HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Julian Assange: Bail cash...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:20 PM

Julian Assange: Bail cash decision delayed

Source: BBC

3 October 2012 Last updated at 13:32 ET

... Westminster Magistrates' Court is to issue a written decision later ...

Arguing why they should not lose their money, Mr Smith told Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle: "We never envisaged when we agreed to become sureties that the matter would become a diplomatic argument and it is clear that this needs to be resolved at a governmental level...

"In this unique, this quite exceptional case, complying with what this court seems to expect from us - to all publicly urge Mr Assange to abandon the sanctuary that he has found in the Ecuadorian embassy - would see us acting against a man whom we and others judge to have understandable fears about his ultimate treatment in the United States if he abandons his asylum" ...

He said the group agreed they should not urge Mr Assange to leave the embassy as that would make them "mercenary and contemptible individuals" ...



Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19822033



So everybody waits to hear what Riddle writes

Riddle had delayed the decision on forfeit of the sureties last month; then he said, “At the moment I am not persuaded that there any reasons that securities would not be using every effort, publicly or privately, to persuade Assange to surrender himself to the UK authorities. I might change my mind but that’s my position now”

So Vaughn Smith's assertion the group agreed they should not urge Mr Assange to leave the embassy probably will not sit well with Riddle

That is especially true, in light of Vaughan Smith's reference to Assange's "ultimate treatment in the United States if he abandons his asylum", as Riddle had already written in his "Findings of facts and reasons" for the original lawsuit: "... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing"

Earlier DU thread:
Make Assange leave embassy, court tells his bail backers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014218173#top

57 replies, 6859 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 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply Julian Assange: Bail cash decision delayed (Original post)
struggle4progress Oct 2012 OP
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #1
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #2
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #3
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #4
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #5
randome Oct 2012 #6
xocet Oct 2012 #7
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #10
xocet Oct 2012 #14
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #8
msanthrope Oct 2012 #9
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #11
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #12
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #15
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #17
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #18
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #19
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #22
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #24
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #26
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #29
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #23
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #25
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #27
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #28
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #33
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #34
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #35
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #38
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #50
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #13
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #16
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #20
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #21
LiberalLovinLug Oct 2012 #31
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #32
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #30
freshwest Oct 2012 #36
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #37
SESKATOW Oct 2012 #39
freshwest Oct 2012 #40
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #42
freshwest Oct 2012 #43
tama Oct 2012 #51
freshwest Oct 2012 #52
tama Oct 2012 #53
freshwest Oct 2012 #54
tama Oct 2012 #55
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #41
SESKATOW Oct 2012 #44
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #45
SESKATOW Oct 2012 #46
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #47
SESKATOW Oct 2012 #48
struggle4progress Oct 2012 #49
freshwest Oct 2012 #56
AntiFascist Oct 2012 #57

Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:18 PM

1. Julian Assange supporters plead to keep £140,000 bail money

Vaughan Smith and others tell court they cannot influence WikiLeaks founder's decision to claim asylum
Robert Booth
The Guardian, Wednesday 3 October 2012 13.03 EDT

... Smith spoke on behalf of sureties who include Philip Knightly, a veteran Australian investigative journalist who exposed the British traitor Kim Philby as a Russian spy, and Sir John Sulston, a Nobel prize-winning biologist. Smith told the court that a group of them visited Assange on Monday and concluded "the sureties do not have the power to meaningfully intervene in this matter. This has become a matter between the Ecuadorean, British, Swedish, US and Australian governments" ...

He urged the court to take into account the "huge amount of effort over an unexpectedly long period" the sureties had put in to support the legal process. He drew attention to his own efforts and those of his family, who as well as standing £20,000 in bail money hosted Assange for 13 months ...

"In this unique, this quite exceptional case, complying with what this court seems to expect from us, to all publicly urge Mr Assange to abandon the sanctuary that he has found in the Ecuadorean embassy, would see us acting against a man whom we and others judge to have understandable fears about his ultimate treatment in the United States if he abandons his asylum."

The chief magistrate said he would take several days to consider the submission and other evidence before making a ruling. In an earlier hearing in September, he had given the nine sureties a month to persuade Assange to surrender himself to police if they wanted their money back, saying he was not persuaded that they were not "using every effort, publicly and privately, to persuade Mr Assange to surrender himself to UK authorities" ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/03/julian-assange-supporters-bail-money?newsfeed=true


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:21 PM

2. Julian Assange supporters fight to recover £140,000 bail posted for WikiLeaks founder

2:58PM BST 03 Oct 2012

... Speaking at Westminster Magistrates Court, Frontline Club owner Vaughan Smith, who allowed Assange to stay at his home in Norfolk, Ellingham Hall, for more than a year, said the sureties were powerless to act.

Speaking on behalf of the nine-strong group, he added: "Should I, or any other sureties, publicly urge Mr Assange to abandon the Ecuadorian Embassy it would undoubtedly be reported in the press either in a manner to discredit him, or to discredit us.

"It would undermine Mr Assange, but we don't believe it would do anything to extract him from the Ecuadorian embassy.

"It would certainly be a very public betrayal and in our view, importantly, it would also betray the public" ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9584553/Julian-Assange-supporters-fight-to-recover-140000-bail-posted-for-WikiLeaks-founder.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:36 PM

3. Assange supporters wait to learn fate of funds

... Smith told the court that he and Assange's other supporters are "convinced that they have done and are doing the right thing" and that they should not be punished for trying to "serve the public interest" in the case.

"We never envisaged when we agreed to become sureties that the matter would become a diplomatic argument and it is clear that this needs to be resolved at a governmental level," he told Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle.

"We request that sureties in this case be treated gracefully, in a manner that reflects the impossible position that we are in."

Smith said the group of Assange backers at risk of losing their sureties had agreed they should not urge Assange to vacate the embassy just to save their money ...

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/assange-supporters-wait-to-learn-fate-of-funds_803606.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:37 PM

4. Guarantors ask London court to halt Assange bail payout

... The case was "wholly exceptional" because Assange was claiming asylum when he broke bail, said Henry Blaxland, a lawyer for some of the guarantors, who include British Nobel prize-winning biologist John Sulston and Australian-born journalist Phillip Knightley.

"The fact is that Mr Assange has secured sanctuary as a political refugee in a country with which Great Britain has an established and normal diplomatic relationship. How can this fact have no legal standing?" Smith said in court, reading from a statement prepared by the guarantors, five of whom were present for the hearing ...

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Guarantors_ask_London_court_to_halt_Assange_bail_payout.html?cid=33650708

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:40 PM

5. Delay for Assange's bail backers

Last edited Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

... Vaughan Smith, a friend who put Assange up at his country mansion for more than a year, ... said all those who offered sureties, of varying amounts, are "convinced that they have done and are doing the right thing." Arguing why they should not lose their money, he told Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle: "We don't see how justice is served by punishing us for having done our best to serve the public interest in this complex and challenging case.

"We submit that the sureties are wholly blameless, that we have worked assiduously to help Assange to meet the requirements of the court ...

Smith said the group agreed they should not urge Assange to leave the embassy, so they stand more of a chance of keeping their money, because that would make them "mercenary and contemptible individuals." He told the court: "We never envisaged when we agreed to become sureties that the matter would become a diplomatic argument and it is clear that this needs to be resolved at a governmental level ...

"In this unique, this quite exceptional case, complying with what this court seems to expect from us, to all publicly urge Assange to abandon the sanctuary that he has found in the Ecuadorian embassy, would see us acting against a man whom we and others judge to have understandable fears about his ultimate treatment in the United States if he abandons his asylum ...

http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2266280&language=en

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:45 PM

6. "We never envisaged...that the matter would become a diplomatic argument".

Right. The entire matter was just about a long, drawn-out, 2 year affair to prevent him from having to face those evil Swedish witches.

It's been 'diplomatic' since Assange fled Sweden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:20 PM

7. You're not kicking this thread - you're stroking it.

Have you considered replacing "progress" with "Assange"? It would be a fitting name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:53 PM

10. I suggest that if you do not want to read the thread, you are entirely free not to read it:

In the original hearing on this, about a month back, the guarantors were given a month to persuade Ass***e to surrender to the UK authorities, as he had been earlier directed. The OP, following today's hearing, shows Vaughn Smith telling the court that all guarantors had agreed not to attempt to so persuade Ass***e, on the theory that he faces forward extradition to the US and abuse there -- a theory that Ass***e's lawyers had actually abandoned in hearings before the same magistrate long ago.

The excerpt in Post#1 indicates that the guarantors had visited Ass***e earlier this week and that Vaughn Smith thinks Riddle should take into account how much energy the guarantors put into Ass***e's defense

The excerpt in Post#2 indicates that his guarantors decided to refuse to encourage Ass***e to leave the embassy, on the grounds that he and/or his guarantors would thereby be discredited

The excerpt in Post#3 indicates that the guarantors simultaneously ask Riddle to refund their money while telling Riddle that they cannot encourage Ass***e to leave the embassy in order to safeguard their funds

The excerpt in Post#4 quotes a lawyer for the guarantors as complaining the asylum issue ought to have legal standing in a UK court -- though he does not bother to mention that the UK itself does not recognize diplomatic asylum

The excerpt in Post#5 captures Vaughn Smith's inconsistent whining: the guarantors, on his view, are wholly blameless servants of the public interest, who have done absolutely everything possible to help Ass***e to meet his legal obligations, except for the one little matter at hand, namely, they cannot possibly encourage him to surrender to the authorities as he has been directed -- but, of course, THAT is precisely why bail and sureties were assessed originally

The excerpt in Post#8 identifies the guarantors and includes Vaughn Smith's heroic effort to toss in the kitchen-sink, claiming that the matter is between the Ecuadorian, British, Swedish, US and Australian governments!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:50 PM

14. That was purely a comment on the amazing way in which you are posting in this thread.

It is truly amazing - it is almost a soliloquy.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:29 PM

8. Delay for Assange's bail backers

... The other eight backers are retired professor Tricia David, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir John Sulston, journalist Philip Knightley, Lady Caroline Evans, friend Sarah Saunders, Joseph Farrell, Sarah Harrison and Tracy Worcester ...

Mr Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club for journalists, said the group had visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, where he told them he feared persecution from the US authorities ...

Mr Smith added: 'Mr Assange expressed concern about the risk of forfeiture that the sureties face, however it was clear from our visit that sureties do not have the power to meaningfully intervene in this matter.

'This has become a matter between the Ecuadorian, British, Swedish, US and Australian governments' ...

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=801954


To my knowledge, the US has never been involved in any manner or fashion in the lawsuit Judicial Authority v Assange. Moreover, Assange's lawyers dropped forward extradition to the US as an issue in Riddle's court, before conclusion of the original hearings at Belmarsh. So there seems to be no cause for Riddle to consider the views of or allegations of views about the views of the US government.

To my knowledge, Australia has never been directly involved in any manner or fashion in the lawsuit Judicial Authority v Assange. The Australians sent consular observers to all court hearings, and they apparently periodically sought guarantees of fair treatment, but Assange himself repeatedly refused offers of any direct contact with them, finding it more to his taste to complain that Australia had abandoned him. In particular, the Australians seem to have had no standing in the lawsuit either. So there seems to be no cause for Riddle to consider the views of or allegations of views about the views of the Australian government

The Swedish prosecutor, of course, initiated the process with the EAW and hence was represented in court. The Swedish authorities objected to bail from the beginning, and the fact that Assange jumped bail seems to vindicate the original Swedish position. So if Riddle infers the expressed views of the Swedish government, that could incline him somewhat towards forfeiture of the funds

To my knowledge, Ecuador has never been directly involved in any manner or fashion in the lawsuit Judicial Authority v Assange. After conclusion of Assange's second appeal to the Supreme Court, during the period Assange had been allowed for appeal to Strasbourg, Assange elected to jump bail and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy, rather than to launch an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: that is, he chose not to use the further legal options remaining to him. So there seems to be no cause for Riddle to consider the views of or allegations of views about the views of the Ecuadorian government, but consideration of the procedural facts could incline him somewhat towards forfeiture of the funds

To my knowledge, the UK government has essentially deferred to its courts in this matter. Diplomatic matters are, of course, a prerogative of the Crown and not of the courts. It is likely that Riddle would defer, if Her Majesty's government were to beg leave from Riddle for opportunity to settle diplomatic matters, but there is no reason to expect such a request from the government: Ecuador allows Assange to remain in its embassy, under an asylum theory that the UK does not recognize, and Her Majesty's government will find no advantage in promoting the idea that such an asylum theory justifies bail-jumping. There might be cause for Riddle to consider the views of the UK government, were such views offered, but one should not expect such views to be offered

Vaughn Smith, on the other hand, has no reason whatsoever to imagine the court will countenance his view that this is some complicated five-way diplomatic affair between the Ecuadorian, British, Swedish, US and Australian governments, as diplomatic matters are a prerogative of the Crown and not a prerogative of Mr Vaughn Smith


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 04:39 PM

9. Vaughan Smith sounds like an utter prat. He wants his money that he put up for Assange, but

doesn't want to ask Assange to facilitate its return? What an ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #9)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:07 PM

11. In for a penny, in for a pound:

"... I've gotten to know Julian well enough to be 100% sure he's not going to abscond ..."
Vaughan Smith on Assange bail
The former soldier and the founder of the Frontline Club insists the Wikileaks founder will not abscond from his house.

http://www.metro.co.uk/video/712988142001-vaughan-smith-on-assange-bail
@1:20

... Vaughan Smith, a former British army captain who housed Assange, sounds downright unhappy in a conversation with The Wall Street Journal. "I'm slightly concerned that I may have guaranteed 20 grand to be paid later," he said. "The interests of my family are obviously impacted by the loss of that sort of money" ...
Assange's Celebrity Donors Were Left High and Dry
John Hudson
Jun 21, 2012
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/06/assanges-celebrity-donors-were-left-high-and-dry/53795/


Smith is pretty invested in this whole affair -- after all, Assange stayed a year at his home -- so he may have some real trouble coming to terms with the fact he's been had by a con man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:44 PM

12. According to the BBC here is how he is coming to terms...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19822033

"In this unique, this quite exceptional case, complying with what this court seems to expect from us - to all publicly urge Mr Assange to abandon the sanctuary that he has found in the Ecuadorian embassy - would see us acting against a man whom we and others judge to have understandable fears about his ultimate treatment in the United States if he abandons his asylum."

What exactly drives your rabid hatred of Assange?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #12)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:02 PM

15. Somehow it escapes Mr Smith's attention that: (1) the extradition here is an extradition to Sweden

(not to the US), and the extradition requested here was requested by Sweden (not requested by the US);
(2) the UK rather frequently extradites people to the US, whereas Sweden rather seldom extradites people to the US;
(3) forward extradition to the US from Sweden, following extradition from the UK to Sweden, would require permission from the UK, and could be challenged in both UK and Swedish courts, whereas direct extradition to the US from the UK could be challenged in the UK courts but (of course) not in the Swedish courts;
(4) Assange's own witness testified at Belmarsh that forward extradition to the US from Sweden was a practical impossibility, after which Assange's lawyers dropped the argument;
(5) there is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that the Swedish government has applied any pressure to the Swedish justice system or to the Swedish courts, and there's no evidence that the Swedish warrant for Assange's arrest is motivated by anything except an ordinary attempt to prosecute a sexual offense;
(6) there is no evidence whatsoever to support claims that the US government has applied any pressure to Sweden, nor is there any evidence whatsoever to support claims that the US government plans to extradite Assange from either the UK or Sweden; and
(8) there is no evidence whatsoever that the Obama administration is following the criminal example of the prior administration, with regard to secret rendition, indefinite detention at Guantanamo, or torture

My best guess here is that Mr Smith -- who originally considered Ass***e a friend, allowing him to stay in his own home, who concluded Ass***e would not jump bail, and who was later rather shocked when Ass***e did jump bail -- finds it psychologically much easier to adopt Ass***e's crackpot conspiracy theories, than to believe he, Vaughn Smith, has been rooked by a scammer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:45 PM

17. Somehow it seems to escape your attention that...


1.) once extradited to Sweden Assange would then be kept in detention under unusually harsh and secretive conditions where he is not allowed to communicate with the outside world (no doubt you would like that) and we would not be kept updated on his situation, as we likely would otherwise if he were detained in the UK;

2.) being detained in the UK (outside of the embassy) is not a frigging option, so it doesn't matter whether the US calls for his extradition from the UK. If he is outside the embassy he will be sent directly to Sweden. If he is inside the embassy then he will likely continue to enjoy diplomatic asylum from the US as well as Sweden;

3.) No one is saying that the courts would not allow extradition to the US. If Assange is accused of conspiring to break into a secure database (a cybercrime) then it may not even be considered political espionage since cybercrime is non-politcal. Eric Holder himself has stated that there were several options under consideration for prosecution of Assange, with violation of the Espionage Act being only one of the several options;

4.) Extradition to the US is definitely a possibility when and if the US decides to proceed with prosecution. It is not a possibility at the moment because no such decision has yet been made, therefore it is not being considered in the current bail discussion;

5.) Sweden has already held informal diplomatic discussions with the US on how to proceed with extradition to the US. This was reported in 2010;

6.) Sweden has already held informal diplomatic discussions with the US on how to proceed with extradition to the US. This was reported in 2010;

7.) Manning was not secretly rendered nor is he being held at Gauntanamo, yet there are accusations that he is being treated harshly during his detention, and prior to his trial. Assange would likely be treated at least as harshly, besides his life has been threatened and there are Republicans out for his blood.

Mr. Smith's argument is well founded and keep in mind he his speaking on behalf of all of the individuals who put up sureties.

He said all of those who offered sureties of varying amounts were "convinced that they have done and are doing the right thing".




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:40 PM

18. Your comments seem hallucinatory

Pretrial detention in Sweden requires a court review every two weeks, as long as charges have not been filed, and Sweden reimburses its detainees at a daily rate equivalent to $30K/year, in the case that charges are not filed: people simply don't disappear into some mythical Swedish gulag, to be heard from never again; Swedish prisons, moreover, have some reputation for humane treatment of prisoners

Your extraordinary claim, that Sweden has held diplomatic discussions with the US on how to proceed with Assange's extradition, would, of course, require proof, but you offer none

Manning's lawyer, in the same filing by which he objected to Manning's treatment in custody, admitted that the primary objective, in treating Manning in the manner he was treated, was to prevent Manning from coming to harm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #18)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:04 PM

19. Hallucinatory?

Have you not been reading my other posts where I provide link after link of support for my statements? Your memory seems to be a bit, shall we say, degenerative.

Pretrial detention in Sweden, otherwise known as Hakning:

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe has repeatedly criticized pre-trial detention in Sweden for the high percentage of cases where restrictions on communication are applied.<11> Such communication restrictions means in Sweden no visits, no telephone calls, no newspapers and no TV.


11. http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/swe/2009-34-inf-eng.htm#_Toc248053668

So apparently restricting communication is considered a form of torture and that is precisely one of the complaints against the treatment of Manning as well. Stripping him and having a guard watch over him at all times is also a severe form of humiliation.

I should add: Sweden provides compensation (and rightly so, considering the harsh treatment) if detainees are subsequently not found guilty and sentenced, otherwise their detention time is merely credited toward their prison sentence.

My "extraordinary claim" that Sweden has held diplomatic discussions with the US on how to proceed with Assange's extradition is backed up by no less than this report from the Independent:

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

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:44 AM

22. "According to diplomatic sources" is pretty thin gruel. Most prescient in the Indie article

are the Swedish representative's comments:

... Gemma Lindfield, appearing for the Swedish authorities, ... opposed bail being granted because there was a risk he would fail to surrender ... She outlined ... reasons why there was a risk: ... reports that he intended to seek asylum ..., access to money from donors, his network of international contacts ... Mrs Lindfield added: "... This is someone for whom, simply put, there is no condition, even the most stringent, that would ensure he would surrender to the jurisdiction of this court" ...
By Kim Sengupta , Diplomatic Correspondent
Wednesday 08 December 2010
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:32 AM

24. It is also explained that he faces great danger...

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.

The US Justice Department is considering charging Mr Assange with espionage offences over his website’s unprecedented release of classified US diplomatic files. Several right-wing American politicians are pressing for his prosecution and even execution, with Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, saying he should be pursued the same as al-Qa’ida and Taliban leaders.

...

Mrs Lindfield added: "Any number of people could take it upon themselves to cause him harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:57 AM

26. Gates apparently wasn't following the matter at all:

Q: What is your response to the arrest of the Wikileaks founder?
A: uh I hadn't heard that but uh that sounds like good news to me.


So he's expressing his own opinion in response to a reporter's question, thereby proving nothing whatsoever -- since he, just like everyone else, is entitled to have an opinion

Even less does it matter what Sarah Palin thinks or says: she couldn't even complete a full term as governor of Alaska -- a state which, though large in area, has about the population of the town of Charlotte NC. Sarah's primary gift is being able to draw some attention to herself, and in recent years she has mainly used that gift to pursue her major interest: money. But her fifteen minutes of fame are just about up

The assertion "His arrest ... yesterday ... may pave the way for extradition to America" is based on the fact that the reporter has heard the Assangists repeat this claim like a mantra everywhere -- no real evidence is ever provided to support the view, though some inaccurate zombie factoids are regularly trotted out to try to make the nonsense sound credible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #26)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:44 AM

29. I provided a statement by legitimate media made at the time...

that supports the view that extradition to Sweden could pave the way for extradition to the US.

I can also "trot out the facts" that a long list of Republicans were calling for Assange to receive the death penalty along with several high-level Democrats who were calling for his prosecution in the US. Attorney General Eric Holder made statements, at the time, that the DOJ was actively pursuing several possibilities for prosecution at the highest levels.

You have to be willfully ignorant in order to deny that the US has been building a case against him.

One reason Manning is being mistreated may be to turn him against Assange, perhaps also as part of a plea bargain, to provide a ststement further incriminating Assange. Please, by all means, argue that this is in fact not happening.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:46 AM

23. Sweden responded to the 2010 CoE recommendations here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:43 AM

25. I had no idea the laundry list of problems was so extensive...


this is pretty much an admission there is much room for needed improvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:03 AM

27. You don't actually follow the CoE on this subject, do you? You don't seem to actually know

how the report to Sweden compares with other reports

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 03:48 AM

28. Please provide a comparative study between Sweden and the UK...

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:57 AM - Edit history (1)

you seem to be arguing that Assange is better off in Sweden, which is a non-argument anyway since he will end up there regardless, once he steps outside the embassy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:43 PM

33. Here's my concern about the Swedish system, spelled out in this article..


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/wikileaks-sweden-pirate-bay?newsfeed=true

Unlike in the British system, in which all proceedings, including extradition proceedings, relating to Assange would be publicly scrutinized and almost certainly conducted in open court, the unusual secrecy of Sweden's pre-trial judicial process, particularly the ability to hold the accused incommunicado, poses a real danger that whatever happened to Assange could be effectuated without any public notice. That has always been, and remains, the prime fear for his being extradited to Sweden: a fear that could be, and should be, redressed by negotiations between Ecuador, Sweden and the UK to assure that he can go to Sweden while having his rights protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 05:17 PM

34. Yep: that's Glenn Greenwald, once again lying his head off as expected

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg has already been convicted and sentenced. He skipped out of the country during the period allowed to him for appeal of his one year sentence

Cambodia extradited him, and on or about 11 September 2012 he arrived back in Sweden to face additional hacking charges. He was confined, and since his trial didn't occur in two weeks his detention was reviewed in court; the court remanded him for another two weeks. If the authorities don't prosecute him, he'll be reimbursed at a daily rate corresponding to about $30K/yr for his time in detention; if the authorities prosecute him, his time in detention counts against his sentence

See? He's already been sentenced to a year; he probably committed a second prosecutable crime by fleeing to avoid that imprisonment; and now he's been in jail for two weeks during the investigation of yet another crime

So forgive me if I won't gasp aghast and don't regard his case as one of the great human rights violation of the 21st century

I rather strongly suspect that detention in Sweden was never previously on your own radar screen. And I suspect it appears on your screen now simply because you are playing a rhetorical game that requires you to make as much outraged-sounding noise as you can in sentences referencing dear! precious! Julian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 05:48 PM

35. Once again, what you suspect turns out not to be true...


or else you are being willfully ignorant, or just forgetful.

The reason I posted the following was precisely because of the criticism of the Swedish system:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101641910

I know you were aware of it because you were posting all over the thread.

Also, please note that the article in the linked post above was not written by Glenn Greenwald, but you seem to disagree with any journalist who happens to provide evidence supportive of Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #35)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:19 AM

38. Um, the article you linked in #33 certainly was written by Greenwald, and it exhibits his usual

flair for misrepresenting the situation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #38)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 08:26 PM

50. Um, I was referring to the link in #35...


which is evidence that the Swedish system has been "on my radar" for a while.

What do you think of the Australian program "Four Corners"? No doubt you feel it represents the lib'rul biased media that supports Assange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 06:55 PM

13. I can understand freepers hating Assange

They quiver in their jackboots at any anti-authoritarian acts, but anyone, either conservative or liberal, that has any shred of decency or desire for truth and exposure of even these non-top secret lower level diplomatic secrets that contradict what these politicians say publicly in order to mislead...is either delusional or a paid operative for the puppetmasters.

We just had another update here in Canada, on a news investigation show, about our neo-Con government's ill-conceived plan to purchase the F-35 in development in the US. First the costs estimates almost double during the years, and more delays in its completion, now we find out that this new plane is supposed to be all things to all forces, army, navy, airforce...but its turning out to be like a lemon as it is a Jack of all trades and Master of none. Turns out this new concept of an all-in-one fighter is wraught with design issues. ie..its short wing span is great for taking off vertically from ships, but terrible for turning quickly for dogfights. Its supposed to be a bomber as well, but can only fit 2 inside because of the weight factor, which makes it kind of a waste to use for this. There are other counter productive elements as well but it all means that each capability cancels out the other. It will go down as the biggest lemon in military aircraft history.

So this Canadian news investigation program found out through Wikileaks that Britain was reading the writing on the wall and was contemplating switching their order instead to the Swedish made Griffin fighter jet. It was also revealed through Wikileaks that the US then threatened the UK (and Sweden) by saying that it would simply deny Sweden crucial parts for their plane that were manufactured in the US....if they did not stay with the F-35 order. So they capitulated.

Assange has every reason to believe that the US can and will pressure Sweden and/or the UK to hand him over.

Those who want to deny the public from this kind of knowledge, by smearing the organization and its leader that bravely supplies this information, are NOT looking out for the best interests of the humankind.

And this is only one example. Bradley Manning saw much more corruption, including war crimes, and sacrificed his life to expose it. Assange and Wikileaks gave his brave act a voice. What Wikileaks had done is probably one of the greatest acts of Truth to Power ever. Thus the severe onslaught back on him from the elite establishment and those that do their dirty work on political message boards.

What is sad is how so many people on the right and the left have been swayed by this worldwide corporate media smear campaign. It is such a juvenile argument to say that Assange is only in it to be a big star. He is a target. His actions MAKE him a lightening rod for the media. THEY are the ones creating a bigger than life character out of him. OF COURSE his organization will get publicity by the very nature of what they do. By that argument I'm sure you'all also believe that Obama is a publicity hound as well. I mean why are all these networks talking so much about him? It can't possibly because of his position! He must not have any actual sincere reasons for taking the job, like wanting to change America for the better. All you have to do is add up the minutes he is on or talked about in the media and its obvious he's just a conceited media whore.....right?

Nice bastardization of Jullian's last name BTW. I wish I could call you what I really think about you but this post would be hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:06 PM

16. You badly garbled your story, and that's one reason I stopped believing the Assangists:

The cablegate story did not involve the UK but Norway and Sweden: allegedly, the Bush-era cable author suggested that the US delay granting a Swedish request for some US-made radar equipment for the Gripen fighter jet, until after Norway had chosen between the US F-35 and the Swedish Gripen

It rather stinks as a story -- insofar as it suggests the Bushista gang thought an embassy should help a bigger US aircraft manufacturer (rather than a smaller US radar manufacturer) -- but it involved no pressure directly applied to Norway: Bush's export license gang simply gummed up the radar component export to Sweden for a while, the apparent idea being that the Norwegians would be less likely to purchase the Saab Gripen as long as Saab was unable to provide final details on the radar component

Here's a link:

Sweden 'tricked' in failed Norway Gripen bid
Published: 3 Dec 10 08:06 CET
http://www.thelocal.se/30584/20101203/

Assuming the story is accurate, you should notice that:
(1) the Norwegians were the target, but
(2) the people, who got dicked over, were the Swedes, and
(3) the Swedes are aware of the story, because
(4) my link is to a Swedish paper, so
(5) this story really doesn't suggest the Swedes are especially likely to be strong armed by the Americans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:29 PM

20. So I got the country wrong

I was trying to recall it from memory. I was sure it was England but yes you are right it involved Norway.

I like how you scrambled to make up 5 counterpoints that are really 2, with the points (2) through (4) is one sentence and one point.

Anyways, Norway was indeed a target if you consider that they probably would have gotten superior aircraft if they weren't strong armed into accepting the troubled American planes.

And of course it suggests that Sweden can be strong armed by the Americans....they just proved it!

The point is that this is just one example of a story that would not have seen the light of day if not for Assange and Wikileaks. As a Canadian who's government is on the brink of spending 25 billion dollars on this lemon in the next 20 years, I appreciate it.

Isn't this kind of transparency important to you? I cannot understand the vitriol you display...your juvenile mocking of Assange's name and those that appreciate his efforts are "Assangists". This is supposed to help make your one person crusade any more valid?

I would urge other DUers to highly suspect struggle4progress's motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:34 AM

21. No, the story didn't involve strong-arming anybody, either in Sweden or in Norway:

nobody was threatened in any way; nobody was warned there would be consequences if they didn't do such-and-such. It doesn't sound like the embassy even contacted anybody in either Norway or Sweden about this

Saab was put in the uncomfortable position of having to hem-and-haw if Norway asked detailed questions about the radar equipment: Saab really wasn't told anything, but if they tried to inquire into the export license status they would only get a vague "it's still under consideration" answer that wasn't enough of a definite no to send them scurrying for another supplier and wasn't enough of a definite yes to allow them to make a concrete promise to Norway. So Norway was potentially put in the position of having to believe vague promises from Saab about the radar if they wanted to order the Gripen. It's unclear whether that actually played a role in Norway's decision not to order the Gripen, but the behind-the-scenes export license game was intended to have an effect on Norway's decision

BTW such diplomatic cables are routinely declassified in the US after a certain period of time, so nobody who pays attention will be surprised by the story: it simply illustrates the sort of corporate influence in government that is common under Republicans like Bush II. In particular, anybody who remembers Reagan or Nixon should be entirely unastonished, and anybody who was paying attention to the news during the Bush II era should be unastonished also.

It's an interesting story, but it's pretty minor. Fuggit: under Nixon, some phone calls to Forest Service were automatically rerouted to the answering machines various timber company lobbyists. Those of us who want to know accurately enough what's going on can get a pretty good handle on the shizz that's going down by following the news carefully and paying attention to various folk on the nonprofit side

There are plenty of folk who do good transparency work, without Ass***e's bullshizz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:14 PM

31. Not strong-arming?

http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2010/12/wikileaks-cables-how-us-forced-norway.html

Leaked US diplomatic cables reveal a concerted, multi-departmental American lobbying effort in 2008 to convince Norwegian policymakers to purchase F-35 fighter jets instead of a Swedish-made rival for fear rejecting the stealth aircraft could influence other countries.

The campaign was designed to talk up the F-35's capabilities in public while applying "forceful" pressure on Norwegian officials in private. At the same time, there was an apparent effort to influence the Norwegian decision by withholding a key component for the Swedish aircraft.


It may be "pretty minor" to you, but as a citizen of a country that is about to sink 25 billion dollars into this flying lemon, Its important to us.

And what kind of argument is it to bad-mouth the work of Wikileaks and Assange because....."There are plenty of folk who do good transparency work". Why not also bash Amnesty International?, I mean there are other groups fighting for unfairly detained prisoners. How dare they take up all the spotlight? SPCA? Human Rights Watch? Unicef? They all have other peers doing similar work.

You still have refused to tell us why you have such a hate-on for Assange. Is it that he doesn't he fit your meek liberal stereotype? That he dares talk back to reporters and call them out on their agendas? That he has human faults like sometimes acting like a womanizer? If that's the case, have you ever forgiven Bill Clinton? Is it that you feel he is endangering lives by revealing these cables, even though no death has ever been attributed to any leak. Is it because his leaks have exposed armed forces atrocities? Because his actions have involuntarily made him a media icon? Because you are jealous? I am at a loss to know exactly WHY you despise him so much.

"Information is the currency of democracy."
-- Thomas Jefferson.

(But only if it DOESN'T come from Wikileaks according to S4P) Talk about struggling for progress!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 04:36 PM

32. Your claim in #13 was that "the US then threatened the UK (and Sweden) by saying that

it would simply deny Sweden crucial parts for their plane that were manufactured in the US ... if they did not stay with the F-35 order"

That claim was, as I have shown with a Swedish link, false in multiple ways: the target country was not the UK but Sweden, and the tactic involved was not to threaten to deny Sweden parts for the plane but silently to delay a radar component export license until after Norway chose which fighter jet it would purchase

It is, of course, very likely indeed that there was "a concerted, multi-departmental American lobbying effort" on behalf of the F-35 (as Embassy magazine claims), since multi-billion dollar contracts were involved -- but you have now moved the goalposts to some distance from your original erroneous claim, that the US embassy outright threatened Sweden and its potential client

Resorting to mere noisy outrage, when you are caught being sloppy with the facts, does nothing to improve our knowledge base and does nothing to improve our analysis. And, in a nutshell, that is precisely what I dislike about the culture of the Assangists: facts are handled with cynical carelessness, in order to support analyses which, on closer inspection, always expose themselves as mere noise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:46 AM

30. Assange's guarantors ask for halt of £140,000 bail payout

By Anne Sewell
Oct 4, 2012

... So far, several high-profile Assange supporters, including journalist John Pilger, socialite Jemima Khan and film director Ken Loach, have already lost £200,000 (over $320,000) that they handed in to bail out Assange. The court ruled this money should be forfeited when Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

On Wednesday, Westminster Magistrates' Court was set to rule on whether the nine other supporters should lose a further £140,000 (around $225,000) which they had offered as "surety" for Assange's bail. In September, these sureties were reportedly given a month to persuade Assange to hand himself into the police, if they wanted to avoid payment.

However, on Wednesday the group, which includes actress Marchioness Tracy Worcester and Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston, told judges that such a move would render them “mercenary and contemptible individuals of great weakness of character” ...

Reading from a statement prepared by the guarantors, Smith further said ... "We all want Mr Assange to be able to clear his name and have done everything with our diminishing influence to see the current impasse resolved and justice served" ...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334154


"We all want Mr Assange to be able to clear his name and have done everything to see the current impasse resolved" -- But we're hoping the current impasse can be solved by teleporting Assange to Quito! or that maybe he can clear up the Swedish matter by ESP! because we simply just couldn't even think of asking him to surrender to the UK authorities and head off to Sweden to face the courts there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:41 AM

36. This paragraph would indicate that Assange, despite grandstanding by baggers, isn't a USA problem.

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

"... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor).

Not a citizen, so he couldn't be a 'traitor.' Gitmo was set up to take in POWs and detainees directly linked to AQ, AFAIK. Assange has never been accused of involvement with that group, and most there are unknown to the American public. It would be crazy to ship him there.

Anything to do with high-profile case, meaning many people support the person, some in high government circles and have gathered the sympathy of the public,are not done in the dead of night, without anyone knowing it, etc. Ain't gonna happen, every word or deed surrounding Assange is closely followed around the world.

We now have this British religious lunatic who funded a terrorist training camp in Oregon, and made wild speeches calling for killing people. But nothing will be done out of bounds to him. The British government was very generous with him, for their own reasons.

I suspect he was maintained as a caricature, paraded to the public to frighten them into supporting harsh measures or going to war. If he'd been sent back to his homeland, Egypt, his life might have been shortened by now. Instead, the Brits coddled the man, in my opinion.

IDK why the French sheltered Khomeini and released him at a certain time. Are these rabblerousers the real thing or are they tools to create division, opportunists in a grosteque game of public opinion? I wonder. Okay, back to Assange:

The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen.

Good for him, that vicious rumor shot down.

In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing..."

So now the UK, Sweden and Ecuador can work it out and the USA can stay well out of it. However, no matter what anyone says or wants, I doubt Assange will give up his claim for asylum. It's been granted by Ecuador, and I am guessing that they still want him there. If the cause of his being granted asylum to prevent his being done to death by the USA is no longer the case, they can do what they can to protect him from the UK and Sweden. So they can be the boogieman now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #36)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:16 AM

37. The Belmarsh portion of the case ended in Feb 2011, when the magistrate Riddle issued his ruling,

so one might expect some of Riddle's facts and reasons -- such as, "The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen" -- to have percolated into the discussion by now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #37)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 12:34 PM

39. US pretty upset when republic of ecuador stepped in

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SESKATOW (Reply #39)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:03 PM

40. I don't think the USA and Ecaudor have any conflicts. No reason for the USA to be mad at them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:37 PM

42. There are some issues: Correa kicked out a US military base, and in the wake of Cablegate

Correa also expelled the US ambassador

But the US has very carefully avoided taking any stand on the London embassy impasse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 03:37 PM

43. Okay, Ecuador had every right to do that. But by the B & W thinkers, the USA will grab someone

As well-known as Assange and take him to some hideout to abuse. It isn't logical. He's very high profile which means that is not going to happen.

If the USA was taking revenge, what do people expect in this shadow world they believe in? A missile aimed at the embassy to take them out, and call it collateral damage?

The righteous outrage from the Bush era has overflowed into a different situation. The hate heaped on Obama for not getting Gitmo closed in the face of media accusing him of wanting to bring them here as he ordered to be tried under American law and the GOP refusing to fund their transfer, is part of the reason. Bush had all branches of government marching lockstep under his control, and Obama never has had that power. His attempt to close Gitmo and bring the inmates here to stop them being treated bad, is still used as a campaign tool by bagger elected officials to show he wants a Muslim takeover.

The hatred for him not trying Bush and Cheney is also unfounded, just a way to depress the vote. War crime tribunals are not made of the states ruled by the criminals involved, but other nations. or other governments after revolts. Germany did not try the Nazis at Nuremberg, the Allies occupying Germany did after they had subdued the entire nation with force of arms. Who will we lose a war to who will come and occupy us and make this happen?

I think there is a lot of confusion around this matter. Others may feel that Assange is the injured party in all of this and want him to go free. I want that, but I also want Bradley Manning to get leniency for not following his orders and doing what he did. I still have not heard that what he did actually harmed anyone. Nor has what Assange done harmed anyone.

Wikileaks seems to be just a facet of modern internet culture. Anonymous seems to be part of this, but they seem to have no leader at all. There has only been a few arrests from hacking websites. And Assange hasn't hacked anything, I don't guess. He just seems to be a lightning rod for people who are for or against what these disclosures have been. Really, has he committed a crime against the governments of the world at all?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #43)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:21 PM

51. It's not about Obama

 

He's just one guy. When people condemn Obama administration for actively blocking all attempts to persecute war criminals on national security grounds, they have every right to do so. Indignation against administrative arm of government blocking judicial arm of government from seeking justice is more than justified. Separation of powers, government accountability, continued violations of constitutional protections with impunity and common decency, those are not small matters. They are vital.

Cynical realpolitik argument against justice and government of the people, for the people is not an argument against but argument for fighting even harder against corruption of the government into police state tyranny. It is one thing to vote against Republicans and for "lesser evil", but those who argue that it's all about Obama and demand loyalty and seek to silence criticism against administration have given up freedom and demand also others to do so. ”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #51)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 10:55 PM

52. You did not understand my POV, rather, you tried to put me in one of your boxes for other people.

This is common online, people not understanding the frame of reference of another poster, due to nationality, education, experience. You are not talking to what I said, because you had to fit me inside the place in your head, to fit your experience and not mine. We're not communicating here. It's okay by me. We're cool. Go in peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #52)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 11:09 PM

53. Sorry

 

Just took up one point of your post, which I generally agreed with, and generalized from there without meaning to make it personal and put you in any box. Just getting stuff of my chest without speaking to no one particular. Sorry again for not being clear enough so you misunderstood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #53)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 11:51 PM

54. We're fine. DUers talk to themselves at times. This subject is tedious to me. I'm task oriented.

It's assess and look at the big problem, ask myself who and why is something being put in our face by the media, and am cynical about those with the power to capture our hearts and minds and play us against each other.

I also look to effect, and see no material change from this story. A lot of hopes raised, but the damn thing is still going on as it always has.

As far as your manner of defining things, I'm not against it at all. I was in the YSA and SWP for years, and while I have not given up on socialism, and feel more than ever it is the only road to peace and freedom for all, the language no longer works in this country. It's taboo, which is stupid.

I have had to work with so many people, that if I did use those terms, eyes would glaze over and I'd get nothing done with them. Thus I force myself to speak very plainly, and can't indulge myself in theoretical social models.

As an American, I live in a country that is getting more conservative and theocratic, and am forced to talk in their language, not what I'd prefer. Many concepts shared in our Socialist and Progressive Group, are of absolutely no use in the real world of politics. They are a luxury, although I love my socialist kindred spirits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #54)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:22 AM

55. Big picture

 

I like the "think global, act local" slogan. I've also made a visit in a centrally organized socialist party, and while I enjoy theoretical discussion and analysis, the visit strengthened my doubts against wisdom of centralist organization. Remaining anarchist in heart, I support also people engaging in reformist tactics, however divisive and diversive they tend to be in terms of human psychology.

What you say and practice about talking "their language" is very true. In US the anti-authoritarian left has the privilege of quoting Jefferson and Adams when doing agitprop with their fellow citizens who vote RW parties to find some common ground and mutual understanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SESKATOW (Reply #39)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:35 PM

41. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts:

there's no evidence whatsoever that the US has taken any stand on the Swedish prosecution, other than that the prosecution is a Swedish matter; there's no evidence whatsoever that the US has taken any stand on the UK courts' decision to extradite, other than that the extradition is a matter between Sweden and the UK; and there's no evidence whatsoever that the US has taken any stand on the Ecuadorian embassy affair, other than that the standoff is a matter between Sweden and the UK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #41)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:06 PM

44. Assange declared enemy of the state by good old USA

 

Former US constitutional and civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald supplied some detail:

‘The evidence that the US seeks to prosecute and extradite Assange is substantial. There is no question that the Obama justice department has convened an active grand jury to investigate whether WikiLeaks violated the draconian Espionage Act of 1917. Key senators from President Obama's party, including Senate intelligence committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, have publicly called for his prosecution under that statute. A leaked email from the security firm Stratfor – hardly a dispositive source, but still probative – indicated that a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent American figures in both parties have demanded Assange's lifelong imprisonment, called him a terrorist, and even advocated his assassination.’

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SESKATOW (Reply #44)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 07:16 PM

45. Greenwald is a blowhard, whose main aim is to convince folk there's no difference between Ds and Rs

Assange has not been declared an enemy of the US: if there were any such declaration, the US would long ago attempted to gain custody of him for prosecution

Of course, there's not a nation in the world that would ignore the release of 750K of its diplomatic and military documents, so
there's probably be an ongoing investigation of the massive leak from a few years ago

But in fact, Assange is relatively safe under US law, compared to the laws of other nations: you'll never see The Guardian publishing comparable diplomatic and military documents from the UK, because that would be a clear-cut violation of the UK's Official Secrets Act, for which the newspaper and Wikileaks could both be prosecuted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:48 PM

46. evasion noted

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SESKATOW (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:30 PM

47. Your claim "Assange declared enemy of the state by good old USA" is hallucinatory

There's no such declaration. And when I respond to your hallucinatory claim, by pointing out there's no such declaration, that's not an evasion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #47)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 06:29 AM

48. there is nothing in you post countering what GG wrote.

 

US calls Assange 'enemy of the state'

"An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.



The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" - not releasable to non-US nationals - record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.

The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

The analyst's access to classified information was suspended. However, the investigators closed the case without laying charges. The analyst denied leaking information.

Mr Assange remains holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London. He was granted diplomatic asylum on the grounds that if extradited to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations, he would be at risk of extradition to the US to face espionage or conspiracy charges arising from the leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret US military and diplomatic reports.

US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Mr Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage.

Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee - both once involved in presidential campaigns - have both urged that Mr Assange be "hunted down".

Mr Assange's US attorney, Michael Ratner, said the designation of WikiLeaks as an "enemy" had serious implications for the WikiLeaks publisher if he were to be extradited to the US, including possible military detention.

US Army private Bradley Manning faces a court martial charged with aiding the enemy - identified as al-Qaeda - by transmitting information that, published by WikiLeaks, became available to the enemy.

Mr Ratner said that under US law it would most likely have been considered criminal for the US Air Force analyst to communicate classified material to journalists and publishers, but those journalists and publishers would not have been considered the enemy or prosecuted.

"However, in the FOI documents there is no allegation of any actual communication for publication that would aid an enemy of the United States such as al-Qaeda, nor are there allegations that WikiLeaks published such information," he said.

"Almost the entire set of documents is concerned with the analyst's communications with people close to and supporters of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, with the worry that she would disclose classified documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

"It appears that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the 'enemy'. An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc."

The Australian government has repeatedly denied knowledge of any US intention to charge Mr Assange or seek his extradition.

However, Australian diplomatic cables released to Fairfax Media under freedom-of-information laws over the past 18 months have confirmed the continuation of an "unprecedented" US Justice Department espionage investigation targeting Mr Assange and WikiLeaks.

The Australian diplomatic reports canvassed the possibility that the US may eventually seek Mr Assange's extradition on conspiracy or information-theft-related offences to avoid extradition problems arising from the nature of espionage as a political offence and the free-speech protections in the US constitution.

Mr Assange is scheduled this morning to speak by video link to a meeting on his asylum case on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting will be attended by Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.

In a separate FOI decision yesterday, the Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the release of Australian diplomatic cables about WikiLeaks and Mr Assange had been the subject of extensive consultation with the US.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27eVGMSPe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SESKATOW (Reply #48)

Mon Oct 8, 2012, 02:49 PM

49. This bullshit has been thoroughly debunked: to send restricted information to an organization,

which plans to rebroadcast it indiscriminately, may indeed be prosecutable as "communication with the enemy" -- without the organization (to which the information was originally sent) itself being classified as enemy, and even without proof that the enemy ever actually received any of the information after the information was sent to the organization

This is because the statute is very broadly drawn and interpretted




The final offense under this article is communication with the enemy. Any form of unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is prohibited, whatever the accused’s intent. The content or form of the communication is irrelevant, as long as the accused is actually aware that he is communicating with the enemy. Completion of the offense does not depend on the enemy’s use of the information or a return communication from the enemy to the accused; the offense is complete once the correspondence issues—either directly or indirectly—from the accused ...
<pdf link:> http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DocLibs/TJAGLCSDocLib.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/doclibs/tjaglcsdoclib.nsf/8400639488825BD385257549006019A4/Body/Chapter%209%20%20Criminal%20Law.pdf

(also available here: )
2006 Operational Law Handbook pp206ff
http://books.google.com/books?id=EBTul-duLEYC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=ucmj+104+communicating+with+enemy&source=bl&ots=Z4sOSpUF1L&sig=k4LvhgQ1C4TaDQuvxM8lqohbs2I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5m9nUMuBE4XU9ATrmQE&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ucmj%20104%20communicating%20with%20enemy&f=false



28. Article 104—Aiding the enemy
a. Text of statute.
Any person who ...
(2) without proper authority, knowingly ... gives intelligence to or communicates ... with ... the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

b. Elements ...
(5) Communicating with the enemy.
(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded , or held intercourse with the enemy; and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

c. Explanation.
(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.
(2) Enemy. For a discussion of “enemy,” see paragraph 23c(1)(b) ...
(6) Communicating with the enemy.
(a ) Nature of the offense . No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly ...

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), 2012 Edition (c.p326/884 identified in doc as pp IV-41 and IV-42)
<pdf link:> http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf

(also available here: )
Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 104—Aiding the enemy
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm104.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:06 PM

56. Who's the 'enemy?' Asssange, etc. are citizens of western nations, not Al Queda.

If we have another designated 'enemy' in this century other than AQ, they must be a secret. Our history is to invade our 'enemies' and all their friends, which is not happening.

The WikiLeaks documentary film, created by the Swedish television network SVT, has not been declared an 'enemy' nor has Assange, AFAIK.

The link below about the quote on the WikiLeaks film echoes my own disquiet about this affair:

It all just seems too perfectly planned for my liking. As if we’re all living in this Hollywood blockbuster where Assange plays the lead and others only manage to land a side role. Well, at least you can already try revealing classified documents yourself in this game based on the whole affair...

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/12/12/wikirebels-the-documentary/

What's more interesting is that one of Assange's defenders is Glenn Beck. In this video, he says he was set up and didn't rape anyone. I'm sure no one here at DU would believe what Glenn says:



Naturally, the plot thickens when one googles Wikileaks + Assange + Alex (freaking) Jones:

http://www.examiner.com/article/alex-jones-on-coast-to-coast-radio-assange-is-just-a-scapegoat

Lefties and wingnuts in agreement on this... I feel as if some momentous discovery is at hand here, it's on the tip of our tongues, and we just can't find the meaning of this. Anyway, that's JMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 08:18 PM

57. The use of the word "enemy" was clarified by a Pentagon spokesman...

who stated that Assange and Wikileaks were not designated an enemy "per se," meaning that they were not officially targeted as an enemy by the Pentagon. He did not, however, deny that the document was indeed referring to Assange. If the document was referring to Al Qaeda as the enemy, then the investigation would have made some reference to Al Qaeda, or least Assange's relationship to the organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread