back to article Lawyers fear Assange faces death penalty in US

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could be imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or face the death penalty if he's extradited to the US, his attorneys argued in court papers released Tuesday. The document, which outlines the defense Assange's legal team intends to use next month at a hearing over Sweden's request for extradition, says …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Easier to extradite from Sweden

    I find the idea that it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden than it would be to get him from the UK.

    I there anyone here who can explain (or reference) the basis for this claim?

    1. Windrose

      More difficult.

      Not quite sure what you ask - but since an extradition request from the US to the UK would involve the UK deciding - yes or no - while an extradition request from the US to Sweden would involve BOTH Sweden and the UK to agree ...

      Well. Getting him from Sweden is more difficult than directly from the UK, even by legal means.

    2. Martijn Bakker

      Treaties

      The US-Sweden extradition treaty allows for extradition on suspicion of offences commited outside of the jurisdiction of the requesting nation and in some cases without the customary requirement that the offence for which extradition is requested be a punishable offence in both nations.

      http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf

      http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-treaty-14-ust-1845.pdf

      1. JohnG

        US Extradition Treaties

        "The US-Sweden extradition treaty allows for extradition on suspicion of offences commited outside of the jurisdiction of the requesting nation and in some cases without the customary requirement that the offence for which extradition is requested be a punishable offence in both nations."

        The US-UK treaty is similar. Additionally, the UK has form when it comes to handing people to the USA on request - think of the NatWest Three or involvements in renditions to Guantanamo Bay.

  2. Ian Michael Gumby
    FAIL

    Pure hype ...

    Silly me.

    I thought Sweden was its own country and has its own legal system. And Assange has already claimed his innocence. (This is the issue at hand.)

    But if you're wondering about the US Government...

    First the US Government knows that many if not all of the EU and other countries will not extradite a person when there's a potential for the death penalty. So usually for an extradition, the US has to agree that the death penalty is off the table. And to date, the US Government has not yet charged Assange with anything so what US extradition?

    As to a CIA rendition ... I don't recall the US Government labeling Wikileaks a terrorist organization.

    And Obama has already vowed to close down Guantanamo. So if anything... if there was a rendition... Bulgaria anyone?

    This is pure fantasy on the part of Assange's lawyer. Don't blame him because he's doing his job. The question is if the English judges buy in to it...

    Now tell me that Assange doesn't live in a fantasy world!

    1. Dagg Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      You trust the CIA and the US to play by the rules!

      As to a CIA rendition ... I don't recall the US Government labeling Wikileaks a terrorist organization.

      Since when has that stopped the US and the CIA!

      1. Ian Michael Gumby

        @Dagg

        Seriously, you give the CIA too much credit.

        And of course you probably don't know that the CIA has to act within the law. (Although there is a lot of gray area...)

        You also give Assange too much credit.

        As it has been pointed out ad nauseum, what Assange leaked was classified, yet nothing of great importance.

        Assume you're right. The CIA might do something. Do a risk assessment. Assange isn't worth the risk. (Murphy's law... if something can go wrong ... it will go wrong.) The US Government is building a case against Assange. You can't say that there is no transparency. What you and other 'commentards' don't know is what information and what evidence the US Government has against Assange. Until the legal card is played out, there's no reason to plan anything.

        If you were talking about the Russian spy network (remember Anna Chapman???), or the Mossad, I'd say they would be more adept at performing the dark spy arts than the CIA.

        What you probably don't remember (If you were even alive back then...) is the failed attempt at the rescue of the American Iran Hostages when the Shah fell. Or the fact that the Clinton Administration pulled a Kennedy and cut the CIA's budget so they lost Human Intel capabilities and their effectiveness.

        So please by all means keep the dark conspiracy alive. Over estimate the CIA ...

        1. Maty

          The law ? Don't talk to me about the law ...

          The CIA has to operate within the law, but that's no help if the government gets all elastic about it. After all if the British government could redefine Iceland as a terrorist organization in order to freeze their bank assets (they did, really, look it up) then defining Assange as a terrorist ought to be a doddle.

          And torture is out of the question, though the US government redefined waterboarding as not torture, even though they themselves imprisoned Japanese for doing this during the second world war. So all they need to do is make it legal to apply the 'manual digit reshaping devices' (formerly known as thumbscrews) and 'readjust Assange's height specifications' (put him on the rack), and bingo, all is done within the law.

          Or of course, the US govt could do as they did with Al Capone, and pass a law effective retroactively, which makes it a crime to have done something which was legal at the time.

          But of course, this is as improbable as the Swedish government redefining the meaning of rape in order to get Assange extradited in the first place.

          Isn't it?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Rendition

      Render unto Obama what is Obama's due.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Troll

    I wouldn't put anything past America.

    They have proven on many occasions that there is nothing to which they will not sink if they feel their global dominance is under threat.

    I also find it suspicious that Sweden is acting as a stepping stone in this extradition to America as Britain has a long held policy of never extraditing someone to face the death penalty.

    Sending him to Sweden first negates that responsibility legally if not morally.

    Icon because I assume that Ian Michael Gumby will immediately start trolling this comment and thread.

    1. Windrose

      Trust the US? No. But there's a but.

      "Sending him to Sweden first negates that responsibility legally if not morally."

      Incorrect. If we are speaking of legal acts, then Sweden - by its own laws - cannot extradite him to the US if the court here fears he'll be given the death penalty, tortured, or if there is a political component.

      Besides, IF the US requested extradiction from Sweden, then (a) a Swedish court would have to judge the case, and (b) the *UK* would have to agree. Them's the laws.

      Of course, one could argue that the US wouldn't give a damn, and that Sweden would fall in line, but since every single scrap of documentation in such a case would be, by default, public in Sweden, there'd have to be a hell of a lot of laws broken to achieve it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Sweden ignores its own laws if told to do so by the USA

        There are several well-known examples of that.

        1. The BigYin

          @Sweden ignores its own laws

          "There are several well-known examples of that."

          Yeah, so well-known you don't mention any!

          1. Maty

            e.g.

            Um, didn't they redefine their privacy laws a while back ...

            a) To make it easier to intercept all internet communications passing through their country

            and

            b) To enable the passing of that info the the USA

    2. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      Too late...

      Sorry, but my post got here first. :-P

      What's interesting is that I call this pure hype and get thumbs down. Someone else says the exact same thing... thumbs up.

      Assange's lawyer is doing his job and is trying to do anything that's within the law to keep his client out of jail.

      The truth is that if the whole US issue was off the table and it was a matter of Assange facing the rape charges, he'd be in Sweden by now. There would be no grounds to fight the extradition.

      This is why a lawyer in the UK who knows that the US would have to take the Death Penalty off the table if they wanted to extradite someone from the EU is making those remarks. He's just doing his job. Were I him, I'd probably do the same thing.

      In truth, were Assange to face charges in the US, he'd get something like 20 years or less. Even Manning wouldn't get the death penalty.

      And speaking of the death penalty... In Illinois the state is in the process of removing the death penalty. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        equip flail from the resident chill

        There is no rape charge, and it's very unlikely that there will ever be one. There is no charge at all, actually, but if/when there is it will probably be a "sex by surprise" one, which bears a small fine as max penalty. That's if Sweden manages to change the law in time to make "sex without condom" fit in the sex by surprise law. They're essentially trying to extradite him over a parking ticket.

        Sweden also made clear that they will surrender him to the US should they ask.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        "Sorry, but my post got here first. :-P"

        "And speaking of the death penalty... In Illinois the state is in the process of removing the death penalty. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your delusions."

        Espionage is a federal offence where state punishments don't apply, but don't let facts get in the way of your delusions about me having delusions.

        Keep making ahit up, I find it quite entertaining.

        Good to see your armchair psychotherapy can't resist on making another completely unfounded diagnosis.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Boffin

          @N&G

          Perhaps you misunderstand that I'm trying to point out that the Death Penalty is going out of fashion. The reason that the state of IL is looking to remove the death penalty is that there were several death row cases involving innocent men who were convicted because of prosecution misconduct and/or DNA evidence cleared them. (Separate cases)

          With respect to espionage. Can you recall the last time the Death Penalty was used in the US on an Espionage case? Hmmm I think back to the Rosenberg trial. Past that, I can't think of any.

          The recent Espionage cases where US citizens sold secrets to foreign governments (80's and 90's) they all got long stiff prison sentences. Death penalty was never on the table.

          Now if you had been paying attention, Espionage isnt' the only avenue that the US Government could prosecute Assange. The USDOJ already hinted at that and the US press pundits all agree that there are other options. So if Assange is charged not for Espionage but something else, the death penalty wouldn't be an option. (There are sentencing guidelines that the judges must use when sentencing a convicted felon.) Again making the death penalty a moot point.

          But since you're keen on this death penalty issue, there is one case where IMHO the death penalty is appropriate. You did hear about the gunman in AZ? No insanity plea there.

          So hopefully you've learned a little bit more about the US legal system.

          (The more you know...)

      3. unitron

        Assange a blowhard and Chicago the Windy City, but...

        What laws of the State of Illinois is Assange supposed to have violated?

        Has he even ever been in Illinois?

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Flame

        Organized Crime, Terrorists, and Death Penalty

        "In Illinois the state is in the process of removing the death penalty"

        That is because metro area Chigago is the home of Organized Crime and Terrorists.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime_in_Chicago

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

        The United States President rose from there, even though he had virtually no (~1/3'rd a year)political experience, with the only viable experience as being a "Community Organiser" that got a summer jobs program for teens and some asbestos removed from a building, quite by accident.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama-do-community-organizer/byron-york

        It does not take a genius to figure out why the Death Penalty is hated by the people who perform the most heinous of crimes - they can continue to do their deadly work from prison with free rent, free health care, free tv, and free protection... and wait for a Pardon from a fellow liberal Democrat, like the way Democrat Jimmy Carter and Democrat Bill Clinton pardoned Communist Terrorists...

        http://books.google.com/books?id=ZOfkAoDb_2IC&lpg=PA165&ots=-r3w4trOXl&dq=carter%20pardon%20terrorist&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q=carter%20pardon%20terrorist&f=false

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06EED7133CF931A15752C0A9679C8B63

        It amazes me that Democrats that run the system continue to contort the laws in the United States by making sure they can murder without lasting consequence, get rid of the Death penalty to avoid the justice they deserve, and then wait for a Communist sympathising Democrat to pardon them.

        The way terrorists circles were frequented by Democratic American Presidents like Carter, Clinton, and Obama, makes me sick to my stomach.

        Anything for a vote in the liberal American circles... throwing a lever for one of these people to get them elected soils the electorate hands with the blood of innocents.

        Foreign press endorsing these murderers and panderers of murders are soiled with the same blood.

  4. multipharious
    Thumb Down

    That is the defense!? Really?

    He might be rendered and get the death penalty!? Really. In the spotlight. What a lame defense. Perhaps that idea to seek asylum in Sweden as a whistleblower was, shall we say, shitty? Especially when you got too hot to handle. Then England gives up a Commonwealth subject like a kid who shot a spitball in class.

    Off to Stockholm young Julian. Face your charges of shoving your willy in without a wrapper when the girls (that's plural) said no. You likely will get off...

    Mister Assange, if your brand of whistleblowing actually accomplished anything other than media furor then I might support you. As it is, you do nothing other than draw attention to yourself. Freedom of speech... Whatever.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      @multpharious

      If all he's done is create a "media furor", then you would have a valid point. Unfortunately, he seems to have uncovered some illegal goings on, including perverting the course of justice, which you conveniently seem to be unaware of:

      http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4215

      But hey, I expect your attitude is everyone does it, so why shouldn't the US.

      Well if the State ignores the law, what exactly is the incentive for anyone else to take any notice of it?

      If you want another example of "those who think they're above the law", have a look at this example of state backed criminal behaviour, and see if you still think its such a good thing for the whistleblowers just to shut up (this one might actually affect you):

      http://www.philstockworld.com/2011/01/10/fear-and-loathing-on-wall-street-catastrophic-implications-for-banks-of-the-ibanez-case-ruling/

      1. efeffess
        Unhappy

        Whistle while you work...

        That is truly a frightening article. I'm curious as to how this will affect us outside of the U.S., particularly Canada (which has some close ties itself).

        Whistleblowing for the greater good of the people == good.

        Whistleblowing against the greater good of the people == bad.

      2. multipharious

        @AC - Missing my point

        My statement is that there is nothing really surprising in what is being touted as a leak. I have been more than interested in "conspiracy" for quite some time...and this tripe he is publishing ain't it.

        Oh my, Gaddafi has a hot blonde nurse. Goodness. Stop the presses.

        The Ibanez ruling is the example you bring to the table? Are you associated with WikiLeaks?

        When you are done reading

        Corporate Crime and Violence: Big Business Power and the Abuse of the Public Trust

        1988 by Richard Mokhiber

        Please come back for a discussion. I read this 20 years ago.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Thumb Up

          @multipharious

          Very good point.

          Whistle blowing... the biggest and well known case was PGE's Chromium-6 dump. And even today we're still seeing the after effects. The EPA is now testing water in and around Chicago and other major cities for levels of Chromium-6 (Chromium Hexavalate?)

          That's Whistle blowing.

          Price Fixing of products? Again Whistle blowing. (Corn Products, Memory Chips, etc...)

          What has Wikileaks done?

          Google and read the articles in 'The New Yorker', 'Vanity Fair', 'The Guardian' and other newspapers around the world. I'm talking about accredited journalists and not some conspiracy nut blog post.

          I'm all for true whistle blowing.

          But Assange isn't about that.

          Read up on the articles about Assange threatening to sue 'Grauniad' (Guardian) over the leaks from his 'organization'.

          He's a con man and many of the commentards have bought in to his con.

          Oh and one more thing... Can Gaddafi file a medical insurance claim if he's getting a 'theraputic' massage from his Ukrainian 'nurse' if it includes a 'happy ending'?

          (That's one question I have based on the information Wikileaks published from the cables....)

          1. multipharious

            @Ian - You have -23 and I have -22

            That is proper whistle blowing. It is astounding that companies can disappear and leave States and communities to foot the bill for the cleanup. These folks walk. They poison an entire watershed and walk.

            It looks like these wiener boy ACs have their first conspiracy, and think that JA is their "come from heaven" pop culture messiah they need to defend like some Christ figure. Save your tithe. I remember discovering a cool band back in the day and thinking I ruled. These ACs probably don't even have a properly shielded tinfoil hat in their closet and have never heard the clicks on the phone line nor seen the fishsticks melt.

            "Needle nose..up my nose...AH! Where are all these wires coming from!? How far up in my head do they go!? I pull out more and more copper spaghetti!" - LARD "Can God Fill Teeth?" on "The Last Temptation of Reid"

            I have gotten nailed to the tune of 22 downvotes so far for saying WikiLeaks is worthless tripe (using my own moniker.) I have not contributed to their downvote stats with my own paltry and petty single vote slag...though I probably should for all the lame-o, newbie, conspiracy snipe ACs that lurk around these WikiLeaks forums here on El Reg. When you newbies grow up you will discover a world much more horrid than you think... The old school is amused by your downvotes. (but we think you suck)

            If WikiLeaks were actually worthy of attention (like Ian Michael Gumby is mentioning regarding dumping) then I would support it, but middle school diplomatic wires about silly susie said such and such? It accomplishes nothing other than agitation without substance. What are you defending? The right to do what...exactly?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      That's only part of his defence

      Dan Goodin has chosen the most sensationalist part of the defence argument, but it's only one of several arguments. Most of it involves the improper use of extradition in that (a) he hasn't been charged and (b) the Swedish authorities haven't done the extradition order correctly.

      Assange's lawyers have gone for the blunderbuss approach of putting down anything they can think of in the hope that something will stick. The lawyers are doing their job, in other words.

      " Face your charges of shoving your willy in without a wrapper when the girls (that's plural) said no."

      That's the point: he hasn't been charged. Sweden are trying to extradite him for an interview, which according to the defence isn't a legitimate use of extradition.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Tom 13

      Actually, part of the problem most of the world has with the Swedish rape charges

      is that the girls DIDN'T object at the time, they changed their minds AFTERWARD. In fact, they only changed their minds when he became an internationally renowned figure.

      Now, the kool-aid drinkers who keep posting on this site believe that's because the women are CIA stooges who are trying to get him extradited to the US. In fact the women are fellow anarchists who have a different sacred cow: all sex is the rape of women. Which is actually sufficient to explain why the case changed jurisdiction in Sweden and got reinstated after a moderately sane prosecutor dropped the previously filed charges. Trust me on this, the CIA is too incompetent to have planned this ahead of time, or paid them off after the fact.

      1. david wilson

        @Tom 13

        >>"is that the girls DIDN'T object at the time, they changed their minds AFTERWARD. In fact, they only changed their minds when he became an internationally renowned figure."

        So he suddenly became famous one week when he'd been a nobody the week before?

        Or maybe the WOMAN whose flat he was staying at, who seemed to be involved in organising his visit, didn't actually know who he was at first?

        And the accusations (not charges) seem to be that there wasn't proper consent for unprotected sex.

        His defence may well be to argue that there was, and that the accusations are the result of some later change of mind, or even outright lies, for whatever reason, but it's not really possible at the moment for anyone else to say what consent may or may not have been given.

        >>"In fact the women are fellow anarchists who have a different sacred cow: all sex is the rape of women."

        Which I guess will be news to any men they've slept with previously who they haven't reported to the police.

        Presumably they were just waiting until they'd screwed someone famous enough, (though according to you, it took them a while to work out that they had, *despite* being fellow anarchists).

        And even then, the original police contact is claimed to have been in the hope that the police could get Assange to take a HIV test, rather than to press charges.

        Possibly that was all some kind of cunning double-bluff, but I do trend to get a bit suspicious when all manner of things are being claimed to be ruses or bluffs by one or other person who doesn't seem to know the facts any better than anyone else.

  5. ratfox
    Happy

    I would actually trust the Sweden justice...

    I would not be surprised if the whole thing was just about "following the rules". I.e. they are absolutely unwilling to change the way things would be done if he was just Joe Nobody. It is quite likely that they would refuse interrogating him at his convenience, be it in the UK or by video. So, following the rules, they ask for extradition the way they would with anybody else.

    In that case, all this grandstanding about rendition would be nothing but paranoia from his part. Of course, you have good reasons to be paranoid when you pissed off the US so much...

    I hope he gets extradited, then receives a fine and a few months with probation, as one would expect for such conduct. I would be laughing long and loud.

    1. Ragarath

      Why?

      In the article I quote "Assange hasn't been charged with any crime."

      Your comment quote "I hope he gets extradited, then receives a fine and a few months with probation, as one would expect for such conduct. I would be laughing long and loud."

      So you have decided (without knowing the man) that he is guilty of a crime that he has not been charged with. Yes allegations have been made and he has offered to talk to them but no charges.

      I also think that this is now to tainted in the public eye. How is a jury (if one is needed) supposed to be unaffected by the press on this?

      I don't know the man and he may be a big douch-bag but come on, would you like to be treated like this if the roles were reversed?

      1. DavCrav

        I think you missed the point

        "So you have decided (without knowing the man) that he is guilty of a crime that he has not been charged with. Yes allegations have been made and he has offered to talk to them but no charges."

        I'm just guessing, but I think what the OP meant was that there's all this bother, massive news story, worries about extradition to the US and execution, etc, and then what happens is he gets 100 hours community service in Sweden, and then let go.

      2. Charles Manning

        Jury tainting

        Surely that's the whole point.

        Assange is staging a huge media drama so that he can claim jury tainting and any trial should be null and void.

        If he was really interested in a fair trial, he would have immediately cooperated with the cops and kept everything low-key.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Down

          @Charles Manning -- Fair trial

          What has he been *charged* with that requires a trial exactly?

          From what I've seen, he bent over backwards to cooperate with the Swedish prosecutor (no police were involved), and was rebuffed....

          Also, the evidence surrounding the need for him to be *interviewed* was leaked to the press by the *prosecutor*'s office... so how is it that you are blaming Assange for not keeping it low-key?

  6. Not That Andrew
    WTF?

    Does he think we're retarded or something?

    Lets see... He is presently in a country that regularly allowed extraordinary rendition flights to land at its airports until plane spotters blew the whistle. A country where a mostly harmless and rather stupid hacker has been fighting for several years not to be extradited to America. Yet he is worried the Swedish will hand over to the Americans?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Sir

      "He is presently in a country that regularly allowed extraordinary rendition flights to land at its airports"

      No-one was rendered from the UK though.

      1. Not That Andrew

        I grant you that

        However, we do know that UK intel passed info to the Merkins so suspects could be rendered from less image-conscious countries.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Publicity seems to hinder rendition

      "He is presently in a country that regularly allowed extraordinary rendition flights to land at its airports until plane spotters blew the whistle."

      So kicking up a fuss about the possibility of being extradited to the US, either directly or indirectly, seems to be an effective way of preventing it. (Gary what's-his-name would have been extradited long ago if it wasn't for the publicity).

  7. bruceld
    Big Brother

    The United Fascist States of America

    Of course he'll be tortured and treated like a terrorist. If you don't agree with the US government or dare speak out against them--it's the American way to torture and completely violate the Geneva Conventions.

    Please take a moment to educate yourselves about how the US is becoming more and more a fascist country than an open theocracy/democracy. Search the net for "The End of America" and check out the interviews with Naomi Wolf on Youtube. You will be surprised how history is repeating itself right before our very eyes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Don't be silly!

      Of course the USA wouldn't put him in Guantanamo - it's not like he was ever friends with someone who sold a sandwich to a guy who knew someone who looked like Osama ...

    2. Phil 54
      Stop

      Oh come on...

      I'm not a huge fan of the States either, but they still have as good if not better protection of free speech than pretty much every country. The difference is that they're, for better or for worse, the most powerful (and loudest) country around and so make a big, easy-to-hit target.

      1. Iain 14
        Black Helicopters

        Technically correct...

        but the US's record isn't quite as good as you (or they) might think.

        Reporters Sans Frontieres rated the States as 20th on its Press Freedom Index for 2010 - well ahead of France and Italy (who have big problems at the moment), but behind Estonla (9th) and Lithuania (11th), and barely ahead of Namibia (21st).

        For the record: the UK came in at 19, and Sweden was joint top...

        1. Charles Manning

          ... and Free Speech Zones

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

          You have the right to say anything, but the government has the right to control where, when and how you say it.

          So sure, you can say xxxx, but you must go into your basement after 2am and whisper into the corner.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby
          WTF?

          @lain 14

          Uhm Estonia? Lithuania?

          We have counties in some states that are larger (by size and/or by population) than those countries.

          While the US Government has this thing called the First Amendment there are some things which are not protected speech. At the same time, the US Government has learned from past experience that there has to be some restrictions concerning the press and what gets reported.

          If you look at the US and UK, there is this concept of 'Yellow Journalism' or sensationalizing the news for the sake of selling news papers. William Randall Hurst ring a bell? Something at small postage stamp sized countries don't have to deal with.

          Oh and 20th out of how many countries? 192 or so? (I've lost count and if the Sudan vote goes the way the press is reporting, they'll be a separate country...)

          Not bad.

  8. Gannon (J.) Dick
    Thumb Up

    Ah ...

    I assume that means he has retained local counsel. Only an American Lawyer could say this with a straight face.

  9. Number6

    Extradition Treaties

    On paper he might be safer in Sweden, given that obnoxious little treaty that allows the US to request extradition from the UK with a fairly low barrier. Ask Gary McKinnon...

    Or have the Swedes bent over even further than the UK did?

    1. david wilson

      @Number6

      >>"given that obnoxious little treaty that allows the US to request extradition from the UK with a fairly low barrier. Ask Gary McKinnon..."

      Ask a guy who has already admitted guilt about how a treaty is bad because it has a low standard of proof?

      Whatever McKinnon's valid complaints might be, the required standard of evidence in the treaty isn't really one of them.

      I guess everyone's different, but I find that a poor argument presented with a clutch of others tends to make the others look more suspect, rather than stronger.

      Hence Mark Stephens' media grandstanding with regard to the death penalty doesn't actually make a good impression.

      He knows perfectly well that there couldn't be an extradition from Britain *or* Sweden without appropriate assurances being made, and hence it's just hot air, though after his previous [reported] comments about honeytraps, I guess that kind of thing isn't much of a surprise.

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon

        Sir

        "Whatever McKinnon's valid complaints might be, the required standard of evidence in the treaty isn't really one of them"

        Really? What about inflating the amount of damages incurred so that it met the extradition criteria? Or doesn't that count?

        1. david wilson

          @Sir Runcible Spoon

          >>"Really? What about inflating the amount of damages incurred so that it met the extradition criteria? Or doesn't that count?"

          So your argument is that the necessary criteria in the treaty are too *weak*, as evidenced by your claim the US had to artificially increase claims of damage caused in order to meet the criteria?

      2. Ian Michael Gumby
        Thumb Up

        @david wilson

        Don't confuse them with facts and logic.

        The fact that McKinnon has been able to use the system and to fight extradition for so long shows that the system works. (Isn't McKinnon's defense an affirmative defense?)

        With respect to the honeytraps... didn't they drop those claims after the Guardian reporter outed the fact that Assange's Swedish defense team had access to the information of which Assange was being questioned about?

  10. Is it me?

    Just one small thing

    You cannot be extradited from any EU to face the death penalty, or face any cruel and unusual punishment. Life without parole in an unpleasant federal prison, yes.

    It is a pre-condition of the extradition process that the accused will not face the death penalty and probably enshrined in the extradition treaty.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Just one big thing

      "It is a pre-condition of the extradition process that the accused will not face the death penalty and probably enshrined in the extradition treaty."

      That assumes the accuser respects international law - as opposed to "if the President says its not illegal..."

  11. Steven Jones

    Hype

    It's hype - in effect, nobody can be extradited from an EU country without a cast-iron guarantee that the death penalty will not apply (or, for that matter, be transferred to an extra-judicial environment Guantanamo Bay). Of course it's possible to argue that once he's in US hands, they could do what they like, but it's inconcievable that the US authorities would countenance abrogation of guarantees in such a public case.

    This is always assuming that the US could come up with a charge on which Assange could be extradited. That might be rather difficult. Even with are rather watered down extradition checks (in the UK at least) to the US, there are still far more obstacles to an extradition than there is on the European Arrest Warrant.

    It's difficult to see how Assange would be more easily extradited from the Sweden to the US than from the UK to the US. However, should the US try, then I rather expect that William Hague would be happy that the Swedes took all the flak.

    nb. even gaining a conviction in the US on the Espionage Act looks very tricky. Whatever their shortcomings, US courts have a very good record in recognising the right of self expression and there are plenty of powerful figures that would be fighting Assange's corner.

  12. Gordon Pryra

    He was found not guilty last time

    He may as well go and face the music again, if he is found not guilty again, then it proves that this whole case was a charade if he is found guilty then who cares what happens to the little rapist?

    No way will Sweden send him off to the USA, that would make them look as stupid as the country who released Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on "compassionate grounds"

    The point to the above being, why does anyone bother to argue anything from a "legal" standpoint? Governments will do whatever they do to line their own pockets and if your going to rattle the cage of a super power, you had better not do anything stupid like give them easy ammunition to shoot you with.

    While no one really believes the rape claims, it doesn't matter, Assange made it easy for the USA and has lost a lot of credibility in the process. He needs to go face the rape charges and clear them asap

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If

      he is not guilty, then he is being framed. If he is being framed, he will be found guilty.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      Huh?

      "While no one really believes the rape claims, it doesn't matter, Assange made it easy for the USA and has lost a lot of credibility in the process. He needs to go face the rape charges and clear them asap"

      I actually do believe the rape charges.

      Rape as defined by Swedish laws.

      That doesn't mean that Assange would face charges, would be tried, and if tried, would be found guilty.

      I do believe that the accusers are credible in their story and that there is some evidence that can support their claims. And I'm not the only one. Some may say that the charges are politically motivated. Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. Were it not for a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter pressing the issue of Sam Sheppard's wife's murder, he might have gotten away with it. (This is the real life story that the movie and TV series 'The Fugitive' is based on.)

      So politics or whatever is forcing the issue. It doesn't mean that the charges aren't real.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  13. Mexflyboy
    Headmaster

    Oh please.... political grandstanding at its worst...

    Where to start? If Assange did rape those women, then he should be tried... however, the timing of these rape accusations makes me strongly believe that the only reason he's on trial is because he's embarrassed the US/the UK governments (the words kangaroo court and "show trial" come to mind)...

    I think Naomi Wolf said it best:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_795899.html

    http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/14/naomi-wolf-on-rape-j.html

    I see that politicians are still assholes, and only worried about prosecuting for rape when it suits their purposes...

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Remind me

    What crime has he been charged with?

    1. Ian Michael Gumby

      @ AC in the US or in Sweden?

      At this point...

      No charges in Sweden except fleeing jurisdiction to avoid questioning.

      No charges in the US, although there is an ongoing investigation as to his involvement and complicity in Manning's (allegedly) theft of US classified documents.

      Hence the claim to his facing the 'death penalty' in the US is pure hype and a smoke screen.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Ian Michael Gumby

        "No charges in Sweden except fleeing jurisdiction to avoid questioning."

        If I remember correctly Mr, Assange or his legal representative asked for and received permission for Mr. Assange to leave the country nearly a month after the initial charges were dropped.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @AC

          This point seems to be in contention. I believe we heard this from the Assange camp and since the Guardian article was published, I don't put a lot of credibility in their argument.

          If this point were true, then why would his lawyer bring up the 'death penalty' issue?

          Remember Occam's razor.

          1. Whitespace

            @ Ian Michael Gumby

            Consider the fishing expeditions taking place with gagging subpoenas being sent to businesses that have had dealings with Wikileaks. We know about Twitter and I take my hat off to them. I cannot believe that Facebook, Paypal, Mastercard, Visa, Amazon and maybe other invertebrates were not also subpoena-ed and I assume they quietly complied.

            Quoting the Guardian:

            "The emergence of the subpoena appears to confirm for the first time the existence of a secret grand jury empanelled to investigate whether individuals associated with WikiLeaks, and Assange in particular, can be prosecuted for alleged conspiracy with Manning to steal the classified documents.

            "The US attorney general, Eric Holder, has already said publicly that he believes Assange could be prosecuted under US espionage laws. The court that issued the subpoena is in the same jurisdiction where press reports have located a grand jury investigating Assange.

            "It has been reported that Manning has been offered a plea bargain if he co-operates with the investigation.

            ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/08/wikileaks-calls-google-facebook-us-subpoenas )

            Considering the conditions under which Mr. Manning is being held ( http://www.bradleymanning.org/15952/psychologists-for-social-responsibility-open-letter-to-robert-gates-on-mannings-confinement/ ) I imagine he would implicate his own grandmother if they would just stop playing Drowning Pool. (The Drowning Pool bit is my own speculation but it would work for me )

            I understand the death sentence is still a possibility for espionage cases. Does that answer your question?

            The more I learn about Mr. Assange the less I think that he is the hero I wanted him to be. Charming and charismatic, maybe, but not necessarily a nice person and I am ready to believe he is now in it for what he can get out of it. However being a greedy sociopath is not a crime - indeed it is encouraged in corporate circles.

            One way or another the Wikipedia story has exposed many lies, criminal acts and dirty tricks. How many have been committed by governments and corporations and how many have been committed by Wikipedia and more specifically by Mr. Assange?

            NOW apply Occam's Razor.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby
              Black Helicopters

              @Whitespace... you don't know anything about a LE subpoena.

              The reason LE subs are sealed is that they do not want to endanger an ongoing investigation. You find out you're being identified and you cut bait and take off. This happens all of the time. You'd be surprised how many LE subs the SEC does on stock boards because people try to manipulate the market. (And yes, I happen to know a bit about this first hand. ;-)

              So the fact that there are sealed subpoenas means nothing. Its the normal course of business.

              Plea bargain deals are also a matter of fact in the US criminal systems. Did Manning act alone? Only Manning and his co-conspirators know. (If there are any). Since they have Manning, a plea deal allows them to also get the co-conspirators and reduce his sentence. And no I don't believe that Manning acted alone, nor do most people.

              So a plea bargain is also the normal course of business.

              The death sentence? Hmmm when was the last time the Death Sentence was used in an espionage case? The Rosenbergs. Height of the Cold War and they were KGB agents who gave the Russians the secret to the atomic bomb. That is one Genie that would have been best kept in the bottle.

              In the 80's and 90's espionage cases ended with long jail terms but no death penalty cases.

              I don't believe Manning faces the death penalty, however he probably faces life in prison. How long do you think he'll last in solitary confinement before he starts to cooperate? Maybe that's what has Assange running scared?

              Its also good to hear that you're starting to see Assange as the con-man he is.

              And yes, he fits the description of a sociopath. Sure I can't make an official diagnosis, however that doesn't mean I can't exercise my first amendment rights of free speech and call him a sociopath because his actions fit that profile. And yes, IMHO I believe him to be a sociopath. If you read the New Yorker article, you'd understand that he doesn't care what harm he may cause.

              But to your last comment, what lies, crimes and evil deeds did the Wikileaks expose?

              The US has been open about crimes committed in the combat zone. Friendly fire? Journalists getting killed in a combat zone? Civilians getting wounded or killed for disobeying a lawful order? Sorry but shit happens. From what I've seen, soldiers who regret their actions or have witnessed crimes by other soldiers have done more to expose war for what it is than Wikileaks.

              Sorry, as I said before, airing another's dirty laundry for the sake of embarrassment isn't whistle blowing. No crimes were committed or uncovered by Wikileaks. In fact the leak that Assange and his lawyers threatened to sue the Guardian and some of the other in-depth reporting by the Vanity Fair reporter hint that there may be more to the case being build by the US DoJ...

              Apply Occams Razor and you'll find your conspiracy theories don't hold true.

              1. Phil 54

                Rosenbergs

                Most sources, including ex-Soviets from the period, agree that the Rosenbergs gave no useful information about the atomic bomb. They were definitely spies but they didn't give the Soviets the bomb.

              2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                @Gumby, re. libel

                I shall point out, once again, that you should be careful of potentially defaming people, especially ones who appear to enjoy the public spotlight. FWIW, here are a few facts you may wish to know about English defamation law:

                - It applies to anything published or distributed in the UK. Even if you are not based here, if you publish something somewhere else which is subsequently republished, or is widely available here, you can find yourself subject to it. There is precedent for this, I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to find it.

                - The burden of proof is placed upon the defendant. In other words, if you say something that could be deemed to be damaging to someone's reputation, the burden falls upon you to prove the correctness of that statement in court, not for the claimant to prove the inverse.

                - There is no limit to financial damages that can be claimed.

                - Libel can be, and I believe has been, applied to posts on comments sections of web-sites, blogs, etc.

                IANAL, etc. However, my advice would be to stop repeatedly calling Mr Assange a sociopath, and maybe instead to state that is is merely your opinion that he appears to have personality traits which could be attributed to a sociopathic disorder. Or similar. Again, I stress that IANAL. On balance, however, it is probably best not to go around making suggestions about people's mental states which could be construed as damaging to their reputation.

                NB, I'm not disagreeing with you that Mr A appears to be a bit of a tit, just that you should be careful not to conflate opinion with fact in a way which could leave you open to litigation, in a litigious society.

          2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
            Stop

            Occam's Razor, eh?

            That would be the priciple, where, for two competing formal hypotheses, that which makes the fewest assumptions is accepted, until disproven?

            You seem quite keen on mentioning Occam's Razor, I've seen you do it at least once elsewhere in comments on this site. Really, it only applies to formal scientific hypotheses (for example, Newton's theory of universal gravitation vs Einstein's theory of relativity), not to sociological and legal matters.

            Note also, that Occam's Razor doesn't actually _prove_ anything, it merely states that the simplest explanation should be considered before ones making more assumptions, if the first hypothesis is disproven, then others are considered. This is core to the scientific method.

            In legal matters, where we are unlikely to ever be in complete possession of all the facts and evidence, Occam's Razor is not really appropriate, and to say that a simpler legal explanation for something is the truth because of this principle is a nonsequitur.

  15. Radio Wales
    Big Brother

    Coincidences? I don't like them!

    I'm having trouble with the whole thing, Little crimes only matter internationally when there is a big pay-off at the end of the road that is intended to be unseen, given the subject I have little reason not to suspect even more dirty tricks are in waiting.

    I don't know whether Sweden could be trusted to do the right thing or not, bearing in mind the call for extradition without charge, but given the recent Libyan thing, I don't think Britain can be trusted at all. One bung and he's history.

    National pride is the issue here and some people with big ego's will do a lot for payback.

    But here's the thing. In most cases, the leaks amount to little more that confirmation of a lot of things 'Conspiracy theorists' and others have already aired

    Last I heard, causing embarrassment is not an offence anywhere in the civilised world, so it remains to be seen which kind of world the USA (plus Britain and Sweden) lives in.

  16. HFoster

    Wait, what?

    How did this go from a sexual assault case to possibility of torture and execution in the USA?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon

      Sir

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html

  17. JimC

    Like they say folks: follow the Money

    Assange's lawyers are probably billing him a few thousand quid extra for the time needed to develop and research this defence...

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    causing embarrassment

    > Last I heard, causing embarrassment is not an offense anywhere in the civilized world, so it remains to be seen which kind of world the USA (plus Britain and Sweden) lives in.

    Ask Gary McKinnon about that one.

    1. david wilson

      AC

      >>"Ask Gary McKinnon about that one."

      You do have a point there.

      However, the fuller point seems to be that causing embarrassment by committing a crime probably isn't a smart thing to do.

      Compounding the embarrassment by instigating all kinds of public complaining with regard to extradition would, *IF* ( and I do say if) it ultimately fails to stop the extradition, possibly turn out in hindsight not to have been a smart thing to do either.

  19. Beachrider

    Pejoritive, pointy-headed pontifications...

    I love alliteration...

    Assange's lawyer will say-anything to improve his client's position. That is what lawyers do.

    I don't care how-many people say otherwise, Assange hasn't been charged with anything in the USA. Once some prosecutor perfects a charge, THEN extradition can be attempted from whereever Assange is living. Contrary the pejorative views, we don't do the death penalty for jaywalking in the USA.

    If Sweden has perfected a rape charge on Assange AND the UK fail to honor a legit extradition from Sweden on some notion that the Swedes are LYING. The that is quite an issue. Let us see that play itself out.

  20. Bernard M. Orwell
    Stop

    @Multipharious

    Nothing of consequence in the leaks eh? I suspect you've not seen the Channel 4 (UK) Despatches documentary on that very subject then?

    here's a link to a basic writeup : http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-74/episode-1

    I'll paste some here for the link-lazy to read:

    Initially, the Americans claimed that they were not recording casualty figures and President Bush stated that America would do its utmost to avoid civilian casualties. In the files, Dispatches found details of over 109,000 deaths; 66,000 of these were civilians; 176,000 civilians and others were reported as wounded.

    Under rules of engagement, known as escalation of force, anyone approaching the US military was warned to slow down and stop. The analysis reveals more than 800 people were killed in escalation of force incidents: 681 (80%) of these were civilians; a further 2,200 were wounded. Thirteen coalition troops were killed during these incidents. Dispatches found 30 children had been killed when shots were fired near civilians by US troops at checkpoints.

    Over a six-year period, the data records the imprisonment of 180,000 Iraqis: one in 50 of the adult male population. Dispatches found more than 300 reports alleging abuse by US forces on Iraqi prisoners after April 2004.

    The Americans effectively ignored the torture and murder of many detainees by Iraqi security forces. Dispatches has found evidence of more than 1,300 individual cases of the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqis in police stations and army bases: witnessed or reported on by American troops. Dispatches reveals that US troops were ordered not to investigate Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence.

    The data shows that the Americans were aware of the horrific level of violence inflicted by Iraqi sectarian militias: over 32,500 murders; more than 10,000 shot in the head; nearly 450 decapitated; over 160 were children.

    One of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq was the suggestion of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The US told the UN Security Council in 2003 that Iraq 'harboured' the terrorist network. However, in the leaked data there are only seven reports mentioning Al Qaeda in 2004, and none of these refer to Al Qaeda killing anyone. By 2008, there are 8,208 reports mentioning Al Qaeda attributing to it the deaths of 45 coalition soldiers, 486 members of the Iraqi Security Services and 1,291 civilians.

    ...all of this information was found in those leaked documents. So, nothing of importance and significance there then, eh? If you can get hold of the documentary I suggest that *everyone* watches it and then decides whether they think the Coalition is blameless, honourable, competant or justified.

    Personally, I don't.

    Before, I just suspected all this was going on. Thanks to Wikileaks, I now KNOW it was. Bush/Blair are war criminals and should face trial in the Hague.

    No conspiracy here, just facts.

    1. david wilson

      @Bernard M. Orwell

      >>"Before, I just suspected all this was going on. Thanks to Wikileaks, I now KNOW it was."

      So you didn't know that there wasn't much activity by groups claiming to be part of (or linked with) Al Qaeda early on?

      You didn't know there had been lots of civilian deaths, or people imprisoned, or prisoner abuses by the US forces or Iraqi security services, or sectarian killings, or people killed at roadblocks, all of which were reported by the regular media?

      You hadn't heard about Abu Ghraib?

      Or read any of the Amnesty reports?

      Or seen US government figures for numbers of prisoners?

      Where were you getting your news before?

      1. multipharious

        @Bernard M. Orwell pt. 2

        Yes, I repeat, yes, WikiLeaks is tripe.

        Would you like to know more? Where should I start? Why should I inform you? Are you using your ferret skills to determine spin and gap in multiple news sources? You should be always looking for patterns and negative space in articles much like a hole in an argument that is danced around like a pit. Place a large number of articles on subjects of interest, and clear patterns emerge on either side especially over time. This should give you a fairly accurate estimate on what the true story is. Pay attention to the patterns, and the goals of both sides and you have the beginning of a lifelong but mostly unfulfilling leisure activity of bullshit decoding. I used to be way up on a soapbox, but the problem is most of the folks you are trying to warn don't give a shit en masse.

        Then there are these waves of intolerable dipshits (I was one) that think that they discovered how to have sex that come with every generation. Eventually they chill out and get down to figuring out that everyone of worth already knows their secret...and figuring out what matters enough to rage about. Make change where you can.

        BUT if you ARE going to start an international whistleblowing website don't first seek refuge in Sweden and then forceably stick your dick in a couple of local girls that wanted you to wear a condom, leave the country, and then refuse to come in for questioning (drama ad nauseum)...then sign a book deal...claim that you are going to get the death penalty...publish more garbage about Kim Jong Il being flabby. And to think that Jello Biafra got his ass beaten for being a sell out! Chuck D is louder than a bomb, but Julian Assange is a fart firecracker.

        Thanks for using your moniker by the way. I respect that.

  21. NoneSuch Silver badge

    Regardless

    If by some miracle Julian can avoid the extradition process, I am betting he will slip and fall on a UK street and wake up on the sidewalk outside of FBI Headquarters some time later surrounded by concerned officers of the law who just happen to have copies of his arrest warrant in triplicate to hand.

    Uncle Sam wants YOU!!

    >From HFoster: "How did this go from a sexual assault case to possibility of torture and execution in the USA?"

    The same way the killing of a single Arch Duke ended up in two world wars and 60 years of Communism in Eastern Europe.

    1. david wilson

      @NoneSuch

      >>"If by some miracle Julian can avoid the extradition process, I am betting he will slip and fall on a UK street and wake up on the sidewalk outside of FBI Headquarters some time later surrounded by concerned officers of the law who just happen to have copies of his arrest warrant in triplicate to hand."

      Why would they bother doing that?

      Unlike the various people they actually snatched in the past for interrogation +/or torture, is there anything they expect he can tell them that's actually of much value?

      For all the mistakes they made, presumably they actually thought at *some* level that the people they were waterboarding, etc might tell them something (like where Osama was, or whatever) or let slip something to be used as evidence against them or someone else.

      Actually kidnapping Assange isn't likely to give them much information, and publicity-wise would seem to be a dumb move, in terms of both general PR, specific bilateral relations, and possibly affecting all kinds of future attempted extraditions here or elsewhere.

      If they didn't do anything, they could still have fun watching him trying to work out which countries he *could* go to where there wouldn't be an another extradition attempt.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Censoring opinions will not change reality

    Sooner or later Assange will be held accountable for his actions.

  23. Pat Volk
    WTF?

    Death Penalty?

    The politicos mentioned treason, but Assange can't be considered treasonous, he's not a US citizen. I don't think the US has much of a case here, They probably want to question him, but they can't disappear him. I think the last execution for stealing secrets (which Julian didn't) was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

    I'm not sure how easy it would be for the US to extradite for a crime which isn't necessarily universal.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Assange's lawyer is just posturing

    I don't like the whole Gitmo/secret prison thing, but Assange is not going into that system.

    A) He's not an enemy combatant in any kind of armed conflict with the U.S.

    B) If an actual extradition request is issued by the U.S. it means that you are in the civilian criminal courts. Extraditions are not issued for the military courts.

    C) The charge of espionage (if it is made) is a civilian criminal statute, not subject to the military courts.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Marketing Hack

      > I don't like the whole Gitmo/secret prison thing, but Assange is not going into that system.

      You are not in a position to know that, because such decisions are made by the US government not on the basis of law, but on the basis of whatever the big shots in the Pentagon and the White House think will further their interests. It has already been declared as official policy that the President is always right, and if he decides to have a US citizen killed without any process of law, that's perfectly OK. How much less would anyone care about a mere Australian?

      > A) He's not an enemy combatant in any kind of armed conflict with the U.S.

      Just like most of the people who wound up in Guantanamo, and most of the people whose dead bodies were retrospectively declared "terrorists" after indiscriminate raids and/or bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon... You have to be careful about believing what US "official sources" tell you. Ironically, that's what this whole Assange business is about in the first place. He has proved, out of their own mouths, that they are a bunch of deliberate hardened liars.

      > B) If an actual extradition request is issued by the U.S. it means that you are in the civilian criminal courts. Extraditions are not issued for the military courts.

      Yeah, sure. But that's not how things really work. They will make any necessary promises to get the extradition, and then once Assange is in the USA all that will be forgotten. Can you for a moment, by any stretch of the imagination, see even a US court of law caring much about Swedish or EU law? Let alone the administration, which has repeatedly asserted its freedom from any kind of legal restraint whatsoever?

      > C) The charge of espionage (if it is made) is a civilian criminal statute, not subject to the military courts.

      Says you. But what if the administration decides that espionage by a foreigner makes that person an enemy combatant? They invented the term "enemy combatant", and they get to decide what it means.

      In case you've already forgotten, let me remind you:

      ''The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."'

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

  25. Deadly_NZ
    WTF?

    Hmmm

    There you go the US we'll get him sooner or later

    Federal Criminal Lawyer, Douglas C. McNabb, points out that a U.S. extradition law between Sweden and the U.S., pursuant to the article 6 of the supplement to the extradition treaty between the U.S. and Sweden, can assure Assange's extradition to the U.S.

    Sweden can transfer Assange to the U.S. to stand trail for any U.S. federal criminal charges before he faces charges for sexual offences in Sweden. If convicted, Assange could also serve his full sentence in the US, before ever facing the alleged charges in Sweden. This law does not exist in the UK.

    from

    http://www.suite101.com/content/julian-assange-granted-bail---sweden-appeals---still-no-charges-a320911

    Which basically means if the swedes get him to Sweden then he will be handed over to the Yanks even before they interrogate him on these 'charges'

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @david wilson

    "Just like the various people they actually snatched in the past for interrogation +/or torture, is there anything they expect he can tell them that's actually of much value?

    Fixed that for you.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Why am I so incensed ....

    this is a non-story, for all sorts of reasons. The UK and Swedens accepting the ECHRs principles means that Assange could never be extradited, if there were a possibility of his facing the death penalty (NOTE: this doesn't mean he couldn't be extradited to be tried. Just that the US would need to give assurances we would not face execution. The US has been required to make give such undertakings several times [pesky Canada !] and never reneged). And despite their sometimes capricious understanding of the law, I can't see either UK or Swedish judges being hoodwinked by a bait'n'switch extradition.

    So while Assange postures and makes headlines about "fearing the death penalty", people who *really* face the death penalty - Iranian adultresses for example - are being eclipsed and trivialised ... just doesn't feel clean somehow.

  28. Tempest
    Unhappy

    I'm sitting in the sun in Cambodia enjoying a cool one whilst ...

    reading Letters from Ha Noi and quite honestly, apart from the severe loss of face of face, are these e-memo's really worth the price of a bullet?

    Some letters are really interesting - the Jamaican first lady and Clinton, but most are really run-of-the0mill stuff that essentially say: "I'm still awake".

    So much for Internet filters, too!

  29. Bernard M. Orwell

    @David Wilson

    Heavens no! Before getting the actual evidence of systemic goverment lies and coverups from Wikileaks, I was fed nonsense by the 'press' and lied to by my 'superiors'.

    One might say I was merely some 'conspiracy nut'....

    ...now I'm not.

    I'd like to ask you, however, at what point did you stop believing everything the government and media were telling you about Iraq? I had my doubts about what was being said, and there was anecdotal evidence to support my opinion, but I had no evidence.

    Waiting till there IS evidence removes the word 'theory', doesn't it?

    1. david wilson

      @Bernard M. Orwell

      >>"I'd like to ask you, however, at what point did you stop believing everything the government and media were telling you about Iraq?

      I don't place complete faith in anyone. Particularly not in governments or politicians, since it's been obvious to people long before I was born (due in a great part to regular journalism) that such people can't be entirely trusted.

      As for the media, I don't have complete faith in them either (how could one, when they clearly don't agree on all kinds of things), but it's generally possible to get a fair idea of what's probably happening if looking at sufficient sources and keeping in mind their biases, and that can extend to knowing beyond reasonable doubt that certain things are happening.

      Possibly my natural skepticism and my understanding of the world as a dirty place was one of the things making me wary of people who treat Assange like some sort of Messiah.

      >>"I had my doubts about what was being said, and there was anecdotal evidence to support my opinion, but I had no evidence."

      How much anecdotal evidence did you need?

      Don't you find it odd the the only people you seem to trust to provide accurate information is the American Government?

      They've made all kinds of information releases in the past to regular journalists about prisoner numbers, sectarian killings, etc, which didn't make pleasant reading, but it would appear that that's just *anecdotal* evidence.

      In your world, is the only true evidence evidence which is stolen?

      Though how do you 'know' the stolen evidence wasn't part of a setup?

      It's not as if so far it's actually causing many people to rise up and demand change.

      Quite a few people tried that a while ago, (having been convinced by mere *anecdotal* evidence), but it didn't actually seem to change much at all.

      Maybe 'They' are leaking just enough information now that most people get slightly concerned and then forget about it?

      Maybe 'They' are just using Wikileaks and similar sites as an pressure relief valve for their Evil Deeds, trusting in the general apathy of the population at large?

      Maybe 'They' thought that mixing reports of bad deeds with lots of mundane crap would dilute the impact of the bad deeds? If so, it may be that they made the right call.

      People looking at a government doing a whole load of stuff, only a fraction of which was particularly bad, may well take the view that some bad things are likely to happen, and in relative terms, there weren't *that* many incidents.

      I'd wonder if a proper journalist who had presented only the very worst deeds could have made rather *more* impact on the general citizen than Wikileaks' approach seems to have done.

  30. Bernard M. Orwell
    Stop

    or, to put it another way...

    ...are we all happy that we weren't told that US troops had shot 30 children at checkpoints, whilst engaged in an illegal invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all?

    I'm not.

    1. david wilson

      @Bernard M. Orwell

      >>".are we all happy that we weren't told that US troops had shot 30 children at checkpoints, whilst engaged in an illegal invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all?"

      'We weren't told'?

      Oddly, there have been media stories about checkpoint deaths in Iraq in the past.

      The first couple of Iraq War Logs pages I found started off by talking about the death of a pregnant woman in Samarra.

      That incident was reported by mainstream media in 2005.

      Is it that regular media reporting isn't shocking enough when long-term statistics are?

      Though if that's the case, what's special about the US government figures - it seems that the long-running Iraq Body Count, collecting media reports of deaths to arrive at an estimate of the total would seem by their own calculations to have already accounted for ~80% of the specific incidents that the Wikileaks logs contained, suggesting that the English-language media reporting of Iraq deaths has been fairly comprehensive.

      And IBC has been issuing reports for *years*.

      What makes the Wikileaks figures massively more shocking than information from anywhere else?

      Does Julian's Special Sauce really make the information /that/ much juicier, is it that many Wikileaks fans just didn't have any interest in the news previously, is there some weird cognitive dissonance thing going on, or is it something else?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like