Julian Assange's Attorney Predicts More Espionage Charges For Journalists

The MSM has nothing to worry about because they're part of the state-corporate nexus anyways. They have quid pro quo relationship and share much of the same interests literally everywhere:

 

YES! lock em up.. start with the Washington Post

 

Carlin is brilliant.

 

This is setting a very concerning precedent.

Apparently one country can take away the free speech rights of people in other countries, so long as it involves information that country considers classified.

There's a big problem with the extradition system too. Brings to mind the Hamza Kashgari case, where Interpol was used [misused] to have a man extradited for punishment for "insulting Islam".

In Assange's case it's a little more complex. As long as country A extradites to country B, and there's a possibility country B might extradite to country C, extradition to country B is tantamount to extradition to country C, and country A is essentially partaking in the enforcement of country C's law enforcement system. It's a tangled web of indirect responsibility.

All the countries that have extradition treaties with each other are basically trusting each other that justice will be done in all their legal systems.

 

Doesn't this now mean that people associated with the Trump Campaign colluded with someone accused of espionage against the US?

And before the cries of "No Collusion, No Collusion".
Wiki-Leaks(Julian Assange) is not part of the Russian Government.
And yes, Trump people did colluded with Wiki-Leaks.

Edit: Oh, and if he is found guilty. Then it becomes Trump people associated with someone found guilty of espionage against the US. That sounds like treason.

 

If I was Assange, I'd consent to extradition to the US. Free plane ride. Face Trial and drag down as much of the MSM as I could who published exactly what he published. If he is guilty....so is the MSM.....including YouTube, unless of course the US Judicial System protects its own.

 

It's good to see people on the Right (as I am) not responding reflexively with a "Hang him high!" response.

But ... the real problem here is that we're in a kind of intermediate state between peace and war. In peacetime, we ought to bend the stick in favor of free speech, whistle-blowers, etc. .... even when this inconveniences the state.

In wartime, not.

I haven't followed the Assange case closely, but I believe he did more than expose US excesses ... I have read that he exposed, perhaps lethally, people who were working against the Islamists, who are far deadlier enemies of liberty than any Washington bureaucrat. I don't think he did this from Islamist sympathies, or even from the sort of idiotic Hard Leftism which vaguely considers that any enemy of US imperlalism can't be all bad, but mainly out of a kind of nihilism. And although it shouldn't make any difference to the principles involved, he's not -- unlike Edward Snowden -- an attractive personality.

 

I also read Wikileaks is a foreign intelligence service but I discard it.

 

Oddly enough, it all seems to have gone very quiet about his 'rape of two Swedish women'? I reckon he'll be deported to the US straight from here and never heard of again. What a ****ing disgusting stitch-up!

 

Rape is defined differently in Sweden. He's accused of waking a woman up with sex after they had already ****ed that same night. I've been raped many times by that definition. The other charge is that his condom broke during sex with another woman. That would make me a rapist as well. Sweden has the highest number of rape charges in the world but also the lowest number of convictions. For obvious reasons.

 

How the hell could anyone know that?

 

He cannot be 'deported' to the US. He is Australian. He can be extradited assuming the Yanks seek that. Extraditions is not an automatic process and can be resisted, rarely successfully.

 

So US law is being imposed on the rest of the globe.

Even when it is entirely a crime involving information.

 

You put the situation simpler and more succinctly than I could ever do.
Great summary.

If I can nitpick a little bit, the actual allegation seems to be that he slipped off his condom (after he claims it had torn), and continued to have sex with the woman without her immediately realizing the condom had been removed.
Not only that but about a minute later she did realize (according to her own account) the condom was now gone but did not verbally object, and the sex continued.

Which is still considered "sexual violation" under that country's legal codes, because the woman did not affirmatively consent to sex without a condom when the sex act was initiated.

 

I didn't hear that in the video. It's also strange that the lab couldn't find any of Assange's DNA on the used condom that the accuser gave them.

 

No, it wasn't in that video.

 

From the account I read, it sounded like Assange was acting kind of like a dirty pig sexually, and I can see why the female prosecutor in Sweden would have decided to charge him, even if I do not agree with those laws, but it was definitely not anything like actual rape, not in the conventional sense of the word.

But we don't even know if everything that woman claimed was true. At one point the prosecutor suspected the woman might be lying because she was resentful when she found out Assange had been sleeping with another girl. Then those two women got together, coordinated their stories, and complained to authorities.
From what I gather, it sounds like Assange was a pig, not a rapist.

 

In power politics anything can be achieved, legal or otherwise?

 

There is no imposition at all. There is a long held Extradition Treaty.

 

If one country extradites to another country, they are effectively taking part in the enforcement of that country's laws.

If you grab a person and force them to go to another country, and they suffer injustice in that other country, you cannot just wash your hands of all responsibility over what happened to that person. You were involved in injustice.

It's one thing if you extradite a citizen back to the country that they came from, or a country that they have recently visited, but it's another thing when you extradite someone to a country that they've never been to before, or did not commit a crime in while they were there.

 

Someone should be charged for altering Nancy pelosi in public

Assange should walk. the single bogus American charge probably won't stand and I think we should drop it...

 

Yes....that's what Extradition Treaties (both Countries sign up for) do.

Two things to say about that. Extradition does not occur just because the US says..'gimme Assange.' His extradition can only be ordered after UK Judicial System has examined the circumstances and determined that extradition is called for. Secondly.....are you asserting that the US Judicial System is..........unjust? If so...how so?

Do some reading about extradition.

 

If it 'bogus' I am confident the UK Judicial System is capable of identifying that without taking an "All the way with Trumpay" position.

 

Usually the legal protections against extradition have a much lower bar than the legal protections in a criminal case.

So that is a big issue.

 

I'm not asserting that the US system is more unjust than in the UK, overall, but it can be outrageously unjust in certain types of circumstances. And the same is true about the UK, when dealing with other certain types of things.
So the injustice is in different categories.

Still, if one country has injustice in one area, and another country has injustice in another area, and those two countries are joined together by an extradition treaty, then now you are potentially exposing the accused to the worst of both worlds combined!

That does seem to be what's happening with Assange. Not just craziness from 2 countries but the crazy laws from 3 ! It's like the perfect storm.

Crazy feminism and fake rape in Sweden, being punished (and overly punished at that) for trying to escape in the UK (that's something that wouldn't even happen in the US), and then of course the US, trying to get him dragged into the country for what was entirely an information crime, and one that wasn't even committed when he was in the US, and he's not even a US citizen.