Wikileaks Boss Assange Arrested in London Today - Takes Refuge in Ecuadorian Embassy

[Kev Bar]

Eloquently put, and valid points. I disagree with your assessment of the worth and import of the of Assange and the Wikileaks cables and therefore am less motivated to defend him.

The leaking was a serious security embarrassment for the US, but only a very minor foreign policy embarrassment. It was often a bigger foreign policy embarrassment for the various “host” countries. The cables revealed little about the workings of the US government that was not already known. No major US scandals surfaced as a result of the leaks. No one resigned or was fired AFAIK. US government officials were shown to be mostly saying the same things in private as they were in public. This lessened the value of the cables and must have seriously disappointed Assange. Not so in various other countries, particularly in the Middle East, where the cables showed double speak by government officials and caused serious discomfort. And bear in mind only a small fraction, presumably the hottest of the cables have so far been released. So there is possibly an awful lot of boring stuff still to be released.

Just as I have little respect for Dubaya and his crowd, so too with Assange. He was prepared to potentially put at risk the lives of untold numbers of people whose names appeared in the cables, such as informants in Afghan, Iraq and elsewhere. And for what purpose? Given what the NYT and Guardian have subsequently said about his personality traits it is not unreasonable to speculate that it was every bit as much ego driven as exposé driven. In fact, I believe the Guardian and NYT reported that he said he didn’t care if people died as a result of the leaks.

If that’s his mindset he’ll get no help from me, we’d be better off without him. At least dictators have a raison dêtre.

As to discussing the finer points of legal etiquette against a backdrop of rendition, I’ll say this rendition was a temporary phenomena, legal etiquette endures.

He's a human being.
Perhaps with exceptional vision and flaws.
He tried to go a good thing.
He does not deserve to be fed to the dogs.

Re the cavalier comments about informants ...it apparently was in a Greek restaurant in London late at night.
The man was on the run.
US elected represenatives - those who are supposed to be reasoned as opposed to our 'unbalanced' cyber pimpernel - are calling for his assasination*
The extremity of the calls for his death are only rivalled by the new cyber rock star type adulation.
He is running a multinational organisation on the hoof.
Jagger/Jobs/ Gandhi.
It's a big ask.

Give the man a break.

Surely it would be a better idea to scream in horror at elected represtentatives, who should know better, pandering to redneck blood lust and calling for the assasination of a foreign citizen - without even the sense of protocol to carry it out in private.

Surely it would be a better idea to rise up in protest against those who put others' lives, if not their own nation's life, at risk for nothing more than grubby self-aggrandisement.

I am not excusing Assange's behaviour.

But let's keep it in perspective.

Such a man, warts, weakness and all, trying to right wrong is still better than the righteous sociopaths saying he is wrong.

Listen Count, you don't pull off a gig like Assange did unless you are driven by some pretty exceptional forces.

I am thrilled that the idea is now out there and will be picked up by others.

I think the idea is merely doing what journalism had failed to do - most likely because of the new global baron led media landscape.

So when citizens are betrayed by the media, having being betrayed by their elected representatives, they have some sort of line of defence.

And maybe the leaks were not that big a deal...but why all the calls to kill him and the supposed secret moves to extradite him.

Someone didn't like what he was doing.

And the more pressure on the someones in question is fine by me.

[Count Bobulescu]

He's a human being.
Perhaps with exceptional vision and flaws.
He tried to go a good thing.
He does not deserve to be fed to the dogs.

Re the cavalier comments about informants ...it apparently was in a Greek restaurant in London late at night.
The man was on the run.
US elected represenatives - those who are supposed to be reasoned as opposed to our 'unbalanced' cyber pimpernel - are calling for his assasination*
The extremity of the calls for his death are only rivalled by the new cyber rock star type adulation.
He is running a multinational organisation on the hoof.
Jagger/Jobs/ Gandhi.
It's a big ask.

Give the man a break.

Surely it would be a better idea to scream in horror at elected represtentatives, who should know better, pandering to redneck blood lust and calling for the assasination of a foreign citizen - without even the sense of protocol to carry it out in private.

Surely it would be a better idea to rise up in protest against those who put others' lives, if not their own nation's life, at risk for nothing more than grubby self-aggrandisement.

I am not excusing Assange's behaviour.

But let's keep it in perspective.

Such a man, warts, weakness and all, trying to right wrong is still better than the righteous sociopaths saying he is wrong.

Listen Count, you don't pull off a gig like Assange did unless you are driven by some pretty exceptional forces.

I am thrilled that the idea is now out there and will be picked up by others.

I think the idea is merely doing what journalism had failed to do - most likely because of the new global baron led media landscape.

So when citizens are betrayed by the media, having being betrayed by their elected representatives, they have some sort of line of defence.

And maybe the leaks were not that big a deal...but why all the calls to kill him and the supposed secret moves to extradite him.

Someone didn't like what he was doing.

And the more pressure on the someones in question is fine by me.

I don’t wish to detract from the positive benefits of Wikileaks, I think it has shown up some of the shortcomings of the media, but that alone is in my view insufficient to afford Assange a carte blanche to evade both UK and Swedish law.

I agree wholeheartedly that US elected reps and others calling for his assassination are despicable, and that he was likely originally motivated by idealism and frustration.

There are over 500,000 elected officials at all levels of government in the US, to say noting of appointed officials, so you are always going to get a quota of nutjobs seeking attention or votes. I think just two have called for his assassination, and they have been ridiculed. Others have called for lesser sanction. At this point it is anyone’s guess what, if anything, the US may do to apprehend him. My guess would be that they will be content to just wait him out for 5-10 years

I think at this point Assange has been overtaken by the cult of Assange and we are now dealing with someone who displays flashes of megalomania as evidenced by the large number of former colleagues who have fallen out with him. Dealing with an irrational phenom is never simple.

[Kev Bar]

I don’t wish to detract from the positive benefits of Wikileaks, I think it has shown up some of the shortcomings of the media, but that alone is in my view insufficient to afford Assange a carte blanche to evade both UK and Swedish law.

I agree wholeheartedly that US elected reps and others calling for his assassination are despicable, and that he was likely originally motivated by idealism and frustration.

There are over 500,000 elected officials at all levels of government in the US, to say noting of appointed officials, so you are always going to get a quota of nutjobs seeking attention or votes. I think just two have called for his assassination, and they have been ridiculed. Others have called for lesser sanction. At this point it is anyone’s guess what, if anything, the US may do to apprehend him. My guess would be that they will be content to just wait him out for 5-10 years

I think at this point Assange has been overtaken by the cult of Assange and we are now dealing with someone who displays flashes of megalomania as evidenced by the large number of former colleagues who have fallen out with him. Dealing with an irrational phenom is never simple.

The real issue is that he deserves a carte blanche to evade US 'law'.

[Count Bobulescu]

The real issue is that he deserves a carte blanche to evade US 'law'.

And that points up the weakness of his position. So long as the US says and does nothing his protestations can be portrayed as the rantings of conspiracy theorists.

And as I have pointed out upthread, legal opinion in the US is sharply divided over how, the gummint could successfully prosecute him, and what degree of protection he would be entitled to under the 1st Amendment. If he is accorded "media" status most opinion suggests that the gummint will fail. The preferred statute, The Espionage Act appears to have shortcomings for this situation, forcing the gummint to look at other less attractive alternatives. So their position is also weak, or at least less than optimal.

[Count Bobulescu]

It would be a stretch to say I’m surprised by all the “hysteria” in Europe surrounding the claims being made by the pro Assange people about what fate might await him in the US. Lots of people including Assange claiming he could face the death penalty if convicted. In the US that argument is viewed as a glass shield people hide behind in order to express their anti US sentiment.

Truth is, US gummint will have a very hard time convicting Assange of much of anything, Whether or not he faces a theoretical death penalty will depend on which statute might ultimately be used to prosecute him. In practice, he almost certainly will not face the death penalty, because even if he is prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act the US will likely have to guarantee not to seek the DP in order for extradition to be effected.

Here’s a couple of pieces that look at the difficulties the US Government faces.
(The first is from the BBC and I've lost the link).

The US government will face significant legal and diplomatic hurdles if it attempts to prosecute Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in connection with the massive internet dump of secret US documents, legal scholars, defence lawyers and former prosecutors say.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said officials were pursuing a "very serious criminal investigation" into the matter.

Yet while Mr Assange has widely acknowledged his role in disseminating classified documents, legal experts say US criminal statutes and case law do not cleanly apply to his case.

And extradition treaties covering the US, UK and Sweden make it difficult to transfer people accused of espionage and other "political" crimes, presenting a challenge for the Department of Justice if it should seek to remove him to the US for trial.

In the past, US espionage law has been used to prosecute US officials who provided secrets to foreign governments or foreign spies who pursued US secrets.

But Mr Assange, an Australian citizen, former computer hacker and self-described journalist, did not work for the US government, has no known links to foreign governments, and operates on the internet, by all accounts far from US soil.

Proof of harm

No single US law makes it a crime specifically to disclose classified government documents.

Were the US to charge Mr Assange with espionage, prosecutors would have to prove Mr Assange was aware the leaks could harm US national security, or show he had a hand in improperly obtaining them from the government.

"That act is a difficult act to prosecute people under, especially someone who might be considered a journalist, as he would argue he is," said Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law.

In only one known instance has the US prosecuted for espionage individuals who were neither in a position of trust with the government nor agents of a foreign power. That effort ended in failure.

In 2005, two pro-Israel lobbyists associated with Aipac, an Israeli interest group, were indicted and accused of obtaining government information and spreading it to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats. But prosecutors dropped the charges after a judge ruled they would have to prove the pair knew distributing the information would hurt the US.

In Mr Assange's case, lawyer Baruch Weiss, who represented the pro-Israel lobbyists, noted in a Washington Post article that Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy.

In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security.

Collusion?

Apart from an espionage charge, the US could prosecute Mr Assange in connection with the initial removal of the documents from US government computers, an approach that reports indicate is increasingly likely.

The New York Times reported this week that prosecutors were looking into whether Mr Assange had colluded with Pte Manning, encouraging or aiding him in the initial leak.

If he is found to have done so, that action could potentially make him liable as a conspirator under statutes criminalising the taking of government secrets, records or property, rather than a mere recipient or publisher.

"The conspiracy would turn on whether or not there turned out to be concrete proof of real collusion or even direction of Manning" by Mr Assange, said Paul Rosenzweig, a former homeland security official under President George W Bush and a consultant on legal and national security issues at the Heritage Foundation.
But the government would probably want to see more than mere encouragement from Mr Assange, because encouraging sources to provide secret information is what journalists do every day, Mr Rosenzweig said, and courts would be wary of criminalising such activity.

Rather, Mr Rosenzweig said, the government would prefer evidence Mr Assange had given Pte Manning technical help or other substantive aid.

'Leaks rarely punished'

If Mr Assange were convicted, on appeal he could claim that he is a journalist afforded free speech protections under the US constitution - and would have a strong defence, some legal experts say.

"Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it," wrote Jennifer Elsea, a legal researcher for the US Congress, in a report obtained by the BBC.

Mr Assange's lawyers could also argue in court that the Espionage Act does not apply to foreign nationals acting outside of US territory.

But even getting Mr Assange to the US would prove troublesome, according to Jacques Semmelman, a New York lawyer and authority on extradition law.
Espionage is seen as a political crime, and political offences are not subject to extradition under the US-UK, US-Sweden and UK-Sweden treaties, Mr Semmelman said.

"No US extradition treaty currently in force lists espionage as an extraditable offence," wrote Ms Elsea, the legal researcher for Congress.

Holder knows it will not be easy, however. He realizes that as much as we may condemn Assange's actions, they were not obviously criminal. Indeed, just the other day Holder found himself defensively insisting that this is a real investigation, not mere "saber-rattling."

But even if the Justice Department finds him, arrests him and extradites him, its work will be far from over. The U.S. government has never successfully prosecuted a media entity for a leak. It is typically much easier to bring such cases against the government officials who do the leaking, because they sign nondisclosure agreements surrendering many of the legal protections they otherwise would enjoy.

Just recently, the department tried to expand the scope of its leak prosecutions to individuals outside the government, in a test case involving two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel group. I represented one of the lobbyists, who were indicted for leaking information that had been disclosed to them by high-level U.S. officials during discussions about the Middle East. The men were wiretapped for five years. They were investigated for another year. They were then indicted and spent the next three years skirmishing with the prosecution. And then, on the eve of the trial, the Justice Department dropped the charges.

Why are leak cases so tough?

There is no general law making disclosure of classified information a crime.
Here, Assange can make the department's case especially difficult. Well before publishing the cables, he wrote a letter to the U.S. government, delivered to our ambassador in London, inviting suggestions for redactions. The State Department refused. Assange then wrote another letter to State, reiterating that "WikiLeaks has absolutely no desire to put individual persons at significant risk of harm, nor do we wish to harm the national security of the United States."

In that second letter, Assange stated that the department's refusal to discuss redactions "leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful." He then indicated that WikiLeaks was undertaking redactions on its own.

In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the prosecution would have to demonstrate that what the defendant did was as immediate and as dangerous as "falsely shouting fire in a theater." That is a heavy burden to meet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120303267.html

Based on an examination of the legal agreements that govern extraditions between Sweden and the United States, Assange's legal future will likely turn on the nature of that indictment. And because the nature of that indictment remains unknown, Assange's decision to seek asylum is nothing short of a brilliant strategy of risk-minimization.

The extradition agreement between Sweden and the United States, first 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 treaty does not explicitly define what constitutes a political offense, and if U.S. authorities were to seek Assange's extradition, that decision would likely be rendered by the Swedish supreme court.

Some of Assange's most vehement critics, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have called on the Department of Justice to indict Assange using the 1917 Espionage Act. But if Assange were charged with espionage his extradition from Sweden would be definitely ruled out. UIf Wallentheim, the director of the division for criminal cases and international judicial cooperation at the Swedish Department of Justice, declined to comment on the Assange case but said that Swedish jurisprudence clearly defines espionage as a political offense.

Sweden and the United States have a scant history of extraditions, and some observers have argued that if the U.S. sought to extradite Assange from Sweden, American authorities would be able to easily bully the Swedes into turning over the prized fugitive.

On this point, recent history offers conflicting lessons. In 1992, Sweden rejected a request to extradite Edward Lee Howard, who was the only CIA agent to defect to the Soviet Union. Howard was sought on charges of espionage, but the Swedes rejected the American request, citing the statute prohibiting extradition on political grounds. In 2002, however, Sweden collaborated with the U.S. in the extraordinary rendition of two Egyptian terrorist suspects who were in Sweden seeking asylum.

So if the U.S. decides to seek Assange's extradition from Sweden-if he ever gets there-whether they are successful will depend in large part on what charges are brought against Assange. Charging Assange under the Espionage Act will in all likelihood do nothing to get the man into an American courtroom. The Justice Department, presumably, is aware of this fact and will seek to bring more creative charges against Assange.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...asylum_request

How Wikileaks blew it.

As Assange remains in international legal limbo, granted asylum in Ecuador but with no foreseeable way to get there, and as WikiLeaks struggles to stay afloat in the face of money problems and denial-of-service attacks, it's worth reflecting on how we got here. How did an organization that once touted itself as the future of journalism -- and for a time seemed to have a credible case for the claim -- devolve into one man's soap opera? If one looks back, several key tactical errors landed WikiLeaks in its current predicament.

Even Americans who are highly critical of their government's foreign policy have a hard time getting on board with a man who promises to hasten "the total annihilation of the current U.S. regime."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ileaks_blew_it

[fluffybiscuits]

It would be a stretch to say I’m surprised by all the “hysteria” in Europe surrounding the claims being made by the pro Assange people about what fate might await him in the US. Lots of people including Assange claiming he could face the death penalty if convicted. In the US that argument is viewed as a glass shield people hide behind in order to express their anti US sentiment.

Truth is, US gummint will have a very hard time convicting Assange of much of anything, Whether or not he faces a theoretical death penalty will depend on which statute might ultimately be used to prosecute him. In practice, he almost certainly will not face the death penalty, because even if he is prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act the US will likely have to guarantee not to seek the DP in order for extradition to be effected.

Here’s a couple of pieces that look at the difficulties the US Government faces.
(The first is from the BBC and I've lost the link).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120303267.html

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...asylum_request

How Wikileaks blew it.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ileaks_blew_it

From reading that then it would be against the law for the US to give him the DP if he was extradited in the end. His extradition to US if made possible would more than likely not happen as he is guaranteed freedom of speech under the first ammendment or would be considered a political prisoner because of his political beliefs and actions.

[Baron von Biffo]

From reading that then it would be against the law for the US to give him the DP if he was extradited in the end. His extradition to US if made possible would more than likely not happen as he is guaranteed freedom of speech under the first ammendment or would be considered a political prisoner because of his political beliefs and actions.

He just has to be declared an 'Enemy Combatant' and he has no rights in America. He can be tortured or killed with impunity.

[fluffybiscuits]

He just has to be declared an 'Enemy Combatant' and he has no rights in America. He can be tortured or killed with impunity.

Would that not mean that any extradition was invalid then due to subsequent actions as the original premise of the warrant was that he could be extradited but not put to death?

[Baron von Biffo]

Would that not mean that any extradition was invalid then due to subsequent actions as the original premise of the warrant was that he could be extradited but not put to death?

Assuming there was an extradition in the first place and he's not just handed over to the CIA as others have been in the past.

In any event, post facto legal niceties are of little use to someone who's been tortured or killed.

[fluffybiscuits]

Assuming there was an extradition in the first place and he's not just handed over to the CIA as others have been in the past.

In any event, post facto legal niceties are of little use to someone who's been tortured or killed.

Cant argue with that...

[Count Bobulescu]

Fluffy, the term “enemy combatant” is now verboten in the US, and has been replaced by “unlawful combatant” and even if it were not, neither term would apply to Assange, as he did not engage in armed combat against the US. It’s all pretty simple really, but it is in Assange’s interest to muddy the waters. See these Wiki’s.

On March 13, 2009 United States Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement that the United States had abandoned the Bush administration term "enemy combatant".[14][15] The statement said, ""As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law." However, various human rights groups noted it as primarily a symbolic act.[16] The United States continues to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

An unlawful combatant or illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a ci vilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war. An unlawful combatant may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

[fluffybiscuits]

Fluffy, the term “enemy combatant” is now verboten in the US, and has been replaced by “unlawful combatant” and even if it were not, neither term would apply to Assange, as he did not engage in armed combat against the US. It’s all pretty simple really, but it is in Assange’s interest to muddy the waters. See these Wiki’s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

So again we are back to square one, Assange has really got nothing to worry about in terms of being sentence to death? Meanwhile the Australians appear to be taking an interest in the case after ignoring it for so long. AP is reorted a few weeks back

http://www.keprtv.com/news/national/...166643656.html

Diplomatic cables obtained under freedom of information laws and published Saturday by Australia's The Age newspaper showed Australian diplomats have held discussions on Assange's fate with the U.S.
A Virginia grand jury is studying evidence that might link Assange to Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier who has been charged with aiding the enemy by passing the secret files to WikiLeaks and is awaiting trial. No action against Assange has yet been taken.

As America does so well, there is the case of Sanchez de Lozada which should the US ask for the extradition of Assange would underline the hypocrisy that the US should really put its money where its mouth is. Summarily, Lozada killed a lot of protestors for dissent and was staunchly pro US. Now that he is in the US, a Bolivian jury has found him guilty of genocide but US is refusing to extradite him

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...radite-bolivia

CB, Thanks for the info on ememy combattant, I apologise for my own ignorance on that point!

Strange that the Aussies are taking an interest late on

[C. Flower]

Pirate Bay / Wikileaks activist says he was abducted from Cambodia by the Swedish Government.

http://qnrq.se/sweden-kidnapped-anakata/

[Kev Bar]

Pirate Bay / Wikileaks activist says he was abducted from Cambodia by the Swedish Government.

http://qnrq.se/sweden-kidnapped-anakata/

Does it say that?

I put up a link a few days ago from a Khmer site that broke the story.

But I don't think it has been confirmed that he has been taken out of Phnom Penh.

Or has it?

The thrust of the piece you link is that Sweden has "kidnapped" him in Phnom Penh allegedly taking him from the Ministry of the Interior to the embassy.

[Count Bobulescu]

GUAYAQUIL, Ecuador — Juan José Illingworth has English bona fides that are hard to beat. He is the sixth-generation namesake of an Englishman who became one of Ecuador’s national heroes, fighting for independence from Spain, helping to lead the young nation, founding its naval academy and drafting the law that freed the country’s slaves.

But for all of Mr. Illingworth’s keen appreciation of his family’s ties to the old sod, when the British authorities threatened last month to enter Ecuador’s embassy in London to seize the asylum-seeking founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, his sentiments went decidedly against Mother England.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/wo...ed=1&ref=world