Slashdot Mirror
Cables Show US Seeks Assange
prakslash writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that diplomatic cables they obtained show the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year, despite denials by the U.S. State Department and the Australian Foreign Minister. Further, the Australian diplomats expect that the U.S. will seek to extradite Assange to the U.S. on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks."
Because releasing information regarding unethical practices (to say the least) conducted by the US and other corporate entities is bad. Cue comparison photo:
http://m5.paperblog.com/i/8/82628/hero-comparison-wikileaks-vs-facebook-assange-L-NiA62d.jpeg
Previewing comments are for sissies!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/shawn-sullivan-extradition-blocked-america-most-wanted-pedophile-us_n_1633358.html
I'm sorry, try again. Why is this guy blocked but not Assange?
has he actually been charged in sweden? I thought part of the big controversy was that he was not actually charged, they wanted to force him to go to sweeden to "question" him, even though he volunteered to host them, and answer any questions many, many times. They either want to extradite him, or do one heck of a "perp walk" on TV to shame him, and I don't think he's actually even charged, let alone proven guilty.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Why don't you read some cables and decide for yourself?
I don't think that's a fair deal. Assange may have committed, at most, espionage against the US (which isn't a crime if he's not in the US, which he isn't), and sexual assault in Sweden. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has proudly proclaimed on CNN that he committed crimes against humanity.
I am officially gone from
Warning: Parent link is NSFA (Not Safe For America).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I could argue against you here, saying he was not charged etc etc. But why should I when the former Swedish head prosecution does it much better:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem
Swedish prosecutors once traveled to Serbia to interview a suspected murderer.
March 22nd of *this year*
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Oh man.. here we go again.
Let me answer your questions:
1) It would, as a matter of fact, be easier for the US to extradite from Sweden. There is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests.
Read this and this.
2) See above links.
3) Ecuador is NOT shielding Assange from prosecution from Sweden BUT from extradition and persecution by the US. Assange is willing to go to Sweden tomorrow to answer any Swedish charges if they can assure him he will not be handed to the Americans. They refuse to provide such an assurance. Look, Assange is not some ordinary mugger. He has done some significant things that have riled up the powers that be. If the suspect in your example was anything like Assange, I would be OK with it.
.
Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK
That's nothing. I find it more telling that (according to what I read) they refused to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to US. He asked if if Sweden guarantees that he will not be sent to US afterwards and Swedish side was unable to guarantee that.
They are really the exact opposite of subtle.
Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?
You mean, like József Mindszenty, who the US shielded in their embassy for 15 years? Like Fang Lizhi? Like Victor Haya? Manuel Zelaya? The answer is, they (including the USA) do.
To whoever modded this flamebait: The accusation against Cheney is easy to sustain. Dick Cheney publicly proclaimed that he led the group that ordered waterboarding of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. American prosecutors defined waterboarding or the ordering of waterboarding of a prisoner to be a crime against humanity at the 1945 Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
Ergo, Dick Cheney is an admitted war criminal.
I am officially gone from
allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.
Like Warren Anderson, who was charged with the culpable homicide of 8,000 people, left India and refused to come back until they said they wouldn't charge him, and who then jumped bail and left India after he was charged? Did the U.S. government respect the judicial authority of the Indian courts? No - it refused to extradite Anderson because they said there "wasn't enough evidence". And yet when the United States wanted to extradite bin Laden, and the government of Afghanistan requested evidence of his crimes, the U.S. government refused to provide it. When it comes to international politics and law, the U.S. is not afraid to apply double standards.