Author Topic: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal  (Read 3180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Johnnie F.

Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« on: May 30, 2012, 08:17:36 PM »
Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal, Moves Closer To Prosecution In Sweden

LONDON -- Britain's Supreme Court has endorsed the extradition of WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange to Sweden, bringing the secret-spilling Internet activist a big step closer to prosecution in a Scandinavian court.

But a question mark hung over the decision after Assange's lawyer made the highly unusual suggestion that she would try to reopen the case, raising the prospect of more legal wrangling.

Assange, 40, has spent the better part of two years fighting attempts to send him to the Sweden, where he is wanted over sex crime allegations. He has yet to be charged.

The U.K. side of that struggle came to an uncertain end Wednesday, with the nation's highest court ruling 5-2 that the warrant seeking his arrest was properly issued – and Assange's lawyer saying she might contest the ruling.

Supreme Court President Nicholas Phillips, reading out the verdict, acknowledged that coming to a conclusion in the high-profile case had "not been simple."

But he said that the court had ultimately concluded that "the request for Mr. Assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal against extradition is accordingly dismissed."

Assange lawyer Dinah Rose stood up after the verdict to complain that the court's ruling largely relied on a treaty whose interpretation she says she never had the chance to challenge, requesting time to study the judgment with an eye toward trying to reopen the case.

Such a maneuver is practically unheard of, according to attorney Karen Todner, whose law firm handles many high-profile extradition cases.

"It's very unusual," she told The Associated Press. "I've never known them to reopen a case."

Phillips gave Rose two weeks to make her move, meaning an extradition wouldn't happen until the second half of June at the earliest.

It could be much later. Even if the Supreme Court refuses to revisit its judgment, Assange could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, although Todner said he was unlikely to make much headway there unless he could argue that his physical safety or psychological well-being would be at risk in Sweden.

Assange, a former computer hacker from Australia, shot to international prominence in 2010 with the release of hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. documents, including a hard-to-watch video that showed U.S. forces gunning down a crowd of Iraqi civilians and journalists that they'd mistaken for insurgents.

His release of a quarter-million classified U.S. State Department cables in the final months of that year outraged Washington and destabilized American diplomacy worldwide.

But his work exposing government secrets increasingly came under a cloud after two Swedish women accused him of molestation and rape following a visit to the country in mid-2010. Assange denies wrongdoing, saying the sex was consensual, but has refused to go to Sweden, claiming he won't get a fair trial there.

He and his supporters have also hinted that the sex allegations are a cover for a planned move to extradite him to the United States, where he claims he's been secretly indicted for the WikiLeaks disclosures.

Those allegations, paired with the ponderous progress of Assange's appeals, have caused irritation in Sweden.

Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer who represents the two Swedish women who accuse Assange of sex crimes, expressed relief at the U.K. Supreme Court's decision, but said the British judicial system should have dealt with the case more quickly.

"Now, finally, we have a decision," Borgstrom told AP, saying the long wait had been stressful for his clients. He dismissed suggestions that the underlying motive behind the extradition was to hand Assange over to the United States.

"He is not at a greater risk of being handed over from Sweden than from Britain," Borgstrom said.

Australia's government said in a statement released after the verdict that it would "closely monitor" any proceedings against Assange in Sweden.

Unusually, Assange did not appear in court Wednesday; he was reportedly stuck in traffic. Attempts to reach him for comment weren't immediately successful.

Huffington Post

I can't imagine that the internet community will take this without hacking some British government sites.
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy

Offline Johnnie F.

Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2012, 08:34:18 PM »
What I do not understand, if the Swedish District Attorney only wants to question him, is, why they didn't do either over video conference or by having the DA go on a trip to the UK.  :uhm
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 06:51:59 AM »
Some suspect that it's a plot to get him to a country that will extradite him to the US.

Offline Johnnie F.

Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2012, 08:04:01 AM »
Britain's Supreme Court could have denied this "extradition just for questioning" on the basis that it was requested by a district attorney instead of a judge, and as main argument referring to alternatives to the physical presence in Sweden like video conferencing or questioning in the UK by the Swedish DA or Swedish embassy personnel. What should the educated world think of Britain's supreme judges  now? Are they the helping hands of the dreadful CIA and other despicable institutions? The Empire stroke itself again!
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2012, 08:47:46 AM »
This guy Assange has upset some powerful, shadowy and unforgiving people. He doesn't stand a chance with the system and he'll probably end up in the US after Sweden. The court system in the UK is just doing some slight-of-hand and passing the problem on to another country which indirectly helps their main ally.

He should have fled to France instead as there would have been more chance of protection.

Offline Johnnie F.

Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal UPDATE
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2012, 09:58:43 AM »
Julian Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has failed in his bid to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden where he faces sex crime allegations.

The announcement was made today by the Supreme Court.

It is understood that Assange's legal team now has 14 days to apply to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to hear his case.

Dinah Rose QC, appearing for Assange, applied to the Supreme Court justices for permission to make further submissions, but they unanimously dismissed the application, saying it was "without merit".

On May 30, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-2 majority that Assange's extradition was lawful and could go ahead.

The Swedish authorities want Assange, 40, to answer accusations of raping one woman and sexually molesting and coercing another in Stockholm in August 2010 while on a visit to give a lecture.

Assange, whose WikiLeaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, claims the sex was consensual and that the allegations against him are politically motivated.

The majority of Supreme Court justices rejected his argument that the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued against him by Sweden was "invalid and unenforceable".

Assange's lawyers now have until June 28 to ask Strasbourg to consider his case on the basis that he has not had a fair hearing from the UK courts.

It will then be for the European Court to decide whether or not to postpone extradition while another hearing goes ahead

The court has the power to issue a direction to the UK Government that he should not be surrendered to Sweden if it decides to consider his claim.

Fair Trials International chief executive Jago Russell said: "Today's decision takes Julian Assange one step closer to being extradited to Sweden.

"Although Sweden is rightly proud of its justice system, its over-use of pre-trial detention means that, if extradited, he is likely to be imprisoned and placed under extremely restrictive conditions."

The Independent
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy

Offline thaiga

Re: Julian Assange seeks asylum in Ecuador embassy
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2012, 02:03:26 PM »
WikiLeaks founder takes refuge in London embassy in bid to avoid extradition to Sweden

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, sought political asylum at Ecuador's embassy in London yesterday in a dramatic attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Mr Assange, who is wanted by authorities in Stockholm to answer to allegations of sex crimes, walked into the embassy in Knightsbridge yesterday afternoon and requested asylum under the United Nations Human Rights Declaration. A statement issued on behalf of the embassy said that Mr Assange would remain at the embassy under the protection of the Ecuadorian government while it considers his application.

"As a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights, with an obligation to review all applications for asylum, we have immediately passed his application on to the relevant department in Quito," the statement said.

Ecuador's Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, said the Australian had taken refuge at its embassy and that the country's government was weighing up the request. Mr Patino, speaking at a press conference in Ecuador, said Mr Assange had written to the Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, saying he was being persecuted and seeking asylum.

Mr Patino said the Australian had written that he could not return to his home country because it would not block his extradition to "a foreign country that applies the death penalty for the crime of espionage and sedition".

The move follows a long-running legal bid by Mr Assange, 40, to halt his extradition to Sweden, where he is accused of raping a woman and sexually molesting and coercing another in Stockholm in August 2010.

The UK Supreme Court decided on 30 May that extradition was lawful and could go ahead, and last week it refused an attempt by him to reopen his appeal against extradition, saying it was "without merit".

Mr Assange, whose WikiLeaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, said the sex was consensual and the allegations are politically motivated.

After his arrest in December 2010, Mr Assange had a number of famous friends and supporters who helped him to raise bail of £240,000. Last night, the socialite and charity fundraiser Jemima Khan, who is thought to have donated a significant amount towards that sum, said on Twitter: "I had expected him to face the allegations. I am as surprised as anyone by this."

In a short statement issued yesterday evening, Mr Assange said: "I can confirm that today I arrived at the Ecuadorian embassy and sought diplomatic sanctuary and political asylum. I am grateful to the Ecuadorian ambassador."
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined.

Offline Johnnie F.

Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2012, 03:18:06 PM »
Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder

Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino: ''We are not a colony of Britain''

Demonstrators in front of the British Embassy in Quito step on a British flag. (Picture:

Ecuador has accused the UK of making a "threat" to enter its embassy in London to arrest Wikileaks' Julian Assange.

Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies.

Ecuador says a decision on his claim for political asylum will come later.

The UK Foreign Office says it can lift the embassy's diplomatic status to fulfil a "legal obligation" to extradite the 41-year-old.

The Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments, particularly the US, in 2010, and Mr Assange says he fears that Sweden will pass him on to the American authorities.

A number of police officers are outside the Ecuadorean embassy, in Knightsbridge, where some of Mr Assange's supporters have also gathered.

Demonstrators also protested outside the British embassy in Ecuador's capital. Images from Quito showed protesters holding signs saying "We are sovereign, not colonies" and a union jack being stepped on.

At a news conference in Quito on Wednesday, Ecuador's Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patino, said a letter from the UK government had been delivered through a British embassy official.

"Today we received from the United Kingdom an express threat, in writing, that they might storm our embassy in London if we don't hand over Julian Assange," he said.

"Ecuador rejects in the most emphatic terms the explicit threat of the British official communication."

He said such a threat was "improper of a democratic, civilised and rule-abiding country".

He added: "If the measure announced in the British official communication is enacted, it will be interpreted by Ecuador as an unacceptable, unfriendly and hostile act and as an attempt against our sovereignty. It would force us to respond.

"We are not a British colony."

A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK remained "determined" to fulfil its obligation to extradite Mr Assange.

"Throughout this process we have drawn the Ecuadoreans' attention to relevant provisions of our law, whether, for example, the extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to the legal status of diplomatic premises in the UK," the spokesman said.

"We are still committed to reaching a mutually acceptable solution."

The law Britain has informed Ecuador it could use in the case is the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

It allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange for breaching the terms of his bail.

Mr Patino told reporters an announcement on Mr Assange's bid for political asylum would be issued on Thursday at 07:00 local time (13:00 BST).

The BBC's Bridget Kendall said she believed it was "quite likely" that Ecuador would grant Mr Assange asylum because it had reacted strongly to the UK and may not want to be perceived to be buckling under pressure.

However, she said this would not change anything because he could still be arrested if he left the embassy.
Supporters of Julian Assange, the founder of the Wikileaks website, gather outside the Ecuadorian Embassy Supporters of Mr Assange have been gathering outside the embassy

Our correspondent could not recall a precedent in which the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 had been used in this way.

And former government lawyer Carl Gardner told BBC Radio 4's Today programme legal advisers would be "urging the most extreme caution".

In 2010, two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers accused Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, of committing sexual offences against them while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture.

Mr Assange claims the sex was consensual and the allegations are politically motivated.

In June, judges at the UK's Supreme Court dismissed his final appeal against extradition to Sweden.

An offer by Ecuador to allow Swedish investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy was rejected.

BBC news
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy

Offline Johnnie F.

Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder VIDEO
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2012, 04:16:46 PM »
They should have tried this while the Olympics were still on: a good part of the world would have withdrawn their teams as response. That they waited for the Olympics to finish makes it look even worse!

Fun is the one thing that money can't buy


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2012, 05:19:27 PM »
Perhaps the threat is intended to persuade the Embassy to reject his appeal and push him out of the door into the arms of the waiting police. I hope that it does the opposite but the problem would still remain that he has to get past the police to get to the airport.

The rejection of the suggestion that the Swedes interview him in the Embassy is a clear sign that the British government is bending still to pressure from the US. The guy is wanted only for questioning and, as I understand it, there is no arrest warrant against him regarding any alleged crime.

Offline dodgeydave

  • Korat forum specialist
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Karma: 3
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2012, 08:27:41 PM »
it will be interesting to see what happens now he has been granted asylum by Ecuador


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2012, 10:54:46 PM »
He got it?! Bloody great!!!

Offline thaiga

Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2012, 11:05:56 PM »

Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined.


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2012, 11:19:02 PM »
Forkin' bloody brilliant!  :cheers

The British government has been pleading that he would be going to Sweden, a civilised country, so there's nothing to sweat about. Bugger off, we know what it's all about!

If my helicopter and AK47 were in England I'd air lift him out myself. The Ecuador Embassy is probably way ahead of this but all they need to do is give him a passport and a temporary job in their diplomatic service. In fact, he's probably ling gone.

A blow for the man in the street! Damned great.  8)

Offline dodgeydave

  • Korat forum specialist
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Karma: 3
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2012, 12:11:30 AM »
been watching the news and the next major problem is getting him out of the embassy. as the UK oops sorry USA government has promised to arrest him.

the yanks are desperate to get there hands on him. and are using every other country as a pawn.   i think Julian Assange is a smug git. but don't see how they can extradite him to Sweden on a charge of sexual assault , dream't up by the yanks.

good on Ecuador. and screw the UK government and the yank's.

Offline Baby Farts

  • posting on moderation row
  • Korat forum specialist
  • *
  • Posts: 3351
  • Thanked: 179 times
  • Karma: 0
  • Seeek!
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2012, 04:50:27 AM »
I'm going against the grain here.  I hope he does get arrested.  Some of the material he revealed compromised the security of the US and its people and other nations as well.  That's the problem I have with this guy.  It seems the majority of the people who support this non-us citizen are American haters in the first place.  I don't have a problem with some of the material he revealed, but he in fact did compromise the security of the US and other nations.  He has effectively put innocent lives at risk, people who don't even want a part in his quest to discredit certain countries.  Every one seems to turn a blind eye to that, the same folks who hate America.  Second, he obtained the information illegally using his "PAWNS" like the US soldier who provided him with lots of classified intel.  Classified means just that.  Classified.  I hope that soldier gets put away for a long time, betraying his own country.  Give it time, Assange will get caught.  I hope the UK storms the embassy and arrests this degenerate.

The CIA should take his ass out.

1) Julian Assange aided the Taliban and risked the lives of Afghans who helped American forces: Some people are appalled by the idea of assassinating Julian Assange. But, why aren’t those same people appalled by the fact that Julian Assange released classified documents that he knew would lead to our Afghan informants and their families being marked for death by the Taliban?

    The Times revealed that the names, villages, relatives’ names and even precise GPS locations of Afghans co-operating with Nato forces could be accessed easily from files released by WikiLeaks.

    Human rights groups criticised the internet site and one US politician said that the security breaches amounted to a ready-made Taliban hitlist.

    …Mr Assange said: “No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret – our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them. That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives or none of the archives we would publish all of the archives because it’s extremely important to the history of this war.”

These people risked their lives to help us and Julian Assange knowingly chose to put a death sentence on their heads and the heads of their families. Why is his life worth more than their lives? Is the idea supposed to be that they’re just poor, simple people from Afghanistan while Assange is a sophisticated Westerner? So his life is supposed to be worth something while their lives are meaningless? In my book, they risked their lives to help American soldiers, while Assange is an enemy of America. So, their lives are worth a lot, while the world would be better off without him in it.

2) Killing Julian Assange would send a message: Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there’s no reason that the CIA can’t kill him. Moreover, ask yourself a simple question: If Julian Assange is shot in the head tomorrow or if his car is blown up when he turns the key, what message do you think that would send about releasing sensitive American data? Do you think there would be any more classified American information showing up on Wikileaks? That’s very doubtful. Do you think the next cyber punk who thinks it is a game to put classified information on the web would think twice? Yes, you bet. Legally, we may not be able to do a lot to Assange since he’s not an American, but killing him would do more to protect our classified data than any new security system.

3) You can’t run a government without secrets: There’s a quirky sort of thinking on the Internet that goes, “The public has a right to know. Information wants to be free. The more you know the better.” There is some truth to that, but as often as not, it’s complete horseflop. If you don’t believe that, post the password to your email account and all your credit card info on the Internet. Let’s see how much your information wants to be free then.

Some things need to be private, particularly when a government is dealing with sensitive foreign affairs and warfare. You reveal intelligence methods and it warns the enemy. You post battle plans and it gets people killed. You put what’s said in private out in public and relationships between nations can crumble or it may even get people killed. To immature, arrogant man-children like Julian Assange, this is all a big game like Civ5 or The Sims. Unfortunately, there are real lives at stake here that shouldn’t be held hostage to the whims of a spoiled brat who won’t have to clean up the bloody mess he leaves behind.

4) Releasing the information to the world is even worse than giving it to a single foreign government: Make no mistake about it: If we knew an Iranian spy had acquired the same information that Wikileaks has and he intended to hand it over to the Iranian government, the CIA wouldn’t hesitate to kill that spy if it was the only way to stop him. While we might prefer to arrest him , few Americans would protest if a CIA sniper killed that spy and retrieved the data before he could cross into Iranian territory.

Assange has one-upped that spy. He’s not just giving sensitive information to one unfriendly regime. He’s giving sensitive classified information to every hostile government in the world. Julian Assange may not be in Osama Bin Laden’s league, nor is he using the same methods, but he has the same goal: To do as much damage to the United States as humanly possible. Assange is an enemy of the American people and our country will be safer when he’s dead.

5) We need to regain the confidence of our allies who’ve been burned by these leaks: If you’re a foreign government, how can you confidently work with the United States when anything you say may end up being revealed publicly by Julian Assange? If you’re Pakistan, how can you work with us on counter-terrorism? If you’re Saudi Arabia, how do you work with us behind the scenes to stop Iran’s nukes? If you’re Egypt, can you afford to work with us to limit the Palestinians’ access to explosives? How do you do these things when what you say today may be in every major newspaper in the world in six months because somebody sent the information to Julian Assange? The first step towards convincing other nations that they can trust us again would be make this a better world by removing Julian Assange from it.



  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2012, 08:08:47 AM »
Apart from the inevitable claptrap from an embarrassed Washington, there's no evidence that he put lives in danger.

Most of the Wikileaks material that I read was no more than Embassy reports from CIA agents on the happenings in various friendly countries. What's upset to Whitehouse is that it's overseas non-military representatives have been found to be secretly bad mouthing US allies. I remember one that showed clearly that the US was questioning people in high places here about private meeting they had with someone at the very top. Serves them right if they are found out.

Britain has no reason to extradite Assange to the US so, under pressure, the authorities take part in a sneaky little plot to get him to a country that would do it.


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2012, 08:20:02 AM »
By the way, BF, it's not the US that's getting the flack over this, it's the UK.

Offline Johnnie F.

Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2012, 08:24:49 AM »
The CIA should take his ass out.

2) Killing Julian Assange would send a message: Julian Assange is not an American citizen and he has no constitutional rights. So, there’s no reason that the CIA can’t kill him.

Are you serious? You legitimize the CIA to murder everybody who is not an American citizen. Wow, BF, you are protected by your citizenship then. Don't hesitate to present your passport when a CIA-assassin shows up. ;D

Julian Assange aided the Taliban

That would need to be proven first, especially that he did it with the intention of causing damage to the American people instead of just embarrassing a few politicians who in their decision-making lost contact to the people who voted them into their offices long time ago. Julian Assange did reveal facts about the performance of those politicians; he did help the people. Now you want to give those politicians the right to abuse the CIA for their personal vendetta against Julian Assange.

Again: Are you serious by asking for his assassination by the CIA?

And also: Are you an American with the spirit of those having decided to live a free life, or are you an American who has happily exchanged the "burden of the crown and the cross" for their out-of-control politicians and the guns of their army and secret assassins?

Remember how the (well-informed) American people went up on barricades against the senseless killing and wasting of American soldiers' lives as well as tax money in Vietnam? They could not have stopped their taxes indirectly flowing into the pockets of Lockheed etc, if it had not been for courageous journalists' reporting what was really going on in Washington and in Vietnam. Julian Assange did just the same as these journalist heroes who saved the American people a lot of their soldiers' lives and a lot of tax many being wasted on a war that could not be won with guns, bombs and Agent Orange, the products Lockheed and consorts sell.
Fun is the one thing that money can't buy


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange: UK 'threat' to arrest Wikileaks founder
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2012, 08:37:30 AM »
If politicians and diplomats have become more careful about their private comments on other countries, Wikileaks did the world a good service.

Perhaps, soon, the news media will be more honest in their reporting. Perhaps not.

Offline thaiga

Re: Ecuador Britain fail to reach agreement on Assange
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2012, 01:07:16 AM »
Britain and Ecuador failed to reach agreement on the fate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Thursday at a meeting of their foreign ministers here, officials said.

"We see no immediate solution," Ecuadoran Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino told reporters after meeting with British Foreign Secretary William Hague on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Hague told Patino "that the UK was under an obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden," a spokesman for the British foreign secretary said in a statement.
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined.

Offline dodgeydave

  • Korat forum specialist
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Karma: 3
Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2012, 01:13:22 AM »
US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for 'communicating with the enemy'

Glenn Greenwald, Thursday 27 September 2012 12.27 BST

An Iraqi man reads newspaper with news on the Wikileaks documents in Baghdad. Photograph: Mohammed Jalil/EPA
A US air force systems analyst who expressed support for WikiLeaks and accused leaker Bradley Manning triggered a formal military investigation last year to determine whether she herself had leaked any documents to the group. Air Force investigative documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show that the analyst was repeatedly interviewed about her contacts with and support for WikiLeaks - what investigators repeatedly refer to as the "anti-US or anti-military group" - as well as her support for the group's founder, Julian Assange.

The investigation was ultimately closed when they could find no evidence of unauthorized leaking, but what makes these documents noteworthy is the possible crime cited by military officials as the one they were investigating: namely, "Communicating With the Enemy", under Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

That is one of the most serious crimes a person can commit - it carries the penalty of death - and is committed when a person engages in "unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy". The military investigation form also requires investigators to identify the "victim" of the crime they are investigating, and here, they designated "society" as the victim:

How could leaking to WikiLeaks possibly constitute the crime of "communicating with the enemy"? Who exactly is the "enemy"? There are two possible answers to that question, both quite disturbing.

The first possibility is the one suggested by today's Sydney Morning Herald article on these documents (as well as by WikiLeaks itself): that the US military now formally characterizes WikiLeaks and Assange as an "enemy", the same designation it gives to groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This would not be the first time such sentiments were expressed by the US military: recall that one of the earliest leaks from the then-largely-unknown group was a secret report prepared back in 2008 by the US Army which, as the New York Times put it, included WikiLeaks on the Pentagon's "list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States". That Army document then plotted how to destroy the group.

But it's the second possibility that seems to me to be the far more likely one: namely, that the US government, as part of Obama's unprecedented war on whistleblowers, has now fully embraced the pernicious theory that any leaks of classified information can constitute the crime of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of the fact that, indirectly, "the enemy" will - like everyone else in the world - ultimately learn of what is disclosed.

Indeed, the US military is currently prosecuting accused WikiLeaks leaker Bradley Manning on multiple charges including "aiding the enemy", also under Article 104 of the UCMJ, and a capital offense (though prosecutors are requesting "only" life imprisonment rather than execution). Military prosecutors have since revealed that their theory is that the 23-year-old Army Private "aided al-Qaida by leaking hundreds of thousands of military and other government documents" -- specifically, that "Manning indirectly aided al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula by giving information to WikiLeaks."

It seems clear that the US military now deems any leaks of classified information to constitute the capital offense of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" even if no information is passed directly to the "enemy" and there is no intent to aid or communicate with them. Merely informing the public about classified government activities now constitutes this capital crime because it "indirectly" informs the enemy.

The implications of this theory are as obvious as they are disturbing. If someone can be charged with "aiding" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of leaking to WikiLeaks, then why wouldn't that same crime be committed by someone leaking classified information to any outlet: the New York Times, the Guardian, ABC News or anyone else? In other words, does this theory not inevitably and necessarily make all leaking of all classified information - whether to WikiLeaks or any media outlet - a capital offense: treason or a related crime?

International Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller made a similar point when the charges against Manning were first revealed:

"f Manning has aided the enemy, so has any media organization that published the information he allegedly stole. Nothing in Article 104 requires proof that the defendant illegally acquired the information that aided the enemy. As a result, if the mere act of ensuring that harmful information is published on the internet qualifies either as indirectly 'giving intelligence to the enemy' (if the military can prove an enemy actually accessed the information) or as indirectly 'communicating with the enemy' (because any reasonable person knows that enemies can access information on the internet), there is no relevant factual difference between Manning and a media organization that published the relevant information."

Professor Heller goes on to note that while "WikiLeaks or the New York Times could not actually be charged under Article 104" because "the UCMJ only applies to soldiers", there is nonetheless "still something profoundly disturbing about the prospect of convicting Manning and sentencing him to life imprisonment for doing exactly what media organizations did, as well".

What these new documents reveal is that this odious theory is not confined to Manning. The US military appears to be treating all potential leaks - at least those to WikiLeaks - as "aiding" or "communicating with" the enemy. But there is no possible limiting principle that would confine that theory only to such leaks; they would necessarily apply to all leaks of classified information to any media outlets.

It is always worth underscoring that the New York Times has published far more government secrets than WikiLeaks ever has, and more importantly, has published far more sensitive secrets than WikiLeaks has (unlike WikiLeaks, which has never published anything that was designated "Top Secret", the New York Times has repeatedly done so: the Pentagon Papers, the Bush NSA wiretapping program, the SWIFT banking surveillance system, and the cyberwarfare program aimed at Iran were all "Top Secret" when the newspaper revealed them, as was the network of CIA secret prisons exposed by the Washington Post). There is simply no way to convert basic leaks to WikiLeaks into capital offenses - as the Obama administration is plainly doing - without sweeping up all leaks into that attack.

Of course, that outcome would almost certainly be a feature, not a bug, for Obama officials. This is, after all, the same administration that has prosecuted whistleblowers under espionage charges that threatened to send them to prison for life without any evidence of harm to national security, and has brought double the number of such prosecutions as all prior administrations combined. Converting all leaks into capital offenses would be perfectly consistent with the unprecedented secrecy fixation on the part of the Most Transparent Administration Ever™.

The irony from these developments is glaring. The real "enemies" of American "society" are not those who seek to inform the American people about the bad acts engaged in by their government in secret. As Democrats once recognized prior to the age of Obama - in the age of Daniel Ellsberg - people who do that are more aptly referred to as "heroes". The actual "enemies" are those who abuse secrecy powers to conceal government actions and to threaten with life imprisonment or even execution those who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing.


  • Guest
Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2012, 05:23:10 AM »
The actual "enemies" are those who abuse secrecy powers to conceal government actions and to threaten with life imprisonment or even execution those who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing.


It's interesting to note that no-one who has published evidence of the US Administration's part in 9/11 has been prosecuted. At least, I've never heard of such as case. Perhaps they know that to do so would open a can of worms for them.

Offline thaiga

Re: Lady Gaga visits Julian Assange
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2012, 12:19:47 PM »
Lady Gaga visits Julian Assange as celebrity backers who acted as bail sureties for Wikileaks founder are ordered by court to pay almost £100,000

•Pop diva spent five hours with Assange and had dinner with 41-year-old
•Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said they had to pay cash by November 6
•Assange has been staying in Ecuadorean Embassy in London since June
•Wants to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over rape allegations

Pop star Lady Gaga visited Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy as nine people who acted as his bail sureties were ordered to hand over a total of £93,500.
The singer emerged yesterday morning after spending five hours in Assange's refuge in west London. She had arrived at 7pm and it's believed she had dinner with the 41-year-old.

Assange, 41, has been staying in the embassy in Knightsbridge since June after going there to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of rape and sexual assault made by two women.

He fears that if he is extradited to Sweden, he will be sent to the US to face interrogation over the whistle-blowing website, which has published secret military files and diplomatic cables.
Assange has been granted political asylum by Ecuador but faces arrest if he leaves the embassy after breaking bail conditions

Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle has ruled his nine backers have to pay the cash by November 6.
Vaughan Smith, a friend who is one of the sureties, addressed Westminster Magistrates’ Court last week on behalf of the nine, who put up £140,000 between them.
He said all those who offered sureties of varying amounts are ‘convinced that they have done and are doing the right thing’.

read more
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined.

Offline dodgeydave

  • Korat forum specialist
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Karma: 3
Re: Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2012, 01:32:40 PM »
I suppose he must be a bit desperate for a sh*g by now

Offline thaiga

Re: Julian Assange to run for Senate
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2013, 12:32:59 PM »
JULIAN Assange will run for a Senate seat in the 2013 federal election and his mum reckons he'll be awesome.

Christine Assange confirmed her son's candidacy on Wednesday after WikiLeaks tweeted the news.

"He will be awesome," she told AAP.

"In the House of Representatives we get to choose between US lackey party number one and US lackey party number two - between the major parties.

"So it will be great to 'Assange" the Senate for some Aussie oversight."

Queensland-born Assange, who founded the secret-leaking website WikiLeaks, announced his Senate ambition last December from Ecuador's London embassy.

He sought refuge there last June in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Mr Assange fears if he goes to Sweden to be questioned over rape allegations, authorities will allow him to be extradited to the US to be questioned over WikiLeaks' release of thousands of US diplomatic cables.

He said last year he would run as a Senate candidate under a yet-to-be-formed WikiLeaks party banner and was recruiting others to stand with him.

The election will be held on September 14.

Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined.

Offline thaiga

Re: Wikileaks publishes largest ever set of diplomatic records
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2013, 12:46:15 PM »
Wikileaks has published its largest ever trove of diplomatic reports, placing online over 1.7 million United States records covering diplomatic or intelligence reports on every country in the world.

Much of the work was carried out by Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who has been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since last June.

The data comprises US diplomatic records from the beginning of 1973 to the end of 1976, covering a variety of diplomatic traffic including cables, intelligence reports and congressional correspondence. Henry Kissinger was US Secretary of State and National Security Adviser during the period covered by the collection, and many of the reports were written by him, or were sent to him.

The organisation, which calls the collection the Public Library of US Diplomacy (PlusD), describes it as the world’s largest searchable collection of US confidential, or formerly confidential, diplomatic communications.

Mr Assange told the Press Association that the information showed the “vast range and scope” of US diplomatic and intelligence activity around the world.Thousands of the documents are marked NODIS (no distribution) or Eyes Only, as well as cables originally classed as secret or confidential.

Mr Assange said WikiLeaks had undertaken a detailed analysis of the communications, adding that the information eclipsed Cablegate, the set of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks from November 2010 and over the following year.

These documents, which detailed US foreign policy over the last decade,were released after being anonymously leaked.

No information about the collection published today has emerged but Mr Assange said WikiLeaks had been working for the past year to analyse and assess a vast amount of data held at the US national archives before releasing it in a searchable form.

He said WikiLeaks had developed sophisticated technical systems to deal with “complex and voluminous” data.Top secret documents were not available, while some others were lost or irreversibly corrupted for periods including December 1975 and March and June 1976, said Mr Assange.

He added that his mother, who lives in Australia, had told him he was being kept at the embassy “with nothing to do but work on WikiLeaks material.”
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist should have his head examined.