4 ms·

Julian Assange's lawyers complain over leaked sex-case papers

5 points by stevefink 16y ago

epo 16y ago
Irony? Much?
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Agreed. Besides with the amount of publicity Assange has been getting, wouldn't case files being leaked make it incredibly easy to file for a mistrial? I mean you could bring a case against them citing purposeful release and sue them under defamation laws. It might go nowhere, but throwing these kinds of suits against the prosecutor will only serve to discredit the prosecution. Trail by media would be a far more effective win for Assange than a full out court battle, because all he has to do is convince a British judge that there's no merit for his extradition, and convincing the judge that there's political advantages to slandering him could be all it takes to put the nail in the prosecutions appallingly flimsy case.
  - epo 16y ago
    I think it is far more likely his own side leaked the papers in order to fabricate an illusion of foul play. He allegedly believes in transparency just like he is allegedly a rapist. Lets put his alleged belief to the test and have ALL court papers out in the open. Otherwise he is a hypocrite. After all, it is two (? at least?) women who are his accusers not the US Government, what is apparent to non-fanboys is that Assange is afraid of facing his accusers in court.
    - Daishiman 16y ago
      No. Why? Individuals deserve privacy from the media if they are to be judged fairly. Governments and states evidently abuse their position of power to hide incriminating evidence under the mantle of secrecy and national security. There's a tremendous difference.
      - epo 16y ago
        Just like governments need to do some things in secret to protect themselves against enemies. That is not to defend all secrecy but secrecy has its purpose and to pretend, as some want to, that everything governments do can be transparent is moronic.
        Daishiman 16y ago
        So? "Some things" is nowhere near the astounding amount of secrecy that is currently being maintained. There's no jury to judge states; states don't have as much on the line as citizens. Individuals are different from the state.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      I'm by no way a fan of Assange, I think what he's doing is irresponsible. However, everyone else appears to be wilfully committing wilful violations of any laws, be them civil, criminal or constitutional, that stand in the way of prosecuting him. When he's up for extradition to Sweden to pave the way for an extradition to the US, they might have well performed an extraordinary rendition and disappeared him like the US government made a habit of under Bush. Incidentally his 'accusers' used a political loop hole in Sweden and never actually accused him, and the Swedish prosecutors sat on it until suddenly (IE very shortly after the US government had leaned on Switzerland for offering Assange and Wikileaks asylum) the charges magically rematerialized. The Swedish government also issued a red notice (interpol notice seeking extradition) after Assange had already agreed to meet with them to discuss the charges, as they're only seeking him for further information and still aren't pressing formal charges. By Interpol's database he's one of the few (IE .03%) red notices for 'sex crimes' and is one of the few amongst them not wanted for associated violent crimes. He was initially denied bail in the UK as a flight risk, despite the fact that he hadn't fled nor hid and had offered full cooperation making the denial of bail extremely suspicious and virtually unheard of. I don't think Assange or his defence lawyer need to fabricate an 'illusion' of foul play, because the US, Swedish and British government are doing a far better job of actually conducting foul play and conspiracy than Assange could ever fabricate.

5 points by stevefink 16y ago

epo 16y ago

Irony? Much?

electromagnetic 16y ago
Agreed. Besides with the amount of publicity Assange has been getting, wouldn't case files being leaked make it incredibly easy to file for a mistrial? I mean you could bring a case against them citing purposeful release and sue them under defamation laws. It might go nowhere, but throwing these kinds of suits against the prosecutor will only serve to discredit the prosecution. Trail by media would be a far more effective win for Assange than a full out court battle, because all he has to do is convince a British judge that there's no merit for his extradition, and convincing the judge that there's political advantages to slandering him could be all it takes to put the nail in the prosecutions appallingly flimsy case.
- epo 16y ago
  I think it is far more likely his own side leaked the papers in order to fabricate an illusion of foul play. He allegedly believes in transparency just like he is allegedly a rapist. Lets put his alleged belief to the test and have ALL court papers out in the open. Otherwise he is a hypocrite. After all, it is two (? at least?) women who are his accusers not the US Government, what is apparent to non-fanboys is that Assange is afraid of facing his accusers in court.
  - Daishiman 16y ago
    No. Why? Individuals deserve privacy from the media if they are to be judged fairly. Governments and states evidently abuse their position of power to hide incriminating evidence under the mantle of secrecy and national security. There's a tremendous difference.
    - epo 16y ago
      Just like governments need to do some things in secret to protect themselves against enemies. That is not to defend all secrecy but secrecy has its purpose and to pretend, as some want to, that everything governments do can be transparent is moronic.
      - Daishiman 16y ago
        So? "Some things" is nowhere near the astounding amount of secrecy that is currently being maintained. There's no jury to judge states; states don't have as much on the line as citizens. Individuals are different from the state.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    I'm by no way a fan of Assange, I think what he's doing is irresponsible. However, everyone else appears to be wilfully committing wilful violations of any laws, be them civil, criminal or constitutional, that stand in the way of prosecuting him. When he's up for extradition to Sweden to pave the way for an extradition to the US, they might have well performed an extraordinary rendition and disappeared him like the US government made a habit of under Bush. Incidentally his 'accusers' used a political loop hole in Sweden and never actually accused him, and the Swedish prosecutors sat on it until suddenly (IE very shortly after the US government had leaned on Switzerland for offering Assange and Wikileaks asylum) the charges magically rematerialized. The Swedish government also issued a red notice (interpol notice seeking extradition) after Assange had already agreed to meet with them to discuss the charges, as they're only seeking him for further information and still aren't pressing formal charges. By Interpol's database he's one of the few (IE .03%) red notices for 'sex crimes' and is one of the few amongst them not wanted for associated violent crimes. He was initially denied bail in the UK as a flight risk, despite the fact that he hadn't fled nor hid and had offered full cooperation making the denial of bail extremely suspicious and virtually unheard of. I don't think Assange or his defence lawyer need to fabricate an 'illusion' of foul play, because the US, Swedish and British government are doing a far better job of actually conducting foul play and conspiracy than Assange could ever fabricate.