Julian Assange speaking live NOW {VIDEO}

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As for the use of charges we will just move on since that has more to do with our respective backgrounds and familiarity than practical application.

There's a rather large legal difference between accusation / charges. So I try to make it a point about it.

Its Swedish law and the challenge Assange made in Sweden to their court system was denied. So while you think its suspicious it does not mean it os nor does it mean a conspiracy exists.

Asylum requests are suppose to be substantiated with evidence. Since the Us has not taken the actions assange is claiming, his asylum request is nothing but a hypothetical. How many times have you seen a hypothetical argument in court? Since courts deal in fact and not opinion its hard to justify Assanges claims.

But there is evidence. As I have said the actions by swedish authorities are evidence. Also they refused to guarantee that JA wont be sent to US tipped the scales in favor of granting the asylum. There is no opinion, the actions by Ny are facts.

Also you cannot use what occured to other people in completely different scenarios to this, and you cant compare this to those. It does not work that way for a reason. Trying to make that argument is nothing but an excuse to be honest in hopes its enough to cloud the issue.

It is further evidence that sweden can look the other way when asked to. It relates directly into this case.

Source 3

The lawyer for Julian Assange argued Monday that the embattled WikiLeaks founder will face a secret trial that violates international standards of fairness if sent to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.

Secret trial in sweden - a lie - and Swedish officals have addressed this.

Where have they addressed this? Afaik that is how the system actually works here. Secret trials happen daily.

Substituting Swedish law for English -

Assange's lawyers also say he cannot be extradited because he has not been charged with a crime in Sweden and is only wanted for questioning — and that the allegation is not rape as understood under European and English law.

Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the committal of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.

Wiki

The UCMJ only applies to military members. Military tribunals apply to military members and enemy combatents and the criteria is required in order to use it.

There's nothing to stop them from labelling him enemy combatant. They cry about him aiding the enemy and causing US deaths all the time in US.

Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

As for the other quotes from the media I have to point out that all even the major news organizations are full of misquotes, misinformation and outright lies about this case. I was trying to get direct quotes from the WL crew.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
You are not factoring politics into your law assessment.

thats because it is not a factor in this case. Its between Assange, Sweden and the UK.

Assange is the one constantly invoking the US.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
An independent person can distinguish between real info or politicised info.

An "independent person" in another Assange thread just tried passing of a picture of the convict Kenneth Bradley Manning of Oregon as Pvt. Manning while arguing the picture shows he was tortured. So im not to confident that people actually know what the info is, instead they would rather choose to beleive what they are told instead of allowing the system to resolve the issue.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
Why did Australia's position on Assange upto 3 days ago prior to Fairfax Media release of FOI docs change?

Ask Australia.. As an Australian national they have a right to follow the legal issues in the UK and Sweden. They have no grounds to get involved since they are restricted from doing ao by the law.

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
They had claimed opposite to since 3 days ago now they admit. And trying their best to minimise damage.

Coldly analysing just from a LEO POV is not advised.

Nor is an analysis from an individual who refuses to look at all side of a situation. Not having experience in diplomatic issues / asylum is another issue that should be avoided simply for the reason those people make claims that are untrue and not supported by facts.

Finally its a simple matter of law, and people ignore that.
The process in Sweden works and people ignore that.
The process in England works and people ignore that.
There are no charges / extradition requests from the Us and people ignore that.

An analysis from a person who does not understand the law and instead uses personal opinions in place of law when they dont like it is not advised either.

reply to post by daaskapital


just watched his speech now what a good speech, i like the end bit about the governments of the world are united in suppressing freedom of speech, so we need to unit to fight them

Originally posted by PsykoOps
There's a rather large legal difference between accusation / charges. So I try to make it a point about it.

As I said we are on the same page but because of the backgrounds.....

Originally posted by PsykoOps
But there is evidence. As I have said the actions by swedish authorities are evidence. Also they refused to guarantee that JA wont be sent to US tipped the scales in favor of granting the asylum. There is no opinion, the actions by Ny are facts.

No its not evidence.. Asking 2 countries to guarantee a third country wont get a person is not their place to answer. Secondly I postd information where Sweden and the UK did answer that question. They stated Assange would be subject to Swedish / UK and EU rules for any extradition request, which is consistent with the law, where as demanding someone not be extradited is a violation of it.

As I stated with Assange they ignore the laws when they dont like the response. If there is evidence Assange was invovled with the Manning issue why should the US not be able to charge / prosecute him? If he violated US laws, contrary to personal opinions in these forums, dont they have a right as a soveriegn nation to deal with that law violation?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
It is further evidence that sweden can look the other way when asked to. It relates directly into this case.

Its not actually since Assange and his charges in sweden are nowhere near an enemy combatent. Again trying to link the 2 is nothing but an attempt to cloud the issue.

Using your logic we could argue that the Rosenburg situation should apply to Assange beause he leaked classified information. We could also argue that in addition to the US Assange has released classified information from other countries as well undermining his stated goals of wikileaks which in fact support espionage charges.

See the problem with using that logic? It is a 2 way road...

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Where have they addressed this? Afaik that is how the system actually works here. Secret trials happen daily.

In the article I linked to that apparently you did not read
Also the US, UK and a LOT of countries, including non western, have procedures in place to close a courtroom, depending on what the topic is and wo is testifying etc. In the end the records are a matter of public records and are released, including swedens, which is addressed in the article.

Again they argue a different issue to try and justify their reason to ignore Swedish law. In this case its not the US fault or that the 2 females are lying. In this argument its the court is secret.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the committal of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.

Wiki

Which is not what was used to grant the asylum. Ecquador used the 1954 OAS treaty.

So again, which is it? The reasons against extradition are based all over the place with nothing solid. As I stated, the law is ok when it supports their goal and its disregarded when it does not.

Universal Jurisdiction can be used by the US to justify our war in Iraq.
It could also be used to justify the US arresting Assange.

Do you really want these treaties to be interpreted in that manner? It may work for Assange in one instance and then burn him in the second. Does that mean the second instance must be invalid?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
There's nothing to stop them from labelling him enemy combatant. They cry about him aiding the enemy and causing US deaths all the time in US.

Yes there is - his actions dont meet the criteria. Secondly Ex Post Facto comes to mind as well. Third assange is not military and not subject to the UCMJ. We can keep going over this but it doesnt change the facts that Assanges side is purposely lying about what could happen to their client.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
As for the other quotes from the media I have to point out that all even the major news organizations are full of misquotes, misinformation and outright lies about this case. I was trying to get direct quotes from the WL crew.

Oh please... Like I said you ugys dismiss anything that doesnt support the Assange agenda. You are ignoring the fact the quotes came from his own legal teams so no they are not mistakes or misquotes. The Guardian is one of the media sources and they were working with wikileaks... So now that they posted a quote from hislawyers they are somehow making a mistake?

Originally posted by seethetruth
just watched his speech now what a good speech, i like the end bit about the governments of the world are united in suppressing freedom of speech, so we need to unit to fight them

So when Assange supresses someones speech its ok?

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange threatens to sue 'The Guardian' newspaper for libel

Julian Assange Threatened To Sue Guardian For Publishing WikiLeaks Cables: Vanity Fair

Julian Assange Thinking Of Suing The Guardian: UK Independent Report

The Independent:

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is threatening to sue The Guardian for libel over claims in a book just published by the newspaper. He is believed to be upset by the suggestion that he initially refused to remove the names of local Afghan informants mentioned in Afghan war logs, allegedly saying they would "deserve it" if they were killed as a result of the leaks.

- Primary source

At what point are people going to realize Assange actions are no different than the entities he accuses?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Politics is a factor, you can deny all you want, but the actions speak for themselves.

You are projecting with your picture comment.

The 180 change in Australia's position shows they were and are under immense US pressure.

Also, I wonder what you think of the last minute in his speech today?

He made some in Russia question his motives, because he showed political oppression of Pussy Riot.

For Russia you wouldn't deny politics didn't interfere their 2 year conviction...

reply to post by Plugin


Yeah very true, that is why I also mentioned the 'heart attack gun' though they are very good and ye old 'suiciding', just look at Dr. David Kelly and how they got away with that even though there were lots of iffy things about the whole deal. Though if they want to take him down then I guess it would be more advantageous if they make an example of him as a warning to any others in his team, groups thinking of doing the same or would be whistleblowers who are thinking of talking.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

He violated US law and should be held accountible for that. Had the situation been reversed and the Us is refusing to extradite someone you would be throwing a tmper tantrum about it. So dont play the moral superiority game.

I'm a bit confused by your views? You said the above about Assange, and a couple of messages back you also said this....

Lets try this again since people are missing the point...

Assange, Sweden and the UK have NOTHING to do with the US.

It can't be both ways surely?

Besides, he didn't violate US law because he has never resided there so is not bound by those laws!

If Sweden were that bothered they'd take up Julian's offer of talking to him at the embassy.

Either Sweden want to 'talk' to him or they don't, how many more offers does he have to give them?

Sweden as a country should just tie this up ASAP, they are damaging their own reputation playing their obvious games. Swedish tourism is gonna take a big hit if they don't stop messing about!

I'll never go there after this dirty episode, that's for sure.

Heya guys, I couldn't see if these got posted or not. Looks like I missed a wild thread....perhaps just as well a few pages ago. Anyway, Cryptome made their usual offering of semi-behind the scenes shots of Assange in London. If anyone is interested, here are a couple and a link to the main display of them. What an outright circus outside the Embassy!










Cryptome Assange Photo Gallery

Enjoy!

Go Julian Go!

Just a reminder, Assange didn't steal the cables. Manning did.
Assange is a journalist, who published information.

Assange had an obligation to publish this information. Anyone who is attacking Assange in this thread should go watch some more msm and keep their mouth shut.

I predict this will go down like the Kim.com fiasco.

Everything they do to get Assange on U.S. soil will be deemed illegal, but they'll keep him here anyway.

reply to post by Samuelis

I couldn't agree more and you sum it up in just a few words better than my long winded posts ever could.

Assange was a reporter, whether he had a pretty credentials card and a salary position or not. He got newsworthy material...just like other outlets. Then he released it.....just like other outlets. He'd bent over backwards and outright pissed people off with the delays he insisted on by redacting what was especially sensitive....He DID try. By the time he stopped trying? Well... I wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

I see a very clear distinction between the Mole and the reporter who caught the material...which is all this is when it really comes right down to brass tacks. Just as you note.

reply to post by JamesGC


This afternoon I corrected a transcription taken from a you tube video of this speech word for word. Found one with better sound quality on RT. When I checked out the Main Stream Media, in this case The Telegraph, the video had been heavily edited. It is important to view more that one or two sources. Also, notice how each reporter spins the story. Disgusting. www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Samuelis

 

I couldn't agree more and you sum it up in just a few words better than my long winded posts ever could.

Assange was a reporter, whether he had a pretty credentials card and a salary position or not. He got newsworthy material...just like other outlets. Then he released it.....just like other outlets. He'd bent over backwards and outright pissed people off with the delays he insisted on by redacting what was especially sensitive....He DID try. By the time he stopped trying? Well... I wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

I see a very clear distinction between the Mole and the reporter who caught the material...which is all this is when it really comes right down to brass tacks. Just as you note.

If they go after Assange they have to go after the NYT also, they printed cables, along with a lot of other news outlets.

I say Wikileaks is a protected news site.

reply to post by AGWskeptic
I agree entirely and you know what stops me cold..and runs right with what you're saying? I could have been him... I'll bet MANY of those who are at ATS right now could have been in Assange's place. How many others have considered or even started to make steps toward a web site dealing with the general topic matter of ATS or the like? Perhaps well before even hearing about ATS?

Any one of us who ever considered it..and then hung an electronic shingle out and just done it..could be on the balcony instead of him. ALL he did was gleefully spit in the eyes of some of these people before Manning ever came along....then got handed the ultimate Holy Grail. The guy they already hated.... lol...

But see what I mean? In a different timeline where a few decisions were made different.........and Manning chose a different website. There but for the Grace .....

Why does anyone care what that guy says anymore? He was full of crap from day one and his entire motive was built around a dispute with his partners, not informing the public. I believe his pre-release announcement said something about "changing the world" and the only world that changed was his.
Do some research into the timeline of events before and leading up to the entire "leak" announcement. Read his comments before the leak and compare his PT Barnum claims to what actually hit the internet, you can find better intel on a million other sites.
After the announced "leak" what we actually got was a VERY slow drip, drip, drip of boring diplomatic cables full of gossip with no real value. Meanwhile Julian sold out and started doing television appearances and signing up for a show on RT (another horrible example of true disclosure) and talking to anyone with a microphone and five dollars.
Throw him in the pile with the kids from Angry Pussy or whatever they're called, some time alone to ponder the meaning of "important and necessary" might do us all a little good.

reply to post by daaskapital


American news is so disgusting. Why should he be assassinated? He is a spokesperson for wiki leaks, they themselves did not collect the information, all they do is leak it. They are nothing but a news agency really. He isn't putting any soldiers life at risk or putting the US safety at any risk. He's exposing crimes that the government has done.

Did everyone forget about the Pentagon Papers supreme court ruling?

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is all so boring.. what did he ever do for us, really? Like someone else said, the only world he changed was his own. I haven't heard anything truly interesting or game changing from this guy. Why is this still news?