Assange's mental, physical health deteriorating under embassy confinement – medical records

a reply to: Xcathdra

Alexander Litvinenko

I get your point though.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

Actually US laws in question would apply to him. He received classified information and then he distributed that information. Citizenship or location has no bearing on the statute. If a person in Moscow orders a person in London be killed does that mean the people in Moscow can't be held liable under the law?

Where are people getting this incorrect notion that geography cant exempt a person from breaking the law?

The problem is one of jurisdiction. You're subject to US law either if you're a citizen of the US or if you're on US soil at the time the law in question is broken. Assange conveniently sidestepped both of those issues with his US related releases. There are laws he has broken, but enforcement is tricky. We can't just go arrest him because he's outside of our jurisdiction. We could ask Ecuador to hand him over (or Sweden if/when they get him), but they don't have to comply.

Even if they do comply, what are we going to charge him with? Given his status he has no obligation to protect classified US documents, he can do whatever he wants with them. It would be an easy case for him to win, and that's only if he's extradited in the first place. If it's an espionage case which can potentially carry the death penalty then Sweden can't even legally extradite him despite their treaty with the US.

All this is to say that I think Assange has a rather poor excuse right now to remain in the embassy. It made sense years ago, it doesn't make sense now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I think the term hactivist applies.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe he has that title, I don't pay enough attention to articles about him to know. But to me a hacktivist is someone who hacks in order to be an activist for a cause. While Assange used to be a hacker, his current position is more of a systems administrator and journalist. He created a platform for others to submit data to him (sometimes obtained through hacking), and he in turn reviews and publishes it. It's like the New York Times publishing a story given to them by an underground source.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Link me to where it says there is a sealed indictment / charges.

You clearly dont get the point of a "sealed" (SECRET) indictment.

Secret Proceedings and Sealed Indictments
All grand jury proceedings are required by law to be kept secret. The investigation takes place in a closed room, led by a prosecutor with no judge. The person accused of a crime has no right to present his case, and in most cases is not advised the hearing is taking place. It is against the law for any witness or member of the jury to disclose any portion of the grand jury proceedings, including their own testimony.

While a court reporter transcribes the grand jury proceedings, the resulting record is sealed until such time as the court un-seals it. In many cases, a secret indictment made by the grand jury, formally charging the accused of a crime, is kept sealed until the accused has been arrested, notified of the charges, or released from jail pending trial. A secret indictment is also referred to as a “sealed indictment,” or a “silent indictment.”

There are two primary reasons for such secrecy: (1) to encourage witnesses to testify and provide evidence openly without fear of retaliation, and (2) to reduce the risk of the accused taking flight or attempting to influence the jurors. In addition, keeping grand jury investigations secret helps ensure an accused person who is ultimately cleared of criminal charges is not subject to public censure or scorn.

I'm not privy to sealed federal indictments to "provide you a link" to them, nor would I be legally able to if I were.

a reply to: Aazadan

You are correct a nation can refuse extradition requests, and the UK has done it before so no argument there. As for jurisdiction he violated US Federal law and the US is within its right to prosecute. I would like to know where you are getting the impression a person cannot break the laws of another nation unless they are present in said nation, specifically when its internet related.

As for charges I already told you - violation of the espionage act, conspiracy, possession of classified information, distribution of classified information etc.

You are incorrect with regards to classified information when said information is stolen.

None of the charges he would be subject to carry the death penalty as a punishment. That was another lie Assange and his lawyers attempted to use.

Assange is a hacktavist. As for the journalism argument I have seen others try to use that. Being a journalist does not protect the person from disclosing classified material. The Pentagon papers case established that.

As for the New York Times comment you are ignoring the very important difference between that scenario and Assange. The New York Times has not enlisted an individual to illegally access and steal classified info nor have they provided support via encryption software to obtain said info.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your argument is based on the false premise a sealed indictment exists. There is no way of knowing if one exist until one is unsealed and trying to base a legal argument off a hypothetical does not work - neither here in the US or in the European Court system when Assange lawyers tried that argument and lost.

I am familiar with how sealed indictments work thank you.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Do you honestly believe Assange didn't know what he was getting into when he started releasing State secrets? If Assange never bothered to take into account that releasing classified information from various countries would cause a backlash then he is stupider than I thought.

Ever wonder why he has not done the same with regards to Russia, China, North Korea etc? Maybe because those countries would end him if he did. Its not heroic when you pick countries who wont kill you.

He never released any "legal" state secrets, since it is already illegal for government to use the classification system to hide illegality by classifying something only to hide it from the people anything illegal. Wikileaks is in the business of exposing corruption, not releasing state secrets. You have completely missed the boat on Julian Assange, sadly enough.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

REally? Please point out which Diplomatic Cables he released exposed corruption. Please point out in all of he military documents he released that showed corruption.

He has illegally obtained classified material and released it and a large large bulk of those released documents dont show any corruption / illegal activity. Illegality is determined by the courts and not some hack from Australia.

and you say I missed the boat.... ok.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I am familiar with how sealed indictments work thank you.

You claim that yet you repeatedly demanded I send you a link to one. Amazing!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

REally? Please point out which Diplomatic Cables he released exposed corruption. Please point out in all of he military documents he released that showed corruption.

He has illegally obtained classified material and released it and a large large bulk of those released documents dont show any corruption / illegal activity. Illegality is determined by the courts and not some hack from Australia.

and you say I missed the boat.... ok.

No, you did by far. Remember all the released material through wikileaks by Manning showing the murder and atrocities being committed by our military? The footage of civilians being killed? War crimes..Duh DERP.. That is a prime example of government using the classification system to HIDE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES... Now that I see you are this blind I won't need to take you seriously ever again..

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I am familiar with how sealed indictments work thank you.

You claim that yet you repeatedly demanded I send you a link to one. Amazing!

No I am challenging your assertion that something exists when in reality you don't know if it does. Hence the reason that legal argument made by Assange / his lawyers was dismissed by the courts.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Again nothing in the classified Diplomatic cables showed corruption so there was no reason to release them and undermines the argument about exposing corruption.

As for the "murder" you speak of you failed to adequately understand those incidents. Secondly a persons opinion does not substitute the rues of warfare, the Geneva convention, the UCMJ nor Federal Law.

But why bother with all of that if it undermines Assanges opinion and those who blindly follow for no other reason than they thinks its cool.

If you were him, regardless of the Sweden debacle, would you honestly walk out that door? Go out for some cinema and some disco?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If you were him, regardless of the Sweden debacle, would you honestly walk out that door? Go out for some cinema and some disco?

If the Sweden debacle doesnt exist we wouldn't be having this absurd conversation about him being trapped in the embassy and his health.

If I were him I wouldn't put myself into a position where a woman claims I raped her. I wouldn't release classified documents that shows no corruption / illegal activity and I wouldn't take advantage of world events in order to fund raise while making false claims about my legal situation.

I would behave as a journalist and not a hacker who is an activist whose intent seems to embarrass the US instead of exposing the corruption he claims is rampant yet never exposes.

So far his only leaks / hacks to support the stated agenda of wikieaks revolves around Clinton and the DNC.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I am familiar with how sealed indictments work thank you.

You claim that yet you repeatedly demanded I send you a link to one. Amazing!

No I am challenging your assertion that something exists when in reality you don't know if it does. Hence the reason that legal argument made by Assange / his lawyers was dismissed by the courts.

I suppose you don't believe the holocaust happened as well.. Denial doesn't mean it isn't happening. Corruption has been shown time and time again by the releases directly from wikileaks, which has been the whole point. Those in government who don't want the truth exposed have also shown they use MSM propaganda to rally the gullible in supporting their agenda. Hide and deflect all you want, it isn't going to change the truth.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aazadan

He violated the espionage act and several other federal laws and its not relevant if he was in the US a the time of said crimes or not.

And like many I call that law bull #.

Its wrong.


How can a crime be committed if your not in that country or even a citizen?!

Its the USA forcing its laws and will on over sovereign nations.

Can the UK have you arrested and extradited for the gun you own in the USA cause guns are illegal here?

Here's a little tip of the iceberg of corruption Assange has recently released.

BREAKING: WIKILEAKS DUMPS MASSIVE NEW DNC LEAK


Link

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

He has not been arbitrarily detained and he can in fact leave anytime he wants. The UN jumping in has absolutely no force or effect and was an attempted end run around the Swedish, British and EU court systems, where he has lost his legal arguments.

The UN disagrees with you. Obviously, he isn't officially detained as he would be if convicted, but his situation is a pretty unique one with many perspectives, both legal and moral.

As for his stunt with Manning... It is just that, a stunt. Manning would need to be pardoned first before Assange turns himself in. Once the pardon is signed there is no going back on it at which point Assange can say eff off and not turn himself in.

Secondly I find it interesting that he uses extradition to the US as an excuse to not go to Sweden but says he would surrender himself to the US if Manning is released. He is undermining his own argument.

Indeed, it is a stunt, however i wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. The medical reports indicate that Assange's mental health is deteriorating significantly, and that he sees life in the embassy as a blur of sorts. It goes on to suggest that prolonged 'detainment' can force some people to consider different means to escape their imprisonment. Obviously, Assange's offer would put him in another 'prison', but perhaps he is getting desperate to leave the confines of the embassy. He clearly is not doing well. The report indicates that may have a degree of suicidal ideation, even though they rate his potential of self-harm as low risk. This clearly shows that he is probably not thinking straight.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

LETS MAKE THIS SIMPLE - PLEASE CITE YOUR EVIDENCE THAT A " FILE OF SEALED CHARGES " ACTUALLY EXISTS

a reply to: ignorant_ape

EARTH TO EARTH - SEALED FILES ARE SECRET UNTIL THEY CAN BE EXECUTED AND THATS A THAT

a reply to: Xcathdra

Please provide us a link to where the US DOJ has clearly printed that they are not intent on charging him.