Assange: Text messages show rape allegations were 'set up' WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange said on Friday that text messages in the possession of the Swedish government prove that rape allegations against him are a set up. “There are intercepted SMS messages between the women and each other and their friends that I'm told represents a set up,” Assange, who spoke from Suffolk, UK, said on …
First of all, try to find some online definitions of "democracy" (without the quote marks).
In essence what it implies (democracy that is) is that the inhabitants of a democracy have rights and responsibilities. Such inhabitants usually (but not always) enable a ruling group to enact the wishes or policies or influence of policies BUT! that enabling process does not denigrate or reduce individual responsibilities or rights. One may delegate duties but one may not delegate responsibilities?
For example: school may educate my child but I am responsible for the education of my child.
Under such a premise WikiLeaks is fully justifiable.
Perhaps, for example, the ruling group is becoming so incestuous, so driven by the power, wealth and income along with the headiness os importance or other distractions in order to self seek its own importance.
Or even worse still to self seek its own importance and continued credence above all other considerations.
Interim conclusion: in a democracy Wikileaks is fully justified and all attempts to throttle it should be investigated with and by urgency by authorities enabled to protect the democratic nature of that country.
As an aside: Sweden has recently always been a bit troubled by power struggles around it. Nazi Germany & the West. USSR & the West. We cannot really blame or hurt it for the pragmatic decisions it needs to reach to further the practical and pragmatic sense of serving best the people of Sweden under a constitutional monarchy?
"For example: school may educate my child but I am responsible for the education of my child.
Under such a premise WikiLeaks is fully justifiable."
Non sequitur, that is to say the conclusion does not follow from the premiss; it does not follow from your claim that you are responsible for the education of your child (in fact the state is also) that Wikileaks is fully justifiable because Wikileaks is in no way responsible for anything to do with me, or anyone else. Wikileaks is a self appointed body, it is not a parent or in any similar nurturing relationship. Additionally, if Wikileaks has a responsibility, then I have rights, including my security. For the sake of my security I want to draw a drop forged, bolt action rifle with sniper scope from the armoury. I'll thereafter take care of my rights.
As to the rest of the non sequitur stuff about mid 20th century politics, it's irrelevant.
I don't entirely follow the original poster but I do agree with his points.
However I disagree with yours.
The thing that bugs me is that a lot of people are first in line to shout about what their rights are and what they are entitled to, but with all these rights come responsibility - not many of them understand that!
If you were to go and get yourself a sniper rifle, fair enough. If you were to use it against someone, you would have violated the responsibility that came with the gun.
The person you shot had those same rights. I'm pretty sure he probably had the right not to be shot. You would then be *responsible* for his death. "Greater good" is not a get out of jail free card in this circumstance, rather more of a point of view.
Of course if this guy was trying to shoot *you* then self defense is fair enough. But you see what I'm getting at here?
Wikileaks has a responsibility as much as any of us do to keep our gov on the straight and narrow.
We have the right to vote, but the responsibility to vote in who we (that is, each person who votes) think will run the country well.
So, if our gov is involved in some shady business that they really shouldn't be involved in and Wikileaks posts the details - is it Wikileaks fault for telling everyone, or our govs fault for being corrupt morally bankrupt liars - and whose responsibility is it to atleast try to make sue they aren't?
My point is that it would be no less valid to shoot him than it is for him to be doing what he is.
He is without mandate. He is self appointed. He is in possession of state secrets belonging to a country from which he, beyond all shadow of doubt, stole secrets in the early 90s, for which US prosecution is still outstanding.
Wikileaks has no responsibility, responsibility was not lodged with it by anyone except a select, self appointed clique.
Otherwise, you miss the point completely, not least that I made it clear that the OPs remarks were anachronistic and non sequitur in nature, which are accurate comments, whether or not you agree with them. If you cannot understand the chain, that it does not follow from his arguments about parents and responsibility that Wikileaks has a responsibility, well I am truly surprised. Similarly,. anachronistic comments about Sweden in relation to mid 20th century politics and the matter of alleged rape are just that, and probably more too, but I'm not going to give you a Logic 101 lecture. You can find plenty of those on the web. Google/Bing [...] are your friends here.
Wikileaks have NO responsibility vested in them by anyone other than themselves, and I still wonder if the PRC and Saudi informants (among others) are still alive.
If Wikileaks aren't acting responsibly, why would they censor out names etc from the sensitive material they release?
Also I couldn't really give a flying procreation whether you have looked up the definition of "non sequitur" or not, you already made your point regarding that and I wasn't disputing it.
My post wasn't saying that the OP had a perfect unbroken chain of logic, more that I understand the intent behind the comment and agree with it.
As for Wikileaks being self appointed... I say that validity does not have to come from others.
There are times where everyone will tell you you are wrong when you are not, and vice versa - but being told you are right does not make you any more valid.
"If Wikileaks aren't acting responsibly, why would they censor out names etc from the sensitive material they release?"
I think this logical fallacy is 'affirming the consequent' ("if P then Q" is transformed into "Q therefore P"), namely you assume that Wikileaks has a right to do that which they are, and separately that you assume that because they do something that an ethical body or individual might, they are ethical. A specimen of arguing the consequent would be "All dogs bleed. Julian Assange bleeds, therefore Julian Assange is a dog". Valid argument but untrue.
However, there is if you do an online search, concern that some Afghan sources could be located using GPS data referred to in the 'leaks', and data that came from them which had to be location/person specific and, in case you had not read my concern, there is the question of the PRC informant who disclosed the leadership anger at things that had been said about them online (this is the PRC Google/sensorship debate/[...]), and the Saudi informant; there is in any intelligence and security investigation a routine methodology for narrowing down the list of suspects, after which more detailed investigations take place into the remaining few. I have fears particularly for the PRC informant.
Don't have too many hopes for those informants who've given away material that has angered their 'superiors'; also realise that punishment of such precious resources will discourage recruitment. These sources actually do a lot to inform outside state intelligence organisations of warlike intentions on the part of the host state, and much that oils the cogs of diplomatic activity.
So far people have been assuming that the Wikileaks attitude to this information is correct; the sources are untraceable (that seems with each day I search to be less than true) and that all intelligence, revealed in say diplomatic channels, has a negative effect on international relations. This is not so. Just because someone believes that X is not the case it does not mean that they have not missed specimens of data that overturn this.
That is clearly not possible without the information, clarity of thought and intelligence to make that calculation.
I am good at maths and science, yet I can't give the correct answer without the question and its relevant facts.
Personally I would like to see a mulitple choice questionaire at the polling station, this would be a questionaire based on the principle policies of the candidates, their track record, the track record of the parties, the current situation, historical patterns, recent events. If you don't get say 80% right then you don't know enough to vote. This would cut down considerably on the 'I always vote XXXX because my parents always voted XXXX' brigade that lead to the safe seats of more than 70% of politicians in the UK.
Assnage has proven that he is a flight risk.
Being out on bail is a mistake and if Assnage has 'proof' of his innocence why then doesn't he go back and face his accusers?
Here's something that goes back to my view that Assnage is a bit of a nut job.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/assange.dating.profile/index.html?hpt=T1
He left his co-conspirator hanging with empty promises.
Oh do try thinking please. I have no strong views over the case, but he hasn't proven he's a flight risk - he gained permission from the Swedes to leave the country, after they showed not much interest in prosecuting at the time. *That's* why he's not in Sweden any more.
He also voluntarily turned himself in as soon as the UK authorities issued an arrest warrant. He's the furthest thing from a "flight risk".
He also doesn't have to prove his innocence to anyone - he has to be proven guilty by a prosecutor.
As for that ridiculous article, it's basically churning 1000 odd words about how he tried online dating and made a bit of a weird profile - something many people do to try and be different. If you think that's bad, try trolling craigslist or something.
Back under the rock please...
I post with my name? Why do you post as an AC?
But lets not go there.
At the time, Assnage was in Sweden they weren't sure of what to do with him. He wanted to leave the country and they didn't have enough evidence to hold him. Good cases are lost when the prosecution jumps the gun and arrest too early.
Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on. At the time they determined that they had enough evidence, they issued the arrest warrant.
Don't think Assnage a good guy because he finally turned himself in. He did it because the arrest warrant was already issued (Quite publicly) and his options were limited. Not to mention that he's facing much more serious charges in the US. So I'm sure he got legal advice that told him it was better for him to surrender than stay on the run. (Looking even more guilty and giving more weight to the US's charges. Not to mention it opens himself up to criticism that he's a deluded paranoid tinfoil wearing nut case.)
But with respect to your comment about Assnage's dating profile. I don't read Craigslist, and it doesn't change the fact that the profile was created by Assnage and reflects how he views himself.
But of course, you'd want to down play any legitimate journalistic investigation of your hero.
> Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on.
Errr - no.
The case had been dropped against him. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 for example. Have a read of what the Swedish Chief Prosecutor said about the claims; that's the reason why I am pretty much convinced that the whole affair is without merit. It's not often a prosecutor will exonerate a defendant before the trial...
The case was no more, and Assange left Sweden. It was later reinstated - that's part of the reason that political interference is suspected.
Once in the UK, he has liaised with police, and handed himself in once they were finally interested in talking to him.
So although he's undoubtedly a total cock, I think it takes a special kind of blinker to cast him as a flight risk.
Vic.
>> Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on.
>Errr - no.
>The case had been dropped against him. See http://www.bbc.co.uk
Errr, no. Read the Guardian article about his 10 days in Sweden. Before he left he agreed to be interviewed in connection with this investigation. However, he flew, to England. Small wonder that the Swedes did not want him bailed. He has an absconder's profile. That fits his conviction profile nicely, as he is trying as hard as possible to avoid a custodial sentence, the one he should already have served notwithstanding:
A convict; convicted in or around 1991 for;
1) stealing passwords from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon;
2) for hacking computers at two universities;
3) hacking computers at two telecommunications companies;
4) hacking computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities.
After sentencing he said to the judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution". (This misspelling caused me to experience déjà vu, as Mike Tyson said he'd been done a 'misjustice'...)
The Guardian's article about the text messages, the ones that his lawyers informed us resulted in them being 'gagged' (an English super injunction from a Swedish legal body? How unlikely, just as the matter is not sub judice over here), and other material they published indicate this man and/or his legal representatives is/are manipulating the media and thus those who cannot read properly.
He was a convict in 1991 - failure to award a custodial sentence was based on the sort of erroneous thinking that boils his support in the UK now; a sympathy lay - and this picture bodes badly for the current situation. Justice should never be dispensed through a sympathetic mindset. Ever:
"County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to ten years."
His fan bois and gurlz, legal representatives, bail standers and those online, these people have been rooked by his demeanour, his glib claims. He needs correctional treatment, at very least. Or he'll hurt someone.
And I am very happy with Mr Assanges actions. Your post reaks of gullible right wing US nut job.
Why do you want to but into the obvious false nature of the charges I wonder? Which govt are you shilling for eh?
Charges in the US? Care to name them. and no not the silly trumped up attempts the purile US govt has come up with so far.
Go back under the rock you crawled out from and enjoy the benefits of freedom of information
on the corrupt rotten bastards that run govt.
A child like attack against me doesn't help to prove the logic behind your posts.
As I said before, I'm neither a republican nor a democrat, but an independent. That is to say, I chose my politics carefully and I don't follow a party line.
As to being a nut job, the fact that I post here to debate this issue... well some would say that it does qualify... ;-)
Yet I digress. IANAL, but I'll try to make this as simple as possible so that you might be able to follow the logic...
The US Government has launched a Grand Jury investigation in order to determine if charges should be brought against Assnage. The allegations go along the line of that he coerced a US Serviceman to break the law and steal classified documents. That act, if true, would be considered an act of Espionage and under the 1917 law, Assnage would be eligible to face charges within the US.
That's not a trumped up charge. Its a pretty serious charge.
His co-conspirator/dupe is sitting in the brig. Assnage ala Wikileaks raised money for his defense fund.So far none of it has appeared. Ever wonder why?
Talk to a lawyer and ask them why would Assnage try and distance himself from his co-conspirator? ;-)
Wikileaks isn't the press and Assnage and Wikileaks didn't censor their 'publication'.
You probably weren't alive when Watergate happened. Nor for the fall of Saigon, Iran Contra, Regan getting shot. Sadat getting assassinated... Or a whole lot of shit from the 70's and early 80's.
Heck... to understand the actions taken in the 80's you need to look at the 70s and the 60's. To understand the 60's you need to look at the 50's which is based on the 30's and 40's which is based on the 10's and 20's... which is based on the imperialism of the 19th Century. (But I seriously doubt you've studied history to know any of this.)
You think you understand freedom, yet you've never had to pay the price for the freedom you enjoy.
A lesson that is clearly lost on the majority here including Assnage.
Hey, no offense, but your post is just as valid as another to voice my objections to.
Yes, I have doubts about the quality of the Swedish claims and the political motivations behind them. Looks too convenient at this point, hopefully things will become more clear in the trial and the run up to it.
But Assange and Wikileaks is no hero, with the diplomatic releases. I mostly approved of the earlier Afghanistan/Iraq postings. Yes, it may be a problem for the occupying forces, but we have a right to know what is being done in our names in those countries.
The diplomatic bit is a horse of a different color. Diplomacy is predicated on a reasonable expectation of secrecy in discussions, until public policy is made (a treaty or a trade agreement, say). It's worked for a long time, been around since 1500s in Italian city states.
To take a concrete example, when a US diplomat calls Mrs. Merkel "risk adverse and rarely innovative", that is a perfectly valid communication to HQ. Making it public also does not inform the public of anything really important that they were missing, unlike with Iraq/Afghanistan. What it does do is seed distrust, just like you might get upset with someone who runs around telling person X what person Y has been saying privately about him.
So, while the charges are very possibly trumped up, and while I agree with Wikileaks in principle, this particular batch of information should have been kept quiet. Regardless of the fact that the US clearly managed those secrets very badly.
I do hope Mr. Assange gets his day in court and gets treated fairly.
Flames, because I can see the downvotes coming.
The Americans have nothing to charge Assange with. He's not an American citizen so he can't be charged. They will probably create some trumped-up charge in short term so that they can do so but at this stage they have nothing. He is an Australian citizen & so far even the Australian authorities have nothing. As for the rape charge, the fact that the Swedish authorities will not release the information only goes to show that it was bullshit.
You must either be a Gov't poser or a redneck that needs a brain implant.
I cut/paste a link to a CNN story about Assnage's online dating profile.
Kind of shows how Assnage views himself and is the image he wants to project.
Instead of going to court and face his accusers, he is fighting his case in the court of public opinion. He's counting on the backing of liberal 'left wing' rich folks. He's getting it, but what happens when the truth comes out?
As another poster wrote, the rape laws in Sweden are different from what we expect. In Assnage's world, does No mean Yes?
He paints himself as the victim. Unfortunately the real victim sits in a Military jail and faces real serious charges.
Where's the money he promised to help defend his co-conspirator? Why did his fellow 'leaksters' leave and start their own leak site?
Could it be that they felt that Wikileaks became something to feed Assnage's ego rather than a site that exposes companies for what they are? Naw that would never happen.
Get real.
The logic isn't incorrect, nor did I ever say that they were mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite actually.
Wikileaks could have been founded with both goals in mind by Assnage. Its ok, as long as the goals are aligned. However, when one path diverges from the other, there will come a time/point when others involved say enough is enough and walk away.
That's exactly what we're seeing here. At some point followers of Assnage need to determine whether his actions are for a greater good, or just some folly to foster his Messiah Complex and his quest for martyrdom. We're starting to see some people who are close to Assnage reach that point. Hence their desire to create 'wikileaks 2' sans Assnage.
You can interpret my post to mean whatever you like. The intent wasn't to show a mutually exclusive option, but one where individuals reach their own conclusion as to when the two fail to overlap.
I see i was thumbed down furiously by fanboys/girls. Like i said it is his word against everyone else. The lawyer claims to have proof until this "proof" is in the public domain i will not believe him. The guy is no angel and he is been made a digital martyr. I prefer Open Leaks to Wikileaks.. And thumb away :)
I imagine you were thumbed down furiously because you seem to be under the deluded impression that it's Assange's job to prove he is innocent. It's the other way around, a fact and basic right that you seem to be missing, ignoring, or not understanding. If a Swedish woman accused you of a similar crime, perhaps on a whim, I'm sure you don't expect to be whipped out of the UK. I'm also sure you'd be a bit upset if every time this happened (as you could do it repeatedly), the burden of proof lay with you.
Oh, and I was the original AC posting the @Ian rant. Not sure why it turned AC, I certainly didn't mean to tick it. But you are no more or less AC than my first post, or this second post. "The main man" is anonymous. As is Annihilator (chosen purely because it was my old gaming handle).
@Ian though, to randomly answer your rebuttal, as I said, I have no strong views either way on Assange. I also think he's probably a bit of a dick. However being a "bit of a dick" isn't reason to convict or hound someone, though if wishing made it so...
"Innocent UNLESS proven guilty" hasn't applied to anyone in the western world for a while now. Why the hell should Assange (of all people) get the benefit of the doubt? Step into your perv scanner you are a guilty terrorist until proven otherwise! If you choose the molestation station instead of the perv scanner, you’re a TIME WASTING terrorist: the worst kind! Smile for the CCTV and don't type anything bad into an e-mail; ECHELON's children are watching you.
Speaking of children, have you dropped yours off with "the man" lately? They want some DNA samples, fingerprints and a complete track record of every single misdeed for the profiling computers. While you're at it, check to see if someone left a complaint including completely unsubstantiated rumour with the police. That ECRB check is a real bitch for getting a job, innit?
The instant we started to accept "innocent UNTIL proven guilty" over "innocent UNLESS proven guilty" we had begun our downward slide as a society. In the past decade, we've truly accepted a complete destruction of the concepts that underpin liberty. The only way out is to get the hoi polloi good and uppity about this.
Every indication – from the media circus to his own lieutenants abandoning him – is that Assange has a fairly large ego and something of a messiah complex. Fair enough. Not the kind of person I would ever want to drink beer with at the pub; but these folks are useful nonetheless. Let him be crucified for the cause and let’s hope he makes a big enough noise that everyone sees exactly how completely screwed our society is.
Since none of us have a right to the presumption of innocence anymore, I don’t see why Assange gets a special pass. Quite the opposite: he has placed himself in the crosshairs. The advantage is that the sacrifice of this one might well be of benefit to the many.
…but only if we (collectively as a society) heed the wakeup call that this entire bucket of Drama Llamas raining from the sky represents. Sadly, of history is any guide…there’s fat chance of that. The hoi polloi might have to look away from their boob tubes, and HOLY CRAP they might end up missing “Oprah.” Can’t have that, now can we...
If he fled he would be caught virtually instantly and would swap a stately home with internet for a prison cell. I suspect his best option by a mile is to stay put and watch the extradition or subsequent trial fall apart completely. Which it probably will. Of course if the US try to indite him, then it might be a different kettle of fish, but get the rape thing out of the way first.
As an aside I was struck how odd he was when interviewed by Kirsty Wark. He was articulate but I couldn't escape the impression he was autistic or something. He was constantly trying to talk over her, and rambling in an expressionless monotone which was really weird.
I would only decide on whether he's a flight risk after a lengthy forensic psychiatric assessment, which leads me to your next point. Geeks are frequently the possessors of neuropsychiatric conditions, such as Aspergers syndrome, as in McKinnon.
Back to the main point; when asked by Wark if he was at risk of flight, he prevaricated, thus:
" BBC Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark asked Mr Assange if he would give his word of honour that he would not try to abscond before the next hearing.
He replied: "We have done everything by the book. We have tried as hard as possible to set up a situation where we can clear my name of these allegations.
"But what we have not seen is the provision of any evidence or material to allow us to do that." "
It would seem that Assange feels that his offer of a video link to Sweden is the same as being tried on the terra firma of that jurisdiction. Slowly it's becoming clear that he really does believe that he can rewrite the laws of any country, and I've also become aware from reading his cod philosophy that he may possibly think that he is a RL incarnation of Neo.
Make of that what you will, though I don't think there is a credible positive spin here.
he's a geek, a 'webonaut' anyone with a roaming personality and a brain that has been on-line turned into a julian after 5 or more years attached to the web - he said people that believe in ufo's are nutjobs - I reckon that why america isn't very pleased with him - they say 50% of America's believe in ufo's/aliens...
> "As an aside I was struck how odd he was when interviewed by Kirsty Wark. He was articulate but I couldn't escape the impression he was autistic or something."
That shouldn't come as a surprise at all. Windmill tilters usually are.
In this case the windmill quite probably _IS_ a dragon.
Profile. Behavioural histories are a good indicator of future behaviour:
A year or two later, the couple moved to a rented house in Melbourne, 25 miles (about 40km) away. It was there, in October 1991, that their relationship suffered a shattering blow after Assange was raided by the police.
"He was caught red-handed with the tools of his burgeoning hacker’s trade - a £350 Amiga 500 computer and more than a dozen discs filled with the access codes of websites.
Police also found details of hundreds of stolen passwords for networks around the world along with the dates when he obtained them. Among them were passwords for the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon.
He was charged with a number of offences relating to computer hacking. For the mother of his child, it was the final straw - she fled with the baby. "
http://www.thestar.co.za/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105
Next stop ought to be a Bubbery.
He is already a convict. He was let off seemingly on spurious grounds that he was not responsible, but that his past was. The judge told him that
"County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years. "
As I say, past conduct is an indicator of future conduct. He is very consistent, no matter how much you deny the pink gorilla in the corner of the room. In addition it is already very clear that he is hamfisted in his relations with women. You might like to go and read the descriptions of his interactions with these two individuals. They are cause for alarm
Just read it, and stop denying the facts.
You are truly a dodo-brain here, dude. How's hacking a computer like raping a woman? Dumb "penetration" type of jests and juvenile anthromorphization fantasies aside.
Both are illegal, true. But rape is clearly a crime of a very very different nature. If you can't figure that out for yourself, you are truly dim. Do you consider computer hacking to be a "gateway crime" to rape? Certainly what your comments imply, without even owning up to it.
Hackers may or may not deserve extended jail term, based on how much damage they carried out and how malicious their actions were. But they most certainly are not to be lumped together with rapists like you so artlessly aim to.
"You are truly a dodo-brain here, dude. How's hacking a computer like raping a woman? Dumb "penetration" type of jests and juvenile anthromorphization fantasies aside."
Your argumentum ad hominem aside, I did not make a comparison, merely pointed out that if you look at offenders you will find antecedents that have predictive value.
So your resort to rhetorical questions has no utility in the IT aspect of the case. Where the rest is concerned, the sexual matter, ask yourself some questions about the disappearance of his child's mother. Ask yourself some questions about the similarity of claims made by two separate women (and now a third it would seem).
All in all the case is very interesting. A convicted middle aged male, unfortunate childhood, mother stalked by the father of her child who then runs away (not unlike the very young mother of Assange's child, who was you'll note from the reports a 'computer widow'), itinerant childhood, schooled by a mother with it would seem hostile attitudes to men and to authority, a mother who encouraged him down the IT path. I haven't organised all of the stuff that I have read sufficiently to say much more, but there is a pattern and a part of it would seem to boil down to this; some people do not socialise enough at an early age, with a sufficiently broad spectrum of people from both sexes, to form a rule following, cooperative pattern of behaviour. What prompted this overall view from me was the Cryptome material, much of which is fascinating. Note well that the Cryptome site owner was very disenchanted with Assange from an early point, though I don't share his conspiracy view.
Indeed. I think you will find this is both a bluff and an attempt to throw sand in faces. If he has these texts he can release them. His defences are are always consistent with the nature of what he does, what he knows. Should the Swedes break ranks now it would be folly, and what he is trying to achieve.
If they know its a setup, then he should have no worries about going to Sweden and helping the police resolve the case. They will need his testimony if they want to charge the women with something.
On the other hand, people seem to want to believe, so they accept whatever unfounded statements that he comes out with.
If this guy had been active during the Bush era, he would probably have been "taken care of". If they weren't able to silence him we would all be living in a more fascist society and someone like Bradley Manning would already have been executed for treason during wartime.
The setup plot was all about getting him in to Sweden, so they could send him to the US.
If thats the case, then being extradited would be the most stupid thing anyone could do.
I'm not sure why Sweden would be co-operating with the US and not the UK, but he is in the media far too much to be assassinated or 'taken out' any other way.
The US convenes a grand jury. The GJ determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. The US Government can go to Interpol and issue the same warrants that Sweden issued.
So to say that this is a plot against him? Too friggin funny. But then again, its the same twisted logic that paints the sociopath as a hero.
Sorry but he coerced a dupe to break the law and hand him documents, then bails on him after collecting money for the dupe's defense fund. (To date, no money has been paid to his lawyers from either Assnage or Wikileaks.
Too friggin funny.
Sorry no.
I'm actually an independent and while conservative with respect to foreign policy, I'm fairly liberal in terms of internal policy and laws within the US. That would make me either a 'moderate republican' or a 'conservative democrat'. But I hate both parties because they are being controlled by self serving boobs. The religious morons on the right? The too liberal short sighted boobs on the left.
And my politics aside, this doesn't change anything concerning Assnage.
What I find the most disgusting is that Columbia University's Journalism professors support what Assnage has done. But then again, responsibility and ethics in Journalism is long gone, and the fact that Assnage and Wikileaks isn't part of the press.
But that's a different story and apparently beyond the capabilities of many to discuss on this board.
You are making so many factual errors you must be an American. I've seen enough examples to recognize it's a trademark "argumentation" method in the US.
"Co-conspirator"?
"Coerced"?
"collecting money for the dupe's defense fund"?
WTF? Or do you have some inside information we don't know about? I'm really interested, because as the parent article says, Wikileaks is a passive recepticle for anonymously submitted information. Are you not aware of this, or willfully ignoring it?
Put up or shut up.
Actually if you were a real C programmer its Foo Bar Retz.
I think you need to actually look at the case and read what is being said in the press.
Do you think that Manning just decided one day to take a huge dump of all sorts of documents he had access to and upload it to Wikileaks on his own? Wow, what a wonderful idea. I'm going to expose the US government and dump anything I can find on the US that could be an embarrassment and let Wikileaks determine what's relevant. I did this all on my own... Is that what Manning did?
If you believe that... I've got a bridge to sell you in NY..
I don't have to 'Put up or Shut up' because I'm not the one who's about to file charges against Assnage. That's up to the GJ to determine if the US has presented enough evidence against Assnage and Wikileaks.
There's two different extradition systems, I gather.
Sweden and the UK are in a single European extradition system, partly based on them being under the ECHR, with honest law enforcement systems. The idea is that Sweden will give him a fair trial, and the courts in this country don't need to closely examine the evidence.
That will, no doubt, be argued about.
Quite what the US would have to do to extradite him from Sweden, I don't know. There'll be a specific US/Sweden treaty, which might be as flawed as the UK/US treaty.
And Interpol is a different system again. I was doing some research for a story, and things will have changed somewhat since the period I was checking, but Interpol isn't about extradition. At most, the Interpol paperwork gets you arrested: important but not the same thing.
"The setup plot was all about getting him in to Sweden, so they could send him to the US."
If the U.S. wants him, why not just ask the U.K. under the 'hugely one-sided' (anyone remember Gary Mckinnon?) arrangements already in place here?
Somehow I doubt Sweden has any such arrangements with the U.S.
The only time a foreign government that have extradition agreements will deny an extradition is when the country that requests the extradition has the death penalty on the table. In Assnage's case, the death penalty is not on the table so its a moot point.
What everyone here seems to forget is that Sweden didn't formally charge him until after he left the country. So there's no issue of double jeopardy until he's been tried, found not guilty and then tried again. There is no issue of harassment because the government of Sweden let him leave the country.
If the US wants Assnage, they will face the same hurdles in Sweden as they face in the UK so it doesn't matter. And unlike McKinnon, Assnage isn't a UK citizen (Austrailian) so they will less likely want to make a stink about him being extradited. Not to mention that unlike McKinnon, Assnage's guilt is pretty apparent. You can't say he didn't do it when the documents are all over the world in the press.
Sorry, your view of the world just doesn't hold water.
"Sorry, your view of the world just doesn't hold water"
Neither do the opinions of a guy who persistently and deliberately spells Assange's name incorrectly because he thinks it makes him look clever.
Julian Assange is a tit, sure, but at least stop being a cretin and spell his name correctly.
Am I the only one inclined to not take people who consistently and on purpose spell someone's name wrong to make it sound ridiculous as
A) biased, and
B) not to be taken seriously?
For the record: I don't have an opinion on the case due to lack of information, but from what I've read about and by him, do believe that Mr. Assange is Quite a Character(tm).
The one that's not quite warm enough, thank you. Door's over back there, right?
Exactly. There's no "loose" extradition treaty between Sweden and the US - I posted the relevant link to Swedish law on the matter (in English) in a different message.
It's way easier, legally that is, to extradite him from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US. So perhaps, PERHAPS, the Swedes want him to answer allegations of rape?
Could be, Doc.
...that Windrose posted.
They appear to show that Sweden can extradite Assange to the US (assuming proper procedure is followed and approval given) so long as the Swedish authorities are convinced that there is no risk of his human rights being violated over in the US.
There is a one way extradition treaty in the UK, but the US hasn't made a request to the UK for Assange to be sent over there as yet have they? They might be having a bit of trouble getting the necessary evidence together.
"If the U.S. wants him, why not just ask the U.K. under the 'hugely one-sided' (anyone remember Gary Mckinnon?) arrangements already in place here?"
perhaps because Gary Mckinnon is still in the UK? whereas I believe a previous article claimed that swedish authorities have already stated they would consider any US claims to supersede theirs and they'd hand him over (yes, legally they'd also need permission from the UK, but as he would no longer be in the UK i suspect his appeal options would be more limited)
I've wondered if Gary Mackinnon is why the US would prefer to do this via some 3rd Party State.
Gary Mackinnon , unlike Assange, has publically admitted breaking into US Government computers and stealing information, which is clearly a crime in the US using existing laws not some hastily made up laws after the event to charge Assange with, it's been 5 years since Mackinnons extradiction was first requested and he has still not been anywhere near the US because of our fear for his safety under US criminal system.
There have even been arguments in this country that the law we enacted to enabled this fast-tracked extradiction process should be repealed since the US haven't enacted their side of the treaty.
So the UK already has a history of not compiling with Extradiction requests under the exact same treaty that the US would need to use to get hold of Assange. This goes as high as at least 2 PM (Brown and Cameron) discussing ways to hold Mackinnon accountable but to serve sentences in this country.
I suspect if Assange were to be extradicted from the UK, we would resist on similar grounds, after all we are not allow, by law to send anyone (Prisioners or Asylum Seekers etc) to a country where their life maybe at risk or where they are being charged for a political crime, but the US has senators publically calling for Assange execution which fails both of those requirements.
This law is shared by most EU countries, which Sweden is a member of but maybe they don't have those laws enacted (at all/in quite the same way). Maybe someone who understands the Swedish Law System could comment on that aspect.
"Gary Mackinnon , unlike Assange, has publically admitted breaking into US Government computers and stealing information, which is clearly a crime in the US using existing laws not some hastily made up laws after the event to charge Assange with, it's been 5 years since Mackinnons extradiction was first requested and he has still not been anywhere near the US because of our fear for his safety under US criminal system."
Uhm... did Mackinnon publish, sell or do anything with the data?
(I don't know...)
Is Mackinnon a UK citizen? ;-) Yup the last time I checked he was, and he's got a lawyer and he's fighting extradition under the laws which protect UK citizens.
Is Assnage a UK citizen? ;-) Nope. But he is a citizen of Australia which is a member of the Commonwealth... So what rights/protections does he have under the law in the UK?
But more to the point. 1917 Espionage Act is much older than Assnage. Or his parents for that matter. So how can you say that its a 'made up law' ?
> "If the U.S. wants him, why not just ask the U.K. under the 'hugely one-sided' (anyone remember Gary Mckinnon?) arrangements already in place here?"
Given that the USA has failed to ratify the treaty for several years, it would be well within the UK's powers and abilities to declare it null and void.
The question is, "why don't they" ?
"The setup plot was all about getting him in to Sweden, so they could send him to the US."
Let's assume, for just a moment, that your further comment regarding assassination and "taken out" is reasonably correct. Let us further assume that the US is trying to get him over there so they can shaft the bugger legally.
Then we got the following connundrum:
(a) The UK Court system, when all appeals are done some six months or so from now, will have to agree there is no such plot, nor any political component. They extradite him to Sweden.
(b) The Swedish Court system will have to drop the accusations. If they go ahead with charging him, he can't legally be extradited to the US before the court case is over, and - worst case for Assange - he has served his sentence.
(b.1) It's VERY likely there will be no charges. Despite three character witnesses, there's no hard proof, and if you study Swedish court records - all public domain, btw - you'll see that it is extremely difficult to get charged with, let alone condemned for, rape without MUCH harder evidence than what exist.
(c) The US would have to come up with a charge against him, complete with proof, of a crime which is ALSO a crime in Sweden - that'd get tricky, since Sweden have very good protections for publishers of material. Could be done tho; espionage would be one. But since it's reasonably clear he's NOT a spy (spies don't publish the information online, normally .... ) that's political maneouvering.
(d) The Swedish Court would have to determine whether there was a political component to the *US* request - which, uh, we all agree there would be. If there is one, they can't legally extradite.
(e) The Swedish Government would have to, according to EU law, ask the *UK* Government whether it is ok to extradite him to the US. Then the *UK* needs to say yes - and, presumably, the UK would not do so if THEY thought it had gone political-shaped.
(f) And then the US would need to make a few guarantees, such as "no death penalty", "no excessive punishment" etc before the extradition could go ahead.
So a plot to get him sent to Sweden would be tactically unsound, as the *UK* has a much softer extradition treaty with the US in the first place ....
See why I get a wee bit steamed at all this bickering all over?
But sure. They could all do it illegally. Of course, the Swedish court records would still be available to the public, so that'd get politically ... touchy.
Machiavelli would be embarrassed by this "plot".
@Windrose You raise some excellent and true points. Unfortunately they're all based on an assumption which also forms the heart of the current situation; namely the belief that the governments will actually play by their own rules.
And there is plenty of evidence available in most European countries that this isn't always the case. For example; your points also touch European "law". Dunno about your country but mine (Holland) is very selective in which European rules they follow and which not. And guess what? This almost seems to be solely determined if the rule in question grants the government permission for whatever plans they have.
If European law "dictates" it the official comment usually is "Sorry, but this is determined by European law". Yet when its the other way around its usually "Sorry, but this is the law"; without even hinting at the existence of something like a European counterpart of that specific rule.
Can't comment on other countries, but from what I read in the papers and the stories I hear from some of my friends the situation there often isn't that much different.
The problem isn't the legal system, its the question if our governments will actually honor it. And when looking at the historical facts (even recent ones in this century) you'll realize its a very valid question indeed.
Windrose wrote: - "It's VERY likely there will be no charges. Despite three character witnesses, there's no hard proof, and if you study Swedish court records - all public domain, btw - you'll see that it is extremely difficult to get charged with, let alone condemned for, rape without MUCH harder evidence than what exist."
I thought he had been charged, and that this was the reason why the Swedish prosecution service successfully obtained Supreme Court approval for an Interpol arrest warrant?
Or is he merely being arrested on suspicion? That's a lot of trouble to go to just for that.
Also, why would the Swedish prosecution service go to all that trouble, if they don't think the charges will stick?
Definitely a fairly well thought out and intelligent post.
But I do have to disagree with a couple of points...
"(c) The US would have to come up with a charge against him, complete with proof, of a crime which is ALSO a crime in Sweden - that'd get tricky, since Sweden have very good protections for publishers of material. Could be done tho; espionage would be one. But since it's reasonably clear he's NOT a spy (spies don't publish the information online, normally .... ) that's political maneouvering.
(d) The Swedish Court would have to determine whether there was a political component to the *US* request - which, uh, we all agree there would be. If there is one, they can't legally extradite.
(e) The Swedish Government would have to, according to EU law, ask the *UK* Government whether it is ok to extradite him to the US. Then the *UK* needs to say yes - and, presumably, the UK would not do so if THEY thought it had gone political-shaped."
-=-
First, Assnage is Australian not a UK citizen.Nor is he a Swedish citizen. IANAL, but AFAIK, citizenship plays a crucial role in the laws affecting Assnage. (Why do you think he was trying so hard to get Swedish citizenship?)
Second...
In the US, if the Grand Jury determines that there is enough evidence against Assnage, the US will formally charge him. They will then make a claim for extradition. Regardless if he is in the UK or in Sweden.
At the time of this post, no official charges have been filed (AFAIK), so everything is hypothetical. Assuming that Assnage will face charges of treason, if charged as such, he'd probably stand a better chance of fighting the extradition in Sweden than he would in the UK. Even though he's not a UK citizen, he is Australian and I think he's got some protections as a citizen of the commonwealth. But unlike Sweden, UK is a member of NATO. So what trumps what in a court of law? I don't know but I'd imagine that a charge of espionage would be reason enough for Assnage to get extradited.
If Assnage is in Sweden, the Swedes don't have to talk to the UK about extradition to the US.
The question is if Sweden wants to create an international incident over Assnage. Also in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Sweden, see:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/101212/suicide-bombing-sweden-stockholm-terrorist-attack
I don't think that Sweden will fight hard against an extradition.
Neither will the UK where unlike McKinnon, espionage is a more serious crime than criminal trespass...
As to your comment about a 'political motivation'... since the leaks span both a Democrat and a Republican party president/white house, one could reasonably argue that his extradition is not politically motivated.
I'm sure that within 5 years, there will be a movie made about Assnage and this whole Wikileaks thing.
Have you not read the Girl who kicked the Hornet's Nest? Those Swedes will stop at nothing, nothing I tell you.
Still nice to see any money I may 'allegedly' have given to Larry Flint is actually doing something useful. Not being sarcastic here, I do consider f****ng off the US Government useful.
No idea whether Assange is guilyt or not, but I speak from direct and painful experience of the UK legal system where a police force collected the evidence that proved my innocence and despite having it and us knowing they had it refusing to disclose it.
It was only when we managed to obtain the evidence ourselves that the CPS/Plod had to cave in on disclosure and admit there was no case to answer.
I can fully understand his reticence, especially given that US politicians have called for his execution.
Most of Europe uses Napoleonic law whilst Britain (guilty until proven innocent), and it's former colonies including Canada and America use Common law (not guilty until proven so). America has developed, or evolved, it's law so really it's Common law plus plus.
Unfortunately Canada is, metaphorically speaking, half-way between Britain and the States, say Common plus.
Britain's idea of justice has also evolved - double jeopardy, talk when arrested or lose out, etc. - which has not been carried across the Atlantic.
Australia and New Zealand produce interesting precedents.
ONE THING that both Canada and the U.S. agree on, legally, is if the cops suppress ANY evidence that is beneficial to the defence they must disclose. This applies to all levels of cases, misdemeanour (petty stuff) or felony (anything over 2 or 5 years penalty, roughly)..
The case law on this is long and settled law and Assange would be entitled to everything, but everything, good and bad which, I guess, is not what he has so far.
You GOT to be kidding? The European Convention on Human Rights (article 6.2)? Binding for all EU members? The Universal Declaratiof of Human Rights (article 11)? Does ANY of these ring a bell?
"Innocent until proven guilty" is set down in enough laws and conventions that all of bloody Europe is well and truly bound by it - including Sweden.
And then there is: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2853/a/18096 - in English. Worth a read. Combine it with the current rules and regulation on extraditing to non-EU countries: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435 (also in English) for a little more information on what may and may not happen in the future.
The governments are not playing by the rules. They want to destroy the guy. No Worries, WTF!
If you can't believe that governments would seek to frame people then there's no hope for you to understand, because the only way to hold such a belief is to be completely ignorant of history.
It also seems that in Sweden, you can be "investigated" many times for the same crime, something that is not permitted here. It is called harassment. I don't know why more hasn't been made of the way that a politician in Sweden seems to be driving this process. Isn't there supposed to political independence of the legal services?
Don't forget, the prosecutors in Sweden cleared him of any guilt in 24 hours. Apparently, they can change their mind (under the influence of a politician) and start the whole thing rolling again, presumably as many times as they like.
As far as this man is concerned, the case was dealt with months ago and cleared. Are you suggesting that he have to keep on going back to Sweden to "clear the air" each time this thing pops up?
But you can now be tried more than once for the same crime in England (don't know about the rest of the UK), since the double jeopardy law has been 'cancelled'. Indeed, Mark Weston has just been retried and found guilty 15 years later.
Recent advances in DNA analysis do mean that it is now possible to clearly prove guilt in cases such as Weston's, which wasn't possible before. The trouble is with our generalised laws, this law can easily be used to persecute innocent people who are hated/feared/despised by the State. And this is what the double jeopardy law was set up to prevent: overbearing authority figures harrying the common man.
" In the name of myopically chasing down people who might (or might not) have got away with a crime in their first trial, New Labour thought nothing of ditching a centuries-old rule designed to circumscribe the power of the state and guarantee peace of mind to individuals found not guilty of an offence.
"The aim of the double jeopardy was as simple as it was true and decent: to rein in the authorities, to keep a check on the potentially vengeful antics of the police and prosecutors by allowing them one chance and one chance only to find a man or woman guilty of an offence.
"It was a rule that went some way towards balancing out the severely unbalanced relationship between the state and individual, by limiting the actions of the state and protecting the integrity of the free, sovereign human being. " [Quoted from http://bit.ly/eFoqCi]
"Don't forget, the prosecutors in Sweden cleared him of any guilt in 24 hours. Apparently, they can change their mind (under the influence of a politician) and start the whole thing rolling again, presumably as many times as they like"
A prosecutor, not plural. Also what was the recent case where a prosecutor in the UK decided there were insufficient grounds for prosecution? There are fair number of hits, but not the one that I wanted which was a stunning example of crass stupidity, though it might be argued that this one is too:
http://crown-prosecution-service.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html
The point being of course that prosecutors are fallible. It should also be noted that in this country a police can investigate many times for the same crime, and the double jeopardy law has been struck from the statute book:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm
So you might like to think again before doling out such incorrect quatsch, it being that it logically follows that in order to produce 'new and compelling evidence' an investigation has to take place (this is the logical and epistemological category 'corollary'). I don't know if your comments were deliberate attempts to misinform, but they are substantially incorrect.
As far as the conspiracy-to-get-Assange-to-the-US is concerned, it's apparently tougher to extradite from Sweden than it is from the UK. That would in part be due to the handy law passed by Blair's government, when they were bending over to touch their toes for Bush et al., enabling quick extraction of the presumed guilty.
Assange's team have done themselves no favours, ditto the man himself, with their tactics, which will blow up in their faces if they are not careful. This morning's Radio 4 interview had me choking on my coffee.
"That this charge is just a holding case, Sweden make no secret that they are keen to send Assange on to the Us, this case is just an excuse to do so."
If Sweden "make no secret" of it, then you will have no difficulty in furnishing the proof for the benefit of onlookers, will you?
So, the proof please. Remember that Google is your friend.
Don't tell me, like another poster you are posting here because it's an opportunity to 'express your opinion'.
"If they know its a setup, then he should have no worries about going to Sweden and helping the police resolve the case".
I do not believe Assange is particularly worried about beating the Swedish accusations themselves. He fears that if he returns to Sweden then he will be extradited from there to the US.
I don't think thats actually what is going on here.
The US could extradite from the UK, the way the Labour government framed the extradition treaty with the US the US only have to say 'please can we have Fred' and Fred is handed over - no matter what the evidence or reasoning.
The most likely reason for all of this is that the powers that be want to smear the guys name, make him out to be a terrible disasterous person. A rapist, next probably a child molester, certainly now a fraud (taking money for a defence fund and not handing it over...), a terrorist wilfully endangering the lives of all 'free people', next the leaks will be denied - all made up by a terrorist.
"If they know its a setup, then he should have no worries about going to Sweden and helping the police resolve the case."
Would that be the same Sweden which he apparently believes to be the one where the police and the government are the ones trying to set him up?
"If this guy had been active during the Bush era, he would probably have been "taken care of". If they weren't able to silence him we would all be living in a more fascist society and someone like Bradley Manning would already have been executed for treason during wartime."
You're giving Bush too much credit and the US Government too little credit. There are laws in place and the US Military and US Government act within the accordance of laws. True under times of war, when there is actually a declaration of war by Congress, the laws are slightly different however, Manning would still face a trial.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a bit different than Civilian Law.
Manning royally screwed himself.
The swedish prosecutors don't need proof as they already said that they will drop whatever half-arsed charges they might be able to create by rewriting their law* when the US come up with a wikileaks-related case. Why would they waste time looking for evidence when they will drop the charge on US command?
*Sex by surprise is a Sweden-specific offense, and even so they are trying to amend the law to crowbar "sex without a condom the morning after sex with a condom" in the definition of "sex by surprise".
Assange is charged in one instance with having sex without a condom when consent for sex without a condom was never given. In the other case, it is alleged that consent was withdrawn, and Assange continued to have sex after consent was withdrawn.
In both instances, he is accused of having sex in a nonconsensual manner.
I agree that the prosecution seems shaky, because I believe that if it were somebody of no note, there would be no prosecution.
How many other alleged rapists have had Interpol warrants issued, and what was the nature of their allegations?
"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press"
I can well believe this, but it is not enough. If he ever sent a message saying something like:
"Mr. Anonymous contributor #1234, I believe you should be able to copy this classified info on a CD-ROM that you can disguise as a music CD of Lady Gaga, then put on earphones to pretend you are listening to it", then he is in trouble because he can be charged for conspiracy.
If on the other hand, he only ever wrote: "thanks for this information you want to send to us, I will set up a server for you", then he might be all right.
As for the SMS messages, I can believe it is a set up, but I can also believe he is embellishing more innocuous messages. After all, he has already exaggerated somewhat the 'crimes' uncovered by the cables.
"I can well believe this, but it is not enough. If he ever sent a message saying something like: [...]"
Assange uses bespoke encryption, plus he'll have used and be using a VPN like MetroPipe, right now, as Mister Scotland Yard tries to eavesdrop:
http://www.metropipe.net/
I know that I would, and I'm pretty certain that he is more knowledgeable than I am, and an awful lot more paranoid too. The main attacks are likely to be emissions from his keyboard, screen and other electronic emissions from the MB. I suppose there's an outside possibility that someone's done an 'evil maid' on his lap top. There may be some sophisticated snooping gear in the trees around the property that enable recording 1-1 conversations. For sure he's not going to discuss anything openly on a landline given the *ch*l*n problem. There are sufficient grounds for paranoia if he's going to discuss how he handles fenced classified material, stolen by someone in the US military/[...].
Had the CIA one of these
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38062588/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/
then he'd probably have been dealt with a long time ago. It's probably only a matter of months before conspirators have to shut and lock doors and windows, sweep rooms for such devices when they want a conversation, and take the precaution of using seals. That might amuse our Harry Harrison reader.
Then there are the alleged BDS and MS backdoors. Is anything secure any more? Probably not, unless it too is bespoke, but not even then; spies amongst the staff. There'll be an insider. Which software provider shrink wrapped a Trojan or virus within the past few years? I've just realised I don't need to go to any great effort to search out an instance, since the Sony musical rootkit will do.
Some undelete software exhibits similar capabilities and blow me if the windows media player isn't watching stuff that goes into the Norton undelete sub directory. You can't get the staff these days.
Poor b*gger. If UK news is to believed Bradley is in solitary confinement stuck in a cell for 23 hours a day effective for te last 5 months. And he has yet to be proven guilty.
Now, about this award to a Chinese dissident?
Maybe US military should have had some procedures in place to cater for matters of conscience that probably motivated Mr Manning into doing what is alleged he did.
Maybe he should have been counselled or at least had some meaningful way of whistleblowing within DoD?
If the allegations against Mr Manning are true that is ...
Consider a donation? http://www.bradleymanning.org/
(P.S. Don't donate to wikileaks on behalf of Manning! So far, none fo that money has made it to the Manning Defence fund. Additionally, Manning's defence team has been unable to get any information out of Assange as to how much has been collected by Wikileaks on behalf of Manning, nor when it may or may not make it's way towards actually helping Manning.)
Funny how they never managed to pass that "reason" along. Nor provide an accounting of how much was collected, nor what was being done to unlock the funds, what timeframe...
There hasn't even been the consideration to use that as a convienient excuse! Instead there has been nothing but slience.
Funny that.
Clearing a few things up. There's so much BS out there it makes my eyes water.
@skelband: He was never "cleared of guilt" by any prosecutor. The original case was dropped because, as in the UK, it's almost impossible to successfully prosecute sex crimes. The victims LAWYER then appealed the decision, and it was re-opened. That the same lawyer had, once, been a politician is irrelevant to the case.
@Nick Stallman: Since it is far easier to extradite someone, for whatever reason, from the UK to the US than from Sweden to the US, a conspiracy to FIRST get him here would be, uh, pretty dumb, all things considered - in particular since Sweden would need the UK to agree to a US extradiction. Have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11949771 for some quite correct details.
@ElReg!comments!Pierre: Bullshit. There is no "Sex by surprise" involved in this. One accusation is that the woman agreed to sex PROVIDED a condom was used, and that Assange proceeded without one. The law in Sweden is pretty clear - if one party doesn't consent, then it's rape. Try reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 for some less misogynistic details.
It's bloody scary to read some of these comments. Why is it so difficult to tell the difference between what he HAS done (been a part of Wikileaks) and what he is accused of doing (rape, assault), and actually accept that despite the former he might be called on to answer for the latter?
Your hero MAY be a rapist. Right NOW he's an innocent man who is accused, but not charged. Don't read Swedish? Suggest you think before commenting.
Although, it's not just in this thread, it seems.
He MAY be a 'rapist' but their definition is certainly not one I recognise. Consenting, then deciding to change her mind a few days later is not rape - maybe the Swedes have another word for it.
Go to Sweden & get these charges sorted? - I'd not be too keen either.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/
Unhappy smiley - Does Sweden still have the highest male suicide rate in Europe?
Here's the trick. It doesn't MATTER if YOU, personally, recognize the definition. What he is claimed to have done IS rape, by Swedish law, and just as Sweden can't - BY law - extradite someone to the US if the crime isn't a crime in Sweden; Sweden can't NOT ask for extradiction just because the definition of "rape" isn't the same in the country Assange currently reside in.
What he is accused of - and remember: he's not charged - is "having sex without consent". It's not a case of regretting weeks after; read the original documents instead of relying on shoddy reporting on far too many websites.
Suicide? Latest data I can find is from 2008 - Sweden is at 16% (males per 100,000). The UK at 17%; Croatia at 25%. Lithuania is at 52%. So where the hell did you get those ideas from?
Unhappy smiley: why this drive against the alleged victims and Swedish laws? Whatever happens the *United Kingdom* will have to approve the extradition to the US, so why not put the ball in your own court for once?
Well it's true that Lithuania shares some proximity in common with Sweden to the Arctic circle. Croatia, well, that's going to take a long time to clear up, as did our experiences of the 1940s.
The crucial bit, and I applaud you, is your phraseology WRT the definition, and it has to be said that Scandinavian attitudes to the passing on of deadly STDs/sexual hygiene goes back many decades. I'm not surprised that someone from the UK, where HIV was recently reported [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6172230.stm for the benefit of the OP] would have such a slack response to what is a potentially lethal biological transaction. I refer of course to the lack of physical contraception. If Assange is, as reported, promiscuously bisexual, then he could be as dangerous as a loaded shotgun.
"Unhappy smiley - Does Sweden still have the highest male suicide rate in Europe?"
Suicide rates are highest in the area of the arctic circle. It logically follows, given that the policing population is drawn from the indigent peoples, suicide rates amongst their police will be higher. There logically will be a force (and country) with a higher level of suicides than its contemporaries. This was first elucidated by people like Traskmann, Bendz, Asberg and others.
Now, I've given you some information, why don't you pony up the data showing the Swedish police to have the highest suicide rate in Europe? After you have completed this minor task proceed to demonstrate the relevance of these data - if indeed they match your words - to the current situation. It shouldn't be too hard if you know that your claims are true.
As to their definition of rape, it is not the only part of the case, which includes unprotected sex which, according to the publicly available material, was not acceptable to the individuals concerned. Furthermore, I note a hint of cultural relativism in your lines, inasmuch that you don't accept the Swedish definition preferring the tradition in which you were reared. You'll need to produce some form of objective data that is independent of culture in order to justify this. Why don't you, as a cap to your intellectual tour de force, produce a workable objective definition, and have it pass through whatever European legislative body?
The suicide rate was a question - you understand this concept? Ask and then someone else answers, yes? Or is it that as you seem to know all the answers this is not something you ever do?
As for "pony up the data showing the Swedish police to have the highest suicide rate in Europe?" Aside from your references, who said any thing about the police? If you wish to know the relevance of this, maybe have a read of the URL in the post. Although the responses are not academically rigorous, some give an indication as to why I put forward the question.
I'm also quite aware that It doesn't matter if I, personally, recognize the definition or not - that was in answer to those that don't seem to understand why Assange doesn't appear very keen on "just going to Sweden to clear things up". Yes, it has cultural relativism - it was intentional, to be in line with what MAY be going through the mind of others when they read about this case. Note: before accusations of mind-reading, I said may be.
Besides, Assange might well be some kind of nut-job, I don't know that man so cannot say. However, given the way this case had been dropped, his application for residency refused and then the case to be re-opened, just as his site is under attack and the U.S. start making noises about spying charges - can you seriously blame him for feeling somewhat paranoid?
As for passing through whatever European legislative bodies - Not being a citizen of the E.U., I very much doubt if they'd take much notice of any workable, objective definition I put forward. So sorry if I disappoint, but I'll decline your kind invitation.
"The suicide rate was a question - you understand this concept? Ask and then someone else answers, yes? Or is it that as you seem to know all the answers this is not something you ever do?"
Of what relevance was it?: "Unhappy smiley - Does Sweden still have the highest male suicide rate in Europe?" Can you use Google? Here: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=suicide+rate+arctic+circle
FYI the reason why suicide rates increase the closer the proximity to the Arctic circle is substantially to do with the number of sunlit hours. It's not unicausal though (is anything?), because this can be potentiated or ameliorated by a number of factors, including childhood development and schedules of reinforcement therein, as well as current circumstances. National character, though fleeting, can exist.
Anyhow, Assange is slowly and clearly being shown for what he is:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/julian-assange-wild-child-of-free-speech/story-fn775xjq-1225969230839
He's whining that this is black propaganda, but no less black than his. It's vital to know about the creature, now but a hair's breadth away from Plato's 'noble lie'. No need to pretend to read minds here, what counts is behavioural history. As far as his paranoia is concerned, it's been there for years, long before he achieved this level of publicity, and I've already posted about that, citing this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11893104 ' "You ask him a harmless question - and he looks at you as if to ask 'Why do you want to know?'" the journalist said. '. What comes around goes around, but perhaps he doesn't have the social and intellectual skills see the corollary, in spite of his unfinished education in philosophy and the sciences. It also has to be said that anyone who tries to offer a postbox address to a judge is in a ragged state. (Next he'll be asking if he can do the asked-for video link through a proxy.) Utterly clueless as well as paranoid?
Offenders show traces of their future career in early developmental stages. Over time repeated observations and later epidemiological studies firm these things up. Notice Assange's early offences and his insightlessness when sentenced: " "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution," he declared." This man needs again to be in front of a judge.
If you don't offer an objective, non culturally relative form of definition of rape your argument is not anchored. If you want to detract from the Swedish law you need more than spin and good intentions. However, if you view the case through eyes understanding the Scandinavian position on sexual health, which predates the HIV epidemic, you will see the reason for their current attitude. Take on board the recent German court case of a woman prosecuted for spreading HIV and perhaps you might understand the point. She didn't use a femidom, and that puts her in Assange's (alleged) league.
If you can't see that a self appointed someone offering themselves as an international arbiter of philosophy and politics and of what is right and wrong has a) no mandate and is b) probably not of very sound mind (and in fact the more data that come into the public domain the more it seems that he is not very sound), c) and didn't learn a warning from history, then perhaps you are very forgiving, or something. There, I have been most charitable, haven't I?
Whether or not I am as omnipotent as you think - and it is true that I float through firewalls and routers with the sort of ease that would make even Neo gasp with surprise and have a lot of 'letters' after my name - is not relevant, since I try to offer data. Now I have to telnet to the Wikileaks server so that I can find the original iron, where the records and passwords are kept. I'll be sure to let the Moderatrix know when I retrieve these data. ;->
HTH. Do HAVND.
Come back again when you actually know what a "rapist" is. Here's a hint: It's not the guy the woman as some doubts about the morning after.
It would also be of interest to see how "prosecutor 1's" statement
"I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
leads to the conclusion
"the original case was dropped because it's almost impossible to successfully prosecute sex crimes"
The more that I then don't see the point of re-opening the case in the first place.
Where's the "NO U" icon?
"Come back again when you actually know what a "rapist" is. Here's a hint: It's not the guy the woman as some doubts about the morning after."
BS. A rape - as defined in Sweden - is "non-consensual sex", which is what he is accused of. Doesn't matter what it is defined as in the UK. The number of women who go to the police after "regretting" what they consented to is bloody low, but it's a damned convenient way to ignore the problem.
Try to understand that unless the US, the UK and Sweden all agree to break their own laws and those of the European Union, it's not an easy matter to have him extradited anywhere - in which case he'll simply have to answer the accusations against him in Sweden.
Which, presumably, we all agree he has the right to do?
".....Doesn't matter what it is defined as in the UK...." Windrose is exactly correct. What is fine and acceptable or simply not criminal in one country can be a hanging concern in others. Just ask homosexuals in Iran. Or, for an even funnier example, what would you say if you caught your neighbour sh*gging a goat? Would you call the RSPCA or the Police first? Well, in the Sudan you'd only call the Police if the goat didn't belong to your neighbour, otherwise he can do what he likes to it.
In Sweden, it looks like Assange has a case to hear, whether certain posters here think it is a crime or not, and I suspect it is only the rose-tinted glasses of their political faith keeping them from accepting it. By all accounts, it looks like the Swedish Government actually wanted Assange to just go away as they didn't want to get stuck in the middle of an extradition battle with the US.
> He was never "cleared of guilt" by any prosecutor.
According to the BBC[1], the Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."
That sounds decidedly like being "cleared of guilt"...
Of course, the BBC might just be lying. But I generally give them a little more credence that some random bloke on an Internet forum.
Vic.
[1] at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316
here in Sweden as in the UK (or the United States, for that matter). The charges against Mr Assange were dismissed due to lack of evidence by chief prosecutor Eva Finne of the Stockholm's prosecutor's office. After a complaint by Claes Gustaf Borgström, whose career as a politician may be irrelevant, but whose view that all men share a collective guilt for violence against women perhaps is not, the case was transferred from the jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office in Stockholm, where the alleged offenses had occured, to the corresponding office in Göteborg, and placed in the hands of a prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who, perhaps not quite coincidentally, is responsible for the «development of methods for the investigation of, among other things, sex crimes and crimes of violence» (metodutveckling av utredningar inom bland annat vålds- och sexualbrott). Your version of the «condom incidents» - they seem to be plural - also seems to misstate vital elements - at least if the Guardian's version (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden?INTCMP=SRCH) is to be believed. As you seem to want us to conclude that you, in contrast to one of your interlocutors, do read Swedish, perhaps you can provide those of us who share this accomplishment with a link to a copy of the leaked police report ? Until then, you might want to, if not «think before commenting» - I certainly don't wish to ask more of you than you are capable - but at least investigate before posting....
Henri
Swedish law on this is pretty weird though. In theory, if I have sex with somebody in Sweden and she later claims that I had agreed to turn the light off but I didn't, it's rape.
"Swedish Rape" may join "Walking On The Cracks In The Pavement" as a hot case for the Trivial Crimes Squad.
Did you ever READ the law in question?
IF you want to have sex with someone, AND they agree but ONLY on condition of X, and you don't fulfill X but go ahead anyway, then, yes, it IS non-consensual sex. Aka rape.
There. Not that difficult if you put in the right words. Weird law? Not at all. Humane, perhaps, but hardly weird.
If country "X" has a law that says hamster-fondling merits the death penalty, it doesn't matter if you disagree or think it's a stupid law: get caught fondling a hamster & you're for the long drop. The obvious solution is to avoid that country or, if you have to go, don't indulge your hamster fantasies.
It's not for we non-Swedes to decide whether what Swedish law considers as rape is valid or not. If refusing to use a condom when asked is a crime, then that's their choice. Don't like it? Well, don't fuck anyone in Sweden
If Assange didn't have the nous, or the self-control, to keep his prick in his pants, that's his problem. Let him answer to it. His celebrity status doesn't exempt him from the law.
That is also a good answer, and his attempts to do the initial hearings over a video link from the UK will not wash. He must attend the jurisdiction. As to those trying to minimise the alleged offence - and there are some - that is a) not good b) not insightful. If someone wants full protection then that is the name of the game, otherwise in Sweden that is rape. If readers and posters in this thread go and have a look at the original charges online they will see how it is important to stick to the facts, including how the women involved came to feel the matter ought to be further progressed.
The mother of Assange's son has done a great deal to hide herself from both him and the public eye. This rang a few alarm bells in my mind, when I remembered that Assange's mother went to great lengths to avoid his father, who it seems was stalking him. Additionally, anyone reading the curious lifestyle he lead, including being educated at her hands, might be in a good position to make up their minds about the man, how it is that he feels he is the arbiter of what is right and wrong, possibly even how it is (if my reading is correct) he managed to fail university exams and seems to have dropped out. It also needs to be remembered that he was convicted for these sorts of offences some years back. What an interesting profile Julian Assange has behind him.
"It's not for we non-Swedes to decide whether what Swedish law considers as rape is valid or not. "
Half-truth: Having sex is not a rape even by Swedish laws and they know it very well: Still _no formal accusations_, just press releases and _no proof_ of "raping" actually happening.
Any questions?
"If refusing to use a condom when asked is a crime, then that's their choice."
Missing the point totally: Sex tansmutated into "rape" 2 _months_ afterwards, when it was politically suitable to invent such accusations. Not proven and no evidence has been shown.
Not using condom isn't very uncommon and it's definitely not a crime, even by Swedish laws: You can always say no. If you don't ... .well ... it's _your_ decision.
I.e. bullshit: With similar accusations you could jail 50% of Swedish men.
So the real point here is that your name is Assagne and you are the leader of Wikileaks, not the charges themselves. Excactly same political accusations that made Soviet Union so unfamous.
Or McCarthy: Obviously nothing has gotten better from those days: When politics enter the picture, laws are thrown out.
The possibilities and the rights for journalists and "news papers" to publish annoying stuff has become smaller,
Much because news papers have become more centrally owned.
But Assange has, perhaps, not understood fully that taking such a role means he should live like Gandhi and not fuck, with or without condoms; with Swedish hores.
And that has nothing to do with the need for a Wikileaks.
And then we have the poor state of the US who has to do something, of course.
Trying to stop leaks is too silent a task and hopeless too.
Attacking the mail man is much better, it will remove the interest from the mail to the mail man.
On the other hand, I am sure there are a lot of diplomats and the like who are very happy about
these leaks.
Take for instance a US diplomat who has to deal with Berlusconi.
Now he can happily be polite knowing Berlusconi knows he is considered a prick.
In the US, he's innocent until proven guilty. Well he is. Manning isn't. He's being held under Military law which means he's in the brig which isn't very pleasant.
We don't know what information the US Government has, and what has been presented to the GJ (Grand Jury). What we do know is that Manning's defense team claims Wikileaks raised money, but has failed to deliver on their promises. Essentially leaving Manning hanging out to dry.
How guilty is Assnage? We'll know when he faces trial.
Assnage is no hero.
Actually I did this the first time because I'm sometimes dyslexic and spell checking doesn't work on a name.
And after I did it, I did like the fact that his name Ass-n-age is easier to remember than Ass-ange or Ass-angie. (Ass and the name Angie which I don't believe is the correct phonetics on remembering his name.)
But I kept doing this ... Assnage because ... well... it pisses off those knee jerking, liberal non-thinking pin heads who buy in to Assnage's BS hook line and sinker.
Lets get real. All governments are corrupt because there is no such thing as an honest man in politics. We live in an age where career politicians put their personal agendas in front of what they know is right and better for their country in the long run. No man is beyond being corrupted by the allure of power. (Women for that matter too)
Do you really think that I care that Qaddafi travels with a Ukrainian 'nurse' that could probably pose on Page 3 of the Sun? (Not in the least.) But that doesn't change the facts of what he (Assnage) did, what Manning did, or that the majority of people don't understand what really happens in terms of foreign policy and politics.
Aside from the substantially ad hominem nature of your remarks, and the failure in general to produce proofs that demonstrate the veridicality of your claims, if your claim that we do need Wikileaks is to be accepted by anyone then you must prove that this is so, particularly by means of a priori reasoning, not some sloppy ill thought out cauldron of ad hominem bilge that takes no account of the opposite arguments. As I type these remarks I remind myself that the PRC informant is at particular risk from these disclosures, and probably the Saudi one too.
Finally, whether or not other politicians will be 'happy' or not about the Berlusconi disclosures is irrelevant. The 'happiness theory of epistemology' don't hunt. Truths are not any more valuable on the basis of how euthymic they make political actors feel, or a certain man of steel would have indeed been the possessor of much truth, ditto Tony Blair, and so on it goes. Besides, I thought Julian Assange's intention was to make the world's population happy, not their politicians.
The charges he is being accused of would be thrown out under the UK 'Justice' System (I use quotes because of the Aso Mohammed Ibrahim verdict yesterday).
Aren't there other cases of this throughout Europe, such as Denying the Holocaust (a crime in Germany and Austria), Abortion (varying degrees throughout Europe) and drugs (some steroids differ in legality, and the Netherlands are a special case).
From what I've read Wikileaks have a lot more ammunition at ready, including incriminating data of a bank and other data Assange himself describes as 'Thermonuclear'. Interesting times.
Complicated. "Rape" is against the law in the UK as well as in Sweden; it's the definition which differ. So yes. He can be extradited from the UK to Sweden based on the accusation of rape, which makes sense.
If they think there is a chance he might have done it, then they'll extradite. If they think there's a political component, then the UK Court is obliged to NOT extradite. There's nothing particular about this case save the venom spewed by Assange fanbois all over.
Perhaps there is a political aspect. Perhaps the US HAS been stupid enough to lean on Sweden. Once here, he'll be harder to get over there than ever before, so it's a tactical boo-boo.
(The act of publishing that he is accused of in the US might not even BE a crime in Sweden, which would prevent Sweden from *legally* extraditing him there. And they can't do so without the UK's consent anyway. Let's avoid the discussion of what the US could do ILLegally.)
"The charges he is being accused of would be thrown out under the UK 'Justice' System (I use quotes because of the Aso Mohammed Ibrahim verdict yesterday)."
This case, applied to any ordinary Swedish man, would never go into court in Sweden. Never.
So it's 100% about Assagne and who he is, i.e. 100% politics. And 96% of that is US influence, Swedes don't usually bother unless asked. See case Pirate Bay: Several illegal searches and confiscations of property until the prosecutor (with IFPI) managed to invent something that stuck in court, for a while. And for that they had to invent new class of crimes, not in any law.
So no, laws don't mean a thing in politics and political prosecutions in Sweden: It's a police state like Soviet Union was. US have circumvented this whole process, unwanted people just vanish and are to be found from places like Guantanamo Bay years later. If ever. Not even the sham of honesty left.
Once Assnage is formally charged the information against him will be released to his defense team. That doesn't mean that the information will become publicly available.
If/When Assnage is charged in the US, and then extradited, any evidence could be withheld from Assnage and the press, while his lawyers will know what they have and then provide a vigorous defense.
More than likely if Assnage gets to the US, he'll cop a plea to a lesser charge so that he doesn't face the full weight of the jail time.
I don't think people fully understand or appreciate the damage done by Assnage. Of course we'll just have to wait to see what Manning says about his 'hero'. His testimony could damn Assnage. When Manning's trial occurs and the truth is told, we'll see how Assnage fares.
BTW, I know its Assange not Ass-n-age. I just like it better the second way. ;-)
What short memories many people have.
The previous criminals in the white house, it's fitting that the name rhymes with toilet, tried to stitch one of our own MP's because he dared to expose the truth about Iraq.
Galloway went marching up the white house steps, cuban cigar in his hand, with two pump action shotguns, fully primed, and gave them both barrels. And he didn't miss. He gave them the cold hard facts about their own regime in their own backyard. That takes a lot of balls.
Now Assange is no Galloway but the parallels are obvious.
So for all you who are in denial, sit back and look at the evidence, it is obvious whats going on and it is time to end it.
"their plan is to keep secret information which they intend to use to prosecute a man who spends his time revealing secret information?"
Do you honestly believe Assange's/his lawyer's claim to that effect? Do you honestly believe that they would even *show* such material to him?
Now take a look at his personal history, his behavioural profile. The man is a convict, for one thing alone. Really he ought to have been prosecuted in the US for stealing "passwords for the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon" [ http://www.thestar.co.za/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105 ]. Indeed, it can be described as an offence for which US prosecution is outstanding. That's just a small chunk of the offences from that time.
This man has to be dealt with, or he will continue unabated. He appears to be unchecked by anything but his personal sense of limitations, which further seem to be expansive.
If you think the US should sit idly by when a man who has committed just the above offence is behaving as he now is, and dissimulating on the matter of texts, then you may wish to think again. This will become more and more interesting by the day, as his unsavoury past is slowly but surely dragged out and raked over. Nobel prize? Whomsoever suggested that might need to take a breath of fresh air and reconsider. Extradition is outstanding for the offences committed against the 7th Command Group on or around October 1991.
"Really he ought to have been prosecuted in the US for stealing "passwords for the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon""
That was 1991. Most crimes are unprosecutable after 10 years, do you know that?
Sounds very much like afterthought: Assagne should have prosecuted then because he now is what he is and thus stupidity.
"Nobel prize? Whomsoever suggested that might need to take a breath of fresh air and reconsider"
Not at all: You really think Bush government is smaller criminal than Assagne? Really?
Who started several wars (and killed tens of thousands of people, while ruining a couple of countries) just to make weapon makers and oil companies ultra rich? No other reason exists.
Bush family.
And you say Assagne is the big criminal for exposing this? Think again.
Whistleblowers are always potential Nobel winners: Warmongers are not.
""Nobel prize? Whomsoever suggested that might need to take a breath of fresh air and reconsider"
Not at all: You really think Bush government is smaller criminal than Assagne? Really?"
Non sequitur. Your comparison with Bush. Not only did I not make such a comparison, but you'd have to read minds or find some physical evidence to support such a claim.
It's an illicit technique in argument but more importantly that sort of sly argumentation can be used to justify any old crime can't it? 'Oh, I'll nick some money from the government in the form of a false benefit claim, after all didn't the politicians help themselves to vastly more than I'm claiming?'
Disingenuous, egregious, all the worst of things stacked in there.
Whistle blowers are not all potential Nobel winners, and conflating the warmonger Bush with them is a poor technique in argument. Nobel winners have to achieve very much more than Assange, and do so with a standard of excellence that enables the winner to distance themselves from criminal activity. Assange is 'working' in a field where his conviction shades his claims to an ethical standard.
More will appear with time. I saw this days ago and said as much, and that argument on my part has already been confirmed.
"That was 1991. Most crimes are unprosecutable after 10 years, do you know that?"
I forgot to address this point of yours, which holds no legal water at all, least of all in the international arena. We are not talking about a domestic case. Take for example the case of Carlos the Jackal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_the_Jackal
HTH.
Imagine the scene if Assange's lawyer is not telling porkies: "'Scuse me Mr. Assange's lawyer, here are some texts that incriminate people as setting you up, and we are complicit; I'm afraid that I will have to gag you, so you can't mention it to the press. Now I do have your word that you won't tell the rest of the world about this, don't I, Mr. Assange's lawyer. After all, your client has a good record for not disclosing things that people want kept secret, doesn't he?"
This is risible, pathetic.
***
Interim conclusion: in a democracy Wikileaks is fully justified and all attempts to throttle it should be investigated with and by urgency by authorities enabled to protect the democratic nature of that country.
***
Yes, this is patently correct. The fact that there are so many voices shouting in opposition to this fact is worrying, because it means either:
a) Joe Public is so moronic, they will think *exactly* what they're told to think, no matter how self-destructive and disempowering the consequences
or
b) The internet and media are so infested with shills and propaganda sources, that the image of "popular opinion" is unrecognisably skewed in favour of certain special interests - interests that want to see less public power, less freedom of information and *definitely* less governmental scrutiny.
What I can't work out is why Sweden wants to go to the trouble of extraditing him.
He hasn't been charged and they want to question him.
Why not save time and get on the RyanAir flight from Stockholm to London on Monday (cost about 200 quid return) to ask him questions?
THEN extradite him if they find that there is a case.
"Why not save time and get on the RyanAir flight from Stockholm to London on Monday (cost about 200 quid return) to ask him questions?
THEN extradite him if they find that there is a case."
That should tell you what's all about: Sweden is going to extradict him into US immediately, based on some make-believe excuse.
For that reason only interviewing him in any third country is impossible.
Also it's very hard to arrange political prosecution unless you own the prosecutor and judge and that means he _has to be_ in Sweden. Also the secret evidence (invented or not, who knows: It's a secret) is valid only in Sweden.
I see that Sweden want's the guy into jail based on some evidence which is secret, on a secret trial. Just like the US and I don't believe a second that this is a coincidence: It smells too much US or CIA to be an accident.
Sweden is known to "perfom services" for US earlier, latest was the Pirate Bay case: Totally legal in Sweden but RIAA/MPAA asked and Swedish judges invented a new class of crime just for shutting down PB. Not in any law even now, totally unique case.
Fits perfectly to a definition of fascism: "Everything we say is a crime, fuck the law book".
Even Nazi-Germany bothered to put everything in written laws: Something Sweden don't bother to do, so they are even worse fascists than Nazis, in a sense.
Assange should get to Sweden post-haste. Drop this mucking about with resisting deportation and instead go and answer a few questions from the Swedish police. Remember, he's only wanted for questioning, not arrest.
The SMS referred to in this piece are widely available to Swedish speakers and they tell a pretty strong story that the allegations are simply lover's revenge from the women involved, which has gone wildly out of control due to the recent attention to Wikileaks.
Once Assange is free from the allegations here in Sweden he should hot foot it to a country without extradition arrangements with the USA, before the USA puts in official charges. It may already be too late though - he should have sorted this out a month ago.
(1) Assange is a grade A creepozoid who is primarily interested in fame for the sake of nobbing nerd groupies.
(2) If he cared about Wikileaks in any way other than as a vehicle for (1), he'd resign from it forthwith, as at the moment the story is about Assange, not the government abuses that he's ostensibly interested in revealing.
1) People who've actually met him an not just read hatchet jobs in the press refer to him as a warm, intelligent and likable individual. What's the source of your info or is it just confirmation bias?
2) If he resigns it will be presented as evidence of guilt - it would be a huge mistake. His best result is if this is shown to be the clumsy character assassination job it is. Though it does appear to be wroking on the gullible like your good self.
"1) People who've actually met him an not just read hatchet jobs in the press refer to him as a warm, intelligent and likable individual. What's the source of your info or is it just confirmation bias?"
People have said such things of demagogues in the past (read about the Mitford sisters), so why not an ideologue? After all, should the women into whom he pumped his semen not have liked him for his deeds? Why *are* they whining about an experience that was undoubtedly good for them, one which they must have enjoyed, an experience to cherish? Perhaps I should collect the data in The Reg fora to see if any women have agreed with that perspective on these 'tizzy' women.
One of my first thoughts about this ran along similar lines:
'Would John. F. Allegeged-rapist, maybe' have gotten 'them' to spend that much effort? Experience sez no. But: there may well be a mistake about cause and effect. Swedish authorities might well (just as most others, alas) have written the case off, if the suspect was Joe random public.
After the allegations became a matter of international front-page news, though, their only possible course of action was to investigate to the fullest extent possible, including things like extradition from a foreign country.
Had they held back anything, the consensus would have been: 'They let him off 'cause he's a celebrity'. To the Swedish authorities (if they are even remotely competent) THAT would be the worst case. Their concern isn't (and can't rightly be expected to be) not to piss off international PFYdom, but rather upholding the faith of their constituents in a thorough and unbiased legal system that has some teeth, if needs be.
Just my 2 small-denomination-currency-units, your mileage may vary wildly, ianal and in no way responsible for anything. Mine's the one still not quite warm enough for the weather and I know the way out, tyvm
"Had they held back anything, the consensus would have been: 'They let him off 'cause he's a celebrity'. To the Swedish authorities (if they are even remotely competent) THAT would be the worst case."
No, because if you are a celebrity (other than Assagne) you _will_ get away almost anything in Sweden. Accusations thrown against A wouldn't cause even nominal investigations against anyone else, celebrity or not and definitely not a local celebrity. This is a very striking exception.
Thus influence of USA is very clear and that's all is needed.
"No, because if you are a celebrity (other than Assagne) you _will_ get away almost anything in Sweden. Accusations thrown against A wouldn't cause even nom
inal investigations against anyone else, celebrity or not and definitely not a local celebrity."
Well, I don't have any first-hand knowledge about the way Swedish law-enforcement works (or doesn't), so I can't rule this out. The core of my argument still stands, though.
"Thus influence of USA is very clear and that's all is needed."
I'd like to see some kind of proof (or even at least somewhat clear evidence) of that before I'll buy it hook, line and sinker. I spent quite a bit of time actively in the "autonomous left" scene to rule out that whole rape thing might just have been a personal grudge getting out of hand due to peer pressure. Or, for all I know, it might also be quite real. IMHO that scene isn't the most healthy environment for sexual relationships.
And the want for a thorough investigation is easily explained by the motives laid out in my first post.
Mind you: I wouldn't rule out US agents (of any shape or persuasion) to be behind (or at least contributing to) some kind of smear campaign against Mr. Assange, but as far as getting him to the US is concerned, I'm quite sure that dealing with UK or AU authorities directly would have been rather a bit more straightforward (and easier to boot).
Always remember: Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're _not_ paranoid...
Julian Assange, in response to his first conviction for hacking into foreign defence computer systems:
"Your honour, I feel a great misjustice has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution"
The additional data about his background are now emerging, and I'd say there's every chance that this man has a neuropsychiatric condition that predisposes him to insightlessness in respect of his behaviour and the consequences thereof. Even so, he has to be stopped, as do the rest of them.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=Your+honour%2C+I+feel+a+great+misjustice+has+been+done+and+I+would+like+to+record+the+fact+that+you+have+been+misled+by+the+prosecution&form=OSDSRC
Yeah, but if the Yanks can shoot down an Iranian airliner (which some believe was the principle cause of the Lockerbie incident), then I'm sure it won't take too much to have an appropriate incident in international waters. Plane suddenly goes quiet, mystery ensues, all that is left of Julian is a red mist. Sadly this will apply to the fellow travellers, but that is why I referred to the downed Iranian airliner.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 )
A lot of the arguments I've heard for Assange's innocence are based around the idea that his work is so noble and necessary that it is madness to even discuss the rape, the leaking is too important.
If Assange similarly felt that the work was more important than his innocence, he would have done as several former members of his organization requested, and hand over control until his legal issues are sorted - when they asked this, Assange basically told them to get fucked, and it was his way or nothing. Since he hasn't done this, I can only conclude that he aims to use his own self-importance to play up to celebutards (Hi Jemima Khan!) and build a cult of Assange.
What is most disturbing is that it appears to be working. This is the only accused rapist in history to be hailed as a martyr for democracy.
"......This is the only accused rapist in history to be hailed as a martyr for democracy." Oh yee of short memory! Politics is full of stories of worse happenings been "forgiven" by the faithful.
No, there has never been any wrong-doing in the American Dummicrat Royal Family, definately nothing fishing about Ted Kennedy, a car going off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, and Mary Jo Kopechne. Not even alledgedly, of course. At least Bill Clinton could claim all his accusers of sexual misdeeds were consensual.
/hands in pockets, whistles innocently.
"At least Bill Clinton could claim all his accusers of sexual misdeeds were consensual."
But he didn't have sex with Monica!
"I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal
Close is no cigar, eh? ;->
If I may, you appear to lack any idea of social pressure or come to that peer pressure.
1) The charges against Assange were dropped, leaving him the opportunity to leave Sweden as a free man, and only re-opened some weeks later after considerable *diplomatic* pressure from the US. Assange had already left Sweden, before the yankee intervention, that does not make him a flight risk. The real risk here is American foreign policy. One day you may see it, rearrange and add some words to head/arse/yours/wanker.
2) As much as you would like, the establishment is not in place to protect you, but to protect itself.
If it's too much to follow, try this web site, it may help (us).
http://retardzone.com/2008/08/27/worlds-10-most-popular-suicide-destinations/
The best account of events I have found is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden. According to which:
"The Guardian understands that the recent Swedish decision to apply for an international arrest warrant followed a decision by Assange to leave Sweden in late September and not return for a scheduled meeting when he was due to be interviewed by the prosecutor. Assange's supporters have denied this, but Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents seen by the Guardian record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October."
So although he was allowed to leave Sweden, he was supposed to return for the 14th. He did not do so. I doubt he would have been given permission to leave Sweden had they realised he would not come back. The arrest warrant is to make him do what he had already promised to do. He has, in effect, already absconded once.
(The Guardian article also addresses the text messages which Assange claims prove a set up. Summary: they don't.)
"If I may, you appear to lack any idea of social pressure or come to that peer pressure."
Ah.
Now we're getting to the point that I've been down voted so many times in this specific forum that I should succumb to peer pressure and STFU because I along with a few others raise some facts that make it hard to swallow Assnage's actions and his subsequent guilt?
Its funny that I'm getting painted as some right wing nutjob when in fact this is not the case. I applaud Anonymous and their fight against the CoS, except when they break the law(s).
I don't suppose you see the irony in your post. You defend a man who claims to be 'fighting the establishment'. You and others claim that I'm a 'shill' for the 'establishment'. Yet those who follow Assnage do so based on a blind faith of his innocence and that his release of the documents hasn't caused anyone harm. (Or at least his lawyer makes a self serving statement to that effect.)
So I ask you... who's the real lemming here?
Perhaps you are unaware of how obnoxious this intemperate, immature and evidently impulsive response makes you seem. You are in good company, since those who support the self appointed, unaccountable Assange immaturely believe in a way of bypassing governments, exposing informants to clear and present danger and much more.
There is zero chance of Assange being extradited to Sweden until he is actually charged with something.
But then there was zero chance of him being arrested/imprisoned in the UK where no charge physically existed in Sweden.
If these Swedish cops want to ask him some questions, why don't they just ring him up, in a police station in the UK if you like, or even pop over and visit us.
Their non-appearance in the UK states the obvious, they want him to go to Sweden.
Why - guess ....
"Their non-appearance in the UK states the obvious, they want him to go to Sweden.
Why - guess ...."
If you are giving a nudge-nudge wink-wink about extradition, I hear that the Swedes are an even tougher proposition than the Brits.
Much better to extradite him on the outstanding charges relating to password theft from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon. They have an indisputable grievance and reasonable cause for further investigations, in view of his current activities; he has a profile, a behavioural history, for stealing secrets from US military computers.
I'd say he's going down, irrespective of where he is.
I'm not convinced that the US would want to extradite Assange to prosecute him for spying. If they do that then he immediately becomes a martyr to the Wikileaks cause.
But a conviction of rape or sexual assault would destroy his reputation. Even if the bare allegations aren't criminal, pressuring a woman into having sex without contraception strikes me as being both massively selfish and irresponsible. And he doesn't seem to have treated either Miss A or Miss W particularly well.
I support what Wikileaks is doing, but I've got real issues with Assange's behaviour. His claims that intelligence services are setting him up strike me as being similar to a preacher blaming the devil for making him do it.
If there is a conspiracy against him, then I suspect that the agencies are merely feeding and spinning information. And this will be a far, far more effective way of destroying him than locking him up in the US for the next 20 years.
...there are many too blinkered to look at all the possibilities.
It is possible that the whole thing is a setup to get back at the face of WikiLeaks and do as much harm to him and the reputation of the site
It is also possible that he is guilty of all these crimes in Sweden and claiming conspiracy and being set up to try and get off with it.
It may also be possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle of all of this.
But there are too many people willing to fly off the handle and shout over the top of any possibilities other than the one they believe in.
Brangon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341
You;re full of shit.
Ian Michael Gumby.
Not only are you a lemming, you're not even showing the ability for freedom of thought. I don't care if you're a right wing nut job, I do care that you show no responsibility for the very rights you crave, but don't care to give to others.
Ahh, Sweden, former superpower (in 15th century at least).
They still act like one: Who cares about laws when there's a Mission(TM). Their government is now very friendly with US and if US asks something, the Swedes are happy to comply.
See case Pirate Bay and now this Assagne-gate. It's very obvious where these accusations originate from: Obama administration.
Spying you neighbours is also OK (every bit going through Sweden is monitored, like US) and selling arms to whoever wants to buy, no questions asked.
"A lot of the arguments I've heard for Assange's innocence are based around the idea that his work is so noble and necessary that it is madness to even discuss the rape, the leaking is too important."
Blah!
Innocent until proven guilty and providing evidence (anything else than hear say) seems to be very hard for Swedish authorities.
They say they have evidence but it's so secret they cant' tell what it is: Exactly same policy Microsoft used when they claimed that Linux is infringing their patents: "We won't tell you!". That will fly like a brick nowadays.
Also this smells very much like political murder, where laws aren't relevant at all. Remember same authorities and case Pirate Bay? Legal but shut down and confiscated anyway, just because RIAA/MPAA (i.e. US) asked.
I'd declare anyone "not guilty" in this context, with this evidence. Not just Assagne.
Also: Whistleblowers are essential element in a democracy, no matter if they are nice persons or not.
Judgement by the self-generated bad publicity is the obvious goal here and that smells bad, like fascism.
Yes they are. They don't all have to be putzes though. Try http://www.cryptome.org to see it done properly. Very soon you should be able to check out http://openleaks.net/ with a (hopefulls) similar result.
Whistleblowers, leakers and that entire ecosystem are 100% vital to the smooth continuance of a democracy. You will have a hugely long way to go before you convince me that we should (as a society) invite a bunch of Drama Llamas along for the ride.
My personal opinion is: leakers and whistleblowers should check the egos at the door. Leaking information “for the good of all mankind” is actually quite serious business.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
