Assange not so big on justice when he's the object

[dre]

It would demonstrate that the United States Government could potentially build a case against Mr Assange that they would have a hope of winning, thusly, lending a slight level of credence to Waldo’s (amongst other posters) and Mr Assange’s fears and assertions that the United States Government is out to get him for his role in the leaked Diplomatic Cables.

Thats not necessary though. Its not a stretch at all to believe that Mr Assange is afraid of a possible extradition. Theres reports of a sealed indictment, and the DOJ is openly saying they have an active criminal investigation underway. It just doesnt make any difference one way or another. You are assuming that for someone to be afraid of being prosecuted they must be intimate with the legal statutes and mechanisms that may lead to successfull prosecution... but thats clearly not true.

If it was clear that theres no way to prosecute Assange then the DOJ would not have an active criminal investigation. And if the DOJ is unsure of whether or not they can/will prosecute why on earth would you expect Assange to know for sure?

This whole line of questioning is just silly quite frankly.

[Guest Derek L]

Thats not necessary though. Its not a stretch at all to believe that Mr Assange is afraid of a possible extradition. Theres reports of a sealed indictment, and the DOJ is openly saying they have an active criminal investigation underway. It just doesnt make any difference one way or another. You are assuming that for someone to be afraid of being prosecuted they must be intimate with the legal statutes and mechanisms that may lead to successfull prosecution... but thats clearly not true.

If it was clear that theres no way to prosecute Assange then the DOJ would not have an active criminal investigation. And if the DOJ is unsure of whether or not they can/will prosecute why on earth would you expect Assange to know for sure?

This whole line of questioning is just silly quite frankly.

As I’ve asked Waldo, what other crimes could the US Government get him on? Or this is just posturing on the part of the DOJ as a simple ploy to give Assange a really good mind fuck………..As such, that’s why I’m asking these questions, as Waldo seems certain the United States is going to get him on something, thusly sticking him with the needle………….What are they accusing him of?

[dre]

As I’ve asked Waldo, what other crimes could the US Government get him on? Or this is just posturing on the part of the DOJ as a simple ploy to give Assange a really good mind fuck………..As such, that’s why I’m asking these questions, as Waldo seems certain the United States is going to get him on something, thusly sticking him with the needle………….What are they accusing him of?

I have absolutely no idea what the DOJ is cooking up, or whether theres an indictment or not. Neither do you, and neither does Assange. Your question is one for legal scholars. But its not important because whats in question here is whether Assange is afraid of this outcome or not. No statute or speculation about any specific charge is required for that.

Even if your scenario...

this is just posturing on the part of the DOJ as a simple ploy to give Assange a really good mind fuck

...is true it does not matter. Maybe the "mind ____" worked and Assange believes an indictment is coming. Who knows... and who cares. It makes no difference.

[waldo]

Precedent Waldo, precedent

just what online university did you get your law degree from?

I gave you one of the typical comparative associations being parlayed around... between Assange/WikiLeaks/NYT and Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers/NYT. In your best puffed-up legalese, what precedent do you acknowledge... or disavow... that saw Ellsberg guilty with violations of the U.S. Espionage Act and the NYT, (ultimately via Supreme Court ruling) not guilty of violations of the U.S. Espionage Act? As I alluded to, the "experts" analysis presumes to place Assange in a comparative equivalency to the NYT actions in publishing the Pentagon Papers. You know... that distinction between the source versus the publisher. As I interpret, this has significance in terms of the U.S. First Amendment... which also ties into my earlier comment, now also made several times, that expected/anticipated/speculated Espionage charges against Assange would be so crafted so as to effectively remove considerations of First Amendment protections.

This whole line of questioning is just silly quite frankly.

bingo!... double bingo!

[waldo]

...is true it does not matter. Maybe the "mind ____" worked and Assange believes an indictment is coming. Who knows... and who cares. It makes no difference.

bingo x3!!! But 'Derek L' never let an opportunity for distraction go unheeded!

[Guest Derek L]

I have absolutely no idea what the DOJ is cooking up, or whether theres an indictment or not. Neither do you, and neither does Assange. Your question is one for legal scholars. But its not important because whats in question here is whether Assange is afraid of this outcome or not. No statute or speculation about any specific charge is required for that.

Even if your scenario...

...is true it does not matter. Maybe the "mind ____" worked and Assange believes an indictment is coming. Who knows... and who cares. It makes no difference.

Exactly my point, the DOJ hasn’t indicated that charges are pending against Mr Assange, nor with the known facts of the case would the DOJ have anything that would stick against Mr Assange………hence a bogus assertion that the Swedes are going to hand him over to the Americans…………

[Guest Derek L]

just what online university did you get your law degree from?

I gave you one of the typical comparative associations being parlayed around... between Assange/WikiLeaks/NYT and Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers/NYT. In your best puffed-up legalese, what precedent do you acknowledge... or disavow... that saw Ellsberg guilty with violations of the U.S. Espionage Act and the NYT, (ultimately via Supreme Court ruling) not guilty of violations of the U.S. Espionage Act? As I alluded to, the "experts" analysis presumes to place Assange in a comparative equivalency to the NYT actions in publishing the Pentagon Papers. You know... that distinction between the source versus the publisher. As I interpret, this has significance in terms of the U.S. First Amendment... which also ties into my earlier comment, now also made several times, that expected/anticipated/speculated Espionage charges against Assange would be so crafted so as to effectively remove considerations of First Amendment protections.

bingo!... double bingo!

Are you then suggesting Mr Assange personally hacked said diplomatic files (Espionage) and/or had others do his bidding? (Conspiracy)

Crafted charges against Assange now Waldo? When’s the movie come out? Gene Hackman hasn’t had a decent role in sometime, perhaps he could have top billing as the evil Federal Prosecutor?

[waldo]

Exactly my point, the DOJ hasn’t indicated that charges are pending against Mr Assange, nor with the known facts of the case would the DOJ have anything that would stick against Mr Assange………hence a bogus assertion that the Swedes are going to hand him over to the Americans…………

exactly your point... about not knowing!!! And then you proceed, with certainty! A sealed indictment, by it's very name, is not public - I sent you a copy of my book, "USindictment101 for Dummies"... didn't you receive it yet?

other than distracting, your distraction didn't substantiate your postured legal prowess/expertise concerning the U.S. Espionage Act - no matter how hard you distract bluster!

[waldo]

Are you then suggesting Mr Assange personally hacked said diplomatic files (Espionage) and/or had others do his bidding? (Conspiracy)

are you that desperate and lonely to argue with yourself? I thought you just... with your exacting point... acknowledged there is no point in presuming to argue into the depths of the U.S. Espionage Act. One would have thought your agreement with MLW member 'dre' actually meant you accepted there was/is no relevant point in this your latest distraction.

[Guest Derek L]

exactly your point... about not knowing!!! And then you proceed, with certainty! A sealed indictment, by it's very name, is not public - I sent you a copy of my book, "USindictment101 for Dummies"... didn't you receive it yet?

other than distracting, your distraction didn't substantiate your postured legal prowess/expertise concerning the U.S. Espionage Act - no matter how hard you distract bluster!

So on the inverse, your assertion that the DOJ has a sealed indictment with Mr Assange’s name on it is pure speculation on your part and not founded in fact?

As such, your entire meme of the United States framing Assange, well pressuring the Swedes to pass him on so the DoJ can sink their hooks into your hero is nothing but a unfounded conspiracy?

Walked into that one Waldo

[Guest Derek L]

are you that desperate and lonely to argue with yourself? I thought you just... with your exacting point... acknowledged there is no point in presuming to argue into the depths of the U.S. Espionage Act. One would have thought your agreement with MLW member 'dre' actually meant you accepted there was/is no relevant point in this your latest distraction.

And this is:

your latest distraction?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

Are you then suggesting Mr Assange personally hacked said diplomatic files (Espionage) and/or had others do his bidding? (Conspiracy)

silly buggar, take 2: Are you suggesting Assange is covered by protections afforded U.S. citizens ala it's First Amendment, freedom of speech? Is it your assertion that there is no manner of action taken by Assange that might bring forward U.S. charges in regards considerations toward conspiracy and/or espionage violations? What's the basis of your absolute certainty?

[waldo]

So on the inverse, your assertion that the DOJ has a sealed indictment with Mr Assange’s name on it is pure speculation on your part and not founded in fact?

As such, your entire meme of the United States framing Assange, well pressuring the Swedes to pass him on so the DoJ can sink their hooks into your hero is nothing but a unfounded conspiracy?

Walked into that one Waldo

no - you really should read this entire thread over again... the basis for considerations that a U.S. sealed indictment does exist against Assange have been stated several times over. If you don't accept those, well... bully!

[Guest Derek L]

silly buggar, take 2: Are you suggesting Assange is covered by protections afforded U.S. citizens ala it's First Amendment, freedom of speech? Is it your assertion that there is no manner of action taken by Assange that might bring forward U.S. charges in regards considerations toward conspiracy and/or espionage violations? What's the basis of your absolute certainty?

Mr Assange most certainly would be afforded said rights if tried in a US courtroom………..except if he were deemed a terrorist, thusly garnering him a military tribunal………..see The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

[Guest Derek L]

no - you really should read this entire thread over again... the basis for considerations that a U.S. sealed indictment does exist against Assange have been stated several times over. If you don't accept those, well... bully!

Another go fetch? I'll wait for dre to come to your defence

[waldo]

Mr Assange most certainly would be afforded said rights if tried in a US courtroom………..except if he were deemed a terrorist, thusly garnering him a military tribunal………..see The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

your circle of one is complete - I bow to your U.S. legal opinion that you so readily lay down unsubstantiated... with total and complete absolute certainty? If only Assange had you on his legal team!

[Guest American Woman]

Legal myths about the Assange extradition: A brief critical and source-based guide to some common misconceptions

This is an excellent, very informative article. It points out, just as I've said, that the UK would be more likely to send Assange to the U.S. if the U.S. had such a desire - and that the UK would still have to approve such a move even if Assange were in Sweden.

(excerpts) -

Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. [...]

In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

As for the guarantee Assange is asking for:

It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.

By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. [...]

Also -

Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.

As for Ecuador's claim to be protecting freedom of the press:

Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom, and even the quickest glance at the examples of press abuse in Ecuador accumulated by Reporters Without Borders and Index on Censorship indicate a regime with a starkly dreadful and illiberal record on freedom of expression.

Regarding the allegations (which apparently will lead to an arrest - the reason he's not yet been charged is he must first be present)-

Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.

He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.

And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.

Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".

But yeah, everyone is "persecuting" him - for the evil U.S.

And finally:

It is important to remember that complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too, even when the suspect is Julian Assange.

As I said, it's a very informative article, and well sourced.

[dre]

Exactly my point, the DOJ hasn’t indicated that charges are pending against Mr Assange, nor with the known facts of the case would the DOJ have anything that would stick against Mr Assange………hence a bogus assertion that the Swedes are going to hand him over to the Americans…………

But its not important because whats in question here is whether Assange is afraid of this outcome or not. No statute or speculation about any specific charge is required for that.

[Guest Derek L]

But its not important because whats in question here is whether Assange is afraid of this outcome or not. No statute or speculation about any specific charge is required for that.

So it’s a metaphysical debate? Is or isn’t Mr Assange fearful of getting the needle in the United States………Or couldn’t one pose another abstract point, in that Mr Assange is only posturing with his alleged fears of American Bogymen and is really worried about being convicted of a sexual offence in Sweden?

[dre]

So it’s a metaphysical debate? Is or isn’t Mr Assange fearful of getting the needle in the United States………Or couldn’t one pose another abstract point, in that Mr Assange is only posturing with his alleged fears of American Bogymen and is really worried about being convicted of a sexual offence in Sweden?

Well neither one of us can read his mind, but it would be quite reasonable and expected for this guy to be afraid that one of the countries whos data he published might try to get their hands on them.

[eyeball]

I think 99% of hackers should be in prison breaking rocks.

Ethical hackers should have statues built and high schools named for them.

Lots of people have stuff that they legitimately don't want to be in the public domain.

Well then they should keep that stuff out of that domain.

You use an alias here rather than your real name. Why? Why not post your real name? Would you be upset if someone else hacked MFW and posted it?

This is not a domain of the public's.

What do you have to hide? Are you a scurrying rat?

I'm a fisherman who is forced by law to submit a black box that contains video recordings and a GPS data logger along with all my log books so I can prove to the public that I have not exceeded my allowable catch of a publicly owned resource which would be in their domain.

I believe you're a bureaucrat aren't you?

[jbg]

NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES

The Pentagon Papers decision has only to do with the issue of "prior restraint". It had nothing to do with the potential prosecution of the Times or leakers to the Times. Indeed, Daniel Ellsberg was both persecuted (dead wrong) and prosecute (totally correct).

[waldo]

This is an excellent, very informative article. It points out, just as I've said, that the UK would be more likely to send Assange to the U.S. if the U.S. had such a desire - and that the UK would still have to approve such a move even if Assange were in Sweden.

(excerpts) -

Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

As I said, it's a very informative article, and well sourced.

accepting to your, 'well sourced' blogs, and simply looking at your first reference:

After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and

the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government

. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’)

a direct parallel... might... exist in regards the charges against Bradley Manning - WikiLeaks source. Effectively, initially, prosecutors chose not to pursue the death penalty in regards to the capital offense charges against Bradley... leaving a possible life imprisonment without parole pursuit. As more analysis came forward over time, additional charges flowed, inclusive of directly "aiding the enemy", questioning whether the death penalty option will not, yet, be pursued. Notwithstanding, above all, a judge's prerogative not to accept any prosecution recommendation, in favour of a death penalty consideration.

[waldo]

The Pentagon Papers decision has only to do with the issue of "prior restraint". It had nothing to do with the potential prosecution of the Times or leakers to the Times. Indeed, Daniel Ellsberg was both persecuted (dead wrong) and prosecute (totally correct).

careful... this may be beyond bankruptcy law

[waldo]

I believe you're a bureaucrat aren't you?

bazinga!