What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Assange Extradition- Britain Agrees to Extradite Publisher to Country that Plotted to Assassinate Him (1 Viewer)

Ruffrodys05 said:
Obviously you haven't been paying attention as it's very clear I don't have to back up any claims of something being fake.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen you call people jerks today and now make posts like this. Yep....no one sided moderating going on here. Back up your claim it was fake. Otherwise....stop trolling.

 
ren hoek said:
The UN working group on arbitrary detention (WGAD) said it was deeply concerned by the “disproportionate sentence” imposed on Assange for violating the terms of his bail, which it described as a “minor violation”.
Click to expand...
A UK court already considered the WGAD's claims in 2018.

The impression I have, and this may well be dispelled if and when Mr Assange finally appears in court, is that he is a man who wants to impose his terms on the course of justice, whether the course of justice is in this jurisdiction or in Sweden. He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour. As long as the court process is going his way, he is willing to be bailed conditionally but as soon as the Supreme Court rules against him, he no longer wants to participate on the court’s terms but on his terms.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky said:
I’ve seen you call people jerks today and now make posts like this. Yep....no one sided moderating going on here. Back up your claim it was fake. Otherwise....stop trolling.
Click to expand...
He's rustling jimmies because I said I didn't have to read the Mueller report to know the collusion scam wasn't real.  I disagree with his interpretation here but I'm sure he sincerely believes it's analagous to what I said.  

 
ren hoek said:
UN experts have called for Julian Assange to be released from prison and criticised the British government for breaching his human rights.

The WikiLeaks publisher was jailed for 50 weeks on Wednesday for breaking bail conditions imposed seven years earlier by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

The UN working group on arbitrary detention (WGAD) said it was deeply concerned by the “disproportionate sentence” imposed on Assange for violating the terms of his bail, which it described as a “minor violation”.

The group has twice previously called for Assange to be freed, after it judged his confinement to the Ecuadorian embassy by the threat of arrest should he leave amounted to arbitrary detention.

“The working group regrets that the government has not complied with its opinion and has now furthered the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr Assange,” it said in a statement on Friday.

“It is worth recalling that the detention and the subsequent bail of Mr Assange in the UK were connected to preliminary investigations initiated in 2010 by a prosecutor in Sweden. It is equally worth noting that that prosecutor did not press any charges against Mr Assange and that in 2017, after interviewing him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, she discontinued investigations and brought an end to the case.

“The working group is further concerned that Mr Assange has been detained since 11 April 2019 in Belmarsh prison, a high-security prison, as if he were convicted for a serious criminal offence. This treatment appears to contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality envisaged by the human rights standards.

“The WGAD reiterates its recommendation to the government of the United Kingdom, as expressed in its opinion 54/2015, and its 21 December 2018 statement, that the right of Mr Assange to personal liberty should be restored.”

UN calls for Julian Assange's release from UK high-security jail
Click to expand...
Disproportionate?

Did the judge not follow sentencing guidelines? 

(that is a rhetorical question, because he actually did).

If you can't do the time......

 
ren hoek said:
UN experts have called for Julian Assange to be released from prison and criticised the British government for breaching his human rights.

The WikiLeaks publisher was jailed for 50 weeks on Wednesday for breaking bail conditions imposed seven years earlier by seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

The UN working group on arbitrary detention (WGAD) said it was deeply concerned by the “disproportionate sentence” imposed on Assange for violating the terms of his bail, which it described as a “minor violation”.

The group has twice previously called for Assange to be freed, after it judged his confinement to the Ecuadorian embassy by the threat of arrest should he leave amounted to arbitrary detention.

“The working group regrets that the government has not complied with its opinion and has now furthered the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr Assange,” it said in a statement on Friday.

“It is worth recalling that the detention and the subsequent bail of Mr Assange in the UK were connected to preliminary investigations initiated in 2010 by a prosecutor in Sweden. It is equally worth noting that that prosecutor did not press any charges against Mr Assange and that in 2017, after interviewing him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, she discontinued investigations and brought an end to the case.

“The working group is further concerned that Mr Assange has been detained since 11 April 2019 in Belmarsh prison, a high-security prison, as if he were convicted for a serious criminal offence. This treatment appears to contravene the principles of necessity and proportionality envisaged by the human rights standards.

“The WGAD reiterates its recommendation to the government of the United Kingdom, as expressed in its opinion 54/2015, and its 21 December 2018 statement, that the right of Mr Assange to personal liberty should be restored.”

UN calls for Julian Assange's release from UK high-security jail
Click to expand...
Counterpoint:

Sweden has reopened the rape case against Julian Assange. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48253343

 
And I guess if that was a sworn document under Sweden's laws that could be testimony.  Or it could be a transcript, it's just weird format.  All I see are numbered sentences.  I shouldn't assume - that may well just be how it looks.

 
Setting aside the weird pedantry about a single word in a tweet, it looks like the charges are completely bogus.  

 
ren hoek said:
Setting aside the weird pedantry about a single word in a tweet, it looks like the charges are completely bogus.  
Click to expand...
....if Julian Assange is telling the complete truth about the rape charge he's been dodging by living in an embassy for nearly a decade in a prepared statement, after which he refused to answer questions.

 
Henry Ford said:
....if Julian Assange is telling the complete truth about the rape charge he's been dodging by living in an embassy for nearly a decade in a prepared statement, after which he refused to answer questions.
Click to expand...
He wasn't dodging the rape charge.  He was dodging extradition to the United States for publishing docs.  This is why Ecuador granted him asylum.  

 
@ren hoek aren't you the one who constantly says that Trump is overstepping his bounds because even Obama determined it was improper to file charges.  So the DOJ didn't?

 
ren hoek said:
He wasn't dodging the rape charge.  He was dodging extradition to the United States for publishing docs.  This is why Ecuador granted him asylum.  
Click to expand...
The odd thing is that Sweden may jump the US's extradition claim. This guy keeps jamming himself into places and costing himself more time. He probably had a decent shot in the British courts back in 2011 or so, he may even still have a decent shot in the Brit courts but much less so now with his scofflaw behavior. And now if he went to Sweden he'd be facing their courts and their very equanimous approach. He can't get out his own way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
But there was no indictment until the Trump administration filed one, right?  I feel like we had this conversation.
Click to expand...
Not that we know of.  But the indictment that Trump DOJ conjured up didn't really get rolling in earnest until Assange went after the CIA.  I'm skeptical that Obama DOJ would not have responded the same way in similar circumstances.  I have a hard time believing Assange was fine to walk out of the embassy and return home with no risk of punishment by US.  

If there was no indictment for his extradition, the UK govt could have easily confirmed there wasn't one, but they always refused to do so.  

But yes- people cheerleading the prosecution of a publisher are bigtime Trump supporters on this one.  

 
Bucky86 said:
Get REKT, Julian

BREAKING: A grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has returned an 18-count superseding indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, DOJ officials tell us. He's been charged with violating the Espionage Act. Story TK.
Click to expand...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/23/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-indicted-leaks-conspiracy-manning/1207119001/

Pre-emptive ren strike:

One of the most delicate questions facing prosecutors in their handling of Assange was how – or whether – to distinguish WikiLeaks from journalists who frequently publish information the government would rather keep secret. 

Authorities said Thursday that Assange was not charged for simply receiving classified documents, like a journalist. Demers said no responsible journalist would release the classified names of intelligence sources, as Assange is charged with doing.

“Assange is not charged simply because he was a publisher,” said Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, where the charges against Assange were filed.
Click to expand...
 
Henry Ford said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/23/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-indicted-leaks-conspiracy-manning/1207119001/

Pre-emptive ren strike:
Click to expand...


I think this is going to be an interesting case. Regardless of whether a "responsible journalist" (whatever that means) would have published the names of intelligence sources, its still just publishing names. I don't see how that isn't protected by the First Amendment.

I reckon this will be a really important case and the details and facts of exactly what Assange did will be extremely important.

 
whoknew said:
I think this is going to be an interesting case. Regardless of whether a "responsible journalist" (whatever that means) would have published the names of intelligence sources, its still just publishing names. I don't see how that isn't protected by the First Amendment.

I reckon this will be a really important case and the details and facts of exactly what Assange did will be extremely important.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

 
This probably helps Assange’s extradition argument and also gets back some of his press sympathy.

Im not not quite sure about how these charges from the Manning era help the DOJ get to prosecuting him for the Vault 7/8 and Russia acts, unless they get him to the US and somehow get him to cooperate. 

 
There’s also got to be some kind of distinction made about publication vs intentionally seeking to harm. Robert Novak wasn’t punished in the Plane investigation. Moral culpability isn’t enough either. It has to rise to the level where the defendant knows that x adversary will attack the US by using y information to harm z agent for the US.

This also poses dangers for reporters whom we rely on for national security info regularly.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
There’s also got to be some kind of distinction made about publication vs intentionally seeking to harm. Robert Novak wasn’t punished in the Plane investigation. Moral culpability isn’t enough either. It has to rise to the level where the defendant knows that x adversary will attack the US by using y information to harm z agent for the US.

This also poses dangers for reporters whom we rely on for national security info regularly.
Click to expand...


Yea. I'm waiting for all the facts and details, but just from what I've read online about it, my first impression is this indictment goes too far.

 
Here’s the indictment.

It’s not just espionage act, there’s lots there, pretty much everything in reserve from the Manning era. There may be morally defensible stuff here, maybe most of it, but I have to tip the hat to Ren because he has had a running commentary saying the Manning acts would underlie an indictment, and that in truth has proved to be fair. I didn’t agree. Now I think it’s a terrible idea, but I can see the appeal to the Trump administration due to the obvious implications for mainstream journalists.

The most salient facts or charges are those relating to computer intrusion and assisting Manning in accessing data. That I get. The receiving and disseminating stuff seems difficult, if not unjustified.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bucky86 said:
Julian published the names of journalists that were helping the U.S. in Afghanistan. :lol:  Protector of free speech my ###.
Click to expand...
This is sad and horrible. It’s anti free speech in fact, and anti-democratic. 

I think a difficult issue is what if the government is protecting private, democratic interests? Let’s say public officials and even military interests are compromised, fine. Potentially horrible but technically ‘public’. But private rights, safety and interests? This seems like a violation of human rights that any government official would be prosecuted for so why shouldn’t a private actor?

 
Ben Wizner, director of ACLU: “For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information..” “This is an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism, and a direct assault on the First Amendment.”

Obama DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller: “It was absolutely looked at, and the department ultimately made the decision that it wasn’t appropriate to charge Assange for publishing classified information..” “Not because he’s a journalist—we didn’t believe he was—but that the same legal theories you would apply to him could be used against a reporter for any major media outlet. That was the driving force.”

Freedom of Press Foundation cofounder Trevor Timm: “Put simply, these unprecedented charges against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the most significant and terrifying threat to the First Amendment in the 21st century..” “The ability of the press to publish facts the government would prefer remain secret is both critical to an informed public and a fundamental right. This decision by the Justice Department is a massive and unprecedented escalation in Trump’s war on journalism, and it’s no exaggeration to say the First Amendment itself is at risk.”

Bucky: “Get REKT, Julian”

With “resistance” like this, who needs Trump supporters?  The primordial, tribal mentality animating so much of the so-called resistance to Trump, as Trump escalates his most flagrant and extreme attack on the press yet, has really been something to behold. 

 
@ggreenwald

When you see professional media figures decreeing "Julian Assange is not a journalist," compare how much corruption & criminality by the world's most powerful factions they've exposed in their work to how much Assange has exposed. That contrast will tell you all you need to know.

Also, the question "is X a 'journalist'?" - as though it's a credentialed, licensed status like being a doctor or lawyer - is deceitful. The First Amendment's press freedom protects *an activity* available to everyone - not just a designated priesthood called "journalists."

Of course Julian Assange is Not A Journalist™. He never even went to the White House Correspondents' Dinner gala a single time! I wish those who anoint themselves arbiters of who is & isn't a journalist would (a) provide their definition & (b) compare their big exposés to his.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
It is possible to believe both that Julian Assange is awful and that the latest charges represent a ludicrous overreach into conduct protected by the first amendment. 
Click to expand...
It's also possible to stand on the right side of history against this historic attack on the press, unequivocally, without qualifying it behind milquetoast bull#### about how icky you think Assange is.  

 
ren hoek said:
It's also possible to stand on the right side of history against this historic attack on the press, unequivocally, without qualifying it behind milquetoast bull#### about how icky you think Assange is.  
Click to expand...
Thanks for the tip.  Just so I get this right, Is being a colossal ##### mandatory or just something you throw in to put your own stamp on it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top