Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal

Que Nelson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 00:54 · Score: -1

Ha, ha!

Re:Que Nelson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 00:55 · Score: 0

If ya gonna be a leaker, don't be a tweaker.
Re:Que Nelson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:17 · Score: -1

Julian, this is Tyrone. He will be your cell mate for the next few years.
Re:Que Nelson by swalve · 2011-11-02 01:24 · Score: 1

Is that what people are saying about him? Likes the meth? Not surprising, he kind of acts like that.
Re:Que Nelson by Dishevel · 2011-11-02 02:55 · Score: -1

I truly hate that little fucker.
Wikileaks could have been a wonderful thing.
Though when wielded by a pathetic little bitch with an agenda it was tarnished.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Que Nelson by Spy+Handler · 2011-11-02 04:35 · Score: 1

"bend over Julian"
said Bubbaheim
Re:Que Nelson by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-03 04:55 · Score: 0

UR A Foetus

Awww..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 00:54 · Score: -1

...my heart bleeds for the coward.

Not!

Re:Awww..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:01 · Score: 0

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.
Re:Awww..... by Tukz · 2011-11-02 01:02 · Score: 2

So you don't care someone is being railroaded on bogus accusations?

--
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Re:Awww..... by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:04 · Score: 1

What do you expect of "Anonymous Coward" calling someone a "Coward"? I'd suggest you use shorter words than "accusations" if you want him to consider facts of the case or understand it.
Re:Awww..... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-11-02 01:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.
He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Awww..... by BetterThanCaesar · 2011-11-02 01:24 · Score: 1

Only valid under the assumption that the accusations are bogus.

--
"Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
Re:Awww..... by swalve · 2011-11-02 01:27 · Score: 1

That's why we have a justice system: to figure out if the accusations are bogus or not. I'm sure if we just sent people to prison based on public opinion, we would have a few more guilty people in jail. But we would have a HELL of a lot of innocent people in jail too.
Re:Awww..... by Osiris+Ani · 2011-11-02 01:30 · Score: 1

Only valid under the assumption that the accusations are bogus.
The accusations are... confusing.
"Despite what has happened, the woman who organized the event and had Assange stay at her apartment told Aftonbladet that she never intended that Assange be charged with rape.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/
Re:Awww..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:32 · Score: 0

I know. Julian the Messiah could never do anything wrong. This must be bogus! It must!
Re:Awww..... by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:37 · Score: 2

They were dismissed as such by the first prosecution authority in Sweden. That it is not a warrent for arrest, just for "questioning", also calls in to question the accusations, or at least the evidence for them. Lastly calling removal of consent after the fact "rape" is insulting to anyone who has undergone the real horrible crime, and should properly terrify anyone who doesn't get on with an ex partner.
Re:Awww..... by inviolet · 2011-11-02 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.
He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.
Yes, because by then it was apparent that a frame job was in progress. Do you know that one of the two original accusers has already tried to back out?
In other news, I would like you to consider the following question: What do you suppose would happen to the world if, tomorrow, we invented a foolproof way to stop all whistleblowing?
Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:Awww..... by lordholm · 2011-11-02 03:01 · Score: 2

It IS NOT apparent that someone is trying to frame him. The Swedish legislation is a bit different in this area and may cast a wider net in terms of definition of the crime than many other states do. However, IT IS STILL THE LAW, and Assange is not above it in any way.
He should be handed over based on the EAW. But, it may be said that it is absolutely ridiculous to issue an arrest warrant for having him show up for interrogation, which seems to be the case. Cheaper and more suitable would be a video link based interrogation which is by the way very common these days.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:Awww..... by ralewi1 · 2011-11-02 03:03 · Score: 0

Dumping large databases of classified information onto the internet is not "whistleblowing". It's indiscriminate, anarchic, sabotage supported by espionage.
Re:Awww..... by spire3661 · 2011-11-02 03:08 · Score: 1

Unfortunately Mr. Assange's reputation through his own PROVEN actions are enough to convict him in the court of public opinion. The verdict :Self-aggrandizing asshole.

--
Good-bye
Re:Awww..... by darjen · 2011-11-02 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is almost certain that anyone who exposes the political establishment's corruption is bound to be railroaded by bogus accusations. They WILL find a way to get you.
Re:Awww..... by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:26 · Score: 1

Assange is one man. Do you believe that HE IS WIKILEAKS? I know he certainly does, but he isn't.
Guess what, there was whistle blowing before Assange, and most of the time, it wasn't done by attention whores who care more about being in the media and spending other peoples donations than actually getting the truth out. And by truth I mean one of two things, either highly edited and manipulative to the point of flat out lying releases of specific documents or say ... video. Or release a whole bunch of random documents that were simply stolen for no reason other than to be embarrassing.
Open your eyes, everything he does should make it clear to you that he's not worth your respect. He's a manipulative lying fuck. He doesn't care about whistle blowing other than to further his personal career, and is demonstrating RIGHT THIS INSTANT that he cares more about financial gain than whistle blowing, and he's too stupid to realize that if you keep biting the hand that feeds you, you'll be left without food.

Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.
You confusing greed with courage. I wouldn't do what he did because I've got more respect for others than he does. I have this thing against blatently lying to people to manipulate them. Everything that he does is manipulative. Every 'leak' out of Wikileaks since anyone has known his name has been manipulated to further his agenda.
You worship like a hero because you're eyes are closed and you don't realize he's doing THE EXACT SAME THING he claims to be against.
I dislike him because he's a manipulative lying douche whos got a bunch of ignorant people like you wrapped around his finger. If he had courage he wouldn't have to hire hookers and then fuck them while they were sleeping without a condom, only to run off to another country when he gets called on it.
There is no evidence to support he's being framed, I wouldn't have put it past some governments, but they didn't need to, he did it on his own, and his actions at the time made it clear that he was infact involved in it.
Besides, any government that wanted to deal with him would have assassinated him long ago and by now you would have forgotten about him. Leaving him alive just lets him keep rabble rousing.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Awww..... by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:31 · Score: 1

If I thought that were the case, I would care.
However, his actions speak far louder than his words, and his actions are screaming 'I'm a selfish attention whore who cares about no one other than myself', in which case, yea, I believe the whores he rapped over him.
When the police say 'we'd like to question you' and you run, you've admitted guilt. He's not in Nazi Germany speaking out against Da Furor, he had absolutely no reason to run other than to make it harder for them to get hold of him. He has absolutely no respect for anyone or anything, law included.
In short, he's exact the example of someone I would expect to do this sort of thing. His arrogance just got his dick in trouble.
He was never a good person, sorry to burst your bubble, you've just been manipulated.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Awww..... by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:33 · Score: -1

Perhaps when you're calling out others for being corrupt, you shouldn't be such a corrupt lying fuck yourself then eh? Assange did this to himself. No government corruption needed.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Awww..... by darjen · 2011-11-02 04:48 · Score: 1

Are you telling me you know for a fact that Assange is guilty? Were you there looking through the window when the incident happened?
Re:Awww..... by pjabardo · 2011-11-02 05:00 · Score: 2

Let me get this straight: he is guilty of being "Self-aggrandizing asshole"? He should burn.

It gets worse: he is doing it in a society obsessed with celebrities!!!! 4/5 of critics on slashdot repeat something along this line.

I don't know, but this buzzing in the back of my head sure sounds like my "skeptometer" warning me of something. PR stunt? Getting everybody, *today* of all times, to dismiss a guy because he craves for attention sure is weird. Maybe it's just me...
Re:Awww..... by Tukz · 2011-11-02 05:14 · Score: 1

I never said he was a good person, sorry to burst YOUR bubble.
I think he's an ass.
Don't assume what I think.
However, I don't think he raped those women, reading all the material online.

--
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Re:Awww..... by bonch · 2011-11-02 05:38 · Score: 2

Yes, because by then it was apparent that a frame job was in progress.
That's absurd. Just because Assange supporters think he's being framed doesn't mean he's above the law. If the witnesses are questionable, that's a job for his defense lawyer. If he is innocent, and it's nothing but his word against theirs, that's not enough to convict.

Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.
This has nothing to do with the issue of Assange breaking the law by refusing to appear for questioning, and it's melodramatic and goofy, painting him as some courageous knight "willing to shine light into dark castles." Give us a freaking break.
It's also ironic since Assange has been fighting against having his own personal details plastered online. It sounds as if your hero worship of Julian Assange is preventing you from objectively assessing both the accusations and his behavior in response to them.
Re:Awww..... by inviolet · 2011-11-02 05:41 · Score: 2

Assange is one man. Do you believe that HE IS WIKILEAKS? I know he certainly does, but he isn't.
In the mind of most of the ballast members of our society, Assange == Wikileaks. And you must admit that if Mr. Assange is successfully railroaded on this charge, then forever after, the media will refer to wikileaks as "Wikileaks, founded by disgraced sex offender Julian . . .".

Guess what, there was whistle blowing before Assange, and most of the time, it wasn't done by attention whores who care more about being in the media and spending other peoples donations than actually getting the truth out. And by truth I mean one of two things, either highly edited and manipulative to the point of flat out lying releases of specific documents or say ... video. Or release a whole bunch of random documents that were simply stolen for no reason other than to be embarrassing.
Unlike you, I am not willing to speculate about Mr. Assange's motivations, or to wildly assert that I know all of the conflicting pressures and perils he faces. So I am willing to cut him a LOT of slack, because he is personally risking his life by exposing very powerful people and organizations.

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:Awww..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 06:22 · Score: -1

I dislike him because he's a manipulative lying douche whos got a bunch of ignorant people like you wrapped around his finger.
You dislike him because you're a boot licking American and you're jealous that he's getting laid while you're in your nice little basement.
Re:Awww..... by inviolet · 2011-11-02 06:39 · Score: 2

Yes, because by then it was apparent that a frame job was in progress.
That's absurd. Just because Assange supporters think he's being framed doesn't mean he's above the law. If the witnesses are questionable, that's a job for his defense lawyer. If he is innocent, and it's nothing but his word against theirs, that's not enough to convict.
Normally yes. In this situation, the odd behavior of the prosecutor, and then the other prosecutor, is sufficient evidence to conclude that something is very fishy. Given this, Mr. Assange would be insane to expect a normal trial that respects law and precedent.

Don't hate Mr. Assange because he has the courage to do what you do not. Be thankful that there is somebody out there who is willing to shine the light into dark castles.
This has nothing to do with the issue of Assange breaking the law by refusing to appear for questioning, and it's melodramatic and goofy, painting him as some courageous knight "willing to shine light into dark castles." Give us a freaking break.
I am sorry that you don't see the larger role that Mr. Assange plays. He is a hero to me, the only living hero I've ever had. He bravely stood as the lightning-rod for an organization that took on entrenched corruption. The ugliness in Sweden cannot change that, even if he's guilty as charged. I'm sorry that this makes you feel venomous or resentful... but real life hero worship is still possible, even in the current cynical sceptical anti-certainty era.
If you yourself do something similarly brave and worthy, then I will worship you too.

It's also ironic since Assange has been fighting against having his own personal details plastered online. It sounds as if your hero worship of Julian Assange is preventing you from objectively assessing both the accusations and his behavior in response to them.
That's not irony. At most it is hypocrisy, which is a minor sin -- and a sin only practicable by those who at least have the certainty to profess a moral code at all, in the face of today's legions of shrieking sceptics.
...but I don't concede that it is even hypocrisy. Mr. Assange is not a corrupt institution pilfering trainloads of wealth out of an unsuspecting society. Therefore, his personal details are not worthy of exposure.

--
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Re:Awww..... by Pseudonym · 2011-11-02 11:42 · Score: 1

I dislike him because he's a manipulative lying douche whos got a bunch of ignorant people like you wrapped around his finger.
I dislike Larry Flynt because he's a tasteless moron who, single-handed, reduced the quality of print publishing to the level of the truly stupid and gave satire a bad name. However, what he published was perfectly within his legal rights, and he did the right thing by defending them.
The very notion of "tolerance" presupposes the existence of something which you, personally, detest. And the very notion of "free speech" presupposes the existence of speech or speakers of which you personally disapprove. Otherwise, it means nothing.

--
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Re:Awww..... by Reservoir+Penguin · 2011-11-02 15:37 · Score: 1

Please... Are you really so naive? If he he gets to Sweden he'll get a black hood over his head and a free flight to Jordan or Bosnia. The man is fighting for his life.

--
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil

Good. by d3ac0n · 2011-11-02 00:54 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I know it won't be a popular sentiment around here, but nobody should be able to hide from Justice.

Assange should be extradited and have his day in court. This is a good decision. Well done, British court system.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory

Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:02 · Score: 0

Assange should be extradited and have his day in court.
Which shows just how prejudiced the situation now appears to be. He hasn't been charged with anything - he's being extradited for questioning.
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:02 · Score: 1

except when the charges are made up, dismissed/withdrawn, pushed back in by a bigger brother to forward his agenda
I question your wits
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:08 · Score: 0

I hope you get extradited to Iran in that case.
Re:Good. by dingen · 2011-11-02 01:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

The problem is of course that he didn't do anything. It's exactly the same as what happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He was accused of rape, lost his job and any prospects of a future career because of this, then sat in a courtroom for a few months until it was decided the evidence was too weak and the victim's story too incoherent for the court to reach a conclusion. So he was let go and now he has nothing. Which is exactly what the people who set up the "rape victim" intended to do.

--
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Re:Good. by ledow · 2011-11-02 01:10 · Score: 2

You can be extradited for a suspected crime - always have been able to. It's hard to only extradite convicted criminals without convicting them beforehand and in their absence, which is hardly fair.
Re:Good. by JBMcB · 2011-11-02 01:10 · Score: 1

Then it shouldn't be a big deal, right? Answer some questions and you're done.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:13 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with you in principe, but it seems that Assange hasn't even officially been charged with anything in Sweden, it does seem a bit weird to me that someone who is just wanted for questioning can be extradited like that
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:14 · Score: 0

Justice for the victims of Sabra and Shatila.
Re:Good. by mapkinase · 2011-11-02 01:15 · Score: 0

I think you are forgetting that Western judicial system is influenced by politics. In some cases it is not, in some cases it raises suspicion and in some cases it's obvious. Throwing away the context of the trial is idealistically simplistic way of seeing Assange's alleged rape affair.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Good. by dkleinsc · 2011-11-02 01:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

Julian Assange has offered to be questioned over video or phone conference, which Sweden refused. That strongly suggests that Sweden wants him in physical custody more than it wants questions answered.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Good. by Xest · 2011-11-02 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

He wasn't trying to escape justice. He hasn't even been charged yet, he's argued all along that the Swedish prosecution could question him in the UK and then if there's a case for him to be charged they could go ahead and do that and try and extradite him based on the charges.
What he's trying to avoid is being extradited to Sweden without charge, and then being passed on to America. Particularly when in Sweden the case has already become too politicised because even their PM has basically pre-judged him in TV interviews.
Your assumption is simply that he'll get a fair trial in Sweden, but as with the TPB trial which was overseen and the outcome determined by a judge who was a member of a content industry political lobbying organisation, who was good friends with the content industry lawyers in the prosecution and was pushed forward at the behest of American pressure as demonstrated by leaked cables we know that Sweden isn't capable of ensuring that this will be the case.
This isn't a job well done by any measure but I'm not suprised, we in the UK are as much a puppet state of the US as Sweden is. When we can't even protect our own people like Gary McKinnon from extradition to the US even now, with a coalition government in which both leaders previously stated they were against his extradition though it's far from certain he wont be extradited still then frankly, Assange, a foreign citizen, had no hope- that much has been clear all along.
If Sweden just questioned him here in person, or via video link, and then charged him I'd be far more supportive of this, but extradition for a case with massive politicisation in the country trying to extradite when they haven't yet even been willing to produce solid enough evidence to charge him hence based entirely on an accusation? Fuck no, that's not justice.
Would you like to be extradited to a country like China because of nothing more than some random person there claiming you raped them when you went there on holiday despite a complete lack of evidence and no charge being put forward by Chinese authorities? Sure the US isn't China, well, for most people, but for someone like Assange whom the US makes exceptions to it's supposed love of liberty, justice, and free speech, it really is that draconian a situation.
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:18 · Score: 1

How do you know he didn't do anything? That's for the courts to decide. A rape accusation is disruptive, but in no way precludes a career if found innocent. Anyway, Assange works for himself so I doubt he'd have any issue being rehired. You may think this smells odd but you have absolutely no evidence of that, so your bald statement "he didn't do anything" is unjustified.
Even on the off-chance that this really is a conspiracy to discredit Wikileaks via Assange, I don't really have a problem with it anyway, seeing as his organization has placed people in harms way by releasing information on them (albeit "by accident", but who watches the self-appointed vigilante watchers?)
Re:Good. by Hatta · 2011-11-02 01:20 · Score: 2

DSK now has nothing? You're kidding right?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Good. by ledow · 2011-11-02 01:25 · Score: 1

As opposed to having to convict him in a foreign court in his absence where he'd be unable to put up any sort of defence if he didn't turn up? Because that's fair too.
Extradition has *ALWAYS* been allowed for suspected crimes. The problem is more whether the extradition arrangement takes account of whether the crime is able to be committed in both countries involved.
It's not like the UK are bowing down and throwing him to the Swedes in a game of catch - the UK police made them refile their order four times for inconsistencies and incompleteness and now the courts have ruled on what they do know. If the law says he has to be extradited, you can't break the law your country has signed up to - not without literally forcing through new laws just to handle this case. And it's *really* not important enough to worry about that.
At worst, a UK court could probably insist that Sweden can't let him be extradited anywhere else. They'd either have to agree or it would be somehow illegal for them to agree (i.e. they have treaties with the US that somehow override the EU rights granted to humans).
Nobody's throwing him to the wolves willingly, even if he cries like a boy that's sees one at every step. But then, when you deal in confidential military information, I'm more shocked that they haven't just put a bullet in his head quietly already. Nobody would really care or be surprised, especially if you brought out the "He was endangering the lives of 'Our Boys' with his antics" line.
Hell, the Russians did a lot worse to one of their former agents on UK soil in a crowded restaurant and we still haven't been able to do anything about that yet.
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:26 · Score: 0

The problem is of course that he didn't do anything.
And you know this how? You _assume_ he did nothing (which is fair - innocent until proven guilty and all) but you cannot say, with certainty, that he didn't do anything. He may very well have done something illegal.
Re:Good. by Shimbo · 2011-11-02 01:27 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with you in principe, but it seems that Assange hasn't even officially been charged with anything in Sweden, it does seem a bit weird to me that someone who is just wanted for questioning can be extradited like that
In Sweden, being charged happens late on during the course of the prosecution. The defence were pushing the line that he was just wanted for questioning but it was an argument that the court rejected.
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:31 · Score: 0

Apparently:
1. The extradition was instigated by a single person, not a court.
2. His day in court will be not shown to the public and it will comprise of a judge and 2 politicians (that don't like him).
3. There is a high risk that the US will try to extra-extradite him, using the espionage act and the Australian government doesn't have a history of properly supporting it's citizens against the US (David Hicks).
Re:Good. by kubernet3s · 2011-11-02 01:37 · Score: 2

The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence. It was only after the details of the case hit the media and the case reappealed that they decided it was worth pursuing. For better or for worse, it is in fact Assange's identity as the founder of Wikileaks that is on trial
Re:Good. by Joce640k · 2011-11-02 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

And you know this how?
I've met rape victims, that's how.
It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.
Calling him a rapist is an insult to all rape victims everywhere and doesn't make you look too bright.

--
No sig today...
Re:Good. by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 02:01 · Score: 1

Yes you can be extradited under criminal charges. Not just for questions normally under the European warrant scheme.
Re:Good. by Will_TA · 2011-11-02 02:05 · Score: 0

"Would you like to be extradited to a country like China"
European Arrests Warrants do not cover China. The EU has a treaty in place, that essentially say, that an arrest warrant in any member of the treaty acts as an arrest warrant across the entire EU. The assumption is, that all European countries that are signatory to the treaty provide adequate protections as enshrined in the ECHR.
To accuse the TPB judge of not being able to make a fair trial would be a serious charge - and to counter it, most countries - including Sweden - have appeal courts, and supreme courts. TPB lost in those courts too.
The Police in Sweden have issued an arrest warrant for him - it doesn't mean, can we come to your house, or ask questions over a video link - it's you're coming down to the station to answer questions. All EAW's do is extend that from the country in question, to the entire EU.
Re:Good. by mmcuh · 2011-11-02 02:19 · Score: 1

TPB has not lost in the Swedish supreme court. So far, the supreme court hasn't even decided if they will allow the appeal or not.
Re:Good. by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-11-02 02:22 · Score: 1

So you meet a girl on holiday, you get along, and end up at her house for some mutual enjoyment. Things to ok but not great, and you're gone in the morning. 3 months later she accuses you of rape, an EAW is put out on you, and InterPol turn up on your doorstep at 4am to put you on an extradition flight to Poland. You're not going to jail, you're not even charged yet. You know it's a bogus claim and / or a fishing expedition, but your life is over anyway ("Arrested for rape, you say? That certainly sounds like 'bringing the company image into disripute' to me! Revoke his ID and login credentials, mail him his P45") but it's done anyway. You may not get a trial by media in Poland, but you definitely will over here.

I can see how you think that this is a reasonable state of affairs. Totally.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Good. by makomk · 2011-11-02 02:31 · Score: 1

The assumption is, that all European countries that are signatory to the treaty provide adequate protections as enshrined in the ECHR.
Of course, a lot of them don't and the whole thing has been a fiasco from the start.
Re:Good. by PopeRatzo · 2011-11-02 02:39 · Score: 3

but nobody should be able to hide from Justice.
When you find "Justice" let us know. We'd like to know where the fuck he's been hiding for the past 30 years.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Good. by Xest · 2011-11-02 03:05 · Score: 1

"European Arrests Warrants do not cover China."
No shit. It's called a theoretical scenario. One people can comprehend, because it's basically equivalent to what Assange faces if he's forwarded to the US from Sweden.
"The assumption is, that all European countries that are signatory to the treaty provide adequate protections as enshrined in the ECHR. "
Yes, and we all know the problem with assumptions. Especially poorly researched ones, made in a hurry in response to a terrorist incident.
"To accuse the TPB judge of not being able to make a fair trial would be a serious charge - and to counter it, most countries - including Sweden - have appeal courts, and supreme courts. TPB lost in those courts too."
Well TPB hasn't exhausted it's appeals yet, but that's besides the point. You're making the assumption the courts are completely separate from government influence, and entirely uncorruptible. All we can go on is the evidence, do you genuinely believe that it is acceptable for such conflict of interest to be allowed in a trial like that of the TPB when it can so easily be eliminated by replacing the judge? Do you not think that serious questions arise when that step is not taken? Even if the judge isn't corrupt then there's no excuse not to let someone else who has no such conflict of interest run the trial, the fact they didn't alone implies there is no care to protect against conflicts of interest prejudicing the trial regardless of whether the judge did or didn't allow this to cloud his judgement, and that alone hence implies Sweden is not capable of operating fair trials where the threat of conflict of interest is eliminated as far as reasonably possible. It's not unfair to then consider that if such trivial and simple steps aren't taken to replace the judge and ensure no conflict of interest before the trial that the conflict of interest was in fact present intentionally.
"The Police in Sweden have issued an arrest warrant for him - it doesn't mean, can we come to your house, or ask questions over a video link - it's you're coming down to the station to answer questions."
No they haven't, the prosecutor has issued a European Arrest Warrant, which is extremely odd. Not to mention being asked down the local station is a bit different from being asked to fly back to a country you left after all charges were dropped against you only to be raised again after you left despite the police having ample opportunity to question you prior and despite Assange's local station effectively being the Swedish embassy where he has even offered to go for questioning, but no, they want him in Sweden proper. Why do you think that might be?
Re:Good. by lordholm · 2011-11-02 03:15 · Score: 2

In Sweden, essentially a rape-victim is not as stigmatized as in many other places. This means that a lot of people will talk about it openly. Your assumption would possible have held valid in Sweden 20 years ago, but the social climate changes.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:Good. by spire3661 · 2011-11-02 03:15 · Score: 1

Thats what happens when you spit in the face of those in power. Is it a surprise to anyone that powerful people are gunning for him? Its all good and fine to be righteous, but is not much comfort if you are dead or rotting in Gitmo for 70 years.

--
Good-bye
Re:Good. by zblack_eagle · 2011-11-02 03:19 · Score: 1

Accused != charged != convicted. Extraditions are for the latter two. Or would it be equitable if a country -accused- you of committing a crime and set about extraditing you into their custody?
If Assange committed rape then they should charge him for rape. I'm not sure how it's supposed to be any more complicated than that. Sure, die hard supporters will never believe, but for the rest of us it'd make the whole thing smell less fishy
Re:Good. by dthx1138 · 2011-11-02 03:19 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight: the accusation of rape and subsequent extradition to Sweden is all a secret plot by the US authorities (who are forcing Sweden to do this) all in an attempt to eventually extradite him to the United States for imprisonment on other espionage-related charges...

... because for some reason, the UK, who is supposedly a "puppet state" to the US, would never extradite him directly, despite the fact that according to you they have bowed to the whim of the US multiple times in the past?

Where do chemtrails fit into this story?

--
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 03:59 · Score: 0

At first they actually expected him to pay for his own flight back to Sweden too. Whatever happens now doesn't even matter. He has already been branded a rapist and a terrorist by most of the American media, and even if the women were shown to be lying, the mainstream media in the US simply wouldn't give it significant coverage. The smear campaigns these days are so blatant it's ridiculous.
Re:Good. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-11-02 04:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've met rape victims, that's how. It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.
Your experience is insufficiently broad, and suffers from a terrible selection bias. How much experience do you have, for example, with women who are raped by their own husbands and don't report it? How many women do you estimate will admit to you that they had unwanted sex with a man who used alcohol and a little bit of physical force to overcome her resistance?

--
Are you adequate?
Re:Good. by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:43 · Score: 0

He's guilty of leaving the country after being instructed not to by the court, and he has been charged with such action. He fled from a criminal investigation, period.
Want to get some facts and try again or are you just going to continue worshiping him like the cult master that he is?

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Good. by TheGratefulNet · 2011-11-02 05:22 · Score: 1

"I have something to tell you."
"what? what is it."
"come over here."
"I can hear you just fine from here. what's up?"
"no no, come closer. have a really neat secret to tell you."
fuck you.
in fact, kids, that's the only correct answer here.
...the more you know.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Good. by scot4875 · 2011-11-02 06:38 · Score: 1

As opposed to having to convict him in a foreign court in his absence where he'd be unable to put up any sort of defence if he didn't turn up? Because that's fair too.
As someone else pointed out, accused != charged != convicted. And it's really fucking sad that this needed to be pointed out.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Good. by Joce640k · 2011-11-02 06:48 · Score: 1

... because for some reason, the UK, who is supposedly a "puppet state" to the US, would never extradite him directly, despite the fact that according to you they have bowed to the whim of the US multiple times in the past?

At a guess I'd say: "he has decent lawyers and the UK doesn't want to break the law this brazenly".

--
No sig today...
Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 07:09 · Score: 0

He's guilty of leaving the country after being told that he could. Do you have any citations that show otherwise?
Re:Good. by spazdor · 2011-11-02 07:12 · Score: 1

Even on the off-chance that this really is a conspiracy to discredit Wikileaks via Assange, I don't really have a problem with it anyway
I do. False rape accusations serve to de-legitimize all rape accusations in public opinion. Leaving your childish 'serves-him-right' morality aside for the moment, if the charges are bogus, at the very least you should be outraged at how this further disenfranchises real victims.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:Good. by Grygus · 2011-11-02 07:15 · Score: 1

That would be an excellent point if you hadn't completely made it up.
He never went to court in Sweden, so they gave him no such instruction. He went in for questioning, but the day after that the rape charge was dropped, so certainly he wasn't issued any such instruction by the police, either. A prosecutor re-opened the rape case, but by the time Swedish authorities wanted him for questioning (six weeks later, ) he'd already left the country. Sweden had, in the meantime, denied his application for residency there, so his leaving the country isn't particularly suspicious.
He has fought the extradition with unusual zeal, but I don't see how that's not his right. He has fully cooperated with London police.
Re:Good. by TapeCutter · 2011-11-02 11:06 · Score: 1

He's guilty of leaving the country after being instructed not to by the court, and he has been charged with such action....Want to get some facts...
Yes, I would like to get some facts, such as, where did you get that misinformation? - Seriously I want to know, tracing propaganda back to it's primary source can be very instructive.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Good. by TapeCutter · 2011-11-02 11:59 · Score: 1

The smear campaigns these days are so blatant it's ridiculous.
The way it's played out in the media is very similar to the "A Dingo's got my baby" case here in Oz, it happened about 30yrs ago. Everyone (including me) "knew" she was guilty, it was obvious by her demeanour, she was "cold hearted", " matter of fact", "emotionless", etc. What very few people knew is the authorities had totally ignored their own aboriginal tracker who had told them a dingo had indeed dragged something away from the tent but he couldn't say what, or follow the track very far. Anyway, it was eventually sorted out after she had gone thru 5(?)yrs of hell for nothing more than a slightly unnerving personality. The experience of realising I had been an enthusiastic past of an angry mob is ultimately what made me realise how utterly uncivilised it was to allow the state to execute it's citizens under any circumstances other than preventing immediate harm to themselves or others (hostage situations, etc).

For anyone who is not clear on my point, count the number of comments to this story where the main arguments against Assange are that he has a disagreeable personality. In my book Assange is innocent until someone comes up with extraordinary evidence to support their extraordinary claims. Further more he has been totally co-operative with the police and courts in both countries and is lawfully applying to the full the very basic advice of any good lawyer - "Don't talk to the police!"

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Good. by TapeCutter · 2011-11-02 12:12 · Score: 1

despite the fact that according to you they have bowed to the whim of the US multiple times in the past?
C'mon, Blair was Bush's bitch, and Thatcher had a crush on Reagan.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Good. by Schadrach · 2011-11-03 07:35 · Score: 1

That of course, depends on how you ask your questions. "Have you ever had sex after drinking?" is different from "Has a man ever bought you drinks in an attempt to have sex with you?" versus "Has a man ever rendered you unconscious or otherwise unable to respond/resist through application of drugs or alcohol in order to have sex with you against your will?" all yield wildly different responses.
A lot of the surveys that arrive at extremely high rates of rape classify things as rape that the "victims" don't.
As was said, generally rape victims don't brag about it the following day, nor do they follow up their rape by throwing a party to show off their rapist to their friends.

"I fought the law..." by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 00:55 · Score: -1

"...and the law won."

Re:"I fought the law..." by BatGnat · 2011-11-02 11:10 · Score: 1

I prefer the Dead Kennedy's version...

boom by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 00:55 · Score: 0

Is he still holding material leaked to wikileaks hostage in his data bomb to be released if he gets assassinated instead of doing with the data what it was given to him for, namely publishing it?

Re:boom by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-02 01:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Nope, that was the encrypted file which had its key leaked in a book recently. Now the US has nothing to lose by going up against him, especially since that incompetent or malicious idiot DDB deleted all the other leaks that had been placed on the Wikileaks server, likely including the BoA leaks.
And I'd say there's a good chance he'll be renditioned to Guantanamo or somewhere if he walks away from the court battle in Sweden. Jeppesen Dataplan, one of the shell airlines that runs the torture taxis, has an office there after all...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:boom by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:51 · Score: 0

You know, if you read your statements with a clear and unbiased mind, you'd see exactly how funny the whole story sounds. Its too bad you still believe it.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

After sweden by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 00:57 · Score: -1

guantanamo bay

One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Is another person's dirty tricks rape accusation. A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/21/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-warrant-sweden

Re:One person's "justice" by teg · 2011-11-02 01:06 · Score: 1

A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden.
In Sweden, Swedish law applies - the "would only be rape in Sweden" argument holds no water, as that was where the events (rape or no) happened. If it is just "buyer's remorse", he can use that defense there in the actual trial.
The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:11 · Score: 1

So what happens in Sweden, regardless of weather a reasonable person agrees with them, is subject to Swedish law, but the Iranians are not allowed to make up the rules for what happens on their sovereign land? You are saying, local laws should apply, unless you disagree with them.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Usually you can only be extradited from your own country for crimes are also illegal in you home country. There might be in a crime in the eyes of Swedish prosecutor, but that doesn't mean there is any reason in the eyes of the English court to force him to Sweden.
The problem is this basic principle is being watered-down, especially for any persons that it suits the home country to punish.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:17 · Score: 0

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.
Re:One person's "justice" by mapkinase · 2011-11-02 01:18 · Score: 1

"on the belief ". In contrary to religious beliefs which by definition cannot be proven wrong scientifically, this kind of "belief" is disproved regularly in Western society: extrajudicial killings of your own citizens in foreign countries, unlawful detainment, selective application of law, etc.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:25 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter. Sweden is an ally with a very strong record of respecting human rights and civil liberties. There is not reason to suppose he wouldn't get a fair trial, in the event that charges are brought.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:29 · Score: 0

Most 1st world contries hold that if you withdraw consent, anything after is rape. The Julian Assange rape case isn't some international conspiracy.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:31 · Score: 1

I don't see where he said that anywhere. You just making stuff up as you go along or what? If a law is broken in Iran and Iran has an extradition agreement with another country they can extradite for violation of local laws. You don't like it? Make sure your country doesn't enter into extradition agreements with these countries. A Swedish Judge determined that grounds for arrest were valid and issued a warrant. What you or the UK think about the law in question is not relevant. As long as the warrant is valid the suspect gets extradited.
Re:One person's "justice" by swalve · 2011-11-02 01:33 · Score: 1

Right! If Sweden says winking lasciviously at a proper lady is a criminal offense, then you better not do that in Sweden.
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.
Right now the belief is that the Swedish justice system is being used as a mule to drag Mr. Assange into a country for which the United States has Extradition arrangements (unlike the UK, his current place of residence). The spectre of US political Manouvering combine with a charge that's somewhat specious has my BS meter go into the Red.
If Sweden were so concerned that "justice" was served, then they would publicly guarantee Mr. Assange's complete immunity from deportation to ANY country until after this affair is put to rest. It might be that he's investigated in Sweden and released; if so, he's released DIRECTLY back to the UK from whence he was taken. It might be that this case goes to trial. If he's found guilty and goes to jail, then when he's released it is arranged that he goes DIRECTLY back to the UK from whence he came. If he's found innocent then when he is released it is arranged that he goes DIRECTLY back to the UK from whence he came. I bet that the US could "place" some operative in a Swedish federal PMITA prison and/or have Mr. Assange shanked during any potential stay -- That would be cleaner I guess than having him choking on his Wheaties during a Sunny morning breakfast in the UK.
I'm not sure (nor am I speculating on it) if Mr. Assange did something illegal in Sweden. I am however, against the notion of the US staging a scenario where he can get extradited to the US because they took a black eye over the WikiLeaks situation.
I'm not even saying I agree or disagree with what happened with the US over Wikileaks. I AM however, saying that I'm against the US manipulating the sitation to get their way over this since they can't do it up front.
Re:One person's "justice" by shentino · 2011-11-02 01:37 · Score: 2

The problem is that someone is pulling strings in the swedish prosecutor's office to blow this way out of proportion when the two women who have after the fact rage have their hurt feelings exploited by special interests from abroad.
Wikileaks has pissed off some powerful people.
This is not a coincidence.
Re:One person's "justice" by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:44 · Score: 2

Unless we in the UK believe that the country is violating treaties by abuse of the warrant system. Say for calling removal of consent after the fact "rape", or issuing european warrants for "questioning" rather than arrest.
Seriously the UK does judge the correctness of laws overseas, and the possiblities of fair treatment (including blocking extradition where the death penalty, not legal in the UK, could be applied), hence we don't deport Christians under other country's blasphemy laws.
In any case this moves on to the UK Supreme Court.
Re:One person's "justice" by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:46 · Score: 1

Not after the fact. Before or during certainly.
Re:One person's "justice" by Barefoot+Monkey · 2011-11-02 01:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.
However, you should be able to "escape unpleasantries" by cooperating with the authorities as you are detained for a month at your own expense during the investigation until you are exonerated and informed by the prosecutor that the case against you has been dropped and that you are free to leave the country.
If, after all that, they try to force you back to defend yourself against the same charges all over again then you fight tooth and nail against extradition, because you have pretty much no expectation of a fair trial anymore.
Re:One person's "justice" by mmcuh · 2011-11-02 02:15 · Score: 1

An ally of whom?
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:16 · Score: 0

Right! And if you are in Sweden, don't embarrass anyone with the resources to drum up an accuser to say you winked at her!
Re:One person's "justice" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:27 · Score: 0

The US would never do that. Hell, their leader won a peace prize for gods sake!
Re:One person's "justice" by Serpents · 2011-11-02 02:35 · Score: 1

In Sweden, Swedish law applies
True, but the extradition law usually prevents extradition from a country where something is not a crime to a country where it is. So for example one might get extradited from the UK to country A on charges of drug trafficking but not for breaking Sharia laws.
Re:One person's "justice" by lordholm · 2011-11-02 03:08 · Score: 2

Normally you cannot re-extradite people, for this to happen the initial extraditor needs to approve the secondary extradition. Essentially, if Sweden would want to extradite him to the US (very unlikely), then the UK must approve such extradition.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:One person's "justice" by lordholm · 2011-11-02 03:12 · Score: 1

All EU-states. Sweden has declared that they are not and cannot remain neutral when it comes to EU-members and any potential conflict they get involved in.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:One person's "justice" by sesshomaru · 2011-11-02 03:45 · Score: 1

Anna Ardin is a CIA Asset, always has been. You can tell this because of her association with the anti-Castro group "The Ladies in White." The link is from her own thesis, incidentally.
This pretty much tells you all you need to know. Assange basically joined the same club as Mordechai Vanunu, albeit by a different route.
It's food for thought for anyone who can say, "I've just publicly embarrassed a corrupt and ruthless world power, and suddenly beautiful girls are throwing themselves at me. Life is good."

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Re:One person's "justice" by Ihmhi · 2011-11-02 04:32 · Score: 1

In Sweden, Swedish law applies - the "would only be rape in Sweden" argument holds no water, as that was where the events (rape or no) happened.
It does hold water. It holds an entire fucking lake of water. I really don't think a whole lot of people define rape as "fucking someone and then regretting it". Rape is being sexually assaulted under coercion/or threat of force.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:One person's "justice" by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:38 · Score: 0

I don't think you call it 'throwing themselves at me' when you have to pay them to be around you.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:One person's "justice" by spazdor · 2011-11-02 07:07 · Score: 1

Sweden's criminal code is on the public record. If it characterizes as a "crime" something which the UK is unwilling to recognize as a crime, that should have been a reason for the UK to decline an extradition treaty.
It's not "abuse" of the warrant system to issue a warrant for something your laws have always said you would issue a warrant for.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:One person's "justice" by boaworm · 2011-11-02 07:19 · Score: 1

It isn't a matter of regretting it. It is a matter of the two agreeing to have protected sex, and having so. And it was a case of him next morning having unprotected sex with her without protection, while she was sleeping.
And in Sweden, rape includes sexually taking advantage of someone who is unconscious, may that be sleeping, drugged or totally wasted from alcohol and knocked out.
So if he would have woken her up first, he should have been fine, as she could have said yes or no.

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:One person's "justice" by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 08:23 · Score: 1

Criminal codes change.
UK has form of blocking extradition for specific "crimes" it doesn't recognise. And for crimes it does recognise, where it is deemed treatment will be unfair - e.g. death penalty.
Yes it isn't abuse to issue such a warrant (under your terms), but it won't automaticially be recognised either. Declining the whole treay is unlikely where the differences come down to a few specific "offenses".
Re:One person's "justice" by drsmithy · 2011-11-02 11:00 · Score: 1

Right now the belief is that the Swedish justice system is being used as a mule to drag Mr. Assange into a country for which the United States has Extradition arrangements (unlike the UK, his current place of residence).
Since when do the UK and USA not have extradition treaties ?
Wasn't there a big hoo-ha on Slashdot a year or two ago about some "hacker" being extradited from the UK to the US because he broke into Government computers looking for evidence of UFOs ?
Re:One person's "justice" by bstender · 2011-11-02 17:52 · Score: 1

" Make sure your country doesn't enter into extradition agreements with these countries."

by golly that's what i'm gonna do, thanks!

--
look sig is kool
Re:One person's "justice" by bstender · 2011-11-02 18:01 · Score: 1

"And it was a case of him next morning having unprotected sex with her without protection, while she was sleeping."

that's what she is said to have said, by lickspittle press, after extensive coaching, suspiciously.

--
look sig is kool
Re:One person's "justice" by AmiMoJo · 2011-11-03 00:30 · Score: 1

This is no longer true unfortunately. After 9/11 the EU arrest warrant system was changed to make it easier for countries to extradite terrorists. You can now only appeal extradition on technical or human rights grounds, showing you were not guilty or that the accusation is not a crime in your country is has no standing. That is why Assange's defence was weak (technicalities and loss of human rights if kidnapped (er, I mean "rendered") by the US leading to imprisonment without trial and torture at Guantanamo).
The system has been widely abused, for example by trying to get holocaust deniers extradited to countries where that is a crime despite it being perfectly legal where they live.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks. I think a lot of people support the idea of wikileaks, but his involvement and his serving as the public face of the group has been a huge problem for the organization. If wikileaks survives (which seems unlikely right now) it will be despite him, not because of him.

Julian, for the good of the cause you've championed, please step down from wikileaks.

Re:Not a good public rep by mapkinase · 2011-11-02 01:30 · Score: 1

I am not sure about the integral effect on it. It brings attention to Wikileaks, good or gad, and I think that people who are in position to leak do not care much of Assange is accused of rape.
Wikileaks is a messenger, in contrary to news media, it does not editorialize (well, they were withholding some leaks at the request of (who? I forgot), but that hardly counts), and in this case it does not matter how grey sexual mores of it's leadership are.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Not a good public rep by jellomizer · 2011-11-02 01:38 · Score: 2

In any movement there needs to be a degree of professionalism to the movement. The problem with a lot of these modern movements is the vilification of their opponents, because doing it this way is the easiest way to get a quick (large) group or radicals together. But in the grand scheme of things it does little to solve the problem because the moderates thou opponents are feeling personally attacked by the group.
The idea of "I don't believe in what you are saying, but I will fight for the right for you to say it" concept is going away. They take opposing view then vilify the opposition. Eg. OWS: A bunch of Lazy Bums who are whining because their liberal art degrees wont give them a good job. Tea Party: A bunch of racist Red Neck Hicks who controlled by those big oil corporations. In really both groups are actually more diverse and complicated then the other side wants to admit. But they disagree with their message so they will do anything possible to make them seem like one sided idiots.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:46 · Score: 0

Doesn't matter who the target would have been.
any leader of any wikileaks that actually leaked meaningful things
is going to be targeted. Its the law.
Julian is the progenitor.
if Noam Chomsky had been the progenitor, his ass would be in the blender
right about now.
Re:Not a good public rep by BasilBrush · 2011-11-02 01:58 · Score: 1

Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks.
How very convenient for the powers that be. Almost too convenient.
Re:Not a good public rep by mmcuh · 2011-11-02 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

You could also say that Wikileaks has been very bad for Assange. Do you think that anyone serving as the public face for an organisation that has embarrassed the US military, diplomats and government would not have been made to look as bad as possible?
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not even the accusation of rape. It's his entirely anti-government stance. The man seems to want the world in flames. Wikileaks needs someone who expresses genuine concern for both people and governments and really wants them to improve, rather than roll over and die.
Re:Not a good public rep by hedwards · 2011-11-02 02:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

If he steps down, then the US government wins. If you've been paying attention, the whole thing smacks of government conspiracy. There mysteriously wasn't enough evidence to justify his being questioned while he was still in Sweden, there wasn't enough to justify him being required to stay in the country, but suddenly when he leaves there's enough evidence to justify abusing Interpol to get him arrested and extradited back to Sweden.
What I'm curious about is, what sort of a person could Wikileaks find that is completely impervious to this sort of obvious character assassination? The fact that so many tools around here have turned on him is pretty indicative that anybody that takes that job is probably going to suffer a similar fate.
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:23 · Score: 0

I agree completely. The whole "you're either with us or against us" thing is tiresome. The more we put down each other, the more difficult it will be to even attempt to compromise on important issues. This kind of stuff is what lead to civil wars.
As much as he should, Julian Assange probably won't step down, it doesn't appear to be in his personality. Like the original commenter said, I kind of like the *idea* of Wikileaks. There's a very limited number of things that the government should be able to hide from its people. But they've taken the hard-line and I'm not comfortable with supporting anyone who endangers innocents for the sake of ideology.
Alas, I think part of the problem of being a moderate is that you rarely care enough to get involved in a major way. Pity, I wish there were more moderates in power.
Re:Not a good public rep by tukang · 2011-11-02 02:29 · Score: 1

I am one of those people who dislikes the Tea Party and OWS and I don't call them idiotic because I dislike them, I dislike them because I think they're idiotic. Let's start with the Tea Party. Tying the debt ceiling to budget negotiations and then not compromising by an inch and voluntarily walking to the brink of default is extreme and idiotic. We borrowed the money, we spent it, and now we need to pay it back. Period.
I've read a lot of the OWS stories and a lot of them really do sound like "I don't have money but other people have money, that's unfair!" . I've read a lot of their stories on CNN and most (not all) are in the situation they're in because they made stupid choices in life, and yes, paying through the nose for a degree that isn't worth it comes up a lot. What a lot of OWS supporters don't seem to realize is that one of the effects of the financial bubble, which they're so angry about, is that it caused the unemployment rate to *artificially* be low but they seem to think that the golden years were a "normal" and if only those financial people didn't mess it up, they could still be earning easy money. If you do someone a favor for a very long time, then they forget it's a favor and when you stop doing them the favor, instead of thanking you, they even get angry with you. China and India have been the true 99% because they work far more for what they get in return while the US has been the 1% of the world. Ironically, now that things have shifted and Chinese and Indian workers are getting a bigger slice of the pie, OWS people are out in the streets. Like I said, the previous situation was a bubble and not the normal.
Of course there are exceptions and not every OWS person is a lazy bum nor is every Tea Party member an extremist. My point is I don't label them idiots in order to silence them. I truly believe a lot of them are dangerous idiots and that's why I denounce them at every chance I get.
On a positive note, these two idiot groups seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, so hopefully they will cancel each other out and we'll get something reasonable in the middle.
Re:Not a good public rep by fotbr · 2011-11-02 02:41 · Score: 1

A good number of us have not turned on him -- we just never cared for him in the first place.
See also: Jimmy Wales.
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:43 · Score: 0

Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks.
How very convenient for the powers that be. Almost too convenient.
Anyone who says anything against Assange is clearly part of TEH CONSPIRACY. How convenient for him and his followers. Almost too convenient.

ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.
Wouldn't matter even if I didn't post AC. You wouldn't listen to anything that disagrees with Assange anyway. Thanks for proving my point, sir!
Re:Not a good public rep by Oligonicella · 2011-11-02 02:48 · Score: 1

"Almost too convenient."

Meaning what exactly?
Re:Not a good public rep by jbolden · 2011-11-02 02:50 · Score: 1

The idea of "I don't believe in what you are saying, but I will fight for the right for you to say it" concept is going away

I can't think of anytime during my life when there was more free speech. What is going away is a desire to engage with contrary opinions, actual surpression has been mostly abandoned in the west.

But they disagree with their message so they will do anything possible to make them seem like one sided idiots.

Well yes. That is propaganda. People have casual gentrified conversations about things of non consequence. How armies are going to be deployed and where trillions of dollars is going to be spent, is going to be a heated debate.
Re:Not a good public rep by jbolden · 2011-11-02 02:53 · Score: 1

I agree with you. Well said. Politics is a rough game and Julian has done well with it.
Re:Not a good public rep by mapkinase · 2011-11-02 03:12 · Score: 1

"It's his entirely anti-government stance" that's true
"The man seems to want the world in flames" that's not true.

--
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Re:Not a good public rep by BasilBrush · 2011-11-02 03:42 · Score: 1

Meaning that if everything else was the same, except that Assange was the head of something non-contentious, then they wouldn't be pursuing him.
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

China and India have been the true 99% because they work far more for what they get in return while the US has been the 1% of the world. Ironically, now that things have shifted and Chinese and Indian workers are getting a bigger slice of the pie, OWS people are out in the streets. Like I said, the previous situation was a bubble and not the normal.

The OWS-movement is not about "THE Pie", it's about the nationally isolated pies all around the world, and how they are distributed to their respective subset of people. Yes, it is harsh times, and harsh times has a way of highlighting when a few people in your country runs off with the majority of your country's pie, thus the outrage. People don't complain as long as they're fed and have a certain degree of freedom and safety compared to their fellow citizens, but when you go below that limit you automatically start to think about how some people can afford a private chauffeur by being a Hollywood-camwhore or by just spending the day moving imaginary numbers around and calling them money.
Appreciate that people are pulling their ass away from the TV and trying to do something about things to make it better, it's a Good Thing(tm)
Re:Not a good public rep by Rakishi · 2011-11-02 04:40 · Score: 1

The fact that so many tools around here have turned on him is pretty indicative that anybody that takes that job is probably going to suffer a similar fate.
I thought he was a giant douche bag from the beginning, everything else only made it a lot clearer. The rape charge may be character assassination. Everything else? That's just him.
Re:Not a good public rep by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:53 · Score: 1

"The man seems to want the world in flames" that's not true.
Really? His actions seem to indicate otherwise as he burns every bridge he crosses, sometimes he lights them on fire BEFORE he starts crossing.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Not a good public rep by BitZtream · 2011-11-02 04:55 · Score: 1

Wow, you meant something even more unlikely than I thought you meant. I'm blown away.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Not a good public rep by TheGratefulNet · 2011-11-02 05:15 · Score: 1

I'd like to see anonymous put some 'pressure' (yeah, lets go with that word) on the 2 women who tried to have his life ruined.
maybe they go missing. maybe they have a 'change of heart' after having a nice chat with some really sweet people out there.
hey, the bad guys have gone down the path of real villians (I'm talking about the US, sweden and UK, here) and so I suggest we take off the gloves and play hardball RIGHT BACK.
people can go missing. people can 'change their minds' if given some reason to.
come on, anon! show us you have SOME teeth left. it has gotton to this, and so its tit for tat (sorry for the poor choice of phrases, lol)
I'm half serious. they threaten his life, anon (or someone) should have them feel what its like. if it takes true actual mafia money, lets take up a pool.
oh, wait. right. the bad guys stopped any way to collect money.
oh shit. we're really fucked here, now. no money == no way to get our own justice.
they have us... ;(

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 05:16 · Score: 0

They absolutely editorialize. Watch the unedited "OMG AN APACHE IS MOWING DOWN UNARMED CIVILIANS" video and you'll see an Apache engaging insurgents, and there won't be any wikileaks-approved pop-up texts telling you that the RPG shaped weapon being pointed at the helicopter might have been a camera.
Re:Not a good public rep by LordLimecat · 2011-11-02 05:21 · Score: 2

It doesnt help when you try to resist extradition on really flaky grounds (as if it would be easier to bring him from Sweden to the US than from the UK, if that were the goal). Hes really making all of this a zillion times bigger than it needed to be by trying to make a tragic hero out of himself. We all knew he would end up in court over the rape allegations eventually.
It seems like there are a lot of people who would continue to deny any possibility that Assange has personal failings no matter what the courts find, or what the evidence is, or anything else, and I guess naievity is a personal choice. Myself, I can believe that Assange would get himself into this situation without needing the help of shady CIA operatives (or whoever your shadow organization of choice is).
Re:Not a good public rep by Fned · 2011-11-02 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, the post-bubble situation is normal? What the fuck ever.
"I don't have money but other people have money, that's unfair!" is bullshit spin and you know it. People are complaining that they have less money than they used to, and that the people with money are at fault, which is, in every meaningful way, true.
Worker productivity has been going up steadily since the Industrial Revolution, but the same workers' wages, in real dollars, have leveled off and stayed flat for the past thirty or forty years. The country is getting richer, but the people actually doing the work to make it so haven't been. And look, the whole time, the people RUNNING the country have been getting richer FASTER THAN THE COUNTRY HAS. Gee, wherever shall we point the finger of blame?
Meanwhile, recent college grads haven't been able to get jobs regardless of their degree, because companies are only hiring people whoalready have jobs. Companies run by those aforementioned People With Money.
In short: "I don't have money because powerful people took it from me." Sounds like a legitimate gripe to me. You can try to prove it's not true, but you can't just dismiss it out of hand.
Re:Not a good public rep by Fned · 2011-11-02 05:45 · Score: 1

...I suggest we take off the gloves and play hardball RIGHT BACK.
My limited sports knowledge just smacked violently up against the passenger-side window of my brain.
Re:Not a good public rep by stms · 2011-11-02 06:12 · Score: 1

That's why they've founded openleaks.org.
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 06:27 · Score: 0

From what I've read on the OWS website, they seem to be more inclusive than a lot of other groups (both left and right wingers), with some exceptions of course - they have trolls too. The main thing for them is, as far as I can see, to unify as many sides as possible which makes sense since the 99% claim would fail otherwise.
Re:Not a good public rep by rgviza · 2011-11-02 06:48 · Score: 2

Assange's organization didn't embarrass the us military, diplomats and government. Traitors, snitches and moles did. They are the ones who should be demonized and bastardized, not to mention strung up and flayed. Assange is no more guilty of "causing" these problems than the newspaper reporter that printed what Scooter Libby told him about Valerie Plame. The government didn't go after the reporter, they went after Scooter Libby. He's the one that leaked the information and is ultimately the criminal who is responsible. Assange is not even the messenger, he's the paper the message is printed on. If he didn't do this, those assholes would simply post it on the internet some other way. Assange simply provided a server for them to post it.

--
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Re:Not a good public rep by Ptolom · 2011-11-02 07:28 · Score: 1

Are you really that sure you know the true story about this?
Re:Not a good public rep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 07:43 · Score: 0

Wikileaks is a messenger, in contrary to news media, it does not editorialize
"Collateral Murder" Yeah, not editorializing at all there. Not at all. Perfectly fair and factual. I'm certain that all judges in all the jurisdictions in which that footage is viewed will agree that what that footage depicts was a clear cut case of murder.
Yeah. Totally unbiased, that wikileaks (and that Assange). No agenda at all. None. Never said anything like he was out to get the US. Or that he thought the US was a malignant influence on the world.
They never editorialize. Not ever. They never broadcast their opinion on anything they publish.
Re:Not a good public rep by jellomizer · 2011-11-02 08:27 · Score: 1

The Tea Party says the same thing.
That they are bipartisan. But in really they are not so much. Just people who were Left or Right wingers but was raised to be the opposite side.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Not a good public rep by lasinge · 2011-11-02 09:29 · Score: 1

So you form your opinion based on what you watch on TV? I know CNN is not Fox, but neither is Democracy now. I'd say on that spectrum, CNN is closer to Fox. One of the charges that the OWS people are saying is that the M$M is lying to us left and right, and if you choose to entertain that notion for even one second you must logically deduce that trying to understand the movement through the eyes of its enemies is indeed impossible to achieve.

Go to one, talk to people there. Yes you will find drum beating hippies, yes you will find incoherence, but what is not widely seen on TV is that you will also find incredibly articulate mostly (but not all) young people who are not apathetic and want to make some changes in the world to make it a better place, and are willing to get off the couch and do something about it. That should make you wonder about the common narrative of youth today. If you cannot do that for whatever reason (not local enough, home responsibilities whatever) You can actually see a lot of it live online through livestreaming. Youtube also has a lot of information. At least try to see the narrative through the eyes of the people who are making the statement and not the detractors before making your opinion.

Or you could vote, or you could contact your representative. I did it this week, I tried to fit my concerns into a 2000 *character* limit box on my state representative's website. Not big enough, so I called asking for an email address and was told, that (s)he was too busy for that. Huh? Upon further pressing I was told by the staffer that I could fax and he gave me a fax number. I'm guessing that's a dead letter office right there. Either that or they compile all the faxes into stacks and then process all the info that way (which a staffer from another office told me that's how they do it.) Faxes? Are you kidding me? So the state instead of using email and search capabilities etc. etc. (grep anyone?) instead chooses to use dead trees to compile reams of concerns? At the cost of the taxpayers. Again why should I be surprised, it's gubment after all - but why is that to be tolerated? That's the point here, so many things are broken and people have let it slide for far too long.

--
you are in a twisty maze of different passages.
Re:Not a good public rep by HornWumpus · 2011-11-02 09:55 · Score: 1

'Trying to do something to make things better' isn't a 'good thing'. It's neutral.
If what you are doing is stupid and counterproductive it's a 'bad thing'.
The only thing good about OWS is they are further discrediting themselves. Eventually they will be ignored completely.
Getting a job driving a cab would be a 'good thing' for most of the fleabaggers. Why is it that people with no experience insist on thinking they know better.
They have hearts granted, some are young enough they might still be in contention for having brains.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Not a good public rep by scarboni888 · 2011-11-02 09:55 · Score: 1

Why is there an extradition request for someone for 'questioning', then? They don't have a case strong enough to place formal charges but they can extradite him? From what I've heard that's never been done before. And in my opinion it never should. The swedish legal process needs to put up (commit to laying some charges) or shut up (back off with extraditing a person to 'ask them questions' when they can just ask him those questions over the phone.
Re:Not a good public rep by tukang · 2011-11-02 12:42 · Score: 1

So, the post-bubble situation is normal?
Actually, yes. This is the new normal but it is only particularly painful now because we're transitioning into it and a lot of people will have to readjust their skill set before they can find work, which will be more difficult for older people but it is what it is. In the future, the unemployment rate will be lower because people will be better prepared and not because blue collar jobs will come back in demand.
The US has been in a bubble since the end of WW2 and the reason US workers have been making so much more than their foreign counterparts is because other countries were either recovering from catastrophe or were not developed yet. But the era of US workers not having to compete globally and thus being able to walk into a factory job with just a high school degree and earn a nice wage with benefits is over and no legislation in the world is going to bring those factory jobs back because if American companies are forced to hire locally and foreign companies are not, American companies will have far higher labor costs and will not be able to compete with foreign companies on price. It's not even a question of competing against other Western outsourcers anymore, it's a question of competing directly against Asian nations themselves and it's only going to get tougher. We lost our low-end manufacturing jobs but China is already starting to develop its own CPUs and airplanes and ultimately we will have to compete for jobs in high-end sectors, too.
Occupy Dallas has an online forum where people introduce themselves and one of the people wrote this:
Both of my grandfathers supported their families on a high school education. One was in public works maintaining local roads and the other sold valves. Their children went to college. They retired with benefits. http://occupydallas.org/tera
Just because this person's two grandfathers got by comfortably with a high school education, this person now feels wronged because she can't do the same. Someone must have screwed her out of that opportunity, because obviously it used to be there for her grandparents, right? Instead of protesting, she should be thankful that her grandparents got to live so well on a factory job while people outside the US lived in far worse conditions. Instead she protests that she can't do the same and I'm not just picking on this one person to be mean. A lot of the OWS gripes echo hers - that it used to be so much better. Well, of course it was because we were in a bubble.
It would be nice if life was hard only because there was some evil greedy person (or persons) because then there would be a way that we could live in some utopia where people didn't have to work so damn hard to make ends meet. But unfortunately that's not the case. Life is simply a bitch by nature because everything worth having requires damn hard work. Yes, once you climb that ladder and get to the top you don't have to work as much, and yes, some people cheat their way to the top but that doesn't mean that most rich people didn't have to work extremely hard or sacrifice a lot to get where they are today.
Meanwhile, recent college grads haven't been able to get jobs regardless of their degree, because companies are only hiring people whoalready have jobs. Companies run by those aforementioned People With Money.
That's simply not true. There are many industries that are snapping up recent college grads. The STEM grads have little difficulty finding a job and healthcare is doing very well also. At the high end some petro chemical engineers are getting six figures out of college. But don't take my word for it, search google and you'll find the numbers. Of course the catch is that STEM degrees require damn hard work. Another interesting fact is that unemployment decreases consistently with education. The national unemployment rate is 9.8%, while the rate for those with an Associate's degree is 7%. For a Bachelor's degree it goes
Re:Not a good public rep by LordLimecat · 2011-11-02 15:21 · Score: 1

My understanding was that the entire point was to bring him to trial, based on the accusations leveled at him.

If you don't want to go to jail for rape... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:04 · Score: -1

... then don't rape people. It's pretty simple. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

Assange is a criminal and a terrorist through and through, and he deserves what he gets. I know this won't be a popular opinion among the commie pinko lefty OWS-worshiping socialists on Slashdot, but it's the cold, hard truth.

Re:If you don't want to go to jail for rape... by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:14 · Score: 0

Obvious coward is obvious.
Anonymous Coward touched me - everyone get him before considering it rationally or letting the law decide.
Re:If you don't want to go to jail for rape... by flimflammer · 2011-11-02 06:11 · Score: 1

I love when people abuse their mod points. "-1, Disagree" for this post, eh?

Censorship? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:07 · Score: 1

This story should not have been tagged censorship. The fact that it was is evidence of an implicit bias. We can do better.

Perfect time for Bitcoin to shine by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:08 · Score: -1

...because it says a 'banking blockade' has cut off its sources of funding"
This is a perfect time for Bitcoin to shine!

Re:Perfect time for Bitcoin to shine by GameboyRMH · 2011-11-02 01:21 · Score: 1

For once a Bitcoin fan is right. One thing Bitcoin is good for is untraceable payment. Wikileaks would just have to set up a shell company to accept the payments since the credit card companies are now the Payment Morality Police. If child porn sites can collect membership fees with Bitcoin then I don't see why it can't work for Wikileaks.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Focus by unsanitary999 · 2011-11-02 01:08 · Score: 0

The more the public focuses on his sex extradition hearings, the less attention is given to the damning documents Wikileaks has published. Which is really the important part.

Re:Focus by anagama · 2011-11-02 01:27 · Score: 1

Well, the government in Iraq paid attention to the documents and as a result, rejected Obama's pleas to keep troops in Iraq longer. In other words, because of Wikileaks, the US is pulling out of Iraq (at least if you don't count mercenaries etc). Assange deserves a peace prize despite anything else about him.
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Focus by DavidTC · 2011-11-02 04:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, but you'll never know this in the US, where apparently Obama is pulling out of Iraq. Both the left and the right seem to think this is true (For better or for worse), and it's rather astonishing the level of ignorance the media is promoting on this issue.
Guys, we got kicked out of Iraq at the end of 2011 in 2008.(1) Under Bush. Neither he nor Obama 'decided' to leave. The deadline has been Dec 31, 2011 for years. This is not some debatable fact. Yes, Obama campaigned on getting us out, but, um, he didn't voluntarily do that.
I've had like a dozen people present their opinion to be, about how Obama 'ending the war' is right, or wrong, or how Bush deserves credit, or whatever. And each time I just want to shake them and say 'Are you a total idiot? Iraq ended the war.'.
Iraq probably did this almost certainly because they got tired of our bullshit routine of killing civilians and then lying about it, but that is a debatable opinion. But it is indisputable that they did end it, not us. They held a vote, told us to leave by 2011, we asked them to reconsider, they did not.
1) Yes, I'm aware that, technically, troops can stay, and it's only immunity that's being revoked...but without immunity, no one can actually 'fight a war' in any sense, because they can't legally kill people, or detain people, or anything, without getting hauled into Iraqi court. So Obama has four choices for the troops: a) bring them home, b) pay them to stand around doing nothing, c) have them continue what they're doing, then get locked in Iraqi prisons, d) have them continue what they're doing, then fight off the police and military sent to arrest them, aka, declare war on Iraq.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Focus by anagama · 2011-11-02 05:53 · Score: 1

Iraq probably did this almost certainly because they got tired of our bullshit routine of killing civilians and then lying about it, but that is a debatable opinion.
Great post, but the phrase "almost certainly" understates things. "Certainly" is much more accurate.

That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, "provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi." The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:Focus by DavidTC · 2011-11-02 09:05 · Score: 1

Well, yeah, obviously that's why they did it, but there are always idiots who argue about why political decisions happened, even if the record is very clear.
But regardless of what nonsensical reasons people try to attribute to the Iraqi government instead of the actual one, the fact is they did decide that, and did tell us, and we've known for years, is pretty indisputable, no matter how much stupid people have.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

House of Lords by redelm · 2011-11-02 01:09 · Score: 0

Small point, but last I heard, the highest court in the UK was the House of Lords, where cases are heard by the Law Lords. Not the Supreme Court of the US, Canada or Austrailia (not to be confused with various other "Supreme Courts" which are not supreme at all (Cdn.prov).)

Of course this case has higher public interest. At question is whether Her Majesty will protect her subjects (Assange is .au citizen) and residents against foreign depredation. Assange is wanted for questioning, not even charged, and the alleged offense is a misdemenor in .sw and no offense in most other places. I think the real worry is Sweden has extradition treaties with the US that will used to forward Assange. If the UK renders Assange, they ought at least insist on a guarantee of return irrespective of any other treaty. Otherwise, the UK is shown as Washingtons slave.

Re:House of Lords by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:12 · Score: 0

where cases are heard by the Law Lords.
Are Law Lords anything like Time Lords?
Re:House of Lords by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:12 · Score: 0

You're a little out of date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom replaced the House of Lords for judicial functions a few years ago.
Re:House of Lords by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:13 · Score: 2

Used to be. UK does have a supreme court now.
Re:House of Lords by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:15 · Score: 0

Small point, but you're out of date. The UK now has a "Supreme Court".
Re:House of Lords by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:18 · Score: 1

where cases are heard by the Law Lords.
Are Law Lords anything like Time Lords?
Essentially, just take a lot longer.
Re:House of Lords by Hatta · 2011-11-02 01:24 · Score: 1

Otherwise, the UK is shown as Washingtons slave.
Which we already knew anyway. Don't act so surprised.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:House of Lords by redelm · 2011-11-02 01:25 · Score: 1

Sorry, I'm behind the times. Thanks for the correction.
Re:House of Lords by coastwalker · 2011-11-02 01:27 · Score: 1

Yes, I think my only interest in this case is if it is used to render Assange to the US which would clearly be a reprehensible act of revenge by the US and worthy of condemnation.
Other than that, good luck to him in explaining his offensive behavior towards the Swedish women. Its not likely to lead to very much more than a slapped wrist but it says quite a lot that he appears to have no cultural sensitivity, which may influence how we regard Wikileaks.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re:House of Lords by redelm · 2011-11-02 01:30 · Score: 1

There is a difference between being constrained by others powers in a given area (so cooperating), and surrendering your own when you don't have to. It would be a new bootlicking low, and I wonder if the proud English will stoop so low.
Re:House of Lords by redelm · 2011-11-02 01:37 · Score: 1

Granted his behaviour violates Swedish norms. However, he was obviously a foreigner, and these women persued him as such and for his fame. Swedish law might have expectations (ignorance of the law is no excuse), but these women could not reasonably expect automatic local behaviour.
Re:House of Lords by Hatta · 2011-11-02 01:40 · Score: 1

After Tony Blair, it would be very, very hard to reach a new bootlicking low. This doesn't even come close to e.g. Iraq.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:House of Lords by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:47 · Score: 0

That's a very interesting legal standpoint, but I doubt that it would last ten seconds in court. Ignorance is no excuse. Arguing that the women "could not reasonably expect automatic local behaviour" is tantamount to saying "let him off because he's foreign". You also imply that the women persued him for his fame: possibly so, but hard to prove, and anyway how is that relevant? Are famous people allows to get away with bad behaviour? And I find the idea that Assange was persued because he was a foreigner, well, be reasonable. Swedes are a fairly cosmopolitan lot, I would imagine especially in the circles where Assange is"famous".
Re:House of Lords by redelm · 2011-11-02 01:47 · Score: 1

I grant you Tony was appalling. A Labour PM marching into war alongside the US! Especially staying after the russians repo'd all the WMD thru Syria. And then putting down three backbencher revolts. Clearly shows the UK as an elected dictatorship.
However, Iraq was a security / military matter wherein the UK has important alliances with the US. Assange is at most a criminal matter, and appears essentially to be pure personal vengence from embarrassed officials.
Failing to tell them to "get stuffed" is to become onesuch.
Re:House of Lords by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:53 · Score: 0

Other small point - there is no such things a the "British High Court". This is the High Court of England & Wales. Next step up is the UK Supreme Court which applies to Scotland and N. Ireland as well (but theres a bit of an argument as it is seen to override our legal systems with English laws - a bit like the US supreme court vs state law, but with the Supreme court following another state's laws)
However, as most US /.ers cant tell the difference between England, Britain or the UK (3 separate entities), they have no chance of figuring out the court system.
Re:House of Lords by redelm · 2011-11-02 01:54 · Score: 1

It still smacks of entrapment. Small wonder Swedes themselves consider this a "sexfalla" -- honeypot. Pursuit is easy to prove -- they payed for his transport & other expenses. AIUI, they met him after he spoke to an audience.
Re:House of Lords by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 01:58 · Score: 1

Nope - I think it is closer to saying that local customs are not the same as laws. Suggest you re-read the previous comment. Remember he hasn't been charged, the warrant was issued for "questioning".
Re:House of Lords by mmcuh · 2011-11-02 02:11 · Score: 1

The top-level domain for Sweden is .se.
Re:House of Lords by thenewt · 2011-11-02 04:18 · Score: 2

Can we stop pretending that his legal charges have anything to do with rape? It was evident from the getgo that the whole situation in Sweden was a farce and a naked attempt to smear his good name sufficiently that he could be whisked to the U.S. and waterboarded. Let's also stop pretending that his Swiss bank account was closed due to addressing issues or that Paypal, Visa and Mastercard all refuse to process donations for him because... well, they never really did supply reasons for their behavior, did they?
Re:House of Lords by jd · 2011-11-02 05:23 · Score: 1

I would argue that the Law Lords were a better system as you didn't need a "wider basis" to appeal to them. This whole idea of a Supreme Court that can only hear Public Interest cases is extremely disturbing as it limits the checks and balances horribly. It is also severely problematic as the European Court of Human Rights can ONLY hear cases AFTER they have been appealed to the highest court in a nation and if the highest court in the nation isn't entitled to hear the case, it is extremely unclear if it can be appealed to the EU.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:House of Lords by jd · 2011-11-02 05:27 · Score: 1

Americans can't even figure out something as simple as the rules of Cricket, so of course they can't handle the geographic complexities. (Even most Brits can't identify all of the distinct regions, there's a good deal more than 3, or say what system applies in each.)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:House of Lords by metrix007 · 2011-11-02 07:37 · Score: 1

You may have a point, but it seems antiquated to have a law system where there are lords of any sort. Esp A house of Lords being superior to a House of Commons.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:House of Lords by jd · 2011-11-02 08:39 · Score: 1

Yeeees, that is true, though I'd contend that the Law Lords were comparatively harder to bribe. Most of the UK's House of Commons apparently would settle for Murdoch's blessings and a favourable headline.
I'm not saying the House of Lords' hearings shouldn't have been replaced, merely that they shouldn't have been replaced with something worse. Replacing something that is broken and obsolete is a wonderful idea* but if you've a choice of engineering something new that's better or buying something just as broken and obsolete from the corner store, I'd have preferred them to do the first.
*But it does have to be broken. Russia's use of thermionic valves in aircraft and spacecraft is obsolete but works immeasurably better than anyone else's alternatives for certain types of problem. Valves are lots of things - bulky, fragile, heavy, power-hungry, etc - but they're immune to EMP, many ionising radiation problems and other such gremlins. That tells me that antiques, however old, aren't necessarily inferior for that reason alone. Newer is often better because it's selective at what it's better at. Newer, generically better solutions are the way to go, but special interest groups aren't interested in things that are better outside of their interests and are increasingly belligerent towards consensual solutions that ARE generically better.
I'm therefore not disputing what you say, my concern is that systems are dying a death of a thousand cuts where every "improvement" does indeed improve what is left - leaving you ultimately with the perfect solution for nothing. There has to be a better alternative. If not, then at least borrow from "bladed servers" and insert a "blade" that's designed to fill in the gap.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:House of Lords by UpnAtom · 2011-11-02 10:06 · Score: 1

There's not a lot of difference between the Supreme Court and Supreme Judges sitting as Lords in the House of Lords.

Different from the US, it is believed we have no constitution (this has never been tested). As such, it is merely the Court's job to interpret the garbage legislation produced by the House of Commons.
Re:House of Lords by UpnAtom · 2011-11-02 10:36 · Score: 1

The most seriously legal charge is rape, even under UK law. That was ruled upon by the High Court today.
Re:House of Lords by jd · 2011-11-02 12:19 · Score: 1

Technically we don't have a =written= constitution but do have an unwritten one. The unwritten one is ultimately derived from the surviving laws as written by Alfred the Great (only King of England to be given the moniker), the two or three remaining clauses of the Magna Carta, the remaining clauses (not sure how many) of the Bill of Rights (the US based the idea of one on ours, bloody cheek! Should sue 'em for copyright infringement) and the various Acts governing the Constitutional Monarchy (which recently got amended).
Although these assorted Acts and Laws are written, the Constitution itself is not, just as Common Law derives also from the above but is also not documented as such.
The House of Commons' production of legislation is all that keeps the UK recycling industry profitable. (For USians interested in our relationship to elected politicians, there have been seven members of the Official Monster Raving Looney Party elected in local elections and the House of Lords overturned a Thatcher-era prohibition on more than four people walking together with a common purpose because of an appeal by the alleged reincarnation of King Arthur. The Lords regarded him as a more credible witness.)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:House of Lords by metrix007 · 2011-11-02 17:35 · Score: 1

I'd mod you up if I hadn't caused the reply in the first place. Very nicely said.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:House of Lords by UpnAtom · 2011-11-03 04:28 · Score: 1

Since all Acts override previous ones, in what sense do we have a constitution?
I remember one High Court Judge suggesting otherwise - and so I added the "untested" modifier.
Re:House of Lords by jd · 2011-11-03 06:51 · Score: 1

As with any good Object Oriented design, overrides are at the clause level and not the Act level. However, law has an interesting peculiarity in that semantics are considered as well as syntax. The result is that case law can state that a clause which is nominally overriding only does so under specific conditions. Case law always overrides written law.
The practical upshot is that you'd have to map out every clause in every one of the Acts, Charters and Dooms that form the basis of English Law, together with how they interact and what case law does to constrain those interactions, in order to put together what the current basis actually is.
This is partly why really good lawyers (as in "lawyers who actually understand what English law means", rather than "lawyers who understand how to profitably abuse the law") are extremely rare, extremely bright, and half-dead from old age. (It's hard to be extremely half-dead, or I'd have qualified that too.) Even then, there are probably more physicists who understand the totality of M-Theory than who understand the totality of the English legal system. And, yes, I know the total number of physicists who understand the totality of M-Theory is 0. This is why the English Constitution remains unwritten, complex and possibly wholly imaginary.
(I am unaware of any attempt to describe law using sedenions. It would probably be seditious anyway.)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:House of Lords by UpnAtom · 2011-11-08 05:14 · Score: 1

Being part of a consitution would imply these laws are either better protected than other laws or override subsequent ones.
Re:House of Lords by UpnAtom · 2011-11-08 13:08 · Score: 1

Whilst you're right about clauses, courts don't override written law aka the will of Parliament.
Presumably it would trigger a constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court did.

Gitmo by kbg · 2011-11-02 01:11 · Score: 0

Except this means that the Sweden authorities will extradite him to the US, and since US holds people in prisons indefinitely without trials he is basically finished.

Re:Gitmo by cavreader · 2011-11-02 01:47 · Score: 1

The US has not shown any real or official interest in extraditing him to the US. Radio, Print, and TV talk show pundits don't have the power to issue warrants no matter how much they shout and stomp their feet. The only possible charge they could level against him would be receiving stolen property and even that charge is weak so why bother at this point. Why give this guy a bigger bully pulpit to preach his gospel? And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment and the amount of time a person can be held on suspicion only is clearly defined and enforced rigorously. And please don't use Guantanamo as your basis for your BS. If he was going to Guantanamo they certainly would not let little things like warrants get in the way. If the US really wanted him they would already have him. As it is the only person being prosecuted for the Wiki leak data leak and distribution is Manning.
Re:Gitmo by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 02:15 · Score: 1

The US has not shown any real or official interest in extraditing him to the US. Radio, Print, and TV talk show pundits don't have the power to issue warrants no matter how much they shout and stomp their feet. The only possible charge they could level against him would be receiving stolen property and even that charge is weak so why bother at this point. Why give this guy a bigger bully pulpit to preach his gospel? And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment and the amount of time a person can be held on suspicion only is clearly defined and enforced rigorously. And please don't use Guantanamo as your basis for your BS. If he was going to Guantanamo they certainly would not let little things like warrants get in the way. If the US really wanted him they would already have him. As it is the only person being prosecuted for the Wiki leak data leak and distribution is Manning.
Doublethink is alive and well. Guantanamo clearly demonstrates that the US does hold prisoners without charge indefinately in violation of international law. Sounds like you might think there are grounds for exceptions (a different debate). But be honest to yourself - your country does this.
Re:Gitmo by kbg · 2011-11-02 03:01 · Score: 2

And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment
Of course you can be held indefinitely in a US prison, as long as you define the prison as a "detention camp".

And please don't use Guantanamo as your basis for your BS.
The Guantanamo prison is not bullshit, it is a real US prison that does not obey any US laws.

If he was going to Guantanamo they certainly would not let little things like warrants get in the way. If the US really wanted him they would already have him.
No they know that kidnapping him in a friendly country like UK and Sweden would be frowned upon, so they just wait until they can get him by "legal means". It is amazing to see that you don't seem to think there is anything wrong with the idea of US kidnapping foreign people without any warrants. Do you really have no issues with your government ignoring human rights and the law?
Re:Gitmo by lordholm · 2011-11-02 03:17 · Score: 1

In principle, Sweden cannot re-extradite him without the UKs approval. Which would probably hold the same standards as a normal request to the UK. This is an absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with reality.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:04 · Score: 0

Extraditing him to the US wouldn't be productive. In the US we'd have to give him due process. More likely he'd be "renditioned" to an ally who doesn't follow due process so we can have them do whatever we want to him.
Re:Gitmo by cavreader · 2011-11-02 05:07 · Score: 2

Guantanamo operates under a different set of rules which are based around the definition of an "enemy combatant" which is nothing more than an attempt to redefine POW status and POW treatment when the POW in question is not fighting for a recognized state. Under a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions the vast majority of these guys could be summarily executed when caught engaged in combat without any insignia identifying them as state supported soldiers. The US judicial system was not designed to handle these types of situations where crimes or potential crimes are committed outside of US jurisdiction and the countries where the crimes are being committed are incapable or unwilling to use their own justice systems to address the problem. The US criminal system is a separate entity and operates under an entirely different set of rules. Any laws Assange may have committed, and I am not saying he did commit any crime, would clearly fall under the normal definition of criminal acts and therefore he would not be shuttled off to Guantanamo under any circumstances. Even if he was guilty of all the things people accuse him of those offences can be properly adjudicated in the civilian justice system. Hell, Guantanamo would be closed by now if the countries where these people were captured would allow their repatriation. The US has been offering huge sums of money to any country willing to take these guys and are finding few takers. The US should just load them all up, strap on some parachutes, and then air drop them back where they were collected and be done with it. Guantanamo has already served it's main purpose which was to introduce some fear into anyone thinking of launching a terrorist attack against the US. Before Guantanamo these guys did not fear the US if they were caught. Lobbing a few cruise missiles at suspected terrorist training camps does not really provide effective deterrent and fear. All of the major intelligence services in the world have certain reputations when it comes to the treatment of anyone they get hold of. The CIA and MI5 were considered light weights when compared to the FSB or the former KGB. However, the one agency terrorists do fear is the Mossad. The Mossad has demonstrated their willingness to hunt down and kill anyone trying to harm them no matter what country they are living in. They made no secret of hunting down every person involved in the 1972 Olympic killing of the Jewish athletes. They have also been relentless in hunting down any former Nazis as well. They have shown a remarkable ability to give the entire world the finger when going after people and not one country has ever tried to stop them. Most of the other security agencies even depend on the middle east intelligence the Mossad provides.
Re:Gitmo by Joce640k · 2011-11-02 06:39 · Score: 1

This is an absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with reality.
Interpol warrants for something that happened in only one country and carries a 750 fine (both against the Interpol constitution). Extradition for 'questioning' (he's not charged with anything they just want to ask a few questions ... can't that be done over the phone?) over a crime that nobody's even sure what it is ("surprise sex") .
Which part of this sounds like it belongs in reality? It's all happening right before our eyes...

--
No sig today...
Re:Gitmo by lordholm · 2011-11-02 06:47 · Score: 1

Never blame on malice what you can on incompetence! Considering the prosecutors history, it even hints more on the incompetence side of the scale.

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"

The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by concealment · 2011-11-02 01:14 · Score: 5, Funny

If he'd pulled this trick during the cold war, he would have had a mysterious "car accident" in the country late at night with lots of empty bottles and a young male prostitute in the car with him. That .45 caliber wound to his head would have obviously been from the steering wheel, of course.

Now they just set him up on a phony charge for not requesting sexual relations via the Swedish government-approved triplicate form. What's next, claiming he killed someone with secondhand smoke, or arresting him for going over his personal carbon cap?

Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:23 · Score: 0

Oh please. If! On wikileaking against the US he would have Soviet protection, and vice versa.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:37 · Score: 1

As a way of dealing with troublemakers who may have significant public sympathy, that's a far too old fashioned and ham fisted method. Nowadays unrelenting psyops/dirt raking campaigns are employed until the public has lost sympathy/forgotten about them. At which point they can be quietly 'disappeared'.
In the future the aim of course is to have a general populace that is so ignorant and apathetic that the dirt raking and waiting around steps aren't even required.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:44 · Score: 0

When it takes a braver person to be ignorant and apathetic than not...
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by TheCarp · 2011-11-02 02:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually.... I decided this morning to do some reading up on the allegations. The stories sound fairly bad, and damning, and paint a picture of a rather strange and misogynistic individual.... as long as you ignore a few bits that don't make sense, like "Mrs A" indicating a paranoid fear that he purposefully "tore the condom", based on.... um.... huh what?
If you take the stories at face value, they paint the picture of a misogenistic womanizing individual, and casual rapist (im not sure how one properly categorizes rapists)
Then... there are also counter allegations of twitter posts (I didn't have time to get that far, I mean to look more later, but if anyone has any pointers on this... I would love to see) that contradict the stories and indication that neither Mrs A nor Mrs W came forward until they found out about eachother, and even that they may have a profit motive to have both come forward together.... and that things looked non-kosher enough that the initial prosecutor dismissed the whole case as not being strong enough to pursue.
So we are left with a third possibility... the women are independent actors trying to cash in, and intelligence agencies are running with it because all it takes is a little pressure.
Of course... who knows... maybe he did it? After reading some articles on the allegations tho.... it does seem to stink of sex and money fueled drama.
Of particular interest is the allegations made by the Assange defense team: "There are many more text and SMS messages from and to the complainants which have been shown by the assistant prosecutor to the Swedish defence lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, which suggest motivations of malice and money in going to the police" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden )
So it sounds like which version is true is going to come down to the content of those messages.
If thats true, and the prosecution knows about it.... then.... well... it makes the international intrigue aspect of this look much more probable.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:40 · Score: 0

How do you know he's actually innocent?
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by jvkjvk · 2011-11-02 03:11 · Score: 1

I would like to know how someone who has sex with consenting adults can be considered a 'casual rapist'.
Please elucidate the points on which you are basing your statement.
Regards.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by ohnocitizen · 2011-11-02 03:30 · Score: 1

Because in some countries you can give consent and then withdraw it, which appears to be the case in the allegations (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/06/some-thoughts-on-sex-by-surprise/). Without saying whether the allegations are true, or going into the mountains of intrigue or motivation behind the case itself, look simply at the nature of the alleged crimes. In one instance a man said he was using a condom, then did not. What if the woman had caught an STD? What about the fear of wondering "oh shit did I catch something?" and going to a doctor, getting tests, and wondering "why did this man lie about using a condom? Was he trying to get me pregnant? Does he have something?". After all there was that case in the US of a man going around spreading aids on purpose (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27286268/ns/health-aids/t/man-charged-murder-spreading-hiv/). As for the woman who withdrew consent, imagine what a scary world this would be if when you agree to start having sex you are bound by law to continue. Changed your mind? Too bad, you consented once. Get his pants off and see an obvious STD? Too bad, you gave consent. That's not right at all. And that is why sex between consenting adults can be considered rape: If you deceive someone on the conditions for sex - especially if those conditions include safe sex, or if consent is withdrawn and you have sex anyway - yeah, that is rape.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by misexistentialist · 2011-11-02 03:39 · Score: 1

they paint the picture of a misogenistic womanizing individual
True of most men at times. Just like women are often misandrist "man-eaters". Because being selfish and contemptuous of others is the default--and possibly the correct--attitude. Certainly it's what evolution wants of us: when women aren't bitching about womanizers, they are of course spreading their legs for them.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by ClioCJS · 2011-11-02 03:46 · Score: 1

dude, have you even read the now-deleted blog of one of his accusers? She had a list of how to get legal revenge on ex-lovers!

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by TheCarp · 2011-11-02 03:49 · Score: 2

RTFA
The allegations include one woman "waking up" already engaged in intercourse, after having indicated that she did not want to have unprotected sex with him. Not sure how you defend that as anything other than rape. It COULD be a misunderstanding, there could be things that happened that she may have been unaware of (he may have thought she was awake and consenting, based on reactions she made while sleeping.... I have made this mistake, tho it has never gone nearly as far). This is why I made the stipulation of "If you take the stories at face value" because there probably is more to it than that, even if they are not nefariously motivated.
Again, I think there is ample reason to doubt them but... if the allegations are to be taken totally at face value, then I think the term could be applied, or is at least borderline. We could probably argue endlessly about where that line should be exactly, and that may be amusing but, I don't think it is relevant here, and would be quite a waste of time.
Its one thing to doubt the allegations, or to claim that it may not have happened quite the way it is portrayed,but another to pretend they are something that they are not. If you really think its ok to try to pressure a woman into unprotected sex, get rejected, and then simply start having unprotected sex with her while she is asleep.... then I don't see us coming to much agreement.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by alex67500 · 2011-11-02 03:50 · Score: 1

(im not sure how one properly categorizes rapists)
People who do rap music?
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by expat.iain · 2011-11-02 03:53 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter. Most democratic countries run on the basis of "innocent until proven guilty".
Assange has as yet to be charged with anything, let alone tried or convicted.
I do not, however, include the USA as a democratic country, since they employ:
* Imprisonment without trial
* Torture
* Executions without trial
* Repression of basic freedoms
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by TheCarp · 2011-11-02 03:54 · Score: 1

Any mirrors?
As I said, I hadn't had time to look more into it and the article which I posted the link to mentioned that there was such evidence.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by ClioCJS · 2011-11-02 03:57 · Score: 2

this should find it :)

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by babymac · 2011-11-02 04:04 · Score: 1

The types of charges involved here have been of concern to me since the start. I normally don't go in for conspiracies, but in this case it would be ridiculously easy to pin these sorts of charges of Assange. It would just take one person with a knowledge of Swedish laws to follow Assange and see who he goes home with. Then the next step would be for that anonymous person to offer a suitcase full of untraceable cash to the woman in question -- et voila! Cry rape and Assange goes to jail.

--
"War makes me sad." - Me
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:22 · Score: 0

and casual rapist (im not sure how one properly categorizes rapists)
Nobody got raped. That is a piss-poor translation of what he is charged with.
We don't have an exact word for the charge, but think about this- let's say you claim you have no STD's, but you know you have AIDS, you have sex and later the other person finds out you knew and lied to them.
It's not rape, but you did lie, and could be held legally liable. The specifics of what it would be called would vary under different countries, and situations, of course.
What he's being charged with is something more along the lines of fraud. Nobody is claiming he raped them, using any normal definition of the English word "rape".
And just for the record, I can't stand the guy. But he's not a rapist, and the women who are accusing him are not accusing him of that.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by DavidTC · 2011-11-02 04:25 · Score: 1

Innocent of what? He hasn't even been charged with anything.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-11-02 04:27 · Score: 1

I would like to know how someone who has sex with consenting adults can be considered a 'casual rapist'.
Stop making ignorant requests and read the actual allegations against Assange. For example, one allegation is that he used physical force (pushed the woman down into the bed) when one of the women insisted that he use a condom. Another allegation is that he initiated sex without a condom on one of the accusers while she was sleeping—when she had successfully insisted the previous night that he use a condom.

--
Are you adequate?
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:30 · Score: 0

This is completely absurd. So by this line of reasoning, all sex is potentially rape? I understand wanting to punish rapists, but redefining the crime to make everyone a criminal is not the way to do it at all.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by jd · 2011-11-02 05:30 · Score: 1

MI6 handles international affairs. Since Assange is in the UK, that would be MI5's job. Or perhaps the mysterious MI21 that got a brief mention and no more at the time the CIA secret prison story broke. (There is absolutely no guarantee we know what intelligence divisions actually exist in the UK - MI5 and MI6 have been long known-about but officially weren't admitted to until relatively recently.)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Bucky24 · 2011-11-02 05:40 · Score: 1

Withdrawing consent DURING the act or just before is very different from withdrawing it AFTER.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by JabrTheHut · 2011-11-02 06:00 · Score: 1

Because in some countries you can give consent and then withdraw it...
Withdrawing consent is fine, unless it's afterwards. Which appears to be the case here.

--
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 06:01 · Score: 0

I think you're missing the point. Whether he did anything wrong or not, these allegations are being perpetuated as a slow and distracting vehicle to extradite Julian to the US where he can face charges of the 'real crime' of conspiring to steal confidential data with Bradley Manning. I imagine the sex allegations will quietly dissolve once he is in US hands. Sex allegations have the added benefit of smearing his character and removing some of the troublesome public support he enjoys. All this whilst WikiLeaks is being starved of cash. This boa-constrictor approach by international governments is working very well and all the while we're talking about what he did or didn't do with two unknown ladies in Sweden.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by scot4875 · 2011-11-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Consent was withdrawn weeks after the fact. If that's rape, then it's not safe for any man (or woman, presumably, but we all know how 'equal' the law is when it comes to sex crimes) to have sex, ever.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 08:29 · Score: 0

Martyring a messenger tends to raise awareness of the message. More sophisticated governments find it better to kill a mans image, reputation, and credibility first. Making people forget about him by burying the man under the full weight of the legal process to first silence him is a far better technique than to just outright kill him at the height of his direct attack against the rulers. It would be too obvious to people these days, who are at least somewhat cynical of governments.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 08:35 · Score: 1

Only a theoretical concern for /. readers obviously...
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by TheCarp · 2011-11-02 08:54 · Score: 1

Which is not the case here at all, not even the alleged case.
If consent is conditional, and that condition is not met, then consent is not given. I don't see where this issue of "consent revoked after the fact" even comes in.
If a kid asks to use the car to go to the library, and is told ok, but only to go to the library and back, would you then defend the kid as "having had consent to use the car" when it is found out that he went to the movies instead? Because that is much closer to what we are talking about. Or at least, what the allegations are, whether he did it or not is another story (actually I am highly doubtful that he did it).

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 09:41 · Score: 0

This doesn't involve the US, it involves Sweden and the UK. To try and drag the US into it is bring up here-say and rumors, which really have no place in the discussion.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by UpnAtom · 2011-11-02 10:10 · Score: 1

There was no consent to unprotected sex (she was asleep). Consent to protected sex was unwillingly given.
All alleged of course.
Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out by TheCarp · 2011-11-02 10:12 · Score: 1

What? no. I think you are missing the point.
This isn't about her deciding later that it was rape. This is about an alleged (and I have to say that as, I do think the whole thing stinks, but for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the allegations are, as stated, true)
I am basing this on this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
Lets start here:

Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.
Now.... I was thinking "what a dirtball" right up until he had "'done something' with the condom". That sets off my red flags, big time.... based on what? What made her so sure he did something or even knew that the condom has broken? Too much detail missing, but it sounds fishy as hell. That said... we are assuming that it is true, as stated. So he "did something".
Well... what is that? She explicitly gave conditional consent, and he subverted the conditions of her consent? its clear action in bad faith. In fact, even if he didn't "do something", if he was aware that the condom had broken, shouldn't her insistence on the use of one indicated that he should immediately replace it or at least consult her again? Do you really think thats ok?
Note...we are not even considering the, very real, possibility that he wasn't aware at the time, since that is not what is being alleged. (or the very real possibility that she is full of shit, being paid, etc.)
Now... I also have to retract some statements I have made...as I find this line in the article:
"The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A."
So we can disregard the other incident entirely, and not get into how sleazy it is (alleged unofficially, and also probably BS) to have someone wake up to having unprotected sex with you, after having repeatedly refused to and insisted on condoms at every previous encounter.... even though she did, finally, consent.
Given that this is the actual topic, I can't say that this is a scenario that really I would categorize as "any sex". The allegations paint a picture of an individual who has shown extreme disregard for the personal safety and boundaries of others.
That, btw is an interesting aspect of it.... look at what Manning told that shit-head rat Lamo. Claims that Assange would refuse to work with people who were careless. He setup his own system to protect his sources from even him knowing their real identities. It doesn't fit.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Political actions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Every time somebody says or does something not in favor with other political forces, there is always some sort of sex alligation to destroy their reputation, job, finances, moral, etc. etc.

The accusation against Julian came right after some big cable releases. I have no doubt it is nothing more than an attempt of the United States government to get him out of the way or to get ahold of him.

If for any reason he were to end up in US custody, it should be assumed they will hold him and try to imprison him without just cause. If Julian is smart, he has set aside some money for a rescue plan.

Re:Political actions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:51 · Score: 0

What you mean like the plane being diverted to a US airbase during the flight due to "weather" or "mechanical emergency".

That is pretty far fetched.
Re:Political actions by swb · 2011-11-02 03:43 · Score: 1

The problem is that people who are politically bold are usually psychologically risk takers anyway.
I would assume that the claims against Assange are probably true -- he got cozy with some Swedish women and used a little muscle to get more sex, assuming, probably based on past personal experience, that there would be no consequences. (You can insert the long debates surrounding date rape, consent, gender roles, etc. here.).
Unfortunately for Assange, that didn't pan out in Sweden, which while sexually more liberal is also probably more sensitive to women's rights.

No, BAD by Required+Snark · 2011-11-02 01:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is not about Assange and alleged criminal behavior, it's about silencing someone who made powerful figures look stupid.

The "crime" that he is accused of is almost never prosecuted in Sweden. This may be the first time in the history of the Swedish judicial system that anyone has been extradited for this class of offense. One of the accusers has left the country and is not available for either the prosecution or defense.

There is little chance of justice in this circumstance. He is being railroaded. The international banking system has shut down WikiLeaks. How is he going to be fairly defended? By some junior public defender? If you believe that you must also still believe in the tooth fairy.

The US is pulling every string they can to destroy Assange and WikiLeaks. I think they are planning to extradite him to the US or, if they think that they can get away with it, Guantanamo. Even if he ends up on US soil, they will give him the same treatment they gave Manning, which is real torture. Sleep deprivation, using the pretense of a suicide watch to keep the subject unclothed and with no bedding, multiple day interrogation by rotating teams of unaccountable "contractors", no real access to legal assistance. You don't have to inflict direct pain to effectively torture someone.

Just watch for Sweden to get some sort of sweet economic deal from the US as a reward of they get Assange. A new military base, some sort of co-development in the artic, joint mineral development. whatever. That's how the CIA got secret prisons in Poland. The Polish government got the promise of the anti-missile bases, which would have put a big long term chunk of US dollars into their economy. It's called bribery, and it works (at least in the sort run).

I almost can't believe that you expect "justice" in this relentless pursuit of Assange and WikiLeaks. Are you really that stupid? You really should spend more time over here in the real world, as opposed to whatever fantasy you seem to be inhabiting.

--
Why is Snark Required?

As planned by mrquagmire · 2011-11-02 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

It looks like things are proceeding exactly as planned...

--
giggity

Nothing untypical here by Pop69 · 2011-11-02 01:38 · Score: 0

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

It's happened all through history

Re:Nothing untypical here by cavreader · 2011-11-02 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

The messenger in this case has did a better job harming himself by his own actions and behavior than any 3rd party could possibly do.
Re:Nothing untypical here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 05:31 · Score: 0

Really? Check some background on the situation. It was a good old honeytrap.
Re:Nothing untypical here by boaworm · 2011-11-02 07:29 · Score: 1

So if a woman decides to sleep next to you, and you and her agree not to have unprotected sex, she is honeytrapping you and you have the right to initiate unprotected sex with her while she's sleeping?
If you think that's ok, then sure, call it a honeytrap.

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:Nothing untypical here by cavreader · 2011-11-02 11:52 · Score: 1

I was not referring to the rape charges. Personally I don't really understand how this issue has not been dismissed. Without this issue he just comes across as an ass. The news outlets he dealt with demonstrated that he might not be the most stable person walking around. On a tangential point I have always wondered why he did not just release all of the information he had at one time. He played lip service about reviewing the data to find anything that would endanger someone but there has been no proof this has ever happened. It's much more likely he was reviewing the data to target specific countries. If his organization is really about the freedom of information he would have posted everything he had. Instead he has stage managed the data releases to bolster his political opinions. The manipulation of the famous Iraq gunship battle also showed a propensity to modify information to support certain political activist groups. The edited video included none of the context that was involved during that time period. Selective editing of the information also seems to go against the stated purpose of his organization. And why does it require millions of dollars to just post all of the files on the Internet? He received the information for free but he has given the impression of someone looking to make money.

Allegations, not charges. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:39 · Score: 0

He hasn't been charged with anything.

Too bad for him by G3ckoG33k · 2011-11-02 01:40 · Score: 0

Too bad for him. But good for justice.

If he is guilty, I hope he will be convicted.

If he is innocent, let us hope he won't be convicted anyway.

As of now, he still is innocent.

Re:Too bad for him by JabrTheHut · 2011-11-02 02:04 · Score: 2

He won't go to trial in Sweden. The moment he lands in Sweden the rape charges will be dropped and the Swedish government will be handed an extradition request to send him to the US for trail. And that was why he was fighting the charges.

Personally, I hope he does wind up in a fair trial in Sweden, I just don't think that was ever the goal.

--
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Re:Too bad for him by hedwards · 2011-11-02 02:17 · Score: 1

Good for justice? They let him leave Sweden without being questioned because the allegations were completely without base. I'm not sure how exactly this is good for justice. If there were any possibility at all that a law had been violated, wouldn't you think that they would have accepted his offer to come in for questioning when he was still in Sweden? Or at very least told him he couldn't leave the country?
Everything about these proceedings has been marred by irregularities from letting him leave without question to having Interpol issue the warrant.
Re:Too bad for him by pete.discussit · 2011-11-02 02:23 · Score: 1

This doesn't make sense - The UK has a much stronger extradition policy with the US than Sweden. He'll be safer there.
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:25 · Score: 0

Those in power are more than willing to sacrifice principles of justice if it means protecting the interests of the wealthy.
In Sweden, he will be found innocent of rape, but will still get busted for the information he posted. His life is over.
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:34 · Score: 0

One thing I don't understand about that is...
Why so complicated? Isn't there an extradition treaty between the us and the uk as well?
And why didn't they catch him in sweden when he used to stay there? Didn't they have lot's of opportunity to do so? I mean, he was there for weeks. Why try to bring him to the states now?
Meanwhile, julian used up all of his money fighting his extradition while wikileaks starves to death. It would be quite ironic if he ends up in sweden just to be questioned, not charged and released, considering the case against him is quite weak to begin with.
Re:Too bad for him by sangreal66 · 2011-11-02 02:52 · Score: 2

They let him leave Sweden because he agreed to come back for questioning. He later decided to skip his appointment and refuse to return to Sweden (a fact which he admits).
Re:Too bad for him by LWATCDR · 2011-11-02 02:54 · Score: 2

Wow the paranoia is just rampant.
1. Why not just extradite him from the UK?
2. So the US controls the governments of the UK and Sweden but we couldn't convince them not to send the Lockerbie bomber back the Libya?
3. I where donations to Wikileaks going towards his defense in a case about his personal misconduct?
4. I have got to love how everyone is convinced these are trumpeted up charges. If it was someone on the right people would be sure he was guilty. If he was using money donated to a site they would be crying embezzlement.
Of course Sweden is such a closed minded conservative society their isn't a chance he could get a fair trial.......

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Too bad for him by niftydude · 2011-11-02 02:58 · Score: 2

He won't go to trial in Sweden. The moment he lands in Sweden the rape charges will be dropped and the Swedish government will be handed an extradition request to send him to the US for trail. And that was why he was fighting the charges. Personally, I hope he does wind up in a fair trial in Sweden, I just don't think that was ever the goal.
You are right - something is strange about this whole situation.
Currently, despite what is being reported there are NO rape charges. The claim on the warrant is that he is wanted for questioning, not arrest. This is because the Swedish police do not have enough evidence for an arrest based on the rape allegations.

So he goes to Sweden, takes a good lawyer, the police ask their questions, and as far as I can tell, as long as the lawyer is competent, there are 3 possibilities. Julian
1) exercises his right to remain silent - in which case the police have no new information, and have to let him go
2) answers their questions in such a way that he doesn't incriminate himself - in which case the police have no new information, and have to let him go, or
3) answers their questions in such a way that he doesn't incriminate himself, however the police decide he is lying, and arrest him.

So if the police were going to ignore any evidence he gives and arrest him, why didn't they submit an actual arrest warrant, rather than this very strange request for questioning?
If the police are going to believe what he says, why bring him in for questioning at all?

I don't like venturing into tin-foil hat territory where the only explanation is that prominent public figures can just be disappeared at will, but the current actions of the Swedish prosecutors are just weird when regular logic is applied.

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Re:Too bad for him by hedwards · 2011-11-02 03:16 · Score: 1

They were requiring him to pay his way back to Sweden for the questioning that they had originally declined. I'm curious where exactly he was expected to get the money from to travel back to Sweden given that the Wikileaks accounts had been frozen.
If they really thought he had done something, they should have just questioned him when he was still in the area.
And that still doesn't explain Interpol's involvement, they don't get involved in cases like this under normal circumstances.
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 03:45 · Score: 0

I personally believe the whole situation is a doublecross in Julians favor. The rape-charges are bunk, all they have is the witness of those who accuse him. What are they going to do? Bring forth an almost year-old torn condom as evidence and then try to prove that it was torn by Julian (:D).
What really happened is probably this: couple of girls/golddiggers saw an opportunity for fame by being Assange's girlfriend, then became butthurt when they found out there were other girlfriends out there and went to take petty revenge. THEN the US got a whiff of it and did what it could behind the curtains to make their enemy seem like a rapist in the media and have him expedited to Justice.inc, . Julian, seeing the situation, handles it like pro: he draws out the time, giving credence to his guilt thus fanning the publicity of Wikileaks for a year, almost without releasing any new cables; but in the end he'll just go to Sweden, shoot down the unsubstantiated accussations and walk away an innocent man, vindicating Wikileaks in the process by association. What ever will the People(tm) feel about the innocent man and organization after going through a year of such...well...persecution I wonder?
I love happy endings, don't you?
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 03:51 · Score: 0

Until he is either extradited to the U.S. or is so utterly dismayed at the shutting down of Wikileaks and his sexual exploits he just happens to commit suicide while awaiting trial. Of course, the details of the suicide will be left out for his privacy - no one will notice that he managed to hang himself in an off position that would be physically impossible and the autopsy will not detect the poison. Well, almost everyone except for a few people whose voices will be drowned out by the "conspiracy theories" of Assange being hung by magic aliens for wanting to publish the Roswell leaks.
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:15 · Score: 0

UK got more balls than Sweden
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:31 · Score: 0

Both girls are known. At least one of them is not a golddigger, but a naïve sweet girl.
I haven't heard any rumors about the second.
Re:Too bad for him by DavidTC · 2011-11-02 04:41 · Score: 2

Why so complicated? Isn't there an extradition treaty between the us and the uk as well?
Because he's a Commonwealth citizen (He's Australian.) and the UK has a pretty strong resistance against turning Commonwealth citizens over for political reasons, even to the US.
Whereas he's not a Swedish citizen, and Sweden could care less about him.
Hence this rather convoluted path of getting him to Sweden on a rather thin sex crime, and then, regardless of how that plays out, turning him over to the US.
And considering the US has kidnapped people without government permission (Just ask Germany), there's a concern that even if Sweden agrees to 'release' him onto their street, he will then mysteriously vanish five minutes later. No one needs to agree any 'formal' extradition, all it requires is the Swedes don't investigate that kidnapping too closely.
Sweden could easily fix all this by simply guaranteeing that Assange will be returned to the UK regardless. I.e, if they decide not to try him, they return him, if they do and he's innocent, they return him, if they do and he's guilty, he serves out his sentence and they return him. Very simple.
They have conspicuously failed to agree with this, despite such a thing actually being fairly common in extradition requests where there is concerns someone is being extradited to be turned over to yet another country.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Too bad for him by JabrTheHut · 2011-11-02 04:46 · Score: 1

Wow the paranoia is just rampant. 1. Why not just extradite him from the UK?
They tried and couldn't. There was such a stink from the misuse of the extradition treaty over the Natwest 3 that the UK government actually said no.

2. So the US controls the governments of the UK and Sweden...
No, you're making that up. No one said that. But the extradition treaty between Sweden and the US is different to the extradition treaty between the UK and the US.

--
Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
Re:Too bad for him by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:59 · Score: 0

dude take a reality check!!
Re:Too bad for him by m50d · 2011-11-02 06:46 · Score: 1

2. So the US controls the governments of the UK and Sweden but we couldn't convince them not to send the Lockerbie bomber back the Libya?
Libya paid more than the US was offering.

--
I am trolling
Re:Too bad for him by thenewt · 2011-11-02 08:01 · Score: 1

Mark my words: if he ends up having a fair trial in Sweden and gets prosecuted via Swedish law for the crimes leveled against him, then serves whatever sentence he receives and goes on his way, I'll eat my netbook. All those of you considering *any* of the allegations made by these young women to be true, watch. Watch what happens the moment he sets foot in Sweden. Just watch. I *dare* you. The U.S. wants him and this is how they're going about getting him.
Re:Too bad for him by scot4875 · 2011-11-02 08:09 · Score: 1

4) I guess we can just forget innocent until proven guilty and all that.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Too bad for him by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 08:40 · Score: 1

Suspect in reality it is due to the potential (in both cases) for death penalty. The UK does not extradite where this is possible in a trial as a policy, the UK being against the death penalty.
Re:Too bad for him by LWATCDR · 2011-11-02 08:56 · Score: 1

I guess so since everyone is assuming his accuser is lying. That cuts both ways and that is why we have courts and trials. I never said he is guilty but the story did imply that he is using donations to wikileaks for his defense.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Too bad for him by UpnAtom · 2011-11-02 10:13 · Score: 1

You're right about the US extradition treaty (which is being reviewed by the Home Secretary). I suspect he's safer from assassination in British custody but the damage to Washington has already been done. It might serve them better if he is sent down for rape.
Re:Too bad for him by schnikies79 · 2011-11-02 13:21 · Score: 1

He shouldn't using Wikileaks money to travel to sweden for questioning. Personal problems should use personal funds.

--
Gone!

I'm sure the Swedes will give him a fair hearing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:42 · Score: -1

Its not as if we're sending him to any of those places the US renders terrorist suspects to for a little robust interrogation, is it? Given the rather lax and one-sided extradition regime between the US and the UK,especially where the McKinnon case is concerned, I'm surprised that the US hasn't demanded Assanges head on a plate already.

How to take care of Assange by geoffrobinson · 2011-11-02 01:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Put Mexican drug cartel info on wikileaks.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Lemmiwinks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 01:51 · Score: 0

Wikileaks, you have chosen a path of evil and now you shall pay. Sparrow Prince, Catatafish!

Look! I think Lemmiwinks killed him!

no rape charges by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:07 · Score: 0

Firstly, he wasn't charged with anything in Sweden yet. Secondly, the accused crimes don't constitute rape in the UK justice system.

Something to be wary of is the cultural differences in the Swedish legal system and it also helps to consider the lingual ones.

Tagging this as censorship isn't right. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:10 · Score: 0

Tagging this as censorship isn't right. Smearing the legal system of two democratic countries only damages democracy itself. There are a lot of dictatorships out there that do not respect human rights nor free speech, but Assange prefers to use his free speech to discredit true democratic and free countries as the US, the UK and Sweden ... sad and pathetic.

Re:Tagging this as censorship isn't right. by Avoiderman · 2011-11-02 02:28 · Score: 1

Wow - way to miss the point of free speech. In UK if you think the legal system is perfect and never corrupt - just pick up a copy of Private Eye. No democratic system is perfect - the price of freedom is eternal vigilance ... as someone once said.
That said I am happy to be resident in the UK - it is mostly good, but never without stain.

No charges were fired (Need to update description) by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:24 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure he is being sought for questioning and no charges have been fired. At least that is what the BBC is saying.

Obama, are you LISTENING ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:30 · Score: 0

Your administration is just as fascist as the one which preceded it.

I look forward to voting against you, in the next election.

NO CHARGES OF RAPE by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 02:45 · Score: 0

He's not charged with anything. He's wanted for questioning on an accusation of having unprotected sex - an accusation that was thrown out as baseless by the first prosecutor to look into it, then picked up by a prosecutor looking for re-election in another city (who happens to be a friend of one of the accusers - a woman who did sterling propaganda work against the Cuban leadership).

He also stayed in Sweden when these accusations were made, hung around for questioning then received permission to leave the country from the prosecutors, then was slapped with an arrest warrant (of questionable legality) after he left.

This is nothing but a political attack by an establishment scared shitless that we're going to find out exactly how much they've been lying to us and hold them accountable.

He should have returned to Sweden a long time ago by TheHonch · 2011-11-02 02:57 · Score: 1

Even if he gets convicted the penalty is most likely a fine, in Sweden the size of the fine depends on your income (dagsbot). His procrastination have probably cost him and Wikileaks a lot more than the fine.

3rd degree sexual assault by GodfatherofSoul · 2011-11-02 03:08 · Score: 0

Been a while since I read up on this case, but as I recall this is the charge against him. Which essentially meant he had sex w/o protection without the consent of his partner.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:3rd degree sexual assault by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 03:27 · Score: 0

You could just read the court documents if you want to know what he's accused of.
“1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.Sexual molestation -On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The
sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.” (para 3)
Re:3rd degree sexual assault by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 06:30 · Score: 0

No your wrong! he had sex with her when she was asleep?? yes Its difficult to understand how she never woke!

What is the US government's plan? by Sloppy · 2011-11-02 03:21 · Score: 1

One thing I don't get about the alleged strategy being used against Assange, is how this brings him closer to US government retaliation (unless the sex charges themselves are the retaliation). Can someone explain that to me?

It's hard to believe he's thinking in terms of some kind of .. ahem .. extra-legal action, such as assassination. What, I'm supposed to believe covert US agents are capable of operating in Sweden but not just as capable in UK? Oh please. The whole point of moving him to Sweden has to have something to do with legal options. And illegal activity the US wanted to perform, has been available all along and doesn't need Sweden's help. (Anyone disagree?)

Is there an actual legal mechanism whereby Assange could be extradited to US? He's not a US citizen, and AFAIK there's been no criminal complaint in the US, and I'm not sure he's even informally accused of having really broken any US law (or at least no more so than the media organizations that received and published the information). Are Guardian people being extradited?

So, WTF? All I can think of is that the embarrassment, expense, and possible sentence that goes with the rape charges themselves. And I'm not downplaying that at all (assuming the charges are false) but people are saying he's being set up for something worse than that. What is it, and how would it work?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Re:What is the US government's plan? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-11-02 03:38 · Score: 1

Is there an actual legal mechanism whereby Assange could be extradited to US?
Yes, they have had an arrangement for 'terrists'. This is the basis of Assange's complaint. And I don't see why it's not a 'wider issue of public importance' for the general public in the UK. 2-hop extraditions ought to be a matter of public importance, especially when the first hop is minor in charge.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:What is the US government's plan? by LWATCDR · 2011-11-02 04:00 · Score: 2

You don't get it. He will got off on the charge from sweden but then the US will blow up his plane when he tries to fly home. The US would never blow up a UK airliners because of the risk that US citizens could be killed.
Since no one from the US ever goes to Sweden it is a much less likely to be any US citizens on a Swedish plane when the US blows it up!
Besides the Godless, oversexed, bimbo blondes that populate Sweden are terrible pilots and mechanics so it would look like an accident.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:What is the US government's plan? by whitneyw · 2011-11-02 04:18 · Score: 1

I believe it has been alleged that he conspired with and encouraged the now-imprisoned person who leaked the information. Even if he claimed to be a journalist, the first amendment only goes so far. The laws about anyone handling classified information are strict and specific. Besides, there are still some people in Cuba who can attest that habeas corpus also only goes so far.
In any case, if the US government were willing to do something nasty over this, they would have done it before the information was published. They might not have stopped it all, but I have no doubt they could have forced it into the hands of someone who would have handled it more carefully.
Re:What is the US government's plan? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 20:49 · Score: 0

As a US citizen residing in Sweden for some years, I'll thank you to STFU.
Also, having flown on many, many SAS flights both inbound and outbound, I can assure you that Swedish pilots are perfectly competent in their jobs.
Re:What is the US government's plan? by LWATCDR · 2011-11-03 02:03 · Score: 1

You have just proven that it is impossible to make any statement that is so outlandish and frankly just dumb that no one will take your seriously.
Did you really think that that was serious? I mean really? If I had added that they had orgies dressed as Disney cartoon charactors in the cockpits would you have gotten that I was just being over the top silly?

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Good by toddmbloom · 2011-11-02 04:00 · Score: 1

My care meter for Assange is at a record low. He's a smug, arrogant fool who needs to just go away.

Just one more reason we need even more freedoms, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:04 · Score: 0

If it is a crime now to report on the wrongs of the elite it just proves we need more freedom, not less.

A video about that talks about some of these facts and some ways we can all bypass the elite is here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1I3uiqeG-g

Serious sexual offence? Tautological? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:10 · Score: 0

An article linked above in this slashdot article, quotes a judge in having said "This is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences," (The quotation seem unprofessional imo because it simply ends with a comma and I would have thought that the use of ellipsis would be appropriate there for pointing out an omission of text for the quote)

It seem to me pertinent to point out that so called sexual offences cannot be called "serious" in themselves, else the claim of "serious sexual offences" becomes tautological and thus pointless and without merit. So if this is about charges about "rape" then a contesting of the relevance of rape seem relevant and the problem of substantiation is not to be ignored by excuses of a "case" being understood as serious because someone wanted it to sound serious. Either it is serious, or it is not. The differentiation of this ought to be problematized.

Re:Serious sexual offence? Tautological? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:17 · Score: 0

Also, the quotation stating "relating to (...)serious offences" seem overly vague and nonsensical to me. What meaning is to be understood by a word like "relating"?
The lack of an intentional meaning with the use of "relating" is for me disturbing, if this in anyway is used for a rationale dismissing Assanges complaints or objections.

Women who don't call it "rape" by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-11-02 04:12 · Score: 1

You're citing an article that starts off by citing Assange's original lawyers' bullshit about "sex by surprise." This is something that Assange's defense team made up. Assange was never accused of such a thing in Sweden. Basically, early on in this case Assange's lawyers said a lot of falsehoods about the case, and people have swallowed it.

Second, the sad fact is that a large proportion rape victims don't refer to it as "rape."

--

Are you adequate?

Re:Women who don't call it "rape" by khallow · 2011-11-02 04:44 · Score: 1

I don't find that link convincing. Keep in mind that this alleged rape victim has had access to the Swedish legal system for months and its knowledge while the examples given are of people who hadn't been so informed of their rights. If she's still saying it's not rape, then I'm inclined to believe her.
Re:Women who don't call it "rape" by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-11-02 06:20 · Score: 1

I don't find that link convincing. Keep in mind that this alleged rape victim has had access to the Swedish legal system for months and its knowledge while the examples given are of people who hadn't been so informed of their rights. If she's still saying it's not rape, then I'm inclined to believe her.
What matters is the concrete allegations as to who did what, the credibility of the allegations, and the law. If Assange used force to push a woman down into bed because she insisted that he use a condom and he wanted to go bareback against her consent, that's rape. If Assange started having sex with a woman while she was asleep because that way she couldn't stop him from going bareback, that's rape too. It doesn't matter what label these women apply to the incident; that's up for the law to decide.
If we applied your standard, we'd do terrible things, like let physically abusive husbands off the hook because their battered wives defend them and blame themselves for the violence. (Yes, battered wives do this. Stereotypically.)

--
Are you adequate?
Re:Women who don't call it "rape" by khallow · 2011-11-02 06:33 · Score: 1

If we applied your standard, we'd do terrible things, like let physically abusive husbands off the hook because their battered wives defend them and blame themselves for the violence. (Yes, battered wives do this. Stereotypically.)
And? Once again, if the victim isn't willing to defend themselves, it's not the place of government to do it for them. That's the price of freedom.
Re:Women who don't call it "rape" by spazdor · 2011-11-02 06:53 · Score: 1

Either you have no idea how intimidation works in the context of domestic abuse, or you're too callous to care.
Would you also have us believe that kidnapping is only a crime if the captor gets apprehended before Stockholm Syndrome sets in?

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:Women who don't call it "rape" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 12:08 · Score: 0

Either you have no idea how intimidation works in the context of domestic abuse, or you're too callous to care.
I'm not the above person, however it is widely known that the accuser in question is a mildly prominent feminist who, it is therefore safe to assume, also knows how intimidation works in the context of domestic abuse and yet still doesn't call it "rape".
Re:Women who don't call it "rape" by spazdor · 2011-11-03 10:02 · Score: 1

The person I replied to was not talking about Assange's accuser in particular but about victims in general.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!

Sex is far too dangerous in the modern world by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:20 · Score: 0

Women can consent to sex and then withdraw their consent after the deed is done and the man has gone home, and still get a rape conviction.

I remember a famous case (can't find the link) in which a woman made a habit of accusing complete strangers (who didn't even recognize her because she was just a random person at a bar that they didn't even speak to, let alone touch) of rape and getting convictions *with no evidence at all.* She would change her name after each conviction to hide her history of doing this. Eventually, she got caught, but not after ruining the lives of many innocent men.

Add that to the fact that women have chopped off their husband's penises and gotten away with it (in several countries, in fact), and that a divorce typically leaves a man with 30% of his former net worth.

People joke about the stereotypical geek who can't get laid...but I am starting to think sex is far too risky a habit to sustain.

Status Quo - the MSM carefully conceals it's glee by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 04:27 · Score: 0

One more threat to its position of power coming closer to disappearing

And our top story ... by johnlcallaway · 2011-11-02 04:48 · Score: 1

... ten people were caught jay walking in Phoenix. Sorry about the Assange story, we needed a filler.

--
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.

Carry on. Publish to Freenet by jago25_98 · 2011-11-02 06:17 · Score: 2

Why did Assange go to the 52nd state (the UK) rather than France or Russia?

Remind whistle blowers it's easy to self publish with Freenet and then use Wikileaks.

And don't put too much importance on this story. There are plenty of other Assanges out there. Keep calm and carry on.

--
A blog I run for the wealth

Don't pay too much attention by jago25_98 · 2011-11-02 06:23 · Score: 1

Don't listen too much to this story that seems designed to make an impact. Keep calm and self publish to Freenet. And then submit to Wikileaks and alternative organizations... are there any?

--
A blog I run for the wealth

Careful what you say. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-11-02 06:24 · Score: 1

The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence.

This is a misleading statement. No court ever "threw out" Assange's case. What you mean is that one prosecutor didn't think it merited further investigation, and another one believed it did.

--

Are you adequate?

Re:Careful what you say. by kubernet3s · 2011-11-04 02:07 · Score: 1

Yes, actually, fair enough and that's a good point. What I meant to emphasize is, it seems very unlikely that he will actually be convicted. I know that there's a lot of edgy politics floating around the whole rape charge, but it seems suspicious of me that a woman who had just been raped (in a way that is legally meaningful) would be talking about it casually at a party the next day being "the worst lay of her life" or words to that effect. Not that I think something didn't happen: not even that I think Assange didn't commit any untoward crime, but I'm inclined to agree with the prosecutor who refused to take this case up in the first place in that there's not enough evidence of Assange being a rapist to justify the amount of attention he is getting. He is also not even being tried: he is what those of us stateside might refer to as a person of interest. Far more likely than him getting dragged back to Sweden and locked up for his horrible crimes are him getting dragged back to Sweden and put into custody over the US's call to extradite, or other such harassment.

RTFA by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-11-02 06:34 · Score: 1

Nobody got raped. That is a piss-poor translation of what he is charged with.

Read the damn press on the case. Assange has been charged with rape. The claim that he was only charged with some absurd and untranslatable Sweden-only thing called something like "sex by surprise" is bullshit that his defense lawyers made up.

Oh, and a note: while you're reading the press on the case, be very careful to note which claims are coming from which party. A lot of the "facts" that people recite about this case (especially early on) come from Assange's legal team. Who, again, made a lot of shit up early on—at the same time when the Sweden prosecutors were being really quiet about it.

--

Are you adequate?

Its not about him personally by bussdriver · 2011-11-02 07:36 · Score: 1

Its sending a message to future agitators that the law means nothing; they will ruin you in the long run. Cut your money etc. All without ANY legal process.

Its not even rape but everybody reports it as rape charges. He wasn't even CHARGED with anything it was just about questioning!!! They dropped the matter before a crook politician took over and handed their legal system to the bidding of the US State Dept. The questioning premise is pure BS because it was initially to find out if he had any STDs and by now their free healthcare system has been able to determine if the two women caught any STDs.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Re:He should have returned to Sweden a long time a by terrox · 2011-11-02 10:12 · Score: 1

And risk being executed by the USA? Not worth it.

Rape, not 3rd degree sexual assault by UpnAtom · 2011-11-02 10:35 · Score: 1

Yes, rape is one of the charges and it was ruled today that unprotected sex initiated while she was asleep after she refused consent to unprotected sex counts as rape in the UK too.

USA Assins In-Route by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-02 15:26 · Score: 0

With the developments in UK, the White House has ordered assin teamsm, payed for by USA taxpayer dollars, in-route to the eventual whereabouts of Julian Assange outside of UK.

No doubt that Obama wants to eat Assange's liver -- pattie style -- before fucking him up his dead body's butt.

Oh My Oh My.

The trouble our Barak visits upon us ... did we ask for this by voting for him? NO!

A show of hands may reveal who stands with Obama.

Answer: No one.

Good riddance.

++++++ LoL

Slashdot Mirror

Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal

311 comments