This week the High Court in the UK has to decide
whether Assange's appeal succeeds or fails. Whether
he will be on a plane heading towards a potential
jail-term of 175 years in the US or finally released.
The current government has asked for him to be returned
home to Australia.

Assange faces 18 criminal charges for his alleged role in
obtaining and disclosing classified documents which
revealed details of US activities in Iraq, Afghanistan,
including attacks on civilians, the treatment of prisoners
in Guantanamo and clandestine activities in the Middle East.

Many have argued that all this has been an attempt to
punish Assange for exposing the truth and is an attack on
journalism.

Commentators have asked the valid question as to why the
media outlets who published Assange's material - outlets
like, The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, are
not also being pursued?

Has Assange been treated fairly? And has he already paid
and suffered enough? Do journalists have a responsibility
in what they should be allowed to publish

Dear Foxy,

«Has Assange been treated fairly?»

Have you not been seen outdoors with a mini-skirt and no face-cover?

Would it be fair if we therefore extradite you to Saudi-Arabia for breaking its modesty code?

Do journalists have a responsibility
in what they should be allowed to publish
Foxy,
That goes without saying !
"A truth that's told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent "

He has never faced trial and has spent years evading justice. He has never expressed remorse for the people he brought harm to, nor acknowledge them. He did comment to some Guardian journos that if people were killed as a result of an unredacted WikiLeaks, them they had it coming to them. What an utterly revolting person. It would be an unconscionable act to release that piece of filth.

Yuyutsu,

I live in Australia not the Middle East so I don't
understand what you are trying to say. I'm not
Pauline Hanson - so I shan't be wearing a hijab any
time soon.

Also I do prefer to wear kaftans to mini skirts at my age,
And I do wear masks because of COVID.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Foxy,

«I live in Australia not the Middle East»

That was my exact point - neither does Julian Assange live, or ever lived, in America!

If any country is allowed to extradite Australian visitors to a third country even though they broke no laws of either Australia or the country they were visiting, then according to the same logic, that would allow Thailand to extradite you to Saudi-Arabia because you wore a bikini while visiting Thai beaches.

But then, arrogant Americans always consider themselves God's-chosen exception...

Why should an Australian citizen who opens an Australian bank account in Australia, be required to fill forms providing information to American tax authorities?

Why should religious Hindu DVD's made in India and purchased in Australia directly from India, have to carry an unskippable warning notice from the American CIA before one can start watching them?

Now back to the subject.

This case is a controversial one. It questions the
concepts of ethics, justice, and what governments
should and shouldn't do.

Questions have been raised
about our own military's behaviour in Afghanistan.

People question whether Assange is a campaigner for
the truth, or an attention seeker.

Assange has spent 7 years in self-exile inside a
foreign embassy and 5 years in prison. His health
has deteriorated. He's been indicted for receiving,
possessing, and communicating information to the
public of evidence of war crimes committed by the
US government.

Many claim that reporting crimes should not be a crime.

However where do we draw the line? What if the
publishing of information creates a risk to a
country's intelligence sources - in countries like
Afghanistan and Iraq?

Australian MPs have voted to bring Assange home.

What would it achieve to have him brought to trial in the
US? Can we condemn a journalist for publishing
government behaviour - not matter how unpleasant it may be?
Are we then in a position to be able judge any other government's
behaviour. For example - that of totalitarian regimes?

"Commentators have asked the valid question as to why the media outlets who published Assange's material - outlets like, The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, are not also being pursued?"

If that's true, these 'commentators' are idiots.

As I've explained previously (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=21781#382159) the charges against Assange aren't about the publishing of the stolen data but that he encouraged espionage and/or instigated espionage and/or actually took part in espionage. If he merely received the stolen data from Bradley Manning (who now likes to pretend he's a shiela named Chelsea)and published it there would never have been a problem.

But it is alleged, he did much more than just publish as above. The charge is that he had some part in the theft by Manning. That's the crime he faces.

Again, publishing it isn't a crime. Participating in the theft is, it is alleged, a crime. Assange knows this, which is why he's spent half his life trying to avoid the consequences of his actions, just as he tried, and succeeded, in avoiding the consequences of the rapes he's alleged to have committed.

Some more food for thought.

The Guardian, and other media outlets tell us that
a free press still matters.

They point out that journalists often depend on
whistleblowers and the relationship between them
is important in cases where national security is
involved. In the Assange case where the superpower
of the US is involved - the stakes are especially
huge.

I'm having difficulty with the question - should
the national security of a global superpower
like the US over ride the public interest's right
to know?

What I find difficult to accept is - if the case
against Assange succeeds, investigative reporting based
on classified information will be done away with.
Shouldn't freedom of the press be allowed to remain
indifferent? If it doesn't - then we're not any better
than totalitarian regimes. Where the acceptable
information is thoroughly filtered by their governments.

Hi mhaze,
I don't think he did any of those things, he was stiched up.
Indeed as far as all his earlier wikileaks releases were concerned, Obama already decided not to pursue further charges against him.

All that changed when he helped Trump win the election, releasing the Podesta emails a month before the 2016 election as well as the ire of the CIA in releasing their Vault 7 cyber tools, as well as the wrath of Hillary Clinton and all those scum who made up lies about him and were spying on his election campaign.

Podesta emails, probably came from Seth Rich.
It was an internal leak, not an external hack (by Russians)

Assange may have released those Vault 7 hacking tools to show that when the US was blaming Russia, they actually had the tools to deceive computer forensics and blame it on Russia when they were doing it themselves and framing Russia.

You forget he helped put your man in the Whitehouse, Trump should've pardoned him on his first day in office.

NBC News reported ages ago that there was no collusion
between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange according to
military sources.

US investigators have been unable to find evidence directly
linking Assange and Bradley Manning.

http://theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog.2011/jan/25/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks

Swedish authorities dropped the investigation into the
rape allegations against Assange back in 2010. "The evidence had weakened to such an extent that there was no longer any reason
to continue the investigation."

Assange had denied the allegations saying the sex was consensual.
One of the women involved had taken back her claims.

Now back to the topic.

My apologies for the typo.

Here's the link again:

http://theguardian.com/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/jan/25/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks

Assange knew that his actions could result in people being harmed and killed. By the conversation he had with the Guardian journos, he knew what could happen and did not care. I hope the creep gets what is coming to him. A revolting cowardly narcissist. I hope he enjoys his stay in America.

Hi Fester,

You obviously feel very strongly about Assange's case.
You're not alone in this.

It will be interesting to see how his case progresses
and what the court in the UK decides. Also, whether
Biden will step in with the election just around the
corner.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens next
and where Assange will spend his future days.

Surely, by now Govt could have published what Assange actually pushed apart from "sensitive material". Have lives been lost because of it ? If so, why not put the arms dealers on the stand along with Assange ? Surely, Govt would have the names of incompetent bureaucrats whose decisions cost many lives. Put them on the stand also !
Otherwise, Assange has had sufficient punishment to have no more ideological dreams left !

Indyvidual,

There are so many questions regarding this case.
It could easily do our heads in. In any case
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the court
in the UK decides and how much more the US wants to
push this case. I think that the Australian government
has done what it could.

AC wrote: "I don't think he did any of those things,..."

I didn't say he did. I just said that that is what he was charged with as opposed to Foxy's idiot 'commentators' claims that he was charged with publishing the leaks.

If there is no evidence he helped Manning then he shouldn't have any problems convincing a US court of his innocence, n'est pas? That he doesn't want to face court ought to raise questions.

" Obama already decided not to pursue further charges against him."

That's the claim...there is no evidence or it. The charges that the Trump administration followed up were made and sealed by the Obama administration. If Obama had decided to let it go, why did Assange run to the Ecuadoran embassy?

BTW and quite separately, I agree that the DNC hack and the Podesta hack probably wasn't done by the Russians and Seth Rich's death points to him being the culprit or at least the person Clinton decided was the culprit.

But again, that's beside the point. If Assange didn't assist in the Manning leak, then he would not be trying to avoid facing a trial.

________________________________________________________________

"Swedish authorities dropped the investigation into the rape allegations against Assange back in 2010."

And reopened it once he was kicked out of the embassy.

"One of the women involved had taken back her claims."
False.

As I've said before, beleive all women unless they accuse someone on the left.... then go Dalek on them -
http://youtu.be/16NEccsNUDM?t=3

Coupla points Foxy...

The article is from 2010!! Things have rather progressed since then.

Nowhere does the article say one of the women involved had taken back her claims. (Its OK Foxy, I don't expect you to acknowledge your error). Indeed the only withdrawing mentioned is St Julian's failure to do so before ejaculating.

"He has never faced trial and has spent years evading justice. He has never expressed remorse for the people he brought harm to, nor acknowledge them."

Fester, who are you talking about? The Dangerous Doctor Donald! They want to "hang" Assange for his "crime" of exposing AMERICAN state sanctioned murder. On the other hand they want to make a real criminal President again.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I understand that Assange registered the domain name wikileaks.org in 1999 but didn’t use the website until 2006 when he transformed it into what he calls “a multi-national media not-for-profit organisation and associated library specialising in the analysis and publication of large datasets of censored or otherwise restricted official materials involving war, spying and corruption”.

Assange was born in Townsville, is an Australian citizen, and lived in Melbourne at the time.

He is not an American citizen and, to the best of my knowledge, did not commit a crime or was an accomplice to a crime in the US.

For this reason, I do not see any legal grounds for his extradition to the US.

.

An exhaustive legal process over several years would suggest that Mr Shipton does have a case to answer in America.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

Julian Assange is guilty of a crime worse than mass murder (common place in America) Assange is guilty of exposing THE GREAT AMERICAN LIE, that the Yanks are the 'good guys", the clean skins of this world, when nothing could be further from the truth. If they could the Americans would impose the death penalty ten times over on Assange for daring to poke a hole in their phoney facade exposing a little of the filth that's behind.

I watched the SBS documentary last night about
Alexei Navalny. It reminds us of the reality
of Putin's regime and the power that a superpower
can hold in the wrong hands. Navalny tried to expose
it to the world and paid for his courage with his life.

There are many common misconceptions about the Julian
Assange case. Reporters Without Borders (RWB - French -
Reporters sans Frontiers - RSF) dispels the common
misconceptions.

http://rsf.org/en/rsf-dispels-common-misconceptions-case-against-julian-assange

That's a very truth light puff piece by Shipton fans Foxy. You would do better reading the case presented at his extradition hearing. The Shipton story has changed from "He's done nothing wrong." to "He's harmed no one." to "He's done nothing in America's jurisdiction.". You could do well to look at some of the evidence against him. He has a case to answer and may not be the innocent hero as he presents to his fans.

Hi Fester,

I try to use sources that have minimal editorializing
of content and are rated high due to factual
reporting (due to proper sourcing and a clean fact
check record). My latest link from "Reporters
Without Borders: Reporters sans Frontieres" on
Assange presenta a fair assessment.

He made a poor choice going to the Ecuadorian embassy.
He should've gone to the Russian embassy.

Do I think the argument that he gave up the names of US assets is valid?
- Well I don't whether or not he actually did that or not.
If he did, it was certainly reckless, but the US would've known what Wikileaks released the moment they released it, and it was their job to then get these people out of harms way if their identities were compromised.
I'm not sure that anyone actually was killed because of Wikileaks releases or not.
It's been quite a while since FISA Warrants, Crowdstrike, Pussy hats and 'Deplorables';
- I can't remember all of the finer details without a good refresher.

Reuters are good, but you get it from the horse's mouth if you look at the court transcripts.

"In their written submissions, lawyers for the U.S. said their case against him was "consistently and repeatedly misrepresented" by Assange's legal team.
They said he was not being prosecuted for publication of the leaked materials, but for aiding and conspiring with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to unlawfully obtain them, then disclosing names of sources and "putting those individuals at grave risk of harm"."

https://www.reuters.com/world/wikileaks-assange-last-ditch-battle-stop-us-extradition-2024-02-20/

Assange has overstepped his role of journalism by the way he sourced his evidence. He deserves Guantanamo and not Acapulco.

Dear Fester,

«They said he was not being prosecuted for publication of the leaked materials, but for aiding and conspiring with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to unlawfully obtain them, then disclosing names of sources and "putting those individuals at grave risk of harm"."»

Let's assume he did all that - where was he at the time of committing the above?

Did he break the laws of the country(s) he was in at the time?

Was he ever an American citizen?

Did he ever even visit the United States of America?

If despite of committing no crime in the countries we are in, and despite of having no relationship with a given country, one could still be extradited to that country, then we are all in big big trouble, because at every moment, each one of us must be breaking multiple laws of one or more countries that we may not have even heard of!

Espionage: Weather Assange was ever in US legally or otherwise he manipulated persons to do illegal crimes in exchange for ! In any case what did he achieve by his actions, other than to cause himself a life of mysery and becoming an outlaw hiding in the hills. He will be looking over the shoulder no matter where he is.

"They said he was not being prosecuted for publication of the leaked materials, but for aiding and conspiring with former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning..."

This is well known to those who honestly look at the issue. I linked above to a post I made years ago that made the exact same point. But there is a class of partisan who want to deliberately mispresent the situation in order to delude low information people like Foxy.

This isn't a freedom of the press issue. It is an issue with regards to the rights of governments to keep sensitive information secret. Every government on the planet does it and every government on the planet jealously protects its right to keep those secrets.

Now whether the USA ought to have been keeping these particular documents secret is an entirely separate issue and not something that the likes of Assnage should arbitrate on.

"Let's assume he did all that - where was he at the time of committing the above?"

Where he physically was is immaterial. He, through his online presence, committed (allegedly) the crime in the US and is therefore liable. If a scammer in India steals from an 80 yr old in Australia, he has committed an offence in Australia and we would, if we could, seek to bring him here for prosecution. Equally, if a father legally takes his kids overseas but refuses to return them to his estranged wife, Australia would seek legal remedies against him even though all the offences occurred overseas. Basic international law.

"I watched the SBS documentary last night about Alexei Navalny. "

I saw an interesting juxtaposition of stories in the US press (WSJ I think) t'other day.

The first story was about the death of Navalny.

Immediately below it was the story of the $400 million fine against Trump.

Two differing ways the ruling elite seek to silence their political opponents, while still claiming to be democratic.

Hi Fester,

I'll repeat what I posted on page 2 of this discussion
just to jog your memory. I also gave a link.

NBC News reported that there was no collusion between
Bradley Manning and Julian Assange according to military
sources.

US investigators have been unable to find evidence directly
Assange and Bradley Manning.

Hi Fester,

Did you read the link I gave on page 4 from "Reporters
Without Borders?" It dispels many of the misconceptions
about Assange.

I think the broader consequence is the crime against the USA. Any named persons would have to fight for themselves.
That link that foxy shows is riddled with corrections.
Extradite to USA for processing, we just may find out items not yet known.

Dear Mhaze,

«If a scammer in India steals from an 80 yr old in Australia, he has committed an offence in Australia and we would, if we could, seek to bring him here for prosecution.»

That Australia would seek to bring him for prosecution is a no-brainer,
but why would India go along?
- It would of course, but only because scamming and stealing are criminal offences in India as well, and the scammer should have known that.
Same for refusing to return a child.

Online presence?
Suppose an Australian lady films herself online wearing a bikini on a Thai beach, which is perfectly legal there:
Could Saudi Arabia claim that due to her online presence she was breaking Saudi modesty laws and should therefore be extradited for prosecution in Saudi Arabia?

Well Saudi Arabia might request so, that we may even understand, but would Thailand take that request seriously?

Had someone in Chile been spying on Zambia, including online, and doing so did not contravene any Chilean laws, then surely nothing would have happened to them despite all of Zambia's protestations.

But if they spy against America instead... why would that be different?

Hi Foxy,

Yes I did read the links and found the information misleading to the point of dishonesty at times. That is why I suggested that you look at the court proceedings. You can freely obtain the judgements on line and get a good idea of the arguments presented and how convincing they were.

Were Mr Shipton not so gutless and faced his accusers, I suspect that he'd have been released by now, assuming that he'd only served a few years for sexual assault in Sweden.

Here's one for you Foxy

Wikileaks Reveals Alexei Navalny's US Funding as Washington Exploits His Death
http://youtu.be/0uRXkw3_0BE

What a dilemma.
Do you stand with Julian Assange's Wikileaks or do you stand with Alexei Navalny?

Some rumors going around that Navalny was killed with Novachuk.
- No idea whether there's any truth to it, I haven't dug too deep into it.
But I've also heard other rumors that Azov Battalion also has Novachuk.

http://twitter.com/RealGeorgeWebb1/status/1759897000991244477
One positive thing that has come out of the Navalny tragedy is we now know NATO has a supply of Novichok in Odessa for its Azov assassination squads. Same thing that killed Gonzo Lira. We know Putin sent Navalny to Berlin for treatment for a month, no personnel was suited up for Novichok exposure. Biden and NATO should be investigating Azov and Kolomoisky for a propaganda killing.

http://twitter.com/RealGeorgeWebb1/status/1759702278892830749
Ray McGovern delivers the juice - Navalny killed by MI6. I’m not in complete agreement with Ray. I believe that Ukrainian funders in US Congress wanted the high ground morally after the murder of Gonzalo Lira in Ukraine for the next 60 billion in subsidies, but Ray thinks it’s because of the Munich security conference which is also an excellent reason. Navalny’s wife was running around with the German male model, doesn’t really fit the tortured dissident false narrative.

.

The Assange trial seems to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”.

As I understand it, Assange revealed evidence of what many consider to be war crimes committed by US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “pot” being the US and the “kettle” Julian Assange – engaged in a dispute reminiscent of that of "David and Goliath".

According to an “Independent” article in 2010, Julian Assange is reported to have said in his defence :

“Governments around the world must not ‘shoot the messenger’ by attacking disclosures by WikiLeaks” – and he added that his whistle-blowing website deserves protection and has not cost a single life despite the claims of critics.

If Assange deserves to be extradited from the UK and tried in the US, it would seem that, by the same token, the US authorities also deserve to be extradited and tried in the Hague in the Netherlands by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

It seems clair that the proximate cause of the purported criminal action relates to the military intervention of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

.

"If Assange deserves to be extradited from the UK and tried in the US, it would seem that, by the same token, the US authorities also deserve to be extradited and tried in the Hague in the Netherlands by the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
- I second that motion.

.

Post Scriptum :

.

It’s difficult to imagine that the US authorities could ever be extradited and tried by the ICC in the Hague for purported war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the same token, it should be just as difficult to imagine that Julian Assange could ever be extradited and tried by the US courts.
Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

One of the two High Court judges who will rule on Julian Assange’s bid to stop his extradition, Justice Jeremy Johnson previously represented the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence – both of which have a deep and long-lasting relationship with Washington’s intelligence and security services that are seeking Assange’s extradition.

Assange now faces a judge who has acted for and received security clearance from, some of those same intelligence and security services agencies.

Justice Jeremy Johnson will sit with Dame Victoria Sharp, his senior judge, to decide the fate of the WikiLeaks co-founder.

As with previous judges who have ruled on Assange’s case, this raises concerns about institutional conflicts of interest.

The verdict of His Majesty's High Court will inevitably attest not so much to the validity of Assange’s conviction than to the independence of the court in accomplishing its mission of justice.

.

Likening Mr Shipton to Navalny is the height of hipocracy. When did Navalny live in exile or hide from the courts? Did he get a fair trial? Did the Russian government fund Navalny's activism? Was Mr Shipton poisoned by American agents as Navalny was poisoned by Russian agents? Other than a fanciful claim of a CIA plot to kill him, Mr Shipton's legal team has presented no further arguments against his extradition. It is simply another attempt to avoid facing a trial by this gutless worm.

The UK judges have opted against making an immediate
decision in Assange's final attempt to block
extradition.

It is unclear when they will issue their ruling. We're
told that if Assange fails, he could be extradited
within weeks.

Lawyers for the US government have urged the British
court to reject Assange's arguments for various reasons
including the important fact that Assange was merely exposing
"state-level crimes," which is an act that is protected
conduct under UK law.

It will be interesting to see what the UK judges decide.

One would think that the UK judges would make their
decision according to UK law. It would be disturbing if
they didn't.

There's also a disconnect between the US treatment of
Assange and Manning. US President Obama commuted
Manning's 35 year sentence to seven years. Manning was
released in 2017.

The current appeal is against the High Court judgement on Mr Shipton's extradition. That his legal team presented no further evidence than a CIA conspiracy theory to murder Mr Shipton, I guess that the plan all along was to hope that a sympathetic politician would pardon him. I've had enough of this revolting narcissist. I wish they would lock him up forever and throw away the key.

Hi Fester,

I like the Scottish proverb:

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

So stay strong - tomorrow is Friday.

That's a lovely proverb Foxy, but I expect to wait a bit longer. Th judgement will be an interesting read I hope.

.

As I see it, a watershed decision of the High Court is possible, overturning that of the lower court ruling in 2022 that Assange was apt for extradition based on the assurance of the US that he would be treated humanely and receive a fair trial – on the receipt of which Britain’s interior minister, Home Secretary Priti Patel, signed an order authorising Assange’s extradition.

The reason I think a watershed decision is possible is that at no point have the UK courts sought to determine if Assange is guilty or innocent of the multiple charges of espionage and computer fraud and abuse that the US seeks to bring against him. Nor have the UK courts sought to determine if the US is guilty or innocent of having committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as justification for the publication by Wikileaks of the US classified documents.

The latter justifying the former, the question of possible US war crimes would need to be resolved before making any decision regarding the question of Assange’s possible espionage and computer fraud and abuse.

It would be “putting the cart before the horse” to judge Assange for possible espionage and computer fraud and abuse before judging the US for possible war crimes.

In the absence of the determination of the latter, and until such determination is accomplished, there is no justification for the extradition of Julian Assange.

So much for the purely judicial aspect of the question.

Hopefully, the two judges of His Majesty's High Court, Dame Victoria Sharp and Justice Jeremy Johnson, will resist any attempts by the US and UK authorities to influence their decision for purely political reasons.

.

Dear Fester and Banjo,

We can only hope that the UK judges will make their
decision according to the law and not politics.

Hi Foxy,

You only need to compare Mr Shipton with Alexei Navalny to see how fairly he has been treated. In fact, if he hadn't skipped bail and hid in an embassy he may well have done his time and be walking a free man today. Why should a coward be awarded freedom for evading a trial for his actions? I see no reason why he won't get a fail trial in America. The last thing you want is an unrepentant criminal walking the street. It is almost a guarantee that Mr Shipton will carry on harming people.

Hi Banjo Patterson,
"It’s difficult to imagine that the US authorities could ever be extradited and tried by the ICC in the Hague for purported war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan."

- The US even passed a bill to try to prevent that from ever happening.

American Service-Members' Protection Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

The American Service-Members' Protection Act (enacted August 2, 2002 after 911 and the invasion of Iraq), is known informally as the 'Hague Invasion Act', a United States federal law described as 'a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party'.
The act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands where the Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.

It's a complete snub to the 'rule-based order' they proudly claim to stand for.
- Because in truth, they're just imperialists who are actively engaged in expanding and defending the US empire (that's what all these 'liberal interventions' are), and their Congress is bought and paid for by the uniparty supported MIC and Jewish donors and lobby groups.

The US politicians don't even support US interests at home, let alone anybody else's anywhere else.
That should tell you they're not what they claim to be.

.

If it is proven by an international court that the US did commit war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no reason why Julian Assange should be extradited by the UK to the US to be tried and punished for revealing those war crimes.

Quite the contrary, he should be congratulated and receive a medal for it.

If, on the other hand, it is not proven by an international court that the US committed war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Julian Assange should be extradited to the US to be tried and punished.

In the meantime, Julian Assange should not be extradited to the US until the question of the guilt or innocence of the US for war crimes purportedly committed in Iraq and Afghanistan has been clearly established by an international court of law.

The problem is there are serious pitfalls on the road to a fair decision by the UK’s High Court judges who have agreed to examine the case :

1. The question of the guilt or innocence of the US has not yet been clearly established by an international court of law,

2. As Armchair Critic just pointed out, the US enacted the American Service-Members' Protection Act in 2002 to protect US military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the US government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the US is not a party (the ICC),

3. In 2017 the ICC declared that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the UK committed war crimes in Iraq – including killing, torture, inhuman/cruel treatment, rape and/or other forms of sexual violence.

The European Human Rights Organisation (ECCHR) reported in 2019, the failure of the UK to prosecute torture cases domestically. Nevertheless, in December 2020, the ICC decided to close the case.

This means that the US has washed itself clean of any wrongdoing and the ICC has washed the UK clean of any wrongdoing.

That leaves Julian Assange holding the buck.

It remains to be seen if the UK’s High Court judges consider that to be fair.

.

Hi Banjo,

None of your points have relevance to the extradition proceedings. What is in question is whether Mr Shipton has a case to answer and whether his alleged actions would also be considered a crime in the UK. The High Court decided that Mr Shipton does have a case to answer relating to endangering lives by allegedly releasing their identities and by allegedly providing technical assistance in the procurement of classified information. Mr Shipton's appeal raised no further arguments other than an alleged plot to kill him. If his appeal fails he will have every opportunity to defend himself against those allegations in court, something that Mr Shipton has been trying very hard to avoid. I have found his behaviour to be pathetic and cowardly, which is all the worse for his complete lack of empathy for his alleged victims. Rather than express any concern for people who were harmed (something which does dot entail admitting guilt), he has simply denied any culpability, alleged conspiracy against him and claimed that America has no right to put him on trial because Americans have allegedly committed crimes for which they have not faced trial.

Hi Fester,

There are many misconceptions about Assange. The Reporters
Without Borders link exposed some of them. I agree with
Banjo on this issue. The US should be tried first before
Assange. Hopefully, the UK court will agree. Under UK law
Assange did not commit a crime. Exposing state crimes is
not against the law

Assange has been indicted for receiving, possessing,
and communicating information to the public of
evidence of war crimes committed by the US government.
Reporting a crime is not a crime.

Military sources and US investigators have not found any
evidence that Assange colluded with US Army Intelligence
Analyst Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer.

Assange acted as a journalist to expose US military
wrong doing and he is protected under press freedom
guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Hi Foxy,

"Military sources and US investigators have not found any
evidence that Assange colluded with US Army Intelligence
Analyst Manning to hack into a Pentagon computer."

Well, the indictment against Mr Shipton says otherwise.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1153486/download

You are simply repeating the unsupported claims of Mr Shipton's gullible supporters. If there is so much evidence to support his innocence he should not fear defending himself in court.

Hi Fester,

Why do you keep referring to Julian Assange as Shipton?

John Shipton was Assange's biological father but he
separated from Assange's mother before Assange was
born. When Assange was 1 year old his mother married
Brett Assange whom Assange regards as his father.

I have been providing information from reputable sources.
I have no control over what you choose to believe.

Hi Foxy,

Brett didn't hang around for long and his biological dad is still calling for his release. Maybe he just liked the name? I think he does it because he's a ponce as well as a narcissist.

I have sympathy for Chelsea Manning and think that her sentence was in no small part because of Mr Shipton's actions. Mr Shipton's release of unredacted documents was probably after he discovered that Manning had given information to press agencies and did not want to be beaten to the punch by them. That action was reckless, selfish, and showed a complete disregard for the people he endangered. If those journalists he met in Spain were to testify it would be damning for his defence I'd imagine.

That the judgement of Mr Shipton's request to appeal his extradition is being reserved demonstrates how fair the British courts are. Nothing like Russian courts.

Julian Assange regards Brett Assange as his father.
He was involved in Julian's life since he was 1 year
old.

John Shipton has only recently been involved in
campaigning for his biological son's release.

As for the fairness of the British legal system?
We have to wait and see what the end results will be.
But having a man imprisoned for over 5 years without
a trial - hardly speaks of fairness.

I'm sure you'll agree.

"But having a man imprisoned for over 5 years without
a trial - hardly speaks of fairness.

I'm sure you'll agree."

No Foxy, I don't agree. Mr Shipton is in Belmarsh Prison because he skipped bail and hid in an embassy, else he would be out on bail. His imprisonment is a consequence of his preference to avoid answering for his actions, and the reason the extradition has taken so long is because of the stalling tactics used by his legal team, presumably in the hope of a political intervention.

Hopefully a decision will be made in a few weeks.

The judgement; "Assange you are found guilt of the crime of exposing America for what it is; "A corrupt bully boy, with 4% of the worlds population devouring 35% of the worlds resources, and wanting to lord it over, and exploit 100% of the worlds population, For your heinous crime there can be but one punishment... DEATH!"

.

Dear Fester,

.

It’s quite understandable that the Pentagon is distressed that over half a million of their secret records, and that the identity of many of their spies and informers have been exposed to public scrutiny.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War is quoted as having declared :

« Every time there is a potentially embarrassing leak, the best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies that a lot of these leaks reveal. The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid ».

In the Wikileaks case, a Pentagon official told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Here are the problems and consequences that have reportedly been identified :

• Failure of the US to protect its classified records,

• Disruption of the US spy and informant networks,

• Strained international relations and lack of confidence due to US security failure,

• Negative impact on the US anti-terrorist effort

• Necessity to revise US intelligence strategy, operational methods and procedures

The UK has an extradition treaty with the USA and in the first paragraph of article 4 of that treaty, it states : “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence.”

I understand that what constitutes a "political offence" is not defined in extradition treaties. It depends on the motivation and the context.

Wikileaks is a not-for-profit organisation. Julian Assange was not motivated by personal gain. He did not commit a crime. He revealed war crimes allegedly perpetrated by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If that is an offence, it is a political offence.

Julian Assange should not be extradited.

.

Hi Fester,

The facts in the Assange case speak for themselves.
I have nothing further to add.

Enjoy your day.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your summation of the Assange case.

Let us hope that in his case - justice will be
done. It is long overdue.

Hi Banjo,

"In the Wikileaks case, a Pentagon official told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents."

That is a misrepresentation. What is known is that people have disappeared as a consequence of Mr Shipton releasing unredacted information. That there fate is unknown does not mean that they suffered no harm. Many people may have been tortured and killed as a consequence.

"Failure of the US to protect its classified records"

No organisation is immune from security breaches. That is why there are laws to dissuade people from such conduct.

"Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence."

So argued IRA members who engaged in terrorism. Engaging in activity which puts people at risk of harm and death moves those actions from a political offence to a criminal offence. Whatever your motivation, the outcome would seem to be more defining. I guess that is why Mr Shipton's supporters are so insistent that he has harmed no one.

"Wikileaks is a not-for-profit organisation. Julian Assange was not motivated by personal gain. He did not commit a crime."

Wikileaks has no public accountability, and if Mr Shipton wasn't motivated by personal gain he would be the only narcissist ever not to be. And he did commit a crime, both by assisting a defence analyst to hack data and by releasing unredacted data that put people at risk of harm and death.

I don't think that the defence submitted any evidence that would justify a further extradition trial, but I will have to wait for the judgement like everyone else. I think that the only thing that could save Mr Shipton is a political pardon, but I suspect that the politicians would be well aware of the consequences of releasing an unrepentant computer hacker with a hatred of western governments.

Hi Banjo,

I admire your patience in continuing to provide
the facts of the Assange case. However, you can never win an
argument with a negative person . They only hear what
suits them and listen only to respond.

Best to walk away.

Hi Foxy,

Rather than polarity, I'd suggest that we are human beings with differing perspectives, and the fact that we feel strongly enough to share opinions could be argued as reason for us having a greater concern about things than those with no opinion on the subject.

You might also consider that the justice system that Mr Shipton faced has seen reason to extradite him to Sweden to face sexual assault charges as well as reason to extradite him to the United States to face charges of espionage and endangering human lives. Does that make the judges presiding over those proceedings negative people? You yourself expressed the view that the decision of a court should be respected when it found George Pell guilty.

Mr Shipton polarises public opinion as did Cardinal Pell, and I think that makes the job of the judges much harder to be objective.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I appreciate your kind expression of compassion and solicitude, but perhaps I should explain that my interest in participating in these debates is not to “win arguments” but to help me delve deeper into certain subjects and bounce my ideas and opinions off the minds of others.

It helps shed the veils of ignorance, beliefs, and prejudices that cloud my vision and allows me to see more clearly.

The ideologies and convictions of others do not bother me. That’s their problem, not mine. I take the good and leave the bad.

Unfortunately, misinformation and disinformation seem to be all the rage these days. Who knows, OLO might be infested by secret agents of all the major powers. I see no point in trying to change their minds about anything.

What I do regret is the swearing, insults, bad temper, aggressivity and “argumentum ad hominem” expressed by some of the posters here on OLO.

I find that extremely unpleasant but the value of freedom of expression is immense and I wouldn’t want that to change for anything.

.

Hi Banjo,

I regret my recent reaction. However, it is frustrating
when facts are presented and have no impact.

Welcome to the world Foxy.

Fester,

I'm a work in progress.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You don’t have to regret your reaction. It is perfectly understandable and I really do appreciate it.

Allow me to add on this occasion that I admire your courage, stamina and perseverance despite the frequent attacks and insults you receive from all the big brave machos here on OLO who feel they can flex their mussels against the sole representative of the “weaker sex” with impunity.

Your unwavering presence no doubt gratifies their ego and provides a welcome contribution to the badly needed maintenance of their illusion of superiority, knowledge, wisdom and power.

I hope the cross is not too much of a burden to bear and that there will always be a Simon of Cyrene around to relay your message if things get out of hand.

That said, I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates the pertinence of your comments as well as many of the topics you propose for debate on this forum.

.

.

Dear Fester,

.

I read your comments with interest but did not see any evidence that contradicts the consequences I indicated as having reportedly been identified.

In particular, there is no evidence, still to this day, of anybody having been killed, harmed, tortured etc. as a result of the Wikileaks revelations. Naturally, it is theoretically possible, but it is not possible to condemn somebody based solely on a theoretical possibility.

What has been identified is, as I indicated :

• Disruption of the US spy and informant networks

As you say, “No organisation is immune from security breaches”, but this is not just any organisation, it is the CIA that prides itself …

« As the world’s premier foreign intelligence agency, the work we do at CIA is vital to U.S. national security. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go » ( http://www.cia.gov/)

The consequences of the failure of the CIA to protect its classified records are extremely important :

• Disruption of the US spy and informant networks,

• Strained international relations and lack of confidence due to US security failure,

• Negative impact on the US anti-terrorist effort

• Necessity to revise US intelligence strategy, operational methods and procedures

You compare the Wikileaks revelations of Chelsea Manning, a US Army intelligence agent based in Iraq with “IRA members who engaged in terrorism”. I’m afraid the comparison is unsustainable.

A whistleblower is defined as :

« Any person who reports or discloses information of a threat or harm to the public interest in the context of their work-based relationship »

International law provides no clear definition for the term terrorism. It has political and ideological connotations. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

The United Nations Security Council, in its resolution 1566 of October 2004, elaborates this definition, stating that terrorists acts are “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

As for Julian Assange, his principal mentor, figuratively speaking, seems to have been Noam Chomsky which I think explains everything. It is evident that in creating Wikileaks Assange was largely inspired by the ideas and political activism of Noam Chomsky.

Perhaps Assange is a narcissist to boot, but the source of his inspiration and motivation is clear.

As a final remark, I should add that, as I am sure you are aware, the death penalty is applicable at the federal level in the US and represents another reason why Assange should not be extradited, in addition to the fact that extradition does not apply to political offences.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your kind words. I have learned a great deal
from you and so many others on this forum. I've been
accused by some of so many things, which has undermined
my confidence rather badly at times and I have made some
dreadful mistakes by reacting. However, even at the worst
times - it's made me re-think things and try to understand.

In any case - it is a learning process for me, and one I
don't regret. Also, I do tend to try to see the positive
in most situations - and of course it is made easier by
people such as yourself - your encouragement helps a great
deal.

Once again - Thank You

Hi Banjo,

You reminded me of Scott Rush. That was very sad for his parents seeking help to prevent him from committing a crime, only to see their action cause his death as a result of the conduct of law enforcement officers, all acting lawfully. The difference for Mr Shipton is that he would not face the death penalty were he convicted.

"there is no evidence, still to this day, of anybody having been killed, harmed, tortured etc. as a result of the Wikileaks revelations"

But there are missing persons, so you don't know their fate. It is a misrepresentation to say that nothing happened to them, just as it would be a misrepresentation to say that all the missing persons in Australia had suffered no harm because no one knew where they were.

At Chelsea Manning's trial it was determined that she was aware that her actions could result in people suffering harm. In camera evidence was presented, perhaps demonstrating that people did go missing. If they did go missing then Mr Shipton facilitated their disappearance.

mhaze- "This isn't a freedom of the press issue. It is an issue with regards to the rights of governments to keep sensitive information secret. Every government on the planet does it and every government on the planet jealously protects its right to keep those secrets. "

Kudos mhaze.

.

Dear Fester,

.

If I were the director of the CIA the first thing I would do when I got news of the security breach would be to send out an urgent message to all the spy and informant networks to go into immediate blackout mode and lie low until further notice.

I dare imagine that you would do likewise if you were the director.

That’s why, as you say : “ there are missing persons, so you don't know their fate”.

They are “missing” because they are in hiding, Fester. That’s the ABC of the profession. These people are not amateurs. They are professional secret intelligence agents who are fully aware of the risks of their profession. They pride themselves on being the best in the world.

And that’s why the number one consequence that has been identified is :

• Disruption of the US spy and informant networks

The networks are disrupted because they have gone into blackout mode to stay safe.

Of course, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange were aware that their actions could result in people suffering harm, just as the management of the CIA knew it as soon as they heard of the security breach. But don’t forget that Chelsea Manning was, herself, a US Army intelligence agent based in Iraq who knew perfectly well how the system works.

She knew that as soon as the alarm bells rang all hell would break loose and the network would immediately go into blackout mode.

Don’t worry, Fester, no one was killed, no one got hurt and there was no damage. The management of the CIA knows that but they are furious that there’s been a catastrophic security breach of the systems under their responsibility and that their secret intelligence networks are in complete disarray and forced into blackout mode.

The only death and damage of which we are certain and of which we should be concerned are those suffered by the innocent civil victims of the US and UK military strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

.

I agree with Banjo Patterson,
I think the intelligence networks would've immediately moved to protect any compromised asset.
Straight to a CIA safe house and then out of the country if necessary.

With these peoples identities released, it then means they lose that intelligence asset and go blind.
It probably resulted in many ongoing operations being undermined or destroyed entirely, and in some cases it probably takes years putting all these intelligence assets in place.
This would've no doubt infuriated the CIA who have probably never been attacked on that kind of level before.
- And these people don't have rules or limits.
Of course they would've wanted to assassinate him.
Why wouldn't they, they do whatever they want (including wetwork) already.

Hi Banjo,

I was wrong about Scott Rush. He is still in an Indonesian prison. Still, the Bali Nine incident showed that Australian law enforcement officers can lawfully put Australian citizens at risk of execution by communicating with foreign law enforcement organisations. No involvement of the courts seems to be a requirement.

We differ in opinion on the the fate of the missing persons, but the fact that they went missing would suggest that they were put at risk of suffering harm.

I guess what matters is what the judges make of things. The unknown is whether the United States has evidence that people were killed as a result of Mr Shipton's actions. I have no idea of the legal consequences, but I very much doubt that putting people at risk of harm would be described as journalism, let alone causing people to be killed.