those attuned to ATW's personal politics of irrelevancy should note with some bemusement and sadness that Germany had one of her citizens tortured by the CIA because of a simple misunderstanding about spelling, and that the case withered out because of the "state secrets" clause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri This gets to my main point---for as much as people in this thread are denouncing Assange for not playing by the rules, the United States has clearly not followed due process of law for Manning, and has consistently demonstrated a disregard for rules in numerous operations in the intrest of "national security". It is very fair for Assange to assume the United States will once again not play fair. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034760,00.html Bradley Manning: top US legal scholars voice outrage at 'torture' Obama professor among 250 experts who have signed letter condemning humiliation of alleged WikiLeaks source http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/bradley-manning-legal-scholars-letter Lest we forget--- In a March 16 letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, National ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote: "As a pretrial detainee who has been convicted of no crime, Private Manning may not be subjected to punitive treatment. Based on the reports of Private Manning and his counsel, it is clear the gratuitously harsh treatment to which the Department of Defense is subjecting Private Manning violates fundamental constitutional norms." The ACLU also wrote: "The Supreme Court has long held that the government violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment whenever it 'unnecessarily and wantonly inflicts pain.' No legitimate purpose is served by keeping Private Manning stripped naked; in prolonged isolated confinement and utter idleness; ... deprived of any meaningful opportunity to exercise, even in his cell; and stripped of his reading glasses so that he cannot read. Absent any evident justification, such treatment is clearly forbidden by our Constitution."
1) ... and we may not officially "have any idea" for 50+ years after it happens. This is the core problem, the abuse of secrecy laws to pursue unlawful things, or things which may garner significant public opposition (and hence possibly require alteration.) Here is a hint of what we can expect: As for what argument I believe would be used it justify it, I don't believe a justifiable argument exists so I'm not sure how to answer that. I do know that people associated with these leaks have been mistreated and their mistreatment has been beyond the reach of legal scrutiny. The FACT that such cases have ended up and can end up beyond the reach of any law, whether US law or international law, lends credibility to the argument that classical legal process can be easily manipulated and will not suffice in indepedently protecting the rights of certain individuals. 2) That's not what I said. You said I said: I'm sure you're well aware that international law is irrelevant here since the US serially breaches international law to protect its interests. When you pick and choose which parts of international law to comply with (yes, several countries do this) then international law is irrelevant. In reality it is then only an exercise of demonstrating compliance with some international laws, which is the exact same thing as only complying with your own laws. As far as bilateral extradition treaties, these have been abused in the past because of the way they are written, and there are clear cases of this happening in the past even specificially between the US and Sweden. You put a provision in there for terrorists, and you can call anyone a suspected terrorist. 3) That is frankly ridiculous. He is not pursuing a blanket "never be extradited for anything" as you're purporting. In addition, absolutely there are ways for the US to clarify their position. There is nothing stopping them from issuing a statement stating exactly what their position currently is with regards to Assange at the request of Swedish authorities. Hillary can come out right now and say something like "We don't care about this rat, we are not pursuing his extradition at the moment and will not do so unless new information arises." There IS a line in the sand you can draw with regards whether the US will act on existing information. To hold evidence and wait for someone to walk into an extradition-happy jurisdiction before deciding to indict them is a severe abuse and misuse of extradition treaties which aren't accounted for. You say the US is not currently pursuing extradition of Assange but you don't know that and I don't know that. But the people involved on the US side do know whether it's true or not and can issue a statement to that effect. If the US says that it is not CURRENTLY pursuing extradition, that would be enough to show Assange to be a liar who is sending the whole world into panic for rape charges. But if you genuinely believe that Assange undertook to release everything he has released through wikileaks, pissing off major politicians internationally, only to be afraid of going to jail for (from what I understand) minor rape charges for a broken condom and unpermitted second session of sex with the same person still in the same bed... then I really wonder how you rationalize all this to yourself.
http://continentalnews.net/2012/09/05/interpol-swedish-saudi-11612.html http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=225918 Sweden would never do that!
