Assange's mental, physical health deteriorating under embassy confinement – medical records

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

FFS - please actually understand the question - by your " logic " - ANYTHING at all COULD be " out there "

now where did i put my file of " seal secret deeds - that proove i own the world " ?

see how easy it is ???????????????????????

now once again - i shall type slowly - what is your EVIDENCE that this alledged file of " sealed charges " exists ?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So Assange's has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy for 5 years or. Is that now in some way supposed in infer that the experience impacts on his capability to be objectives in his assessment of various events that happen in the world. Is it being inferred that this residency in the embassy is affecting is judgement?

Did being in prison, which I would guess is much worse than living in an embassy, affect the judgement and objectivity of Nelson Mandela?

Did living in the Gulags of Russia for 20 years affect the judgement and objectivity of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?

Funny how this get said right in the middle of the hot spot in the US presidential elections process.

just more election BS I'm afraid - not worth a cracker of importance.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The holocaust? WTF is your problem? Of course it happened and it is in incredibly poor taste to attempt that argument. Again point out, in all the documents he released dealing with the US, which ones detail corruption / illegal activity and then tell us all how many disclosures he made of classified material that shows absolutely none.

Trying to argue a hypothetical as fact doesn't change the truth either.

a reply to: crazyewok

It's ok to think that however thinking something and the actual status of a law are 2 different things.

When the internet is used to commit a crime against the US Government the law applies. When Assange provides support to Manning in order to bypass security procedures to get the classified info out, its a violations of the law. When a person receives that info and are not cleared to have it its against the law. When the person shares that classified info with people not allowed to have it its a violation of the law.

As to the ludicrous UK gun question no. However if I box up a bunch of guns and ship them to the UK in a manner that bypasses their laws I can be charged in the UK and they can extradite me. If I use the internet and conspire with a person in the UK on a topic that violates UK law, like child pornography, I can be charged under UK law and extradited.

Sovereign - you hit the nail on the head without realizing it and most likely not understanding its importance. Back to the Uk and gun hypothetical it would fall under the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Just as crimes involving computers would fall under the relevant UN conventions the US, UK and other countries are signatories to.

A foreign national who is found guilty of a crime in another country has the ability under UN conventions to serve their sentence in their home country.

I really am not sure why you guys dont bother to research before taking a position and arguing it to the death. Disagreeing with a law does not invalidate that law, or UN convention.

a reply to: daaskapital

The UN can disagree all they want but in the end the specific UN committee has no jurisdiction and its findings are not binding. However Swedish, UK and EU law is binding and they were used.

As for his medical / mental condition thats of his own making.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Xcathdra

Please provide us a link to where the US DOJ has clearly printed that they are not intent on charging him.

Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents

There have been persistent rumors that the grand jury investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks had secretly led to charges. Officials told The Post last week that there was no sealed indictment, and other officials have since come forward to say, as one senior U.S. official put it, that the department has “all but concluded” that it will not bring a case against Assange.

Your turn.. A link to your source that an indictment is sealed and ready to go.

Assange needs to stop using the US to get out of the rape charges in Sweden. Ironically a crime under Swedish law that occurred while Assange was in Sweden. So those who want to make an argument about jurisdiction should probably not when Assange thinks he is above the laws of the nations he is in when he violates them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I really am not sure why you guys dont bother to research before taking a position and arguing it to the death. Disagreeing with a law does not invalidate that law, or UN convention.

That is because the law is not "just" !....the "law" is not the be all and end all, it is a bunch of words written by corrupt bureaucrats who like to have control over others and not only that like to push their own special brand of "justice"....i realize you will not get what i am saying as you are a law enforcer...you do not care if the law is just you only care about keeping your job...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

and again thinking a law is unjust does not invalidate the laws in question.

Secondly you don't know me so take the snark somewhere else. Secondly I cannot enforce federal law any more than federal law enforcement can enforce state / municipal law. Educate yourself before trying to accuse me of something that's false.

What part of the law do you think is unjust and why?

IS JULIAN ASSANGE MOVING?

The rumours comes as the Swedish appeals court rejected Mr Assange’s request to have a detention order lifted.

Footage taken from outside the embassy on Friday morning shows a removal van with people coming in and out of the building, placing objects in the van.

Sweden's Court of Appeal refused Mr Assange's request to have the case "set aside", ruling that no new information had emerged.

The decision, made by the Svea Court of Appeal, means that the arrest warrant still stands for the 45-year-old computer hacker.

Mr Assange, who has been living in the embassy for four years to avoid arrest over the case, lodged a legal challenge following a decision by the United Nations Working Group in February that his confinement amounted to arbitrary detention.

But the appeal court said that after reviewing material in the case, it found that the Australian was still a suspect in a sex allegation.

Upholding a lower court's ruling, it said Swedish prosecutors are now actively trying to move the investigation forward, including planning on questioning Assange on Octoer 17.

click link for article...

How much should we wager that he will try to get out of the embassy in a furniture box?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
How much should we wager that he will try to get out of the embassy in a furniture box?

I give that a 0% chance. UK authorities are allowed to inspect the boxes as they leave since it's not privileged communications, and even if it were they still have some limited inspection ability to confirm a package contains documents rather than something else.

originally posted by: XcathdraI would like to know where you are getting the impression a person cannot break the laws of another nation unless they are present in said nation, specifically when its internet related.

When it's internet related it usually comes down to the location of the servers. In Assange's case, he's not using servers positioned in the US so he's good. If he provided Manning with some software, there might be something there, but it would depend on how it was distributed which is beyond my knowledge on the case. If Assange had it on a server for Manning to make a choice to download he's probably in the clear. If it was a direct file transfer he could be in trouble.

As for charges I already told you - violation of the espionage act, conspiracy, possession of classified information, distribution of classified information etc.

It would come down to the definition of a journalist. There's the case with Zehe, but journalists get different standards.

From some quick research, it looks like the courts also apply a standard of acting in bad faith in this type of scenario, but Assange's entire message is that when stuff is in the open, government activity remains on the up and up. He's not doing it to damage, but rather to make the world better.

All of which is to say that while he might be charged, he does have a decent defense. And of course, if there was ever a time where the US just simply isn't going to care about putting him on trial, that time is now.

a reply to: Aazadan

Diplomatic pouches / items goes beyond just parcels. They put him in a box and slap diplomatic package on the front and they are good.

a reply to: Aazadan

He used the internet to receive classified US documents. The server location is irrelevant. Again a person does not have to be in the US to violate some federal laws when they are an active participant in the crime. Setting aside the assistance argument he is still receiving classified material and is distributing classified material, both of which are violations of the espionage act.

As for journalists - The Pentagon Papers incident saw journalists publish classified US documents. What people overlook is those 2 journalists were actually charged with a crime. During the beginning of the trial the prosecutor screwed up resulting in a mistrial. The prosecutor's office did not refile the charges. The Scotus ruling in that mess established 2 things -

1. The US Government cannot prevent the release of documents where the only concern is to prevent embarrassment for the US government.

2. Absolutely nowhere in that ruling did it protect journalists from prosecution for publishing classified material.

The journalist argument goes out the window when he provides software to assist in bypassing security measure in order to obtain classified material. Secondly he published classified material that shows no criminal actions / law violations. That would be your bad faith requirement right there.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
That is because the law is not "just" !....the "law" is not the be all and end all, it is a bunch of words written by corrupt bureaucrats who like to have control over blah, blah, blah.

Yes, I agree with you that alleged rapists should be allowed to escape without any process. Rape is a petty offence that is made up by the worst bureaucrats, known as women!

In all this crap Assange defence twaddle, people seem to forget a serious sex offence is alleged to have been committed.

Assange has locked himself away because he hopes it'll all time out and his unquestioning supporters will bore the rest of the world with excuses and how his alleged sex offences were somehow inconsequential. Maybe we will all end up in a Caliphate where rape is not just legal, it's expected.

Oops, sorry. Double post.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The journalist argument goes out the window when he provides software to assist in bypassing security measure in order to obtain classified material. Secondly he published classified material that shows no criminal actions / law violations. That would be your bad faith requirement right there.

Not necessarily. Some of the Wikileaks docs and stuff did show some highly-questionable activities, so there's a public interest issue there. A good line of argument (maybe a concrete legal defence argument) would be that Wikileaks involves such a huge mass of material that to sift it all to make sure you only published the incriminating stuff would take so long as to render the material irrelevant except to historians. I don't know what the legal position is in the states, but here in the UK it is recognised in law that news is a perishable commodity.

What Assange and his crew can do is point out, truthfully, that some Wikileaks had definite public interest value and that (for the reason described above) the public interest was best served by releasing everything they had, and if some of that stuff was innocuous then that's just collateral damage.

a reply to: audubon

There is a distinction people are not understanding.

If the files were given to wikileaks with no other action taken by wikileaks then your argument might work. However, when wikileaks (Assange) provides support via providing encryption software that allowed Manning to bypass security protocols to get the classified info out and to wikileaks (assange) you have moved from reporting on a whistle blower story to actively participating in a federal felony crime.

Secondly if wikileaks only released the files that showed criminal wrong doing / corruption then, again, it would support your argument. The fact they released classified material that shows no corruption / no wrongdoing again undermines the argument people are making to defend Assange.

SPAM removed by admin

a reply to: Xcathdra

Why you got such a hard on for Assange?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: audubon

There is a distinction people are not understanding.

If the files were given to wikileaks with no other action taken by wikileaks then your argument might work. However, when wikileaks (Assange) provides support via providing encryption software that allowed Manning to bypass security protocols to get the classified info out and to wikileaks (assange) you have moved from reporting on a whistle blower story to actively participating in a federal felony crime.

To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case. Manning and Assange certainly communicated one-to-one by encrypted channels, but that is completely different. Manning's 'bypassing of security protocols' was amusingly mundane, e.g., smuggling a CD ROM full of stolen data past inspection by labelling it 'Lady Gaga'. I await definitive correction on this point of distinction.

Secondly if wikileaks only released the files that showed criminal wrong doing / corruption then, again, it would support your argument. The fact they released classified material that shows no corruption / no wrongdoing again undermines the argument people are making to defend Assange.

No, I don't think you're understanding what I posted. I addressed the question of the 'mixture of leaked material' and it stands. You're throwing the 'incriminating evidence' baby out with the 'totally innocuous' bathwater.