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."
Let's demand that Assange be issued the Congressional Medal of Honor and go after some of the lying scum that he helped expose.
It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.
Perhaps 20 years ago, people might have drawn a distinction between publishing on a computer network and publishing on paper, but today, those distinctions are muddy and in transition. (Before long, the ONLY way to keep publications secret will be to write them down and share them secretly.)
We have a nation of law enforcers who are not enforcing the law... they are enforcing the will of the leadership which is NOT the same thing. I think law enforcement needs to go back to enforcing the law and to remain WITHIN the law when doing so.
It's becoming more and more evident by the day that the so-called "charges" that put him on the run in the first place are bullshit. This is about the US capturing Assange any way possible.
Not only did US personnel break their own moral, ethical and legal boundaries but now they want to kill the messenger. Going after Assange makes the US look more like China than a democracy.
You'd think the guy performed a punk concert in a church or something.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
PARTY FINDS YOU!
His crime? Journalism.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
That is a very valid point. I'm sure his lawyer, once they determine he is in Guantanamo Bay and labeled and an "enemy combatant" would want to use that in his defense. Just have to wait for a few years to meet their client, a few more years of trials just to see if a foreigner held in a prison off of US soil is eligible for a trial in the US Judicial system, etc.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
No indictment, no charges. No prosecution. Simple inquiry.
Yet Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK - including the past month, in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Instead, they push for extradition on contravention of International treaty law.
This is a chess game, being played on behalf of the Nation that incarcerates more of its own people than did Josef Stalin. The "Land of the Free".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).
But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.
Let me give two examples (hypothetical):
1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Who decides what is and isn't ethical?
Individuals.
Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?
I wouldn't say our elected officials are ethical. But apparently as long as you agree with them, everything is a-okay.
lets be even more clear about this.
its not RAPE as most of the world defines it. its the peculiar definition that sweden uses, that he's ONLY accused of.
and I'm sorry, I'll say this bluntly, with the full spectrum of all the 'bad shit' that one person can do to another, sweden's definition of 'rape' is not quite enough to justify all the hooplah that's being made of this. sure, he was a heel, perhaps (we really don't know, though, its a lot of he-said-she-said, really). but I'm not sure this is international extradition worthy.
people do a HELL of a lot worse and get away with it.
(like, say, many of the people mentioned in the leaked cables... julian may have fucked two women, but people in the cables have fucked far more and far worse. THIS is the issue, not julian.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hold on to your hat there hippy, TFA says " investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year".
That means your hero, maximum leader Obama, has got a hand in all this. Wow "does not compute, does not compute"! Democrats good, Republicans Bad!
Now go out there and start breaking windows of Starbucks like a good little radical. Gwan now, git!
They *should* go after him. The rationalization this was journalism is a farce. Lets take the assumed analogue of the oppressed Syrian citizen tweeting against the regime or telling of some evil deed done by them. In each case the Assange defenders would say, "the individual is speaking out against the oppressive government getting the truth out for the world to see." In one case, the actor posts the information to express to the world the tyranny under which they live to maybe just someday restore some kind of liberty in their lives, at great risk to their own life. In the other case the actor posts the information with the express purpose of shaming and harming the government that authored them.
What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens? I pick EU due to all the laws in place regarding personal information. Suppose he was posting gigs of credit card records indicating the purchase of a extra small Fleshlights. They would be outraged that their personal information was being shared with the world and now everyone knew they bought an extra small Fleshlight.
"But these are government documents, they are our governments and they work for US." (Us the first person objective plural, not the estados unidos) Sure, they do work for us. But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice. I would hope and expect them to pursue charges.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
Conspiracy to leak information that as a foreign national on foreign soil he had no legal obligation to keep secret.
Oh wait, I forgot US law applies across the entire planet, and probably Mars now.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
While I'd love for them to stand trial; I'd never ever give up an innocent person whom will be subject to torture in exchange for a criminal.
Look, the UK has TWO treaty obligations that are in direct conflict here:
1) Their treaty with the other member states of the EU agreeing to be bound by the EAW extradition framework;
2) Their diplomatic treaties with Ecuador;
Pretending that one "trumps" the other, or one is stronger than the other is stupid. The UK government decides which obligation serves its own interests better - other countries can lodge complaints, and make an argument at the UN or in the media... but what it boils down to is, the only way to "force" another nation into doing what you want if they decide they can't satisfy the terms of the treaty, is to declare war.
So, answer a few questions for me, if you would:
1) Why would the US need to go through Sweden to get Assange? If they filed an extradition request with the UK, what makes you think the UK wouldn't agree to it? Cursory review of previous extradition shows that the UK has extradited numerous people to the US to face charges, and the relationship between the two countries is fairly cordial. In addition, the UK seems eager to be rid of him, so I can't imagine they'd object TOO strongly if the US filed extradition charges, as well.
2) Why would Sweden agree to behave as a middleman, knowing full well that extraditing a suspect to a non-EU member state (say, the US) after they've been surrendered to Sweden by that EU member state *requires* the approval of the state originally surrendering the suspect to Sweden (i.e., the UK)? For Sweden to be involved, they would need to be prepared to violate all of their obligations under the EAW framework, for absolutely zero benefit - and the US would STILL need to get the UK's approval to do it legally - so why not just request extradition from the UK directly?
3) 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?
If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with
There's no need - the President can send him to Gitmo for years without bringing charges, as a lesson to other journalists not to mess with the USG.
<WP:NDAA>
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yep welcome to the USSA comrade, where the only free men are the rich.
BTW I think every one of us that have said about a billion fucking times here that "Its not about rape, its about the USSA snatching his ass" deserves a fricking apology from all those "No its not, its about a crime, its raaape!" dumbasses, so line the hell up. Oh and WE TOLD YA SO!
Its pretty God damned sad when fricking Ecuador is the symbol of freedom and the USSA is the slimy country, but this ain't the country your grandparents fought for in WWII, its turned foul, the ground has gone sour thanks to a cabal of WallStreet, the MICs and PMCs, and the gov, all in bed together.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3) Yes. I absolutely believe that POLITICAL ASYLUM is intended to work exactly as you have described.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
It's not about Assange. It's about human rights, yours, mine, anyone's. The question is: Is it ok for a government to pursue and prosecute a foreign national, a person, any person for speaking or repeating the truth simply because those truths are embarrassing to the government.
You should care about the rights of Assange only for as long as you care about your own.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Sweden is arguably more of a "US lapdog" in some aspects for a number of reasons. First of all, the massive financial pressure on politicians from piratebay case that has been on for years from US side has inherently made Swedish authorities easier to pressure. Then there's the technological and military cooperation, where Swedish national pride of having its own fighter jet is completely dependent on US goodwill - US licenses a lot of tech needed to build Gripen.
There are several other impacts as well, such as the pressure that came from "war on terror" and massively negative view Bush took on countries that chose to keep on being neutral, which made Sweden cave on several policies badly, one of them extraordinary rendition. In many ways GB has been protected by its sheer size from these, as while Downing Street has generally been keep on pleasing US, GB as a country is still big enough to resist significant amounts of financial and political pressure. Sweden's capacity to do the same is unfortunately much smaller.
Finally there's a matter of Sweden's own internal problems with rising wave of extremist feminism, which in this case was cleverly exploited by US.
Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
He hasn't been charged with anything, and he doesn't become a criminal until after he is convicted.
I'm glad that your understanding of due process isn't how the civilized world works.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
This is the most insightful post I've read so far in this thread. Assange is not traitorous, because Assange is not a US citizen! And he's a journalist, no matter what others may feel about his stories. Exposing this kind of crap is his job.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
Under what theory of jurisprudence is this valid? Why should Assange be subject to US law any more than I am subject to Thai (the Thai king is an ugly idiot!) or Saudi (Muhammad was a murdering pedofile) law?
Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Does that mean that North Korea can demand to have the head of the CIA extradited to stand trial for espionage against North Korea?
He's not being obtuse. You're simply repeating his exact point. Americans think that American law applies to everybody on earth, and that nobody else's laws apply to them.