Julian Assange

[NeurotrashWarrior]

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

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.

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/

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.

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?

Thanks for explanation kindofageek

..and agreed wrt the extreme politics.

No worries

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

You cannot at once argue that Trump is a fascist and then argue that he'll uphold the spirit of the law when the law already gives him dictatorial power.

Which is it? Trump's justice department is fair and upholds the spirit and letter if the Constitution? Or, because he is the right-wing president illegally elected to subvert the rule of law, all bets are off as to how his justice dept will treat Assange once Assange is on the country.

Remember that this is an administration that puts ch8ldren in camps.

It's pretty obvious that some people wouldn't know objectivity if it bit them on the bum.

Meanwhile, CNN say JA is now in Belmarsh.

(What you get when you show yourself to be a flight risk. No cushy open prison for you, M'lad.)

You cannot at once argue that Trump is a fascist and then argue that he'll uphold the spirit of the law when the law already gives him dictatorial power.

Right? I mean there is a reason Obama's administration (who was quite vindictive in their prosecution of whitleblowers) did not indict Assange citing problems this would create for the freedom of the press.

And now establishment Democrats side with Trump over Obama on this. (Also: if Trump is such a fascist menace, why do they wave through every single military budget increase and cheer him on whenever he wants to bomb something? It is all patently absurd, really.)

Observer:
'Failure to extradite Assange to Sweden would endorse ‘rape culture’, say women’s groups
Campaigners fear rape allegations are being overlooked as US case against WikiLeaks co-founder takes centre stage'
(extract)
Women’s groups have added to pressure on Sajid Javid to ensure Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden. Failure to do so would effectively endorse “rape culture”, they claim.

A coalition of campaigners representing survivors of sexual violence urged the home secretary to focus on the unresolved rape allegations emanating from Sweden against Assange. They fear that US charges – relating to WikiLeaks’ disclosures – may be given priority in the UK.

The United States has filed a provisional extradition request for Assange while Sweden continues to weigh up whether to reopen an investigation into rape and sexual assault allegations against the 47-year-old co-founder of WikiLeaks. On occasions, when there are competing extradition requests, the home secretary decides which country should take priority." (continues)
www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/13/women-groups-say-extradite-julian-assange-to-sweden?CMP=share_btn_tw

He needs to stand trial for rape.

It's up to Sweden what they do with him.

He's a security risk to every country because of his abilities to reach into a country's security services.

Can we stop any extradition,based on his leaks/whistle-blowing?

On a positive note I am quite surprised that not only have labour women MPs felt able to challenge Corbyn about this dismissal of the rape charges but also that the media reporting on this has been quite unslanted. (Good interview with Lord Faulkner explaining how the Swedsih extradition request if reactivated would take precedence over the American one).

Is this change of public tone (7 years ago the media was really dismissive of there being any thing of interest it two women seeking justice against sexual violence). Not sure if that if as a result of #MeToo or a number of younger women MPs.

I really do begin to think that Assange was / is so desparate to be a hero for a cause he didn't actually further, rather than go down in history for being a sexually predator that his has concocted this whole story line to big up his importance.

And for the conspiracy theorist he is only, ie he is relatively unimportant, being sought by the US on computer hacking charges which has a maximum sentence of 5 years. Comparing him to Chelsea Manning who took the real risks and took the legal consquences in a military court (which is why the conditions and sentence were so severe as the armed forces have to enforce their control over their troops and support staff) is laughable.

Assange isn't in fact in legal terms as important to the US as Gary McKinnon was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon And country who has its computer systems hacked would try and get the person responsible extradited from whatever country they are in.

Its amazing how decade after decade the show boating charlatons always gather a retinue of hangers on who seem to want some sort of charismatic leader, whereas the people who do the real work of uncovering information government and large corporation dont want us to know are usually not seeking the limelight.

I suspect Assange is longing to go to the US and enhance his reputation which on a professional leval had been trashed by the shockingly dangerous way he just dumped info, and is why so many journalist no longer want to work with him.

there is a reason Obama's administration (who was quite vindictive in their prosecution of whitleblowers) did not indict Assange citing problems this would create for the freedom of the press.

What’s? Assange was in Ecuador’s embassy for seven years trying to avoid extradition to the US. Obama was President for the vast majority of that time.

Well BoomBoom, the fact of the matter is that it turned out the Obama administration, though for quite some time ambiguous on the issue, had never made a sealed indictment against Assange and they explicitly layed out they were unable to do so as this precedent would endanger press freedom.

By contrast, the Trump administration decided to actually secretly indict Assange (something many believed Ovama‘s admin had done), and this sealed indictment by the Trump administration, was last year accidentally revealed by an only sloppily redacted publication of some government correspondence.

I agree it would all be much easier for everyone, if Secret, sealed indictments weren‘t a thing and governments were transparent about whom they plan to get extradited and whom not so everyone knows whether they need asylumn or not. But, alas, we do not live in a perfect world, nor in one where governments aim for being transparent.

Jess Phillips MP Guardian article:

'Julian Assange’s case makes it clear women’s rights are still secondary to political games'
(extract)
"Last week, once again, the political establishment slapped us around the face. Enter, stage left, everyone’s favourite Targaryen lookalike, Julian Assange. If there was ever a case that needed the exercise of nuance and intelligent politics it is that of Assange. His expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy and subsequent arrest for skipping bail have underlined how little the political class from left and right give a toss about women’s safety.

Sexual crimes are so much easier to loathe when they are done by marauding barbarians in the theatre of war
In the sparring match about the case between Diane Abbott and Sajid Javid, in parliament on Thursday, neither of them mentioned the fact that Assange has, for seven years, evaded accusations of sexual violence in Sweden. Two women have waited years for their cases to be answered and yet until Javid and Abbott were challenged by other MPs, neither mentioned that in fact the country to which Assange was evading extradition was Sweden.

Advertisement

Both talked about Ecuador, the US and issues of hacking. Javid was giddy to have helped the US get their man, Abbott was appalled that the UK government would assist the US in capturing a man who has become a beacon of natural blond light for truth-seekers who only like to see the half of the truth that suits them.

The fact that Sweden was not even informed about the actions due to take place so that it could have considered seeking his extradition for possible charges of rape tells us that when big boys are playing toy soldiers no one cares how many lady figures are brushed off the table.

expected the Tory government to react the way it did; I expect very little from it. I was disappointed by the Labour party’s official response, which didn’t even doff its cap to the nuance of a situation that also involves multiple accusations of serious sexual crimes. I get that they think Assange did some good things, but the man is not a hero. The Labour response could have been balanced and thoughtful and made a statement about how important it is that women who come forward deserve access to justice." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/14/julian-assange-case-makes-clear-womens-rights-secondary-political-games

but also that the media reporting on this has been quite unslanted

Camilla Long in today's Sunday Times pointed out that John Humprhies, of all unlikely people, conducted an interview with Diane Abbott using words of one syllable coaxing an unwilling Abbott to finally make mention of the rape charges.