Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[eirik]

But who are "They"? From what I can understand only a court could make that legal statement, and they require a case to rule on.

Because dictatorial governments instructing courts are fine when it suits Sassy's ploitical leanings.

 

[tsig]

Well if they wanted to settle an internet debate it would sure help out the 'America doesn't care what happens to Assange' camp...

Obviously American foreign policy should be made to settle interne debates.

 

[BenBurch]

Still no answer? What is your single best piece of evidence?

 

[theprestige]

They could easily issue a statement to the effect of 'Assange's actions in posting the leaked documents to the internet are not in contravention of US laws and so the US won't seek to have him extradited for this action'. That leaves open prosecution if he does something bad in the future.

Why would they want to do that?

And why is it relevant to a Swedish rape investigation?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Why would they want to do that?

And why is it relevant to a Swedish rape investigation?

perhaps you should read the thread

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Still no answer? What is your single best piece of evidence?

Evidence for what?

 

[uke2se]

perhaps you should read the thread

I think it's a good question, actually.

You assert that "they" (the US, I presume) could easily issue a statement that what Assange did in the Wikileaks matter isn't illegal according to US law. Have you really thought that through? Who should issue the statement? I would assume you mean the US government. Well, they can't do that, as the US, like Sweden, is a nation governed by laws. Matters of law are handled by judicial institutions, and for such a statement to be lawful, the US would have to spend resources making a thorough investigation (most likely involving interviewing Assange himself). The question then becomes: why should the US spend tax-payers' dollars investigating if what Assange did was illegal just to be able to issue a statement that would possibly (not probably) alleviate Assange's and his supporters' paranoia?

And why do you feel such a matter is a simple one?

 

[uke2se]

Evidence for what?

Perhaps you should read the thread?

 

[Captain.Sassy]

I think it's a good question, actually.

You assert that "they" (the US, I presume) could easily issue a statement that what Assange did in the Wikileaks matter isn't illegal according to US law. Have you really thought that through? Who should issue the statement? I would assume you mean the US government. Well, they can't do that, as the US, like Sweden, is a nation governed by laws. Matters of law are handled by judicial institutions, and for such a statement to be lawful, the US would have to spend resources making a thorough investigation (most likely involving interviewing Assange himself).

Q Hey, Josh, any reaction from the White House to Julian Assange being granted protection by the Ecuadorians? And also, Britain's initial attempt -- their threat to say that they could go in and retrieve Assange from the embassy?

MR. EARNEST: At this point, the United States views this as a matter to be resolved between the British government, the Ecuadorian government, and the Swedish government. At this point, we have not intervened in this matter and I don't have any guidance for you right now about whether or not that's something we would intervene in.

Josh seems to think the White House could intervene in the situation if it wanted.

Who should issue the statement?

Josh should.

The question then becomes: why should the US spend tax-payers' dollars investigating if what Assange did was illegal just to be able to issue a statement that would possibly (not probably) alleviate Assange's and his supporters' paranoia?

Well they're already spending taxpayer dollars to investigate Wikileaks. And how do you draw the line between paranoia and prudence? Assange feels he might be extradited to the US, Australian diplomats feel this is a possibility, and so do many very knowledgeable commentators.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents this year, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalize the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

 

[uke2se]

Josh seems to think the White House could intervene in the situation if it wanted.

Are you sure you quoted the right part? What you quoted doesn't seem to support your assertion. Nor does it address anything the quote from my post.

Josh should.

On what legal grounds?

Well they're already spending taxpayer dollars to investigate Wikileaks.

Bradley Manning, yes. How do you know they are investigating Assange?

And how do you draw the line between paranoia and prudence? Assange feels he might be extradited to the US, Australian diplomats feel this is a possibility, and so do many very knowledgeable commentators.

This again? Don't you read other people's posts?

 

[uke2se]

Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents this year, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalize the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html

Well, there's your answer then. The investigation is apparently ongoing and the US can't make any statements regarding a future extradition request of Assange on those grounds. It's also interesting that you leave out the very next paragraph:

"But while prosecutors have used such laws to go after leakers and hackers, they have never successfully prosecuted recipients of leaked information for passing it on to others — an activity that can fall under the First Amendment’s strong protections of speech and press freedoms."

 

[Here_to_learn]

Josh seems to think the White House could intervene in the situation if it wanted.

Josh should.

But from what understand he's a press secretary - why would anything he says be legally binding for the US? How could anybody but the supreme court issue a verdict that is legally binding and cannot be overruled?

Also, why would "intervene" mean "promise not to extradite"?

Well they're already spending taxpayer dollars to investigate Wikileaks. And how do you draw the line between paranoia and prudence? Assange feels he might be extradited to the US, Australian diplomats feel this is a possibility, and so do many very knowledgeable commentators.

Yes, they may very well be looking into if what he has done is illegal, and so far they may have come to two conclusions:
1. They haven't found any US laws that JA has broken, so they haven't issued an indictment.
2. They have found something to indict him for, but for some reason has decided not to tell anyone about it.

But neither of these two situations would enable anyone to promise not to request an extradition. In situation 2 they are probably planning to extradite at some future time, and in situation 1 there is nothing that says that they might not find something tomorrow, or the day after. So again they cannot promise anything.

You know - it's not enough that you just say a name, you have to show how it would be legal for that person to promise.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

lol

there's a secret US investigation going on into Wikileaks in Virginia
numerous credible sources have said the US is/was trying to build a case against assange
there is a leaked email from a connected guy at Stratfor saying there's a sealed indictment against assange
and australian diplomats are preparing for the possibility that the US would seek his extradition
and many high-profile US politicians have called Assange a terrorist and called for his prosecution or worse

yet to hear you guys tell it Assange has absolutely no reason to believe the US could possibly want to extradite him to face trial

as for evidence, what do you want - photographs of the secret documents from the secret deliberations in Virginia? polygraph tests of obama administration officials? it's crazy to ask for evidence in something where, by design, intentions and process would be and are being deliberately hidden from views.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Are you sure you quoted the right part? What you quoted doesn't seem to support your assertion. Nor does it address anything the quote from my post.

you: US administration doesn't have any power here
Josh: on behalf of the US administration, I can't tell you whether or not we've chosen to exercise our power here

On what legal grounds?

on the legal grounds that he's been hired by the whitehouse to make statements.

Bradley Manning, yes. How do you know they are investigating Assange?

I don't. It's secret. But as pointed out in the NYT article efforts have been underway for a while to build a case against Assange. Whether or not those efforts have been successful, nobody knows.

 

[theprestige]

perhaps you should read the thread

I have read it. Nowhere do I see you provide any serious reasoning for why the US should do that. So, I'm asking you.

 

[theprestige]

lol

lol, indeed

there's a secret US investigation going on into Wikileaks in Virginia
numerous credible sources have said the US is/was trying to build a case against assange
there is a leaked email from a connected guy at Stratfor saying there's a sealed indictment against assange
and australian diplomats are preparing for the possibility that the US would seek his extradition
and many high-profile US politicians have called Assange a terrorist and called for his prosecution or worse

Exactly. So, given all of that: Why do you think the US would want to promise not to request his extradition at some point?

yet to hear you guys tell it Assange has absolutely no reason to believe the US could possibly want to extradite him to face trial

Actually to hear us tell it, Assange has absolutely no reason to believe the US is pressuring Sweden to trump up a rape investigation, since if the US wanted Assange for the Wikileaks thing they could just request his extradition on the Wikileaks thing, and they could do it just as easily from the UK as from Sweden.

So, given all that: Why do you think a Wikileaks investigation in the US is at all relevant to a rape investigation in Sweden?

as for evidence, what do you want - photographs of the secret documents from the secret deliberations in Virginia? polygraph tests of obama administration officials? it's crazy to ask for evidence in something where, by design, intentions and process would be and are being deliberately hidden from views.

That's the problem with citing secret conspiracies: You have to pretend the evidence you want exists, and you have to pretend that it supports your claims.

You may want to reconsider the usefulness of citing "a secret US investigation going on into Wikileaks in Virginia" as being relevant to the rape investigation going on in Sweden.

Incidentally, having read the thread, I know that you've gotten about as far as previous attempts in this thread, to link the US Wikileaks investigation to the Swedish rape investigation--which is to say, nowhere at all. I'm curious to see if you'll get any further in the next few pages.

 

[uke2se]

there's a secret US investigation going on into Wikileaks in Virginia

Not that secret considering everyone knows about it.

numerous credible sources have said the US is/was trying to build a case against assange

Dealt with.

there is a leaked email from a connected guy at Stratfor saying there's a sealed indictment against assange

Hearsay.

and australian diplomats are preparing for the possibility that the US would seek his extradition

Hilited an important word for you.

and many high-profile US politicians have called Assange a terrorist and called for his prosecution or worse

Relevance?

yet to hear you guys tell it Assange has absolutely no reason to believe the US could possibly want to extradite him to face trial

Nope, we don't. We are saying that Assange has absolutely no reason to believe he has a greater chance of being extradited to the US from Sweden than he has from the UK.

as for evidence, what do you want - photographs of the secret documents from the secret deliberations in Virginia? polygraph tests of obama administration officials? it's crazy to ask for evidence in something where, by design, intentions and process would be and are being deliberately hidden from views.

It's equally crazy to draw conclusions from something where, by design, intentions and process would be and are being deliberately hidden from views.

 

[JihadJane]

And just to make things clear - this is not my view. I do not make up my mind on guilt based on someones political standpoint - I believe in due process of the law, regardless of if another persons political views is different from my own.

When politicians and the political (or corporate) elites and the judicial system become enmeshed, the due process of the law is corrupted.

 

[Here_to_learn]

JA has apparently been interviewed by Ecuador TV inside the embassy.

From the report (English - dubbed to Spanish, voice over in Swedish...), I understood

* He expected to be in the embassy for another 6-12 month.
* He thought that Sweden at some stage would fully investigate and close down the investigation.
* He would go to Sweden provided he would get a written guarantee that he would not be extradited to Sweden the US.

So nothing new and no changes - I guess we can look forward to another year of discussions here in the tread!