Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy, whilst his application for asylum is being processed. In a BBC news report today, Assange has ignored a Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit request to surrender himself. The deadline was 11:30am this morning. For anyone who isn't familiar with this story, Assange is avoiding extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning on sexual crimes. The face of Wikileaks claims that if he is extradited to Sweden, there is every possibility that he could end up in the US, where he could face charges too, over Wikileaks. My own personal opinion on this matter is that if Assange was not guilty, as he claims, then he should be prepared to fight his corner over the charges. Any investigation, or subsequent criminal trial would be under such scrutiny with the world media, I don't believe Assange's claims that he would not face a fair investigation and/ or trial. I believe that his actions are reminiscent of a guilty man on the run. Even if he isn't guilty, then running away from the problem does nothing other than to cultivate that seed of doubt that I am sure many have in their minds. I would suggest that his acts show him to be a coward, and also as someone who refuses to take responsibility for his own actions. These are two of the worst traits any man can have as far as I am concerned. I'm sure there will be many here who would disagree with me, and that's good, but please keep it civil if you do wish to share. News Report Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18648922
Trouble is, no matter how much what actions interpret, it's wholly irrelevant. He's taking advice from his legal representation. They will do everything they can to delay things and grey what is otherwise black and white.
I've never bought his logic that if extradited to Sweden he would then be sent to the U.S. The case of Garry Mckinnon has shown that if the U.S. were that eager to get a hold of him they simply have had to request it from our government and he would have been detained.
If he goes to Sweden on extremely dubious rape charges (no doubt complete BS), he will inevitably be handed over to the States where he could very seriously face life in prison or possibly death because of the Wikileaks involvement. Now, this is his exact crime: releasing the secrets of a criminal, warring state. The facts are the US has committed the supreme international crime of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, both without UN resolutions which authorised force (so both completely illegal). It's murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis, torn their countries to shreds, and committed multiple acts of war crimes along the way (Fallujah/Abu Ghraib/etc). The organisation which he headed should be praised for exposing illegitimate 'secrets' which absolutely should be in the public domain, not that we didn't already know much of what was released in the cables anyway. As a functioning state, you're supposed to be transparent to the public which you represent. Hiding critical information regarding illegal wars and contracts and all sorts of stuff is NOT a legitimate claim for state secrecy. I hope he is freed and finds refuge in a country and continues the fight against aggression and illegal wars. And by the way, the cables didn't just concern wars. They covered a whole range of issues, such as: Things like this should be in the public domain. It's a duty to report this to the public, as things like climate change could be the end of the species, and I'm not kidding.
Gary McKinnon committed a crime against the US from British soil. The charges against Assange are a bit less clear-cut, and it is not at all clear in which country he committed them. The only crime he could be charged with committing in a particular country are the rape charges in Sweden. These are in themselves a bit questionable, but it does open the opportunity for the US to then ask for an extradition from Sweden to US soil. Given that the US has a time-honoured tradition of basically illegal extraordinary rendition and indefinite detention without charge in a legal no-man's-land of Guantanamo, I can see Assange's concerns. To brand him a coward is emotive and irrational.
I just don't like that guy.. his own people didn't like him either, it's why they bailed- he's just very irresponsible with the information he was given.. if he got that information on his own- I'd say fine.. but he was given information and put many people at risk.. the guy is nothing but a glorified idiot who more than likely did rape those women on top of it.. he doesn't even deserve to be in the news really 3lusive- what world do you live in anyways?
That is just another way of saying that 3lusive does not know what he is talking about, which is not a rational argument.
On what evidence are you basing this assumption? I have found nothing from the Swedish government that states they would be prepared to extradite him to the US, should he hit Swedish soil. The Americans may well make an application for his extradition, but Assange faces that threat in any country where there is an extradition agreement in place. That includes the UK, where he has been residing. Also, on what evidence are you basing your claim that the charges are rubbish? I should point out that Assange has not yet been charged, he is wanted for questioning, and there is nothing to say that he would be charged after questioning. I think that is another debate to be honest. I didn't want this one to go down the road of arguing over the legitimacy of the Afghan and Iraq wars. It's been debated to death elsewhere here in the forums. Again, a different set of debates. I think that to claim that the questioning that Assange is wanted for is all politically motivated is a nice smoke screen, but nothing more.
I live in one which is unfortunately, from the perspective of international relations, completely dominated by the US, which is the biggest threat to peace in the world today. The fact that you are completely unaware of this fact and the history of your country is not my problem, though.
I believe Sweden isn't allowed to extradite if there's a possibility of abuse e.g. the death penalty in the receiving country. However even with that would you run the slight risk of that being overturned?
As I said, the US does not exactly have a track record of playing it straight down the legal line. The only reason it has not asked the UK for extradition is because Assange has not committed any crime on UK soil (the dual criminality clause). In that case I think that the next logical step is to examine the charges brought against him in Sweden. Do these have sufficient merit on their own to require him to be questioned on Swedish soil?
well what you stated is not what was released.. it was your opinion.. there are some really evil people out there- and politics is politics.. the stuff I mainly had a problem with was the intel on our allies in the field and our troops.. you might not care about that- because to people like you it's all a game but for us who have or had people actually fighting on the ground in afghanistan and iraq.. he was just a moron who posted a bunch of information everyone pretty much already knew and said- look at me guys! we don't need people like that in positions of power he's just one of those guys who really needs people fawning over him.. it's not about the intel- I like seeing the lid opened on certain things.. but to put people at risk for no good reason is just sad.. he's just sad really
I don't think it is being emotive or irrational. But for your sake, I will rationalise my point. If someone is wanted for questioning on serious charges, such as sexual offences, they can go two ways: 1: They can run, guilty or not, and take the easy way out. 2: They can face up to the problems, and accept responsibility for their actions. Often seen as the hard option. Which shows a positive trait in a man's character more, running or facing up to accusations? Which would leave us to believe that the man is running scared? I believe I came to a highly rational decision when I chose the term coward. He is acting like one, and thus deserves the label. As mentioned already, if the US were so keen to have Assange extradited, then why is it that they haven't made the application to the British government? We don't exactly have a sterling record when it comes to contesting extradition requests made by the US. What purpose would it serve the US to wait till Assange was extradited to Sweden? EDIT: Nexxo answered this in his post above, I can't keep up with the replies here :-/
He could have in fact appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, but his lawyers and legal team must have warned him that this would be a likely unsuccessful venture. I assume that he's had either explicit or implicit signals from Correa that Ecuador will give him asylum, but how the hell he's going to get there without being arrested on British soil is unclear.
I agree, but given that even if the Swedes granted extradition to the US when he was in Sweden, the UK would legally have to agree to this through the normal legal routes anyway so essentially extraditing him to Sweden puts the US a step further back rather than a step further forward. However, I think it's fairly likely this man is innocent of the charges against him, but that in his paranoid state he fears that he will get extradited or some heavy sentence against him in Sweden (which barely happens in their judicial sytem).
I think that we are sitting closer to the front line of this "game" than you are. The injured soldiers are flown into the hospital from which I type this. I regularly see the Chinooks touching down on the lawn outside my office (because they are too big for the regular helipad). I see young men, barely in their twenties, roll around the hospital site in wheelchairs with their limbs missing. It's time for you to stop seeing gays and buttsex everywhere and grow up a little. How about the people who sent them? Don't blame the messenger; blame your previous President.
So for the sake of argument, let's pretend we know he isn't guilty, with absolute certainty. Is his plan to keep on running, and to head for Ecuador, going to bring any closure to the accusations, or are there going to be more people who have that doubt in their minds over his innocence? Is he running the risk of forever looking over his shoulder, and living in a total state of paranoia? Would he be better to challenge the accusations as most other people who face such accusations do?
see nexxo.. you can try to divert it to my other posts- but truth is you know I'm right.. he was irresponsible- he's one of those guys I just have no respect for.. and I know the toll of the war.. I know the war isn't right- but I can also admit what a guy like assange is
Hardly behaviour becoming of a moderator, and uncalled for too. Please refrain from the emotive tirades Nexxo, for the sake of this debate.
