Wikileaks?

They are using the swedish "newspaper" aftonbladet as source.
That's like using saturday night live as a source for news, I'm sure denmark has a newspaper like aftonbladet, basically what it publishes is entertainment with a bad disguise in order to call it news.

Sad to hear wikileaks having promised to donate to the bradley mannings defence fund but have failed to do so, that's definately a step back.

However, thank you for the links and I am more aware of the reasons behind openleaks than I was before.

 

Although i don't know the details of the full story I do know he is very unlikely to receive a fair trial. Politicians from the US are openly lining up to say Assange should be killed. Usually you'd be darned to get a straight answer from a politician but on this they openly give you a straight answer! Look more like a lynch mob to me and fairness is the last thing on their minds.

 

He's exploiting a legal loophole. He knew that UK law would give him the chance to turn down extradition to Sweden, thereby keeping himself from being moved to Sweden and going to trial.

 

Of course, as long as you don't actually use those rights ;)

If I was him, I'd have handed myself in, far better to go with our police to Sweden, than getting FedEx'd back by Dawg the bouny hunter. Like everyone else, I don't know the full picture, but I have to say I'm with Razer. Information may be power, but news is only news before everyone knows about it. Like all good secrets it aint when everyone finds out. However why the hell are so many people batting for the other side? If you're wearing a red bib, you're on the red team, why the feeling that it's ok to pass out information, it's not like anything is actually serious enough to motivate people by 'conviction'.

 

He did hand himself in when the correct papers actually got filed from Sweden, before that he had already offered to answer any questions the swedish authorities wanted him to. He's fightint extradition to Sweden though because Sweden has some treaty with the U.S that makes it the easiest eu country to get extradited to the U.S from.

 

i didnt make him to be a criminal, just a businessman profiting from passing on information. if wikileaks makes no money, where does he get the money from even to live out of his own pocket? all those TV apperances pay money you know, so at the very least he's earning a living as the representitive of Wikileaks. i dont know how true it is that he's making money more directly, but there is smoke there. i believe recent newspaper articles where based on unreleased information, exclusives, which certainly tend to be paid for.

yes, its flaw in the conspiracy that the US want to have him over there for trial. charges in the UK would have been much more convienient for extradition across the Atlantic. oh of course some have publiclly called for him to stand trial there and talk of espionage and the death penalty. but there is a teenie tiny problem of the First amendment no-one wants to see binned even for this, and not having conducted any actual crime in the US is a bit of a problem for future jurisprudence between the US and the rest of the world. lots of tubthumping, they much rather the Swedes dealt with it really.

well he's not made a very good attempt to contact the swedish authorities, he could have gone to Stockholm or a Swedish embassy in the past 4 months. he handed himself in theres very little chance of getting out the UK legally wheres such a warrant out for you.

 

As I said in an earlier post Sweden has a treaty with the U.S. that makes him easier to extradite from Sweden than any other country in he Eu, including the UK

He went to the Swedish embassy in London before he turned himself into the police but since he's not actually been charged with anything yet or his lawyers been shown any evidence they couldn't question him there.

 

An translation from one of our swedish papers.

Marianne Ny transmitted the European arrest warrant for Julian Assange that led to the arrest - which now has created headlines around the world.
In a flash summoned press conference commenting on her own event.
- Of course it is good if this thing can get a solution, "she says.


Do not want to Sweden
Julian Assange is suspected of rape and the Swedish prosecutor has been unable to question him. Assange has said he does not want to go to Sweden for fear of being extradited to the U.S. and his lawyer has said that the indictment is politically motivated.
Mrs Ny said that no foreign government has asked for transparency in the investigation. She also rejects the charges against Assange would be wrong.
- We have not found any reason to any plot could be behind the allegations, the indictment would be closed.


"He is not bound"
Now the British authorities in charge of the case. Ny would not say more than that Assange still a reasonable suspicion of rape. About Assange apprehended while Wikileaks release the thousands of diplomatic reports of the so-called "Cable Gate" says Ny:
- I have not any idea that there would be no way connected.
On 14 December, the British authorities decide Assange be handed over to Sweden.
Something that can interfere with the investigation now is whether the inquiry is escaping from Wikileaks. Marianne Ny think there is a possibility.
- My hope is that it is nonexistent, but obviously has Assange through his lawyer access to the investigation, "she says.
Assanges Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, says he can not be punished if he does it.
- Of course, he has read the entire investigation; he is not bound by any confidentiality. I hope he does not leak out of respect for the law, but he's not known for being "secret," he says.


Åklagaren: Bra om det kan få en lösning - Nyheter - Senaste nytt | Expressen - Nyheter Sport Ekonomi Nöje

He was accused on legitim grounds for harrasment and rape. And he refused to be interrogated. Any accused person acting like Assange will be hunted by the police.

 

Then I'm afraid your Swedish papers failed to report the full facts, The guardian were following the whole process with live updates as it happened here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

Julian Assange met with his lawyers the morning after the arrest warrant was finally filed and then set up a meeting with the british police in which he was arrested. He turned himself in. Just because it says he was arrested in the Swedish papers doesn't mean they didn't arrest him within the police station after he walked in.

In this Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/07/julian-assange-arrest-extradition they just go through what the whole extradition process means for Assange and about half way through there is these two paragraphs.

If extradited to Sweden under the EAW – a process that could be concluded quickly under the fast-track procedure – Assange will be vulnerable to other extradition requests from countries including the US.
The US has an extradition treaty with Sweden since the 1960s, when the nations agreed to "make more effective the co-operation of the two countries in the repression of crime".

I'm afraid I can't find the video I watched but there is also a video from someone like one of his lawyers where they say this is one of the major reasons Assange is fighting extradition to Sweden

I personally recommend for everyone trying to figure out what went on and the order it happened in there are two bloggers at least that I have found, one in the U.S with nation newspaper and one with Guardian an English newspaper that are updating regularly with links to news sources from all other English speaking news sources. It helps bring together the full picture of who said what and when and how and all that rather than us throwing stuff around here all the time. (personally the nation newspaper one seems to be a little less biased, linking to news reports both attacking and defneding Julian Assange)

Nation guys Wikileaks stuff is here: BLOGGING THE WIKILEAKS for Tuesday—Assange Arrested and More—Return Here for Live Updates | The Nation

 

There is still several girls, one maybe raped other maybe sexually abused regarding Swedish law. The case started early November and Assange have stuck his head in the sand for over a month. I still say, "if he is for openness he should have joined the hearings he was called to in November. Being accused for rape (rape accussaions can be many things, in Swedish law cases where men has sex with underaged girls is automatically treated as rape or having sex with a drunk girl that can't say no, etc) has nothing to do with Wikileaks and should be treated like that. People starting to mix things together and seeing complots and defending an accused rapist before the court of law has done it's part is out on thin ice. The victims in this, the girls, have their full right of a fair trial of the case without anyone else threatening them or the prosecutor. If he believis in right, he should do the right thing. He went to Sweden beacuse we have liberty of press written in to our constitution, he should also have read up on the sex abuse parts of Swedish laws before coming here.
I still belives that Wikileaks in some way could be good for us, but a guy running away from his prosecution has nothing to do with this.

 

Are you honestly using expressen as a source?
They are just like aftonbladet dude... When a celebrity shows a little skin It's a "NAKED SHOCK!!"
Oh.... I see Marie Woodwell allready called you out on it.

First off, neither the victims or the accused should ever be named.
What happened? The victim called expressen (they pay good for info.) and told them everything, expressen then called the prosecutor and got Julian Assange confirmed, they never asked for anything else, they allready had all the info.
Note, even confirming that Julian Assange has to do with the investigation is illegal in Sweden, which is why so many considder Eva Finné to be a mediawhore and not a professional anymore.

 

What I love best is something I've noticed.

When I've read reports on the leaks that show USA in a negative light, certain responders are practically giddy over it.

However, when released information shows China or some other country in a negative light, especially when it's something improper done against USA, then suddenly, Wikileaks is seen as some US gov't conspiracy to release false evidence and attack other countries. That or they say "Well USA does that stuff and worse, so it's ok."

Just interesting to see how differently the information is received by the same people depending on who the "bad guys" are.

 

Very interesting point :)