Recent revelations from Wikileaks have revealed comments about Nick Clegg that I made at a private event. That might be a problem for some but I personally don’t want to see Assange end up in jail for what he has revealed about me or anyone else. To paraphrase a British diplomat talking to Hilary Clinton about other Wikileaks revelation “You should hear what he says about me in private!”
Disclosure is far more important than that in a democracy which seeks to keep its public servants accountable. Revelations may be awkward for some, but those who have most to fear are not politicians engaging in idle talk but corrupt corporations, dubious politicians and the “high and mighty” acting against the will of the people.
Whatever we might think of Wikileaks I have not found many Liberal Democrats who are keen to see Assange sent to the United States. Liberal Democrats should prepare to resist the extradition of Julian Assange to the US and that means getting prepared now.
Julian Assange is currently under house arrest at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk. This is related to rape charges in Sweden. Many believe, however, that there may be a request to the British government to extradite him to the United States. The case of Gary McKinnon has shown that the UK Home Secretary can be involved in extradition cases. The Swedish case is a side issue. Assange is entitled to a fair trial, but there may be a case to answer. The real danger is extradition across the Atlantic.
There are also issues related to the possibility of Assange’s UK visa expiring whilst in Sweden or even whilst on bail, and what can be done by ministers within the legal framework of the UK to stop this aiding the case of US prosecutors. The press are reporting that it expires early in 2011 and this may become an issue.
Liberal Democrats have a unique role to play in this case. As part of the coalition we are in a position to directly influence the Government. I plan to set up a small group to investigate the options and to see what Liberal Democrats within the coalition can legitimately do to help ensure that Assange does not end up in the United States.
Anyone wishing to be involved should contact me through my campaign manager Ed Joyce on 07848 448669.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
No Hiding Place (1963): The joys of live television drama
Elon Musk becomes even more unpopular with Brits
How to lose weight and keep it lost.
January
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Will Reeves be forced to break her own fiscal rules?
Simon R
Cassie
Peter Davies
31 Comments
I agree entirely.
I also agree – good luck with your efforts.
I agree. I’m not a liberal democrat, but I believe strongly in transparent government.
I wrote to my LibDem MP, Chris Huhne, who has formulated a request to the Home Secretary, Theresa May, I quote part of the letter “I have been contacted by a number of my constituents regards WikiLeaks abd raising concerns about the possible extradition of Julian Assange to the USA … I should be grateful if you would investigate the issues [they] have raised.”
The allegation isnt rape in any way I understand the term. What is interesting is how this story has now been running for a good while but I didnt really understand the allegation until this mornings interview with John Humphreys who was, incidentally an absolute disgrace. I checked out with people at work who thought it was rape or molestation or something.
The cynic would say that his visa will be extended at least long enough for the Americans to concoct some retrospective legislation to give him serious jail time. The only good news if he gets 300 years in jail is that he’ll only be 192 when he becomes eligible for parole…
Seriously, there are a couple of important issues. Unlike the USA we don’t have a written constitution, and our right to freedom of speech is less well defined than theirs. There has certainly been embarassment arising out of some of the diplomatic cables, but then one has to consider whether there is a greater public interest in transparency.
Secret diplomacy has been a bugbear for generations; secret treaties contributed to the first world war, and if diplomats are saying one thing publicly and another in private then there can only be limited circumstances of the utmost priority that justify this.
I had hoped we were moving away from the “national interest” being just another way of expressing “it would be a bit embarassing to the governing party if this got out”.
I also have grave concerns about the extradition treaty with the United States; it seems all to easy for someone to be extradited FROM the United Kingdom, and something of a lack of balance between the two jurisdictions in terms of penalty for the same acts.
Vengence appears to be much more at the root of the American criminal justice system, and not only by virtue of their capital punishment provisions.
That having been said, we have Section 55 of the Data Protection Act here which makes it an offence both to send and recieve certain data, so Assange’s imperilment shouldn’t come as a huge surprise. Of course nobody will go after the Guardian, because nobody wants to be seen stifling freedom of the press, particularly in the USA.
Pragmatically the best thing the USA could do with Mr Assange and Wikkileaks is to ignore him…
Best of luck with the campaign, even if I have my doubts as to its ultimate success.
How many of those writing to their MPs to call for as-yet unrealized extradiction requests from the USA add a caveat that he should be prepared to return to an advanced democratic State (also in the EU) to make his case against certain allegations?
There are 3 stories here; 1/ The Assange story and 2/ The ethics of leaking this information and 3/ What the leaks actually reveal.
I find it hard to judge 1/ and 2/. I do not know if Assange committed the crimes that he was accused and I do not know if any of the leaks will put anyone’s life at risk (I am sceptical but I do not know enough to be sure).
However what is true is that the government has hidden what it knows about human rights abuses. In this regard Assange has done us a service, and I would hope the Lib Dems would support an investigation to find out what is being hidden in the name of national security.
I hope he doesn’t get shipped out.
However, I imagine that it’ll be ‘fair’ and ‘progressive’ to hand him to the US…
If you are saying we should resist his extradition to Sweden (a democratic country) for an offence which would also be illegal here then I completely disagree with you. We do need to separate Assange from the future of Wikileaks.
Lv. 18:23, as I understand it, any extradition request would be based on plea bargaining from Bradley Manning (you know, the one everyone’s forgotten about) that Assange was aware of and encouraging in his accessing the data. If this is so, I would have stunningly little sympathy for a man who’d have left an American soldier to face the music just so he could position himself as a speaker of truth to power..
Assange is not and never has behaved as if he were a journalist. Real journalists in Western States have risked going to gaol – as some have – rather than pursue a sexual fantasy about women in combat zones (Assange has admitted this fancy). It’s a bit rich suddenly start appealing to journalistic freedom.
No-one should br extraited to the US or EU without a UK court being able to examine the case against them .
Will you be discussing this on your programme on Iranian TV?
I was very depressed to see Norman Lamb, i think, tag Assange a ‘villain’ on a recent Question Time. He is nothing of the sort. Surely the best option is for there to be a sort of ‘swedish court in the UK’ to be sure that he is tried properly under Swedish law for the alleged offences that occurred there, but remains here lest the US try to obtain him from Sweden for whatever crowd-pleasing nonsense their Senate dreams up?
The great thing about the Liberals certainly right up until that last election was the steadfast belief and upholding of libertarian values – in the face of a very authoritarian Labour Government and (despite their feigning support for liberal values) Tory Opposition who deep down, as quite often revealed, also believe in authoritarian government.
Liberal Democrat opposition to: the unlawful and counter-productive Iraq War, to the effective imprisoning of children of Asylum seekers; obnoxious ID Cards; supposed Anti Terrorism Laws and how they are misused and used far beyond the scope of their original intention; stopping trial by jury; extended detention without charge; unlawful extradition; support for Isreal whatever they do against human rights; sending prisoners to countries where they can be tortured (the Orwellian term i hate to use – ‘Extraordianry Rendition’) … reveals just why it is Liberals and Liberal Democrats who should be carrying the banner for Julian Assange and folk like him not just at Wikileaks but all those who stand up against governments hypocrisy, cant, cruelty and general obnoxious behaviour towards individual citizens at home and abroad.
So well done Lembit.
@Geoffrey Payne “There are 3 stories here; 1/ The Assange story and 2/ The ethics of leaking this information and 3/ What the leaks actually reveal.”
I very much agree that we need to separate out the different aspects of this story.
(a) Regarding Assange in Sweden, I’m reluctant to express an opinion about a court case where I won’t have access to all the evidence. It does seem unlikely to me that this this case was cooked up by the USA, as some have claimed. I think the principle of innocent until proven guilty is important, and I think it should apply to Assange. Generally, I have a fair amount of confidence in the UK courts in this matter.
(b) The leaking of wrongdoing is, in my opinion, completely justified. It’s no different from investigative journalism which roots out corruption. In this area, Wikileaks has performed a public service.
(c) But the indiscriminate release of vast quantities of information is completely different. Here, Wikileaks is completely different from a newspaper, no newspaper releases information indiscriminately, and it would be unethical if it did.
Indeed, Simon. If he agrees to argue his case in front of a Swedish jury – as anyone who believes in openness should have no problems with – he will not face having his heart blown out by a State marksman (Iranian State, not CIA hitman as Wikileak’s man in Russia says).
No, the best option is for a man who liked Sweden so much that, just a few months ago, he applied for residency there not to place himself above her laws. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, and all that.
Everything I’ve read suggests that the US have almost no chance of having him extradited.
‘ The case of Gary McKinnon has shown that the UK Home Secretary can be involved in extradition cases.’
Yes, but Gary very clearly should have been sent to the US, so I don’t think that is a good example.
Bluntly, Assange is the one who, for years has told us that wild expose, dragging people to media scrums, thinking the worst and leaking documents to the media are Inherently Good Things. He can have no complaints now.
I agree with George – the only thing he’s done wrong is release everything. I was told by someone working in Sudanese human rights that the brave activists who have gone to the US embassy are now in fear of their lives after this information is now on Wikileaks.
It’s a nice little sideshow they’ve created for titillation, but don’t let the important stories go by:
UK forces trained Bangladeshi “government death squad.”
U.S. sought to retaliate against France in 2007 for refusing to allow GM Crops
U.S. Embassy in Damascus suspected Israel behind 2008 assassination of top Syrian official.
Pfizer opposed US trade deal with New Zealand because it objected to New Zealand’s drug buying rules. In addition, cables show drug companies tried to get rid of New Zealand’s former health minister.
WikiLeaks claims has enough material to make bosses of major US bank resign.
UK officials promised measures put in place to protect US interests during Iraq War inquiry.
Come on Lembit get Nick Clegg et al to honour their promises to Gary McKinnon first….. The home office has not yet done the right thing. The McKinnon family are still in limbo for yet another Christmas ( it has been ten years since McKinnon went on his UFO escapade ) And mckinnon should very clearly not have been sent to the US He was here in the UK and his ‘offense’ was not even extraditable. The US had to invent damage to make it extraditable and not one shred of evidence has ever been shown to justify it.
No one should ever be extradited without evidence.
Whatever happened to Chris Huhne’s FREEDOM BILL and removing the Category 2 status from the US etc etc
Refuse Gary McKinnon’s extradition show America that the special doormat relationship has now changed then refuse Assange’s extradition.
@George Kendall
“…no newspaper releases information indiscriminately, and it would be unethical if it did.”
Many of them lie and deceive though,
I’ve viewed hundreds of documents so far, and haven’t yet come across anything that harms any individual. Furthermore, everything I’ve seen is in the public interest (depending which public you happen to be). Some of it seems dull, but may be of interest to a lawyer trying to prove a client’s innocence; corroborate a detainee’s version of events; piece together a wider picture of illegal state conduct.
Wikileaks claim to have redacted any information that might cause harm to an individual, and they view every document before its put up on the website, so how is it indiscriminate?
Do you have any examples?
@Lembit Opik
The US has set a precedent in how it deals with ‘leakers.’
Scooter Libby revealed the name of a covert CIA agent in the Plame Affair. How many years did he serve in prison? Hmmm.
But, Libby was the leaker, not the publisher, and so needs to be compared to Bradley Manning, not Julian Assange.
The Washington Post was the publisher; the columnist Bob Novak. Neither were charged.
If the coalition rolls over for the U.S. and tries to extradite Assange then they will be proved liars on the matter of free speech and civil liberties and will never be trusted again on it despite having tried to do some good on that agenda.
We don’t want to go back to the Labour’s Orwellian surveillance State do we ?
>Scooter Libby revealed the name of a covert CIA agent in the Plame Affair. How many years did he serve in prison? >Hmmm.
Scooter Libby was different as he got convicted of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice.
This image explains who knew what and when
It was Bush administration payback because her husband wrote an article that “concluded that the George W. Bush administration twisted intelligence to “exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” “. It was also known that Valerie’s husband was a Democrat supporter (and had donated to past campaigns).
When it was pointed out that revealing the name of a CIA agents was a crime, the administration’s stance was that the President and Vice-President can “de-classify” what they wish. Probably Libby would’ve been pardoned if the media in the States hadn’t made such a meal of it at the time.
Democrats supported the invasion as well.
For that, at least, as many as Craig Murray did for naming Rory Stewart as an MI6 operative.
(Posting again with correct tags.)
Richard, you have access to numerous reasonable fears of naming, not least from a wheen of NGOs operating in Afghanistan who and Assange’s dismissive “Afghans deserve to know who’re
traitorsworking with the military forces”.Blogs are not news portals. Individual issues can be discussed without any suggestion others are being ignored. And, LDV hardly is the place to disregard the following.
If this is accurate, both with implied intimacy with all levels of RAB and the acceptance of its use of murder, then it is concerning. But, what d’you suggest? Breaking off diplomatic ties with Bangladesh, applying military force to halt this?
By what? Occupying the French Caribbean? You will find that use of trade deals and the like is a common form of international policy.
Given that Israel already is known to have been involved with the bombing of a Syrian nuclear reactor, this is hardly surprising.
As with the unrealized “retaliation” against France, so what?
Oh yes, trigger another bank collapse and leave thousands more ordinary savers out of pocket. Stick to the Man!
????? Of course that’s what happens in such situations!
Next up, Wikileaks reveals that the US Embassy in London uses too much toilet paper.
@Lembit Opik
Across the Atlantic, there have been calls from leading figures for Julian Assange to be “executed” and “assassinated.”
As Julian Assange is a visitor on British soil, this is incitement and could encourage people to come to Britain and attempt to carry out an assassination. We’ve already had it with Russians and Alexander Litvinenko; we don’t want people from far-right groups in USA doing the same. Who knows what antics they’ll get up to?
This is a worrying development, not just for Julian Assange, but for those around him as well as the people living in the area.
It needs to be stopped and there should be calls for these leading figures inciting violence in the UK to be extradited to this country.
By making an example of these people, it will deter future calls for assassinations on British soil, and provide reassurance to British citizens who do not wish to have assassins arriving from foreign shores to eliminate people they disagree with.
Incitement to carry out violence here is not acceptable. This is an important point to make, both nationally and internationally. Someone needs to speak out.
Care to name a few?
Not your most sensible comment, on many different levels.
@RichardSM
The mission statement that Wikileaks put on their site says: We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions.
I have no problem with that.
My problem is that they aren’t just revealing unethical behavior.
“I’ve viewed hundreds of documents so far, and haven’t yet come across anything that harms any individual.”
Considering wikileaks is publishing hundreds of thousands of documents, that’s a small sample. And I don’t think you can know if something will harm an individual.
There may be harm that is impossible to predict, even harm which will be hard to pin down even with hindsight. Perhaps in a reduction of trust between diplomats, and therefore breakdowns in the relations between countries. Perhaps a future reluctance of US diplomats to give frank advice, and bad decisions resulting from that.
But there are also specific critisms, for example from some human rights for Wikileaks not sufficiently redacting the names of Afghan civilians.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-asked-to-censor-secret-files/story-e6frf7jx-1225903715328
Even more damning is the open letter from Reporters without Borders entitled “A bad precedent for the Internet’s future”:
http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html
If leaks are necessary to reveal and prevent unethical behavior, they are a good thing. But leaking information which was obtained illegally without that justification is itself unethical.
Whatever concerns Amnesty Intl and Reporters Without Borders had back in the summer, they’ve obviously been allayed. Amnesty Intl came out in full support (see Amnesty Intl link) and Reporters Without Border are hosting WikiLeaks themselves.
Amnesty International examines some of the human rights issues at stake:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/wikileaks-and-freedom-expression-2010-12-09
Reporters Without Borders to host WikiLeaks mirror site:
http://EN.RSF.ORG/REPORTERS-WITHOUT-BORDERS-TO-HOST-20-12-2010,39084.HTML
Reporters Without Borders to host WikiLeaks mirror site
http://en.rsf.org/reporters-without-borders-to-host-20-12-2010,39084.html