Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

Oh yes, I doubt they would pull the trigger either.

Though I am not sure that Russia military strenght is really superior.

Also, I may still be idealistic a bit, but I really doubt that the EU will do nothing when some of its members are directly threatened. Of course, our leaders literally count on the US to make it a lot easier... It removes uncertainty of the equation.

To be honest I would really like for things like NATO to work, but I also believe that our way of dealing with things do not always fit with how the US do it.

If you refer to my previous post in this bit of text, I think it would be best to add that it is not my point of view. I find that quite caricaturing and stupid too. But considering we have been on with caricatures since the beginning...

Okay, that's fair enough, then. There are enough people who do genuinely subscribe to that idea that it tends to raise my hackles when it's brought up.

Same for me, that's why I stupidly fell for it too. :/

[Louella Dougans]

It's probably going to get a lot worse for Sweden.

But there has to be a trial.

Without arresting Assange for questioning, and charges being brought, there cannot be a trial. And without a trial, then the Swedish judicial system's functionality is in doubt.

If the investigation into the allegations is dropped, then it demonstrates that political pressure can be applied to the Swedish criminal justice system, that some persons are too politically sensitive to be prosecuted.

If the allegations are flimsy politically motivated, or there's insufficient evidence, or whatever, it has to be shown in court, to demonstrate there is no shady goings on with political backroom deals and so on.

Now, once it gets to trial, then someone will post names, telephone numbers & addresses of the judges or other court officials online, causing a mistrial.
It'll be reported that it's someone from "anonymous". It will be, because there's enough idiots that think that doing this sort of thing would "help" Assange, and it's all part of the "campaign" against the U.S.A. Government agencies.
But "Anonymous" will say it wasn't one of them, which is a daft statement, because no-one will believe them. They'll say it's a US plot.
Except it won't be, because the US aren't stupid. Interfering in another countries judicial process in this way is not something that they'd do, because of the bad reputation that it would cause.

The judge will say "mistrial", and then because of high probability of Assange absconding, he'll be remanded in custody until a new trial can be brought, in months or years.

Then someone else will post the names & addresses of the next set of court officials.
Then someone will attempt to attack various Swedish government websites.

At this point, there is no realistic option, except to convict.

Allowing him to go free would be seen as showing to the world that the Swedish judicial system can be broken by cyberattack. People would have no confidence in the judicial system's ability to prosecute criminals.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

It's probably going to get a lot worse for Sweden.

But there has to be a trial.

Without arresting Assange for questioning, and charges being brought, there cannot be a trial. And without a trial, then the Swedish judicial system's functionality is in doubt.

If the investigation into the allegations is dropped, then it demonstrates that political pressure can be applied to the Swedish criminal justice system, that some persons are too politically sensitive to be prosecuted.

If the allegations are flimsy politically motivated, or there's insufficient evidence, or whatever, it has to be shown in court, to demonstrate there is no shady goings on with political backroom deals and so on.

Now, once it gets to trial, then someone will post names, telephone numbers & addresses of the judges or other court officials online, causing a mistrial.
It'll be reported that it's someone from "anonymous". It will be, because there's enough idiots that think that doing this sort of thing would "help" Assange, and it's all part of the "campaign" against the U.S.A. Government agencies.
But "Anonymous" will say it wasn't one of them, which is a daft statement, because no-one will believe them. They'll say it's a US plot.
Except it won't be, because the US aren't stupid. Interfering in another countries judicial process in this way is not something that they'd do, because of the bad reputation that it would cause.

The judge will say "mistrial", and then because of high probability of Assange absconding, he'll be remanded in custody until a new trial can be brought, in months or years.

Then someone else will post the names & addresses of the next set of court officials.
Then someone will attempt to attack various Swedish government websites.

At this point, there is no realistic option, except to convict.

Allowing him to go free would be seen as showing to the world that the Swedish judicial system can be broken by cyberattack. People would have no confidence in the judicial system's ability to prosecute criminals.

Well, I file this sort of outlook in the same place as the "we can't hold trials for the people held in Guantanamo because the terrorists might stage an attack."

When you allow the threat of violence to alter your principles (innocent until proven guilty, due process, etc), you have basically surrendered to those making the threat.

I'm not sure what to call it when you presuppose that a threat like that might be made, even though it hasn't been, and use that as the excuse not to do it.

"We should just convict them or treat them as if they have otherwise already been convicted" because nebulous and unspecified threat x might exist out there somewhere is an extraordinarily flimsy construct, to me.

Assange has offered to be questioned in person at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Swedish Embassy and even been open to returning to Sweden if given assurances of no further extradition.  All of these offers have been rejected even though such arrangements have been made in previous investigations.

There is an ongoing U.S. Justice Department investigation to determine whether he could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and some of the emails from StratFor suggest that there is a sealed indictment awaiting him.  The repercussions of any prosecution on these grounds are staggering.  If the U.S. can prosecute a non-U.S. citizen who has committed no crime on U.S. soil, what's to stop Russia or Iran from demanding custody of journalists who publish information damaging to those governments, as well?

I've been observing this growing trend over the course of my life, when embarrassing information comes to light, we inflict our venom on the people who pointed it out and not the people who did the deed.  It goes hand in hand with the empty apologies for misbehavior we see all the time, sorry they got caught, not sorry they did wrong.

[orange]

what's to stop Russia or Iran from demanding custody of journalists who publish information damaging to those governments, as well?

Iran does arrest journalist and vacationers and accuses them of & tries them for espionage.   As do other countries.

If Assange operated on US soil it could be similar to catching a Russian or Chinese handler operating on US soil.  A Russian or Chinese national attempting to leave the country with a hard drive filled with classified material can be arrested as a spy.

Assange, like Al Qaeda members in Gitmo, is in a weird in-between that was not really dealt with historically in the modern world.

Assange is a non-state actor (like Al Qaeda) doing things that were previously only done by state-actors.  There are two rule books in play and they conflict (in both cases).

In Assange's case, he is both a journalist and a "spymaster."  His organizations stated goal is the release of classified material, not whistle-blowing.  His organization's goal was not to provide an avenue for secrets that needs to be shared and the dots connected (journalism), but to provide the data wholesale.  However, he provided the data via avenues normally considered journalistic.

A New York Times reporter providing snippets of a secret conversation or document is unlikely to be considered a spy.

Again it is a weird middle area which Wikileaks occupied.

[spoiler]Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan in 2002/2003 are another weird limbo of potentially being enemy combatants, but also members of what is considered a criminal organization.  Capturing them and treating them as enemy combatants made sense from an in-the-field military point of view.  However, this creates a problem with the Geneva Convention.  Under international law, they might be considered legal irregular forces and they have not committed an actual crime other than association with Al Qaeda.  If they are treated as legal irregular forces, then they can be held until the cessation of hostilities with the enemy.

This creates the weird limbo state.  If it was a nation state, say German in 1945 or Americans in 1973, the rules are quiet clear.[/spoiler]

[Syylara/Yaansu]

what's to stop Russia or Iran from demanding custody of journalists who publish information damaging to those governments, as well?

Iran does arrest journalist and vacationers and accuses them of & tries them for espionage.   As do other countries.

A practice I disagree with vehemently.  However, the point I was making was on the issue of demanding the extradition of a journalist who is neither a citizen of the country in question nor committed any crime on its soil.

If Assange operated on US soil it could be similar to catching a Russian or Chinese handler operating on US soil.  A Russian or Chinese national attempting to leave the country with a hard drive filled with classified material can be arrested as a spy.

But he didn't, so the point it moot.

Assange, like Al Qaeda members in Gitmo, is in a weird in-between that was not really dealt with historically in the modern world.

Well, first of all, not every detainee in Guantanamo is necessarily a member of Al Qaeda.  Our policies regarding them has amounted to nothing more than playing games with the terminology of international law.  We never declared war on Afghanistan, so don't have to observe the same procedures in regards to detainees from there (we passed an "authorization for the use of military force" which is not the same thing).

Assange is a non-state actor (like Al Qaeda) doing things that were previously only done by state-actors.  There are two rule books in play and they conflict (in both cases).

Assange is a citizen of Australia.  At best you could call Wikileaks the non-state actor because that term refers to entities, not specific persons.  He is not "like Al Qaeda" because he hasn't conspired to commit mass murder through acts of violent terrorism.

In Assange's case, he is both a journalist and a "spymaster."  His organizations stated goal is the release of classified material, not whistle-blowing.  His organization's goal was not to provide an avenue for secrets that needs to be shared and the dots connected (journalism), but to provide the data wholesale.  However, he provided the data via avenues normally considered journalistic.

He is not a "spymaster" because he doesn't issue orders to collect any specific data, the organization doesn't "release" the material, they publish it, a distinction that might seem trivial, but is relevant.  The material they publish is not restricted to "classified material."  The StratFor emails, for example, might be deemed privileged or proprietary, but they are not classified.

A New York Times reporter providing snippets of a secret conversation or document is unlikely to be considered a spy.

Again it is a weird middle area which Wikileaks occupied.

The New York Times acquires information and publishes it if they think it will generate readership and sell more papers.

Wikileaks acquires information and publishes it because they believe in transparency and accountability.

The only difference I see is one has a direct monetary incentive.  I guess in our current society that confuses people.  Am I the only one that thinks it is backwards that monetary incentive "makes sense" but idealism should be approached with suspicion and fear?

To me, when you strip away the monetary incentive to "sell" news (which has gotten to the point that if it doesn't sell, it must not be news) then you're left with only the journalistic, 4th Estate motive of accountability.  Now, I'll acknowledge that Assange seems to have gotten a bit of a big head about himself, he seems to have this image of himself as something of an international playboy.  This is part of why the majority of the Wikileaks team has since gone off and started a new project without him.  However, it isn't impossible to be both principled in one area and a douche-bag in your personal life :9.

[spoiler]

Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan in 2002/2003 are another weird limbo of potentially being enemy combatants, but also members of what is considered a criminal organization.  Capturing them and treating them as enemy combatants made sense from an in-the-field military point of view.  However, this creates a problem with the Geneva Convention.  Under international law, they might be considered legal irregular forces and they have not committed an actual crime other than association with Al Qaeda.  If they are treated as legal irregular forces, then they can be held until the cessation of hostilities with the enemy.

This creates the weird limbo state.  If it was a nation state, say German in 1945 or Americans in 1973, the rules are quiet clear.

Actually, again to be precise and technical, they are not considered enemy combatants or international law would require an entirely different procedure for holding them and is applicable to those enemies captured during a war, which we never declared.  They are regarded as unlawful combatants, partly because that particular designation gives the authority holding them wide discretion.  Since much of the detainee's own testimony about the nature of their initial capture and subsequent treatment is deemed "presumptively classified" we don't know what extent of involvement any of these people had with Al Qaeda.  Not to mention, anything admitted to under torture is irrelevant, I'd admit that my sister is a Martian if the pain or fear induced was sufficient...and I don't have a sister.  If some random villager happened to sell crops to someone who was part of that force, are they "associated" with them?

That is the same can of worms that gets people worried about the NDAA and the use of terms like "material support", "associated forces", "hostilities" and "belligerent act."  After having seen dozens of examples of someone being "belligerent" during a politician's campaign stop result in them being dragged away by police and arrested, the implications get worrisome.
[/spoiler]

Finally, speaking of journalism, you'll notice that a number of times I made some seemingly minor and possibly annoyingly technical corrections to the terms used?

Yeah, now go around and look at how many "journalists" don't do that any more.  There used to be this thing called integrity that they had, there's even publications updated yearly (the "AP Style Book" and others) that spell out what terms you're supposed to use and when.  Hardly anyone does that now, its more important to shove alarming and hyperbolic terms (along with just plain laziness) into every story because hey...we've got profits to make this quarter, screw informing the public of the facts and letting them make rational decisions.

[Louella Dougans]

Assange has offered to be questioned in person at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Swedish Embassy and even been open to returning to Sweden if given assurances of no further extradition.  All of these offers have been rejected even though such arrangements have been made in previous investigations.

That's a myth.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition

http://storify.com/anyapalmer/why-doesn-t-sweden-interview-assange-in-london?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=sfy.co-twitter&awesm=sfy.co_e56c&utm_content=storify-pingback&utm_source=t.co


In addition to that, he's also used the embassy as a platform to make political speeches, breaking one of the conditions that the Ecuadorians set.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19316973

So he's treating Ecuador with no respect either.

[Andreus Ixiris]

I think Assange is a slimy, amoral prick, but to be honest, he sticks in the craw of governments who've been lying to us and abusing our trust for decades - governments who are overwhelmingly composed of slimy, amoral pricks. At this point I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that if we want to kill a snake, we may need to employ the services of one.