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

[Guest Derek L]

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.

And again I’ll revert back to my prior assumption that this entire mater is simply paranoia by one party and posturing by the other………….Again, by my own summarization of the entire mater is that the DoJ knows that if they took Mr Assange to trial, of which they’d likely lose, that would be an even greater coup for Mr Assange and his followers. If they won, they’d make him a Martyr……….

What better strategy then allowing Mr Assange to be “free”, free to look over his shoulder for the rest of his natural life……….All the while, Mr Assange will still go to events, communicate with his hangers on, draw crowds of his followers etc, that all the while, said followers, or the “legions of worker bees”, will be identified, monitored and if required, arrested, tried and convicted on a individual basis.

Again, my opinion, but said strategy worked for the Mossad when dealing with the PLO and Arafat for decades……..In the end, Arafat died of “natural causes” in a hospital.

[Guest Derek L]

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).

Ahh, but in this case the role of Ellsberg would be played by the young American soldier that leaked the diplomatic cables to Wikileaks/Mr Assange………Mr Assange was never in the position to “leak anything”, but to publish said leaked information, in the same role as the NY Times in the Pentagon Paper’s case.

[waldo]

And again I’ll revert back to my prior assumption that this entire mater is simply paranoia by one party and posturing by the other………….

which is which?

Again, my opinion, but said strategy worked for the Mossad when dealing with the PLO and Arafat for decades……..In the end, Arafat died of “natural causes” in a hospital.

so... after all your own preceding posturing, should we be surprised that you would ultimately favour and bring forward a false strategy that would, effectively, "take Assange out" at some later date. And you question/chastise the very thought that (some degree of) paranoia might be in play?

[waldo]

Ahh, but in this case the role of Ellsberg would be played by the young American soldier that leaked the diplomatic cables to Wikileaks/Mr Assange………Mr Assange was never in the position to “leak anything”, but to publish said leaked information, in the same role as the NY Times in the Pentagon Paper’s case.

attaboy!

...Discussion that invariably leads to another direct comparison between the actions of the NYT and Daniel Ellsberg (of Pentagon Papers 'fame')... where Assange takes on the comparative equivalency to the NYT actions in publishing the Pentagon Papers.

[Guest Derek L]

which is which?

so... after all your own preceding posturing, should we be surprised that you would ultimately favour and bring forward a false strategy that would, effectively, "take Assange out" at some later date. And you question/chastise the very thought that (some degree of) paranoia might be in play?

Perhaps, but ultimately Assange’s paranoia is unfounded in both reason and logic………The DoJ won’t or can’t touch him in a legal sense, predicated on the known, open source facts of the case, as such, Mr Assange’s lawyer legal team would also know this………Unless of course Mr Assange’s role in said case is more “proactive” then what is publicly known……………Or, as been suggested, he’s playing it for all it worth and he’s really worried about a possible sexual assault conviction in Sweden.

[waldo]

Perhaps, but ultimately Assange’s paranoia is unfounded in both reason and logic………The DoJ won’t or can’t touch him in a legal sense, predicated on the known, open source facts of the case

huh! You offer a degree of uncertainty with your "perhaps"... and then proceed headstrong into an opposite direction - with certainty!!! And, once again, you showcase your legal chops!

[dre]

Perhaps, but ultimately Assange’s paranoia is unfounded in both reason and logic………The DoJ won’t or can’t touch him in a legal sense, predicated on the known, open source facts of the case, as such, Mr Assange’s lawyer legal team would also know this………Unless of course Mr Assange’s role in said case is more “proactive” then what is publicly known……………Or, as been suggested, he’s playing it for all it worth and he’s really worried about a possible sexual assault conviction in Sweden.

Ok... you finally admitted that Assange is afraid of being extradited to the US. Why did that have to take 5 pages?

[Guest Derek L]

huh! You offer a degree of uncertainty with your "perhaps"... and then proceed headstrong into an opposite direction - with certainty!!! And, once again, you showcase your legal chops!

Of course I’ll qualify myself, as I form my opinion based on facts pertaining to the case in the public realm, coupled with prior US case law……..As such, my reasoning in asking you repeatedly if you knew of a greater role played by Mr Assange.

Be that as it may, if during the course of the young American's military tribunal, it came to light that Mr Assange encouraged and/or paid the defendant prior for said information, and it can be proven, then Mr Assange is truly and utterly f**ked………Without a condom of course

[Guest Derek L]

Ok... you finally admitted that Assange is afraid of being extradited to the US. Why did that have to take 5 pages?

I never admitted anything, my position is that his perceived paranoia is legally unfounded. (With known facts of course)

[dre]

I never admitted anything, my position is that his perceived paranoia is legally unfounded. (With known facts of course)

Sure you did...

And again I’ll revert back to my prior assumption that this entire mater is simply paranoia by one party and posturing by the other

You described him as paranoid. Paranoid people experience fear whether or not that fear is legally unfounded.

That has been my exact position throughout our entire conversation about this.

[Guest Derek L]

Sure you did...

You described him as paranoid. Paranoid people experience fear whether or not that fear is legally unfounded.

That has been my exact position throughout our entire conversation about this.

And my position prior to our conversation:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21068&st=105

Even if we take a different tract to illustrate that Mr Assange is suffering from a delusional thought process when relating his fears of the United States Government: How many Newspaper editors, employed by newspapers that published portions of the Wikileaks have been arrested? Isn’t Assange on the same legal footing, in that he didn’t physically steal anything and if I’m not mistaken, hasn’t the only one to be arrested over the entire affair been the young American soldier?

[dre]

And my position prior to our conversation:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21068&st=105

Alright then! Assange is afraid of being extradited to the US. Too bad it took 20 pages for us to acknowledge exactly what his own stated position was in the first place.

Edited August 21, 2012 by dre

[Black Dog]

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.

I'm quoting this in full because I think it needs a bump.

[Argus]

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

There ARE no 'ethical hackers'.

You sound a lot like those Republican guys who seem to think rape isn't really all that bad unless it's 'forced rape'.

[Argus]

Alright then! Assange is afraid of being extradited to the US. Too bad it took 20 pages for us to acknowledge exactly what his own stated position was in the first place.

And nobody cares. His fears have no relevance.

[dre]

And nobody cares. His fears have no relevance.

Sure they do because the proposition was put forth in this thread that Assanged knows he wont be extradited to the US, and is simply using that as an excuse to avoid further questioning on these molestation charges.

Try to read along hey?

[Guest Derek L]

Sure they do because the proposition was put forth in this thread that Assanged knows he wont be extradited to the US, and is simply using that as an excuse to avoid further questioning on these molestation charges.

Try to read along hey?

And there’s nothing proving that that is not the case here, as his "fears" are legally unfounded.

[waldo]

And there’s nothing proving that that is not the case here, as his "fears" are legally unfounded.

citation request

(and don't bother pulling your favoured, "so you're saying" BS... step up and substantiate your absolute certainty - sure you can)

[dre]

And there’s nothing proving that that is not the case here, as his "fears" are legally unfounded.

No fears are legally unfounded until a court says they were. The fact theres a criminal investigating into Assange is plenty of reason for any reasonable minded person to suspect that charges might be forthcoming.

And whether or not his fears are "legally unfounded" is utterly besides the point, when trying to ascertain if his fears are indeed real or not. Youve already judged that his fears are "real" when you described him as paranoid. That word is used to describe people who have real fears but those fears are either not rational or justified.

[jbg]

Ahh, but in this case the role of Ellsberg would be played by the young American soldier that leaked the diplomatic cables to Wikileaks/Mr Assange………Mr Assange was never in the position to “leak anything”, but to publish said leaked information, in the same role as the NY Times in the Pentagon Paper’s case.

Actually not really.

The procedural context of the Pentagon Papers case was an attempt by the government to obtain a pre-printing injunction to stop the Pentagon Papers' publication. The prior restraint on printing is what's verboten. Justice Potter Stewart's (I believe it was his) concurring opinion pointed out that criminal liability, post-publication, could attach. Thus, both the analogs to Ellsberg and the Times are liable for prosecution. What the Justice Department cannot do is stop the Times or any source from printing materials Assange turns over.

[Guest Derek L]

citation request

(and don't bother pulling your favoured, "so you're saying" BS... step up and substantiate your absolute certainty - sure you can)

I never claimed it as fact.........You on the other hand claimed Mr Assange’s innocence in relation to the Swedish “problem” as fact…….I don’t suppose you could provide……..Ahhh I won’t bother.

[Guest Derek L]

Actually not really.

The procedural context of the Pentagon Papers case was an attempt by the government to obtain a pre-printing injunction to stop the Pentagon Papers' publication. The prior restraint on printing is what's verboten. Justice Potter Stewart's (I believe it was his) concurring opinion pointed out that criminal liability, post-publication, could attach. Thus, both the analogs to Ellsberg and the Times are liable for prosecution. What the Justice Department cannot do is stop the Times or any source from printing materials Assange turns over.

Ahh, but my point, how can the DoJ stop Mr Assange/Wikileaks from publishing documents they received in the same context? If the young American had of given said documents directly to the NY Times (or other MSM outlets) as opposed to Assange/Wikileaks, where lies the difference?

[Guest Derek L]

No fears are legally unfounded until a court says they were. The fact theres a criminal investigating into Assange is plenty of reason for any reasonable minded person to suspect that charges might be forthcoming.

And whether or not his fears are "legally unfounded" is utterly besides the point, when trying to ascertain if his fears are indeed real or not. Youve already judged that his fears are "real" when you described him as paranoid. That word is used to describe people who have real fears but those fears are either not rational or justified.

And how do you know there lies an active investigation into Assange as an individual, as opposed to Wikileaks as an organization?……….Has the DoJ volunteered as much?

As to your second point, that is the rub, there certainly has been no evidence provided to suggest Mr Assange’s fears of being extradited to the United States are justified.

[waldo]

And there’s nothing proving that that is not the case here, as his "fears" are legally unfounded.

citation request

(and don't bother pulling your favoured, "so you're saying" BS... step up and substantiate your absolute certainty - sure you can)

I never claimed it as fact.........

hey now... how is it that when you're pointedly challenged to substantiate your puffery, your absolute certainty isn't so... absolutely certain anymore?

care to offer up just how one should interpret your claims as factual... or not?

[waldo]

.........You on the other hand claimed Mr Assange’s innocence in relation to the Swedish “problem” as fact…….I don’t suppose you could provide……..Ahhh I won’t bother.

let me bother... to call your BS - I have most definitely not spoken of the innocence... or guilt... of Assange in regards to the Swedish investigation. What I most certainly have beaten on is the matter of the questioning of Assange. Quit making shyte up, hey?