Julian Assange

[NeurotrashWarrior]

Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47891737

Anyone imagining Assange will only face 5 years during a fair trial on a charge of hacking is kidding themselves.

In 2012 Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which included a provision allowing a US president to order the indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of any person within the boundaries of US the president decided was aiding or abetting terrorism.

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.

I would not be at all surprised if Trump orders Assange to be indefinitely detained. That is, if he lives long enough to be extradited: he isn't an American citizen, so Trump can legally order his assassination. I'm sure his death on British soil would create consternation, but does anyone imagine Trump would care about that?

Indefinitely detained or legally assassinated, Republicans won't protest because of Afghanistan, and because of the DNC, Democrats won't either. The US will be a few steps further down the road to hard totalitarianism, and no one will ever leak anything again.

As far as the question regarding how the US could pressure Sweden or Ecuador: I think the question reveals a real misconception regarding just how powerful America, even in decline, still is. The dollar is the world's reserve currency, and America is sovereign in her currency. In practice, what this means is that the US can have enormous effect on another country's economy. For instance, In the wake of the 2008 crash and during the Greek crisis, it was US dollar swap lines with Brussels that kept the Euro from collapse, and those swap lines stayed open for years, with the US Federal Reserve buying excess Euros to keep the Euro from losing value, until the situation stabilised, then selling them back to Brussels.)

That kind of thing can work the other way around, though. A country that can keep another currency afloat can also crash it.

Whenever a video comes to light showing the Syrian regime murdering civilians, we praise the bravery of the person who filmed it and managed to get the footage out. When the regime then arrests people for exposing their actions, we denounce the arrests as trumped up and politically motivated. It's interesting to see people do a complete U-Turn on those principles when a whistleblower exposes the war crimes of Western governments.

Yes, these same people would have denounced Daniel Ellsberg's theft from the Rand Corporation of what became the Pentagon Papers, publication of which helped turned the tide toward ending the Vietnam War.

For those of you speculating about Sweden and its justice system would strongly suggest you read this article from 2012 which explains their procedures in detail. And make it fairly clear that hiding in the Embassy was Assange's way of not complying.

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

Judgeing Inquisitorial judicial systems by the standards of your own accusitorial system has more than a whiff of neocolonialism about it.

And before you cite the precedent of the Penatgon Papers, bear in mind that Daniel Ellsberg freely surrendered to the court to face trial and walked free.

The Classic Position is this:

No one has the right to break the law, but everyone has a duty to defy an unjust law. Defiance of the law means you break it, surrender to the authorities without resistance, then demand the maximum penalty, as Gandhi did.

And before you cite the precedent of the Penatgon Papers, bear in mind that Daniel Ellsberg freely surrendered to the court to face trial and walked free.

Ellesberg himself made the point that this is a bogus argument repeatedly, e.g. in the WP article 'Daniel Ellsberg: NSA leaker Snowden made the right call'.

www.washingtonpost.com/

The idea that all those secretive bloggers in Saudi Arabia need to turn themselves in, is absurd.

Snowdon who went to Russia and stopped off in China on the way.

Give us a break.

Talking of neocolonialism: How it it called when you prosecute and demand extradition of a journalist who is not a citizen of your state and never lived or worked in your state for some journalistic activity that is no crime in the state where said journalist works, lives, has citizenship.

Snowdon who went to Russia and stopped off in China on the way. Give us a break.

is not an argument of any kind.

Suzanne Moore New Statesman:
'Wikileaks was the future once. Then it became Julian Assange
An incredible intelligence, an understanding of systems, a denial of individual feeling – and a messiah complex. It’s all a bit pre-Incel.'
(extract)
"No I don’t believe he should be extradited to America, but it turns out he is not under the threat of the death penalty as he always said he was. So a lot of misinformation is being mooted about press freedom – and anyone who is really concerned about press freedom should get off RT and Press TV. But let’s not go there.

Instead we are treated to Diane Abbot not getting her facts right. Again. Charges have not been dropped. The Swedish criminal process only charges before trial and he has been “unavailable”. The most serious charge can therefore be resumed. He could be extradited to Sweden, where he may or may not be found guilty. It could of course all come down to what that great defender of women’s rights George Galloway claimed: simply a case of “bad sexual etiquette”, he said. “I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion.” (continues)
www.newstatesman.com/2019/04/wikileaks-was-future-once-then-it-became-julian-assange

but it turns out he is not under the threat of the death penalty as he always said he was. So a lot of misinformation is being mooted about press freedom – and anyone who is really concerned about press freedom should get off RT and Press TV. But let’s not go there.

Very much reads like Suzanne Moore is trying to moot actual concerns about press freedom by using a non sequitur and a straw man combined. Which is remarkable, considering the Committee to Protect Journalists does voice concerns regarding this case (see last link), and I believe Suzanne Moore considers herself a journalist, no?

Some analyses regarding the Assange extradition case's implications for press freedom can be found here:

theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/

www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-julian-assange-arrest

www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-indictment-of-julian-assange-is-a-threat-to-journalism

www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-charges-press-freedom-journalism

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/13/julian-assange-indictment-wikileaks-trump-administration-war-on-press-freedom

cpj.org/blog/2019/04/why-prosecution-julian-assange-press-freedom.php

Also, this here from Suzanne: 'Wikileaks once revealed the sexual abuses of war time. But now? Priorities chaps.' sounds like a bad faith argument, considering wikileaks can only publish what it gets access to via leaks.

Very much reads like Suzanne Moore is trying to moot actual concerns about press freedom by using a non sequitur and a straw man combined

Having read the article, I think the points she's making are specifically about Julian Assange as an individual, sex-based power dynamics & the wider issue of the importance (or lack thereof) of women's rights.

concludes:
"What does this all add up to? In the big picture, this is a story about power, publishing and press freedom. A story where men tell us what matters and what doesn’t.

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."

What does this all add up to? In the big picture, this is a story about power, publishing and press freedom. A story where men tell us what matters and what doesn’t.

1. Abbot has a penis?

1. Maybe I missed the part where all those men told us that extradition to Sweden for the sexual abuse charges under guarantee that there will be no extradition to the US for wikileaks related stuff in unconscionable?

1. Possibly Suzanne Moore's larger point is that the UN and international law were conjured up by males (which is probably true) and now they tell us what is and isn't important?

news.un.org/en/story/2019/04/1036491

www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/WGAD/2015/54

Frankly, I cannot follow Suzanne's reasoning. So she detests Assange, fair enough, and thinks he should long have been extradited to Sweden to face rape charges, irrespective of whether that means that Sweden might hand him over to the US, because the rape trial is more important? Is that her point?

deepwatersolo
Your position & passion is clear.

Your assertions with regards Suzanne Moore's article less so.

Glosswitch comment last year seems pertinent

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.

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.

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?

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.

...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?

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'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?

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/

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

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