Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Manic Moran · 16-07-2011 09:28PM

That's opinion though the live feed from the apache clearly shows that the is no evidence of the civilians having weaponry.

No evidence required. I refer again to the fact that there is no legal requirement for enemy to be armed in order to be engaged. All that is required is that they are identified as enemy, not hors de combat, and not a protected class such as chaplains or marked medics.

i'm of the belief that the pilot was trigger happy and it is confirmed to me by the way he laugh and jokes about a civilian body being run over by the truck

Having a morbid sense of humor (which is fairly normal to develop in war zones) is not, to the best of my knowledge, a court martial offense and has no bearing on the shoot/no shoot decision making process.

and lets not forget the amount of civilians killed by drone strikes which is an illegal tactic as the us are doing nothing to reduce risk to civilians when blasting craters in their villages.

They are using relatively small guided weaponry aimed at specific targets. When they drop an FAE on the village to destroy one building, then get back to me about taking no damage limitation measures.

NTM

NTMK · 16-07-2011 11:33PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

No evidence required. I refer again to the fact that there is no legal requirement for enemy to be armed in order to be engaged. All that is required is that they are identified as enemy, not hors de combat, and not a protected class such as chaplains or marked medics.

and the requirements for someone to be labelled an enemy? Weapon? no evidence of one. Intelligence? None. Suspicious Activity? walking down a repetitively populated street? What Is required to label an enemy

Having a morbid sense of humor (which is fairly normal to develop in war zones) is not, to the best of my knowledge, a court martial offense and has no bearing on the shoot/no shoot decision making process.

Maybe but i wouldnt want anyone with that sick ****wits mindset in possession of live ammo as he doesn't seem to value human life

They are using relatively small guided weaponry aimed at specific targets. When they drop an FAE on the village to destroy one building, then get back to me about taking no damage limitation measures.

NTM

A guided weapon that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html

so it isnt that precise and creates an unnecessary risk to civilians

Manic Moran · 17-07-2011 05:56AM

and the requirements for someone to be labelled an enemy? Weapon? no evidence of one. Intelligence? None. Suspicious Activity? walking down a repetitively populated street? What Is required to label an enemy

A bit flippant, but 'being on the other side.' For example, an unarmed person walking down a populated street in Iraq in jeans and a T-shirt... who is wearing a green Medhi Army headband was, for a brief period of time, designated the enemy and to be engaged on sight. The following week, he wasn't. It defies a simple definition. As a result, you have to take your best guess from the information presented to you.

Maybe but i wouldnt want anyone with that sick ****wits mindset in possession of live ammo as he doesn't seem to value human life

Perhaps, but it doesn't matter if he gets sexually aroused by it or if he closes his eyes and begs God's forgiveness every time he pulls the trigger. The situation surrounding an incident is what makes something legal or not, not whether or not the guy is filled with remorse at doing it.

A guided weapon that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians

so it isnt that precise and creates an unnecessary risk to civilians

So what weapon do you suggest does not, which remains practical?

NTM

NTMK · 17-07-2011 12:38PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

A bit flippant, but 'being on the other side.' For example, an unarmed person walking down a populated street in Iraq in jeans and a T-shirt... who is wearing a green Medhi Army headband was, for a brief period of time, designated the enemy and to be engaged on sight. The following week, he wasn't. It defies a simple definition. As a result, you have to take your best guess from the information presented to you.

So there is none for the US army just shoot when you feel like it and The army will classify your murder

So what weapon do you suggest does not, which remains practical?

NTM

Any weapon the doesn't put civilians under unnecessary risk, men on the ground, an attack helicopter, something a bit more precise

Manic Moran · 17-07-2011 04:07PM

NTMK wrote: »

So there is none for the US army just shoot when you feel like it and The army will classify your murder

Feel free, then, for the sake of comparison, to provide the working definition of "enemy" for the British, German, French, Luxembourg, or any other army. Except Ireland, as just being from Wicklow seems to result in your being categorized as enemy for some reason, at least in any exercise I was on.

Any weapon the doesn't put civilians under unnecessary risk, men on the ground, an attack helicopter, something a bit more precise

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, but the video we were most recently discussing was filmed by an attack helicopter. It very precisely ended up killing innocent people (and fires the same sort of missiles as the drones do). For any method you care to name, I can point put occasions where unintended people were hit. On the scale of trying to hit only the intended target, drones aren't bad.

NTM

nacho libre · 22-07-2011 02:41PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Also in Iraq, which has finally reached relative political stability, the US presence is not needed anymore, and is more counterproductive politically, than it's worth logistically.

There is still debate as to whether the Iraqis security forces can handle things on their own.
In recent operations in Diyala it seems the Americans still had to play active role to bring the trouble under control.

perhaps going slightly off topic, i fear in Somalia and Iraq we are seeing a repeat of Negropointe's death squads. In iraq there is a 4000 strong special operations force that answers directly to Maliki, which stands accused of mass abuses.

here is an article about them:
http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad

karma_ · 22-07-2011 02:53PM

nacho libre wrote: »

There is still debate as to whether the Iraqis security forces can handle things on their own.
In recent operations in Diyala it seems the Americans still had to play active role to bring the trouble under control.

perhaps going slightly off topic, i fear in Somalia and Iraq we are seeing a repeat of Negropointe's death squads. In iraq there is a 4000 strong special operations force that answers directly to Maliki, which stands accused of mass abuses.

here is an article about them:
http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad

The US have been doing this for years, all over the world. Train up ruthless killers who are free from accountability and set them free on the civilian populations.

biko · 02-11-2011 12:10PM

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal

November 02, 2011 — LONDON (AP) — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday lost his appeal against extradition to Sweden to answer sex crime allegations after judges rejected claims that moves to return him to Scandinavia were unfair and unlawful.

Judges John Thomas and Duncan Ousely said Assange should be sent to be questioned over the alleged rape of one woman and the molestation of another in Stockholm last year. The 40-year-old has denied wrongdoing, and insists the case is politically motivated by those opposed to the work of his secret-spilling organization.

Knowles said that if Assange is permitted a further appeal, he would likely stay on bail for a couple of months. If not, "he'll be extradited within 10 days," he predicted. Assange had claimed in his appeal that the alleged offenses would not have been regarded as crimes under English and Welsh law, a stance the judges rejected.

"There can be no doubt that if what Mr. Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged," the ruling said.

And when extradited to Sweden they'll hand him over to US on some trumped up terrorism charge.

FetchTheGin · 02-11-2011 12:14PM

Unsurprising but disgraceful all the same.

Krieg · 02-11-2011 12:17PM

Is he still under house arrest?
If so I wonder if he'll try and do a runner

prinz · 02-11-2011 12:19PM

biko wrote: »

And when extradited to Sweden they'll hand him over to US on some trumped up terrorism charge.

...and so the conspiracy grows. UK judges are in on it too. Jesus wept.

ejmaztec · 02-11-2011 12:20PM

biko wrote: »

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal

And when extradited to Sweden they'll hand him over to US on some trumped up terrorism charge.

His plane will probably be diverted to the US to cut down on the paper-work.

Plumpynutt · 02-11-2011 12:29PM

Not sure of this has been posted in the thread before, but I thought this was spot on tbh

humanji · 02-11-2011 12:32PM

biko wrote: »

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal

And when extradited to Sweden they'll hand him over to US on some trumped up terrorism charge.

Because there's no possibility he could ever be guilty?

prinz · 02-11-2011 12:37PM

humanji wrote: »

Because there's no possibility he could ever be guilty?

It's justice 2011-style. Get a popular enough website, and enough gob****es to fall for your sob-story/nonsense, you become immune from prosecution no matter what you do.

Says it all really...

"There can be no doubt that if what Mr. Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged," the ruling said.

biko · 02-11-2011 01:18PM

humanji wrote: »

Because there's no possibility he could ever be guilty?

I don't mind him standing trial in Sweden, it's the risk of Sweden handing him over to the US I'm worried about.

The accusations etc has been discussed at length in this very thread.

gizmo · 02-11-2011 02:29PM

biko wrote: »

I don't mind him standing trial in Sweden, it's the risk of Sweden handing him over to the US I'm worried about.

The accusations etc has been discussed at length in this very thread.

But why is there a greater risk of the Swedes handing him over to the US than the UK?

pickarooney · 02-11-2011 02:44PM

prinz wrote: »

Says it all really...

I thought he was charged with something which is not considered a crime in any country other than Sweden.

OutlawPete · 02-11-2011 02:46PM

pickarooney wrote: »

I thought he was charged with something which is not considered a crime in any country other than Sweden.

Being a man?

biko · 02-11-2011 02:46PM

gizmo wrote: »

But why is there a greater risk of the Swedes handing him over to the US than the UK?

As long as he's wanted by Sweden US can't get to him.
But when he arrives in Sweden he can/will be detained immediately until a trial is on the way.
The US can then convince Sweden to drop charges but extradite him to them.
I think also the US can ask for him to be handed over on "conditional release" or "temporary surrender" which means he's not extradited proper but "on loan".

Sweden's allegations are "minor rape" and "sexual coercion" which is fairly small charges to have a person wanted for.
Particularly with Sweden's previous very poor conviction record on rape cases*
A study commissioned by the European Union found that Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe. And an Amnesty International report on rape in the Nordic Countries was highly critical of Sweden for an abysmally low conviction rate for rape cases.
http://www.gn.apc.org/network/news/sweden-has-worst-rape-conviction-record-europe

prinz · 02-11-2011 02:46PM

pickarooney wrote: »

I thought he was charged with something which is not considered a crime in any country other than Sweden.

In Swedish law apparently it comes under the heading of rape... and then broken down into varying degrees of acts. In other jurisdictions as I understand it, he would still be open to charges of sexual assault/offences against the person that sort of thing, but wouldn't constitute a 'rape' charge...

Assange had claimed in his appeal that the alleged offenses would not have been regarded as crimes under English and Welsh law, a stance the judges rejected

It might not have been the identical charge as in Sweden but obviously another charge would have been appropriate.

Manic Moran · 02-11-2011 04:52PM

prinz wrote: »

pickarooney wrote: »

I thought he was charged with something which is not considered a crime in any country other than Sweden.

In Swedish law apparently it comes under the heading of rape... and then broken down into varying degrees of acts. In other jurisdictions as I understand it, he would still be open to charges of sexual assault/offences against the person that sort of thing, but wouldn't constitute a 'rape' charge...

Assange had claimed in his appeal that the alleged offenses would not have been regarded as crimes under English and Welsh law, a stance the judges rejected

It might not have been the identical charge as in Sweden but obviously another charge would have been appropriate.

As I understand it, it's the other way around. The Swedish charge has no direct equivalent in the UK, but because the Swedish law actually makes it a lesser offense. Call it ' third degree rape.', not as serious as something like ' standard' rape. UK law does not seem to make make as great a distinction. It was either consented sex, or not. If not, the charge is rape.

seamus · 02-11-2011 05:03PM

It's a very weird one overall. I don't think the actual details of the alleged offence have bee released, have they? There was talk that he had sex without a condom without telling one of them or something similar, but the timelines all seem very odd.

Basically he had sex with one woman, consensually. Allegedly the condom broke mid-coitus. They were friendly afterwards and parted ways. A couple of days later he had sex with a second woman, twice. Once with a condom, once without. Again, all consensual, and all left on good terms.

This second woman by all accounts was a bit of a stalkerish type and became "concerned" that Assange needed to get an STD test. And she went a bit crazy trying to track him down to tell him. In the course of trying to track him down, she found the other woman and told her, and she too then became "concerned" for Assange. Unable to find him, they both went to a police station (WTF), who interviewed them and then decided to press charges against Assange. Why, we don't seem to know. In the stories given, I cannot see any reason to press charges unless the police spotted some oddity of Swedish law in their stories. The initial investigation was dropped because there wasn't enough evidence, but later a new political appointee decided to pick it up again.

The very fact that both women met and conspired after the sex, but before going to the police, should be more than enough to render any presocution very weak IMHO.

Without more details of the alleged offence, we can only really speculate. If the UK judge thinks there is "no doubt" that what he did would constitute a crime in the UK, then I would be inclined to take that at face value. The details of his alleged crime will become public in time, so people can judge for themselves whether or not the judge was correct.

prinz · 02-11-2011 05:13PM

seamus wrote: »

The very fact that both women met and conspired after the sex, but before going to the police, should be more than enough to render any presocution very weak IMHO..

It fits the conspiracy angle in Assange's case but in reality that is the timeline of events with many crimes, especially in rape and abuse cases. One victim will try to brush it off, convince themselves it was a once-off etc, but when they hear that the same person has done something similar to another they find the courage to come forward. Countless cases of child abuse have come to light this way, multiple victims giving each other the support to come forward/

It would be highly unjust to call a prosecution case into doubt because two victims confided in each other prior to the police. We all know how few rape victims come forward at all. It would be ridiculous to suggest that because two or more come forward together the assumption would be they are telling porkies.

seamus · 02-11-2011 05:21PM

prinz wrote: »

It would be highly unjust to call a prosecution case into doubt because two victims confided in each other prior to the police. We all know how few rape victims come forward at all. It would be ridiculous to suggest that because two or more come forward together the assumption would be they are telling porkies.

Unjust, I don't think so. It would not be uncommon for a woman to confide in another before realising or being convinced that she was actually assaulted, but I think it would be quite rare for for two women to come together and discuss the same man, and then both to decide that they had been assaulted.

It's definitely a plausible thing - separately they might have considered something "odd" or an accident, but when put together it makes a pattern which could be considered assault, absolutely.
But IMHO it does weaken their case when there was zero animosity towards Assange until they met eachother and couldn't get in touch with him. If you met another woman and you were both convinced you were raped, the last thing you would do is try and track down the offender.

None of the accounts that I've read suggest that the women had any intention of making a complaint until after they'd spoken to the police; they only spoke to the police because they couldn't find Assange. But maybe I've been reading the wrong accounts

pickarooney · 02-11-2011 09:36PM

biko wrote: »

Sweden's allegations are "minor rape" and "sexual coercion" which is fairly small charges to have a person wanted for.

I'm pretty sure you could have translated that better!

SamHarris · 02-11-2011 09:55PM

biko wrote: »

I don't mind him standing trial in Sweden, it's the risk of Sweden handing him over to the US I'm worried about.

The accusations etc has been discussed at length in this very thread.

You really think an open trial in the US is something to be terrified of? People are acting like its Saudi Arabia. The State department/ government is angry at him, they dont like alot of people. Very different than the DA having a case that can be put before a jury and result in a conviction. There are NUMEROUS cases of the US government disliking something/ someone and not being able to do anything about it because of US law. There are numerous cases of US prosecutions by the government being thrown out by the US judiciary. If they didnt care about their own laws/ due process, Assange and many like him would be dead. That is a fact.

The reason they have not brought charges against him (which they could have at any point, where exactly do you think he could run to comfortably elude US enforcemnt?) is because he has not broken any US law yet.

Christ, the far left really can convince themselves of anything these days - a man being disliked by the US government is reason enough for said man to never face trial or police questioning for a serious crime is just another example of their complete lack of grasp of complexity.

Mervyn Crawford · 26-11-2011 08:15AM

WSWS.ORG INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTINE ASSANGE

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/nov2011/cass-n26.shtml

orourkeda · 26-11-2011 12:02PM

Perhaps I'm wrong about this but there's something of the night about Julian Assange.

I wouldn't for a second comment on his guilt\innocence of the crimes that he has been accused of. Thats not for me to say. Neither would I criticise his work at wikileaks but I just get the feeling that there is something about him that unsettles me.

stateofflux · 26-11-2011 01:30PM

orourkeda wrote: »

Perhaps I'm wrong about this but there's something of the night about Julian Assange.

I wouldn't for a second comment on his guilt\innocence of the crimes that he has been accused of. Thats not for me to say. Neither would I criticise his work at wikileaks but I just get the feeling that there is something about him that unsettles me.

ye i don't like the look of him either, he looks like a rapist,just look at those beady eyes. i also refuse to believe all this conspiracy stitch up nonsense revolving around a man that poses/posed a serious security risk to the u.s. government & the covert side of their world affairs.

Wikileaks merge (Assange loses extradition appeal)

Comments