Six years a squatter - The long legal battle of Julian Assange

[thaihome]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I doubt it.  They'll claim the information to be presented at trial is of a classified nature, and the courtroom will be sealed in the interest of national security.  

 

Of course, the only national security they'll be protecting are the stories of misdeeds and embarrassments of the people in power.

 

 

You watch too many movies. You do realize that Manning's court martial for giving material to Wikileaks was open to the public?  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Manning

TH

 

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I doubt it.  They'll claim the information to be presented at trial is of a classified nature, and the courtroom will be sealed in the interest of national security.  

 

Of course, the only national security they'll be protecting are the stories of misdeeds and embarrassments of the people in power.

Agreed.  But he's still a criminal.  Where do you draw the line with regards to criminals?  Who gets off and who doesn't?  Only those who leak confidential state secrets on the public internet?  He exposed some interesting stuff, but that's a slippery slope.  How far do you go?  Is it OK to hack corporations now also?  Other government agencies?

[impulse]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

He leaked highly classified information. .

 

Keep in mind, I'm of that age where there's every possibility I, or one of my brothers would have died in Vietnam if another whistleblower hadn't violated all kinds of laws and published the Pentagon Papers when he did.   In retrospect, the guy's courage probably saved the lives of thousands of American kids and millions of Asian kids.

 

Even with the risk of exposure by whistleblowers, our leaders break laws with impunity.  Imagine what they'd get away with if they didn't have to worry about the Ellsberg's, Snowden's Wikileaks and Anonymous's of the world.

 

Hell, we'd probably still be flying missions out of UTapao... 

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed.  But he's still a criminal.  Where do you draw the line with regards to criminals?  Who gets off and who doesn't?  Only those who leak confidential state secrets on the public internet?  He exposed some interesting stuff, but that's a slippery slope.  How far do you go?  Is it OK to hack corporations now also?  Other government agencies?

 

I think the courts should demand that whistleblowers be protected from vindictive government agencies (and corporations).  That's the only way to clean up those agencies and corporations and force them to implement a genuine system of accountability where employees who see illegal activities have a legal and effective means of reporting them and putting a stop to agency or corporate sanctioned illegal activities.  Without retribution and without putting their careers, their lives, and their freedom at risk.

 

I'd rather see the courts err on the side of over-protecting legitimate whistleblowers, corporate and government, than to leave them hanging out in the wind.  Even if that means an occasional idiot gets off.

 

Because I'm with the founding fathers.  I don't trust governments (or corporations) to act in the best interest of the people unless they're forced by law to act in our best interest.  That's what the judicial branch is for.

[thaihome]

12 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Keep in mind, I'm of that age where there's every possibility I, or one of my brothers would have died in Vietnam if another whistleblower hadn't violated all kinds of laws and published the Pentagon Papers when he did.   In retrospect, the guy's courage probably saved the lives of thousands of American kids and millions of Asian kids.

 

Even with the risk of exposure by whistleblowers, our leaders break laws with impunity.  Imagine what they'd get away with if they didn't have to worry about the Ellsberg's, Snowden's Wikileaks and Anonymous's of the world.

 

Hell, we'd probably still be flying missions out of UTapao... 

 

Though the release of the Pentagon Papers did indeed change the relationship between the press and the government,  there is no proof it had any impact on Nixon's handling of the war. It dragged on for several years. 

https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/13/reviews/papers-lessons.html

TH

[impulse]

6 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

Though the release of the Pentagon Papers did indeed change the relationship between the press and the government,  there is no proof it had any impact on Nixon's handling of the war. It dragged on for several years. 

https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/13/reviews/papers-lessons.html

TH

 

Good info, and that's one school of thought.  How many wars did we not get involved in because of what the public learned about the origins of the Vietnam war?  We'll never know.

 

I wish we'd learned the lessons a lot better...

 

Edit:  Besides, Nixon's personality had him focusing so much mental energy on how to crush Ellsberg, he had none left over to change anything about the war.  And that other thing he was focusing on....  What was that thing?

Edited September 17, 2016 by impulse

[Publicus]

6 minutes ago, tracker said:

Ooo, so the american law is for everyone in the world. How convenient! So they could commit genocide, classify it, and legally punish anybody who leaks it.... tsktsk. The ignorance... 

 

A person unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents is in violation of U.S. law. The instance of Assange is one clear reason the international instrument of the extradition treaty exists.

 

UK is currently endeavoring to comply with the extradition request made officially to it by the Government of Sweden. UK courts have upheld the extradition request of Sweden after Assange's lawyers challenged it.

 

Equador is currently and since what, 2010, providing refuge in its London embassy to a non-citizen of Equador Julian Assange.

 

Laws are laws and they do apply, in the instance of national security as well, perhaps especially and in particular.

 

The example provided in the post is absurd and it is your bizarre construct.  If U.S. were to commit genocide against anyone you'd be the first to find it and to report it. For sure. You, Putin, Assange, Wikileaks, Snowden. The Four Horsemen plus one. 

[Songlaw]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

So the law prohibiting people from driving drunk is only for fools?  Really?

 

Only fools (being generous with terminology here) are incapable of suppressing hedonistic desires for the greater good, or governing themselves to protect others, so, in a word, yes.

[Songlaw]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

My theory: Assange is gay (pretty obvious) and his subconscious motive has been to subvert conventional society by exposing its secrets and lies. I doubt his motives are political in the manner of Edward Snowden, but more social.

The Swedish charges are obviously trumped up but he is afraid of an enquiry as it would likely expose his homosexuality.

In the meantime, his time in the embassy is a voluntary exile, and may actually be a kind of relief from the strain of being in the closet.

 

Now that was both creative and hilarious.

[dick dasterdly]

56 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed.  But he's still a criminal.  Where do you draw the line with regards to criminals?  Who gets off and who doesn't?  Only those who leak confidential state secrets on the public internet?  He exposed some interesting stuff, but that's a slippery slope.  How far do you go?  Is it OK to hack corporations now also?  Other government agencies?

Assange was responsible for letting the public know things that governments and corporations never wanted anyone to find out.

 

I'm still completely baffled as to why some think this makes him a criminal, rather than a hero for putting himself in the 'firing line' by exposing the truth.

 

I guess some prefer the 'comfort' of big governement/corporations 'looking after them', whist others amongst us prefer to know the truth.

[Publicus]

 

Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers is a natural born U.S. citizen. As such, he has certain protections of the Constitution that Julian Assange does not have.

 

The U.S. Government and the federal courts would handle the Assange case consistent with the Constitution however.

 

The Nixon administration unsuccessfully filed charges against Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case that were summarily dismissed by the U.S. District Court, which is the entry point to the federal judiciary. Ellsberg had not provided any national security or intelligence documents to a foreign person or entity. He released the Pentagon Papers to the US press/media which has its own First Amendment protections too. Ellsberg and the U.S. media are protected.

 

Snowden mixed apples and oranges. Had Snowden released only the NSA apples he might be an acclaimed hero among those who want him locked away for several decades. Snowden did however release national security oranges to foreign governments that are hostile or suspect against the United States. Snowden travelled to each of 'em -- CCP China and Russia -- and has since been provided papers by Russia to reside in Russia.

 

Snowden fled the USA as Assange fled Sweden. Equador has been involved with each at one point or another. The interception of the plane of the Equadorian president was legal because it was necessary to determine if an international fugitive had been on board (Snowden).

 

Russia is also the former stomping ground of Julian Assange to whom Putin in 2012 gave a television talk show based in Moscow and broadcast nationally. Chummy mates they must be.

 

So it is another take on apples and oranges. Local boy Whistleblower Ellsberg vs foreign agent of Vladimir Putin Julian Assange. There is a difference and it is a stark difference. 

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, Publicus said:

 

Daniel Ellsberg who released the Pentagon Papers is a natural born U.S. citizen. As such, he has certain protections of the Constitution that Julian Assange does not have.

 

The U.S. Government and the federal courts would handle the Assange case consistent with the Constitution however.

 

The Nixon administration unsuccessfully filed charges against Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case that were summarily dismissed by the U.S. District Court, which is the entry point to the federal judiciary. Ellsberg had not provided any national security or intelligence documents to a foreign person or entity. He released the Pentagon Papers to the US press/media which has its own First Amendment protections too. Ellsberg and the U.S. media are protected.

 

Snowden mixed apples and oranges. Had Snowden released only the NSA apples he might be an acclaimed hero among those who want him locked away for several decades. Snowden did however release national security oranges to foreign governments that are hostile or suspect against the United States. Snowden travelled to each of 'em -- CCP China and Russia -- and has since been provided papers by Russia to reside in Russia.

 

Snowden fled the USA as Assange fled Sweden. Equador has been involved with each at one point or another. The interception of the plane of the Equadorian president was legal because it was necessary to determine if an international fugitive had been on board (Snowden).

 

Russia is also the former stomping ground of Julian Assange to whom Putin in 2012 gave a television talk show based in Moscow and broadcast nationally. Chummy mates they must be.

 

So it is another take on apples and oranges. Local boy Whistleblower Ellsberg vs foreign agent of Vladimir Putin Julian Assange. There is a difference and it is a stark difference. 

Assange didn't flee Sweden.  He was questioned and went back to the UK - presumably in accordance with his schedule.  The 'investigation' was dropped at the time - and only later brought back to life.....

 

Please don't 'misinterpret' (or lie) about the facts.  

[coma]

34 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

A person unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents is in violation of U.S. law. The instance of Assange is one clear reason the international instrument of the extradition treaty exists.

 

UK is currently endeavoring to comply with the extradition request made officially to it by the Government of Sweden. UK courts have upheld the extradition request of Sweden after Assange's lawyers challenged it.

 

Equador is currently and since what, 2010, providing refuge in its London embassy to a non-citizen of Equador Julian Assange.

 

Laws are laws and they do apply, in the instance of national security as well, perhaps especially and in particular.

 

The example provided in the post is absurd and it is your bizarre construct.  If U.S. were to commit genocide against anyone you'd be the first to find it and to report it. For sure. You, Putin, Assange, Wikileaks, Snowden. The Four Horsemen plus one. 

 

Hang on a minute. You are saying that, and I quote "A person unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents is in violation of U.S. law".

 

 However Sweden are not trying to extradite Mr Assange on, as you put it "unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents" charges now are they? They are going after him on some BS trumped up rape charge. So your point in this particular instance is void.

 

Had it been any other guy in the world, the Swedish authorities would certainly not be going to these extremes to have him extradited from a foreign land. That fact in itself would surely be ringing alarm bells in Assange's ears. And rightly so in my opinion.

[Credo]

Julian Assange is no more a whistleblower than an ape with a paint brush is an artist.   He steals vast amounts of information and throws out to any and all.   Whether innocent people are harmed or not is of no concern to him.   A whistleblower has information and uses it to affect change.  Whistleblowers go through channels.   Whistleblowers protect their sources and stand up for what they believe.

 

Assange is a a cyber-thug.   Pure and simple.   

 

[dick dasterdly]

7 minutes ago, Credo said:

Julian Assange is no more a whistleblower than an ape with a paint brush is an artist.   He steals vast amounts of information and throws out to any and all.   Whether innocent people are harmed or not is of no concern to him.   A whistleblower has information and uses it to affect change.  Whistleblowers go through channels.   Whistleblowers protect their sources and stand up for what they believe.

 

Assange is a a cyber-thug.   Pure and simple.   

 

Whistleblowers are extremely rare - and there's a good reason for this, as they realise that going through the 'proper channels' changes nothing, and is likely to result in them losing their jobs (at best) or, being thrown into prison.

 

Assange was an extremely intelligent cyber hacker, who realised that the public were being fed lies - and turned this into an opportunity for whistleblowers to provide information that he would then pass on to the public.

 

But of course you are one of those people that think the public have no right to know the lies they are being fed by their leaders - and so we will never agree.

Edited September 17, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[tracker]

2 hours ago, Publicus said:

The example provided in the post is absurd and it is your bizarre construct.  If U.S. were to commit genocide against anyone you'd be the first to find it and to report it. For sure. You, Putin, Assange, Wikileaks, Snowden. The Four Horsemen plus one. 

All people with balls to stand up for what they think is right. Amen

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Assange was responsible for letting the public know things that governments and corporations never wanted anyone to find out.

 

I'm still completely baffled as to why some think this makes him a criminal, rather than a hero for putting himself in the 'firing line' by exposing the truth.

 

I guess some prefer the 'comfort' of big governement/corporations 'looking after them', whist others amongst us prefer to know the truth.

I've not followed this stuff really closely.  So I'm looking at it from afar.  Assange broke the law, from what I can tell.  Like it or not, that's a fact.  Some like it that he exposed "the truth", others are saying he's a criminal. 

 

Luckily, the general public doesn't get to say what's a violation of the law and what's not.  That's up to the courts.  Let this pay out in the legal system.  It's the best thing we've got. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whistleblowers are extremely rare - and there's a good reason for this, as they realise that going through the 'proper channels' changes nothing, and is likely to result in them losing their jobs (at best) or, being thrown into prison.

 

Assange was an extremely intelligent cyber hacker, who realised that the public were being fed lies - and turned this into an opportunity for whistleblowers to provide information that he would then pass on to the public.

 

But of course you are one of those people that think the public have no right to know the lies they are being fed by their leaders - and so we will never agree.

Actually, whistleblowers are not rare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

 

And they've got some great laws on their side!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

 

Conspiracy theorists like to argue this....

[jaggiss]

Big Brother

[Chris Lawrence]

Craig what is the quantifiable loss by the US? This should be well documented by now. I see that you took 24 posts before u hopped on the Sweden charge of rape which was in the OP. 

 

Kid, as I understand there are laws in Sweden if Assange is convicted would be transported to the US. Once in the US he would have no chance of a proper defence. I can understand the concern but what would be in the pipeline doesn't back your concern. What would u do in his place?

 

The bottom line I think the crime done by Assange is that he has left influential Military types red faced, nothing all.

[Chris Lawrence]

So what did you do to Murdoch? He pushed his son under the bus.

 

Should have had elgordo38 quote in reply.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Chris Lawrence
Should have had elgordo38 quote in reply

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, coma said:

 

Hang on a minute. You are saying that, and I quote "A person unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents is in violation of U.S. law".

 

 However Sweden are not trying to extradite Mr Assange on, as you put it "unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents" charges now are they? They are going after him on some BS trumped up rape charge. So your point in this particular instance is void.

 

Had it been any other guy in the world, the Swedish authorities would certainly not be going to these extremes to have him extradited from a foreign land. That fact in itself would surely be ringing alarm bells in Assange's ears. And rightly so in my opinion.

 

However Sweden are not trying to extradite Mr Assange on, as you put it "unauthorised to accept and receive confidential U.S. Government national security and intelligence documents" charges now are they?

 

No 'however.'

 

I never said Sweden are trying to extradite Assange from UK with the agreement and the consent of the UK Government because Assange is an unauthorised recipient of US national security documents and intelligence data/information etc. I never said that.

 

I said Assange is an unauthorised recipient of what he knew to be vital US national security and intelligence data/information. The statement is directed at those who erroneously believe US can't prosecute Assange because he is not a citizen.

 

Extradition treaties exist as an international instrument to facilitate rendition of people who violate the laws of another country.

 

UK courts have agreed that Sweden's extradition request is legal in UK. The Swedish appeals court Friday concurred with the district court that the arrest warrant issued by Swedish authorities against Assange is valid. I never said anything about Sweden currently trying to extradite Assange from UK for violation of any US laws. I quoted the Swedish appeal court on the rape inquiry. Said nothing about US laws and Sweden. That is the speculation of others, to apparently include yourself.

 

Try to calm down to get focused plse thx.

[Nasrullah]

7 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

You forget that   Assange ran away. He did his utmost to  prevent  the investigation. Assange was of the view that  his alleged drugging and raping of the woman was no one's business. Well, the Swedish police had a duty to investigate and to protect the  alleged victim. It is unfortunate that you do not believe that women are worthy of legal protection and that sexual assault is a wrongful act.

He he ran from what the US was going to do to him for PUBLISHING not stealing info supplied by maning!

 

The swedish claims came after he was 'hung up' in the ecuadorian embassy.....

[Nasrullah]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

He leaked highly classified information.  In many countries, he'd never make it to court.  Luckily, I don't see the US doing that.  He'll get tried, in a highly visible court proceeding.  Not a bad thing considering what he did.

Craig....it so obvious how naive and spoon fed you are.....Good god,open your eyes man!!!...

 

And he's done nothing more than what journo's have been doing for years....Exposing stuff government's would rather you didn't!

 

 

[coma]

36 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Try to calm down to get focused plse thx.

 You had me right up until this sentence. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by coma

[Publicus]

41 minutes ago, Nasrullah said:

He he ran from what the US was going to do to him for PUBLISHING not stealing info supplied by maning!

 

The swedish claims came after he was 'hung up' in the ecuadorian embassy.....

 

Not necessarily for publishing, no -- hardly. In the USA it's called the legal Doctrine of Prior Restraint which means you have a huge case to present to a judge to stop publication of anything.

 

If Assange is justicable in the USA it would be for knowingly accepting and receiving without being authorised to do so national security information and national security intelligence data of the United States.

 

If Wikileaks were incorporated in the United States it would have First Amendment protections. While Wikileaks operates in part under United States Code, Section 501(c) provisions as a non-profit, Assange operates Wikileaks out of Sweden which also has publication freedom laws that place the heavy burden on the censor rather than punish the publisher.

 

U.S. would not go after Assange for publishing per se. It would go after him for violating the laws of access to confidential national security and intelligence data and information. In comparing and contrasting Assange and Snowden, it could seem the US definitely and strongly wants Snowden, who is a citizen, but it would rather not have Assange the non-citizen publisher dumped in their lap. Snowden would get put away for decades, Assange maybe for a couple of years at the most, if at all...or a month or two suspended for good behavior. Seriously. 

 

As far as the US Government would be concerned, and despite Assange's closeness to Putin, Assange is a publisher and a journalist of sorts, while Snowden who is also in favor with Putin is a lowly computer tech rat who skulks off in the night and closets himself away. While it is Assange holed up in a closet, it is Snowden the perp who is hiding like a scared rat.

[Nasrullah]

7 minutes ago, Publicus said:

In the USA it's called the legal Doctrine of Prior Restraint

Wow.......thanks for the explanation........although i don't agree with snowden's treatment!

 

But it would be great if the US exercised the 'doctrine of prior constraint' in regard to foreign interventions!

[tonbridgebrit]

Julian Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  A group of police officers are just outside the building, permanently watching the place. They are there, to arrest Assange if he does walk out of the building. This has gone on for years, and has cost over £10 million, paid for by the British tax-payer.

This is a total waste of tax-payers money. As the report itself says,  "public enemy number one for the Americans and a number of other governments, who said his revelations had put national security under threat, and lives of government agents and employees in danger. There is no evidence this is the case. "



Freedom of information, I want to know what's going on. Assange didn't do anything that harmed people. And I don't want to see tax-payers money being wasted. Please, end this BS.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11392085/Julian-Assange-policing-costs-reach-10-million.html

 

 

[Nasrullah]

28 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Julian Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  A group of police officers are just outside the building, permanently watching the place. They are there, to arrest Assange if he does walk out of the building. This has gone on for years, and has cost over £10 million, paid for by the British tax-payer.

This is a total waste of tax-payers money. As the report itself says,  "public enemy number one for the Americans and a number of other governments, who said his revelations had put national security under threat, and lives of government agents and employees in danger. There is no evidence this is the case. "



Freedom of information, I want to know what's going on. Assange didn't do anything that harmed people. And I don't want to see tax-payers money being wasted. Please, end this BS.

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11392085/Julian-Assange-policing-costs-reach-10-million.html

 

 

The british police who stand outside the embassy at taxpayers expense should be ashamed of themselves!

 

"public enemy number one for the Americans............i would say that title belongs to the US government itself

I'm sure a large number of americans would agree with this!

 

Whatever the cost of surveillance,it is a complete waste of time,money and resources

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Nasrullah

[Publicus]

1 minute ago, Nasrullah said:

The british police who stand outside the embassy at taxpayers should be ashamed of themselves!

 

"public enemy number one for the Americans............i would say that title belongs to the US government itself

I'm sure a large number of americans would agree with this!

 

Whatever the cost of surveillance,it is a complete waste of time,money and resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. and Britain are Nato allies and allies from the two world wars of the 20th century to include the Cold War. They share ALL their strategic national security intelligence in EVERYTHING about everybody and always. In full...the whole package.

 

Each government has long said and held that Assange got his hands on vital national security information that did enormous damage to each country. Assange is paying somewhat for it now, but it is guaranteed London and Washington will make his life more miserable than even Assange himself could imagine. 

 

Assange knows that a slow demise engineered by Putin, such as polonium, means a month or so. For US intelligence, the slow demise of Assange (and Snowden) will occur over 40 years. Presently Assange (and Snowden) can hide but they can't run. The time will come when Assange can run but he can't hide (or be hidden away). And there will be a lot of time in between. The guy did an absolute no-no. Snowden too.

 

No offense intended, but this is a case of the Fairy and the Snowman.