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.
Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange
Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html
Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224
Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:
The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.
People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy. Indeed, as Steven Aftergood, veteran crusader against excessive US government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."
"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
Nobody Seems To Notice and Nobody Seems To Care - Government & Stealth Malware
In Response To Slashdot Article: Former Pentagon Analyst: China Has Backdoors To 80% of Telecoms 87
How many rootkits does the US[2] use officially or unofficially?
How much of the free but proprietary software in the US spies on you?
Which software would that be?
Visit any of the top freeware sites in the US, count the number of thousands or millions of downloads of free but proprietary software, much of it works, again on a proprietary Operating System, with files stored or in transit.
How many free but proprietary programs have you downloaded and scanned entire hard drives, flash drives, and other media? Do you realize you are giving these types of proprietary programs complete access to all of your computer's files on the basis of faith alone?
If you are an atheist, the comparison is that you believe in code you cannot see to detect and contain malware on the basis of faith! So you do believe in something invisible to you, don't you?
I'm now going to touch on a subject most anti-malware, commercial or free, developers will DELETE on most of their forums or mailing lists:
APT malware infecting and remaining in BIOS, on PCI and AGP devices, in firmware, your router (many routers are forced to place backdoors in their firmware for their government) your NIC, and many other devices.
Where are the commercial or free anti-malware organizations and individual's products which hash and compare in the cloud and scan for malware for these vectors? If you post on mailing lists or forums of most anti-malware organizations about this threat, one of the following actions will apply: your post will be deleted and/or moved to a hard to find or 'deleted/junk posts' forum section, someone or a team of individuals will mock you in various forms 'tin foil hat', 'conspiracy nut', and my favorite, 'where is the proof of these infections?' One only needs to search Google for these threats and they will open your malware world view to a much larger arena of malware on devices not scanned/supported by the scanners from these freeware sites. This point assumed you're using the proprietary Microsoft Windows OS. Now, let's move on to Linux.
The rootkit scanners for Linux are few and poor. If you're lucky, you'll know how to use chkrootkit (but you can use strings and other tools for analysis) and show the strings of binaries on your installation, but the results are dependent on your capability of deciphering the output and performing further analysis with various tools or in an environment such as Remnux Linux. None of these free scanners scan the earlier mentioned areas of your PC, either! Nor do they detect many of the hundreds of trojans and rootkits easily available on popular websites and the dark/deep web.
Compromised defenders of Linux will look down their nose at you (unless they are into reverse engineering malware/bad binaries, Google for this and Linux and begin a valuable education!) and respond with a similar tone, if they don't call you a noob or point to verifying/downloading packages in a signed repo/original/secure source or checking hashes, they will jump to conspiracy type labels, ignore you, lock and/or shuffle the thread, or otherwise lead you astray from learning how to examine bad binaries. The world of Linux is funny in this way, and I've been a part of it for many years. The majority of Linux users, like the Windows users, will go out of their way to lead you and say anything other than pointing you to information readily available on detailed binary file analysis.
Don't let them get you down, the information is plenty and out there, some from some well known publishers of Linux/Unix books. Search, learn, and share the information on detecting and picking through bad binaries. But this still will not touch the void of the APT malware described above which will survive any wipe of r/w media. I'm convinced, on both *nix and Windows, these pieces of APT malware
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
BREAKING NEWS: "Al-Qaeda is hiding a stock of WMDs in Ecuador", says a US diplomat.
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
I won't get caught committing rape without a plane ticket to Ecuador in my pocket.
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.
"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.
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."
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?
'in the current premises' ?
We'll knock at the door, you'll answer and men with guns will politely ask for his removal.
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.
How sad for Ecuador. Why would you WANT narcissistic rapists in your country, any way?
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.
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.
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".
> 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
... 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.)
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?
Seems we are at the top of the government transparency hill. So which way do we go from here, back down or forward?
INB4 mysterious plane crash or other "accident"...
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
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.
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.
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
Force somebody to deny something that is not happening.
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
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??!!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funny how this status evolution can be represented by change in one letter
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)
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! ;)
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!).
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
Hide your wives and daughters, Ecuadorians, you now got a rapist on the loose.
The consequence for breaking that assurance would be to seriously disrupt the USA chance of getting future extraditions from Europe.
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
"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?
"[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...
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
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?
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
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 have got to be freaking kidding. Every empire is based on stinking, murderous hipocrisy - and useful idiots.
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?
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,
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
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.
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.
. 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
And whose expense report does that go on? LOL
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
In 1998, Pinochet, who still had much influence in Chile, travelled to the United Kingdom for medical treatment — allegations have been made that he was also there to negotiate arms contracts.[4] While there, he was arrested on 17 October 1998 under an international arrest warrant issued by judge Baltasar Garzón of Spain,[5] and was placed under house arrest: initially in the clinic where he had just undergone back surgery, and later in a rented house. The charges included 94 counts of torture of Spanish citizens, the 1975 assassination of Spanish diplomat Carmelo Soria, and one count of conspiracy to commit torture.
The Lords, however, decided in March 1999 that Pinochet could only be prosecuted for crimes committed after 1988, the date during which the United Kingdom implemented legislation for the United Nations Convention Against Torture in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.[7][8] This invalidated most, but not all, of the charges against him; but the outcome was that extradition could proceed. In April 1999, former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former US President George H. W. Bush called upon the British government to release Pinochet.[9][10] They urged that Pinochet be allowed to return to his homeland rather than be forced to go to Spain
On the other hand, United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Mary Robinson, hailed the Lords' ruling, declaring that it was a clear endorsement that torture is an international crime subject to universal jurisdiction.[8] Furthermore, Amnesty International and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture demanded his extradition to Spain.
Despite the protests of legal and medical experts from several countries, Straw finally ruled, in March 2000, to set free Pinochet and authorize his free return to Chile.[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Augusto_Pinochet
all these fucking fascist bastards make me sick and ashamed. they make any notion of justice or right a bitter joke.
and now here's your adhominem: you, dave, are a pathetic retarded worm. enjoy! now fuck off, return to your hole.
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.
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.)
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
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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..