• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police expected in days

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is expected to be arrested in the coming days after Swedish prosecutors filed a new warrant with British authorities.

The Independent revealed yesterday that a procedural error with the European Arrest Warrant had delayed the arrest of the 39-year-old Australian, who is wanted in Sweden over sexual allegations but has been in England since October.

Police in Gothenburg claim they have now submitted a fresh warrant to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Soca is expected to instruct Scotland Yard to arrest Mr Assange and have him appear before an extradition hearing – although as of last night the Metropolitan Police had yet to receive the warrant.

Source: The Independent

Here's hoping he can get himself out of this.
 
Source: The Independent

Here's hoping he can get himself out of this.

Here's hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison for rape. Or better yet that the Russians get pissed and kill the bastard.

It's clear that "Firsters" love this son of a bitch because they don't care about putting peoples lives at risk, clearly an un-American position.
 
I have to wonder what the europeans think about this situation. I mean, usually they're in hog heaven whenver the us gets it's tail caught in a crack.
 
There's a German aide to their Foreign Minister who's probably a bit pissed off at wikileaks since he was sacked.
 
Here's hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison for rape. Or better yet that the Russians get pissed and kill the bastard.

It's clear that "Firsters" love this son of a bitch because they don't care about putting peoples lives at risk, clearly an un-American position.
definitely hope they bring him to trial for the rape charges...also hope they shut that damn website down.
 
Arrest him. Give him a fair trial. Then lock him up and throw away the key.
 
Here's hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison for rape. Or better yet that the Russians get pissed and kill the bastard.

It's clear that "Firsters" love this son of a bitch because they don't care about putting peoples lives at risk, clearly an un-American position.

Actually, he did not commit rape

The most important parts of the article being

Today, a former attorney for Assange - James D. Catlin - has confirmed that the charges are for having sex without using a condom. He notes that:

The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors.

He also accuses the prosecutors of "making it up as they go along", and said that Sweden's justice system is destined to become "the laughingstock of the world" for pursuing the case against Assange.

And Assange's current London attorney - Mark Stephens - told AOL news that he doesn't even know what the charges against Assange are, but that they are not rape:

Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.

"Whatever 'sex by surprise' is, it's only a offense in Sweden -- not in the U.K. or the U.S. or even Ibiza," Stephens said. "I feel as if I'm in a surreal Swedish movie being threatened by bizarre trolls. The prosecutor has not asked to see Julian, never asked to interview him, and he hasn't been charged with anything. He's been told he's wanted for questioning, but he doesn't know the nature of the allegations against him."
 
Last edited:
randel said:
...also hope they shut that damn website down.

Yes because free speech is absolutely terrible. I find it absolutely repulsive that so many in the media (who ironically are calling for his head) call the United States a bastion of free speech and compare it to "authoritarian countries" by claiming they have none. The reality of the situation is that, according to legal precedent set down by NYT vs. US it is not illegal to possess or publish classified documents, as it is covered under the First Amendment of the United States. Yet, even though there is such a legal precedent, we have the United States government, politicians and media calling for the abolishment of universal First Amendment Rights and its replacement by the freedom of government-approved speech (not to mention of course the promotion of the assassination of someone for...what?).

And you think China is bad in terms of free speech rights. At least they're open about it. At least the media there is open about its affiliation with the state. Then again, this case sort of confirms the complete impotence of the mainstream media and its direct tie to the state, so it's not really surprising that the media is calling for the abolishment of the first amendment given that it already only prints according to state tolerances.

EDIT: The ignorance surrounding these accusations and the wild conclusions that most of you have jumped to is absolutely astounding. Does anyone here even know specifics about the case? Or about how it was initially dropped because there essentially isn't one, then further pursued by an egomanical DA who is out for blood, regardless of guilt?
 
Last edited:
Actually, he did not commit rape

The most important parts of the article being

I got to say the Daily Mail article linked to in there is enlightening:

They parted on friendly terms and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. When she asked if he would call, he said: ‘Yes, I will.’

But he did not and neither did he answer her calls.

The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.

The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.

So there seems to be a rather absurd basis for these charges and these women are really more annoyed that he would not get tested for STD's. Pretty much they proved he is a sleaze, but then again they both seemed to be rather obsessed with him and looking for sex all along so it all makes things questionable.
 
Here's hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison for rape. Or better yet that the Russians get pissed and kill the bastard.

It's clear that "Firsters" love this son of a bitch because they don't care about putting peoples lives at risk, clearly an un-American position.

Here's to Assange resisting and getting shot down in the road, like a dog.
 
He has been doing this for four years and I have yet to see any allegations that him releasing documents lead to deaths...I think this whole "it puts lives in danger" is totally blown out of proportion.
 
Here's to Assange resisting and getting shot down in the road, like a dog.

WHAT! What exactly has he done? I'm just wondering. Has he done anything that deserves an execution in the street? Why do you want him to resist and be killed? Furthermore, who on earth randomly kills a man for resisting arrest on alleged "sex crimes" that amount to nothing more than a media overreaction? They want him for questioning, they haven't even charged him with anything.

I'm guessing that since we've pointed out numerous times before that it's NOT illegal for a civilian (let alone a NON AMERICAN CITIZEN ON A SITE NOT HOSTED IN AMERICA) to publish classified documents that you want something extrajudicial to be done. Do you want them to summarily execute him? Do you want them to just imprison him without charges? What on Earth happened to America?

I thought conservatives were bastions of free speech and against government secrecy. Now I find out they want Assange's head on a pike for NO LEGAL REASON. So I ask the question... if there's nothing that can be done though US law... then what are you suggesting? And if you think that something CAN be done through US law, please explain specifically WHAT, and under which law.

As far as I'm concerned, as an Australian born myself, he's a national hero. I downloaded some of the leaks. Execute me too if you want to execute Assange.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCR
PayPal just shut down the account they used to solicit donations, citing a rule about accounts that solicit funds that may be used to conduct illegal activities.

Hope they get this scumbag Assange and prosecute him until end of days.
 
PayPal just shut down the account they used to solicit donations, citing a rule about accounts that solicit funds that may be used to conduct illegal activities.

Hope they get this scumbag Assange and prosecute him until end of days.

*Copy and pastes my above comment*

Also, Paypal is obviously doing this to cover their asses in the case that something happens. I don't see how this is a legal indictment of Wikileaks, again, can you please answer my above comment?
 
Last edited:
*Copy and pastes my above comment*

Also, Paypal is obviously doing this to cover their asses in the case that something happens. I don't see how this is a legal indictment of Wikileaks, again, can you please answer my above comment?

There is no legal indictment that anyone can charge Assange for. Governments are just angry that his organization released diplomatic documents and want to get back up him for revealing their lies and deceit.
 
There is no legal indictment that anyone can charge Assange for. Governments are just angry that his organization released diplomatic documents and want to get back up him for revealing their lies and deceit.

I'm open to any legitimate legislation they can point to. But I have seen none. Can some of you who are calling for his imprisonment cite some legislation he's violated? I also don't see how the United States can charge a non-citizen for a "crime" (again, I need to know the law) that wasn't even "committed" on US land. Furthermore I don't see how they can charge Wikileaks but not all the other media organizations (Fox News, MSNBC, print media, foreign media, etc, etc) that has ALSO spread the cables. I don't see any difference between them.

Thanks in advance for your speedy reply.
 
*Copy and pastes my above comment*

Also, Paypal is obviously doing this to cover their asses in the case that something happens. I don't see how this is a legal indictment of Wikileaks, again, can you please answer my above comment?

Maybe you could do $.02 of your own google searching to get some info yourself. Here's a link, but you'll have to read it:

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

Whether he will eventually be charged or not, we'll have to see. But if he is, then we need only have him nabbed in a country that will extradite him to the U.S. The crime need not be "committed on U.S. land" as some have claimed. It need only involve U.S. property, of information we deem of national concern (as in a spy who comes here, takes pictures for espionage purposes, then leaves), and we can surely charge him if we have a statute to do so.

Like I said, the issue is will we charge him, and then will we be able to have him extradited.
 
I have come across this, but I thought we had discussed this charge enough.

Very well, the Espionage Act has never been successfully prosecuted against a media organization. Brandenburg v. Ohio established that "imminent lawless action" is required for the government to prosecute speech. New York Times Co. v. United States established precedent that the media had a right to release classified materials, regardless of government claims of the need to maintain secrecy.

Eric Holder evidently thinks he's got some chance. Let's see, but Wikileaks will mount a strong defense.

I'd be interested in the outcome of charges, if it comes to that, and hopefully this will provoke a constitutional review of the Act. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have limited it, but none have completely overruled it.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I'm open to any legitimate legislation they can point to. But I have seen none. Can some of you who are calling for his imprisonment cite some legislation he's violated? I also don't see how the United States can charge a non-citizen for a "crime" (again, I need to know the law) that wasn't even "committed" on US land. Furthermore I don't see how they can charge Wikileaks but not all the other media organizations (Fox News, MSNBC, print media, foreign media, etc, etc) that has ALSO spread the cables. I don't see any difference between them.

Thanks in advance for your speedy reply.

Regarding the other organizations being charged, it just plain becomes impractical. In this case those that sent the info to Wikileaks, and then Wikileaks, are the targets. Once its out there via the internet, you'd have millions that could be charged. Look back to such as The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, etc. This may be a long read, but it is interesting, and has parallels:

Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With no mass distribution ability such as the internet in 71-72, it was left to a few newspapers. The NY Times was the main venue. A few interesting twists from that episode:

To ensure the possibility of public debate about the content of the papers, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel (then Democrat, Alaska) entered 4,100 pages of the Papers to the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[5]

Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", thus the Senator could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the Papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision Gravel v. United States.

Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston and admitted that he had given the papers to the press. He was later indicted on charges of stealing and holding secret documents by a grand jury in Los Angeles.[8] Federal District Judge Byrne declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg [and Russo] on May 11, 1973, after several irregularities appeared in the government's case, including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal.[3] Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case.

Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. A majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a mistrial from irregularities in the government's case
.
 
Here's hoping he spends the rest of his life in prison for rape. Or better yet that the Russians get pissed and kill the bastard.

It's clear that "Firsters" love this son of a bitch because they don't care about putting peoples lives at risk, clearly an un-American position.

your anger is missplaced. it should be largely directed at the American citizens that are leaking this information.
 
I have come across this, but I thought we had discussed this charge enough.

Very well, the Espionage Act has never been successfully prosecuted against a media organization. Brandenburg v. Ohio established that "imminent lawless action" is required for the government to prosecute speech. New York Times Co. v. United States established precedent that the media had a right to release classified materials, regardless of government claims of the need to maintain secrecy.

Eric Holder evidently thinks he's got some chance. Let's see, but Wikileaks will mount a strong defense.

I'd be interested in the outcome of charges, if it comes to that, and hopefully this will provoke a constitutional review of the Act. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have limited it, but none have completely overruled it.

Thanks!

We can possibly make an issue here. From what I have bolded above. The issue here is not speech, but property. Brandenburg seems to be about speech and advocating violence via speech, short of inciting to riot. Regarding your second assertion about releasing and/or publishing classified info, I do not believe SCOTUS made that ruling. What it did rule was on the ability of the Executive to issue a restraining order with regard to publication. It would appear they recognized a very high threshold for "imminent danger" to validate such Executive restraint. However, they did not rule directly on the applicability of the Espionage Act to the publication of classified and secret documents once done.
 
He can't be charged under the Espionage Act because of the legal precedent that was set not only by the two cases mentioned but also by the development of case law that came out of it, especially the Judge's conclusions that have been publicized and put into law.
 
Bradley Manning absolutely can, and should be.
 
Back
Top Bottom