Julian Assange? Who's that?

[Tangled Metal]

I seem to recall reading something a long time back before he really hit the public consciousness with her wiki leaks leaks. IIRC this was when he left Australia, there was a cloud over him with regards a potential case to answer. I can't recall the details and it got dropped but I seem to think it was for something that would get the #metoo crowd firing up their twitter accounts.

As I said it was a vague memory of something but I must admit when the Swedish accusations came up it certainly coloured my view on them. It's just a shame that most of the accusations ran out of time for a prosecution instead of being tested in court.

Whatever your views over espionage vs press freedom with a public interest case sexual offences are something that really should have been tested in court. Was there no way of ensuring that Sweden wouldn't onwards extradite to USA through legally binding mechanisms? Was JA's actions so put of the blue that they thought such protections weren't necessary because he couldn't do anything anyway? I'm curious as to what could have been done at the original time to see the Swedish cases taken to their conclusion.

[thirdcrank]

Once he was in England, then as far as I can see, the only thing that would have helped get him to Sweden sooner - all other things being equal - would have been to refuse him bail. There are limitations there, both the legal rights to bail and the problems of prison overcrowding. I'm not going back to check but I think there were conditions on his bail.

One point that seems to get little attention is the likely ability of the US authorities to track him down and spirit him away or worse wherever he might go if released, especially as he seems unlikely to remain schtum for long. Perhaps he'd be OK somewhere like Russia, at least for a while.

[reohn2]

Julian Assange = journalist a fearless and good one too.
As for the USA it's one of the worst abusers of power on the planet and the UK is in it's pocket

[Mike Sales]

One point that seems to get little attention is the likely ability of the US authorities to track him down and spirit him away or worse wherever he might go if released, especially as he seems unlikely to remain schtum for long. Perhaps he'd be OK somewhere like Russia, at least for a while.

Rendition. Is the USA the world's secret policeman, not the world's policeman?

[thirdcrank]

... Rendition. Is the USA the world's secret policeman, not the world's policeman?

I really have no idea but if as some believe the CIA and other secret squirrel squads are into everything, then finding somebody who seems to thrive on personal publicity ought to be a cinch. Also, as we've seen with Ecuador in this case a change of régime and with it a change of attitude to the USA can render a save haven unsafe. AFAIK, In the UK, the Home Secretary has the final say so. I'm only guessing but I fancy that Sajid Javid would take a different view to Diana Abbott.

[thirdcrank]

I don't know much about the underlying story here, but it looks as though the land of Oz may not be the safest of havens for investigative hacks.

ABC raid: Australia police search headquarters of public broadcaster

The police action is related to articles about alleged misconduct by Australian forces in Afghanistan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-48522729

[Tangled Metal]

That wasn't why JA left his home country though.

Heard about it on the news on the drive into work this morning. The issue isn't the warrant because journalists like those working on intelligence briefs encounter them. It's the broad wording and scope of it.

Basically for the first time the editor has known there's been a warrant authorising the police to access, delete, copy, modify and access any document or email on their servers. It's a charter for rewriting their record of interviews for example. So there will not be a trail supporting the national broadcaster's intelligence reports, especially the one about special forces crimes.

Most media get subject to warrants, especially the intelligence briefs. Most are narrow and well defined. That allows for their lawyers to contest the warrant and resist giving over their sources. This has very little wriggle room for the ABC lawyers to fight it apparently.

They've also got a warrant n for another journalist reporting on the same SF story.

[Mike Sales]

That wasn't why JA left his home country though.

Heard about it on the news on the drive into work this morning. The issue isn't the warrant because journalists like those working on intelligence briefs encounter them. It's the broad wording and scope of it.

Basically for the first time the editor has known there's been a warrant authorising the police to access, delete, copy, modify and access any document or email on their servers. It's a charter for rewriting their record of interviews for example. So there will not be a trail supporting the national broadcaster's intelligence reports, especially the one about special forces crimes.

Most media get subject to warrants, especially the intelligence briefs. Most are narrow and well defined. That allows for their lawyers to contest the warrant and resist giving over their sources. This has very little wriggle room for the ABC lawyers to fight it apparently.

They've also got a warrant n for another journalist reporting on the same SF story.

Something in common to the Australian case and the Manning/Assange case is that a motive in both is a desire to cover up misdeeds by troops, and to punish those who reveal them.

[reohn2]

Something in common to the Australian case and the Manning/Assange case is that a motive in both is a desire to cover up misdeeds by troops, and to punish those who reveal them.

A case of the state wanting journalist to write 'fake news' to suit the state remit of being whiter than white,it's an increasingly disturbing attitude and has been for quite a while.....

[Tangled Metal]

Another difference is australia doesn't have freedom of speech so enshrined in their constitution like America.

Another difference is ABC reported on one case of potential criminality of the SF soldiers. JA, Snowden, wikileaks, etc just dumped a load of secret files into public access. No filtering out of background secrecy and secrecy / cover up of malpractice or criminality.

Basically put Australia is pursuing ABC to find the whistle-blower who was getting criminality into the public record. JA and wkikleaks were publishers who got a massive file dump without any specivity to it. IMHO that's not public interest but parts of it was. IMHO if Wikileaks had filtered it or their sources did to limit it to criminality or suspect criminality then and only then is there equivalency.

[Mike Sales]

IMHO if Wikileaks had filtered it or their sources did to limit it to criminality or suspect criminality then and only then is there equivalency.

Stating that there is "something in common" is not quite the same as claiming "equivalency".
There was quite a fuss about the disgraceful footage of soldiers chortling as they gunned down random civilians. The USA government tried to discredit it. See my post above.

[Tangled Metal]

It comes across on here that many support JA and wikileaks without actually looking at the whole of it. You're looking at the good points but ignore what really isn't right.

You can pick at my imperfect phrasing but you can't really say the whole of v the Snowden or Manning files are similar to bthe Australian leak to ABC.

One is a leak of masses of information off which most of simply us diplomatic internal and secure communications. Yes, calling the ambassador of Middle East country a bit of a nutter or whatever was published at the time is funny but public interest? Soldiers potentially breaching conventions or expected conduct meets the public interest demands.

That has always been my issue with wikileaks. There's no assessment of public interest. They got the files so everyone can get them.

I will say one thing about the organisation though, it's certainly helped keep JA in the limelight. It's not inconceivable that JA's purpose in setting it up was self promotion.

Compare with ABC. The public broadcaster in Australia with a reputation to match. With codes of conduct for their journalists and who do filter out the chaff that's not in the public interest but aren't afraid to publish stories that authorities don't want released.

Wikileaks just publish and be dammed but nobody on here will take issue with that.

[Mike Sales]

Pointing out that "something in common" is not claiming "equivalency" is not criticising rough phrasing. The meanings are distinct.
I think that there has been plenty of criticism of Assange here. So much that I did not feel the need to join the condemnation. I don't bother much with +1 type posts.
I agree that Assange is unlikeable and the data dump was indiscriminate.
I can understand why he is so scared of serving a life sentence in an American gaol.

[Tangled Metal]

IMHO is not got much in common. ABC source gave a reporter with the national broadcaster specific information relating to wrongdoings / possible criminality which they reported on responsibly in the great tradition of news reporting.

JA and wiki leaks put a massive dump of information from their source online without any discrimination between public interest and just sensational information to embarrass the US authorities / military / diplomats.

I personally don't see much commonality there but each to their own opinions (often according to what your views are of the recipient of JA's attentions).

[Mike Sales]

I personally don't see much commonality there but each to their own opinions (often according to what your views are of the recipient of JA's attentions).

I'm not entirely clear who you mean here, I guess you are talking about the Swedish women. Of course he should face trial over those allegations. I have no view of the women.
If you are referring to the USA government, I do dislike their vindictive justice system, and the even more vindictive President. Manning has been treated badly.