Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court
Discussion
Erm, this is somewhat interesting...
Now for some tin foil hattery...
Article said:
THE US military has designated Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as enemies of the United States - the same legal category as the al-Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban insurgency.
Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html#ixzz27cjH9qSkDeclassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.
Now for some tin foil hattery...
Article said:
The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" - not releasable to non-US nationals - record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.
The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".
I wonder if the 'analyst' attempted to fit himself in a holdall shortly afterwards?The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".
Marf said:
But but but the Americans don't want him!
But but but that doesn't say they do.It could just as readily be tacit confirmation to certain sectors of their workforce that passing info to Wikileaks will not be taken lightly.
Of course they will inevitably have laws about that already. But any self respecting Western democracy always feels the need to add layers onto perfectly adequate laws.
None of those short on Bacofoil have ever said the US don't dislike JA. Nor indeed that they probably wIsh ill of him (I imagine there are many that feel that way). But there is very little (no) real evidence to suggest they want him extradited from Sweden and plenty to suggest that JA is using the FUD on that to allow him to avoid being arrested for rape.
Oakey said:
I wonder if the 'analyst' attempted to fit himself in a holdall shortly afterwards?
Well its actually quite an amazing piece of reporting. The actual story is that an analyst based in London who attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London was investigated for a potential breach of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. They subsequently closed the investigation without charging him with anything.From that they've extrapolated that Assange is now classed as an enemy of the state.
BruceV8 said:
This does raise an interesting issue, doesn't it; how are those posting a bond supposed to control this? Would the police have been happy if, for example, Assange's bond-posters had rounded-up a posse and stormed the Ecuadorian embassy in order to bring Assange to court? In parts of the USA, this process is rather better resolved, but here? Have we just drifted along without this system being tested?skwdenyer said:
BruceV8 said:
This does raise an interesting issue, doesn't it; how are those posting a bond supposed to control this? Would the police have been happy if, for example, Assange's bond-posters had rounded-up a posse and stormed the Ecuadorian embassy in order to bring Assange to court? In parts of the USA, this process is rather better resolved, but here? Have we just drifted along without this system being tested?skwdenyer said:
This does raise an interesting issue, doesn't it; how are those posting a bond supposed to control this? Would the police have been happy if, for example, Assange's bond-posters had rounded-up a posse and stormed the Ecuadorian embassy in order to bring Assange to court? In parts of the USA, this process is rather better resolved, but here? Have we just drifted along without this system being tested?
Change the system a little, make the bond holders responsible for collecting and paying for the subject if he goes missing. That way, this whole Police operation gets paid for by the guys who put up the cash originally, and who are ultimately responsible for this massive waste of money.skwdenyer said:
This does raise an interesting issue, doesn't it; how are those posting a bond supposed to control this? Would the police have been happy if, for example, Assange's bond-posters had rounded-up a posse and stormed the Ecuadorian embassy in order to bring Assange to court? In parts of the USA, this process is rather better resolved, but here? Have we just drifted along without this system being tested?
How they do it isn't anyone's concern but theirs. The way to ensure you do not lose bond money is to not pay it for people who are likely to skip.They have now found out how much JA values their friendship.
What is interesting is why the bond was so low, bearing in mind the likely (not just in hindsight) costs of getting him back if he skipped...? Unless this is only part of it?
Murph7355 said:
How they do it isn't anyone's concern but theirs. The way to ensure you do not lose bond money is to not pay it for people who are likely to skip.
They have now found out how much JA values their friendship.
What is interesting is why the bond was so low, bearing in mind the likely (not just in hindsight) costs of getting him back if he skipped...? Unless this is only part of it?
Interesting. My own thoughts are that the interests of society are well served by a developed, functioning bail system, not least because keeping untried prisoners on remand is (a) expensive, and (b) pretty shaky on human rights grounds.They have now found out how much JA values their friendship.
What is interesting is why the bond was so low, bearing in mind the likely (not just in hindsight) costs of getting him back if he skipped...? Unless this is only part of it?
I'm assuming that bail bond firms are not allowed in the UK?
Murph7355 said:
They have now found out how much JA values their friendship.
What, less than he values his life? Which it seems reasonable to assume is the end game of being shipped off to Sweden on trumped up rape charges shortly after releasing some awkward secrets about the most powerful government in the world.
AJS- said:
It's got BIBLICAL nukes! And they don't put their prisoners in holiday camps with Nintendos. They put them in ... Guantanamo Bay
That's right, the slightest suspicion of jay walking in the States and it's straight off to Gitmo to join Bradley Manning...ah, no except he isn't there either.FYI this £93.5k is only part of the bail, other
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff