Cables Show US Seeks Assange 488
prakslash writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that diplomatic cables they obtained show the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year, despite denials by the U.S. State Department and the Australian Foreign Minister. Further, the Australian diplomats expect that the U.S. will seek to extradite Assange to the U.S. on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks."
Re:This makes the US look worse (Score:2, Informative)
The US has never been a democracy, not even ostensibly. It is a constitutional republic, which is different than a democracy.
Over time, it has become less and less of a republic and more and more of an oligarchy, which is bad, but it has never even pretended to be a democracy.
Re:Firing squad (Score:5, Informative)
Because releasing information regarding unethical practices (to say the least) conducted by the US and other corporate entities is bad. Cue comparison photo:
http://m5.paperblog.com/i/8/82628/hero-comparison-wikileaks-vs-facebook-assange-L-NiA62d.jpeg [paperblog.com]
Re:Real Cables (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/shawn-sullivan-extradition-blocked-america-most-wanted-pedophile-us_n_1633358.html [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
I'm sorry, try again. Why is this guy blocked but not Assange?
Re:Previous Charges (Score:5, Informative)
has he actually been charged in sweden? I thought part of the big controversy was that he was not actually charged, they wanted to force him to go to sweeden to "question" him, even though he volunteered to host them, and answer any questions many, many times. They either want to extradite him, or do one heck of a "perp walk" on TV to shame him, and I don't think he's actually even charged, let alone proven guilty.
Re:Firing squad (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Swap for Cheney? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think that's a fair deal. Assange may have committed, at most, espionage against the US (which isn't a crime if he's not in the US, which he isn't), and sexual assault in Sweden. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has proudly proclaimed on CNN that he committed crimes against humanity.
Re:Firing squad (Score:4, Informative)
Warning: Parent link is NSFA (Not Safe For America).
Re:This makes the US look worse (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Previous Charges (Score:2, Informative)
Swedish law only allows formal charges to be filed after he is extradited, and questioned. It is just a procedural difference, not one of substance.
Re:Real Cables (Score:5, Informative)
I could argue against you here, saying he was not charged etc etc. But why should I when the former Swedish head prosecution does it much better:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem [scribd.com]
Re:Previous Charges (Score:5, Informative)
Swedish prosecutors once traveled to Serbia to interview a suspected murderer.
March 22nd of *this year* [google.de]
Re:No speculation needed after this week. (Score:5, Informative)
Let me answer your questions:
1) It would, as a matter of fact, be easier for the US to extradite from Sweden. There is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests.
Read this [justice4assange.com] and this [justice4assange.com].
2) See above links.
3) Ecuador is NOT shielding Assange from prosecution from Sweden BUT from extradition and persecution by the US. Assange is willing to go to Sweden tomorrow to answer any Swedish charges if they can assure him he will not be handed to the Americans. They refuse to provide such an assurance. Look, Assange is not some ordinary mugger. He has done some significant things that have riled up the powers that be. If the suspect in your example was anything like Assange, I would be OK with it.
.
Re:This, despite precedents protecting new reporti (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be purposefully obtuse.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US. This would be complicated by several things:
1) Whether the extradition treaty recognizes espionage as an extraditable offense - some do, some do not;
2) Espionage is a capital offense, and so the death penalty *is* a legitimate concern - some countries will refuse to extradite because capital punishment is an option, some countries will require a guarantee that no death penalty will be sought, and other countries will simply refuse.
3) They must have evidence that he committed espionage - i.e., actively sought out and solicited the information - and was not simply a passive recipient of the data that PFC Manning leaked.
If he was a passive recipient of the information, then you're right - he had no obligation to keep it secret, and he was engaged in nothing more than journalism - sloppy journalism, given the partial redaction of informant names and info in many of the documents - but journalism all the same. If he actively solicited the classified documents - i.e., sought out PFC Manning, encouraged him to use his access to leak the documents, and published them, then that would be considered espionage, whether you're a Chinese hacker, a journalist in DC, or a wikileaks founder in Australia.
Re:Real Cables (Score:4, Informative)
Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK
That's nothing. I find it more telling that (according to what I read) they refused to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to US. He asked if if Sweden guarantees that he will not be sent to US afterwards and Swedish side was unable to guarantee that.
They are really the exact opposite of subtle.
Re:No speculation needed after this week. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?
You mean, like József Mindszenty [wikipedia.org], who the US shielded in their embassy for 15 years? Like Fang Lizhi [wikipedia.org]? Like Victor Haya [unhcr.org]? Manuel Zelaya [wikipedia.org]? The answer is, they (including the USA) do.
Re:Swap for Cheney? (Score:5, Informative)
To whoever modded this flamebait: The accusation against Cheney is easy to sustain. Dick Cheney publicly proclaimed that he led the group that ordered waterboarding of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. American prosecutors defined waterboarding or the ordering of waterboarding of a prisoner to be a crime against humanity at the 1945 Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.
Ergo, Dick Cheney is an admitted war criminal.
Re:No speculation needed after this week. (Score:2, Informative)
The actual treaty obligations involved are:
1) The EU EAW
2) The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
The Vienna convention trumps the EU treaty.
Diplomatic asylum is not codified in international law - but respected historically. The UK risks a lot by threatening the Equador embassy. Not in the last place trust, but also the functioning and even security of diplomatic personel abroad.
Your questions:
1) The US wants to go via Sweden because extradition from the UK is difficult - it might hang on the charges bringing the death penalty and will be a lengthy process. Sweden (that earlier has worked along with the US on rendition flights) has a nice treaty with the US allowing "temporary surrender". That's extradition under another name, not requiring UK permission (required with normal extradition), and not involving lengthy procedures. Assange can be handed over overnight.
2) See 1. No approval required, because temporary surrender "isn't extradition".
3) Equador has stated the asylum has been granted to protect against political persecution. In so many words. Not to shield Assange from normal procecution. Equador even tried to make that happen. By asking UK, Sweden to make official their assurances that extradition to the US was not something to worry about for Assange. Asylum would have been denied in that case, or more likely, Assange would have surrendered himself to UK/Sweden with these diplomatic assurances. That Assange was willing to do that have been stated time and time again.
And about the simple thief question: no state will grant asylum if valid reasons for asylum are not present. If the thief could make a case that he didn't steal, but that the accusation was fabricated because North Korea wants his ass for revealing state secrets then yes, he probably will get asylum even in case of doubt, because in human rights cases - as asylum - the person has the benefit of the doubt.
Re:Previous Charges (Score:5, Informative)
allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.
Like Warren Anderson [wikipedia.org], who was charged with the culpable homicide of 8,000 people, left India and refused to come back until they said they wouldn't charge him, and who then jumped bail and left India after he was charged? Did the U.S. government respect the judicial authority of the Indian courts? No - it refused to extradite Anderson because they said there "wasn't enough evidence". And yet when the United States wanted to extradite bin Laden, and the government of Afghanistan requested evidence of his crimes, the U.S. government refused to provide it. When it comes to international politics and law, the U.S. is not afraid to apply double standards.