• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Wikileaks and Julian Assange Mega-thread

:eek:  What is the world coming to?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Sync

WikiLeaks among nominees for Nobel Peace Prize

02/02/2011 11:32:59 AM
Wojciech Moskwa


LINK

OSLO (Reuters) - Anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian politician behind the proposal said on Wednesday, a day after the deadline for nominations expired.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee accepts nominations for what many consider as the world's top accolade until February 1, although the five panel members have until the end of the month to make their own proposals.

Norwegian parliamentarian Snorre Valen said WikiLeaks was "one of the most important contributors to freedom of speech and transparency" in the 21st century.

"By disclosing information about corruption, human rights abuses and war crimes, WikiLeaks is a natural contender for the Nobel Peace Prize," Valen said.

Members of all national parliaments, professors of law or political science and previous winners are among those allowed to make nominations. The committee declined to comment on the WikiLeaks proposal or any other nominations.

Washington is furious at WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange for releasing tens of thousands of secret documents and diplomatic cables which it says have harmed U.S. interests abroad, including peace efforts.

Assange, An Australian, faces extradition to Sweden from Britain for questioning in a sex case which he and his supporters say is a smear campaign designed to close down WikiLeaks, a non-profit organization funded by the public and rights groups.

Awarding WikiLeaks the prize would be likely to provoke criticism of the Nobel Committee, which has courted controversy with its two most recent choices, jailed Chinese pro-democracy activist Liu Xiaobo and President Barack Obama a few months after his election.

NOBEL DEFINITION STRETCHED

The prize was endowed by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, who said in his will it was to be awarded to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

In past decades the committee, appointed by the Norwegian parliament, has stretched Nobel's definition to include human rights, climate activism and even micro-financing, which have been a source of criticism from Nobel traditionalists.

Nobel watchers say a prize for WikiLeaks would highlight the growing role of specialist Internet sites and broad access social media in bringing about world change.

Sites such as Twitter and YouTube have played important roles in mobilizing people in countries with a tight grip on official media, such as Egypt where mass anti-government protests have been taking place.

Kristian Berg Harpviken of the PRIO peace think tank in Oslo agreed that innovative use of "new tools for bringing about peace" could be a major theme in this year's Nobel, but he said he expected the prize to go to a woman after a series of male recipients.

His strongest tip was the Russian human rights group Memorial and its leader, Svetlana Gannushkina.

The nomination deadline may make it difficult for Middle East nominees should mass protests there produce peace.

Egypt's Mohamed ElBaradei won the prize in 2005 as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Although theoretically possible, no individual has won the peace prize twice. The Red Cross has won three times.


LINK


 
If Obama can get it after six weeks in office, why not Wikileaks?
 
ModlrMike said:
If Obama can get it after six weeks in office, why not Wikileaks?
Because Assange is the wrong gender  ;)
..... he said he expected the prize to go to a woman after a series of male recipients.
(I guess the actual contribution is a secondary consideration)


I also thought that this was unfair:
The nomination deadline may make it difficult for Middle East nominees should mass protests there produce peace.
They'll have to start killing their fellow Egyptians earlier in the year next time if they hope to get nominated -- because the logic of nominating people who "riot for peace" is as brilliant as "smashing Starbucks' windows to teach the G20 leaders a lesson."  ::)
 
Journeyman said:
... because the logic of nominating people who "riot for peace" is as brilliant as "smashing Starbucks' windows to teach the G20 leaders a lesson."  ::)


Or:

105604187v5_480x480_Front_Color-White.jpg
 
Feeling somewhat less sovereign after reading this. But then again Harper did just give them the run around and didn't pass anything.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5765/125/
Wikileaks Cables Show Massive U.S. Effort to Establish Canadian DMCA
PDF  | Print | E-mail
Friday April 29, 2011
Wikileaks has released dozens of new U.S. cables that demonstrate years of behind the scenes lobbying by U.S. government officials to pressure Canada into implementing a Canadian DMCA. The cables include confirmation that Prime Minister Harper personally promised U.S. President George Bush at the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec in 2008 that Canada would pass copyright legislation, U.S. government lines on copyright reform that include explicit support for DMCA-style digital lock rules, and the repeated use of the Special 301 process to "embarrass" Canada into action. In fact, cables even reveal Canadian officials encouraging the U.S. to maintain the pressure and disclosing confidential information.

This post highlights some of the key cables. An earlier post discussed confirmation that public pressure delayed the introduction of a copyright bill in 2008 and a parallel post focuses on the linkages between CRIA and the U.S. government lobbying effort.

Prime Minister Harper Promises Copyright Reform

The cables include clear confirmation that the copyright issue has escalated to the very top with Prime Minister Harper repeatedly seeking to assure the U.S. that Canada would pass copyright legislation consistent with their demands.  A 2008 cable notes "the Prime Minister told the President last August that Canada would pass copyright legislation." Moreover:

"senior GOC officials, especially Industry Minister Prentice, repeatedly assured the Ambassador and senior Mission Canada officers that the copyright bill would be introduced "soon."  Specifically, assurances were given that the legislation had been finalized and would be introduced prior to the Christmas recess, and then again immediately upon Parliament's return in January.  Neither of which occurred."

This came on the heels of an April 2007 letter from Harper to U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins promising action. U.S. officials were not impressed by the letter, noting that it seemed to justify inaction on the file.  The Harper letter was in response to a Wilkins letter seeking digital lock legislation within a month.

Canadian Officials Provide Inside Information

The cables also suggest that the U.S. is often privy to inside information on what is on the way. In the summer of 2007, U.S. officials met with Ailish Johnson from PCO, who revealed that "the mandate letters from the Prime Minister to the incoming Ministers of Industry [Prentice] and Canadian Heritage [Verner] charged both Ministers with introducing a copyright  reform bill before the end of the year." Let me repeat that - PCO told U.S. officials the content of the private mandate letters to two Ministers from the Prime Minister. At the same meeting, Johnson encouraged the U.S. to keep raising the issue, noting:

Both Johnson and Gray [of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce] said that U.S. Embassy  pressure has been helpful in moving this issue forward. They both also indicated that it would be helpful for the Embassy to continue to raise the issue with Canadian officials and  Members of Parliament, but said that public pressure from the Emabssy could be counter productive at this point.

U.S. Lobbying Pressure on Copyright

There are numerous cables that highlight U.S. strategies to pressure Canada on the copyright reform file.  In a June 2005 cable, the U.S. talks about the "need to engage the legislative branch as well as relevant departments", proposes creating a bi-lateral working group, and offers to conduct training sessions for Canadian officials. A June 2006 cable discusses meetings with Ministers Bernier and Oda. A March 2007 cable chronicles repeated meetings and attempts to elevate the issue as a top priority.

Another cable discusses a strategy with Canadian copyright lobby groups that would allow for a "good cop, bad cop" approach:

some industry associations plan to use the anticipated USG insistence on notice and takedown as a chance to play good cop to our bad cop, and they will present their acceptance of notice and notice as a signal to the GOC that they are willing to be "more reasonable than the Americans".

The cables show even the U.S. had a hard time taking Canadian claims of independence seriously. For example, when then Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda told the media that anti-camcording legislation was an independent policy change that was not the result of lobbying pressure from the U.S., a U.S. cable called her response "disingenuous."

The U.S. also admits that the case for digital locks isn't an easy one, noting in a cable that:

Efforts to encourage the GOC to ratify its WIPO obligations have been hindered by the sheer complexity of copyright law and IP-related issues, and perceptions by consumers and artists
that technological protection measures might be harmful.

U.S. on Bill C-60

The cables also confirm U.S. opposition to Bill C-60, the Liberal 2005 copyright bill.  The U.S. was displeased with a statement several months in advance of the bill that foreshadowed its content, particularly on digital locks and ISP liability. Once the bill was introduced, one cable  notes "faced with such a flawed document, some industry representatives are stuck hoping that the legislation, for which they pushed so long and hard, will die in committee." Another cable includes the U.S. embassy putting out the call for assistance, saying "to make the case for stronger rules in areas such as Internet Service Provider liability, please provide a clear USG reaction to the draft legislation for us to use in discussion with stakeholders, legislators, GOC agencies and the press."

U.S. on Bill C-61

In the months leading up to the introduction of the Conservative's Bill C-61, the U.S. also expressed concern with a new policy to give the House of Commons review of all international treaties (I raised this as an issue at the time). The Embassy notes:

Of more direct interest to the USG, the new procedures could complicate the government's efforts to bring Canadian law into compliance with the WIPO Internet treaties, which Canada signed in the late 1990's but has not yet ratified. It remains unresolved whether the WIPO treaties will have to be tabled in Parliament for the 21-sitting-days before the associated  copyright legislation is introduced.

After Bill C-61 was introduced, a cable noted the media coverage of the bill was generally negative and the bill was likely to die on the order paper.

U.S. on the 2009 Copyright Consultation

The U.S. took a very cynical view of the 2009 consultation on copyright with a cable titled "Copyright Reform in Canada: Day 4,235". Tanya Peatt, who has served as Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore lead advisor on copyright, told U.S. officials that the Canadian government was "conducting these consultations in part because of the heavy criticism for not
holding consultations over the last copyright bill." The Embassy was not confident that a bill would be introduced in 2009 (it wasn't with C-32 not introduced until June 2010).  The Embassy also sought speaking lines for its view on copyright, which include digital lock legislation to match the U.S. DMCA.
 
Bumped for an update.

In what F'n world (other than the distorted UN commission's mind) would a person who voluntarily hides himself in another country's embassy be considered arbitrarily and illegally detained?  :facepalm:

Julian Assange is being 'arbitrarily held', UN panel to say

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910

A UN panel will conclude Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being "arbitrarily detained" in the UK, the Swedish foreign ministry has said.

Mr Assange, 44, claimed asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012. He wants to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape claim, which he denies.

The Met Police says Mr Assange will be arrested if he leaves the embassy.

Swedish prosecutors said the UN panel's decision would have "no formal impact" on its ongoing investigation.

Mr Assange earlier said his passport should be returned and his arrest warrant dropped if the UN panel, due to deliver its findings on Friday, ruled in his favour.

The Australian was originally arrested in London in 2010 under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden over rape and sexual assault claims.

In 2012, while on bail, he claimed asylum inside the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge after the UK Supreme Court had ruled the extradition against him could go ahead.

Swedish prosecutors dropped two sex assault claims against Mr Assange last year. However, he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.

'Avoiding lawful arrest'

In 2014, Mr Assange complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave the embassy without being arrested.

The application claimed Mr Assange had been "deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner for an unacceptable length of time".
The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has been investigating the issue.

The Press Association said key factors in the panel's decision would include the inability of Mr Assange to access political asylum, the fact he has never been charged, and changes to UK law and procedures since he arrived at the embassy.

Wikileaks earlier tweeted it was waiting for "official confirmation" of the UN panel's decision.

Downing Street said the panel's ruling would not be legally binding in the UK while a European Arrest Warrant remained in place.

"We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy," a spokesman said.

"The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden."

The Swedish foreign ministry said in a statement that it noted the UN panel's decision "differs from that of the Swedish authorities".

The statement added the legal process for Mr Assange's case would be handled in court by Swedish prosecutors.

Mr Assange issued his statement on Twitter

Per Samuelsson, Mr Assange's lawyer, said Swedish authorities would be "morally" wrong to continue the investigation if the UN panel found in his favour.

"The ball is in Sweden's yard, in the prosecutor's yard. She is not formally bound by the decision by the UN, but morally it is very difficult to go against it."

The journalist John Pilger, who is a friend of Mr Assange, said "the ball is now at the feet of the British government", whose international legal "obligations" were represented by the UN panel.

"They did something in terms of supporting the tribunal in all the other celebrated cases, and Assange now joins them because the UN jurists have clearly found this is a case of arbitrary detention," he said.

Mr Assange's Wikileaks organisation posted secret American government documents on the internet, and he says Washington could seek his extradition to the US to face espionage charges if he is sent to Sweden.

In the statement, published earlier by Wikileaks on Twitter, Mr Assange said: "Should the UN announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal.

"However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me."

Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.

Julian Assange: Key dates
August 2010 - Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Mr Assange
May 2012 - UK Supreme Court rules he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning
June 2012 - Mr Assange claims asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London
September 2014 - Mr Assange submits complaint against Sweden and the UK to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion - but say he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.
October 2015 - Met Police announce officers will no longer be stationed outside the Ecuadorean embassy
 
Continues to show how useful the UN is.

Who pumps money into something that has many of these "committees" that don't actually have any legal binding power.
 
No other stand-alone thread I could find for Julian, so here's the latest ...

A bit more detail from the Wikileaks Twitter feed, as well as my editorial commentary, attached :)

* - Interesting coming from a guy living in a country where there may be freedom of expression, but not much freedom after expression.
** - More on Manning's saga in this Army.ca thread.

- op edit with newer info -
 

Attachments

  • WikileaksAssange1.JPG
    WikileaksAssange1.JPG
    101.8 KB · Views: 164
  • WikileaksAssange2.JPG
    WikileaksAssange2.JPG
    96 KB · Views: 163
  • HaHa.jpg
    HaHa.jpg
    13 KB · Views: 136
milnews.ca said:
* - Interesting coming from a guy living in a country where there may be freedom of expression, but not much freedom after expression.

Now how much would you wager Snowden is being...um..."coerced" into saying that? 
 
Dimsum said:
Now how much would you wager Snowden is being...um..."coerced" into saying that?
Tough call -- he IS a refugee in Russia, in asylum since 2013, one who's "helped" the Russian government, so maybe he just appreciates the freedom he has there.  For now, anyway ...
 
In the news,

The Guardian

19 Feb., 2020

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack'

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/19/donald-trump-offered-julian-assange-pardon-russia-hack-wikileaks

Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told.
 
Back
Top