Arrested WikiLeaks chief Assange denied bail in U.K.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 3:25 PM GMT
    If the US can produce charges, his next (and last) extradition stop will be here.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40544697/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/?ns=us_news-wikileaks_in_security
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    I completely disagree. For one thing, it is in Sweden that he faces criminal charges, and not the USA. Extradition is for the sole purpose of allowing someone accused of a crime in another country, with an existing court order, to stand trial in that other country.

    I do not think in fact that the UK could extradite him if he was likely to end up in the USA, because he could potentially face the death penalty and/or torture. This would be contrary to the UKs [and indeed Sweden's] obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidI completely disagree. For one thing, it is in Sweden that he faces criminal charges, and not the USA. Extradition is for the sole purpose of allowing someone accused of a crime in another country, with an existing court order, to stand trial in that other country.

    I do not think in fact that the UK could extradite him if he was likely to end up in the USA, because he could potentially face the death penalty and/or torture. This would be contrary to the UKs [and indeed Sweden's] obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

    I wrote his NEXT extradition stop. Should the US bring international charges against him he will be subject to extradition to the US as well. Whether from the UK, or from Sweden, if he's there by then.

    Obama stopped the illegal Bush-era torture, and if the US chooses not to pursue the death penalty (assuming his crimes rise to that level) then the objections you state don't exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    I wrote his NEXT extradition stop. Should the US bring international charges against him he will be subject to extradition to the US as well. Whether from the UK, or from Sweden, if he's there by then.

    Obama stopped the illegal Bush-era torture, and if the US chooses not to pursue the death penalty (assuming his crimes rise to that level) then the objections you state don't exist.


    But he has not been extradited to Sweden, so his NEXT stop can only be Sweden. And he will have to be tried there [and perhaps serve time if found guilty] of the crimes he is accused of. And moreover, he is an Australian National. I think protocol demands that after Sweden he be returned to Australia.

    Extradition to the USA is likely to be very very complicated in this case, I think.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Dec 07, 2010 5:08 PM GMT
    You might care to read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks

    Anyway, as I understand , the Swedes want him for alleged sex crimes. How much of this is simply grabbing at anything, in order to shut him up?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 5:13 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidBut he has not been extradited to Sweden, so his NEXT stop can only be Sweden. And he will have to be tried there [and perhaps serve time if found guilty] of the crimes he is accused of. And moreover, he is an Australian National. I think protocol demands that after Sweden he be returned to Australia.

    Extradition to the USA is likely to be very very complicated in this case, I think.

    I don't dispute this. Hence my own use of the word NEXT, regarding his US extradition.

    I'm not sure about his being returned to Australia. He hasn't been charged there (yet). If an internationally recognized extradition order to the US is issued, then he comes here next, barring any other hold on him from other countries that take legal priority. I believe this is how international law is supposed to work. Not unlike how extraditions are handled in the US among the various States.

    As for the complications regarding a US extradition, I don't know. What are your thoughts, that makes you suspect this? I've already said that the Obama Administration has renounced & reversed the torture policies of the Bush Administration, and if the US Attorney General says Assange will not face the death penalty, then I fail to see what problems to his US extradition lie ahead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    I think this is a good Opinion piece on the subject. Although it is posted on Fox and KT McFarland is a conservative, I believe there are points here that many of us can agree on, regardless of whether we are conservative or liberal.

    WikiLeaks Is Just the Beginning
    By KT McFarland

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/07/wikileaks-just-beginning/

    .......Julian Assange is a cyber-terrorist. He should be punished to the full extent of the law -- not just for what he’s done but also to serve as a warning to those who would follow his example.

    He’s an anarchist trying to bring down the U.S. government. He also wants to ‘bring down’ a major bank and insurance company.

    In his own words, his goal isn’t transparency, but to create such chaos and mistrust in the U.S. government --which he calls a “conspiracy” – that agencies will grind to a halt as they “lock down internally and balkanize” and “cease to be as efficient as they were.”

    If we don't possess the technical ability to shut down WikiLeaks we should develop it, fast.

    If we don't have the legal authority to prosecute him for espionage and to go after his alleged co-conspirator Pvt. Bradley Manning for treason and conspiracy, we should create it.

    And, if we don't have the political will to do it, we need to wake up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 5:28 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidIf we don't possess the technical ability to shut down WikiLeaks we should develop it, fast.

    If we don't have the legal authority to prosecute him for espionage and to go after his alleged co-conspirator Pvt. Bradley Manning for treason and conspiracy, we should create it.

    And, if we don't have the political will to do it, we need to wake up.

    One of the rare occasions we generally agree. Despite my liberal domestic political views, I defend my country to the world, and above all defend my brothers & sisters in US uniform, who are endangered by WikiLeaks.

    I would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 5:42 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidIf we don't possess the technical ability to shut down WikiLeaks we should develop it, fast.

    If we don't have the legal authority to prosecute him for espionage and to go after his alleged co-conspirator Pvt. Bradley Manning for treason and conspiracy, we should create it.

    And, if we don't have the political will to do it, we need to wake up.

    One of the rare occasions we generally agree. Despite my liberal domestic political views, I defend my country to the world, and above all defend my brothers & sisters in US uniform, who are endangered by WikiLeaks.

    I would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.

    I have nothing but contempt for him, to put it mildly, and impatience for lack of a better term for those who defend him, also to put it mildly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 9:22 PM GMT
    Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act - Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security.

    By DIANNE FEINSTEIN

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989004575653280626335258.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    ...This latest WikiLeaks release demonstrates Mr. Assange's willingness to disseminate plans, comments, discussions and other communications that compromise our country. And let there be no doubt about the depth of the harm. Consider the sobering assessment, delivered in an email to employees of U.S. intelligence agencies late last month, by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: "The actions taken by WikiLeaks are not only deplorable, irresponsible, and reprehensible—they could have major impacts on our national security. The disclosure of classified documents puts at risk our troops, law enforcement, diplomats, and especially the American people."

    Mrs. Feinstein, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from California and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  • xher

    Posts: 168

    Dec 07, 2010 10:23 PM GMT
    Note to dictators everywhere: if you want to persecute political dissidents in a clean and acceptable way, accuse them of sex crimes.

    I guess Hitler took care of 25 million sex criminals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:08 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidI would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.


    For this, I seem to see your soul burning, agonized, in pitch black for eternity.

    That is what you deserve for writing these words.
  • coyler

    Posts: 78

    Dec 07, 2010 11:08 PM GMT
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
    - George Orwell
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:19 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Art_Deco saidI would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.

    For this, I seem to see your soul burning, agonized, in pitch black for eternity.

    That is what you deserve for writing these words.

    How fundamentalist Christian of you. Except I believe in none of those fairy tales that you do. This guy put our US forces at risk TODAY, not in some imaginary future Hell of your own devising.

    Therefore, I am happy to see his punishment meted out today, in this world. And to discourage others from doing similar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:19 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidIf we don't possess the technical ability to shut down WikiLeaks we should develop it, fast.

    If we don't have the legal authority to prosecute him for espionage and to go after his alleged co-conspirator Pvt. Bradley Manning for treason and conspiracy, we should create it.

    And, if we don't have the political will to do it, we need to wake up.

    One of the rare occasions we generally agree. Despite my liberal domestic political views, I defend my country to the world, and above all defend my brothers & sisters in US uniform, who are endangered by WikiLeaks.

    I would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.


    Are you both crazy? Socal I expect it from, but going as far as to suggest we rewrite our laws to allow us to charge someone with crimes that don't (yet) exist is preposterous.

    And what exactly has WikiLeaks done to endanger our troops. From what I've read it's a bunch of gossip with no real strategic or tactical information.

    If either of you were really concerned about the safety of our troops and the American people, you would be calling for Cheney to be extradited to Nigeria for actual crimes against humanity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:20 PM GMT
    coyler saidIn a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
    - George Orwell


    Amen to this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:33 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    TigerTim said
    Art_Deco saidI would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.

    For this, I seem to see your soul burning, agonized, in pitch black for eternity.

    That is what you deserve for writing these words.

    How fundamentalist Christian of you. Except I believe in none of those fairy tales that you do. This guy put our US forces at risk TODAY, not in some imaginary future Hell of your own devising.

    Therefore, I am happy to see his punishment meted out today, in this world. And to discourage others from doing similar.


    No I'm an atheist, actually. I merely recoil in horror from the manifest immorality, the diseased sickness of your words.

    If this is what you think should happen to Assange, then what punishment for:

    (i) The illegal invasion of Iraq, justified by lies of WOMD.
    (ii) The 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the last decade.
    (iii) The fact that Al-Qaida is and always has been principally funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, and not Iran, Pakistan or Iraq.
    (iv) The 3000 people killed in the destruction of the World Trade Center by Al-Qaida, supported and funded as in (iii).
    (v) The 4000+ American servicemen who were killed in the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

    If this is your punishment for Assange, who merely reveals the rotten apparatus of the American Empire [and British complicity], then what punishment must be extrapolated for the above?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:52 PM GMT
    TigerTim saidIf this is what you think should happen to Assange, then what punishment for:

    (i) The illegal invasion of Iraq, justified by lies of WOMD.
    (ii) The 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the last decade.
    (iii) The fact that Al-Qaida is and always has been principally funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, and not Iran, Pakistan or Iraq.
    (iv) The 3000 people killed in the destruction of the World Trade Center by Al-Qaida, supported and funded as in (iii).
    (v) The 4000+ American servicemen who were killed in the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

    If this is your punishment for Assange, who merely reveals the rotten apparatus of the American Empire [and British complicity], then what punishment must be extrapolated for the above?

    I am for punishment (revenge) for all of the things you listed. Why would you think otherwise? Do you not read my posts here?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:54 PM GMT
    I would also like to hear how Assange has endangered American troops.

    Only a small portion of the cables has even been printed by the media or published on the Wikileaks site. And all of it has been thoroughly examined by the media to redact possibly harmful material. The US government, you will remember, refused to review the material itself.

    There are some signficant disclosures in the Wikileaks material but I have yet to read of any specific way the material endangers the troops -- the usual argument for all the secrecy about the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.

    If you want to prosecute Assange, will you also prosecute the NY Times, The Guardian and other media that have published the leaked material? In actuality, they disclosed the material before the Wikileaks site did.

    It's deja vu all over again: the Pentagon Papers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 11:57 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco saidOne of the rare occasions we generally agree. Despite my liberal domestic political views, I defend my country to the world, and above all defend my brothers & sisters in US uniform, who are endangered by WikiLeaks.

    I would ignominiously hang this guy, not even give him the so-called "honor" of a firing squad. He's a terrorist, an enemy agent who has worked to harm the US and its troops in the field. He deserves no quarter, and the example of his demise is needed to send a message to others who would attempt the same thing against us, and against our brave citizens serving in uniform.


    I agree with you if there are laws already on the books here that would result in such a sentence.

    Agree. The specific words about creating new laws were KT McFarland's words from an opinion piece that I cited. I interpreted what she really meant was if laws did not exist to allow appropriate prosecution today, we should enact new laws for future acts. But that is just my interpretation. Not positive if she meant that precisely, but it would be a logical interpretation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 12:08 AM GMT
    ObsceneWish saidI would also like to hear how Assange has endangered American troops.

    The article I reference above from Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democratic Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, quotes James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, who states such disclosure of classified documents puts our troops at risk. That assessment could come about from other information that he has, that we do not. Not saying that makes him absolutely correct, but he would be in a much better position to make such assessments than you or I.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 08, 2010 12:12 AM GMT
    I am torn about this one

    While I do see the value of letting a lot of this secret diplomacy stuff and the papers on the war see the light of day
    I also see that some damage can be done if there are tenuous negotiations being held

    ..... but I find these charges rather politically expedient and seem to be brought up just to get him in custody
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 12:19 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    ObsceneWish saidI would also like to hear how Assange has endangered American troops.

    The article I reference above from Sen. Diane Feinstein, Democratic Senator and Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, quotes James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, who states such disclosure of classified documents puts our troops at risk. That assessment could come about from other information that he has, that we do not. Not saying that makes him absolutely correct, but he would be in a much better position to make such assessments than you or I.
    '

    Oh I see. Because he says so, it makes it true. It's like WMD. If they say Iraq has them, they must know that it's true.

    Sorry, Feinstein's column has been thoroughly debunked. It's bullshit. Here's an example of how dishonest it is:

    http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/permalink/59b6f0ff3104bda74fab62aab2e5e50b.html

    Again, if the Wikileaks material endangers the troops, let's hear how it does that. If you can't say how, you might want to question yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 12:20 AM GMT
    GQjock saidI am torn about this one

    While I do see the value of letting a lot of this secret diplomacy stuff and the papers on the war see the light of day
    I also see that some damage can be done if there are tenuous negotiations being held

    ..... but I find these charges rather politically expedient and seem to be brought up just to get him in custody


    What kind of damage? Seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 12:22 AM GMT
    Forgot to source Greenwald earlier:

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/index.html