Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
Factotum said:
Of course Assange is unwilling to face the US "justice" system: deeming people enemy combatants, Guantanamo, renditions, black sites, inappropriate use of the Espianage Act (thanks Obama), etc. were not the norm when Ellsberg blew his whistle.
The Nixon-era justice system had its abuses, too, but your point crossed my mind. If Ellsberg said something similar in response to my question, he’d have a receptive listener.
Just re-read Gridlock, and remember this was written before our current crop of billionaire media owners and bobbleheads. Remember it was written to upstage HHGTG, not as an instruction manual.
nan said:
tjohn said:He's already hailed as a hero for his war revelations. Perhaps someday, some Democrats can see that exposing their corruption was a good thing too.
Ellsberg took a great risk, paid a great price and has been vindicated by subsequent revelations. Assange is in the same position and perhaps, in time, he will be hailed as a hero. Or maybe he will be revealed to be a narcissistic little weasel enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame.
He didn't "expose their corruption". He dribbled out selections of email conversations that didn't amount to squat.
And no, I'm not going to watch a video claiming otherwise. If there's any text, I'll read it. But I've already read what people say are the "revelations", and calling it "exposing corruption" is laughable.
nohero said:
nan said:He didn't "expose their corruption". He dribbled out selections of email conversations that didn't amount to squat.
tjohn said:He's already hailed as a hero for his war revelations. Perhaps someday, some Democrats can see that exposing their corruption was a good thing too.
Ellsberg took a great risk, paid a great price and has been vindicated by subsequent revelations. Assange is in the same position and perhaps, in time, he will be hailed as a hero. Or maybe he will be revealed to be a narcissistic little weasel enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame.
And no, I'm not going to watch a video claiming otherwise. If there's any text, I'll read it. But I've already read what people say are the "revelations", and calling it "exposing corruption" is laughable.
He exposed that the DNC was in the tank for Hillary, and that the media was helping. You can keep saying this is nothing, but it' a big deal and highly unethical and a lie. Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept saying that they were neutral during the primary. More revelations came out later with Donna Brazille. You seem fine with everything that happened. Others disagree. Really, really disagree.
Anyway, wanted to post this article I found by a former Ecuadorian minister, who makes a case for Ecuador upholding its promise to grant him asylum. Also, mentions details on the rape accusation and how he tried to testify for that.
Ecuador’s case for Assange’s asylum is stronger than ever
Six years after Assange walked into its embassy, Ecuador’s initial fears of political persecution, far from being ill-founded paranoia, have been proven right.
Excerpt:
" . . . Speaking at a press conference today, as his European tour draws to an end, Moreno appeared to confirm that he is paving the way towards an end to Assange’s asylum. He implied, for the first time, that extradition to the United States would be an acceptable outcome and that his only red line is the death penalty.
This fundamentally contradicts the position Ecuador has maintained until now of refusing any possibility of extradition to the United States. Could Moreno’s pandering to the Anglo-American alliance undermine Ecuador’s adherence to international law and hurt its hard-earned international standing? . . .
. . . In March, Moreno reacted to Assange’s tweets about Catalan independence by cutting off his internet and, more cruelly, by barring visits and imposing an open-ended regime of virtual isolation. A few days before the presidential visit to the United Kingdom, Moreno’s newly appointed Foreign Minister announced the Ecuadorian government was “reviewing” Assange’s “situation” and that an asylum could not last forever.
Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy on 19 June 2012. After two months of heated debate inside President Rafael Correa’s government, Ecuador granted asylum to Assange on 16 August 2012. Ecuador did this on the basis that there were reasonable grounds for fearing Assange was the victim of a political persecution that could jeopardise his safety, integrity and human rights.
The context of aggressive rhetoric against Assange in the United States played an important role in forging Ecuador’s decision. The release of the Collateral Murder video in Iraq, the Afghanistan and Iraq War Logs and the vast trove of leaked diplomatic cables had triggered an angry, jingoist reaction in some of Washington’s political circles. The Democrat and former US official-turned pundit Bob Beckel called for Assange’s assassination: “illegally shoot the SOB” were his exact words.
Even the mainstream Vice-president Joe Biden referred to Assange as a “hi-tech terrorist”. Documents emerged suggesting that Assange was being investigated by a federal grand jury in Virginia and that there was a sealed indictment against him. Meanwhile, Chelsea Manning had been arrested and court-martialled. She would subsequently be sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. President Obama commuted her sentence before leaving office.
Ecuador’s decision to grant asylum to Assange was founded upon Ecuador’s adherence to the 1954 American Convention on Diplomatic and Territorial Asylum. The commitment to granting asylum was a serious undertaking. The laws on asylum include the sacrosanct obligation to non-refoulement, a principle designed to prevent states from terminating asylum and avoid the subsequent extraditions of political asylees that regime change so often entail. Non-refoulement is also a principle that is enshrined in article 41 of the Ecuadorian Constitution.
Assange, however, was wanted for questioning in Sweden on allegations of sexual assault. It was therefore paramount for Ecuador to actively explore solutions for that judicial process to advance. Ecuador proposed that Assange go to Sweden to face questioning provided there was a commitment that he would not be extradited to the United States. The Swedish authorities refused to offer such guarantees.
Then, on 25 July 2012, almost a month before the asylum was granted, Ecuador proposed that the Swedish Prosecution question Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy. This would allow the Swedish Prosecutor to decide whether there were grounds on which to charge Assange formally. For almost three years, the Swedish Prosecution refused, until in March 2015, it accepted. Another year elapsed for the agreement to be signed by the Prosecution Authorities of both countries.
Assange was questioned on 14 November 2016 and it took the Swedish Prosecution another six months and five days before it finally announced it would not be pressing charges. The European Arrest Warrant rescinded, and it seemed to be a matter of days before Assange could walk free.
Meanwhile, however, the Trump administration had stepped up its anti-Assange rhetoric. The new occupiers of the White House were characteristically lambasting in their approach. In April 2017, the US Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke of the possibility of filing criminal charges against WikiLeaks' associates for the 2010 leak of US diplomatic cables and military files, adding that he would also be willing to investigate whether WikiLeaks bore criminal responsibility for the more recent revelations about sensitive CIA information.
The same month, the then CIA Director – now Secretary of State – Mike Pompeo, labelled WikiLeaks a "hostile intelligence service". And Donald Trump, when asked about the intention of the Department of Justice to arrest Assange, said he was "ok with it".
In the last few months, as a result of Wikileaks releasing a plethora of classified CIA documents in 2017, a fierce campaign to link Assange to Russia – a powerful narrative in the context of the West’s renewed fixation with the Russian menace – has been unleashed. Recent Congressional hearings and statements made by Republicans and Democrats alike are full of language suggesting that Wikileaks is a belligerent intelligence organisation.
The idea is to gradually sow the seed that the Assange case has nothing to do with the issue of freedom of expression and the protection that journalists and whistle-blowers enjoy in the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the 1989 Whistle-blower Act. Rather, what we are dealing with is a matter that falls under the 1917 Espionage Act, approved by Congress during the First World War in order to stop state secrets from being handed over to foreign governments: a piece of antiquated legislation that does not apply to the publishing of leaked documents in the media.
The closure of the case in Sweden in May 2017 should have put an end to the Embassy standoff and enabled Assange to travel to Ecuador for his protection. If anything, events over the last year have demonstrated that the argument that Assange was “holed up” in the Embassy so as to avoid facing sexual assault allegations in Sweden is wrong. He remains in Ecuador’s diplomatic mission despite the case being long since closed.
Currently, the only remaining legal difficulty is Assange’s 2012 violation of bail upon leaving British jurisdiction and entering the Ecuadorian Embassy. The Police could of course arrest Assange for his breach of bail. A prison sentence would be completely disproportionate, given the long confinement Assange has endured, but if this is what it takes to guarantee Assange’s freedom, so be it. Ecuador, however, would have to ensure that any potential imprisonment over the issue of bail does not become a trampoline for extraditi
Thus, we are back to Ecuador’s requirement of guarantees of non-extradition, this time from the United Kingdom. This holds true as long as Ecuador remains committed to the principles of non-extradition for journalistic activities. Moreno’s latest declaration, however, suggests otherwise.
Ecuador is in a strong position. Six years after Assange walked into its embassy, Ecuador’s initial fears of political persecution, far from being ill-founded paranoia, have been proven right. With the case dropped in Sweden, the affair has gone a full circle and the key issue is Washington’s wrath with Wikileaks.
In December 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention adopted its Opinion 54 which found that “the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention” which “should be brought to an end”. This provided a robust legal backing to Ecuador’s position. On 13 July, Ecuador was given renewed international legal endorsement by the Inter American Court of Human Rights when on 13 July it released its long-awaited ruling on the issue of asylum.
The Court’s findings include its recognition of the right to asylum in embassies, states’ obligation to give safe passage to embassy asylees, and the duty of states that have granted asylum to respect the principle of non-refoulement. The Court’s seminal decision essentially argues that the United Kingdom has a legal obligation to grant Assange free passage to Ecuador.
on to the United States.
Ecuador has a choice. It can take advantage of this new victory, demonstrate its respect for the internationally recognised principle of non-refoulement and uphold the asylum as long as its causes persist. Or it can hand Assange over to the British authorities making future extradition to the United States likely.
If Ecuador chooses this path, it will lose the diplomatic standing it has earned for having upheld, despite tremendous pressure, its commitment to the laws of asylum. As for Moreno, caving in now would entrench his legacy as yet another puppet in Latin America’s long history of yielding to bullies.
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
PVW said:
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
aye, there's the rub.
sbenois said:
Hand him over. Try him.
Send him to the big house.
simple
. . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world. And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:aye, there's the rub.
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
It's not a contradiction to despise someone's speech, while supporting their right to speak, even if they lend "active support to enemies of journalism and free speech."
The Daily Worker was protected by the First Amendment when it was published during the 1940s and 1950s, despite its support for Joseph Stalin.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:aye, there's the rub.
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
Paul pointed it out, but I'll say it again. If Assange is convicted, all the journalists will be convicted, including the ones that you like. This is why the New York Times Lawyer is in the background getting ready to help Assange. It's that simple and compelling.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:. . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world. And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
Hand him over. Try him.
Send him to the big house.
simple
I think we've already covered this. Julian is enough. Thanks.
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:I think we've already covered this. Julian is enough. Thanks.
sbenois said:. . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world. And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
Hand him over. Try him.
Send him to the big house.
simple
In the real world it is all or none. Looks like you choose all. Noted.
They are two different groups. One is a Russian agent operating a dead drop and the others are journalists. It's not that hard to grasp, really.
dave said:
They are two different groups. One is a Russian agent operating a dead drop and the others are journalists. It's not that hard to grasp, really.
Won't be seen that way by the courts. As Paul posted above: https://www.courthousenews.com/judges-hear-warning-on-prosecution-of-wikileaks/
Excerpt:
" . . . Addressing a room full of federal and circuit judges at the Ninth Circuit’s annual judicial conference, David McCraw, the deputy general counsel for The New York Times, explained that regardless of how one feels about Assange and traditional news outlets receiving the same kind of deference over publishing leaked materials, his prosecution would be a gut punch to free speech. . ."
It's not that hard to grasp, really.
dave said:
They are two different groups. One is a Russian agent operating a dead drop and the others are journalists. It's not that hard to grasp, really.
Don't forget that she is living in her "real world".
One continues to wonder why this beacon of free speech opted not to release Republican files.
dave23 said:
One continues to wonder why this beacon of free speech opted not to release Republican files.
He released information on war crimes during Republican administrations.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:It's not a contradiction to despise someone's speech, while supporting their right to speak, even if they lend "active support to enemies of journalism and free speech."
PVW said:aye, there's the rub.
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
The Daily Worker was protected by the First Amendment when it was published during the 1940s and 1950s, despite its support for Joseph Stalin.
The Daily Worker did not actively participate in Stalin’s reign. That is the crux of whatever distinction can be made between WikiLeaks and other outlets.
A series of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rulings protect journalists who publish stolen information as long as they were not involved in, or did not encourage, the theft. When David McCraw, the New York Times lawyer, was quoted as saying, “From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks,” he was referring to the 2016 election hacks. If PVW’s belief is correct and WikiLeaks collaborated in those hacks, Assange could be charged for that without undermining current legal protections for journalists. Arguing against prosecution depends on a belief WikiLeaks was not a collaborator, which is apparently where McCraw stands.
The original basis for a possible indictment of Assange is, reportedly, the Chelsey Manning case. It’s been reported that the governement is convinced that WikiLeaks had something to do with her actions. Others remained free to publish and report on them.
In short, arresting Assange on charges that he published Democratic emails or Manning documents that he had nothing to do with taking would bring Paul’s, nan’s and McCraw’s warnings into play. Arresting Assange on charges that he published them after encouraging or collaborating with the sources would not; journalists are already subject to arrest on such charges.
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:I think we've already covered this. Julian is enough. Thanks.
sbenois said:. . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world. And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
Hand him over. Try him.
Send him to the big house.
simple
We covered it with the real Sbenois (see below), but it's necessary to explain why the new, phony "civilized" Sbenois is the same anti-free-speech hypocrite as the original.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:The Daily Worker did not actively participate in Stalin’s reign. That is the crux of whatever distinction can be made between WikiLeaks and other outlets.
drummerboy said:It's not a contradiction to despise someone's speech, while supporting their right to speak, even if they lend "active support to enemies of journalism and free speech."
PVW said:aye, there's the rub.
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
The Daily Worker was protected by the First Amendment when it was published during the 1940s and 1950s, despite its support for Joseph Stalin.
A series of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals rulings protect journalists who publish stolen information as long as they were not involved in, or did not encourage, the theft. When David McCraw, the New York Times lawyer, was quoted as saying, “From that incident, from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks,” he was referring to the 2016 election hacks. If PVW’s belief is correct and WikiLeaks collaborated in those hacks, Assange could be charged for that without undermining current legal protections for journalists. Arguing against prosecution depends on a belief WikiLeaks was not a collaborator, which is apparently where McCraw stands.
The original basis for a possible indictment of Assange is, reportedly, the Chelsey Manning case. It’s been reported that the governement is convinced that WikiLeaks had something to do with her actions. Others remained free to publish and report on them.
In short, arresting Assange on charges that he published Democratic emails or Manning documents that he had nothing to do with taking would bring Paul’s, nan’s and McCraw’s warnings into play. Arresting Assange on charges that he published them after encouraging or collaborating with the sources would not; journalists are already subject to arrest on such charges.
Reality Check:
There has never been any allegation that Assange stole the Manning documents or the DNC / Podesta emails. He published them, just like the NY Times, which didn't steal the Penatagon Papers, published them and also published the DNC / Podesta emails and the Manning documents.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:It's not a contradiction to despise someone's speech, while supporting their right to speak, even if they lend "active support to enemies of journalism and free speech."
PVW said:aye, there's the rub.
I don't have a well formed opinion on how, from a legal perspective, we should think of Assange, but I definitely don't find him admirable from an ethical one. I think it is extremely likely that he did in fact collaborate with Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign in order to make Trump's victory over Clinton more likely. This means he purposely chose to further the interests of a regime that is hostile to free speech and democratic values generally, and actively worked to support a candidate who likewise demonstrated hostility to democratic values and norms in the U.S.
I don't see how a commitment to journalism and free speech compels me to support someone who lends his active support to enemies of journalism and free speech.
The Daily Worker was protected by the First Amendment when it was published during the 1940s and 1950s, despite its support for Joseph Stalin.
I explicitly noted that I wasn't talking about the legal context here -- my point wasn't about the "right" to speak. I think finding the right legal balance in these contexts is tricky, with good arguments made across a wide spectrum of positions (and note that I purposely call it a "spectrum" of positions -- the one thing I'm definitely convinced of is that those who argue that there are only two possible positions are certainly wrong).
I think the comparison of Assange to organizations such as the NYT is instructive and, to my mind, unfavorable to Assange. It's true that the NYT was among the channels for distributing the information from the stolen DNC emails. But if one regularly reads the NYT, you'd also be exposed to the broader context of these -- to wit:
The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.
A long, detailed look at how Wikileaks fits in the context of supporting Russian interests.
And more broadly, reading the NYT one comes across plenty of information that is detrimental not just to Clinton and the DNC, but to Putin's Russia, to the Republican party, etc.
If one believes that news consumers have a responsibility to read information critically, then this broader context is important, and the fact that organizations like the NYT actively try to provide that context, whereas Assange has gone out of his way to hide it (surely in the process of communicating with the Trump campaign and Russian operatives he's accumulated a lot of information on these organizations -- information he's chosen to keep secret rather than share) is one very large difference.
Further, I think a lot of these questions around what is responsible disclosure are legitimately difficult. When I look at people at the NYT, for instance, I can see them struggling with these -- see the disagreements between Nick Confessore and Amy Chozik. This kind of public discussion, struggle, and contention is a sign to me that they realize the seriousness and difficulty of these questions -- I don't demand that someone reach the same conclusions I do, but I do expect them to give these situations the effort they deserve.
Further to that point, the NYT didn't just make all the information from wikileaks publicly available, but curated it. That takes effort -- it involves hard decisions on what is in the public interest, what is not, and what their role in making that decision should be. Again, I don't always agree with their conclusions, but the fact that they undertake the effort signals that they take their responsibility seriously.
I have yet to see any similar evidence that Assange takes his responsibilities seriously. With the DNC hacks, in particular, he comes across more as someone using his access to pursue a personal grudge than as someone legitimately interested in pursuing the public good. Maybe you're right that shielding him from prosecution is important for safeguarding journalism, but let's not make him out to be some sort of hero worthy of respect.
Correction/addendum to my previous post:
The NYT story I meant to cite was actually:
How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West’s Secrets
Oh Paul, here is a clear explanation for you..I couldn't care less if he goes to the big house or he is executed.
As long as he rots.
But thanks for asking.
PVW said:Maybe you're right that shielding him from prosecution is important for safeguarding journalism, but let's not make him out to be some sort of hero worthy of respect.
I would suggest (again) Daniel Ellsberg's recent testimonial for Assange to help decide whether he's a "hero." Starting at about 32:23:
sbenois said:
Oh Paul, here is a clear explanation for you..I couldn't care less if he goes to the big house or he is executed.
As long as he rots.
But thanks for asking.
. . . and all the liberals who gave him money
paulsurovell said:
Reality Check:
There has never been any allegation that Assange stole the Manning documents or the DNC / Podesta emails. He published them, just like the NY Times, which didn't steal the Penatagon Papers, published them and also published the DNC / Podesta emails and the Manning documents.
All that would be required under the law is proof that Assange actively encouraged Manning to take the documents. I’m not vouching for them, but reports at the time said the Justice Department believed that he had. Again, that’s the difference.
paulsurovell said:I would suggest (again) Daniel Ellsberg's recent testimonial for Assange to help decide whether he's a "hero." Starting at about 32:23:
Three times in one week. Would the Andrew McCarthy column on Mueller’s motion in the Manafort case make more of an impression on you if I posted it twice more?
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Yes.