Talk:Julian Assange/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Update

This seems to be badly in need of an update, doesn't it?--Spud (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've updated it, is more needed? Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Manning vs. Assange

Manning is an Officer in the US military who gave over CONFIDENTIAL documents. That is about as big a crime as you can get. Saying Assange might be mistreated because manning was treated according to the US Code of Military Justics (like it or not), is nuts. Keep this article at least remotely factual, ok? GodotIz a sekret Kristian 17:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

On my side of the pond (Atlantic) liberals and social democrats don't consider The Guardian nuts.

Thousands of people, including scores of legal scholars and the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, have condemned Manning's treatment as inhumane, and state that it may constitute torture. There is no reason for Assange to expect he will be treated any better.

The quote above is from, Julian Assange is right to fear US prosecution. This is happening in the UK and we're getting good news coverage here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done the best I can with UK sources that are usually reliable. If the article needs improvement perhaps we need authors who know good American sources. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Comment is Free" section is devoted to comment and opinion, not news reporting, and it shouldn't be conflated with the Guardian itself.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"As big a crime as you can get." That puts frying people with missiles and bombs into perspective. Is there a rolleyes 'smiley'? Scherben (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Swedish law

I think we should include that the alleged assaults are criminal in Sweden but not in many other liberal jurisdictions. Assange is being got at because of Wikileaks, the inconsiderate sex is an excuse, (assuming the sex happened). Others who may want to help Wikileaks are given the message that their personal favourite indiscretions whatever these are will be used against them if possible. If Assange is guilty he has done something wrong, I've read suggestions that one of the complaining ladies has connections with American enemies of Assange. I haven't got strong enough sources to put that into the article if anyone else has please add this. Honey traps involving very attractive women (straight or gay sexual partners of appropriate type) are a common tool of secret services, Mordechai Vanunu was just one victim. Because the sex crime smear may deter other supporters of Wikileaks I feel we should take care not to paint Assange blacker than he is. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(I was about to post this as a new section but waited after I saw PC's last Edit Comment, which is why it doesn't read as a reply)

Please can people stop speculating as to the legality or otherwise of the allegations against Assange as applied to various legal jurisdictions? It's singularly pointless given that nobody is yet clear as to what he might be charged with if he returns to Sweden. Adding "The thing he may or may not have done may or may not be legal in countries other than the one he may or may not have done it in" - which is what you're doing - is unhelpful. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the article currently doesn't even say what the sex acts were, adding a footnote stating that they may not be illegal everywhere seems rather a dead end. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, altering your talk page comments after others have already replied is seriously bad etiquette. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Death penalty

Those who fear Assange could face the death penalty aren't necessarily uneducated. Would educated Americans or other Westerners have believed Special rendition was happening before the truth came out? Further educated supporters of Assange outside the USA don't understand the American system, they know terrible things happen at Guantanamo Bay, they know about Special rendition etc. They fear the worst. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guess you mean Extraordinary rendition? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 18:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the US government was not permitted to execute him or Snowden especially in light of Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 which essentially forbid the state from imposing the death penalty on a crime that did not result in death. The idea that the Government would secretly execute him sounds rather ludicrous to me as well. Thus far the US has only used drone strikes on targets in war zones or in unstable countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan. The US seems to use drones in countries that are either "allies" like Pakistan, too weak to protest, or countries which are both. In other words, nowhere that Assange or Snowden are hiding, so unless they somehow really piss off either the Russians or the Israelis (two countries whose intelligence agencies assassinate people in far more open and indiscriminate manner than the CIA does) I doubt that either of them will be the target of any assassinations attempts in the near future. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.238.26.73 / talk / contribs 16:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)}

It becomes increasingly LOL-tastic when you read up on the difference between extradiction rules for the UK and Sweden. The UK rules basically says they will extradict anybody, even for things that are not a crime in the UK. The Swedish rules says you can't extradict anybody if there's any risk of torture and/or the death penalty. I don't think most people are aware of this, but extradicting Assange to Sweden from the UK would make it MUCH less likely he'd be extradited to the US. Dendlai (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)