Assange Could Face Execution Or Guantanamo Bay

An anonymous reader writes "WikiLeaker-in-chief Julian Assange faces the real danger of being executed or languishing in the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay if, as a result of his extradition to Sweden, he ends up in the hands of the Americans, his lawyers argue. In a skeleton summary of Assange's defence, posted online, Assange's lawyers argue that it is likely that the US would seek his extradition 'and/or illegal rendition' from Sweden. In the United States 'there will be a real risk of him being detained at Guantánamo Bay or elsewhere,' his lawyers write."

This is absurd.

[oracleguy01]

They are just using that as an excuse to not let him get extradited. As so many people have pointed out here before, publishing classified information is not a crime in the US. The person that leaked it to the entity publishing the information is the one that broke the law. Just because on Fox News they maintain the narrative that he should be eliminated doesn't mean it is going to happen. This is just FUD.

Granted his lawyers are just doing what lawyers do, they are trying to find some way to win. But I hope it doesn't work.

Related Coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, the Guardian has in-depth coverage of his extradition hearing [guardian.co.uk], including a list of legal arguments he's making and how the death threats he's received from US politicians are particularly worrying in light of the shooting in Arizona. Also, the right-wing blogger behind JulianAssangeMustDie.com [mediabistro.com] has been exposed. The domain was registered by Melissa Clouthier.

Re:Back to earth

[zeroshade]

his stunts cause real harm to people the world over

Really? Last I heard there wasn't a single person they could prove was harmed by the wikileaks releases.

Of course the US is seeking to extradite him, to put him on trial for spying and other damages

None of which they can prove, and releasing the documents isn't illegal under US law. So what reason do they have to extradite him? Not saying it won't happen, just that it's ridiculous.

Let's be clear about the accusations against him..

[StevenMaurer]

Assange is being accused of "sex by surprise", which is a Swedish law that states that you need explicit permission to engage in consensual relations each time it happens, no matter what happens before or after. In his case, the woman he "attacked" made him breakfast after her "rape", and they continued their relationship for weeks, until she met a different woman who had also slept with him (after acting like a virtual stalker towards him).

It was only after they compared notes, that they approached Assange and asked him to get a STD test. He refused, and they spoke to the police.

Initially prosecutors declined to take this case, but then the whole Wikileaks scandal broke, and a different prosecutor (from a different area of the country) was assigned to the case, and tried to peruse it.

Assange repeatedly tried to speak to this prosecutor, but she apparently did not want to speak to him. Eventually, he was told he was free to leave the country, which he did.

Now we learn that at least one of the women supposedly who accused him of this is not cooperating with the prosecutors.

I'm not sure what to call any of this, and I'm completely torn about whether Wikileaks is good or bad, but this sure as hell isn't any normal kind of rape accusation to me. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Re:Back to earth

[onyxruby]

Why don't we start with his own admission of people getting killed in Kenya because of his actions [rightnetwork.com]?

Re:This is absurd.

[jbolden]

The US Attorney General has said he's looking into him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html [nytimes.com]

This is not FUD

Re:Let's be clear about the accusations against hi

[sangreal66]

This 'sex by surprise' nonsense is bullshit peddled by Assange's lawyer (much like this Gitmo nonsense). Read up on what he is actually charged with. Pretty much everything you said is false.

Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her. According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing. When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A's bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

On Wednesday 18 August, according to police records, Miss A told Harold and a friend that Assange would not leave her flat and was sleeping in her bed, although she was not having sex with him and he spent most of the night sitting with his computer. Harold told police he had asked Assange why he was refusing to leave the flat and that Assange had said he was very surprised, because Miss A had not asked him to leave. Miss A says she spent Wednesday night on a mattress and then moved to a friend's flat so she did not have to be near him. She told police that Assange had continued to make sexual advances to her every day after they slept together and on Wednesday 18 August had approached her, naked from the waist down, and rubbed himself against her.

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom". Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden [guardian.co.uk]

Re:What grounds?

[Moryath]

If you like someone who murders people [robertamsterdam.com], regularly steals from the government to enrich himself [guardian.co.uk], sets up a paradise for criminals [latimes.com], maintains his rule through fear and oppression [typepad.com], and just made himself supreme dictator for life and you'll be shot if you say otherwise [time.com], be my guest.

Just don't be surprised if I tend to disagree with you.

Re:What grounds?

[Americano]

*sigh*

"Charges of espionage" =/= "conviction for espionage."

If he were charged (which he hasn't been), it's likely he would be charged under the Espionage Act. It's also likely that the charges wouldn't stick, and he wouldn't be convicted under that Act, because of the reasons you cite. It hasn't been "proven" that there is no charge of espionage until a court of law throws out the accusation as unfounded.

Re:attorneys

[TheRaven64]

To clarify: The UK does not extradite people to countries where they will face execution or torture. If the defence can show that it's likely that extraditing him to Sweden would result in his execution or torture in the USA, then extradition to Sweden will be denied.

This is a pretty standard approach in any extradition hearing in the UK. The other most common approaches that have worked in the past are to show that the defendant will not receive a fair trial or that the 'crime' is not considered as such in the UK (for example, people would not be extradited for drawing offensive cartoons of Mohammad, even to somewhere that would give them a fair trial and would only give them a small fine if they were found guilty). Neither of these approaches is likely to work in this instance - the Swedish legal system has a fairly good reputation individually and rape is a crime over here (although some of the allegations would only be classed as sexual assault, and some as just being a bit of a pillock, the latter of which isn't usually illegal).

Re:What grounds?

[Fauxbo]

.... If Assange had been found by U.S. agents instead of U.K. agents...

Uhhh... Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he walk into a police station?

Assange: I'd like to turn myself in to clear my name.
UK Agent: THERE HE IS!!!!

Re:He's worried about the US in Sweden not the *UK

[joh]

That's pretty funny. If the US wanted him "renditioned", they would have had him already from the UK. He's much more likely to be safe from US rendition in Sweden.

Really?

From cable 07STOCKHOLM506:

"Swedish military and civilian intelligence organizations are strong and reliable partners on a range of
key issues[...]. Due to domestic political considerations, the extent of this cooperation in not widely known within the Swedish government and it would be useful to acknowledge this cooperation privately, as
public mention of the cooperation would open up the government to domestic criticism."

Re:This is absurd.

[dissy]

As so many people have pointed out here before, publishing classified information is not a crime in the US.

Since when is committing a crime required to be locked up in prison for life?

Many of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo were waiting YEARS for their trial, some never got one. They remained there for years none the less.

Then look at the person who actually DID leak this info. He is in 23 hour a day solitary confinement since he was arrested and STILL no charges have been brought against him.

On top of that, there are plenty of false charges they can put against anyone at any time if they really wanted to play the game, which it appears they don't care to even put on a show of anymore.

Re:What He is Likely Guilty Of...

[erroneus]

It's a good thing you are not a lawyer because a supreme court ruling says that, at least in the case of the pentagon papers, that publishing is not the same as transmitting and that receiving is not the same as gathering. (#793) (#794) Wikileaks does not publish materials they generate or gather themselves (#795) And they don't publish for subscription or otherwise require payment for access to the materials they release. (#797) And for "disclosure" to fit, one would have to have had access to the materials in the course of his/her work. This material was given to Wikileaks and, in truth, cannot be confirmed on its face to be known to be classified in any way. (#798)

This has all be covered in a previous SCOTUS ruling. Is it subject to being presented again? Yes, certainly, if the judges think there are significant differences in this case. But if anything, the newspaper that published the pentagon papers operates as a For Profit organization and Wikileaks does not. This makes them even MORE worthy of protections in my mind.

Re:What grounds?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Actually newspaper reporters and editors have been charged with treason in the past, and probably will be again in the future

And Assange, not being an American, is pretty much incapable of treason against the USA.

Not currently charge

[MushMouth]

There are no current formal charges against Assange in Sweden, he is being extradited only for questioning, not to face any current charges. There were charges but they were dropped before he left Sweden.

Re:What grounds?

[joebok]

"We don't like him" and not being a citizen is pretty much the summary of how people were imprisoned at Gitmo - they are called "enemy combatants" to avoid POW status. Somehow these people are too dangerous to be let loose but too innocent to stand trial.

Re:attorneys

[CrimsonAvenger]

Sounds good. Boot out the UN, stop giving out foreign aid, don't bother trying to control the price of oil. Ignore the North Koreans and hang the South out to dry. Let China kick the shit out of anyone they don't like.

I agree. Let's get the US Military reduced down to its pre-WW2 size and function, and the USA back to its pre-WW2 level of "who gives a rat's ass what happens in ?"

Re:attorneys

[countertrolling]

Also, you DO realize where Saddam got that poison gas, right?

Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons)

Of course the American alliance greatly facilitated the whole affair. I believe Bush even claimed to "have the receipts". It's a shame there is no effective outrage over that time period. The Reagan presidency is one of the most deplorable in the country's history. In fact everybody since him are nothing to be proud of.

Re:Where was this supposed "crime" commited?

[MikeBabcock]

The United States is very willing to "arrange" for people to end up in their jurisdiction when necessary.

Re:attorneys

[SETIGuy]

Have you not been paying attention? How about a contractor using federal funds to pay for parties where pre-adolescent boys are sold to Afghan men so they can be anally raped? Would that qualify? This is a contractor that has been previously been found to be involved in sex trafficking. Would a government cover up of this crime also be considered illegal? That's just the first one to come to mind. Others... Are treaty violations considered illegal? Colin Powell ordering that the UN Secretary General be spied on? That's probably both a treaty violation and a felony.

Re:Also in the news.. USA Might feed him to Bears!

[rahvin112]

Perhaps you might also consider that the reason might not be what you think it is rather than assuming its cause. The US is a convenient scape goat because it's own people are so critical of it's government but there are plenty of nations that like to feed a mythology that diverts attention from their own bad behavior. The US is far far away from being the worst offender in international politics. After all the Russians dumped polonium in a dissidents dinner in a foreign country and the Mossad strangled a guy in his own hotel room, even with the illegal renditions and using predator drones in extra judicial killings I personally don't consider that in the same league.

Re:attorneys

[ifiwereasculptor]

Bringing in business interests, US or other, is exactly what Iraq needs. This will do more good than any other thing we could possibly come up with now. I know that people like to bash the "evil capitalist", but it's the entrepreneurs that make the world a better place for all.

Of course. Let's ask a few workers worldwide that have been aided by such charitable entrepreneurs:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm [commondreams.org]

In 1995 Nike said it thought it had tied up with responsible factories in Sialkot, in Pakistan, that would manufacture well-made footballs and provide good conditions for workers. Instead, the work was sub-contracted round local villages, and children were drawn into the production process.

http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 [independent.org]

Hourly wage in US$
Bangladesh $0.13
China 0.44
Costa Rica 2.38
Dominican Republic 1.62
El Salvador 1.38
Haiti 0.49
Honduras 1.31
Indonesia 0.34
Nicaragua 0.76
Vietnam 0.26

But then again, TVs, iPads and whatnot will probably become even cheaper, so that's sort of "making a better place for all", isn't it?

Re:What grounds?

[Cederic]

I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Assange is the target of anything more than an obsessed media and a lot of public outcry

Clearly you have very constrained sources of news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8212812/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-facing-US-prosecution-bid-says-Joe-Biden.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Or maybe something more recent: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-turns-to-twitter-as-wikileaks-chase-continues-20110109-19jy5.html [smh.com.au]

t I also don't see a lot of convincing evidence that he definitely is the target of anything in particular

How much evidence would you like exactly?

Re:attorneys

[AmiMoJo]

We made our position fairly clear when 2 million people marched against the war in London. Problem is that for political reasons the government almost never backs down because of protest so we were ignored.

I seem to recall a similar thing happened in the US when people voted for that other guy but were ignored and Bush declared winner anyway. Seems rather ironic that the US and UK should go around touting democracy as the only acceptable form of government when their own doesn't work properly.