Julian Assange

It's pretty obvious that the sexual assault charges are trumped up. If a Russian whistleblower leaked documents and Putin sent in his thugs to arrest him for sexual assault, would you say that the whistleblower needed to answer the charges against him?

They don't sound obviously trumped up to me. If a Russian whistleblower leaked documents and then women in another country who have a history of supporting the whistleblower's efforts made accusations of sexual assault or rape then yes, I would think the whistleblower should have to answer for them.

It's pretty obvious that the sexual assault charges are trumped up

I think Assange should stand trial for those charges. Robbing a woman of control over sexual acts that can on top of that leave her with an STD or pregnancy is abysmal and it is good that the law recognizes that as a prosecutionable offence in Sweden. Other countries should follow.

At the same time: Even once this law is on the books, if this should ever happen to me, I sure hope the man who does that to me is the mortal enemy of Langley or of some other powerful player so that I can be sure a date rape claim will be taken seriously for once. Maybe I am too cynical. Idk.

My issue is really with the extradition to and prosecution by the US for the wikileaks related actions and what precedent that may set for the future. 'He is a rapist who smeared feces on the wall' is simply not an argument that justifies this overreach.

Did anyone hear the interview on the PM programme? I am actually incredulous about the legal analysis put forward. Surely wrong?! Any sexual offences lawyers hear it and care to comment?

It's pretty obvious that the sexual assault charges are trumped up

In your opinion as a man who has commented about his views of prostituted women.

Both. It's pretty obvious that the sexual assault charges are trumped up. If a Russian whistleblower leaked documents and Putin sent in his thugs to arrest him for sexual assault, would you say that the whistleblower needed to answer the charges against him? How can someone answer charges when those charges are trumped up and orchestrated by a corrupt government?

Which trial are you talking about him standing for? Sexual assault or leaks?

Can anyone who feels Assange should stand trial please explain to me why you think it's wrong to expose war crimes? When a Syrian leaks footage of the military opening fire on civilians they are praised for their bravery, so why is it different when the video being leaked shows American forces doing the same?

The point regarding the NDAA is thst the law exists to be used however TRUMP now sees fit, not how Obsma used it when he was president.

We don't know what Trump will do with it, but Assange makes a perfect test case, should he choose to use it.

..and agreed wrt the extreme politics.

No worries

Thanks for explanation kindofageek

deep I cannot understand your posts.as I do not agree with what you tell me about me! You are telling me things about my beliefs that are untrue

I didn't intend to. Actually I just took up your example (killing anyone terror related anywhere not connected to the US) and added my example (nonUScitizen not perpetrating a crime in US being extradited) and found both illogical. And dangerous. I mean, how far can a country's reach be?

Other point to hand: This is an interesting read from a relatively neutral journo:

The journo seems to be miffed that RT funded Ruptly and apparently only Ruptly recorded Assange's arrest? Weird.

In any case: it is not a legal analysis but from what I can read, he classifies the attempt to crack the password that would have protected the source (not given access which the source already had) leads the journalist to conclude that the extradition is justified.

So, in other words, the current consensus is that if I publish leaks in Europe pertaining to Chinese (or Russian) war crimes, and I try to help my source cover their tracks by cracking a password in Europe, China (or Russia) could ask for my extradition and the extradition should be granted. Because I deserve it.

Yeah, that was insightful.

Smother that comment wasn't aimed at you. 'Pologies.

The US also has a law that says if the World Court were to arrest a US citizen, the military could be used to invade The Hague.

Extreme wing politics tends towards what is called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". The extreme right is how those kinds of laws get passed. Rendition though is a real, deplorable thing, but screaming about it using Assange as context is the libertarian / far left version of the Paranoid Style.

FYI:

harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

but you should read his signing statement, instead of guzzling down whatever Greenwald's latest screed is

I didnt. guzzle down anything. I have questioned something pp.

In that post I wasn't even talking about extradition for example

deep I cannot understand your posts.as I do not agree with what you tell me about me!

You are telling me things about my beliefs that are untrue

The NADA is a law, and yes there is a lot of criticism to be waged at it, but nota bene it applies to fresh arrests, and was intended to assuage the blood lust of the Republican islamaphobia wing and justify their penchant for torture and rendition since it was the only way they could convince Fox News viewers they were tuff enuff.

(Yes, Obama signed it, but you should read his signing statement, instead of guzzling down whatever Greenwald's latest screed is.)

Point to hand: If Assange were extradited, that law would not apply. It would apply only if the Navy Seals swooped down onto the streets of London and kidnapped him outright. It applies to fresh arrests only, not arrests making their way through the legal system.

The treaty applies if the man is extradited, so the maximum sentence would be the sentence outlined in the extradition request.

I'd also like to make a point: IF the Navy Seals swooped down and kidnapped a notorious person, that might actually end up with a beneficial result. Laws can be challenged, and while the GOP is busy appointing as many unqualified judges who don't know constitutionality from a hole in the ground, we still have qualified judges on the bench. We could get that law overturned.

Other point to hand: This is an interesting read from a relatively neutral journo:

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-got-what-he-deserved/587008/

It's a magnanimous and unilaterally decided non-law over activities of other countriescountries' whilst in other countries?

I really try to wrap my head around this type of stuff, the thing you cite as well as the idea that the US is justified in getting someone extradited who has no connection to them except publishing stuff about them.

Does China have these types of laws? Russia? Will Western countries comply if they do?

I mean, the only similar thing that comes to my mind is a Fatwa. And even there it is not like a country would demand extradition based on a Fatwa, I believe. It is more like an informal call to everyone who wants to hear it that they should kill someone, no?

Under this law, the president can also order the execution of any non-American citizen anywhere in the world if the president decides that person is aiding and abetting terrorism

How.can this be law? It's a nonsense surely!??

It's a magnanimous and unilaterally decided non-law over activities of other countriescountries' whilst in other countries?

...it relies on the premise that he would be charged with treason, notwithstanding his not being a US Citizen.

What is actually the legal basis for the US indicting and demanding extradition of a non-US-citizen and non-US-resident for acts not committed in the US?

This death penalty nonsense on a unicycle is a measure of the lack of critical faculties on display by the worshippers of the Blessed Julian. Aside from the fact that no EU member state is permitted to extradite anyone anywhere to face execution, it relies on the premise that he would be charged with treason, notwithstanding his not being a US Citizen.

Dershowitz was on R4 this morning recommending he come to the US voluntarily and state his case with the aid of some no-doubt handsomely remunerated lawyers his bafflingly full coffers could well afford.

Regards Thornberry and co and their letter, they seem confused about several things> JA was never granted 'political asylum' as their letter falsely states but the Latin American OAS concept of 'Diplomatic Asylum,' not recognised in international law outside the region, and specifically excluding fugitivies from criminal justice.

And the home secretary does not order extraditions or prohibit them. Can we please get this straight? It is a matter for the courts in which the HS has a very limited quasi-judicial role to refuse an extradition which is itself judicially reviewable. In the end, the courts always decide, and despite the Chinese incapability of understanding this, they are independent.

Your position & passion is clear.

I just cannot see what logical position Suzanne's article amounts to. Did any of those men (and invisibilized women like Abbot) insist Assange not be extradited to Sweden for prosecution, if it is secured that Sweden does not hand him over to the US? This is an honest question.

Save for that, I fail to see what point Suzanne is making. Aaron Swarz, before his suicide, was threatened with decades in prison for hacking and publishing scientific papers which arguably should have been publicy accessible anyway, considering tax payer money usually pays for the publications and underlying studies anyway.

[[https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html]
Manning was treated in a way that amounts to torture according to a UN rapporteur.
www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/magazine/the-long-lonely-road-of-chelsea-manning.html
www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un

So, the US system is not trustworthy. It is therefore not unreasonable to pressure a country not to extradite to the US. The bottom line is that Sweden did not take the women's case seriously enough.

Except for the Galloway minimization to what happened to the Swedish women, who is minimizing their cases?

But seeing Labour take his side against women who have allegedly suffered sexual violence is vile, and tells us (once again) how little they value us.

Some of the Labour front bench are now making this point a little belatedly.

For many of us, it also looks like a deluded, creepy man who has being hiding in a cupboard is being lauded by Labours’ front bench. It looks like sexual assault against women is somehow irrelevant, and human rights don’t mean women’s rights

This. I am dubious about the case for extradition to the US - even though I would love to see the back of him and think he will probably be acquitted if tried there. I also think that many of the criticisms of our one-sided extradition policy to the US are justified. But seeing Labour take his side against women who have allegedly suffered sexual violence is vile, and tells us (once again) how little they value us.