• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Julian Assange: rapist or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems like the article has more to say about justifying the paranoia of US military personnel who leak material to Assange or Wikileaks. Which makes sense, really--why would it be any other way?

And Assange is obviously not a friend of the US. So there's a lot of predictable consequences from that relationship, for him. That's a life choice he made.

Of course, one of the consequences that's not predictable, or even plausible, is that the US would bother to frame him for sex crimes in Sweden. His current troubles are a predictable consequence of entirely unrelated life choices that he's made.
 
Assange has spoken to some diplomats in the UN via videolink report the Guardian among others.

The Guardian said:
Assange said that it was "audacious" for the US government "to take credit for the last two years of progress", given past American support for the ousted Arab dictators. He said Mohammed Bouazizi, a Tunisian street pedlar whose suicide from despair over his life in January last year sparked the revolt, "did not set himself on fire so that Barack Obama could get re-elected".

He added that it was "disrespect to the dead to claim that the United States supported the forces of change".

Instead, Assange claimed that it was the leak of classified US diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, allegedly by a US soldier in military intelligence, Bradley Manning, that "went on to help trigger the Arab spring".


There are also some comments about the extradition, where the argument seems to be that human rights would override the EAW:
The Guardian said:
The British government said it is legally obliged to carry out Assange's extradition after the Australian's appeals in the British courts were rejected. It has also said that according to European law, it would not allow extradition to the United States on charges that could result in the death penalty. Patiño argued that the UK's human rights obligations overrode its duty under EU treaty.

"The United Kingdom says it defends human rights," Patiño said. "Would it be human to try to keep Mr Assange in the embassy for months or years?" He added that Assange might spend up to 10 years in the embassy "without right to his life or his privacy".
 
The guardian said:
"The United Kingdom says it defends human rights," Patiño said. "Would it be human to try to keep Mr Assange in the embassy for months or years?" He added that Assange might spend up to 10 years in the embassy "without right to his life or his privacy".

Does he not understand that JA is free to leave the embassy any time he so chooses?
 
'US calls Assange 'enemy of state''

Sydney Morning Herald said:
THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
 
Originally Posted by JihadJane View Post
'US calls Assange 'enemy of state''
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You are aware that JA isn't in the US military?

Does he have to be in the military to have a legitimate concern over the implications of being considered an enemy of the US? It's interesting that the New York Times isn't also considered an enemy of the US even though they published the same material that WikiLeaks did at exactly the same time!
 
Perhaps he should have given more concern to those implications before performing acts inimical to the interests of the U.S. government.
 
If you can believe the reporter, that is how the law works. If this classification involves the possibility of a death penalty, then it's something to be taken seriously.
That only applies to US military personnel, did Assange join the US military or something? :rolleyes:
 
Does he have to be in the military to have a legitimate concern over the implications of being considered an enemy of the US?
Yes, because there is no criminal penalty for being designated an enemy of the US by the DoD. It only affects US military personnel who pass information to the designated enemy.

The reporter is making a paranoid, and incorrect, reading of the classification.
 
Does he have to be in the military to have a legitimate concern over the implications of being considered an enemy of the US? It's interesting that the New York Times isn't also considered an enemy of the US even though they published the same material that WikiLeaks did at exactly the same time!

That is false. The New York Times did not publish a politically motivated hack job misleadingly called "collateral murder" at the same time as Ecuador's latest pet.

Further, it was Assange that "published" the stolen materials to the Guardian, the Times and several other media outlets.
 
Ecuador has apparently found a treaty from 1840 that they claim would allow the UK to let JA go to Ecuador.

The treaty -- signed September 20, 1840 -- makes it possible to "demonstrate to the United Kingdom that it can deliver safe passage," Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, told South American broadcaster Telesur.

Anyone here that knows anything about that treaty?
 
Lol.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ecuador-invokes-treaty-assange-row-britain-054617702.html
The treaty -- signed September 20, 1840 -- makes it possible to "demonstrate to the United Kingdom that it can deliver safe passage," Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, told South American broadcaster Telesur.

The text "foresees that no one shall be extradited if the offense in question is not political in nature," Patino added.

So now they are arguing that since rape is not political, he can not be extradited to Sweden? Hilarious..

And how does Ecuador fit in to this? They have not even requested to have Assange extradited.
 
Does he have to be in the military to have a legitimate concern over the implications of being considered an enemy of the US? It's interesting that the New York Times isn't also considered an enemy of the US even though they published the same material that WikiLeaks did at exactly the same time!

From the link:

The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy"
 
Ecuador has apparently found a treaty from 1840 that they claim would allow the UK to let JA go to Ecuador.

Anyone here that knows anything about that treaty?

It's unclear to me what parties are supposed to have signed this? UK and Ecuador or UK and Sweden? In case it's the former , I do not see how it is relevant to anything anyway since it's not an extradition from or to Ecuador?

Unless it has to do with the legalities surrounding his granted asylum by Ecuador? I would guess this is only viable as long as he is on Ecuadorian soil, but I Am Not An (International) Lawyer...
 
Last edited:
Last I checked, Assange is not subject to the UCMJ, so that article is pretty much meaningless. The penalty for the article of the UCMJ in question, while harsh, is basically mandated by the Constitution IMO; "aiding the enemy" can be construed to mean "treason", the only crime defined by the Constitution and for which the penalty is death. Given that Assange is NOT a citizen of the US, nor is he a member of the US Military, he is not subject to this law.

Relevant text:

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Elements.

(1) Aiding the enemy.

(a) That the accused aided the enemy; and
(b) That the accused did so with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(2) Attempting to aid the enemy.

(a) That the accused did a certain overt act;
(b) That the act was done with the intent to aid the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things;

(c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

(d) That the act apparently tended to bring about the offense of aiding the enemy with certain arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things.

(3) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, harbored or protected a person;
(b) That the person so harbored or protected was the enemy; and

(c) That the accused knew that the person so harbored or protected was an enemy.

(4) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence information to the enemy; and
(b) That the intelligence information was true, or implied the truth, at least in part.

(5) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) That the accused, without proper authority, communicated, corresponded, or held intercourse with the enemy, and;
(b) That the accused knew that the accused was communicating, corresponding, or holding intercourse with the enemy.

Explanation.

(1) Scope of Article 104. This article denounces offenses by all persons whether or not otherwise subject to military law. Offenders may be tried by court-martial or by military commission.

(2) Enemy. For a discussion of “enemy,” see paragraph - 23c(1)(b).

(3) Aiding or attempting to aid the enemy. It is not a violation of this article to furnish prisoners of war subsistence, quarters, and other comforts or aid to which they are lawfully entitled.

(4) Harboring or protecting the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. An enemy is harbored or protected when, without proper authority, that enemy is shielded, either physically or by use of any artifice, aid, or representation from any injury or misfortune which in the chance of war may occur.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required, but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) Giving intelligence to the enemy.

(a) Nature of offense. Giving intelligence to the enemy is a particular case of corresponding with the enemy made more serious by the fact that the communication contains intelligence that may be useful to the enemy for any of the many reasons that make information valuable to belligerents. This intelligence may be conveyed by direct or indirect means.
(b) Intelligence. “Intelligence” imports that the information conveyed is true or implies the truth, at least in part.

(c) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(6) Communicating with the enemy.

(a) Nature of the offense. No unauthorized communication, correspondence, or intercourse with the enemy is permissible. The intent, content, and method of the communication, correspondence, or intercourse are immaterial. No response or receipt by the enemy is required. The offense is complete the moment the communication, correspondence, or intercourse issues from the accused. The communication, correspondence, or intercourse may be conveyed directly or indirectly. A prisoner of war may violate this Article by engaging in unauthorized communications with the enemy. See also - paragraph 29c(3).
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge is required but may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(c) Citizens of neutral powers. Citizens of neutral powers resident in or visiting invaded or occupied territory can claim no immunity from the customary laws of war relating to communication with the enemy.

Lesser included offense.

For harboring or protecting the enemy, giving intelligence to the enemy, or communicating with the enemy. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

Death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct


Being declared an enemy of the US doesn't automatically mean we'll hunt you down; I'm fairly sure that N. Korea has been declared an enemy of the US, and you don't see us hunting down Kim Jong Un. There are other countries and groups that have been declared enemies of the US. It's a classification so military members know who to NOT interact with on pain of potential death. That's it. Assange's paranoia in this case is utterly groundless.

ETA: IIRC, this is one of the articles that Bradley Manning has been charged with or will be charged with once his Article 32 hearing is completed. If anyone in this case is facing the death penalty, it's him; Assange's whining nonwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
It's unclear to me what parties are supposed to have signed this? UK and Ecuador or UK and Sweden? In case it's the former , I do not see how it is relevant to anything anyway since it's not an extradition from or to Ecuador?

Unless it has to do with the legalities surrounding his granted asylum by Ecuador? I would guess this is only viable as long as he is on Ecuadorian soil, but I Am Not An (International) Lawyer...
I don't really understand either... But if it is a treaty between Ecuador and UK, there might be a situation where UK had to chose between living up to the EAW or the Ecuador treaty.

Anyone who can translate spanish? I wonder if the english quote has the condition reversed?

"ninguna persona acusada será entregada si el delito por el cual se demanda su entrega fuera político"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom