Slashdot Mirror
Assange Could Face Execution Or Guantanamo Bay
An anonymous reader writes "WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange faces the real danger of being executed or languishing in the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay if, as a result of his extradition to Sweden, he ends up in the hands of the Americans, his lawyers argue. In a skeleton summary of Assange's defence, posted online, Assange's lawyers argue that it is likely that the US would seek his extradition 'and/or illegal rendition' from Sweden. In the United States 'there will be a real risk of him being detained at Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere,' his lawyers write."
Of course his attorneys are doing whatever they can to prevent him shipping out. Is this news?
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Yup, it's 2011. So why does feel so much like 1984?
If he's dubbed a terrorist by the US government...
I'm not saying it's good that America does these things. I have a tremendous sense of schadenfreude about the American government feeling some pain for its indefinite detention and torturing. As an American, I'm disgusted that my government has betrayed our ideals, but I also know that as one person I'm very unlikely to effect change. Maybe Assange can take our government to task more effecitively than any normal American citizen could.
That's pretty funny. If the US wanted him "renditioned", they would have had him already from the UK. He's much more likely to be safe from US rendition in Sweden.
However, in Sweden, he will have to get up on the stand and answer for his sexual behavior, and that's what he's really worried about.
It's not entirely clear from what I've read that he's an actual rapist, but it sure sounds like he's a real jerk.
Actually, the USG not liking someone is exactly why that person might end up in Gitmo. Circumventing the legal system is what makes Gitmo useful to the government.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Its more likely that nobody will open their mouths, then a bunch of senators will get pizzas delivered to them that they didn't order.
Yeah, because it is impossible that the US would keep someone locked up at gitmo for years without any chance of ever getting a proper trial or even hearing what the hell you are accused of.
That would never happen.
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
While I believe that Wikileaks is likely some form of an intel operation/possible manipulation in and of itself to some degree, I still support the concept behind Wikileaks.
Unfortunately I think that this statement by his lawyers may be correct. It's sad, but America is no longer the beacon of hope and freedom for the world that it once was - it's a bloated, corrupted, fading superpower. In a way we're the world's largest banana republic. It makes me very sad, because I love my country - but loving your country doesn't mean shying away from criticizing the government or exposing it's misdeeds - in fact, it means the opposite. This nation was supposedly founded on dissent and the rights of man, and to hear those in power try spin the law (including the Constitution) to suit their twisted needs is sickening.
Maybe I'm missing something, but last I knew "We don't like him" wasn't a valid reason for shipping to Gitmo or executions
For executions, you're right. For shipping to Gitmo, everyone currently there is there solely based on the fact that the US doesn't "like them."
So while I doubt the US would be able to get away with just executing Assange outright, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they shipped him to Gitmo and then an "accident" happened while he was in custody and he managed to get shot, in the heart, multiple times, from close range, during a prison riot that somehow included no other prisoners.
The fact that this argument cannot be dismissed as ridiculous, hyperbolic poppycock is testament to how far the United States has fallen in the world's estimation.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
The grounds are "hey, we're lawyers, we can charge our client by the word in our legal arguments before the judge!"
The more ridiculous grounds they can come up with, the more money they make, and the more attention Assange gets. It's win-win.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
A bunch of people in the US self-identify with the Federal Government, and believe that it and this country are one and the same, so therefore publishing leaked documents embarrasses the Federal Government, thus the US, thus they personally are humiliated.
So it cuts their IQ by 20 points and makes them angry and cry for blood.
Tell that to all the other non US citizens sitting in gitmo for years without a trial or charge.
He could possibly still be charged on espionage, racketeering and related laws. Treason is actually very limited in the US by the US constitution even if he was a US citizen.
None of those carry a death penalty unless the violation of the laws directly result in someone's death. However, that still shouldn't be much of a concern because the US often agrees not to pursuit the death penalty as a condition to extradite someone from different countries.
What is happening here is little more then then stating a defense to guard against extradition out of England in the first place. They are stating every possible scenario including ones muttered by "prominent figures" who a good portion of the US thinks are crazy, ignorant, or bat-shit stupid. They are even arguing that the prosecutor who issued the warrant didn't even have authority to do so.
There is nothing new or revealing here. His lawyers are simply putting everything possible on the table to show extraditing Assange should not happen. If they don't bring it up in lower courts, they might not be able to in higher ones.
On no grounds. U.S. officials have not shown that Assange has committed a single crime in the U.S. He is merely wanted here for questioning, probably to prosecute those who did violate U.S. law, such as any of Bradley Manning's co-conspirators or to find out who leaked the Iraq war logs, the U.S. diplomatic cables, etc.
Gitmo is a facility of the U.S. Navy; I doubt he'd be held there as he's wanted by the Department of Justice, not the Pentagon.
My blog
It's bullshit. What about the site admins for Wikileaks, or the dozens (if not hundreds) of media employees around the globe that are sitting on the full cable file and letting it trickle out? What about the security guys in the military, whose job it is to ensure stuff like this doesn't happen?
Assange is nothing but a mouthpiece. The fact that he's the primary target in this whole thing is just as asinine as the US Government's strategy to prevent leaks being leaked.
Living With a Nerd
Yep. I'm hope people in the US get the message that the rest of the world no longer thinks of us a country of laws.
This is pure speculation by his attorneys, and Slashdot should avoid using such needlessly inflammatory headlines.
This is pretty thin. It's not clear that Assange could be vulnerable to criminal charges of say, treason, in the US since he is not a citizen of, nor loyal to, the US. WikiLeaks does not have servers in the US. Moreover the 'figures' that the lawyers cites as saying Assange should be executed have no actual authority in the US. They cite Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, neither of whom hold political office and (I'm guessing - and hoping) will not have any official political power in the near future.
This is Assange's own lawyers trying to prevent extradition to Sweden, which has actually filed criminal charges against him. I'm all for what Assange does, but this is exceedingly unlikely to come to pass.
Were the people currently in Guantanamo US citizens or in US jurisdiction at the time of their "arrest"? "We don't like him" seems to be exactly the normal reason for being sent there.
Let's face it, when was the last time the USA didn't take an opportunity to look as hypocritical as possible on the world stage?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The US government doesn't need a reason to imprison and kill people. We abandoned the rule of law on 9/12/2001.
I don't respond to AC's.
The argument can be dismissed as ridiculous, hyperbolic poppycock by anyone with a functioning brain.
"We don't like him" wasn't a valid reason for shipping to Gitmo or executions
Does it matter whether there's a valid reason or not? The way Gitmo is structured, you get sent there by the executive branch without ever receiving trial, and remain there occasionally getting a kangaroo court to say "yeah, keep him locked up" every year or so. There have been innocent people, including some US citizens, subjected to this sort of treatment in a blatant violation of the US Constitution.
Assange has been very clear through all of this that the reason he doesn't trust the US government is precisely because they've shown no inclination to follow their own laws.
I am officially gone from
Not just in the world's estimation, but also in its own citizens' estimation.
Sounds like the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic. Reminds me of the SNL skits where Assange reminds people that no matter how he dies, even if it's decades from now and peacefully in his sleep, "it was murder!".
If you were to take his argument to its logical conclusion, he's saying that any crime he may have committed cannot result in punishment otherwise he might also be punished very harshly for a completely different offence?
So he may have robbed a bank, shanked the queen of Sweden, and sold half the population of Stockholm into slavery, but you can't extradite him because the Swedish might send him to the united states?
Obviously a little different from the charges he's facing, but what crime would he have to be charged with to allow him to be extradited to Sweden? Or does his noble actions with Wikileaks cause him to be immune for any other offence he committed?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I'm a bit confused.
Are you saying we shouldn't be worried about Sweden getting mixed up in "extraordinary rendition" (ie kidnapping) because they were caught doing it?
Personally I take the opposite lesson...they've demonstrated they will do it. They may have learned their lesson... or perhaps the only lesson learned was to try harder so as not to get caught next time.
Your argument is that because Sweden has illegally rendered people before that they will not do so again?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I was thinking the same thing myself. Sure he pissed off the entire government but he's got so much press I doubt he can just be disappeared.
While I am not paranoid enough to think it will happen, you don't have to disappear someone. You just have a patsy kill him ("he was a mental patient, out of his mind"), then have someone else kill the patsy (a "information wants to be free" nut), so you can't question him. The second guy doesn't know that the first was hired to begin with, and no one knows who did the hiring to begin with. As long as the second guy remains silent, he is compensated (family gets regular $$, or whatever). He "somehow" dies of cancer (or suicide + botched investigation) onr or two years later. Not that different than what is claimed in some circles regarding JFK.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Assange is being accused of "sex by surprise" [...]
No he's not. This "sex by surprise" stuff is some shit his lawyers made up. Do your fucking research before running off your mouth.
Are you adequate?
It's pretty hilarious, because the prominent figure they're talking about is Huckabee. This is a man who is not a lawyer, not even a government official, and certainly has no bearing on who gets charged with what, or who gets executed. Plus, uh, yeah... Huckabee wasn't talking about Assange either, he was talking about the people who leaked stuff to Assange, at least as far as I can tell from the quote.
Presumably any judges looking at the arguments would do a modicum of research and find out just how stupid this argument is. But again, the lawyers are just throwing everything out there, and hoping something sticks. I don't know a lot about their legal system over there, but perhaps it will also give them some added grounds for appeal if they lose. IANAL.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Point, but that's presumably the reason they're doing this.
It's possible, but it's also possible the Swedes just want to talk to him about the criminal charge in their country. Which is the only crime he's actually been accused of committing.
Relations being what they are between the US and the UK, if the US wanted him in Gitmo, he'd already be in Gitmo.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
No offense to those who died. The people rising up violently as a result to finding out about massive corruption in their own government, in my opinion, cannot be the fault of the group who revealed the corruption.
If massive amounts of corruption that we know exist were finally brought to light in the US and the result was an armed uprising of citizens opposed to that corruption, I could not possibly blame who revealed the corruption as the cause of the violence.
As a famous saying, don't blame the messenger. This is not a situation of supposedly revealed anonymous sources and putting secret operations in jeopardy or anything of the sort. This is a case of people revolting to massive corruption.
I do not condone the violence, I mourn for those who died. However, even though the violence was a result of the release, I believe it is very important that people know of corruption in their government. If Assange had leaked some document showing corruption being perpetrated by Obama, or proving that he wasn't born in Hawaii and the result was a violent protest or uprising. I believe that Tea Party members would be calling Assange a hero for revealing the information and not blame him for the violence. Food for thought.
Yeah, the United States Government never does that sort of thing, not even to American citizens!
Oh wait...
That kid is an American citizen who was, apparently, detained and beaten in Kuwait because the United States Government thought he might know something. If my government gets its hand on Assange, do you think the result will be much different?
it's been proven that there is no charge of espionage, since he never obtained any information in the first place.
Then what did he have to post?
It was given to him.
Ahh. So your assertion is that if it is "given" to him, as opposed to his asking for it, that's not espionage? Likely as not, the charge is going to assert that Assange asked PFC Manning to give him the information, which would make them co-conspirators.
Whether that is TRUE, or not, I do not make judgement. But that is likely what the charge will be.
If that were true, that would mean they could charge the newspapers with treason.
Actually newspaper reporters and editors have been charged with treason in the past, and probably will be again in the future, in nations around the world. Newspaper reporters traveling with the military, for instance, are enjoined and warned about transmitting their locations over broadcast. Geraldo Rivera was kicked out of just such an assignment for drawing a map in the sand for the audience.
quit making shit up, you dumb fucking retard.
Are you expecting me to respond in kind? I know your type. You're posting "anonymously" so that you can log in and downmod me a few times.
Please get an education and grow up. The world does not work the way you think it does.
Equating "looking into him" with execution IS FUD.
I've been following this wikileaks stuff from the get go, and I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Assange is the target of anything more than an obsessed media and a lot of public outcry by the same stupid pundits that throw up a public outcry over every other damn thing in the news.
I'll grant that the circumstances and nuances of Assange's whole sex-offender case were damn strange, meaning all that stuff involving the case getting dropped, then picked up, then Interpol involvement, etc. But considering that large government bureaucracies, in general, don't often operate efficiently, or, for that matter, even sensibly half the damn time, all that crap could very well be little more than the Swedish justice system panicking over a high profile case and responding to such global scrutiny in the same way that many people would under such a lens: completely uselessly and foolishly.
I'm not saying Assange explicitly is not on some government blacklist somewhere, but I also don't see a lot of convincing evidence that he definitely is the target of anything in particular; other than, you know, some bitter female scorn projected by two young lasses that he fooled about with.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Small-yet-critical-detail -- he was beaten and detained by Kuwaiti's in a Kuwaiti jail.
Kuwaitis are not the United States Government and Kuwati jails aren't policed by Americans.
In fact, I'm sort of surprised he hasn't been killed already, one would think the CIA could handle an assassination....
The last thing they need is to cement his martyrdom.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Treason doesn't mean much. Since the president has the power to order the assassination of US citizens abroad, Assange can just get the label "enemy combatant" and it's open season. Gotta love those loose constructionists.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
but I'm pretty sure they'd be unable to do so as Assange himself has not violated U.S. laws.
Don't be silly! The government doesn't play by their own rules. Everyone knows this.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
> This is so much hyperbole it is not even funny.
Right, because we've never executed people for this sort of thing before. And, even though we'd put innocent US citizens in Gitmo, there's no way we'd do that to someone who isn't even a US national, neatly sidestepping all that "fair trial" nonsense by labeling him as some kind of "enemy combatant" or whatever.
And, even though we have politicians calling for Julian Assange to be assassinated, there's no way that anyone would ever even think of taking them seriously. Ever.
That's total hyperbole, right? Nobody here is that crazy... right?
The US Government's own report concludes that the vast majority of people in Guantanamo (either historically or now) have no business being there and were or should be released (if they can find somewhere to send them).
Of the 779 people held at Guantanamo since January 2002 only 36 are being held for prosecution and 48 are marked for being held "indefinately". A handful of others have been handed over for prosecution in other countries. By my reckoning that makes at least 85% of detainees held without good, legal reason.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Except they were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 which was replaced by the Espionage and Sabotage Act of 1954 which permits the death penalty only when a foreign power identified and killed an individual acting as an agent of the US or where the espionage directly concerns nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794
While the leaked cables and war documents were embarrassing and affected diplomatic efforts, I don't see any direct violations of the requirements for the death penalty. The Rosenbergs did.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
I'm not saying he's a nice guy or perfect - far from it.
I'm thinking "about 180 degrees from it" myself.
But the fact remains that he got a far larger share of the vote than most western leaders
Sure. What percentage did the current President of China win by again? What percentage did Saddam get in his final "election"? Rigged elections are meaningless.
and extremely popular with most of the population
Again, I'm reminded of all the "vocal supporters" of other dictatorial regimes who are only "vocal" because they're afraid of being "disappeared" if someone hears them talking bad about Mr. Dictator-For-Life.
has ploughed money into education and healthcare, and massively improved the lives of the poor
Say what again?
Again, the US is on dodgy ground to criticise, with elections of presidents on less than half the votes with results determined by dodgy courts
I take it you have never studied how the US constitution and election system, in particularly the Electoral College in which the vote is not a "national popular vote" but 50 separate elections apportioning the votes of 538 representatives to the national ballot.
detention without trial in Cuba
Sigh. And you seemed so rational prior to this.
the ever-widening poverty gap
No, most of us agree this is a problem.
denial of healthcare to the poor
All you have to do to have healthcare in the US is to show up to a hospital. The fact is, "health care access" is not an issue: "health insurance", which helps one pay for it, is what is being roundly discussed.
Neither system is perfect, but it seems that Chavez is at least helping the poor rather than the rich
With due respect, if you honestly think this, you need to get your head out of the sand and take a better look at conditions in Venezuela.
And he's not starting wars responsible for the deaths of thousands
No, he's just busy murdering thousands of the citizens in his own country. As for the rest of your assertions, they're offtopic and can be discussed at another time.
You're right, that makes perfect sense because
A. After the first Gulf War, Kuwait isn't essentially an American protectorate and
B. The USG is flipping out about this kid, demanding answers, and immediately bringing him home as soon as they're able - like you would expect them to do if any foreign country held and tortured an American citizen of their own accord.
Oh wait no neither of those things are true.
No, Manning was the man who gave the stuff out to Assange.
Manning also happens to have the misfortune of being in the military, where the rules are different from both the civil and criminal courts.
there were no places to put known terrorists, suspected terrorists
Yep, reality intervened and messed up Obama fulfilling this campaign pledge.
Fact is, most of the people remaining at Gitmo are bad, bad, men. There may not be enough evidence for 'beyond a reasonable doubt' at a trial, but a number don't have any real citizenship in a country, or their country of citizenship refuses to take them back.
If the USA is unwilling to take them itself, where are they to go?
I don't read AC A human right
So if you had hard evidence that, for instance, the government did 9/11 (And I don't believe it did at all, just using this as an example), and I mean hard evidence as in tape recordings of the President giving the "go ahead" for the operation - you'd sit on it and say that you have no right to release private information?
The way democracy works, any efforts by a ruling party to prevent fair, honest elections - ie, election fraud - is the most important kind of public information.
I don't really like Assange as a person either, but I wholly support the cause. If the governments "win" and manage to shut down WikiLeaks and silence Assange, what does that say about the free world? The problem with corruption is that almost nobody tries to stand up to it - it's why corruption persists. People are weak and easily bought out by money, or killed. Here's a person and an organisation who are saying "We will not be deterred, or bribed, or bullied - and wherever we get information that governments are lying or trying to hide information from its citizens that harms those citizens - we'll make that information public" and you're siding with the corrupt?
Do you realise how very rare and important it is for people to stand up to corruption? WikiLeaks may not always get it right - they're fallable just like the rest of us - and might release information they shouldn't. But by far they're the lesser of two evils - if you consider their goals an evil at all.
Don't like Assange? Fine. Don't like particular leaks? Fine. Think WikiLeaks is a bad thing for the world? Wrong - bringing corruption to light is one of the most responsible and important things an organisation can do. Especially when it makes them the enemy of every government in the "free world" because it threatens their own corrupt practices.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
Except that he is a citizen of a foreign country, and not on American soil, therefore no American law applies to him. That is the only defense he needs, and it is ironclad (that isn't to say the American government will care). I don't know that I agree with his actions, but I for damn sure don't agree with my leaders' responses, and I will be giving them an earful if they pursue this.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
"...since anything negative said about the USA is automatically believed and embraced..."
Perhaps your government (amongst others) should start a process of thinking long and hard about why this might be.
No, Manning was the man who gave the stuff out to Assange.
Manning also happens to have the misfortune of being in the military, where the rules are different from both the civil and criminal courts.
Misfortune? It's a voluntary force. He voluntarily and actively joined it.
I was going to congratulate you on a reasonable post until the bits where you (a) ridiculed the notion that the US was detaining people without trial in cuba, and (b) claimed that all you need to do to get healthcare in the US is show up to a hospital. Unfortunately, this nonsense puts you in exactly the same nut-boat as the lunatic you were trying to shut down.
For the record:
The United States has and currently holds individuals without trial in Cuba.
Here's a patchwork discussion of how to get assistance if you're uninsured and have cancer. Note that hospitals are not required to provide more than stabilization, though many underfunded county hospitals do provide "indigent care". The uninsured have roughly half the five-year survival rate of people who have insurance. Even Medicaid isn't always enough --- several people have been recently been denied organ transplants recently because of state and local budget cuts.
Lesson: respond vigorously to cranks but do not treat it as an opportunity to push your own broken worldview.
Yes and after being caught beating some kid to a bloody pulp for no reason can I claim I'm still a good person because I'm far far away from being the worst offender in the country what with some guy who fed bleech to his victims before raping them to death.
Being able to point to groups that are worse doesn't make your own any better.
The US is supposed to be a civilized western nation,
When it tortures people: That there exist countries which torture people more does not make it any better.
When it interns people without trial: the fact there exist countries which intern people more and for longer doesn't make it ok .
When it abducts innocent people from around the world for the aforementioned internment and torture it doesn't make it ok just because some other nations have done the same in the past.
Like it or not the US has got a reputation for torturing people not because of some smoke and mirrors show but simply because it's been torturing people.
Comment removed based on user account deletion