Slashdot Mirror
Cables Show US Seeks Assange
prakslash writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that diplomatic cables they obtained show the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year, despite denials by the U.S. State Department and the Australian Foreign Minister. Further, the Australian diplomats expect that the U.S. will seek to extradite Assange to the U.S. on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks."
Between the electric chair and waterboarding, that doesn't even look as bad.
Let's demand that Assange be issued the Congressional Medal of Honor and go after some of the lying scum that he helped expose.
It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.
Perhaps 20 years ago, people might have drawn a distinction between publishing on a computer network and publishing on paper, but today, those distinctions are muddy and in transition. (Before long, the ONLY way to keep publications secret will be to write them down and share them secretly.)
We have a nation of law enforcers who are not enforcing the law... they are enforcing the will of the leadership which is NOT the same thing. I think law enforcement needs to go back to enforcing the law and to remain WITHIN the law when doing so.
Firing squad is "old school"? How about scaphism?
heh. he posts under cloak of ac. and he dares talk about credibility.
oh, the ironing !
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's becoming more and more evident by the day that the so-called "charges" that put him on the run in the first place are bullshit. This is about the US capturing Assange any way possible.
I'd love to see Assange go somewhere that's seeking to extradite Bush and/or Cheney and offer a swap.
fencepost
just a little off
You first.
Not only did US personnel break their own moral, ethical and legal boundaries but now they want to kill the messenger. Going after Assange makes the US look more like China than a democracy.
Is it possible that this is faked?
Yeah, along with anything else on Wikileaks, because they are submitted by anonymous people. Things have to be verified.
Is it possible that people have paid campaigns dedicated to move people's opinion one way?
Very. http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
But if Wikileaks has no credibility, why does the UK want extradition on him so badly, to Sweden, enough to storm an embassy?
Seems like US State department hired Nancy Grace to try and get Assange on anything that will "stick".
Firing squad is reserved for soliders. Hermann Goering requested death by firing squad, but they said no, you're too scummy to die like a soldier... so he suicided with cyanide instead.
Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.
Except that they don't have much of a case against him, so they're probably just taking a wait-and-see attitude. If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with, they would've done it by now and extradited him from Britain already. It would be easier to get him from Britain which is a US lapdog, than Sweden, which is not so much.
I give Malfoy two weeks before he acquires a severe case of cranial lead poisoning.
However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”....
The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.
So, in other words, asking for advanced warning if the US does even make plans to request extradition equates to "US intends to chase Assange"? Really? I mean I have no doubt that if the US thought it could bring charges against him that didn't possibly fall under First Amendment protection, it probably would, but that is the evidence you have? The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Anyone who is surprised by this (or who thinks that Sweden is not a part of it) is simply not paying attention.
After all, Assange couldn't have done it himself, could he?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...does anyone NOT already have that filed under "no shit, Sherlock"?
Because he is accused of rape, dont you read the news?
You'd think the guy performed a punk concert in a church or something.
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
PARTY FINDS YOU!
His crime? Journalism.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Because releasing information regarding unethical practices (to say the least) conducted by the US and other corporate entities is bad. Cue comparison photo:
http://m5.paperblog.com/i/8/82628/hero-comparison-wikileaks-vs-facebook-assange-L-NiA62d.jpeg
Previewing comments are for sissies!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/28/shawn-sullivan-extradition-blocked-america-most-wanted-pedophile-us_n_1633358.html
I'm sorry, try again. Why is this guy blocked but not Assange?
Firing squad is reserved for soliders.
Someone is wrong on the internet.
Idaho banned execution by firing squad in a law which took effect on July 1, 2009.[34] This left Oklahoma as the only state left in the United States that utilizes this method of execution (and only as a secondary method). On October 11, 2011, Florida State Representative Brad Drake sponsored a bill to give Florida death row inmates the option of death by firing squad.[35]
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Rosenbergs were executed in the electric chair, as were the German saboteurs that were executed in DC jail during WW2.
That is a very valid point. I'm sure his lawyer, once they determine he is in Guantanamo Bay and labeled and an "enemy combatant" would want to use that in his defense. Just have to wait for a few years to meet their client, a few more years of trials just to see if a foreigner held in a prison off of US soil is eligible for a trial in the US Judicial system, etc.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Or did wikileaks fake another release?.
Oh, I'm sure they're real... because they don't actually say anything.
Did you read the article? The cables said that the Australian embassy asked about, and requested advance warning of, whether the U.S. decides to indict Assange. No information whatsoever suggesting that they do have any such intention. And they cables also said that the U.S. "investigated" Assange. Well, duh, of course they did. WikiLeaks was the source of a significant leak of classified material, of course they investigated the leaks.
The cables don't contain anything we don't already know. Most specifically, they don't give any information to the idea that the U.S. intends to indict, much less, extradite Assange.
But if Wikileaks has no credibility
no, mr ANONYMOUS COWARD, its you that have no cred.
at least post using an alt. they are free and easy to get. there's a clue for you, on your next shill post.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.
Both of them got the electric chair.
Maybe you should read what I said again, and especially read the link I posted. I posted anonymously because I posted secrets on how to sway opinion that people are paid to do, and that would ruin many plans if people knew how they worked.
Grow up.
That would be hoot and half! They could call it "Pussy Leaks."
I'm not sure that in Putinist Russia, such a thing would be permitted, though. Live from the Gulag . . . ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.
That's generally true, but then there is no protection for, say, breaking into an office and stealing documents in order to publish them. And there is a continuum between active law breaking of that sort, and completely passive receipt of unsolicited information. If I were Assange, I would certainly not want to visit the US to find out if some one of my many activities had pushed far enough along that continuum that they could make a criminal case against me.
The USA is completing the transition to a banana republic. I had hope Obama would slow down the tyranny and the imperialist war making, but we know how that turned out. We're poorer than an time since the great depression, thanks to Bush. I'm 65 and a vet - I was a patriot, but the re-election of Bush ended that. Instead of feeling ashamed over what Assange revealed, the power structure, decided to seek vengence. I have no doubt, that in the end the US Government will kill him - probably with a drone.
No indictment, no charges. No prosecution. Simple inquiry.
Yet Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK - including the past month, in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Instead, they push for extradition on contravention of International treaty law.
This is a chess game, being played on behalf of the Nation that incarcerates more of its own people than did Josef Stalin. The "Land of the Free".
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision to grant Mr Assange political asylum, Mr Hague said the UK was under a "binding obligation" to extradite him to Sweden."
They're willing to throw centuries of tradition on diplomatic immunity out the window because of a "binding obligation" to extradite him.
When he hasn't been charged, his accusers have left the country, and he sought (and was granted) permission to leave Sweden in the first place. If you don't smell something rotten here, you've got a clothespin over your nose...
You've got zero credibility as well. Your username and UID don't automagically make you credible.
Because UK is pedophile capitol of the world. Hell, there are many organized travel plans arranged there where UK men travel to southeast asia to have sex with kids and teens. It's in industry.. hence the protection
If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).
But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.
Let me give two examples (hypothetical):
1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Doesn't that only apply to members/citizens of the nation with the secret ?
To everyone else it's the hidden truth, fact, private opinion, or propaganda.
The US can punish the leaks that are US citizens, but NOT Assange.
The other charges sound like trumped up bullshit.
- do push-ups and sit-ups every morning (reduces sores and reduces chances of deep vein thrombosis!)
- don't just eat pizza and ramen! Consume at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily
- keep hydrated! You're in England now, Tea is cheap!
- Be sure to catch the morning sun! Find a sunny window and soak in the nourishing strength of the rays. You don't want rickets!
- personal grooming improves self-esteem and keeps up morale. Just because you're stuck in a tiny room with few visitors doesn't mean you should let your hair grow out and start braiding. Beards are for nerds and mountain men. Buzz cut looks professional and sharp!
- along with personal grooming, iron your clothes for public appearances (err...skype video chats). A snappy dresser shows leadership and determination.
- use the free time you have wisely; catch up on lost episodes of Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and Mad Men - hey, you might even learn something.
- solitude = deep thought = time to read! Like past unjustely imprisoned geniuses, Napoleon, Galileo, Ann Frank ect..., all found solace and comfort in their books. Cherish the printed page!
- The Harrods food court is across the street; use this opportunity to train your culinary palette. I suggest starting with Mexican and working your way to Indonesian.
- remember, it could always be worse! Nelson Mandela didn't have access to hi-speed internet (though he did get daily walks out doors: but everythings a trade off!)
- Oh and lastly, never forget; the first duty of the political prisoner is escape! Good luck Sir!
He didnt break into anything.
Which fake cables? The fake cables faked by a Pakistani newspaper?
Haven't you finished beating your wife?
Who decides what is and isn't ethical?
Individuals.
Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?
I wouldn't say our elected officials are ethical. But apparently as long as you agree with them, everything is a-okay.
lets be even more clear about this.
its not RAPE as most of the world defines it. its the peculiar definition that sweden uses, that he's ONLY accused of.
and I'm sorry, I'll say this bluntly, with the full spectrum of all the 'bad shit' that one person can do to another, sweden's definition of 'rape' is not quite enough to justify all the hooplah that's being made of this. sure, he was a heel, perhaps (we really don't know, though, its a lot of he-said-she-said, really). but I'm not sure this is international extradition worthy.
people do a HELL of a lot worse and get away with it.
(like, say, many of the people mentioned in the leaked cables... julian may have fucked two women, but people in the cables have fucked far more and far worse. THIS is the issue, not julian.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
If you rely on your elected officials to make such decisions then you are helpless and ignorant.
Trying to start a stawman argument aren't we?
Who decides what is and isn't ethical? Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?
I'm sorry, but what ever gave you the indication that we trusted our 'elected' officials to be the keepers of proper ethics to begin with?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Rosenbergs got the chair, not the noose
Oh really now, this whole "europe is getting flooded with muslims" myth is starting to get old and is only propagated by right wing politicians with nationalistic tendencies. 70% of all the people in sweden are registered with the church and 5% of the population is muslim.
I think sharia law spells out rape punishments already. Getting a conviction will be hard though, as a woman's testimony is only worth 1/7 of a man's.
before the controversy about the "cables".
Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
lol when are we going to start holding the govt accountable for being liars? it trickles down even into how police officers do their job.
ffs...
It seems that neither the general public nor the Assanage understand the game-plan. It is fairly easy. They intend on making him so paranoid that he will become a prisoner of his own making. Even if he manages to get out of London unmolested by the British police their security aparatus, and get to Ecuador -- he will be a wanted man across the entire Commonwealth spectrum, because in effect by leaving he will be breaking British law. That will effectively make him both a most wanted and persona-non-grata within much of the world. The only places where he will be able to travel freely would be within the new Bolivarian states, Russia and perhaps some of the Middle East.
But even than he won't be able to travel freely at all, and perhaps will not be able to step out within the confines of his future place of living in Ecuador, because there will be many who would want to capture and deliver him to any British enclave. (in Americas think Stanley, or Georgetown, or even Ottawa).
And the best part about it -- all Americans have to do is to continue denying that they are actively perusing him while giving subtle hints and "leaks" that they actually do.
They *should* go after him. The rationalization this was journalism is a farce. Lets take the assumed analogue of the oppressed Syrian citizen tweeting against the regime or telling of some evil deed done by them. In each case the Assange defenders would say, "the individual is speaking out against the oppressive government getting the truth out for the world to see." In one case, the actor posts the information to express to the world the tyranny under which they live to maybe just someday restore some kind of liberty in their lives, at great risk to their own life. In the other case the actor posts the information with the express purpose of shaming and harming the government that authored them.
What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens? I pick EU due to all the laws in place regarding personal information. Suppose he was posting gigs of credit card records indicating the purchase of a extra small Fleshlights. They would be outraged that their personal information was being shared with the world and now everyone knew they bought an extra small Fleshlight.
"But these are government documents, they are our governments and they work for US." (Us the first person objective plural, not the estados unidos) Sure, they do work for us. But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice. I would hope and expect them to pursue charges.
Why don't you read some cables and decide for yourself?
If you still don't see that the massive influx of muslims is a real tangible problem you've really not been paying attention.
But, hey, just on the off chance, I'll ask you a few questions:
1) What is the social situation in countries that have a muslim population of more than, say, 15%?
2) Take any region in conflict, *any* region. It always borders on a country or region controlled by muslims, or is a muslim country itself.
When is the last time you heard of widespread terrorist attacks by buddhists? Or Sikhs? Hindu? That's right, that never happens. It is always muslims.
But keep telling yourself it is all in the mind of those rightwing nutcases, if that helps you sleep.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
Conspiracy to leak information that as a foreign national on foreign soil he had no legal obligation to keep secret.
Oh wait, I forgot US law applies across the entire planet, and probably Mars now.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Its not RAPE as most of the world defines it.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU. The UK would not have extradited him if the actions he is accused of weren't a crime in the UK; read the Supreme Court's Extradition Judgement for more details.
But your goverment must really switch to a more democratic perspective if they want to be legitimated to be World's policemen
if free market is supposed to be able to solve every problem, why do i still need to scratch my balls?
Someone is citing wikipedia on the internet.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Warning: Parent link is NSFA (Not Safe For America).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
It is clear the reopening of Sweden's investigation into Assange, and the extradition proceedings, were at the behest of the Americans, but I am puzzled. Why does the US want to eventually extradite Assange from Sweden rather than more quickly from the UK? In this kind of political case, the UK is likely to be at least as cooperative as Sweden. Who has a good theory?
Spies get shot. An established tradition. In fact, I am a little surprised he is still alive.
I am completely tired of this Assange guy. What should I care about big drama show?
What a lovely parting gift.
Pull my finger for my public key.
as he was never here. this sets a drastic precedent which will allow any country to do the same.
Sorry, I "honestly" thought the source was obvious.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
As the woman was a girlfriend living in his house and sleeping in his bed on a regular basis, "charges" would be laughed out of court.
If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with
There's no need - the President can send him to Gitmo for years without bringing charges, as a lesson to other journalists not to mess with the USG.
<WP:NDAA>
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I could argue against you here, saying he was not charged etc etc. But why should I when the former Swedish head prosecution does it much better:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48396086/Assange-Case-Opionion-Sven-Erik-Alhem
Wouldn't Obama just have Assange assassinated if he were as evil as the /. crowd apparently believes?
Manning did break US law in US jurisdiction. If Assange helped him plan his crime (by helping him plan how to conceal it), that certainly could be construed as conspiracy. I don't know how jurisdictional and citizenship matters play in at that point, or what legal theories charges might be leveled under, but I can't imagine that it is perfectly legal for a foreign citizen on foreign soil to help an American citizen on American soil plan a crime.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
It is clear the reopening of Sweden's investigation into Assange, and the extradition proceedings, were at the behest of the Americans, but I am puzzled. Why does the US want to eventually extradite Assange from Sweden rather than more quickly from the UK? In this kind of political case, the UK is likely to be at least as cooperative as Sweden. Who has a good theory?
Your question is flawed as it is based on the presumption that the US is "behind it all". If the US were behind it all, then you're right in that it would make far more sense to just directly charge him with espionage or whatever and extradite him to the US. There would be no need to go through Sweden and complicate the hell out of things.
The other idea, that the charges against him are serious and need to be investigated and are the real reason for all this is far more logical and simple. Either that or it's just a giant conspiracy against against poor little Assange.
This is the central point that many, nearly all, willfully fail to acknowledge. If the US just wanted him why bother trumping up charges in Sweden, involving all these extra people and complicate things to no end instead of just charging him with the crime they would actually try to get him for? They wouldn't. They'd just charge him and be done with it.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
The question is answered in the second paragraph of your link:
"Two judges sitting in London allowed an appeal against extradition by fugitive Shawn Sullivan, 43, after the American authorities refused to give an assurance that he would not be placed on a controversial sex offenders treatment programme in Minnesota."
Presumably, Sweden was able to provide sufficient guarantees to satisfy the UK that the Swedish government would not place Mr. Assange in a controversial sex offenders treatment program in Minnesota.
Add to that the fact that Sweden and UK are both signatories to the EAW framework as EU members, which streamlines the process for extradition between two EU member states, while the US hasn't yet been admitted to the EU, and you've got a fairly clear picture of why the UK would extradite Assange to Sweden, but decline to extradite Mr. Sullivan to the US.
Which large scale conflict was that?
Not that I don't see that there are some batshit insane retards that think christianity is about bombing abortion clinics, but that (as horrible as it is) are 'just', luckily, hopefully, thankfully, incidents perpetrated by the delusional. It doesn't turn entire countries into deadly conflict. It doesn't turn into one country wanting to completely kill another country.
But look at a map of the world. Take a Sharpie and mark all the big conflicts. Now look at the neighbouring countries. I'll bet you cookies to donuts that there is a fundamentalist muslim country joining each and every of your Sharpie'd marks.
Yep welcome to the USSA comrade, where the only free men are the rich.
BTW I think every one of us that have said about a billion fucking times here that "Its not about rape, its about the USSA snatching his ass" deserves a fricking apology from all those "No its not, its about a crime, its raaape!" dumbasses, so line the hell up. Oh and WE TOLD YA SO!
Its pretty God damned sad when fricking Ecuador is the symbol of freedom and the USSA is the slimy country, but this ain't the country your grandparents fought for in WWII, its turned foul, the ground has gone sour thanks to a cabal of WallStreet, the MICs and PMCs, and the gov, all in bed together.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
http://m5.paperblog.com/i/8/82628/hero-comparison-wikileaks-vs-facebook-assange-L-NiA62d.jpeg
Oh, hell yea, that is goin' up on mah facebook wall!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A hint on how ethical are your elected officials are in Wikileaks.
Well ok, here's the SFW version: Come on, read some of the cables and make up your own mind.
It is quite unfortunate and demonstrates that US leaders still don't "get" it. They think that prosecuting Assange will have some kind of effect on Wikileaks when nothing could be further from the truth.... or they're just trying to get back at him out of spite (same reason they tortured Manning when he was obviously guilty and a simple court martial would have seen him put in prison for the rest of his life. Why degrade ourselves?)
The reason the US isn't explicitly asking for extradition is probably because we intend to perform an "extraordinary rendition" and snag him from Sweden illegally (but with Swedish cooperation), then imprison him in Gitmo forever without trial.
I wish I were joking. My grandfather volunteered for WWII; It makes me sad that we have thrown all the things he fought for in the trash can, first in a blind attempt to fight communism (when the prudent course was just to let it die under its own weight just like the USSR did), then in a blind attempt to fight a "war on drugs", and now in a blind attempt to fight a "war on terror".
Oh well... so many Americans are petty and FYGM these days. I guess it's no surprise that our politicians are too. When we had the Soviets to fight against it forced us to push all objections out of the way and cooperate for the common good. We managed to do such great and big things back then... We voted to tax ourselves to build the Interstate Highway system. Imagine proposing a tax to build a national "Internet Highway" today!
The threat of communism put the Fear Of God(TM) into the rich and forced them to share the wealth, which in turn improved everyone's lives. Now it's all slipping away.
What a sad state of affairs.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
He has not accused been formally accused of anything yet.
My #2 has nothing to do with leaking information or obligations to keep a secret. It concerns Assange hypothetically assisting Manning in hiding Mannings involvement. I'm not talking about Assange saying he won't say it was Manning. I'm saying if Assange offered any technical advice to Manning on how to secretly transfer information in order to hide Mannings involvement, that could fall under the area of conspiracy. Discussion or assistance of a crime is conspiracy. Doesn't matter if the party would otherwise be shielded by law. The conspiracy itself strips those protections. Same would happen with a lawyer.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Don't be purposefully obtuse.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US. This would be complicated by several things:
1) Whether the extradition treaty recognizes espionage as an extraditable offense - some do, some do not;
2) Espionage is a capital offense, and so the death penalty *is* a legitimate concern - some countries will refuse to extradite because capital punishment is an option, some countries will require a guarantee that no death penalty will be sought, and other countries will simply refuse.
3) They must have evidence that he committed espionage - i.e., actively sought out and solicited the information - and was not simply a passive recipient of the data that PFC Manning leaked.
If he was a passive recipient of the information, then you're right - he had no obligation to keep it secret, and he was engaged in nothing more than journalism - sloppy journalism, given the partial redaction of informant names and info in many of the documents - but journalism all the same. If he actively solicited the classified documents - i.e., sought out PFC Manning, encouraged him to use his access to leak the documents, and published them, then that would be considered espionage, whether you're a Chinese hacker, a journalist in DC, or a wikileaks founder in Australia.
apology from all those "No its not, its about a crime, its raaape!" dumbasses
Indeed, let those "it's about crime" people explain why Sweden was unwilling to guarantee that they won't extradite Assange to US. If this doesn't say, "we actually want him for US", I don't know what does.
incarcerates more of its own people than did Josef Stalin
That's because Stalin killed them all: Genocide list
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
If he is in the UK (as he has been for some time), why wouldn't we just ask the UK to extradite him? That's the only thing that doesn't seem to add up when people yell, "The rape charge is just an excuse to extradite to the US"!
Is Sweden our extradition bitch or something? They say yes to every request we make???
I'd like to see the cables to the American media that told them to ignore this story. Not a single major network has picked this up, and it's clear that our State Department is issuing bold faced lies to us.
He didnt break into anything.
True--as far as we know he wasn't at that end of the continuum. But my point was, I think we do not know that he was a completely passive recipient of unsolicited information. How far did he go in promoting the "theft" of the material that was disclosed? What actions did he take to encourage it? What direction did he provide as to selection of material?
There's a lot we don't know about how he operated, and there's plenty of gray area in which to look for plausible criminal charges. Note: to look for them--I am not claiming that he did break any law that could be applied, just that the possibility cannot be ruled out.
Swedish authorities refuse multiple invitations to interview Assange for inquiry purposes in UK
That's nothing. I find it more telling that (according to what I read) they refused to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to US. He asked if if Sweden guarantees that he will not be sent to US afterwards and Swedish side was unable to guarantee that.
They are really the exact opposite of subtle.
Which is still more truth telling then the Liberal Mainstream media. In a nutshell, the Liberal Media is nothing but a bunch of hypocritical, double standard carrying, group of intolerant twits. What is the phrase? Intolerance of Intolerance is still ... Intolerance.
Case in Point ... Obama. The *Liberal* media didn't put Obama through any sort of vetting / critical reporting when he campaigned ... and they still don't. It's from Obama's Lips to the Liberal Media's ears to your TV set. At the same time,they put each republican through extreme scrutiny. Biased much? Double Standards much?
There was a study not that long about concerning "Drudge" and how the Liberal media is soooo far left, that it makes The Drudge Report not that far "right" from center just because of the extreme left of the liberal media. Yet, every liberal and their sister will claim Drudge is Extremely Right leaning ... sorry, the facts prove otherwise.
I have no idea. The best I can come up with is that the US has been giving Assange a lot of reasons to be paranoid so that he will be paranoid. Then they instruct Sweden to let him leave the country and then request extradition. They may even let slip some clues that would suggest to Assange that he will be in danger in Sweden. That way, even though there is no threat to him in Sweden, it appears to Assange as though there is a threat, and he ends up wasting all his time and resources in fighting an extradition that isn't actually a threat to him. In this case, the UK is being as lapdoggy as they can be in pursuing the extradition with bizarre zeal, further scaring Assange into taking steps like fleeing into the embassy of Ecuador. Or maybe there really is something rotten going on in Sweden, but in that case why did they allow him to leave Sweden in the first place?
Reminder : Assange was Time man of the year 2010. And he could have gone on and done many great things. But unfortunately he was not always thinking with the right part of his body.
It certainly wouldn't be laughed out of court in Canada. I imagine the UK is similar. "Sleeping in the same bed as" does not equal consent in any civilized jurisdiction, IMO.
It's not about Assange. It's about human rights, yours, mine, anyone's. The question is: Is it ok for a government to pursue and prosecute a foreign national, a person, any person for speaking or repeating the truth simply because those truths are embarrassing to the government.
You should care about the rights of Assange only for as long as you care about your own.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Sweden is arguably more of a "US lapdog" in some aspects for a number of reasons. First of all, the massive financial pressure on politicians from piratebay case that has been on for years from US side has inherently made Swedish authorities easier to pressure. Then there's the technological and military cooperation, where Swedish national pride of having its own fighter jet is completely dependent on US goodwill - US licenses a lot of tech needed to build Gripen.
There are several other impacts as well, such as the pressure that came from "war on terror" and massively negative view Bush took on countries that chose to keep on being neutral, which made Sweden cave on several policies badly, one of them extraordinary rendition. In many ways GB has been protected by its sheer size from these, as while Downing Street has generally been keep on pleasing US, GB as a country is still big enough to resist significant amounts of financial and political pressure. Sweden's capacity to do the same is unfortunately much smaller.
Finally there's a matter of Sweden's own internal problems with rising wave of extremist feminism, which in this case was cleverly exploited by US.
The US hasn't charged him because there are no plans to put him on trial. It's perfectly legal now for us to indefinitely detain, torture, and even assassinate people, even US citizens, with no charges beyond claims of "terrorist activity." The US are merely biding their time; they do not want to embarrass their good buddies the UK, but once Assange leaves that place he will be much less safe.
Espionage is a capital offense, and so the death penalty is *NOT* a legitimate concern
FTFY
IIRC, the US has not executed spies since the late 1950s. Even if my memory is wrong, they certainly have not done so in the last three decades. Its extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely the death penalty is on the table in the US for ANY spie unless it can be proved their actions led to the deaths of many. And even still, those directly tied to 9/11 have not been executed.
Long story short, please take your propaganda elsewhere.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
This post reeks of Chinese paid anti-US cow patties.
Josef Stalin didn't incarcerate more of "its own people" because he had them put to death.
I mean, come on. You really need some better powder here.
This is the central point that many, nearly all, willfully fail to acknowledge. If the US just wanted him why bother trumping up charges in Sweden, involving all these extra people and complicate things to no end instead of just charging him with the crime they would actually try to get him for? They wouldn't. They'd just charge him and be done with it.
Yeah, they would. More than likely some in the US government and intelligence services want revenge and more importantly (in their minds) to warn others against doing anything similar in the future. They don't need to extradite him to the US to do this. All they need to do is put some pressure on the Swedes to convict him of something and send him to jail. It's not likely that the US would actually put Assange on trial, give him more exposure to the general public, and make him even more of a martyr. My take is that they're trying to smear him without getting their hands dirty and drawing more attention to the issue (including the details of the leaks and the problems that led to the leak) from those not already paying attention.
Perfectly legal in what jurisdiction? American jurisdiction does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil at all. Not even for murder, to make things clear. Now if his home country decides that's a crime, that's fine.
I'm saying if Assange offered any technical advice to Manning on how to secretly transfer information in order to hide Mannings involvement, that could fall under the area of conspiracy.
By that logic, notice on Wikileak's homepage suggesting the use of GnuPG/PGP would create a conspiracy. I think the US' authorities are out of control and desperately need to be taught a lesson in civility.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
That's a technicality--the process is to talk to him and then make the accusation. They haven't charged him because of purely procedural reasons that are entirely his own doing. It's like trying to evade a process server.
Haha.... you won't catch so easily FBI man. ;)
(It's actually illegal for State Dept (and probably other Dept's) employees to read the leaked cables, though I'm not implying that I work for the State Dept.)
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
It was. I was just making the small joke that you were using wikipedia to "prove" someone was wrong.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
He hasn't been charged with anything, and he doesn't become a criminal until after he is convicted.
I'm glad that your understanding of due process isn't how the civilized world works.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Not unless Rumsfeld, Clinton and Obama are included as well. By all accounts, Obama has been WORSE than Bush concerning leakers, war crimes, cyber warfare, etc.
Why does the US want to eventually extradite Assange from Sweden rather than more quickly from the UK?
The UK would not extradite Assange to the US for a political crime, but Sweden has a more flexible agreement with the US.
This is the most insightful post I've read so far in this thread. Assange is not traitorous, because Assange is not a US citizen! And he's a journalist, no matter what others may feel about his stories. Exposing this kind of crap is his job.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
Has anyone interviewed Chen Guangcheng about Assange? You know, they guy who got out of his rap in China by hiding at the US Embassy?
Sweden cannot make any guarantees that Assange will not be extradited 1) because the US has not (officially) leveled any indictment against Assange. 2) Because they are not going to subvert their own legal processes vis. extradition, because a foreign state says so.
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/26/ecuador-julian-assange-extradition-us?newsfeed=true
"The senior legal adviser said that under extradition law, the concept of "specialty" ensures an individual can only be extradited to one country â" in the case of Assange, Sweden. Once legal proceedings in that country have been completed, the individual is given a 45-day leave, during which they are free to go where they want.
Assange should, therefore, be free to travel to any other state â" including the UK, Ecuador or Australia â" once legal proceedings against him are completed in Sweden.
However, specialty can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition request â" in this case the UK â" thereby allowing an individual to be extradited to a third country.
The senior legal adviser to the Ecuadoreans said that the home secretary, Theresa May, would need to waive specialty under section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the US.
Despite repeated requests from Ecuador, the Foreign Office has not said whether or not May intends to exercise her powers to allow for any potential future extradition to the US.
"The concerns that Ecuador has in relation to that whole process is that some states â" not least of which the US â" have been known to hold back on their extradition requests, to a timely moment, when they can serve the process with greatest impact," the senior legal adviser said. "And so the concern would be that the US has in mind a request for extradition on the basis of WikiLeaks charges."
_____
As it stands now, he is facing a serious sex-crimes investigation in Sweden, which he did to himself, by-the-way.
Rule #1 of being wanted by state security services, don't fuck groupies.
This Sig does not Exist.
If I were any more surprised by this information, I would be awake.
I see two scenarios:
(a) Assange gains political asylum in Ecuador. He never stands before a judge in Sweden.
(b) Assange is extradited to Sweden, spends 12-24 hours in custody, and then he's extradited to USA, where he is "allocated" to Guantanamo Bay or some other oubliette. He never stands before a judge in Sweden.
Either way, the charges made against him by citizens of Sweden will never be pressed nor resolved. Either way, anyone who wants to call him out for "justice for his sex crimes" will not see justice done.
Which might be funny if it hadn't already been beaten to death. There's actually a more subtle joke in there, which is that the Wikipedia basher, having smugly demonstrated his profound knowledge of the topic at hand with just a few keystrokes, never bothers to reveal his superior source of information.
"Oh wait, I forgot US law applies across the entire planet, and probably Mars now."
That's basically true. If you commit a crime which affects US interests or citizens, and the US government indicts you on criminal charges, and if you end up on US soil, you can be arrested and tried for those charges, ask any number of Eastern European hackers, or Mexican cartel members.
In fact, with the exception of (Islamic) terrorism, this is pretty much US government policy, and it used to be true of terror suspects, as well.
Before 9/11, Osama bin-Laden was an indicted co-conspirator on a host of terrorism related charges. If the US government had been able to get him, he would have stood trial in the US.
After 9/11, the US decided to deal with terrorism as war-crimes, and terrorists, even if they had only talked-about doing something, are now subject to death-by-drone, without a trial.
So no, Assange would not be sent to Guantanamo, he'd just be another in a long line of foreign nationals sought-after by the US Dept. of Justice, (as opposed to CIA drones).
This Sig does not Exist.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU
And in the right context its also considered a good way to wake up in all of those same jurisdictions... either that or my wife and I have occasionally raped each other. /sarcasm
Its not like she got drunk, crashed on someones bed at a party, and woke up to him having sex with her. Context should matter. Intent should matter.
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
So we're going to internationally extradite him on something that a lot of people are dubious is even really criminal, and which likely would be utterly impossible to prove in court.
Oh, so one way to keep government people off slashdot would be to post the full text of leaked cables? Thanks for the tip, Mr. or Mrs. Not-Implying-Nor-Denying-They're-A-Fed :P
Roman Polanski did much worse than this guy is even accused of and got away with it free and clear, just couldn't come to the US for a long time, with nowhere near the effort from these people. That alone should tell you that the real reason for them attempting to take him so hard is full of crap.
If he ends up extradited to the US and faces ANY charges in the US, I honestly think it is time to grab to touches and pitchforks and indulge in our right to bear arms cause we really have no semblance of an American government left anymore.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Where you happen to be sitting tends to be extremely important.
US has not tried to extradite spies for a long time (has it ever tried to?) too. So I dont think execution is off the table in this case. And you try harder with your propaganda next time, it shows badly on the US.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
Under what theory of jurisprudence is this valid? Why should Assange be subject to US law any more than I am subject to Thai (the Thai king is an ugly idiot!) or Saudi (Muhammad was a murdering pedofile) law?
Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well I suppose that makes it alright then. Carry on.
Sweden is an even worse lapdog they don't even need to charge him with anything to extradite him from Sweden! All Sweden has to do is to have him in CUSTODY which they will as they will consider him a "flight risk".
http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf
I wish I had not just used up my 15 modpoints on other articles. People complain about moderators, but I sometimes wish I could moderate a comment as -1 stupid, or in your case, -5 juvenile.
Ok fine, but how would it hurt the proceedings to compromise in this case? If his fears are legitimate then surely an exception can be made or a guarantee can be made that he won't undergo extradition? If the only reason that the questioning is not being done in the UK is because of sheer bloody mindedness, that what does that say about the people conducting the case? Surely even the two girls allegedly involved in this would benefit from a speedy resolution? Why didn't they question him when he was there, despite him offering...? Why was the case dropped and reopened? Remember the monetary blockade on wikileaks by the US? Remember that they got kicked off amazon and the apple store? Remember that twitter was subpoenaed for users associated with wikileaks by the US government? Remember that death threats were made against Julian Assange by prominent Americans on national tv? Why was an interpol red notice issued for Assange, when even Gaddafi only warranted an orange? Yeah someone sure has questions to answer, but I don't think it's Assange.
American jurisdiction does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil at all. Not even for murder, to make things clear. Now if his home country decides that's a crime, that's fine.
Plain. Dead. Wrong.
American jurisdiction, Russian jurisdiction, it does not matter where you are. It matters where the crime is committed. Let me give you an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Google is your friend. Here's the theory:
http://www.davidzapp.com/2011/11/10/application-of-u-s-laws-outside-u-s/
This one gives a list of potential laws that might be enforced:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf
Note that the crime does not have to be direct. That's why there is the whole "conspiracy to commit."
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I'm tired of being embarrassed by my government.
Anyone remember the Pentagon Papers ... which lead to Nixon's fall? The sad thing is all of that lying started before Kennedy and is still happening today.
BTW, there's a PBS program about the Pentagon Papers on-air now. I think everyone in the world can watch it here: http://video.pbs.org/video/1602912290/
I'm tired of being embarrassed by my government. If the people in the government think something should be a secret, then perhaps THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT!
Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.
According to an article in the New York Times (which I can't find right now, otherwise I'd link to it), nobody outside of the U.S. government/military has ever been prosecuted for publishing information leaked from the U.S. government/military. The prosecution have always backed down because they know they would have to argue that the First Amendment right to publish information that you have obtained about the government does not apply to whoever they're prosecuting, and that a jury may well decide that the First Amendment actually does matter after all. Numerous newpapers have published leaked information, and the New York Times and others actually conspired with Assange to publish the diplomatic cables etc. However, in Assange's case, it's possible that they just plan to put him in front of a military court with a predetermined judge and outcome.
Oh, here's a reference: "No journalist has been prosecuted for publishing leaked information under the Espionage Act." Though it seems a new game is afoot: "Why the WikiLeaks Grand Jury is So Dangerous: Members of Congress Now Want to Prosecute New York Times Journalists Too"
Sloppy? It's the best journalism you've probably ever seen. How many other journalists can say they have started a populist uprising across a number of Arab countries? Also the cables were redacted up until David Leigh published the password to the un-redaced files. If it's a crime for information to be free in the US... then screw the US and all those within it with an exceptionalist mindset. The principles the US were built on are more important than the country itself, and whatever the current laws are.
and the German magazines often have a very different perspective than either the US or British take.
From my experience German newspapers aren't without their flaws either, while I have yet to see an outright lie (excluding the BILD) most newspapers tend to omit facts or focus on specific points to favor their side/owners. When the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and the Muenchner Merkur report about the same event only time and date are guaranteed to appear in both, everything else can be omitted if inconvenient or examined in detail if inconvenient for others. I read the Muenchner Merkur almost daily and the Sueddeutsche whenever I come across it, in both the bias varies depending on relevance of the topic to their agenda.
You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes: http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/
Ecuador - is not a symbol of freedom. Ecuador and its sphere of political influence just want to make some G8 nations look weak in foolish in hopes of boosting their own relevance or tipping power toward other big players they *think* might make better allies.
The USA and the UK movers and shakers won't stand for this. They *will* get Assange eventually, in fact by doing this little stunt with Ecuador, he may well have escalated his case to where he is put into one of these special classes of criminals that really does get disappeared to places like Git-Mo or those CIA blackout locations. You see he offended them and they sought to put him away for a little while and otherwise screw up his life with some nuisance prosecution. To remind him and everyone else its not a good idea to step out of line. The jig up, he has been to slippery up til now, but they CANT let him get away with it , less others might try similar shenanigans and that probably is not good for someone's bottom line.
While I don't think for a second Ecuador has anything but self serving motives, and I don't think they have any high minded ideas about freedom and human rights, I do hope Assange is successful at this point.
I am sad for my country. This is supposed to be the land of free and home of the brave. We are not supposed to need dark rooms and secret proceedings. We are supposed be able to operate within the bounds of our laws, and if we don't like the outcome we are supposed to then have a public discussion and update them via the legislature. We don't use secret executive orders, we are supposed be able to stand on our principles. I support some level of military, I don't think we need to be the worlds super cops but I want us to be able to defend ourselves. With that said I also think if our government is doing anything it can't be open about its not something we ought to be doing at all. If we can't simply own up whats in some diplomatic cables, and if it really does threaten our national security in a meaningful way when they leak, they we are not strong, brave, or free, what we are is weak, cowardly, and enslaved. Stop being weak my fellow Americans! As a nation we need make sure whatever we do its something we can say in public, "yea that was us, it was right, and we are proud of it" either that don't do it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This is the central point that many, nearly all, willfully fail to acknowledge. If the US just wanted him why bother trumping up charges in Sweden, involving all these extra people and complicate things to no end instead of just charging him with the crime they would actually try to get him for? They wouldn't. They'd just charge him and be done with it.
One last time. Assange went to Sweden to apply for residency and work as a journalist. That would have given him a strong protection against extradition. They first have to deny him work and residency so as to strip him from the protection so that later he could be handed over "following all the rules". This is most easily done by convicting him of _anything_. And believe me they will take it all the way and finalize it if needed at the highest judicial level. Sweden is not as clean as people think it is and the wikileaks (fancy that!) cables have shown that Sweden is more than willing to take it up the poopshoot for uncle Sam. Bodström was involved in unlawful pressure of the judicial system for example. Carl Bildt with his undeserved international respect has been involved in so much crap I don't know where to begin. He secretly supported the US during his time as prime minister when Sweden was till legaly bound to be neural. he has admitted it and is not ashamed of it.
A friend at work suggested that he should go the martyr way and just do it. And expose the Swedish, UK and USA governments as the tyrants they are. But Julian is an asshat and a diva and wouldn't have the balls. I don't fully blame him though, undefined amount of years in Guantanamo doesn't sound very tempting.
Between the electric chair and waterboarding, that doesn't even look as bad.
Waterboarding, din't we use to call them swirlies?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This is disgusting. While I'm not Julian Assange's fanboi by any stretch of the imagination; I'd love to see the government that I grew up with grow a pair and at worst say "Well, I guess we're taking this one on the chin", he's to be tried in the country that he comitted the offense, and if he is serve time, to serve time in Australia under prisoner exchange.
At best, I'd rather like seeing Julia Gillard say "By your own rules, Freedom of Speech and press which you enforce on other countries is coming home to roost". Your country hasn't been de-stabilsed, nothing is that differernt. Sure, it's put a few noses out of joint, but why crucify a man over all this. There are many different elements like this in society, time to face up to them.
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
The Australian ABC's 4Corners have exposed some dubious, and quite alarming issues surrounding the Assange case.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
Did he spy on the USA? Do they want to prosecute him? For what exactly? Did he commit any crime on US soil? No? Then they have nothing.
If he ever reaches the USA, he will simply disappear. They want to hang this guy for exposing their dirty laundry and as a show of power.
This guy needs to reach Ecuador alive and in one piece. It would either teach the US some humility or make it lash out - exposing it as a bully.
This guy's safety is very important. An alternative might be a very, very detailed diary of his entire life somewhere on the iinternet, mirrored in several countries around the globe.
the CIA still can't handle the reality that they will have their budget completely scrapped within the next 10 years...
it's time to put the old hat back in the McCarthy era where it belongs... (THE LAND OF LAME COWS)
Does that mean that North Korea can demand to have the head of the CIA extradited to stand trial for espionage against North Korea?
I think you're being willfully unreasonable.
The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*. (They can request extradition, and governments have a deep interest in civilized cooperation. But that doesn't apply in this instance.)
If, on the other hand, Assange shows up on American soil, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. Just like the U.K. has jurisdiction while he's in the U.K., or Germany has jurisdiction while he's in Germany, or Papua New Guinea has jurisdiction while he's in PNG.
But even excluding these circumstances, he may well have a legal obligation to keep such information secret. (I stop short of saying he definitely does, because this is the stuff that international law experts debate.) Here's why.
If he is under the jurisdiction of a country with agreements and pacts between them and the U.S., then he is very likely to be obligated to treat American secret documents in the same manner as he is obligated to treat his own nation's secret documents. Like it or not, if you are a citizen of a country then along with the rights of citizenship associated with that nationality you also have legal obligations to uphold that nation's best interests, which includes supporting that nation's relationships with other countries.
In other words, sorry, but you can't just do stuff simply because you feel like it and not expect to face consequences. (Five year old kids know this; so should 40 year old intelligent adults.) And taking actions which could be detrimental to your nation's best interests, which could include actions you know are damaging to your nation's diplomatic partners, falls under the label of "expect to face consequences".
* I know, there are caveats and exceptions. That's why I put in the conditional generally. It's not the rule.
Agreed, it's absurd to call him a traitor to the US. It seems like the US has declared him an enemy. Now, there are two options: 1) send agents to kill him (and it's Australia's prerogative to declare war on the US for assassinating its citizenry) or 2) effect the first option via quasi legal methods.
He's not being obtuse. You're simply repeating his exact point. Americans think that American law applies to everybody on earth, and that nobody else's laws apply to them.
It's our fault, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we choose to follow and support those in elected positions, After all, we're responsible for ensuring effective elections and effective representation. It is our greed and irresponsibility that has lead all of us here.
We aren't the people our forefathers were. We have become corrupt and uncaring cowards. It can't and won't change until we change.
We really need a Gandi or Hari Seldon.
Don't be purposefully obtuse.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US.
Um.... No. In what way would it be reasonable at all? Why would any country hand them over? When has a single 'spy' ever been extradited? (quotes because Assange is almost certainly not a spy).
IF the Yanks caught him spying, then it would be reasonable to try him for espionage - then and only then.
This is nothing more than demonstration of just how far the US can get up it's own arse, and just how far the rest of us can follow them nose first.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
Strawman alert!
IF Assange can be shown to have solicited Manning in any way, that means Assange deliberately targeted the US in order to obtain data the US considers secret. That's not merely possessing something the US considers contraband - that's actually committing what's considered a hostile act.
That's a HUGE difference from your strawman.
Or do you REALLY think it's safe to go off on your own and start soliciting secrets from, say, North Korea, Russia or the still-somewhat-in-power Assad regime in Syria? And then publishing what you find on the internet?
There are so many illegal actions (regarding International treaties) that my mind boggles that you call them no repercussions, From my own country (Germany), the USA has abducted people, put them into Guantanamo[sp?], and didn't bother at all about consequences
Many people have been illegally deported to foreign countries, by the USA, and have been tortured there. No problem at all for the USA government, and for US nationalists out there. Laws are for cowards who can't defend themselves, aren't they?
So, yes, the US can and does grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions -- that's what the global dislike of US foreign affairs politics is all about. That you can't see this, speaks volumes.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
What a stupid, nonsensical question. Why? Two reasons:
1) "possession of cannabis" is not a crime which victimizes the government. Regardless of whether or not you happen to like the *US* government, you cannot be so fucking thick that you don't see the difference between "I have a joint," and "I have (and just published) all of your classified military secrets."
2) ANY country has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil to the extent that the government with actual jurisdiction over that foreign soil allows them. There's this thing called extradition... I'm surprised you haven't run across it before now, what with all this excitement about Mr. Assange.
What I find intriguing is if Assange had published China state secrets and cables the US would be most likely be providing him with asylum and trumpeting "China oppression of free speech" and "China crackdown on international research dissidents", etc............ It is sad when international laws are broken by a state to make an example of one person with the intent to scare the rest of humanity into blind submission.
Real men don't need signitures!!!
Actually, no, it isn't. What's important is whether or not the US government can convince the government of "where he happens to be sitting" to extradite him.
You don't get a "free pass" to commit espionage simply because you're sitting outside the country you're targeting - it may make it easier to get away with, but it doesn't grant you some magical immunity.
"possession of cannabis" is not a crime which victimizes the government. Regardless of whether or not you happen to like the *US* government, you cannot be so fucking thick that you don't see the difference between "I have a joint," and "I have (and just published) all of your classified military secrets."
So, the guiding principle is that embarrassing the US government justifies any person in the world being extradited and dragged back to the US to be tried and punished?
In any case "having" and "publishing" military secrets of a foreign country isn't in itself a crime. It's actively stealing them that is, and Assange didn't do that.
This is incredible.. it is just like the Matrix..
I was never a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist type..until this whole Wikileaks / Assange came out.
First, the leak showed pretty conclusively, that most major western 'democracies' were supposedly ritious, actually are involved in all sorts of (frequently, but noy only corporate sponsored) corruption, theft and criminality that are completely at odds of the people they are supposed to represent.
So now we know the governments are corrupt..
Then there is the fake "sex scandal", that is a fraud and an insult to real rape victims elsewhere over the world.
Threatening to storm an embassy for condomless sex, by an accusation from the same woman who held a party for the man a few days later!
An interpol arrest rating that is higher than Kadaffi himself? we have the whole Ecuador assylum incident (yay, go Equador!).
Then various mainstream newspapers that go on about the "sex scandal" (though anyone who looks at the facts for about 5 minutes) knows it is bogus. You wonder who they are getting their orders from.
So now we know (a significant proportion of) the mainstream press is corrupt too and is run or owned by facists.
It is like the dreamworld is lifted... you are not free.. there is no justice. The corporations and government own each other, and they control you by what you read, what you hear, and what is reported (or not reported).
Fascism, government and corporatecorruption rules, it is all around us.
And I never knew.. until the veil was lifted by this man..
This is truely amazing, and shows the world, for what it truly is..
Assange is the west's first big name political dissident ..now we are just like Russia, China, and "democratic" places like that..
Assange should get a nobel prize..
Then so is every married man by that definition.
Divorce would be so easy if this was so, Oh, last night I had a bottle of wine, then my husband had sex with me, I was drunk so I want him charged with Rape, and, oh, well, after that I want a divorce too! Talk about making life easy, fortunately, rape laws ARE NOT THAT insane (although in a lot of countries they are getting close to that).
That's because it's Wikimedia...
Some articles have pointed out that the US does not have an easy extradition process with the UK (it has to go through the whole process) and thus Sweden would be easier (since Sweden has a revolving door policy with the US -- and why Assange got out of the country as fast as he could once that occurred).
And, I believe the original thought was something along the lines: We have a charge for Assange in Sweden, we'll bring him back quickly with a EU warrant, then can ship him, nice and simple.... then later the nice and simple became a royal pain ( probably just do to publicity ) and now the US is in a tight spot... If they ask the UK for Assange then that will be VERY obvious and Assange will probably qualify for protection in the UK (since Assange has a high probability of ending up Dead in the US) so the US has to wait until the publicity dies down and/or get Assange to a country like Sweden where they can extradite him with just a handshake.
My only concern now is what is Ecuadors treaties like with the US or some other US friendly country; could this be a setup too :(
Boy, if you think the Streisand Effect is bad, just wait for the Assange Effect. Making an example of him is about the worst thing they can do...
Protip: Assange in ur base, leakin' ur cables -- So, the people who are the leaks will just continue to leak, after having selected a new mouthpiece / shield. The next guy might not be as much of an asshole... From the US gov's perspective, they should be glad they didn't get someone who was harder to smear. Like some basement dwelling virgin who just wants to free all information...
The more something "looks" like a conspiracy the quicker people doubt it and/or start to ignore it.... this is always the first step in trying to discredit someone; there is ample history of this effect documented. I think the only difference this time is the Internet, it is allowing Assange to stay in the public eye; with traditional media he would have become "boring/guilty" by now and not even make a story on the last page....
Really? That's new to me. Apparently no one informed Time either
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
You can't steal information. You can only suppress or share it.
He's not being obtuse. You're simply repeating his exact point. Americans think that American law applies to everybody on earth, and that nobody else's laws apply to them.
Not only do we think that, but as long as the other countries keep bowing to our government's will, then I'd say the belief is mostly correct.
Who decides what is and isn't ethical? Have we all ceded that responsibility to Mr. Assange and not our elected officials?
Mr. Assange (and Mr. Manning, et al) gave us the access to decide for ourselves. Our paid-for and appointed officials and their corporate cronies don't trust us that much.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
! :)
As it stands now, he is facing a serious sex-crimes investigation in Sweden, which he did to himself, by-the-way.
Would that be the investigation that was already conducted in Sweden while he was there? The investigation that was closed due to insufficient evidence or whatever and Assange given formal permission to leave?
Also, how can you be accused of a sex crime that you did to yourself? Is masturbation illegal in Sweden.
It seems pretty clear that the new investigator is receiving large sums of money from the US to keep this going. When it comes to Sweden the CIA are like kids in a candy shop. Every person they see they want to buy. I wonder if the CIA had to pay more than the RIAA/MPAA paid their investigator. Probably.
If Assange returns to Sweden I hope he has enough sense to avoid having sex with any Swedish girls. Instead of snatching him, the US may have plans to frame him again. If not for rape, the real kind this time, for murder or necrophilia/pedophilia. Something utterly humiliating. The US may not want the political fallout from snatching Assange and taking him to Gitmo. Discrediting him some more may be sufficient.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
That remains to be seen. It would seem very possible, perhaps even likely, that Assange engaged in conspiracy and espionage.
It will all depend upon the evidence.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Lets wake up a bit here. There is a quite vibrant information business. Every country with anything more advanced than a mule has an eye out for a weak link. Manning was that link. He felt he was doing the right thing and wanted to share this information in hopes to curb further actions. Now being a naive kid in the military if Wikileaks was not available, who is to say another country wouldn't have befriended him and honed his information gathering to much more sensitive data?
Sites like Wikileaks can indeed do harm but also great good. How about if a city is about to be attacked in some manor and you had this information but knew no one around you would help you spread the word(maybe even kill you for the idea)? A site like this can help and these types of situations, just by virtue of probability, these are happening every day.
So do we propose we proceed with caution and disallow any information being shared with out some sort of explicit approval process? Or do we allow all information regardless of nature or origin to be expressed?
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
In Cuba you'd be immune from extradition and prosecution. Or any other country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US. Also a boat in international waters, most islands in the southern ocean, and Antarctica.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
That's just nonsense. Extradition treaties recognize that it is in fact not only possible to break another countries laws, while committing the crime in a different country, but that you can be sent to that country to face those charges. Examples: committing securities fraud, murdering someone on the other side of a border with a gun (real case by the way), auto theft rings, arms dealing and much more.
Countries don't live I'm a vacuum. They can and do sometimes extradite for crimes just like what you describe.
And even concerns about God is secondary... I remember hearing a story told by a Jewish guy, went something like this:
A man goes to his Rabbi and says 'Rabbi, I know I'm not supposed to hate people but theres this group of people I really hate.'
The Rabbi says to him 'What kind of people bring out such feelings in you??'
The man says 'Atheists. They are just evil and wrong and I hate them.'
The Rabbi says 'You know, there is a time when its very important to be an atheist...'
The man is thinking 'How is this possible? My Rabbi tells me there is a time when its right to be an atheist??'
The Rabbi continues; 'If you are walking down the street and you see some unfortunate person who needs your help, then it is right time to be an atheist. Because you should help that person; not because God is standing over you telling you that you should BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO'.
Ethics and morality are beyond good and evil, beyond law and government, beyond god or gods. It is about being a better human being and helping others to be better human beings. To move the human race further from the bestial and closer to the superhuman.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
He hasn't been charged with anything, and he doesn't become a criminal until after he is convicted.
Assange hasn't had to be charged, tried, or convicted to demonstrate his dodgy nature: he has made himself a fugitive from the law.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No they wouldn't, spouses and SOs have absolutely been accused of and found guilty of raping their spouses and SOs. Just because you are in some kind of relationship does not mean you can take advantage of them and have sex with them without their consent, or that it's automatically implied that it's given. Sex without consent is rape, period.
Why am I not surprised that someone on slashdot would actually believe this.
Yes, it's why we have criminal justice systems so we can determine what the facts are. You're rushing to judgement that nothing happened, and therefore a crime did not occur. We have these amazing things called courts that we use to make these decisions, and it's the highest form of hypocrisy that someone like Assange makes accusations that other people have committed crimes and act like they are above the law, and them does the same thing.
It may very well be that no crime occurred, but he does not get to make that call. The courts do, and he's defying the courts. He's basically saying fuck you to the entire system, hes behaving as if he's above the law. I can understand why the UK isn't too pleased.
Of course. They can demand the moon in a (humongous) silver platter, if they want to.
Let's see what would happen if we applied that principle to other countries. Here's a hypothetical based on an actual incident:
Suppose an American newspaper editor solicited a Chinese scientist to send him data on mining in China -- the kind of data that is routinely disclosed in the U.S. but which is considered a state secret in China.
So China charges the American newspaper editor with espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage. Would the U.S. allow the editor to be extradited? Obviously not. But that's what they seem to want Australia and maybe Sweden to do.
Assange was never in the U.S. None of his disclosures was a crime in the countries he was in. I don't see how Assange committed any crime.
Of course the U.S. claims international jurisdiction all the time, which is essentially "Might makes right." It's a bad precedent when others start doing it to our nationals.
Whether or not you believe the US has any interest in prosecuting Assange or holding him in Gitmo, Assange clearly does believe it. He is not afraid of the possibility that the new American-bought investigator will decide to charge him with something after all, although the obvious corruption may give him pause. If investigators can be bought then judges could be as well. He is afraid of spending the rest of his life in Gitmo being tortured and humiliated for the amusement of his captors, and I don't blame him.
Now he's totally screwed. The Brits may not break into the embassy, but they certainly will arrest and extradite him as soon as he leaves and he will have to leave eventually. In Sweden it's possible he may have a chance to escape and sneak out of Sweden and get his ass to a country with no extradition treaties with the US, the UK, or Sweden.
Assange's error was in not being sufficiently risk averse. He knew that the US would want his head on a stick. The least precaution he could have taken would have been to flee to a country with no extradition treaty with the US. He took a gamble going for Swedish citizenship and then seeking 'asylum' in the UK.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
I, and a vast majority of the UK completely agree. Unfortunately the US government does not and the spineless UK governments we have had for the past few elections have let them get away with it.
However I think it very unlikely that the US would want to try to extradite him from Sweden. Why not do it from the UK? The standard of evidence is minimal, whatever you are accused of does not have to be a crime in the UK, you don't even have to have ever even visited the US and even when over 90% of the populace disagree with it the home secretary will stil approve the extradition. I have trouble believing it will be that easy to extradite him from Sweden!
You apparently didn't bother to actually read the linked document with the statement from the retired (2008) prosecutor. If you had you would have picked up the fact that the next step in the Swedish legal process is getting a detailed statement from Assange to decide if he should be charged and prosecuted - the very thing that Assange is resisting to the point of becoming a fugitive from justice, causing his supporters to lose the money they put up for bail, and causing an international incident and damaging the diplomatic relations of numerous countries*. The retired prosecutor says many mistakes were made, is highly critical of various actions, but ultimately the process emerges: Assange must be interviewed again before he can be charged. You did an inadvertent service - I thank you.
*How WikiLeaks Blew It
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
the Foreign Office has not said whether or not May intends to exercise her powers to allow for any potential future extradition to the US.
If my life ever relies on Theresa May making the right decision instead of the politically expedient one, I can only hope I get her first.
Or do you REALLY think it's safe to go off on your own and start soliciting secrets from, say, North Korea, Russia or the still-somewhat-in-power Assad regime in Syria? And then publishing what you find on the internet?
Sure. If anybody in those countries would like to contact me and share state secrets, I'll stick 'em on a website.
I'm not American. I'm not in America. I'm using an American hosted website and that means the US would argue they could extradite me for the words I write on here, but I've already told my MP that's a bullshit situation and we need to change the law.
If I go to the US and commit a crime there, sure, prosecute me. Right now I'm sat at home in the UK and I refuse to obey any country's laws except those of the UK.
As I understand it, the first WikiLeaks dumps redacted names, the later ones did not. That could (not necessarily did) cause life ending harm to those individuals listed in the documents. That is the line that was crossed. No longer journalism. No longer free speach. That, if it is true, is the definition of an enemy of the state and fair game for retribution at the highest level by the governments that wish to protect the individuals in harms way. Big game, big consequences.
Gary Christensen TV 10 News, Costa Rica
www.garychristensenshow.com
Assange and Diplomatic immunity???? Hold your horses.
In Costa Rica the defacto President Oscar Arias with his secret (wikileaks) "US vetted" CIA Presidential Police - La DIS & multinational corporations control all media and the court system.
The DIS and the US threaten and attack all here in Costa Rica and intimidate journalists in the US who attempt to disseminate Oscar Arias Presidential cartel extortion, blackmail, violence against women,human rights abuses and beatings (torture) of thousands upon thousands of innocent citizens.
It is a state apparatus of extortion, violence, terorrism, beatings and constitutional and human rights violations.
The Costa Rican Presidency has threatened us and other journalists with jail sentences should we reveal corruption and Constitutional violations.
"New law imposes a sentence (between four to eight years) in prison to those who obtain “secret political information”.
http://www.nacion.com/2012-07-12/ElPais/Nueva-ley--impone-carcel-a-quien-obtenga--informacion-secreta-politica-.aspx?Page=2
Death Threats by Government of Oscar Arias (INS) against ANEP
http://bit.ly/M5kw9d
Cato Institute, Washington D.C.
The Mafia: “Institutionalized Organized Crime" The PLN and (the Government of Oscar Arias, the US, Laura Chinchilla http://bit.ly/HI4LTY
http://chn.ge/NM8u9k
Foundation for Human Rights http://bit.ly/JjEXUi
The "ultra repressive" Presidential Police la DIS of Oscar Arias an arm – un apendice of the C.I.A.
"beatings"
"raids"
"threats"
"violence"
Gary Christensen TV 10 News
Ya see, that's where i think you are wrong. I think the USSA milicom really don't give a rat's ass WHAT anybody else thinks and they know simply doing a framejob on Assange wouldn't make him an "example" of what happens when you don't kiss the ring. If all they wanted to do was get him out of the way I bet slipping something in his food really wouldn't be that hard, or hell just a shot through a window by "an unknown assailant" would do the job.
No friend what they want is a classic Soviet style show trial, where they can paint his ass with the MSM to be one step lower than Stalin and then throw him in the nastiest pen they can find and start making PMITA prison jokes about his little white ass. That way anybody in the future that gets anything classified from the USA, even if it showed the CIA popping Kennedy while giving the finger to the camera, will be so damned scared shitless of ending up in the same deep dank hole as Assange they'll just tear it up and pretend they never saw it.
Never underestimate the power of fear and the chilling effect, nor the feeling of untouchablility of those in power. Hell notice how quickly the world press stop giving a shit about the torture of Manning? or all the dirty evil shit in those leaks? Its been reported for years there are CIA moles in several major world MSM outlets so it wouldn't be hard to manufacture some "ZOMFG did you hear that celeb is teh gay?" story if they get tired of hearing how Assange is being bashed and buttraped and by then anybody who could be in a position to get the next leak will have already gotten the message...don't you dare publish jack shit without permission.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
the way I read it, the opportunity to interview Assange has been there all along, even the Equadorian embassador inviting the Swedish to do so in their premises (and, according to the FORMER prosecutor, there is nothing in the Swedish law prohibiting this). Did you actually read the scribd post, including the things about 'extradition is non-proportional' as interviewing on location is (was) a real option?
Simple what happened friend, the CIA. Ever since the war ended back in 45 the CIA just kept finding new places to stir up shit and often would get in bed with the corps while doing it, such as the coup in Iran in 56 that replaced a democratically elected president for the Shah who promised to kiss BP's ass if they made him ruler. Ever since then its been one corrupt deal after another, one nasty play after another, and with each passing year they just got more vicious and ugly. Look at this map friend and ask yourself why? Why would they want to stir up that much hatred for the USA and slaughter that many?
Because conflict is big business, they've known that since WWII and that is why we lose more of our liberties every year, they find more bogeyman to declare war on, more reasons to siphon money to their friends in the MIC, and with each bombing or coup they stir hatred for the USA which means more potential targets and more money.
Sadly thanks to the spooks and the MIC this country has become a death machine, producing war and suffering everywhere so some rich old soulless bastards can squeeze a little more profit and build a little larger empire.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
+1 succinct
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
This is a lie.
Assange is not resisting giving a statement - quite the contrary - he's resisting being extradited to a country known to co-operate in cases of extraordinary rendition with another country that has for the last decade demonstrated its willingness to operate outside not only international law and treaty, but common decency.
Assange has made it quite clear he will co-operate with an interview in the UK, something Swedish prosecutors have been happy to do in other cases but not, strangely, in this one.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Are we watching CIA shills working on social media already?
Hell, Obama has a right to assassinate Assange without trial, court order, or even fair warning.
There is a very simple reason for this. The swedish judicial system is independent. A minister in Sweden cannot overrule the courts.
All he wants he can say the US propaganda being forced into his country is an attack on the free speech of The Good, Honest and Hard Working People Of North Korea and have trail in absentia, convict and sentence everyone evolved to death and it all would be all be legal... Of course it doesn't mean the US goverment has to give two shits about it, though. However, if someone evolved stepped foot in the wrong country they may every well get the death penalty.
So really the USA can calm a crime was committed against it by a foreign national who had never been to USA, I mean shooting someone in the USA while standing in Mexico is still a crime in the USA. The crime takes place where the effect is generated. Now if that calm of a crime is recognized as legitimate by the country the suspect is living in that person can be extradited. If I requested someone in Germany send me German National Secrets via the internet or gained access myself, I would damn well believe that Germans could request my extradition though they would probably just let USA goverment convict and jail me, since I'm pretty sure it's a crime to engage in international espionage without the proper three letter acronym employing you.
So Julian Assange's major problem here is have been in a country that recognizes crimes against the US goverment even those taking place on foreign soil as being legal even if they took place outside ether of the countries domains. Remember the head and senor management of every Swiss bank doesn't leave the country except maybe to the Bahamas* because they may be arrested in Europe and America for having orchestrated crimes with people living in those countries.
Another important factor to consider is the 911 planners, It wasn't crime in Afghanistan to plan the attacks but I would say the USA is fully within it's rights to treat them as criminals. Also since they are captured outside the USA they are not under the protection of the constitution. However, It doesn't mean we shouldn't use fair process and treat them like human beings.
*They might not even go there because a mechanical malfunction may leave force them to land in Europe.
I live in Canada. I know if Assange came to Canada and filed for asylum he should be guaranteed full protection and a fair and impartial hearing by the Canadian legal system. This should be the case no matter where the sympathies of our current ruling party happen to lie, as independence of the judiciary is entrenched in our Constitution -- and we have no higher law. Without this independence we basically live in a whimsically selective dictatorship/police-state.
Post 2005 in Canada, I know he'd be gone and sitting in a American prison cell before he could dial his phone (without any of this indecisive fiddling from which the Brits have suffered). This makes me wonder, can the integrity of law *ever* truly be separated from the integrity of the political elite?
Its called, Everything Is illegal, but at the cops desgresion, welcome to east germany.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
They've destroyed his reputation by labelling him as a sex criminal far too kinky for Sweden so I don't think they'll be much of a backlash in the USA, which is ultimately what is cared about by the people trying to make his life difficult due to the heinous crime of embarrassing them. Even the hard core libertarians on this site that keep raving on about how they need their guns for the revolution seem to have decided that Assange is some sort of traitor, and that his lack of US citizenship, residency or even presence is just some sort of technicality.
He's an easy target since he doesn't have Rupert Murdoch or similar behind him.
The US is more intent on silliness like this; they've cut budgets massively for anything to do with space, science, technology - and put more towards war, "defense spending", "security spending" - and moreso even towards protecting the "rights" of monster corporations (including the RIAA and all that that entails). Not surprising in the least - and most "netizens" already knew this from the beginning; regardless of the spew that spouts forth from the US government's media machine - along with their Australian cousin. Yet another sign of the decline of the US's government, and their failure at striving for greatness. Oh, yeah, ditto for the Australian government. What's with all those "secret" treaties the Aussies have signed with the Department of Homeland Security and the likes? Hmmm....
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
OBL was on the cia payroll, so technically, their last big kill job was him .
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Yes, and going on a previous case, after that the military appointed lawyer will then have to leave the military and then find another country to live in if they want to practice law.
It's a truly fucked up show trial system that resembles the sort of show trials we hate North Korea for, and punishes the participants that try to treat it like a legal system.
Lovely, now I know what that is :(
I've read the police report, It's about a crime, period.
The accusations about the Swedish judicial system and about the girls working for the states are paranoid at best.
This is why Sweden as a democracy can't guarantee him anything:
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/asyl-till-assange-ar-ett-slag-i-luften
"Foreign minister Patino [Equador] claimed that it sought to obtain guarantees
from Sweden that Assange would not be extradited in the event of a request
from the United States. According to Ove Bring [professor of international law],
it would be completely unreasonable for Sweden to issue such guarantees.
- Who would guarantee that? The Swedish Supreme Court can't anticipate
it's own trial. If there is such a request, it must be handled the conventional way.
- The government can overturn the extradition even thought the Supreme Court has
ruled in favor of it. But at the current point in time, the goverment can give no such assurances.
That would mean that the government would overrun the whole judicial system and said that
whatever the courts decide mean nothing. That's not the way a democracy works, Ove Bring says."
inlcuding Corzine of MF Global Fund (1 billion $s adios). Yet Assange is THE MAIN ENEMY of your fascist state. Where did you americans put your heads? In a toilet bowl? Have you flushed?
It's still a huge moral jump between using a drone on somebody that's a quasi-military target and poisoning somebody with Polonium. I get the idea that whatever professional portions of the US intelligence community that survived Bush wouldn't stand for something like that. Assassinations are a big deal and very hard to keep secret, which I suppose is why Russia even leave a calling card (Polonium is rarer than Plutonium, doesn't exist in nature and only comes from a small number of Russian reactors) and Mossad don't care who knows they do it.
The Slashdot title is definitely misleading as jbeaupre points out.
The weak link was the system Manning and three million others had access to. Anyone with the resources to buy out any of those three million people could have had access to all of that information. At a second step I suspect anyone with the right connections could probably have bought all of that and more from China or a variety of other countries without directly trying to compromise a user of that system themselves.
I am a woman. I've been woken up to "surprise sex" with a guy I was sleeping with. He wasn't my boyfriend, but we were sleeping together fairly regularly. At no point would I even think of calling what he did to me "rape". Actually, I rather enjoyed it, but even if I didn't, I probably would've just told him to stop and please not do that again. It's NOT rape.
Who mods this crap as insightful?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Espionage is illegal by international law and treaty.
Has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
You are being deliberately obtuse, sticking head in the sand refusing to think logically.
You think you're being logical, but you're ignoring key facts: Espionage is illegal by international law and treaty.
Yes everybody does it, and everybody knows everybody does it. But that doesn't stop them from prosecuting when the individual agents get caught. Those operating under embassy immunity just get deported. those operating under a more clandestine operation can face jail time, or worse, but also face a good possibility of exchange after a period of a few years.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Again, who mods this crap insightful?
Americans do not think that american law applies to everyone.
International laws and treaties do however.
And espionage is illegal, everywhere. That's why the posited 2 scenarios and the distinction between them are very important.
But /. has a very heavy general anti american bias, and anything bashing them gets an automatic +5 Insightful, regardless of content.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Thank you. Exactly. Finally someone on /. with a clue about this stuff not just repeating the same "stupid americans" rhetoric.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Call BS without citations. Akin to the "he did it on purpose" argument of a 5 year old, or the more recent "Ryan hates women and mexicans" claim from rolling stone ragazine. Tell me, did the US also destroy its own buildings to start a war in the middle east? Cause all i see is standard conspiracy i have no proof but EVERYONE KNOWS its true clap trap and rhetoric.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think the US' authorities are out of control and desperately need to be taught a lesson in civility.
Maybe it is time Kenya reclaim their native son, Barack Hussein Obama, and return him to his homeland. After all, fair is fair. And some people would likely rejoice at his removal from USA soil.
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
By your logic Osama Bin Laden was innocent. He was a foreigner on foreign soil so the U.S. had no right to go after him. Period.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
There's no theory there. There is a blanket assertion that we can do this and we will. What I'm asking is how can that be just?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
than reddit! Way to go slashdot!
It's worse than that, if they play by the rules completely. As I understand it, even classified information that is widely known is still classified, and has to be handled with silly procedures. Jefferson Lab's computer account rules include the following, for instance: "We handle no classified information at JLab. If you find some on a JLab computer system, that computer system should be considered contaminated. Don't attempt to remove the information yourself; call the Office of Security Wankage." If people are actually playing by the rules, then it's possible to cause something of a DoS condition by spamming people with classified information.
FFS; it's mildly amusing; lighten up.
From the testimony of Sofia Wilén (http://rixstep.com/1/20110131,00.shtml):
They had foreplay, they carried on for hours. They slept. They woke up and had sex. They slept. They woke and had sex again. They slept. They woke and had sex again. They had breakfast. They had sex again. They slept. He woke her up by penetrating her without a condom, which she had earlier said she didn't want. They spoke. She let him continue. They spoke some more.
Raaaaaaaaaaaape.
No wonder there's an international manhunt for Assange. How Sofia is going to rebuild her shattered life is anyone's guess.
@hatta Hmm, got to love this intro of Mars. Love what NASA and JPL are doing, but and its a big BUT, do they ever stop to think about the "stick of dynamite" they are playing with? I'm talking about Darwinism here. All they need is just one virus, like man, to be in the wrong place at the right time. Just look at all the little critters we are carrying around. I think Darwin said we all have a "niche" in this world and I would extend it to, in this universe, to stay in our niche. To wit: the Asian anaconda in Florida! There are plenty more of these examples .
As for Mr. Assange, now that he exposed the infected pus to the open air, let the healing process begin!!!!
Its not RAPE as most of the world defines it.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman.
I also read that in the media, but it is a misrepresation of the accusation. If you read the transcript of the accusation, she said that in the morning (when they woke up together and had sex again), she was half-asleep. That is very different to being "asleep".
Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?
The answer, as you know, is obvious:
The US has a bigger army and more economic clout.
AFAIK, espionage is a "red handed" diplomatic crime. That is, you need to catch them at it on your soil, or else apply pressure through diplomatic means to have the individual moved on to your soil for trial.
Which, of course, is exactly what we're talking about here. Assange was never on US soil, so the US went with option 2 -- and has so far failed.
Every country with anything more advanced than a mule has an eye out for a weak link. Manning was that link. He felt he was doing the right thing and wanted to share this information in hopes to curb further actions. Now being a naive kid in the military if Wikileaks was not available, who is to say another country wouldn't have befriended him and honed his information gathering to much more sensitive data?
It used to be how they (especially the Soviet Union) got their spies..Many a spy was roped in, not for the money, but because they had been somehow fooled into thinking they were doing the "right thing" for the world. Now that communism appears to be slowly re-entering Russian politics, I wonder if there'll be a return to that..
... it's the same, right?
I think it's already been pretty well discussed earlier in the thread, but extradition from the UK involves a lot of red tape and a lot of conditions as to the treatment of the prisoner.
Sweden and the US have what is essentially a "borrowing" clause that sidesteps extradition completely and lets the US temporarily take custody of Swedish prisoners with very minimal oversight.
Again, a stupid, nonsensical question.
The "guiding principle" is that, when you commit espionage against ANY government, you can expect that government to want to get their hands on you. The only limiting factor is whether or not they can convince the country you're sitting in to take you into custody and hand you over.
Now as for espionage, "having" and "publishing" secrets is not espionage, you're right; "developing contacts in the military/intelligence community in order to get access to classified secrets" certainly crosses the line, and it would be up to the US to prove that Mr. Assange did that, if they wanted to make a case to extradite him to face espionage charges. I know it's fashionable here to blithely assert that "Assange didn't do that," but since you and I both have no real clue what evidence exists in the matter, the assertion is at best baseless speculation, and at worst, completely wrong. Assange claims he didn't do anything wrong, and I'm inclined to believe that he was a passive recipient, simply because he's smart enough to know better. Strangely, the US government, not contradicted his assertion - they are investigating the incident to see if there's evidence of wrongdoing, but there has been no allegations laid that have any legal basis. But again, since we don't know the facts of the case, we can't really conclude one way or another with any certainty.
Government corruption in the US has exceeded all previous levels. The election system has been stolen in more than one past election. It's unclear how much of the current system can be salvaged without a wholesale meltdown & overthrow. As for the chances of that happening anytime soon -- I've though them low, but as I read of the corruption charges rising and the continued sell-out of the American people by both parties (I was pro obama, but lately he's done anything but live up to his even a remote shadow of his promise).
Tea partiers have the right idea if they weren't all manipulated and p0wned by a bunch of right wing conservative think tanks. At least a few of them realize that the problem now, IS the government. A large controlling government making decisions that are not responsible to and not in the best interests of the people governed is no longer a government "of the people".
We need a new government that will again be responsible to and "of the people" and not to the corporations (the wealthy who've formed protective non-living bodies around them)....
Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
Totally agree. Assange is an Australian citizen who was working in the UK or Sweden publishing documents it is perfectly legal to publish in those countries. The Pentagon Papers of 30 years ago demonstrated it would also be legal for an American citizen to do the same in the United States. Yes, the powers that be will illegally harass you and waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money in the process, but they very much want to discourage people who might expose their crimes. All these incidents tell world is that the United States is run by amoral criminal elements. Nothing new there.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Which is why the USA would go for the classic "lone gunman" bit. Hell he's walking around a ground floor right passed windows constantly, it really wouldn't be hard. After a week or two "investigation" they find a nut dead with a note talking about how "Assange caused the death of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan!" and it would be cased close, bring on the next celeb scandal.
But the fact he has published and so far gotten away with it wouldn't be changed by that, hell those that might be in a position to publish might even buy the story and think if they are just more careful than Assange they could get away with it. Nope what they want is to publicly drag him through a show trial and dump him in a hole and to do THAT they need to grab him. I have a feeling he'll end up dragged out of Ecuador after the USA gives the UK a call and tells them to let his ass go, easier to snatch him once the heat dies down.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
If they are free and easy to get, how does having an account make a shred of difference? I'm so tired of that idiot reasoning on slashdot.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Sometimes laws extend outside of their territories. For example, as an Australian citizen, I must obey the laws about the Australian age of sexual consent (16) no matter where I am. Of course, I must follow the local laws as well, so that both local and my nation's laws are satisfied.
However, given that Assange is neither an American citizen nor on American soil, the point is moot.
Espionage is illegal by international law and treaty
WTF does that even mean??
Every country is a SOVEREIGN STATE. Laws within sovereign states are binding upon anyone WITHIN that state. There are also jurisdictional subdivisions WITHIN states. But there is NO GLOBAL LAW and there is no "global legal authority" under which such laws would be investigated and prosecuted. NO COUNTRY ON EARTH would subject itself to such an authority, so one doesn't exist. (The closest thing there is the International Court of Human Rights in the Hague, but LOTS of countries dont recognize it's authority including both the UK, and USA.)
He committed no crime of espionage against any Country in which he resides or is a citizen. Spying on the USA is a LEGAL ACTIVITY if you're not an American citizen and you're not actually IN the USA (though they'll be happy to f-you-in-the-a 6-ways-to-Sunday if they can get their hands on you regardless of that fact! Thus the basis for Julian's dilemma/concerns)...
-AC
espionage is illegal everywhere
No, well, not exactly: Espionage AGAINST THE STATE IN WHICH YOU RESIDE and/or ARE A CITIZEN is almost universally illegal. Espionage against third-parties is pretty much legal everywhere... Nobody much gives a crap if you're spying on SOMEONE ELSE, if your position were even REMOTELY true, the CIA and the KGB (amongst a great host of examples) would be INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALLY ILLEGAL ORGANIZATIONS...
So no, espionage is NOT illegal everywhere... in the sense you are seeking to assert.
-AC
845,000 Google results on "Extraordinary Rendition", is that enough citations for you?
-AC
Just this morning on the ABC Australia TV i see Bob Carr stating that the USA has no interest in Julian and that they are doing everything within their power to help and Australian citizen.
WHY does everyone know about these USA affidavits for Julian and Bob Carr doesn't? He is the Foreign Minister isn't he?
Looks like hes been caught out bold face lying. But hey - hes a politician and has privileged - right?
The easiest way to solve this is to have the police interview with Julian in the UK - after all hes only been accused of something and so should have the right of reply - it defies the innocent until proven guilty pre judgement and he hasnt been charged but they want to extradite him?
if it looks like a set up and smells like a set up it is a set up
meanwhile Manning sits in a cell under conditions not fit for a human undergoing mind control to point the finger at Julian when the USA finally gets their hands on him. Then its bye bye Julian forever.
There may be documents in the possession of wikileaks showing that someone is maintaining a secret observation on a paranormal entity somewhere in Zamboanga City, Philippines .....
Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?
If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.
That didn't stop the DEA from extraditing potheads from Canada.
You don't get a "free pass" to commit espionage simply because you're sitting outside the country you're targeting
As it happens, I'm sitting in Canada, and I'm not aware of any Canadian law that prohibits committing espionage against other countries while sitting here. There's laws against committing espionage against Canada, but that's it.
So if I'm committing espionage against Brazil, and Brazil phones Canada and asks them to extradite me... Canada's attitude is pretty much "What he is doing is not illegal here".
For Canada to arrest and extradite me, they'd have to recognize what I was doing was criminal. And there isn't any Canadian law against "espionage against Brazil".
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
And the further context is that she repeated and consistently insisted that he used a condom when the had sex. He is accused of having unprotected sex with her without her consent, clearly knowing that it was against her wishes to do so. I don't care how many times they'd had consensual sex before, what he is accused of is still rape given that context.
Yep welcome to the USSA comrade, where the only free men are the rich.
BTW I think every one of us that have said about a billion fucking times here that "Its not about rape, its about the USSA snatching his ass" deserves a fricking apology from all those "No its not, its about a crime, its raaape!" dumbasses, so line the hell up. Oh and WE TOLD YA SO!
Its pretty God damned sad when fricking Ecuador is the symbol of freedom and the USSA is the slimy country, but this ain't the country your grandparents fought for in WWII, its turned foul, the ground has gone sour thanks to a cabal of WallStreet, the MICs and PMCs, and the gov, all in bed together.
Go FUCK your worthless self!!! He "raped" NO-ONE EVER! He released docs that showed all the lies and bull shit our worthless USA is doing to all around the globe. Get a grip ass-lick and do some REAL RESEARCH......
Wikipedia article, with 152 checked citations.
You're welcome.
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Ah, that is a different question that the one you posed before. The concept of something being just isn't constrained by jurisdiction. If you give someone a gun and tell them to kill a third party in a different country, and they do, it would obviously be just to hunt you down (how you are hunted is yet a different matter). How about just telling them to kill? Or telling them to steal something?
The theory is that if you are involved in a statute crime involving US interests, it is just to seek you out for punishment.
You can argue if something should be a crime, or the level of involvement. You can also argue if seeking someone is worth it (i.e. conspiracy to jaywalk). But that's the theory.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Come on, what are you wussying about? That we have to make some little sacrifications to be the greatest country in the world? Boo-hoo!!
They can demand anything they want. The US has no extradition treaty with them though so they'll just ignore it.
It does beg an interesting question about the treaties between the US/UK and US/Sweden though. Which, if any, allow extradition for espionage?
If for example sweden allows it and the UK doesn't that means he can't be extradited from the UK on the charges directly but doesn't mean the UK has to say no when the swedes ask if they have objections to him being sent from there to the US. IANAL but I can see the UK govt. line being we had an obligation to extradite him to Sweden to face charges and they have an obligation to the US, we're not going to stand in the way of that. A few days later it'll all blow over because the fact of the matter is nobody in the UK really cares enough about him.