WikiLeaks - Good for Freedom or Bad for Safety

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

Describing the allied coalition in Afghanistan as peacekeepers is stretching that term quite a bit for me.

Quite possibly, but the coalition included the Islamic Northern Alliance and it did have the backing of the UN; unlike Iraq which was totally illegal.

Anyway, sorry for taking the thread OT.

[Gordian Knot]

Assange's motives are impossible to discern. He could be guilty of what he is charged with, and hiding under political asylum to avoid justice. He could be innocent, and went into hiding because he believes the fix is in to take him down.

I'm not a conspiracy guy. In this instance though there are powerful governments who want to see this guy stopped. It isn't a huge stretch that he has been set up and Assange has no faith he can get a fair hearing.

We simply have too little information to know what to think. IF he is innocent, those who say he should take his case to court and trust he can get a fair trial are being a bit naive, in my opinion.

[Gordian Knot]

To respond to the OT's post. It is my opinion that what Assange is doing is both necessary and heroic. Most of what he has released is not secret documents that are damaging any country's safety.

Most of what he has released HAS caused a lot of embarrassment for governments, because he is showing people what their governments to not want them to see. Too much of time these days our governments use the secrecy angle to avoid embarrassing themselves.

In an age where governments do not have the true needs of the people at heart, there is a tremendous need for someone brave enough to get the hidden agendas out. IMHO.

[Nerds_feather]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

I'm not a conspiracy guy. In this instance though there are powerful governments who want to see this guy stopped. It isn't a huge stretch that he has been set up and Assange has no faith he can get a fair hearing.

i could see a scenario where the charges are trumped up, potentially, but i can't see a scenario where sweden--yes, sweden--was in on a conspiracy with the US to silence this guy. it just doesn't make any sense, whatsoever, if you know recent swedish history with political "outlaws."

i suspect the case is completely unrelated to the alleged attempts by US prosecutors to get their hands on him. and besides, if the US government is so damned powerful, why don't they just get britain to extradite him? i think this points to the fact that the US is simply not as interested in assange as assange thinks it is.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Gordian Knot

We simply have too little information to know what to think. IF he is innocent, those who say he should take his case to court and trust he can get a fair trial are being a bit naive, in my opinion.

You're right about to little information - that's why they need to question him. And that's what courts are for - to get at the truth. We can't just brush aside the legal process because of 'other things the guy has done that we agree with'.

In all this we seem to have totally forgotten that there are two women who need to see justice done - even if he's found innocent.

[Moonbat]

Well this Assange stuff is all bubbling up, two interesting articles in the guardian today,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...to-get-assange

The first clearly believes that Assange has got genuine reason to fear extradtition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ing-about-rape

the second is not so on topic, but very interesting and it does seem that a lot of idiots are coming out and saying stupid things about rape, but it also touches on Assange and says that

Assange is dodging rape accusations from two women.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

...it does seem that a lot of idiots are coming out and saying stupid things about rape...

I think someone already explained the Swedish Rape Laws earlier in the thread. It is a pity these people didn't read Chronicles. You have 'Women's Rights Campaigners' saying things like "Rape is Rape" and "You can't have Good Rape and Bad Rape" when clearly in Sweden you can, and you do have different degrees of Rape. Then you have George Galloway spouting off that Assange is merely guilty of "bad sexual etiquette." All I can say is that he better be careful if he ever travels to Sweden. It seems pointless for anyone to argue over the Law in another country. That is their Law. If you don't like it, don't go there. Ignorance of the Law, however weird it might seem, has never been a defence.

The other thing I find amusing is Ecuador politicians getting red in the face about that letter sent by the Foreign Office. At the time it was sent, they were still sitting on the fence, unable or afraid to decide for 2 months whether to grant him Political Asylum or not. In that respect, I believe the letter achieved its goal. Now they have come down off the fence, they can now explain why they think Swedish and British Human Rights legislation is being violated in this case. It is amusing for them to say this given that Ecuador hasn't signed up to any of it. And neither has the US.

I think it is a pity that all of this is playing into the hands of Assange, the ultimate self-publicist. However, he must be getting tired of his small room with a lap-top, exercise machine and balcony, and it can only be a matter of time before he gives up and walks out.

But can someone explain something: Given our extremely lax Extradition Laws between the UK and US - anyone can be whisked away with even sitting before a court, and then put in chains - a pensioner who allegedly sold batteries to Iran - 3 businessmen who made some unfortunate deals - a teenager with autism who hacked into the Pentagon - then why is Assange worried about being extradited from Sweden to the US (which is not even on the table.)

If the Americans wanted him, what is to stop them taking him from the UK?

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Dave

Then you have George Galloway spouting off that Assange is merely guilty of "bad sexual etiquette." All I can say is that he better be careful if he ever travels to Sweden.

In some of those Grauniad threads, some lawyers have gone to the trouble of explaining UK (well, English & Welsh) law on the issue of consent, but most other posters there ignore it (on both sides - actually, as there are many interleaved debates, on all sides - for all sorts of reasons).

As it happens, the law seems very clear on the matter - consent has to be positive**, and for each time sex occurs - but inevitably in a situation where there are usually only two witnesses, this doesn't make the results of an investigation or trial a done deal. (What was most horrible on those Grauniad threads were the many slime balls who thought a woman's consent was for life, and included anything that the man fancied doing.)

Originally Posted by Dave

I think it is a pity that all of this is playing into the hands of Assange, the ultimate self-publicist. However, he must be getting tired of his small room with a lap-top, exercise machine and balcony, and it can only be a matter of time before he gives up and walks out.

There's good news on this front, Dave. The Ecuador authorities originally removed the doors to the balcony, thinking that Assange's head wouldn't otherwise get through. But they later found it could. (There is, though, still some time to go....)

Originally Posted by Dave

But can someone explain something: Given our extremely lax Extradition Laws between the UK and US - anyone can be whisked away with even sitting before a court, and then put in chains - a pensioner who allegedly sold batteries to Iran - 3 businessmen who made some unfortunate deals - a teenager with autism who hacked into the Pentagon - then why is Assange worried about being extradited from Sweden to the US (which is not even on the table.)

My understanding is that because Assange would have been extradited to Sweden from here, both the Swedish and UK (actually, English & Welsh) legal authorities would have to agree to his further extradition to the US. (And under European law, he wouldn't be allowed to be sent to the US unless the US promised that he would never face the death penalty, so there's no chance he could be legally executed.)

Originally Posted by Dave

If the Americans wanted him, what is to stop them taking him from the UK?

Ironically, I think Sweden's request, being first in the queue, may take precedence. (Don't quote me on this: I'm not a lawyer.)



** - Note that there is a defence of reasonably expecting that consent has been given. (This is, obviously, something that the police, and - where appropriate - courts and juries, would take into account.)

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Dave

If the Americans wanted him, what is to stop them taking him from the UK?

This has puzzled me greatly as well, I mean they've had months and months and months.

The Pro-Assange writers/groups I've seen have stated a variety of reasons - perhaps the most paranoid say that the UK will not extradite someone if there is a chance they will get the death penalty, whilst Sweden will (although in my muddled reading, as an EU state Sweden also will not extradite in the same circumstances. I am happy to be corrected by an EU expert!)

Another reason given is that they want Assange convicted as a rapist before they extradite him and trial him, to further darken his character.

Possibly the most plausible reason is: if the US was completely intent on issuing an extradition order then I think there is a preference - Sweden issued one first and that needs to be completed first. Sweden have first dibs, so to speak. (But then if they issue the warrant when he's in Sweden does he not go through all the rigmarole of fighting the extradition there and then finally finding a South American Embassy in Stockholm to give him asylum [now with real hard evidence]???? Or perhaps the UK courts are much easier to delay such things?)

Assange is trying get cast iron guarentees from the Swedes that they will not extradite him to the US if he goes there. Which theoretically and practically I think they can not give any assurances for (what if Assange kills a US citizen or diplomatic member of US embassy, actively starts an illegal* operation that normally the US could extradite him for, like some scam or hacking activity.)

* Depend on your view of wikileaks itself of course - but officially is it illegal from the US's persepective right now? I know a lot of pressure has been put on it in loads of other ways, and if they wanted to make it illegal and 'treasonable'/terrorist I'm sure they could just make it so. (Apologies if this has been stated in the thread - I'm coming in from the end of the thread.)

[Dave]

To be guilty of "Treason" in the US wouldn't he need to be an American? As a Australian he could only be found guilty of anti-terrorist Laws by helping terrorism. Though I'm sure the Americans could pass some new Laws just for his benefit. Maybe his "no fixed abode" status changes things?

There just seems to be a lot of sloppy News reporting over this and the rape allegations, and a lot of people being quoted who clearly have no idea what they are talking about. I mean, much more than is usual, as Newspapers are generally unreliable where the facts are concerned.

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Dave

To be guilty of "Treason" in the US wouldn't he need to be an American? As a Australian he could only be found guilty of anti-terrorist Laws by helping terrorism. Though I'm sure the Americans could pass some new Laws just for his benefit. Maybe his "no fixed abode" status changes things?

It's why I put treason in inverted commas for that very reason - you are absolutely correct. I'd say however wikileaks was a faciltator for a treasonable act, so that's why it sprung to my mind. However it's not really terrorism either - at best (I believe) an anti-Assange could argue that it facilates potential terrorism as you've stated - but it's all a bit grey (I mean Wikileaks is neutral and will publish any leaks from any country, yes? Will the US be able to prove that something that was released did cause something bad to happen - or will such 'evidence' be classified as top secret and keep from the public for a hundred years [when no one cares])

And of course the US could make up anything if they wanted him in prison - he is not seriously backed by anyone like the Chinese or Russians.

Anyway I've got my tinfoil hat on firmly today, so I'm now leaning to the view that Assange actually works for the CIA and the whole wikileaks thing is to root out traitors and overseas groups and also to plant false information - a classic false flag operation.

Now I must go trawl the internet and see if I can connect Assange, the Illuminati, the 'real' meaning of the London Olympics and the JFK killing.

[Bowler1]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

Anyway I've got my tinfoil hat on firmly today, so I'm now leaning to the view that Assange actually works for the CIA and the whole wikileaks thing is to root out traitors and overseas groups and also to plant false information - a classic false flag operation.

Now I must go trawl the internet and see if I can connect Assange, the Illuminati, the 'real' meaning of the London Olympics and the JFK killing.

The above feels more real to me than what has played out in the news over the last few months.

I'm sure another member on Chrons strongly believes that tin foil focuses the evil satellite rays into the brain there by gaining quicker control of the subject.

Which is true?

[Ursa major]

You could always get some bacofoil and try roll-playing to see what happens....

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

The above feels more real to me than what has played out in the news over the last few months.

I'm sure another member on Chrons strongly believes that tin foil focuses the evil satellite rays into the brain there by gaining quicker control of the subject.

Which is true?

I'm pretty sure the 'research'* on it won an ig-Nobel prize one year. The scientists* found that rather than blocking or reflecting all wavelengths it acutally accentuated and magnified some very specific wavelengths - ones that from memory that are quite commonly used in transmission systems.

I was going to post a new stateman article that discusses some of the legal myths about the Assange case just to get this thread back on-topic (I think the guy writing it is, if I am being fair, on the anti-Assange side, but that does not mean that what he's saying is therefore twisted and biased.)

Actually sod it, make your own minds up :

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/da...ge-extradition

The frothy mouthed exuberance and tin-hat tone of some of the comments was getting me a bit down


* When I say 'research' and 'scientists' I think it was bored scientists with a bit of free time who knocked up an experiment in an afternoon. But hey the results were interesting!

[Bowler1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-19841184

Another decision by him which feels odd. Back out of the book if you don't like where it looks to be heading, that's fine, but surely, have the good grace to return the fee.