Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[theprestige]

It's worth noting that the reasons Amnesty gives for why they think Sweden ought to give such guarantees: to protect the rights of the two women who've accused Assange. The whole piece seems to be phrased rather carefully, actually.

Phrased rather dickishly, you mean?

If the rights of the accusers are paramount, Assange could protect them instantly, by delivering himself to the Swedish authorities without further delay.

If Assange has committed crimes against the US, should he not stand trial for those crimes? Do the victims of those crimes not have rights as well, that should be equally safeguarded by due process and rule of law?

Is Assange behaving anything other than dickishly, by holding one person's rights hostage against the just exercise of another person's rights?

Is Amnesty International behaving anything other than dickishly, in upholding Assange's absurd and offensive course of action?

I think not. I think Assange and AI both are--dickishly--pissing in your ear, and you are happy enough to say it's rain.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Amnesty Sweden gave this statement:

Svenska sektionen av Amnesty International ställer sig inte bakom det sätt på vilket organisationen har formulerat sig kring frågan om garantier. Svenska sektionen anser inte att det vare sig är lämpligt eller möjligt att kräva av den svenska regeringen att ge garantier för att Assange inte utlämnas till USA. Amnesty Internationals primära fokus är den svenska förundersökningen och att Julian Assange, genom att vara på plats i Sverige, kan medverka till att anklagelserna om brott kan utredas vidare. För det fall USA i ett sådant senare läge skulle komma att begära Julian Assange utlämnad för brott kopplad till Wikileaks, kommer Amnesty International att vända sig emot en utlämning på grund av den risk för att han i USA skulle komma att utsättas för allvarliga kränkningar av sina mänskliga rättigheter.

Google translate/my fixes:
Swedish section of Amnesty International does not endorse the way the organization has set itself on the issue of guarantees. Swedish section does not believe that it is appropriate nor possible to demand that the Swedish government provides assurances that Assange will not be extradited to the United States. Amnesty International's primary focus is the Swedish investigation and that Julian Assange, by being on location in Sweden, can help so that allegations of crimes can be investigated further. Would the United States in a later stage ask Julian Assange extradited for crimes linked to WikiLeaks, Amnesty International will turn against extradition due to the danger that he in the U.S. would be exposed to serious violations of his human rights.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It would be interesting to see what sort of opinions Amnesty International (Central) had on other issues and individuals. For example, where would they sit on (say) a Salman Rushdie or a more right wing individual or issue. I mean is a principle they hold true to, or does it depend on the politics?

Just wondering.

Happy birthday HTL.

 

[a_unique_person]

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:




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.

Not hunting down the leader of North Korea could have more to do with the repercussion of doing so, eg, Seoul being wiped out in a war. Al Qaeda don't get the same treatment. They can be attacked with a drone at any time now, in several countries.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Al Qaeda don't get the same treatment. They can be attacked with a drone at any time now, in several countries.

Good.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good.

I wasn't making a comment on the morality of attacking Al Qaeda, just the practicalities of attacking some enemies as opposed to others.

 

[Sabrina]

Not hunting down the leader of North Korea could have more to do with the repercussion of doing so, eg, Seoul being wiped out in a war. Al Qaeda don't get the same treatment. They can be attacked with a drone at any time now, in several countries.

Yes, but you missed the point of my post.

I was stating that the classification "enemy of the US" does not automatically mean that Delta Force or the Navy SEALS immediately start a manhunt or the Air Force hauls out the Predator drones; it's simply a designation given to certain countries and/or groups that tells US soldiers "do not have congress with these people or you are in violation of the UCMJ".

Therefore, Assange and/or Wikileaks being declared an "enemy of the US" by the DoD is merely a means by which they can lawfully forbid any soldiers from interacting with them in the manner that Bradley Manning did, thereby hopefully preventing any future leaks of classified information to them. It's not a 100% fix, but it allows for better regulation of any potential leaks.

 

[Korren]

Therefore, Assange and/or Wikileaks being declared an "enemy of the US" by the DoD

I'd like to stop you there and mention that that has not actually happened.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, but you missed the point of my post.

I was stating that the classification "enemy of the US" does not automatically mean that Delta Force or the Navy SEALS immediately start a manhunt or the Air Force hauls out the Predator drones; it's simply a designation given to certain countries and/or groups that tells US soldiers "do not have congress with these people or you are in violation of the UCMJ".

Therefore, Assange and/or Wikileaks being declared an "enemy of the US" by the DoD is merely a means by which they can lawfully forbid any soldiers from interacting with them in the manner that Bradley Manning did, thereby hopefully preventing any future leaks of classified information to them. It's not a 100% fix, but it allows for better regulation of any potential leaks.

I saw your claim, but it does not explain what you claim. The fact that North Korea is not being attacked is just as easily explained by simple practical issues, eg, what do we do now that we have started a war that has wiped out Seoul, even though we have killed the leader of North Korea.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I wasn't making a comment on the morality of attacking Al Qaeda, just the practicalities of attacking some enemies as opposed to others.

It's called a risk analysis. You should familiarise yourself with them.

 

[eirik]

I'd like to stop you there and mention that that has not actually happened.

Exactly. They investigated a US-military for communicating with the enemy, and did not find grounds to charge her for communicating with wikileaks or the supporters.

The reason for this *might well be* that the regulations in question is not applicable.

How is this declaring Wikileaks an enemy of the state.

 

[Korren]

Exactly. They investigated a US-military for communicating with the enemy, and did not find grounds to charge her for communicating with wikileaks or the supporters.

If one reads the actual documents for this particular investigation, you'll also discover that the organisation described as "anti-US and or anti-military group" was not, in fact, Wikileaks, but seems to have been either Stop The War Coalition or Friends of Bradley Manning, and it seems this description originates (but probably not verbatim) from the subject of the investigation rather than the investigators. From the interview with her First Sergeant:

"SUBJECT made an utterance that she had been in contact with an anti-military/anti-war organization that shared the same anti-military views as her. SUBJECT stated she did not have a desire to be in the US military anymore, adding that she did not agree with what the military does. SUBJECT did not provide any details about the organization or who they were affiliated with."

 

[commandlinegamer]

Assange taken into custody! Or maybe not!

(Timing organised by Jimmy Saville supporters?)

ETA: yeah, looks bogus given the same Twitter account is now announcing the deaths of 17 Westboro Church members.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's called a risk analysis. You should familiarise yourself with them.

IIRC, that is what I was saying.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

IIRC, that is what I was saying.

Fair enough then. The way I read it was you were bemoaning the fact that Al Qaeda can cop it but not others.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not hunting down the leader of North Korea could have more to do with the repercussion of doing so, eg, Seoul being wiped out in a war. Al Qaeda don't get the same treatment. They can be attacked with a drone at any time now, in several countries.

I seem to recall a little thing called 9/11. I suspect that had North Korea been behind it, the US wouldn't have cared if Seoul burned as long as they got Kim on a spit roast.

 

[BenBurch]

I seem to recall a little thing called 9/11. I suspect that had North Korea been behind it, the US wouldn't have cared if Seoul burned as long as they got Kim on a spit roast.

Actually, had this happened, I think China would have stepped in and taken care of NK because they do not want a major war on their borders.

 

[a_unique_person]

I seem to recall a little thing called 9/11. I suspect that had North Korea been behind it, the US wouldn't have cared if Seoul burned as long as they got Kim on a spit roast.

They would have. Attacking NK in revenge for three thousand deaths, and knowing that millions of your allies would die. The US wouldn't do that, although it appears there are people who think it would. Either way, Assange's paranoia could still be well founded.

It does seem questionable to say that Wikileaks is all the US is interested in, and that shutting it down is the end of the matter. It's like saying shutting down Al Qaeda is all the US wanted after 9/11, and not Bin Laden's death, or that of his men.

There will be a drama on his earlier life on Australian TV this weekend. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[theprestige]

It does seem questionable to say that Wikileaks is all the US is interested in, and that shutting it down is the end of the matter. It's like saying shutting down Al Qaeda is all the US wanted after 9/11, and not Bin Laden's death, or that of his men.

It's only like saying that if the two things are substantially alike.

But your "questionable" thing to say is probably a straw man. I'm sure the US is interested to see if Assange attempts to perpetrate any more shenanigans along the lines of Wikileaks, and I'm sure the US is prepared to consider taking action against him if he does so.

On the other hand, I think it's pretty much woo to assert that what's happening to Assange right now is because the US has a Wikileaks-related interest in him.

After all, the US pursuit of Bin Laden didn't involve trumping up sex crimes against him in Pantsganistan or wherever. In that case, the US simply called him out as a criminal what needed justice, and went about justice-izing him.

That's not at all like what the US is doing to Assange (which is mostly nothing). So no, the two things don't seem to be alike at all.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

giggle .. he he he.... "Pantsganisan"