Wikileaks' Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden

Originally posted by PsykoOps
How's that misleading? Have you seen what US politicians have said about him? Nothing misleading here. I'd be scared #less too if I were to face such a possiblity.

Come on now, you are to smart to make that argument Psykops. Politicians are not part of the executive or Judicial branch. The claims he is making are completely baseless and are intended to play of emotions rather than fact.

He and his lawyer said he could be charged with Treason in the US - Impossible since he is not a US Citizen. They both have said he would be sent to Gitmo - Impossible since he is not an enemy combatent, nor was he captured on a battlefield. He and his lawyer say he could face the death penalty here in the US - Impossible, because of all the charges that might possibly be filed, none are capital offense.

Agence-France

Assange has claimed his greatest fear was eventual extradition to the United States, where his lawyers argued he could be sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility or face the death penalty.

Of course his argument now, after loosing the extradition hearing, is taking aim at. Someone needs to explain to Mr. Assange its an extradition hearing, not a court battle to challenge Swedish Law. Thats what the Swedish courts are for.

"It is a result of the European Arrest Warrant system run amok. There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merits of the allegations against me,"

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Source?

Man this gets old.. How many times do I need to post this info?

New books describe storms behind WikiLeaks scenes

Both the Spiegel and Guardian journalists' books describe a November 1, 2010 meeting at which Assange threatened the Guardian with a lawsuit over what he alleged was a breach of a deal he thought he had with the newspaper.

Assange showed up with two lawyers. The WikiLeaks creator "felt that a breach of contract had taken place, which is why he had brought along his attorneys," Spiegel journalists Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark report in their book, entitled "Staatsfeind WikiLeaks" ("WikiLeaks, Public Enemy No. 1").

According to the Spiegel account, Assange last summer signed a written agreement with the Guardian in which the newspaper agreed that WikiLeaks was providing the diplomatic cables to it for review and that the paper could not duplicate or publish them without WikiLeaks' permission.

According to both Spiegel's account and the account of Guardian journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding in "WikiLeaks -- Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy," Assange sought to cut out the New York Times from WikiLeaks' cache of diplomatic cables after the newspaper ran an unflattering profile of him.

The Times had earlier collaborated with the Guardian and Der Spiegel on the publication of classified U.S. military reports related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Guardian and Spiegel executives wanted to continue their collaborative relationship with the American newspaper.

By late October, the Guardian had acquired copies of the cables from a second source not directly beholden to Assange. This led the British paper's editorial executives to conclude they were no longer bound by any deal about the material which they had previously agreed with Assange.

WIKILEAKS LEAKED

Without Assange's consent, the Guardian went ahead and provided the Times with the State Department material.

According to the book by the Spiegel journalists, who attended the November 1 meeting, Assange used words like "theft" and "criminal activities" when talking about distribution by the Guardian and others of the WikiLeaks State Department hoard.

The Guardian journalists' book says that Assange, an "underground leaker of illegal secrets," threatened that his lawyers could sue for the loss of Wikileaks' "financial assets." "WikiLeaks has been leaked, that's the truth," declared Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, according to the Spiegel journalists' account.

- More to the story - click the link above.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Again, source?

www.wikileaks.com / about

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.

Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
He isnt really making money from this just in case you didn't know that. As of your assesment of his persona I'd be inclined to disagree with all points. Also he has already released tons and tons of damning documents. What more could anyone ever leak? Are you expecting signed murder confessions or something cause it sure sounds like that.

60 Minutes Interview
Wikileaks spending ballooned - Wallstreetjournal
Assange fails to deliver funds to manning as promised - until he is called out for it

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Micronesians?

lol - Sorry its the latest country I like to use as an example -
The Federated States of Micronesia

The Capital is on the Island of Yapp for those who like to bring out useless geography knowledge at parties.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Wikileaks is not about the US. You should really check out the leaked info before making such leaps of logic.

The Us is the only country Assange has targeted where it goes beyond just one issue. The Us is the only country where Assange is releasing as much info as he can, whether its criminal or not.

Thats not a leap of logic, its a fact based on his actions and statements to date.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The Us is the only country Assange has targeted where it goes beyond just one issue. The Us is the only country where Assange is releasing as much info as he can, whether its criminal or not.

Gee whiz, what a surprise...
Considering thousands of leaks came from ONE source and that was leaked embassy communications...

But there have been leaks involving other countries...
It's just that the US is the biggest influence in world politics by a country mile...

Originally posted by kroms33
I find it quite interesting that you prop up the government beyond their broken measure.
You see the corruption of all of the world governments do you not? But yet you do not hold these very entities accountable for their actions but yet focus on a single grain of sand amongst a vast desert.

Yes, I see the corruption, both from the Government and from Assange. Its one thing to say you are going to do something, but following through is the indicator if the person is genuine or not. In this case, Assange has not been honest with his motives.

As I have stated now in many other threads, I am ALL for holding our Government accountible. However, any information that could have been potentially used is now void because of the manner in which it was released. It can be considered the fruit of the poisonous tree, negating any possible legal action against the US Government or its agencts who acted illegally.

This has been my argument from the start, and has not changed.

Originally posted by kroms33
No, I don't have to go back – I have the documents downloaded. Where your arguments lack is the knowledge of the issue at hand. They said they would release the key to these documents if Julian's life was threatened or he was killed, or imprisoned. So far, the courts of the world have not imprisoned him thus far. So where does the lie fall? You extend it beyond what it seems to try to prove a point, which failed.

Then you dont have the information. All you have is Assanges files, which amounts to nothing since you have no idea what those files contain. For all you know, it could be his grandmothers recipe for chocolate pudding and rice kabobs.

The info I have presented comes from assange himself during interviews. If he didnt lie so much, he might actually be bale to keep his stories straight and not look like a flake when he argues his points.

Originally posted by kroms33
No. I meant people like you –

uhm, ok Ross Perot

Originally posted by kroms33
I believe differently. Look, you are most likely someone who would go out in the streets yelling and screaming because 'they' tell you to. I on the other hand will no longer listen to what they have to say. Yes, I have to follow 'their' rules so that I do not end up in jail – but if I live my life justly and without disrespect for my fellow man – why would it matter who claimed ownership of me or you? I mean, who owns you?

lolololol - Thats funny.. so you refuse to listen to the Government, because someone else demands you listen to them. Guess what, it makes you exactly what you accuse me of. Assange told you to not believe the US Government, but himself. Talk about your chickens coming home to roost.

I will take my chances with the US Government, knowing I can participate in the process and hold people aco#ible. Something that cannot be said about Mr. Assange, who is accountible to no one. Have fun following that, buyt keep in mind when you run out of money to donate to him, you will be tossed aside.

Originally posted by kroms33
What is it that you focus on for your survival? List? Really? Come on. “Corroborating” information is in the eyes of the beholder of that information. What information could I wager against you to pull you out of the illusion you solidify? Wizards is a play on words... if you actually believe them to exist – well, I might have a bit of hope for you.

Ok, I will take that as you made a statement but cannot back it up. If you dont know, then dont say it.. Its all I am asking.

Originally posted by kroms33
I find it also interesting in that everything that you have listed is not any type of “Corroborating” information but yet opinion based on a current and ongoing issue that has not played out yet.

It might help you to read the info posted, where Assange says the things I am talking about.

Originally posted by kroms33
No kidding? Really? I was so unaware that he was making millions off of these stories. Hmmm. I wonder why other people had to fund his bail and help his legal team... wow. What an illusion. Oh, wait – I forgot to ask about your claims... I mean, do you have any proof that Assange is making millions off of people? It seems quite the contrary.

Actually he has made millions, being he just signed a 1.3 million dollar book deal, which if you do some research, namely going to almost any news site, you can find the article. You can also find articles talking about Assange asking for donations, and where that money has gone (wall street journal has a good article about this issue).

To be honest though its close to impossible to accurately see how much money they have coming in, since wikileaks ignores its own stated goals of transparency by refusing to release financial documents for wikileaks - By the way, Assange promised that as well, yet failed to follow through.

How WikiLeaks Keeps Its Funding Secret .

Originally posted by kroms33
So, do you live in a dictatorship or democracy? Think about it for a while and get back to me.

So I guess that is your way of actually avoiding answering any questions or making an argument in support of Assange.

I dont live in a dictatorship, nor do I live in a Democracy. I live in the United States of America, which is a Representative Republic. Why dont you go ahead and look that up and get back to me.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by earthdude

 

Standard practice here in the UK.....warrant for arrest=arrested, arrested=remanded in custody until trial or hearing

2 possible outcomes, if your deemed a risk, or you might flee, back in remand until next court hearing OR electronically tagged and curfewed, if your not back home by xxx time, automatic phone call to Group 4 security, who then phone the house, if there is no response from the tagged individual the police are alerted and manhunt begins.

To be arrested I thought they needed a charge..
Anyone know what Assange has been charged with??

I ain't heard any.......

Ive been trying to figure this one out as well, and I know we have had some disagreements over this area. To me, it looks like what we would call a Material Witness Warrant. Where a person has first hand knowledge of a crime, but refuses for whatever reason to make themselves available to the court. An arrest warrant from the judge can be issued to force the person to come to court and provide testimony.

The only problem with that is it cannot be used against the accused. This is one part of Swedish law that confuses me, well aside from no condom being rape, but we dont get to fix swedish laws.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You really have it in for Assange..
Did he turn you down at a party??

reply to post by Xcathdra

To me, it looks like what we would call a Material Witness Warrant. Where a person has first hand knowledge of a crime, but refuses for whatever reason to make themselves available to the court. An arrest warrant from the judge can be issued to force the person to come to court and provide testimony.

I have yet to see where anyone has shown they have EVER used this power before..

It seems very very unusual in this case..A one off in fact...

Originally posted by backinblack
These cases are held behind CLOSED doors in Sweden..
Not exactly open and transparent justice...

Yes, nothing like a hundred and one websites picking up the same words as planted by Assange’s legal team. The words are “secret”, “trial” and “unfair”. I thought Assange was a knight in shining armour against misinformation.

In the Swedish court system cases which centre on sexual offenses have the evidence revealed in closed session, but the arguments are public. Just because the Swedish model differs from what some people are familiar does not mean that it is flawed, unfair or lacks independence.

Regards

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You really have it in for Assange..
Did he turn you down at a party??

Lol no... As far as having it in for him, his level of hypocrisy coupled with people who want so badly to believe in him that they ignore facts is problematic. The world is not as black and white as people demand it be.

You dont find it the least bit intresting how Assange can dump hundreds of thousands of illegally obtained documents while making the argument governments should obey the law and be held accountible to it?

How its ok for Assange to take his course of action, yet when a newspaper gets info leaked to them, Assange threatens to sue because they documents belong to him and would create a financial hardship to him.

If Assange were genuine in his statements about holding people and governments accountible, and did that in a responsible manner, I would be arguing in his defense. Instead, all he has done is exactly what he accuses others of doing.

Seriously, think about it for a minute with an open mind.

Assange demands governments / business be transparent - Yet he refuses to comply with his own company.
Demands government people should be held accountible for their crimes, and face the courts, while he dismisses his accusers and refuses to submit to the very same system.
Assange has ignored lawsuits from companies, telling those companies to go to hell as he releases their info, yet turns around and files lawsuits against other entities who had the documents leaked to them and were going to publish the information.

All I am saying is look beyond the surface and look at the underlying details present.

Assange had these documents leaked to him. Assange says there are damning documents contained, and he will release them regardless of any court action or attempts to stop him.

The Guardian newspaper enters an agreement with Assange that they would not print the info Assange gave them until its approved. The Guardian then gets all of the files leaked to them from an inside wikileaks source. They were going to print, and Assange threatens to sue, because he says he owns the info and it would hurt him financially.

People dont see the problem with this??

Having Assange take on this crusade would be like having the SS investigate Aushwitz. We know there is wrongdoing going on, but when the people who are doing the investigation behave in the exact same manner, exactly where does one find justice?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The Us is the only country Assange has targeted where it goes beyond just one issue. The Us is the only country where Assange is releasing as much info as he can, whether its criminal or not.

Gee whiz, what a surprise...
Considering thousands of leaks came from ONE source and that was leaked embassy communications...

But there have been leaks involving other countries...
It's just that the US is the biggest influence in world politics by a country mile...

Fair observtion, but my point is the intent behind the leaks, according to Assange, is to expose criminal wrongdoing. He did an awesome job on this point when dealing with Kenya. It was targeted, to the point, and the facts supported the claims.

The US on the ohter hand, is a free for all. Criminal wrongdoing hidden under mounds of trivial and non important data. Thats not the intention of a person wanting to expose criminal wrongdoing.

reply to post by backinblack


If you are refering specifically to a Material Witness Warrant, its a US term. WhenI compared it to sweden, I said its the closest thing I could think of as to how an extradition could take place without a formal charge.

Technically speaking, Britain could forgo the extradition hearing and just revoke his ability to remain inside the country, since he is not a British National, and last time I checked I dont think the overseas citizenship clause would prtect him either.

Here is the info on the Material Wintess Warrant - US only

reply to post by Xcathdra

If Assange were genuine in his statements about holding people and governments accountible, and did that in a responsible manner, I would be arguing in his defense. Instead, all he has done is exactly what he accuses others of doing.

Seriously, think about it for a minute with an open mind.

Personel privacy is written into law..
We are all entitled to that..

The Government is supposed to be open and transparent, after all, they work for US....

Do YOU not see the difference???
You are comparing "personel privacy" with Government lies and secrecy...
Two completly different subjects....

reply to post by Xcathdra

The US on the ohter hand, is a free for all. Criminal wrongdoing hidden under mounds of trivial and non important data. Thats not the intention of a person wanting to expose criminal wrongdoing.

It was clearly reported how many cables were leaked..
If Wiki only released the good stuff I gaurantee people such as yourself would next be saying he's being selective and targeting certain countries or whatever..

Hence he releases all, even the trivial stuff..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If Assange were genuine in his statements about holding people and governments accountible, and did that in a responsible manner, I would be arguing in his defense. Instead, all he has done is exactly what he accuses others of doing.

Seriously, think about it for a minute with an open mind.

Personel privacy is written into law..
We are all entitled to that..

The Government is supposed to be open and transparent, after all, they work for US....

Do YOU not see the difference???
You are comparing "personel privacy" with Government lies and secrecy...
Two completly different subjects....

Care to explain how the Bank of America, which is a private business, meets your criteria? Or how about the personal info on Rupert Murdoch, who is a private citizen and owns a private business?

I have never said Government should not be held aco#ible. Actually if you check my posts on Government, I am always arguing for people to take part in government and hold them accountible.

What assange is doing, in my view, would be like investigating a murder. During he investigation, your partner goes and sneaks into a suspects house on a hunch, and finds the smoking gun.

The problem is, the manner in which the evidence was seized is illegal and falls under the fruit of the poisonous tree. Meaning the case is done and overwith because the only peice of evidence linking the suspect to the crime is no longer allowed in as evidence period.

All assange is doing, imo, is giving 10001 ideas on how to further hide any potential criminal wrongdoing by the Government.

When you crack somebodies code, you dont tell them you have cracked it, because they will undoubtedly go back and change it.

reply to post by paraphi

Yes, nothing like a hundred and one websites picking up the same words as planted by Assange’s legal team. The words are “secret”, “trial” and “unfair”. I thought Assange was a knight in shining armour against misinformation.

In the Swedish court system cases which centre on sexual offenses have the evidence revealed in closed session, but the arguments are public. Just because the Swedish model differs from what some people are familiar does not mean that it is flawed, unfair or lacks independence.

So would you care to show me where,in the past, Sweden has gone to this extent to bring someone in for questioning???
No one seems to answer that and it's VERY telling of Sweden's agenda in this case..

reply to post by Xcathdra

Care to explain how the Bank of America, which is a private business, meets your criteria? Or how about the personal info on Rupert Murdoch, who is a private citizen and owns a private business?

Neither are "Private" businesses..They are publicly listed corporations..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The US on the ohter hand, is a free for all. Criminal wrongdoing hidden under mounds of trivial and non important data. Thats not the intention of a person wanting to expose criminal wrongdoing.

It was clearly reported how many cables were leaked..
If Wiki only released the good stuff I gaurantee people such as yourself would next be saying he's being selective and targeting certain countries or whatever..

Hence he releases all, even the trivial stuff..

I Disagree and here is why. There are 3 groups to this whole mess -

Assange and his supporters
Federal Government and their supporters
People who are leary of both and are seaking the truth

When I work an investigation, I dont submit a 40 page document where only 3 pages deal with the case and the rest deal with emails between the Prosecuting Attorny and the Ciuty Administrator of tipacanoe Indiana.

When you release that much info to the public, who have an attention span of a ferrit on crack, its lost. People will quit caring because the facts gets lost in all the hoopla.

Why not target it? He has enough documents to do that, and in the long run it would have made more sense because it would force the public to hear about just the one or few incidents, and not Assange and his extradition treaty and how they dont use charmin toilet paper at gitmo.

Use my responses for exmaple.. They are long winded and have lots of info in them. People see them, read the first paragraph if I am lucky, and the go out and hang themselves from the bordeom. This is whats going on with Assange, the leaks and the media.

What?!?! The Us "murdered" journalists in afghanistan.. well good god we...... OoooOoo look, Assange has an ankle braclet to track him. That Assange is one.... Why would his lawyer talk about Gitmo, that doesnt fit in wi.... Wow crap, the royals are getting married, I wonder how lo.... Who is this assange guy and why is he on the news talking about Kenya?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by paraphi

 

Yes, nothing like a hundred and one websites picking up the same words as planted by Assange’s legal team. The words are “secret”, “trial” and “unfair”. I thought Assange was a knight in shining armour against misinformation.

In the Swedish court system cases which centre on sexual offenses have the evidence revealed in closed session, but the arguments are public. Just because the Swedish model differs from what some people are familiar does not mean that it is flawed, unfair or lacks independence.

So would you care to show me where,in the past, Sweden has gone to this extent to bring someone in for questioning???
No one seems to answer that and it's VERY telling of Sweden's agenda in this case..

Lol I think this is something you can research on your own man. I do enough research and posting as it is, and usually have it ignored. I am not Swedish Law Enforcement, so I dont have an answer for you. Chances are though its on the books in Sweden, since England allowed the extradition to take place.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Lol I think this is something you can research on your own man. I do enough research and posting as it is, and usually have it ignored. I am not Swedish Law Enforcement, so I dont have an answer for you. Chances are though its on the books in Sweden, since England allowed the extradition to take place.

I have searched and found nothing...
No evidence that Sweden has EVER pursued anyone like this..

BTW, that post wasn't even addressed to you..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Care to explain how the Bank of America, which is a private business, meets your criteria? Or how about the personal info on Rupert Murdoch, who is a private citizen and owns a private business?

Neither are "Private" businesses..They are publicly listed corporations..

They are private business owned by shareholders. They are NOT public entities. A business who is owned by the state, and only if its not per court order / congressioanl action or Judicial oversight for bankruptcy, would be considered a public entity.

Bank of America, while compling with Federal Law because its banking, is in fact a private business. As is FoxNews, and Rupert Murdoch is a private citizen.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Use my responses for exmaple.. They are long winded and have lots of info in them. People see them, read the first paragraph if I am lucky, and the go out and hang themselves from the bordeom. This is whats going on with Assange, the leaks and the media.

Probably true of the average member but note, I do read all of your posts..