You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
June 13 2024 3.54pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 7 of 16 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

 

View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 25 Feb 13 8.34pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 8.09pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 8.04pm
Thing is he has certainly broken laws, both US and international, that he could be extradited on without it being deemed for military or political reasons.


How do you think they could frame it in a non-political, non-military way? I'm not being facetious at all, I'm genuinely curious what your thinking is.

Personally, I cannot see anything sticking that doesn't have some semblance of political motivation.


Theft, intellectual if not actual. Espionage, though I suppose that's political. Not sure if he released any corporate stuff? They could probably go for him on libel, slander, defamation etc? Probably got all sorts of other laws they could throw at him that I don't know about too.

They released so much stuff that he's bound to have left more than one avenue for them to persue, should they so wish don't forget. It's his belief only that this will occur. Which is a convenient way of not complying with our court's ruling and not facing trial in Sweden, until we're proven to otherwise.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 8.46pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 8.34pm
Theft, intellectual if not actual. Espionage, though I suppose that's political. Not sure if he released any corporate stuff? They could probably go for him on libel, slander, defamation etc? Probably got all sorts of other laws they could throw at him that I don't know about too..


Theft? Couple of years jail time, if that.
Libel, slander, defamation? Very hard if not impossible to prove any of those, as they were simply passing on communications that occurred, without putting spin on them.

They really want him on the basis of the Espionage Act, as it would open the scope on his detention significantly. The real issue is that if Assange's legal representation manage to provide enough evidence that he is in fact a journalist in a more modern interpretation of the word, the First Amendment rights of journalists would, I believe, supercede and nullify all of the major charges against him and Wikileaks in general.

Watch how the Espionage Act changes in the next few years to reflect America's inability to prosecute someone they so desperately want to make an example of.

 


WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 25 Feb 13 8.48pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 8.31pm

You're tying yourself in knots here. You previously accused Assange of taking a pick and choose mentality to international law. So a state can bend international law whenever they choose to, but an individual subject to the same, loose, subjective law or treaty is not allowed an interpretation?

There is no maybe, maybe not on whether Sweden broke its own treaty on extradition. [Link] Guardian bias aside, it's a very well documented case of Extraordinary Rendition and the dismissal of international law as the basis for extradition.

An individual does not get to officially decide upon which laws they do or do not follow....Well, legally.

A democratic state however votes on and creates laws. It frames those laws and creates its extradition laws within its own parliament.

If a state breaks its own laws, then as the state does to the citizen, it can be taken to court by any citizen or organization who believes it has....If they have the wonga.

You say Sweden broke its own extradition laws. So has it lost any judgement upon its decision in a court of law?

If it had I'd concede you have a point.

Anyway this is besides the point. As I say, what a previous Swedish government did ten years ago has little relevance to today.


 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 8.58pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 Feb 2013 8.48pm
You say Sweden broke its own extradition laws. So has it lost any judgement upon its decision in a court of law?


OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony and Isaac Turnbaugh all sincerely thank you for your stance.

Stirling, you're clearly not stupid, don't cling to the notion that simply because a conviction has not been achieved (or perhaps even sought) that a law has not been broken. You know that's a fallacy.

 


WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 25 Feb 13 9.09pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 8.46pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 8.34pm
Theft, intellectual if not actual. Espionage, though I suppose that's political. Not sure if he released any corporate stuff? They could probably go for him on libel, slander, defamation etc? Probably got all sorts of other laws they could throw at him that I don't know about too..


Theft? Couple of years jail time, if that.
Libel, slander, defamation? Very hard if not impossible to prove any of those, as they were simply passing on communications that occurred, without putting spin on them.

They really want him on the basis of the Espionage Act, as it would open the scope on his detention significantly. The real issue is that if Assange's legal representation manage to provide enough evidence that he is in fact a journalist in a more modern interpretation of the word, the First Amendment rights of journalists would, I believe, supercede and nullify all of the major charges against him and Wikileaks in general.

Watch how the Espionage Act changes in the next few years to reflect America's inability to prosecute someone they so desperately want to make an example of.

Regardless of their respective tariffs, I'm saying that he's given them more than enough freebies to extradite him on, should they wish to. They could after all have beaten Sweden to the chase and applied to extradite him from us. We've shown we're more than happy to send one of our own for the trivial crime of hosting links to US intellectual property.

Once they have him, I presume they could try him on all sorts of petty matters the like of which i've mentioned. I don't doubt for one second that they would make a list of charges as long as your arm, including but not restricted to all those i've mentioned.

But this is all by the by as it's only what he thinks will happen, as I said. The fact is both Sweden and ourselves have demonstrated to judges/courts (multiple ones too i'd bet) good reason, whereas he's going on gut instinct and nothing more.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 25 Feb 13 9.16pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 9.09pm
They could after all have beaten Sweden to the chase and applied to extradite him from us.

Once they have him, I presume they could try him on all sorts of petty matters the like of which i've mentioned.


No, America has not yet begun extradition with neither Sweden nor the UK. Here is a really good article with three legal opinions on the likelihood and frailties of the case. [Link]

 


WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 25 Feb 13 9.22pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 9.16pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 9.09pm
They could after all have beaten Sweden to the chase and applied to extradite him from us.

Once they have him, I presume they could try him on all sorts of petty matters the like of which i've mentioned.


No, America has not yet begun extradition with neither Sweden nor the UK. Here is a really good article with three legal opinions on the likelihood and frailties of the case. [Link]


I know, I've said this about 4 times in recent posts. They could have, were they going to do what Assange keeps telling us he thinks they'll do via Sweden.

As it stands there is no case, he should stop using that as his defence against A) going to Sweden and B) breaking our laws.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 25 Feb 13 9.35pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 8.58pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 Feb 2013 8.48pm
You say Sweden broke its own extradition laws. So has it lost any judgement upon its decision in a court of law?


OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony and Isaac Turnbaugh all sincerely thank you for your stance.

Stirling, you're clearly not stupid, don't cling to the notion that simply because a conviction has not been achieved (or perhaps even sought) that a law has not been broken. You know that's a fallacy.


That's clearly true.

The only problem is without a balanced judgement within a law court (which as we all know is still opinion to a certain extent, qualifed or not and can occasionally be guilty of its own injustice) but without it we come down to pointing fingers.....And to be honest, I don't know enough about the actual event to have a strong opinion on it.

I'm not a fan of Assange, though I recognise the benefit of the whistle blowing ability of the web.....though I'm not so sure I'm so willing to accept Wikileaks as some 'white knight' of fairness or judger of what should be in the public domain. They unlike a state have no mandate...So it's a double edged sword in my view.

On the other hand I don't agree with America's way over the top treatment of those it considers 'anti-American'....The sentences don't appear proportionate for what is a form of white collar crime, as I see it.

Still, Assange decided to wag the tail of the tiger, I'm not sure it's the job of this country to get involved either way in America's angst. In that I mean that any decision we take shouldn't really be bothered about Assange's situation but rather be to follow law.....Assange damaged our diplomatic relations as well but we seem to be less stressed by that than our slightly loopy 'over the pond' cousins.

Maybe the EU states are just using the US as the official 'bully boy' for someone they feel deserves payback...Maybe, who really knows.

I think he should answer for these, probably unprovable or false charges, in Sweden. However that is done doesn't bother me particularly....After that, if he escapes the USA's clutches then more power to his elbow, if not.....Well, I don't see how Britain owns him anything to go out to bat for him.


Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2013 9.37pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 Feb 13 12.22am

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 8.34pm

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 8.09pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 8.04pm
Thing is he has certainly broken laws, both US and international, that he could be extradited on without it being deemed for military or political reasons.


How do you think they could frame it in a non-political, non-military way? I'm not being facetious at all, I'm genuinely curious what your thinking is.

Personally, I cannot see anything sticking that doesn't have some semblance of political motivation.


Theft, intellectual if not actual. Espionage, though I suppose that's political. Not sure if he released any corporate stuff? They could probably go for him on libel, slander, defamation etc? Probably got all sorts of other laws they could throw at him that I don't know about too.

They released so much stuff that he's bound to have left more than one avenue for them to persue, should they so wish don't forget. It's his belief only that this will occur. Which is a convenient way of not complying with our court's ruling and not facing trial in Sweden, until we're proven to otherwise.

The degree to which a free press can be regarded as espionage is debatable, especially considering the much of the information seems to have been things and events classed as National Security because they were embrassing to a government, rather than actual threats to national security.

When governments conspire and break laws (such as kidknapping and torture of citizens, start wars based on lies and control information for their own gain) is it really Assange who is the true criminal. Classing Assange in line with espionage is just another abuse of the laws that successive UK and US governments have utilised to silence their critics, because the truth is not on their side.

Wikileaks does what the press is supposed to do, expose hard truths nations don't want to hear.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (26 Feb 2013 12.25am)

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View banksy's Profile banksy Flag Norwich 26 Feb 13 12.59am Send a Private Message to banksy Add banksy as a friend

I couldn't agree more with Jamiemartin721. He has made it very clear that Assange should not be in any way terrorised for simply disclosing the dirty secrets of the US and other governments. As such he is doing the world a huge public service. There is a difference between genuine issues of national security and nasty cover ups of wrong doings. What horrified me a few days ago was reading a number of comments on these boards that villified Assange and made him out to be the villain of the piece. I hope those fans in due course realize how he is doing them and all of us a service by shining light on evil acts. A brave man indeed!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 26 Feb 13 1.28am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote banksy at 26 Feb 2013 12.59am

I couldn't agree more with Jamiemartin721. He has made it very clear that Assange should not be in any way terrorised for simply disclosing the dirty secrets of the US and other governments. As such he is doing the world a huge public service. There is a difference between genuine issues of national security and nasty cover ups of wrong doings. What horrified me a few days ago was reading a number of comments on these boards that villified Assange and made him out to be the villain of the piece. I hope those fans in due course realize how he is doing them and all of us a service by shining light on evil acts. A brave man indeed!


Secrets?

Yeah....We simply had no idea that diplomats were two faced and said one thing to a foreign power and another to their own.

Yeah, we needed to know that....What a complete shock that was....I had to sit down for that one.

There was/is some merit is releasing news of atrocities that took place in war....Some benefit to that, though we all know it happens in war zones.

At the end of the day, who are Wikileaks to decide what information should and shouldn't be in the public domain?

Who elected them? Where does their mandate come from? There is a problem with farming out trust into web developers and their researchers.....You are just swapping agendas as far as I see.

What have they done to earn your faith in their honesty or integrity? You don't know what they don't tell you...How is that any different? You know them no better than the government officials you profess disdain for.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Sir James Hird Flag Mount Martha 26 Feb 13 2.12am

An interesting point was rised here on a TV programme last night. many draft dodgers from the USA decamped to Sweden during the Vietnam War and they did so as Swedens extradition rules made it impossible for them to be returned. Would this not mean that Assange would be safe to face his Swedish charges in safety and at worst enjoy the security of a Swedish prison?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 7 of 16 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange