The military is a curious mixture of cultures. On the one hand it provides stable employment, a regular wage, job security for a set number of years, training in a useful skill and a reliable pension – ideal conditions in which to marry and raise a family; whilst at the same time relentlessly training you to have hair trigger responses to unexpected ‘disturbances’ to your equanimity, to be merciless in your response, to take lives without agonising, and to assume a natural position of control over each and every situation – none of these qualities being exactly conducive to the rough and tumble of family life. Small children waking you at dawn with loud bangs, wives ‘disobeying’ orders, children displaying teenage truculence. It is no wonder that the military have long understood the necessity of employing several psychiatrists to attend to the confusion in some military minds.

I used to know one of the US military psychiatrists extremely well. He and his wife were great friends of mine right up to his (sadly too early) death. Tom, as I shall call him, had been an army man once, but now having completed his medical training, he was stationed on an RAF base far from the US.   He had been given an honorary rank way above the relatively humble rank he had earned in the army; with that rank, such is the military focus on hierarchy, went a palatial suite of offices in a prime position on the base – right opposite the Base Commander’s office. He should have been delighted; such ‘honours’ are the way the military operate after all. He wasn’t, Tom had spotted the elemental flaw in the arrangement.

He and his wife had become customers of my little hotel during the early days of their arrival in the UK; those ‘resettlement’ days before he had to start work and was enjoying discovering the local area. He had struggled with alcoholism himself, and was now determinedly teetotal, so carried copious bottles of carbonated water with him everywhere. One hot day he asked me if I could put them in the ‘icebox’ to cool them down. I dutifully complied. An hour later, the door of the freezer blew off, showering a busy lunchtime restaurant with frozen peas….the ‘icebox’ is the ‘fridge’ in US-speak, not the place where you make ice…the incident cemented our friendship.

So it was that he asked a favour of me; would I lend him my little cottage in the grounds for one or two afternoons a week? No, not an extra marital relationship! Purely so that military personal who had come to the conclusion that they would benefit from professional help with their mental health could appear to be entering my tea rooms, but discretely walk round the back and consult their psychiatrist in my cottage without marching past the window of the Base Commander and announcing to the entire upper hierarchy that all was not well in their mind. It was an arrangement we continued for several years – I thought no more about it other than being slightly perturbed at the thought that some of the young men who flew over our heads in their lethally equipped flying machines were patently not the ‘full shilling’. One in particular used to come in his military uniform but was quite obviously wearing make up – we naturally christened him ‘Hotlips’ and would laugh about him, so unsympathetic were we. ‘Hotlips’ was eventually invalided out of the force after a mind blowing incident during ‘nuclear war games’ which would have been funny had it not been so potentially serious.

I was minded of ‘Hotlips’ when I first read a few years ago of Bradley Manning’s struggles with his gender identity. The military is an obvious choice for anyone who believes that with just a tad of ‘push’ they might become more manly; it must also be the hardest place in the world to escape from once it dawns on you that it hasn’t worked. You are still heading inexorably towards your feminine traits. Bradley Manning consulted an army psychologist in Iraq. He has testified:

Capt. Michael Worsley, a clinical psychologist and military reservist who treated Manning between December 2009 and May 2010 and, ultimately, was the one to diagnose him with gender identity disorder, testified today that Manning was placed in a “hyper-masculine” environment with “little support or key coping skills” to deal with pressure he faced as well as his gender disorder.

“Being in the military and having a gender identity issue does not go hand in hand,”

At the time of Manning’s therapy and ultimate diagnosis of gender identity disorder, being homosexual was a UCMJ violation, Worsley said, and placed a soldier at jeopardy of being court martialed.

It is indicative of the military mind that ‘being homosexual’ and having a ‘gender identity disorder’ are considered one and the same thing. Now both the transgendered community and the Gay community are trying to clasp Bradley to their bosom.

Manning tried other routes to escape his military commitment. He e-mailed his superior officer a picture of him dressed as a woman and wearing a woman’s wig:

The email [PDF] begins:

This is my problem. I’ve had signs of it for a very long time. It’s caused problems within my family. I thought a career in the military would get rid of it. It’s not something I seek out for attention, and I’ve been trying very, very hard to get rid of it by placing myself in situations where it would be impossible. But, it’s not going away; it’s haunting me more and more as I get older. Now, the consequences of it are dire, at a time when it’s causing me great pain it itself.

His superior officer ‘buried’ the e-mail and picture for fear that it would be leaked and Manning would become a laughing stock. No escape there then.

I am not seeking to defend Manning, his leak of secret material inevitably put lives at risk, and was unforgivable if for no other reason that that he HAD made that military commitment; what does concern me is that his cries for help were ultimately ignored, maybe he thought that doing something so utterly reprehensible would see him out of the army for good? What concerns me more is that the publicity seeking Julian Assange – and let us not forget the equally publicity seeking ‘hacitivst’ Adrian Lemo who identified him, and indeed the Guardian – were prepared to exploit his frail mental health for their own ends, to build their career, massage their ego, increase their circulation.

I cannot see how it profits the military to hang onto people like Bradley – or ‘Hotlips’ from long ago. They are a danger to everyone, not least their own colleagues. There should be a better way of escaping the military if you discover that you just cannot hack it than a court martial or a firing squad.

More and more we are seeing evidence of a media which is prepared to use anyone in their bid to force their version of the news on us. Karin Ward, Bradley Manning – there is not a lot of difference. Nobody cares about the original whistleblowers – the story becomes larger than them.

Assange, an autistic, now lives in his perfect environment; closeted away with his computer, no need to earn a living, girl friends ferried in for his sexual needs; a hermetically secure environment doing exactly as he pleases. Bradley Manning is further away than ever from being able to sort out his gender issues, possibly facing 90 years in an all male environment – demonstrably tougher and more macho than the military.  He is seen as the villain of the piece, whilst Assange is still viewed as a Hero in some quarters, as is Adrian Lemo. 

Curiously, the reasons why Bradley became an outsider within the military have received almost no publicity in the UK, although extensively covered in the US – it is only today that the US army have realised a salacious picture of Manning demonstrating his gender distress that the UK media have pricked up their ears. Just shows how shallow they are.

Fat Steve August 17, 2013 at 16:34

@Ho Hum
You make a good point and one that I had not specifically
considered though I think it may support my thesis —. I think applying what is
probably likely to be a rather threadbare critique (though some lawyers are a
little queasy on jurisdiction when not grounded on territoriality) the answer
to your question on the English sex tourist in Japan might be answered along
these lines on general principles of jurisprudence/ The English sex tourist
would not be amenable to extradition from Japan at the instance of the UK
authorities because the Japanese Courts would reject the notion that it should
abrogate its rights or the rights of someone within its jurisdiction to
another country. The English sex tourist would be amenable to prosecution as
soon as he returned to the UK by virtue of being within the jurisdiction and
having broken its laws. But let me try to illustrate my point in a different
way adopting a variation of your facts. Let us assume Iran passed a law that
homosexual acts committed by an Iranian citizen outside the jurisdiction were
subject to penalty —-would or should a gay Iranian sex tourist in London be
amenable to extradition from London at the request of the Iranian authorities
—its important that you appreciate I make this point without making any
personal value judgement about such a putative Iranian law. The issue is that
English Courts are likely to find such a law repugnant. In fact I suspect as I
believe to be the case there is less distance between Anna Raccoon and myself
on intellectual principles and I pray in aid what I hope will not be seen as
too selective a quote from her last post ‘ the system that you have to respect
when you are in that country ‘.

Fat Steve August 17, 2013 at 16:09

@Ho Hum You make a good point and one I hadn’t really considered save that
some lawyers have always been a little queasy about jurisdiction on any other
basis than territoriality —-it stems I suspect from the concept of the
independent nation state —with regard to the specific example you raise I
think it may be something of an extension of my thesis which applied against
the facts you postulate would be answered along these lines —A UK citizen who
engaged in sexual activity that was unlawful in the UK but was lawful in Japan
would not be amenable to extradition to the UK from Japan on the basis that
the Japanese courts would not extend English jurisdiction within its own
country unless and (this is the point in issue I think) it abrogated that
right. A UK citizen in the UK would be amenable to prosecution if he was in
the UK by virtue of his physical presence in the UK and that the law in
England proscribed such activity.
The issue in the Assange case as I see it
(possibly incorrectly) is that it is potentially dangerous to give a blanket
abrogation of individual rights over someone in one country to another country
—let me postulate a different factual scenario —Assume Iran passed a law that
Iranian citizens who committed homosexual acts abroad were subject to the same
sort of penalty as the commission of homosexual acts in Iran. A gay Iranian
sex tourist in London would be committing an offence under Iranian law but
would never be extradited by the UK authorities though could be prosecuted on
his return. I make no value judgement as to that Iranian law —though I might
have a personal opinion on it —in this respect Anna Raccoon and myself appear
to concur —we diverge I think on the point that that if English Jurisprudence
finds something repugnant the extent that principles of English jurisprudence
should be abrogated —but it is for Anna Raccoon (as landlady and many other
reasons besides) not me to adjudicate on whether I have identified differences
in so far as there may be differences. The reasons why I say there may be no
difference is what I hope is a not too a selective quote from Anna Raccoon’s
last post ‘the system that you have to respect when you are in that country’
—yes the Supreme Court has adjudicated on the validity of the Assange
extradition —-and he has therefore vacated the jurisdiction —I have made a
value judgement on the majority decision of the Supreme Court relying on the
points made in Mance’s minority judgement as to correct interpretation of the
legislation —but have commented also that whatever the correct interpretation
of the law as a matter of jurisprudence it a potentially dangerous path to
tread to pass legislation whereby someone in this jurisdiction forfeits the
protection afforded by English law and principles of English jurisprudence at
the instance of a relatively minor Swedish civil servant on the grounds inter
alia that notwithstanding she is the Prosecutor she deemed as it appears on my
reading of Swedish law a member of the judiciary.

Ho Hum August 16, 2013 at 20:33

FWIW, I don’t think Snowden was in any way a sissy though

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16/nsa_internal_audit_privacy_violations/

Ho Hum August 16, 2013 at 20:37

Nor, it seems, do a quite a few Americans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html

Fat Steve August 16, 2013 at 12:15

Personally I wish the pox on Assange, Manning and Governments that carry
out acts they shouldn’t and try to conceal them but in the democracy I live in
and being the person I am,wishing them the pox is probably the only action I
can or wish to take but Anna you are more literate than I am and have greater
commitment to issues such as law and justice and might I suggest reading the
transcript of the Supreme Court ruling on the Assange extradition proceedings
if you haven’t done so —-I did so much as I took the trouble to find your site
to know a bit of what was actually going on in the Savile case —-the question
in the Assange case was why would English law permit the extradition of
someone such as Assange on the factual evidence of the case which was reported
in MSM as ‘rape’ and yet in English law would not get laughed out of court
because it would have been laughed out of the police station before getting to
court. Now respect for Swedish law is a fine thing but only if Swedish law is
worthy of respect by the English law because Assange is in this jurisdiction
and as such subject and entitled to protection by it. We don’t extradite
individuals to jurisdictions where the law is inadequate do we? Well perhaps
we do and even if Parliament never intended such providing the drafted law
provides for such —–and here you have the relevance of the transcript of the
Supreme Court Judgement and the dissenting judgement of Jonathan Mance who
analysed what was intended by the words judicial process in the relevant
legislation —-yea you and I and most people would reckon that meant a Court in
Sweden deciding there was a case to answer wouldn’t we ? Of course no such
thing in the Assange case as you will discover, it is the extradition at the
request/behest/whim/untrammelled discretion of the Prosecutor in the case who
rumour has it has a personal feminist axe to grind—perhaps even that trait
identified as feminist for 15 minutes of fame —but lets give her the benefit
of any and all doubt on that one—-but on basic principles no one is judge of
his or her own cause right? Neither the Defendant nor the Prosecutor right?
Well sorry not in the Assange case if the Prosecutor (whether feminist or
otherwise) can compel the Courts of England that Assange is to be taken from
England to Sweden as the legislation appears to be interpreted provides he or
she can. Unless I am mistaken evidence is irrelevant pretty much and the
opinion of the Prosecutor is subject to no review by any third party —oh and
consequences of returning Assange to Sweden are equally irrelevant —–what is
the only issue is????? Yes the wish of the Prosecutor —nice one eh? The
careers mistress at our old Alma Mater of Duncroft might have pointed a few of
your peers in the direction of the Swedish Criminal prosecution Service —-all
that is needed is a law degree I imagine though I imagine a certain political
correctness is more important
Your blog frequently draws attention to the
creeping influence of certain interest groups —on occasion the Feministas, the
Eurocrats and the Politically Correct —but I will wager that if you read the
transcript you will stand me my next pint for drawing your attention to the
most perfect example of the erosion of what is understood by liberty in the
traditional Anglo Saxon World. But there again to be blunt from my perspective
I genuinely would find most afternoon tele more interesting than reading most
court transcript —-I only picked up on it and persevered with it because much
like the Savile case it was somehow obvious that Assange as vile sexual
predator didn’t quite fit —my own worthless opinion? Assange is and Savile was
motivated by a wish to be accepted by the public and adulated by them as good
and clever —-good works less for the sake of the work itself but its
reflection upon themselves —I don’t condemn them for that just that by doing
that they become volenti to the Court of public opinion

Fat Steve August 16, 2013 at 12:25

A typo —Your old Alma mater —not our

Moor
Larkin August 16, 2013 at 12:27

I’m just trying to recall if Maggie sought the extradition of Peter
Wright so she could lock him up for 90 years for being nasty about MI5.
I
seem to have the memory that she just settled for giving his book massive
worldwide publicity instead………..
According
to Adam Curtis Maggie long despaired of our oh-so-clever secret agency….

Anna
Raccoon August 16, 2013 at 12:50

Fat Steve,

I have read the Supreme court judgement.

“why would English law permit the extradition of someone such as Assange
on the factual evidence of the case which was reported in MSM as ‘rape’ and
yet in English law would not get laughed out of court because it would have
been laughed out of the police station before getting to court.”

Whether or not a sexual act is rape or not, rests on whether there was
reasonable cause to believe that the other party – whichever other party! –
had given informed consent to that act.

If consent rested on a condom being used, and it wan’t used, then you
couldn’t have reasonable belief that informed consent had been given. Ipso,
an English judge would come to the same conclusion – no informed consent, it
was rape. It is simply not true that it would be ‘laughed out of court’.

Now whether I agree with such a fine definition of ‘informed consent’ is
neither here nor there – I also have strong views on people who get so drunk
that they take all their clothes off in a stranger’s bedroom, climb into his
bed ‘to sleep’ and then cry rape….

But regardless of my personal views, that is the definition of rape in
English law and Swedish law. I don’t see that the known feminist views of a
prosecutor have anything to do with it – the law is there, she is applying
it. You might just as well say that no one should stand trial for rape in
this country because the Attorney – General (now disgraced, Ms Baird) was a
well known feminist….it is a red herring.

I don’t happen to think that patting a 15 year old on the bum should be
classed as child abuse – but it is the law that is wrong, not the police
that are applying it.

It is the reason why I draw attention to proposed changes in the law such
as the one currently on the table regarding social workers automatic ‘right
of entry’ powers. It is too late after such a law has been passed to
complain that you don’t like the political persuasions or personal views of
those who chose to apply it…

Ho Hum August 16, 2013 at 14:25

It’s easy to see why people might get a little bit concerned as to just
exactly why this is being pursued when you look at the background to this
whole sorry saga. The URL below comes from a blog by what seems to be a
Swedish writer, who has assembled the background – a bit like some of the
others here have done on the Savile and other issues. OK, so Assange
sounds like a real chancer, possibly a somewhat nasty little man as far as
relationships go, but the women involved don’t sound exactly ideal
hausfrau material either.

However, in short, it is all a bit weird that, as he says,

. ‘Assange could go from being charged in his absence and on suspicion
of rape to not at all on suspicion of rape, let alone arrested, in less
than a day’

and that

. ‘After several days of journalistic speculation about what will
happen [the initial prosecutor] attorney Eva Finné dropped the case of
rape’…….. “Inget brott har begåtts” (No crime has been committed)…..

The two women involved apparently merely wanted to get Assange to take
an STD test and went to the police to try to get him to do so. As far as
anything serious happened

. The [initial] prosecutor said ……….after reading the interview with
her [the main complainant] can not find anything wrong in the man’s
behavior.’

What he was at that point then wanted for was

. ‘Absurdly enough, the only thing that will now be investigated, it
Assange possibly have done to [the other woman who Assange had, before,
had sex with and who had gone along merely to support the other one whose
complaint was described as not giving rise to any crime], a woman who
never would have thought to report him.’

And that ‘charge is based on the broken condom’, the one that failed
when they had had sex at her home a week or so previously

That’s the same woman who, when she was interviewed in

. ‘Aftonbladet. She says Assange has not been violent or intimidating.
But he has “bad attitude to women and can not take no for an answer”.

The women contacted a lawyer who agreed to help them. You really need
to read the section that appears before and after the blog heading

. Women can’t tell if they’ve been raped, unless they are lawyers

to get the full gist of how it progressed from two women merely wanting
to get Assange to take an STD test to full blown rape charges

The relationships of who knew who and was potentially signed up to
whose other external agendas is covered too, as well as some of the other
edge issues, and it makes for intriguing reading for the more sceptical
amongst us

It all sounds a bit bonkers. If I were faced with making some sort of
decision as to whether or not to pass him back to that lot, I’d probably
be looking very hard for some valid reason, however legally obscure, not
to.

Ho Hum
August 16, 2013 at 14:40

I should have mentioned that there is a section that seems to imply
that it’s the State that will prosecute/decide what should be
prosecuted, irrespective of the views of those involved as to whether or
not they have had an offence committed against them, and even whether or
not they would wish to pursue the ‘offender’

Anna
Raccoon August 16, 2013 at
15:01

– as the CPS can do in England if they decide it is in the public
interest to do so.

Ho Hum
August 16, 2013 at 15:20

@ Anna Raccoon August 16, 2013 at 15:01

Indeed, but even if they aren’t necessarily a group that I would
trust unduly with that sort of power, they at least seem to be a
little bit less dysfunctional than their Swedish counterparts

Ho Hum
August 16, 2013 at 14:43

BBC summary of comparable law is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439

Fat Steve
August 16, 2013 at 16:26

Great in theory Anna —but applying the principles you espouse which
appear something along the lines of the jurisprudence of some American
schools that all laws of all countries deserve equal respect and should
therefore be enforceable through the Courts of all countries (I think its
the Columbian school) —that rather ignores the principles of jurisprudence
that exist in any jurisdiction —-physical presence in a particular
jurisdiction is I rather think the starting point and the principles of
jurisprudence in that jurisdiction must be upheld as against the
principles of jurisdiction in another —-its trite law —-its why we don’t
extradite to where the death penalty exists —its repugnant to English
jurisprudence. The issue you raise is valid —the law is the law is the law
and must be upheld —my point (adopting Jonathan Mance’s argument) is lets
understand the law, why it was made, and how it was meant to be
implemented and its meaning within the context of English jurisprudence.
(I think the leading case on this issue is Pepper v Wright—-an authority
the Supreme Court curtail given the slightest pretext for reasons I don’t
understand apart from preferring certainty over other concepts inherent in
the administration of law). Its strange you favour the approach you appear
to do since the discretion of the judiciary and other law enforcement
agencies is minimised —-the implementation of the law becomes formulaic
—-actually in the ultimate analysis not much else but the words that
appear in the actual legislation which may or may not represent the intent
of legislators —-the Assange case is in point here—did the legislators
intend for someone in this jurisdiction intend such as Assange to be
extradited on the unchallenged say so of a Swedish Prosecutor —-apparently
not on Mance’s understanding —her feminism is irrelevant save to the
extent that a feminist perspective like any other too overt political
perspective leads to implementation of the law from that perspective and
might reasonably raise a presumption that greater care might be taken in
examining the case to ensure political bias played no part in the
case.
But for all the intent of English legislators, all the principles
of English jurisprudence and that Assange is in this jurisdiction, the
possible or even probable consequences of extradition to the USA from
Sweden what appeared to matter to the judiciary was the letter of the law.
Such an approach I suggest has gone some way to making the law the blunt
formulaic and narrow implement that it has become, applied now at the
instigation or should that be insistence of any party who can insist that
the law proscribes examination of broader facts beyond that which the
specific law states. Its a further thrust in the direction of what someone
in this forum has described as strict liability. Personally I believe the
Swedish law in respect of the Assange case deserves as much the scrutiny
of the courts as the law of any other country —-sure presumptions can be
made by not irrebutable presumptions —I might make a metaphor with the
Savile case —perfectly proper to make a presumption say that Savile needs
investigating in the light of complaints made —-but not an irrebutable
presumption that he is guilty because of the number of complaints —after
all that is what the law is therefore to be administered for the purposes
of justice as understood in this country not administered as an end in
itself

Fat Steve
August 16, 2013 at 16:32

Sorry I should have said unexamined and unchallengable , instead of
unchallenged say so of a Swedish Prosecutor the 4th line from the bottom
of para1

Fat Steve
August 16, 2013 at 16:45

Oh and I might add even the ten commandments are thought to be
subject to exception and proper interpretation —-though shalt not kill
and the exception of the just war being just one

Ho Hum
August 16, 2013 at 17:04

FWIW, Levitical law is pretty good on the difference between murder
and manslaughter too.

As an adjunct to that, while that was formulated a long time
ago,and reasonably well incorporated into our judicial system, if
anything we are going backwards on making a proper distinction between
intentional and accidental acts, if some of strict liability
impositions, as well as the recent changes to motoring law and such
are anything to go by

Anna
Raccoon August 16, 2013 at
16:38

I hear what you are saying but I fear it is muddying the water. You
are, I think, asking that the British judges decide whether IF Assange
were to be charged, whether this would be in accordance with British law
– however, the Swedish prosecutor is asking that Assange return for
questioning. There is no certainty whether he will be charged or
not.
It is the question of whether he should return for questioning
that the Supreme court were looking at.
I do of course appreciate
that if he were to return for questioning – and not give satisfactory
answers, that he would then be on the ‘back foot’ as it were, with
respect to charging.
I doubt that it has confused you, but I do feel
that a lot of commentators are confused by the term prosecutor, as
though prosecution in automatic if a prosecutor is involved – but under
civil law, that is really no different to be asked to return for
questioning by the CID – and subsequent evaluation of the case by the
CPS.
What would you say if Savile was still alive and in another
country – but refusing to return to Britain to be questioned by CID on
the grounds that the CPS might eventually prefer charges?

Moor Larkin August 16, 2013 at 17:02

@AnnaRaccoon
Wikileaks maintains that this bit of law is a prime
example of the sort of overreach you fear in the matter of the Social
Workers…
“What
was intended to streamline and fast-track extradition for serious
crimes has turned into a grave overreach. ”
http://wlcentral.org/node/2611
Rape IS a serious
crime but Assange’s case seems as akin to rape as that bloke who
texted he was going to blow up Robin Hood airport was akin to being a
terrorist. That’s not a “legal” opinion of course.

Ho Hum
August 16, 2013 at 17:09

Moor Larkin August 16, 2013 at 17:02

‘Rape IS a serious crime but Assange’s case seems as akin to rape
as that bloke who texted he was going to blow up Robin Hood airport
was akin to being a terrorist. That’s not a “legal” opinion of
course.’

The Swedish legal bods seem to have that covered

. ‘Women can’t tell if they’ve been raped, unless they are
lawyers’

See the reference above

Fat Steve
August 16, 2013 at 17:27

The narrow issue could be addressed satisfactorily (possibly though
I haven’t thought it through to be honest) by Assange being questioned
in this jurisdiction by the Swedish prosecutor —consequent on that
questioning if the Prosecutor believed charges should be brought then
information would put before the Swedish Courts —if Assange refused to
answer or was uncooperative I suggest that might be relevant both to
the Swedish Courts and in subsequent extradition proceedings if
brought.
Actually I don’t dismiss the point you make about consent
as viewed by both The English and Swedish Courts quite as thoroughly
as I may appear to. Whilst sympathising with a defendant who flees a
jurisdiction because its laws are unjust ( not just not to his liking)
I personally do not necessarily make a value judgement about the law
of consent in Sweden and reject the idea that everyone should get the
rules clear before they jump into bed —I think its likely to be
unenforceable unless there is a third party to witness the agreement
and the act but I am no expert on evidence in this respect though at
first blush it appears a nonsense—–but yea Assange should go back to
Sweden to face questioning actually because as with anyone but
particularly those who aspire to power it is incumbent upon them to
account for their actions—-be forced to go back by the English Courts?
Well I don’t know—- but one thing I am sure on is that Assange should
return to Sweden only if he is assured no extradition proceedings will
be entertained by the Swedish Courts by the U,S. authorities —why?
well then the rape allegation is capable of being used to circumvent
the law of the jurisdiction in which Assange was present (before he
went to that province of Ecuador situated in London SW1).The law in
this country would be diminished when it applies law for one purpose
but is complicit in its use for a different purpose
Oh and for the
little its worth whilst I believe the information disclosed in
wikileaks should have been disclosed I reject Assange’s methodology
entirely and I reject Bradley Manning’s actions in disclosing the
information to Assange on any grounds whatsoever .Why? well back to a
point I made earlier —essentially the Hegelian notion of personal
motive (for want of a more precise word) —the case has the stench of
personality rather than principle and the importance of the principles
at stake have thereby been diminished.
A Pox on them all

Anna Raccoon August 16, 2013 at 18:24

“only if he is assured no extradition proceedings will be
entertained by the Swedish Courts by the U,S. authorities”.

A government assurance? In which case you are suggesting that the
courts be governed by political considerations rather than the case
in front of them….

Or a judicial assurance – in which case who do you suggest has
the power to command all the individual, and independent, judicial
figures?

Edited to add: and of course he would require that the
Attorney-General in Britain be so bound as well, since (currently)
she, has the final say on whether Assange could be extradited to
Sweden rather than returned to the originating country – and if he
fears that the British authorities would acquiesce, then why did he
stay in Britain so long?

Fat
Steve August 16, 2013 at
22:35

You raise some good technical legal and political points that
are well above my pay grade to answer —in particular I know
nothing of Swedish Constitutional law but if one is looking for
just outcomes to this case look first to principles and then see
if there are available tools to solve them. So how about this as a
start. Swedish law is to be respected —by the English Courts and
by other civilised countries including the USA —-that raises the
issue of cooperation —the cooperation by the USA and the UK in
ensuring Swedish Law is upheld but not exploited for other
purposes —-so might it not be incumbent on the US to volunteer not
to bring extradition proceedings since by not so doing the
implementation of Swedish law is frustrated—never happen of course
because it would be political suicide but then we are talking law
rather than politics.
If the U.S wanted to extradite Assange
from the UK then UK law applies including the political over ride
by the Home Secretary —but no override or judicial discretion
available in extradition requested by a Prosecutor —and I don’t
prejudge outcomes but the UK is sometimes queasy about criminal
penalties in the US.
The narrow legal issue as I understand it
Anna is that as a result of judicial interpretation of the
relevant extradition treaty a relatively minor Swedish civil
servant can demand the extradition of someone in this jurisdiction
and merits of that civil servants actions are not open for review
in our courts

Moor Larkin August 16, 2013 at 17:39

@ HoHum
@ ‘Women can’t tell if they’ve been raped, unless they
are lawyers’ @

I recall more than one of the Savile *victims* declaring things
like, [30 years later] “I now realise I was raped”

Curmudgeon August 16, 2013 at 06:12

Anna, you assert “I am not seeking to defend Manning, his leak of secret
material inevitably put lives at risk”.

There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of this. Manning embarrassed powerful
people. Stella Rimington has said that the ‘secrets’ were not secret at all.
Real secrets are kept secret and not given to thousands of low ranking data
wranglers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/22/wikileaks_secrets_werent_stella_rimington_says/

Den August 15, 2013 at 16:23

Re Assange: I’m confused – does anyone here really not believe that the
charges against him are trumped up and that the UK and/or Sweden would not
hand him over on a plate in order to curry favour with the Americans and avoid
their displeasure? I think I can be naive but I am under no illusions as to
what the intelligence services get up to here, in the States and , I suppose,
in Sweden.

Moor
Larkin August 15, 2013 at 16:29

@Den
What is utterly confusing is that the UK would not extradite
Assange on the premise he may have have caused the death of untold numbers
of Secret Agents, but will extradite him because of some vague notions about
offending Swedish Blue laws. The legalities are laughably contemptible.

Den August 15, 2013 at 16:34

@Moor
Please cite credible sources re: deaths of agents and, if
convincing, I will change my tune.

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 16:40

They’re probably more credible than the rape charges. There were
several billion pieces of wiki-info. I doubt anyone can ever know what
may or may not have resulted from the wiki-release. The chances of the
media reporting on any are less than zero anyhow, even if they had the
wit to find out.

There are some who claim the Arab Spring was a pretty direct result.
The jury is still out on the streets in Egypt.

Den August 15, 2013 at 16:50

“I doubt anyone can ever know what may or may not have resulted
from the wiki-release.” This does not cause me to change my tune.

We shouldn’t give anyone up to the intelligence community without
very good reason, they are not of our kind. They even sacrifice their
own when expedient. God alone knows what they do to their perceived
enemies.

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 16:53

@Den
The solution is so painfully obvious. Put Julian on a
non-stop Jumbo to bloody Sydney and let the Aussies sort it out………….

Ho Hum
August 15, 2013 at 17:01

No-one is going to tell you that. But if you can track down named
individuals from anonymised release of ISP customer data,…

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/21/netflix_privacy_flap/

…then the sort of people who make up the security services in most
countries are probably going to have little trouble tracking down who
was providing tittle tattle and information of the type that I
understand was supposed to be contained in the Wikileaks info.

Ho Hum August 15, 2013 at 16:54

The accounts I read at the time did seem to indicate that the matter was
initially going to be dropped/not followed through on, until it was
resurrected (you could parallel that to the original problem, couldn’t you?

) in a rather peculiar manner, by the Swedish legal authorities. That could
be read as implying that dark forces were at work behind the scenes. A more
prosaic option, of course, is that some tool in the Swedish prosecuter’s
office (not sure if that’s exactly right in terms of the Swedish legal
process, but it will do as far as getting the gist across) took the chance
for some self-aggrandizement by grabbing it and grandstanding. Not that
that’s an uncommon trait in the UK either, it seems

As for his finding his way from Sweden to the USA, I think you could
probably count on the Swedes very quickly looking up the directions on
Google Maps

Moor hinted that he knew a lot more of the detail, so maybe we can get
the benefit of his knowledge later

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 16:55

@ Moor hinted that he knew a lot more of the detail, so maybe we can
get the benefit of his knowledge later @
I’m only an expert on one
thing, as it ‘appens………….

corevalue
August 16, 2013 at 10:18

Wasn’t it the hand of Karl Rove that was said to be extended to help
the Swede’s in their persecution of Assange?

Moor Larkin August 16, 2013 at 10:31

“In a radio interview last Friday, a Swedish professor emeritus of
international law, Ove Bring, confirmed that there are no legal
obstacles whatsoever preventing Ms. Ny from questioning Assange in
London. When asked why the prosecutor would not do so, Professor Bring
responded that ”it’s a matter of prestige not only for prosecutors, but
for the Swedish legal system”. Professor Bring also stated that the
charges against Assange would probably have to be dropped following an
interview, since ”the evidence is not enough to charge him with a
crime”.

Last Saturday, Fria Tider sent a message to the Ministry’s official
Twitter channel, asking if Professor Bring was right in saying that the
reason why the prosecutor would not interrogate Assange in London was
”prestige”. After a short exchange of messages, the Ministry provided
the following response:

”You do not dictate the terms if you are a suspect. Get it?” ”
http://www.friatider.se/swedish-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-explains-why-assange-is-not-questioned-in-london-you-do-not-dictate-the-terms-if-you-are-a-suspect-get-it

Engineer August 15, 2013 at 16:13

I’ve read somewhere that gender is not so much an either/or definition,
more a point on a spectrum between very male and very female. So if 1 is very
male, and 10 is very female, most people are 2,3,4 or 7,8,9, a few are 1 or
10, and some are 5 or 6. (Roughly – you get the gist.) You start to see this
all around you if do a bit of amateur analysis of people you know.

How much this has to do with Bradley Manning’s decision to leak the secrets
he had access to I’m not sure. I can understand his being under considerable
mental strain as he wrestled with his personal identity, but I’m not sure this
would cause him to betray his professional responsibilities. Perhaps I’m wrong
– I’m no psychologist – but I suspect there are others in the military with
similar personal problems who still manage to discharge their duties
conscientiously.

Jonathan Mason
August 15, 2013 at 20:08

I assume you are saying that gender is not the same thing as sex. Either
you carry a Y chromosome, or you don’t, unless you have one of those rare
anomalies like Klinefelter syndrome, which is a XXY chromosome instead of
the usual XY in the male, so being a man or a woman for reproductive
purposes is a binary thing in almost all cases.

If we are saying that a man with a squeaky voice is more feminine, and a
woman with a hairy arse is more masculine, then, yes, it is all along a
continuum, though again it mostly comes down to the biological factor of
whether the person has a lot of testosterone or oestrogen compared to other
people. If we are saying that gender only applies to socially determined
behaviors, then yes, it is on a continuum. There may well be some societies,
for example, where men cannot read maps and have vast collections of shoes,
or at least read maps less well than men in some other societies, and have
more shoes!

In The Descent of Man, Darwin has some pretty interesting comments on
those biological features that are peculiar to one sex only, or shared, but
in rather different forms, like, for example the nipples on the chest of
male humans which are not used to breastfeed, a constant source of confusion
to my ten-month old daughter, who has discovered this anomaly, but still has
the matter under investigation.

rabbitaway August 15, 2013 at 14:45

When you’re alive – you are ‘labeled, and enabled to be found, libeled.
Once you’re dead, you’re labeled and dis abled period !

Mizz Mildred
August 15, 2013 at 14:15

Somehow it seems we get ever more labels to stick on men and women. Now we
have gender identity disorder. In other words a woman feels like she wants to
live as a man and tother way round, perhaps more common. A long time ago there
was a military sitcom that explored the issue and no one turned a hair. A
person also ‘blacked up’ and assumed a ‘goodness gracious me accent’ in the
same show. This was accepted too. Now we get into such a flap over these
issues. That includes the person who gets the label stuck on them. So much so,
that instead of acceptance of this human variation in gender assignment,
someone joins an army to divest themselves of these inner thoughts. Then he
gets annoyed when things go wrong and lets out a load of info to all and
sundry. Crazy world we live in now. He looks OK as a woman, better than many
do. Why did he have to join the army? Thinking it would shock him out of his
state of being assigned to him at birth? I think we go backwards in some ways.
It is politicians who make laws forbidding certain states of being, many of
the public were much more accepting, in the past, than seems possible these
days.

Ho Hum August 15, 2013 at 17:06

The War on Drugs was such a success – after all everybody stopped taking
them, didn’t they? – that the very notion that The War on Unconventional
Sexualities might be doomed to failure is risible

alan scott
August 15, 2013 at 18:41

I find it extremely difficult to understand how any interviewing officer
when Manning applied to join the Army failed to see the possible problems in
his personality- what sort of records did he present from his educational
and work history? -and even if the interviewer didn’t, it must have become
obvious to his training staff and fellow trainees quite soon. Have we heard
from his parents about his life goals etc?
My National Service in the
early 50s taught me a great deal about personalities, I might say.

Jonathan
Mason August 15, 2013 at 19:13

The US army is desperate for volunteers and will take almost anyone. If
they take women, they will certainly take wannabe women. A recruit who can
already read and write is an added bonus.

therealguyfaux August 16, 2013 at 04:41

As a sidelight to what our hostess was saying about Army shrinks, and
your comment about how the US Army will basically take anyone who can
fog up a mirror held near their nostrils:

It was mentioned, in an American newsmagazine report on 60 Minutes on
CBS, in a story about dealing with the psychological problems of wounded
vets recovering and rehabilitating at the Army Medical Hospital in
Killeen TX (i.e., at Fort Hood), that retention of Army psychiatrists
was difficult, because many might be somewhat disenchanted and
disaffected by what amounts to giving those patients a pep talk and some
psych meds, and shipping them back to active duty, only to repeat
process if the soldier is wounded again.

In passing, the reporter mentioned that the dearth of Army
psychiatrists at Fort Hood would appear to indicate that someone like
Major Hasan, Army shrink (himself wrapped none too tight), would be
cashiered only as some sort of last resort, a statement in which the
interviewee concurred. And there, the matter was dropped– since the
story was about the wounded soldiers, not Hasan.

And I have never heard this aspect of that case discussed anywhere
else.

John Pickworth
August 15, 2013 at 12:27

I cannot fault your analysis Anna, I think you’re bang on the money.
However, I would be more forgiving here:

“I am not seeking to defend Manning, his leak of secret material
inevitably put lives at risk, and was unforgivable…”

I’m not naive, I know war is a terrible thing which even on its best day
isn’t nice, not nice at all. But when you have Apache pilots shooting-up the
place and jeering like bad actors from a Western, then I’m going to applaud
anyone that reveals it to the world. Similarly, the ‘secret cables’ which
amounted to little more than diplomatic tattle-tale and gossip about which
dictator is hot or not. Embarrassing? Yes. Lives at risk? I’m not sure that is
the case… although the US Government and military would like us to believe it
is. Okay, the bad guys might not meet of street corners any more and that
invite to drinks at the embassy might not be what it seems now but lives at
risk? Seriously?

On the whole, I think Manning has done us all a great service. The US State
Dept, and our own equivalent, have for too long strutted around the world
meddling in the affairs that don’t necessarily concern them. They do this in
our name and bury the exercise is layers of deep secrecy. It can only be for
the good that the curtain has been lifted, if only a little.

I have no problem with diplomats using a mixture of confidence and candour.
It’s only proper that they are able to put a finger on the pulse of world
affairs but surely it’s the type of material that should end up in someone’s
black notebook? To place it on vast computer networks and made freely
available to 250,000 military personnel? Now that, I have a problem with. Same
too the cavalier use of serious aerial weapons of war against civilians.
Whether these weapons are used in the way shown in Manning’s leaked Apache
video or the continued use of drone attacks on the Pakistan border, it’s
obscene. As I said above, I’m not naive, I know what the objective is but the
cost in innocent lives is massive and by any measure plain wrong.

That Manning might be flawed is a personal tragedy. That it may have led to
his leaking of this material is a blessing of sorts.

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2013 at 12:38

“It can only be for the good that the curtain has been lifted, if only a
little.”

Whilst I can agree with that statement in isolation – I can’t agree that
it is ‘only for the good’ that military personnel start acting independently
and decide which orders they will follow and which they won’t.

Den August 15, 2013 at 15:31

But the Allies concluded they MUST decide and hanged many who said “I
was only obeying orders”. Should not the SS have decided which orders to
follow and which not?

Wigner’s Friend
August 15, 2013 at 12:59

Had he lifted the curtain a little and been selective, that would have
been one thing; however, he released a massive amount of information and did
not know what was contained therein. Did he embarrass people – definitely.
Did he endanger lives of innocent and non-military people – I do not know
but he probably did and for that I cannot forgive him.

martin August 15, 2013 at 14:34

Who the hell are you to forgive or not forgive? The State is a monster
that will crush anyone who threatens it. Those who subvert the State are
made an example of, not because they might have endangered the lives of
‘innocent and non-military people’ (the State doesn’t give a damn about
‘innocent and non-military people’) but because they are threatening the
State. Those who rely for their ‘security’ on the State (that includes
‘innocent and non-military people’) are complicit with the State in its
acts of repression. So, it is not a black-and-white question of
forgiveness or non-forgiveness but, as in many things, a question of
proportionality.

Wigner’s
Friend August 15, 2013 at 16:30

Who the hell are you to tell me what I can or cannot feel?

alan
scott August 15, 2013 at 18:34

Well said, Wigner’s friend.

John
Pickworth August 15, 2013 at 14:55

Evidently he was selective, kinda. Although whether that was by design
or a consequence of his clearance level I know not which. He hasn’t leaked
any hardcore military secrets, merely the mundane reports of
establishment/military middle management. Frankly, you, I or an enemy is
more likely to learn about the stocking levels of toilet paper at Bagram
than the capabilities of the M1 Abrams Tank.

Anna is correct in that we expect better of our military personnel but
with one small caveat; no one else is telling us what the hell is going
on. Those charged with oversight are ever more likely to classify their
own reports than inform the public. Their incestuous little club is
running riot. That Manning was misguided will find no argument from me but
he does, in my opinion, deserve praise for his actions. How else would we
have learnt that defence contractors hired underaged male prostitutes?
That 700 innocent Iraqi men, women and children were killed for merely
approaching check-points? Or the continuing torture after Abu Ghraib?

As Nick Clegg said: “We can bemoan how these leaks occurred, but I
think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily
serious”

Joe Public August 15, 2013 at 12:02

An excellent explanation about some of the background facts to this
case.

What puzzles me, is how the IT supremos of the most technologically
advanced nation on earth could be so dumb as to allow a Private (albeit ‘First
Class’) access to its myriad of ‘secrets’, AND, allow them to be simply copied
onto common portable media.

Jabba the Cat August 16, 2013 at 21:09

The answer to your question lies in the way that pre 9/11 all the US
security agencies(civilian and military) were ring fenced from each other
and did not share information freely across those boundaries. After 9/11,
when it was discovered that the CIA had info on the jet terrorists, but did
not pass this intel the FBI. To overcome the information hogging and avoid
turf wars, the DHS was formed to bring all the civilian intelligence and
security departments under one roof with common access to all the data
files. There was also put into place a broad data path for the military
intel services to access all this civilian acquired and held intel. You can
work the rest out for yourself, but which ever way, we had a typical public
sector clusterfuck, and in this case with a disgruntled little drama queen
working out his issues with the army via a computer terminal and a usb
memory stick…

Gildas The Monk
August 15, 2013 at 12:00

Interesting. I have heard of Manning’s struggle with being “acceptable” and
so forth. Perhaps it explains his actions, perhaps not. I have no firm views
on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of all these parties, and so I shall sit in
the corner of the virtual snug, and become better informed

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2013 at 12:08

What is really interesting is that both the prosecution AND the defence
were putting forward this explanation – and that Manning wasn’t using it to
get out of the way of active duty.
Quite why the Army released that
picture (Yes, I do know it was an FOI) I don’t understand, it would suggest
that they actually want a ‘oh he was a pansy, not a proper soldier’
reaction….

Gildas The
Monk August 15, 2013 at 12:21

That is a very American response. In many cultures, possibly even
withinn our own elite military units, having a homosexual persuasion is
not deal at all. It is how you behave when the lead starts to fly that
matters – or so I have heard. Of course, the Spartans now….*wanders off,
talking to himself”

Joe Public
August 15, 2013 at 13:11

“Kiss me, Bradley” doesn’t have quite the same ring ………………

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 12:40

@ not a proper soldier’ reaction @
I guess there was a time when
people had a “private life”, but now *we* must all know *the truth* about
every minute of everybody else’s day, whether we really give a shit or
not. As a consequence I suppose everybody feels they have to strike the
right pose 24/7, rather than just being able to do their job and then
enjoy their time off any goddam way they please.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337882/Harry-saved-gay-hate-attack-Prince-extraordinary-showdown-troops-threatened-gunner.html

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2013 at
12:42

Does that mean I have to confess all about the wet pilchard? Oh dear,
its been my little secret all these years….

Gildas The
Monk August 15, 2013 at 13:10

Calm down, madam!

Moor
Larkin August 15, 2013 at 11:52

Heard this person interviewed on the BBC World Service the other day.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23464947

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2013 at 12:05

Which poses the question as to how many of those lauded as ‘brave and
macho’ are actually those who feel the deepest need to display their
masculinity. Maybe we should look at heroes in a new light?

Jabba the Cat August 15, 2013 at 11:38

I would recommend Alex Gibney’s film We Steal Secrets, which shines a very
interesting light on the personalities of Manning and Assange.

Downloadable from the usual places…

Geoff August 16, 2013 at 07:55

I hold no firm view on Manning or Assange but I do know about the work of
Alex Gibney. He is a “thesis” film-maker, where evidence can be turned or
suppressed in support of the overall story he wants to tell. Nothing wrong
with that (compare opinion pieces in newspapers, essays in literature,
blogging) except that his work tends to be judged as if it is was balanced
and objective.

Here is an Assange-friendly commentary on a transcript of the film (by
skipping through one can get the material on Manning etc without having to
spend time watching the film, and get Assange’s responses as well):

http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/gibney-transcript.html

Jabba the Cat August 16, 2013 at 20:19

I’m familiar with your link contents, and it amused me no end to see
those toys flying out of the prams. To the diehards Assange can do no
wrong.

Duncan Disorderly
August 15, 2013 at 11:35

There appears to be some idle speculation that Jullian Assange has autism,
but there is no concrete evidence that he actually has it. There is also some
idle speculation that he has nasty BO, which if true would make things
interesting for the poor employees of the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Moor
Larkin August 15, 2013 at 13:44

@ There appears to be some idle speculation that Jullian Assange has
autism @
Confusion over his being Australian I expect……….

What seems more undiscussable is what George tried to discuss…

Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange’s personal sexual behaviour
is something sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it. But even taken at its
worst, the allegations made against him by the two women – and I’m not even
going into their political connections, I’m going to leave that for others
and for another day. I’m going to leave the fact that one, maybe both, of
his accusers have the strangest of links to the strangest of people,
organisations and states, I’m going to leave that entirely aside. Even taken
at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per
cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don’t
constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly
recognise it. And somebody has to say this.
George Galloway.

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2013 at
14:00

Surely this comes under the same heading as statutory rape which could
well involve an ‘apparently’ willing girl – but it is still rape. I
understand the problem with at least one of the women was the lack of a
condom. She had given consent for intercourse with a condom – but there
was no condom. Therefore she hadn’t consented to the sex that occurred.
Ipso it was rape. The fact that we don’t have the same fine definition of
consent in this country doesn’t make it ‘not rape’ in another country if
they do so define it.
That would be like saying it is not child abuse
if the girl is 15 just because the age of consent is 15 in another
country.
Strange that the same people who get excited about child abuse
will defend Assange on this point.

Duncan
Disorderly August 15, 2013 at 14:26

I urge everyone interested in the Assange allegations to read the David
Allen Green/Jack of Kent blog regarding Assange. He helps clear a lot of
things up, by going to primary sources:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/five-legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 15:36

I’m not sure there is anything “primary” about either article. They
seem predicated on the notion that the law in Sweden equates with
English law but nobody seems to be discussing how it got so that the
situations as I’ve read described, have been arrived at “in law”.

Some of the commentators make much more sense than the articles.

I was in court when this was discussed in detail. It was clear that
woman 2 never objected to sex with Assange . She was not happy though
when she discovered he did not wear a condom but (in her own words)
decided “to let it continue”. As she never objected to the sex itself
& gave consent when he told her he did not use a condom…. this does
not constitute rape in the UK. She also did not consider it rape as she
gave her interview in the evening, saw that Assange was accused of rape
& decided not to sign her interview in the morning.

Healthy men get an erection during rapid eye movement sleep. This
happens 100 percent of the time. I was never a lover with a huge number
of partners, but once, I woke to find my new partner had detected an
erection that accompanied my REM sleep, and had started performing
fellatio, without first waking me. Was this bad manners on her part?
That night was the first time we made love, and we had not previously
discussed fellatio. So, yes, I think it was. I guess I could have tried
to get the police to charge her with a sex crime — for initiating a
sexual act without my consent. That possibility never occurred to me
until this moment.
http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/

Anna
Raccoon August 15, 2013 at
15:45

It is interesting that everyone is obsessed with discussing details
of the proposed case – but Assange has not even been charged yet – he
is objecting that he should not be questioned over this matter – not
the details of the proposed charges.
If, as everyone says, the
matters of the actual charges will not be proven in court – what is
his concern?
To me the whole thing smacks of a supreme arrogance in
the sense of saying ‘I shouldn’t have to answer questions on my sexual
behaviour, what I do is what I do, and you have no right to question
me’.

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 15:48

His concern is supposedly that he will promptly be sent by the
Swedes to the US, to join Bradley Manning!!…….

Anna Raccoon August 15, 2013 at 16:38

Only with the permission of the British who have the final say in
this. Given the British record for handing people over to the US – I
personally would feel far safer at least being in Sweden and having
the Swedish input into any extradition request from the US than I
would be in Britain – yet he seems quite happy to be in Britain?
Illogical.

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 16:41

He’s in Ecuador so far as I knew…. ?

Moor Larkin August 15, 2013 at 19:29

@ He’s in Ecuador so far as I knew…. ? @
Perhaps he will
become familiar with the Olinguito in due course…..
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/15/new-mammal-species-discovered-with-teddy-bear-looks/

Jonathan
Mason August 15, 2013 at
20:20

Is it not possible that the Swedes will send a longboat up
the Thames to rescue Assange, pillaging as they go (though not
raping, of course, in sensitivity to current sentiments–or at
least only on a voluntary basis on production of approved ID
showing date of birth?)

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/pix/monastery_raid.jpg

JuliaM August 16, 2013 at 10:21

Ah, yes. THe ‘new mammal species’ proudly announced to the
world and in every headline in screaming 72 point type.

Well, ‘technically new species so similar to another
they’ve been misclassified as each other for decades’ doesn’t
make as much of a headline, does it?

Fat
Steve August 16, 2013 at
12:21

I understand in the security world it is believed that Sweden
has particularly close ties to the USA

Mina
Field August 16, 2013 at
18:36

I’ve been trying to follow this discussion between Anna and Fat
Steve on the Supreme Court ruling on Assange re extradition, but
admit to getting lost! Anna, please may I ask if my own
understanding of the judgment is correct?

I gathered, when I read it, that the whole decision rested on
what ‘judicial authority’ should mean. And the decision was that a
Prosecutor, for the purposes of the relevant Act, did indeed have
judicial authority, by virtue of the framework of the Act, which
had taken into account that in some European countries the role of
the Prosecutor is a judicial function. So, in a nutshell, the
request was to be viewed and treated just as it would be if
evidence had already been considered and approved by a Court
(which is what some argued was the meaning of judicial authority,
but were overruled).

Anna Raccoon August 16, 2013 at 19:15

The problem is the difference between civil law and common
law. On the continent, a prosecuting judge handles the initial
investigation – roughly, though not precisely as, say, a
detective inspector in the CID. He decides what should be
further investigated, looks at the evidence and decides whether
charges should be brought – rather like our police did before
the CPS was formed.
He is also a judge in his own right –
but he doesn’t get to hear the
case.
So yes, he is a ‘judicial authority’ and
yes he is the chief investigator. It is as though the detective
inspector was also a magistrate in his own right, and still held
the ‘charging powers’ of the CPS.
I have no doubt that many
‘legal’ readers will want to take me to task for that
explanation, because it is actually a lot more complicated than
that, but I have tried to put it into plain english, rather than
legalise.

Mina
Field August 16, 2013 at
19:28

@Anna Raccoon

Yes, I understand this, and its this fact which informed
the drafting of the new (ish) extradition Act. And the Supreme
Court ruled that for the purposes of the Act, a prosecutor was
a judicial authority.
I’m still unclear as to what the
debate is between yourself and Fat Steve, though. But never
mind – probably as well if I keep out of it !!

Anna Raccoon August 16, 2013 at 19:37

Well, I think….that Fat Steve is of a mind, as a lot of
people are, that the charges are only being brought by a
combination of a feminist prosecutor, and a desire to get
Assange into Swedish jurisdiction in order to extradite him
to the US.
Whereas I say, he was (before his move into
the Ecuadorian broom cupboard), more at risk in the British
jurisdiction – and the British retain the final say over
where he goes from Sweden – than he was in Sweden. Besides
which, he is only wanted for questioning, not to stand
trial.
There is no certainty that he will ever be
charged. If charged there is no certainty that he will be
found guilty. If found guilty (or back in Sweden) there is
no certainty that the British would agree to him being
handed over to the US.
His supporters say – “ah, but you
can’t be sure, he shouldn’t take the risk of being on trial
in the US – besides which, it’s not really rape is
it?”
Meanwhile he “protects his free speech” in the care
of a country with probably one of the worst records for
upholding free speech…..
Personally I think he’s an
arrogant little twat who thinks laws are for other
people…..

Moor
Larkin August 15, 2013 at 11:28

Takes a great actor to make you realise the *bad guy* is actually the guy
whose side you want to be on………..

rabbitaway
August 15, 2013 at 11:29

rabbitaway August 15, 2013 at 11:28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyKJeXDoqnw

Moor
Larkin August 15, 2013 at 11:19

“we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by
men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? …. You don’t want the truth because
deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall,
you need me on that wall. We use words like honour, code, loyalty. We use
these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them
as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I
provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather
you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick
up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think
you are entitled to.”

rabbitaway
August 15, 2013 at 11:23

Moor – is that Jack Nicholson by any chance ???

Single Acts of
Tyranny August 15, 2013 at 13:29

” “we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded
by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? ”

My world, my walls, my guns? Yes, I will do it. And really, if the
military were protecting freedom, they would attack the government.

Bob August 15, 2013 at 11:18

Did you see the Black Adder episode when Rowan Atkinson had a pencil up
each nostril and kept repeating the word “wibble”?

rabbitaway August 15, 2013 at 11:10

Funny you should mention Karin Ward, you are of course quite right Anna,
the likes of her and Manning are just pawns in the hands of the manipulators.
I do feel sorry for these people and I hope that folk will not be too hard on
the little man (and woman) when the truth finally comes out. People’s
consciousness’ need to be raised in order to prevent one evil set of thoughts
merely replacing another …… i hope I’m making sense.

Michael August 16, 2013 at 22:36

An observation about Mr Assange I find myself in complete agreement, he is
a narcissistic person who expects the world to shape itself according to his
whim whilst he remains answerable to nobody. The excuse that he may be
extradited to the US appears to exist solely in his own little mind, the fact
that the US has shown no interest in him is simply ignored as it does not fit
with his fantasy. I understand that were he to “face the music” in Sweden any
extradition request would require the agreement of both the UK and Swedish
Governments and legal systems. All he needs to do is return for the
“interrogation” phase of the investigation and there is a strong likelihood
that the process may end there. His refusal tells a far louder tale I think,
sorry I never subscribed to the view that Assange is some sort of candidate
for sainthood but there is something messianic about his actions.
TTFN

Fat Steve August 16, 2013 at 23:18

You do me an injustice Anna —rubbish that I believe its either feminist
pressure or extradition to the U.S. —-though both of those issues might be
relevant and should in my submission be amenable to being argued before a UK
Court if they are thought relevant by defence counsel along with any other
issue that he might consider has a bearing on the case —the issue at large is
the extent to which the Courts in this country should be restricted in any
review of foreign legal process notwithstanding that any defendant is
physically within this jurisdiction and as such is entitled to the protection
of principles of English law.
I do not disagree with your assessment of
Assange Anna though usually your character assassination have less invective
and greater wit but it has little relevance to the principle at stake —-as
Bonhoffer said ‘First they came…….in his age it was for the communists’……but
all regimes pick the easy targets imputing criminal action and motives in an
attempt to airbrush the importance of legal principles —though I prefer the
exchange between Thomas Moore and Roper in the Man for all Seasons
William
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes!
What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the
Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do
that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil
turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not
God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake

Anna
Raccoon August 17, 2013 at 00:26

It was not my intention to do you an injustice Steve. I genuinely thought
that was your objection. Shows what I know eh?
If what I now understand as
your point is that you think an English court should be able to have the final
say on another country’s legal processes then I really disagree with
you – mainly because I don’t think any country’s legal system is superior to
any other. Anymore than I think any human being is superior to any other. They
are what they are – the system that you have to respect when you are in that
country. I don’t actually agree with the notion that you can’t be extradited
to the US for a capital offence committed there because they have the death
penalty and we don’t agree with that. As you take your victim as you find him
so I believe you should take the laws of the land you chose to operate in as
you find them.

Fat Steve August 17, 2013 at 11:59

Actually Anna I suspect intellectually we might not be as far apart as you
may believe we are. I do not believe in the equivalency of legal systems (but
we are not debating that point) but it would hopeless for me to try to put up
any case that say Brazil should deal with English drug smugglers as if they
had been caught in England because the English system is superior —–
jurisdiction is founded on physical presence in a jurisdiction not on
nationality—-and that cuts both ways if you are in Brazil then accept
Brazilian jurisprudence —equally if are in the UK then accept British
Jurisprudence —if extradition is repugnant to English jurisprudence then I
can’t see that if the Defendant is physically in the jurisdiction that that
fundamental distinction can be circumvented that is his physical jurisdiction
dictates the jurisprudence to which he is subject—there are some legal systems
which are repugnant to the UK system —say Iran or even in some respects the US
—respect for UK jurisprudence dictates as I see it that means it takes
precedence. Oh and in answer to the one question you put to me —rather more
than I do —not just law I suspect (which says little) —but certainly (and very
much more importantly or at least interestingly) about prose writing being
choice of topic—– or wit —I can’t go past an ice cream counter now without
looking for a Magna Carta

Moor
Larkin August 17, 2013 at 12:56

@Fat Steve
Presumably if only we could have found a couple of Jordanian
woman to make some wildly bonkers allegation, we could have got shot of more
than one unwanted berk a lot sooner than we did…..

I still cannot get over the proposition that our Intelligensia would likely
have denied the US extradition of Assange for likely being a primary cause of
global mayhem but seemed determined to extradite him to answer to some
officious Swedish chefette about condom etiquette. The balance of moral
equivalence in this country is quite bizarre to behold and the LAW often
behaves like an ass.

Ho Hum August 17, 2013 at 13:19

I may not have understood your point but I thought both the UK and US legal
systems provide for the prosecution of people, not sure if they have to be
nationals or not, for activities they seem to be criminal regardless of
whether or not the acts were committed in a physical location where the
relevant legal jurisdiction did not deem the action or activity to be
criminal. Eg I should think that a UK national would not escape prosecution
for sexual activity with a 14 year old in Japan even if the age of consent
there is, if I remember correctly, 12

Ho Hum August 17, 2013 at 13:24

That post was a reply to Fat Steve