Julian Assange bids to sue Julia Gillard for defamation over WikiLeaks comments

[Swagman]

Source: news.com.au

JULIAN Assange has reportedly hired Sydney lawyers to pursue a defamation case against Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Mr Assange has told left-leaning activist group GetUp! that Ms Gillard defamed WikiLeaks when she allegedly told a radio station in 2010 he had broken the law by releasing hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables, according to a statement released by the group.

"I have hired lawyers in Sydney and they are investigating the different ways in which we can sue Gillard over this statement," Mr Assange told GetUp!

In late 2010, Ms Gillard said of the WikiLeaks release: "I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website. It's a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/assange-bids-to-sue-gillard-for-defamation/story-fncynjr2-1226490284398

[cstanleytech]

1. Will it be difficult to prove the case while hes hiding in the embassy? nt

[SESKATOW]

3. csta - how is he hiding. We know where he is

[cstanleytech]

9. Fine. How difficult will it be to prove the case while he is refusing to leave the embassy?

After all surely he would have a better case if he could testify in court or would they allow remote video testimony?

[SESKATOW]

41. Refusing to leave the embassy

How do you justify this statement?

[cstanleytech]

57. Lets see

We have

http://www.yupibar.com/world-news/julian-assange-defies-police-summons-refuses-to-leave-ecuadorean-embassy.html

http://adrempress.com/assange-refuses-to-leave-refuge/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/julian-assange-defies-police-summons-refuses-to-leave-ecuadorean-embassy/story-e6frg6so-1226413104892


And thats just a mere handful of the links found via google.

[SESKATOW]

82. he has said

he is happy to meet with swedish officials in London for questioning or go to sweden if they guarantee that they will not extradite him to USA. A fair request. The Swedes wont do any of these so he asked for safe passage to Ecuador. Where do you get refusing to leave from this??

[cstanleytech]

106. Hey, the doubt you cast was on him doing it which I have shown he did do.

If you want to debate the excuses then I will point out that its been pointed out before on the forum that legally they cannot agree to that term, the most they can agree to is that he would have a fair hearing before a court to decide if any extradition demand by the US is done in a completely legal manner.

[ronnie624]

110. You can claim yet again "that legally they cannot agree to that term",

but you are still wrong. The Swedish supreme court can only determine if the extradition is constitutional. If it is found to be constitutional, the government has the final say on whether or not to extradite. There is no legal impediment to assuring Assange he will not be extradited to the U.S.

[SESKATOW]

116. and sweden has form

Sweden detains Pirate Bay founder in
: oppressive conditions without charges
: The case underscores the prime fear long
: expressed by Assange supporters about the
: Swedish justice system
:
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/wikileaks-sweden-pirate-bay?INTCMP=SRCH

[SESKATOW]

115. there is no good reason why sweden cant question him in london

[JDPriestly]

108. I imagine the plaintiff would be Wikileaks, not Assange.

Assange does not equal Wikileaks if I understand correctly.

[cstanleytech]

146. The title though was "Julian Assange bids to sue Julia Gillard" not

"Wikileaks bids to sue Julia Gillard"

[JDPriestly]

170. But it is really about Wikileaks, not just Assange.

[cstanleytech]

171. Yes however it was Assange who hired the lawyer. nt

[JDPriestly]

173. Maybe because he wants to know for sure what his legal status is in Australia.

What do I know. My concern is not so much about Assange as an individual, but about freedom of the press. The two just happen to coincide. What is you main concern here?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or intrusive. I am wondering why people sometimes dislike Assange so much. He does not have a charming personality, but he publishes information and doesn't really need one. For me, as for Madison and those who wrote the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution, is absolute freedom of the press -- unabridged freedom of the press.

[cstanleytech]

174. But see I dont dislike him, I just dont believe that this is a vaste conspiracy against him.

After all if the US had really wanted to pull a snatch and grab like it did in Italy a few years ago they would have done it by now and if they just wanted him removed he would have been dead long ago.

[JDPriestly]

183. Unless they want to establish legal precedent that will intimidate the press. That is totally

possible. This is not about Assange or Wikileaks or even the necessity of secrecy when it comes to information that truly should be classified. This may be about establishing government control over the press when it comes to certain kinds of information and reporting. In fact, that is what I think it is. And that is why I defend Assange and Wikileaks on DU.

There has been throughout our history a struggle between the paranoid types who don't want Americans to have access to certain ideas or information and those like me who think that a pretty broad spectrum of information has to be available to voters if our democratic, representative government is to work.

We need to know when our military and government act irrationally or wrongly, when the violate human rights, when they cross the line of decency. It is our job as voters to keep that kind of conduct in check. And we cannot do that if we don't have open, free and full information about what is going on.

The situation in Benghazi was completely different. The information that has been disclosed has to do with the quality and quantity of our security and defenses in certain kinds of locations in the world. That is a matter of national security because it permits potential enemies to gauge what our future actions will be. The Republicans have been using it to gain political points for their side. That is irresponsible and unpatriotic.

That our troops wantonly kill innocent people or journalists whether the killing is reckless or intentional or really just mistaken is something we voters need to know. We don't need to know and shouldn't tell our enemies just how we are allocating our limited foreign service security forces.

[cstanleytech]

184. I see alot of conjecture there without anything solid though.

By that I mean you have nothing to show that its a conspiracy by the US and Sweden nor do you have anything to show that the US has even issued a warrant for Assage even as a witness.
I get you want to support wikileaks, I do because they have done alot of good but blindly supporting Assage in regards to this whole rape accusation in Sweden isnt the way to do it.

[JDPriestly]

212. All the US has to do is to promise everyone that they consider Wikileak's activities to be as much

an exercise of the First Amendment as the New York Times' very recent article about deficient security in our embassies and consulates. The NYT article is far more damaging and dangerous to our security than anything Assange or Wikileaks published. You have to struggle to get through the information Wikileaks published (the more so if you are not familiar with American culture), and it is mostly from what I could tell, historical. But the NYT article practically bared the flesh of our apparently inadequate (and inevitably inadequate) foreign service security. No one and especially not I would question that the NYT is protected by the 1st Amendment in all they publish.

If the US promised that Wikileaks and Assange would not be punished, if they for example brought litigation and lost the case, then Assange might be able to go to Sweden to respond to the charges there against him.

I have no idea what Assange is thinking. I have no relationship with him or Wikileaks -- not even in the remotest, but I am very concerned about the First Amendment. The protections of the Fourth Amendment have been rendered practically useless, the more so in recent years. I do not want to see the First Amendment protections eaten away in the same manner.

I don't know who leaked the information about our foreign service security deficiencies to the NYT -- probably Republicans in Congress -- but it was irresponsible and maybe treason.

[randome]

213. I don't think anyone would have a problem with Wikileaks facilitating whistleblowing.

But stealing military secrets and publishing them is the same thing as spying. It's even worse when no one screens the documents or validates them.

[JDPriestly]

218. How do you differentiate between "military secrets" and news?

Why are the executive and the military given the authority or permitted the authority to determine what is or is not news?

The right of the military or the executive to keep secrets is not spelled out in the Constitution, but the right of the press to freedom is.

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

So far Manning has not been convicted of anything, and I don't think that the leaks he is alleged to have provided to the media gave aid or comfort to any of our enemies.

If anything has given aid and comfort to our enemies, it's that we tortured prisoners. Our enemies can console themselves that after all who are we to criticize them since we do the same very evil things that they do. If we put little value on human life and dignity, that comforts others including our enemies who abuse and disrespect their fellow man.

It is that our government does these reprehensible things that aids and comforts our enemies, not that some journalist lets us know that we do these things.

Should our government be able to limit our information just to protect itself from the fact that we would feel disgust at what it does if we knew what it is?

Military secrets are how well or poorly manned our embassies and consulates are, troop movements, the identity of intelligence agents. We have lots of legitimate secrets. But what the Wikileaks published???? Not what I saw anyway.

[randome]

219. How would you know if they're just 'protecting themselves' or...

...protecting something else? Do you personally want to review every document and action by the U.S. military?

I know that the torture that was carried out demeans us and makes our lives MORE risky, not less. But Wikileaks had nothing to do with that. In fact, Wikileaks changed nothing by publishing embarrassing diplomatic cables.

If they had anything that would appreciably improve our lives -physically or ethically- I'd say more power to them. But they don't. Like Anonymous, they just want to fuck with the system.

Sometimes fucking with the system results in good things. But that's almost by accident.

[cstanleytech]

215. Ok lets break this down.

All the US has to do is to promise everyone that they consider Wikileak's activities to be as much an exercise of the First Amendment as the New York Times' very recent article about deficient security in our embassies and consulates.

Wont happen in any form while the Manning case is ongoing.


If the US promised that Wikileaks and Assange would not be punished

Same for this, it wont happen while the Manning case is ongoing.


then Assange might be able to go to Sweden to respond to the charges there against him.

Sorry, but the issue Assage has in a court is between him and Sweden and him and Sweden alone.

I am very concerned about the First Amendment. The protections of the Fourth Amendment have been rendered practically useless, the more so in recent years. I do not want to see the First Amendment protections eaten away in the same manner.

Good, everyone should always be concerned about the First amendment but just dont use it a club to willfully blind yourself when someone is charged with a crime in another country.

[treestar]

2. How is it defamation?

Australian law would have to be very strange in order for that to count. One, it's possibly just an opinion. An American lawyer could have that opinion and it's no way defamatory to state your opinion that someone else's actions violated a law. Two, what is so false about it?

We hadn't heard about him in the media for a few days. I was wondering what was next. And why doesn't he go home? Does he accuse his own nation of being willing to turn him over to the US?

[SESKATOW]

4. in a word - yes!!!!!

[MrMickeysMom]

5. Australia law is as strange in this as United States law is...

... and neither one should he return to until his ability to deliver the news is recognized by both.

[wtmusic]

8. Why doesn't he go home?

There are London police outside the Ecuadorean embassy 24/7 who will arrest him and deport him to the U.S. (by way of Sweden) the moment he steps out the door.

[cstanleytech]

11. Oh, you found evidence that he is to be deported to the US? Link please. nt

[wtmusic]

14. Here ya go.

The U.S. wants him. Cameron, like Blair, is Washington's poodle. It's not rocket science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/02/julian-assange-right-fear-prosecution

[George II]

16. Funny how all the "news" articles like this show up in "commentary" and "opinion" sections?

[wtmusic]

17. Who said it was news?

The opinion is that it will happen, and solid evidence is presented. If you think Assange should take the chance, you'd make a lousy lawyer.

[George II]

22. Obviously the poster since this is in "Late Breaking News" !!!!

[wtmusic]

23. You're confused

The story about the suit is news.

The op/ed about him being extradited is...an op/ed.

[George II]

24. No, I'm not confused - reread the first post of mine to which you replied:

"news" was in quotes.........think about it.........

So where is there ANY documented factual statement that Assange will be extradited to ANY country? It's all pure speculation and "commentary". And you posted that link in response to a request for "evidence".

So, who is confused?

[wtmusic]

25. OK I'm thinking...gimme a second. nt

[cstanleytech]

26. Just because he fears he "may" be charged with a crime isnt evidence that he has been charged.

Now can you or can you not link to something to show that yes as of this moment a warrant is out for his arrest in the US?

[wtmusic]

29. Ah, so he should step outside and see whether he's going to face the death penalty in the US...

O-k.

[George II]

32. The streets of London would be mighty empty if everyone was as paranoid as him.

[wtmusic]

35. No kidding! This moron thinks they're actually out to get him.

[George II]

47. If they were there waiting for him to leave, don't you think they'd be looking AT the building??

[freshwest]

80. You have a point there, but who knows how long they've been cooling their heels there.

[JDPriestly]

109. Are you suggesting that the guards are standing there like the guards at the factory

that Romney visited in China? That is, to keep people from going in rather than to keep people from leaving?

If you believe the one, you might also believe the other.

I believe neither. The guards in Britain and the guards in China are there to prevent certain people from leaving. They are essentially prison guards, whatever they call themselves.

[George II]

117. I'm not suggesting anything...

...it's the Assange cultists that "suggest" and "believe" things that can't be documented.

And making a connection between Assange fleeing from his responsibility in Sweden and Romney visiting China? Where does that come from?

[JDPriestly]

130. It comes from the statement about what the guards are doing in front of the Ecuadorian Embassy in

London.

[freshwest]

79. They don't look very eager to do anything. 'Just doin' my job, Sir.'

Hope they got overtime for this gig. He's just one guy, this is symbolic, not serious. If anyone was serious, this would be over. It makes me wonder who's kidding who.

[cstanleytech]

58. No, he should step out and do what he agreed to do in the first place when he was granted bail

and turn himself in order to be deported to "Sweden" which is what country he has legal problems with.
If however in the future he should face deportation in the US (which I doubt he does) he can appeal to the Swedish, EU and UN courts.

[BetterThanNoSN]

118. yikes..

Are you really that obtuse?
OK, Assange can prove us all wrong by giving himself up to the Swedish govt. and when they turn him over and he disappears, oh well, who coulda seen that happening? His only avenue of vindication will be his demise, nice options.

[cstanleytech]

136. The claim he might be "disappeared" is imo complete and utter BS.

The man is well known by the media and you can bet anything causing him to be taken would be noticed and the US government isnt stupid enough to piss off the EU and or Sweden by trying that kind of stunt because then he would be proven right and it would hurt any future extradition attempts by the US or Sweden for decades to come.

[struggle4progress]

37. That's propapanda from one of Assange's many lawyers, Michael Ratner

[wtmusic]

39. You apparently have no idea what propaganda is.

It's a legal opinion and a good one.

[struggle4progress]

64. Without real reference to statute, legislative history, or court case, it can't be "legal opinion":

it's just Ratner making vacuous noises about his client, in hopes of stirring up sympathy

[wtmusic]

84. Did you just make that up?

Legal opinion can encompass many facets of law, including the potential for prosecution.

[struggle4progress]

99. yawn

[wtmusic]

102. I'll take that for a "yes". nt

[freshwest]

86. If you pull it all together, yeah. But few of the writings on Assange, pro or con, are objective.

They seem to be highly opinionated, often with snarks and accusations. Link says:

The US claims to lead the world in freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the role these play as the foundations of democratic government. These freedoms do not die when governments feel threatened or are embarrassed by the publication of information. As Justices Stewart and White famously said, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defence and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry – in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government".

Governments feeling threatened and embarrassed? As if they have feelings, or something?

A parliamentary government can be said to be 'falling' or overturned' or 'disbanding.' The USA's government is not so easily moved to action and seems incapable of being threatened or embarrassed by anything whatsoever. It takes elections to change anything, not public opinion, informed or not.

I'm not being facetious. Do you see why so many of these passionate appeals don't seem to be working to end the stalemate?

It appears that no one is going to budge, nor are they going to take action. No matter what the media says.

[wtmusic]

90. You don't think US breaches of international law are an embarrassment?

For example - that Hillary Clinton ordered agents to steal credit card data from the UN?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

The tip of the iceberg.

[freshwest]

95. Embarrassing to who? Me? Yeah, if I was in charge. Were they to Bush? Was slavery an embarrassment

When it was legal? It took a war, elections and more time and even then, the USA has never formerly apologized for all those years.

Governments do not have feelings, and a lot of Americans, which does not include me, are ready to do another Iraq, etc. They are incapable of being embarrassed. They make a damn good living off war.

The only thing that will change American behavior are Americans, not international law as we know all countries pick and choose what international laws they will follow or not.

I have been extremely grieved at many times in my life over the actions done in our names, but have come to accept that tens of millions of Americans think this is all fine and dandy. Not at DU, but the point I'm making here is that we don't have what more seemingly genteel nations have with 'votes of no confidence' to change the path of government here as fast as we want.

It's all about elections, they are the only way to shake things up. That being said, I don't feel the USA is going to do a damn thing about Assange.

The government charged others and tried to get them, like the Lockerbie bomber. Nothing really happened after years of maneuvering. He was never brought here.

And to my way of thinking, the papers leaked by Wikileaks or Assange, didn't change anything anywhere. We are not royals who get to chop people's heads off when we are angry. We have two ways to get what we want, bombing and bribing. Sometimes in combination.

We're not going to shoot a missile at the embassy in London. The UK is making a show of keeping Assange cornered. We don't have the money to bribe Correa to give him to us.

He still has not been charged by the US. All we have are rumors and speculation. If we wanted him, we would have charged him and I don't think he broke any laws. Manning broke his oath and he was charged. What would the charges be?

Why would the big bad bullies of the USA play this game? Because he leaked a lot of cables, that were in someone's hands already, who could have been bribed? Because the cables said such awful stuff that the world has quit doing business with us over it?

That didn't happen. There is no country to invade over this. Governments cannot be shamed, only people. Nothing is likely to happen. This will just drag out for years.

I think you mentioned Sweden should video interview Assange while he's in the embassy. I agree. Get this crap over with and move onto other stuff.

[wtmusic]

98. We agree on the end result

It will drag out for years, possibly his lifetime. But just because Assange is basically under house arrest doesn't mean Wikileaks is going anywhere. If anything, it's made his supporters more committed and brought in more money. The war crimes he exposed will get answered to someday, but until then they will make any American pleas for human rights just sound hypocritical.

The effects of international reputation are difficult to quantify. African-Americans will never be paid reparations for slavery, although Native Americans have been compensated, many decades after wrongs were committed. It does come into play during negotiations, and it does come into play during elections. Public opinion does matter.

[AntiFascist]

153. Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act...

and the <grand> jury is still out on this, so speak. The charge would be specifically related to Assange conspiring with Manning to gain access to the cables.

Assange and his team feel that this is one of the most vulnerable points in time right before Manning's trial because it is possible Manning might be turned and then provide evidence that Assange helped him.

Regardless of whether or not Sweden is conspiring with the US to secure Assange, if prosecution against Assange proceeds, then the US may likely ask for his extradition at the time the decision is made.

It is just another myth being promoted by the anti-Assange crowd that the US has no interest whatsoever in bringing him to justice.

[freshwest]

155. There is no anti-Assange crowd. There is likely an anti-Wikileaks, anti-Anonymous crowd.

But I don't think they are here at DU, unless they are offended by what they see as a threat to... something nebulous.

There are no secrets to be ferreted out of Assange being tortured, etc. It's public knowledge what was done, how it was done, and who did it in regards to the diplomatic cables. They've been released. The world did not come to an end, it's pretty much business as usual. Only Ecaudor severed relations, none of the other countries did. So it didn't change the status quo. Did anyone die from these leaks?

Personifying or anthromorphing governments is pointless. The USA either does or doesn't have enough to charge Assange with Espionage right now. If they did, they could work a deal with the UK to get him, and crush Wikileaks, although it's already served its purpose. It exposed things, it has nothing more to do for the world.

This has been reduced from what was supposed to be a liberating stream of information to enlighten all of mankind and bring down corruption, to just one person. Mankind's fate does not depend on just one person, it depends on individuals working together. Now we see even governments are not working to resolve this matter, they don't care.

I am not anti-Assange. I don't believe he has with Wikileaks commited a crime against any nation. We once again have a President like Clinton, who did not think war was the first response, but police action, sanctions and diplomacy. While Correa did expell American diplomats because of some cables that revealed the USA was not acting in good faith with Ecaudor, supposedly, we did not declare war on them or they with us. Expelling diplomats over failed negotiations are everyday occurences and the right of any nation.

It appears that this may the EU's legal authority flexing its muscles again and they seem very determined to do so. The head of Sea Shepherd fled his bail hearing after he'd been arrested off the coast of Latin America for what the Japanese saw as a crime against their soveriegnty by Sea Shepherd an taken to Germany. The operators of the Pirate Bay were recently arrested in Cambodia for charges by the Swedish government based on international agreements on copyright law. I can see why some think the USA is the invisible hand in all of this. But there's no good reason.

When people start claiming that the offense to the USA is that the government of this country is 'embarrassed,' I can't see that. And that is exactly the reason for all this concern, that the USA will act to protect its 'reputation' by going after Assange.

Really? What reputation, and with who? Is this nation ashamed of the number of nukes it owns? The number of battleships, planes, drones, tanks or the number of people killed in Iraq?

I don't think so, and to act like it has feelings is just blaming it for what we have allowed this nation to become. The world sees little difference between Americans and our government and what it does.

This government is not ashamed of itself very often. It should be, but it is not. This is not a matter of hurt feelings or ego like a king might act up over.

It's about a huge amount of money and corruption and human rights violations in prosecuting a war that should have never begun. That is the minority view, apparently many don't agree with me. But the part of Assange or Wikileaks has been played in this drama and it is over. Nothing would change materially from Assange being in custody as a guest of the USA.

I feel bad for Assange. He may be a jerk, may be a rapist, but I feel a lot worse for the young man with less experience and no support system, Bradley Manning. I feel that he was used by Assange to become famous or to make a better world, take your pick. Nothing Assange can do will change the world. He already played his part on the world stage. Manning is the one really suffering, JMHO.

[AntiFascist]

157. Sorry but I have to address a number of inaccuracies in your post...

there certainly is an anti-Assange crowd, both here and within government. The same group of DUers (one in particular) is constantly posting every single negative story they can get their hands on and refers to Assange by the first 3 letters of his last name (which demonstrates the level of maturity). There is a long list of Republicans who, 2 years ago, was calling for Assange's death or even assassination. AG Eric Holder made statements that the DOJ was looking into several ways to prosecute him "at the highest levels". Even the Obama Administration is "divided" on the wisdom of prosecuting Assange, which means that there are still those who want him prosecuted. All you have to do is look through some of the leaked Stratfor emails to see the intense level of vitriol some have against the man.

As I previously pointed out, the US government could gain more information to prosecute Assange from no less than Manning himself, particularly during the pre-trial period (his trial starts early next year). The government could likely gain valuable info from Assange directly, for instance other sources similar to Manning who might prove a threat to the corrupt forces left in government after the Bush years.

I could care less about "feeling bad" for Assange, and he may very well have committed a crime by helping to hack into a secret database. What concerns me much more is the attempt to sweep this all under the rug as if it doesn't matter, and the far greater injustice of ignoring the corruption.

[wtmusic]

166. "Crush" Wikileaks?

Impossible...genie's out of the bottle. Wikileaks has spread to hundreds of servers and has millions of supporters worldwide.

[99th_Monkey]

55. "US Designates Assange 'Enemy of State'"

Happened just a few days ago, on Sept 27.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32568.htm

This would seem to suggest that the US would indeed extradite
Mr. Assange, were he to return to Sweden, no?

[struggle4progress]

123. Many people seem to have serious reading comprehension problems

Nowhere in the documents referenced by your link is there anything like Assange designated 'Enemy of State' -- that's just another Assangist hallucination

[99th_Monkey]

145. Brother! You can say that again.

HEADLINE OF ARTICLE --> "US Designated Assange 'Enemy of State"

FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SAID ARTICLE --> "Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of deaTH."

Now please tell me, who is having "reading comprehension problems" again?

ps - haven't we had this conversation before?

[randome]

147. The only attribution is to documents they did not deign to print.

An announcement without corroborating sources is rather lame. Anyone can print a headline. Is there anything in the article that supports the characterization of Assange as an 'enemy'? Nothing but the writer of the article, apparently.

[99th_Monkey]

148. So it's your contention that these news sites just pulled all this out of their ass?

"The documents ... record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.

The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".

~snip~

"US Vice-President Joe Biden labelled Mr Assange a "high-tech terrorist" in December 2010 and US congressional leaders have called for him to be charged with espionage."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32568.htm



I suppose you are also going to dismiss Assange's attorney, Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, and Common Dreams dot com ... as ALL deluded, mistaken, insane? Please.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/27/exposed_us_may_have_designated_julian
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/27

[randome]

149. It isn't a news article unless it references corroborated documents.

VP Biden's remarks are not indicative of any ongoing conspiracy to 'get' Assange. And attorneys will say all sorts of shit to put their clients in a better light.

The attorneys did NOT, however, argue this stupid stuff in front of the U.K. courts because they knew they had nothing.

At least your 3rd link contains an actual link to real documents but none of this proves that the U.S. is out to 'get' Assange. Of course the U.S. wants to have some sort of mechanism in place to prevent any other mentally disturbed individuals like Manning from dumping military secrets to foreign nationals. That still doesn't support any of the wild conspiracies being bandied about.

Wikileaks has done some cool stuff. But Assange is not cool.

[99th_Monkey]

150. Your painstaking denial and selective myopia regarding Assange is duly noted. ~nt

[randome]

151. Well. So much for debating points. Aspersions are easier to throw about, I suppose.

If you're going to put my name on your enemy's list, could you at least put it in bold type? I like to stand out in a crowd.

[sabrina 1]

176. Not to worry about standing out in a crowd! But you have yet to provide a single credible argument

to support your reasons for supporting this travesty of justice. And since I have provided you multiple times with facts about this case which you mostly ignore, I won't bother to do so again.

This is now going into the third year and the Prosecutor is still refusing to do what she should have done over two years ago because she does not want to file charges in a case she knows is bogus and was from the beginning when it was rightfully dismissed.

The whole world knows what this is all about.

I hope Wikileaks does file suit. I will certainly be willing to donate to any effort they engage in to bring this whole mess into the light. The Swedish Prosecutor will never bring this case to court because she knows that once she does, the world will see the whold sham for what it is.

[struggle4progress]

152. You evidently don't understand the nature of the charge or why it might be brought

[99th_Monkey]

154. I confess that there IS something I don't understand

I don't understand how someone can read 2+2=4
and insist that the answer is really =5, because I
somehow "don't understand" some mysterious
and as yet unspoken revelation as to some truer
and more rarefied understanding of mathematics.

[struggle4progress]

187. Are Troops Talking to Assange ‘Communicating With the Enemy’?

Sep 28, 2012 3:43pm
By Jake Tapper

... Air Force counter-intelligence documents obtained by the Sydney Morning Herald suggest that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks could be charged with “communicating with the enemy.”

But George Little, a spokesman for the Pentagon, tells ABC News that the “Department of Defense does not regard Mr. Assange as a member of the ‘enemy,’ a military objective, or someone who should be dealt with by the US military.”

Little says the Pentagon “has warned Mr. Assange and Wikileaks against soliciting service members to break the law by providing classified information to them, and that it is our view that continued possession by Wikileaks of classified information belonging to the United States government represents a continuing violation of law. We regard this as a law enforcement matter.”

The documents were part of a probe of whether an analyst violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 904, article 104 ...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/are-troops-talking-to-assange-communicating-with-the-enemy/

[reorg]

197. apparently they are suspicious of "communicating with the enemy"

even if they only talk about being sympathetic with Wikileaks and Bradley Manning.

Their bank accounts will be checked, their travel habits investigated, all their colleagues interrogated.

Because it makes them suspicious to be traitors. They are supposed to act like they're engaged in a a war, and Wikileaks is apparently considered the direct conduit to the enemy. I really wonder what would happen if they were actually talking to Assange. Immediate arrest?

[randome]

198. Well, talking to someone who is, in essence, a foreign spy, might be considered noteworthy.

[struggle4progress]

206. I'll guess you just didn't read the FOIA release carefully. The investigation in this case concerned

a women who, contrary to order, began to frequent the Wikileaks website and who, contrary to advice, repeatedly attended Assange's trial. She also began to use screen names indicating sympathy with Assange, Wikileaks, and Manning; she further regularly posted pro-Assange Twitter messages; and in addition, she associated with some pro-Assange and/or pro-Manning groups in the UK. She also reportedly exhibited some psychological symptoms during this period. Since she had SIPR NET access and a Top Secret security clearance, there was some concern, and an investigation was launched, into whether she had communicated with the enemy. She was denied further access to restricted information. The investigation apparently produced no evidence that she had leaked anything

The investigation actually began due to a complaint that she did not follow a lawful order (the 11 January 2011 memorandum), and the natural reading of that fact is simply that the military had directed all personnel to avoid contact with Wikileaks in the aftermath of Manning's arrest; that would explain why she was advised not to attend Assange's trial, for example

Thomas A. Ferguson, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, wrote the 11 Feb 2011 memorandum, directing DoD personnel to "follow established procedures for accessing classified information only through authorized means." The beginning page of the actual FOIA release (after the two page FOIA cover letter) states clearly:

... SUBJECT allegedly visited the website Wikileaks in violation of a Memorandum From the Undersecretary of Defense, dated 11 Jan 11, which violated Article 92, Failure to Obey, UCMJ ...

This is simply because: accessing the website Wikileaks is not an established procedure for accessing classified information through authorized means. Such access would contradict the lawful general order or regulation embodied in Ferguson's 11 January 2011

Thomas A. Ferguson
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=230

Ferguson's 11 Feb 2011 memorandum is available as pdf from the FAS site:

... It is the responsibility of every DoD employee and contractor to protect classified information and to follow established procedures for accessing classified information only through authorized means ...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/wl-notice.pdf

From beginning page of the actual FOIA release (after the two page FOIA cover letter):

... SUBJECT allegedly visited the website Wikileaks in violation of a Memorandum From the Undersecretary of Defense, dated 11 Jan 11, which violated Article 92, Failure to Obey, UCMJ ...

Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 USC § 892 - Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/892

It should be clear, to anyone who reads the entire dozen pages, that the actual concern, and the actual point of the investigation, was whether she posed a security risk and whether unauthorized releases had occurred. Her financial transactions were scrutinized for that reason; she was asked whether she had released any information; persons, who knew her, were asked whether she might release any information; and she discussed with investigators, methods by which information could be released:

... <b6 b7c> believed SUBJECT would not divulge any classification to any unauthorized individuals ... SUBJECT had access to SIPR but <b6 b7c> did not believe SUBJECT looked on SIPR often ... <b6 b7c> believed SUBJECT had the potential to leak classified information ... Lt Col <b6 b7c> explained that in light of SUBJECT's related feeling towards USAF and military service, he intended to suspend SUBJECT's access to SIPR ... <b6 b7c> was unaware if SUBJECT traveled outside the UK ... <b6 b7c> did not think SUBJECT was a National Security risk ... SUBJECT's access to classified information has since been revoked ... SUBJECT explained that at no time was she ever asked to provide or supply any classified FOUO information ... SUBJECT stated that she was not subverted ... SUBJECT pointed out that SIPRnet access was not closely monitored ... SUBJECT reiterated that she had never disclosed any classified or for official use only (FOUO) information and was never approached to provide any military information ...

The matter was finally closed because there was no evidence she had released any information to unauthorized persons

[reorg]

209. oh, I did, but you seem to be struggling to get a grasp

what the investigation was about.

The ominous memorandum (oh yes, I read that, too!) does nowhere forbid any contacts to Wikileaks and the suspect could only have "violated" this "lawful order" by downloading leaked documents, not by reading about them on the web.

"Natural reading", LOL! Cheap pretenses, after a paranoid snitch ratted her out because she was a godless liberal who told people that she liked Wikileaks and that dangerous criminal Manning. Evil traitors, everywhere!

[99th_Monkey]

211. Whoa! Great post. Thanks for all those details. Very helpful. nt

[99th_Monkey]

210. Apparently so.

I guess this really comes down to who is to be believed?

Sydney Morning Herald journalists or a DoD spokesperson.
I'm going with the journalists; esp. since DoD has every
reason to deceive and manipulate public opinion regarding
all things Wikileaks/Assange/Manning.

[AntiFascist]

214. A Pentagon spokesman said...

that neither Assange nor Wikileaks were considered an "enemy" per se, however he did not deny that the FOIA document was in fact referring to Assange when it detailed the investigation, which was all about "communicating with the enemy". All of the extra information struggle4progress is throwing at us to confuse the issue, merely confuses the issue. Communicating with Assange or Wikileaks was considered "communicating with the enemy" even though they are not legally considered enemy targets "per se". It's really as simple as that.

[99th_Monkey]

216. The distinction you make is very helpful in understanding this situation

and spot on IMHO. Thanks.

[treestar]

18. Why via Sweden?

Why is Sweden necessary? UK can just extradite him to the US directly.

[wtmusic]

20. As a cover for the bullshit allegations of sexual misconduct

You know, to preserve appearances. For fools who need that kind of thing.

[treestar]

28. Why preserve appearances that way?

There's a risk Sweden could acquit him. But there is no reason for the US to go through Sweden.

[wtmusic]

30. Whatever

You seem to find the fact that the UK is spending $7M/year to catch an alleged sex offender perfectly reasonable.

I have some doubts.

[treestar]

31. are you like a teenager?

The UK may just not like people who thumb their nose at their laws. Bail jumpers usually don't cost so much to catch due to their not making such a fuss of themselves. And not having this exotic crutch to fall back on that they are somehow saviors of the world.

It's perfectly reasonable - why should they let him just walk? He's the one costing the money with his fancy maneuvers.

Maybe they don't want him hacking into their government files either.

[wtmusic]

33. I have teenage kids who are smart enough to recognize a trumped-up charge

but get this - there are people in their 20s, 30s, and older who take this sex-offender stuff at face value.

Can you believe it?

[treestar]

44. So who has to answer to sex offender charges and who doesn't?

Where is the line to be drawn? Do they just have to claim some reason the world wants to persecute them?

[LadyHawkAZ]

46. Usually it's when there is some evidence- ANY evidence

to support the accuser's claims, or in this case the claims of the state. Are you really suggesting that any and all accusations MUST be taken to trial, regardless of lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary?

[George II]

49. It's still an investigation, and he said he would cooperate with the Swedish investigation...

....clearly he Romneyed (ooops), lied!

[LadyHawkAZ]

51. He cooperated up until it got political

hasn't this point gone round and round and round and round and round already? Persons who have chosen to believe it's all about RAAAAAPPPPEEEEE!!1! have chosen to do so deliberately in the face of all facts.

[George II]

60. How did it get "political", and who made it that way?

[LadyHawkAZ]

71. No evidence, initial charges dropped...

days later Ny, MUCH higher up the ladder, ordered it reopened because... well, because it involved Assange, apparently, since there still wasn't anything to prosecute. There's even less now, since the second woman that so many of us were saying all along was likely lying, was in fact lying. So we have only the younger woman, who says they had consensual sex i.e. no rape.

So your answer in short form: Because it was Julian Assange, and Marianne Ny.

So, why is this still being pursued to the point of a near-miss on an international incident, by a country that doesn't prosecute sexual assault charges as a rule and with no evidence? I'm happy to listen to your theories. I'll laugh at them, but I'll listen.

[treestar]

50. Yes, why should not all accusations that end up in indictment or the country's equivalent be taken t

trial? Follow the legal system of the nation. So where do you draw the line about who is above the law? What do they do to prove they should not be prosecuted like anyone else would be in a similar situation?

[LadyHawkAZ]

52. Once more with feeling: evidence is where the line is traditionally drawn

and when evidence is nonexistent, does not support the claim of the prosecution or has been demonstrably tampered with, that claim becomes invalid. For everyone not named Assange, Sweden drops those cases, as do most other Western countries. I know you know that. It's been posted enough times.

So where do YOU draw the line? How much evidence do you feel needs to pile up on behalf of the accused before an already questionable case can be dropped? Bear in mind that under the standard you're advocating, I could randomly accuse you of anything, and you'd have to go to jail for it while you await trial.

[treestar]

72. So he can challenge the Swedish system

if is civilized.

If the US, he can easily claim the arrest violates the 4, 5th or 6th amendment or the 8th 10th or 14th. Just get the lawyers to do it.

[LadyHawkAZ]

89. It is demonstrably not civilized

as can be evidenced by their track record on actual rapists as opposed to people named Assange, and you're not answering the question.

[treestar]

112. If they have their equivalent of probable cause

they can try him as they would anyone else. If there are other cases where charges were dropped for substantive reasons, he and his lawyers should have brought them up in Swedish court rather than he flee the nation!

These charges are not made up out of nowhere. The women came forward and they DO want him prosecuted. That's been debunked too. If he's so innocent, they will not be able to prove their cases.

[LadyHawkAZ]

140. What's their probable cause?

One woman's story has already been debunked by the physical evidence. For some reason, neither you nor s4p, who so loves him some Assange links any other time, want to address that one- the older woman, who was the driving force behind the younger going to the police, was lying. Under any standard of evidence in any civilized country, that would result in a dismissal of at least half and likely all charges, since she did influence the younger woman and even took her to a police officer who was a friend of hers.

I know you really, really don't want to hear it and want even less to admit it, but there is nothing here that would result in a prosecution for your average Sven off the street. Even if the younger woman's story is true, the behavior of both the other accuser and the state have destroyed any possibility of their being a fair trial.

So once again: how much evidence do you feel needs to pile up on behalf of the accused before an already questionable case can be dropped? I'll double down: why do you feel this one case should be held to a different standard than any other case? Is it the charge, or just the name of the person being charged? Why, specifically, should this case not be dropped? Point me to something good and specific that would hold up in an unbiased court.

[wtmusic]

65. Assange has promised to go to Sweden for a simple promise

he won't be extradited. He didn't get it.

So it really has nothing to do with the sex charges...does it?

[treestar]

73. Why not?

He can answer to those charges as well as anyone else who Sweden claims is guilty of similar charges. Why is he so hesitant?

[wtmusic]

74. If you can't see, I can't explain it to you.

Why is the sky up?

[treestar]

75. So why can't he answer to the Swedish charges

as well as any other Swede or person who spent time there and managed to get themselves charged under Swedish law?

[wtmusic]

76. He has answered to them, you really don't want to know anyway,

and I'm bored with trying to explain to you why the sky is up.

Bye

[sabrina 1]

175. There are no charges. Going into the third year and the Swedish Prosecutor still refuses to file a

'case'. I think by now everyone knows she has no case. Not that she ever did. The 'case' was rightfully dismissed early on and was dredged up again by one questionable attorney who inserted himself into the 'case'. And even he admitted 'we have a very weak case'. This has destroyed Sweden's credibility as a country where anyone could feel secure they might be treated fairly if there is a political agenda.

[azureblue]

59. especially when the "Sex offense"

Is failure to use or using a broken condom. In Sweden, this is a finable offense at worst, something on the order of about $150. This law was written to reduce the spread of STDs.

Here's the layout:

The original prosecutor dropped the charges for lack of evidence- it was basically one person's word against another, over a charge of not using or using a broken condom.

Then that prosecutor's decision was overruled and another prosecutor charged Assange with this crime.

Assange, before he left Sweden, offered to come talk, but they said it was not necessary. So Assange travels to England.
Note that, if Sweden wanted him so bad for questioning, tehy would have stopped him from leaving the country and detained him right there. But they did not.

Then, recalling that all this - the charges, etc., is not the basis for extradition. Sweden wants him there for "questioning".

OK. Let's move to:

While at the embassy, both Assange and the Ecuadorians offered to interview by CCTV, something that is done on a regular basis in Europe, but Sweden refused. Why? Assange is certainly not the first person to be interviewed for court matters, and certainly, considering the level of offense, this should have been done and his testimony taken.

Note that, at this stage of the game, it is still a matter of one person's word against another, again, of condom misuse.

So England's massive over reaction, is very suspect, along with Sweden's parsing of words when asked if they would allow US extradition from Sweden.

Further, it is a violation of international treaty to arrest a person traveling under protection of an embassy on the way from the embassy out of the country, especially, ESPECIALLY, where no crime has been committed- remember- Sweden claims it wants Assange there for "questioning". But England has said they will arrest Assange if he tries to leave England for Ecuador.

The US's decision to call Assange a terrorist, is without foundation. The report showed there is no proof that the leaks caused any loss of life of any US citizen, or breached any information that can be used against the government in war time, or that would be considered "spying". What is in the leaks is proof of US misdeeds and the US using its power to further US corporate interests abroad, and it includes names and dates and relationships that the US does not want to come to light.

So the chain is this: Get Assange out of England to Sweden, where the Swedes will give him up to the US and call it a technicality, then he will be brought to the US to be tried as a spy / terrorist.

Back to topic, since the PM has prejudicially labeled Assange, and that statement was used against him, even though it had no basis in fact or law, then she is now liable, under English and Aussie law. And the courts in both countries take a very dim view of this sort of thing - there are plenty of tabloids who have been successfully sued over far less matters. And, as we have already seen, the courts will stay on it until all parties have been ferreted out. His goal is obvious: it isn't the money - it's the deposition. His lawyers plan to make her explain herself in a court of law, which, if she is honest, will expose the US as being the instigator in all of this. So watch as the US will step up and back her up, or try to concoct more charges against Assange.

[msanthrope]

85. So he's hiding out to avoid a $150 fine?

Here's the text of the EAW--can you show me which offense you are talking about????

.
1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3.On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

The framework list is ticked for “Rape”. This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are
described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf

[struggle4progress]

124. ... This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts

that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape ...
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

[wordpix]

156. she's sleeping so how does she know he raped her? Did she scream? Say no? Did he force her to

sleep with him (rhetorical question, the answer is NO). Typically (I know this as a woman myself) the average woman wakes up if a man starts having sex with her.

This whole "he raped me" story is like Swiss cheese - lots of holes in it.

[struggle4progress]

158. The case will be tried in Sweden. It's inappropriate to try such matters in the media.

I have no opinion on what the outcome should be. If the case is indeed as flimsy as the Assangists claim, the whole matter should be resolved quickly to Assange's advantage

Assange, however, does not much act as if he believes the case is flimsy, since he fled Sweden while the authorities were negotiating with his lawyer to interrogate him, since he's spent about a year and a half fighting extradition in the UK courts, and since he finally jumped bail to avoid extradition

[wordpix]

193. yes, if he's innocent he should hang around, get extradicted & possibly found guilty on a

ridiculous charge, and rot in jail as you would do, apparently.

I don't know...if I were accused of a "he said-she said" crime with no evidence, I might jump bail, too. Should one hang around for the legal lynching when so accused?

[George II]

48. That would ruin his hopes of becoming an international martyr

[SESKATOW]

43. Rhetorical

[wtmusic]

10. "a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions"

Could be. To prove it, he would basically have to present evidence that what he did was legal under US law, which could set up a proxy for a U.S. trial and possibly vindicate him.

That might be the reason he's doing it.

[treestar]

19. Is that Australian law?

Well his Sydney lawyers will determine it. But I would think their law is somewhat similar to the English common law system.

Julia Gillard might also have some type of immunity as PM.

[George II]

15. He probably missed seeing his name in the headlines so concocted this crazy accusation.

[treestar]

21. +1 especially since she said this in late 2010

Has he saved this up for now or just realized it now as something that could be his new news story?

[Swagman]

125. the Australian government has refused to re-issue him with a passport

despite him being a citizen.

No conspiracy there of course.

[treestar]

133. That doesn't seem likely

This is a first world country - no country refuses to issue a passport to one of its citizens. So I'd like to see the whys behind it. Maybe he refused to produce some reasonable document. Does Australia agree to extradite him to Sweden? That's probably his reason to stay in "Ecuador."

[struggle4progress]

163. The UK confiscated his passport at the start of the extradition fight

to prevent him from absconding



... As part of the bail conditions, Assange must also surrender his passport, obey a curfew at a specified address, wear an electronic tag and report to a local police station every evening ...
Julian Assange remains in jail after bail contested
Agencies : London, Wed Dec 15 2010, 08:58 hrs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/julian-assange-remains-in-jail-after-bail-contested/725018/

[hack89]

172. He surrendered his passport as part of a criminal proceeding

Australia is not going to interject themselves into a British domestic legal issue - especially when it is Assange who is in the wrong.

[sabrina 1]

179. The Australian PM is liable for the lies she told early on and which she was forced to retract after

the massive condemnation she received from her own citizens and from around the world. She is nothing but a puppet and hopefully will be thrown out of office as soon as possible. She disgraced herself two years ago and has not recovered since then.

[hack89]

185. " massive condemnation"?

I love how Assange supporters really think that most of the world actually gives a rats ass about him.

He is not a household name - never was and never will be. Just like Bradley Manning, he does not have widespread popular support. He is the pet cause of a handful of activist - nothing more and nothing less.

[sabrina 1]

186. I love how Wikileaks haters are so in denial about how outside this insulated-from-world-news

country we live in, Assange and Wikileaks are not only far more well known than they are here, but have been for long before anyone in the US ever heard of them. They were receiving awards for their excellent work and became a highly respected International News agency while the US was and still is subjected to our controlled media here.

I also love how upsetting it is to them to find out how highly regarded Wikileaks was and remains throughout the world despite the best efforts of the enemies of a free and open press.

Gillard disgraced herself in the beginning of all this, not just in Australia, but around the world not long after being elected. She is pretty much universally despised and likely to be even more so, for her actions and words, which she later tried to retract after seeing the enormous, worldwide negative reaction to them, about Assange.

She retracted them because they were illegal and because of the backlash she received worldwide, but way too late. So I do believe that Wikileaks and especially Assange have a case against her. It will also serve to remind the public of her behavior and what a puppet she is, to file such a suit, regardless of the outcome.

[hack89]

191. I don't find it upsetting

it is not like I ever see mention of Assange anywhere else but DU. He is irrelevant to my life.

And again with the hyperbole - I doubt the vast majority of the world's inhabitants have any clue who the Australian PM.

You keep forgetting: European progressive activists =/= the world.

Watch what happens at DU once Wikileaks intervenes in the US elections and potentially jeopardizes the president's reelection. Assange will be vilified like Bush or Cheney. Mark my words.

[freshwest]

6. Is Assange claiming Wikileaks did NOT release the cables on their website?

The link doesn't support that, and this was a big part of Wikileaks' early fame. Then the story seems to go into nuances and complaints that Assange isn't getting to travel to Australia. It links to a plea by Assange's mother for free speech, but it appears there is a lot of speech going on. Also there a link there that shows people boycotting the advertisers of a morning radio program in Australia whose host made hurtful remarks about the PM. We're going to have decide what the meaning of the word 'is' is again, or something. Possibly Assange doesn't like the tone of the remarks by the PM, but doesn't deny the substance of the allegation. Not sure what Assange hopes to gain by this, unless he wants the PM censored from talking about him?

[Swagman]

127. the PM said he had committed a crime which is not true. On that basis Mastercard declined

to process donations (as did PayPal) and every other credit card along with banks..to Wikileaks.

but no conspiracy there of course.

[soaky]

159. Julia Gillard is from the left side of the Labor party (our notionally centre left party)

She's not a conservative, although with some her attitudes e.g. equal marriage, you could easily think she was. She is a leftie, but beholden to the right wing crazies of her party.

Not sure why you brought up the Alan Jones fracas and how it has anything to do with her 'talking too much' - she's in mourning, her father has just died, and a loud mouthed radio shock jock makes the comment, in front of a university Liberal party group (the conservative opposition here), that her father died of shame because she's "a liar".

[freshwest]

160. That was the opinion of the radio host. The link was there when I followed the OP link.

Australian and British terms of conserative and liberal and left and right are different than Americans so I probably shouldn't have bothered to comment. I'll delete.

[soaky]

168. You can safely ignore anything that emanates from any of Alan Jone's orifices! nt

[randome]

7. Another week. Another rant against the world.

For those of you who might not be up on the latest conspiracy theory, here is the roster:

United States.
U.K.
Swedish government.
The two women making charges against him.
Interpol.
The U.K. appeals process.
His own attorneys, who declined to buy in to the conspiracy.
Australian government.
The Australian PM.

I definitely think all these players should sit down, shut up and give Assange carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants.

Right?

[George II]

13. Right - only if he's allowed to pout while doing so.

[treestar]

27. But of course

He should get free range of Ecuador, a nation that will of course let him do anything he wants! The US and Sweden and UK and Australia and Interpol ought to just let him go there. They will respect his freedom of speech and his freedom to release all information the government wants to hide. The women there will also put up with just about anything for the honor of having him there.

[msanthrope]

34. You forgot the CIA. Okay, it might be covered under the "United States" but I bet he think they

deserve a special mention.

[Cha]

56. The thing Assange came out with last

week is.. he's going to intervene in US Elections. Donate to his Assholeness.

[treestar]

114. Oh right ! I had forgotten that one already!

Cha

Then the week before - it was that his health was failing!

What will it be next week?

His mother visits him? He tries to learn Spanish? I'm not as creative as he is so I'm probably not guessing right.

[George II]

12. He should learn to face his OWN existing legal issues before creating questionable new ones.

[JNelson6563]

36. Is the irony lost on him?

Apparently.

[struggle4progress]

38. So Ass***e is not the big free speech advocate he pretends to be

[wtmusic]

42. I would agree

if I didn't know the difference between free speech and transparency in government.

[boppers]

63. Accusing individuals of murder is hardly "transparency in government'

"Hoisted by his own petard" comes to mind.

[wtmusic]

83. If those individuals are guilty of murder

and Bradley came across evidence, it's very much about transparency

[struggle4progress]

67. ... he used his balcony address to ... cast himself as a guardian of free speech ...

Assange tells US to back off in balcony address
By Kevin Rawlinson
5:30 AM Tuesday Aug 21, 2012
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10828289

[struggle4progress]

69. ... Patiño praised Assange as a fighter for free expression ...

After this, Julian Assange has very few friends left in Sweden
Assange's flight from Sweden, a decent democracy, into the arms of Ecuador's megalomanic president is incomprehensible
Karin Olsson
The Guardian, Thursday 16 August 2012 14.30 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-few-friends-left-sweden

[LadyHawkAZ]

45. I was under the impression that he was a government transparency advocate

but whatever... I almost hate to spoil your fun anymore.

[struggle4progress]

66. Julian Assange Says Obama Is “Criminalizing Free Speech"

By Slate V Staff
Posted Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012, at 2:54 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/09/27/julian_assange_on_obama_says_president_is_a_hypocrite_on_free_speech_.html

[tama]

194. HR 437

http://ivn.us/2012/08/03/anti-occupy-law-freedom-of-speech-just-watch-what-you-say/

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347/text

[struggle4progress]

195. "... Whoever .. knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property

in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished <by>

... a fine .. or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if --
(A) the person .. uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury ...; and

a fine .. or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case ..."



This is your notion of an "Orwellian bill" that criminalizes dissent and protest in and around federal buildings?

[tama]

196. How desperate

"‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or"

Why would you quote only "‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;" and leave (1), (2) and (3) unmentioned? Why?

[struggle4progress]

201. So you don't object to the provisions of 1752(a)(4)? Do you object to 1752(a)(1), which

makes it illegal to enter the White House or VP's residence without lawful authority, or similarly without lawful authority to enter any posted or cordoned off area where a person protected by the Secret Service is visiting temporarily?

[tama]

203. Is the criticism

that Obama administration and the the political system of US as whole is limiting freedom of speech and other 1st amendment rights factual? Yes it is and the law mentioned above is just one example.

Do you oppose that policy or support it? Note that both denial and rationalizations count as support.

[struggle4progress]

205. After reading the text, I have no idea what you're talking about, so mebbe you can clarify:

So far, I suppose we have established you don't count acts of physical violence, with or without a weapon, as free speech -- but your position on entering the White House or Vice President's residence without authorization is still unclear

Do you regard the provisions of 1752(a)(1), which make it illegal to enter the White House or VP's residence without lawful authority -- or similarly without lawful authority to enter any posted or cordoned off area, where a person protected by the Secret Service is visiting temporarily -- as an infringement of your free speech rights?

[tama]

207. OK

I take that as yes, you support government limiting 1st amendment rights. I assume that support extends also to NDAA.

[struggle4progress]

217. Read the House Judiciary Report: "The United States Secret Service provides protective services

to the President, the First Family, the Vice President, former Presidents, visiting heads of state, and others. This protection covers not only the White House and its grounds but also any where a protectee may be temporarily visiting. The Secret Service also provides protection at events designated as `a special event of national significance.'

Current law prohibits unlawful entries upon any restricted building or ground where the President, Vice President or other protectee is temporarily visiting. However, there is no Federal law that expressly prohibits unlawful entry to the White House and its grounds or the Vice President's residence and its grounds.

The Secret Service must therefore rely upon a provision in the District of Columbia Code, which addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions, when someone attempts to or successfully trespasses upon the grounds of the White House or Vice President's residence or, worse, breaches the White House or Vice President's residence itself.

H.R. 347 remedies this problem by specifically including the White House, the Vice President's residence, and their respective grounds in the definition of restricted buildings and grounds for purposes of Section 1752.

The bill also clarifies that the penalties in Section 1752 of title 18 apply to those who knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so. Current law does not include this important element. The bill makes other technical improvements to the existing law ..."

You can access this thru Thomas

[struggle4progress]

68. ... he accused the US of a ‘witch-hunt’ that threatened freedom of expression ...

Oh, what a circus! Assange taunts UK from embassy balcony
By Vanessa Allen and Mario Ledwith
PUBLISHED: 08:42 EST, 19 August 2012 | UPDATED: 05:07 EST, 20 August 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190550/Oh-circus--Julian-Assange-taunts-UK-demands-end-Americas-war-whistleblowers-tirade-embassy-balcony.html

[Hissyspit]

128. "Ass***e"

False slander is not necessarily protected speech.

[LiberalLovinLug]

40. A Julian Assange story

So like clockwork the Anti-Freedom of Information Authoritarianists come out of their caves.

News Flash:
Anyone who is a threat to the world's .1 % and their government puppets IS GOING TO GET NOTICED and vilified on the MSM. If all he was interested in was fame and fortune, he could have chosen thousands of other things to do. What about all those others that work at Wikileaks? Or is it just the founder of the organization that gets your small minds in a tithy?

By your logic Obama is also a media whore. Anyone who steps up and takes on a job that he or she knows will make him or her celebritized by the corporate press must be in it for only that reason. What a crock.

Bradley Manning basically gave up his life to release these cables because of what he saw in them, some war crimes, and a sense of duty to share with the public. Assange was the messenger that you'all want to kill for relaying it on. Assange did not cower in fear of the establishment like you'all obviously would have. He published them. And we get at least a partial tiny crack of transparency behind the machinations of corporate/government collusion and deception.

From a Salon article:
http://www.salon.com/2010/12/24/wikileaks_23/

As revealing as the disclosures themselves are, the reactions to them have been equally revealing. The vast bulk of the outrage has been devoted not to the crimes that have been exposed but rather to those who exposed them: WikiLeaks and (allegedly) Bradley Manning. A consensus quickly emerged in the political and media class that they are Evil Villains who must be severely punished, while those responsible for the acts they revealed are guilty of nothing. That reaction has not been weakened at all even by the Pentagon’s own admission that, in stark contrast to its own actions, there is no evidence — zero — that any of WikiLeaks’ actions has caused even a single death. Meanwhile, the American establishment media — even in the face of all these revelations — continues to insist on the contradictory, Orwellian platitudes that (a) there is Nothing New™ in anything disclosed by WikiLeaks and (b) WikiLeaks has done Grave Harm to American National Security™ through its disclosures.

It’s unsurprising that political leaders would want to convince people that the true criminals are those who expose acts of high-level political corruption and criminality, rather than those who perpetrate them. Every political leader would love for that self-serving piety to take hold. But what’s startling is how many citizens and, especially, “journalists” now vehemently believe that as well. In light of what WikiLeaks has revealed to the world about numerous governments, just fathom the authoritarian mindset that would lead a citizen — and especially a “journalist” — to react with anger that these things have been revealed; to insist that these facts should have been kept concealed and it’d be better if we didn’t know; and, most of all, to demand that those who made us aware of it all be punished (the True Criminals) while those who did these things (The Good Authorities) be shielded.

[Kurovski]

53. +1

Thanks\ 4 article. Excellent point about how the only alledged crimes some want to (or ever do) talk about are the ones of Manning and Assange.

[randome]

61. Bradley Manning was emotionally and mentally unstable.

Hardly 'giving up his life' for the cause of freedom.

[struggle4progress]

70. There's no way Manning reviewed and considered 750K documents

or made a careful and conscious and calculated choice to release them as evidence of crimes

If Manning is actually guilty, then what he did was an indiscriminate mass dump of documents -- and there's not much of a principled defense he could offer for that

[wtmusic]

77. Yes he should have hired a staff to help him

You crack me up.

[struggle4progress]

78. He can't credibly claim to have been whistle-blowing -- and so he won't claim that

during the court martial: his lawyer will argue that he was disturbed, that the army should have known better than to let him have access to the documents, that he really didn't do any significant harm, and that he's suffered enough for a kid his age

[wtmusic]

81. It's all about whistleblowing.

You apparently have no clue as to what's in the documents, or are deliberately trying to discredit him for whatever reasons.

[msanthrope]

88. Then why didn't he follow the whistleblowing statutes that would have protected him? The MWPA would

have saved him from prosecution, but more importantly, it would have put documents into the hands of people who could have done something about whatever war crimes he thought he had.

[wtmusic]

92. Not sure, but there could be any number of reasons.

He may have felt it was likely the info would have been intercepted and he would have been court-martialed anyway.

Bottom line: he found fairly clear evidence of war crimes and a lot of heads would roll. Having the government assure you they won't prosecute you - when you're about to indict the government itself - is scant assurance.

I don't know if you've read his emails but it's clear he's seeking justice, not publicity.

[msanthrope]

94. Intercepted by whom? Did he really think Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders would not have done the

right thing?

If he found evidence of war crimes, he had a duty to report them. If he felt he could not report them to his superiors, he could have reported them to ANY member of Congress, without retaliation, under the MWPA.

Instead, he dumped documents to a commercial entity.

After reading his chats--including the one where he discusses hitting a female in the face--I think it's clear he's looking for revenge.

[wtmusic]

96. So he would just ring Kucinich's office and say, "Yo, I need to talk to Dennis..."

His communications were most certainly being monitored, so it clearly wasn't that easy or guaranteed that they would be seen.

What's the commercial entity? Wikileaks is non-profit.

[msanthrope]

139. Mr Manning was in the United States in January 2010. He brought with him material that he chose to

give to the Boston affiliates of Wikileaks, rather than take to a Congressperson.

He was not being monitored until shortly before his arrest, months later.

Wikileaks is a non-profit??? Sure they are. You seen their statements?

[struggle4progress]

101. Do the arithmetic: if he released 750K documents, he couldn't have any clear idea what was in there,

so he can't have been engaged in a careful and conscientious choice to blow the whistle

[wtmusic]

104. No careful and conscientious enough for you, is he?

You must have put your life on the line many times to expose war crimes.

Pray, describe how carefully and conscientiously you did it.

[struggle4progress]

126. His lawyer will argue at court martial he's a disturbed young man:

Lawyers say Bradley Manning struggled with gender identity disorder
By Lou Chibbaro Jr. on December 19, 2011
December 19, 2011

... According to Reuters News Service, Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, and Manning’s brigade chief, Captain Steven Lim, told the Dec. 17 Article 32 hearing that Manning informed an Army intelligence supervisor by email in April 2010 that he was suffering from gender identity disorder.

Lim testified at the hearing that Manning disclosed in his email that the disorder was “affecting his life, work and ability to think,” Reuters reported. Lim also testified that Manning’s email included a photo of Manning dressed as a woman.

Coombs stated at the hearing that Manning’s self disclosure that he was struggling over his gender identity was a sign that he was emotionally unstable and may not have been in a position to handle highly classified documents, Reuters reported ...

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/12/19/lawyers-say-bradley-manning-struggled-with-gender-identity-disorder/



Attorney for Bradley Manning seeks reduced charges
By Agence France-Presse
Thursday, December 22, 2011 14:22 EDT

... Manning was suffering from “gender identity disorder,” Coombs said, and he quoted from an anguished letter the soldier wrote to the sergeant in his unit, Paul Adkins ...

“That’s the letter sergeant first class received and he did nothing,” he said ...

Coombs also quoted from three memorandums written by Adkins in which he discussed what he called Manning’s “mental instability” and “bizarre behavior.”

“He writes the memorandums and does nothing,” Coombs said ...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/22/attorney-for-bradley-manning-seeks-reduced-charges/

[LiberalLovinLug]

142. So this negates all the crimes and deceptions in the leaks?

I'm sure Bradley's lawyers are using whatever ammunition they can to get their client off. And the government (that you feel you must protect) has been using "extraordinary methods" on him in captivity.

It may even be that the prosecution has met with the defense and told them the best way to go would be a mental health defense. That to retain his stance of doing the right thing when he saw war crimes just wouldn't be allowed in a court. The government will keep him in a cell for years more if they have to in order to break him. It may have been floated that if he just sticks with the mental health angle, it would go down better.

I'm sure the gov wants this to all to go away as soon as possible as well. If they could sentence Manning to some reduced sentence based on a mental health defense, they would prevent Manning being a martyr, and also deflect the story to one where the MSM could say...OH...he was mentally deranged...that's why he did such a thing....it wasn't to expose crimes at all! (as if one excluded the other) And they will get away with once again NOT focusing on the crimes involved (as you seem hell bent on doing as well)

Also then they will be able to portray Wikileaks and Assange as someone who took advantage of a poor unstable young man.
THAT is the true crime right? Not shelling unarmed journalists and civilians. Not and other corruption in high places. Its the damn messenger!

[randome]

144. Why can't both those be called out for what they are?

Taking advantage of Manning and corruption in the military? It's not that hard to see both as contemptible.

[LiberalLovinLug]

167. Taking advantage of Manning?

He wanted to whistleblow.

He knew that Wikileaks was a whistleblower site.

How, pray tell, is that "taking advantage" other than Manning taking advantage of his options? Just because the MSM will TRY and even succeed in painting it that way for the majority of Americans doesn't make it so. There are varying degrees of mental health. Someone who has the cognitive ability and the ethical maturity to do what Manning did is not so mentally challenged as to render him incompetent for his actions.

[randome]

169. Where have you been?

'Cognitive ability'? 'Ethical maturity'? To take hundreds of thousands of documents and turn them over to a foreign national without review.

Come on, that's hardly whistleblowing. That's document dumping.

[go west young man]

111. Great article.

Hard to believe this is DU with most of what I've read in this thread. Back in 2004 this site kicked ass with so many great DU'ers fighting against the mainstream bullshit. Nowadays the site reads like Freeper lite. What the fuck happened I don't know. But it's this DU'ers opinion that these folks choose to rail against the wrong side. There's no doubt in the modern day that the US can't be trusted in these matters. There's no doubt that other countries do the US's bidding. There's no doubt that the US see's Wikileaks as a threat. Assange and Manning haters always want to make the story about them but never about what they exposed. On Bullshit Mountain bullshitters choose to go after the messenger not the perpetrator. It's easier for them to spend their internet energy on that cause I suppose. The larger matter lies at their feet yet they go for the nonsensical whimsical one. Why would a true truthseeker do such a thing? Constantly deride the people that exposed the "whole truth for all of us to see". The people that helped bring about the Arab Spring? The people who exposed the nepotism and dirty back room dealings with dictators and torturers? In my mind Bradley Manning is the best soldier the US military has ever seen. And I write that as a former marine myself (0341-Infantry mortarman, 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, 2nd Mar Div 85-88.) One soldier has helped over turn not one, not two, but three dictatorships. The entire US military has attempted to transform 2 countries and has arguably failed after an entire decade. To me Bradley Manning deserves a fucking medal. He's not mentally unstable as the military continually suggests. He's a human being with a clean conscience unlike many of the people I see posting here. In the long run the US will be a better country because of what Manning and Assange exposed. I believe that in the future they will be hailed as modern versions of Paul Revere.

[LiberalLovinLug]

141. I with you

Personally I think we have a couple on the payroll in here on DU. I won't name names, but you can tell by their sheer illogical hatred of the man. I still have not received an answer as to WHY such a concerted focused effort to discredit a man who leads an organization dedicated to exposing crimes and corruption in the highest offices.

Either they are disturbingly frightened conservative Authoritarians that tremble at the thought of finding out information that may tarnish their ever loving worship of all authority figures and an irrational fear that their world will collapse if the pubic is made aware of these crimes.

Or they are paid infiltrators of DU. Posting here because Jullian Assange and Wikileaks represents a grave danger to those criminals and there are always those that will do anything for money.

If there is a third reason I'd like to hear it.

[Hydra]

54. I hope he wins

The rhetoric being flung around to make him look like a criminal is astounding. I guess what's more astounding is that only the rape accusation seems to have stuck out of everything they've thrown.

TPTB must be pissed that they don't have him in America in a military torture center yet.

[DeSwiss]

62. Keep the pedal to the metal Julian!!!

- K&R!!!!

Referring to the Bush Administration's use of phone companies to illegally spy on Americans: "We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk ... Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." ~ Presidential Candidate & U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2008

[center][/center]

[struggle4progress]

87. The 2006 amendments to Australian defamation law generally limit actions to within one year

of the alleged defamation: https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#2006

"... In late 2010, Ms Gillard said ..." means the events in question were almost two years ago now

[struggle4progress]

91. Maybe Julian is really hiding in the embassy to escape the various lawyers he's stiffed:

WikiLeaks’s Assange Sued on Eve of U.K. Extradition Appeal
By Erik Larson on February 01, 2012

... Finers Stephens Innocent LLP, which specializes in commercial litigation, sued the 40-year-old Australian yesterday in London over legal fees, according to court records. Assange replaced the firm last year after a U.K. judge rejected his defense and upheld the Swedish arrest warrant.

“It’s always regrettable when we find ourselves in a dispute with a former client about fees,” Tim Bignell, a lawyer at the firm, said in a phone interview today. “We tried to resolve this amicably with Mr. Assange and we still hope to be able to.” He didn’t say how much the firm is owed ...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-01/wikileaks-s-assange-sued-on-eve-of-u-k-extradition-appeal.html

[wtmusic]

93. Various? Are there others, or did you just feel the need to pad your non-story?

"The Guardian reported that Assange ended his relationship with Stephens after he accused Finers Stephens Innocent of withholding a £412,000 advance for his autobiography to cover legal fees. Assange accused them of "extreme overcharging" which Finers Stephens Innocent denied.[61] Following court proceedings he paid the bill."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Stephens_%28solicitor%29

Old news. But your desperate attempts at character assassination are becoming quite an entertainment.

[struggle4progress]

97. He seems to stiff a lot of folk: those who put up his bail, those who pay him advances for books ...

Publisher pins blame on Assange
... Canongate Books, which said Mr Assange had signed a contract to write a “part memoir, part manifesto”, made an operating loss of £368,367 compared with a profit of more than £1 million the previous year ... In a report, the company’s chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, said the loss was “largely attributable to Julian Assange’s failure to deliver the book he had contracted to produce, and we were unable to obtain repayment from him of Canongate’s substantial advance, which had to be written off”. The advance is understood to be more than £500,000 ...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/publisher-pins-blame-on-assange-1-2564633

[wtmusic]

100. I bet he doesn't floss either

Keep 'em coming.

[struggle4progress]

103. He's a rip-off artist: rips off his lawyers, rips off his publishers, rips off his friends

That really tells you something about the man's character

[wtmusic]

105. Got anything besides tabloid fodder?

You're really down to the nubs.

[cstanleytech]

107. So is the BBC a tabloid now wtmusic?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19822033

[go west young man]

113. I've enjoyed reading the rebuttals you have dealt out to these folks!

Cheers!

[struggle4progress]

120. His sucker pals are out another $150K with Riddle's ruling today

Assange backers ordered to pay up after asylum bid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014259412

[struggle4progress]

121. Ass***e and friends ripped off Michela Wrong's book, too:

... WikiLeaks has also infuriated the author, Michela Wrong, who was horrified to discover her book exposing the depths of official corruption in Kenya, It's Our Turn To Eat, was pirated and posted on WikiLeaks in its entirety ...
Who watches WikiLeaks?
Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 April 2010 16.28 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/10/wikileaks-collateral-murder-video-iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=181363

[sabrina 1]

180. Lol, but his 'friend' Domscheidt Berg, remember him, is a paragon of lies, I mean virtue. I'm

thinking it's time for those of us who actually know the facts of all of this to start providing them here.

The story of his 'friend' Domscheidt Berg (not even his real name btw), I hope you won't be using him again as proof of anything is a real eye-opener, speaking of 'ripping people off'.

That traitor ripped off the Public and lied about it when he stole, or confiscated, the leaked Bank documents, (who was he really working for I wonder?) claiming he was 'holding them' and would return them. But most of us knew he never would, it was clear what happened with old Domscheidt Berg or whatever name he goes by at this point.

Btw, whatever happened to his much publicized Organization which was going to be so much better than Wikileaks? Lol! It never materialized, did it? As if any whistle-blower would ever trust that 'friend' with material.

I think you really should take a break from this. Although if anything you have helped Assange and Wikileaks more than anything.

So I think you got it wrong. I think his 'friends' like Domscheidt are the ones ripping people off. Assange should sue him also for the lies he told about his character. Especially now since he has been thoroughly exposed.

[sabrina 1]

177. Yes, you forgot to mention that this is the lawyer who 'forgot' to tell his client about the emails

from the prosecutor until his client was before the court. He failed spectacularly and harmed his client, and gleeful posts, such as your own, recounting that disaster could be used as evidence of how much his client was harmed by his incompetence, if indeed that is what it was.

I would have fired him also, and sued him. If he had wanted to harm Assange, he could not have done a better job. Good luck to him trying to explain his gross incompetence to the world.

[msanthrope]

199. So you are claiming that Mr. Hurtig was incompetent and harmed Assange? nt

[sabrina 1]

204. Um, I don't think there's any doubt he harmed his client. As was proven in court.

And of course the anti-Wikileaks contingency never fail to blame Assange for his and the Prosecutor's incompetence. So they themselves are proof of the harm done each time they post their comments. I imagine those comments can be used as evidence for Assange so everything does a silver lining. S4P's posts would make perfect exhibits eg of the harm done to Assange.

[struggle4progress]

119. Assange attempt to sue PM 'a stunt': Littlemore

October 8, 2012
Richard Willingham and Dylan Welch

... Mr Littlemore and other legal experts say that defamation claims generally must be made within 12 months of the comments ...

Mr Littlemore toldthe National Times: ‘‘I can’t see that it is anything else but a stunt.

‘‘For the life of me I cannot imagine that there is a cause of action that Wikileaks could ever bring, least of all if it had done it within time.

‘‘Nobody can sue for something that is statute-barred – they would need the leave of the court, and I can’t see why that would be granted’’ ...

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/assange-attempt-to-sue-pm-a-stunt-littlemore-20121007-277h3.html

[struggle4progress]

122. ... Assange ... plans to run for the Australian Senate in elections due next year ...

Assange lawyers look to sue Australian PM
(AFP) – 7 hours ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j15Dkr6pxbVYqY51aKJli6JV-QVw?docId=CNG.a2da9921de416c37df4b533ba7b702a5.4c1

[Swagman]

129. I am quite sickened by some of the attitudes about Assange

for crying out loud..he's basically been imprisoned now for going on 3 fucking years..had his freedom denied and that's about 2 frigging years and 6 months more that he would get in Sweden if the allegations were true (or maybe even a suspended sentence).

The blindness of some that the fucking US government and all it's "allies" don;t conspire every fucking day against someone is quite simply bizarre and ignorant and downright dangerous.

Go and read your own bloody history books.

[wtmusic]

131. On the up side, it's really just 3-4 posters who are maniacally bent

on assassinating his character and have scant justification for it.

It's a shining confirmation that Wikileaks is doing its job.

[LadyHawkAZ]

161. And who miraculously have several hundred anti-Assange links

at their fingertips to post as needed, all neatly filed and somehow easily found in a hurry.

Not that that's at all suspicious. I mean, don't we all do that?

[wtmusic]

164. If I didn't know better, I might think they were being paid

but of course that would be silly.

[struggle4progress]

135. Your method of reckoning is novel. Assange fled Sweden in late September 2010, while

Swedish authorities were negotiating with his lawyer, trying to arrange for him to surrender himself for interrogation. The authorities were then led to believe Assange would return to Sweden in early to mid October, but he failed to return. In November, a Swedish court ordered him arrested, and a EAW arrest warrent was later taken out. He was finally arrested in London the first week of December 2010, somewhat less than two years ago. He spent eight nights in jail and was released on bail 16 December 2010. He then jumped bail in June 2010.

You imagine he's been imprisoned for three years in the somewhat less than two year period since he was first arrested

Most people won't count time spent released on bail as time spent imprisoned: "Your honor, can I have time off my sentence for the days I was out on bail" won't fly

And most people won't count time spent hiding out after jumping bail as time spent imprisoned: "Your honor, can I have time off my sentence for the days I was a fugitive after jumping bail" won't fly either

So you need to brush up on arithmetic. And you really should learn the differences between being imprisoned, being released on bail, and being a fugitive, so you don't confuse them again

Also, Ecuador, Sweden, the UK, and the US are all different countries. Assange apparently had sex with some Swedish girls in Sweden, and they complained to the police about the way he treated them. So far, Sweden is the only country in the story. While the Swedish authorities were trying to arrange an interrogation of Assange, through his Swedish lawyer in Sweden, Assange bolted to the UK. Now Sweden and the UK are the only countries in the story. When the Swedish authorities finally got tired of playing games with Assange and his lawyer, they took out an arrest warrent and asked the UK to extradite him. So the UK arrested Assange, and about a year and a half of court battles followed, in the UK courts. Finally, in June, during the period in which Assange would have been allowed to appeal to Strasbourg, he jumped bail and has been hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. At this point, Ecuador and Sweden and the UK are the only countries in the story

In particular, there's no US in the story. The US has always taken the PoV that the Swedish accusations were between Assange and some Swedes, that the extradition fight was between Sweden and the UK, and the silly posturing at the embassy was between Ecuador and the UK. Of course, if your geography is weak, you might confuse one or another of the countries, Ecuador or Sweden or the UK, with the US, but that would be no one's fault except your own

[sabrina 1]

178. Assange did not flee Sweden and I have told you this multiple times already yet you continue to post

these untruths.

On the contrary, Assange stayed in Sweden three weeks longer than he was due to be there trying to get an interview with the prosecutor.

During that time he went voluntarily to speak to the police, a record of which is on file. But the prosecutor repeatedly refused to do her duty and speak to him. Then worse, she told his attorney he was free to leave. So he left on Sept 15th and was not told about the infamous emails from his attorney, who is now quite suspect himself btw, until he was in London.

Funny how the police had no problem speaking to him, but the poor, poor prosecutor just couldn't get around to it. Actually we know why she has refused to speak to him don't we?

At that point Assange offered once again offered to speak to the Prosecutor IN SWEDEN. He offered to return to Sweden, a mere two hour flight from London, on Oct 12th. And again she refused.

And for going on three years now she has consistently refused to speak to him because she knows that when she does, she will be forced to file her non-case and the whole world will see the sham this is.

Stop posting misinformation on DU. It makes this board look bad. Especially since you have no excuse for doing so as I and others have repeatedly corrected you and it is very unusual for any DUer to continue to ignore facts as you have done.

I will correct these false statements whenever I see them.

[struggle4progress]

188. ... On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’s counsel .. to ask

whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed ... Appellant .. left Sweden on 27th September 2010 ...
Agreed statements of facts and issues
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=248406

[struggle4progress]

189. The Assange defense lied about that in UK court, and the UK court caught them lying:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1256163

[sabrina 1]

202. That has zero to do with Assange and you know it. He was told he could leave, period

What the prosecutor and the attorney cooked up had nothing to do with him. No matter how many times you try to ignore those facts they just won't cooperate and change for you.

[struggle4progress]

190. ... Assange himself told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm

for a police interview during the week beginning 11 October, and that he had decided to stay away. Prosecution documents .. record that he was due to be interviewed on 14 October ...
10 Days in Sweden
http://www.alternet.org/story/149254/10_days_in_sweden%3A_the_full_allegations_against_julian_assange?page=entire%2C2

[sabrina 1]

181. Don't worry, a majority of people around the world and even here in the US, DO see what is going on

with this case. Don't be discouraged by the small number of people on this site who show up in every Wikileaks thread with the same old propaganda and few facts as if it was a mission or something.

Most of us know the facts and thank you for the OP. I hope they sue and I hope the negative attention Gillard gets from such a suit, since Assange is very popular in Australia and she disgraced herself early on regarding Assange, will help topple her in the next election.

[struggle4progress]

132. PM has little to fear from Assange’s new legal threat

Sally Whyte | Oct 08, 2012 12:13PM

... Defamation expert Mark Pearson reckons it’s “poor form” by Assange. Pearson, author of Blogging and Tweeting Without Getting Sued, told Crikey: ”I think it’s particularly out of order for journalists and free expression advocates to use defamation as a means of chilling debate.”

Pearson and other defamation experts say the case is unlikely to be heard though, because under Australian law a defamation suit must be brought within 12 months of the publication of the defamatory statement.

Assange told GetUp!’s Rohan Wenn he thought he would be able to gain an extension on the 12-month period because of his house arrest in the UK and confinement to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Cass Matthews, a media law expert at the University of Melbourne, says that will be “difficult” and will depend on Assange’s circumstances within the year following the PM’s statement.

Pearson agrees, saying the issue hasn’t been tested in Australia before. The provision is designed for cases where it may take time to find the source of a rumour, which is not the case with Assange. “The usual criteria is when the comments have only just been brought to the attention of the plaintiff,” according to Pearson ...

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/08/pm-has-little-to-fear-from-assanges-new-legal-threat/

[go west young man]

134. Just curious what progress your struggling to expose?

The fight you have chosen throughout this thread and your enmity towards the messenger speaks volumes. Not about the messenger Assange but about you.

[struggle4progress]

137. Assange's lawsuit threats show him to be an habitual bullshitter:

He can't sue Julia Gillard now, for comments she made two years ago, when the statute imposes a one year limit. And the threat shows clearly that he's not the great advocate of free speech he claims to be

Less than a month ago, we learned Assange -- the supposedly great friend of free information -- had threatened to sue SXSW, because he didn't like their production WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, which (among other things) included a short clip of him dancing in a nightclub. Ofcom, responding to his complaint about the program, found many of his claims false.

One of the most hilarious of Assange's repeated lawsuit threats was his threat to sue a news outlet (for publishing some of the Cablegate material!) on the theory that he Assange owned the stolen cables

... Assange claimed the program was libelous, unfair, and violated his privacy, at least in part because it showed footage of him dancing in a nightclub in Iceland, notes the Guardian. The documentary first aired on November 29, 2011, and he later tried to prevent it from being shown in the United States, sending threatening letters to both SXSW and CNBC. SXSW aired the program as planned on March 9, while CNBC showed a shortened version of the documentary. On Monday, Ofcom had ruled that the documentary was fair and gave Assange plenty of opportunity to respond before it was aired. Although Assange insisted producers had not obtained his consent to appear on the film and had misrepresented what it would be about, Ofcom pointed out that his assistant had exchanged e-mails over several weeks with the filmmakers ...

Assange Threatened To Sue SXSW
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, at 12:54 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/11/assange_threatens_lawsuit_against_sxsw_over_documentary_wikileaks_secrets_and_lies.html

... Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange — that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released ...

WikiLeaks’ Assange Threatened Lawsuit Over Leaked Diplomatic Cables
By Kim ZetterEmail Author
01.06.11
12:01 AM
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/vf-wikieaks/

[LiberalLovinLug]

143. Its all very suspicious isn't it?

The avatar and handle seem a little over the top.

I'd also be curious about what type of "progress" this poster sees in a world where the flow of information about what your own government is up to is strictly controlled and severe punishment is dealt out to anyone who reveals information that highlights crimes of the state.

[struggle4progress]

192. I've provided over 20 links in this thread. You've provided none so far.

[go west young man]

200. Links to what?

Constant defamation? Your desire to go after the messenger in the Wikileaks leaks is suspicious at best for a "progressive" liberal that truly understands whats at stake. You would rather focus on a charge that isn't even considered a charge in most countries of the world than focus on things like murder, corruption, nepotism, The Arab Spring, rendition, torture, trading with murdering dictators. As I said before we all choose our battles. It's obvious to any logical thinker reading this thread that you choose to hammer at Julian Assanges character but not at these larger more important issues that are brought to light through the work of great people like Bradley Manning and Julian. At the end of the day you've pretty much trumped yourself with all you links. You've exposed more about yourself than you have about Julian. The more you post the deeper you dig so knock yourself out at this point. Enjoy your non important day.

[tama]

208. It's pretty obvious

that s4p actually supports HR 437, NDAA etc. police state measures against social liberties. And does not like anyone criticizing and opposing police state measures.

[reorg]

162. "defamation as a means of chilling debate"

is pretty much what the entire "debate" has come down to.

I have seen countless attempts to use defamation as a means to misdirect and stifle the debate over the good being done by Wikileaks.

The Australian premier appears to have willingly participated in this effort.

Seems like a good idea to clear up if what she did was illegal.

[wtmusic]

165. While we're at it, let's clear up what Hillary Clinton was up to at the UN nt

[sabrina 1]

182. Yes, she is a disgrace. I believer there was discussion of her behavior early on and several

Australian legal experts at the time called what she did illegal. She was forced to retract her statements so I imagine she took those allegations seriously.

I hope they do sue, it seems it is only in the civil courts we see any justice anymore. The rule of law regarding criminal offenses, war crimes, torture, economic crimes, are no longer being prosecuted since most Western countries became victims of neo-liberal/con policies.

I also hope such a suit will have a very negative effect on her being reelected. I don't know when Australia's elections are, but I would love to see her be defeated.