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.
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
Having sex in Sweden can get complicated
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well actually no. It proves that we will break international extradition and asylum treaties on a political whim...
Assange said he'd willingly go to Sweden to face charges if they guaranteed it wasn't a ploy to extradite him to the US. They could not guarantee that which is why he's seeking asylum. He's not trying to escape the allegations.
I think the guy is an asshat generally, but he's right on this one.
technically not a shill, but he is a US operative that is unquestionable.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Well if it pisses off governments that aren't working the way they're supposed to work, then it can't be that bad what he's done.
In my book he's a hero. As a private person he might be an a**hole, but that doesn't change the service he's done the public (which is the more important thing anyway).
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?
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 like charges of obstructing a police officer, obstructing justice, harbouring a criminal, aiding and abetting, etc. then?
Plus, the police are quite within their right to block access to the street "for public safety", to prevent the escape of someone facing arrest, etc. for any reasonable distance.
Assange is a dick who thinks he can find a loophole to let himself go free. Trouble is, each loophole he finds is smaller and smaller and ends up with him being arrested and deported, with more charges on top (breach of bail, failing to appear, etc.). Add a couple of years in the UK jail system when he does get out of wherever he ends up.
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!
If one has to break the law in order to have a fair trial and without risking to be extradated to a nazi country like united states, then so it be
if free market is supposed to be able to solve every problem, why do i still need to scratch my balls?
... 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!
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
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.
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.
"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.
Well actually no. It proves that we will break international extradition and asylum treaties on a political whim...
Assange said he'd willingly go to Sweden to face charges if they guaranteed it wasn't a ploy to extradite him to the US. They could not guarantee that which is why he's seeking asylum. He's not trying to escape the allegations.
I think the guy is an asshat generally, but he's right on this one.
To be more precise: No international treaties have been broken so far (except Ecuadore embassy taking him in under the circumstances actually do seem to break the Geneva Convention, there are interesting discussions on this on more relevant fora), but we fear they might be. I understant Assange fear extradiction, but most countries would on principal not allow accused criminals for dictating conditions like that. So it is sort of a stalemate.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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!
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.
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.
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!
Your assumptions of the accusations are an insult to those who have read anything on about the matter.
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.
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..
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
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!”
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!
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!
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.
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
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)
"[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...
Your accusations that those assumptions are an insult to anybody who has read up on the matter are incorrect, because I have, and I am not insulted.
The original person who laid the charges has now dropped them and will not co-operate with the prosecution. She laid the charges in the first place after discovering that Assange was sleeping with another woman. She had previously written a lengthy blog on "How to get back at your ex-boyfriend". Interpol placed Assange as #2 most wanted IN THE WORLD for these accusations.
Your implications that you know anything on the matter offend those who do.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
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
Yes it is ironic.
US news media has become so unreliable that I trust them even less than RT and Al Jazeera.
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.
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.
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?
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"!
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.
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!
+1 to jkflying
It's really all about politics. Assange stirred up the hornets next of big global government entities. And that is ALL this is about, and everyone with more than a shred if real IQ knows that.
Come on, Australia won't even let a Nazi war criminal be extradited. But failure to use a condom. That makes you the most wanted accused person in the world. No, can we really stop with the wool over our eyes.
What are the US governments' rules regarding employees posting anything that might be construed as in conflict with their aims?
BM3
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.
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.
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 !
Yes, I read the whole thing. And I can safely conclude that this is not "journalism," but an attempt to paint the picture as sympathetically to Assange as possible. There are no citations supporting the details in ANY of the dated entries, but they do include such loaded gems as:
"That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction." -- well of course this is all well documented, and there is proof of all of it, right?
"They turn out to be false and distorted accounts of his consensual sexual encounters with Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén." -- well really, Assange *alleges* they are false and distorted accounts of his consensual sexual encounters. If they "turned out to be false, and distorted," there is no case, and charges are dismissed.
Also, the timeline would seem to contradict your statement that the 2 entries you quoted somehow suggest that one of the women has changed her mind and will not cooperate with the prosecution: "A politician-lawyer named Claes Borgström, who is in the midst of an election campaign and who is struggling to restore a tarnished legal reputation, becomes the publicly financed representative of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén." Four days after you're suggesting she's refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, she retains a lawyer? How does that work, exactly? And where is Ms. Wilen's statement to that effect?
I'm not sure who "nnn.se" actually *is*, but they are writing clearly biased coverage, providing no citations to support their statements of fact, and none of this constitutes a statement from Ms. Wilen, Ms. Ardin, or their respective spokespeople, indicating that they are refusing to cooperate with the prosecution any more. So once again: where are their statements to this effect, in their own words, in an interview, or in writing? If you're going to keep arguing that they're not cooperating, surely you must have some actual evidence to back the claim?