Assange Seeks To Sue Prime Minister Gillard For Defamation

First time accepted submitter menno_h writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he has hired lawyers to investigate how to sue Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation." Assange "says comments made by Ms Gillard in 2010 that WikiLeaks acted illegally in releasing US diplomatic cables have affected the viability of his organisation. 'Mastercard Australia, in justifying why it has made a blockade that prevents any Australian Mastercard holder donating to WikiLeaks, used that statement by Julia Gillard,' he said."

Comments

could be interesting

[rbrausse]

you may or may not support Assange or Wikileaks - but the lawsuit will be interesting: Mastercard used a semi-official statement by Julia Gillard to justify the blocking; is this a good-enough argument?

Re:could be interesting

[Dan667]

He has a very good case or I don't believe he would even try. Holding publicly elected individuals accountable is something that has precedence.

Re:could be interesting

[peragrin]

The thing is does he have a case. Assange very much enjoys the public spot light. He wants to be where he is. The responsible thing for him would have been to hand wiki leaks over to some one he trusted to maintain wiki leaks integrity. Now wiki leaks reputation lives and dies with Julian. For the last two years wiki leaks has been sidelined because of his antics

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off. Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case. Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

Doesn't matter, no charges were filed. They acted on a vague public statement. That is definitely in bad faith. Now we find that Assange really doesn't believe in free speech when he's the target. Wikileaks doesn't need him, he should just give himself up, so we can get back to discussing the much more important issue of what's in the leaks. ...unless you want to argue that we should never take the word of the Prime Minster at face value.

You sure as hell shouldn't! Especially when the government (basically all governments) has a long history of lying to protect their interests.

Re:could be interesting

[Bronster]

It's called "non-core promises".

Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Government#cite_note-Ward-9

Not taking the word of the Prime Minister at face value is an Australian tradition.

Re:could be interesting

[spire3661]

Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

In that sense you are correct, unless they froze his assets. So really Assange has no case whatsoever, much less so against the prime minister.

Re:could be interesting

[clarkkent09]

Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.

True but irrelevant.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them." (Australian defamation law is basically the same as English)

He is suing the Prime Minister for defamation and properly mentions that certain companies and/or individuals have refused to do business with him as a result of her allegedly false statements, which is something he needs to prove in order for defamation to stick. He is not suing Mastercard.

Re:could be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen fustakrakich eat a kitten.

captcha: shopped

Re:could be interesting

[clarkkent09]

I should mention that I was only speaking of the law as it stands. I happen to disagree with defamation laws in general and even more so when the law suit is brought by an alleged champion of unlimited free speech but that's a different issue.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

English law allows actions for libel to be brought...

Most unfortunate. A 'reasonable' person should be held responsible to confirm a statement before acting on it. Otherwise I would call him very unreasonable.

...companies and/or individuals have refused to do business with him as a result of her allegedly false statements...

And they are the ones to sue for acting in bad faith for not verifying said statements. It's not like they had to act quickly or anything.

Re:could be interesting

[Charliemopps]

Currently, the only thing keeping Mr Assange from torture and death is the public spotlight. Every time the public starts to forget about his plight you can rightly expect him to make a stink to get our attention again.

Re:could be interesting

[ShieldW0lf]

I'm so glad you're in the minority. Misleading a person into a false understanding of reality causes them real harm. It damages their ability to behave in a fashion that is sane and wise. That's why it's central to warfare, for fucks sakes.

A man who lies to a million people has caused far more harm than any serial killer or rapist, and the punishment should be that much harsher.

It doesn't matter if I am "enlightened" and see through the lies, because I'm at risk of a million misinformed men and women destroying everything I value. So, I say, KILL THE LIARS.

Re:could be interesting

[sd4f]

You've completely missed the point, Julia Gillard said it was illegal, she was actually wrong, that's why no charges have been laid here (or anywhere). The Australian media have been somewhat critical of this major error.

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.

Re:could be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent DOWN. The Australian Federal Police couldn't find anything illegal about Wikileaks.

Re:could be interesting

[peragrin]

That's just it. It is only defamation MasterCard didn't have a legal reason. Therefore sueing the prime minister is a stunt. Wiki leaks as an entity should so sue MasterCard.

Anything else is a publicity stunt to stroke personal egos.

Re:could be interesting

[MysteriousPreacher]

Really? A guy that suborned a US Army private to illegally give him access to classified diplomatic cables wouldn't do something if he didn't have a good case? Oh, wait he might sue ME now because I said he did something illegal that he has bragged that he did only I said that it is illegal. Well it IS illegal to do what he did. You might disagree with me about whether it ought to be illegal but there's no real question that it IS.

Was it actually proven that Asange did that?

Re:could be interesting

[Gadget_Guy]

He should sue MasterCard.

It would be premature to sue MasterCard when they can fall back on the defense that they relied on the statements of the Prime Minister. Deferring to the authority of the government seems quite reasonable and makes for a compelling defense.

The first step is to have the original statement ruled as libelous before tackling MasterCard. They can still say that they acted in good faith at the time, but it means that they could not as easily justify continuing to block payments to Wikileaks.

Re:could be interesting

[cheater512]

MasterCard is only a example of how the remarks have caused damage.

If Gillard made the comments but nothing came of them, you'd get a much smaller payout in a defamation case.
But the MC bit proves the comments caused financial damage, not just damage to his character. = Bigger payout.

Re:could be interesting

[Gadget_Guy]

You hold them accountable for what they do, not what they say.

But talking is what politicians do. It is their main weapon.

This is a textbook case of how defamation can result in actual material loss. It is obvious from your statements that you disagree with the defamation law, but right now it is a law on our books and so it is quite justifiable to sue the Prime Minister for this. If you are so against the practice then lobby your representative to change the law, but I doubt that you will be successful.

Re:could be interesting

[philip.paradis]

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

Re:could be interesting

[hot soldering iron]

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders. Government pukes play dirty by using guys like "my friend", and always have. If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

Re:could be interesting

[cheater512]

In what country? Its certainly not illegal in Australia to leak classified *US* documents. Possibly illegal to leak Australian documents - I'm not sure about that.
Just like if someone in the US leaked Iranian top secret documents, they'd probably get a handshake from the FBI not arrested.

The US is not the world government. Just because they say it is top secret and illegal doesn't make it so and the rest of the world will rightly ignore them.

Re:could be interesting

[Yvanhoe]

I doubt he enjoys being prisoner in an embassy. I doubt he enjoys being unable to ever have sex again without knowing if this is a CIA trap. I doubt he enjoys his wikileaks organization to be labelled half-terrorist and having lost a few millions of donations.

He doesn't enjoy spotlight. He needs it to survive, because otherwise, he will die in an accident without anyone noticing.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

...I doubt that you will be successful.

I'm sure you're right. Defamation/libel laws are very convenient ways of censoring speech. Who wants to give up that kind of power?

It is their main weapon.

And we are all free not the respond. So, as a weapon it is entirely ineffective. The power is in the response, not the speech.

Re:could be interesting

[Charliemopps]

If you even speak with Julian Assange, you can be killed. Not kidding:
http://news.yahoo.com/jullian-assange-enemy-state-023345613.html

The US government successfully talked parts of the Australian government into attempting to charge him with Treason... but the Australian federal police commission rejected the argument after determining he had broken no Australian laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_possible_extradition_to_the_United_States

The only reason the mans not dead, is because he's famous. The US government, my government, has already tortured and killed people for less. Both during the Bush and Obama administrations. Our governments stance is that Alkiada is the same as a foreign government, so our actions against them are the same as if we were fighting a foreign government, we are not dealing with criminals. And yet, when we caught their "head of state" we executed him in front of his family. Which violates US law. They literally knelt him down, in front of his wife and shot him in the head. Read the account of the navy seal that wrote about it. Then this very same president declared a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and has a drone fire a missile into his home, while he was on foreign soil. No trial, no justice, just summary execution. This is our government. We can debate weather this is all justifiable or not, but the fact that Mr Assange has angered the US government enough to put his life in grave danger is a fact.

Re:could be interesting

[budgenator]

I'm sure the Australian government is salivating at the thought of the discovery process.

Re:could be interesting

[ShieldW0lf]

"What would Hitler be if nobody went along? A Charlie Chaplin stunt double, at best."
Yep. Proof that when the people get sick of being manipulated, just about any yahoo willing to say "Lets get those fuckers" will do the trick...

Re:could be interesting

[budgenator]

Say an action is not illegal because a prosecutor decided not to file charges is nonsensical; it just means the benefits of prosecution doesn't exceed the costs. Anyways Gillard only has to find one thing illegal in the matter to blow Asange's suit out of the water, even the most trivial will do. One thing that will be interesting is this is a civil suit, Asange is probably going to be compelled to return home as a witness to testify and I'm not sure that's what he will want to do.

Re:could be interesting

[budgenator]

That probably depend on the mutual assistance treaties between the US and Australia, I suspect given the close cooeration between our countries during WWII, Vietnam and Afghanistan it probably is illegal.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

Don't know exactly what that means, but I can tell you that the power is in the act, not the words. Motivation is absolutely inconsequential. Anybody that is pro-censorship is tactically admitting that 'just following orders' is a legitimate defense for committing war crimes, or any other kind of crime.

Re:could be interesting

[Gadget_Guy]

Actually, I made no judgement call at all one way or the other. I was talking about the legal tactics of MasterCard's defense and of Assange needing to address the actual defamation that they allege has occurred rather than an outcome of that defamation claim.

Re:could be interesting

[Gadget_Guy]

It is their main weapon.

And we are all free not the respond. So, as a weapon it is entirely ineffective. The power is in the response, not the speech.

You are incorrect. The power is not in the response, because if it was then Assange could just ignore the PM's claim and there would be no problem. But there was a problem. In this case MasterCard has allegedly based (at least in part) their decision to block the payments on the government's statement.

And what if MasterCard didn't block the payment? They could have conceivably ended up facing a public backlash against them because they were seen to facilitate the funding of an alleged illegal group. So the original incorrect claim could have had repercussions all the way down the line. If that scenario happened, what could MasterCard do to prevent it? You think that Assange should sue MasterCard, so does that mean you think that MasterCard should sue all their customers that stopped using their credit card in protest?

So you see, the power of defamation is can be far reaching. If you think that this is a free speech issue, then why should people be allowed to make false and damaging claims about anyone? Whose best interest does this serve?

Re:could be interesting

[ShieldW0lf]

It means in the real world, there are scheming lying sneaky manipulators causing stupid people to behave in self destructive ways, and it regularly becomes necessary for the human race to purge them when they get out of hand. It's an entirely predictable response to such behavior, which makes it deserved by the recipients.

Re:could be interesting

[Gideon Fubar]

It's the 'not holding them accountable' part we excel at :(

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

The problem is the claim that the PM's statement is the cause of Mastercard's action. It is entirely specious. It is Mastercard's obligation to verify the statement before acting. End of story. Using something like 'defamation' is nothing but an excuse. There is no just cause, unless the contract allows closing the account without it. If the contract was violated, then his only legitimate case is against Mastercard, not a government press release. In my book, any backlash should be directed at Mastercard, and only Mastercard for their action. That is where any and all material harm originated. Assange, and Mastercard should have simply ignored the PM's statement, unless backed up with formal criminal charges, which they weren't, so screw them both. And of course the PM for lying. But the right to speak must be held sacrosanct, no matter what is said.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

So, if acting in bad faith is entirely predictable, then it's ok? Interesting. I'll make a note of it.

Re:could be interesting

[Gideon Fubar]

While your statement isn't invalid, everything being a publicity stunt to stroke personal egos sounds a little like business as usual.

Re:could be interesting

[dbIII]

He's announcing it early before he's even sure he has a good case, and reports in the Australian media indicate that because the comments were made more than one year ago it's beyond the time limit. There is no precedent for extending the time limit if the defamed party knew of the remarks, so apparently there's almost no chance of it succeeding. (crikey.com.au) has more detail.

Re:could be interesting

[Mr. Slippery]

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

I don't know what the original posters intent was. But as for me, given that MasterCard 1) is a corporation, that is an artificial entity created by government fiat, and therefore not possessed of any natural rights; and 2) is a financial institution, and therefore should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny and regulation than other businesses; and 3) enjoys such market dominance that it has long raised anti-trust concerns, my conclusion is that fsck yes, MasterCard should be forced (upon pain of having its corporate charter and/or its privilege to conduct interstate and international commerce revoked) to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions, for any business or individual not convicted by a court of some relevant crime.

Re:could be interesting

[Capsaicin]

The thing is does he have a case.

Why wouldn't he? He was accused of criminality. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought accusations of criminality were one of a species of imputations that are regarded as prima facie defamatory?! In any case, I don't think it would be overly burdensome to prove that calling someone a criminal is liable to lower their reputation in the eyes of upstanding citizens, or?

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off.

Under what head of action? Are you claiming MasterCard is under an contractual obligation to process payments to Wikileaks? Or do you imagine their liability is tortious?

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

The PM made a defamatory statement outside the protection of parliament. Why does he need to find an official government document?

Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

I'm not sure that MasterCard even comes into the question of whether he can sue. After all you don't need to show monetary damage to sue in defamation. Wouldn't the fact that MasterCard may have acted on the basis of the PMs alleged defamation only be relevant when it came to decide damages?

You know, despite your authoritative pronouncements on this matter, I'm not even sure you are an Australian lawyer.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders.

Is that a fact? And your friend actually told you this*? Leaves me wondering what kind of a friend you have there, sharing what would obviously be highly classified information. . .if true. . . for you to spread around? Even more so, does he have friends . . . . or maybe a team (?) of his own preparing for action against Assange . . . . maybe with FBI support?

I would think that when it comes to Assange, even if the US government was inclined to direct action, they would be open to following Napoleons advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Assange has made plenty of them, and they seem to be continuing. Instead of going to Sweden to clear his name, he has managed to commit actual offenses in the UK (jumping bail and fleeing the law) and confine himself in a small apartment for an indefinite term. As things are going he could easily be there for years, ultimately be captured and sent to Sweden, be cleared in Sweden, and then returned to the UK to face charges for jumping bail and fleeing the law.

Besides, since the US only waterboarded three people, the most recent in about 2003 in pretty much the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to try to get some insight into Al Qaeda's next attack after having just suffered 3,000 dead, and there has been endless carping about it ever since, what do you think would happen if the US employed your "friend", or someone that is actually dangerous, to kill a "journalist" like Assange, and word got out -as it inevitably would? Somehow I just don't see that happening since Assange hasn't actually participated in direct warfare against the US, unlike Al Awlaki.

In any event, you can rest assured that Julian Assange takes strong evasive measures whenever possible - no catching him with his pants . . . down.

* So you fancy your friend as the ruthless sort then?

 

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

Libel has no case, ever. It's a bullshit charge.

So when Arthur C Clarke fought false pedophile accusations made in a tabloid newspaper via a libel suit, he should have lost?

Words have consequences, particularly when they are false and come from the mouth of the PM or anyone else with influence. The Westminster system holds politicians to account for their words via a concept called "defamation". If said defamation merely causes hurt feeling then there is no legal recourse for the "victim", similarly if a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to believe the words then there is no case to answer. eg: I can say that the PM has sex with donkeys but a "reasonable person" could be expected to know I was bullshiting.

Everything changes if the victim can show material harm (as in someone refusing to do business with you because of those words), the defamation concept is there to redress that injustice. To balance that political level of accountability, politicians also have right called "parliamentary privilege" which is basically a license to make false accusations when speaking in parliament. The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference, and she knows it!

It's a long standing (legal and social) tradition in Oz and the UK that politicians should keep their nose out of the judiciary by staying silent on the issue of guilt until a conviction has been secured. Failure to do so can result in a miss-trial which could allow real criminals to walk. I simply don't believe the PM is ignorant of all this, she did what she did knowingly and should be held to account.

PM's, FM's and Attorney General's, these people should be setting a role model for society as to how our democracy is supposed to function. One of the corner stones of that democracy is "innocent until proven guilty" that replaced "trial by ordeal" in the UK around 1000yrs ago. So when I see my political "leaders" who routinely request judicial investigations standing in front of a mob pointing fingers, I KNOW they are deliberately subjecting that person to "trial by media".

OTOH, around the same time our PM was deliberately smearing Assange, our foreign minister was one of the first politicians on the planet to stand up and say the "free press" rights of Assange should be respected in the same way the rights of the three mainstream newspapers had been respected. Despite the fact the cables were "politically embarrassing" to the FM at the time, he correctly questioned why Assange was being universally attacked while the NYT, Guardian, and De-Speigal (sic?) were being praised by "reasonable people".

Aside from all that, libel is a civil suit not a criminal charge, you don't go to jail for it, you pay for the damages you caused. When you are being metaphorically burnt at the stake, it hardly matters if the "lies" were uttered out of malice or ignorance. Clarke took such risks so seriously he refused to pick up his knighthood for the two years it took him to find justice (in the form of a printed apology). If I were the Judge in Julian vs Julia I would not award financial damages, I would order the PM to hold a press conference and publicly apologize to Assange for the accusation, and I would do the same if Hicks were to sue Howard and/or Ruddock.

As for MC they're the "reasonable person" who believed the false accusations made by the PM.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

Currently, the only thing keeping Mr Assange from torture and death is the public spotlight.

Torture and death from whom? It wouldn't be the US. Not that they were legally torture under US law as determined at the US Department of Justice, but the US only waterboarded three terrorists, the most recent in about 2003, (although it continues to routinely waterboard its own pilots and special forces members for training - thousands of them), and President Obama stopped enhanced interrogations, so no "torture" by the US. The US hasn't put a spy to death in the 60 years since the Rosenbergs, and that was over nuclear weapons secrets. (Even the disastrous John Walker only got life in prison, and he enabled the Soviets to break American codes, enabling them to know where American submarines were, among many other things.) Assange has been prolific, to be sure, but nowhere as dangerous as handing the power of nuclear weapons and the locations of American submarines to a sworn enemy. So, he faces no torture, and very unlikely death.

The biggest risk Assange faces with any real certainty is ennui in a Swedish prison, although he might yet end up facing charges in the UK after that for jumping bail and fleeing the law. If the rumored secret grand jury investigation in the US pans out, he might have more serious charges filed against him, but then it is a strictly legal matter, and they have to figure out how to get him legally, which may not be easy or possible. Even then, they still have to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the worst he is likely to face is more prison time.

Re:could be interesting

[Zemran]

It is far more about the spotlight than the case. He knows exactly what he is doing and he is doing it well. The girls in Sweden are yesterdays news and he wants the spotlight on him now. It does not matter if he wins or not, if he can garner support from the idea of being unfairly treated he will probably actually benefit from losing. I used to work with Greenpeace and we used to do things that were clearly illegal but the companies involved would always be the ones pressuring the police to drop the charges so that it would drop off the front page. We wanted it to stay on the front page and would be openly antagonistic toward the police to make them not want to drop any charges. It really does not matter about the outcome, several years of appeals helps keep the public reading about it. We were never allowed to appeal against being found not guilty though...

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

Then later when he is acquitted, don't you think that the person deserves some kind of compensation?

Damn right he does... from the school that fired him (they should be sued big time), and his wife that took the kids ( a judge should take those kids right back and make her pay child support with no visitation rights), and the store, his neighbors, and anybody else who acted against him when they had no legitimate reason. They are the bad characters in this scenario. But from the guy who said it? A stern talking to at the most. Beyond that, no way...

My question to all of you is , how would you react to hearsay about another person? If you take action against him, it would be completely unjustified, and I would come after you.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

Al Qaida is not being treated as a government, in nature it is essentially like pirates - Hostis humani generis - enemies of all mankind.

Bin Laden wasn't a head of state but the military leader of a band of unlawful combatants and war criminals. Killing him was not a violation of US law, but a strike against an enemy military commander, no different than the planned ambush and killing of Admiral Yamamoto.

I have never seen any claim that the SEALs made Bin Laden kneel, but rather they shot him on sight. If you want to claim that the SEALs made him kneel and executed him - (serious) reference, please.

As to killing a US citizen, I assume you are referring to Al Awlaki, who was openly calling for the killing of Americans and acting as an Al Qaida trainer and planner for planned, attempted, and actual attacks against the United States. He was making war against the United States. Killing him was entirely appropriate, reasonable, and legal. There was no more need for charges and trial against him than there was against the many other Americans in a similar position, many of whom were shot down en mass by the US government without trial - and quite rightly so. (One interesting note - the men depicted there were not actual war criminals and unlawful combatants, unlike Al Qaida, so they had far more legal protection than Al Qaida is entitled to in terms of the Law of War.)

Assange faces essentially no risk of either torture or "torture" by the US government as President Obama banned enhanced interrogation techniques. Even if charged with espionage, the death penalty is more theoretical than actual as the US hasn't executed a spy for about 60 years - they have all been getting life in prison. This includes the disastrous John Walker who passed the Soviets the means to local US submarines at sea - a much more serious problem than the worst allegation against Assange. As to a missile for Assange - those are being shot at terrorists trying to kill people, or those directly supporting them. Assange just doesn't qualify.

I could go on, but you should be getting the drift by now.

Re:could be interesting

[TapeCutter]

I cannot understand why so many people worship this cowardly narcissistic wretch.

Just like a fucking politician. I AM NOT an Assange supporter, I AM supporter of the basic principles of the West Minster system and the rule of law. However they don't mean much if we have to ignore them just to drag coward into court.

Assange has put himself in indefinite detention rather than face court. Of course the US could simply take away his excuse and have "Scooter" proclaim the US will not interfere with his passage to and from Sweden to face his accuser, but I figure the spooks would rather enjoy watching this particular coward "die a thousand deaths", literally a prisoner of his own paranoia.

As I said in an earlier post - The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference. She knows it, and since I'm a strong supporter of our legal and political system I also -KNOW- she was deliberately subjecting Assange to "trial by media".

If the US constitution and courage have any value in the hearts of Americans then Manning would not be rotting in state sponsored "indefinite detention", those involved in the crimes and cover ups would be facing a real court. Manning is the boy who dared to tell everyone the "Emperor has no clothes", had he been a prison guard on trial at Nuremberg he would have received a standing ovation and walked free, Assange is just the local newshound who reported it.

He has a very good case against the rape charges in Sweden, too. Or he should do, if he's innocent.

Sigh, according to this "rule of law" thing I keep banging on about, if he is innocent he should only need two words to defend himself - "prove it".

Disclaimer: This is much deeper than personal politics and has nothing to do with who I do/don't vote for or what I think about Assange's haircut, Hick's rocket launcher, or the bags under Ruddock's eyes. Howard and Ruddock ( the Aussie red team) trampled the rights of Hicks in a similar but more extreme case of defamation. Personally I think, with hindsight, both cases should make a lot of "reasonable" Aussie's hang their heads in shame and read up on the "reasonable" system we already have.

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

The damage is caused by those who act against him, not the words. A 'reasonable' person who acts on hearsay or lies can no longer be considered reasonable, regardless of the origin of the hearsay. The right to speak must be defended at all costs. The right to act is a bit more limited. And acting in bad faith, when it causes real harm, should be heavily penalized, including jail time if a serious crime was committed. That will make them think twice before they pull such a stunt ever again. It only indicates that a 'reasonable' person is not really so reasonable.

The PMs? While I do hold them to a higher standard, just vote them out of office and be done with it. There is no grounds for suing them for what they say. And I will go further (and possibly a tiny bit offtopic, but it relates) to say that the same goes for Bush and Blair when they lied to get us into war. We, the public and the press utterly failed when we failed to challenge them. We all acted in bad faith, and hundreds of thousands died for it. But it all happened because WE supported them. We constantly condemn people when they stand by and don't come to the aid of somebody that's under physical assault, yet here we are, doing just that when we fail to even attempt prevent war that we engaged in because we believed the lie.

Those who act must be held accountable and punished. Those who speak lies can and should be merely shunned, ignored, and forgotten. The world would operate quite smoothly if that were the way things are done.

Re:could be interesting

[rohan972]

Say an action is not illegal because a prosecutor decided not to file charges is nonsensical

sd4f is correct, at least about why no charges were laid in Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/julian-assange-has-committed-no-crime-in-australia-afp-20101217-190eb.html
Neither WikiLeaks nor its founder Julian Assange has committed any crime in Australia over the leaking of official United States government documents, the Australian Federal Police announced this afternoon.

There is nothing to charge him with.

Re:could be interesting

[rohan972]

According to the Australian Federal Police it is not illegal, as I pointed out to you in my other post. It is probably not even illegal in the US if previous supreme court judgements about the press publishing leaked secrets were followed. Of course, Assange doesn't have the legal team the New York Times does so that probably wouldn't help.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

USA in nature is essentially like pirates - Hostis humani generis - enemies of all mankind.

George W. Bush and Barack Obama weren't heads of state but the military leaders of a band of unlawful combatants and war criminals.

FTFY.

President Obama banned enhanced interrogation techniques

Yeah, he did it with NDAA, I suppose. See Bradley Manning's treatment, which qualifies as a torture (not in the USA but in countries who have the notion of human rights and decency).

As to a missile for Assange - those are being shot at terrorists trying to kill people, or those directly supporting them. Assange just doesn't qualify.

Come on. What the USA does in Afghanistan and Iraq (but not limited to those places) is terrorist in nature, which with the help from Manning Wikileaks proved beyond a shadow of doubt. And Assange does qualify for an "accident."

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Torture and death from whom? It wouldn't be the US.

Yes it would.

Re:could be interesting

[AmiMoJo]

Mastercard is not under any obligation to provide service to Wikileaks. They do so at their sole discretion. They can use whoever's comments they like to make that decision.

The PM is a public figure who knew she had considerable influence and chose to make that statement. As a direct result Wikileaks suffered financial loss.

It seems like a fairly straightforward case to me. Wikileaks must prove that the PM's statement cause them loss, on a balance of probabilities. They must also show that what she said was untrue, again on a balance of probabilities.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

FTFY

I take it you mean: Forged a Troll From Your post, as that's all your edit is.

Yeah, he did it with NDAA, I suppose. See Bradley Manning's treatment, which qualifies as a torture (not in the USA but in countries who have the notion of human rights and decency).

Actually it was an executive order.

Which countries? Austrialia?

Solitary confinement
After an absence of nearly nineteen years, in 1990 the concept of solitary confinement was reinstated. Under Section 36 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 the Chief Executive Officer may direct that a prisoner be kept separately and apart from all other prisoners within the prison if in his or opinion it is desirable:

Come on. What the USA does in Afghanistan and Iraq (but not limited to those places) is terrorist in nature, which with the help from Manning Wikileaks proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

Quite the reverse. Or did you find "evidence" of the US setting off truck bombs in civilian market places? I thought not.

And Assange does qualify for an "accident."

You misspelled "arrest" and left out deportation.

Re:could be interesting

[Hatta]

If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

No, people like that make the world a worse place by allowing authorities to abuse their power. If you can't even concieve that the people who run the country are by and large worse than those in our prisons, you can't do anything to fix it.

Re:could be interesting

[Hatta]

World leaders without respect for the rule of law, like Obama, are far greater enemies to mankind than Al Qaeda.

Re:could be interesting

[SleazyRidr]

The USA and Australia are military allies, so I'd imagine that there are laws in both countries covering the release of information from the other one.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Two words: SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. No need to try harder, retard.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

indefinite detention does not quality as torture

If we're talking QUALITY, then yes, waterboarding carries slightly greater degree of physical and psychological discomfort than indefinite detention. Both are torture.

Re:could be interesting

[cheater512]

I don't believe we (Australians) classify our diplomatic cables. They aren't that secret.p

Plus he only published them. He did not leak them.

Re:could be interesting

[uninformedLuddite]

I have mod points but unfortunately I cannot find -1 tosser

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

Indefinite detention qualifies as torture. In civilized countries.

Indefinite detention is the accepted norm in military conflicts - you can be held until the conflict is over. So, I'm afriad you are quite wrong there. It is also used in many countries to keep very dangerous prisoners behind bars.

And to your other post, you stupid troll, I did not specify a country and you're cherrypicking. That is trolling.

We've already seen that Australia uses it, but so do Japan, UK, US, Sweden (and Sweden), Norway, and many other countries one generally considers part of the civilized world. Looks like you don't quite have this right.

In light of unprovoked invasion of these countries (instead of KSA),

The invasion of Afghanistan was greatly provoked - - 9/11 - perhaps you've heard of it? Afghanistan hosted Al Qaida even to the point of integrating it into the government. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/'11 as a government. So, you don't have this right.

the evidence of double-tap attacks on reporters and civilians,

On innocent civilians or reporters? Not so much.

executions by drone and whatever they call "collateral damage" is all that is required to make that statement valid.

The attacks by drones are attacks, not executions. You've been wrong in the particulars, and in general.

You're THE idiot. . . . you stupid troll . . . you're cherrypicking. That is trolling. . . Last, but not least, FOAD.

I guess you aren't a fan of civil discourse.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

The invasion of Afghanistan was greatly provoked - - 9/11 - perhaps you've heard of it? Afghanistan hosted Al Qaida even to the point of integrating it into the government. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/'11 as a government. So, you don't have this right.

Seriously? Financing "the database" is "nothing"? The alleged hijackers being mostly Saudi is nothing? Recognizing the Taliban as legitimate government is nothing to do with it? You need to find another dealer.

Re:could be interesting

[cold fjord]

Financing "the database" is "nothing"?

Q) Was that the act of the government, or individual Saudi subjects?
A) The act of individual Saudi subjects who were supporters of Al Qaida. Official government involvement = 0.

The alleged hijackers being mostly Saudi is nothing?

Q) Was that the act of the government, or individual Saudi subjects?
A) The act of individual Saudi subjects who were members of Al Qaida. Official government involvement = 0.

Recognizing the Taliban as legitimate government is nothing to do with it?

Q) Did the recognition of the Saudi Government result in the attacks?
A) No. It was irrelevant.

You need to find another dealer.

You don't seem to be catching the important details. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, openly hosted there, training went on there, the attack came from there. If it would have been 19 Canadians that made the attack, nothing would have changed. It still would have been Afghanistan that would have been attacked, not Canada.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Where does it say the database was a part of the Taliban government? The Taliban condemned the attacks, by the way, so the alleged 9/11 "attacks" was an action of individuals. Official government involvement = 0.

It still would have been Afghanistan that would have been attacked, not Canada.

I suppose Iraq would be next in that case too!

Re:could be interesting

[sd4f]

Why do you think she went into politics...

Re:could be interesting

[sd4f]

Mastercard is simply rationalizing something they wanted to do long before the PM said anything. It was a false pretext on their part. In fact, if they came under any pressure for doing so, it most likely came from the US..

Well this very aspect may be determined by the courts in Australia. I think that it's irrelevant who truly was pulling the strings, the PM is on the record saying something about wikileaks/assange, and mastercard is on the record using those words to justify their action, the prima facie evidence is incredibly strong that the PM's comments were defamatory.

Also as an aside, i think it's worth noting that while you, i presume a patriotic american, feel that wikileaks is incredibly damaging to the USA, which i suppose, it has been; don't think that foreigners are so quick to feel your sentiments about the whole situation. I'm not saying that because Assange is an Australian, as I am, I'm saying it because a lot of people feel that the USA has their fingers in everything, and that the USA tampers with the sovereignty of other countries; for instance, i think it was no accident that when Hillary Clinton visited New Zealand some years ago, that NZ decided to announce large changes to internet piracy laws there to protect your content industries, and it's starting to appear obvious that the preposterity behind the due process given to Kim Dotcom has probably been orchestrated to the tune of the USA rather than presiding sovereign's laws. I don't have any direct evidence for this, but the answering question is cui bono?

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

Being 'on the record' doesn't always make it true.

Wikileaks is one of the better things to happen, for everybody, except the authorities. I don't break things down by nationalities. This is one tiny planet, alone in space. I want to see more of this type of thing to pop up. The press should ignore Assange entirely. It's only diverting peoples' attention from much more important matters, like the leaked documents, for instance. Assange is just a prop, and I question his motives when he pulls these stunts with all this high drama. Now he has his 'lead role in a cage'. He couldn't settle for being the 'walk on'? Sounds weird.

As for defamatory/libelous statements, I've made myself perfectly clear, screw that BS. We have a big obligation to turn our backs and not believe them without real evidence, in every instance. But we are failing miserably and spectacularly in that regard. And I get nothing but pins and needles for pointing it out. Eh, so be it. I'm not looking for popularity.

Re:could be interesting

[sd4f]

Being 'on the record' doesn't always make it true.

"on the record" has a subtly different meaning here in oz, there in fact is nothing which is "off the record", if you say something, you've said it, if you're stupid enough to say it to a reporter and mimic hollywood, then that reporter can still attribute that to you with impunity. So here, when something is on the record, it generally means that it's widely reported, like the PM said it at a press conference, it was broadcast to TV, the AFP released a media release contradicting the PM's words, and while i haven't seen it, I presume master card have also made a media release regarding their decision. There is no hearsay, it's all verifiable facts. Assange can prove conclusively, the remark, the fact that it was untrue, the resulting treatment from the remark by a third party, and the monetary damages that have resulted from it.

Whether mastercard were really doing it because of the PM's remark, is irrelevant; i suppose that's an issue with the adversarial court system we employ

Re:could be interesting

[fustakrakich]

I'm not doubting the words were said. That they were said is the only fact here. I only doubt that what was said is true. Either way, they are only words. And I will never accept that the words caused any damage. The only damage occurred when Mastercard closed the account, regardless of their stated rationalization, which I totally discount as meaningless, and should be discarded. The statement from the PM is irrelevant (to me) in this matter. The lawsuit is pure grandstanding. To me the only relevant matter is whether there was a violation by either party of a signed contract. And gossip should simply be treated as gossip. Legally things are quite different. If he can get away with suing over legal defamation, so be it. I can do nothing about it, except to show how these kinds of laws should not be allowed to exist. We must not allow a person to silence another. Never. My target is the listener who believes they can act on gossip and hearsay and claim the words caused him to act. That would imply an inability to think independently and rationally. It is literally no different than saying, 'The devil made me do it'. I say the law has it completely backward. It is the only rational, logical conclusion I can draw. The concept of defamation/libel is a result of an irrational mind.

Re:could be interesting

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Had they arrested or kicked them out post 9/11

On what grounds? For "questioning?"

Good

[JazzXP]

While I'm not a fan of Mr. Assange (quite the opposite really), I find the way he has been treated by our government absolutely deplorable. Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) and Shappele Corby (convicted drug smuggler) have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

Re:Good

[viperidaenz]

When did the Australian government say they did not want Julian Assange back in Australia? I don't think he wants to go back there.

Re:Good

[bug1]

Yep, the Howard regime did a lot of damage to Australia and Australians.

However, its not a good time to be seen to be attacking Julia Gillard given all the personal attacks she has recieved. I would expect it to do more harm than good.

Re:Good

[JazzXP]

When the Prime Minister openly mocks a person, their intentions are pretty obvious.

Re:Good

[clockwise_music]

Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) ... have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

David Hicks did not have any help from the Australian government. He was left to rot in Guantanamo for five years without being charged for anything. The government's response was absolutely deplorable, especially considering how UK citizens were pulled out from Guantanamo. Compare Jack Straw's efforts compared to Philip Ruddock or John Howard sometime.

Re:Good

[wisnoskij]

Many many times, Assange applied to them for help repeatedly.

Re:Good

[viperidaenz]

Help avoiding an arrest warrant or help getting him back to Australia? I have no doubt what so ever that Australia would allow him back. (probably followed quickly with complying with the Interpol warrant and sending him off to Sweden though.)

Re:Good

[Pseudonym]

Whoever marked this "Troll" clearly doesn't know about what's been preoccupying Australian news over the last week. (Answer: Navel-gazing, as usual, only this time it involves dirty personal attacks against the PM.) In context, this was a good point.

For the benefit of those who are unaware, here's the brief summary: Julia Gillard's father died a couple of weeks ago, and right-wing radio-shock-mouthpiece Alan Jones (for the non-Australians, or even non-Sydneyites, he's roughly the Australian equivalent of Rush Limbaugh: moderate-sized but dedicated following, and self-parody to everyone who doesn't listen to his show) decided to use that in a very insensitive cheap shot at the PM. The remarks were made at a private function, but of course, nothing is private in the Internet era. Alan Jones has since issued a sincere, rambling semi-notpology.

The point being that the PM's PR people are currently enjoying a grace period where personal attacks are Not Cool. The PM herself is, of course, probably not enjoying the fact that her father just died.

On the other hand, Underground screened last night. From that perspective, this is the best of all times to go on the offensive. It's unfortunate that the two events coincided, but there's not a lot you can do about that.

Woah, this must be how Russel Howcroft feels.

Re:Good

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

When the Prime Minister is shown on nationwide news baying for the blood of an Australian journalist, their intentions are pretty obvious.

Added emphasis mine

Re:Good

[Pav]

Citizens have rights. Even if they're idiots. Even if they're dangerous. Otherwise, if someone wants to see you abandoned in some god-forsaken hole they just point and say "he's an idiot", or more likely "he's dangerous". This is the reason there is process and there are institutions, and why we should all be anxious that they're almost completely eroded in some cases.

Re:Good

[FriendlyLurker]

What the heck do personal attacks against Julia Gillard from some political extremist nutjob have to do with a defamation lawsuit??! Do you think Gillard thought "oh, poor Assange, he has most of the free world comin down on him like a ton of bricks, calls for his assassination, better not call his a criminal until it is actually proven - I am a lawer after all". No sensitivity shown by her actions there, and your lamenting the timing of a lawsuit? Not the only criminality she has been tied to.

However, its not a good time to be seen to be attacking Julia Gillard given all the personal attacks she has received. I would expect it to do more harm than good.

More harm than good? The comment smells of a "Labor is better than Liberal" type mentality. Might I direct you to the Wikileaks revelation about the Labor party (not including the espionage spying scandal of their members on behalf of a foreign government), but the cable that reveals that Labors political agenda and policies are all but identical to that of Liberal. Like the United states and the UK, Australia has moved into a two party "moving center" system where both parties are essentially the same and little more than a Corporatocracy: CANBERRA 00000545 002 OF 003

Gillard recognizes that to become Prime Minister, she must move to the Center, and show her support for the Alliance with the United States. Albrechtson, who attended the June 2008 Australian-American Leadership Dialogue in Washington with Gillard, wrote that Gillard's speech "could have been given by the Howard Government."

On the sensitivity of Gillard:

[Gillard] enjoys taunting the Opposition but, as one journalist noted, "the only problem is getting her off the corpse." Late last year, in a widely publicized exchange, Gillard pummeled Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop (who was under pressure in a Treasury portfolio she has since relinquished). Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull later described Gillard as "very nasty" and "vicious." A visiting U.S. political scientist noted after watching Question Time that the Opposition normally heckled Government speakers but in stark contrast, they were completely silent when Gillard was on her feet.

Re:Good

[Pseudonym]

What the heck do personal attacks against Julia Gillard from some political extremist nutjob have to do with a defamation lawsuit??!

In the rational world, very little. In the world of PR, quite a lot.

Tell me when he wins the suit

[tomhath]

Hiring lawyers with the intent of filing a suit isn't very interesting.

Sue in Sweden

[srussia]

The Swedish legal term for defamation is actually is actually "reputational rape".

Re:Sue in Sweden

[dominux]

from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Sweden words for defamation include:
ärekränkning
grovt förtal
förolämpning

and rape is våldtäkt. I call BS on the "reputational rape" claim. +5 informative indeed.

Re:Sue in Sweden

[circletimessquare]

irony overload

Re:Sue in Sweden

[bug1]

Its a term they made up especially for Assange.
(not that they are out to get him or anything)

Re:Sue in Sweden

[Maritz]

I never even suspected for a millisecond that he was being serious.

Re:Sue in Sweden

[Maritz]

I find it really weird that people don't take this as a silly joke.

Julian vs Julia

[Mister Liberty]

Looks like someone will end up in Jail.

Re:Julian vs Julia

[z0idberg]

Thats only if the US government gets it way.

In Australia they would go to gaol.

Re:Truly a hero for our times

[mrbester]

I'm sure he doesn't really care what was said, or by whom. It is more likely that this is just a shot over the bows as it was as a result of the personal defamation that Wikileaks, a separate entity, was blacklisted by MasterCard.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[Altanar]

For more than 3.8 million Americans, a wage of $15/hour is more than **double** what they're making right now. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[Altanar]

Also, for most of the US, Walmart caps their maximum wage at $15/hour. Once you hit that, you'll never get another raise in that position as long for as you work at Walmart. http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20061002_WALMART/20061002_walmart_memo.pdf

Sovereign immunity?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

You can't sue prosecutors for accusing you of a crime, in general. This official wasn't a prosecutor, but does the principle apply?

I wonder if Assange has considered a business interference suit as well. Inducing Mastercard to go back on a contract might be a tort, depending on the outcome of some questions I'm not even qualified to enumerate.

Re:Sovereign immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

She is not protected. The Australian prime minister can say what she wants in parliament, and be protected by parliamentary privilege, but as soon as she says it outside parliament, in a press interview for example, which is where she slurred Assange, she can be sued.

Re:Sovereign immunity?

[Pinhedd]

Prosecutors have to be very careful about what they say. Filing charges that aren't substantiated by evidence can be a violation of the accused's legal rights and depending on the jurisdiction the prosecutor may not be protected under qualified immunity if they did so knowingly and maliciously, which can open them up to multiple lawsuits from the defendant that would otherwise be prohibited.

Similarly, they have to be very careful about what they say to others regarding criminal charges brought against someone. Mischaracterizations made to the media which are later proven false or are baseless may not only be grounds for defamation, they could also be a violation of the local Bar Association's standards of ethics.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[lsatenstein]

When I clicked the tab, it did not indicate that I was not at the root level. How do you get to the root level anyway?

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[lsatenstein]

In the USA, and Canada, 15/hr is 450/week before taxes. Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit. If however you are married, and your spouse adds her $15/hr, then you can live comfortably.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

An Aussie icon

[sturat]

As an Australian I look forward to the day when a story about Australia is accompanied by something other than a picture of Crocodile Dundee's hat.

Re:An Aussie icon

[sd4f]

What would you prefer though?

Re:An Aussie icon

[auLucifer]

Why not the opera house or Uluru? Something that is more Australian than a hat from the 80s

Re:An Aussie icon

[Ambvai]

Steve Irwin's hair.

Re:An Aussie icon

[Bremic]

I would be fine with the hat as long as any story about the US is accompanied by a picture of Laura Palmer wrapped in plastic.

Same cultural relevance; same era; same coverage level.

Re:An Aussie icon

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

What would you prefer though?

A kangaroo with Stinger missiles.

He's not charged with rape.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even the women involved think it was rape.

And if it were enough not to be present for charges to be impossible to make, please explain how you can get a case found against you in absentia?

If the court has enough information to bring charges, then if JA won't turn up to explain himself, then prosecute based on the evidence you have.

This is how EVERY OTHER CASE works.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[bogaboga]

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.
2: Used public transit.
3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.
4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.
5: Never "went out" on the town, or bought luxuries, ever...
6: Said "NO" to the fairer sex.

Things have changed now, [for the better], gladly. In fact, you wouldn't recognize me now. But please do not tell me one can't survive on minimum wage.

Not Knowing When to Quit

[Nom du Keyboard]

Julian Assange just doesn't know when to quit. Everyone is out to get him and he couldn't possibly be the reason for any of it.

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[drinkypoo]

He knows exactly when to quit; about five minutes before he's ready to die.

Assange doesn't have the option of a quiet retirement at this point. He needs to continue to be loud.

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[simplexion]

I believe he would be very aware that lots of people are out to get him and that his actions in the past are the reason for it. I don't think he thought his work with WikiLeaks would lead to cuddles from people.

Since you seem to know when and why he should have quit; can you please avail us with your wisdom and insight?

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[rahvin112]

If the US government was intent on killing him he would have been in a car accident or had a "heart attack" more than a year ago.

The US government isn't very smart on a whole, but they aren't profoundly stupid most of the time either. He hasn't broken any US law, were he in the US they wouldn't dare try him for a crime. They tried that with other people a long time ago, it was called the Pentagon Papers trials and it resulted in the government being handed their asses.

On the other hand they do want to neutralize him (not kill) as a reliable journalist that other government employees might leak information to, and the best way to do that is to harm his reputation. Based on past history the best way to do that is get him acting nuts, ya know like violating a bail agreement and seeking asylum in a country with terrible human rights record. He's basically incarcerated himself at this point and wikileaks is pretty much irrelevant because he's made himself the lynchpin of the organization and self incarcerated himself.

Because he's a twit he's pretty much done exactly what the US government would have wanted to do to him and he did it all voluntarily. Regardless of what you think about the matter the Swedish charges are based on things that really happened, and his actions since are all his own. He's basically presented the appearance of conspiracy crazy (and I'm sure you along with all his "supporters" believe this is a legitimate reaction but it's exactly the wrong reaction for broad public sympathy). Because of this and a subtle propaganda campaign at this point he'll never receive documents from someone like Bradly Manning again. This is partly because they are making an example of Manning and mostly because he's destroyed his reputation in the eyes of a broad swath of Americans.

He wants to be in the business of confidence (confidence that the material you give him will go public and that your identity will be protected) and he's basically proven that he can't be trusted. The best part is it was entirely self inflicted. Even if the US was involved in getting the charges brought back (and I don't believe they were) he did do what he's charged with and now he's running from the law including violating a bail agreement that's going to cost the people that put the money up (basically fucking them over). Mark my words President Correa will use this asylum propaganda for his election and maybe for some status points in south/central America but at some point in a several months when Assange doesn't offer any benefit to Correa anymore and he'll be told that there is nothing they can do to get him out of the UK and they are withdrawing the Asylum offer because those nasty British won't abide the request.

In the end he'll end up Sweden, he'll face the charges and afterwards he'll leave and not a thing will happen to him because at that point the US won't care because he neutralized himself almost a year prior.

Re:Not Knowing When to Quit

[drinkypoo]

The US government isn't very smart on a whole

The government is not one person, so it doesn't actually have intelligence.

but they aren't profoundly stupid most of the time either

In fact the US government is largely remarkably effective at pursuing its goals. There have been notable setbacks, but for those in power, even those have tended to be profitable. We might have "lost" the Viet Nam War, but it was great for Monsanto. Indeed, they will be able to profit from it all over again shortly as we finally "remediate".

Because of this and a subtle propaganda campaign at this point he'll never receive documents from someone like Bradly Manning again

What's subtle about it?

This is partly because they are making an example of Manning

Never underestimate the power of a martyr complex.

and mostly because he's destroyed his reputation in the eyes of a broad swath of Americans

It only takes one [more].

He wants to be in the business of confidence (confidence that the material you give him will go public and that your identity will be protected) and he's basically proven that he can't be trusted

No, it has been alleged that he can't be trusted, under very suspicious circumstances.

Even if the US was involved in getting the charges brought back (and I don't believe they were) he did do what he's charged with and now he's running from the law including violating a bail agreement

He's seeking political asylum, and he presented himself for questioning and sought permission before leaving Sweden, and received it. He offered to submit to questioning without returning, which is perfectly reasonable, and which was denied. The whole thing is on highly specious grounds to begin with, but there's no need to rehash that save to say that of the few people actually familiar with any of the details of the case out there in the world, there's plenty of skepticism.

President Correa will use this asylum propaganda for his election and maybe for some status points in south/central America but at some point in a several months when Assange doesn't offer any benefit to Correa anymore and he'll be told that there is nothing they can do to get him out of the UK and they are withdrawing the Asylum offer because those nasty British won't abide the request.

This is the only thing you've said in this entire comment that makes sense, and it makes a lot of it.

Way to go

[shurel]

for a self professed libertarian

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[lsatenstein]

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.
2: Used public transit.
3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.
4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.
5: Never "went out" on the town, or bought luxuries, ever...
6: Said "NO" to the fairer sex.

Things have changed now, [for the better], gladly. In fact, you wouldn't recognize me now. But please do not tell me one can't survive on minimum wage.

Try doing it with two kids, for 20 years.

Re:They haven't libelled him. Gillard has.

[spire3661]

. MasterCard can choose to do business with whomever. Assange is notorious, you cant force people to do business with notorious people if they choose not to. In what way did Mastercard act in bad faith?

Re:Confirms what we know

[snspdaarf]

Only a truly cynical person would take advantage of the open nature of the internet to flame someone he doesn't personally know

Ok, that made me laugh.

Re:They haven't libelled him. Gillard has.

[fustakrakich]

Depends on the contract. But to claim that the PM's statement is the cause is farcical, if not tragic.

Fugitives, on the run from the law

[wisnoskij]

How can a fugitive, on the run from the law, sue someone?
I imagine that a lawyer might be able to set up a case, but would he not be expected to show up to court?

Re:Fugitives, on the run from the law

[evilviper]

See the Roman Polanski case a couple years back. He's living in France, a fugitive of US justice, having been convicted of drugging and raping an uder-aged girl. He couldn't travel to the UK for fear of extradition to the US, but the UK allowed his lawsuit to proceed, regardless. He was involved via video link, IIRC.

Though the US is a common-law territory, I expect the rules are a bit more strict, but I don't know how much so. However, Assange isn't, in-fact, accusted or charged with any crimes in the US, and extradition laws from the US to other countries are... intentionally weak.

Re:Fugitives, on the run from the law

[evilviper]

Absolutely everything you've said is 100%, provably false. I don't know where in the hell you get your incorrect info, but you really need to stop.

she had consensual sex with him. No rape ever occurred except of the statutory kind.

Complete bull. Not only was she only 13 years old, it is also on the record as CLEARLY non-consentual.

"Polanski had sexual intercourse with the teen despite her resistance and requests to be taken home." "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6237442/Roman-Polanskis-victim-is-mother-who-wants-charges-dropped.html

The statute of limitation has been reached long ago,

Nonsense. The CASE WENT TO TRIAL right away, long before the statute of limitations could be an issue. He even accepted a plea-bargain, yet he fled, just before he was about to be sentenced for his crimes.

But since he fled, his plea bargain is out, he will likely face a new trial, and potentially the maximum sentence for all his felonies.

The girl never wanted to press charged and she still don't.

Bull. Geimer "sued Polanski in December 1988 when she was 25 years old, alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction."

She has requested dismissal, NOW, because she's tired of having it hanging over her head. He could have served his expected 90 days in jail, and been done with it, letting her move on with her life, instead he victimized her once again by fleeing. He deserves every bit of bad press he gets, and deserves to be hounded, to his dying day, for living as a fugitive.

Re:Truly a hero for our times

[wisnoskij]

He has not been a champion of free speech, do you even follow wikileaks or the Assange case?
He is a champion of truth and information, and never implied or said that you should not be able to sue someone who lied about you (particularly when that lie cost you tangibly).

Re:Truly a hero for our times

[drinkypoo]

Julian Assange is famous for being a tireless champion of free speech. How does he respond to someone saying something nasty about him?

Neither free markets nor free speech work when fraud is permitted.

Mod me down, "libertarians". In your hearts you know I speak the truth.

I'm not a libertarian, just a liberal (e.g. not a democrat) and I know you're full of shit, which is the most popular reason to post as an AC. You haven't said anything that could likely get you shot or fired, so there's no other reason.

Re:Confirms what we know

[benjfowler]

Just because governments occasionally do the wrong thing doesn't give Julian Assange a license to act like an entitled self-aggrandizing douchebag who can rape and commit treason without consequences.

You libertoons are hilarious. I suppose you'll be telling us how the charges are trumped up, and a plot by teh evil gubmint to stifle the freedom of speech of mentally ill, basement dwelling, Atlas Shrugged-reading little boys who barely have gotten their pubes, and know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how the real world works.

Re:Truly a hero for our times

[aXis100]

Since when has free speech got anything to do with public officials telling lies?

Bad troll is bad.

Re:Demise of the Computer Programmer

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that directly related to point 6... Who's fault was it to have kids?

Re:He's a twit!

[xenobyte]

And a rapist.

That's bullshit. The Swedish authorities are interested in questioning him about two cases of what you'd call 3. degree rape - consensual sex but unconsensually without a condom. That's not even worth prosecuting. So he forgot the condom. Big deal. If he had given them an STD or made them pregnant it would have been a different story, but he didn't. I was just plain old consensual sex without a condom.

Re:Hillary Clinton

[sg_oneill]

Just to amplify, you have to remember that Hillary is the woman that made the President of the United States sleep on the couch, and the hated Obamacare was basically her baby.

Yeah after he boned his intern. By rights she should have divorced his sorry ass and taken half of what he owns.

But none of this has anything to do with this conversation bro, so quit the derail.

Sexual discrimination of men

[gay358]

Would prosecutors prosecute a woman who lies by saying that she is using pills and a man has sex with her on the condition that she is using pills? If not, this is a clear case of sexual discrimination of men, for which Sweden is notorious.

You're revising history again. Romneycare

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually Romney's proposal for healthcare reform (with some things thrown out because it was too communist for the Republicans to vote for if a Democrat was proposing it) that was installed.

Re:Dumb idea

[TapeCutter]

Silly boy, that's why Lawyers were invented.