This is a screenshot of the first page of a Google search result: http://twitpic.com/ar5krq

The viewer will note how Google records and displays the fact that I have visited the first two websites on three occasions in each case, with the most recent visits being on 3 September 2012. The viewer will also note that the third website in the search result shows no record of me having visited it, which is a bit of a funny thing, given that the link text is displaying in the mauve colour that indicates one has visited that web page.

Perhaps there is some arcane technical explanation that can satisfactorily explain away this, to me, disturbing apparent selectiveness on the part of the Google search engine. Corobberation of the fact that I did in fact visit this page exists in the fact that there is a link I posted to it earlier in this thread.

What disturbs me is what if the inverse of this phenomenon can occur and Google can be made to show apparent visits to web pages that have NOT in fact been visited by me? It strikes me that that, if it were to be possible, might be a way of planting 'evidence' as to some conspiracy, for example, upon a computer user that was in fact party to no conspiracy at all!

Isn't conspiracy between Assange and Manning something the US administration is trying to prove in relation to the Wikileaks disclosures in order to deflect public attention from its own extraordinary failure to ensure the security of sensitive diplomatic and other information?

Looks like old CJMorgan was right about Brian Howes being a sex pervert, doesn't it! http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4428737/Drug-rap-pervert-sets-fire-to-cell.html . I mean a newspaper says so! But hang about, why didn't that feature in the extradition request?

Could it be that the only perversions involved have been those of the course of justice, and of the anti-terrorism purposes supposedly behind the extraordinarily lax UK Extradition Act 2003?

Viewers of this thread should note that a link I posted in my post of Sunday, 2 September 2012 at 2:38:25 PM now yields a '404' notice. It was this link:

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2012/phnx071912.html

As shown in this screenshot, http://twitpic.com/ar5krq/full , it looks like the web page in question displayed from 19 July 2012 until at least 2 September 2012 on the web, and in particular within and throughout the State of Arizona in the US. This is significant because the page as it displayed showed a thoroughgoing presumtion as to the guilt of the person that had been subject to the extradition in question, Brian Howes.

Right now it is around 3:00PM Australian Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday 5 September 2012. In the US it is presently the night of 4/5 September. The trial of Brian Howes is due to commence in coming hours in Phoenix, Arizona, on Wednesday 5 September.

Some of the arrogant presumptuousness I saw on that page on the part of various officials as to the foregone conclusion as to Howes' guilt would, to my mind, have put paid to any chance of him receiving an unprejudiced hearing. For one thing, Howes was being described as an IMPORTER of precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production into the US. NO HE WASN'T! He was EXPORTING chemicals in which it was quite lawful for him to deal from his base in the UK, to, among other places, the US.

It would be good if someone like OLO userID 'Geoff of Perth', who knows how to access cached Google pages could bring this one up. It would be even better if someone in the US could see that the content that was on display is brought to the attention of the judge hearing the case. You never know, that judge might be like the commendable judge in Alabama who threw the disgraceful and insulting-to-Australia attempt at double-jeopardy in the case of Gabe Watson out of court.

Sextradition - what a disgrace!

Just a little update for viewers of this thread: I was able to find, via a Google search, what from memory of my own reading of it when I first posted a link to it on 2 September, is a copy of the content of the USDOJ web page that has been recently taken down spoken of in my previous post. That copy can be viewed on this forum if you scroll down a little. See: http://shirleymckie.wonko.myfastforum.org/index.php?component=content&postid=15093 . Item headed 'Howes Appeal to Supreme Court Refused', the last entry on the page.

Viewers will note the URL that commences the forum post is identical with my original posted link here on OLO, and likewise yields a '404' notice.

In that now-taken-down USDOJ page U.S. Marshal David Gonzales stated, "The extradition of Brian Howes closes a case that was inundated with years of legal wrangling in Howes’ effort to avoid prosecution. The coordination between the U.S. Government and our Scottish counterparts was second to none." Sounds like with 'closes a case' they have him already convicted before trial. As to the coordination spoken of, that would have been with the same Scottish government as freed the Lockerbie bomber, Al Megrahi, would it? I wonder whether Cablegate shed any light upon that matter?

Any reader of the forum upon which I found the text of the taken-down USDOJ page will see the effect of the pedophilia allegations made against Howes upon public opinion. The point is that whether there was basis in fact to them or not, such allegations never were the basis on which his extradition was sought. Notwithstanding that, we have a UK judge pronouncing as to there being substance to claims that Howes committed such offences in the US without there having been any charge made that would stick within US jurisdiction, let alone any conviction!

Given that ongoing USDEA surveillance of Howes' legally operated UK chemical supply business was instrumental in netting so many meth lab operators in the US, what was the sense in shutting him down?

'WikiLeaks reveals Britain pressured to release Lockerbie bomber' was a story reported by Michael Edwards on Wednesday, December 8, 2010. See: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3088324.htm

In the story, Donald Rothwell, from the Australian National University, speaking with respect to the Assange extradition, said:

"International extradition law requires the
existence of what's called double criminality;
that is that the criminal offence upon which
extradition is sought is also recognised as a
criminal offence in the country in which
extradition is being sought from."

Whilst in all of the learned argument that has taken place with respect to establishing the 'double criminality' of the alleged sexual improprieties alleged to apply in the Assange case, together with the seeming overlooking of an admission by the Swedish authorities that demolishes their very own case, the prospect seems to have gone un-noticed that perhaps US interests have been attempting to establish precedents that may overthrow this legal doctrine.

The extradition of the relative nobody, Brian Howes, from the UK to Phoenix, Arizona, in the US, would seem to have been effected in flagrant disregard as to the legal doctrine of double criminality. Could this be an explanation for the (deliberate?) mis-description of Howes as an 'importer' of precursor chemicals in the now-taken-down USDOJ web page that announced his extradition on 19 July 2012, when in reality he was an EXPORTER, by way of legal trade, under UK law?

Interestingly, on the Shirley McKie website where I found what I believe to be a copy of the aforesaid USDOJ notice, I noticed a comment to the effect that there was a seeming darkness at the heart of the administration of justice in Scotland. Could it be that the seeming modus operandi of the use of the smear of allegation of sexual impropriety was resorted to in order to drive Howes from England into Scottish jurisdiction, from whence, for exactly this reason, it was felt it would be easier to obtain his extradition divorced from any public sympathy?

Wikileaks threatening too many corporate psychopaths in or near government?

On Twitter, user '@SandraEckersly in a Twitter conversation with GrahamY on 9 September posts in this tweet, https://twitter.com/SandraEckersley/status/244580594946809856 , annotated "Where Four Corners got it SO wrong", this link, http://www.wikiwatch.org.uk/

The 'Wikiwatch' critique begins with the disclaimer "Though we have not used the names of the women involved in the case, some of the linked sources do.". The program 'Sex, lies, and Julian Assange' purportedly critiqued certainly did, whilst in the UK where the names were required to be suppressed, court documents used the identifiers 'AA' and 'SW' to distinguish the two alleged complainants.

This refusal to use the names used in the program is an important feature of this document because it permits a (deliberate?) misunderstanding to be floated. Under the heading '10:07 [minutes into the program] The question of consent' it is important to note that the woman the subject of this question is Sophia Wilen, NOT Anna Ardin. The reference to 'being asleep' makes this clear if one is already familiar with the background to the 4 Corners program. Sophia Wilen is the woman who, according to 4 Corners, refused to sign what she saw as being a 'railroading' complaint, as the program made clear. Half of Sweden's case gone in one fell stroke.

The other half of Sweden's case, Ardin's alleged complaint, in which 'being asleep' did not feature, is demolished by the admission (in which she was identified as 'AA') put before the UK court [Queen’s Bench Division (Julian Assange v Sweden [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)) report] by the Swedish authorities, more fully explained in this earlier post to this thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5317#145180

Twitter is an extremely limited platform upon which to discuss a case such as this. Following a Twitter conversation of my own with Sandra Eckersly and her referred authority '@Objectiviser' in which my links (to OLO posts) had been claimed to have been read but were dismissed as containing errors of fact, a challenge I issued for them to be specifically pointed out resulted in the admission that there were none.

I have invited Sandra to discuss more fully here.

This is what the US government now thinks about Assange:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

I'm posting this just to keep the topic open for posting, as it is at this point within a day or two of being closed to further posting on OLO. I see a number of extradition-related strands worthy of further discussion, especially in the light of some tweets by US Senator John McCain about the recent death of the US Ambassador to Libya in an attack upon the US Consulate at Benghazi. See: https://twitter.com/ForrestGumpp/status/250381868267081728