WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

@BillW,

Quote:

I would think the Brits close ties to Oz would defer to that relationship in making decision. I do believe that in the end USA has asked all to slow go actions with Assange in custody until they (US) can get their act together on what they can or can not do. I have been wrong before, but this is what it looks like to me.

Bill, I believe those "close ties" are long gone. (from the British perspective, definitely)
Well, I know they are!
Britain has, for years now, focused on it's relationship with EU countries. The relationship with Australia is 2nd in importance, at best.

No, some thing else is definitely at work here.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Yes, I can't wait for tomorrow's hearing (it will be over by the time I get up).
--
As I said previously, far more interesting than the wiki cables is the aftermath
and what has had and will happen.

1 Reply

I think the final decision will be Aussie, ie, the motherland makes decision. They can even ship him to Australia and have court preceedings there (Oz). This could take months, with Assange in cahoots entire time. Freedom - yes, but such is the evil ways of the state. I've always said, "One can not be a true freedom fighter unless they have spent time in prison." Now, Assange will have paid his dues.

2 Replies

@CalamityJane,

Quote:

As I said previously, far more interesting than the wiki cables is the aftermath
and what has had and will happen.

Cause we can grasp it and understand it. It is also "happening" and not a done deal!

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

I believe those "close ties" are long gone. (from the British perspective, definitely)
Well, I know they are!
Britain has, for years now, focused on it's relationship with EU countries. The relationship with Australia is 2nd in importance, at best.

You would certainly know more about this than me - but, there is still the "Empire" thing. Over here Canada still has a link to England. Then there is the soverign nation thing each country shows for each other in the International legal arena. Draw this thing out til it goes "out of sight an out of mind" with all the legal finding every few months or so,,,,,,,

0 Replies

@msolga,

But take note. Bail is something that a person is entitled to given the presumption of innocence before a trial. That the government of both the UK and the US are going to such extraordinary lengths when they themselves are so bamboozled as to whether a crime has even been committed, illustrates that this is more an issue of politics,[you scratch my back, or more likely, you hide my crimes and I'll hide yours], than law.

If Assange was such a flight risk, why did he so readily turn himself in to begin with?

1 Reply

@BillW,

Bill, you don't realize how irrelevant Australia is in the grand scheme of things.

The Australian government has been 100% supportive of US government efforts to demonize Julian Assange & Wikileaks. (check out the A2K Oz election thread if you want more detail.) Our prime minister has declared his activities as "illegal" , despite there being absolutely no evidence of his breaking a single Australian law. Our attorney-general has suggested that he is "not welcome" to return here (& possible loss of passport) & has directed the police to "investigate" his activities. In the hope of pinning something. (So far nothing. Not surprising!)

You have no idea of the lengths that we have gone to here to extract some interest from our government to support the rights of Julian Assange, as an Australian citizen.

There has been a (hugely supported) online open letter (petition) asking our government to offer him the usual, appropriate support as an Australian citizen. (No response.)

Australian journalists have also written their own open letter (hugely supported) supporting Wileaks, Julian Assange & freedom of information in the media. (no response)

There are daily letter s to the editor/s in our newspapers

Legal experts & so many other "prominent Australians" have spoken up in defence of Julian Assange & the activities of Wilileaks.

Etc, etc, etc ...

You'll have to trust me on this. Our government is not listening. They are much more interested in supporting the US & whatever is required by the US.

You have no idea how bloody depressing this is.

1 Reply

@msolga,

So much the more for Oz to make final jurisdiction and then decision. They will kowtow more readily, and this action is way down the road. Where does his mother reside now? If Oz, then so much the more for Aussie to be jurisdiction.

JTT, it doesn't matter, this is just the "way" nations do things, especially when they are allies and agree on final outcome - right or wrong!

2 Replies

@BillW,

Quote:

JTT, it doesn't matter, this is just the "way" nations do things, especially when they are allies and agree on final outcome - right or wrong!

You've got that wrong, Bill. This is the way that corrupt politicians who are currently in power do this. The essence of democracy is that one follows the rule of law, not a concocted rules of law to fit a given situation.

Perhaps you're just used to having felons as presidents and you've become inured to it. This whole affair is about much much more than Julian Assange.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Too bad you can't be civil, oh well - bye!

btw, facts don't change - even for you

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

But take note. Bail is something that a person is entitled to given the presumption of innocence before a trial. That the government of both the UK and the US are going to such extraordinary lengths when they themselves are so bamboozled as to whether a crime has even been committed, illustrates that this is more an issue of politics,[you scratch my back, or more likely, you hide my crimes and I'll hide yours], than law.

If Assange was such a flight risk, why did he so readily turn himself in to begin with?

Maybe he thought he would be treated under the usual application of the (legal) rules?

As they apply to everyone else. Wink

Who knows, JTT?

Possibly (I'm guessing here, you understand) he gave himself up because if the Interpol red notice? (absolutely ridiculous, given the the nature of his possible "crimes")
Perhaps he thought that it was better to do the court thing &clear his name?
Remember, these Swedish "sex charges" are the only thing that can legally be pinned on him.
No government has yet come up with a workable criminal case to try him for Wikileaks-related activities.

As for being a "flight risk" ... who could possibly abscond, given the incredibly stringent bail conditions imposed by the court?

Do the UK Prosecution think he's the Scarlet Pimpernal, or something? Wink

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

Where does his mother reside now?

In Queensland.
She visited him in jail this week.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

No government has yet come up with a workable criminal case to try him for Wikileaks-related activities.

They got Osama's chauffeur for being Osama's chauffeur so who knows what these deviants might dream up.

1 Reply

I think by the end of this, Assange won't be prosecuted or convicted in the US. Skip forward to a trial in the US. It would be very high profile. It's a loss either way in terms of political currency.

I'll say that in one year, we'll be talking about something else. Assange won't be in jail, WL will still be online. There will be other similar sites will also be up.

We won't be any closer to transparency either.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@JTT,

Well, being Osama's chauffeur is an extremely subversive act, most likely illegal! Wink

Yep, if they all band together, they can pin anything on anyone. Neutral

Let's see what the Prosecution comes up with tomorrow. (those deceitful sneaks! Evil or Very Mad

)

However, I doubt they've factored in the likely outcome if they play weird political games tomorrow.

Perhaps a bit more than they might have bargained for?

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I think by the end of this, Assange won't be prosecuted or convicted in the US. Skip forward to a trial in the US. It would be very high profile. It's a loss either way in terms of political currency.

That's just your opinion at this stage, Art.

So far there's little to suggest that there's a valid legal case against Wikileaks. Try as various governments have tried.

So far Swedish sexual charges are their best bet.

So far nothing illegal to pin on Wikileaks, so how could he be tried until there are?

But you can dream, I guess? Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

Swedish sex charges read as US strategy.
UK denies bail read as US strategy.
Australia condemns Assange read as US strategy.
Time magazine gives Zuckerburg PotY read as US strategy.

There are lots of opinions in this thread Olga. Do we need to point out all opinions?

Now, the US DoJ is examining the situation. But they have not actually said that they can or cannot prosecute Assange. Some politicians say we can, others say we can't.

I personally think that if the US wanted him as bad as many here have said the US wants him, they would have taken him already. If they were going to bust him on bogus charges, and ask for extradition, it only hurts them to drag this process out.

Quote:

That's just your opinion at this stage, Art.

Yes of course it is. That's why I said "I think." We are all sharing opinions, unless some opinions require more notation as opinions, what's your point?

Quote:

So far nothing illegal to pin on Wikileaks.

But you can dream, I guess?

I don't think WL has done anything illegal. Why would I dream of them being pinned?

My criticism has been very clear, and I need not repeat myself more than I already have. If you distort what I say, there is no point in sharing my opinion.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

Well you see, everyone has his/her own interpretation. You certainly have
more faith in your government that they will find a way to convict him, like
they have done so with many many other innocent people (Guatanamo).
I on the other hand, am not american born, I see things in a wider perspective
where citizens of other nationalities who are protected by the jurisdiction of their own country, can and will prevail, even when the bully happens to be the United States.

While I understand how you have come to the conclusion that being a citizen of another country automatically gives you a wider perspective than an American citizen, I don't know how you can justify that conclusion.

I don't know where you live, but for the sake of discussion let's say it is Canada. How receptive are you to the statement:

Quote:

"I, on the other hand am not Canadian born, I see things in a wider perspective where citizens of other nationalities who are protected by the jurisdiction of their own country, can and will prevail, even when the bully happens to be Canada."

I don't mean to ask if your feelings would be hurt or your pride as a Canadian disturbed. I'm not trying to turn the tables on you. Substitute "Canada" with the name of any other country in the world. I'm asking if you think this statement is one that might ring true for you.

If everyone who lives outside of a given nation sees things in a wider perspective than those who live within that given nation, doesn't that really mean that everyone and no one sees things in a wider perspective?

In any case, my opinion of the US government's chances in convicting Assage are irrelevant to this exchange. We are discussing the opinion of the three men interviewed in the article linked by JPB.

You have drawn a conclusion about what these experts have stated, the foundation of which cannot be supported from reading their actual statements. Whatever the characteristics of a perspective that has led you to pull an unsupported conclusion out of thin air, I would not include "wide" among them.

I've no doubt that your perspective (whether we call it "wide" or "skewed") leads you to believe that it is "almost impossible" for the US to convict Assange, but to legitimately contend that the three experts have come to the same conclusion is not "almost impossible," it's plainly impossible.

And while everyone may have their own interpretation of the comments of these men, not all of them will be based on what they have actually said or, for that matter, make any sense at all. Your interpretation is clear proof of this.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

I personally think that if the US wanted him as bad as many here have said the US wants him, they would have taken him already. If they were going to bust him on bogus charges, and ask for extradition, it only hurts them to drag this process out.

OK, no worries ...
Once again, as you say, your opinion, Art.
But mine is very different to yours.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

I think the final decision will be Aussie, ie, the motherland makes decision. They can even ship him to Australia and have court preceedings there (Oz). This could take months, with Assange in cahoots entire time. Freedom - yes, but such is the evil ways of the state. I've always said, "One can not be a true freedom fighter unless they have spent time in prison." Now, Assange will have paid his dues.

Under the current circumstances, I fail to see how Australia enters the picture.

Is there any reason to believe the Brits will deport Assange back to Australia?

Australia has not sought his extradition.

There is a finite set of options for the UK
(In no particular order)

1) Extradite Assange to Sweden
2) Retain him in custody in the UK, until another country seeks his extradition or the UK government charges him with crimes
3) Let him go.

If they opt for #1, we'll all be waiting for the US to seek extradition from Sweden and/or the Swedish trial to take place.

If they opt for #2, I don't believe they can hold him indefinitely but countries differ widely on such rules

If they opt for #3, I doubt Assange will go back to Australia where the government has already announced they are investigating whether or not he has violated Australian law.

3 Replies

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know