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

[Argus]

thanks for acknowledging that, yes, (Swedish) authorities, quite matter of fact, as you say, "regularly travel abroad to question persons in regard to active police investigations". Yet, in this case... not so much, hey?

Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that in many cases they don't.

the inanity you speak of is not in my posed questions - the inanity is in you not recognizing the requested guarantees were very precise and pointedly targeted to the release of WikiLeaks information... not your broad based "some law" catch-all.

The questions are inane because they're pointless. No government gives such guarantees. Why should they? To reassure poor Julian? Do you know any other case where any of the governments involved have given such assurances to ordinary people?

you would deny the known more than 18 months long U.S. Justice Department investigation,

Don't need to deny it. Maybe there's been one. Heck, probably would be, to determine if he's broken any laws. So what? That's irrelevant. His returning or not returning to Sweden has nothing to do with that since the US could extradite him anywhere.

[Previous comment has been offered in regards your, "why not directly from the UK" talking point.

You mean your fantasy "Maybe they already asked and were turned down" nonsense? As if the UK is less cooperative with the US than Sweden is...

[Argus]

Because Assange encourages hacking.

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

I disagree entirely, look at all the rats trying to scurry deeper into the shadows. It's pretty obvious they must feel they have something to hide.

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

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

[waldo]

Too bad you don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that in many cases they don't.

I simply acknowledged your statement that, yes, it is not unique for Swedish authorities to travel abroad to question persons in regards to active police investigations. You seem to be quite selectively applying the hypothetical... perhaps you could answer why, in this case, Swedish authorities refuse to accept the repeated scenarios presented to them by the 'Assange legal team' to effect questioning within the UK, and in recent days, prior to the granting of asylum, directly from within the Ecuador embassy. Why wouldn't the Swedish authorities accept such a common circumstance as to travel abroad to the UK to question Assange?

Don't need to deny it. Maybe there's been one. Heck, probably would be, to determine if he's broken any laws. So what? That's irrelevant.

yes, to you, its quite irrelevant, hey? As are the other points offered that you chose not to comment on... the circumstances that surround the recognition that a sealed U.S. indictment does exist... the FOI realized Australian diplomatic cables - all quite irrelevant to you!

His returning or not returning to Sweden has nothing to do with that since the US could extradite him anywhere.

You mean your fantasy "Maybe they already asked and were turned down" nonsense? As if the UK is less cooperative with the US than Sweden is...

you've repeatedly stated, with forcible assurance, that, as you say, "the U.S. could extradite him anywhere". I would encourage you to go beyond your repeated personal opinion and substantiate your claim, particularly as it reflects upon high profile, politically sensitive extradition.

[waldo]

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

a further perspective on your statements is helpful. Perhaps your opinions concerning whistleblower actions and/or related policy-law would also be helpful.

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

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

sure anonymous Argus, sure.

[Guest American Woman]

Jurisprudence? In that, the United States Government would have to accuse Mr Assange of something……Not being liked isn’t illegal. My question, what would that be?

Oh come on, Derek. U.S. prisons are filled with people the U.S. goverment is simply angry with, or doesn't like; filled with political dissidents, don't 'cha know.

Assange, 41, took sanctuary in Ecuador's embassy in June, jumping bail after exhausting appeals in British courts against extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of rape and sexual assault against two women.

He says he fears the authorities in Sweden will eventually hand him over to the United States where, in his view, he would face persecution and long-term imprisonment. The United States says it is not involved in the matter.

Why the sudden concern that Sweden would hand him over once he was accused of rape? Why wouldn't Britain have handed him over to the U.S. if that's what the U.S. wanted? Looks to me as if he's simply avoiding the rape allegations/questioning - and trying to blame it on the U.S. - which is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

[Guest Derek L]

thundering, blustering, distraction at large!!! Are you asking me to argue precise legalities... into "sections within the U.S. Espionage Act? Would you like me to play the role of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder? Please tell me you've actually got the U.S. Espionage Act at the ready!!!

as I've said once recently, when you finally revert to this degree of 'Derek L' nonsense, I will quite gladly leave you to your 'circle of one'.

by the by... answer the questions just presented to you, previously posed (several times now in various forms). Or are these a problem for you, hey?

Exactly, but if that is too much, just highlight the passage(s) of the act that Mr Assange has broken, differing of course with the NY Times……….

[Guest Derek L]

huh! I've provided several answers to your direct questions... I'm quite fond of the most recent one I quoted from my book: "USindictment101 for Dummies"

now answer the questions you refuse to, apparently, even acknowledge!

No, you haven’t demonstrated how Mr Assange has done anything different than the NY Times…………I’ll await your breakdown.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh come on, Derek. U.S. prisons are filled with people the U.S. goverment is simply angry with, or doesn't like; filled with political dissidents, don't 'cha know.

Assange, 41, took sanctuary in Ecuador's embassy in June, jumping bail after exhausting appeals in British courts against extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of rape and sexual assault against two women.

He says he fears the authorities in Sweden will eventually hand him over to the United States where, in his view, he would face persecution and long-term imprisonment. The United States says it is not involved in the matter.

Why the sudden concern that Sweden would hand him over once he was accused of rape? Why wouldn't Britain have handed him over to the U.S. if that's what the U.S. wanted? Looks to me as if he's simply avoiding the rape allegations/questioning - and trying to blame it on the U.S. - which is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

Exactly, and why hasn’t the United States Government indicted him yet, if as Waldo mentioned, Assange is guilty of Espionage and Conspiracy?

[dre]

Looks to me as if he's simply avoiding the rape allegations/questioning

THe problem with that of course, is that he voluntarily submitted himself to Swedish police on August 13 2010, answered all the questions posed to him, then the charges were dropped. Why does someone that wants to avoid questioning voluntarily submit to questioning I wonder?

Whats more likely here, is that Assange got spooked when the presecutor who cleared him was booted off the case by the Swedish government, and he was expected to go all the way to Sweden to answer the same questions again. And its really not that much of a stretch that Mr Assange would be afraid of extradition to the US considering that the US DOJ has an active criminal investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange, and an extradition treaty with Sweden. He may be WRONG about those fears but they certainly arent unreasonable.

Anyhow... This wont go away any time soon. He's gonna live in that embassy for a long long long time.

Edited August 20, 2012 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

Exactly, and why hasn’t the United States Government indicted him yet, if as Waldo mentioned, Assange is guilty of Espionage and Conspiracy?

Right. And if the U.S. had wanted him, Britain would have sent him to the U.S. - yet he was fine as long as he was in Britain; it was only when he thought he would be sent to Sweden - the country where there are rape allegations against him - that he ran.

[dre]

Exactly, and why hasn’t the United States Government indicted him yet, if as Waldo mentioned, Assange is guilty of Espionage and Conspiracy?

Thats not relevant. According to the DOJ they have an "active criminal investigation" going on. Nobody knows if they will indict him or not, and nobody knows if there already IS a sealed indictment.

But thats beside the point. The real question is whether or not its reasonable that Assange would be afraid of such an outcome, and it most certainly is. Doesnt mean his fears are correct or not. I imagine this guy is one of the most paranoid people on the planet at this point... like I said you have US politicians and mainstream media organizations openly calling for his murder, and active criminal investigation, evidence that there might be a sealed indictment, etc.

That doesnt mean hes guilty of molestation or not. Our wild guesses on that are worth about as much as fart in a wind storm.

[dre]

Right. And if the U.S. had wanted him, Britain would have sent him to the U.S

Thats just a wild guess. You have no idea how Britain might respond to an extradition request.

[waldo]

Why the sudden concern that Sweden would hand him over once he was accused of rape? Why wouldn't Britain have handed him over to the U.S. if that's what the U.S. wanted? Looks to me as if he's simply avoiding the rape allegations/questioning - and trying to blame it on the U.S. - which is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

would you care to, with your absolute certainty, claim categorically that you know there is no U.S. sealed indictment against Assange... along with the reasons/substance behind your claim.

[waldo]

thundering, blustering, distraction at large!!! Are you asking me to argue precise legalities... into "sections within the U.S. Espionage Act? Would you like me to play the role of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder? Please tell me you've actually got the U.S. Espionage Act at the ready!!!

as I've said once recently, when you finally revert to this degree of 'Derek L' nonsense, I will quite gladly leave you to your 'circle of one'.

by the by... answer the questions just presented to you, previously posed (several times now in various forms). Or are these a problem for you, hey?

Exactly, but if that is too much, just highlight the passage(s) of the act that Mr Assange has broken, differing of course with the NY Times……….

you've already shown your expertise!... my own "USindictment101 for Dummies" shot your nonsense down over the timing association between the unsealing of a sealed U.S. indictment and an actual arrest. In any case, when you go overboard on another of your distracting best, like pompously dragging this into some examination of the intricacies of the U.S. Espionage Act... as I've said, I will simply choose to leave you in, 'your circle of one'.

however... I will encourage you not to let your exhaustive research into the U.S. Espionage Act go unrecognized. If you wish to parrot/cite an analysis that suggests the outcome of the 18 month U.S. Justice System review of Assange/WikiLeaks resulted in a summation advising Assange's actions do not warrant concerns relative to the U.S. Espionage Act... please, do so. Let er rip!

[waldo]

No, you haven’t demonstrated how Mr Assange has done anything different than the NY Times…………I’ll await your breakdown.

you really seem to be hung up on drawing some comparison/parallel to the actions of the NYT. I could take your silly buggar routine to your same level and simply challenge you to advise how the actions by Assange & the NYT are... similar... in regards WikiLeaks.

in any case, you really should fire up your googly - there is no shortage of discussion around this very point. 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. You know... that distinction between the source versus the publisher. You also must have conveniently missed my earlier post that spoke to suspected U.S. charges that would be 'cleverly crafted' against Assange, so as not to reflect directly upon the hallowed "U.S. First Amendment" and so-called "freedom of speech".

[Guest Derek L]

you've already shown your expertise!... my own "USindictment101 for Dummies" shot your nonsense down over the timing association between the unsealing of a sealed U.S. indictment and an actual arrest. In any case, when you go overboard on another of your distracting best, like pompously dragging this into some examination of the intricacies of the U.S. Espionage Act... as I've said, I will simply choose to leave you in, 'your circle of one'.

however... I will encourage you not to let your exhaustive research into the U.S. Espionage Act go unrecognized. If you wish to parrot/cite an analysis that suggests the outcome of the 18 month U.S. Justice System review of Assange/WikiLeaks resulted in a summation advising Assange's actions do not warrant concerns relative to the U.S. Espionage Act... please, do so. Let er rip!

So that's a no, in that you won't demonstrate what sections Mr Assange has broken.......

[dre]

So that's a no, in that you won't demonstrate what sections Mr Assange has broken.......

Why would he?... its not germaine to this discussion. And answer to your question flat out does not matter or have any signifigance.

[waldo]

Looks to me as if he's simply avoiding the rape allegations/questioning - and trying to blame it on the U.S. - which is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

THe problem with that of course, is that he voluntarily submitted himself to Swedish police on August 13 2010, answered all the questions posed to him, then the charges were dropped. Why does someone that wants to avoid questioning voluntarily submit to questioning I wonder?

yes... your question presumes upon critical thinking. Will there be an answer provided?

[waldo]

you've already shown your expertise!... my own "USindictment101 for Dummies" shot your nonsense down over the timing association between the unsealing of a sealed U.S. indictment and an actual arrest. In any case, when you go overboard on another of your distracting best, like pompously dragging this into some examination of the intricacies of the U.S. Espionage Act... as I've said, I will simply choose to leave you in, 'your circle of one'.

however... I will encourage you not to let your exhaustive research into the U.S. Espionage Act go unrecognized. If you wish to parrot/cite an analysis that suggests the outcome of the 18 month U.S. Justice System review of Assange/WikiLeaks resulted in a summation advising Assange's actions do not warrant concerns relative to the U.S. Espionage Act... please, do so. Let er rip!

So that's a no, in that you won't demonstrate what sections Mr Assange has broken.......

what does dredging down into the depths of the U.S. Espionage Act gain... how is your banality relevant? But, let's be clear... you're actually asking me to pass judgement on whether or not Assange has broken sections within the U.S. Espionage Act? Really? I expect you know, with certainty, what particular sections are regularly cited as... possible... areas of concern within the U.S. Espionage Act. I really don't want to steal your thunder - clearly, you're waiting with baited breath to quote from them. Just cite the sections... even quote from them - sure you can! And while you're doing it, please make sure to emphasize the relevance of yet another of your distractions!

[waldo]

Why would he?... its not germane to this discussion. And answer to your question flat out does not matter or have any significance.

bingo!

[Guest Derek L]

you really seem to be hung up on drawing some comparison/parallel to the actions of the NYT. I could take your silly buggar routine to your same level and simply challenge you to advise how the actions by Assange & the NYT are... similar... in regards WikiLeaks.

in any case, you really should fire up your googly - there is no shortage of discussion around this very point. 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. You know... that distinction between the source versus the publisher. You also must have conveniently missed my earlier post that spoke to suspected U.S. charges that would be 'cleverly crafted' against Assange, so as not to reflect directly upon the hallowed "U.S. First Amendment" and so-called "freedom of speech".

Section 793 Doesn’t make a distinction between source/publisher, as it only limits obtaining information from the source (the theft) and communicating said information to an enemy state………..Under the said section there is nothing that limits publication of said information, as such, the inclusion of such would counter the First Amendment……….Reference Justice William Douglas’s statement from:

NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES

(No. 1873)

The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of governmental suppression [p724] of embarrassing information. It is common knowledge that the First Amendment was adopted against the widespread use of the common law of seditious libel to punish the dissemination of material that is embarrassing to the powers-that-be. See T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression, c. V (1970); Z. Chafee, Free Speech in the United States, c. XIII (1941). The present cases will, I think, go down in history as the most dramatic illustration of that principle. A debate of large proportions goes on in the Nation over our posture in Vietnam. That debate antedated the disclosure of the contents of the present documents. The latter are highly relevant to the debate in progress.

Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic, perpetuating bureaucratic errors. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. On public questions, there should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269-270.

I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the Post case, vacate the stay of the Court of Appeals in the Times case, and direct that it affirm the District Court.

The stays in these cases that have been in effect for more than a week constitute a flouting of the principles of the First Amendment as interpreted in Near v. Minnesota.

[waldo]

Section 793

buddy, I can read you like a book!

what does dredging down into the depths of the U.S. Espionage Act gain... how is your banality relevant? But, let's be clear... you're actually asking me to pass judgement on whether or not Assange has broken sections within the U.S. Espionage Act? Really? I expect you know, with certainty, what particular sections are regularly cited as... possible... areas of concern within the U.S. Espionage Act. I really don't want to steal your thunder - clearly, you're waiting with baited breath to quote from them. Just cite the sections... even quote from them - sure you can!

And while you're doing it, please make sure to emphasize the relevance of yet another of your distractions!

Edited August 20, 2012 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

buddy, I can read you like a book!

Then care to illustrate how Mr Assange differs from a case overturned in the year of his birth, between the New York Times, the very outfit that published his material several years ago, and the United States Government, the very outfit you assert is not only behind Mr Assange’s sexual assault case, but is also trying to extradite Mr Assange and charge and try him under the very same section of the Espionage Act, with a crime eerily similar to case the United States Government lost 41 years ago? Precedent Waldo, precedent, the United States Government can’t charge Mr Assange with the same crime they attempted to charge the NY Times with……….They’ve got nothing!!!!!!!

That is, unless, you care to demonstrate another law Mr Assange might have broken?

I think you need to loosen your tin hat, it appears to be cutting the blood flow to your brain.

[dre]

That is, unless, you care to demonstrate another law Mr Assange might have broken?

Why? What difference would that make?

[Guest Derek L]

Why? What difference would that make?

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.