. Facts are facts - if they're embarrassing, so be it. nt

[treestar]

40. How has this "embarrassment" solved anything?

And "embarrassment" is also different as to the eyes of different people. The embarrassment isn't so bad that it's still in the news. But Julian has gotten himself back in the news. That's his whole goal for this latest shenanigans.

[clang1]

52. Even the russians are not 'embarrased' Medvedev: Wikileaks 'Positive,' 'Healthy'

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:58 AM - Edit history (9)

It is telling that you only worry about 'embarrasment'.......

Medvedev: Wikileaks 'Positive,' 'Healthy'

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8012750-medvedev-wikileaks-positive-healthy

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev tried to reassure world business leaders by insisting that Russia remains a good place for investment and that the country is dedicated to global engagement. He said that no country was immune to terrorism and that the recent airport terror could have taken place anywhere in the world. Medvedev also said that Russia is weary of being lectured about democracy.

Afterward, Medvedev was asked a question which likely caught him off guard. He was asked what his response would be if wikileaks released secret Russian documents damaging to the government. He said that wikileaks releases could have a positive impact on international relations. "At the end of the day, I believe this WikiLeaks story should make the spirit of international relations healthier even if, in itself, this was an illegal activity," he said. "The impact of the story for international relations is quite positive."

Medvedev said that the wikileaks releases of US diplomatic cables -- which branded Russia "a mafia state -- did not shock him. "From my perspective, from what I read concerning Russia from the materials which found their way to WikiLeaks, there has been nothing new to me in it," he said, smiling. "I got the sense that most assessments that found their way to WikiLeaks concerning Russia were taken from the general political sites on the Internet."


Intersting thing Medvedev said: general political sites on the Internet

I have not analyzed this but I have a feeling I wouldn't need to.....How much of the US information that was released, was similar information (to that available on the Web)? If it is similar information: Why is it classified here in America? It is ridiculous. More secrecy.

I am sure Medvedev thinks before he speaks. He said what he said for a reason if even what was meant was Russia hides it's dirty laundry better better than America does. Damn. Slam either way. Such is the world and some that are fools in it and Medvedev is not the fool either... Lol.

[Iggy]

57. The problem is exceptionalism

we should all be OK with being the bully in the world.

meanwhile, China has a much different philosophy.. and ultimately getting further ahead
than us with our bludgeon.

[daaron]

58. Why do you want to "embarrass America", Iggy?

[Iggy]

64. No Effort from me Required

Every day that goes by with 25 million UNemployed and underemployed people is an embarrassment for
"the greatest nation in the history of the world"....

[Iggy]

56. What happened to "Mr. Transparency"?

It's my tax dollars paying for all the deadbeats and screw-ups working for the federal
government- the recent secret service fiasco is one more example. I suppose the
details of that pathetic incidident need to be "top secret"? gimme a break, please.

the U.S. shooting innocent civilians from a helicopter in Iraq-- that needs to be secret?
sure.

an actual democracy requires transparency/accountability. I'm not interested in
supporting the faux version.

[larkrake]

67. What has the US done to stop torture and rendition, treestar- take off the rose colored glasses

[ljm2002]

61. If Assange engaged in actions "against the US"...

...as you claim, then what do you say regarding the New York Times, the Guardian (UK), and other news organizations, who published the SAME materials in cooperation with WikiLeaks?

Also, your reply that Sweden wouldn't bother to persecute this "poor leaker", contradicts the quoted excerpt in the OP, which I will include here again in case you missed it:

Dec., 2010: "Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources. . . . His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence."

So this report from a reputable news organization, states that informal discussions have taken place between US and Swedish officials regarding extradition of Assange; and our own Secretary of Defense says it is "good news" that Assange was arrested in London. Now why would our Secretary of Defense weigh in on Assange's arrest, if it was only about a misdemeanor-level sex charge in Sweden??? Things that make you go, Hmmmm...

[dipsydoodle]

7. buoyed by support as in buoyed up ?

Makes him sound like a priest.

[OnyxCollie]

9. Wow!

Something to counter DU's sole purveyor of anti-Assange propaganda.

K&R.

[snot]

14. I.m.h.o., Wikileaks and Assange

have done immeasurable good. Corrupt governments have already fallen, in part because of Wikileaks' revelations. See some of these revelations at the bottom of this post.

But the strongest elites still have the power to crush Wikileaks and Assange, and they're using it. It's amazing that Assange and Wikileaks have managed to survive at all.

Just look at the massive pursuit and retaliation being deployed just to "question" Assange for alleged molestation, when the women he allegedly molested don't even want to press charges. Why don't we see this kind of pursuit of the kleptocrats that have looted our economies?

Some of Wikileaks' revelations (as of March, 2011):

Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda.
Yemeni president lied to his own people, claiming his military carried out air strikes on militants actually done by U.S. All part of giving U.S. full rein in country against terrorists.
Shocking levels of U.S. spying at the United Nations (beyond what was commonly assumed) and intense use of diplomats abroad in intelligence-gathering roles.
U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition. Saudi king suggested to Obama that we plant micro-chips on Gitmo detainees.
State Dept memo: U.S.-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was 'illegal and unconstitutional.'"
Cables showed the UK promised in 2009 to protect U.S interests in the official Chilcot inquiry on the start of the Iraq war.
Washington was misled by our own diplomats on Russia-Georgia showdown.
The UK sidestepped a ban on housing cluster bombs. Officials concealed from Parliament how the U.S. is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty.
NYT headline: "An Afghan Quandary: Fighting Corruption With Corrupt Officials." Summary: "From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.
Afghan vice president left country with52 million "in cash."
Potential environmental disaster kept secret by the US when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.
U.S. used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.
Details on Vatican hiding big sex abuse cases in Ireland. Vatican cables "inflammatory" and could spark animosity toward Catholicism.
Oil giant Shell claims to have "inserted staff" and fully infiltrated Nigeria's government.
Cable shows Israel cooperating with Abbas vs. Hamas during Gaza attacks.
U.K. training death squads in Bangladesh, widely denounced by human rights groups.
U.S. pressured the European Union to accept genetically modified crops.
Hundreds of cables detail U.S. use of diplomats as "sales" agents, more than previously thought, centering on jet rivalry of Boeing vs. Airbus. Hints of corruption and bribes.
Millions in U.S. military aid for fighting Pakistani insurgents went to other gov't uses (or stolen) instead.
Russia is a "mafia state."
Israel wanted to bring Gaza to the"brink of collapse."
Extremely important historical document finally released in full: Ambassador April Glaspie's cable from Iraq in 1990 on meeting with Saddam Hussein before Kuwait invasion.
Cables on Tunisia appear to help spark revolt in that country. The country's ruling elite described as "The Family," with Mafia-like skimming throughout the economy. The country's First Lady may have made massive profits off a private school.
U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy.
The U.S. secret services used Turkey as a base to transport terrorism suspects as part of its extraordinary rendition program.
As protests spread in Egypt, cables revealed that strong man Suleiman was at center of government's torture programs, causing severe backlash for Mubarak after he named Suleiman vice president during the revolt.
Other cables revealed or confirmed widespread Mubarak regime corruption, police abuses and torture, and claims of massive Mubarak famiiy fortune, significantly influencing media coverage and U.S. response.
Egyptian torturers trained by FBI--although allegedly to teach the human rights issues.
Cables reveal torture of political prisoners and others in Bahrain as it, too, faces revolts.
NYT: "In cables made public by WikiLeaks, the Bush and Obama administrations repeatedly characterized Bahrain as more open and reform-minded than its neighbors, and pushed back when human rights groups criticized the government."
Several 9/11 conspirators in U.S. fled the country.

(More at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/on-the-100th-day-of-cable_b_832197.html .)

Meanwhile, claims re- the harms Wikileaks has done appear to have been greatly exaggerated. As noted even in a recent law journal article that appears to me to have been written by someone unfavorable to Wikileaks, "Government officials asserted . . . that WikiLeaks would cause untold, incalculable damage to the nation’s military personnel, national security, and diplomatic efforts. . . . They eventually retreated from that prediction, however . . . open sources provide no clear evidence that WikiLeaks caused significant damage to the Department of Defense or the Department of State" – let alone any of the worse harms predicted.

[jeff47]

16. I'd believe in them if they leaked any other country's secrets

Unfortunately, they seem to only leak US secrets. Other countries? Not so much. For example, they claimed to have information from Russia that they never quite got around to posting.

Kinda makes it hard to believe their claims about fighting for transparency.

[snot]

19. Pls read the post you replied to.

[jeff47]

42. All of that information came from US documents

It isn't a leak from another country when it's US diplomats talking about other countries.

[EFerrari]

47. Wikileaks got Icelandic banksters put in jail.

By 9 October 2008, Kaupthing Bank HF was forced into government receivership – only days after a crisis at Landsbanki placed it into government control.[9] Due to the crisis throughout the Icelandic financial system, all trading in the country's equity markets was suspended on 13 October 2008. On 29 July 2009 Wikileaks exposed a confidential 210 page document listing Kaupthing's exposure to loans ranging from 45 million to 1.25 billion Euros.[10] The leaked presentation revealed the bank had loaned billions of euros to its major shareholders, including a total of €1.43 billion to Exista and subsidiaries which own 23% of the bank.[11]

On 9 December 2009, Daniel Thordarsson, former asset manager, and Stefnir Ingi Agnarsson, former stock broker, both of Kaupthing Hf, were sentenced to eight-month prison terms by the Reykjavik District Court.

The pair was charged with putting in offers to buy Exista shares six times in January and February last year shortly before the close of business, so that the offers would affect the end-of-day value of Exista shares. The charges were of submitting false purchase enquiries and of share price manipulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Bank

The reason Wikileaks seems overly concerned with the US is because the US is up in everyone's business all over the world. So, when you uncover a scandal somewhere, chances are we will be involved in it. Also, our media does a crappy job of covering other places so you likely haven't heard stories that were reported in the UK or in Spain or in Australia or in Haiti or Sudan or even in Mexico.

[clang1]

24. Very logical thinking, no? n/t

[treestar]

28. The US runs the entire world, in the supporters' minds

and this leakage has changed the world for the better, all this evil was because of the US classifying the information!

[clang1]

30. Makes no sense n/t

[daaron]

35. Vast majority of Wikileaks focus has always been non-US.

Unlike Americans, they're actually concerned about what other countries are doing.

[treestar]

26. That is Wikileaks taking credit for all sorts of things

that had many other causes.

[snot]

54. Read again. Those are simply observations of US officials et al. that were revealed by Wikileaks

[joeglow3]

32. Should he try and get Fast and Furious documents to leak?

Do we have a right to see all of them?

[clang1]

38. Yes. I would as well were I an Investigative Journalist concerned with the law,

human rights, etc. Yes That is correct. This is what journalists do in FREE Societies. All that some people are doing here is killing the messenger. THATS ALL

There will be, and are more messengers. They've not killed them all yet. Though they are trying to. Smell the coffee.

There Will Always be Someone Else After Assange, that is until everyone is dead. PERIOD

[reorg]

45. thanks for providing this list

Someone created a thread a while ago where everybody would mention cables with revelations that made an impact. Not sure how far it went.

As to the allegation of "incalculable damage" to persons named ... I believe it was a calculated slander which had some effect. At least it frightened some volunteers and cooperators. They jumped ship and sold their story and "expertise" to the highest bidder.

[clang1]

21. What Assange is

"A legitimate, registered, multi award-winning media organisation and its editor have legally published the truth about the biggest superpower in the world and embarrassed them and exposed them for wrongdoing - war crimes, corruption and fraud."


Assange was a hacker-activist in his youth, before becoming a computer programmer and then becoming internationally renowned for his work with WikiLeaks.[9] He has lived in several countries and has made public appearances in many parts of the world to speak about freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative journalism.

He has received numerous awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, Readers' Choice for TIME magazine's 2010 Person of the Year, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal and the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.[10] Snorre Valen, a Norwegian parliamentarian, nominated him for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.[11]



PERIOD

[clang1]

51. Torture option still alive and well

The excerpt of the EO that says no torture only mentions under Interrogation conditions. It does not rule out use of torture. Period. To say there is no torture option based upon this EO is absurd to me. In this case the United States is a torture state based upon what we already know and also very likely will be a torture state for Assange if he is sent here. PERIOD



RE: That the US has tortured many people in its custody is a fact. That the practice has ended is predicated on nothing more than an executive order which states:

Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes .



Do you think Julian Assange or Bradley Manning rise to the definition of "enemy combatants?" Do you? And, unless I'm mistaken, our rendition policy is still in place.

(thanks OP in other Assange thread)
---



"There are other, strong protections in that law, such as unequivocally ruling out extradition to countries that don't offer guarantees against imposing the death penalty, torture and inhuman treatment. A life sentence without possibiliy of parole is widely considered inhuman, for instance, except in the US.
The Ecuadorian law also explicitly and unambiguously rules out extradition in political cases. Whereas such characterizations may be a matter of interpretation, anyway, the Swedish extradition law allows for the following exceptions:


Section 6
Extradition may not be granted for a political offence.
If the act also constitutes a non-political offence, extradition may be granted for that offence, provided, in the particular case, the act is predominantly of a non-political nature.
The first paragraph does not apply where rejection on this ground would be contrary to an international agreement applying between Sweden and the requesting state."

[Robb]

55. Fortunately, Wikileaks will endure regardless of Assange's fate.

Everyone knows this, Assange fanboys notwithstanding.

Assange's irrelevance to the future of Wikileaks is Wikileaks' greatest strength. If he is thrown in a hole for a thousand years -- or serves 4 years for rape in Sweden -- Wikileaks will continue without him.

Good riddance. The man's predilection for publicity, at one point an asset to the organization, now only serves Assange. He might or might not be a rapist, but again, Wikileaks is neither better nor worse if he is.

[clang1]

59. Your post is quite bizarre

WiKileaks will continue to exist. So will Assange.