Sounds like a claim to me... Do I have to call you a liar again ? I would rather have you discuss the limits of binary logic.
Basic facts. There is no evidence of the US gov wanting Arseange, courts agree that Arseange cannot provide evidence the US gov is out to get him, courts have decided Arseange should go to Sweden. You are all saying "fuck the law" because it's Arsange! So on a forum that spouts one rule for the rich etc etc, down with the 1% etc etc Now Arseange is above the law?
http://twocircles.net/2012sep03/laffaire_assange_lessons_latin_america.htmlL'Affaire Assange: Lessons from Latin America
Was my response to primary claim, which is that assange DOES have charges brought against him, which is supported by zero evidence. Do we really have to do this?
Every American, man, boy woman and girl could take to the streets demanding his execution but it don't mean jack untill the legal system gets into gear.
As long as you are not able to understand the difference I clearly stated, yes. Are you claiming there are no charges against Assange in the US or are you observing that no proof of these charges have been provided so far ? Not the same thing. Make up your mind.
I'm observing there is no evidence to support the claim of Charges against Assange in the US. This leads me to the assumption that there is indeed no charges. I think that if there would be charges, it would be highly publicized. Hope this clarifies since you seem to be slow to understand.
From what I read, Assange claims there are secret US charges against him. So, if these secret charges *do* exist there wouldn't be much in the way of evidence to prove their existence and, by definition, wouldn't be highly publicized. So observing there is no evidence to support the existence of something claimed to be secret is kind of redundant isn't it? For now its just a matter of speculation. While his claim that he would be "killed" by the US is bullshit (neither Sweden or UK extradite on death penalty charges), I think he does have reason to fear attempts at extradition from the US. I mean, this guy has publicly humiliated US public and private institutions on an international level and breached security.... I can't think of one point in history where the US just lets humiliation slide...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal etc etc etc
No problem with that. This is a claim that should be supported with proofs. If this is supposed to be the proof of your claim, you failed. Back to the discussion about the sealed indictment in the Manning's case. I am not saying that the unnamed individual is Assange, but you cannot say it isn't him. Funny, coming from you. TL;DR You fail as much as those you criticize at proving your claims. You can repeat them all you want, it won't change the fact that they are unproven claims.
The Stratfor emails are certainly evidence of a sort. They're not as good as an actual copy of an indictment, but other things from the same emails have proven accurate. I suppose it's possible whoever leaked them is an Assange supporter who altered or added fake emails, that the person at Stratfor is just making stuff up, or is just wrong. It's not conclusive evidence but it isn't nothing. "We have a sealed indictment on Assange." That's pretty unequivocal. Assuming it is genuine, and the media covering the emails release stories have assumed them to be so, assuming the person who wrote it actually knows what he is talking about, and assuming he's honest (all pretty big assumptions), there is a sealed indictment. This wouldn't hold up in court, one reason being there's nothing resembling a chain of custody, but it doesn't have to. (You could get around this by just asking the sender and recipient, did you send this, and ask them their basis for the factual claim, but that's not going to happen in all likelihood.) Assange only has to prove something in court if he actually goes to one. So far, he has convinced the state that granted him asylum. I wouldn't put much store in that as "evidence" of anything, because it is more likely Ecuador is doing this just to embarrass the U.S. than that it cares about press freedoms. I've certainly never seen a sexual assault case proceed in such a bizarre manner and don't consider it consistent with normal due process. There's more than one definition of "evidence." There's evidence that is admissible in a court. There's conclusive scientific evidence proving something to be true. There's a lot of other evidence that just makes something more or less likely to be true. I've seen enough out of those Stratfor emails that shows a dysfunctional, arrogant organization with vast and unfounded belief in its own competence and level of knowledge that I'm not going to take anything out of there as solid proof, but it's certainly evidence of a sort.
I haven't been following this issue very closely, could you point me to the source for that? Yes the Stratfor emails, but I understand they're pretty big, and I'm pretty lazy, so if you have a link to hand...
Joe McCarthy Strom Thurmond Senator John F. Kennedy Henry Clay of Kentucky: He was largely credited with keeping the North and South together without civil war for many years despite their differences over slavery. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, leading proponent of "states' rights." Daniel Webster He championed the concept of a strong national government, and was a great orator. Robert Marion La Follette Seventeenth Amendment (1913), which provided for direct election of senators. Robert A. Taft helped write the Labor Management Relations Act, which placed controls on labor unions and prohibited "closed shops." IDK. That powerful enough for legal implications? Senators can carry a lot of weight here.
A screenshot of the email regarding the sealed indictment from Fred Burton head of Stratfor is about halfway down the page at this link. Also on the page is more info and email on the subject, including Burton's thoughts on framing up a death to blame on Wikileaks, to make the court case just that much more fun. http://politicalgates.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/will-uk-police-move-in-and-arrest.html Some have tried to claim that Stratfor is of no consequence, aren't important players, etc. This is uninformed bunk or straight out disinformation. Stratfor was the Texas organization that was the operation in which Poppy Bush operated and basically helped start up during his days as a covert CIA agent. If you don't acknowledge Stratfor as important and right in the thick of US intelligence sourcing, then you also don't think Poppy Bush #41 ever did much in the way of shaping US interests and policy long before he was President and you of course then fail. For verification of this last paragraph, refer to "Family of Secrets" by well respected investigative journalist Russ Baker. I also find Archer's entire argument tedious. Even if, in an altered universe, there were no secret charges against Assange yet, it would still have been the appropriate move for him to ask for asylum to focus world attention on the fumbling but malicious maneuverings of Ny's legal team, to focus attention on the US's ongoing harassment of Wikileaks players, and to establish a base where he could continue Wikileaks operations. The US wants Assagne's hide, but even if somehow they decided not to pursue him physically and personally, it doesn't matter. Assange would still be playing chess with the powers that be, and the move towards asylum was a brilliant one considering the increasingly narrowed position he was finding himself in.
My question is, 1. is stratfor reliable? 2. What would be the exact reason they would be in the know of a secret indictement? and 3. Have they made shit up in the past? (aka persona software that doesn't exist)
1. IMO, no. However, this is internal email, not public lying. 2. That's an interesting question. If they are in the know, blabbing about it in an email like this isn't very smart. 3. Yes, or at least, they appear to be hawking a product (TrapWire) that can't possibly do all of what is claimed. Personally, I think the email is legit. It could be a forgery, in theory. If it's not true, I think the most likely reason for it not being true is some Stratfor SuperSpai thought it would be cool to look in the know about something and made it up or heard it from someone else who made it up. However, there would be nothing particularly unusual about a sealed indictment in a case like this. Assange is now perhaps most famous as a fugitive. Obviously, you're not going to let him know about the indictment until you have him detained. I can't really blame the UK courts for their decision. They have a valid extradition request from a country that also honors their extradition requests and is presumed to have a functioning system of law. Assange, if he wants to straighten the situation out in Sweden, will have to go there. I think he may have reasonable fear that is not what will happen if he goes to Sweden. Obviously, if he is guilty, he's not going to say that, so coming up with a cockamamie story that plays well to his fans is a plausible explanation of his actions as well. There really isn't enough information (at least for me) to be sure of what is going on.
This is really all quite old news by now. "Tuesday 28th February 2012 18:30 GMT Confidential emails obtained from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor show that the United States Government has had a secret indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for more than 12 months. Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State’s (DoS) counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). In early 2011, Burton revealed in internal Stratfor correspondence that a secret Grand Jury had already issued a sealed indictment for Assange: "Not for Pub — We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect." (375123) According to Burton: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever." (1056988) A few weeks earlier, following Julian Assange’s release from a London jail, where he had been remanded as a result of a Swedish prosecutor’s arrest warrant, Fred Burton told SkyNews: "extradition [to the US is] more and more likely". (373862). Emails from Fred Burton reveal that the US Government employs the same counterterrorism strategy against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as against Al Qaeda: "Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ [Al Qaeda]. Thank Cheney & 43 [former US President George W. Bush]. Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse." (1067796) Ten days after the CIA reportedly assassinated Osama bin Laden, Burton writes in an email sent to Stratfor’s "Secure" mailing list that he "can get access to the materials seized from the OBL [Osama bin Laden] safe house." (1660854) Burton states: "Ferreting out [Julian Assange’s] confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside [sic]. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki." (1056763) Along with the FBI, the Diplomatic Security Service and the Department of Defense (DoD) form a multi-agency US Government outfit seeking to criminally indict and prosecute WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. According to the Department of State, the DSS handles the investigation of all leads that involve the DoS and assists the DoD in forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the US Government in its ongoing criminal investigation. Burton also says he "would pursue [c]onspiracy and [p]olitical [t]errorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki" (1074383). Burton’s strategy is to: "Bankrupt the arsehole first," Burton states, "ruin his life. Give him 7-12 yrs for conspiracy." (1057220)" more at...http://wikileaks.org/Stratfor-Emails-US-Has-Issued.html
I'm sure someone else has brought this up earlier in this thread. Why doesn't he face his accusers? Why do people get called conspiracy fags for everything else other that Assange going back to Sweden?
Yes. Read all that. It is old news. Not sure why you reposted it. What does that have to do with whether some actual court has a secret indictment against Assange? All that proves is that the idiots at Stratfor really hate him, and at least one thinks there's a secret indictment. I already discussed numerous reasons one could be skeptical of their opinions on the subject. I tend to think it more likely than not that there are shenanigans here, just because it looks like it. A secret indictment would not surprise me. I'd also not trust Assange any more than I could throw him. It hasn't always ended well for people who have trusted him. Ask Bradley Manning.
You mistake me for an Assange "fan". I am not, although I find his situation interesting to follow and some of his work has resulted in collateral good. His back story is the most contrived piece of bs I've ever seen peddled for an advocate of "the people", with moon crater sized holes (where he was supposedly running away for years, then lost in the woods, in a mental hospital for depression, holed up with a mysterious wife etc) freckled with cult connections, informant/police work and sec ops. No thanks. Personally I am a tepid supporter of Open Leaks,though they have yet to do much of anything. I reposted to sort out the foggy pseudo guessing and because murgatroid up there was asking if Stratfor was reliable. The post offers insight into Burton's background as DOS and DSS. The powers that be consider Burton reliable, and he is tapped to offer strategy in this scenario. That's what matters. However, your statement "All that proves is that the idiots at Stratfor really hate him, and at least one thinks there's a secret indictment." is not an accurate assessment of the post. It shows for example that Burton's emails are in sync with the strategy executed to intimidate and harrass Wikileak's staff. In other words, he is formulating strategy that we see subsequently executed. I also disagree that you've given any valid reasons for being "skeptical" of Stratfor - in fact as you stated this is internal correspondence, not "lying to the public" press releases. The sentence "According to the Department of State, the DSS handles the investigation of all leads that involve the DoS and assists the DoD in forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the US Government in its ongoing criminal investigation" clearly shows that there is an operational link between the State Dept. and Stratfor through Burton. Your statement that Trap Wire clearly can't do "what is claimed" doesn't have anything to do with the Assange operation, and those half baked claims were not made by Stratfor, they were made by the sensationalist press when they found out about Trap Wire. So much of the bickering on the thread is predicated on the tedious premise that Assange "shouldn't" seek asylum, or "doesn't deserve" asylum, etc, etc ad naseum. It is a ridiculous argument. The idea that Assange might not have the legal right to seek asylum can be argued, but not seriously. If people don't like that a so called moral crusade for freedom of speech is being spearheaded by someone they find immoral, fine. Yes that is irritating but no more so than every President in modern history and many other corrupt officials in leadership positions. Get over the endless hand wringing whinging about this one hacker please. Personally I find Sweden's smug defense of their bizarre and seriously flawed man-hate rape laws to be far more shocking than anything Assange as an individual has done. Assange has a hand to play, and regardless of being deserving, honest, a liar, a crusader, a martyr or a satyr, he will play it and the whining chorus of Righty Butthurt only serves to continue to focus attention on him against their own interests. Finally as Assange's lawyer has stated, even if there isn't a secret indictment, an indictment can be drawn up in 24 hours. It doesn't matter at all if one exists now, or did exist. It can exist on a moment's notice, and that is a risk his legal team would naturally advise him of and shield him from.
Because he can't go back without being arrested and incarcerated while waiting to "face his accusers".
And unfortunately, that is my main gripe with Assange. I think we're basically on the same page. This issue should be about freedom of information and the corrosive effects of government secrecy on our lives. Instead, it has been turned into the Julian Assange Show. While the governments after WikiLeaks and him in particular would have tried to do this anyway, it is not very hard to do with someone who has done his best to be exactly the kind of person who can be portrayed as some version of a Bond villain. That aside, he has the right to seek asylum (even from a questionable country like Ecuador) and that country has granted it. This is "diplomatic asylum," which the UK does not recognize. The United States also professes not to recognize it, but has itself used diplomatic asylum when convenient, e.g., József Cardinal Mindszenty. I also have to admit that while I am not particularly fond of Assange and think there are far better ways to go about this than he has, or even OpenLeaks has (if it has done anything that is), he has certainly proved to be a complete pain in the ass to many governments and has them in stalemate at present. Not bad for one guy. So I have to give him props for that, at least.
As soon as Correa thinks he has wrung all possible mileage out of Assange he will find a way to throw him under the bus. Julian is going to Sweden. Count on it.
You guys make me laugh, government secrecy is not a new thing, just because you have only just realised its going on doesn't mean civilisation is coming to an end! It's been going on for centuries and will continue to.
Simple, I open my mouth and say "The UK doesn't recognize diplomatic asylum." It's not a controversial idea. Here's the UK saying they don't recognize diplomatic asylum: That's from this statement by the UK on a government-run website, run by the UK. Trust me, I don't just make this shit up. Further, the only statements by the World Court on the subject of diplomatic asylum are that it is not a principle of customary international law, but only exists pursuant to agreements between countries, as the concept of diplomatic asylum represents, to some extent, a surrender of national sovereignty. The controlling ICJ case is Colombia v. Peru. Personally, I disagree with the International Court of Justice on this, since the concept of diplomatic asylum is intrinsic in the concept that a host country cannot invade the embassy of a guest country without the consent of the foreign sovereign. Therefore, whether or not it is intended, an embassy can grant asylum to whomever it pleases. What it cannot grant, however, without the host country's consent, is safe passage out of that country. And note, if I disagree with the ICJ, guess who wins? It's not me. That's why the situation is a stalemate. Ecuador can't spirit off Assange without the UK's consent. They'll arrest him the moment he leaves. The UK can't just invade an embassy, because that doesn't work. So they'll just have to put up with the situation. For another example, that I cited earlier, see József Mindszenty. These things can go on for a long time. In any event, to conclude, the tl;dr is I can say that the UK doesn't recognize diplomatic asylum for the simple reason that it doesn't.
