Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks' Assange Begins Extradition Battle
arisvega writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has begun his court battle against extradition from the UK to Sweden. He faces allegations of sexual assault against two women, which he denies. Mr Assange, 39, argues Swedish prosecutors had no right to issue a warrant for his arrest because he has not yet been charged with any offences. At the extradition hearing, in London's Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, his lawyers are also challenging the move on human rights grounds. Mr Assange's legal team, led by Geoffrey Robertson QC, argues that if their client is forced to return to Sweden he could be extradited to the US, or even Guantanamo Bay, to face separate charges relating to the publication of secret documents by Wikileaks."
or even Guantanamo Bay
I think this line alone is a commentary on both the hyperbole used by his lawyers and the sad state of the US reputation in Europe.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
First of all, he's not going to get sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Do you have any idea how big of a shit-storm would result from the US trying to press charges? It's common knowledge that the man didn't even commit a crime (minus whatever might have happened with those two women). He's just realized that due process doesn't apply to celebrities, and in this case it's not to his advantage.
Is it me or this guy gets all the attention that should instead be devoted to the leaks' content? I bet most people following assange' ascention to stardom don't even read wikileaks.
Do you D?
If the US were trying to extradite Assange to put him in Guantanamo, why would there be a need to wait on his appearance in Sweden. The UK is just as likely to allow that extradition as Sweden. His lawyers have come up with an excellent straw man.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
I hope he stays in either UK or Sweden and never gets escorted to US. If you ask me, last president in charge there was Bill Clinton and I don't know who is in charge since then.
839*929
Pray tell, what about wikileaks is "left wing?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Although I'm sadly perfectly prepared to believe that the two people in Sweden may have been 'encouraged' to make their claims, I'm not sure that Swedish extradition conditions are more defavourable to Assange than those of the UK. Remember this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three
Assange does seem to have a point; if he is not (yet) subject to formal charges, why should he be forced to return to Sweden for questioning?
He's a hypocrite because he's quite happy to throw out private government files into the public domain but when it comes to details about himself he'd rather keep quiet about its a different story. Google about his current spat with The Guardian newspaper.
He's someone who's obviously not prepared to eat your his dogfood and frankly to me he comes over as a petulant childish authority baiter who'll potentially risk people lives just so he can feel better about himself by sticking it to the man.
It's been a steady spiral into what would be common denominator areas for quite a few years. But, then again, you'd have to define what 'news for nerds' is. Some nerds care about this kind of stuff.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Hypocrite? If you're going to make that sort of insinuation you had better provide some sort of a citation. Assange is hardly a saint, but you really can't say that he hasn't towed the line and paid for his beliefs. He offered to come in for questioning while he was in Sweden and asked permission before he left. He's releasing leaks as he has the resources to, and those resources are harder and harder to get due to various dubious actions by money processors.
... and some chick asks him what he does for a living. He answers, "I'm a computer geek." She replies, "Oh, wow, that turns me on! Go to the restroom and get some condoms, and then we'll go back to my place!" If any Slashdotter posted something like that, the responses would be, "Yeah, right, in your dreams!"
So then three days later, he goes to another bar, and a different chick hits on him. The whole story seems quite apocryphal.
If this story is true, it sounds like Assange must be as charming as George Clooney and must be a skilled martial artist with nunchucks, which he needs to beat back the women folk.
I speculate that it went down like this:
CIA boss: "This WikiLeaks guy has really shoved a weed up our ass. What can we do?"
CIA lackey: "Oh, we have a pile of Hawaiian shellfish poison hidden in the cellar! If we prick him with a needle of that stuff, he will be dead before he hits the ground!"
CIA boss: "Hmmm. That sounds too drastic, and would raise suspicions. Can't we deck him with a honey trap?"
CIA lackey: "I'll call Stockholm."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Wow. You really can't understand the difference between the secrets of a democratic government, and an individual citizen? How would releasing data about an individual help Wikileaks reach its stated goals?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
if their client is forced to return to Sweden he could be extradited to the US Why would they think that? Do they think he did something wrong?
What an odd question. Why would you think you'd have to do something wrong to be secretly extradited to the US and locked away and denied due process? That certainly hasn't been the case in the past.
Are all "leftists" celebrating him? Are people of other political leanings not celebrating? Why do you feel that it is Wikileaks goal to damage the US? Why do you think liberals want to "knock the US down a peg?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, he inconvenienced the US government without hiding his identity to prevent retaliation. This is generally regarded as a bad move.
I don't think he could make himself look guiltily if he tried. When you resort to objecting extradition to a neutral country because you might end up in Guantanamo, you look like hi're grasping at straws because you're guilty, whether or not it's try. It would be one thing if he were being sent to Poland or another country who was actually involved in that stuff, but Sweden? C'mon....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement
Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. It is considered by some a form of psychological torture.[1] It is usually cited as an additional measure of protection from the criminal.
It is also used as a form of protective custody and to implement a suicide watch.
Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in American English as the 'hole', 'lockdown', the 'SHU' (pronounced 'shoe') - an acronym for security housing unit, or the 'pound'; and in British English as the 'block' or the 'cooler'.[2][3]
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
then he might be extradited. Doesn't that indicate that the proper place for this argument would be any future extradition hearing in Sweden?
maybe he should have thought of that before pissing off most of the world
not that I care anymore about this "much of nothing" drama... just sayin
Your view of the left is completely inaccurate. I am on the "left" and I am a hardcore American Patriot. I believe that we are the greatest nation on earth, but that we have fallen a long way and have been overcome by corruption. We don't need to be knocked down a peg, we need to stand up and set the bar for a higher ethical standard. Exposing and undermining the dishonesty and secrecy of the corruption in the US is the first step in purging that corruption and restoring the honor and respect of our great nation.
The naive ex-president wanted to participate to a gala evening in Geneva, Switzerland, on Feb. 12th. Under the risk of being arrested for violation of international treaties about torture, his visit has been canceled today.
The US media like to give as motive threats of protesters...
Releasing the details of the investigation against him would help prove or disprove whether or not his investigation is being handled properly. So, why didn't he release the evidence against him? In most courts, this would be provided to him so he could prepare his defense. Maybe it would be illegal to release it or make Assange look bad. Hmmm...
Wow, if I had mod points, I'd mod troll.
Your local "liberal community" must be pretty odd. Leftism is about a community based country rather than a corporate based country.
Additionally, US leftism is actually fairly right-wing. Central at most.
You're defining anarchism and terrorism by the looks of it. Though anarchism is the extreme left, if you wanted to characterize left as anarchic, you'd best be prepared to accept that fascism is right.
More prevalent and socially acceptible examples of leftism are best exemplified by such people as Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, the late Pope Jean Paul and The Dali Lama.
Releasing the evidence against you can result in a mistrial, as many courts look on it as an attempt to circumvent their authority to try a case in the public media. Why would he do that?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Honest question: So who would you suggest is a reasonable leader to look to in these times where we need somebody to stand up and set the bar higher?
Because the left offered us President Obama, and he's done very little to change the tone or the character of the debate 2 years on. At some point we have to concede that the problem wasn't limited to "just George Bush," and vote in some lasting change. Frankly, it seems to me that the only substantial difference between the 2 major parties is that we get to choose the guy who wears the power tie whose color we like the best.
Massive overanalysis paralysis in the swedish justice system?
Emotions! In your brain!
"tripe" can also be used to mean "nonsensical talk, rubbish" - its use in the GP's post is perfectly sensible.
Anarchism is not leftist. Libertarians are anarchists. Social anarchists tend to be left leaning, while individualist anarchists (frequently called "anarcho-capitalists") tend to hold more right wing views.
Anarchism means "No Archons." Archons were tyrants in ancient Greece. Anarchism means "No tyrants" not "No government." Parse it out, "No government" would be Anocracy.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Once upon a time? Possibly Ross Perot. Now? I honestly don't know.
You see, you're missing the clear distinction that was just made. If you're leftist, you are apparently asserting that that we aren't the top peg. You can't admit we're not the top peg. That wouldn't be jingo..., er, patriotic. The US does no wrong. Remember, good citizen?
My iPhone turned FML into XML. Anyone who doubts the iPhone's nerd cred can go to hell.
Guess I'm going to hell, then, because I seriously doubt the iPhone's nerd cred.
Oh, and yours too.
Because he's just George W. Bush with better speech-giving skills.
Hasn't been the 'block' or the 'cooler' since the 1950's!
It's either 'the seg' (Segregation unit) or 'on the rule' (Rule 43/46(?) of prison regs that allow voluntary/compulsory segregation- usually used for 'vulnerable prisoners' eg. sex offenders).
He's currently in jail.
The fact that we know who anyone is at Wikileaks means that they did a shitty job of leaking documents.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Private government? The US is getting scarier and scarier.
Pray tell, what about wikileaks is "left wing?"
I guess he considers a transparent government for the people, by the people, etc left-wing.
Which it is, in some sense. Conservatives traditionally support established authorities, whereas "power to the people" tends to be a progressive/leftish thing. And if knowledge is power, then surely knowledge to the people is a kind of power to the people, and certainly subversive to the authorities.
Of course there are a million exceptions to this way of looking at it, but I get where he's coming from.
Fair enough. I'm not sure Perot would have brought about much lasting change, but looking around the political landscape today, the choices seem even thinner by comparison. And I agree that corruption is an endemic problem in Washington.
I'm left thinking that a lot of the problem is that we're looking for a single galvanizing central figure, rather than focusing on our own communities and local-level politics.
Bradley Manning is a hero. Assange is nothing of the sort.
Gone!
I tend to see anarchism as "no power structures". Organisation is good, concentrated power is not. Because, as we have all witnessed by now, power corrupts.
I also like to point out that the first usage of "libertarian" was as part of the phrase "libertarian socialism", to distinguish it from Marx's "state socialism". Bakunin had some pithy sayings about this.
Your logic is astounding.
He's currently in jail.
True! What conclusions do you expect us to draw from that? That the corrupt and powerful will abuse the legal system to damage their enemies? If so, you're right.
The fact that we know who anyone is at Wikileaks means that they did a shitty job of leaking documents.
Sure, and the fact that we know who anyone is at the New York Times means they did a shitty job of leaking documents too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"No Hierarchy" is a good fit as it's got that "archy" root in it. I worked with anarchist groups quite frequently in my youth, and I can say from experience they do have a power structure, but it wider than it is tall and it is not rigid. Any time there are more than two people present (and most of the time there are only two present) you will find a power structure. But in real anarchist groups the structure results from power freely given rather than power stolen.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
But Assange is Australian, so wouldn't that mean that UK citizens would react similarly to the Swedes?
Not really. The UK is a limited member of the EU, but Australia is a part of the british empire; the commonwealth. It's basically still regarded as a british colony by many brits and there is some truth to that as members of the commonwealth are automatically granted extra privileges in other member countries. For example, Assange could work in the UK without a visa and if he stayed in the country for a year, could vote in the elections. It is why in Canada there is a high commissioner from the UK instead of an ambassador.
I think it is great that someone is finally calling the US on human rights violations. I think it is ridiculous that the USA preaches to places like China and other human rights violators, while at the same time threatening to jail a journalist for printing information freely. Not to mention the whole no rule of law, torturing, and imprisonment without trial, etc...
Do as I say, and not as I do!
It is also used as a form of protective custody and to implement a suicide watch.
You can order Suicide Resistant fixtures right from Amazon.
Cool, eh?
He's probably just not a College Sophomore any longer.
Cripes, I can remember when Robert Mugabe would have been placed on that list.
The left and the right, if you go far enough, do not believe in a form of government we would recognize as government.
And, under certain conditions, these things meet each other, especially in the 'we don't need a hierarchy, just local stuff'.
If you go to the far right and far left of those ideas, you essentially end up with anarchy. The far left thinks we'll all live in self-governing hippy communes, whereas the far right thinks we'll all live in...well, essentially the same thing, except they'll be smaller, with more trade between them.
And arguing about the origin of words is idiotic. And technically, -cracy means 'ruler', not 'government'. (Hence you can live in a plutocracy or a bureaucracy without those people actually being 'the government', as long as they 'run things'.)
And no rulers would technically be acracy or discracy. Discracy if you're thinking of it as 'the absence of rulers', acracy if you're thinking of it as 'the opposite of being ruled'.
Anocracy is a stupid half-German bastardization, and is just as silly a word as anarchy.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Mistake or not, accident or not, it's pretty stupid to walk around a known war-zone and not expect bad things to happen.
And it doesn't have any "gotcha" clauses changing its effects on vs. off US soil.
The reason the US Constitution doesn't always apply off US soil is the same reason why it doesn't always apply on US soil: it's just a piece of paper which doesn't enforce itself. And if you can phrase your excuses for contradicting it in ways people want to believe ("Liberals, the Commerce Clause means we get to buy everyone puppies!" "Conservatives, none of that due-process, no-torture stuff applies to terrifying foreigners!"), then you don't need to worry about anyone else enforcing it either.
This is probably the real problem: The people in the military don't really want to let their catches go. I am guessing that the people in Gitmo are die-hard enemies of the US that simply cannot be charged with anything because of lack of evidence. Everyone knows that they are probably nasty characters, but there is no legal justification to hold them.
It is sort of like arresting Al Cappone. You know you have someone who belongs behind bars, but the rules of the game say you cannot hang on to him without a conviction. Of course, they need to be released, simply for moral reasons, but this doesn't change the fact that the military people who grabbed them want to keep them out of circulation because they think it makes the world a safer place.
The irony is that to make the world a BETTER place it, probably needs to be a less safe place. The right road isn't the easy road.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
After reading this, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. All I can see is more misunderstanding of what anarchism is and what anarchists want.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Now I would like to repost the comments by arbed12 from a Swedish news site (thelocal.se):
Questions (not being asked by the mainstream media):
The 100 page police protocol now on the internet is the complete prosecution file as it existed on 18 Nov when it was given to Assange's lawyer (in Swedish) by Marianne Ny. Her letter to the Australian High Commission (20 Dec) mentions "a small number of documents" held back that have been verbally described to the lawyer, so this must be more or less the whole thing.
My question: I thought a European Arrest Warrant could only be issued for offences that carry a minimum 1 year sentence. I think this applies to only 1 of the 4 offences detailed - the one concerning Miss W being "asleep". Miss W's witness statement in the protocol is unfinished and unsigned. So, has this EAW been raised on the basis of allegations that have not been formally made (ie. no signed witness statement)?
Alternatively, has it been raised on the basis of the hearsay evidence of friends, family and work colleagues about this incident given by Witness B (statement taken by telephone on 8 Sept), Witness D (telephone statement 13 Sept) and Witnesses G, H and I (telephone statements 6, 22 and 27 Oct respectively)?
More questions: where is Miss W's full witness statement (either recorded police interview or properly finished and signed document)? There's been plenty of time to obtain it between 20 Aug and 18 Nov surely? Why hasn't this been given to the defence?
Where is Miss A's full witness statement? Subsequent to the telephone statement taken on 21 August, there has been at least one opportunity to do a full recorded police interview (when she gave the police the torn, used condom on 25 August). Again, there has been plenty of time between 21 Aug and 18 Nov to obtain a formal statement. Why hasn't this been given to the defence?
Apparently, police forensics were unable to find any DNA (male or female) on a torn, supposedly used, condom. How is this even possible? To me, the lack of any DNA indicates the condom has never even been worn and therefore, potentially, has been presented by the complainant as false evidence. Why have most reports in the mainstream media about the latest leak (from an incredibly porous police investigation) not mentioned this detail at all?
Finally, one for Nick Davies of the Guardian, who wrote a highly prejudicial article on 18 December based on a 68 page police report (he says he was given "unauthorised" access to a few days previously. Given the police file on the internet now is 100 pages long, does this mean Davies' report did not include Witness E and Witness F's statements (lengthy recorded police interviews done on 20 Sept) by two Swedish journalists? It's the only thing I can see that might account for the difference in page count. If so, why not - they were available by 18 December. And why did he choose to publish an article based on only one side of the story? In a rape case? Would he consider that good journalistic practice? Or a disgrace to his profession?
One more thing:
Witness I's statement is very troubling. First, she doesn't seem to live where her statement indicates she does and, second, in it the police ask her about the SMS messages with Miss W that
Because Obama is not the dictator of the United States but must faithfully execute[1] the laws passed by the Congress when they are within the power of Congress to regulate. As it happens, Congress has the explicit power to determine what happens to captures[2] during a time of war.
You make an excellent point. The president has very few powers. But it brings up and interesting point of accountability: If the congress is responsible for holding prisoners at GitMo, couldn't they be individually charged with conspiring to unlawfully detain people? The director of the FBI (if he was inclined to) could close GitMo by sending FBI agents to scoop up all the members of congress who voted to keep GitMo open, since it would fall under federal jurisdiction to prosecute. They could probably be charged with a hole slew of charges designed to jail kidnappers and human traffickers.
It would unleash and unholy shitstorm in DC for a good 6 months, but it would get GitMo closed.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet.
Do you see any country volunteering to accept these prisoners?
Do you see any state governor wanting to see them tried or imprisoned in his state?
Just as likely? No, that is simply not the case.
You see both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights which explicitly prohibits extraditing people to any country when there is a possibility that he could be sentenced to death, tortured or suffer bodily harm.
The US is one of those few Western countries that continues to sentence people to death, not a single country in Europe does that.
Actually the conditions are exactly identical.
Since both the UK and Sweden are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights they are explicitly forbidden from extraditing a person to any country where he may face the death penalty.
It does not have to be definite or clear, but if there are doubts and he could possibly be tried as a spy he would absolutely have to be protected from extradition to the US.
No, the slightly-less-extreme-right offered you Obama.
There is no left-wing political party in the USA. There is merely the Right, the Far Right, and the Crazy Far Right.
This is what a left-wing political party looks like.
They did not ignore the treaty, Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, which were found to be inadequate. This is line with the treaty, the result was not. Case closed.
Once they're outside Sweden it's hard for the Swedes to do anything about it. I doubt it was done in bad faith, we take it very seriously indeed. However in hindsight you could say the Egyptians could not to be trusted. I doubt they'll make that mistake again.
"Clever" wordplay does nothing to answer my question, and does nothing to inform or advance the discussion.
Since the question was not "Compare the political parties in the US to the Australian Green party," would you care to offer an answer to the question I posed, or should we just engage in a bunch of semantic dick measuring over whether or not left and right are absolute values or only have meaning relative to one another?
It should be noted that a member of the Australian Green party is probably not the person who's likely to strike a leadership chord with the American people. I'm sure they're fine people with earnestly-held beliefs... but they're not American, and as such, probably have very little interest in engaging in American politics, or providing leadership to the American people. I'd expect them to be more concerned with Australians.
Yeah I'm a geek. I've been using computers since I was 7. I play a lot of video games, not as much of a stigma now as it used to be, and oh yeah I also read a lot. I've got some other things going against me. I like to speak in clear English, American English for what it is worth, and I sometimes get pedantic about things that really don't matter in a conversation.
All that being said I am pretty lucky. I've been called a pretty boy, I played football, I can drink and hang out with guys decently well, and my point in all of this is that I've been also pretty lucky with the lady's.
I don't say this to brag and in fact I never even talk about this kinda crap even in 'teh locker room' unless pressed by other guys for some reason that I've yet to understand fully. But rather to just try and give some crediblity to the fact of what I'm about to say next.
Sex is not always the ok dear let us do it. Assume the position! Right-o! Let me just get this condom on and we shall bang. Oh, yes, good stuff, you enjoying yourself too dear? Glad to hear it. Oh, there I go. Ok, let us both take showers and go back to watching TV.
I've gotten groped by both men and women in bars. I've gotten into strange situations where some girl is crying and yet she is giving me a blowjob. I've watched the lust in some poor girls eyes for me when she is way out of my league, and at times been horny enough to let her do me. I've woken up in a strange bed with some girl I dimly remember and yet we do it again because dammit sex feels good!
Not only could I go on but I'm not even 1/2 the player of some people. My stories are often just fist bump moments rather than whoa dog, wtf!? And as such this whole thing about Assange feels so weak. If this guy had not pissed off the most rich and powerful people in the world would this even be an issue?
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
You said Obama was a candidate from the left. He was not. He was a candidate from the right.
Incidentally, the "tone" of the debate - at least from the top down - has changed noticably, particularly on the international stage. He's far less absolutist and much more prepared to investigate compromise. Sadly the debate from the bottom-up has gotten proportionally worse, as his temperance has been overshadowed by ever-increasing (and media-fuelled) extremism, obstinance and fear-mongering from the far right in the US.
Sadly, in my experience, most (non-Democrat-voting) Americans perceive Obama's behaviour as weakness, which highlights why the political process here is so broken.
Indeed. Largely because of American attitudes towards left-wing politics. I only used them as an example because (as an Australian) it's a left-wing party I'm fairly familiar with (though I disagree with many of their views). However, my point was that left-wing parties in most of the rest of the world have similar agendas and, hence, they serve as a good example of what actual left-wing politics look like.
I said that he was the candidate offered to us by the left, and that he has failed to deliver on much of the hype and promise we were led to believe he'd bring about. Notwithstanding perenially ineffective third party choices, the choices for Pres/Vice Pres were McCain/Palin, or Obama/Biden.
Of those two, Obama & Biden are the left-most choice available to us, nominated by the left-most party which is likely to field a candidate who might win a popular election. And I know quite a few self-professed liberals and self-described leftists (not just those in the States, but in Canada, Ireland, Germany, and China - my company does quite a bit of business overseas, so I'm not as isolated as you might suspect, despite the fact that I'm American) who swear that the sun rises and sets on President Obama. So, while your characterization of the American Left as "not that Left" may be accurate in absolute comparison, he *was* the left's candidate here.
And none of this answers my question, which was: "Honest question: So who would you suggest is a reasonable leader to look to in these times where we need somebody to stand up and set the bar higher?"
It wasn't about the absolute versus relative positions of left and right in American and global politics, it was a simple question of who can provide us with the leadership the original poster I responded to felt we need. Great leaders can come from the left or the right, the only point I was making by citing Pres. Obama was that he was held up as "the great agent of change" who was supposed to change the tone, set the bar higher, eliminate corruption... and he has largely failed to make any noticeable strides towards that. We're still engaged in Iraq & Afghanistan. Guantanamo Bay still exists. Warrantless wiretapping, PATRIOT act extensions, and the TSA's Full Body Scans and Feel-Good Feel-Ups have all happened or continued under his watch.
I don't think that "electing someone more leftist than Obama, who is sorta not that left" is much of an answer - I'm asking who, in our present political climate, fits the bill, because there really is a dearth of leadership, and that's not a "left versus right" issue. You can certainly have a conservative/right-wing government that is transparent and reasonably free of corruption and graft just as well as you can have a liberal/left-wing government that is transparent and reasonably free of corruption and graft, and you can have corrupt & abusive left-wing and right-wing governments in equal measure as well - the two measures are largely independent of one another.
Well, after W, pretty much anything would have been an improvement. It will probably take the US (and, indeed, the West in general) half a century to fully recover from that disaster and it's follow-on effects.
I don't know. I don't follow US politics closely enough to know much about more than a handful of people, and none of them are particularly impressive. To be honest, I'm nearly at the point where I don't think a good leader *can* rise from the US political system - it's simply too corrupt and broken.
I will say, however, that if someone does appear, then I sincerely doubt they will come from the "US Right". The politics coming from that side just seem to be too combative, exclusionary and absolutist, with little positive, constructive or useful to contribute - and becoming more so every day.
Sweden was found to have violated the covenant against torture. A UN committee is not a court, nobody has been held responsible. Untouchable.
The settlement was to preclude a civil lawsuit. Nobody has been held responsible. No court case. Untouchable.
Violating human rights by sending people to be tortured is vile so as to be intolerable in a free democratic country, and should be followed by a criminal court case and incarceration of the complicit parties. Yet, in Sweden, nobody has been held responsible, the only thing that's happened has been that taxpayers have coughed up a pittance to protect politicians from a civil suit.
Well, the taxpayers have more where that came from, and the civil servants and politicians know that sending people to be tortured has no consequences for anyone, so they can do it as they please, at any time, for any reason.
Assange is nothing of the sort.
Only to those who support their govenments lying to them. Assange is quite definately a hero to me, and I am proud he is Australian
I agree that he was awful, I don't think it'll require 50 years to undo the negative parts of his legacy. Here's hoping, anyway.
Perhaps - most of them, democrat and republican alike, appear more interested in maintaining their own power base than they are in actually governing wisely. The arrival of a legitimate third party might shake it up enough for change, but with the current 2-party system, it seems like we'll be locked into a perpetual back-and-forth like we've seen the past 10 years or so.
But this assumes that the "US Right" is a monolithic entity that agrees on everything. I tend to be rather conservative on many spending issues - I'd label it "pragmatic libertarian," or "small government, unless government really can do a measurably better / more efficient job." This makes me fairly liberal (at least with respect to the American mainstream) on "social issues" - drug policy/decriminalization, gay marriage, abortion, all of that sort of stuff, I'd agree almost down the line with the Democratic platform - why? Because the government has no business nosing into my business, simple as that.
But this outlook also means I'm fairly conservative on finance and spending, which places me at odds with pretty much both of the major parties - the Democrats want to create social programs for *everything,* and the Republicans want to create social programs for *everything except abortion & stem cell research.* They've both learned that a government that provides a bunch of benefits is a government that people will want to vote for to keep the benefits rolling. Leadership here has turned into "Vote for me and I'll give you the most stuff?" rather than "Vote for me so I can help us understand what our priorities as a nation should be, and guide us to the right thing for the long-term that may not be the easy thing in the short term."
As an example: I'm willing to entertain the notion that health care is something we need to spend on as a country, and that it's both a priority, and the right thing to do. But when a politician tells me "We're going to add 30 million people to the health care system, we're going to change NOTHING about your existing coverage, and we're going to reduce costs for everybody," well... I can do math, and something there doesn't add up. (That message was delivered more or less exactly by Pres. Obama in several speeches - cover everybody, no change to peoples' existing coverage, less cost all around.)
Leadership is sometimes about breaking the bad news to people that the party's over: getting up in front of people, and saying "Look, we're going to ask everybody who makes more than 60,000 dollars a year to give 3% more on their income taxes to provide this coverage to 30 million new people, and we're going to need to move to a single-payer plan to reduce costs." Delivering potentially unpleasant news in a way that makes me understand (and agree) on the necessity & the 'rightness' of that course of action is a key component. Don't just sweet talk me, tell me what we need to do, why we need to do it, and for god's sake, be honest about it.
I know you're a troll, but that was actually pretty funny :)
I'm pretty sure he answers something more like "I'm a spy toppling oppressive regimes in war torn countries to save little brown kids and puppies, and, this is a secret I'm only going to share with you, I sparkle in sunlight"
I think the reputation hit was bad enough - and more importantly is still ongoing - that it'll take a generation or two to correct.
From my (admittedly not at all comprehensive) understanding of the US electoral system, a useful third party is all but impossible with significant and fundamental reform.
I disagree. It merely assumes they broadly agree about few things and - most importantly - *disagree* about the same things.
A properly constructed *and enforced* regulatory framework would probably achieve that - it doesn't seem like Americans get a good ROI on their healthcare spend. However, when the other guys are just going respond with "no way" (or variations thereof - see above about disagreeing on the same things) then there's not a lot that can be done. This is particularly true when the opposing "facts" are comically inaccurate (eg: "Death Panels") or the rhetoric outrageous ("Repealing the Job Destroying Healthcare Act"). How can you possibly respond to that sort of "argument" in a constructive fashion ?
I certainly don't envy you Americans and the shit you need to sort out over the next decade or two. My pessismism about how it will turn out of one of the major reasons I'm moving back to Australia at the end of the year.
The really frustrating thing is the same sort of superficial and poisonous media coverage that I believe is one of the biggest reasons for the US's problems is rapidly infecting the rest of the Anglosphere, and probably the Western world. Certainly the politics in the UK and Australia have become much more "Americanised" over the last decade, and that's not a good thing.
The United Nations' Human Rights Committee still found it was satisfied that Sweden had "at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns." In consequence, the Committee did not find "a violation of article 13 of the Covenant for the failure to be allowed to submit reasons against his deportation and have the case reviewed by a competent authority".
It only became illegal when the guarantees failed otherwise it would have been legal.
The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees. Despite your claims to the contrary.
Where is your statistical evidence that this occurs routinely? I see the opposite.