Ecuador Could Decide On Assenge'S Asylum Request On Thursday

[chuckd]

The only crime he has or will be charged with at this point is violating his bond. Since he HAS violated the conditions of his bond, it is likely he is guilty and it will likely be proven.

He is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities for his actions while he was in Sweden.

Will one of you apologists for Assange please provide me a link that shows the US government has charged him with ANYTHING?

You may put me in the biased corner.

Will one of you apologists for Assange please provide me a link that shows the US government has charged him with ANYTHING?

http://www.guardian....n?newsfeed=true

Is that your PROOF?

I read the editorial and found nothing supporting the theory that any charges having been filed by a Federal Grand Jury.

Try again, Mr. Midas.

[chuckd]

The only crime he has or will be charged with at this point is violating his bond. Since he HAS violated the conditions of his bond, it is likely he is guilty and it will likely be proven.

He is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities for his actions while he was in Sweden.

Will one of you apologists for Assange please provide me a link that shows the US government has charged him with ANYTHING?

You may put me in the biased corner.

Whether the US has made anything public regarding it's intentions is irrelevent. Enough people conclude that all the evidence and signs point towards the fact that if Assange goes to Sweden they will make a move to extradite him. So I wager you a Gentleman's 1000 baht to that effect. I believe that if Assange is sent to Sweden the US will make moves to have him extradited to US soil. So how sure are you they won't?

What a ridiculous statement that the publication of charges is irrelevant. If they aren't published then how can Assange's army of pro-bono lawyers support their claim it is the reason for him not returning to Sweden for questioning? Any so-called pending charges are the driving force behind his attempt to avoid facing justice in Sweden. Assange and the plethora of supporters on this forum are continuing to grasp at straws on his behalf.

As far as your wager is concerned...I won't call that bet. I didn't claim it won't happen, I said it hasn't happened yet. Where is the indictment and the subsequent extradition request today? That's what all you tin foil hat wearers need to furnish. Until you do, it is nothing but a conspiracy theory.

Personally I think the US will indict him for espionage and, quite frankly, I hope they do.

Of course, it might have to be the Romney administration that has to do it since the current Attorney General is somewhat confused about the laws of the US.

Luckily there is no statute of limitations on espionage.

[Ulysses G.]

Personally I think the US will indict him for espionage and, quite frankly, I hope they do.

Hear, hear!

[Credo]

I think the US needs to protect it's information better (and probably clean up its act on a few things). I don't think Assange is guilty of espionage and I don't think they would get a conviction on such a serious charge.

He's a rather cowardly man whose more concerned about saving his own behind than anything else.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think Assange is guilty of espionage and I don't think they would get a conviction on such a

You could be right, but it is still worth a try. They can throw in a few lesser charges in case espionage doesn't stick.

[Credo]

Assange is living in his own private jail. His life is spent looking over his shoulder and is a much worse punishment for him than anything he would have gotten.

If he had gone to Sweden, he had a good chance of either a full acquital or some minor slap on the wrist. There is no real evidence of some secret plan to extradite him to the US and Sweden is independent enough to not be bullied.

He simply dumped the US trash out for the vultures and scavengers to pick through looking for evidence that will never go anywhere. It has nothing to do with freedom of the press, journalism or any other moral high ground.

He has been running and hiding and now his Mommy is worried about him. Not really much of a hero. His life in Ecuador will be fine. Perhaps he can take his holidays in Venezuala or Cuba

Edited August 7, 2012 by Credo

[GentlemanJim]

The only crime he has or will be charged with at this point is violating his bond. Since he HAS violated the conditions of his bond, it is likely he is guilty and it will likely be proven.

He is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities for his actions while he was in Sweden.

Will one of you apologists for Assange please provide me a link that shows the US government has charged him with ANYTHING?

You may put me in the biased corner.

Whether the US has made anything public regarding it's intentions is irrelevent. Enough people conclude that all the evidence and signs point towards the fact that if Assange goes to Sweden they will make a move to extradite him. So I wager you a Gentleman's 1000 baht to that effect. I believe that if Assange is sent to Sweden the US will make moves to have him extradited to US soil. So how sure are you they won't?

What a ridiculous statement that the publication of charges is irrelevant. If they aren't published then how can Assange's army of pro-bono lawyers support their claim it is the reason for him not returning to Sweden for questioning? Any so-called pending charges are the driving force behind his attempt to avoid facing justice in Sweden. Assange and the plethora of supporters on this forum are continuing to grasp at straws on his behalf.

As far as your wager is concerned...I won't call that bet. I didn't claim it won't happen, I said it hasn't happened yet. Where is the indictment and the subsequent extradition request today? That's what all you tin foil hat wearers need to furnish. Until you do, it is nothing but a conspiracy theory.

Personally I think the US will indict him for espionage and, quite frankly, I hope they do.

Of course, it might have to be the Romney administration that has to do it since the current Attorney General is somewhat confused about the laws of the US.

Luckily there is no statute of limitations on espionage.

Well an equally ridiculous statement is that they can charge him with espionage. The man released documents that showed that the US Government were lying through their back teeth on many occasions. You should be glad. It makes it all the more astonishing you want to protect the liars and shoot the messenger.

[chuckd]

Well an equally ridiculous statement is that they can charge him with espionage. The man released documents that showed that the US Government were lying through their back teeth on many occasions. You should be glad. It makes it all the more astonishing you want to protect the liars and shoot the messenger.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

[maidu]

Well an equally ridiculous statement is that they can charge him with espionage. The man released documents that showed that the US Government were lying through their back teeth on many occasions. You should be glad. It makes it all the more astonishing you want to protect the liars and shoot the messenger.

The US don't have to reveal to the public, at this time, what they're charging him with. They can do that through diplomatic and legal channels. Whether or not the US gov't, which is comprised of tens of thousands of employees, has any 'liars' in their midst is a moot and somewhat juvenile point. What Assenge has allegedly done is similar to stealing and releasing corporate secrets, except in this scenario, he contributes to the endangerment of secret agents. If you think that's 'mai pen rai' or justified because you don't like the US or you think Americans are 'telling lies,' then you're entitled to your opinions. I think it's serious enough to warrant criminal charges.

[Ulysses G.]

Well an equally ridiculous statement is that they can charge him with espionage.

chuckds link clarifies that it is not ridiculous at all:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

[midas]

Well an equally ridiculous statement is that they can charge him with espionage. The man released documents that showed that the US Government were lying through their back teeth on many occasions. You should be glad. It makes it all the more astonishing you want to protect the liars and shoot the messenger.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/798

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/793

Well an equally ridiculous statement is that they can charge him with espionage. The man released documents that showed that the US Government were lying through their back teeth on many occasions. You should be glad. It makes it all the more astonishing you want to protect the liars and shoot the messenger.

For your reading pleasure.

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/798

http://www.law.corne...ode/text/18/793

So do you consider what Julia Davis did was equally as bad as Assange ?

http://docbonn.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/doc-bonn-says-julia-davis-is-an-american-hero-we-need-whistleblowers/

[Ulysses G.]

It is very hard to tell from that blog link.

[koheesti]

He [Assange] also fears being extradited to the United States, where he believes he could be sentenced to death if he is indicted.

He is a liar. He does not believe that for one second. Possibly locked up for a long time, maybe, but executed? Zero chance and he knows it. Just trying to make excuses. I bet a lot of his supporters are starting to realize that this creep probably really did rape those women.

Careful, your prejudices are showing. get informed, read the facts.

Yep, I am prejudiced - against ego-maniacal, self-promoting, lying hypocritical, above-the-law creeps who publish mass amounts of private correspondence without even knowing what is in there under the false guise of "openess" all the while being secretive about himself and fooling a virtual army of useful idiots to donate millions of dollars to him.

[koheesti]

I don't think Assange is guilty of espionage and I don't think they would get a conviction on such a

You could be right, but it is still worth a try. They can throw in a few lesser charges in case espionage doesn't stick.

I thought the US military and CIA were supposed to be so incredibly evil that they wouldn't need to bother with any silly legal charges.

[koheesti]

The man released documents that showed that the US Government were lying through their back teeth on many occasions.

I've never read any of that. Can you give a link? I mean, there was the typical diplomat-double-speak and in fact most of what I read made our allies look bad.

[midas]

It is very hard to tell from that blog link.

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

[chuckd]

It is very hard to tell from that blog link.

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

Did she release "classified" documents or data? If so, she should be charged with Treason.

I have no problem with whistle blowers until it involves disseminating national security secrets. I do have a real problem with furnishing information, aid and comfort to the enemy. Assange and Manning allegedly conspired to do just that and should be charged appropriately for their actions.

Midas, let me turn the question around a little. How would you feel about a whistle blower releasing the classified military or diplomatic secrets of your country to a nation that is unfriendly to your own? Particularly if the release of that information could put the lives of others in danger? Climb down off your Assange soapbox for a few minutes and give us an honest answer.

[midas]

It is very hard to tell from that blog link.

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

Did she release "classified" documents or data? If so, she should be charged with Treason.

I have no problem with whistle blowers until it involves disseminating national security secrets. I do have a real problem with furnishing information, aid and comfort to the enemy. Assange and Manning allegedly conspired to do just that and should be charged appropriately for their actions.

Midas, let me turn the question around a little. How would you feel about a whistle blower releasing the classified military or diplomatic secrets of your country to a nation that is unfriendly to your own? Particularly if the release of that information could put the lives of others in danger? Climb down off your Assange soapbox for a few minutes and give us an honest answer.

I will give you an honest answer. Like you I would not agree with someone exposing national security secrets that would directly harm the defence capability of my country. This is not the same as embarrassing officials of my country if they have done something wrong.

I will give you an example. If someone disseminated information on the location of strategic weapons or computer programs that could potentially weaken my country's defence -yes I would be against that.

But let's say for example the military of my country was carrying out a peacekeeping role in another country and engaged in some illegal activity which they then tried to cover up then I would want that information to be exposed for the world to know and for the perpetrators to be prosecuted.

Can you explain how the information Assange and Manning disseminated has directly affected the security of your country? I am not talking about embarrassing your country because embarrassment does not endanger the lives of your fellow citizens.

Edited August 8, 2012 by midas

[chuckd]

It is very hard to tell from that blog link.

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

Did she release "classified" documents or data? If so, she should be charged with Treason.

I have no problem with whistle blowers until it involves disseminating national security secrets. I do have a real problem with furnishing information, aid and comfort to the enemy. Assange and Manning allegedly conspired to do just that and should be charged appropriately for their actions.

Midas, let me turn the question around a little. How would you feel about a whistle blower releasing the classified military or diplomatic secrets of your country to a nation that is unfriendly to your own? Particularly if the release of that information could put the lives of others in danger? Climb down off your Assange soapbox for a few minutes and give us an honest answer.

I will give you an honest answer. Like you I would not agree with someone exposing national security secrets that would directly harm the defence capability of my country. This is not the same as embarrassing officials of my country if they have done something wrong.

I will give you an example. If someone disseminated information on the location of strategic weapons or computer programs that could potentially weaken my country's defence -yes I would be against that.

But let's say for example the military of my country was carrying out a peacekeeping role in another country and engaged in some illegal activity which they then tried to cover up then I would want that information to be exposed for the world to know and for the perpetrators to be prosecuted.

Can you explain how the information Assange and Manning disseminated has directly affected the security of your country? I am not talking about embarrassing your country because embarrassment does not endanger the lives of your fellow citizens.

Each individual nation decides what information should be classified and what information is for open publication. These decisions are made based on varying factors and can range from technical knowledge to private information gleaned by diplomats on their various counterparts around the world. The decisions are made by seemingly qualified personnel considering the impact they might have on their government by having the information in the public domain.

You state you would not support the release of information that would directly harm the defense capability of your country, yet you seem to have no problem with Assange making the decision completely on his own about which documents might or might not harm your country. Would you feel secure providing the information of your nation's deepest secrets concerning the defensive capabilities of your military forces to Assange? How about the private inter-departmental comments made by a Diplomat from your country being exposed just when a peace treaty or trade treaty with another nation was being negotiated? Would you condone that action by any journalist?

In short...exactly who died and left Assange in charge?

[midas]

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

Did she release "classified" documents or data? If so, she should be charged with Treason.

I have no problem with whistle blowers until it involves disseminating national security secrets. I do have a real problem with furnishing information, aid and comfort to the enemy. Assange and Manning allegedly conspired to do just that and should be charged appropriately for their actions.

Midas, let me turn the question around a little. How would you feel about a whistle blower releasing the classified military or diplomatic secrets of your country to a nation that is unfriendly to your own? Particularly if the release of that information could put the lives of others in danger? Climb down off your Assange soapbox for a few minutes and give us an honest answer.

I will give you an honest answer. Like you I would not agree with someone exposing national security secrets that would directly harm the defence capability of my country. This is not the same as embarrassing officials of my country if they have done something wrong.

I will give you an example. If someone disseminated information on the location of strategic weapons or computer programs that could potentially weaken my country's defence -yes I would be against that.

But let's say for example the military of my country was carrying out a peacekeeping role in another country and engaged in some illegal activity which they then tried to cover up then I would want that information to be exposed for the world to know and for the perpetrators to be prosecuted.

Can you explain how the information Assange and Manning disseminated has directly affected the security of your country? I am not talking about embarrassing your country because embarrassment does not endanger the lives of your fellow citizens.

Each individual nation decides what information should be classified and what information is for open publication. These decisions are made based on varying factors and can range from technical knowledge to private information gleaned by diplomats on their various counterparts around the world. The decisions are made by seemingly qualified personnel considering the impact they might have on their government by having the information in the public domain.

You state you would not support the release of information that would directly harm the defense capability of your country, yet you seem to have no problem with Assange making the decision completely on his own about which documents might or might not harm your country. Would you feel secure providing the information of your nation's deepest secrets concerning the defensive capabilities of your military forces to Assange? How about the private inter-departmental comments made by a Diplomat from your country being exposed just when a peace treaty or trade treaty with another nation was being negotiated? Would you condone that action by any journalist?

In short...exactly who died and left Assange in charge?

but you haven't answered my question about how your country has been endangered by the information released?

I will answer it for you because even your own Supreme Court ( see link ) decided in a case involving similar circumstances that there were no grounds for prosecution and even Hillary Clinton has admitted “ there isn’t anything new in the materials and no one has been harmed by their release “.

So let the USA go ahead and try to prosecute these two people in a totally open environment.

But no that is not what America is all about anymore. It's all about locking people up indefinitely in fact the longer the better and then no need to worry about things like trials with Justice and reasoned arguments. It stinks to high heaven

and will do irreparable harm to your country which once had such a great reputation.

http://my.firedoglak...-speech-clause/

Edited August 8, 2012 by midas

[Scott]

This topic is about the asylum claim of Assange. Further off-topic posts will be deleted and posters will receive a warning.

[Credo]

Quote:

It's all about locking people up indefinitely in fact the longer the better and then no need to worry about things like trials with Justice and reasoned arguments. It stinks to high heaven.

It seems that Assange is the one keeping himself locked up. I doubt the Americans are interested in him.

So has Ecuador made a decision....or is he being held by the Ecuadorians now?

[koheesti]

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

Where is the "whistle-blowing"? Releasing hundreds of thousands of classified government correspondence without knowing the contents is whistle-blowing as much as tossing dynamite into a lake is fishing.

Anyway, how long is the Ecuador Embassy going to feed Assange while they decide whether or not to give him asylum? It seems like it is taking a lot of time for a pretty simple decision - do it or don't.

[midas]

no its not I think it's perfectly obvious? I am trying to establish whether you people

who want him hung drawn and quartered are against all whistleblowers generally.

Do you agree with the concept of whistleblowing against those in authority that have done something wrong

and try to hide it?

Where is the "whistle-blowing"? Releasing hundreds of thousands of classified government correspondence without knowing the contents is whistle-blowing as much as tossing dynamite into a lake is fishing.

Anyway, how long is the Ecuador Embassy going to feed Assange while they decide whether or not to give him asylum? It seems like it is taking a lot of time for a pretty simple decision - do it or don't.

You can call it whatever you like but as I said earlier the circumstances were very similar to that of

Daniel Ellsberg who was acquitted and in his case the documents were labelled top-secret while in the Assange

case it's just plain old simple secret so he would have an even greater chance of being acquitted particularly

after the very generous statement of Hillary Clinton

Ecuador will make its own decision whenever it pleases .

Edited August 8, 2012 by midas

[Ulysses G.]

If Ecuadore refuses asylum, Assange has to face charges for jumping bail and go to Sweden for questioning about rape before he has to worry about the other charges in question.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[midas]

If Ecuadore refuses asylum, Assange has to face charges for jumping bail and go to Sweden for questioning about rape before he has to worry about the other charges in question.

facing charges are the least of his worries.

It's being locked up indefinitely without the right to justice which he is rightfully avoiding andwhich I believe

will ultimately persuade Ecuador to grant asylum.

Maybe they will even fund has further whistleblowing efforts

Edited August 8, 2012 by midas

[Ulysses G.]

He will be locked up indefinitely in the Embassy if they do grant him amnesty. He will be arrested if he tries to leave. That will get old very quickly.

[midas]

Catholic Cardinal József Mindszenty had refuge in the Budapest embassy; for 15 years.

and it would far better than the conditions Bradley Manning is suffering

embassy staffers are "jolly" and getting along well with the activist. The embassy has about five or six rooms and previously was used as a single apartment. Assange has a bed, access to a phone and a connection to the Internet. He can also receive guests

[Ulysses G.]

But far better to be free.

[midas]

but none of us are free in the true sense of the word as we used to be