Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal
judgecorp writes "Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has lost his appeal in the British High Court against extradition to Sweden on charges of rape. His team has 14 days to appeal to the Supreme Court — but would have to show a 'wider issue of public importance' to justify such an appeal. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has suspended publication because it says a 'banking blockade' has cut off its sources of funding."
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
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. -
except when the charges are made up, dismissed/withdrawn, pushed back in by a bigger brother to forward his agenda
I question your wits
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.
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.
This story should not have been tagged censorship. The fact that it was is evidence of an implicit bias. We can do better.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Used to be. UK does have a supreme court now.
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?
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
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.
where cases are heard by the Law Lords.
Are Law Lords anything like Time Lords?
Essentially, just take a lot longer.
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?)
DSK now has nothing? You're kidding right?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
Only valid under the assumption that the accusations are bogus.
"Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
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!
Is that what people are saying about him? Likes the meth? Not surprising, he kind of acts like that.
Sorry, I'm behind the times. Thanks for the correction.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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?
It looks like things are proceeding exactly as planned...
giggity
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.
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
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.
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!
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...
Put Mexican drug cartel info on wikileaks.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Yes you can be extradited under criminal charges. Not just for questions normally under the European warrant scheme.
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
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.
The top-level domain for Sweden is .se.
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.
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.
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.
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/
This doesn't make sense - The UK has a much stronger extradition policy with the US than Sweden. He'll be safer there.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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?
"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?
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
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!"
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
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.
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!"
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
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].
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.
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.
My care meter for Assange is at a record low. He's a smug, arrogant fool who needs to just go away.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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
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
"bend over Julian"
said Bubbaheim
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?
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.
Are you telling me you know for a fact that Assange is guilty? Were you there looking through the window when the incident happened?
... 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.
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...
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.
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. -
"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."
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)
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)
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.
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.
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
Great post, but the phrase "almost certainly" understates things. "Certainly" is much more accurate.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I love when people abuse their mod points. "-1, Disagree" for this post, eh?
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 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
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?
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?
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
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...
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.
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
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
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!"
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...
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
4) I guess we can just forget innocent until proven guilty and all that.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
And risk being executed by the USA? Not worth it.
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.
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.
The most seriously legal charge is rape, even under UK law. That was ruled upon by the High Court today.
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.
I prefer the Dead Kennedy's version...
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});
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.
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.
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.
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)
He shouldn't using Wikileaks money to travel to sweden for questioning. Personal problems should use personal funds.
Gone!
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
Being part of a consitution would imply these laws are either better protected than other laws or override subsequent ones.
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.