Ya Know... There's A Third Possibility On The Assange Divide...

[WillyT]

Simplistic I know, but...

Theory 1) Has it that Julian Assange has to "man up" and face his accusers in a court of law to clear his name, or face justice.

Theory 2) Has it that after decades of watching various governments lie to us in order to smear and intimidate people who threaten their well fortified cocoon, WE DON'T TRUST THEM ANY LONGER.

And it comes to me that there may be a third...

Theory 3) There are people who do NOT want Barack Obama to be tarnished with the soot of continuing a number of Bush-The-Lesser's policy decisions...

Which of course... goes back to Theory 2...

Thoughts ???

[randome]

1. Are you and Struggle4Progress in some kind of a competition?

I wish you guys would relax. Assange is stuck in an embassy so all we have to do is wait for something new to happen. In the meantime...Akin is an ass!

[WillyT]

2. So... I'll Put You Down For Theory 3 ???

[brooklynite]

3. Until you show evidence that there's an overt conspiracy to bring Assange to the US...

...I'll stick with 1).

[whatchamacallit]

4. Assange haters (the ones who are not trolls) mostly fall into two groups

1) Authoritarians

2) Obama Apologists

[randome]

6. Please tell us the criteria you utilize to label your fellow DUers.

[hack89]

10. Since Obama left Assange unmolested in Britain for two years

why is he associated with Assange haters? It would have been much easier to extradite him from England than from Sweden.

[limpyhobbler]

12. It's easier for the US to rendition people from Sweden than to extradite from the UK.

T

[hack89]

13. Really? Obama would be that stupid?

so the US could just make Assange disappear without a huge international outcry?

[WillyT]

15. You Tell Me... He Apparently Has No Sway Over The SEC...

Maybe it's headless nails... or, maybe it something else.

[hack89]

16. You will have to decode your question. nt

[WillyT]

17. That Would Be... Headless Nails...

If he has no sway over the SEC... an executive branch he is in chage of... because HE is the EXECUTIVE...

It makes one wonder what sway he has over the FBI, CIA, NSA, MIC...

You get my point.

[hack89]

22. So why did the FBI, CIA, NSA, MIC let Assange go unmolested in Britain for two years?

why is Assange still alive for that matter?

[TBF]

26. He's alive because they want to make an example of him. nt

[hack89]

29. By putting on a show trial where he has a good chance of being acquitted?

find me any legal consensus on whether he has even broken US law.

[WillyT]

30. Um...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021157325

[hack89]

31. You notice not a single American cable is mentioned? Why is that?

why is the opinion of Australian diplomats conclusive proof?

And you have yet to show any legal consensus in America as to what law Assange broke.

Pretty weak case if that is all you have.

[WillyT]

32. Well...

Julian Assange continues to be the subject of Australian intelligence reports more than a year after the WikiLeaks website published thousands of leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

In a recent freedom of information decision, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade confirmed to Fairfax Media the existence of at least two intelligence reports concerning WikiLeaks and Mr Assange from Australia's embassy to the US in February and March this year.

The secret Washington embassy cables, one running to 10 pages, have been withheld from release because they are "intelligence agency documents".

Yesterday, the Herald reported that Australia's ambassador to the US, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, had made high-level representations seeking advance warning of any US moves to extradite Mr Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining secret US information.

From: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-secret-assange-files-20120818-24f9c.html

*****************************************************************

And from 2010...

Wikileaks: Australia FM blames US, not Julian Assange
BBCNews
8 December 2010

<snip>

Kevin Rudd said the release raised questions about US security. Mr Rudd said he did not "give a damn" about criticism of him in the cables. Mr Assange, arrested in the UK over sex crime allegations in Sweden, has accused the Australian government of "disgraceful pandering" to the US.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard had earlier called Mr Assange's release of the cables "grossly irresponsible".

Over the past two weeks, Wikileaks has released thousands of classified messages from US envoys around the world, from more than 250,000 it has been given. Washington has called their publication "irresponsible" and an "attack on the international community".

In an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Rudd said: "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that."

Mr Rudd, the former prime minister who was replaced by Julia Gillard in June, added: "I think there are real questions to be asked about the adequacy of [the US] security systems and the level of access that people have had to that material.

"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release."

The White House has ordered US government agencies to tighten their handling of classified documents in the wake of the Wikileaks releases.

<snip>

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558

[hack89]

33. So nothing indicating that the US has an actual law he broke?

Last edited Fri Sep 25, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

or any indication that they plan to extradite him? OK. I guess because they are secret they can say anything you want.

[limpyhobbler]

19. Sorry I should have wrote more clearly

It seemed you thought it was easier for the US to extradite people from the UK than from Sweden. Really it is easier for the US to extradite people, especially Assange, from Sweden than from the UK, using a process called rendition. That is all.

As far as Obama "disappearing" Assange, that seems like just speculation.

[hack89]

21. The UK has a history of rendition themselves so I am not so sure of that. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. The 'rendition' you refer to was done clandestinely

to people no-one had heard of (and the UK has not been innocent in that regard either). It would indeed have to be Obama "disappearing" Assange. Assange is in the public eye; whatever happens will have to go through a visible public process. And that's easier from the UK than Sweden:

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Two: “Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”

This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.

(See Francis FitzGibbon QC’s Nothing Like the Sun for further detail on this.)

One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.

In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

If he fears that the Swedish prosecutor is merely a cat’s paw for the US government, who will demand his extradition when he arrives in Sweden, he has to take account of Section 58 of our Extradition Act 2003: if the Swedes want to extradite him to the USA, they have to obtain the consent of the British Home Secretary first. That rule derives from Article 28 of the 2002 EU Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA), which binds the Swedish government. After the investigation and any criminal proceedings in Sweden end, that restriction also ends and the Swedes can extradite him without reference to the UK government. But neither Sweden and the UK will extradite anyone to a country where the accused is in peril of the death sentence if convicted of an offence, or where prison conditions are so bad as to breach his rights under Article 3 of the ECHR (‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’).

http://ffgqc.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/julian-the-asylum-seeker/

[MADem]

24. No it isn't. What horseshit.

First, Sweden (as the UK) is party to the European Convention of Human Rights. The Convention has been incorporated in Swedish law which makes it directly applicable for all state agencies, courts and the Government. Following the Soering Case, Sweden (and the UK) are prohibited from extraditing a person who may face the death penalty. Pursuant to obligations from European Convention of Human and the Convention against Torture, there is also a prohibition against extraditing somebody where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture (which includes inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).

Second, pursuant to article 28(4) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, “a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law.” Cameron and et. al write the following on p. 191: “It can be noted here, in connection with the EAW proceedings in 2010 concerning ‘Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange, that the principle of speciality means that Assange cannot be extradited or deported from Sweden, unless the UK grants its permission for this.” This means that the present decision from British authorities, upheld by Supreme Court, to extradite Assange to Sweden for sexuually related crimes is not enough. If the US would request Sweden to extradite Assange the issue would not only have to be approved by the Prosecutor-General, Supreme Court and Government in Sweden, it would also have to go through the British legal system a second time (which took more than 500 days the first time). In other words, if the US wants Assange extradited from Sweden, he will have the protection of both the Swedish and British legal systems. It would appear easier to have him extradited directly from the UK.

Third, the Swedish extradition agreements with the US do not allow extradition when the offence is purely military or if the offence is a political offence. See article 5(4)-(5) of Convention on extradition between the United States of America and Sweden, 24 October 1961. See also the supplementary convention from 14 March 1983. Cameron and et. al write the following on p. 177: “No definition is given in the Extradition Act of what offence constitute a political offence. In Swedish extradition law, as in many other countries’ extradition laws, a distinction is made between absolute and relative political crimes. Absolute political crimes are those exclusively directed against the state… espionage is an absolute political crime according to the travaux préparatoires”. One may add that in Swedish law, as opposed to English law, travaux préparatoires are a source of law.

As I understand, Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum, i.e. Ecuador is arguing that the US is seeking Assange for a political offence (espionage). Moreover, they fear that Assange will be subject to the death penalty and/or torture. As explained above, extradition from Sweden would for several reasons not be granted in such a case.

http://opiniojuris.org/2012/08/22/klamberg-on-extraditing-assange-from-sweden-to-the-u-s/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=klamberg-on-extraditing-assange-from-sweden-to-the-u-s

[backscatter712]

14. Y'know, it is possible to support Assange and Obama at the same time.

Of course, that means acknowledging that you don't agree with everything Obama does, but at the same time, acknowledge that he's done a lot of things right, and is certainly much better than El Chimpo Diablo was in the White House, or how Plastic Man would be if he was elected (or sElected...)

[quinnox]

25. you noticed that too

Yep, it has been this way at DU for a long time.

[limpyhobbler]

5. How much is the divide really?

Has anyone done a pro-Assange/anti-Assange poll?

I'm more of a 2.

[WillyT]

7. Well... Not Quite A Poll, But...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021162479

[Fumesucker]

8. Yep, came out pretty heavily pro-Assange.. n/t

[Fumesucker]

9. Better you than me..

[WillyT]

11. Shhh...

It's all good.

[Poll_Blind]

18. "You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."

PB

[HangOnKids]

28. Gawd Was That A Great Series!

Must watch again soon. Thanks for the reminder.

[woo me with science]

20. It's always interesting to see

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:14 AM - Edit history (3)

which threads attract this level of desperate attention from the corporate apologists. They are always threads that threaten to open more eyes to the complicity of *government* in the corruption that is impoverishing millions for the profit of a few. The desperation in the Assange threads to spin an alternate, ludicrous narrative and keep this story of blatant authoritarian revenge from catching fire in public awareness is glaringly obvious.

Corporate domination becomes deadly dangerous when corporations purchase governments and use them to protect, legalize, and threaten/punish exposure of their own corruption. The desperate propaganda assaults we see now are going to occur more frequently now that people are waking up to the *real* problem we face.

[TBF]

27. Excellent.

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I think there is a certain contingent that also simply fights anything that could be construed of as negative and relating to the Obama Administration. Many of us campaigned hard for him because we knew he could win - not because we necessarily agree with his centrist policies. I think that is actually the majority of DU if we are honest.

But there is a certain group - and I don't know if they are simply young idealistic campaigners or folks here simply to disrupt - who have their stories and will fight to the death to support them. I have had to put some on ignore because they are obnoxious on every single issue.