The 'wanted for questioning' is a complete technicality- what matters here are the charges on the warrant. The idea it had only been issued for a minor crime payable by fine is false. I already mentioned that he might not be prosecuted on all of them.
I think he fled, and he turned himself in as he was out of reasonable options (he had discussed claiming asylum in Switzerland). Regardless, that'a also just quibbling. His lawyer turns out a remarkable amount of crap.
Hmm, so you think he will be charged in Sweden as soon as he has been questioned?
I don't think Assange behaved badly, and o course we shouldn't assume that Sweden has ulterior motives, though if it did end up with him then being delivered to the US, that would be pretty screwed up.
A thing I wonder about though, say I'd be wanted for questioning or charged in Canada for a major crime, rape or murder or something, and I'd be in Germany, would I have to get myself a flight to Canada on my own money to get there, or do I have options to refuse that?
I am certain they will charge him with something, for sure. They would not have bothered else.
If you committed the crime IN Canada, then your only alternative to going yourself would be to be arrested, yes (assuming your crime is serious enough for them to bother, and also remembering that more stages are involved as Canada cannot issue a German arrest warrant). Assange's idea that he was being reasonable is nonsense; arrest was all he could expect for not voluntarily facing the music.
Originally posted by Bardock42
A thing I wonder about though, say I'd be wanted for questioning or charged in Canada for a major crime, rape or murder or something, and I'd be in Germany, would I have to get myself a flight to Canada on my own money to get there, or do I have options to refuse that?
1. You would not pay anything.
2. There has to exist an extradition agreement between the two nations in order for you to be "taken into custody in your resident country and turned over to the authorities from the 'prosecuting' country."
3. The law enforcement/justice system of the prosecuting country pays your "fare" to their country. I do know that Canada has a "no extradition" if the nation can pursue the death penalty against you for your crime (this is just what I heard from a Canadian lady...so it may not be true. Maybe we can get inimalist to confirm or refute that?)
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ah, the conspiracy theorist agenda... there was no warrant months ago. The crimes took place months ago; the current timing for the warrant is the standard amount of time it takes to process these things if the person flees abroad.
I defenitly heard the news of possible charges about rape a while before these leaks were leaked. Not sure of the time frame (been working so hard the days fly by). Nevertheless I´m convinced these are pressure tactics to scare those who might apposed the mighty.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I defenitly heard the news of possible charges about rape a while before these leaks were leaked. Not sure of the time frame (been working so hard the days fly by). Nevertheless I´m convinced these are pressure tactics to scare those who might apposed the mighty.
So you believe even when your beliefs contradict your beliefs?
If the warrants were issued months ago then the idea that it's part of a conspiracy to take him down was responsible is nearly impossible. Assange wasn't a big figure back then and even if he were well known enough to target discrediting him before the leaks would have been much more effective.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you believe even when your beliefs contradict your beliefs?If the warrants were issued months ago then the idea that it's part of a conspiracy to take him down was responsible is nearly impossible. Assange wasn't a big figure back then and even if he were well known enough to target discrediting him before the leaks would have been much more effective.
Im just mentioning what I know, whether it goes against or for a conspiracy is irrelevant, the truth is all that matters.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just to be clear, he IS wanted on charges of rape/sexual assault, and he IS wanted for crimes that involve a jail sentence, not just a fine.
I thought so. Even going by what the charges are, forcing a woman to continue having sex after she says to stop or banging one while she was asleep, are much more serious than "sex by surprise"
Originally posted by dadudemon
I do know that Canada has a "no extradition" if the nation can pursue the death penalty against you for your crime (this is just what I heard from a Canadian lady...so it may not be true. Maybe we can get inimalist to confirm or refute that?)
not only the death penalty, but any cruel treatment
we refused to extradite American soldiers who escaped here during vietnam, because we thought the draft was inhumane (we did not extend the same privilage to those who sought asylum here for iraq or afghanistan though)
there was a pretty serious legal discussion about whether to extradite Marc Emery, guilty of selling marijuana seeds to people in the US (a crime in America, but not in Canada). A large portion of our population felt American laws regarding drugs were so draconian that it constituted a violation of his human rights to face American jail for his action. He was eventually extradited, but only after a prolonged affair.
I've been waiting on this, Listening post is one of the best programs on AJE.
very interesting summary of not just Wikileaks, but the story of the story itself. Not just what, but how it has been covered.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you believe even when your beliefs contradict your beliefs?If the warrants were issued months ago then the idea that it's part of a conspiracy to take him down was responsible is nearly impossible. Assange wasn't a big figure back then and even if he were well known enough to target discrediting him before the leaks would have been much more effective.
not necessarily, according to Glen Greenwald
In 2008, the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a classified report (ironically leaked to and published by WikiLeaks) which -- as the NYT put it -- placed WikiLeaks on "the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States." That Report discussed ways to destroy WikiLeaks' reputation and efficacy, and emphasized creating the impression that leaking to it is unsafe
an image of the leak:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks/index.html
US intelligence agencies have been against Wikileaks for a couple of years
ya, I'm just an Al Jazeera spambot, but this is a good discussion, Charlie Wolfe makes a pretty convincing arguement against wikileaks, though I think he is entirely wrong on some issues, namely that there have been some interesting revelations, and that seeing the mechanisms at work serves a public interest anyways.
Originally posted by inimalist
not necessarily, according to Glen Greenwaldan image of the leak:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/18/wikileaks/index.html
US intelligence agencies have been against Wikileaks for a couple of years
My point was more that Assange evidently was charged with the crimes when the accusations happened. They didn't pop up out of nowhere or get made retroactively.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you believe in the conspiracy even though you believe things that contradict the conspiracy . . .
I don´t believe in anything which isn´t totally proved, although I have my suspicions and ideas, which as you pointed out probably make me a contradicitive insane lunatic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war
**** yes!
EDIT:
They're also keeping him in solitary confinement. But I thought this was a mere 'sex by surprise' case?
😉
part 2 of Inside Story's coverage of Wikileaks. Mainly questioning what this means for journalism, or if Asange is a journalist.
I think the discussion is interesting, but misses the point generally. Asange is not a journalist, he is not doing journalism, and what he is doing could never replace journalism.
I've discussed this a bunch of times on this site since the leak, but basically, journalists are needed to provide the context to what people like Asange find. Asange simply can't take the place of a journalist by releasing troves of info.
I also think that, in many ways, NYT and the Guardian have been doing exactly that. The commentators seem to critiscize them for not doing investigative journalism, but sometimes simply just having people who can contextualize these world events is what is necessary.
The whole existance of Wikileaks is necessary because journalists can't always get this info through contacts, or people might not trust leaking to the media (wikileaks does an amazing job at ensuring anonymity). I don't understand why so much attention has focused on whether or not Wikileaks is a journalistic organization. It is totally irrelevant, wikileaks will not replace formal journalism, nor does it deserve any less protection under freedom of expression because it isn't a formal journalistic organization.
Interview from Asange's lawyer, some interesting tidbits, namely that cyber attacks against wikileaks seem to be coming from Russia and China.
Some new stuff, obviously slanted in favor of Asange, but Frost does ask him some tougher questions.
The lawyer says, point blank, he thinks the Americans are going to try and get him to America.