Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Assange to face extradition

I'd prefer that this discussion was taking place in a Swedish context, after he'd faced a Swedish court and been found guilty or not guilty over there.
Sure it must've been mentioned plenty on here already, but there is an impressive irony in that it would be much better for him as well if the discussion was taking place in a Swedish context:
Sweden’s extradition agreement with the United States, signed in 1961 and updated in 1983, prohibits extradition on the basis of "a political offense" or "an offense connected with a political offense." The agreement does not specify what constitutes a "political offense." Whether the Swedish supreme court would rule to extradite Assange largely depends on what charges the secret U.S. grand jury brings against him.

If Assange is accused of espionage, Sweden most certainly would not comply, as its courts have consistently determined that espionage constitutes a political offense. For example, in 1992 Sweden refused to extradite Edward Lee Howard, the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union, to the United States. Charged with espionage, Swedish courts ruled that those accusations amounted to the kind of "political offense" specified in the extradition agreement.
 
Not sure why he has a messiah status. It can't be difficult to build a website to publish stuff on. I suppose he had the guts to do it but I assume he wasn't alone. Why aren't others in the dock with him?
 
And the Wikileaks thing. Didn't we know that these Imperialist regimes are rotten anyway, and that wars are unjust, so what's new about that? Better to resign ourselves and leave them off at it.
 
And the Wikileaks thing. Didn't we know that these Imperialist regimes are rotten anyway, and that wars are unjust, so what's new about that? Better to resign ourselves and leave them off at it.
I'm not going to pretend the Americans locking him up is a 'neutral' issue or one I should be unconcerned about. However everything about Assange, his politics, his 'status' and his behaviour pares that concern back to the bone. Fuck the Americans and fuck Assange.
 
I'm not going to pretend the Americans locking him up is a 'neutral' issue or one I should be unconcerned about. However everything about Assange, his politics, his 'status' and his behaviour pares that concern back to the bone. Fuck the Americans and fuck Assange.

'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.
 
'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.
'our' politics should perhaps be focused on weakening the state and its disciplinary functions, and strengthening working class communities - building communities of resistance.
 
'our' politics should perhaps be focused on weakening the state and its disciplinary functions, and strengthening working class communities - building communities of resistance.

'We' can also have problems convincing others of the sanctity or durability of our politics by having nothing to say about the US vs Assange, or by failing to give the least bit of critical support. Unsavoury and troublesome people exist everywhere, including in our own local communities. This doesn't mean that I walk out on them if they have been unfairly targeted by the state.
 
'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.
Agree. But then there's the facts of the case. Assange started out working with major news organisations and using their legal and other expertise to ensure that material wasn't released that would risk exposing anyone to harm. Given that that's they way he was working, and that the material was in the public interest, what he was involved in was legitimate journalism and he ought to be protected from prosecution (IMO, not necessarily in the eyes of the law).

But then one day he got into a spat with the Guardian (I think it was because they wanted to hold back certain material until after the Manning trial) and, in a childish fit, he released a massive amount of unvetted stuff directly via Wikileaks. That's morally unforgivable, and I don't see how anyone can say it's unreasonable to regard it as a serious crime. So, with that act, I think he loses the right to expect sympathy and also the right to dodge his day in court (if he ever had that right).
 
'We' can also have problems convincing others of the sanctity or durability of our politics by having nothing to say about the US vs Assange, or by failing to give the least bit of critical support. Unsavoury and troublesome people exist everywhere, including in our own local communities. This doesn't mean that I walk out on them if they have been unfairly targeted by the state.
no one from 'the real world' has ever mentioned julian assange to me, or suggested that my attitude to his situation was a touchstone by which i would be judged.
 
Agree. But then there's the facts of the case. Assange started out working with major news organisations and using their legal and other expertise to ensure that material wasn't released that would risk exposing anyone to harm. Given that that's they way he was working, and that the material was in the public interest, what he was involved in was legitimate journalism and he ought to be protected from prosecution (IMO, not necessarily in the eyes of the law).

But then one day he got into a spat with the Guardian (I think it was because they wanted to hold back certain material until after the Manning trial) and, in a childish fit, he released a massive amount of unvetted stuff directly via Wikileaks. That's morally unforgivable, and I don't see how anyone can say it's unreasonable to regard it as a serious crime. So, with that act, I think he loses the right to expect sympathy and also the right to dodge his day in court (if he ever had that right).
And given that this act of recklessness definitely endangered the lives of many and has almost certainly led directly to the deaths of some whose data he released, he has, in my opinion, lost any claim he might once have had to anything resembling solidarity.
 
I don't see what any of this has got to do with politics and why I should be bothered, Assange is a horrible person with dodgy views on things and if the US want to lock him up, we'll that's their business.

'Our' politics should be focused on the state and its reaction to particular events, and supporting certain iviolable rights and principles. I'm less interested in whether Assange himself happens to be a jerk, other than being satisfied he isn't a full blown fascist.

'We' can also have problems convincing others of the sanctity or durability of our politics by having nothing to say about the US vs Assange, or by failing to give the least bit of critical support. Unsavoury and troublesome people exist everywhere, including in our own local communities. This doesn't mean that I walk out on them if they have been unfairly targeted by the state.
Was your first post sarcastic, or did you have a massive conversion over the course of this afternoon?
 
In addition to the sex crime cases and issues of unredacted sensitive data being released, there were other notable problems:

He ignored warnings about honeytraps
He utterly failed in one of his stated missions - to demonstrate that people could leak and whistleblow without having their lives ruined.
He failed to play well with media partners, perhas sometimes for reasonable reasons, but not always.
He gave some stupid interviews to the business press which revealed dodgy attitudes about his sense of ownership of information given to wikileaks.

Some of those I critiqued on u75 at the time, before the more recent chapters of wikileaks and Assange. What happens to him next will contain elements which should highlight and be of concern to people in regards the nature of certain charges, aspects of extradition etc. Unfortunately this high-profile opportunity to explore such things will be hampered by the aforementioned baggage in this case, peoples opinions of him and some of the things he said and did will significantly muddy the waters and make a more clinical discussion about the broader politics and legal aspects extremely difficult.

Its also quite possible that a range of specific activities and conversations he had will go well beyond traditional leaking & journalistic approaches to such information and causes, and may very well get into some very dodgy political territory and collusion with certain state actions.
 
I think it is part of the extradition deal that he won't spend time in a supermax. If he's convicted, he will serve his sentence in Australia.
Completely untrue. He is at risk of 175 years and the US had reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – ie solitary.

Reporters Without Borders note that the acts he is charged with “could be applied to any media outlet that published stories based on the leaked documents, or indeed any journalist, publisher or source anywhere in the world”

But fuck that, he’s supported by the World Shittest WebSite lot, so he obviously deserves whatever’s coming to him.
 
Completely untrue. He is at risk of 175 years and the US had reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – ie solitary.

Reporters Without Borders note that the acts he is charged with “could be applied to any media outlet that published stories based on the leaked documents, or indeed any journalist, publisher or source anywhere in the world”

But fuck that, he’s supported by the World Shittest WebSite lot, so he obviously deserves whatever’s coming to him.

What do you do support him and try to keep him out of a US jail out of interest? Do you think any of it makes any difference?
 
What do you do support him and try to keep him out of a US jail out of interest? Do you think any of it makes any difference?
tbh, other than signing petitions and letters of protest, pretty much bugger all. Maybe arguing intemperately on the internet will convince one or two other people to do the same. I suspect the most useful thing at the moment would be pressurising the aussie government to step up their condemnations of the process and to actually defend the rights of one of their citizens. Bound to be more useful than appealing to PP's conscience. Just talking about it and keeping it in the news helps a bit.
 
Was your first post sarcastic, or did you have a massive conversion over the course of this afternoon?
The first was not sincere, and an attitude expressed in this thread I was poking at. I thought it would become apparent over the following posts, but this being the internet amongst other things...
 
Completely untrue. He is at risk of 175 years and the US had reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – ie solitary.
It's been widely reported that the US only got the appeal to go their way by making various promises to the court, including that they would put Assange in a regular prison while he's awaiting trial. If that's completely untrue, maybe you could explain.

I will agree that he potentially faces a long sentence (although unlikely to be anything like 175 years). Maybe we shouldn't have an extradition treaty with the US. But given that we do, I don't see what distinguishes Assange in this respect, given that I think the idea he's done nothing wrong is for the birds.
 
It's been widely reported that the US only got the appeal to go their way by making various promises to the court, including that they would put Assange in a regular prison while he's awaiting trial. If that's completely untrue, maybe you could explain.

I will agree that he potentially faces a long sentence (although unlikely to be anything like 175 years). Maybe we shouldn't have an extradition treaty with the US. But given that we do, I don't see what distinguishes Assange in this respect, given that I think the idea he's done nothing wrong is for the birds.
They add the key proviso of 'as long as he does what we want him too' - ie they can go back on their promise on a whim. (see The US diplomatic assurances are inherently unreliable. Julian Assange must be released)

The Espionage Act has no public interest defense. Assange is the first publisher to be prosecuted under it so it would set an important precedent. The fact that he is in many ways a crap journalist does not alter the fact that this amounts to an attack on any and all journalists. What better way to start such a move than with the prosecution of someone who has done many indefensible things (just not the ones he's being extradited for)?
 
Back
Top Bottom