Assange's friends who put up bail

SimonAH

rjsterry wrote:

Why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US if he is wanted in connection with the Bradley Manning case? The "threats to his life" are based on comments from politicians looking to grab a bit of air time, not by the US government. And still nobody has put forward any convincing "for the greater good" argument to justify him publishing classified information.

Hi rjs,

I would actually argue the 'greater good' side for publishing the wikileaks information.

What it did was expose a number of actions by financially, politically and apparently moral first word countries that were frankly illegal, immoral and in some cases directed at their supposed allies.

If you put Wikileaks in the same bracket as, say, a newspaper, or Panorama, or even the Huffington Post (as we are talking cyberspace) then what we are considering is easily justified as public interest - certainly far more important than the latest footballer shags popstar headline.

It's OK for Panorama to send undercover reporters into care homes to secretly film abuse that may well put people behind bars (yes, it is OK of course) but not OK for Wikileaks to publish that Hilary Clinton ordered illegal spying on UN diplomats?

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US if he is wanted in connection with the Bradley Manning case? The "threats to his life" are based on comments from politicians looking to grab a bit of air time, not by the US government. And still nobody has put forward any convincing "for the greater good" argument to justify him publishing classified information.

Hi rjs,

I would actually argue the 'greater good' side for publishing the wikileaks information.

What it did was expose a number of actions by financially, politically and apparently moral first word countries that were frankly illegal, immoral and in some cases directed at their supposed allies.

If you put Wikileaks in the same bracket as, say, a newspaper, or Panorama, or even the Huffington Post (as we are talking cyberspace) then what we are considering is easily justified as public interest - certainly far more important than the latest footballer shags popstar headline.

It's OK for Panorama to send undercover reporters into care homes to secretly film abuse that may well put people behind bars (yes, it is OK of course) but not OK for Wikileaks to publish that Hilary Clinton ordered illegal spying on UN diplomats?

Af'noon. Sorry, I'm in an argumentative mood today. There was definitely some information that was in the public interest. I'm not sure that revealing it in this way - just plonking the whole thing online, unedited - actually helped any of those affected by the illegal activities. And we'd all have to be extremely naive to think that just because the US or any other 1st world country markets itself as a bastion of all things good, they don't resort to the same means as everyone else when they think no-one's looking.

bobinski

jedster wrote:

In all honesty, although no country is perfect, how many countries respect human rights more than Sweden? We have our own extradition issues with the US and have a history of draconian powers to deal with terrorists (for example). Ecuador? Give me strength.

Assange is excused of serious sexual assault. Sweden is one of the countries where I would be most confident of getting a fair trial. The whole thing is ridiculous.

TBH, I suspect of Sweden dropped the charges there would be as much chance of us extraditing him to the US as Sweden IF THE US AUTHORITIES PRESENTED A CASE. And of course there is no chance of him being executed - US would have to guarantee that the death penalty would be off the menu before any European country could extradite.

Echr case law suggest you are right and little chance of extradition from UK to US for a capital offence where the death penalty would be sought. There might then be an argument about the risk of Assange being subject to cruel and inhuman treatment ala Manning BUT extraditions from here to the US while capable of challenge are in fact easier than say under a European arrest warrant to Sweden!

I don't know enough about extradition/removal from Sweden to US. They should be bound by Ehcr and there is an argument that extradition would require consent of both Sweden and UK though I would suggest unlikely to be denied.Anyway,lawyers are arguing over this too.

Like I said earlier, its a mess complicated by the American authorities desire to prosecute and make an example of him as they are Manning. They want to send a clear message.

Hoopdriver

SimonAH wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Why shouldn't Assange be extradited to the US if he is wanted in connection with the Bradley Manning case? The "threats to his life" are based on comments from politicians looking to grab a bit of air time, not by the US government. And still nobody has put forward any convincing "for the greater good" argument to justify him publishing classified information.

Hi rjs,

I would actually argue the 'greater good' side for publishing the wikileaks information.

What it did was expose a number of actions by financially, politically and apparently moral first word countries that were frankly illegal, immoral and in some cases directed at their supposed allies.

If you put Wikileaks in the same bracket as, say, a newspaper, or Panorama, or even the Huffington Post (as we are talking cyberspace) then what we are considering is easily justified as public interest - certainly far more important than the latest footballer shags popstar headline.

It's OK for Panorama to send undercover reporters into care homes to secretly film abuse that may well put people behind bars (yes, it is OK of course) but not OK for Wikileaks to publish that Hilary Clinton ordered illegal spying on UN diplomats?

And you are quite willing to make a lot of sacrifices to this greater good - such the Swedish women's right to justice. An easy sacrifice to make, of course, since it is somebody else's sacrifice.

The creep is hiding behind a smokescreen and because it is a smokescreen that has plays nicely to various conspiracy theorists' pet dreams it is one you and others will happily subscribe to.

The real joke here is that it is Sweden of all places that is being given the role of heavy authoritarian jackboot regime; you guys should hear yourselves.

paul_mck

this is all assuming an assault did take place, just like that maid in New York eh?

SimonAH

Hoopdriver wrote:

And you are quite willing to make a lot of sacrifices to this greater good - such the Swedish women's right to justice. An easy sacrifice to make, of course, since it is somebody else's sacrifice.

The creep is hiding behind a smokescreen and because it is a smokescreen that has plays nicely to various conspiracy theorists' pet dreams it is one you and others will happily subscribe to.

The real joke here is that it is Sweden of all places that is being given the role of heavy authoritarian jackboot regime; you guys should hear yourselves.

Hmm,

OK, In order (and I shall try to refrain from posting on this again as your are starting to wind me up a little;

1) And you are quite willing to make a lot of sacrifices to this greater good - such the Swedish women's right to justice. An easy sacrifice to make, of course, since it is somebody else's sacrifice.

Earlier SimonAH wrote
"Regarding the women in Sweden, yes, he should face charges, but given the circumstances this could be done on neutral ground? I believe that the Ecuadorians have offered to host an enquiry?
If a Swedish court found him demonstrably guilty of sex crimes and said that they would lock him up for them in Sweden I can't see anyone having any objections and I'm sure that the Ecuadorians would release him into Swedish custody"

2) The creep is hiding behind a smokescreen and because it is a smokescreen that has plays nicely to various conspiracy theorists' pet dreams it is one you and others will happily subscribe to.

Hilary Clinton earlier said;

"While she said she would not comment directly on the cables or their substance, she said that the government would take "aggressive steps" to hold responsible those who "stole" them."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... ssy-cables

3) The real joke here is that it is Sweden of all places that is being given the role of heavy authoritarian jackboot regime; you guys should hear yourselves

Um, no. All I (or anyone else as far as I can see) has said is that Sweden is under strong US influence and implied that they may accede to US demands to hand him over.

Hoopdriver

You assume a great deal - as no doubt Assange would want you to.

As far as Hilary Clinton's comments go I believe the operative word there is 'stole' - to steal is one thing, to publish is something else. This could be why there are no charges against Assange. He didn't steal them; his site published them. A difference.

The American Government does not strike me as shy or unwilling to come to the point on these sorts of things. I think if they wanted him they'd have said so clearly by now. They haven't. The Swedish Government has said they wanted him, and to face some very specific and ignoble accusations. Rather than face up to the charges, he is hiding behind this conspiracist smokescreen, showing his true colours to his friends and supporters who have been stiffed for ninety grand thanks to his jumping his bail, hopping into bed (literally) with that paragon of free speech and political transparency, Ecuador, on the chance that Americans might get over their bashfulness and press charges and if they did Sweden might extradite (as might any country, depending on the merits of the case and whether the charges are also a crime in the country in which the wanted person is residing)

And you see this as high minded principle?

bobinski

I dont think I or anyone here is suggesting Swedend has a "heavy jackboot regime". In many respects Sweden's democratic values are to be applauded. But Sweden has rendered prisoners to third parties at the behest the US. Then, it is suggested, so have we and Jack Straw is currently being sued by an alleged victim of rendition. What of Sweden's temporary rendition treaty with America? And it is in Sweden where the voices are loudest for a reform of the whole criminal justice system and where the former chancellor prodeuced a report "wrongful convictions" which appears scathing in its findings that convictions were produced despite:
weak inconclusive evidence
outright fialures in investigations
insufficent examination of claimants stories.
8 of 11 cases investigated and overturned on appeal were for...sexual offences.

So, Ja investigated for rape, spoken to by police in Sweden, remains, investigation dropped, leaves Sweden with authorities permission, investigation reopenens, prosecutor wants to speak to him, he invites them to come over to
speak to him, they decline and so extradtion sought after he refuses to travel to Sweden,America now having publicly said they want him. I am not at all surprised he has done everything to remain out of the hands of the Swedish authorities and, he fears, being passed onto the US.

The fact of the matter is the way this has progressed reflects poorly on nearly everyone except the UK courts who have considered such arguments as JA has raised and reached proper decisions on The Law as it stands. We shouldnt have reached this point though because the muddle and confusion in the swedish authorities investigation, dropping then restarting the investigation etc. etc. against the wider political backdrop does raise suspicions. Its not enough to say that my criticism of the sweedsih authorities means i am saying they are like North Korea etc. That is just trite.

Hoopdriver

It's everybody's fault but Assange's - yeah, I get it.

SimonAH

Hoopdriver wrote:

You assume a great deal - as no doubt Assange would want you to.

As far as Hilary Clinton's comments go I believe the operative word there is 'stole' - to steal is one thing, to publish is something else. This could be why there are no charges against Assange. He didn't steal them; his site published them. A difference.

The American Government does not strike me as shy or unwilling to come to the point on these sorts of things. I think if they wanted him they'd have said so clearly by now. They haven't. The Swedish Government has said they wanted him, and to face some very specific and ignoble accusations. Rather than face up to the charges, he is hiding behind this conspiracist smokescreen, showing his true colours to his friends and supporters who have been stiffed for ninety grand thanks to his jumping his bail, hopping into bed (literally) with that paragon of free speech and political transparency, Ecuador, on the chance that Americans might get over their bashfulness and press charges and if they did Sweden might extradite (as might any country, depending on the merits of the case and whether the charges are also a crime in the country in which the wanted person is residing)

And you see this as high minded principle?

Aaargh, damn my inability to step away from the keyboard,

So, your position is that Assange is a rapist who created Wikileaks to hide his sex crimes and is currently hiding in the Ecuardorian embassy for potentially the rest of his life in order to avoid a fair trial? And in conjunction with the Ecuadorians invited the Swedes to come and interrogate him there as a really cunning double bluff to make sure that everyone cast the Swedes in the role of the oppressive regime when they refused to do so? And that it would be ridiculous to assume that the Americans would slam him in chokey so fast his feet wouldn't touch the floor if they could find a way of laying hands on him? And that publishing (not stealing) the leaked information wasn't described by Hilary Clinton as 'an attack on the United States" and the White House press secretary didn't describe it as "a criminal act" and Palin didn't call for him to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders"

Ah hell, I'm back off to my bedroom to work on my 3-D model of the moon landing. I'm sure that I can find a way of lighting the set to prove that the shadows in the NASA photos were wrong and that it was just a photoshoot on a Hollywood film set ordered by the CIA to discourage the KGB.

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

You assume a great deal - as no doubt Assange would want you to.

As far as Hilary Clinton's comments go I believe the operative word there is 'stole' - to steal is one thing, to publish is something else. This could be why there are no charges against Assange. He didn't steal them; his site published them. A difference.

The American Government does not strike me as shy or unwilling to come to the point on these sorts of things. I think if they wanted him they'd have said so clearly by now. They haven't. The Swedish Government has said they wanted him, and to face some very specific and ignoble accusations. Rather than face up to the charges, he is hiding behind this conspiracist smokescreen, showing his true colours to his friends and supporters who have been stiffed for ninety grand thanks to his jumping his bail, hopping into bed (literally) with that paragon of free speech and political transparency, Ecuador, on the chance that Americans might get over their bashfulness and press charges and if they did Sweden might extradite (as might any country, depending on the merits of the case and whether the charges are also a crime in the country in which the wanted person is residing)

And you see this as high minded principle?

Aaargh, damn my inability to step away from the keyboard,

So, your position is that Assange is a rapist who created Wikileaks to hide his sex crimes and is currently hiding in the Ecuardorian embassy for potentially the rest of his life in order to avoid a fair trial? And in conjunction with the Ecuadorians invited the Swedes to come and interrogate him there as a really cunning double bluff to make sure that everyone cast the Swedes in the role of the oppressive regime when they refused to do so? And that assuming that the Americans would slam him in chokey so fast his feet wouldn't touch the floor if they could find a way of laying hands on him? And that publishing (not stealing) the leaked information wasn't described by Hilary Clinton as 'an attack on the United States" and the White House press secretary didn't describe it as "a criminal act" and Palin didn't call for him to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders"

Ah hell, I'm back off to my bedroom to work on my 3-D model of the moon landing. I'm sure that I can find a way of lighting the set to prove that the shadows in the NASA photos were wrong and that it was just a photoshoot on a Hollywood film set ordered by the CIA to discourage the KGB.

Can't believe you actually quoted Palin.

bobinski

Hoopdriver wrote:

It's everybody's fault but Assange's - yeah, I get it.

SimonAH

rjsterry wrote:

Can't believe you actually quoted Palin.

Well :-) she does shoot bears for Jesus, but she does give good quote :-)

paul_mck

rjsterry wrote:

Can't believe you actually quoted Palin.

I tried to read her autobiog for a laugh and got about 5 pages into it. She is something else alright.

bobinski

rjsterry wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

You assume a great deal - as no doubt Assange would want you to.

As far as Hilary Clinton's comments go I believe the operative word there is 'stole' - to steal is one thing, to publish is something else. This could be why there are no charges against Assange. He didn't steal them; his site published them. A difference.

The American Government does not strike me as shy or unwilling to come to the point on these sorts of things. I think if they wanted him they'd have said so clearly by now. They haven't. The Swedish Government has said they wanted him, and to face some very specific and ignoble accusations. Rather than face up to the charges, he is hiding behind this conspiracist smokescreen, showing his true colours to his friends and supporters who have been stiffed for ninety grand thanks to his jumping his bail, hopping into bed (literally) with that paragon of free speech and political transparency, Ecuador, on the chance that Americans might get over their bashfulness and press charges and if they did Sweden might extradite (as might any country, depending on the merits of the case and whether the charges are also a crime in the country in which the wanted person is residing)

And you see this as high minded principle?

Aaargh, damn my inability to step away from the keyboard,

So, your position is that Assange is a rapist who created Wikileaks to hide his sex crimes and is currently hiding in the Ecuardorian embassy for potentially the rest of his life in order to avoid a fair trial? And in conjunction with the Ecuadorians invited the Swedes to come and interrogate him there as a really cunning double bluff to make sure that everyone cast the Swedes in the role of the oppressive regime when they refused to do so? And that assuming that the Americans would slam him in chokey so fast his feet wouldn't touch the floor if they could find a way of laying hands on him? And that publishing (not stealing) the leaked information wasn't described by Hilary Clinton as 'an attack on the United States" and the White House press secretary didn't describe it as "a criminal act" and Palin didn't call for him to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders"

Ah hell, I'm back off to my bedroom to work on my 3-D model of the moon landing. I'm sure that I can find a way of lighting the set to prove that the shadows in the NASA photos were wrong and that it was just a photoshoot on a Hollywood film set ordered by the CIA to discourage the KGB.

Can't believe you actually quoted Palin.

I resisted that temptation earlier

Hoopdriver

I think your quoting Palin speaks volumes for the depth of your research into the matter.

And no I don't think Assange created Wikileaks to provide cover for his alleged sex offenses - nothing I have said would even suggest that I thought such a thing. That's another bit of gross hyperbole on your part, but then with Palin as one of your quotable sources I guess you would naturally have a leaning towards hyperbole.

As far as Sweden's reluctance to buy into this mess and interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, well, no sovereign nation would touch that with a barge pole. This can't seriously be news to you.

Assange's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy and his extravagant claims are a fairly thin smokescreen yet conspiracy theorists such as yourselves are only to happy to buy in, as Assange would well know.

SimonAH

Hoopdriver

Yup, you should be embarrassed

bobinski

Hoopdriver wrote:

I think your quoting Palin speaks volumes for the depth of your research into the matter.




As far as Sweden's reluctance to buy into this mess and interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, well, no sovereign nation would touch that with a barge pole. This can't seriously be news to you.

The offer was to be interviewed prior to the EAW being issued. At the Swedish Embassey or New Scotland Yard.

Hoopdriver

bobinski wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I think your quoting Palin speaks volumes for the depth of your research into the matter.




As far as Sweden's reluctance to buy into this mess and interview Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, well, no sovereign nation would touch that with a barge pole. This can't seriously be news to you.

The offer was to be interviewed prior to the EAW being issued. At the Swedish Embassey or New Scotland Yard.

You're being ingenuous. Why should the Swedes,as a sovereign nation, and a respected one, submit to any terms from anyone that implies they as a Government are dishonest, corrupt, misleading or pursuing hidden agendas? Serious criminal charges have been made against Assange, and the Swedes have every right to expect that their requests for Assanges extradition would be met in the usual manner by an EU state.

You imply that Sweden does have a hidden agenda but what evidence do you have (We'll forget about proof) outside of Assange's self-interested say-so, hackneyed conspiracist theories of the usual tired style and a strident quote from Sarah Palin?

bobinski

Well, I am not a conspiracy theorist but I suspect if you are JA and you have already been interviewed by the swedish prosecutor-not police but prosecutor and told investigation being dropped and free to leave Sweden You might just be a little suspicious if the investigation is reopened by the same prosecutor after you leave and are now residing in uk. And it just happens to be around the time of Wikileaks and calls from American Foriegn secretary's and a former Republican presidential candidates calls for your head/arrest etc. So, knowing the complainants have been interviewed by Prosecutor over the phone you assume you can ask for interview at the Swedish Embassy or NSY.But it seems not. And you hear other Swedish prosecutors expressing concern about the unusual way in which the matter is being investigated.And then there are rumours about a closed Extradition warrant being issued for your arrest by the US
( In another prominent document released by WikiLeaks, called the Global Intelligence Files, a portion of up to 5m emails were released from a private, global intelligence firm called Stratfor, based in Austin, Texas. The firm's vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton, wrote in a 26 January 2011 email:

"Not for Pub – We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.")
and the Australian press are reporting high level talks between their goverment and the US about your extradition. And you know about Sweden's recent history of rendition,the suspension or denial of due process and also their temporary arrangements with the US. And you can see what is happening to Manning. Remember, you are JA.

Do you trust to due process in Sweden? Apparently, so far as you can tell, its already being undermined...

I am not saying that I see evidence of a hidden agenda but I am saying I can see why JA might see an agenda. Of course, it might suit him to see such an agenda.

One more thing. You realise his extradition in part turned on whether the prosecutor who applied for the EAW has the same status as a judicial authority? It is judicial authorities that apply for/endorse applications for warrants from the requesting state. In Sweden the prosecutor issues the warrant. There is NO judicial oversight at all. No independent assessment. Some in Sweden criticise what they say is the highly politicised nature of prosecutorial appointments and the impact this has on decisions to investigate/re-investigate and prosecute. The Supreme Court found by 5-2 in favour of giving Assanges prosecutor the same status as a judicial authority for the purposes of making the application. Not so clear cut after all.

Hoopdriver

I suppose so.

And while I am busy being JA I might also be worrying about some testimony from some Swedish girls I once knew, and wondering how bad (or not) a Swedish prison might be.

These random thoughts might well colour my thinking about a lot of other collateral things

bobinski

yeah, but if you were busy being JA you might be more worried about an American Penal Establishment than anything that might happen in Sweden.

paul_mck

think id rather live in a swedish jail for a few years than the ecuadorian embassy for the rest of my life

jamesco

SimonAH wrote:

Regarding the women in Sweden, yes, he should face charges, but given the circumstances this could be done on neutral ground? I believe that the Ecuadorians have offered to host an enquiry?
If a Swedish court found him demonstrably guilty of sex crimes and said that they would lock him up for them in Sweden I can't see anyone having any objections and I'm sure that the Ecuadorians would release him into Swedish custody.

Not sure why Sweden should sacrifice its sovereignty and the rights of its own citizens simply to give Correa some attention. And having visited Quito prison it's comical to think that Ecuador could present itself as a paragon of justice... The UK's obligations to Sweden are important and Assange needs to be extradited.

Hoopdriver

bobinski wrote:

yeah, but if you were busy being JA you might be more worried about an American Penal Establishment than anything that might happen in Sweden.

Come to think of it, if I were JA I might be reflecting on the whole course of my life and contemplating my many wrong turns and shortcomings if all I were able to think about were the relative merits of various country's penal institutions, how many years or decades of jail time I was looking at, and the sheer quantity of arrest warrants, real and imagined, that had been issued for me - while I stayed as the relatively unwanted house guest at the embassy of a seedy Latin American republic.

Probably mostly I'd be wishing that I had left the Swedish girls strictly alone.

And trying to figure how to put a positive spin on the mess I'd let myself in for...

bobinski

Really?

While he is getting visitors like Lady Gaga?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oc ... an-assange

Hoopdriver

bobinski wrote:

Really?

While he is getting visitors like Lady Gaga?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oc ... an-assange

Now he has truly arrived...