Extradition of Assange

If you're going to assert as a fact that terrorists used this info to kill informants, prove it.

Yeah no. The Taliban, without any sort of reasonable motivation to do so, has publicly stated they've used the information provided by Wikileaks. Why would they claim the information was useful if it wasn't? Further, how could anyone but the Taliban themselves really prove that they did use that information? In lieu of any other indication about what information they did or didn't use, their word that it was used is as much proof as anyone is able to call on.

In any case I consider that question to be largely irrelevant, because any supposed deaths are on the Pentagon themselves.

Bull♥♥♥♥. It was the Pentagon's choice not to perform damage mitigation, but it was still Wikileaks choice to leak the information. You can hit my bike with your car, and I might be living if I'd worn a helmet, but that doesn't change the fact that you killed me.

Wikileaks wasn't reckless, the pentagon was. The pentagon valued their pissy condemnation of wikileaks over the lives of their informants.

Just like Assange valued his own life over that of American servicemen and informants.

There may not be any such thing. If there is, it undercuts the opinion that he is a hero, since he's holding that information back for his own interests. Now he's making it about himself.

This is not the person who should decide which classified information gets released and to whom. It's obvious that the good of anything but his own attention seeking is the furthest things from his mind.

Yeah no. The Taliban, without any sort of reasonable motivation to do so, has publicly stated they've used the information provided by Wikileaks. Why would they claim the information was useful if it wasn't? Further, how could anyone but the Taliban themselves really prove that they did use that information? In lieu of any other indication about what information they did or didn't use, their word that it was used is as much proof as anyone is able to call on.

There are reasons for them to lie even if it wasn't useful information. Such as rubbing in the face of the US the fact that the security of their information is piss poor for example. In the absence of any proof or specific examples it is impossible to prove that anyone died as a result of the leaks.

Bull♥♥♥♥. It was the Pentagon's choice not to perform damage mitigation, but it was still Wikileaks choice to leak the information. You can hit my bike with your car, and I might be living if I'd worn a helmet, but that doesn't change the fact that you killed me.

That is not an apt analogy.

Just like Assange valued his own life over that of American servicemen and informants.

There may not be any such thing. If there is, it undercuts the opinion that he is a hero, since he's holding that information back for his own interests. Now he's making it about himself.

This is not the person who should decide which classified information gets released and to whom. It's obvious that the good of anything but his own attention seeking is the furthest things from his mind.

When people openly advocate for your assassination and you have legitimate reason to believe that you will be sent to a foreign country to face a trial that can result in your execution, you'd be stupid not to have an insurance policy. I also read the article and nowhere does it say that the information would put the lives of American servicemen at risk. It said

"Julian Assange has distributed to fellow hackers an encrypted 'poison pill' of damaging secrets, thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay."

"The 'doomsday files' which have been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters are understood to include information on Guantanamo Bay, and aerial video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians, BP reports and Bank of America documents.

The files are encoded with a 256-digit key. Experts have said it is virtually unbreakable."

Originally Posted by Pietro

That is not an apt analogy.

I suspect the analogy might be made more apt if it was first made clear that the person riding the bicycle was either riding on the street, in the wrong direction, or in a way that violates traffic laws. ^_^;

There are reasons for them to lie even if it wasn't useful information. Such as rubbing in the face of the US the fact that the security of their information is piss poor for example. In the absence of any proof or specific examples it is impossible to prove that anyone died as a result of the leaks.

By stating that they've used the information, all the Taliban achieves is providing fodder to the right wing Republican establishment that opposes Wikileaks and pursues a more interventionist government policy.

In the desperate sort of guerrilla war the Taliban are fighting, they're more apt to pick tactical objectives over insult. Secret information like what was released has value, and by not saying anything at all about it they wouldn't be giving evidence for those who oppose the release of such information.

I suspect the analogy might be made more apt if it was first made clear that the person riding the bicycle was either riding on the street, in the wrong direction, or in a way that violates traffic laws. ^_^;

No, because such a person was acting in a reckless way that would have directly caused the incident. The Pentagon refusing to abet Wikileaks in releasing secret document is not tantamount to The Pentagon causing the leaks in the first place.

That is not an apt analogy.

Yes it is. Just because I didn't perform damage mitigation does not in any way reduce your culpability for my condition. Similarly, The Pentagon refusing to help Wikileaks redact the material does not in any way reduce Wikileaks' responsibility for releasing the information and any results from it.

When people openly advocate for your assassination and you have legitimate reason to believe that you will be sent to a foreign country to face a trial that can result in your execution, you'd be stupid not to have an insurance policy.

The United States wouldn't execute the man. It's not dumb enough to want to turn him into an enduring martyr. Their goal is far more likely to take him in and possibly torture (which isn't guaranteed, given his extremely high profile) until he gives up his sources and then keep him in confinement for the rest of his days.

Now of course, the idea of having an insurance policy is understandable. It doesn't excuse releasing videos and information that will incite even more attacks on ISAF personnel during the remainder of their deployment.

I (uninformed as I am) find myself siding with the two Matts on the issue of who should accept more blame (although the "most" blame still technically lies with the people who actually carried out the executions) for the results of the leaks (if they were indeed the results of the leaks).

However, disregarding the issue of blame, do we at least agree that the Pentagon should have co-operated with Wikileaks in helping to eliminate certain details from the leaked documents, if the saving of lives was truly the utmost issue here? Do we not also agree that, of anybody, the input of the Pentagon would be the most valuable in terms of protecting people?

Originally Posted by Great White North

In the desperate sort of guerrilla war the Taliban are fighting, they're more apt to pick tactical objectives over insult. Secret information like what was released has value, and by not saying anything at all about it they wouldn't be giving evidence for those who oppose the release of such information.

I'm confused, wouldn't the acknowledgment of the use of these secret documents by hostile parties only further encourage actions taken against further release of said secret documents? I was under the impression that the enemies of the US would have liked to get their grubby little paws on the US' secrets.

However, disregarding the issue of blame, could it still be said that the Pentagon should have co-operated with Wikileaks in helping to eliminate certain details from the leaked documents?

Perhaps, but just because they didn't doesn't paint them with the blame.

I'm confused, wouldn't the acknowledgment of the release of these secret documents only further encourage actions taken against said release of said secret documents?

That's what I just said.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Perhaps, but just because they didn't doesn't paint them with the blame.

You're right. Though if we're talking in absolute terms, the majority of the blame still rests on the people who actually committed the murders.

The question therefore is: how much of the blame do we place on the person who knowingly supplied information where it might be seen and used by a killer, but only after doing everything they could to protect the identities of people inside that information?

Don't people tend to be more critical of the party that had the power to prevent the most harm but didn't, than the party that indirectly set harmful events in motion?

That's what I just said.

I'm still confused. Wouldn't it benefit hostile parties to shut their traps and not make a big deal out of what they do with secret information?

The question therefore is: how much of the blame do we place on the person who knowingly supplied information where it might be seen and used by a killer, but only after doing everything they could to protect the identities of people inside that information?

Arguable. Wikileaks claimed they didn't have the manpower to go through all the cables and carefully redact anything possibly harmful, so they didn't.

Don't people tend to be more critical of the party that had the power to prevent the most harm but didn't, than the party that indirectly set harmful events in motion?

Well in this case, excepting those that actually did the killing, the blame rests with the ones that instigated the whole series of events, and proceeded anyway once they knew no one else would be provided any proof-reading: Wikileaks.

I'm still confused. Wouldn't it benefit hostile parties to shut their traps and not make a big deal out of what they do with secret information?

That's exactly what I said.

It's more beneficial for the Taliban to say nothing, and thus not encourage more stringent measures to control leaks.

Originally Posted by Great White North

No, because such a person was acting in a reckless way that would have directly caused the incident. The Pentagon refusing to abet Wikileaks in releasing secret document is not tantamount to The Pentagon causing the leaks in the first place.

I would think that my addition to the analogy may be more along the lines of the fact that the United States were implicated in quite a number of war and political crimes, which I do think people deserve to know while the situation can still be corrected. I do question, however, whether or not the publication of information was more extensive than was necessary to prove that such crimes unquestionably existed. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Great White North

Arguable. Wikileaks claimed they didn't have the manpower to go through all the cables and carefully redact anything possibly harmful, so they didn't.

Well in this case, excepting those that actually did the killing, the blame rests with the ones that instigated the whole series of events, and proceeded anyway once they knew no one else would be provided any proof-reading: Wikileaks.

Fair enough. I don't have anything to respond to this with.

That's exactly what I said.

It's more beneficial for the Taliban to say nothing, and thus not encourage more stringent measures to control leaks.

This makes me even more confused. I was under the impression that they DID say something. Is there something they gain from being honest that they don't gain from lying about this?

This makes me even more confused. I was under the impression that they DID say something. Is there something they gain from being honest that they don't gain from lying about this?

Intimidation factor perhaps, or they might have judged it as conductive to creating internal strife.

But they don't need to be truthful to achieve that. Even if the Taliban aren't able to use the info to find and kill informants, if a potential Afghan informant thinks they can, he's not going to talk, and the Taliban objective is achieved.

Originally Posted by Great White North

You're really asking him for information that's likely only available to the higher ups of an international terrorist organization. Only the Taliban leadership can truly say if the reason they killed so and so was because they knew already he was an American spy or because they just found out.

Asserting that mattj should somehow produce this information that is likely impossible or at the least extremely difficult to find considering that the one or two groups that would know anything about it aren't in a rush to disseminate the information is a red herring. "You can't provide identities" is a childish argument that insults everyone's intelligence here which is only employed for the purpose of circling the debate and scoring "points" of some sort.

Not at all, I would think that you can point out exactly how Wikileaks could have lead to someone's death by cross referencing the information they have released with recent victims in of the Taliban in news reports.
Not that the information hasn't caused trouble for U.S. forces. When a group of American soldiers raped and murdered a civilian, there were locals that took their ire out on soldiers who had nothing to do with the incident. I imagine that the war crimes coming to public now would provoke similar repercussions.

It would help if some one is actually holding the people who commit these war crimes responsible for their actions. A soldier who commits such actions, be he a private or a general, is no better than the insurgents our army is fighting and should be judged just as harshly. Alas, this is not the case. We commit war crimes like My Lai and Abu Ghareb then we hold a nominal trial that buries the grunts and leaves the heads with naught but a slap on the wrist. Then we march on and release a report 30 years after the fact with which we justify ourselves somehow by saying "we aren't as bad now".

I think what Julian Assange has done is a step towards breaking that cycle. Suddenly the Pentagon and the army must be held accountable for their actions, maybe they'll be more concerned about casualties and collateral damage.

But I won't hold my breath for anything like that.

I FINALLY HAVE A REASON TO POST IN THIS THREAD!

Ysionris kindly gave me a summary of the most recent developments in the Assange saga, meaning I'm now informed enough to do a little of my own research. The source of the content of this post (or at least, its inspiration) has come from a link sent to me by another friend of mine, however.

There are five legal myths being perpetuated by Assange's supporters, as detailed in this article.

The most interesting one, and also the one I should have picked up on as soon as people started saying it, is this: That Assange has not been charged and is therefore not wanted for arrest.

He CANNOT be charged before he is arrested. I imagine in Swedish law you have to be charged in person when you are in detention (and although I'm a little rusty I'd like to think the law is the same here in the UK, that you cannot be formally charged in your absence). But there is an arrest warrant out for him, which means he is not simply wanted for questioning.

However, on the flip-side of this, it is apparently also true that it would be easier to extradite him from the UK than it would be from Sweden. Go figure.

Being a law-man, what's your view on this?

You too Wes, if you're there

I can't really provide a legal opinion on the extradition matter because it concerns international conventions which are a little out of my depth (basically I can't be bothered looking up each convention).

On the matter of rape, however, despite George Galloway's insistence that the matter would not constitute rape outside of Sweden, I would say that he is wrong, and that if the allegations against Assange are true then the matter is one of rape, not "sexual etiquette". Anyone sensible knows that once she says no, you stop. As the earlier legal myth article comments, I don't believe it is for a rape suspect to dictate the conditions under which he is questioned regardless of the sacred presumption of innocence.

Other than that I have no strong opinions regarding his work. In principle I agree with the concept of freedom of information and open government, but because of his practical vigilantism in the matter I can't really get too close behind those diplomatic cables that Wikileaks released (and besides which I'm still not informed enough as to their nature).

Originally Posted by Great White North

Intimidation factor perhaps, or they might have judged it as conductive to creating internal strife.

Am I the only person entertaining the possibility that the statement was actually made up by the US government? It would explain a lot.

That seems a stretch. Putting the idea out that the Taliban have gone and killed people for talking won't convince others to do so, and for all that the US may or may not be pressuring for extradition, I can't imagine them actually sabotaging their own efforts for the sake of one man.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I FINALLY HAVE A REASON TO POST IN THIS THREAD!

Ysionris kindly gave me a summary of the most recent developments in the Assange saga, meaning I'm now informed enough to do a little of my own research. The source of the content of this post (or at least, its inspiration) has come from a link sent to me by another friend of mine, however.

There are five legal myths being perpetuated by Assange's supporters, as detailed in this article.

The most interesting one, and also the one I should have picked up on as soon as people started saying it, is this: That Assange has not been charged and is therefore not wanted for arrest.

He CANNOT be charged before he is arrested. I imagine in Swedish law you have to be charged in person when you are in detention (and although I'm a little rusty I'd like to think the law is the same here in the UK, that you cannot be formally charged in your absence). But there is an arrest warrant out for him, which means he is not simply wanted for questioning.

However, on the flip-side of this, it is apparently also true that it would be easier to extradite him from the UK than it would be from Sweden. Go figure.

The trouble is, all of these things rely on the premise the courts will treat the Assange case fairly. If people were reasonably sure that Assange would receive fair trial in Sweden on the cases levelled at him, and that the Swedish courts would take into account the United States' extremely poor history on human rights and refuse an extradition there based on European law, I don't think we would be seeing this fuss. Certainly, I think Assange should face a fair legal court on the basis of these rape, assault, and sexual misconduct claims. To ignore this would send entirely the wrong message, and would endorse the, ah, "George Galloway" view of sexual behaviour, which would be a massive step backwards as far as the legal treatment of women is concerned.

However, I also think there's a strong reason to believe Assange won't be met with a fair legal court. The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation (as was pointed out by Hombre earlier). After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor. The law firm used in the Assange investigation is run by Borgstrom and Bodstrom, both either current or former politicians who are members of the Social Democratic Party. Bodstrom is a close friend of Krans, who interrogated some of the claimants (specifically SW). Krans is also a close friend of complainant AA (Ardin). Krans has also already breached legal protocol by publicly making negative comments about the case. Marianne Ny, the prosecutor, refused to provide Assange or his lawyers information against him, violating both Swedish law and ECHR (Article 5 specifically). In addition, the arrest warrant wasn't released until the 18th of November, when Assange had left on the 27th of September. The Swedish legal system also features "lay judges", who are elected based on political leanings and have no qualified experience, which as a result has led to Sweden having the highest per capita rate of appeals to the European Supreme Court based on Article 5 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial). (If I have any of this wrong, I'm relying on Hombre to correct me!)

I don't pretend to be an expert, I have only a passing interest in law and can only pass on what I've read and believe to be accurate. However, I think there is a strong and compelling case that argues Assange would not be treated fairly in a court of law. What the solution is, I'm not sure. For him to not be tried at all would send entirely the wrong messages. Unfortunately, for him to be tried also seems to be a less than enviable solution.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

However, I also think there's a strong reason to believe Assange won't be met with a fair legal court. The case against Julian Assange was initially dropped, and deemed so weak it could not warrant investigation (as was pointed out by Hombre earlier). After the intervention of a Swedish politician close to American diplomats, it was revived by a different prosecutor.

It's not unusual for cases to be revived by different lawyers. I once saw a case of drug possession where a young girl was charged and pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis, when she was found in a room with the cannabis plant and another guy. There was evidence to suggest that the other guy was a dealer and that he put pressure on her to cover his back by looking after the plant (as there had been a string of cases recently of people being pressured by their dealers to look after drugs), but for reasons unknown to anyone in the courtroom at the time the CPS decided not to prosecute him. The judge declined to make an order for destruction of the drugs because he wanted the CPS to come before him and apply to him, at the same time explaining why the other guy wasn't charged.

This is a good example of prosecutors avoiding trial because they think it'd be too hard to convict rather than actually considering the public interest behind such a trial. I can see trials for rape being a strong instance of this sort of question of judgment - it's very often witness evidence versus witness evidence, one man's word against a woman's, and the prosecuting authority may not think it's worth the taxpayer's money to go ahead with such a difficult case because he can't say either way whether he'd win or lose.

The law firm used in the Assange investigation is run by Borgstrom and Bodstrom, both either current or former politicians who are members of the Social Democratic Party. Bodstrom is a close friend of Krans, who interrogated some of the claimants (specifically SW). Krans is also a close friend of complainant AA (Ardin). Krans has also already breached legal protocol by publicly making negative comments about the case.

That's all well and good, but the individual prosecutor has a duty to remain an objective minister of justice in this country and I doubt it's any different in Sweden (and I think you mean complainants, not claimants, that's a civil term). If the court doesn't think there's a conflict of interest and the individual prosecutor hasn't been called out on it then I'm afraid to say I trust their judgment - and even if there is, the prosecutor isn't the one who decides on guilt or innocence so whether or not that conflict of interest is there, it guarantees nothing.

That sounds like a rather large chain link to try and argue conflict of interest, to me - it reminds me of the time that some guy on this very forum was trying to argue that the BBC had terrorist links because some of its reporters used to work for Al Jazeera, which is based in the Middle East, therefore terrorists.

Marianne Ny, the prosecutor, refused to provide Assange or his lawyers information against him, violating both Swedish law and ECHR (Article 5 specifically).

You're actually thinking of Article 6, the right to a fair trial, not Article 5, the right to liberty and security of person. It's a necessary element of the right to a fair trial that you are allowed to know your accuser and the accusations made against you, but rape and other sexual offences do give rise to a number of different exceptions to these rules in order to protect witnesses and prevent unfair questioning of victims in court (the European courts have never treated such exceptions lightly but in the UK at least they still stand unless a good case can be made that it would violate Article 6 not to allow such questioning or such information to be disclosed).

So yes, it's valid to say that Article 6 is breached, but don't forget that almost all articles of the ECHR say "Part 1, everyone has the right to this. Part 2, exceptions can be made in certain circumstances." The only real exceptions to the exceptions (har) are Articles 2 and 3 (right to life and right not to be tortured).

In addition, the arrest warrant wasn't released until the 18th of November, when Assange had left on the 27th of September.

I'm not sure what your implication is here just because they didn't rush to issue the arrest warrant. Expediency is usually advised and in fact cases can fall apart for failing to meet deadlines in the UK but without knowing what you're getting at I can't issue any specific comments.

The Swedish legal system also features "lay judges", who are elected based on political leanings and have no qualified experience, which as a result has led to Sweden having the highest per capita rate of appeals to the European Supreme Court based on Article 5 of the ECHR (right to a fair trial). (If I have any of this wrong, I'm relying on Hombre to correct me!)

Again, you're talking about Article 6, and there is no European Supreme Court, so you're talking about the European Court of Human Rights.

The United Kingdom has Magistrates' Courts which are run by a panel of three lay members advised by a Justice's Clerk. They are well-trained despite being legally uneducated and as a result there have been studies suggesting they actually don't sentence harshly enough rather than too harshly. They are appealed enough to higher courts in our own country but the system isn't inherently flawed because we have them. If, however, Swedish "judges" don't have any legal advisors or anything of that sort then I'd have to call a certain degree of shenanigans, but surely Sweden has its own appeal system run by legal judges that can preside.

I don't pretend to be an expert, I have only a passing interest in law and can only pass on what I've read and believe to be accurate. However, I think there is a strong and compelling case that argues Assange would not be treated fairly in a court of law. What the solution is, I'm not sure. For him to not be tried at all would send entirely the wrong messages. Unfortunately, for him to be tried also seems to be a less than enviable solution.

All I can say is this: the fight for Open Government doesn't die with Assange.