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

Will Assange End up in American Jail?

Do You Think Assange Will End up in American Jail?

  • Yes - and he should

    Votes: 12 10.2%
  • Yes - but he shouldn't

    Votes: 26 22.0%
  • No - but he should

    Votes: 16 13.6%
  • No - and he shouldn't

    Votes: 64 54.2%

  • Total voters
    118
This is what Mr Lawyer has to say:

The statement read out by Benn said Assange had been advised that he should decline to comply with the police request, adding: "This should not be considered any sign of disrespect. Under both international and domestic UK law, asylum assessments take priority over extradition claims.

"The issues faced by Mr Assange are serious. His life and liberty and the life and liberty of his organisation and those associated with it are at stake.

"The US government has instigated a grand jury against Julian Assange and other founders or managers of WikiLeaks.

"There is irrefutable evidence in the public record of subpoenas being issued and witnesses being compelled to testify against Mr Assange.

US officials have said in open court that the FBI file about the investigation has now reached 42,135 pages.

"It is only a matter of time before US authorities begin extradition proceedings against Julian and other leading members of WikiLeaks on various charges including conspiracy to commit espionage.

"It is clear that there is a legal process in place which will result in taking Julian to the US, which if allowed to succeed would violate his basic rights.

snip

"Mr Assange did not feel safe from US extradition in the UK. We are all too aware of the abuses of the US-UK extradition treaty. Although Mr Assange has been trapped in the UK, under dangerous circumstances, he at least has had the freedom to apply for political asylum.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/29/julian-assange-ecuadorean-embassy-statement
 
X On Planet X, America will end up in Assange's jail

In Soviet Russia, jail goes to you!

Assange needs to take a look at his life, hanging with dictators now, who would just as soon slit his throat if he did to them what he did to the US. Putin's murdered a number of high-profile journalists and plutonium'd that KGB guy who was spillin' the beans.
 
Last edited:
In Soviet Russia, jail goes to you!

Assange needs to take a look at his life, hanging with dictators now, who would just as soon slit his throat if he did to them what he did to the US. Putin's murdered a number of high-profile journalists and plutonium'd that KGB guy who was spillin' the beans.
Ecuador isn't much better, his good buddies there like to throw journalists in prison who say unfortunate things about the government.
 
Name one.

Wikileaks cable says Iraqi children shot in head during US raid

http://digitaljournal.com/article/311006#ixzz1dlsx2gP7

The new cable also supports the original report from Col. Fadhil Muhammed Khalaf, the assistant chief of the Joint coordination Center. The initial report said: “the American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals,” McClatchy notes.
Doctors who performed the autopsies also substantiate the cable, telling Knight Ridder at the time “that all the victims had bullet shots in the head and all bodies were handcuffed.”
 
Wikileaks cable says Iraqi children shot in head during US raid

http://digitaljournal.com/article/311006#ixzz1dlsx2gP7
Reported by the Gray Lady on March 21, 2006: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6D81F31F932A15750C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all

Police investigators in Salahaddin Province have accused American troops of executing 11 civilians, including several children, during a raid last Wednesday on a house in Ishaqi, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said Monday. According to the investigators, the Americans had lined up the civilians and shot them, then killed livestock and destroyed the house, the official said.

Quite the scoop there by wikileaks, they were only 5 years late!
 
Reported by the Gray Lady on March 21, 2006: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6D81F31F932A15750C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all



Quite the scoop there by wikileaks, they were only 5 years late!

In the article you posted, the American military admitted at the time that it had demolished the house using a ground attack and airstrikes, but only after insurgents began firing from the building and claimed that only three civilians -- two women and a child -- and one insurgent were killed in the attack. They claimed that eyewitness accounts of the incident were likely false, and later said the matter warranted no further investigation. The officials refused to reveal unit identities which might have taken part in the killings. The cable supports the original report, is substantiated by the doctors who performed the autopsies and gives validity to the accusation that "the American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals,”.
 
In the article you posted, the American military admitted at the time that it had demolished the house using a ground attack and airstrikes, but only after insurgents began firing from the building and claimed that only three civilians -- two women and a child -- and one insurgent were killed in the attack. They claimed that eyewitness accounts of the incident were likely false, and later said the matter warranted no further investigation. The officials refused to reveal unit identities which might have taken part in the killings. The cable supports the original report, is substantiated by the doctors who performed the autopsies and gives validity to the accusation that "the American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals,”.
The cable is from someone at the UN relaying his findings. This was known over 5 years ago, all wikileaks did was resurect a 5 year old news story aa if it was some kind of scoop.
 
well, I guess he's less likely to end up in American jail now....

I really don't understand the basic premise of the Ecuadorian intervention. Sure I think the US will want to extradite him at a later date, sure Sweden has a recent history of handing over suspects to the CIA, but he's currently in the UK - we have an incredibly supine relationship with the US and CIA - and a fantastically generous extradition treaty with the States. If I was at threat of extradition there are few countries in the world i'd less like to be than the UK....

For all the smoke and noise about this case I can't get beyond this one point. Is Sweden really easier to extradite from than the UK?
 

That's a pretty recent precedent....

but as I said, I think the UK has had an even greater involvement with the CIA over its extra-ordinary rendition program - certainly we have a very complicit relationship with the US, so I would still rather take my chances with Sweden than the UK.....

that's what doesn't make sense to me...
 
That's a pretty recent precedent....
There has been several things happening since, for example that the 2001 actions was made public and resulted in a political crisis, and this apart from the detail that the minister deemed responsible for the decision was murdered.

This article contains some additional things that have happened since:
Swedishwire.com said:
An acute diplomatic crisis broke out between the United States and Sweden in 2006 when Swedish authorities put a stop to CIA rendition flights, according to the latest revelation from Wikileaks.
 
There has been several things happening since, for example that the 2001 actions was made public and resulted in a political crisis, and this apart from the detail that the minister deemed responsible for the decision was murdered.

This article contains some additional things that have happened since:

Ok - in which case it's even less understandable why Sweden wouldn't be preferable to the UK for Assange if it really was about extradition to the US. I've not seen this point discussed much in the media (though i am not following avidly) - which to me seems the crux of the debate. If it is easier to extradite from the UK then the entire argument from Assange and the Ecuadorians falls down....
 
That's a pretty recent precedent....

but as I said, I think the UK has had an even greater involvement with the CIA over its extra-ordinary rendition program - certainly we have a very complicit relationship with the US, so I would still rather take my chances with Sweden than the UK.....

that's what doesn't make sense to me...

Assange would be locked up in a prison cell on entering Sweden.
 
Assange would be locked up in a prison cell on entering Sweden.

from what i understand (and i stand to be corrected) he is currently just wanted for questioning....so whether or not he then is jailed would depend on the results of that questioning (and the prosecutor's recommendations...) Unless breaching bail conditions in itself will lead to incarceration....

But regardless of whether he is in a Swedish jail cell - that's not what this Ecuadorian intervention is supposedly about. After all, if he is found guilty of a Swedish crime in Sweden and imprisoned because of it then that is a debate about the European arrest warrant and the Swedish judicial system. This intervention is about the claim that he is at danger of extradition to the US as a result of this extradition to Sweden. I still don't see why he isn't more at danger of that in the UK
 
from what i understand (and i stand to be corrected) he is currently just wanted for questioning....so whether or not he then is jailed would depend on the results of that questioning (and the prosecutor's recommendations...)
Well, I'm pretty sure that he would be jailed immediately - that's the result of "häktning" in Sweden. He would then be interviewed, and based on that the decision has to be made either to charge him, or release him. He may not be "häktad" for more than 14 days without permission from a court.
 
Well, I'm pretty sure that he would be jailed immediately - that's the result of "häktning" in Sweden. He would then be interviewed, and based on that the decision has to be made either to charge him, or release him. He may not be "häktad" for more than 14 days without permission from a court.

ok thanks for the clarification - but this still doesn't change my earlier point - whether it's good for Assange to avoid Swedish charges this doesn't change the question as to whether he is more at risk of extradition in the UK or Sweden.....
 
Reported by the Gray Lady on March 21, 2006: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E6D81F31F932A15750C0A9609C8B63&pagewanted=all

Quite the scoop there by wikileaks, they were only 5 years late!

But that doesn't mean that Wikileaks didn't publish it, just because they didn't publish it first!

For clarity, the post you are responding to was "Wikileaks has published information about horrible things done by the USA." You seem to be arguing against a straw man position of your own making.
 
But that doesn't mean that Wikileaks didn't publish it, just because they didn't publish it first!

For clarity, the post you are responding to was "Wikileaks has published information about horrible things done by the USA." You seem to be arguing against a straw man position of your own making.
The implication was that wikileaks broke the story. Otherwise the value of wikileaks is in rehashing old news stories, which is hardly anything of value.
 

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