Assange accuser flees country. Assange's lawyer says gov withholding documents

[Agorism]

Report: Assange accuser flees to Middle East, may not be cooperating with police

Sweden withholding documentation on Assange probe: lawyer

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/a...erating-police

[oyarde]

The article has a flaw . It is not treason they would try to charge him with , but espionage , I think .

[QueenB4Liberty]

It doesn't say they would charge him with treason. It says they can't because he's not a US citizen and wasn't dumping documents inside the US.

If anything it'd be espionage, but even that is a stretch considering they would also have to charge the NY Times and everyone else who released cables.

[oyarde]

It doesn't say they would charge him with treason. It says they can't because he's not a US citizen and wasn't dumping documents inside the US.

If anything it'd be espionage, but even that is a stretch considering they would also have to charge the NY Times and everyone else who released cables.

Yeah , I have no idea how this will pan out . I think the govt. may have cleared the Times stuff .

[idirtify]

Report: Assange accuser flees to Middle East, may not be cooperating with police

Sweden withholding documentation on Assange probe: lawyer

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/a...erating-police

Wow; no cooperation from victim; absence of witness/plaintiff; vague/no charges; ridiculous condom-rape laws; and no evidence of any real violation, including espionage (see pentagon-papers case) – yet Assange is still in jail. Amazing. Has his lawyer seen him today? Was he OK?

[oyarde]

Wow; no cooperation from victim; absence of witness/plaintiff; vague/no charges; ridiculous condom-rape laws; and no evidence of any real violation, including espionage (see pentagon-papers case) – yet Assange is still in jail. Amazing. Has his lawyer seen him today? Was he OK?

Yeah at some point do they not have to make a formal charge and give info to his lawyer ?

[idirtify]

Yeah at some point do they not have to make a formal charge and give info to his lawyer ?

That was certainly his lawyer’s complaint, but I don’t think they have the same due-process laws/rights over there. So who knows?

[oyarde]

Yes , there is probably someone on this board from that country .

[HOLLYWOOD]

Oh, One Big Happy Family in the New World Order... it gets better... checkout this little coincidence from last week and today... 12/2/2010 12/9/2010

EU's Minister of Home Affairs (EU's version of DHS) Annemie Turtleboom and Sweden's Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask... A week BEFORE Wikileaks Julian Assange's Arrest



Today, 12/09/2010 in Washington DC... EU's Home Affairs Minister Annemie Turtleboom with DOJ Eric Holder and DHS Janet Napolitano.

[Rael]

I'm not an expert in espionage law but how do you charge someone with a crime when they were not even in the jurisdiction when the act was committed?

[dannno]

Some of Ardin's most recent Tweets suggest sympathy for WikiLeaks.

"MasterCard, Visa and PayPal -- belt them now!" Ardin urged in a Tweet Wednesday, evidently referring to the cyber-attacks launched on those institutions after they severed their relationships with WikiLeaks.

Hahahahhahahahahah!!!

[jmdrake]

I'm not an expert in espionage law but how do you charge someone with a crime when they were not even in the jurisdiction when the act was committed?

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

He'd probably be charged under Section (1)(b)
(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence;

And U.S. courts have allowed U.S. laws to be applied to acts outside the U.S. For instance if you engaged in "sex tourism" and had sex with a minor you could be prosecuted.

That said, if I was defending him against the charge I would start here:

(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States....

Nobody has alleged any real injury nor an intent to injure the U.S. Assange's stated intent is to help the U.S. by forcing the government to be more honest. Now the prosecution will argue that the leaks hurt the U.S. by crippling diplomatic efforts. But the burden of proof is on them. And it's difficult with the Obama administration running around doing damage control and saying this is all "no big deal". Every leak so far has either been innocuous (Putin is a mobster), in line with the Obama/neocon agenda (the Arabs hate Iran too) or exposing criminality (Hillary steals credit cards, DynCorp rapes children). In a fair trial Assange could actually win. That's why he won't get a fair trial.

[oyarde]

I'm not an expert in espionage law but how do you charge someone with a crime when they were not even in the jurisdiction when the act was committed?

Nah , the 1917 espionage law covers written matl. for anyone , anywhere , I think .

[HOLLYWOOD]

Nah , the 1917 espionage law covers written matl. for anyone , anywhere , I think .

Wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/09/32476.htm

NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES
(The Pentagon Papers Case)
403 U.S. 713 (1971)




http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~drec...gonPapers.html

[oyarde]

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

He'd probably be charged under Section (1)(b)
(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence;

And U.S. courts have allowed U.S. laws to be applied to acts outside the U.S. For instance if you engaged in "sex tourism" and had sex with a minor you could be prosecuted.

That said, if I was defending him against the charge I would start here:

(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States....

Nobody has alleged any real injury nor an intent to injure the U.S. Assange's stated intent is to help the U.S. by forcing the government to be more honest. Now the prosecution will argue that the leaks hurt the U.S. by crippling diplomatic efforts. But the burden of proof is on them. And it's difficult with the Obama administration running around doing damage control and saying this is all "no big deal". Every leak so far has either been innocuous (Putin is a mobster), in line with the Obama/neocon agenda (the Arabs hate Iran too) or exposing criminality (Hillary steals credit cards, DynCorp rapes children). In a fair trial Assange could actually win. That's why he won't get a fair trial.

I would try to use this same angle to defend him as well .

[idirtify]

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/espionageact.htm

He'd probably be charged under Section (1)(b)
(b) whoever for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts, or induces or aids another to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing or note of anything connected with the national defence;

And U.S. courts have allowed U.S. laws to be applied to acts outside the U.S. For instance if you engaged in "sex tourism" and had sex with a minor you could be prosecuted.

That said, if I was defending him against the charge I would start here:

(a) whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States....

Nobody has alleged any real injury nor an intent to injure the U.S. Assange's stated intent is to help the U.S. by forcing the government to be more honest. Now the prosecution will argue that the leaks hurt the U.S. by crippling diplomatic efforts. But the burden of proof is on them. And it's difficult with the Obama administration running around doing damage control and saying this is all "no big deal". Every leak so far has either been innocuous (Putin is a mobster), in line with the Obama/neocon agenda (the Arabs hate Iran too) or exposing criminality (Hillary steals credit cards, DynCorp rapes children). In a fair trial Assange could actually win. That's why he won't get a fair trial.

I would question the definition of “the injury of the United States”. Is that an injury to the nation or to the nation’s government? The nation’s government is NOT the same as the nation; the government only represents the nation. And then they will need to define “injury”. If they ignore these important definitions/distinctions, of course there will be no problem proving “injury” (to the reputations of US representatives).

I believe some US representatives (Gingrich, etc) have claimed that Assange said he wanted to hurt the US. But if that’s a spin of him saying he wanted to hurt the US government in order to help the US nation, it would be tragic to not address this distinction.

[osan]

Yeah at some point do they not have to make a formal charge and give info to his lawyer ?

We're talking about clapped-out, stupid to a fault, authoritarian, collectivist Europe where you have no rights except to collect free checks on the backs of god only knows whom. For them due process is whatever they say it is. $#@!s.