SEC=UGA Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 London (CNN) -- Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange argue that he could ultimately end up in Guantanamo Bay or be executed if he is extradited to Sweden to face questioning about sex allegations, according to papers they released Monday. If Britain extradites him to Sweden, the Nordic country could in turn send him to the United States to face espionage charges, the lawyers argue. They are making their case in a two-day extradition hearing that opened Monday in a London court. Prosecutors in Sweden want him for questioning in connection with sexual misconduct allegations unrelated to WikiLeaks. Assange has denied the allegations, and is free on 200,000 pounds ($310,000) bail while he fights extradition. Prosecutor Clare Montgomery, representing Sweden, dismissed the defense claim that Sweden would would hand Assange over to the United States. The "suggestion that Sweden provides no protection against human rights violations is unfounded," she argued, adding that Britain would have the right to intervene if Washington asked Sweden for Assange. The British courts are requiring Assange to stay at the mansion of a supporter outside London each night and check in daily with police. He is also required to wear an electronic tag to monitor his location. Assange's website, which facilitates the leaking of secret information, has released hundreds of thousands of pages of U.S. military and diplomatic documents for most of the past year. Assange looked relaxed as proceedings opened in the hearing. Celebrity supporters including campaigner Bianca Jagger and former lawmaker Tony Benn sat in the public gallery. His lawyers argue that Assange would be at risk of mistreatment or even execution, according to an outline of their defense published on their website, saying that means Britain cannot extradite him without violating his human rights. "There is a real risk he could be made subject to the death penalty," Assange lawyers say, citing British media reports that Republican politicians Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee have called for him to be executed. They also say he should not be sent to Sweden because rape trials there are held behind closed doors, while British trials are open. The Swedish prosecutor who issued an arrest warrant for Assange did not have the power to do so, Assange's lawyers will also argue. Additionally, his lawyers will say, it's improper to issue an arrest warrant when a suspect is wanted only for questioning, not prosecution. Prosecutor Marianne Ny "went from informal discussions about arranging an interview of Mr. Assange straight to the issuance of" a European arrest warrant without "formally summoning him for an interview or formally requesting his interrogation," they will argue. British prosecutor Montgomery rejected all those arguments in her opening statement. It would be AWESOME if they sent him to Gitmo!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 It would be AWESOME if they sent him to Gitmo!!!! ok The government failed to keep their secrets. All this guy did was publish parts of the info. It would have been worse if this info was just posted on various anonymous websites or sent to a foreign government. The irrational hate for this figure head of a website is something I just don't understand. You could hate the guy who took the information (although he may have naively thought he was being a whistleblower) or get mad at some of the crap the government has lied to people about. But nah, let's all go mob mentality about some dude who owns the website that published the info. If the New York Times had published parts of a government story would you be mad at the private who released the info or the newspaper who published portions of that info? In the computer age you really don't need a newspaper to get the word out. It would have been incredibly easy to just post all the info to random websites and let the chips fall. Wikileaks at least tried to not release information that could harm ongoing situations (and to this date I haven't seen a story where an informant has been harmed from being "outed" by wikileaks). I fail to see how it would be awesome to send a website owner to a quasi-legal prison we have on foreign soil to show the world how real democracy and freedom of the press works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I have no love for Assange, but it seems to me that he is really just a publisher (smarmy and void of morals perhaps, but still a publisher). The one that needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law is the actual soldier who supplied the information, Bradley Manning. I'm pretty sure that some major newspapers published some of the information that was leaked as well... why aren't they being persued with the same relentlessness as Assange? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 ok The government failed to keep their secrets. All this guy did was publish parts of the info. It would have been worse if this info was just posted on various anonymous websites or sent to a foreign government. The irrational hate for this figure head of a website is something I just don't understand. You could hate the guy who took the information (although he may have naively thought he was being a whistleblower) or get mad at some of the crap the government has lied to people about. But nah, let's all go mob mentality about some dude who owns the website that published the info. If the New York Times had published parts of a government story would you be mad at the private who released the info or the newspaper who published portions of that info? In the computer age you really don't need a newspaper to get the word out. It would have been incredibly easy to just post all the info to random websites and let the chips fall. Wikileaks at least tried to not release information that could harm ongoing situations (and to this date I haven't seen a story where an informant has been harmed from being "outed" by wikileaks). I fail to see how it would be awesome to send a website owner to a quasi-legal prison we have on foreign soil to show the world how real democracy and freedom of the press works. THese are state secrets. I'm all for the execution of the leaker. Further, had these guys not have had an outlet, an easy outlet, that is hunting for this info, these individuals may not have had a platform for their leaked documents. In the legal system, if you hire someone to murder an individual, you are just as complicit in the murder as is the person who pulled the trigger. In this case, by offering the platform and urging people to send you this info, you are just as complicit as the leaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 THese are state secrets. I'm all for the execution of the leaker. Further, had these guys not have had an outlet, an easy outlet, that is hunting for this info, these individuals may not have had a platform for their leaked documents. In the legal system, if you hire someone to murder an individual, you are just as complicit in the murder as is the person who pulled the trigger. In this case, by offering the platform and urging people to send you this info, you are just as complicit as the leaker. You're up against the true internationalism of the Internet though. I think the soldier who downloaded and passed on the secrets should be lobbed into jail and the key thrown away but prosecuting a foreign national for doing the publishing is ultimately counterproductive. The more this thing is ignored, the more it fades away. There is one other thing that needs some serious hammer - why were systems set up in such a way that the original leaker had such broad access? Our company systems here are way tighter than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 THese are state secrets. I'm all for the execution of the leaker. Further, had these guys not have had an outlet, an easy outlet, that is hunting for this info, these individuals may not have had a platform for their leaked documents. In the legal system, if you hire someone to murder an individual, you are just as complicit in the murder as is the person who pulled the trigger. In this case, by offering the platform and urging people to send you this info, you are just as complicit as the leaker. How can citizens of another country be legally obligated to keep the secrets we cannot? The US government doesn't have anyone to blame but itself. Plus, there's that whole "freedom of the press" thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 How can citizens of another country be legally obligated to keep the secrets we cannot? The US government doesn't have anyone to blame but itself. Plus, there's that whole "freedom of the press" thing. Agreed. I think the bigger deal is made of Assange serves as a distraction from what was actually found out. I doubt the average person has even read any cables or know specifically what was exposed. They just bought into some fear mentality that we are "weaker" as a country because some of the BS that our government does (and lies to it's people about) was published. I think having an agency that is willing to expose lies when he gets the truth (kind of like the press is supposed to do) would serve as a counter balance to public officials who obviously think they are beyond the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Agreed. I think the bigger deal is made of Assange serves as a distraction from what was actually found out. I doubt the average person has even read any cables or know specifically what was exposed. They just bought into some fear mentality that we are "weaker" as a country because some of the BS that our government does (and lies to it's people about) was published. I think having an agency that is willing to expose lies when he gets the truth (kind of like the press is supposed to do) would serve as a counter balance to public officials who obviously think they are beyond the law. I couldn't agree more. ETA: what's frustrating is that our own domestic "free press" is either unwilling or unable to publish such things. If they were, there wouldn't be a wikileaks in the first place. Edited February 7, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I couldn't agree more. ETA: what's frustrating is that our own domestic "free press" is either unwilling or unable to publish such things. If they were, there wouldn't be a wikileaks in the first place. Didn't the NYTimes publish a lot of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Didn't the NYTimes publish a lot of it? They posted some of it after they checked with the government. It was actually kind of scary when you consider how much they acted like state run media. They completely omitted parts that the government asked them too. Looked like a lap dog in the process from what I recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 They posted some of it after they checked with the government. It was actually kind of scary when you consider how much they acted like state run media. They completely omitted parts that the government asked them too. Looked like a lap dog in the process from what I recall. i'm not sure that's totally on point. I mean, that didn't have to publish any of it, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Agreed. I think the bigger deal is made of Assange serves as a distraction from what was actually found out. I doubt the average person has even read any cables or know specifically what was exposed. They just bought into some fear mentality that we are "weaker" as a country because some of the BS that our government does (and lies to it's people about) was published. I think having an agency that is willing to expose lies when he gets the truth (kind of like the press is supposed to do) would serve as a counter balance to public officials who obviously think they are beyond the law. Good post I'm still astonished at the number of people (especially huddlers) who support our government and even go as far as defend its illegal actions. Our government is the epitomy of everything that is evil and wrong in the world. Our government has stripped away any individual liberty we Americans once had. Our government indoctrinates its citizens through the educational system and continues it via the media. Our government pollutes the water and atmosphere with toxins. Our government fosters the creation of manufactured drugs yet is trying to criminalize organic farming. F U C K the US government - seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 i'm not sure that's totally on point. I mean, that didn't have to publish any of it, right? The issue isn't that they are free to publish nothing - its that they were scare to publish anything without government preapproval. That's something I'd expect from China or Iran, not "the land of the free." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The issue isn't that they are free to publish nothing - its that they were scare to publish anything without government preapproval. That's something I'd expect from China or Iran, not "the land of the free." Dude, we haven't been the land of the free in over a century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Dude, we haven't been the land of the free in over a century. While I can see some parts of your point, I think it's all relative. It might be more free in the jungles of Borneo but I doubt very much I'd want to swap with the folks living there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 While I can see some parts of your point, I think it's all relative. It might be more free in the jungles of Borneo but I doubt very much I'd want to swap with the folks living there. Sure, everything is relative. But I'm not talking that extreme. Are you comfortable in knowing that the government can search all your records, including phone calls/conversations and emails? And that's just the Patriot Act which is only 1 of probably several hundred 'acts of congress' - all of which corrodes our liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Sure, everything is relative. But I'm not talking that extreme. Are you comfortable in knowing that the government can search all your records, including phone calls/conversations and emails? And that's just the Patriot Act which is only 1 of probably several hundred 'acts of congress' - all of which corrodes our liberty. Again, point understood if not taken but a quick look at some other countries convinces me that even though freedom is eroding, it's still more free here than in most equivalent nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Again, point understood if not taken but a quick look at some other countries convinces me that even though freedom is eroding, it's still more free here than in most equivalent nations. Sure, I'll give you that. Does it make it right or acceptable though? It shouldn't. I'm not even certain there's a better option anywhere on the planet. But it still doesn't make it right nor should we accept it as humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 The whole "Freedom of the Press" argument here is bunk... Why not just go ahead and release the names of all CIA/FBI field agents. How bout we detail to the public where all US nuke missile installations are. How bout we disclose the location of our tactical nuclear submarines, go ahead and give the routes they travel and coordinates. Why don't we release the names of all the people that we are working with in foreign governments. Hell, we're Americans, we deserve to know all of this info!!!!!!!!! Just because the press gets a hold of information doesn't mean that they should publish it, they need to use better judgment. nd if it appears that they have compromised the security of the US or individuals, then they should be prosecuted. What really annoys me is that on one hand the press will go to GREAT lengths to not divulge the name of a sexual assault victim, but hey, if they get ahold of some good info on strategic military sites, they run with it... I will add one thing, I am far from wanting the government to intrude upon our lives and have been one of the main people on here that has lamented and killed the previous admin for the Patriot Act. But these leaks and Assange being the person pumping for the info and offering a medium by which to disseminate it has me absolutely infuriated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 But these leaks Which particular leak has been the most condemning and made the US weaker in your opinion? (being serious, not trying to troll or argue.. just wondering) and Assange being the person pumping for the info and offering a medium by which to disseminate it has me absolutely infuriated. I guess we have a different view of what happened. To my knowledge, Assange didn't know Bradley Manning and never pumped him for anything. He basically made website that works like a drop box. Manning could have posted that info to a hundred websites (or torrent servers) and everything would have been exposed at one time. Wikileaks at least tried to vet the information and release the parts that showed the government cover ups and lies without putting lives at risk (to my knowledge nobody whose name has been released as an informant has been killed). Dropping it on a torrent server and sending tracker files to a hundred websites would have been much worse. Your analogy of the press telling everyone where nuclear warheads are doesn't seem to jive with what has actually happened. Telling the American people that our soldiers shot a couple of insurgents in Iraq with Apache gun fire only to find out via wikileaks video that those were reporters that were gunned down with helicopter gun fire and the military just called them "insurgents" to cover it up is a bit different than what you are implying. Bradley acted with the heart of a "whistleblower" as he thought the government was doing terrible things and then lying to the American people about it. As far as "free-est" rankings of nations, the US is typically around the bottom of the top 10 on the charts I've seen. Generally they are regarded by economic terms though so I haven't seen any that really account for press and democracy "freedom" rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.