ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Julian Assange

Reply
Old 8th June 2018, 08:01 AM   #681
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You were the one that brought up the suggestion that the US might try and get around the "no political extraditions" by charging something that wasn't political. One assumes that you were thinking that the US could extradite for "theft" and then once they had their hands on him go, "Haha, now we're charging you with Espionage!"
Yes, I did bring up charging Assange with nonpolitical crimes. That's what I think the US wants. Think nailing Capone for tax evasion. The States don't want him as a martyr, IMO. They want him litigating and harassed till he runs out of donations to keep fighting, thereby disabling the potential threat that Wikileaks poses. Charging with espionage or whatever is counterproductive.

The post you quote is questioning why the reasoning slips back and forth between 'the US doesn't want him' and 'the US wants him for political crimes and Sweden knows it'. The anti-Assange posters do this a lot, as well as harping on the difficulties in political extradition, which is a non-issue, unless you assume he is right.

Quote:
The major issue there is that they can't. If Sweden extradited him for theft, then theft is all that the US can charge him with. If they broke that accord, and International Law, then they'd find that no country would ever extradite a person to them again because they couldn't be trusted to abide by their treaties. Same if they tried sending him to Gitmo, it would be a violation of their treaties and that sort of behaviour has International repercussions.
Sidebar: I think the States have a well-earned reputation for doing what they please. The World Court has concurred, IIRC.

However, not the issue. I think the logical objective is to numb out WL, not crucify Assange. Lesser charges would suffice. The 'difficulties in extraditing for political crimes' argument is a red herring.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 08:07 AM   #682
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The anti-Assange posters do this a lot, as well as harping on the difficulties in political extradition, which is a non-issue, unless you assume he is right.
Uh, no.
This is brought up just to show how wrong he is.

Indeed, it's usually brought up in relation to his desire to stay in the UK and not be sent to Sweden, and how it was more likely that the UK would extradite him if asked than Sweden.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 08:20 AM   #683
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Uh, no.
This is brought up just to show how wrong he is.

Indeed, it's usually brought up in relation to his desire to stay in the UK and not be sent to Sweden, and how it was more likely that the UK would extradite him if asked than Sweden.
Umm...perhaps you hadn't noticed, but he did not at all, even a little bit, want to stay in the UK. Something about the Ecuadorian Embassy.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 02:11 PM   #684
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,148
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Quote:
As has been pointed out, the current extradition law is quite vague (i.e. it doesn't list specific "political crimes"), and a Swedish judge could probably throw out any charge against Assange simply on the basis of who he's acting against (i.e. even if they charge him with something like "unauthorized access into a computer", it may not be enough for an extradition because of who he acted against... a political entity.)
Wait- are you saying that the US would actually want him on political grounds and that Sweden would see through such a ruse and push back? Haven't I been hearing all along how the US doesn't have any interest in him, and Sweden only wants him for the interrogation/arrest on rape charges? Why would Sweden deny extradition on a more mundane charge unless Assange is right, and the States really are after him as a political enemy?
I am not making any claim about whether they U.S. actually wants (or does not want) Assange.

I am just saying that if he were wanted by them (i.e. a real extradition, not just empty rhetoric coming from the Trump admin), the chance of him being extradited from Sweden to the U.S. is rather low, because the definition for 'political crimes' is extremely vague and most of what Assange has done might fall under that classification. So, Assange doesn't necessarily have to fear the "big bad bogey-man" of the U.S.

Quote:
Re: WikiLeaks not targeting Russia

If Assange is just a publisher, he can only put out what he is given, and evidently there are more Western leakers than Eastern. Are you suggesting he ignores Russian leaked materials?
Yes.

From: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17...tial-campaign/
In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.

Now, Assange/WikiLeaks tried to give excuses... "It was published elsewhere", but supposedly only a portion had. There was more than enough new stuff for WikiLeaks to publish.

And from: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/1...ks-russia-ties
(WikiLeaks Member) Shamir traveled to Belarus, a country ruled by dictator Alexander Lukashenko and perhaps Putin’s staunchest ally in Europe...In Belarus, Shamir shared State Department cables pertaining to the country with government officials — in unredacted, unedited form....According to several Belarusian dissidents who spoke to Tablet, the names in the cables were also used to identify lower-level dissidents....WikiLeaks issued a weak public disavowal...But according to Ball, the internal discourse on Shamir was somewhat different. “Assange shamefully refused to investigate [the Belarus incident],” Ball recalled in his Guardian piece. “The two [Shamir and Assange] remain close.”

Also, from: Wikipedia:
In September 2016, the German weekly magazine Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion
(Note: The Wikipedia article uses a german news magazine Focus as its source; from what I've read, it seems to be a pretty reputable source.)

Quote:
I don't really think JA/WL is anti-Western. I think they are pro-JA/WL, and Western leakers give more fodder with less risk.
There may be more fodder with western sources, but the harm caused by authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe should demand at least a little attention.

And keep in mind that it goes a lot further than just "we're publishing what we're given". Wikipedia and Julian Assange have:
- pushed the conspiracy theory about the death of Seth Rich being due to the Clintons.
- Criticized the Panama Papers as being some sort of smear campaign against Russia (which the New York Times has said there is no evidence for)
- Blamed Flynn's resignation on spies, Democrats and the Media

In each of those cases, it was not just Assange/WikiLeaks "publishing what was given"... it was them actually pursuing falsehoods.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 02:45 PM   #685
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,021
Latest news is that Australian diplomats have visited Assange

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...08-p4zk7w.html

Quote:
Australian government officials have paid a mysterious visit to Julian Assange in his Ecuadorian embassy refuge in London, in a sign there may be a breakthrough in the stalemate that has lasted almost six years.
My money is on Australia and Sweden doing a deal to have Assange swiftly dealt with in Sweden and then move to another country (almost certainly not Australia where he could be extradited to the US).
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 02:48 PM   #686
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,395
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Latest news is that Australian diplomats have visited Assange

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...08-p4zk7w.html



My money is on Australia and Sweden doing a deal to have Assange swiftly dealt with in Sweden and then move to another country (almost certainly not Australia where he could be extradited to the US).
They should seriously consider moving him to Sweden.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2018, 02:54 PM   #687
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,021
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They should seriously consider moving him to Sweden.
I thought that was what I said.

In the scenario where he pleads guilty to a minor offenc and gets fined or jailed for a short time, why would Sweden allow him to settle? He would surely be booted out.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 08:16 AM   #688
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,727
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I thought that was what I said.

In the scenario where he pleads guilty to a minor offenc and gets fined or jailed for a short time, why would Sweden allow him to settle? He would surely be booted out.
But why would he do it now? It would seem odd that he would just all of the sudden throw in the towel and go to Sweden, when he has spent the previous 6 years building up a facade to explain why he couldn't/shouldn't.

Even President Moreno appears to have decided that Assange can stay for the time being, despite dropping hints to the opposite, so it's not like he's going to be thrown out of the building.
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 06:19 PM   #689
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,021
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
But why would he do it now? It would seem odd that he would just all of the sudden throw in the towel and go to Sweden, when he has spent the previous 6 years building up a facade to explain why he couldn't/shouldn't.
I suspect a deal has been done between Australia and Sweden
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:51 PM   #690
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I am not making any claim about whether they U.S. actually wants (or does not want) Assange.

I am just saying that if he were wanted by them (i.e. a real extradition, not just empty rhetoric coming from the Trump admin), the chance of him being extradited from Sweden to the U.S. is rather low, because the definition for 'political crimes' is extremely vague and most of what Assange has done might fall under that classification. So, Assange doesn't necessarily have to fear the "big bad bogey-man" of the U.S.
But again, this would rely on Sweden taking seriously the idea that Assange is really wanted for political crimes. I agree with you that JA will not be extradited for political crimes. I disagree that Sweden will interpret US charges to Assange's benefit. I mean, why would they?

Quote:
Yes.

From: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17...tial-campaign/
In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government, according to chat messages and a source who provided the records.

Now, Assange/WikiLeaks tried to give excuses... "It was published elsewhere", but supposedly only a portion had. There was more than enough new stuff for WikiLeaks to publish.

And from: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/1...ks-russia-ties
(WikiLeaks Member) Shamir traveled to Belarus, a country ruled by dictator Alexander Lukashenko and perhaps Putin’s staunchest ally in Europe...In Belarus, Shamir shared State Department cables pertaining to the country with government officials — in unredacted, unedited form....According to several Belarusian dissidents who spoke to Tablet, the names in the cables were also used to identify lower-level dissidents....WikiLeaks issued a weak public disavowal...But according to Ball, the internal discourse on Shamir was somewhat different. “Assange shamefully refused to investigate [the Belarus incident],” Ball recalled in his Guardian piece. “The two [Shamir and Assange] remain close.”

Also, from: Wikipedia:
In September 2016, the German weekly magazine Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion
(Note: The Wikipedia article uses a german news magazine Focus as its source; from what I've read, it seems to be a pretty reputable source.)


There may be more fodder with western sources, but the harm caused by authoritarian governments in Eastern Europe should demand at least a little attention.

And keep in mind that it goes a lot further than just "we're publishing what we're given". Wikipedia and Julian Assange have:
- pushed the conspiracy theory about the death of Seth Rich being due to the Clintons.
- Criticized the Panama Papers as being some sort of smear campaign against Russia (which the New York Times has said there is no evidence for)
- Blamed Flynn's resignation on spies, Democrats and the Media

In each of those cases, it was not just Assange/WikiLeaks "publishing what was given"... it was them actually pursuing falsehoods.
Regarding the 2016 Russian leaks, yes, WL opined that some were already out there and the balance was of little interest. Since then, they have published the Spy Files: Russia in 2017, and their database search currently turns up over 660,000 results for Russian docs.

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/

Regarding the 'actively pursuing falsehoods' assertion: do you have a cite for those claims? For instance, WL did offer a reward for info in the death of Rich, but where do you find them blaming the Clintons? Are you confusing them with Fox News, who actually did push the CT? More precisely, where do you find them knowingly pursuing a falsehood about Clinton involvement?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 07:59 PM   #691
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I suspect a deal has been done between Australia and Sweden
I suspect between Australia and the UK, where his immediate problem lies.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2018, 09:20 PM   #692
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,021
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I suspect between Australia and the UK, where his immediate problem lies.
Maybe. The fact that Australian diplomats are now involved is significant.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 01:09 AM   #693
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Umm...perhaps you hadn't noticed, but he did not at all, even a little bit, want to stay in the UK. Something about the Ecuadorian Embassy.
You also may have missed the bit where he went to court in the UK to insist that he shouldn't be sent to Sweden and should be allowed to stay here.

His whole argument was that he feared extradition from Sweden...his argument was bollocks.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:46 AM   #694
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
You also may have missed the bit where he went to court in the UK to insist that he shouldn't be sent to Sweden and should be allowed to stay here.

His whole argument was that he feared extradition from Sweden...his argument was bollocks.
I get your point, but that is not how it unfolded. He was in Sweden, then went to the UK per his business schedule. The EAW was issued while he happened to be in the UK. So he was fighting being put under arrest, not trying to stay in the UK per se. When his legal options for delaying arrest were exhausted, he beat feet to the Ecuadorian Embassy, which was ducking UK arrest.

He was trying to avoid arrest by anyone, not just Sweden. The 'easier to extradite from the UK' argument is meaningless, because he ran from the UK too, when he ran out of delays.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 06:02 AM   #695
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
He was fighting being sent to Sweden because he "thought" he would be extradited to the US.
All while happily working in a country that was far (FAR) more likely to honour such a warrant.

He only ran from the UK because they were going to send him to Sweden to face charges there.

The US thing was a complete smokescreen. A rubbish one at that, except for the gullible...like the ones who stupidly stumped up for his bail.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 07:27 AM   #696
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
He was fighting being sent to Sweden because he "thought" he would be extradited to the US.
All while happily working in a country that was far (FAR) more likely to honour such a warrant.

He only ran from the UK because they were going to send him to Sweden to face charges there.

The US thing was a complete smokescreen. A rubbish one at that, except for the gullible...like the ones who stupidly stumped up for his bail.
I would assume it worked the opposite way. For the US to extradite an Australian citizen from the UK would create an awkward diplomatic situation between the nations. Sweden, being friendly but technically neutral, would be a less contentious grab.

And agreed, the backers of the bail bond were boneheads. Not a shrewd investment.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 08:18 AM   #697
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
His Aussie citizenship would be as relevant to the Swedes as the UK.
Are you seriously implying that Sweden was more likely to extradite him than us?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 08:26 AM   #698
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
His Aussie citizenship would be as relevant to the Swedes as the UK.
Are you seriously implying that Sweden was more likely to extradite him than us?
Australia, the UK, and the US: are close allies. Diplomatically, an awkward situation, IMO.

Sweden: friendly but politically neutral. An easier move than asking a friend to turn over another friend, if you take my meaning.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 03:00 PM   #699
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,148
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Australia, the UK, and the US: are close allies. Diplomatically, an awkward situation, IMO.
Australia... the country that has been the target of several of WikiLeaks releases themselves. The country that Assange himself attacked as "perverted". The country that was actually thinking of laying charges against Assange themselves.

Frankly, in your fantasy world, if the U.S. really did want to arrest Assange, I doubt that the Australian government would mind. In fact, I rather suspect that the Australians would actually say "good riddance". I doubt very much that it would cause any diplomatic problems between the U.K., the U.S. and Australia.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/go...311-1br8n.html

Not really sure where you're getting the idea that Assange is some sort of "friend" to the Australian government. I'm pretty sure that WikiLeaks would be just as happy if Assange disappeared off the face of the earth.
Quote:
Sweden: friendly but politically neutral. An easier move than asking a friend to turn over another friend, if you take my meaning.
Sweden... the country that has a very vague extradition treaty with the U.S. The country that hosts WikiLeaks servers because of the legal protection provided by the government. The country that refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, a former CIA agent who defected to Russia.

Yeah, given a choice, there's a better chance that he would be extradited by the U.K. instead of Sweden. The fact that he wasn't arrested and extradited to the U.S. long before he wandered into the embassy should be a pretty good indication that the U.S. isn't really that keen on arresting him.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 12:44 AM   #700
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Yeah, given a choice, there's a better chance that he would be extradited by the U.K. instead of Sweden. The fact that he wasn't arrested and extradited to the U.S. long before he wandered into the embassy should be a pretty good indication that the U.S. isn't really that keen on arresting him.
And that's been the base argument in this thread since it started.
And it's usually simply handwaved away, before trying to distract with some other smoke...
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 06:02 AM   #701
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
And that's been the base argument in this thread since it started.
And it's usually simply handwaved away, before trying to distract with some other smoke...
That is the base argument? The US was, both at the beginning and as recently as last year, 'keen' on bringing charges against him. I'll provide links if your memory is failing. But they have absolutely no reason to proceed, as long as Assange stays tied up and burning his time, funds, and bridges. The scenario as-is is the ideal for the US: Assange is functionally out of commission, with the UK and Sweden doing all the leg work. Perfect. Starting from the issuance of the EAW, why in the name of God would the US do anything? There's no need.

Assange thinks the rape charges are trumped-up, and a pretense for American action. That is certainly debatable, but from his POV at the time, I can't say I blame him for paranoia. Back then, if you recall, officials were literally calling for his head. He was on good terms with the women (who still are not pressing any kind of charges against him IIRC), so he thinks it is a ruse, presumably on behalf of the States. This has nothing to do with comparative ease of extradition, as your red herring asserts. He was in the UK when the EAW was issued, and had his passport seized, house-arrested and all. He fought the charges from the UK because that was where he was when he was detained, not because he thought his chances were better there. The US did not need to move on Assange, because he was effectively tied up. No reason to do anything at all, at least till the UK and Sweden have their turn.

Your 'base argument' makes no sense. The US, IMO, wants him out of commission, that's all. They don't want him to be a martyr, so if other nations will keep him occupied, great. What is so hard to understand about that?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 06:06 AM   #702
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Australia... the country that has been the target of several of WikiLeaks releases themselves. The country that Assange himself attacked as "perverted". The country that was actually thinking of laying charges against Assange themselves.

Frankly, in your fantasy world, if the U.S. really did want to arrest Assange, I doubt that the Australian government would mind. In fact, I rather suspect that the Australians would actually say "good riddance". I doubt very much that it would cause any diplomatic problems between the U.K., the U.S. and Australia.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/go...311-1br8n.html

Not really sure where you're getting the idea that Assange is some sort of "friend" to the Australian government. I'm pretty sure that WikiLeaks would be just as happy if Assange disappeared off the face of the earth.

Sweden... the country that has a very vague extradition treaty with the U.S. The country that hosts WikiLeaks servers because of the legal protection provided by the government. The country that refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, a former CIA agent who defected to Russia.

Yeah, given a choice, there's a better chance that he would be extradited by the U.K. instead of Sweden. The fact that he wasn't arrested and extradited to the U.S. long before he wandered into the embassy should be a pretty good indication that the U.S. isn't really that keen on arresting him.
You point out that Australia was considering charging Assange with treason for his actions. Well observed. So why do you pooh-pooh the idea of the US charging him with espionage? Serious question.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 06:48 AM   #703
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Assange thinks the rape charges are trumped-up, and a pretense for American action.
That Assange was determined to stay in the UK (that was his argument), and indeed fled to the Ecuadorian embassy because he feared going to Sweden, pretty much wrecks that argument. He wanted to avoid going from a country with a track record of supporting US extradition, to a country without such a a track record.

The rest of it is smoke and mirrors.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 07:18 AM   #704
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
That Assange was determined to stay in the UK (that was his argument), and indeed fled to the Ecuadorian embassy because he feared going to Sweden, pretty much wrecks that argument. He wanted to avoid going from a country with a track record of supporting US extradition, to a country without such a a track record.

The rest of it is smoke and mirrors.
The 'track record' is a red herring. It doesn't matter what Sweden has done in the past under (very) different circumstances with different people.

I'm not saying I agree with him, btw. I don't. But I understand his position and think he is sincere, if paranoid, in his POV.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 07:31 AM   #705
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
He's a prat.
And no, I just find his "paranoia" a little too convenient for him to avoid possible repercussions for his actions in Sweden.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 07:51 AM   #706
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
If I revealed government secrets, then recreationally banged a couple young ladies, with them throwing parties for me and whatnot afterwords, then a prosecutor tries to charge me with rape, even though the women don't, then seeing politicians calling for my assassination, well...I can see his point. Again, I think he's wrong, but I get it.

eta: I'm not sure he would even be successfully prosecuted. The women's accounts are published, and I get that under Swedish law there is a conditional consent. If Assange argued that the initial condition changed during their encounters and the sex was fully consensual, without the women even complaining, it would be tough to convict, I would think.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907

Last edited by Thermal; 12th June 2018 at 07:57 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 09:22 AM   #707
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,395
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The 'track record' is a red herring. It doesn't matter what Sweden has done in the past under (very) different circumstances with different people.

I'm not saying I agree with him, btw. I don't. But I understand his position and think he is sincere, if paranoid, in his POV.
You keep talking about his thoughts and feelings as if they aren't a fiction you created. As if they are facts, evidence we must consider when interpreting his actions.

But reason demands the opposite: that we interpret his claimed state of mind in terms of the facts of his observed behavior.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 09:35 AM   #708
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
I am basing my interpretation of his thoughts and feelings off his tweets, interviews, and other communications he has put out to establish his state of mind. You know, facts and stuff. From what is reported, I find his POV understandable, though I don't entirely agree.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 09:46 AM   #709
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,148
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You point out that Australia was considering charging Assange with treason for his actions. Well observed.
The only reason why I brought that up is because you suggested that the U.S. would have diplomatic problems if they tried to extradite (Australian citizen) Assange from Britain. The fact that Assange probably isn't well liked by the government of Australia (as evidenced by WikiLeaks publishing material on Australia, and Australia considering laying charges) suggests that there would be no diplomatic problems if the U.S. actually wanted to extradite Assange from Britain.
Quote:
So why do you pooh-pooh the idea of the US charging him with espionage? Serious question.
Thought I pretty much explained that.

First of all, if the U.S. actually WANTED to extradite Assange, they would probably have more luck doing so from the U.K. So why didn't they grab him back before he entered the Equadorian embassy? He was free, running lose on the streets of London... bring charges right away, get him off the street and keep him from escaping somewhere. But they didn't, did they.

Secondly, the U.S. does sort of have a semi-functional legal system. Much of what Assange does technically isn't illegal in the U.S. (stealing classified information is illegal, but publishing them isn't, from what I understand.) Any prosecutor that brings charges probably wants then to stick, and there's probably a low chance of that happening.

Lastly, while there may be people in the Trump administration calling for Assange to be arrested, WikiLeaks did play a part in getting Trump elected and may also be useful in later elections. And both Trump and Assange both have a friend in Putin. (And who knows what secrets Assange might reveal about Trump/Russia if he were actually in U.S. custody.)

I figure any anti-WikiLeaks rhetoric coming from the Trump surrogates is kind of like the anti-Hillary "lock her up" chants.... empty comments meant to rouse the idiot voter base. Like Clinton, Assange works better as an ethereal bogey man that people can point to and say "Look! Bad guy! Ignore my own crimes and look at him!"

Quote:
The 'track record' is a red herring. It doesn't matter what Sweden has done in the past under (very) different circumstances with different people.
Keep in mind that the U.S. is currently run by a racist orangutan who is about as popular globally as testicular cancer.

If anything, Sweden is LESS likely to want to extradite someone to the U.S. than ever before.

Quote:
That is the base argument? The US was, both at the beginning and as recently as last year, 'keen' on bringing charges against him. I'll provide links if your memory is failing. But they have absolutely no reason to proceed, as long as Assange stays tied up and burning his time, funds, and bridges. The scenario as-is is the ideal for the US: Assange is functionally out of commission, with the UK and Sweden doing all the leg work.
While he may be out of commission now, it wasn't always the case. There was a significant length of time when he was out, free, walking the streets of London, able to run Wikleaks as he saw fit for MONTHS. Yet for all the allegations that the U.S. was 'keen' on bringing charges, they didn't. Why is that?

Heck, even if the circumstances changed and they want to bring charges now when they didn't before, why hold back? If the U.K. suddenly decided "we won't pursue him any more", there is a good chance he would escape out of the embassy and disappear before the U.S. could bring their own charges. Seems kind of risky to me.

Quote:
Quote:
I am not making any claim about whether they U.S. actually wants (or does not want) Assange.

I am just saying that if he were wanted by them (i.e. a real extradition, not just empty rhetoric coming from the Trump admin), the chance of him being extradited from Sweden to the U.S. is rather low, because the definition for 'political crimes' is extremely vague and most of what Assange has done might fall under that classification. So, Assange doesn't necessarily have to fear the "big bad bogey-man" of the U.S.
But again, this would rely on Sweden taking seriously the idea that Assange is really wanted for political crimes.
Why wouldn't they? The targets of WikiLeaks have largely been governmental in nature. And if Sweden didn't extradite an actual CIA defector, why exactly do you think the would extradite someone who may not have even committed something that would be considered a crime in the U.S.?

Quote:
Regarding the 2016 Russian leaks, yes, WL opined that some were already out there and the balance was of little interest.
Which of course is contradicted by former WikiLeaks associates and others who have actually pointed out the seriousness of the data that WikiLeaks decided "nah we don't wanna publish that". This included Russian interference in Ukranian politics, a pretty serious issue.

[quote]Since then, they have published the Spy Files: Russia in 2017, and their database search currently turns up over 660,000 results for Russian docs.

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/[quote]
According to Wikipedia, the Russian Spy Files published by Wikipedia in 2017 had nothing to do with the earlier cache of Russian files that were rejected by WikiLeaks earlier.

The fact that they published SOME documents involving Russia does not mean that they haven't rejected OTHER documents that were critical of Russia.
Quote:
Regarding the 'actively pursuing falsehoods' assertion: do you have a cite for those claims? For instance, WL did offer a reward for info in the death of Rich, but where do you find them blaming the Clintons?
From an interview he had: http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks...news-interview
We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established,” said Assange. “But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source.”

Now, technically he didn't come out and say "The Clintons did it". (That was admittedly a bit of poetic license on my part.) But he talked about "WikiLeaks sources being threatened" in connection with this case, and the only case that Seth Rich would have had any knowledge about was the Clinton Campaign. He did preface his statement with the wording "we're not saying...", but that's a pretty standard conspiracy tactic. (We're not saying that man didn't land on the moon... but why no stars in moon pics/etc.)

By the way, I notice you ignored some of the other... questionable Assange activities that I brought up... his failure to investigate a friend who gave un-redacted documents to Putin-friendly leaders who used the data to target dissidents, his claims that the Flynn resignations were caused by "spies democrats and the media", his statements that the Panama papers uniquely targeted Putin (which, of course, is incorrect)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 09:58 AM   #710
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,395
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I am basing my interpretation of his thoughts and feelings off his tweets, interviews, and other communications he has put out to establish his state of mind. You know, facts and stuff. From what is reported, I find his POV understandable, though I don't entirely agree.
Assange has a serious conflict of interest. It's not like he's going to tweet that he's concerned about being indicted for sexual assault in Sweden, and that's why he happens to be in the UK.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:23 AM   #711
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Assange has a serious conflict of interest. It's not like he's going to tweet that he's concerned about being indicted for sexual assault in Sweden, and that's why he happens to be in the UK.
That's fair. But isn't it also, how did you put it, 'talking about his thoughts and feelings as if they weren't a fiction you created'?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 10:59 AM   #712
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,148
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's fair. But isn't it also, how did you put it, 'talking about his thoughts and feelings as if they weren't a fiction you created'?
We have already established Assange is deceptive about at least one thing (his "I'll turn myself over if Manning is released. She's released? Nope I won't.") There are other things he has done that are questionable... incorrect statements about the Panama papers.

Given his generally deceptive nature, I think its natural to doubt anything he might say. Some may see his "paranoia" as nothing more than the Alex Jones type... false, but made up in order to rile up his supporters.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 11:13 AM   #713
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
We have already established Assange is deceptive about at least one thing (his "I'll turn myself over if Manning is released. She's released? Nope I won't.") There are other things he has done that are questionable... incorrect statements about the Panama papers.

Given his generally deceptive nature, I think its natural to doubt anything he might say. Some may see his "paranoia" as nothing more than the Alex Jones type... false, but made up in order to rile up his supporters.
(Will respond to your longer post when on laptop, on cel now)

I'm not sure it is entirely fair to characterize him as having a generally deceptive nature based on a couple things. Generally, he seems at least direct and honest. Manning is an exception; in fairness though, President Obama said that he does not follow Assange's tweets and was not aware of the 'prisoner exchange' offer and it was not a factor in pardoning Manning, which would have made Assange turning himself in kind of foolish.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 11:10 PM   #714
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,304
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
He was in Sweden, then went to the UK per his business schedule.
This is simply incorrect. He disappeared while in Sweden and the Police were trying to contact him. The police had organised a second interview which he was to attend, but due to an illness with one of the staff, it was delayed. When the new date was given to his Lawyer, he claimed to not know where Assange was or how to contact him, and then a week after his lawyer being asked for him to come back in for an interview, he reappeared in the UK.

Quote:
He was trying to avoid arrest by anyone, not just Sweden.
Again not true, as he had been arrested in the UK and was on bail during the trial, He fled to the Embassy when it the Courts found against him.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I would assume it worked the opposite way. For the US to extradite an Australian citizen from the UK would create an awkward diplomatic situation between the nations. Sweden, being friendly but technically neutral, would be a less contentious grab.
You would assume incorrectly, it is far more complex to extradite from Sweden given their laws, and that to further extradite a person already extradited under a EAW, the country that did the first Extradition must agree to the second, so either way the UK would have to agree to it. The UK has a much more powerful extradition agreement with the US, meaning that less evidence is required for extradition to occur.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
If I revealed government secrets, then recreationally banged a couple young ladies, with them throwing parties for me and whatnot afterwords, then a prosecutor tries to charge me with rape, even though the women don't, then seeing politicians calling for my assassination, well...I can see his point. Again, I think he's wrong, but I get it.
After the initial charges were dropped the women hired a lawyer and asked for the charges to be reviewed, as was their legal right to do so. So that would indicate that they women do think that a sexual assault occurred, otherwise they would have dropped the matter and it never would have been reviewed.

Quote:
eta: I'm not sure he would even be successfully prosecuted. The women's accounts are published, and I get that under Swedish law there is a conditional consent. If Assange argued that the initial condition changed during their encounters and the sex was fully consensual, without the women even complaining, it would be tough to convict, I would think.
On the Rape charge, this comes from Miss B who total Assange that she would not have sex without a condom. The next morning he began having sex with her without a condom while she was asleep. So, yes she consented to sex, as long as it was protected. She did not consent to unprotected sex, and could not because she was asleep when the sex began. In Assange's first interview he admitted to this action. The UK court's considered this action and agreed that even under UK law, this would constitute Rape.

The lesser offence was against Miss A where the claim is that after being told that she would not have unprotected sex, he deliberately broke the condom. The limitation on this charge has passed.

Personally I think on what has currently been published, there is a good case for a guilty verdict.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 12th June 2018 at 11:15 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 06:24 AM   #715
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
This is simply incorrect. He disappeared while in Sweden and the Police were trying to contact him. The police had organised a second interview which he was to attend, but due to an illness with one of the staff, it was delayed. When the new date was given to his Lawyer, he claimed to not know where Assange was or how to contact him, and then a week after his lawyer being asked for him to come back in for an interview, he reappeared in the UK.
I hear this a lot, that Assange pulled a disappearing act. Linked below, please find the Agreed Facts from the UK Supreme Court appeal. Here is the agreed fact regarding your claimed sneaking out of the country:

Originally Posted by Agreed Facts
14th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant’s counsel that he was free to leave Sweden.
The agreed facts go on to describe the exchanges in scheduling the interview. It is hardly the shady disappearing act you assert. Do you dispute these facts? If so, what conspiracy theory do you subscribe to, just so we are on the same page?

Originally Posted by Phantom Wolf
Again not true, as he had been arrested in the UK and was on bail during the trial, He fled to the Embassy when it the Courts found against him.
It was arranged that he turned himself in and was arrested by consent by appointment. and eventually arranged bail (after nine days in lockup). After he had exhausted his legal options, he evaded rearrest by the UK by ducking out in the Embassy. What level of pedantics make my statement that he did not want to be arrested by anyone 'not true'? Are you suggesting he did want to be arrested by someone, or wouldn't really mind being arrested, or what?

Originally Posted by Phantom Wolf
You would assume incorrectly, it is far more complex to extradite from Sweden given their laws, and that to further extradite a person already extradited under a EAW, the country that did the first Extradition must agree to the second, so either way the UK would have to agree to it. The UK has a much more powerful extradition agreement with the US, meaning that less evidence is required for extradition to occur.
Right. Either way, the UK would have to agree, which as you observe, is no real obstacle. My argument is that for appearances sake (not the technical machinations) it seems more diplomatic to extradite via a neutral country. Dispels the appearance of the allies ganging up on a political refugee. The whole argument is really unimportant, though.

Originally Posted by Phantom Wolf
After the initial charges were dropped the women hired a lawyer and asked for the charges to be reviewed, as was their legal right to do so. So that would indicate that they women do think that a sexual assault occurred, otherwise they would have dropped the matter and it never would have been reviewed.
Yes. They did not want the matter entirely dropped, as the first prosecutor found. They wanted JA tested, per their consistent claim. But they did not and do not press any charges in the matter, IIRC. Your extrapolation from 'insisting he be tested for STDs' to 'they think they were raped' is not valid, IMO.

Originally Posted by Phantom Wolf
On the Rape charge, this comes from Miss B who total Assange that she would not have sex without a condom. The next morning he began having sex with her without a condom while she was asleep. So, yes she consented to sex, as long as it was protected. She did not consent to unprotected sex, and could not because she was asleep when the sex began. In Assange's first interview he admitted to this action. The UK court's considered this action and agreed that even under UK law, this would constitute Rape.

The lesser offence was against Miss A where the claim is that after being told that she would not have unprotected sex, he deliberately broke the condom. The limitation on this charge has passed.

Personally I think on what has currently been published, there is a good case for a guilty verdict.
All of which is one-sided testimony at this point, and simply not enough to find guilt. The first prosecutor didn't think a crime had even occurred, and although I am not familiar with Swedish law, I take this to indicate that it is a margin call for a crime being committed, just based on the difficulty in determining whether or not one may have occurred in the first place (I thought I read Assange's version of the events with the women, but I can't find it now).

https://www.scribd.com/document/8091...s-Assange-Case
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 06:48 AM   #716
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,117
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It was arranged that he turned himself in and was arrested by consent by appointment. and eventually arranged bail (after nine days in lockup). After he had exhausted his legal options, he evaded rearrest by the UK by ducking out in the Embassy. What level of pedantics make my statement that he did not want to be arrested by anyone 'not true'? Are you suggesting he did want to be arrested by someone, or wouldn't really mind being arrested, or what?
These two statements are contradictory.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:17 AM   #717
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The only reason why I brought that up is because you suggested that the U.S. would have diplomatic problems if they tried to extradite (Australian citizen) Assange from Britain. The fact that Assange probably isn't well liked by the government of Australia (as evidenced by WikiLeaks publishing material on Australia, and Australia considering laying charges) suggests that there would be no diplomatic problems if the U.S. actually wanted to extradite Assange from Britain.

Thought I pretty much explained that.
What I am asking is why you handwave the US bringing espionage charges against JA when you accept that Australia considered treason charges? It shows that governments consider his actions very serious.

Quote:
First of all, if the U.S. actually WANTED to extradite Assange, they would probably have more luck doing so from the U.K. So why didn't they grab him back before he entered the Equadorian embassy? He was free, running lose on the streets of London... bring charges right away, get him off the street and keep him from escaping somewhere. But they didn't, did they.
No, they didn't. Because they had absolutely no reason to do anything while Sweden and the UK were chasing him around. As I keep repeating, I don't think the US wants him for anything in particular, they just want him out of the picture. Why give the appearance of multiple nations ganging up on Assange?

Quote:
Secondly, the U.S. does sort of have a semi-functional legal system. Much of what Assange does technically isn't illegal in the U.S. (stealing classified information is illegal, but publishing them isn't, from what I understand.) Any prosecutor that brings charges probably wants then to stick, and there's probably a low chance of that happening.
I have no reason to think that the US is trying to nail him on publishing. Where did you get that idea? I think they might try to nail him on theft/unauthorized computer access/conspiracy/aiding/abetting or the like.

Quote:
Lastly, while there may be people in the Trump administration calling for Assange to be arrested, WikiLeaks did play a part in getting Trump elected and may also be useful in later elections. And both Trump and Assange both have a friend in Putin. (And who knows what secrets Assange might reveal about Trump/Russia if he were actually in U.S. custody.)
You're right, the Russia/Putin thing is murky. But I think that President Trump has a skeleton or two in his closet, and he is notoriously sloppy and careless. Wikileaks could potentially prove to be a huge problem. Huuuuuge.

Quote:
I figure any anti-WikiLeaks rhetoric coming from the Trump surrogates is kind of like the anti-Hillary "lock her up" chants.... empty comments meant to rouse the idiot voter base. Like Clinton, Assange works better as an ethereal bogey man that people can point to and say "Look! Bad guy! Ignore my own crimes and look at him!"
Yes, but if Wikileaks publishes damaging docs about Trump personally, or his administration (WL kind of has it in for the USA), I think very bad things might happen. If you were Trump, would you want an anti-US leak publisher running around?

Quote:
Keep in mind that the U.S. is currently run by a racist orangutan who is about as popular globally as testicular cancer.
...

ok, you got me in a box here.

Quote:
If anything, Sweden is LESS likely to want to extradite someone to the U.S. than ever before.


While he may be out of commission now, it wasn't always the case. There was a significant length of time when he was out, free, walking the streets of London, able to run Wikleaks as he saw fit for MONTHS. Yet for all the allegations that the U.S. was 'keen' on bringing charges, they didn't. Why is that?

Heck, even if the circumstances changed and they want to bring charges now when they didn't before, why hold back? If the U.K. suddenly decided "we won't pursue him any more", there is a good chance he would escape out of the embassy and disappear before the U.S. could bring their own charges. Seems kind of risky to me.
See above. No reason to try to take him out if Sweden is doing the work.

There is no question, btw, that from at least 2010-2017 the US actively investigated JA/WL, which you seem to deny. Need some links?

Quote:
Why wouldn't they? The targets of WikiLeaks have largely been governmental in nature. And if Sweden didn't extradite an actual CIA defector, why exactly do you think the would extradite someone who may not have even committed something that would be considered a crime in the U.S.?
Protecting a defector as a political refugee is one thing. Protecting a common thief is entirely another. Surely you see the difference?

Quote:
Which of course is contradicted by former WikiLeaks associates and others who have actually pointed out the seriousness of the data that WikiLeaks decided "nah we don't wanna publish that". This included Russian interference in Ukranian politics, a pretty serious issue.

According to Wikipedia, the Russian Spy Files published by Wikipedia in 2017 had nothing to do with the earlier cache of Russian files that were rejected by WikiLeaks earlier.

The fact that they published SOME documents involving Russia does not mean that they haven't rejected OTHER documents that were critical of Russia.
I didn't say they were related. I pointed out that WL does not entirely shy away from publishing Russian docs, as you suggested.

Quote:
From an interview he had: http://www.fox5dc.com/news/wikileaks...news-interview
We're not saying that Seth Rich's death necessarily is connected to our publications – that's something that needs to be established,” said Assange. “But if there is any question about a source of WikiLeaks being threatened, then people can be assured that this organization will go after anyone who may have been involved in some kind of attempt to coerce or possibly, in this kill a potential source.”

Now, technically he didn't come out and say "The Clintons did it". (That was admittedly a bit of poetic license on my part.) But he talked about "WikiLeaks sources being threatened" in connection with this case, and the only case that Seth Rich would have had any knowledge about was the Clinton Campaign. He did preface his statement with the wording "we're not saying...", but that's a pretty standard conspiracy tactic. (We're not saying that man didn't land on the moon... but why no stars in moon pics/etc.)
Not only did he not say the Clintons did it (that was more than just poetic license), he said nothing resembling it. He is pretty clearly saying WL will fight for/protect it's sources (although it wouldn't do Rich much good, being dead and all).

Quote:
By the way, I notice you ignored some of the other... questionable Assange activities that I brought up... his failure to investigate a friend who gave un-redacted documents to Putin-friendly leaders who used the data to target dissidents, his claims that the Flynn resignations were caused by "spies democrats and the media", his statements that the Panama papers uniquely targeted Putin (which, of course, is incorrect)
I didn't ignore them. I requested you to cite the source of your claims. So far, you only addressed the first, acknowledging that you took some 'poetic license' in misreporting. You're still at bat.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:19 AM   #718
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
These two statements are contradictory.
Just think about it.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 07:48 AM   #719
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,395
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I would assume it worked the opposite way. For the US to extradite an Australian citizen from the UK would create an awkward diplomatic situation between the nations. Sweden, being friendly but technically neutral, would be a less contentious grab.
I'm pretty sure that in the real world, allies are more likely to cooperate with each other than non-allies. That being the whole point of an alliance, after all.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:04 AM   #720
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,704
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm pretty sure that in the real world, allies are more likely to cooperate with each other than non-allies. That being the whole point of an alliance, after all.
Of course, that is true. Let me rephrase:

I think it may give the impression on the World stage that Western allied powers are thuggishly ganging up on a publisher in order to shut him up. Diplomatically, it makes us all look bad. Neutral Sweden being involved softens that impression.
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.