Slashdot Mirror
Ecuador Grants Asylum To Julian Assange
Several readers have submitted news that as expected, Ecuador is formally accepting Julian Assange's request for political asylum. paulmac84 writes "The Guardian are live blogging the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister's announcement that Ecuador is to grant asylum to Julian Assange. In the announcement Minister Patino said, 'We can state that there is a risk that he will be persecuted politically... We trust the UK will offer the necessary guarantees so that both governments can act adequately and properly respect international rights and the right of asylum. We also trust the excellent relationship the two countries have will continue.' The Guardian also carries a translated copy of the letter the UK sent to Ecuador regarding the threat to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy."
Also at Reuters.
"We trust the UK will offer the necessary guarantees so that both governments can act adequately and properly respect international rights and the right of asylum."
I don't trust them at all.
On how long until this guys imminent case of lead poisoning?
The UK has stated it will storm the embassy by force, violating the Vienna Conventions. Equador has shown remarkable courage, doing something many in the international community doubted it could: It has stood up to tyranny. It has stated it will now bow under the threat of terrorism. It does not negotiate with terrorists.
Your move, Britain.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The United States of America will be declaring Ecuador an enemy state for harboring known terrorists.
Having sex in Sweden can get complicated
How will he get to enjoy asylum since he has no way of leaving the Ecuadorian embassy without being arrested? He has no protection from there to Ecuador.
Game over Assange. Time to give this up.
Something that was in the press release, but that is not being widely reported:
Ecuador offered for Assange to go to Stockholm tomorrow if there was no extradition to the US.
Sweden refused.
I imagine that other countries with embassies in the UK are now starting to sound a little worried as if the government are threatening Ecuador, then what are they going to face potentially?
This is not going to end well, possibly due to other countries.
It's pretty obvious who's running your country.
Having sex in Sweden with an someone who was connected with the CIA can get complicated!
Regardless to say, breaking international treaties for not wearing a condom makes no sense me to!
Ecuador FM : We tried to get Sweden to agree to no extradition to US in exchange for Assange going to Sweden - they said NO
How much do they pay you, shameless shill?
It's true that Ecuador isn't one of the most democratic countries on the planet. But still nowhere near USA's level of hypocrisy and plain disrespect for anything but the almighty buck.
What scares me most is the willingness the world seems to have to allow first the violation of Assange's human rights, then to threaten the 10+ international treaties (acts of hostility against a friendly nation) that the world has in place to protect people from such a situation. In the end we are left looking to a third world country, with a somewhat poor record itself, for those rights that should be universal. Australia should be ashamed of itself that he has to resort to Ecuador and not his home nation.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
BREAKING NEWS: "Al-Qaeda is hiding a stock of WMDs in Ecuador", says a US diplomat.
The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".
Given the recent swings in the way the corporate media is bought up by the mega rich in both the UK and the US this policy doesn't seem that extreme ...
Channel 4 stated that the UK government were going to storm the Ecuadorian embassy this morning on television.
Let's not forget this fuck up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege
The Guardian also carries a translated copy of the letter the UK sent to Ecuador regarding the threat to 'storm' the Ecuadorian embassy.
Where exactly is that 'storm' quoting from? You're supposed to use quote marks to indicate that you're quoting something. The relevant bit of the letter says this:
You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy. We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us.
Do you see the word 'storm' in there? I don't.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
"The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status [guardian.co.uk] (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange."
Diplomacy meets Politics at its finest: A thinly veiled threat to skirt the rules using a technicality.
"People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy. Indeed, as Steven Aftergood, veteran crusader against excessive US government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.""
Pull up your trousers, your own "true colours" are showing.
You question Ecuador's record on human rights. Well, how about the US and the UK and for that matter Sweden? The US routinely tortures civilians with no right to process or a legal representative. And that is just the most blatant example.
The UK has a very long history of violent repression and total disregard for human rights. The only reason it has improved is because its power to abuse has been greatly reduced.
Sweden has shown itself to be a puppet state in the last ten years.
Nobody claims Ecuador is a saint but in the fight against evil you sometimes have to make strange bed fellows.
And good job quoting a guy working for a rightwing think tank. This was funded by the people who made the atom bomb. I want their opinion on human rights?
Willfull slaves such as you quake in their boots at the idea of anyone daring to rebel. You do not believe in the system that represents the status quo, you just are desperately afraid of any change whatsoever. You rather continue to be raped up the ass then risk any change because it might cause just the tiniest upset and then all hell will break lose.
Wikileaks was the only response possible in a world where western governments from administration to adminstration have sought to keep ever more hidden from fact in the name of national security. That this was a complete and utter lie is simply proven to anyone who isn't a sniffeling coward like the parent poster, NOT A FUCKING THING HAPPENED after the wikileaks. All that happened is that it became clear how much we had been lied to and how many of the rumors were true. People lost faces but no bases were attacked, no wars were lost. Just the powerful ended up with eggs on their faces.
And that frighens little dave shroeder, Wikileaks upset his world view. He believed Bush was protecting little dave and not at in it for himself. Poor dave is upset. Wikileaks must be shutdown so dave can put his head under the blanket again.
Well, fuck that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Your reasoning has a serious flaw, common among thinkers of your kind (if i could call you a thinker).
The problem is that you confuse Free Speech with Press Freedom. They are only the same thing if you talk from the elite class point of view.
Ideology is the discourse of the elite class reified to the status of truth. Its simple : When I talk its free speech (The big press) when you talk its not.
Confusing free speech with press freedom has the clear result of giving voice only to those with the largest, costlier, megafone.
"world seems to have to allow first the violation of Assange's human rights,"
Care to elaborate? Are you saying the UK justice system is a patsy for the UK government and every judge and juror was knobbled?
And what about the human rights or the women in sweden who may (or may not) have been raped. Assange may (or may not) have done it but this isn't the sort of thing decided in the court of public opinion my friend. THIS is why the law exists. If you dont' like that tough , but don't pretend Assange is making some grand jesture against "The Man". He's not. He's saving his own arse and the fact that he's willing to give live in a fleepit 3rd world country to get away from justice tells me all I need to know about how he sees his guilt.
I don't know where you get off pretending this is some kind of ringing endorsement of Ecuador as a country - It's ironic, nothing more, nothing less. If I had the US government after me (A country which is acknowledged to have created secret CIA-run prisons and tortured people) I'd take help anywhere I could find it too.
"the way the corporate media is bought up by the mega rich in both the UK and the US"
Shouldn't you be at an OWS rally somewhere breaking windows of Starbucks?
While you are correct in citing the examples you did about Ecuador, many of those same organizations have slammed the UK and US for their abuses of power against journalists, protestors and dissidents. If you were an Ecuadoran citizen and read this about the United States or this about the UK you'd probably feel safer staying put.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
This.
Also, I'm so tired of people describing this as a free speech issue. It is not. Freedom of speech doesn't imply that one has carte blanch to actively mine and publish state secrets. To support Assange is to support the idea that a democratic people have no right to determine that there are valid reasons to classify data.
And I don't care if he is an American or not. He is actively working against America. If North Korea, rather than Assange, had published secret military data stolen from the US no one would claim it was just a free speech issue, or that America has no right to retaliate, or that Brady Manning was just a misunderstood hero for sending the data to them.
Hi right not to be questioned over sexual assault? Hmmm. Which democracy are you from? I'm fine with my governments (Australian living in the UK) handing him over.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
You set aside the main subject of this story. Julian Assange would get eventually into the hands of the USA and possibly face a death penalty just for revealing government emails for the benefit of the whole world if Ecuador would not have granted political assylum to him.
Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:
The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.
Here it is:
"You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the Embassy."
The foreign office sent a letter pointing out they have a legal route to arresting Julian in the embassy. It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
The thing about this case is that the arguments are not particularly complicated or convoluted. The US wants to punish Assange like they have been Manning. The difference is that Assange isn't part of our military so he isn't subject to military discipline like Manning. He's now found a country that will take him in and protect him from that revenge.
Assange and Wikileaks played the role of the traditional newspaper in this case, except online. Are you mad at the newspapers that published some of these cables? Do you think the owners or editors or journalists of The Guardian should be extradited to the US and put on trial? Then why Assange?
We don't like to see our government becoming like we used to view the USSR by manipulating other countries to exact revenge on someone who offended us. This is not playing out in a "Justice Must Be Served" way it's playing out in a "Nail The Bastard To The Wall" way. Everything about it screams Malicious Prosecution.
Oh dear, Dave Schroeder the self-confessed "Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet." from his own homepage was just waiting to pounce on first post for this one.
Well, anyway, I actually listened to the statement by Ecuador's spokesman live today and it was pretty interesting. The reason Ecuador took so long over this decision is that they have been trying to avoid it. What this involved was trying to find out whether Assange really was under some kind of threat. As such they:
- Asked Britain to guarantee that there was no possibility of Assange being extradited to the US. Britain refused to give this guarantee.
- Asked Sweden to guarantee that Assange would not be further extradited to the US after the rape case was dealt with. Sweden refused to give this guarantee.
- Asked Sweden if they would be willing to interview Assange in the Ecuardorian embassy over the accusations, noting that contrary to much FUD posted on Slashdot, this is in fact something Sweden can do, and has done in the past hence debunking the argument that Sweden's legal system does not allow this.
- Asked the US whether there was any existing or planned legal proceedings ongoing against Assange, and any current or potential future plans to extradite him over Wikileaks. The US refused to respond to this.
Given these 3 points, Ecuador decided that on the balance of probabilities, Assange was indeed at risk because they could not get any kind of guarantee from any of the parties involved that this was nothing to do with Wikileaks. As such they granted him asylum.
Or if you cut away the bullshit, the responses, or lack of, from Britain, Sweden, and America when Ecuador tried to resolve this without having to give Assange asylum and hence now deal with the tricky situation of how to get him the hell out of the UK all but confirm that this whole thing is indeed about Wikileaks.
Still, keep on trying to just slag off Ecuador as a bit of misdirection from the actual story here Dave if that's what makes you a happy guy.
It proves our country is governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of Assange fanbois who would probably cheer him on no matter what.
Lets not forget Hans Reiser and all the moronic fanboi cheerleaders claiming he was a victim of [insert paranoid delusion here] even when he was finally convicted. Eventually they all STFU when he led police to his wifes body. I see the same thing going on here - Assange being treated as some sort of 2nd coming who can do no wrong.
Lets get something straight - Assange is a narcissistic egomaniac who doesn't give a stuff about rights. All he cares about is getting getting one over on a western system he doesn't like. Fine - he's off to a country where western democracy and rights are a pipe dream. Bon Voyage Jules!
To say I am ashamed of the actions the the Government to even threaten the Ecuador embassy with stripping it of its diplomatic status. For the alleged crimes Assange has committed this action is way way way over the top and obvious for all to see.
Do you see the word 'storm' in there? I don't.
Obvious: "We very much hope not to get thiS point, buT if you cannOt Resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us."
I wouldn't be surprised if the charges against him were completely politically motivated. I mean, how often is this law actually used against people? When was the last time someone was thrown in jail over failing to use a condom? Come on.
This is the same Sweden that made jokes about Italy's freedom of speech. The scandinavian "republic" is now making jokes of any such freedom in an unmistakable way. Fascists
if free market is supposed to be able to solve every problem, why do i still need to scratch my balls?
You don't think that the media is bought up by the mega rich? Seriously? It is and it has been for hundreds of years.
Yes I was clarifying the source of the comment as requested by the OP.
However, the paratroopers or at least armed police WILL be sent in the moment they revoke the diplomatic immunity of the Ecuadorian Embassy which IS their legal route to arresting him.
'in the current premises' ?
We'll knock at the door, you'll answer and men with guns will politely ask for his removal.
So sorry to intrude on your right to put your head in the sand. Please enjoy your latte.
(inb4 you're the one serving it hurrrrr durrrrrr)
Is that the best you've got? To accuse someone who disagrees with you of being a paid, "shameless" shill?
Unfortunately, it happens. Though it's usually impossible to tell whether it is actually happening in a particular case, such as this.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Meh... The pinnacles of free speech in the West are only for it as long as it is in their own interest. They are not much better than Ecuador.
In this case, Sweden could simply give an assurance: "We are only bringing in Assange for questioning around the rape charge and we will NOT extradite him to the US. We will let him go after the Swedish legal proceedings are over". Given the gravity of the situation, they could do that and it would eliminate all the hoopla. But, no, despite repeated requests for such an assurance from the Ecuadorians themselves, Sweden will NOT give such a guarantee. Why not?
You're absolutely right that Ecuador has a poor record on free speech. But when you're being actively persecuted by the supposedly freest country in the world for acts of speech, what are you supposed to do?
The only ones showing their true colors in this debacle are the Americans. They are showing how much they truly value free speech (only when it's speech they like) and the rule of law (our law even applies to foreign journalists). Them, and sycophantic authoritarians like yourself. You're really showing your true colors too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Freedom of the press is an obligate subset of free speech, you idiot.
How much did wikileacks pay you, shameless shill?
The hypocrisy is on Assange's part. Here is this supposed champion of free speech and shit and when things get tough, he runs to what is pretty much an authoritarian government.
technically not a shill, but he is a US operative that is unquestionable.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Maybe we should all dress up as Julian Assange and form a flash mob around the Ecuadorean embassy so that he can sneak out undetected. The Brits like Monty Python after all.
Because everyone in the world, no matter where he lives must follow all American laws and always support America in everything it does. No one has a right to criticize America or show that America did something a little bit bad or lied.
If anyone ever do something that is not inherently good for America, he should be hunted down and putted to the trial. Of course, those who are not Americans will have no constitutional or other rights except those granted by the judge. He will be also responsible for paying for his lawyers, but of course America will freeze all his accounts and it will be his problem to find those money elsewhere.
He's so blinded by his irrational hate towards anything other than OWS fealty that he couldn't find a Starbucks if you pitched him through it's window.
How can I tell you're not a shill? Because that's what this comes down to: someone calling someone who puts forth a position they disagree with a paid shill.
Assange has a choice between an authoritarian government that is actively persecuting him, and an authoritarian government that is not. Which would you choose? There are no free countries to escape to.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I wonder what interpretation you give to the quoted text. Nobody said the word was there, but the threath is clear, the UK is willing to take action. Oh, so maybe they walk onto foreign soil with gun in hands instead of running. That makes all the difference.
You disgust me serf.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Assange is a champion of his own massive ego.. and that's all.
Seriously, why everyone fawns over the douchebag is beyond me.
Media in Ecuador is (was) essentially a tool in the hands of the extreme right. The *democratic* govt has tried to break that monopoly resorting to Law.
To put things in perpective, in Mexico, which apparently is flawlessly democratic since it is seldom criticized in US media, hostile reporters are just killed. By the dozens.
Ecuador has been praised by the UN for its human rights record regarding refugees -- did you hear about that in your free media?
i think it is quite clear to anyone with an IQ higher than 75 that this is equivalent to "we are going to storm your f**** embassy if you don't surrender Assange to us"
if free market is supposed to be able to solve every problem, why do i still need to scratch my balls?
1. Knock on the door.
2. "Go away" says the ambassador
3. "No, we've come to arrest someone"
4. No answer
5. Begin storming.
Does this matter ?
The governments of US and UK went to war in Iraq over a bunch of lies and responsible for thousands of deaths.
I assume Ecuador hasn't done something similar .
Vetting Ecuador 's human rights standards at this point is nothing but a deep rooted western hypocrisy.
Let me tell you , you are not superior.
No it isn't.
I can say what I want but I can't publish what I want in your newspaper.
Everyone may have freedom of speech. The freedom of the press belongs to the owners of the presses.
Try again.
If anyone wants to question Assange, they know exactly where he is. Drop by and ask some questions, or give him a phone call. That they haven't done this is proof that they are not really interested in asking questions, but getting Assange into custody.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Check out his homepage. On it he says:
"... I also serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare...."
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/
If you think he isn't biased, and possibly being paid for his post, you are crazy.
Now, please, get off my lawn!
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
You've spent a lot of time with your post. So lets get to the point.
Assange, love him or hate him, is a smart guy.
Knowing he is a potential victim of a political witch hunt, he knew perfectly well that he would NOT BE SAFE anywhere near a so called sovereign nation with a "Yes Sir!, anything you say Sir!" policy regarding the great United States of America.
He chose an Embassy that would give him THE BEST CHANCE of asylum. Hell, if Iran would give him asylum - anything will do thank you very much!
But showing up at any other Embassy let alone the Australian Embassy (same on australia) was not an option and that is a damn disgrace.
This guy is in survival mode and everybody including him especially know exactly whats going on here.
The UK, Australia, Sweden and especially USA.
Should be bloody well ashamed of themselves.
How is this propagandist shit modded +5? Fuck, you actually believe the US and the West "promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy".
Idiot. Brainwashed idiot.
Dave Schroeder
About Me
I also serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet.
Ah, makes sense now.
It's easy to tell:
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/
He has a post in Information Warfare in the US Navy. He prepared a large document smearing a country and managed to get first post. The evidence really is rather damning.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
So, Ecuador has granted Assange asylum, but he still has to get there. There is a diplomatic vehicle waiting outside of the embassy, but he has to cross the sidewalk (British territory) to get to the car.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Power to the people man!
> Where exactly is that 'storm' quoting from? You are clearly not British. > We very much hope not to get this point, but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr. Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us. That translates from British English to American English as 'storm' cf Yes Minister series 4 episode 3
Why would the UK or Sweden "guarantee" that he won't be extradited? If the US has not requested it, and a court has not ruled, then no guarantee could be made.
Does anyone on Slashdot realize that we have laws and courts for a reason? You can't justify any activity based on speculation about a future ruling in a future case that doesn't even exist yet.
If Assange were to be extradited, I assume it would be via a proper legal mechanism. If the extradition laws were not followed, THEN there would be an issue.
... to work out that there is definetely something fishy going on with the whole extradition story.
To begin with when both woman when to the police station to "report" Assange what they stated was NOT that they were raped but instead that he REFUSED to use a condom and they wanted to confirm with the police if they had the power to force him to take a STD test. Pure and simple! Now the police officer that took their statements called the prosecutor and, given the nature of the inquire, it already starts to sound a bit fishy. When the woman were told that they will issue an arrest warrant for Assange one of them REFUSED to continue with the statements and also even REFUSED to sign what had already been said. It sounds to me that it's pretty obvious that the public prosecutor that was called from that police station informed "someone" that they might had something on Assange.
There is so much to this it's hard to consolidate in a short coment but I would suggest watching this documentary on the subject:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
I don't buy for a second that the woman were raped. And given all the evidence already presented in Sweden I don't think anyone does. The question has got to be related to something else, not even Kadafi had a RED Notice put on him, not even the Syrian president, it's an orange notice, but hey, he refused to use a condom, that's seems justified!
Assange doesn't need asylum, there is no threat of unfairness or risk to Assange.
And if you don't hand the bloody miscreant over, we'll rescind your embassy's status and send troops into your former embassy and seize Assange.
(Kudos to Ecuador for doing the right thing and not conceding to a bully.)
Never mind thrown in jail... extradited from another country for a) not using a condom and b) waking up a woman to have sex with her.
Considering the UK won't hand over Dewani to the South Africans for ORGANISING A HITMAN TO MURDER HIS WIFE, I think the double standards can only point to political interference.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Do you see the word 'storm' in there? I don't.
Experienced in reading diplomatic notes, much? Not all "storm"ings need to to involve the SAS...
That note pretty much says, "Hand him over or we'll consider going in and take him without your consent."
Doesn't say 'by armed force', but I'd guess any uninvited entrance into an embassy to agents of an other nation could/would be by the ambassador considered "storm"ing...
Essentially the ambassador uses a loaded word for describing an action (a very strong word for the actual physical thing it would probably actually involve) - and /.-ers take it to mean a completely different kind of action (SAS operators blowing and shooting their way in)...
Stupid slashdot formatting.
And how would they get in - politely ask?
Really, and America and Great Britain have no human rights violations. Don't spy on their people. Track all their movements. Just saying...
You're asking me to pick which desperate clingy chick is uglier at the prom. The U.S. has the longer history of good behavior, but it is quickly moving down the road of total secrecy and police-state-like treatment of its own citizens. Julian Assange is an egotistical maniac, but the only difference I see between him and our U.S. elected officials is campaign funding. Assange didn't cause these leaks, and the use of U.S. and international law & political pressure to go after the person publishing them is a horrendous abuse of a power trip. If you want to keep secrets, prevent them from leaving your secret compartments.
I'd rather just leave the prom, find a good skin website, and be left alone by both shitty governments.
He offered to answer questions over the phone or videoconference, and was turned down. The Swedes have made it quite clear that they're demanding his physical presence.
I am officially gone from
Minor detail, he actually DID use a condom, but it ripped. Can happen right? In the Swedish jurisdiction this equals rape...
Which in it self is ironic: Accidentally rip a condom = rape (+ extradition to a place with death-sentence in this case) v.s. kill 74 people and in 18 years you'll be out on the streets again.
Weird is the first word that comes to my mind.
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Well, firstly, for someone (Assange) who's all about freedom of press, exposing secrets, etcetera, it's pretty darned hypocritical of him to go to Ecuador. He should be exposing them. President Correa:
Isacson and other experts point out that Correa loves disclosures when it suits him, but he has one of the worst reputations in Latin America for cracking down on journalists. Correa has filed defamation complaints against journalists who criticized him, forced independent radio and television stations to air lengthy rebuttals of critical reports, pre-empted programming and temporarily shut some stations down, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Of course, they had a great rapport on Assange's television program. You know, the one that is financed by the Kremlin - not exactly an entity known for stellar journalistic freedom.
I'm sure Ecuador had a great story prepared, but it's also probably just as convenient to recognize that this anti-US rhetoric will play out very well in Ecuador and surrounding countries, which will help Correa in the elections coming up in February, given his popularity has been sliding quite badly.
It wasn't rape, everythign was consensual. It was over the use of a condom or not. And the fact that he slept with two different women in the same week. And that's the case...
In fact, in America, the allegations wouldn't have even stood up for filing a case.
This is politics, not rape related, and EVERYONE knows it.
Seems we are at the top of the government transparency hill. So which way do we go from here, back down or forward?
Hey! Dave, You still over at Burson-Marsteller? Didnt realize StratFor was one of your clients. You guys seem to be quite busy lately.
This is worthy a slashdot story and scandal itself.
Really it should make no difference.
If I say "fruit is nutritious and delicious", then it's true whether I'm paid by the fruit marketing board or not. If he says Ecuador has a terrible record on freedom of speech, then whether he's paid or not makes no difference to the accuracy of the statement. Essentially, accusations that the poster is a shill is a subtle ad hominem.
How is removing a nation's diplomatic status, and sending in armed police/soldiers NOT "storming", "raiding", "invading", or whatever else you want to call it?
INB4 mysterious plane crash or other "accident"...
"Why would the UK or Sweden "guarantee" that he won't be extradited? If the US has not requested it, and a court has not ruled, then no guarantee could be made."
The UK specifically because it was extraditing him for the claimed rape and has claimed Sweden couldn't then pass him on to a 3rd country without the UK's agreement. It was a bit more explicit than the way I simply worded it, such that the UK wouldn't give a guarantee that Sweden couldn't then just pass him on to the US, which is contrary to what UK officials have claimed in the past about the case.
In the case of Sweden, the guarantee sought was that Sweden wouldn't just pass him on to the US without a separate extradition agreement from the UK. Again, Sweden wouldn't do this, and again, despite the fact Swedish officials have claimed they would need to do this to pass him onto the UK.
Effectively all Ecuador was after is a solid guarantee that the standards of justice in protecting Assange from extradition to the US that both British and Swedish officials had claimed would protect Assange, really would protect him. Neither country was willing to put their money where their mouth is and actually back up their previous claims with a solid guarantee.
So it ties in with your last sentence basically, that it's not so much that both countries wouldn't give some arbitrary guarantee that Assange was safe from US extradition, but instead that both countries wouldn't give a guarantee that Assange would in fact be protected by the proper legal mechanisms both countries previously claimed would protect him. In other words, what was said by officials about protection for Assange from further extradition to the US was in fact likely just a facade.
Yeah but hes really bad at it. Its smear smear smear, and the obligate `agree, or you must be a Bad Guy`. Cmon! Even I can write better propaganda then that!
Douchebaggy - maybe.
Informative - definitely.
If some asshat in the Foreign Office hadn't tried to force the issue by invoking a law not designed for this sort of situation, perhaps a less pissed-off Ecuador would have made a different choice. I'm no fan of Assange, but the legal process in which he is enmeshed appears to be ever so slightly fishy, and invites reactions like the Ecuadorean one.
Sweden refused to question him in the Embassy. Sweden is not interested about questioning anyone. It is obviously a sham.
The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status [guardian.co.uk] (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.
I don't see how the two are any different. If UK strips diplomatic status, you think Ecuador is going to give up the embassy all cheery-like instead of hole-up and wait it out (attention-whoring on the global political front)? Ecuador interpreted British English (and its tendency to understate things of importance) quite well.
People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy.
Look, we all think Assange is an ass, but free governments require watchdogs to remain free, and sometimes those watchdogs have to bray like asses.
It's a bit more complicated than that. The Uk has no right to storm the embassy. What the letter said, apparently, is that the British gOvernment could revoke the Embassy's extraterritorial status, removing all extraterritorial protections. Any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention can do that, though the intention certainly isn't to go after accused rapists, but rather for severe diplomatic incidents, declarations of war and the like. Of course, once the Embassy ceases to be recognized as such by the British government, nothing more is required than an arrest warrant.
That all being said, actually doing it would create a major diplomatic shitstorm, so I think it is a lot of hot air.
Now Assange actually getting out of the Embassy without being arrested, that is a whole other story. That is what the large number of police hanging around the Embassy seem to be hoping to stop.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This has happened, I assume, via a proper legal mechanism:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/14/190209/pirate-website-owner-sentenced-to-4-years-in-prison
so I feel much less confident in laws and courts and, I belive, for a reason.
Let me guess, you don't like my use of the word Terrorist with regard to your favorite country, because if the UK extradites to Sweden, Sweden extradites to the US, and of course the US would never ask their close ally, the UK, to commit an act of terrorism, since they're so big on the whole War On Terrorism.
Except that's exactly what this is. The very definition of terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes", and that's exactly what the UK has done when it threatened to 'storm the embassy' in order to gain political advantage.
Stop modding me down for saying what is literally and precisely what has happened. You might not like the verbiage, but it's the plain facts of the case -- it was a terroristic threat, and Equador courageously said "No." And that's remarkable precisely because it wasn't a threat made by some backwater country who's primary natural resource is dirt, and most of their citizens live in grass huts. This was made by a country with nuclear weapons, a standing force of hundreds of thousands, and could easily wipe Equador off the face of the Earth. They said "No," to that. They're risking everything to stand up for their principles.
They deserve to be commended, and I refuse to be silenced for standing up and applauding their resistance to bow to terroristic threats. Now go ahead, mod me to oblivion. And bravo Equador.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You have to understand - Dewani is of subcontinental extraction, and thus to be protected, while Assange is hideously white.
Swedish news site Svd.se says that Sweden couldn't allow Assange to be extradited to the US because of death penalty, which isn't acceptable under their penal system. Therefore, the Ecuadorian justification for granting the asylum is baseless.
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/assange-far-asyl-i-ecuador_7427502.svd
Enligt Jörle är grunden för att Assange har beviljats asyl helt felaktig. Svensk lag och Sveriges förpliktelser enligt Europakonventionen innebär att Assange inte kan lämnas ut till USA, eftersom USA utdömer dödsstraff.
The foreign office sent a letter pointing out they have a legal route to arresting Julian in the embassy. It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
It's legal under UK law but not international law. The embassy isn't under UK law in the first place.
Marching into an embassy to abduct someone is an invasion in exactly the same way marching into a small town in any other country to abduct someone is also an invasion.
We have a politics story on the front page, and it doesn't favor Ron Paul? OK, who are you and what have you done with slashdot?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Over and over it has been said that Sweden wants to question him as they need to do this formally before charging him and that needs to take place in Sweden legally. So to drop by or phone is of no interest to Sweden and in any case, why should he be treated differently from every body else?
"Essentially, accusations that the poster is a shill is a subtle ad hominem."
I disagree, there's nothing subtle about it.
Nope, never worked there — thanks for asking, though!
My opinions are my own; I'm sorry that you believe if someone puts forth a position you disagree with on slashdot, they must be a paid shill or PR flack!
(I do find it amusing that everything related to Assange or WikiLeaks has to do with "StratFor"; I'm sure you're one of those who bought the whole StratFor-as-a-massive-secret-shadow-intelligence-agency conspiracy, though!)
Stratfor Is a Joke and So Is Wikileaks for Taking It Seriously
Dave Schroeder, at it again. Showing up yet again to defend the NSA, attack Assange, and more BS. Here's the truth: we need more people like Assange to take a shit on the world order, no matter how bad it smells. You don't need to like Ecuador, Assange, the use of the phrase of "embassy storming", or rape to get behind that.
Essentially the ambassador uses a loaded word for describing an action (a very strong word for the actual physical thing it would probably actually involve) - and /.-ers take it to mean a completely different kind of action (SAS operators blowing and shooting their way in)...
No, it's just that Ledow is simply wrong (and a boot licker I must add) that he has to defend his point to the end, up to and including twisting language and arguing semantics in ways that everyone can see is bullshit.
There are ways of saying "I'm going to burn your house down, fuck your dog and shoot your wife" that don't involve coming right out and saying it, and that's what the letter says. It's just that Ledow is either incapable of reading context or is on a campaign to get people to believe a falsehood. I'm gonna go with both.
--
BMO
Wow, yeah — that must be it. It can't possibly be that I have my own opinions, and am a slashdot subscriber, and thus see the stories early.
Force somebody to deny something that is not happening.
So I can't have my own opinions? Cool. Good to know.
nah, power and their deceptive interests play a role, too. you can shill for microsoft, you can't shill for linux.
Apparently Ecuador can tell him he won't be extradited and give him guarantees about it. But we are talking about a civilized country here, not Sweden or UK.
I don't know where you get off pretending this is some kind of ringing endorsement of Ecuador as a country - It's ironic, nothing more, nothing less. If I had the US government after me (A country which is acknowledged to have created secret CIA-run prisons and tortured people) I'd take help anywhere I could find it too.
Ecuador offered help to a likely future victim of the US torture machine. It may be ironic but it is an example of Ecuador doing the right thing. If countries would do the right thing more often the world would be a better place.
Well done Ecuador!
Then let me stand up and join you. I'm an American. I'm sorry my country has used back room deals to convince your country to make a terroristic threat because it was too cowardly to make. Everyone can plainly see at this point Sweden and the UK both caved to US demands to fabricate excuses and crimes to get this man back here -- all because he embarassed us politically, showing the world our true colors in the war on terror. I, too, am ashamed of my governments actions.
I hope you will not think any less of America's citizens because of the actions of the American government.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I can guarantee he is not overjoyed about staying locked in an Embassy and being a political refugee in a third world country, but he has absolutely no other sensible choice here. Better to go to bed with the smaller evil than to useless make himself a martyr in the hands of the bigger one.
You're right, he shouldn't be treated differently than anyone else! Which is why they threaten to revoke the rights of embassies all the time for nonexistent rape charges.
OH WAIT
You what? Ecuador got assaulted by America in the past, yes? So why would they not give asylum to Assange, and why should he not take it? That doesn't make him responsible for everything that happens in that country, nor anyone else who would rather see murderers get hanged, instead of petty thieves being smeared and hunted for poking the eye of power.
So wtf are you quoting scientists, sophist? Fucking hypocrite.
The US has no authority to charge Assange... He certainly cannot legally be charged with espionage. He is not a US citizen and not subject to US laws unless he has been deemed a state enemy, such as a terrorist. Is he a terrorist? Wikileaks, by releasing diplomatic cables acquired by Manning, had some role to play in the revolutions in North Africa –revolutions that the US has desired for decades. Why would the US want to prosecute for something that ended up a happy accident, as far as the US is concerned?
Generally, when the US wants someone... they are kidnapped and moved to a country friendly with these kinds of US tactics... like Poland. It is very strange that it seems so evident that the Swedish charges are trumped up (which is pretty obvious, as both 'victims' have all but recanted) just so the US could extradite Assange more easily. Why is Assange any different from the hundreds of other renditions carried out by the US? Australia doesn't seem interested in offering Assange any protection... so why does it seem credible that the US seeks a sneaky slight of hand extradition? What is the US afraid of, regarding Assange, that they would attempt this extradition rather than a typical snach and grab rendition?
Excuse me, slashdot... but just what the fuck is going on here??!!
US won't likely go to war with any South America nation. Nothing to gain and too much to lose.
All this supposition that Assange is being extradited to Sweden only for them to extradite him to USA his nothing short of a conspiracy theory. Why would anyone go such a convoluted route when they could simply extradite him from the UK using the fast track extradition process (that the USA has failed to honour incidentally). Involving Sweden in the process makes no sense what so ever, to extradite him from there requires both the UK and Sweden's permission and if the USA can get the UK to agree then why involve Sweden at all!
Over and over it has been said
Repetition doesn't make it true.
Sweden wants to question him...and that needs to take place in Sweden legally.
Citation please. Preferably from the actual section of the Swedish legal code that compels this.
There is no practical reason for such a requirement, and I doubt very much that such a requirement actually exists. Questions are questions, no matter where they are asked or answered.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As far as I am concerned this is one of the only checks or balances we have remaining to protect human rights violations in the first world, let alone the protections you would want if you were caught for some political reason in some third world country. Yes he needs to face trial. No he does not need to face death or life in prison for journalism at large, sex without a condom, waking up a girlfriend for sex, and scorning two women(one of which has CIA ties). Those are not capital punishment crimes in my book.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
So? How is the OP of that.. clown.. not an ad-hominem? Assange is bad because Ecuador isn't perfect, and that means supporters of Assange blah blah blah.
You make it sound like a valid argument was replied to with an ad-hominem. Instead a dumb fucking lame try at sophistry was met with ridicule and abuse. Everything's in perfect order, wether you can see it or not, and no matter how many sock puppets and real people mod stuff.
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but failing to disclose being an operative for one of the parties will certainly impact others' opinion of your trustworthiness when that connection comes to light. It's fairly common for people involved to comment around here, but it is customary to throw a little Disclaimer at the end or beginning of the post so it won't look like you were trying to hide something when someone makes the connection.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
It's not his opinion, he works in information warfare aka he's a paid troll. It's not about disagreeing with his position it's about the fact that we once again have an official propaganda office which is targeting American citizens.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Assange is seeking asylum to avoid investigation of a sex offense.
Assange SAYS that he fears extradition from Sweden to the US. That's just BS from a suspected rapist. If there were a real extradition threat, the US would have gone for Assange when he was available in the UK for chrissake.
The guy is just a pig.
This. Unlike the shills, he's upfront about who he is and what his agenda is.
In intel threads, Dave's defense of the intelligence community is cogent and articulate. His criticism of Ecuador's policies in this thread, while valid, is orthogonal to the issue of Assange, Wikileaks, and the UK (except insofar as it's ironic), and I think that (and the unfortunate accident of him getting Frist Psot) - is why he comes across as a shill in this thread.
That out of the way, I'll toss in my two bits' worth: Ecuador isn't giving Assange asylum because it gives a damn about freedom of speech, it's doing this because it pisses off the US. That this action aids the cause of freedom of speech on the Interwebs is incidental to Ecuador's interest. Assange is taking advantage of the opportunity because he (IMO correctly) judges that he's safer in Ecuador than he is in the West, regardless of how Ecuador treats its citizens.
My third bit: If Assange had spent a little more time thinking with the head on his shoulders instead of the one between his legs, he wouldn't have been caught in an obvious honey trap. James Bond got away with nailing two chicks per movie, but that's only because he was a ficticious character.
Hopefully they will chop off your head when you get there.
Reading your comment and Dave's comment, and I know nothing of either of you... I have to say his is better.
Oh yes, take a shit on the world order is now our marching orders of the day?
When someone starts blathering on about overthrow-ish intentions as lip service, without even beginning to offer an acknowledgement of the dangers of such a move, I generally ignore them.
But you're AC, so I'd be ignoring half the posts. Sigh.
For a guy who is only wanted for questioning in Sweden, the UK is going to great lengths and political risks to get ahold of him.
Well you've got a cheap shot at Ecuador, but we already know that Assange is willing to play with anyone who can further his agenda (media-hating Russia for example). You hit the "embassy storming" angle, but let's face it, that's just a summary of what's been proposed and Ecuador has made a case for the UK to restrain itself. Then you end with that classic Dave Schroeder naivete and promote the spread of those uniquely American freedoms. You expect the reader to take two leaps of faith: one, that freedom can last for long in the corrupt and inequal environment of America, and two, that anybody should trust the opinions of a self-labelled "information warrior". It can't possibly be that you are engaging in "information war", IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S YOUR JOB! The aluminium foil is so cheap here, I can't help but make a hat out of it.
If it is without consent, yes, it should get complicated legally.
That is most likely the case anywhere, even in Ecuador. Or, are Ecuadorian girls legal prey now? One should really doubt that and I hope not.
There are two separate things here.
1. Sweden is not allowed to extradite Assange further without UK permission. That is just a part of extradition law.
2. Neither UK nor Sweden can give guarantees that Assange will not be extradited further. Should the US request his extradition then the UK and Sweden will have to consider that request and then allow or reject it based on the merits of the request. Assange is neither a UK nor a Swedish citizen. I don't know if those guarantees could be given even if he was but they're certainly not going to be given as things stand. Britain or Sweden could end up in the same state as the Equadorian embassy, stuck with someone who can't leave their borders.
Assange is safer extradited to Sweden than he is staying in the UK because both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to a further extradition.
What if it turned out that Assange knew about the planning of September 11th but chose to keep quiet about it rather than let the authorities know? Would the commentators on this blog really be happy that the UK and Sweden had guaranteed his safety from prosecution in the US? As it is, neither the UK nor Sweden would extradite to the US without a guarantee that the death penalty will not be imposed and that alone would be likely to cause much anger in the US.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Pinochet: well-known and repeatedly convicted dictator. UK verdict: let go free
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet
Assange: not even charged, more than doubtful testimonies, a "crime" which does not even exist outside Sweden (sex without condom!). UK verdict: all kinds of threaten and proposal to violate Vienna Convention
Way to go UK, way to go.
In the 1980s the UK "stormed the embassy" of Iran. Special forces burst through the windows, using stun grenades and submachine guns... several people died and a lot of mess was created/solved.
Whereas the document is refering to temporarily revoking the diplomatic status of the embassy, entering it, arresting Assange and leaving... given past UK police operations, it would likely be 2 unarmed, uniformed PCs in stab vests entering through the front door and asking Assange to come with them.
Hence 'storming the embassy' is seen to be a rather large exaggeration.
"It can't possibly be that I have my own opinions"
No, it can't be, since you are a Navy official and counterinformation is exactly your job field. Of course you have your own opinions, bit you for sure are not allowed to freely share them on these matters.
Therefore, a payed shill.
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job. What's unclear to me is if he honestly believes what he's saying. The hamfisted propaganda techniques* make him seem disingenuous, but it's entirely possible he believes this crap.
Also, you should have used the second person pronoun in your post. Always check who you are replying to.
*e.g. in the first post of this thread. Ecuador's free speech record is irrelevant to Assange escaping active persecution by Western governments. But if you can smear Ecuador, you smear Assange by association. This is not how honest people debate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The fact that he has that link on his Slashdot homepage is, in fact, a complete excuse from the accusation of being a shill. What the Microsoft publicity people seem to do which is wrong and illegal (in most sensible jurisdictions) is pretend to be normal members of the public when in fact they are being paid.
What this guy should clearly be attacked for instead is
The involiability of embassies is something which the USA and the UK have much more reason to care about than most countries. The idea that people should be post-justifying the hostage taking at the US embassy in Iran by making embassies subject to the vagaries of random decisions of local law is outrageous.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Funny how this status evolution can be represented by change in one letter
Because it would be inappropriate and possibly illegal for Sweden to leave such a guarantee.
The courts cannot rule on a case that does not exist, and the government cannot speak on the outcome of a future court case.
The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status [guardian.co.uk] (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.
How do you think they are going to arrest him if they strip Ecuador's diplomatic status? Just knock on the door and politely ask him to come out? They could do that now if that's their plan. I think you only need to look at the FBI + New Zealand's military-style assault on Dot Com's mansion to see how the UK will extract Assange.
"Assange is safer extradited to Sweden than he is staying in the UK because both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to a further extradition."
No, this is precisely where the problem lies. Both Sweden and Britain have claimed this to be the case in the past, but this is precisely what Ecuador tried to confirm and get a guarantee on, and this is precisely what both Sweden and Britain refused to give a guarantee on.
My original post was a little light on detail as I only intended it as a brief summary, Ecuador was much more specific in it's guarantees such that the guarantees it sought were perfectly realistic and reasonable and would not block cases such as your example and only block extradition to the US over Wikileaks as a follow on extradition from the UK to Sweden extradition.
That's why this was such a major factor in Ecuador's decision, it was perfectly feasible to give the guarantee Ecuador requested if this wasn't about Wikileaks at all, but Britain and Sweden would not give them.
Like it or not, as an officer you *always* represent the Navy. Try not to be a schmuck about it.
Is it an ad hominem to point out that someone who admits to being in the paid employ of the US Navy as an information warfare officer, engaging in information warfare, is someone whose arguments are obviously going to be highly biased, and essentially untrustworthy especially when they are activly engaging in information warfare? One would think the admission of being in information warfare automatically invalidates all arguments made by the individual, especially when they are on the clock, as they are essentially paid to lie and subvert the public discourse for the benifit of their pay masters. Saying someone is a shill simply because, yes is somewhat ad hom, but when an individual admits to being a serial liar, or in this case in IW, it seems simply to be pointing out the obvious to say that they are probably lying, or on the clock as this is their job.
I put this nonsense on par with being extradited to Saudi Arabia for a violation of Sharia Law. While some people love to throw the term "rape" around in this discussion, what Assange is accused of is nothing like that. It comes off more like something you might expect out of the mountains of Afghanistan.
It's trumped up nonsense. Anyone is right to be suspicous of it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm pretty sure you're not a shill. You have too long of a history on Slashdot defending government actions to qualify as one. Instead, you qualify as a basic autocrat: the power and sanctity of the state and the nation trumps all. Personally, I prefer to keep company with shills. At least, I can buy them off if I disagree with their positions.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
A shill implies they are posting something simply in exchange for money. I doubt very much that criticizing Ecuador and Assange on slashdot is part of his job; far more likely this is what he believes, and he picked a job that conforms with those beliefs.
If someone from wikileaks posted a defense of Assange here, neither you nor anyone else would accuse them of being a shill; they would be praised, modded up, thanked, etc..
My radical call to ignore consequences and take cheap shots (such as document dumps) might be extreme or childish, but it's there to remind you that when things get bad, you might be forced to act brazenly and ignore the cold legalistic propaganda of the "information warriors". I think you'll find that Dave's logical arguments will eventually be crippled by new information. Maybe you'll thank yourself for browsing at 0 (or lower?).
I laugh at the people who claim that the USA is a bad place to live, that the government is so corrupt and they are constantly controlling us. Leave then, take your arse somewhere else and then call me from there and let me know how things are going. You complain and complain and do what....nothing! Hands down, this country is the best place to live...I'd rather raise a family here, I'd rather work here, I'd rather die for this country than to live anywhere else. Your just pissed that you live in a 2 bedroom apartment with your brother and your life consists of you trolling youtube for nipslip videos. No government is perfect, no country is perfect but it's the absolute best out there. This country brought you Walking Dead...which btw starts this October on AMC...unless you are on DISH...then your shite out of luck. :)
Where are the investigative journalists? Where are the mainstream influential investigative journalists?
It appears Assange is not treated fairly but no mainstream influential investigative journalist seems to be bothered. In the media I consume I mainly read insipid articles that do not pose the main questions. Are investigative journalists waiting until the scoop is hot which will come when it might be a bit too late for Assange?
Would a flashmob free him from his current predicament?
Crap! Where's my courage?
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
...a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West...
Blowback's a bitch, ain't it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They can criticize America all they want. But they can't actively attempt to subvert America's political and military institutions and expect that they will just be left alone to continue doing it. Of course America has is going to try to shut him up.
The foreign office sent a letter pointing out they have a legal route to arresting Julian in the embassy. It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
You're misunderstanding the UK mastery of understatement - "Awfully nice Embassy you have here, old chap. Shame if it were to get broken..."
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
When did "troll" become a synonym for "disagree"? This post does not merely assert Ecuador's human rights issues; it provides examples. When the post makes the statement about storming the embassey, the author provides a link backing up the assertion. So the only possible conclusion is that the opinion in the last paragraph, that people who think Assange getting asylum in Ecuador is a good thing have a "disregard and lack of respect for freedom ... but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West", is the source of the troll ratings. Yet that opinion is a defensible one, and should hardly be risible. Nor is it stated in a way that is deliberately provocative of outrage. What a travesty of poor moderation. The post should be read, because it contains and states well a point of view that should be under discussion.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
We're the new Nazis!! Okay, perhaps we attained that status longer ago than we like to admit... but hey, let's celebrate and crack open a tasty ale ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H flavorless, mass-produced pilsner (brewed from wholesome, genetically-modified, Roundup-saturated grains) and make it official! ;)
More likely you're not actually Dave Schroeder, or you're being honest and stupid. Real information warfare wouldn't have links to a sight claiming to do so. You'd most likely have a half a dozen accounts each running in a VM with a VPN connection to regular ISP connections all around the country. The last thing someone who is involved in information warfare would want is for it to be seen as information warfare. However, someone who want to discredit a POV would want to make it look exactly like Information warfare. So you're probably someone who is performing counter information warfare on behave of Assange. How's that for conspiracy.
On another note, kudos to Ecuador for merely appearing to defy TPTB and their looming show trial, even if Assange is the CIA's highest profile example of controlled opposition/manufactured dissent - gotta give The Company the credit they deserve; they appear to have gotten as much mileage out of Assange that they did with the likes of Farrakhan... and that's saying something!).
You're a sad case if you're not being paid for this job.
The least you could have done was post something at the bottom of your post like:
Disclosure: I serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare
To hold an Information Warfare position for US military organisations and then make broad political statements about how bad people who displease the US are without disclosing your position... even if these are your genuine personal opinions, well... let's just agree that you set yourself up for this one?
Myself? I don't think I have anything which would cause my opinion to be overly biased. I am a nerd, I own a Raspberry Pi, I play with Linux, I am doing a postgrad in robotics. Sorry, not a shill.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
1. It sounds like you're not familiar with what Navy Information Warfare Officers do. Hint: this community was previously called Cryptology Officers.
2. I'm not on anyone's clock. (To be clear: I am not being paid or given any consideration, by anyone, for posting on slashdot or anywhere else on the internet, nor have I ever.)
So yes, it's not only an ad hominem, it's a particularly ridiculous one. Most places welcome someone with background and experience who take the time to source their posts participating in a discussion. Can you point to anything inaccurate in my post?
Yet it will be ACs and people whose identities aren't known praising Assange and Ecuador who will receive the most positive attention here. Those with opposing views will be shouted down, or, in this case, be accused of being paid government shills.
It might not be "scandalous", but your take on "respect for the rule of law" is pretty funny. You might want to check with your employer on that.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So he should include a disclaimer that he is a US military officer in every post on slashdot? Is posting with his real name and a direct link to his homepage not enough?
What's better for the authorities than an unending prison sentence that some other country has to pay for?
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not paid or compelled or compensated by anyone in any way to post on slashdot. What do you take issue with in my post?
Are you saying that Ecuador really has a stellar record on human rights and free speech, that it's not ironic for someone who claims to support free speech and freedom of the press is seeking refuge from a nation that has a terrible record on both, that the US really loves WikiLeaks, and that Steven Aftergood didn't say what he said?
How is this propaganda?
The disinformation lies not in the falsehood, but the lack of relevance.
Also, Ecuador's free speech record is highly relevant:
Nothing you say following this colon shows any sort of relevance of Ecuador's free speech record. The only thing that matters is that the West is persecuting Assange and Ecuador is not. If you were Assange, who would you choose?
Nothing about seeking asylum in a country can be reasonably construed as an endorsement of that country.
Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are? Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released? Intelligence operations and diplomatic work demand secrecy even in free societies. We allow for that as a people.
Ah, so you admit that this is prosecution is politically motivated. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that much.
do you really believe Correa and Assange are some kind of kindred spirits?
No I don't. Do you believe that the US and Saudi Arabia are some kind of kindred spirits? By your argument, the US is as smeared by its association with Saudi Arabia as Assange is by association with Ecuador.
Does our alliance with Saudi Arabia "absolutely smear" the US? If not, how can you say the same about Assange?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Regarding "pissing off US", sometimes is self defense. Is not dumb to promote/protect something puts in evidence a bully that gives a damn about other countries, throwing down foreing governments because don't like their leaders. That should had been done by almost any country, as none is really safe of that bully, unless they are more or less in bed with it. And if is doing bad now, things will get only worse in the future, the "change" from 2008 for a different person, different party, and even different skin color didn't changed the ongoing trend, only deepened it.
not every post, but first post in a new sub thread when the discussion involves US intelligence targets, yea.
just as it is customary for Google/MS/Oracle/Apple employees to disclose their connection when they talk about their respective companies or direct competitors.
also there is no need to refer to yourself in the third person......
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
It doesn't free him from the bias that he is exposed to by working for US military organisations. Not only that, but he is completely over-stating the human rights violations in Ecuador. Part of what he's referring to is two times that a TV station was shut down for broadcasting material which met the following criteria:
1) Was blatantly false
2) Was likely to cause social unrest
One of these was the station claiming that there was a secret government HQ that was used to manipulate votes. The other was claiming that all fishing rights would be removed for a period of 9 months due to oil exploration, which caused riots in all of the fishing villages. Both claims were false.
Other stuff he's referring to makes it illegal to write partisan news articles, and a criminal libel case which is shutting down a newspaper and sending the editor and directors to jail for incorrectly claiming that the president ordered the army to open fire on a hospital during a protest by the police.
So the general gist of things that I'm getting here is that Ecuador don't mind it if you say stuff, but keep it true, and try not to let your personal opinions sway the facts in what you write.
Yeah, it would have been nice if he'd made his affiliations clear in his post and been a bit less inflammatory in the sections he chose to quote.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Just like UTF-8 to reduce a prestigious institution's name to something from a discworld novel
Don't forget the black helicopters that have been hovering near your house since you posted!
I'd go for the tinfoil if I were you, man.
I really don't think a disclaimer is necessary when it's pretty clear who I am. How many others here whose identities are hidden have undisclosed affiliations/jobs/etc. which may influence their opinions? There is no way to know. I'm not saying they're "shills", but do they need disclaimers?
And for the record I wasn't actually accusing you of being a paid shill — I was just making a point.
According to the English High Court judgment (although maybe they're just corrupt, part of the establishment or untrustworthy for another reason) Assange is accused of two counts of sexual molestation, one of rape, and one of unlawful coercion. As it happens, the condom issue is one of the sexual molestations, the rape concerns having sex with someone while they are asleep (and thus unable to consent).
I don't know about American law, but at least two (possibly three) of those accusations could amount to rape under English law - and if it isn't the case in the US, perhaps that says more about the treatment of rape in the US. Whether or not what he did was actually rape (etc.) is a question of fact, based on complex evidence, where all sides of the story can be heard in an impartial situation... i.e. a trial.
Yes, this case is steeped in politics (which calls into question whether Assange will ever be able to get a fair trial), but at the heart of it *is* an accusation of rape.
[Posting anonymously to preserve mod points... this discussion certainly needs pretty heavy moderating due to the basic factual errors filling it.]
"It can't possibly be that I have my own opinions"
No, it can't be, since you are a Navy official and counterinformation is exactly your job field. Of course you have your own opinions, bit you for sure are not allowed to freely share them on these matters.
Therefore, a payed shill.
Yeah, I get it now. People like Jon Stewart or some liberal MSNBC reporter first had their opinion, and then chose their job (which they get paid for) to go along with it. With Navy officials, it's the other way round. :-P
If Sweden was willing to guarantee that Assange wouldn't be extradited afterwards to the US there never would have been an issue. However, they refused this guarantee, so the only option Assange has left is to take up an offer of asylum which was offered to him by the president of Ecuador during a TV interview.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
"I laugh at the people who claim that the USA is a bad place to live, that the government is so corrupt and they are constantly controlling us. Leave then, take your arse somewhere else and then call me from there and let me know how things are going."
Panama is quite nice. So is Japan. Lived in both places for short periods of time.
Only reason I'm still in the USA is probation. Once that's done, I'm taking myself, and half of your agricultural economy (with tech I've developed,) with me.
Then we'll see how you enjoy living with China's boots on your throat and the throats of your children/grandchildren.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The least you could have done was post something at the bottom of your post like:
Disclosure: I serve as an Information Warfare Officer in the United States Navy Fleet Cyber Command/US Tenth Fleet. I have a master's degree in Information Warfare
To hold an Information Warfare position for US military organisations and then make broad political statements about how bad people who displease the US are without disclosing your position... even if these are your genuine personal opinions, well... let's just agree that you set yourself up for this one?
Myself? I don't think I have anything which would cause my opinion to be overly biased. I am a nerd, I own a Raspberry Pi, I play with Linux, I am doing a postgrad in robotics. Sorry, not a shill.
How in the world does that make any kind of logical sense?
What he posted was a series of links to NY Times articles. Would your knowledge of his employer have changed your interpretation of those New York Times articles, which he didn't author? If the stories he linked to are accurate, would your knowledge of his employer have changed the conclusions you would draw from them?
I might have some sympathy for this argument if he'd posted an extended opinion piece; but he didn't.
The truth is this: his point-of-view is an unpopular one one here, and so people (for example, you) are going to seize on anything they can to smear him, even if irrelevant. It's one step up from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released?
In exchange, Dave, we would expect the governments to stay within the law.
How is this propaganda?
It's not relevant. The president of Ecuador offered the asylum to Assange in a TV interview. I'm sure if somebody else had made the offer, and had a better record of human rights, Assange would have gone there instead. Unfortunately, nobody else had the balls to offer, so Assange is taking his chances.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
The consequence for breaking that assurance would be to seriously disrupt the USA chance of getting future extraditions from Europe.
I'm following this thread, too, and have posted numerous times in it. I don't post as AC.
I'm transparent about my identity and affiliations. Are you? Is any (semi-)anonymous person or AC on slashdot?
Was my post really that controversial? Ecuador has a terrible record on free speech and freedom of the press, two key things Assange claims to champion. The Kremlin-backed Russian state media outlet RT is the one to air the interview between Correa and Assange. It is ironic, is it not? How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are — explicitly or implicitly — thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
That's the kind of bizarre thinking my post is highlighting, and it seems to hit close to home for many...
There are allegations of sexual misconduct. He isn't prosecuted, and probably won't be. However, in most countries if there are suspicions of a crime like this with several witnesses, you WILL be questioned in the matter. There is nothing strange about that. I don't know why it is so darn controversial that someone may be questioned and THEN the case is dropped?
It is legal under international law. The UK, and any other country, can quite legally revoke the status of an embassy at any time they feel like it (though there may be a required notification period). Obviously this would have rather severe political ramifications, and the UK would have to balance what they think they might gain from it versus these consequences, but it would be quite legal. Very unlikely in this case, but if Ecuador persisted in using its embassy to shield accused criminals from trial it could happen at some point. Very unlikely they would do it for just one person, of course, but not necessarily out of line for the UK to point out to Ecuador that their diplomatic status can be revoked if they persist in flouting local laws.
Don't you know the term astroturfing?
Does Sweeden not have an embassy in London? Are embassies not treated as sovereign territory of that particular nation? Could he not have been questioned at said embassy?
It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
So, I presume they're going to knock politely, offer roses, and ask for him kindly? I mean, since according to you they're not going in by force with armed police or military.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I'm not sure about America, but for example in the German or Russian military information war basically means propaganda. If the guy is part of a propaganda division, then he is a shill.
If the guys that attacked Anonymous are any guide, this level of incompetence is exactly what I would expect of anyone involved in official information warfare. Nothing anywhere near the level of sophistication of something as simple as Fox News has, and they are pretty honest and stupid about it.
Politicians can't do anything bad without conspiring; that is just how it works, duh! Even dictators often must conspire to get anything done. You do not understand conspiracy or have some Pavlovian response against actual conspiracies. (BTW, the FBI primarily deals in criminal conspiracy.)
Government conspiracy was a fundamental part of EVERY leak and yet despite that you find it objectionable that vindictive government conspiracies against the figurehead to discredit and deter repeated leaks?? One of the leaks was a conspiracy to destroy wikileaks!
I could bring up the word IRONY but I will not...
As has been already shown many times, the USA can make other nations ignore their own laws! Your country can host the PirateBay but regardless of your laws you will be invaded by storm troopers who will take your servers away and arrest you. Secret kidnappings, flights, torture, etc. and officials looked the other way; played ignorant. One way to appease the public over disrespect for their laws & culture is to dehumanize the victims "it doesn't matter because THOSE people are X" so they allow such transgressions.
It is common in US law to unfairly discriminate against new kinds of criminals "to set an example" and you don't expect that culture to feel totally good about applying that fallacy in more dire circumstances? A war of attrition will be used against Assange for the rest of his life, making a public figurehead into a martyr would be unwise... if they can ruin him they will have 90% of what they'd like. Even dictators often realize this which is why they'll jail, banish, or tarnish symbols instead of just openly execute them (accidents do work extremely well with a public who dismisses anything resembling a "conspiracy.")
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Which will be followed in turn by the Ecuadorian government revoking the British embassy's diplomatic immunity and charging in there to arrest the staff for an act of war.
And some idiots still think all this is just about some sex abuse allegation in Sweden. That the UK is willing to risk a WAR over some mere minor legal issue. Must be nice to be so happy and naive.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
nothing more is required than an arrest warrant.
Well, that and a large armed force to overcome the Ecuadorian guards and soldiers assigned to protect their embassy from just this sort of attack.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I'm interested - have you ever lived outside of North America for an extended period (5 years+) ?
Marching into an embassy to abduct someone is an invasion in exactly the same way marching into a small town in any other country to abduct someone is also an invasion.
It's also a clear act of war.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
by pursuing whistleblowers as spies instead of prosecuting the crimes exposed by the whistleblowers
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
Are you really that confused that local optima might be different than global optima in a complex system? The US might be more free than Ecuador overall while Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.
That's the kind of bizarre thinking my post is highlighting
It's not bizarre at all. It's completely obvious to anyone with a nuanced view of the world. The argument you're making here is identical in form to the argument that denies global warming because it's cold here today.
This is why we think you're being disingenuous. You're smart enough to know the difference between local and global optima. You're choosing not to recognize the difference in order to manipulate people. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job.
I suspect this is the equivalent of focus group research or polling for him. Slashdot is a relatively small, but somewhat representative group. By hanging around here, he gains insight into the opinions of quite a few people, and he can test the effectiveness of the propaganda.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Gee, and you typed out AAAAAAAALL of that first post within a single minute of the story being posted. This can't POSSIBLY be pre-written in what appears to be a successful attempt to direct the conversation.
Seriously, I'm not even reading this guy's full reply... the fact that it's obviously pre-prepared on a hot-button issue makes it akin to a politicians answer... irrelevant, biased, and made for the sole purpose of misleading. Why isn't there steps in place to avoid obvious things like this, where heavily biased instantly-posted replies guide the entirity of the responses to follow. Shit like this should be banned.
They're just visiting...with guns and armored assault vehicles.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
undoing mis-moderation
Military intelligence: often a contradiction in terminology.
You just quoted papers which agreed to publish the less embarrasing parts of the very same Wikileaks/US Govt reports Assange leaked, trying to show that website as a 'idle gossip' depot when in reality the things to be found are way more sinister. So yes, the news items you posted are really biased and not to be trusted. basically Correa might not be a kindred spirit, but how the central powers (and the western media) represent the state of free speech in Latin America in general is way too negatively biased to be reliable.
Sorry, not pre-prepared. I'm a slashdot subscriber, and I see stories early.
Who says hypocrits can't accuse others? Does Ecuador deserve a free ride for this reason? The US goverment did wage war against Iraq under a different administration. How long can you use this excuse to claim that the US is hypocritical?
Seriously? Think of this from sweden's point of view: The US has not requested him, but Sweden has no idea what the US will do in the future, and does have treaty obligations with the US. Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?
He offered to answer questions over the phone or videoconference, and was turned down. The Swedes have made it quite clear that they're demanding his physical presence.
Of course they do. Cops are like that also. Why? Because if they have him physically, they don't need to ask question, they are going to lock him up and throw him in jail. For the rape charge? No. They are using that as a pretext to get him in their possession.
This is what is going to happen:
1. They manage to get him back to Sweden, where we will find out if they are only going to question him, or if he'll end up being locked up and given to the U.S. Government.
2. He manages to stay out of Sweden, but still ends up dead. (Murdered of course).
3. He gets to go to the embassy, but then the UK really does pull diplomatic status away from the Embassy, which then starts a big protest by every other country that isn't a U.S. pawn about the sovereignty of Embassy's. Could lead to some UK, maybe even some US Embassy's being burnt down to the ground.
4. Sweden decides to drop the charges because win or lose, it's going to look really bad on Sweden.
Be seeing you...
IIRC..
if he goes to sweden for questioning, he's in sweden - from sweden he can be "asked" for _questioning_ to USA, without pressing charges, without having to show evidence, and we all know how long a single questioning can take on their beach resort in Cuba...
for him to be extradited from UK to USA he would need to be charged with something
The foreign office sent a letter pointing out they have a legal route to arresting Julian in the embassy. It's not quite the same as threatening to sent the paratroopers in.
Nope, it's called abusing your authority and quite possibly putting the world at risk because suddenly no one is safe in embassy's anymore. Shit, if the UK can decide to stop giving diplomatic status to a foreign embassy because they granted political asylum to someone, then no one will ever be safe in any embassy again.
Be seeing you...
Try and look at this from the other point of view, leaving emotions aside for a minute.
You have a man accused of committing sexual crimes in Sweden. Sweden wants that one man to return to the country for questioning, in the country where he's accused.
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money to send over a whole team of interviewers to an entirely different country, so they can then enter a third country's embassy to suit his desires. This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
"Alleged" criminal. As much as some may dislike him, and no matter what the charges (and at this point, people are disputing whether there are even valid charges), it's technically not correct to call him a criminal unless he's been given a fair trial and convicted.
We apply such rules to all those slimy banksters and CEOs when they get hauled up on charges -- the media always is very careful to say "alleged" with them, so why not Mr. Assange?
If Assange were to be extradited, I assume it would be via a proper legal mechanism.
Reminds me of that dialogue in The Outlaw Josey Wales:
[upon seeing his men massacred]
Fletcher: Senator, you promised me these men were to be properly treated!
Senator: Those men *were* properly treated. They were properly fed, and they were properly shot.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
"[conservatives] love America the way a four-year old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. Thatâ(TM)s why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good.â
- Al Franken"
Corruption comes in several flavors. Countries like China and certain Latin American nations have a kind of pervasive corruption, where it is somewhat expected that bureaucrats will ignore the law when convenient. It's likely that this arises from income disparity; if a land developer with millions to spend wishes to compete for loyalty with your employer and your $2 an hour salary, are you going to hold out for your ideals?
In the USA the standard of living is higher so e.g. the people going into the DMV aren't going to have a massive income disparity, and people value their integrity a bit more. However, if you don't think that the higher echelons of US politics are corrupt, then you are deaf, blind, and stupid. I am not aware of any national legislation that is not in some measure corrupt.
The assertion that the US is the 'best country out there' is false pretty much no matter how you look at it. The US is not the happiest or healthiest country in the world, nor do its citizens enjoy the highest standard of living (HDI), we're also not the richest (per capita GDP), the most conservative or liberal, etc. We are the most militarized country (cf corruption & m-i complex) in absolute terms, but not in % of GDP (Saudi Arabia). It's been a long time since the US was recognized as a moral leader on the world stage too. Our politicians might be the biggest assholes in the world, that should count for something.
Now, you can say that these are all statistics and don't mean anything, in which case I will say that unless you've lived in another country you have no basis for comparison. As for myself, my long-term goals include staying in the States and trying to fix some of these issues instead of pretending that everything here is perfect.
P.S. Do all countries have these 'love it or leave it' morons?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I'm replying here instead of to one of the many other responses to this post, many quibbling over definitions. IMHO the arguments surrounding the definition are all pointless and off-the-mark, and I'll throw my support behind girlintraining's position that the UK is wrong to do this. I also agree that it's not terrorism.
Let's try a different definition of terrorism, one used by an actual counter-terrorism organization (U.S. Army intel):
The threat or use of violence intended to influence parties other than the immediate victim.
It's short, easy to understand, and widely applicable. Threaten to kill hostages unless your friends are released from prison? Terrorism. Waging direct war against another sovereign nation's military? Not terrorism. Applying fines of US$1.5million to a single offender for file sharing, to "set an example for others"? Questionable, depending on your definition of "violence", but I'd count it (especially if the "others" are being allowed to settle for < US$10k). It doesn't matter who does it or why by this definition; if you're doing something to one person in order to make someone else do what you want, it's terrorism.
By that standard, the UK threatening the Ecuadorian government with severance of diplomatic ties is not terrorism, just application of an ungodly amount of political leverage. The Ecuadorian embassy and Assange himself are the immediate victims, and the UK is only attempting to influence their actions, not the actions of others. So, no, I don't think this is terrorism. It's simply unconscionable, disproportionate, and wrong.
Unfortunately, the point is moot because the real terrorist in this scenario would be the United States. For the sake of discussion only, let's assume that the U.S. does indeed intend to arrest, publicly humiliate, and then execute Assange for his role in Wikileaks; the Ecuadorean embassy believes this enough to grant asylum, after all. Why him, personally? Why not every member of his organization? Why single Assange out for selective and disproportionate punishment and largely ignore the rest of his staff? If the answer is "to serve as a warning to those who would expose secrets", then the United States is engaging in terrorism, and Ecuador is right to refuse to cooperate with the UK in enabling it.
Bravo Ecuador, indeed.
Travel the Galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms...
I wonder how idealistic and pure you'd be in his situation. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your (erstwhile) friend.
Britian still says that they are going to arrest him as soon as he steps out of the Ecuadorean Embassy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/censored-slashdot-post.htm
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
enjoy the new slashdot.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
All these are very good points, but I think what everyone is concerned about is this: why the hell is the UK threatening to revoke the diplomatic charter of the Ecuadorean embassy, just so that it can get to a bail jumper who is wanted for questioning on rape charges in Sweden? This is completely within the international legal framework, but also total and complete overkill. What's to stop the UK and Sweden from just rubber-stamping a US extradition request a "valid", based on the American assurance that Assange won't face the death penalty?
Yes, Sweden and the UK can't give the guarantees Assange was seeking. But again, why is the UK so gung-ho on getting a bail-jumper extradited? Why is Sweden so gung-ho to get a rape suspect to Sweden for questioning? Something's not adding up, and if I were Assange, I'd also look into alternatives to just heading to Sweden.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It is more clearly explained in this post:
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/censored-slashdot-post.htm
The general COINTELPRO / disinformation / "infowar" methods are detailed here:
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Enjoy a brand new slashdot, where everything must be taken with a pinch of salt (not just rants)
My tinfoil hat sometimes asks me why CmdrTaco really left - were they asking him to bend over far too much?
OTOH if you consider that he went to an even more mainstream place where he has to obey rich masters - so maybe he wants to fix a broken place.
It seems like the real issue here is that he may have been secretly indicted in the US for his part in leaking the cables, and that could lead to his being extradited and then standing trial for that crime. The rest of it is just bureaucratic mechanics / engineering to try and achieve the intended result (his trial in the US). The interesting question for me is: should he have to answer for his part in the conspiracy why or why not?
Sounds like you're the one who needs to let go of your emotions. A man, presumed innocent before the law, who wants to exhaust all legal options availble to him cannot objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you".
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money
It would take less tax payer money to send a couple of prosecutors over to London for a couple days than it has cost to secure his extradition.
This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
Such as? I'm having trouble imagining any legitimate issues. There will of course be FUD, but you can blame the Swedish authorities for that.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
OK, name one. All I'm seeing in your posts are appeals to emotion. What practical reason is there that Assange has to be in Sweden to answer questions? Name one, I dare you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We didn't even storm the Libyan embassy when they opened fire on a crowd and killed a British policewoman. We just allowed them to leave and be on their way. So these threats they're making to get at Assange are, quite frankly, hilarious.
"Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
Sweden is a member of the EU, South Africa is not. As a member of the EU UK is required to process any valid and properly filed European arrest warrant. >The UK cannot refuse to follow a European arrest warrant, they can however refuse to extradite somebody to any non-EU country. That's the difference, it has nothing to do with political double standards
I guess?
We had maybe a good couple of years. But nowadays, the movement has totally lost its direction. The principle, lest we forget, was that we should improve government by producing widespread public visibility to crimes and misdeeds, so as to aid the democratic process in enacting change. The Freedom of Information Acts, the free media, and whistleblowers all formed part of a tiered and distributed system that is therefore robust from bias and misuse of power in itself.
However, the movement has failed, and failed conclusively:
1. The focus has shifted fundamentally to the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals. In particular, Julian Assange. Assange running off to Ecuador might be good for him personally, but it fundamentally undermines his position as the leader of a transparency project, to be in a position where he is under the power of any single government, and one with problems of its own. By all rights, Assange should have retired his position long ago, but now the institution that Manning has built is now about *Assange's viewpoint*, and by extension of that, the Ecuador government's viewpoint. If Assange represents the wikileaks project, then his *goal* _should_ be to potentially martyr himself by allowing himself to be captured and brought to trial, because the publicity of such a trial (or simply being held incommunicado on such a charge) would further the goal of justifying the Wikileaks project to a public audience. If he couldn't stand such heat, then he should never have made himself such a figurehead.
2. The movement has broken off of the mainstream, and is openly hostile to the public. The whole purpose of information dispersal is its distribution and so the changing of minds. However, Wikileaks has, it seems, given up in this. Instead, its activities are dedicated to appeasing the already convinced. In which case, what's the point? Given the implausibility of any systematic change from the small fringe (albeit, over-represented online) of hard anti-Americans, the only plausible plan for victory in the information war was to convince the public of the usefulness of transparency, so as to create institutionalised transparency in the US government. But Wikileaks has become totally uninterested in this, instead being more interested in becoming a nuisance. What's the end goal here? Is there any long term vision that is not just a few hacktivists railing against a mainstream that is totally alienated from it? Anonymous can cause damage, for sure. They can deface some websites for a few hours. But they are never, ever going to change the face of the government.
3. The movement has misexploited their resources. Make no mistake - leaks are an exhaustible resource. Each leak makes the next one harder to obtain. Security gaps are closed, departments are purged of people with dangerous sympathies, more restrictive laws put in place. The end state is something like China - there are few leaks from China, because China is built securely, staffed by rigidly loyal people, and if you get on their bad side they will fucking kill you. The vision of a secure society China represents is, IMO, easily attainable for the US government, and increasingly desirable. The transparency people are not offering a contrary vision, but are creating an active impetus for such a move. The focus should be on creating this vision, but all people are doing are doing big leaks that are fundamentally mere entertainment, and entertainment that makes them seem reckless and callous.
4.. The movement has solidly rejected reality. There's several popular memes in the rape discussion that are just solidly, provably, legally untrue. 'Assange isn't accused of really, rape', for example. 'The Swedes didn't want him until he left Sweden'. 'It's easier to extradite Assange from Sweden than the UK'. 'The US made the Swedes pick the case back up against the girls' will'. Etc. Etc. There's then the infiltration by the MRAs, who always jump on to this discussion to interject what they think rape is, o
If you have a conflict of interest (which you clearly do), it should be disclosed.
It's ok, though -- you're not the only one working for the government or in a position of power that doesn't understand and/or recognize conflicts of interest when they arise.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Yes it is ironic.
US news media has become so unreliable that I trust them even less than RT and Al Jazeera.
It is part of your fault then. No one here know exactly what the hell Information Warfare Officers actually do, other than yourself.
People think information warfare includes propaganda and that's where the problem is.
"WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals"
I will decide for myself where I see Wikileaks, I don't need anyone to decide that for me.
Claiming to speak for openness and then specifying what someone should think is a bit contradictory. What openness can there be without an open mind ?
His answers are very likely to be biased. But so are everyone else's. So what you do, is point out the bias in the answers.
So, assuming Slashdot is so important to international diplomacy that the US government employs a shill to post here. You're suggesting that he might lie. Can you point to a single thing he posted in that comment that isn't either clearly an opinion or independently verifiable by an average person with internet access?
If he's lying, point out his lies. If he's biased, point out his bias. This makes no difference whatever his motivations are.
EU countries are not allowed to extradite someone to a country where they could potentially face the death penalty.
I don't know, but perhaps ORGANISING A HITMAN TO MURDER HIS WIFE would be punishable by death in South Africa?
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Wait, so you're claiming that in Sweden, if you're able to avoid a formal questioning, then the authorities are unable to charge you with a crime? If they haven't charged you with a crime, then they presumably can't legally obligate you to come anywhere for *anything*, so why would anyone ever agree to this "formal" questioning?
What if you're at the proper place for a "formal" questioning, but refuse to answer questions?
What constitutes "formal" questioning? Does it have to be in a courthouse? Just face-to-face? If so, why can't they do this questioning in the UK?
This line of reasoning raises so many questions that I have to assume that it's bullshit.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
They would not storm a foreign embassy, they would storm a house in london. Quite a big difference on the political scale.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?
First, he's not charged with rape, nor even CHARGED with anything... They're asking for a conversation about "continuing sex after a condom broke." In any other scenario (i.e. the U.S. wasn't out to get this guy) he would have been interviewed via phone and have had ticket mailed to him.
Second, I've never had a condom break in my entire life, let alone had two breaks with TWO CONSECUTIVE WOMEN. It is almost as if they were honeypots to trap Assange... Then we find out one of them has ties to the CIA, and both sent messages bragging about their exploits in star-fucking to all their friends... How is this rape? It isn't, and indeed, "not stopping when a condom breaks" isn't a crime in any other country on earth that I can name.
America's cock is so far down Britain's throat they're willing to damage any relationship, violate any state's sovereignty just to appease them.
Who did what now?
Man and woman meet, agreed to have sex for a certain amount of money. The act is now a commercial transaction,
and any deviation is merely a matter of the amount of money vs the performance. It is a civil matter. Legal under
Swedish law.
Reminds of a joke. "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars, cash?" "Yes," answers the woman. "OK, now that we
have established you are a prostitute, let's see how far down we can bring the price."
You seem to think that requesting exile in Ecuador is some sort of implicit endorsement, by Assange, of their freedom of the press.
I'm not sure where you get this idea. I see a guy scared for his life, escaping to somewhere he feels will be safe, and it has nothing to do with political motivations. The only consideration in play seems to be "will you let me stay here and not give me up to another country?" Ecuador said "yes".
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are?
The "Western" governments I value highly are not those who engage in secret (or not so secret) assassinations when they want someone "out of the picture".
There are governments who just make people disappear, put them in indefinite detention or just assassinate people with car bombs or poison - and then there are governments who respect their citizens (and foreign citizens as well!) rights and don't do those things. The former ones tend to be dictatorships and oppressive regimes, but indeed there are also few "Western" nations using those means. So I do not subscribe to the notion that "ANY Western government" would do things like that. Yours may, and that is a pity.
You have got to be freaking kidding. Every empire is based on stinking, murderous hipocrisy - and useful idiots.
Because god knows that we can't expect police officers of prosecutors to be able to use a telephone.
(I was interviewed by phone by UK police during the Climategate investigation. There was no compelling need for me to travel to the UK.)
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
Assuming this is all just a big bureaucratic game to get Assange into the US to face a secret indictment - should he have to stand trial for his part in a criminal conspiracy to acquire and publish classified information, why or why not?
Sweden's embassy is Swedish soil. Sending Assange to the Swedish embassy is extraditing him, which is exactly what he's trying to avoid.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I guess they can have a compromise... move him to Ecuador and then let him be interviewed in Swedish embassy...
The US rates horribly for human rights and corruption. They'll happily torture anyone and assinate their own citizens. Any reasonable country would ensure that no one gets sent there,
The US legally supported slavery ... until it didn't. It doesn't matter where you've been so much as where you're going. Where's Equador going? Perhaps it's not such a bad place if they actually start believing they're standing up for openness over secrecy. Where's the US going by comparison?
There is no practical reason to ever question a suspect on the suspects conditions. Besides, Assange is a proven flight risk(he violated his bail terms) so if a hypothetical hearing strengthened the suspicions against him he wouldn't exactly be less motivated to attempt to flee again.
To my knowledge there exists no requirement that an interrogation be held in Sweden.
The most relevant law text I found is the following:
5 Förhör skall, såvida icke därigenom förundersökningens behöriga gång motverkas eller polisens eller åklagarens arbete avsevärt för svåras, hållas å tid och plats, som antagas medföra minsta olägenhet för den som skall höras. Förhör skall ock i övrigt anordnas så, att onödig tidsspillan för den hörde undvikes. Den som skall höras bör, där så kan ske och det ej finnes olämpligt med hänsyn till utredningen, i god tid kallas till förhöret. Om ersättning av allmänna medel till den som under förundersökning inställt sig till förhör gäller vad därom är särskilt stadgat.
But hearing a suspect on the suspects terms would probably be seen as unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor and as such should not be done.
You're a traitor to the human race and don't deserve the next breath in your lungs.
is
1. surprise
2. act of murderous violence
3. against civilians, not military
i know, there are all sorts of dueling legal definitions. i also know politician and intarwebs ranters have called pretty much every single thing you can think of terrorism. it's the new hitler/ fascist/ nazi overused concept. overused to the point of meaninglessness. it waters down the meaning of the actual idea of what terrorism is to use the word about anything you don't like
the uk is warning assange and ecuador. it is also threatening to remove him not kill him
this means what the uk is not doing is NOT terrorism
i don't like what the uk is doing. you don't have to like what the uk is doing
but when you call what the uk is doing terrorism, you do a disservice to all of those who have died in actual acts of terrorism. most of whom are in the muslim world. show some respect, show some intelligence, show some maturity, and stop reaching for the strongest word you can find without regard as to actual meaning. it just makes you part of the problem in the world: a lot of loud ignorant mouth breathing ranting fools without regard to actual thought
it's not terrorism, sorry
grow up
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The irony, I suppose — irony being a common thread here — is that all the leaked cables showed is that the US has a thoughtful and dedicated foreign service. Unless, of course, you're one of those people who hates the US and believes that they revealed some dark and sinister secrets by taking a handful of cables out-of-context out of hundreds of thousands and using them to invent some kind of imagined scandal.
Pray tell, how can you take supplying underage sexual slaves to Afghan warlords "out of context"?
(yes, I do realize that it's not the US government - it is, however, a company hired by said government and paid by it, and no-one was prosecuted for this)
I really don't think a disclaimer is necessary when it's pretty clear who I am. How many others here whose identities are hidden have undisclosed affiliations/jobs/etc. which may influence their opinions?
Truth: Do you personally agree with all your employer's talking points?
Dare: If you don't, I dare you to publicly state which ones you don't agree with and why.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Through a combination of his inability to control his penis and lack of judgment Mr Assange has sentenced himself to a life in Ecuador. I think that probably qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment for a narcissist like him. It must have been a harsh awakening when he found out that the laws of both Sweden and the UK applied even to Internet celebrities.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
Well if the woman consents under the requirement that he wear a condom and and he does not(or intentionally breaks the condom etc.) then it was in fact not consensual according to Swedish law and the woman has the right to withhold consent at any point during the act.
Meanwhile, Roman Polanski, while still being considered as a fugitive by Interpol, can freely live in France, Poland and Switzerland. I'm sure Assange can achieve that kind of trick.
The Kremlin-backed Russian state media outlet RT is the one to air the interview between Correa and Assange. It is ironic, is it not?
It is ironic, but not in a way you intended it to be read. of course, RT is just a propaganda channel. But it's widely known that the best kind of propaganda is truth - when your opponent makes a genuine blunder, you milk it for everything it's worth. That's precisely what RT was doing. And it's rather unfortunate that it had to be RT, and not, say, one of the many American news channels.
How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are — explicitly or implicitly — thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
By being less free on some measures.
You seem to be conflating - either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know - the overall notion of "free state" with specific freedoms. Yes, Western countries are, on the whole, more free than Russia or Venezuela. It does not mean that there aren't certain areas where they are less free. For a simple example, Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, but not in Russia.
How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
Are you really that confused that local optima might be different than global optima in a complex system? The US might be more free than Ecuador overall while Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.
Look what Human Rights Watch say about Ecuador: http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador
Do you REALLY think Ecuador gives a rat's ass about Assange or Wikileaks? He is stupid enough to be a pawn in their game. They use Assange for political points and hope they can get away with it internationally. What do you think will happen when he has no news value at all? Will they continue to support him? Do Ecuador approve of his works? Are they interested in hosting Wikileaks?
But one thing you are right about, "[...]Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.". The key word is right now. He might have bought himself some time, but I, sure as hell, wouldn't bet on Ecuador to keep my ass safe for any amount of time.
Is that the best you've got?
Apparently it is. For much of Slashdot, no place on the planet is as bad as the USA when it comes to human rights. Apparently even North Korea is better.
There is no practical reason to ever question a suspect on the suspects conditions.
If it costs more to extradite someone than it does to fly over and ask some questions, then yes there is a practical reason.
To my knowledge there exists no requirement that an interrogation be held in Sweden.
Exactly. So we know this is not about securing an interrogation, but about taking Assange into Swedish custody.
But hearing a suspect on the suspects terms would probably be seen as unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor and as such should not be done.
The only thing unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor is their own insistance that Assange be in Swedish custody when they question him.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but failing to disclose being an operative for one of the parties will certainly impact others' opinion of your trustworthiness when that connection comes to light. It's fairly common for people involved to comment around here, but it is customary to throw a little Disclaimer at the end or beginning of the post so it won't look like you were trying to hide something when someone makes the connection.
The other posters found out where he works and what his job is because he links to it in his user info that is on the top of his post. He is not exactly hiding it.
Why should either Great Britain or Sweden (or the US, for that matter) give blanket immunity to Assange for all possible past, present and future actions? That's what Ecuador was asking for, and it's perfectly clear that such immunity is just not something that any country can provide.
You need to stop posting. Eventually people less knee jerk will correct the negative mods, but they can;t correct all of them. You can only hit -1 per post.
Just ride out these small angry people that will attach anything that is US
And, Assange cannot risk his life either. So, Ecuador's and his actions are perfectly understandable. The Swedes cannot claim that this is only about "a few questions" concerning a rape charge.
That fact of the matter is that the Swedes dropped the charges and let him slip out of the country before the US was wise enough to send them an extradition order. So, the Swedes now want him back on reinstated charges so they can do it properly this time.
If Assange were to go to Sweden, the Swedes will do a Q&A, dismiss the case and let him go. As soon as he steps out, they would pull out an extradition request from the USA received hours earlier and hand him over.
It boils down to this: If you believe that Assange has done nothing wrong to merit a future extradition to the US, then you will agree that going to Sweden makes no sense without a guarantee. This is what Ecuador believes. On the other hand, if you even remotely believe that Assange's Wikileaks activities COULD be a reason to allow extradition to the US. then just say so. Citing technicalities in the law is just an excuse to steer the course of events as per that belief i.e. to somehow make possible the option of handing Assange to the US for whatever US crimes you think he committed.
Everyone is biassed. Most of the anti comments here are incredibly biassed. At least you know where his leanings are, and he is neither covering them up or pretending they don't exist. That makes him more honest than the majority of the OMGTEHGUBERMINT teenagers here.
Now get off my lawn!
this is false. there is existing precedent that he could be questioned at the Swedish embassy, Sweden has declined to do so, most likely because it would be difficult to hand him over to the CIA from there to be shipped to a turkish prison and tortured to death.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Its a troll because it comes from the MO and mindset of ignoring and even promoting the West's press transgressions, where the bad intentions come mainly from capital and the officeholders say, "how high?"
Less advanced countries have to do without the "freedom" that corporate plutocracy provides. Then again, maybe it isn't so much freedom as it is cover.
You are right
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/
The Ecuadorans, and Assange's lawyer, have offered the Swedish prosecutors the opportunity to interview Assange inside of the Ecuadoran embassy. The Swedish turned down the offer, despite the fact that they have used this method to interview possible criminals in other cases (a Serb murderer, IIRC).
Odd that, it's almost like they don't actually care about the 'rape' allegations and just want to get him to Sweden... which is what Assange has been worrying about the entire time.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
South Africa doesn't have the death penalty, and hasn't since the end of Apartheid. Your argument is invalid.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
. given past UK police operations, it would likely be 2 unarmed, uniformed PCs in stab vests entering through the front door and asking Assange to come with them
Given past UK police operations this will be a 4am raid by armed police in which an innocent foreign national will be executed in front of a curiously malfunctioning security camera by someone clearly in fear of his life due to the danger posed by the unarmed, naked, blind, sleeping man.
According to his employers' records, he made USA $75,080 in calander year 2010.
Schroeder, David A IS Tech Srv Spec Madison Information Technology Systems Engineering And Operations Systems Engineering $75,080
In 1998 , in Ecuador, we had a huge economic crisis caused by many factors, one of them were the bankers that played with everyones savings, it is funny that most of them fled the US and some other countries. Their banks went bankrupt and they fled with our money. They lost millions of other people savings but somehow they landed on their feet with more money. Many middle eastern dictators have properties in the UK, also fomer dictators have had assylum in the UK, France and other european countries. If not look for Jean Paul Duvalier. These are terrible men, men that played with peoples savings and life, killers, war criminals. But because they have money the are welcomed in these countries. Just pure hipocrecy. I am hoping for a united front from the UNASUR in case of any problem with the UK, the OEA is joke. Because quite frankly we, as Ecuador, can do shit. The most we can do is complain against the UN. In the UN the US and the UK can veto any proposal. Maybe go to geneva. Expell the british embassador from Ecuador. Meanwhile the Economic disadvantages for the UK probably are going to suffer in 0.00000001% against for what could happend to Ecuador. I dont know how much we trade with the UK, but probably we can suffer more.
How on earth could his personal opinion not color the choice of articles he posted?
What he quoted was specific sections of the articles, which makes the sections he posted (or neglected) up to him. He didn't mention that Ecuador are the only ones who even offered asylum in the first place, which makes Assange's arrangement with them one of necessity, rather than choice, and thus renders his entire smear inaccurate.
I might have some sympathy for your argument if he'd just posted the links, and/or showed more scope than just the "bad people Dr. Evil-Wikileaks associates with" sections of articles, but he didn't.
The truth is this: It is fairly obvious that there is at least some political pressure being applied, or Assange never would have made it onto the Interpol list. The fact that Pinochet wasn't extradited from the UK to Spain for crimes against humanity, while Assange is being extradited from the UK to Sweden for cheating on a girlfriend and having sex after a condom broke, makes it seem that there are some pretty heavy double standards being thrown around. If people who favour autocratic governments don't like Assange, they will seize on anything they can to smear him, even if irrelevant. It's pretty much equal with "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
1) you get first post with a post with links to various articles indicating that it's in all likelihood pre-prepared, post what with all of the anti-Ecuador links, true though they may be. Notwithstanding your subscriber status, it's smells too canned to have been done in the moment. ...spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate the enemy and the public...
2) Your professional line of work is in information warfare, and you work for a party with vested interest in this topic, the US government. Ethics dictate that when sharing your opinion on such a matter that full disclosure of that fact is in order, otherwise you risk your own personal integrity. Furthermore, as a commissioned officer you are always a representative to the command of the US Navy, whether you are on duty or otherwise. Perhaps if you're not operating on the wishes of your employer, it would be better to adhere to the Navy's code of ethics: DO Place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles above private gain. DO Act impartially to all groups, persons, and organizations; and stay your personal opinion from the discussion because there is no way it can not be biased.
3) The job description of information warfare is partly:
The totality of circumstances test and Occam's razor would indicate that you are here on business. That this relevant information is on your homepage which is found a link on your profile and that your assertion that you don't take steps to hide your identity (as far as we know, that is) is tangential to the idea that you work in information warfare for the US Navy / USG, but you didn't actively disclose that fact in the first post in a thread relevant to your USG interests, relevant to your occupational and operational expertise. If you cannot see that this is a flagrant conflict of interest, it really says a lot about the types of people our Navy makes into officers.
Whether or not you're being encouraged or paid by the USG to come over here and astroturf on this particular topic, not disclosing pertinent facts does make you a big fat stinking shill, and by association, an apologist; and people are right to call you on it. You sir remind me of scientology, in their feeble attempts to manipulate crowd psychology. Shame on you.
Really they removed it, but I swear to god that in the NYT article there was a part of Assange abusing a cat and not flushing the toilet when he took a dump... .
Is that an American media thing that those things are newsworthy ? Damn those are some weird standards.
Ok, I can accept that, SA can be a bit scary to the colonialists. What about the Pinochet trial though? Surely crimes against humanity are worse than bad sexual conduct? If Pinochet didn't get extradited, how on earth could Assange be extradited?
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
umm... Grenada?
"This is the captain speaking. We have some mechanical problems and will make a short stop at the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona on our way to Quito, Ecuador."
Wait, what? If you are referring to Assange, what crime has he been convicted of? Hell, what crime has he even been charged with?
To me, it appears that the Ecuador embassy is harboring a political refugee -- a person who is being persecuted by the UK government when he hasn't been even charged with a crime, either in the UK or even in Sweden.
Ummm... South America?
For what little it's worth at this point in a trainwreck of a thread, thanks for your service, and your participation. Rational people can disagree on policy objectives, and regardless of the flak that's been thrown your way today, thanks for keeping the discourse professional.
if you defended Assange, you'd be out of a job.
By that you are being paid for not having the opinion that he's trying to dodge gitmo any way he can, regardless of how you came to have that opinion.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
He's amusing, isn't he?
He's a notorious political troll, going back a few years.
Having argued with him before, I can tell you, watching someone dig up that propaganda is actually his day job is priceless.
Suprise factor: 0.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
And whose expense report does that go on? LOL
I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not paid or compelled or compensated by anyone in any way to post on slashdot.
Of course not. However, if you were and you openly admitted to it on a forum with more than 2 1/2 million members, would you risk being fired (or worse) if your superior officer in the "information warfare" US Propaganda division of the Navy found out about it? Surely you don't expect any even remotely intelligent person to believe you.
As far as any free speech issues that Ecuador may have I would guess that Assange would prefer to simply avoid criticizing certain Ecuadorian officials and otherwise live a relatively free and happy existence in Ecuador than spend the rest of his life in an animal cage in Guantanamo Bay being tortured by sadistic sociopaths on a daily basis.
While I haven't lived in Ecuador, I have lived in neighboring Colombia and in general I believe it feels more free on a daily basis than does the US. As a former expat my experience has been that most countries do. Including Cuba, Vietnam, and most definitely Laos. This is something that Americans are in serious denial over. On a daily basis, the US most certainly doesn't feel free compared to most countries.
Although raising issues about Ecuador not being some kind of Libertarian Utopia is a good strategy from a propaganda POV, if only to distract the world from the UK government disrespecting at least the spirit of international law if not the letter and doing an impressive imitation of North Korea, it is actually somewhat off topic. In this particular case Ecuador is acting like a defender of human rights and they should be commended for standing up for such lofty principles even in the face of implied threats of violence against Ecuadorian citizens.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Mod +1 Run & tell that, homeboy.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
What's funny is, America has nothing to do with this. At all. "Actively persecuted"? How? Where is the evidence of American machinations against Assange? (Evidence! not "Speculation" and "wild guesses")
You know, since you're so intent on "innocent until proven guilty," if all you can offer as "proof" is to smear by insinuation, then you're just as bad as you claim the American govt is being.
There is no chain of logic which makes it easier for Sweden to hand him over to the US (with the UK's approval, required under EAW regulations) than it would be for the UK to hand him over directly on an extradition request from the US. The ONLY conceivable scenario where that happens is if Sweden decides to unilaterally disregard every EU obligation it has in a sycophantic attempt to please the US, all with NO benefit or gain for Sweden in return. In short - they'd torpedo their own standing with the EU and the rest of the world... and receive nothing in return for their troubles.
But yes, the people looking at this with a cool head - they're obviously the CRAZY ones, while the idiots like you inventing convoluted conspiracy theories have some mystical insight that is denied to normal logical people.
So what if it is ironic, who gives a shit?
Nah, he's not a spook. He's just a wannabe. He's a lazy right winger who doesn't mind bilking his state-funded desk job to troll for jesus on the internets.
That and, back up there in the armed forces they teach you that Manning and his crew deserve to be shot for their crimes. So there is probably just a little bit of Go Team Go added in.
Even in this thread, there has been multiple links to citations showing that Sweden has done the questioning in other countries before....
If someone from wikileaks posted a defense of Assange here, neither you nor anyone else would accuse them of being a shill; they would be praised, modded up, thanked, etc..
Wikileaks isn't exactly an organization that has tons of money to hire shills to post favorable opinions all over the internet for them.
The US government, however, is.
So while the "shill" accusation may or may not have any veracity, it's perfectly understandable why no one ever accuses people of this who post positive opinions of poorly-funded underdogs.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_manning#Complaints_about_detention.2C_move_to_another_jail
Calling it "torture" abuses the word "torture". This is like calling a verbal sexual harassment ("nice legs!") as "rape".
It is simply dishonest.
Sources?
No yellow press (Huffington included) please. I want Reuters, AP, or something equally or more trustworthy.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3052779&cid=41016389
While I may depise what the US/UK/Sweden are doing here, it's a stretch to say Ecuador is doing the right thing. If they're doing the right thing, but it's for the wrong reason, is it really the right thing?
It's the exact same thing as with South Africa. Chile is not a part of the EU, Sweden is and that is why. You are trying to argue that apples and cars is the same thing, well they're not.
The UK has no choice, the Swedish justice system filed a valid European Arrest Warrant, the UK is required by EU treaties to enforce and obey those.
With Chile or any other non-EU country the UK government can do whatever they want, they can choose to sign an extradition treaty to regulate such things or they can choose not to or anything in between.
"Dig up"? It's on my public web site...linked from every post on slashdot...posted from a profile with my real name...and has been the case for literally years.
"Dig up"? Are you actually being serious?
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but "propaganda" is not my day job, night job, or any job. Furthermore, my posts and opinions here and elsewhere are my own.
I'm curious though: can you point to anything inaccurate in my post? (I'm guessing you won't respond...which is fine, but just thought I'd put it out there.)
Ah Dave welcome to Slashdot, where you will be marked "-1, Troll" for simple disagreement.
Yet again, Assange is a proven flight risk, the Swedish justice system has nothing to gain by meeting him on his terms.
Swedish law prohibits extraditing a person to a country where they might face torture or the death penalty.
Swedish law also prohibits extradition when the person would face a special court such as military tribunal and also prohibits extradition of someone who would face a regular military court(such as for example deserters etc. regardless of penalty)
Also somone under investigation or serving a punishment in Sweden may not be extradited until they have served their term or all charges have been dropped and should the prosecutor drop the case Assange would most likely be returned to the UK
So only if the US pledges to try him in the regular court system and not use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him and if the court also pledges not to sentence him to death might he be extradited to the United States.
That's a red herring, but one possible answer is immediately obvious: because Ecuardor is offering him freedom whereas Sweden and the US are less than forthcoming about his prospects.
Free also means a lot of different things. But as a measure of incarceration the U.S. has 730 people incerated per 100,000; wheras Ecuador has 86. That's a sizable difference - List of countries by incarceration rate.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
He is a US Information Warfare Officer seemingly trying to sway public opinion on a story about someone who is deemed a threat by the US government. This would be a good time for such a disclaimer due to the possible conflict of interest
From Wikipedia:
"Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[1] the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare."
Yes the authorities can't charge you with a crime in your absence but they do ahve the option to bring somone in by force should they be reluctant to appear of their own free will and if the authorities can't get a hold of the person they will arrest him in his absence and put the trial on ice until such a time as the person is arrested and brought before the court.
A formal questioning can be by a court, a prosecutor or an appointed lead interrogator(must be a police officer) and no it doesn't have to be face to face but the government has nothing to gain by interrogating Assange on his terms so why should they accept his terms?
IANAL
Assange is a proven flight risk
He can't flee while he's in the Ecuadorean embassy. He can answer questions though.
the Swedish justice system has nothing to gain by meeting him on his terms.
Nothing to gain, except answers to the questions they claim they want answered.
So only if the US pledges to try him in the regular court system and not use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him and if the court also pledges not to sentence him to death might he be extradited to the United States.
Exactly, so all the US has to do to get Assange once he's in Swedish custody is lie.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hi Dave. Just like old times, eh? Still trolling away I see. I notice you haven't said anything the parent post didn't already thoroughly address, but then, you always did prefer debater's tricks or sheer repetition to arguing in good faith - which is why this isn't an argument, really, is it?
Fair point on "dug up" - I certainly wasn't ever going to click on your homepage, and I haven't been following your posts - I just hadn't seen anyone else mention it before now. I'm richly amused that you're getting your back up about it. I hope you can forgive Slashdot, since your public website that you link to from every post makes you a self-described Information Warfare Officer, and when one looks up what that is, oh, say, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare
Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[1] the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.[emph added]
Oh don't get me wrong, I couldn't articulate some elaborate conspiracy for you. I just think you're hilarious, whatever the reason. You're like a slaughterhouse employee who can't believe the ad hominem attacks against his person while trolling vegans on the ASPCA forums.
Now, back to blocking you. :)
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Try and look at this from the other point of view, leaving emotions aside for a minute.
You have a man accused of committing sexual crimes in Sweden. Sweden wants that one man to return to the country for questioning, in the country where he's accused.
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money to send over a whole team of interviewers to an entirely different country, so they can then enter a third country's embassy to suit his desires. This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
So... to avoid a situation that "will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money", we now have him holed up in an embassy of a country that's granting him asylum, with the host country threatening to revoke diplomatic privileges in what may or may not be a treaty violation with far reaching implications on the sovereignty of embassies worldwide. While their lawyers figure out whether that's legal, the police are surrounding the building to make sure he doesn't get out and to keep the protesters at bay. Until they figure out an answer, diplomats on all sides are rattling their sabers vying for the upper hand. Meanwhile there's talk of whether it's legal to smuggle him out in a diplomatic bag as a way of crossing the British sidewalk that stands between the foreign soil of the embassy and its sovereign embassy car. All this coming after months of legal proceedings and requests between countries.
If Sweden's goal in not questioning him abroad was to avoid complication and expense, it seems like they failed miserably.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
I'm all for having him interviewed and charged if there were crimes committed, but surely provoking an international incident isn't the most effective way to do that.
I guess you're not a political opponent to the president of Ecuador, or an investigating journalist in the same country, my friend.
So, if the embassy says, "No, the UK police are not allowed to come in an arrest Assange," what will happen then? I guess then the UK government would "take action" by ignoring the embassy's refusal, kind of like how they want to "take action" to ignore political asylum. "Storm" is a commonly understood term for what the police do when they want to arrest someone who is hiding in a building and not cooperating with the police demands to come outside, which is what we see here.
Or we could just play games with words. Kind of like how the US war in Iraq ended in 2003.
Palm trees and 8
The focus has shifted fundamentally to the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals. In particular, Julian Assange.
Are you blind? Look at this entire thread and the news reports from the last couple days. The only ones having their intentions questioned are the states that are threatening Assange with imprisonment.
And 'martyr'? That doesn't work in the West. Have you seen Tim DeChristopher in the news or even in blogs much lately? No? Didn't think so...
You do have a couple good points, but you're being hysterical in your overall thrust.
What are the US governments' rules regarding employees posting anything that might be construed as in conflict with their aims?
BM3
Some of us don't disclose our identity because we want to stick to the facts and have little attachment to our own personal backgrounds. Of course they do surface on occasion. We are made of the sum of our personal experiences.
To me this was an obvious trap. The fact that the UK government was willing to take such extreme measures just adds more credibility to what a lot of us already suspected. They are going out of their way to arrest a citizen of the Commonwealth for questioning on something committed in Sweden on dubious charges. There are plenty of people living in the UK presently shielded from extradition to countries in the EU connected to much more serious crimes than this including suspected murder.
Slashdot? Representative? Of WHAT?! Sure as hell not representative of the general population. There are more women here than is generally visible, since most tend to post incognito, but I guarantee the ratio of women to men doesn't reflect the general population. 52% female we ain't. Our interests are substantially skewed off of the general public as well. I'm sure there are closet "reality" TV watchers reading Slashdot, but the general disdain for them is pervasive around here. Yet the general public watches them avidly. I could go on. Those are just the two least-controversial differences I can think of between the Slashdot demographic and the rest of the world.
That doesn't make your hypothesis wrong. He could very well be here trying to test the effectiveness of his propaganda. I'm not sure why he would bother, though. The Slashdot moderation system is unique in the world, despite the code being open source. Nearly all the world runs on phpBB and its close kin, where information warfare is much more effective. Here, his post has been modded into oblivion, and I can't be arsed to move the slider to find out what he said. I'm sure most readers won't. That makes him effectively useless.
No I am not. I am not an illegal file sharer either, fortunately, or I would be in process of being extradited to US too. ;).
Pretty much the same thing applies in the UK tho except that they seem to be much more extradition friendly.
Sure they can lie and cause a major diplomatic incident with the entire EU, I don't think the US would want that they disliked enough as it is already.
Besides the Swedish government would have to approve an extradition which I doubt they would with all the publicity there is around Assange.
They have no reason to believe Assange would tell the truth in any interrogation and since it's on his terms they have no way of pressuring him, simply they have nothing to gain by an interrogation on his terms.
Here, I'll help:
- I excerpted 3 articles, without commentary, about Ecuador's atrocious record on human rights, free speech, and free press, from the Guardian, the BBC, and the New York Times, and implicitly reflected on the irony of someone who claims to be a champion of free speech and press freedom seeking asylum from a nation with a terrible record on both.
- I noted preemptively that the UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy, but that the UK can in fact revoke its diplomatic status, though that would have serious consequences, and linked another Guardian piece describing the situation in detail.
- I then offered my own opinion -- which is clearly my opinion -- and closed with a quote from one of the premier campaigners against government secrecy calling WikiLeaks an enemy of open society because it does not honor the rule of law nor respect individual rights.
So, please: tell me how that post should be -1, other than it doesn't conform to slashdot groupthink which views Assange as some kind of a hero, and states like Ecuador, Venezuela, and Russia as more open and trustworthy than Western democracies like the US, UK, and Sweden.
would it not be possible to have a helicopter pick him up, as well as the ambassador of Ecuador? I mean come on do you think the UK will him shoot the helicopter down ---- hell no, especially on a defenseless helicopter - i think that might constitute an act of war, and just have the helicopter go to an Ecuadorian navy ship, with some big guns in international water... Sound simple I can not see why it can not be done.
Just cause you shout "I like spinach!" and a bunch of people shout "Yeah? Well I don't!" doesn't mean the group consensus is that spinach is the worst food in the world. Did you ever hear about something called a persecution complex?
He exhausted all his legal options in the UK, he is now a fleeing criminal(running from bail is a crime) so yes he can objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you"
How about this for a practical reason. Obviously nothing he says can be trusted(he promised not to run when someone posted bail for him), the interrogators have no possibility to pressure him if the interrogations take place at his pleasure at the Ecuadorian embassy.
Also as long as he is not under Swedish control, or under arrest in the UK any interrogation that might strengthen the suspicions against him would only make him likelier to try to run to the next embassy.
Better to have the UK send Ecuador a sharply worded letter that he is not an ambassador and request that he be asked to leave the embassy, should they refuse or try to give him diplomatic immunity the UK can always refuse it. And even if that doesn't work Ecuador will probably grow tired of him leeching off them once the publicity quiets down and then he will kindly asked to leave.
As stated before, Ecuador isn't known for it's strong stance on human rights and freedom of the press etc. and there is no reason to believe they hav started, they are just doing this for the publicity and perhaps a chance to give the US the finger.
such as?
Hint: this community was previously called Cryptology Officers.
And the cavalry units used to ride horses. Not so much now.
you're posting on it
Dave Schroeder is FAMOUS in the Mac/Education admin community and has been for years, he's here because he's a geek like the rest of us.
!!Disclaimer: My Navy Reserve contract expires in 2 days so I must also be currently a paid, propaganda pumping, biased, "shameless" shill. You people are fucking ridiculous.
The irony, I suppose - irony being a common thread her
The most ironic thing is anyone trying to claim that the US has the moral high ground over Ecuador (or almost any other nation on the planet) when it comes to respecting other nations or individuals rights or the rule of law.
Because interrogating a suspect over telephone/video accomplishes nothing. Sure interviewing a witness that way is fine.
Obviously nothing he says can be trusted and as long as he isn't in custody the interrogators have no way of putting pressure on him.
I doubt Sweden will drop the charges, it's too late for that now, what will happen is either: 1. He voluntarily goes to Sweden.
2. Ecuador tries to smuggle him out of the country and he gets apprehended at the airport because at some point or another he's gonna be out of a diplomatic vehicle, besides, the police can .
3. He sits in the Ecuadorian embassy until the statute of limitations run out(about 10 years I think)
a) Deceased mother, deceased because she sacrificed her life to get her son out of that regime's control
Irrelevant. After the mother's tragic end, Elian's father had/has all paternity rights over the child. Elian's father demanded the child to be returned to his custody, which was his right. At no point did Elian's father gave away custody. Au contraire, he pretty much made it clear he wanted the kid back.
I'm not saying that Elian's mother's death was inconsequential. I sympathize with her because I myself escaped from a Communist regime (Nicaragua in this case). But once her fate was tragically sealed, custody goes to the father.
The father's custody rights are not subject to his political affiliations. And that's what makes America great compared to the Cuban or old Nicaraguan governments. If you want to make parental rights subject to political affiliations, get the hell out of the USA (or any democratic country for that matter) and move to Cuba, Iran or wherever.
b) Custody battle doesn't need M16's pointed at children's heads.
First of all, in this case it did. There were people who very publicly said they were going to shoot people up before giving the kid back to his rightful father. I lived in Miami. I was there. We all saw it, and we all heard it. Let's not pretend it did not happen. The moment someone makes realistic violent claims, law officers have a right and obligation to use weapons if necessary. You don't want cops showing up with M16s, then don't make threats of violence. That's how civilized countries operate.
Secondly, it wasn't a custody battle because there was no custody case. One parent dies. The other parent is alive. Living parent has custody. End of the story.
c) Elian was NEVER in danger with the relatives he was with.
Non sequitur. For starters no one ever made that claim. Secondly, it doesn't fucking matter. Those relatives did not have more right over the child than his father. These relatives violated the father's rights over the child. Children belong with their parents. Period. How much more fucking obtuse can you people get?
Because to certain people Julian Assange is Jesus reincarnated and is incapable over ever doing anything wrong.
Indeed the situation is ironic. The US, the UK, and Sweden have successfully reduced their credibility BELOW that of a nation with documented human rights abuses. That's pretty sad.
The UK said, effectively, "we can walk in and take him if we want." Whether or not the process of doing that could be characterized as "storming the embassy" depends entirely on how many weapons and jackbooted thugs are involved in that process. Using the phrase before said thugs have appeared certainly qualified as hyperbole. Since it's no longer possible to have a political discussion anywhere in the world without hyperbole, I discounted the phrase. The meaning of the UK government was clear and the phrase is relevant, even if its connotations are excessive.
You are welcome to your opinion. It is contrary to the opinion of the majority. This is not groupthink, and your use of the word is intentionally pejorative. "Consensus" is the word you are looking for. Your post deserves -1 because your opinions and posts range from intentionally obtuse to obviously false to blatantly anti-freedom. You are an autocrat who advocates secret indictments, secret trials, secret courts, and the rule of a state over all things and in all ways, with no possibility of error or adjustment. This makes you 1) Unamerican; 2) Dangerous to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 3) Worthy of -1.
I can't speak to the UK or Sweden, but the US can no longer lay claim to being a democracy. Not even a representative democracy. SOPA/PIPA are the most explicit proof of that. The bills were proposed in Congress. The Congressional switchboard was jammed, for an entire day. The outpouring of negative feedback from the populace at large was probably the greatest it has been for any specific bill presented in the past decade. Six months later, provisions of those bills are now back in new bills before Congress, in direct and explicit contradiction to the will of the people. Nor can that will be characterized as the tyranny of the majority. The bills remove rights and freedoms from the majority in favor of a tiny monied minority. The bills are the very definition of the tyranny of the minority, and Congress is not in any way behaving in a democratic fashion. I leave aside the policies of torture, Guantanamo Bay, secret torture facilities run by the CIA in Eastern Europe, and assorted other atrocities and unamerican habits the US government indulges in.
There are reasons why such countries as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Russia are mentioned on an equal footing with the US. The US has declined. Severely. It's now publicly visible for the whole world to see just how far that decline has proceeded. And now that it has been demonstrated that the autocrats in power can and will proceed to take away further freedom, against the will of the people, and for the sole purpose of making money for a tiny minority, it's reasonable to say the Grand Experiment has failed. The shining beacon of freedom the US once was is so badly tarnished that an oppressive little once-and-future dictatorship can make the US look bad, and it has been explicitly demonstrated the system can not be corrected by peaceful protest.
I weep for what was and I blame you and your kind for its loss.
AFAIK it was a Spanish judge who wanted to extradite Pinochet for ordering the murder of Spanish citizens in Chile. Spain is an EU country.
Revoking diplomatic immunity is not an act of war or Sweden and in the extension the EU(because all member states are required to protect each others) and NATO(because there are NATO members in the EU, see the aforementioned as to why they would be required to intervene) would currently be at war with Belarus.
Assaulting an ambassador would be an act of war, revoking an embassy is not because an embassy is still part of the host nation, the host nation just cedes certain rights upon that territory for the duration of the diplomatic mission. So as long as the UK does not bring any harm to the Ecuadorian ambassador or any other staff with diplomatic immunity no act of war has been committed.
Someone who puts forth a point-of-view you disagree with is a "scandal"?
If that "someone" happens to NOT to be a INFORMATION WARFARE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY , then there is no big problem
However, in your case, sorry, bucko, you're not a "somebody", you are a fucking shameless shrill working for Uncle Sam
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious.
You can't be more wrong !
The guy has already clearly stated, on his own page @http://das.doit.wisc.edu/ that he is an "Information Warfare Office of the United States Navy", and the comments that he posted on Slashdot were from the account of http://slashdot.org/~daveschroeder - which carries a link to http://das.doit.wisc.edu/
If he is not here on official duty, he do not need to use this account to post
The fact that he uses this account tells us that he is posting here in the capacity of an "Information Warfare Officer of the United States Navy"
In conclusion: This "Mr. Dave Schroeder" commented here because he is getting paid by Uncle Sam
Or
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I hate to disappoint you, but I'm not paid or compelled or compensated by anyone in any way to post on slashdot.
You think anyone in Slashdot are foolish enough to believe in your lies?
We have been in this for a long, long time, and the "We", I mean, the long-timers, and we have met with trolls that are 1000 times more cunning than you can ever be
Please do all of us a big favor, stop wasting precious Slashdot real estate with your astroturfs
Thank you !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
That would be an act of war, the UK is well within their right to revoke the extraterritorial status of the Ecuadorian embassy, they are still not permitted to cause harm to the Ecuadorian ambassador or any other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity. But should the Ecuadorian guards use force to prevent the UK police from entering that is essentially the same as an armed invasion of the UK(albeit a very small one).
Further more Assange does not qualify as a refugee on the grounds laid down in the Geneva convention or the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. And as such Assange has no universal right to asylum thus the UK is not required to respect the Asylum granted him by Ecuador.
No it is not, intentionally bringing harm to an ambassador or other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity would be, merely revoking the extraterritorial status of an embassy is not or Sweden and by extension the entire EU would currently be at war with Belarus.
A man, presumed innocent before the law, who wants to exhaust all legal options availble to him cannot objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you".
I think the whole point of this is he has exhausted all legal options. The news stories say exactly that. That's why he ran to seek asylum from Ecuador.
It would take less tax payer money to send a couple of prosecutors over to London for a couple days than it has cost to secure his extradition.
Probably. Unfortunately, they couldn't have known he'd be this reluctant when they started the procedure. This is Assange's doing.
I'm having trouble imagining any legitimate issues. (Discussing logistical and legal and territorial questions arising from Sweden interviewing Assange in the U.K. in an Ecuadorian territory.)
What if they decide to arrest him? Who has jurisdiction? Ecuador, right? Can Swedish authorities arrest an Australian in the middle of the U.K. on Ecuador territory? Who's responsible for his safe passage?
What if Assange gets attacked by an angry anti-Wikileaks German tourist with a knife while being escorted through the embassy? Now who has jurisdiction? Who's responsible for his medical aid?
What if a British protester takes an American citizen hostage and threatens to detonate a bomb in the Ecuadorian embassy unless the Swedes release Assange to the custody of the Australian embassy? Now who's responsible?
I could go on. Yes, I'm being a bit silly, but hopefully you're getting the point. These are things to consider. Not trivialities of law.
I honestly do not consider I'm making appeals to emotions and nothing else. I believe I gave a number of practical reasons for why Assange should be in Sweden to answer questions. Jurisdiction, saving tax payers' money (which would've been the effect if Assange hadn't decided to string this out as much as humanly possible), making it easier to take depositions from all parties, contacting witnesses or other persons if Assange wished, etc.
Try asking a lawyer or a paralegal if they can see any practical reasons here, and preferably one versed in issues of sovereignty. This isn't trivial.
Australia is a lame duck.
We completely fail to protect our citizens overseas. Here are two other examples:
David Hicks was interned in Guantannomo Bay - Australian government did nothing to assist him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
The "Bali Nine" were Australians trafficking drugs betwen Indonesia and Australia. The Australian police "tipped off" the Indonesian police, leading to the arrest and *possible execution* of the people involved. This caused massive concerns because we don't have the death penalty in Australia. Appropriate behavior for the Australian police would have been to arrest them on their arrival in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali_Nine
Did I mention that Australia is a lame duck of a country? ...I'm not very proud to be Australian, and every time I see a rapid flag waving southern-cross-tattoo sporting "Aussie Aussie Aussie" yelling fool of an individual, I cringe inside...
PS: Sorry for not running spell check on "Guantanamo"
Swedish law does not permit extraditing someone to a country where they may fay torture or the death penalty so no the only way Assange would become a victim of the US torture machine would be if he was caught by the US someplace else(someplace like for example Ecuador?)
If the US wanted Assange extradited from Sweden to stand trial they would have to offer significant guarantees that he would not be tortured or risk facing a possible death penalty, on this Swedish law is crystal clear.
IANAL
You mentioned this:
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/censored-slashdot-post.htm
The general COINTELPRO / disinformation / "infowar" methods are detailed here:
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Well, as a long time visitor to Slashdot I can tell you that yes, Slashdot _does_ carry out censorship, but on the point that you posted, there have been a lot of activities from "AC", and they have spammed many Slashdot threads with this "cointelpro" message
I do not need any tinfoil hat to discern what is truth and what is not
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Ah yes you are correct my bad. Well that event cause some pretty heavy complaints and an appeal to the European High Court of Justice I think. That case was complicated by physicians announcing Pinochet suffering from some limited dementia which made him ineligible to stand trial for his crimes and at the times those crimes where committed I think the UK had an absolute immunity law concerning heads of state etc furthermore complicating things. Another factor complicating it was that Spain was bringing the case against Pinochet on behalf of Spanish citizens however those citizens where Chilean refugees granted asylum I think. So the case was not as clear cut as some may make it out to be.
Sweden wants to question him...and that needs to take place in Sweden legally.
Citation please. Preferably from the actual section of the Swedish legal code that compels this.
It is called Arraignment,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arraignment
Happens after arrest and before a trial. Since the arrest warrant has already been issued, arraignment (where the formal accusation is made) is the next step. This isn't an investigation anymore. It has moved into criminal proceedings.
Don't have a citation from Swedish law, but it is the procedure used in many countries and likely Sweden as well.
On Secret Executive Order from der Fuhrer Obama.
Obama has been summarily rebuffed at conducting Drone-to-Kill strikes in London or other location in England.
That leaves Ecuador.
Now, Obama has issued a secret Executive Order demanding murders in Ecuador, of Government Officials, in
retaliation of Ecuador granting Asylum to Julian Assange (International Criminal Against the Obama Reich).
Obama-boy wants blood and body parts littering the streets of Ecuador by USA technology.
Just have a big Assange look alike & dress like him event.
get 10000s of hippies in suits, but same hair style.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
How dumb are you, the news papers published, the leaks, HE DID NOT
Dumbass
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Not one single item in your claims has ever being confirmed. 100% of the BS came out of the mouth of Assange's lawyers.
Since he's now been exposed and thoroughly put back in his box, I'd say the answer to that is "not very". I despise paid shills. Fortunately this one was dumb enough to be obvious.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
No, but someone who's confessed profession is "information warefare" astroturfing blogs is.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
.
.
What is despicable about UK and Sweden governments is that they are do not have the guts to actually go and negate his political asylum qualification, but will stoop to such transparent low-life tricks. Why do they want to pretend to be a honourable country when they do not give two hoots about human rights?
And you wonder, why the world has stopped giving a shit about 911 anymore, and why we barf when USA talks about human-right issues in other countries.
Here is the propaganda bit. Assange as a non-American has exactly ZERO obligations to the USA government to help protect their national/military secrets. The fact that you guys think that all the non-americans in the world have some kind of obligations to USA, and embarrassing your government is a crime, is pretty alarming and disturbing. Having espionage agents/spies in other countries is actually considered usually a capital crime in almost all the countries. You guys usually prosecute those that *you* manage to catch. So if it is a crime in theory, then that in theory makes you all criminals in first place. Yes, I know that everyone does it, and it is in national interest and all that. But since you guys are so hung on being the "good guys" and enforcing law and order around the world, you should be the last one to go complaining if you are caught committing a crime in theory. So only one you can actually prosecute is your own citizens who caused the said leaks. But I will bet this is not even about endangering spies and national secrets. This is more about the moneybags/banks/corporations that bankroll the US government, who want to put Assange down.
Providing you do not launch a startup and get your enterprise killed by some idiot patent.
...kidnap their children and sell them for money under colour of Law. Jail those who object for specious allegations, without trial or charge. Deny those same people proper representation before during or after the fact then lie to them saying they're not entitled to have their complaints heard by proper and legitimate authority.
Google: Musa Family (separated from their six children by London Borough of Haringey who accused them of kidnapping the children from Nigeria and bringing them into the UK for trafficking (subsequent DNA tests proved that the children are in fact theirs but the "judge" ignored that information), then jailed for seven years each for something they could not possibly have done since they had no physical access to their own offspring).
Google: Roger Hayes (jailed for publicly calling out a fraudster who called himself a judge, but the official version is that he did not pay Council Tax to the criminals in public authority).
Google: Maureen Spalek (arrested under the Terrorism Act for sending her own son a birthday card after being forced by police to enter a town she was banned from entering by injunction).
Several dozen families a year escape from the UK using an underground network (of which I am part). They are the lucky ones, since we cannot approach them - they have to be aware of us and approach us. This is but the tip of the iceberg, since more than 25,000 children a year are removed from their families by the State and disappeared into the lucrative human flesh peddling racket that masquerades as a legitimate child protection industry, which is worth fully one quarter of the UK's gross domestic product.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
the DCPA is superfluous at best. Diplomatic immunity can be revoked under two circumstances:
1. formal declaration of war;
2. violation of Common Law.
As far as I know neither has happened. Yet.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Sorry, I meant to say '*from* the goals of the project, to the goals of individuals'.
As for martyr, Assange is perhaps one of the 10 most famous people in the entire world today, while DeChristopher is a nobody. What happens to Assange would draw widespread attention, all over the world. Assange claims he would be tried and sentenced to death, while DeChristopher was given 2 years jail time. The two cases do not compare. As stuff like the Scopes trials, OJ Simpson's trial and Roe vs Wade show, important trials are enormous deals that totally dominate the news headlines for weeks, and can lead to dramatic changes in society. (And lest you argue it, any attempt to grab Assange out of Sweden or the UK would certainly necessitate some kind of lengthy legal process, even if the US intends to prosecute him without trial.)
Embassies are not foreign soil though. That's just a myth.
Few people claim USA is a bad place to live. It's a nice place to live, certainly nicer than the living-conditions 90% of humanity has.
But many are claiming that USA has some problems that are unique, or nearly so, among countries of comparable wealth.
There's no other wealthy first-world nations with zero days of by-law parental leave, for example. Nor is there one where the distribution of wealth is so skewed towards the top 1%. Hardly one with so many people lacking healthcare-coverage either.
Usa *IS* an awesome place to live. But if you honestly think it's universally world-best in all ways, I think it's likely you have limited experience with other wealthy first-world countries.
For example I chuckled at your mention of housing-standards. Hint: if you compare average housing-standard in USA to average housing-standard in Norway, USA doesn't end up looking good at all.
Actually, it is generally dictatorships that can give such guarantees. Modern democracies tend to have separate legislatures and judiciaries. Note Ecuador also has this separation but does not have the same extradition agreements with the U.S.
Correct. This is one of the points Ecuador drove a bulldozer through in their statement as to why they decided to offer asylum. They pointed out that many nations, including Sweden themselves have done exactly this in other cases in the past, so it is perfectly possible.
I used to work in public sector in the UK, I was always annoyed at how many non-jobs there were around and wondered how people could genuinely get through life without actually providing any benefit to society.
So you'll have to excuse me if I'm rather amused to see that the US Navy not only pays people to spread FUD, but continues to do so despite the fact the people they pay to do this are so utterly bad at it that even a bunch of average joes on an internet discussion forum can see right through it.
If ever there was a complete and utter waste of tax payers money, Dave Schroeder is it.
"I'm sorry to disappoint you, but "propaganda" is not my day job, night job, or any job. Furthermore, my posts and opinions here and elsewhere are my own."
Well that is exactly what information warfare is so I'm intrigued, if that isn't what you do at any point why do you mention it on your website? are you some kind of military wannabe who never actually made the grade and so tells people that you are something you are not simply to make yourself feel better or what?
I think it's quite clear to anyone with an IQ above 'dead' that that would be an act of war. Not how things are done.
Still, I'm game: I'll bet you £5 the British don't storm the Ecuadorian embassy.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
I just don't know what planet you people live on. As near as I can make out, the conspiracy is this:
1. Make a false accusation of rape.
2. Have him extradited from the UK to Sweden.
3. Have the charges fall through, but in the meantime the US requests his extradition from Sweden.
4. Julian is handed over the USA, tried and executed.
The USA could have had Julian Assange any time they wanted - wait for him to land in the UK or Australia and make an extradition request. Both have extradition treaties with US which basically say, "We will give you anyone you ask for."
Sweden, on the other hand, can't extradite anyone at risk of the death penalty. The basis of Assange's asylum request is that he might be extradited to the USA where he would be charged with espionage, which could carry the death penalty. There is a basic contradiction here. Either he is at risk of the death penalty, in which case Sweden is one of the safer places for him, or he is not, in which case the asylum request is groundless.
What it all amounts to is this: Julian is special and should never have to answer for his actions. Ever.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
"People think information warfare includes propaganda and that's where the problem is."
It does, that's the worst part, so he's clearly lying about something. Even the US navy's own pages on information warfare discuss this (although they avoid the term propaganda explicitly because it's not PC).
So either Dave is lying about his job, or he doesn't know what his job even involves.
Things rarely are that black & white or simple.
For example the last bit you quoted is precious:
The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".
That's damn right, the journalists SHOULD BE OBJECTIVE, and not biased like Faux News.
Not sure how the full article goes, but given that Assange wanted asylum at Ecuador AND this from TFA:
President Rafael Correa, a self-declared enemy of "corrupt" media and U.S. "imperialism".
I'm saying the truth is not so simple.
Following does not represent my opinion or viewpoint, but could as well be true/what's actually going on:
Rafael Correa is actually FOR objective and open journalism without bias, and those articles saying otherwise are drawn out of context and/or wildly exaggerated, cases where President Correa has been trying to weed out corruption, smear campaigning (maybe against himself, but anyone else could be the target) or otherwise being tried to ruin reputation for.
It could be possible that El Universo was a corrupt organization who under the journalism & free speech protection thought they could run any kind of smear campaign articles based loosely, or not based at all on truth. Being very biased, and maybe being paid for by 3rd parties to drive the agenda of said 3rd parties.
Such a biased "reporting" or outright lies about Media wouldn't be anything new at all. There are far too often a bias on the news being "represented".
A good comparison would be watching the usual Faux News, CNN or other western media reporting and compare that report to the Russian broadcast! I haven't personally seen, but my dad has gotten to compare Russian broadcast vs. BBC/CNN etc. on a terrorism case happening at a theater in Russia, plenty hostages etc.
The report was certainly a lot different between the two.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2363601.stm
What the actual truth and reality is then, everyone has to judge for themselves.
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
Wrong...I have posted with this account, which contains my real name and has linked to the same public web site, for about 15 years. I am not posting in any "capacity" other than a person with viewpoints that apparently disagree with yours. Is it really that surprising to you that someone who chose to serve in the US military would disagree with Julian Assange, and not support ideologies of states like Ecuador?
If you're actually asking me, I'll give you the courtesy of providing an answer:
While most people look to a generic definition of "information warfare" and immediately think "propaganda" (which even then is only one small piece of IW, or what the US now calls "Information Operations" in doctrine), this actually has nothing to do with with 99% of Navy Information Warfare officers actually do.
The Navy Information Warfare Community was renamed from "Cryptology" a few years ago when everything "cyber" started getting big. Navy IW officers do signals intelligence (SIGINT), and "cyber" ("computer network operations", or CNO), to the exclusion of nearly everything else, against foreign adversary targets.
Yes, sometimes Navy IW Officers get put in billets where they are doing traditional "IO", of which even then "propaganda" is a very small piece. But that has nothing to do with the job of nearly all Navy IW officers, and even when that happens, it's all in foreign theaters (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan).
So again, when I post on slashdot, as I have done for about 15 years, I have always done so as myself. My day job is as basically a computer geek, like many other people on slashdot, for a large university — again, all on my homepage. You might disagree with me, but that doesn't make me a paid shill. It makes me someone you disagree with.
So that's why I can say that "propaganda" has zero to do with any of my jobs — because it doesn't. And no matter what my jobs are, I'm still posting here on my own time, with my own opinions, as me.
I do find it amusing that so many on slashdot can't stomach the idea that it's possible for people to have differing views without being paid for them.
Now can you do me a favor and answer a question for me?
What about the initial post in this thread pointing out that Ecuador has a terrible record on human rights, free speech, and free press was so offensive to you? In fact, looking back at that post, there is only a single sentence where I offer my opinion. Sure, the tone of the post can certainly be seen as anti-Assange and opposed to the ideologies that Correa promotes in Ecuador, but does that position really stun you that much?
Let me see if I have this straight:
You think that for 15 years, I didn't realize that I've had a link to the same public homepage on my slashdot profile, which has thousands of posts, dozens of accepted front page article submissions, and also uses my real name, and that in reality I'm secretly a paid government shill that just didn't do a good job of hiding his identity?
Wow. Just... Wow.
Also, US Navy Officers are not anonymous. By law, all US Navy Officers must be identified by name, rank, and officer designator: https://navalregister.bol.navy.mil/
Great news!
I really hope the Brits take the little maggot by force and bring him to justice in Sweden for sexual assault against women (plural).
He is a coward and when Sweden are done with him, send him to Guantanamo.
Julian is a complete joke!!
So... "free and open societies governed by the rule of law" kill people that they want "out of the picture"?
Wow.. Doublethinking at its best...
While I may depise what the US/UK/Sweden are doing here, it's a stretch to say Ecuador is doing the right thing. If they're doing the right thing, but it's for the wrong reason, is it really the right thing?
Yes. Simple as that. The right thing done for the wrong reason is still the right thing.
Newsflash - Countries break their own laws. Governments consider themselves above their own laws. Sweden is not the lone exception to this.
Sweden is not a democracy anymore like u guys think. Freedom of speech is virtually nonexistant and its ruled by seven parties that are pretty much the same with diffrent 'skins'.
Americas little lapdog.
"Now can you do me a favor and answer a question for me?"
Sure.
"What about the initial post in this thread pointing out that Ecuador has a terrible record on human rights, free speech, and free press was so offensive to you?"
There's nothing offensive about it, however I take issue with it in that:
1) It was misdirection, it didn't discuss the topic at hand, it was an attempt to change the discussion about Ecuador's track record, rather than whether what Ecuador did was/wasn't valid in the particular case of Assange.
2) You can put together an even more disturbing post by selecting human rights abuses by the US, or UK. For example, over the last 10 years alone:
- The US has carried out torture
- The US has kidnapped foreign citizens
- The US has held people for the best part of a decade without trial
- The US has carried out summary executions
- The US has carried out military action on foreign soil without their permission
- The US has allowed people to walk free who raped and/or killed civilians intentionally (i.e. murder)
- The US has explicitly targetted civilian homes without concern for collateral damage
- The US has spied against it's own citizens without warrant
The list can go on and on still further, but this illustrates the point - if you do as you did, with Ecuador, and take some particular elements of bad press, and present only those, you build a rather awful picture. The same can be done with the US and UK, and in their cases the list is much larger and looks far worse. At this point it therefore begs the question as to why even bother attack Ecuador at all over this? When comparing such lists, Ecuador looks positively saint-like in comparison.
I'm not suprised about the issues in Ecuador, hell, I was even aware of them, but fundamentally Ecuador has at least not arbitrarily killed foreigners or violated their territorial integrity. The US and UK has. This therefore begs the question as to what exactly was the point of your original post? sure Ecuador has human rights issues caused by poor governance, all countries have some, but importantly the US/UK have more, so in this context, Assange going somewhere like Ecuador isn't as hypocritical as you suggest - certainly he as an individual has far more freedom in Ecuador than he has in the West, and certainly for all Correa has done, it pales in comparison to what British and American leaders have done - at least he hasn't been responsible for wars that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and I'm not even one of these anti-war types. I largely support the Afghan invasion, I think we screwed it up, but I think the reasons for it were fair and valid. I support the support of rebels in Libya and Syria where many wouldn't, though I don't support what happened in Iraq, it was entirely unjustified. So despite the fact I did and in some cases still do support many of the West's direct or indirect military involvements, I still think we have a lot more to answer for than Correa does.
If you're wondering why so many disagree with you it's because you're simply too much in favour of the US, you're simply too patriotic, too nationalistic, you seem incapable of moderation. No one likes nationalistic zealots (except other nationalists), whether they're from the right or left hand side of the spectrum - the fact is, most people prefer moderation, and they'll bitch and disagree with each other over small differences, but as long as they're moderate they'll at least respect each others right to have that opinion. When people swing too far one way or the other though, like you do, that's when the majority of people - the moderates - will take issue with you. You simply need to step back and both consider and accept that your country gets it wrong on a lot of things, that it's not perfect, that it has a lot of work to do. Assange's crime with Wikileaks was highlighting and exposing that - I'm not suprised you don't like it, as it is presumably your and your colleagues jobs to prevent exactly this sort of thing happening, but it did, and this bit of transparency was a net positive for the world, even if it did embarass your paymasters and those all the way up the chain to Obama himself.
So you agree, that Troll means "I disagree with the point of view"?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Comparing military obligation with a comedy/variety show script is fabulously absurd.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
South America has modern democracies in almost all countries and still all of them can give these guarantees. Sweden could give these guarantees too by granting him immunity to extradition, at the very least in the same way witnesses are granted immunity when they make an agreement to snitch someone else. All it would be required would be political will to do so.
so you got nothing. what a surprise.
1. It sounds like you're not familiar with what Navy Information Warfare Officers do. Hint: this community was previously called Cryptology Officers.
Wonder why they changed the name? No longer applicable? Also, it looks like you're not familiar with what a "community" is. Hint: it's not a formal division, one cannot be assigned a membership of a community. Go figure.
Most places welcome someone with background and experience who take the time to source their posts participating in a discussion. Can you point to anything inaccurate in my post?
You're misleading and manipulative. Unless you were brainwashed or smoke crack, you know very well what you've done, how and why. And your inaccuracies have already been explained above.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Especially that.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Several dozen families a year escape from the UK using an underground network (of which I am part).
You work for Eurostar?
I don't see anyone stating the obvious fact that it doesn't truly matter what happens to Assange from this point on. The powers that have been inconvenienced by him have already managed to make his life a living hell and shown the world why they shouldn't dare to speak out of turn about them.
The details of what happens now are irrelevant. Assange could be cleared tomorrow to live happily ever after, and there will still be sufficient deterrent to keep all but the most fervid opposition from sticking their necks out.
The only way to win is to play by different rules, which makes you a terrorist.
There are some majority-held views on Slashdot - In no particular order -
a) The USA is a police state, and anyone who doesn't realize this is an idiot
b) Microsoft is evil.
c) Every business-grade application in a corporate environment can and should be replaced by an FOSS offering.
d) All digital content should be free.
I could go on... Doesn't mean I'm going to leave, but if someone new started reading comments after a short while they'd realize the above as well.
Quote from the article.
Professor Eileen Denza, a legal expert from University College London, has been talking on the BBC's World Have Your Say programme.
She says diplomatic asylum is regulated by customary law.
Diplomatic asylum is regulated by customary law and there are a number of treaties. But under customary law, the embassy or visiting state is only allowed to give diplomatic asylum to a refugee and in exceptional circumstances.
These circumstances fall into two categories:
For the purpose of saving someone's life or from injury.
If that person has no prospect of receiving a fair trial.
Denza said the law in Ecuador has never shown to be "significantly different" to the UK or Europe and that she didn't believe Assange was "in danger of the mob"
In danger of the mob no... In danger hell yes!
You know lady I'm not stupid enough to believe you lying shit. You and I both know that he his life IS! in danger and he will NEVER get a fair trial hell he would do good even getting a trial. Your suppose to be the "legal expert" not me and I know for a fact the US has laws in place now that you don't get a trial. Just carried off some place and disappeared.
"Legal expert" Just proves even more Lawyers are just lying assholes.
That would make the Iraq war the right thing as well. We did oust a dictator after all.
Those guys who sent that letter. Diplomatic conventions are above local laws, except maybe a war or in extraordinary situations. Even if they don't care about Ecuador, the message they'd send by violating international laws is clear - no respect for the (well established) diplomatic rules and practices. The same set of rules that helped averting a full scale nuclear war at least once. There is a good reason to obey them, even in cases of annoyances, which Assange clearly is to the US and it's allies. Unless they are ready to create a serious crysis, they should just let it go and allow the guy a safe passage. Doing anything else is just now worth destroying the reputation dilomatic affairs. (i.e. game over with exraditing Assange to Sweden, and obviously to the US).
Well in the first place Assange picked the wrong country to challenge the Swedes - UK is known for extraditing it's own citizens for minor crimes like internet piracy. What the hell did he expect? (or maybe he appeared in London precisely because he can pick the embassy he wants quite easily).
Ok. So where's the evidence? Which navy web page can you cite that shows his work involves propaganda even when it isn't given that name.
PROTIP: You cannot EVER excuse your crimes with "I only followed orders". If this wasn't clear to you on your own, read up about the Nürnberg trials.
The comment is not necessarily about you specifically. You have already answered for yourself elsewhere, and explained what you do about information warfare is not about propaganda but encryption (though after I wrote my comment), but I stand by my assessment of the general competence of misinformation mercenaries, though that apparently doesn't relate to you.
Yes sadly that happens and much to my disappointment it has happened in Sweden, but sweeping 2 random nameless Egyptians under the carpet is something completely different compared to a high profile person like Assange.
And when that case was uncovered the sitting minister of foreign relations would have been in some seriously big trouble had she not been murdered by a random nutcase while on a shopping spree.
Until Assange is extradited to the US and suffers torture or death I will choose to believe in our democracy which while not perfect is a lot better than the US or the UK at the moment.
The US is well within their rights to punish Bradley Manning with whatever punishment the UCMJ permits.
Assange however is not a US citizen and cannot be expected or required to abitde by US law unless he is within the borders of the United States.
If North Korea did what Assange did it would be an Act of War since North Korea is a country and not an individual but since Assange did not do it on behalf of another nation and since individuals acting on their own cannot commit acts of war(unless doing so at the behest of a nation) the situation is completely different.
Sure they can, US law is only applicable against US citizens and people within their borders.
America obviously needs to guard it's secrets better if citizens of another nation can gain access to it's secrets from outside US jurisdiction.
This is not about Diplomatic Immunity, a nation can only revoke the diplomatic immunity of their own ambassadorial staff, the host nation cannot do that.
However, the host nation can withdraw the extraterritorial(something typically granted to foreign embassies but not Consulates) status of any embassy on their soil
That means that the embassy is now like any other building in that country, the host nation can still not intentionally or through negligence harm the ambassador or any other staff enjoying diplomatic immunity(doing so would be an act of war) but they can go in and arrest Assange should they wish to.
No he cannot legally be forced to travel to the US from Sweden unless he's a US national(which he isn't) or if he was properly extradited in accordance with Swedish law. Also Swedish law prohibits turning someone over to a country where they would face torture or death.
IANAL
Nothing funnier than a bunch of nerds and geeks debating legal issues and zooming off to one or other web site to quote this or that fact taken out of context. Unlike geekdom where, if all else fails well....RTFM, the law is open to interpretation and precedent.
As an attorney I've been frequently involved into cross border disputes between the UK and the ME. I suspect similar laws apply between the UK and Ecuador: It is unlikely that Britain will storm the embassy. They never used that term - it was an interpretation of the media.
Assange is not worth the political disruption, but he is going to be dining on fast food and living in a small room for a long long time.
The only option would be to smuggle him out in a large diplomatic pouch which will be hard to do.
And to further put the thing in perspective: Ecuador is a tiny dysfunctional South American country with the GDP and political heft of a medium sized American town. It is a left wing joke that no one takes very seriously (except uninformed Slashdot-ers who have never left their state never mind the USA.)
You talk as if Assange hasn't been under house arrest for 2 years and counting now, and that he should just let himself be KILLED/MURDERED by his 'enemy'. Why is him being dead/martyr better than him being alive and working? He's already been 'martyred' in my eyes, and he doesn't need to be fucking Jesus and actually DIE for us too..
You also talk as if you know Assange's true motive, or if his motive can't change or if he can't feel fear or as if he's some kind of superhuman larger than life figure..
He's human, he has a mother, HE HAS KIDS(even more respect, since he's whole family is at risk now and his mom also has had to go into the spotlight to beg for his life..), and as a fellow human being an Aussie, i do NOT want to see him martyred, or killed by the US. This is completely separate from any 'transparency' ideology discussion. With that aside, ok, let's talk politics/philosophy.
You also talk as if things are zero sum, black or white.. sure, there's transparency, but there's also privacy. It needs to be balanced, just like many things in life.. including your work, AND STAYING ALIVE to make sure to be able to continue your work. You can always be a 'martyr' later on when you have NO OTHER CHOICE. What you're suggesting is to basically give up, basically, literally, roll over and fucking die. I don't think i read that part in his manifesto, or heard him ever say he wanted to be a martyr etc. From everything i've heard from him, from his mother, it seems like he didn't want the limelight, but -someone- had to do it. How many of us would raise our hands and want to be in Assanges position right now, and how many would be a 'martyr' if they were in his shoes facing execution by the US('hypothetically' speaking)? How many would even do 2 years house arrest?
Ok, this is slashdot so 2 years in a mansion with net access(or even 1 room in an embassy with net access) might be a walk in the park for those who have been doing it in a dark dim dirty smoke filled basement for decades already and can hold decades long grudges against single companies/people they never met, but you get my point(if you don't, then imagine doing time WITHOUT NET ACCESS OR A COMPUTER).
I'm glad you were modded up, otherwise i would not have seen your post.
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain..
Is it really that surprising to you that someone who chose to serve in the US military would disagree with Julian Assange, and not support ideologies of states like Ecuador?
As a matter of fact, yes. You're supposed to defend our land and Constitution, not cover up scandals that embarrass the military/government. And the ideologies of the state of Ecuador are pretty close to that of the US...we're just more subtle about it.
You forget who you work for. And YES, I say this as an ex-Federal employee (civilian).