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."

Comments

What grounds?

[TheL0ser]

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 (not that there always is a valid reason, but still...). Assange isn't a US citizen, so that throws treason out the window, so what's the justification?

Re:What grounds?

[Moryath]

The actual charge is likely to be something along the lines of espionage.

That being said, the bigger problem I have is that Assange seems to be doing his level best to make as unsympathetic a defendant of himself as possible. If he had simply put things up with notes to the effect of "This was acquired and is now made public" or even "Look at this which shows what the US government/military does", he'd have an easier time claiming whatever immunities status as a journalist may offer.

Instead, he ruthlessly re-edited video and released only those things he felt like releasing, slanting the story as much as possible. His conduct and behavior - stating goals to "take down" various entities - don't make him sympathetic either.

Besides, when dictatorial, murdering thugs like Hugo Chavez are the primary people taking your side, that ought to be a not-so-subtle hint that you're not quite on the right side.

Re:What grounds?

[Dominic]

I'm not saying he's a nice guy or perfect - far from it. But the fact remains that he got a far larger share of the vote than most western leaders, and extremely popular with most of the population, has ploughed money into education and healthcare, and massively improved the lives of the poor.

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, detention without trial in Cuba, the ever-widening poverty gap, the denial of healthcare to the poor... one could go on. Neither system is perfect, but it seems that Chavez is at least helping the poor rather than the rich. And he's not starting wars responsible for the deaths of thousands. All else being equal, that's probably better.

Re:What grounds?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Insightful

Not to mention that if you read the stories that Moryath links to, you'll notice his descriptions are hyperbolic: murders people = imprisoned a person who almost died in prison; steals from gov't = political opponent claims he steals from the gov't (I believe it, but still. . .); sets up a paradise for criminals = doesn't give a damn what crimes you committed in other countries as long as you don't commit them in Venezuela; fear and oppression = an anti-Chavez story that is little more than a short blog post and cites some crime statistics (Venezuela has an absurdly high murder rate, but the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the highest homicide rate among fully developed 1st world countries -- think about that); supreme dictator for life and you'll be shot if you say otherwise = he tried to push through a law that will allow him to rule by decree for 18 months.

Mods: if you're going to mark someone informative b/c they make claims that link to a bunch of stories, then you should probably make sure that the stories back up the claims

Is Chavez a saint? Hell no. Would I rather have him as president than George W. Bush? Yup. Hell, Obama's been so damned useless I'm beginning to wonder if I'd prefer Chavez to Obama.

Oh really?

[Mindjiver]

This is so much hyperbole it is not even funny. He should get some proper representation instead of these loudmouth lawyers.

Riot

[DontLickJesus]

I hope if that man ends up on American soil that the citizens of this country (US) riot and raise fucking hell. What our government plans to do is wrong, it's illegal, and they know it. So does every citizen and every member of the press.

Back to earth

[onyxruby]

Wow, I'm surprised they didn't offer up anal probes in area 51 to go along with the rest... This guy needs to get a grip, get off his ego trip and realize that his stunts cause real harm to people the world over.

Of course the US is seeking to extradite him, to put him on trial for spying and other damages. That being said, execution for spies is a legal tradition going back to prehistory, so there's a few thousand plus years of precedent to call on.

Just remember, wikileaks next victim might be someone or something that you support. That's the problem with anarchy groups like wikileaks, they're as likely to turn against you as anything else.

Re:Seriously?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Does anyone believe that the fact he is in UK custody doesn't effectively place him in US custody, more than Swedish custody would?

I do. You see politicians generally are a bit shy about handing over their own citizens to foreign powers for unknown. It tends to get their constituents thinking about what could happen to them, personally, and they vote the bum out pronto. Handing over a foreign national to another foreign power, on the other hand, makes some people upset but does not result in the same level of anger, fear, and motivation. It's not a political death sentence. In this case UK politicians can claim ignorance to some extent, claiming they could not foresee that he'd be handed over to the US. They can even blame the US and Sweden publicly and call for his return to the UK. This may well prevent them from being kicked out of office.

So, he and his lawyers use things that will strike a chord, like claiming he'll be sent to Guantanamo Bay (as the current administration is so keen to do) or that he'll be killed, whether by the death penalty or otherwise (when it isn't clear that there is any legal basis on which to prosecute him).

True enough, and the US handed every foreigner that legal tool when we started having "special" prisons outside the normal court system and with no regard for international human rights standards. Moreover, he was doubly enabled when powerful right wing politicians made public comments about having him killed.

Re:Lemme check my calendar...

[rAiNsT0rm]

Actually, not so much 1984 as Brave New World (Aldous Huxley). If you haven't read it, I'd highly suggest it as it is pretty much a 100% spot-on prophecy and in-depth look at our current reality.

Not sure if it's even legally possible...

[ThunderBird89]

If memory serves me right, both the UK and Sweden are members of the Council of Europe, as well as signatories of the European Agreement on Human Rights. Now, the agreement expressly forbids extradition if there's a chance of capital punishment in the recipient country. Which means that Assange cannot be legally turned over to US custody, since Gitmo violates the human rights treaties massively, and execution ... well, we all know the deal.

So the only recourse left for the US is kidnapping by CIA, but that's going to get them in a sticky situation too, even if it won't submit to the International Court of Justice's authority.

What He is Likely Guilty Of...

[way2slo]

IANAL, However it seems that a good portion of Title 18 Chapter 37 ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP pertain to him.

# 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (Gathering, yes. Transmitting, maybe)
# 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government (maybe)
# 795. Photographing and sketching defense installations (maybe)
# 796. Use of aircraft for photographing defense installations (probably not)
# 797. Publication and sale of photographs of defense installations (maybe)
# 798. Disclosure of classified information (Yes. "or publishing")

For more info, try here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_37.html

Remember, they don't have to be content with what was just leaked recently. The DoJ can go back in time and drag out everything that they can prove was _EVER_ leaked on his site and use it to convict him of ESPIONAGE. If he's extradited, he's screwed.

Re:Where was this supposed "crime" commited?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about "jurisdiction" when we're talking about rendition or assassination.

It's about being a target of the United States and not having an army to defend you.

You have a problem with the idea that Assange is a potential target for assassination or rendition and imprisonment without trial, or without even being charged with a crime? You and what army are going to do exactly what about it?

That's where we are now. Who cares about jurisdiction?

Extreme Rendition Airlines location

[sgt_doom]

The US gov't has deemed Assange a "high-tech terrorist" which qualifies them in their diabolical reckoning as an enemy combatant, which makes it OK, under the satanical US PATRIOT Act, to do an extreme rendition on him.

Now, Assange's attorneys have correctly argued against his extradition to Sweden, on a number of grounds, one of the most correct and crucial being that a local city (Goteborg, or Gothenburg in English) prosecutor (Marianne Ny) cannot petition for an Interpol arrest warrant -- nor extradition order -- it must originate at the highest government level.

Now you ask, but why would the Swedes want to extradite Assange of Wikileaks to Gothenburg? Because that's where Jeppesen Systems AB, the company affiliated with Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, better known as Boeing's "Extreme Rendition Airlines" is located.

Beginning to get the Big Picture, now? Never have so many resources been focused to obtain one individual in the past few decades. And yes, I strongly suspect they've spent far more on tracking and ops in shutting down by Wikileaks (tasked at least three gov't supercomputers to DDoS those Wikileaking sites) and their Wikileaks Task Force at the CIA (WTF). Now why didn't they put as much effort into that fellow, what's his name?

Oh yeah....Osama bin Laden?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:attorneys

[cold fjord]

And pardon me, the left doesn't specialize in slander, hate speech and distorted ideologies.

I didn't realize that you were such a comedian. Have you ever considered taking that act to Vegas?

The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010

Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco

Sirhan Sirhan dedication backfires on Bill Ayers 36 years later

Acid Rhetoric Flashbacks

SEIU protesters descend on bank exec’s home, terrifying his son

Leftist groups plan a riot as Oakland boards up downtown

The Manchurian Candidate

Are Communists (or neo-Communists) Dangerous?

The Surreal World of the Progressive Left

Encounters with the Left

5 Reasons the Environmentalists’ 1010 Fantasy Film of Blowing Up Non-Conformists Is Bigger Than You Think

Extreme BDS watch: Vermont group wants to overthrow the Bush administration

Re:attorneys

[haruchai]

The US and its corporations should be proud of China's accomplishments - they've to make it possible.But what have they done at home lately? Wasted a TRILLION dollars on 2 wars with a couple of ass-pick countries - money that could have solved every major social and infrastructure problem they were facing before the financial meltdown (YET another colossal clusterfuck).
America has had decades to show its morals and mettle - despite impressive technology and superior firepower, every conflict it's been embroiled in has been a fuck-up.