Assange to face extradition

[DexterTCN]

That you think there are any parallels says much.

Same UN group said she was being held illegally, didn't they?

You were just dissing them. Seems relevant.

Seeing as how you're the one justifying it.

 

[danny la rouge]

Same UN group said she was being held illegally, didn't they?

You were just dissing them. Seems relevant.

Seeing as how you're the one justifying it.

See if you can quote me having just dissed them. You'll find it hard, since what you just read were the words of a legal expert I quoted and provided a link to, not my words. But that's the kind of detail you seem to miss quite easily.

There are no parallels between the cases you compare. Assange is not under house arrest. He is a fugitive from rape allegation in hiding. Aung San Suu Kyi was not.

As always I know you will worship the hero who can do no wrong, and allow any good things he did in the past to blind you to his human frailty. You will blindly follow him and cheer him on as he drags all those connected to his former cause through the mire of his own making because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. You did it before and you'll do it again I have no doubt. Nor will you read or consider any points put to you to the contrary, so good luck to you in your hero worship and I bid you good evening.

 

[brogdale]

Apols if we've already had this...but what do we make of 'L'Esspresso's account of the emails between the CPS & the Swedish authorities that it revealed after FoI requests?

To put on paper that the extradition case of Julian Assange is not an ordinary extradition is a lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service in London: Mr. Paul Close. In an email to the Swedish prosecutors dated 13 January 2011, Close writes: «It is simply amazing how much work this case is generating. It sometimes seems like an industry. It is certainly no stop. Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request». What makes the Assange case special? Mr. Close does not explain this. However, in his email exchange with the Swedish, he seems pleased that two days earlier, the 11th of January 2011, the extradition hearing at the Belmarsh Magistrates' Court was not exactly an exciting event for journalists: «It was all rather boring and technical, which of course is precisely what I wanted to happen».




Two weeks after these comments, January 25th 2011, Paul Close is even more straightforward with the Swedish prosecutors: «My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant in the UK». «Any attempt to interview him under strict Swedish law”, Close continues, «would invariably be fraught with problems». He therefore concludes: «Thus I suggest you interview him only on his surrender to Sweden and in accordance with the Swedish law. As we have discussed your prosecution is well based on the existing evidence and is sufficient to proceed to trial, which is the prosecution's intention». The following couple of paragraphs of this email were censored and not released under the Foia.



Two things are interesting in this email exchange between the Crown Prosecution Service' lawyer and the Swedish prosecutors: Paul Close uses the word “defendant” in referring to Assange, a term which under English law indicates an individual who has already been charged with a crime, whereas in January 2011 the WikiLeaks' founder had not been charged, nor has he been charged with a crime in the last five years. In addition, Close claims that the Swedish prosecutors already intended to bring Julian Assange to trial, even before any questioning had taken place. It should be noted that just six days before this email, Marianne Ny had sent a letter to Mr. Paul Close explaining: «According to the Swedish law, a decision to prosecute may not be taken at the stage that the preliminary investigation is currently at. The decision concerning prosecution, i.e. legal proceedings, may not be made until the preliminary investigation has been concluded».

 

[DexterTCN]

See if you can quote me having just dissed them. You'll find it hard, since what you just read were the words of a legal expert I quoted and provided a link to, not my words. But that's the kind of detail you seem to miss quite easily.

There are no parallels between the cases you compare. Assange is not under house arrest. He is a fugitive from rape allegation in hiding. Aung San Suu Kyi was not.

As always I know you will worship the hero who can do no wrong, and allow any good things he did in the past to blind you to his human frailty. You will blindly follow him and cheer him on as he drags all those connected to his former cause through the mire of his own making because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. You did it before and you'll do it again I have no doubt. Nor will you read or consider any points put to you to the contrary, so good luck to you in your hero worship and I bid you good evening.

You dissed them by posting a quote from a link which dissed them. That's not a minor detail...you didn't post any counter-balance did you? That's a diss.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a UN-mandated body of independent human rights experts that investigates cases of arbitrary arrest and detention that may be in violation of international human rights law.

It was established in 1991 by the former Commission on Human Rights as one of the "Special Procedures" created to monitor human rightsviolations, and is currently under the purview of the UN Human Rights Council. In September 2013, its mandate was extended by the Council for another three years.

After verifying information from a variety of sources, including non-governmental organisations, inter-governmental agencies and victims' families, the Working Group issues opinions on the compliance with international law and sends urgent appeals to governments to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those allegedly detained. It can also conduct fact-finding visits to countries that have extended an invitation to the Working Group.

Maybe you'd like to give another example of when you think they were wrong...seeing as how they're just giving opinions. (that's a challenge...throw some names out there)

Basically....you're ok with this because the implied offence is sexual.

You're fine with it. You know none of the people, you know nothing. That's a fact...as a person you know nothing...you've surmised, elementarised, supposed. And you're fine with it, comfortable. It sits easy for you, you can go with it.

The UN says unlawful detention, the deprivation of human rights. After 16 months and meetings with representatives of the Swedish govt, the UK govt and others....they say it's wrong.

 

[MAD-T-REX]

The working group's previous work, its supposed expertise and the amount of effort it has apparently put into this review are not really relevant when anyone can read their reasoning and see how piss poor it is.

 

[Spymaster]

You seem to be conflating whistle-blowing and espionage.

No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.

The act is one and the same.

 

[danny la rouge]

The working group's previous work, its supposed expertise and the amount of effort it has apparently put into this review are not really relevant when anyone can read their reasoning and see how piss poor it is.

"They were right about lots of other things so they must be right about this" is a terrible line of thinking.

 

[danny la rouge]

No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.

The act is one and the same.

No it isn't.

 

[DotCommunist]

Espionage is done for material gain or on behalf of a state. Snowdon hasn't gained much out of this except a permanent residence at the kremlin

 

[Spymaster]

There are cases that are just so clear cut, like the exposure of mass surveillance, that they shouldn't really be up for debate.

Again this is completely subjective. You think Snowden is some kind of hero for confirming what most people suspected anyway. I think he's a tit for sacrificing himself on the alter of public interest, for nothing.

What would you do with a right wing GCHQ employee who leaked the personal details of leftist activists that were subsequently published by Stormftont?

 

[Spymaster]

Espionage is done for material gain or on behalf of a state.

Nonsense. There are legions of ideologically motivated spies.

 

[2hats]

No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.

You appear to be confused.

Snowden (and Assange) was placing into the public domain details of unethical activity, namely the spying practices of governments (agencies thereof). He has been whistleblowing on acts of government espionage.

 

[DotCommunist]

philby et al. That was on behalf of a state. Ideology motivated them but they worked for a state. Whats snowndons ideology? what state has he reported to?

 

[andysays]

You dissed them by posting a quote from a link which dissed them. That's not a minor detail...you didn't post any counter-balance did you? That's a diss.

So expressing an opinion and posting up arguments from a variety of sources to substantiate that is a "diss" now? This is unfortunately all too typical of the Assange groupies who shy away from addressing the actual issues and turn this into a load of nonsense about their hero's supposed right to swan around the world pursuing his egotistical "career" free from any challenge or criticism, not just from the USA, but seemingly from anyone.

Maybe you'd like to give another example of when you think they were wrong...seeing as how they're just giving opinions. (that's a challenge...throw some names out there)

Throwing random names around serves only to muddy the waters, as your absurd attempt to compare Assange to Aung San Suu Kyi amply demonstrates.

Basically....you're ok with this because the implied offence is sexual.

The original offence was sexual, but the issue now is that Assange is using the supposed threat that he might be extradited to the US to attempt to justify his on-going refusal to comply with the legal processes of two other countries. To suggest that danny la rouge (or anyone else) is only interested or concerned about this because of the sexual element would be offensive if it weren't so ridiculous.

You're fine with it. You know none of the people, you know nothing. That's a fact...as a person you know nothing...you've surmised, elementarised, supposed. And you're fine with it, comfortable. It sits easy for you, you can go with it.

The UN says unlawful detention, the deprivation of human rights. After 16 months and meetings with representatives of the Swedish govt, the UK govt and others....they say it's wrong.

Let's be clear here - we're not talking about a decision reached by the UN Security Council or something, this is a small group who have expressed an opinion (and that not even unanimously) which has no legal force. They're welcome to state their opinion, but others are equally welcome to disagree and give the reasons why they disagree.

You've given no coherent reasons for anything, as far as I can see, and are now reduced to attempting to smear others for "dissing" and having questionable motives. That kind of tells its own story, and it's not a happy one...

 

[brogdale]

No. You just want to call it whistleblowing when you agree with with the source's political motivations, and espionage when you don't.

The act is one and the same.

No at all. Whistleblowing is the act of an employee who perceives wrong-doing on the part of their employer or organisation, whereas espionage occurs when an individual is deliberately placed by an authority/organisation within a context in which they obtain information desired by their employer.
These are well established definitions; I'm surprised at your confusion.

 

[cesare]

Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.

 

[Spymaster]

Whistleblowing is the act of an employee who perceives wrong-doing on the part of their employer or organisation, whereas espionage occurs when an individual is deliberately placed by an authority/organisation within a context in which they obtain information desired by their employer.
These are well established definitions; I'm surprised at your confusion.

Rubbish. You've just tried to establish them!

Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.

This is really dodgy. Who gets to decide what's in the public interest?

Again, a GCHQ fascist employee decides that the public has a right to know the details of all the lefty activists that the government has been keeping tabs on. He leaks that information and Stormfront publish it.

What should happen to that whistleblower?

 

[DownwardDog]

Espionage is done for material gain or on behalf of a state. Snowdon hasn't gained much out of this except a permanent residence at the kremlin

Unless he was FSB from the start.

 

[brogdale]

Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.

Quite; this seems obvious to most folk...except those apparently blinded by a dislike of the individual(s) involved.

 

[danny la rouge]

Whistleblowing is the same as public interest disclosure - which is a more descriptive term. Espionage is much the same as spying. Public interest disclosure isn't the same as spying.

Indeed. Whistleblowing is making public evidence of (alleged) malpractice or wrongdoing. Espionage is covertly passing on information to another party. The former hopes to make the information public, the latter does not.

Whistleblowing for employees - GOV.UK

Espionage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[brogdale]

Rubbish. You've just tried to establish them!

You're just making a fool of yourself, now.

 

[DotCommunist]

Unless he was FSB from the start.

deep game

 

[cesare]

Quite; this seems obvious to most folk...except those apparently blinded by a dislike of the individual(s) involved.

I can't stand the individual involved, ftr

 

[DownwardDog]

deep game

 

[Spymaster]

There are times when governments break the laws they've sworn to uphold, and then do their utmost to ensure that no one finds out. There are times when large corporations violate the law, and attempt to keep the fact secret.

Without whistleblowers, chances are good that these illegal activities - activities that may have major consequences for many people - will not be discovered.

Is that an acceptable state of affairs?

Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?

I'm not suggesting that governments don't do things that are worthy of being made public. Of course they do.

But what legal device do you put in place that enables just the worthy acts to be made public, and who decides where the line gets drawn?

 

[brogdale]

I can't stand the individual involved, ftr

Showing you've not been blinded by dislike.

 

[Pickman's model]

Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?

I'm not suggesting that governments don't do things that are worthy of being made public. Of course they do.

But what legal device do you put in place that enables just the worthy acts to be made public, and who decides where the line gets drawn?

i'm prepared to do that if no one else steps forward

 

[Spymaster]

Showing you've not been blinded by dislike.

Don't be stupid. Think about this and answer my question at #1997 before you canonise St Julian of Assange.

 

[brogdale]

Governments do illegal stuff. Wow! Who knew?

I'm not suggesting that governments don't do things that are worthy of being made public. Of course they do.

But what legal device do you put in place that enables just the worthy acts to be made public, and who decides where the line gets drawn?

Whistle-blowing is, by definition, based upon the subjective perceptions of the individual(s) involved. The state does provide guidance & some laws that are supposed to limit the scope of public-interest disclosure, but ultimately this is not something that the state can or should have control over.

 

[laptop]

Spymaster - are you wrestling with your conscience over blowing the whistle on some sworn secret?

It's OK, you can tell us