Assange: Text messages show rape allegations were 'set up' WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange said on Friday that text messages in the possession of the Swedish government prove that rape allegations against him are a set up. “There are intercepted SMS messages between the women and each other and their friends that I'm told represents a set up,” Assange, who spoke from Suffolk, UK, said on …
First of all, try to find some online definitions of "democracy" (without the quote marks).
In essence what it implies (democracy that is) is that the inhabitants of a democracy have rights and responsibilities. Such inhabitants usually (but not always) enable a ruling group to enact the wishes or policies or influence of policies BUT! that enabling process does not denigrate or reduce individual responsibilities or rights. One may delegate duties but one may not delegate responsibilities?
For example: school may educate my child but I am responsible for the education of my child.
Under such a premise WikiLeaks is fully justifiable.
Perhaps, for example, the ruling group is becoming so incestuous, so driven by the power, wealth and income along with the headiness os importance or other distractions in order to self seek its own importance.
Or even worse still to self seek its own importance and continued credence above all other considerations.
Interim conclusion: in a democracy Wikileaks is fully justified and all attempts to throttle it should be investigated with and by urgency by authorities enabled to protect the democratic nature of that country.
As an aside: Sweden has recently always been a bit troubled by power struggles around it. Nazi Germany & the West. USSR & the West. We cannot really blame or hurt it for the pragmatic decisions it needs to reach to further the practical and pragmatic sense of serving best the people of Sweden under a constitutional monarchy?
"For example: school may educate my child but I am responsible for the education of my child.
Under such a premise WikiLeaks is fully justifiable."
Non sequitur, that is to say the conclusion does not follow from the premiss; it does not follow from your claim that you are responsible for the education of your child (in fact the state is also) that Wikileaks is fully justifiable because Wikileaks is in no way responsible for anything to do with me, or anyone else. Wikileaks is a self appointed body, it is not a parent or in any similar nurturing relationship. Additionally, if Wikileaks has a responsibility, then I have rights, including my security. For the sake of my security I want to draw a drop forged, bolt action rifle with sniper scope from the armoury. I'll thereafter take care of my rights.
As to the rest of the non sequitur stuff about mid 20th century politics, it's irrelevant.
I don't entirely follow the original poster but I do agree with his points.
However I disagree with yours.
The thing that bugs me is that a lot of people are first in line to shout about what their rights are and what they are entitled to, but with all these rights come responsibility - not many of them understand that!
If you were to go and get yourself a sniper rifle, fair enough. If you were to use it against someone, you would have violated the responsibility that came with the gun.
The person you shot had those same rights. I'm pretty sure he probably had the right not to be shot. You would then be *responsible* for his death. "Greater good" is not a get out of jail free card in this circumstance, rather more of a point of view.
Of course if this guy was trying to shoot *you* then self defense is fair enough. But you see what I'm getting at here?
Wikileaks has a responsibility as much as any of us do to keep our gov on the straight and narrow.
We have the right to vote, but the responsibility to vote in who we (that is, each person who votes) think will run the country well.
So, if our gov is involved in some shady business that they really shouldn't be involved in and Wikileaks posts the details - is it Wikileaks fault for telling everyone, or our govs fault for being corrupt morally bankrupt liars - and whose responsibility is it to atleast try to make sue they aren't?
My point is that it would be no less valid to shoot him than it is for him to be doing what he is.
He is without mandate. He is self appointed. He is in possession of state secrets belonging to a country from which he, beyond all shadow of doubt, stole secrets in the early 90s, for which US prosecution is still outstanding.
Wikileaks has no responsibility, responsibility was not lodged with it by anyone except a select, self appointed clique.
Otherwise, you miss the point completely, not least that I made it clear that the OPs remarks were anachronistic and non sequitur in nature, which are accurate comments, whether or not you agree with them. If you cannot understand the chain, that it does not follow from his arguments about parents and responsibility that Wikileaks has a responsibility, well I am truly surprised. Similarly,. anachronistic comments about Sweden in relation to mid 20th century politics and the matter of alleged rape are just that, and probably more too, but I'm not going to give you a Logic 101 lecture. You can find plenty of those on the web. Google/Bing [...] are your friends here.
Wikileaks have NO responsibility vested in them by anyone other than themselves, and I still wonder if the PRC and Saudi informants (among others) are still alive.
If Wikileaks aren't acting responsibly, why would they censor out names etc from the sensitive material they release?
Also I couldn't really give a flying procreation whether you have looked up the definition of "non sequitur" or not, you already made your point regarding that and I wasn't disputing it.
My post wasn't saying that the OP had a perfect unbroken chain of logic, more that I understand the intent behind the comment and agree with it.
As for Wikileaks being self appointed... I say that validity does not have to come from others.
There are times where everyone will tell you you are wrong when you are not, and vice versa - but being told you are right does not make you any more valid.
"If Wikileaks aren't acting responsibly, why would they censor out names etc from the sensitive material they release?"
I think this logical fallacy is 'affirming the consequent' ("if P then Q" is transformed into "Q therefore P"), namely you assume that Wikileaks has a right to do that which they are, and separately that you assume that because they do something that an ethical body or individual might, they are ethical. A specimen of arguing the consequent would be "All dogs bleed. Julian Assange bleeds, therefore Julian Assange is a dog". Valid argument but untrue.
However, there is if you do an online search, concern that some Afghan sources could be located using GPS data referred to in the 'leaks', and data that came from them which had to be location/person specific and, in case you had not read my concern, there is the question of the PRC informant who disclosed the leadership anger at things that had been said about them online (this is the PRC Google/sensorship debate/[...]), and the Saudi informant; there is in any intelligence and security investigation a routine methodology for narrowing down the list of suspects, after which more detailed investigations take place into the remaining few. I have fears particularly for the PRC informant.
Don't have too many hopes for those informants who've given away material that has angered their 'superiors'; also realise that punishment of such precious resources will discourage recruitment. These sources actually do a lot to inform outside state intelligence organisations of warlike intentions on the part of the host state, and much that oils the cogs of diplomatic activity.
So far people have been assuming that the Wikileaks attitude to this information is correct; the sources are untraceable (that seems with each day I search to be less than true) and that all intelligence, revealed in say diplomatic channels, has a negative effect on international relations. This is not so. Just because someone believes that X is not the case it does not mean that they have not missed specimens of data that overturn this.
That is clearly not possible without the information, clarity of thought and intelligence to make that calculation.
I am good at maths and science, yet I can't give the correct answer without the question and its relevant facts.
Personally I would like to see a mulitple choice questionaire at the polling station, this would be a questionaire based on the principle policies of the candidates, their track record, the track record of the parties, the current situation, historical patterns, recent events. If you don't get say 80% right then you don't know enough to vote. This would cut down considerably on the 'I always vote XXXX because my parents always voted XXXX' brigade that lead to the safe seats of more than 70% of politicians in the UK.
Assnage has proven that he is a flight risk.
Being out on bail is a mistake and if Assnage has 'proof' of his innocence why then doesn't he go back and face his accusers?
Here's something that goes back to my view that Assnage is a bit of a nut job.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/assange.dating.profile/index.html?hpt=T1
He left his co-conspirator hanging with empty promises.
Oh do try thinking please. I have no strong views over the case, but he hasn't proven he's a flight risk - he gained permission from the Swedes to leave the country, after they showed not much interest in prosecuting at the time. *That's* why he's not in Sweden any more.
He also voluntarily turned himself in as soon as the UK authorities issued an arrest warrant. He's the furthest thing from a "flight risk".
He also doesn't have to prove his innocence to anyone - he has to be proven guilty by a prosecutor.
As for that ridiculous article, it's basically churning 1000 odd words about how he tried online dating and made a bit of a weird profile - something many people do to try and be different. If you think that's bad, try trolling craigslist or something.
Back under the rock please...
I post with my name? Why do you post as an AC?
But lets not go there.
At the time, Assnage was in Sweden they weren't sure of what to do with him. He wanted to leave the country and they didn't have enough evidence to hold him. Good cases are lost when the prosecution jumps the gun and arrest too early.
Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on. At the time they determined that they had enough evidence, they issued the arrest warrant.
Don't think Assnage a good guy because he finally turned himself in. He did it because the arrest warrant was already issued (Quite publicly) and his options were limited. Not to mention that he's facing much more serious charges in the US. So I'm sure he got legal advice that told him it was better for him to surrender than stay on the run. (Looking even more guilty and giving more weight to the US's charges. Not to mention it opens himself up to criticism that he's a deluded paranoid tinfoil wearing nut case.)
But with respect to your comment about Assnage's dating profile. I don't read Craigslist, and it doesn't change the fact that the profile was created by Assnage and reflects how he views himself.
But of course, you'd want to down play any legitimate journalistic investigation of your hero.
> Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on.
Errr - no.
The case had been dropped against him. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11049316 for example. Have a read of what the Swedish Chief Prosecutor said about the claims; that's the reason why I am pretty much convinced that the whole affair is without merit. It's not often a prosecutor will exonerate a defendant before the trial...
The case was no more, and Assange left Sweden. It was later reinstated - that's part of the reason that political interference is suspected.
Once in the UK, he has liaised with police, and handed himself in once they were finally interested in talking to him.
So although he's undoubtedly a total cock, I think it takes a special kind of blinker to cast him as a flight risk.
Vic.
>> Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on.
>Errr - no.
>The case had been dropped against him. See http://www.bbc.co.uk
Errr, no. Read the Guardian article about his 10 days in Sweden. Before he left he agreed to be interviewed in connection with this investigation. However, he flew, to England. Small wonder that the Swedes did not want him bailed. He has an absconder's profile. That fits his conviction profile nicely, as he is trying as hard as possible to avoid a custodial sentence, the one he should already have served notwithstanding:
A convict; convicted in or around 1991 for;
1) stealing passwords from US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon;
2) for hacking computers at two universities;
3) hacking computers at two telecommunications companies;
4) hacking computers to monitor the Australian Federal Police investigation into *his* criminal activities.
After sentencing he said to the judge "Your honour, I feel a great misjustice [sic] has been done and I would like to record the fact that you have been misled by the prosecution". (This misspelling caused me to experience déjà vu, as Mike Tyson said he'd been done a 'misjustice'...)
The Guardian's article about the text messages, the ones that his lawyers informed us resulted in them being 'gagged' (an English super injunction from a Swedish legal body? How unlikely, just as the matter is not sub judice over here), and other material they published indicate this man and/or his legal representatives is/are manipulating the media and thus those who cannot read properly.
He was a convict in 1991 - failure to award a custodial sentence was based on the sort of erroneous thinking that boils his support in the UK now; a sympathy lay - and this picture bodes badly for the current situation. Justice should never be dispensed through a sympathetic mindset. Ever:
"County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to ten years."
His fan bois and gurlz, legal representatives, bail standers and those online, these people have been rooked by his demeanour, his glib claims. He needs correctional treatment, at very least. Or he'll hurt someone.
And I am very happy with Mr Assanges actions. Your post reaks of gullible right wing US nut job.
Why do you want to but into the obvious false nature of the charges I wonder? Which govt are you shilling for eh?
Charges in the US? Care to name them. and no not the silly trumped up attempts the purile US govt has come up with so far.
Go back under the rock you crawled out from and enjoy the benefits of freedom of information
on the corrupt rotten bastards that run govt.
A child like attack against me doesn't help to prove the logic behind your posts.
As I said before, I'm neither a republican nor a democrat, but an independent. That is to say, I chose my politics carefully and I don't follow a party line.
As to being a nut job, the fact that I post here to debate this issue... well some would say that it does qualify... ;-)
Yet I digress. IANAL, but I'll try to make this as simple as possible so that you might be able to follow the logic...
The US Government has launched a Grand Jury investigation in order to determine if charges should be brought against Assnage. The allegations go along the line of that he coerced a US Serviceman to break the law and steal classified documents. That act, if true, would be considered an act of Espionage and under the 1917 law, Assnage would be eligible to face charges within the US.
That's not a trumped up charge. Its a pretty serious charge.
His co-conspirator/dupe is sitting in the brig. Assnage ala Wikileaks raised money for his defense fund.So far none of it has appeared. Ever wonder why?
Talk to a lawyer and ask them why would Assnage try and distance himself from his co-conspirator? ;-)
Wikileaks isn't the press and Assnage and Wikileaks didn't censor their 'publication'.
You probably weren't alive when Watergate happened. Nor for the fall of Saigon, Iran Contra, Regan getting shot. Sadat getting assassinated... Or a whole lot of shit from the 70's and early 80's.
Heck... to understand the actions taken in the 80's you need to look at the 70s and the 60's. To understand the 60's you need to look at the 50's which is based on the 30's and 40's which is based on the 10's and 20's... which is based on the imperialism of the 19th Century. (But I seriously doubt you've studied history to know any of this.)
You think you understand freedom, yet you've never had to pay the price for the freedom you enjoy.
A lesson that is clearly lost on the majority here including Assnage.
Hey, no offense, but your post is just as valid as another to voice my objections to.
Yes, I have doubts about the quality of the Swedish claims and the political motivations behind them. Looks too convenient at this point, hopefully things will become more clear in the trial and the run up to it.
But Assange and Wikileaks is no hero, with the diplomatic releases. I mostly approved of the earlier Afghanistan/Iraq postings. Yes, it may be a problem for the occupying forces, but we have a right to know what is being done in our names in those countries.
The diplomatic bit is a horse of a different color. Diplomacy is predicated on a reasonable expectation of secrecy in discussions, until public policy is made (a treaty or a trade agreement, say). It's worked for a long time, been around since 1500s in Italian city states.
To take a concrete example, when a US diplomat calls Mrs. Merkel "risk adverse and rarely innovative", that is a perfectly valid communication to HQ. Making it public also does not inform the public of anything really important that they were missing, unlike with Iraq/Afghanistan. What it does do is seed distrust, just like you might get upset with someone who runs around telling person X what person Y has been saying privately about him.
So, while the charges are very possibly trumped up, and while I agree with Wikileaks in principle, this particular batch of information should have been kept quiet. Regardless of the fact that the US clearly managed those secrets very badly.
I do hope Mr. Assange gets his day in court and gets treated fairly.
Flames, because I can see the downvotes coming.
The Americans have nothing to charge Assange with. He's not an American citizen so he can't be charged. They will probably create some trumped-up charge in short term so that they can do so but at this stage they have nothing. He is an Australian citizen & so far even the Australian authorities have nothing. As for the rape charge, the fact that the Swedish authorities will not release the information only goes to show that it was bullshit.
You must either be a Gov't poser or a redneck that needs a brain implant.
I cut/paste a link to a CNN story about Assnage's online dating profile.
Kind of shows how Assnage views himself and is the image he wants to project.
Instead of going to court and face his accusers, he is fighting his case in the court of public opinion. He's counting on the backing of liberal 'left wing' rich folks. He's getting it, but what happens when the truth comes out?
As another poster wrote, the rape laws in Sweden are different from what we expect. In Assnage's world, does No mean Yes?
He paints himself as the victim. Unfortunately the real victim sits in a Military jail and faces real serious charges.
Where's the money he promised to help defend his co-conspirator? Why did his fellow 'leaksters' leave and start their own leak site?
Could it be that they felt that Wikileaks became something to feed Assnage's ego rather than a site that exposes companies for what they are? Naw that would never happen.
Get real.
The logic isn't incorrect, nor did I ever say that they were mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite actually.
Wikileaks could have been founded with both goals in mind by Assnage. Its ok, as long as the goals are aligned. However, when one path diverges from the other, there will come a time/point when others involved say enough is enough and walk away.
That's exactly what we're seeing here. At some point followers of Assnage need to determine whether his actions are for a greater good, or just some folly to foster his Messiah Complex and his quest for martyrdom. We're starting to see some people who are close to Assnage reach that point. Hence their desire to create 'wikileaks 2' sans Assnage.
You can interpret my post to mean whatever you like. The intent wasn't to show a mutually exclusive option, but one where individuals reach their own conclusion as to when the two fail to overlap.
I see i was thumbed down furiously by fanboys/girls. Like i said it is his word against everyone else. The lawyer claims to have proof until this "proof" is in the public domain i will not believe him. The guy is no angel and he is been made a digital martyr. I prefer Open Leaks to Wikileaks.. And thumb away :)
I imagine you were thumbed down furiously because you seem to be under the deluded impression that it's Assange's job to prove he is innocent. It's the other way around, a fact and basic right that you seem to be missing, ignoring, or not understanding. If a Swedish woman accused you of a similar crime, perhaps on a whim, I'm sure you don't expect to be whipped out of the UK. I'm also sure you'd be a bit upset if every time this happened (as you could do it repeatedly), the burden of proof lay with you.
Oh, and I was the original AC posting the @Ian rant. Not sure why it turned AC, I certainly didn't mean to tick it. But you are no more or less AC than my first post, or this second post. "The main man" is anonymous. As is Annihilator (chosen purely because it was my old gaming handle).
@Ian though, to randomly answer your rebuttal, as I said, I have no strong views either way on Assange. I also think he's probably a bit of a dick. However being a "bit of a dick" isn't reason to convict or hound someone, though if wishing made it so...
"Innocent UNLESS proven guilty" hasn't applied to anyone in the western world for a while now. Why the hell should Assange (of all people) get the benefit of the doubt? Step into your perv scanner you are a guilty terrorist until proven otherwise! If you choose the molestation station instead of the perv scanner, you’re a TIME WASTING terrorist: the worst kind! Smile for the CCTV and don't type anything bad into an e-mail; ECHELON's children are watching you.
Speaking of children, have you dropped yours off with "the man" lately? They want some DNA samples, fingerprints and a complete track record of every single misdeed for the profiling computers. While you're at it, check to see if someone left a complaint including completely unsubstantiated rumour with the police. That ECRB check is a real bitch for getting a job, innit?
The instant we started to accept "innocent UNTIL proven guilty" over "innocent UNLESS proven guilty" we had begun our downward slide as a society. In the past decade, we've truly accepted a complete destruction of the concepts that underpin liberty. The only way out is to get the hoi polloi good and uppity about this.
Every indication – from the media circus to his own lieutenants abandoning him – is that Assange has a fairly large ego and something of a messiah complex. Fair enough. Not the kind of person I would ever want to drink beer with at the pub; but these folks are useful nonetheless. Let him be crucified for the cause and let’s hope he makes a big enough noise that everyone sees exactly how completely screwed our society is.
Since none of us have a right to the presumption of innocence anymore, I don’t see why Assange gets a special pass. Quite the opposite: he has placed himself in the crosshairs. The advantage is that the sacrifice of this one might well be of benefit to the many.
…but only if we (collectively as a society) heed the wakeup call that this entire bucket of Drama Llamas raining from the sky represents. Sadly, of history is any guide…there’s fat chance of that. The hoi polloi might have to look away from their boob tubes, and HOLY CRAP they might end up missing “Oprah.” Can’t have that, now can we...
If he fled he would be caught virtually instantly and would swap a stately home with internet for a prison cell. I suspect his best option by a mile is to stay put and watch the extradition or subsequent trial fall apart completely. Which it probably will. Of course if the US try to indite him, then it might be a different kettle of fish, but get the rape thing out of the way first.
As an aside I was struck how odd he was when interviewed by Kirsty Wark. He was articulate but I couldn't escape the impression he was autistic or something. He was constantly trying to talk over her, and rambling in an expressionless monotone which was really weird.
I would only decide on whether he's a flight risk after a lengthy forensic psychiatric assessment, which leads me to your next point. Geeks are frequently the possessors of neuropsychiatric conditions, such as Aspergers syndrome, as in McKinnon.
Back to the main point; when asked by Wark if he was at risk of flight, he prevaricated, thus:
" BBC Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark asked Mr Assange if he would give his word of honour that he would not try to abscond before the next hearing.
He replied: "We have done everything by the book. We have tried as hard as possible to set up a situation where we can clear my name of these allegations.
"But what we have not seen is the provision of any evidence or material to allow us to do that." "
It would seem that Assange feels that his offer of a video link to Sweden is the same as being tried on the terra firma of that jurisdiction. Slowly it's becoming clear that he really does believe that he can rewrite the laws of any country, and I've also become aware from reading his cod philosophy that he may possibly think that he is a RL incarnation of Neo.
Make of that what you will, though I don't think there is a credible positive spin here.
he's a geek, a 'webonaut' anyone with a roaming personality and a brain that has been on-line turned into a julian after 5 or more years attached to the web - he said people that believe in ufo's are nutjobs - I reckon that why america isn't very pleased with him - they say 50% of America's believe in ufo's/aliens...
> "As an aside I was struck how odd he was when interviewed by Kirsty Wark. He was articulate but I couldn't escape the impression he was autistic or something."
That shouldn't come as a surprise at all. Windmill tilters usually are.
In this case the windmill quite probably _IS_ a dragon.
Profile. Behavioural histories are a good indicator of future behaviour:
A year or two later, the couple moved to a rented house in Melbourne, 25 miles (about 40km) away. It was there, in October 1991, that their relationship suffered a shattering blow after Assange was raided by the police.
"He was caught red-handed with the tools of his burgeoning hacker’s trade - a £350 Amiga 500 computer and more than a dozen discs filled with the access codes of websites.
Police also found details of hundreds of stolen passwords for networks around the world along with the dates when he obtained them. Among them were passwords for the US Air force 7th Command Group in the Pentagon.
He was charged with a number of offences relating to computer hacking. For the mother of his child, it was the final straw - she fled with the baby. "
http://www.thestar.co.za/assange-has-a-secret-of-his-own-1.1003105
Next stop ought to be a Bubbery.
He is already a convict. He was let off seemingly on spurious grounds that he was not responsible, but that his past was. The judge told him that
"County Court Judge Leslie Ross said at the time he believed Assange had hacked into computer systems purely to empower himself, and not for any personal gain. But he warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years. "
As I say, past conduct is an indicator of future conduct. He is very consistent, no matter how much you deny the pink gorilla in the corner of the room. In addition it is already very clear that he is hamfisted in his relations with women. You might like to go and read the descriptions of his interactions with these two individuals. They are cause for alarm
Just read it, and stop denying the facts.
You are truly a dodo-brain here, dude. How's hacking a computer like raping a woman? Dumb "penetration" type of jests and juvenile anthromorphization fantasies aside.
Both are illegal, true. But rape is clearly a crime of a very very different nature. If you can't figure that out for yourself, you are truly dim. Do you consider computer hacking to be a "gateway crime" to rape? Certainly what your comments imply, without even owning up to it.
Hackers may or may not deserve extended jail term, based on how much damage they carried out and how malicious their actions were. But they most certainly are not to be lumped together with rapists like you so artlessly aim to.
"You are truly a dodo-brain here, dude. How's hacking a computer like raping a woman? Dumb "penetration" type of jests and juvenile anthromorphization fantasies aside."
Your argumentum ad hominem aside, I did not make a comparison, merely pointed out that if you look at offenders you will find antecedents that have predictive value.
So your resort to rhetorical questions has no utility in the IT aspect of the case. Where the rest is concerned, the sexual matter, ask yourself some questions about the disappearance of his child's mother. Ask yourself some questions about the similarity of claims made by two separate women (and now a third it would seem).
All in all the case is very interesting. A convicted middle aged male, unfortunate childhood, mother stalked by the father of her child who then runs away (not unlike the very young mother of Assange's child, who was you'll note from the reports a 'computer widow'), itinerant childhood, schooled by a mother with it would seem hostile attitudes to men and to authority, a mother who encouraged him down the IT path. I haven't organised all of the stuff that I have read sufficiently to say much more, but there is a pattern and a part of it would seem to boil down to this; some people do not socialise enough at an early age, with a sufficiently broad spectrum of people from both sexes, to form a rule following, cooperative pattern of behaviour. What prompted this overall view from me was the Cryptome material, much of which is fascinating. Note well that the Cryptome site owner was very disenchanted with Assange from an early point, though I don't share his conspiracy view.
Indeed. I think you will find this is both a bluff and an attempt to throw sand in faces. If he has these texts he can release them. His defences are are always consistent with the nature of what he does, what he knows. Should the Swedes break ranks now it would be folly, and what he is trying to achieve.
If they know its a setup, then he should have no worries about going to Sweden and helping the police resolve the case. They will need his testimony if they want to charge the women with something.
On the other hand, people seem to want to believe, so they accept whatever unfounded statements that he comes out with.
If this guy had been active during the Bush era, he would probably have been "taken care of". If they weren't able to silence him we would all be living in a more fascist society and someone like Bradley Manning would already have been executed for treason during wartime.
The setup plot was all about getting him in to Sweden, so they could send him to the US.
If thats the case, then being extradited would be the most stupid thing anyone could do.
I'm not sure why Sweden would be co-operating with the US and not the UK, but he is in the media far too much to be assassinated or 'taken out' any other way.
The US convenes a grand jury. The GJ determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. The US Government can go to Interpol and issue the same warrants that Sweden issued.
So to say that this is a plot against him? Too friggin funny. But then again, its the same twisted logic that paints the sociopath as a hero.
Sorry but he coerced a dupe to break the law and hand him documents, then bails on him after collecting money for the dupe's defense fund. (To date, no money has been paid to his lawyers from either Assnage or Wikileaks.
Too friggin funny.
Sorry no.
I'm actually an independent and while conservative with respect to foreign policy, I'm fairly liberal in terms of internal policy and laws within the US. That would make me either a 'moderate republican' or a 'conservative democrat'. But I hate both parties because they are being controlled by self serving boobs. The religious morons on the right? The too liberal short sighted boobs on the left.
And my politics aside, this doesn't change anything concerning Assnage.
What I find the most disgusting is that Columbia University's Journalism professors support what Assnage has done. But then again, responsibility and ethics in Journalism is long gone, and the fact that Assnage and Wikileaks isn't part of the press.
But that's a different story and apparently beyond the capabilities of many to discuss on this board.
You are making so many factual errors you must be an American. I've seen enough examples to recognize it's a trademark "argumentation" method in the US.
"Co-conspirator"?
"Coerced"?
"collecting money for the dupe's defense fund"?
WTF? Or do you have some inside information we don't know about? I'm really interested, because as the parent article says, Wikileaks is a passive recepticle for anonymously submitted information. Are you not aware of this, or willfully ignoring it?
Put up or shut up.
Actually if you were a real C programmer its Foo Bar Retz.
I think you need to actually look at the case and read what is being said in the press.
Do you think that Manning just decided one day to take a huge dump of all sorts of documents he had access to and upload it to Wikileaks on his own? Wow, what a wonderful idea. I'm going to expose the US government and dump anything I can find on the US that could be an embarrassment and let Wikileaks determine what's relevant. I did this all on my own... Is that what Manning did?
If you believe that... I've got a bridge to sell you in NY..
I don't have to 'Put up or Shut up' because I'm not the one who's about to file charges against Assnage. That's up to the GJ to determine if the US has presented enough evidence against Assnage and Wikileaks.
There's two different extradition systems, I gather.
Sweden and the UK are in a single European extradition system, partly based on them being under the ECHR, with honest law enforcement systems. The idea is that Sweden will give him a fair trial, and the courts in this country don't need to closely examine the evidence.
That will, no doubt, be argued about.
Quite what the US would have to do to extradite him from Sweden, I don't know. There'll be a specific US/Sweden treaty, which might be as flawed as the UK/US treaty.
And Interpol is a different system again. I was doing some research for a story, and things will have changed somewhat since the period I was checking, but Interpol isn't about extradition. At most, the Interpol paperwork gets you arrested: important but not the same thing.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
