@john 104. I presume you're not a retard but just buying an argument.
I presume you're not a retard but just buying an argument.
Wikileaks editor Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates Court he would not consent to extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for alleged sexual offences. Assange said he would fight proceedings from the UK. Wikileaks meanwhile said legal action against its spokesman would have no effect on its publishing programme. It …
I presume you're not a retard but just buying an argument.
I realise that it's an alien concept to you septics, but the world is a big place, and American law doesn't apply to all, no matter how much you would like it to.
From the American..(John 104)
"He is guilty of treason in this country"
From Websters online dictionary..
" the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance"
Assange is Australian.
Now, go and work out how to boil your own head you <insert worst insult you can imagine here>.
Why can't they wait until there's a more credible reason of arresting him?
I'd have more respect for them if they said 'we've denied him bail because we don't like him very much and someone leant on us'
Because now they can hold him on a trumped up charge and know exactly where his is the moment they are ready to throw the book at him.
Credible like, er, um, treason?
i trust that your government is also getting ready to prosecute the treasonous NY Times for publishing a number of the leaked cables as well - after all, they have done exactly the same thing as Wikileaks and the government would have a much better case, since the NY Times is a US entity with US employees, unlike WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange (Australian).
Also, I think you had better check a definition of treason - "treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation". Since as already mentioned Mr. Assange is NOT a US citizen, treason is definitely one of the things he can't be charged with, no matter how much you wish he could be.
If by 'treason' Assange's actions were undermining morally admirable (yes, I know this is a grey area, and no, I can't be bothered spending paragraphs explaining) operations, then I'd have more sympathy.
As it is, whilst it may be treason by the strict dictionary definition, Wikileaks is actually highlighting hypocrisy and outright lying that should be brought to light. None of the information revealed so far seems to be even slightly remarkable, will all be known by the real opposition to various governments and thus the issue is mainly the populace who now have clear and unambiguous information that they were repeatedly lied to.
Wikileaks should be given a medal for starting to force politicians to be more honest, and hopefully encourage more of the wider populace to think for themselves.
Did they get the killer of Olof Palme yet?
Did they get the killers of those journalists in Iraq that the US military shot, the ones whose murder we only know about thanks to Wikileaks?
Meanwhile, MasterCard and Visa are blocking payments to the fund that supports WikilLeaks. This would be the same two card companies that are happy to take payments for funds that support racist organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan (Googling for similar organisations shows they're also allowed to receive donations from Visa or MasterCard card holder payments).
We all love a good conspiracy theory! Time for someone to take an unbiassed stand on events:
1. Mr Assange has admited he had sexual relations with the ladies in question
2. Everyone knows he is not the only person in wikileaks and that leaks will continue without him.
3. The authorities have nothing to gain by smearing him - the leaked documents are not rumour, they contain clear, undeniable fact.
If there is an accusation of a crime (any crime, not just this case), then we MUST rely on the authorities following due dilligence in processing the case, and on a trial by our peers. The principles of our justice system have been developed over many centuries to ensure as fair a trial as possible, free from undue influence. We cannot exempt someone from the process just because that person holds a controversial position. And if we don't follow the process, we might as well start digging our bunkers now, as all we'll end up with is anarchy.
And before I'm shot down in flames for defending the authorities, I think wikileaks are right to be releasing most of the material. I question their judgement over a small number of the releases, but I stand by their principles. Mr Assange's guilt or innocence lies with a jury.
"If there is an accusation of a crime (any crime, not just this case), then we MUST rely on the authorities following due dilligence in processing the case, and on a trial by our peers. The principles of our justice system have been developed over many centuries to ensure as fair a trial as possible, free from undue influence. We cannot exempt someone from the process just because that person holds a controversial position. And if we don't follow the process, we might as well start digging our bunkers now, as all we'll end up with is anarchy."
Try telling all that to The Pirate Bay crew... I think you'll find 'justice' in Sweden has been proven an ass. ;)
Sure, *IF* they would do their jobs properly, however for someone to be charged they have the *RIGHT* under the European Convention on Human Rights to be notified of the details of what they are being charged with in a language that they understand.
Julian Assange does not understand Swedish, so the Authorities have screwed up at the first hurdle.
Person in question surrendered himself to the police and was arrested. No issue there. Clearly, it is a serious accusation. No issue there, either.
There are more serious cases, everyday, were bail is granted. I do not accept your contention that it is therefore reasonable or proper exercise of the law to deny him bail and lock him up.
If he is allowed a swift appeal and he is released I may change my mind.
Magistrates, and more senior judges get judgments wrong regularly and this may be a case in point. He has not been found guilty, yet, and I believe it merely adds to his martyrdom to lock him up like this!
Wikileaks are doing a damn fine job and will continue without him
You can only be either a member of those "authorities" or a troll.
1) When first brought forward, the so called rape case was dropped within hours, presumably due to lack of evidence. Why has it been subsequently resurrected by Swedens Head Prosecutor who shows every sign of a person who is conducting a witch hunt. I don't know enough about the Swedish legal system to say whether a suitably determined government apparatchik could RAM through a case Kangaroo Court style or not.
2) If I were Assange, I would be extremely concerned that once I was delivered to Sweden I would be immediately handed over to the U.S. who I have absolutely NO FAITH AT ALL that they would conduct a fair and unbiased trial. It would be exceedingly easy to drum up a jury of Right Thinking, God Fearing True American Patriots in any one of dozens of their States and most of them would not be averse at all to handing out the death penalty.
3) The authorities do have lots to gain from smearing him. There is no better way to stifle dissent amongst the proletariat than to very publicly destroy someone who stands up and threatens to topple their huge house of cards. If they succeed in crushing Assange, future troublemakers will certainly think twice before attempting to expose the secret dealings of the ruling class to public scrutiny.
I wish him luck. I certainly would fight the extradition until the full set of evidence is provided by the Swedish Witch Finder General. Hopefully the British courts will see how lacking the evidence apparently is and dismiss the case completely.
True, so why then are the Swedish authorities doing PR, releasing information about the case to the media long before it gets to trial? Why release accusations that would damage anybodies life/career even if he is later found not guilty, before supplying information to the UK magistate or Assange lawyers?.
Given the timing (months after the incidents) but at a time when a number of organisations would like to devert attention away from the contents of the leaked information and towards a fall-guy, then I do find it quite remarkable.
I mean sex without a condom being an offense that causes somebody to be banged up in a foreign jail without bail, when a famous movie director can have sex with underage girls (which is technically rape as well) & get away with it...
I hope they follow normal procedure and remove his belt and shoe laces.
The idea of bail is that it is incentive for someone to show up for trial, to get the bail money back. If the bail money in question was not his own, this significantly reduces his incentive, since it would presumably have to be given back to the donaters, so he doesn't get to keep it in any case.
Access to finance is not a valid reason to deny bail; for example, Archer had truckloads of finance and was granted bail, ditto Nasir currently. Similarly Assange cannot be regarded as posing a significant risk of tampering with witnesses (its difficult to tamper with witnesses in Sweden when you're in London). All in all I'm a bit surprised by the refusal to grant bail given that there is a presumption in favour of it.
Maybe a real lawyer can clarify if he thought the DJ was right or not....
Following that reasoning the only ones who could be given a bail would be the ones that have enough money to pay for it by themselves. Bail agencies wouldn't like that. And most citizens - the ones that are not very rich - wouldn't like it either.
wonder if he'll enounter many flights of stairs - I hear they can be treacherous
The mash is way ahead of you :) http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/assange-to-escape-from-police-at-the-top-of-some-stairs-201012073327/
Ah, the Daily Mash, our foremost satirical online publication.
Regardless of the rights or otherwise of Wikileaks, Assange has always come across as a somewhat creepy guy. He's seemed that way from the first few interviews with him I've read and I think he'll still seem that way long after this court case has been resolved, however that works out.
....he must be treated in exactly the same way as anyone else would be. Let's hope that this will be an example of UK justice in action where everything is done correctly and any US pressure is resisted.
You have one ?
I hear he sometimes wears a hat too.
ask Norman Tebbit...
I doubt he wants to leave the UK anyways, there is probably a reason he wanted to be arrested in the UK rather than elsewhere. We are more likely to let the courts decide to send him abroad rather than let a US snatch squad pick him up.
* Unlawful coercion - used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.
* Sexual molestation - had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom.
* Deliberate molestation - molested Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
* Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep.
much as it pains me to use a Daily Mail link :
If ever we needed proof that our Western democracies are nothing of the sort then WikiLeaks has provided it.
Most of us have always known that the diplomatic 'system', international treaties, cabinet government and secret services etc. are power and authority exercised by power-mongers 'outside' democracy--supposedly in its interest but so often not--and in ways that are never fully accountable within the democratic system. WikiLeaks has not only proved this overwhelmingly but it's done so in ways that cannot be denied, for that we owe it and Assange a great debt.
For the first time ever, democracy's 'real' government has been exposed. And in reality the Jeffersonian notion of democracy being knowledge and power residing within the citizenry is factually little more than a chimera (and perhaps terrible joke).
For such an exposure Assange will pay a very high price indeed, the start of which we are seeing here.
What depresses me is that whilst Assange has provided us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve our governance, most citizens--as usual--will do nothing, thus there'll be no critical mass to change the status quo.
I think Assange might have better chance of bail next time around.
By then the Swedes will have to get their stuff together sufficient to paint a picture of their case to persuade the Beak, who recognises a hot thing, to ship him off.
Since it is nearer Christmas the chances are the Beak will be more disposed towards considering bail.
Assange has been charged with no offence by ANY government
And the U.S. Constitution bars retroactive legislation, too.
Check out: < http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-making-an-arse-of-swedish-law/ >.
That he is ever able to get out of jail?
Julian knows that there will be political interference in his situation as long as it leads to getting re-elected. As to protecting/serving the citizens, politicians have a very bad track record there. Julian for president (of Iceland)!
Prosecutor says he could attract loonies,
I presume he meat the American
which feature a Canadian Loon (bird) image.
Canadian $2 coins are called, unimaginatively, Toonies.
The authorities have to be very careful to secure an conviction and lock him up in a padded cell. Anything remotely dangerous happens to him, they risk turning him into a martyr. Next thing you will have sodding t-shirts with black and white shots of his fugly mug a-la Kurt Cobain or Tupac!
I really hope he gets Senior District Judge Timothy Workman.
(He's the judge who slashed through the US law enforcement's lies about Lotfi Raissi.'s extradition attempt.)
So undue US government pressure causes both Amazon and Wikileaks DNS provider (both based in the USA) to (try to) yank Wikileaks from the Web. Strangely enough, here is the US we have a legal principle called inequitable justice whereby the government is "not supposed to" apply the law in an inequitable manner "as in being applied differently for for the same "crime"".
So just how come the "gummint" can't do anything about the myriad command and control servers for botnets, the vile hosts of spammers, the kiddieporn sites and the DNS hosts that are located right here in the "good ole USA"? Oh, you say they have "legal rights" and deserve "due process of law".
As I've heard it, the colloquial saying is "Fair is for Hicks".
I don't see this Wikileaks thing being espionage, I see it as taking the "Freedom of Information Act" to it's fullest extent. Even if a F.O.I.L. lawsuit was filed and acted upon, we would never see this data even if we knew exactly where the data was located.
I guess it's time for a global change of leadership. Is anyone else up for it?
When they think they can safely come out with such obvious crap ( following a long line of other obvious crap) there is absolutely no hope of any form of justice for anyone.
I didn't think the pantomime season started until after Christmas?
The real story here is that the US / UK military machine were sent to invade, murder and destroy another sovereign state in a corrupt and illegal act instigated on behalf of evil greedy corporate and political establishment paymasters.
Anything else is a manufactured distraction.
Wikileaks have done what corporate media have once again failed to do - expose the brutality, corruption and cruel injustice of armed conflict. Julian Assange is being crucified because he "failed to stop" when the establishment warned him against dirtying their carefully crafted reputation.
First stop Westminster, second stop Stockholm, third stop (very briefly) USA, fourth stop Bagram, fifth stop somewhere nice and quiet in Uzbekistan.
Scene: the basement of a security headquarters, somewhere in Central Asia. A "sex offender" is being boiled in the customary way, while a man in dark glasses with a crewcut looks on approvingly.
.. he was a fool to going sleep with partners that he didn't have a relationship with. Something like that is always going to jump up and bite you in the ass. Normally it happens 9 months down the line, not after releasing classified docs.
I've got a lot of respect for the guy, but in his position, it was a pretty foolish thing to do...
In countries where the levers of power are in the hands of a state bureaucracy, the monopolistic control over the media, often supplemented by official censorship, makes it clear that the media serve the ends of a dominant elite. It is much more difficult to see a propaganda system at work where the media are private and formal censorship is absent. This is especially true where the media actively compete, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest. What is not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques.
The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns.
The elite domination of the media and marginalization of dissidents that results from the operation of these filters occurs so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values.
Noam Chomsky & Ed Herman - Manufacturing Consent
...I am ashamed to be British.
I suspect many Swedes are equally ashamed of their own judiciary.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017