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.
heh. he posts under cloak of ac. and he dares talk about credibility.
oh, the ironing !
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
I'd love to see Assange go somewhere that's seeking to extradite Bush and/or Cheney and offer a swap.
fencepost
just a little off
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.
Firing squad is reserved for soliders. Hermann Goering requested death by firing squad, but they said no, you're too scummy to die like a soldier... so he suicided with cyanide instead.
Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.
Except that they don't have much of a case against him, so they're probably just taking a wait-and-see attitude. If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with, they would've done it by now and extradited him from Britain already. It would be easier to get him from Britain which is a US lapdog, than Sweden, which is not so much.
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”....
The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.
So, in other words, asking for advanced warning if the US does even make plans to request extradition equates to "US intends to chase Assange"? Really? I mean I have no doubt that if the US thought it could bring charges against him that didn't possibly fall under First Amendment protection, it probably would, but that is the evidence you have? The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Anyone who is surprised by this (or who thinks that Sweden is not a part of it) is simply not paying attention.
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..."
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?
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?
But if Wikileaks has no credibility
no, mr ANONYMOUS COWARD, its you that have no cred.
at least post using an alt. they are free and easy to get. there's a clue for you, on your next shill post.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
That would be hoot and half! They could call it "Pussy Leaks."
I'm not sure that in Putinist Russia, such a thing would be permitted, though. Live from the Gulag . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
That's generally true, but then there is no protection for, say, breaking into an office and stealing documents in order to publish them. And there is a continuum between active law breaking of that sort, and completely passive receipt of unsolicited information. If I were Assange, I would certainly not want to visit the US to find out if some one of my many activities had pushed far enough along that continuum that they could make a criminal case against me.
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..."
"In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision to grant Mr Assange political asylum, Mr Hague said the UK was under a "binding obligation" to extradite him to Sweden."
They're willing to throw centuries of tradition on diplomatic immunity out the window because of a "binding obligation" to extradite him.
When he hasn't been charged, his accusers have left the country, and he sought (and was granted) permission to leave Sweden in the first place. If you don't smell something rotten here, you've got a clothespin over your nose...
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.
- do push-ups and sit-ups every morning (reduces sores and reduces chances of deep vein thrombosis!)
- don't just eat pizza and ramen! Consume at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily
- keep hydrated! You're in England now, Tea is cheap!
- Be sure to catch the morning sun! Find a sunny window and soak in the nourishing strength of the rays. You don't want rickets!
- personal grooming improves self-esteem and keeps up morale. Just because you're stuck in a tiny room with few visitors doesn't mean you should let your hair grow out and start braiding. Beards are for nerds and mountain men. Buzz cut looks professional and sharp!
- along with personal grooming, iron your clothes for public appearances (err...skype video chats). A snappy dresser shows leadership and determination.
- use the free time you have wisely; catch up on lost episodes of Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and Mad Men - hey, you might even learn something.
- solitude = deep thought = time to read! Like past unjustely imprisoned geniuses, Napoleon, Galileo, Ann Frank ect..., all found solace and comfort in their books. Cherish the printed page!
- The Harrods food court is across the street; use this opportunity to train your culinary palette. I suggest starting with Mexican and working your way to Indonesian.
- remember, it could always be worse! Nelson Mandela didn't have access to hi-speed internet (though he did get daily walks out doors: but everythings a trade off!)
- Oh and lastly, never forget; the first duty of the political prisoner is escape! Good luck Sir!
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."
Rosenbergs got the chair, not the noose
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!
It seems that neither the general public nor the Assanage understand the game-plan. It is fairly easy. They intend on making him so paranoid that he will become a prisoner of his own making. Even if he manages to get out of London unmolested by the British police their security aparatus, and get to Ecuador -- he will be a wanted man across the entire Commonwealth spectrum, because in effect by leaving he will be breaking British law. That will effectively make him both a most wanted and persona-non-grata within much of the world. The only places where he will be able to travel freely would be within the new Bolivarian states, Russia and perhaps some of the Middle East.
But even than he won't be able to travel freely at all, and perhaps will not be able to step out within the confines of his future place of living in Ecuador, because there will be many who would want to capture and deliver him to any British enclave. (in Americas think Stanley, or Georgetown, or even Ottawa).
And the best part about it -- all Americans have to do is to continue denying that they are actively perusing him while giving subtle hints and "leaks" that they actually do.
Why don't you read some cables and decide for yourself?
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!
Its not RAPE as most of the world defines it.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU. The UK would not have extradited him if the actions he is accused of weren't a crime in the UK; read the Supreme Court's Extradition Judgement for more details.
But your goverment must really switch to a more democratic perspective if they want to be legitimated to be World's policemen
if free market is supposed to be able to solve every problem, why do i still need to scratch my balls?
Someone is citing wikipedia on the internet.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Warning: Parent link is NSFA (Not Safe For America).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
When is the last time you heard of widespread terrorist attacks by buddhists? Or Sikhs? Hindu? That's right, that never happens. It is always muslims.
Or Christians. Hell there was one of those just a couple weeks ago.
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)
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
The question is answered in the second paragraph of your link:
"Two judges sitting in London allowed an appeal against extradition by fugitive Shawn Sullivan, 43, after the American authorities refused to give an assurance that he would not be placed on a controversial sex offenders treatment programme in Minnesota."
Presumably, Sweden was able to provide sufficient guarantees to satisfy the UK that the Swedish government would not place Mr. Assange in a controversial sex offenders treatment program in Minnesota.
Add to that the fact that Sweden and UK are both signatories to the EAW framework as EU members, which streamlines the process for extradition between two EU member states, while the US hasn't yet been admitted to the EU, and you've got a fairly clear picture of why the UK would extradite Assange to Sweden, but decline to extradite Mr. Sullivan to the US.
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.
Let's look at this another way. Government workers are employees of all taxpaying citizens. That's what a Republic is. If the IT department discovers an employee is watching porn at work, he should probably report it to their manager or to HR. That's what Assange is doing. The government has no more right to keep their actions secret from the citizens than you have to keep what you're doing at work secret from your boss.
It is quite unfortunate and demonstrates that US leaders still don't "get" it. They think that prosecuting Assange will have some kind of effect on Wikileaks when nothing could be further from the truth.... or they're just trying to get back at him out of spite (same reason they tortured Manning when he was obviously guilty and a simple court martial would have seen him put in prison for the rest of his life. Why degrade ourselves?)
The reason the US isn't explicitly asking for extradition is probably because we intend to perform an "extraordinary rendition" and snag him from Sweden illegally (but with Swedish cooperation), then imprison him in Gitmo forever without trial.
I wish I were joking. My grandfather volunteered for WWII; It makes me sad that we have thrown all the things he fought for in the trash can, first in a blind attempt to fight communism (when the prudent course was just to let it die under its own weight just like the USSR did), then in a blind attempt to fight a "war on drugs", and now in a blind attempt to fight a "war on terror".
Oh well... so many Americans are petty and FYGM these days. I guess it's no surprise that our politicians are too. When we had the Soviets to fight against it forced us to push all objections out of the way and cooperate for the common good. We managed to do such great and big things back then... We voted to tax ourselves to build the Interstate Highway system. Imagine proposing a tax to build a national "Internet Highway" today!
The threat of communism put the Fear Of God(TM) into the rich and forced them to share the wealth, which in turn improved everyone's lives. Now it's all slipping away.
What a sad state of affairs.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
He has not accused been formally accused of anything yet.
Don't be purposefully obtuse.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US. This would be complicated by several things:
1) Whether the extradition treaty recognizes espionage as an extraditable offense - some do, some do not;
2) Espionage is a capital offense, and so the death penalty *is* a legitimate concern - some countries will refuse to extradite because capital punishment is an option, some countries will require a guarantee that no death penalty will be sought, and other countries will simply refuse.
3) They must have evidence that he committed espionage - i.e., actively sought out and solicited the information - and was not simply a passive recipient of the data that PFC Manning leaked.
If he was a passive recipient of the information, then you're right - he had no obligation to keep it secret, and he was engaged in nothing more than journalism - sloppy journalism, given the partial redaction of informant names and info in many of the documents - but journalism all the same. If he actively solicited the classified documents - i.e., sought out PFC Manning, encouraged him to use his access to leak the documents, and published them, then that would be considered espionage, whether you're a Chinese hacker, a journalist in DC, or a wikileaks founder in Australia.
But governments have the right to their own secrets
Sorry, but our faith in the US government has been sufficiently shaken that we no longer trust them when they say, "These secrets are being kept to protect the US." Everything you said would be true...if the US were the bastion of freedom and of the enlightenment principles upon which it was founded. Instead, the US government has turned into a machine for inflating corporate profits at the expense of its own citizens and of citizens in other countries.
A democracy requires an open government; yet over the past 30 years, the executive branch has done more and more things in secret. Domestic and foreign policy decisions are made in secret. Decisions that affect the lives of millions of people are shrouded in mystery. It is hard for anyone to believe that the amount of classified information is really justified by the interests of public safety or of national security.
Palm trees and 8
incarcerates more of its own people than did Josef Stalin
That's because Stalin killed them all: Genocide list
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
If he is in the UK (as he has been for some time), why wouldn't we just ask the UK to extradite him? That's the only thing that doesn't seem to add up when people yell, "The rape charge is just an excuse to extradite to the US"!
Is Sweden our extradition bitch or something? They say yes to every request we make???
He didnt break into anything.
True--as far as we know he wasn't at that end of the continuum. But my point was, I think we do not know that he was a completely passive recipient of unsolicited information. How far did he go in promoting the "theft" of the material that was disclosed? What actions did he take to encourage it? What direction did he provide as to selection of material?
There's a lot we don't know about how he operated, and there's plenty of gray area in which to look for plausible criminal charges. Note: to look for them--I am not claiming that he did break any law that could be applied, just that the possibility cannot be ruled out.
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.
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.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
I'm saying if Assange offered any technical advice to Manning on how to secretly transfer information in order to hide Mannings involvement, that could fall under the area of conspiracy.
By that logic, notice on Wikileak's homepage suggesting the use of GnuPG/PGP would create a conspiracy. I think the US' authorities are out of control and desperately need to be taught a lesson in civility.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
That's a technicality--the process is to talk to him and then make the accusation. They haven't charged him because of purely procedural reasons that are entirely his own doing. It's like trying to evade a process server.
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.
Uh... both of those cases are valid for both Assange and the Syrian example. The Syrian is oppressed AND wants to shame/harm the tyrant. Same with Assange. You know, USA and corporations doing generally dickish moves on a global scale is a form of oppression. It's at a greater distance since it's their actions abroad, but they're still trying to impose their will on those that don't want it, and at the cost of others.
What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens?
I think that's been done. Yeah, here we go:
In January 2011, Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed on data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before being made publicly available at a later date.[168]
Soooo, while it's a violation of privacy, if it exposes dastardly people doing dastardly thing, then all the more power to him. Seriously, screw those bankers and tax dodgers. And specifically, all the more power to Rudolf Elmer, the guy who actually leaked this information. Wikileaks is just doing the dissemination and proofing. (and keeping the source a secret, but that ball has been dropped.) Also making sure that the data being leaked only punishes those who really deserve it. They're not in the business of giving out everyone's credit card numbers. Duh.
But if they did, sure, we'd be pissed. Well I would anyway. What can I say, I'd feel bad for those poor lonely Europeans. (But still, ew)
But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice
Yes. And exposed some extremely bad activities and people in doing so. He trampled all over the privacy laws, which is a problem, to expose an even bigger problem.
I'm all for him being charged and punished for violating those privacy rights. As long as I could trust the people in power to not charge him with bullshit charges, indefinitely detain him, or kill him. Which, quite sadly, I cannot. There's rising amounts of proof that I can't trust those people not to be dicks. So with that in mind, I'm perfectly fine with Assange doing what he can to keep out of the grasp of those who would almost assuredly not give him a fair trial.
Meanwhile, I pretty damn pissed that my government is being this vile. I would prefer that they acknowledge their mistakes, thank him for bringing them to light, and make some serious efforts to weed out the corruption and vileness in the system.
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.
You're wrong. Articles about the cables like this one appeared months before the women even talked to the police. The three months after was just when they started releasing the cables.
Dilbert RSS feed
Which might be funny if it hadn't already been beaten to death. There's actually a more subtle joke in there, which is that the Wikipedia basher, having smugly demonstrated his profound knowledge of the topic at hand with just a few keystrokes, never bothers to reveal his superior source of information.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU
And in the right context its also considered a good way to wake up in all of those same jurisdictions... either that or my wife and I have occasionally raped each other. /sarcasm
Its not like she got drunk, crashed on someones bed at a party, and woke up to him having sex with her. Context should matter. Intent should matter.
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
So we're going to internationally extradite him on something that a lot of people are dubious is even really criminal, and which likely would be utterly impossible to prove in court.
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!
Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.
According to an article in the New York Times (which I can't find right now, otherwise I'd link to it), nobody outside of the U.S. government/military has ever been prosecuted for publishing information leaked from the U.S. government/military. The prosecution have always backed down because they know they would have to argue that the First Amendment right to publish information that you have obtained about the government does not apply to whoever they're prosecuting, and that a jury may well decide that the First Amendment actually does matter after all. Numerous newpapers have published leaked information, and the New York Times and others actually conspired with Assange to publish the diplomatic cables etc. However, in Assange's case, it's possible that they just plan to put him in front of a military court with a predetermined judge and outcome.
Oh, here's a reference: "No journalist has been prosecuted for publishing leaked information under the Espionage Act." Though it seems a new game is afoot: "Why the WikiLeaks Grand Jury is So Dangerous: Members of Congress Now Want to Prosecute New York Times Journalists Too"
No. People forget "insurance.aes256". This ~1 gb file probably contains dire unreleased secrets about various powerful entities, including the US government and individuals within it. If they assassinate Assange and/or the Wikileaks team, the keys to this blackmail file will be released. Those in power can't risk that happening, so they will hold their hand.
This is disgusting. While I'm not Julian Assange's fanboi by any stretch of the imagination; I'd love to see the government that I grew up with grow a pair and at worst say "Well, I guess we're taking this one on the chin", he's to be tried in the country that he comitted the offense, and if he is serve time, to serve time in Australia under prisoner exchange.
At best, I'd rather like seeing Julia Gillard say "By your own rules, Freedom of Speech and press which you enforce on other countries is coming home to roost". Your country hasn't been de-stabilsed, nothing is that differernt. Sure, it's put a few noses out of joint, but why crucify a man over all this. There are many different elements like this in society, time to face up to them.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Does that mean that North Korea can demand to have the head of the CIA extradited to stand trial for espionage against North Korea?
I think you're being willfully unreasonable.
The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*. (They can request extradition, and governments have a deep interest in civilized cooperation. But that doesn't apply in this instance.)
If, on the other hand, Assange shows up on American soil, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. Just like the U.K. has jurisdiction while he's in the U.K., or Germany has jurisdiction while he's in Germany, or Papua New Guinea has jurisdiction while he's in PNG.
But even excluding these circumstances, he may well have a legal obligation to keep such information secret. (I stop short of saying he definitely does, because this is the stuff that international law experts debate.) Here's why.
If he is under the jurisdiction of a country with agreements and pacts between them and the U.S., then he is very likely to be obligated to treat American secret documents in the same manner as he is obligated to treat his own nation's secret documents. Like it or not, if you are a citizen of a country then along with the rights of citizenship associated with that nationality you also have legal obligations to uphold that nation's best interests, which includes supporting that nation's relationships with other countries.
In other words, sorry, but you can't just do stuff simply because you feel like it and not expect to face consequences. (Five year old kids know this; so should 40 year old intelligent adults.) And taking actions which could be detrimental to your nation's best interests, which could include actions you know are damaging to your nation's diplomatic partners, falls under the label of "expect to face consequences".
* I know, there are caveats and exceptions. That's why I put in the conditional generally. It's not the rule.
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.
There are so many illegal actions (regarding International treaties) that my mind boggles that you call them no repercussions, From my own country (Germany), the USA has abducted people, put them into Guantanamo[sp?], and didn't bother at all about consequences
Many people have been illegally deported to foreign countries, by the USA, and have been tortured there. No problem at all for the USA government, and for US nationalists out there. Laws are for cowards who can't defend themselves, aren't they?
So, yes, the US can and does grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions -- that's what the global dislike of US foreign affairs politics is all about. That you can't see this, speaks volumes.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
What I find intriguing is if Assange had published China state secrets and cables the US would be most likely be providing him with asylum and trumpeting "China oppression of free speech" and "China crackdown on international research dissidents", etc............ It is sad when international laws are broken by a state to make an example of one person with the intent to scare the rest of humanity into blind submission.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Boy, if you think the Streisand Effect is bad, just wait for the Assange Effect. Making an example of him is about the worst thing they can do...
Protip: Assange in ur base, leakin' ur cables -- So, the people who are the leaks will just continue to leak, after having selected a new mouthpiece / shield. The next guy might not be as much of an asshole... From the US gov's perspective, they should be glad they didn't get someone who was harder to smear. Like some basement dwelling virgin who just wants to free all information...
As it stands now, he is facing a serious sex-crimes investigation in Sweden, which he did to himself, by-the-way.
Would that be the investigation that was already conducted in Sweden while he was there? The investigation that was closed due to insufficient evidence or whatever and Assange given formal permission to leave?
Also, how can you be accused of a sex crime that you did to yourself? Is masturbation illegal in Sweden.
It seems pretty clear that the new investigator is receiving large sums of money from the US to keep this going. When it comes to Sweden the CIA are like kids in a candy shop. Every person they see they want to buy. I wonder if the CIA had to pay more than the RIAA/MPAA paid their investigator. Probably.
If Assange returns to Sweden I hope he has enough sense to avoid having sex with any Swedish girls. Instead of snatching him, the US may have plans to frame him again. If not for rape, the real kind this time, for murder or necrophilia/pedophilia. Something utterly humiliating. The US may not want the political fallout from snatching Assange and taking him to Gitmo. Discrediting him some more may be sufficient.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
But governments have the right to their own secrets.
That depends on the secrets. After seeing some of the stuff in the cables (like the "dancing boy" story), I'm inclined to believe that, no, the government of the United States does not have any right whatsoever to keep that secret.
They've destroyed his reputation by labelling him as a sex criminal far too kinky for Sweden so I don't think they'll be much of a backlash in the USA, which is ultimately what is cared about by the people trying to make his life difficult due to the heinous crime of embarrassing them. Even the hard core libertarians on this site that keep raving on about how they need their guns for the revolution seem to have decided that Assange is some sort of traitor, and that his lack of US citizenship, residency or even presence is just some sort of technicality.
He's an easy target since he doesn't have Rupert Murdoch or similar behind him.