Slashdot Mirror

They started with the rape allegations. Perhaps they simply embellished what actually happened. Perhaps they twisted what was said, what was done. Perhaps they made the whole thing up. They've blurred the charges so much that I can't even tell what he's actually charged with anymore.

You can read the full allegations here. Perhaps the story is true and the US had nothing to do with it, and Assange is just a creepy sexual partner who had a habit of forcing sex without a condom. Or maybe these women are part of a US conspiracy. I don't know and neither do you.

I don't think they'll even extradite him to the US to face some vague treason charge

He can't commit treason against a country he's not a citizen of and doesn't reside in, not even "vaguely".

Julian himself is an arrogant fool. Did he ACTUALLY think he'd get away with releasing truckloads of U.S. intelligence info? And when it was pointed out to him that he may well have killed people who were working with us, he said that anyone working with the U.S. deserved to die (yeah, he did. it was in an interview broadcast by the BBC).

An exact quote, preferably with a source, would be preferable. Then we would have some idea what it was, exactly, that Assange said.

Maybe it was something like, "Anyone who participates in what the Nuremberg Tribunal described as the supreme war crime - unprovoked aggressive war - deserves to die". . . .

It would be better of it was that, I suppose, but chances are you'll be sorely disappointed.

The treachery of Julian Assange

As soon as WikiLeaks received the State Department cables, Assange announced that the opponents of dictatorial regimes and movements were fair game. That the targets of the Taliban, for instance, were fighting a clerical-fascist force, which threatened every good liberal value, did not concern him. They had spoken to US diplomats. They had collaborated with the great Satan. Their safety was not his concern.

David Leigh and Luke Harding's history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table as the reporters realised that the man the gullible hailed as the pioneer of a new age of transparency was willing to hand death lists to psychopaths. They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind. . . .

James Ball joined and thought that in his own small way he was making the world a better place. He realised that WikiLeaks was not what it seemed when an associate of Assange – a stocky man with a greying moustache, who called himself "Adam" – asked if he could pull out everything the State Department documents "had on the Jews". Ball discovered that "Adam" was Israel Shamir, a dangerous crank who uses six different names as he agitates among the antisemitic groups of the far right and far left. As well as signing up to the conspiracy theories of fascism, Shamir was happy to collaborate with Belarus's decayed Brezhnevian dictatorship. Leftwing tyranny, rightwing tyranny, as long as it was anti-western and anti-Israel, Shamir did not care.

Nor did Assange. He made Shamir WikiLeaks's representative in Russia and eastern Europe. Shamir praised the Belarusian dictatorship. He compared the pro-democracy protesters beaten and imprisoned by the KGB to football hooligans. On 19 December 2010, the Belarus-Telegraf, a state newspaper, said that WikiLeaks had allowed the dictatorship to identify the "organisers, instigators and rioters, including foreign ones" who had protested against rigged elections.

Taliban prepare to punish WikiLeaks Afghan informers

. . . The threat echoes similar warnings made after the release in July of 92,000 intelligence reports and field assessments on the Afghan war.

Those documents named informants who had revealed the names, locations and details of Taliban commanders and their operations.

Hamid Karzai at the time condemned the disclosure of in

Apparently, plans for his arrest under any circumstances have been revealed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-police-arrest-plan
Such a great country, groveling on its belly before a deformed, diseased and rotting pimp. And yes, a deformed, diseased and rotting band of lunatic pimps have seemingly conquered key-points of the American legal system, and England loves them and on her scabby belly she slithers hither in a wake of lustful oozings to her warwhore master.

... there were a rash of deaths from heart attacks of very young cyclists in Holland and Belgium in the early 2000s associated with apparent use of EPO, for example ...

So ban the drugs that kill, and let the others be used. Makes sense really.

The problem with drugging in sport is that the teams with the most money hire the pharmacists and doctors (like Fuentes and Ferrari) who develop cutting edge drug regimes which are beyond the current limits of drug testing. Drug testing inevitably develops behind the science of doping - testing for some new substance can only be initiated once it becomes known that that substance is being used for doping, and inevitably there is a lag time during which a reliable and safe test is developed.

Consequently the drug tests cannot be the 'gold standard' for evaluating whether or not someone has doped. Witness testimony is what we rely on in far more serious cases, like murder for example, and it seems perfectly reasonable to assert that if enough credible people are prepared to testify on oath that they personally witnessed Armstrong doping, then he was doping, whatever the drug tests say.

There's circumstantial evidence, too. One thing which had me convinced Armstrong was doping back as early as 2004 were his rages - he was aggressive and prone to anger far outside the normal range of human behaviour. But since then we've seen so many of his team mates and ex-team mates implicated - Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis and several others have been convicted, while George Hincapie agreed to give evidence against Armstrong in return for not being prosecuted. It simply isn't credible that everyone on the team was doping except the strongest, fastest man in the team.

There's some good news in all this. This years leading riders were about 4% down on power output - Lance Armstrong in 2005 was outputting 6.8 watts per kilogram, whereas Bradley Wiggins, this year's winner, was capable of just 6.57. Of course, the fact that power is down - across the whole peloton, not just the leaders - doesn't prove that today's riders are not doping, but clearly something has changed, and dope is one thing that may have changed.

Of course you can argue, and some people have, that if you can't reliably test for dope then the sensible thing to do is to allow all athletes to take whatever drugs they want, because if they're all doping then that's fair. But many of these drugs are dangerous - there were a rash of deaths from heart attacks of very young cyclists in Holland and Belgium in the early 2000s associated with apparent use of EPO, for example - and many athletes are young and under great pressure to succeed. We do have to clean up cycling (and other sports, too, of course, but I'm no expert on other sports) or else we will see a lot more kids with great potential killed to no purpose. I believe that we are succeeding.

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true

You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.

An interesting part of that is "...The majority of these were inside premises, rather than facing the street, and only a relatively small number of Cheshire's cameras – 504 – were run by public authorities..."

The building I'm in has two cameras at every staff entrance and three at every public one. Look in any large American city and you'll find a similar amount.

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true

You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.

no freedom of speech - not true

Proof

no right to self defense - not true

Proof. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.

no protection against self-incrimination (encryption keys) - not true (not true)

Proof

Surveillance cameras on every corner - not true

You're right, there are probably a few corners without CCTV. But there are enough cameras in the UK that there is one for every 32 citizens.

no freedom of speech - not true

Proof

no right to self defense - not true

Proof. Notice how strong the doublethink is in the judge, who exlclaims that "People have the right to use that reasonable force" while simultaneously sentencing someone for exercising that right.

no protection against self-incrimination (encryption keys) - not true (not true)

Proof

Indeed. Antibacterial is a-okay; I use bleach derivative, personally. Antibiotic? Who the hell would do that?

Actually, antibacterial isn't too good either - you create bacterial communities of resistant bacteria. Use of antibiotics and antibacterial should be avoided when it's not strictly needed, so that it continues to work when it is.

Then figure out that "Ms. Merkel" refers to Angela Merkel of Germany

At least Steve Bell gives you a hint by depicting her mit Pickelhaube

If the fetus has a right to life, than all women who miscarriage need to be investigated to determine if they should be charged with some variation of manslaughter/murder over the death of their fetus (after all a miscarriage due to negligence is just as bad as letting a toddler drown in the bathtub isn't it?)

Or you know, we could call birth the point at which you count as being "alive" and then not need to worry about all the edge cases like rape.

I hate to break it to you, but this is already happening in Mississippi and elsewhere.

Note that the in places where this type of prosecution is going on, the anti-science, bible-thumping morons are running things. Why am I not surprised?

1) Don't be so eager to downplay conservative social attitudes—after all, there are lots of countries where something is legal, but so shameful that no one would ever get caught doing it for fear of being disowned by their families. Unfortunately this even happens in the United States. A state-encouraged culture of conservatism constitutes a form of repression itself; the United States became much more conservative after World War II in part because the government wanted to show a strong face to Russia. And lo and behold: two women were executed for being 'tinged with capitalism' because they had sex with each other and had been to Japan.

2) The Carter comment comes from a BBC story. This Guardian article, also cited on the page, says that the World Food Programme estimates that six million (out of 23 million total) are short of food.

3) Here's a bit more on the educational situation. I do agree that university tuition is a scandal in a lot of Western countries, but (in Canada and the US, anyway) that tuition is just a matter of acquiring a loan, usually from the government, which you can reasonably expect to pay back, especially if you finish your degree. Regardless of how university is in North Korea, many never get through basic school, and much of the curriculum is political indoctrination.

3 again, let's call it 4) If you read the articles on each of the four parties' pages, it appears they exist now only to give the illusion of choice. While they had political agendas early on, all of them are allied with the ruling party, and none exist except as a formality. It's slightly more elaborate than the CPSU, but it does not appear to be any more free. In the United States the two parties aren't truly political causes, but really more sets of rich people, who at least actually oppose each other. There are many political movements (ranging from the Tea Party, to the Libertarians, to the Green Party, to the Neocons, to Occupy Wall Street) which are allowed to express their views publicly, and have influenced the policies of their corresponding political parties.

4, bumped to 5) Have you seen this? I think it might be useful. You are wrong to say North Koreans are free to be homosexual (which you called "totally ok"); the statement that women have suffrage is meaningless because no democratic elections occur; there are numerous sources stating that North Korea has a serious and continual food problem; and for many North Koreans, public school education is very different from the equivalent in other countries, consisting largely of indoctrination.

5, bumped to 6) Like it or not, the government of Taiwan still claims mainland China. The official 'Taiwan' got stuck to it largely because other countries wanted to open up dealings with the PRC, and not offend the PRC when they did so. The legislature is still the Republic of China's legislature all the way back—you might as well say that Constantine's empire wasn't the Roman Empire just because it didn't possess Rome.

6, bumped to 7) Colonialism in the past doesn't affect a country's participation in the free world in the present. The UK does have a lot of problems, but it is still essentially a free country.

As for Greeks: no, it's more about your English. :) The person I knew was actually very conservative and admired the social order and relative lack of corruption in the US.

Apparently you haven't kept up with the news. The latest is Standard Chartered but HSBC and several others have been involved in the laundering of Mexican cartel money and shuttling money into and out of Iran despite economic sanctions forbidding it.. Essentially they have been looking the other way when large transfers take place without the legally required documentation of where it came from and where it's going in exchange for collecting some nice fees.

That's how you launder through a bank. While they have been merely slapped on the wrist for it, through fines and delayed presecution (that never happened), other cases remain open. Google is your friend, but just to get started see here

My anger isn't over the fees themselves, but that these fundamentally corrupt organizations are not only allowed and encouraged to continue, they get fat taxpayer funded bailouts to help them out and return the favor by going on a foreclosure frenzy so intense that they actually have foreclosed on homes they never had anything to do with (and received no punishment for that either). Meanwhile, choosing to have nothing to do with the industry is seen as inherantly suspicious by law enforcement (especially if they can relieve you of a pile of cash through forfeiture).

And as for bank fees, I'll bet you have paid more than you know, for example you get to pay part of the cost of credit card handling fees even when you pay cash (merchant contracts are deliberately structured to forbid singling out credit card customers to pay the cost of credit card handling). The list goes on and on. The entire financial industry seems to have gone rotten end to end and isn't being called on it. Everyone (but them) suffers as a result.

Great for businesses to squeeze the lemon to the last drop from every employee and to have everyone always-on; not so great for the employees. Why bother even having a family or a home if all time is spent at work, thinking about work, or dreaming about work. And yes, I have "been there, done that".

An article in The Guardian listed the top five regrets of dying people:

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.
2. I wish I hadn't worked so hard.
3. I wish I'd had the courage to express my feelings.
4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.
5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

Lots of people probably feel trapped in the current workplace due to debt, running expenses, or an expensive-to-maintain self-image, which requires maintaining the current position or even advancing the career. My advice is to think outside the bubble, e.g. move to a cheaper location or cut back on luxuries. If not possible today, actively pursue opportunities to make future changes.

Ganesh Rao,

How free are those who desecrated one of the country's oldest war memorials?

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2012/aug/140812-Mumbais-most-wanted.htm

How free are some to burn 58 people to death on a train, and then call their own community the victims?

How free is this small 11-year old girl who was arrested the other day in the country nextdoor, where particular laws are upheld by the majority faith there?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/19/pakistan-christian-tensions-quran-burning-allegations

Nobody wants to go live in such countries, where a particular faith is in the majority. Because they know they'll be oppressed and discriminated against. Meanwhile some in India want to cry 'discrimination' against their faith, but they still want to flood into the country, even illegally if need be. Buddy, if someone's trying to get into a country illegally, then I'd take their complaints against that country with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, the Mubarakcracy that runs India is only too happy to brand any patriotic or civic group as "fanatics". So that's why the situation continues to deteriorate.

Or maybe you just haven't looked into it enough.

Assange's attorneys are contending that the extradition order is invalid because the actions alleged are not criminal under English law. In doing so, they appear to be conceding the truth of at least some of those allegations. âoeNothing I say,â Assange lawyer Ben Emmerson told the court this morning, âoeshould be taken as denigrating the complainantsâ or to âoetrivialize their experience.â His arguments should not be construed as disputing that they honestly consider Assangeâ(TM)s behavior âoedisrespectfulâ or âoedisturbing,â he said, or that Assange âoepush[ed] at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with.â

Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted â" at least for the purposes of todayâ(TM)s hearing â" the validity of Assangeâ(TM)s accusersâ(TM) central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently âoeconsented to ⦠continuationâ of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/julian-assange-strategy-fight-extradition

sex is regulated to be within marriage only (obviously)

Obviously the regulation is just a facade. And that is only what has seen the light of the day. Do you honestly believe the hundreds of dress-clad men are sexually abstinent?
N.B. I have no problem with the rest of you comment.

You're wrong. Articles about the cables like this one appeared months before the women even talked to the police. The three months after was just when they started releasing the cables.

How does this refute "I find the timing of the sex charges too coincidental to pass the smell test?"
He didn't piss people off by acquiring the cables; he pissed people off by releasing them to the public.

But governments have the right to their own secrets.

That depends on the secrets. After seeing some of the stuff in the cables (like the "dancing boy" story), I'm inclined to believe that, no, the government of the United States does not have any right whatsoever to keep that secret.

If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.

I, and a vast majority of the UK completely agree. Unfortunately the US government does not and the spineless UK governments we have had for the past few elections have let them get away with it.

However I think it very unlikely that the US would want to try to extradite him from Sweden. Why not do it from the UK? The standard of evidence is minimal, whatever you are accused of does not have to be a crime in the UK, you don't even have to have ever even visited the US and even when over 90% of the populace disagree with it the home secretary will stil approve the extradition. I have trouble believing it will be that easy to extradite him from Sweden!

You're wrong. Articles about the cables like this one appeared months before the women even talked to the police. The three months after was just when they started releasing the cables.

Sweden cannot make any guarantees that Assange will not be extradited 1) because the US has not (officially) leveled any indictment against Assange. 2) Because they are not going to subvert their own legal processes vis. extradition, because a foreign state says so.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/26/ecuador-julian-assange-extradition-us?newsfeed=true

"The senior legal adviser said that under extradition law, the concept of "specialty" ensures an individual can only be extradited to one country â" in the case of Assange, Sweden. Once legal proceedings in that country have been completed, the individual is given a 45-day leave, during which they are free to go where they want.

Assange should, therefore, be free to travel to any other state â" including the UK, Ecuador or Australia â" once legal proceedings against him are completed in Sweden.

However, specialty can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition request â" in this case the UK â" thereby allowing an individual to be extradited to a third country.

The senior legal adviser to the Ecuadoreans said that the home secretary, Theresa May, would need to waive specialty under section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the US.

Despite repeated requests from Ecuador, the Foreign Office has not said whether or not May intends to exercise her powers to allow for any potential future extradition to the US.

"The concerns that Ecuador has in relation to that whole process is that some states â" not least of which the US â" have been known to hold back on their extradition requests, to a timely moment, when they can serve the process with greatest impact," the senior legal adviser said. "And so the concern would be that the US has in mind a request for extradition on the basis of WikiLeaks charges."
_____

As it stands now, he is facing a serious sex-crimes investigation in Sweden, which he did to himself, by-the-way.

Rule #1 of being wanted by state security services, don't fuck groupies.

There still should be musicians and recording facilities that could match them or do better.

It's rather sad to note that, at the same time this worthy project was being completed, our elected representatives in the EU extended copyright on recorded music from 50 to 70 years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/12/musicians-copyright-extension

This means that while many of the great performances from the classic mono era can still be made freely available (and some of these have arguably never been bettered), we won't see legendary early stereo recordings like Solti's complete Ring cycle, finished in 1965, in the public domain for another couple of decades. It is, of course, a complete coincidence that the pop music cash cows of the 60s were also about to go out of copyright...

One practical consequence of this is that we'll presumably see fewer of the excellent restorations that companies like Naxos have done on public domain material, often producing better releases than the original record companies, even without access to the master recordings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9473078/Theresa-May-to-run-the-UK-as-Westminster-empties.html

And May is a US patsy - she'll roll over for the RIAA, let alone the state department

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/13/theresa-may-extradition-richard-odwyer

So what happens when she's in charge ? I guess she sends in the police, pushes Assange to wherever her masters tell her, and then gets blamed / sacked as an apology for the resulting diplomatic outcry. Which is handy, as she's a liability the government would love to lose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/14/olympics-theresa-may

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9473078/Theresa-May-to-run-the-UK-as-Westminster-empties.html

And May is a US patsy - she'll roll over for the RIAA, let alone the state department

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/13/theresa-may-extradition-richard-odwyer

So what happens when she's in charge ? I guess she sends in the police, pushes Assange to wherever her masters tell her, and then gets blamed / sacked as an apology for the resulting diplomatic outcry. Which is handy, as she's a liability the government would love to lose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/14/olympics-theresa-may

I've read that in 20 years or less, we will be able to download all of a person's brain onto a computer hard drive. All of their memories, accumulated knowledge and yes, any crimes they may have comitted. Trying to find citation. Click this link, and scroll down to see a pic of "the headset of the future!" http://m.io9.com/5495712/six-ways-science-can-see-into-your-brain This article on the ethics of brain imaging http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/7324 and http://m.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/09/neuroscience.ethicsofscience?cat=science&type=article

Especially that.

The irony, I suppose — irony being a common thread here — is that all the leaked cables showed is that the US has a thoughtful and dedicated foreign service. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who hates the US and believes that they revealed some dark and sinister secrets by taking a handful of cables out-of-context out of hundreds of thousands and using them to invent some kind of imagined scandal.

Pray tell, how can you take supplying underage sexual slaves to Afghan warlords "out of context"?

(yes, I do realize that it's not the US government - it is, however, a company hired by said government and paid by it, and no-one was prosecuted for this)

Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:

The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.

Here it is:

"You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is counter-intuitive refuge for the free speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuador's justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International.

"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research," José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division, told the Guardian.

Vivanco points out that in April of 2011, Ecuador expelled the US ambassador Heather Hodges over diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorian police.

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Ecuador’s highest court has delivered a staggering, shameful blow to the country’s democracy, siding with President Rafael Correa’s campaign to silence and bankrupt El Universo, Ecuador’s largest newspaper.

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

[...] the president ought to be known for "the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media under way in the Western Hemisphere".

According to various international rights organisations, 2011 was a bad year for freedom of speech in Ecuador, and 2012 does not bode well.

Following a change to the current electoral law, which comes into effect on 4 February, journalists will face restrictions when reporting on the forthcoming campaign for the 2013 presidential election.

The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".

Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:

The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.

People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy. Indeed, as Steven Aftergood, veteran crusader against excessive US government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is counter-intuitive refuge for the free speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuador's justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International.

"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research," José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division, told the Guardian.

Vivanco points out that in April of 2011, Ecuador expelled the US ambassador Heather Hodges over diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorian police.

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Ecuador’s highest court has delivered a staggering, shameful blow to the country’s democracy, siding with President Rafael Correa’s campaign to silence and bankrupt El Universo, Ecuador’s largest newspaper.

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

[...] the president ought to be known for "the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media under way in the Western Hemisphere".

According to various international rights organisations, 2011 was a bad year for freedom of speech in Ecuador, and 2012 does not bode well.

Following a change to the current electoral law, which comes into effect on 4 February, journalists will face restrictions when reporting on the forthcoming campaign for the 2013 presidential election.

The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".

Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:

The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.

People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy. Indeed, as Steven Aftergood, veteran crusader against excessive US government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

That logo is hideous. Who's going to be putting that on their packaging?
At least it doesn't look like two people performing an act unsuitable for discussion on a family website ( See here for the canonical example). You can pay graphic designers a LOT more money than was spent on the DRM Free logo and still get something that is astonishingly bad.

Ecuador is set to announce its decision on asylum in about 12 hours...

Ecuador has already announced their decision, they will grant asylum. If they were wavering, this idiotic ham handed diplomatic blunder surely tipped the balance.

Saudi Arabia stands for tyrannic despotic dictators with no legitimate right to rule who enforce intolerance and oppression over a people who deserve far better.

You are correct; were it not for the billions that they make every year selling oil, and the fact that they are a U.S. client state propped up by U.S. industry and military support, then it is likely the House of Saud would have been overthrown a long time ago. The alliance between the United States and the House of Saud is purely one of convenience and money - as soon as one no longer needs the other, it will go bad.

if there was a moment of the Arab revolt that sounded the death knell for a broad and rapid transition to representative government across the Middle East, it came on the last day of February, when Saudi tanks rolled across the border to help put down the mass uprising that threatened the powers that be in neighboring Bahrain. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136473/john-r-bradley/saudi-arabias-invisible-hand-in-the-arab-spring

In foreign policy the Saudis are leading other monarchies in the region in the counterattack against political change. They backed the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators until the last minute. They gave Jordan $1.4bn in aid and took both it and Morocco into the Saudi-dominated Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Along with other Gulf states, Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to quash the Shia-dominated protest. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/30/editorial-saudi-arabia-arab-spring

Much of the famine and disease in Africa is caused by lack of water, both drinking and irrigation

- that's not it. Much of the famine and disease in Africa is caused by lack of freedom and by dictatorial governments that conspire with the largest powers on this planet to extract resources from Africa and the locals are just standing in the way, so they are treated like dirt by all.

Then the Chinese come and they do business deals, so instead of 'foreign aid' they bring businesses, investment, jobs. They are there to do business, to get those same resources, but instead of bringing 'free money' (that really ends up in the pockets of the dictators), they bring trade, investments, jobs.

50 years of foreign aid to Africa from the West (USA mostly) and what did they get for it? Ask an African who has a better image, who is better to deal with, an American or a Chinese?

There is a reason that Hillary Clinton was giving that speech in Africa, yeah, yeah, be with us, the USA, not with the Chinese, they have 'nefarious reasons and business practices', sure, sure.

Can't answer that, but I do know that the UK is bound by US copyright laws.

A better link about the "diplomatic passport" option:

Were he to be given a diplomatic passport, that would not alter the situation: immunity from arrest is only conferred on diplomats accredited to the Court of St James's by the Foreign Office.

Any attempt by the Ecuadoreans to have him accredited would be rebuffed by UK authorities. Were Assange to accept an Ecuadorean diplomatic passport, some suggest, he would become an Ecuadorean national – and therefore be unable to seek asylum in what would now be his own country's embassy.

The basic summary of it is, there is no international right to asylum in embassies and no magic loophole that can move such a person out of country. Ultimately, the UK is i charge of the situation, with the only real limits being whatever degree of concern they have over upsetting Ecuador. Which I suspect is not that great, and certainly less than whatever level of concern they have over upsetting Sweden and over having every two-bit criminal try to pay off the ambassador of a third-world country to get asylum.

A diplomatic passport would not help.

There actually is very little law on asylum in embassies because most embassies and countries have worked very hard to discourage people from taking asylum there and trying to boot out people relatively quickly when they do. There have been a couple high profile cases where people have lived in embassies for years, but it's very rare. Getting someone who sought asylum in an embassy to its state without either the consent of the host state or an elaborate smuggling operation has never happened, as far as what I've read indicates.

How about you read the actual charges and the lower court ruling, which was upheld by the UK high court, mmmkay?

Or are conspiracies just too much fun?

Yes, that's the yarn which has circled in the fanboy echo chamber. Which has essentially no correlation with reality. Do you really think that two separate British courts, including the high court, reviewed the charges against him and confirmed that they met the definition of rape even in the UK, if that was the case?

Here's a brief summary of what was actually alleged. And here's the court's more detailed fact-finding (you should definitely read the latter). There's nothing "suspicious" about how the case was handled unless you don't actually know how the case was handled (which, of course, has been the main goal of Assange's backers).

To briefly summarize the *actual* accusations, they're that Assange quickly began trying to make out with the first woman, which she initially went along with, only to have him try to force her legs apart and pin her down trying to force sex without a condom, to wherein she consented to sex with a condom to prevent it from happening to her without a condom, only to find out later that the condom was "broken". That night she told a friend about the "violent" (her words) sex with assange, and then moved out of her *own apartment* to get away from him. Concerning the other girl, he had tried to sleep with her without a condom over and over, something which she had never done in her life, even with her previous long-term boyfriend. She kept refusing. He stayed up while she fell asleep, and she woke up to him having sex with her without a condom (if you don't think that having sex with a sleeping person is rape, imho, you're a sick bastard). And yes, she understandably freaked out after it and tried to force him to get an STD test, which he refused.

As for the whole "they didn't decide it was rape until talking together" thing, that's the most offfensive part to me. Do you know how hard it is to admit to even yourself, let alone others, that you were raped? I called mine "an unwanted sexual experience" and whatever other weasel words I could get out of to avoid using that term for myself. It took three months of denial and trying just to move on with my life before I could accept what happened to me. There's a reason most rapes are never reported. You just want to put it in the past and forget about it; the last thing you want to do is have to relive it, to face the person again, to have all sorts of vile allegations leveled against *you*, etc. But if I had found out shortly afterwards that the next day that the guy who attacked me had done the same sort of thing to another girl? I don't know how I would have reacted, but it certainly would have changed the picture.

As for the CPT, they criticize everyone. That's their job. The report on Sweden is no worse than on any other state, and a lot better than a number. And as for giving suspects to the US, Assange felt so comfortable with Sweden that he was *applying for residency* when he was charged with rape. And then fled to the UK from there, which is ten times the US lackey Sweden ever was.

Figures you'd be the one to say this is a "good" thing, Hatta. ;-)

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Oh, I know that in your world Ecuador is probably some kind of panacea — but this really just shows Assange's true colors (and those of anyone who can't see anything in conflict between concepts like "free speech" and "Ecuador") in spades.

In the West jailing people for criticising the government would be unpopular, so they find more subtle but equally effective ways to do it. These silence not just bloggers, but journalists too: The easiest of these is libel laws. US Citizens are lucky that their Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but citizens in other supposedly liberal democracies have no such protection.

Libel Law: "In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

The UK defamation bill will do little to stop corporations suing individuals and should include a public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-get-right-defamation-bill

UK Libel reform campaigners demand better public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-campaigners-public-interest-defence

It doesn't affect only bloggers: Even journalists are restricted by what they can say:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

Explanation of UK Libel Law
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

The Australian Journalist's Defamation Checklist: Can you run this story?
http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/defamkit/

And if they report something embarassing to the Government, then it is jail time:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act
http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide4.htm

The government redacted 90% of the recent proposal to snoop on Internet Usage. You would think the public have a right to know, but it's National Security if they say it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

In the West jailing people for criticising the government would be unpopular, so they find more subtle but equally effective ways to do it. These silence not just bloggers, but journalists too: The easiest of these is libel laws. US Citizens are lucky that their Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but citizens in other supposedly liberal democracies have no such protection.

Libel Law: "In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

The UK defamation bill will do little to stop corporations suing individuals and should include a public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-get-right-defamation-bill

UK Libel reform campaigners demand better public interest defence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-campaigners-public-interest-defence

It doesn't affect only bloggers: Even journalists are restricted by what they can say:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html

Explanation of UK Libel Law
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

The Australian Journalist's Defamation Checklist: Can you run this story?
http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/defamkit/

And if they report something embarassing to the Government, then it is jail time:
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act
http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide4.htm

The government redacted 90% of the recent proposal to snoop on Internet Usage. You would think the public have a right to know, but it's National Security if they say it is:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html

And go to anywhere in the US that isn't designated as a "Free Speech Zone" and see how much freedom you have. See, the funny thing is with most Americans is they think that just because something is written on paper that you can or can't do something that is the judge of how free something is. In most other countries how free you are is measured by what you are really capable of doing, for example, I'm sure that there's no law in the UK about having to smile all the time. I'm pretty sure there's also no common law precedent forcing someone to smile but that didn't stop the British police for arresting a middle aged man suffering from Parkinson's disease for "acting suspicious" for not smiling (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/08/olympics-spectator-parkinsons-arrest-smiling ).

Just because something is technically legal or technically illegal it doesn't really much matter. What matters is can you do it without being arrested, shot, beaten, etc.

Likewise, but while a laudable intiative, its important to keep track of the whole process. A lot of that e-waste, maybe even the majority, gets smuggled out and dumped into developing countries where villagers burn the stuff in their fields to get what they can out of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/science/earth/27waste.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/electronic-waste-developing-world

Obviously, not seriously enough in the face of the non-ending quest for superior returns and mind-blowing take home pay.

Obviously... considering the whale

I didn't say that... here's a hint "...on the surface..."

Oh, so you're implying under the surface, Intellectual Ventures is killing people? Or some other illegal activity?

Also, anyone that knows the mob knows they do not sell drugs.

Things that 'anyone knows' are often wrong. I don't even know why you think that. I mean, maybe they don't, but they sure get accused of it. And why not? It's profitable.

Microsoft has also been shaking down Android vendors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit
http://mashable.com/2011/03/21/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble/
http://gigaom.com/mobile/htc-licenses-microsoft-patents-for-android/

Fuck Microsoft and Apple.

I don't trust social media â" I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I think it's a manoeuvre. It's Orwellian. This small screen is going to hypnotise you. You're going to do what it wants you to do. What does it want you to do? It wants you to text your friend. What are you saying to your friend? You're going to say: "I'm on the corner!" â" and your friend says: "I'm on the other corner!" Is that what you're saying ... is that what you're thinking? Wait a minute.You don't even know what you think and what you feel if that's what you're doing all day and night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/aug/09/ry-cooder-mitt-romney-dangerous-cruel

In 2009, an AGI of $1.3 million put you in the top 1%. With an income of $5.5 million in 2009 Barak Obama was most certainly well in the 1%er category.