Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Wikileaks Party Implodes?
24 Answers
A fortnight before the Australian elections, Assange's party has started to disintegrate. Not to worry, though, he lost touch with his party's leaders solely because he was intent on: "Trying to save a young man's life."
Whether this was a reference to Manning or Snowden is a bit unclear, but Assange's heroism shines through, doesn't it? Or could that just be yet another self-aggrandising claim from the total narcissist? Media URL: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/22/julian-assange-wikileaks-implosion
Description:
Whether this was a reference to Manning or Snowden is a bit unclear, but Assange's heroism shines through, doesn't it? Or could that just be yet another self-aggrandising claim from the total narcissist? Media URL: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/22/julian-assange-wikileaks-implosion
Description:
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I am tending to agree with you here LazyGun. But he is afraid that he will be whisked off to America, if he goes to Sweden to stand trial.
I no longer trust the USA in things like this. The continued imprisonment, without trial, of people in Guantanamo Bay has shown that the Land of the Free is now a hollow claim. Until Assange gets a cast iron assurance that he will not be subject to Extraordinary Rendition, I think he should stay put.
I no longer trust the USA in things like this. The continued imprisonment, without trial, of people in Guantanamo Bay has shown that the Land of the Free is now a hollow claim. Until Assange gets a cast iron assurance that he will not be subject to Extraordinary Rendition, I think he should stay put.
He is less likely to end up in the USA if he goes to Sweden I'd have thought.
As far as I am aware the US hasn't even said it wants to extradite him.
It's hard not to believe he's using the Ecuadorean embassy stay as a publicity stunt and more importantly using alleged fear of the US as a smokescreen for his real fear: being whisked off to face justice, or at least a lot of embarrassing publicity in Sweden
As far as I am aware the US hasn't even said it wants to extradite him.
It's hard not to believe he's using the Ecuadorean embassy stay as a publicity stunt and more importantly using alleged fear of the US as a smokescreen for his real fear: being whisked off to face justice, or at least a lot of embarrassing publicity in Sweden
Since when has a suspect been allowed to create imagined threats or set the conditions under which he is prepared to submit to questioning in a criminal investigation?
When Assange first scuttled into the Ecuadorian embassy, an official there said he would be welcome to stay for 200 years. In the continued absence of any British opportunity to ensure he goes to Sweden, I heartily endorse that prospect!
When Assange first scuttled into the Ecuadorian embassy, an official there said he would be welcome to stay for 200 years. In the continued absence of any British opportunity to ensure he goes to Sweden, I heartily endorse that prospect!
Since when has a suspect been allowed to create imagined threats or set the conditions under which he is prepared to submit to questioning in a criminal investigation?
-----------------------
He's not dictating but is expressing well-founded fears of possible rendition by the current US administration.
Given what's happened to Manning, the pursuit of Sowden and treatment of Miranda he's bound to be a tad sceptical, to say the least.
The lack of assurance against such by either Sweden, the UK or US will leave him in some doubt, wouldn't you say?
-----------------------
He's not dictating but is expressing well-founded fears of possible rendition by the current US administration.
Given what's happened to Manning, the pursuit of Sowden and treatment of Miranda he's bound to be a tad sceptical, to say the least.
The lack of assurance against such by either Sweden, the UK or US will leave him in some doubt, wouldn't you say?
"Well-founded fears"?
Extradition from Sweden to the USA would require both Swedish AND British consent, so had they just asked our government, things would have been that much easier for the Yanks. As we've seen in the past, we've often been accused of being too easily persuaded to extradite suspects across the Pond. Why would America have missed such a seemingly easy opportunity?
As for the notion that the Swedish government should guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the USA, that is a legal nonsense. What if the current government there loses the next election? There would be nothing to bind its successor to upholding the supposed "guarantee". (Rather like Cameron's offer to hold an EU referendum in 2017, in fact...a meaningless promise!)
All extradition requests must be dealt with on their merits and according to law, so the decision would be in the hands of the Swedish courts, not the government, in any case.
Extradition from Sweden to the USA would require both Swedish AND British consent, so had they just asked our government, things would have been that much easier for the Yanks. As we've seen in the past, we've often been accused of being too easily persuaded to extradite suspects across the Pond. Why would America have missed such a seemingly easy opportunity?
As for the notion that the Swedish government should guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the USA, that is a legal nonsense. What if the current government there loses the next election? There would be nothing to bind its successor to upholding the supposed "guarantee". (Rather like Cameron's offer to hold an EU referendum in 2017, in fact...a meaningless promise!)
All extradition requests must be dealt with on their merits and according to law, so the decision would be in the hands of the Swedish courts, not the government, in any case.
I think it more important he present himself to face the relatively serious rape allegations, personally. Its long past time that those charges were properly answered in the country where they were committed. Instead he takes the cowards way out and flees to the Ecuadorian embassy in London, then attempt to dictate terms upon which he, the suspect, will deign to be questioned.
He has used every legal trick in the book in an attempt to evade facing the charges.
Personally, I think the Wikileaks project a worthy one, but that does not give him a free pass to evade the law.
He has used every legal trick in the book in an attempt to evade facing the charges.
Personally, I think the Wikileaks project a worthy one, but that does not give him a free pass to evade the law.
D'Oh! I meant to include a link with that last post. A really informative article on this whole business, written by David Allen Green in the New Statesman summarises the situation very well. Required reading, IMO.
http://
http://
Quizmonster,
The US administration doesn't tend to ask, it just gets.
Have you been paying attention to recent events and possible clandestine arrangements between the UK and US governments?
Do the names Sowden and Miranda register with you?
Whilst I agree that Assange should face a Swedish court, if there isn't a problem then why can't he get assurance that he won't be the subject of rendition to the US?
Maybe this might explain his stance for you a little better:
Current and former US government officials have accused Assange of terrorism. When asked if he saw Assange more as a high-tech terrorist or as a whistleblower, like those who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s, US Vice President Joe Biden said: "I would argue it is closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers."[186] In May 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had used the phrase, calling Assange "a high-tech terrorist", and saying "he has done enormous damage to our country. I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".[187] Also in May 2010, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said: "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."[188]
In July 2010, after WikiLeaks released classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said at a Pentagon news conference, "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange responded later in an interview by saying, "There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that". Assange also claimed it was 'ironic' of US officials and military leaders to accuse him of having blood on his hands.[189]
On 30 November 2010, former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for Assange to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders".
If I were him, I'd be VERY fearful of the possibility of rendition!
The US administration doesn't tend to ask, it just gets.
Have you been paying attention to recent events and possible clandestine arrangements between the UK and US governments?
Do the names Sowden and Miranda register with you?
Whilst I agree that Assange should face a Swedish court, if there isn't a problem then why can't he get assurance that he won't be the subject of rendition to the US?
Maybe this might explain his stance for you a little better:
Current and former US government officials have accused Assange of terrorism. When asked if he saw Assange more as a high-tech terrorist or as a whistleblower, like those who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s, US Vice President Joe Biden said: "I would argue it is closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers."[186] In May 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had used the phrase, calling Assange "a high-tech terrorist", and saying "he has done enormous damage to our country. I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".[187] Also in May 2010, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said: "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."[188]
In July 2010, after WikiLeaks released classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said at a Pentagon news conference, "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange responded later in an interview by saying, "There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that". Assange also claimed it was 'ironic' of US officials and military leaders to accuse him of having blood on his hands.[189]
On 30 November 2010, former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for Assange to be pursued "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders".
If I were him, I'd be VERY fearful of the possibility of rendition!
Some of the US establishment can bluster all they want about brining terrorism or espionage charges against Assange or what have you, but the legal reality is painfully different. What Assange did would be covered under 1st amendment rights. Manning took the brunt of the establishments anger instead.
No one cares what Palin has to say about the issue.
Assange comes across as a weasel, using every legal trick in the book to evade facing justice.
No one cares what Palin has to say about the issue.
Assange comes across as a weasel, using every legal trick in the book to evade facing justice.
He does indeed LG, and in all probability is using the rendition possibility as a smokescreen in order to face his accusers in Sweden.
The ministrations of the US government in the last few months though have somewhat heightened the level of his perceived fears and this will not be lost on his supporters.
The ministrations of the US government in the last few months though have somewhat heightened the level of his perceived fears and this will not be lost on his supporters.
Re Miranda, CD, on the BBC News at One today, a comment along the following lines was made:
“Material taken from the claimant (Miranda) includes material the unauthorised disclosure of which would endanger national security of the UK and put lives at risk.”
It can be seen here http://
Now, I obviously have not the slightest idea whether there is any truth in that, but I think it might be a good idea to hold fire on criticism of the police and Home Office for holding him until we do know, don't you?
“Material taken from the claimant (Miranda) includes material the unauthorised disclosure of which would endanger national security of the UK and put lives at risk.”
It can be seen here http://
Now, I obviously have not the slightest idea whether there is any truth in that, but I think it might be a good idea to hold fire on criticism of the police and Home Office for holding him until we do know, don't you?
Now, I obviously have not the slightest idea whether there is any truth in that, but I think it might be a good idea to hold fire on criticism of the police and Home Office for holding him until we do know, don't you?
-------------------------------------
I'm not questioning the Police/Home Office for their actions.
I am though a tad cynical about who, what or which government impelled them to scrutinise the journalist so vigorously. Is he in fact on a list of persona non grata, drawn up by the Obama administration?
After all, you don't have a dog and bark yourself, do you?
-------------------------------------
I'm not questioning the Police/Home Office for their actions.
I am though a tad cynical about who, what or which government impelled them to scrutinise the journalist so vigorously. Is he in fact on a list of persona non grata, drawn up by the Obama administration?
After all, you don't have a dog and bark yourself, do you?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.