Slashdot Mirror
Assange Makes Statement Calling For an End To the "Witch Hunt"
An anonymous reader writes "After a statement from a window at an upper floor from the Ecuadorian Embassy, Julian Assange '... called on US President Barack Obama to "do the right thing" and for his government to "renounce its witch hunt against Wikileaks."'" However, the U.S. issued the following statement regarding Assange's stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy, "The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognize the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law,"
Not recognized, huh? Kinda like the multi-trillion dollar deficit, eh?
What a crock of shit.
He tricked the Police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu1TZVX72Aw&t=4m9s
Also applies to himself regarding facing up to the charges against him in Sweeden.
Oh you're right, people shouldn't know what their government is up to. What ever was I thinking?
Jules COULD HAVE gotten some people killed.
The actions described in the leaked cables and classified information show that the US government DID kill innocent people. Then tried to cover it up.
now you see the true face of your government
Meanwhile, Anonymous threatened Slashdot editors that if they continue to neglect their responsibilities, the consequences will never be the same. Here's Tom with the weather.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Assange spoke today -- Sunday. That statement by the U.S. was released two days ago in response to Ecuador calling for a meeting of the OAS. It was *NOT* in response to Mr. Assange's speech, as the summary implies.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
In the past:
-The United States has cut off funds to Unesco as a punitive action after the Palestinian Authority was accepted into the UN agency as a full member in defiance of American, Israeli and European pressure.
-They're not part of The International Criminal Court
-They didn't sign for the Kyoto protocol
etc...
The dirty deeds done in the dark by dirty people who assumed it would always be dark... got people killed. Wikileaks just turned on the lights.
We don't live in a world of secrets anymore. Human communication is too rich and evolved for that kind of thinking. Finally, we can have some honesty and progress.
Ecuador granted political asylum. Political asylum != diplomatic asylum. The statement about diplomatic asylum is deliberately deceptive waffle.
If it is, I'm certain the Chinese will be happy to know. Especially the next time we shelter one of their dissidents at our embassy.
wonder how they don't recognize it now..
for example in 1956, the US granted political asylum to cardinal Mindszenty at their embassy in Budapest, Hungary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu1TZVX72Aw&t=4m9s
This may be of interest:
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/svenska-dagbladets-fact-check-assange_6717619.svd
Some more progressive country would had settled this silly dispute by giving Assange a little polonium cocktail, and whole issue would had been buried long ago.
Every TV cop show says that if the suspect makes it onto embassy property they are untouchable! ... my reality is ruined!
The TV lies
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Any bets on when Ecuador gets "liberated"?
It's also pretty interesting that out of the blue they issue this statement. Because, you know, they have absolutely no intentions on bringing Assange to the US after the trial in Sweden. Right?
c++;
Do they have any oil?
Not very "upper" about that floor, it was from the first floor judging from the video and pictures where you could see the whole building.
c++;
Good god, what is happening to AC? This is like the third time this week AC has slapped down a named account with a frank and accurate comment.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
you seem to have a blind spot, an out of contorl government in the pockets of wealthy elite killing and maiming innocents is DEFINETLY putting people at risk
From the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum, Ecuador should not have provided Asylum:
Article III
It is not lawful to grant asylum to persons who, at the time of requesting it, are under Indictment or on trial
for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular courts and have not served the
respective sentence, nor to deserters from land, sea, and air forces, save when the acts giving rise to the
request for asylum, whatever the case may be, are clearly of a political nature.
Persons included in the foregoing paragraph who de facto enter a place that is suitable as an asylum
shall be Invited to leave or, as the case may be, shall be surrendered to the local authorities, who may not try them for political offenses committed prior to the time of the surrender.
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,4565c22517,4565c25f203,3ae6b3823c,0,,,.html
No doubt, this probably has at least something to do with the charges against Assange.
I fail to see how the US could pursue a case against Assange, as he is not a US citizen and not bound by US law. On what charge could he be extradited under?
The US does not adhere to International law and cannot really make any claims under it.
The following claims are made in some articles:
"Despite this, and apparently on the basis of still classified off-the-record discussions with US officials and private legal experts, the embassy reported the existence of the grand jury as a matter of fact. It identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud."
This is complete nonsense. US Federal law only applies to US citizens and cannot be applied to a foreigner without consent.
that would be breaking laws of evil countries not his own?
As it turns out, it was the answer to a question:
Question from press briefing
So some reporter asked a loaded question (implying the US had an OAS commitment to recognize diplomatic asylum), and this is a correction.
The case of Cardinal Mindszenty, which many are bringing up, is one where the Communist Hungarian government did not in fact recognize diplomatic asylum; Mindszenty was stuck in the US embassy for 15 years until the Hungarians relented.
Seems to me that Assange did not break any law. Not in the "cablegate" case at least. Manning might have, which is why he's being held in the U.S.
c++;
In fact, some U.S. laws do apply worldwide. Just like some Swedish laws apply worldwide and some Ecuadorean laws apply worldwide. It's called "extraterritorial jurisdiction", try Googling it.
firstly, why are you talking like that? i can't tell...
It's a line from and reference to Mandy Patinkin's bad accent as Inigo in "The Princess Bride"
Don't you think he'd leak the radiation?
Bert
I personally admire the courage of Julian Assange standing up to the US Government. I don't know that I would have the same amount of courage. The US has a nasty habit of mostly getting what it wants through force, fear, and intimidation. It takes someone truly fearless and I hope that Assange prevails. It is episodes like this that really make me support Ron Paul!
I've noticed this in many slashdot summaries lately.. either as a result of poor selection by moderators, or by deliberate selection of yellowish content. Lets tag such stories with 'inaccuratesummary', and hope the editors take notice.
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
No, we don't know that there was no sexual assault.
The only way we find out, is if he goes to Sweden and clears his name with the police, or the court.
Is there any proof of people dead due to wikileaks?
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
I still find it strange that wikileaks got burned by a NEWS agency that supposedly leaked the decryption key.
Why would a news agency shit on its own sources like that?
The whole thing smells like a covert operation designed to give the world a reason to hate wikileaks.
All wikileaks did was mitigate the danger by making the leak public and giving everyone at risk a fair chance at protecting themselves. They TRIED to keep it redacted, but thanks to the decryption key leaking thanks to the news agency, their hand got forced.
Hm...could have gotten people killed...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex
Palm trees and 8
The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognize the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law"
Once again the Obama administration shames us with its foreign policy. Let hope the Chinese don't remember this statement next time one of their dissidents shows up at our Embassy.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yes. Obama has been president since 1954.
What a freakin' baby.....it's always somebody's fault other than his. He was probably the kind of kid that poked a wasp nest with a stick, and then blamed the wasp when he got stung.
Ok. I got it. US is not a democracy, it's govt. no longer believes in the state of law, it's... you know... just a wasp nest.
No wonder many developed such an allergy to US govt.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I don't see the conflict. The United States and China both support the Vienna convention which holds that the US embassy in China is under US law. If we shelter a dissident China is free to file an extradition request under the extradition treaty. Our ambassador to China has no authority to grant immunity from Chinese persecution but does have the authority to require paperwork.
In principle, exposing the murder and cover-up of innocent people actually helps save the lives of innocent people in future, as it discourages such behavior.
Why would a news agency shit on its own sources like that?
s/malice/incompetence/
Most news agency have no clue about computer security or cryptography. Wikileaks is one of the few places that does a reasonable job of protecting whistle blowers these days; major media outlets are clueless, still applying techniques that worked decades ago.
Palm trees and 8
censored spot, more like.
We americans aren't all blind to what's happening. There's also this thing called learned helplessness where fighting to change things at best wastes time and at worst backfires and makes us regret resisting.
and clears his name
No, that's not how criminal justice works at all.
And why on earth does that matter? He's in Britain! It's just an empty threat
'WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.'
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/dod-study-contradicts-charges-against-wikileaks
You didn't spend very long thinking about that statement. There are many things you don't want to be public, besides national secrets and all, such as your tax information and various other private records.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Within 1 week of him going to Sweden, he would be in US custody and headed for Gitmo. And within a week after that, the sex charges would be dropped with a couple crying bitches on TV saying, 'oops, we thought he was someone else'. AND MOST OF AMERICA WOULD EAT IT UP as gospel.
You waking up this morning could get someone killed today, you arrogant asshole. Maybe you should stay in bed so that none of the rest of us have to read this idiocy.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Assange is Wikileak's best enemy. The Guardian did not leak the key. Wikileaks was signing multiple files using the same key. You're supposed to use the key once for Mitra's sake! See here and here
Again if Assange wasn't being an asshole with various girls, he would have never ended up in this extradition scenario.
Wikileaks should be forked and Assange should answer to the charges. If he is not guilty as claimed, excellent. All of that "but he is not charged with anything" bullshit is just misinformation (fnord) and not understanding how an other country's due process works.
This is an issue between Great Britain, Ecuador, Sweden, and Australia. The USA is not party to this dispute and should just keep their mouths shut. Assange isn't alleged to have raped anyone in the USA.
Yeah, right. The US, in stating its legal position and opinions is providing the prima facie evidence that Assange has a fear of extra-legal activity by the US and the need for asylum.
If the USA has a case against him, file charges and request extradition through legal channels.
Have gnu, will travel.
Here's a guy saying that we should stop paying attention to the fact that he and his team helped deliver to regimes like Iran and North Korea thousands of sensitive documents having nothing in common other than the fact that a wish-I-hadn't-joined-the-military drama queen stole a giant, un-focused heap of them in a fit a pique... and then he spends months trolling through them looking for anything he can find that might make his idealogical opponents look bad, no matter the consequences for people under cover or working against oppressive regimes ... and then he says, "the witch hunt must end!"
He wants the "witch hunt" (what which hunt? the one where we already know exactly what happened and who did it?) to end so that he can continue his own actual witch hunt in peace and go back to having contentious sexual relations with groupies and getting fawning media coverage from his designated approved media desciples.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If the UK pulls through with its bullshit, China is free to declare the US embassy in China no longer protected, march in, grab whoever they want, shit on the smoldering parts (sorry, those flashbangs set the carpet on fire), waltz out and say "told you so".
It's the civilized US lapdog that first shat on the Vienna treaty.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Don't you think he'd leak the radiation?
Unless you are going to ingest what he'd leak, you should be safe (alpha radiation, not even penetrating the skin).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Thanks. That clarifies things a bit and you also raise an important point regarding the difference between diplomatic asylum and other cases of people seeking refuge in an embassy.
Before we all get too worked up about the US not recognising the concept of diplomatic asylum (too late I guess), there's less here than meets the eye. Diplomatic asylum is a concept that has long been accepted in Latin America, and it developed there in part because of some periods in which there were many coups and people trying to escape from new regimes found refuge in foreign embassies. Diplomatic asylum is however not the same as Chinese dissidents seeking refuge in the US embassy in Beijing or the Cold War cases, as parent points out, and this reflects that outside of Latin America, the concept of diplomatic asylum is not accepted under international law. That's why it's sometimes described as regional international law. Chinese and other dissidents are rather making use of the diplomatic immunity that these places enjoy, which prevents the authorities of the host state from exercising their jurisdiction on the premises but doesn't mean they can leave.
So while Ecuador sees the Assange case as a one of diplomatic asylum, the UK only accepts the immunity of the embassy (and if the story about threats is to be believed, not even that - but that would be a violation of international law). Had the UK accepted the notion of diplomatic asylum under international law, it could also grant safe passage to Assange to leave for Ecuador upon recognition of the diplomatic asylum granted by Ecuador. In any case, both UK practice and the US position reflect longstanding positions of international law, regardless of what we think about all the other aspects of the case.
I'd like to say at this point IANAL, but I can't, since I'm actually an international lawyer.
So the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press ends wherever you decide. Yup. Nice one.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
No, but they can extract it 50 miles off the shore of Texas and Louisiana like Brazil and China do without getting any sort of federal drilling permits like American companies need to get.
Bullshit.
Obvious shill is obvious.
I assume we do recognize immunity? If not, our own representatives are at risk everywhere across the world, and a bit hypocritical too.
Sort of amazing how much energy is being spent to catch this guy, while true threats to the country walk around without any heat at all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
+1, Funny :)
Most US citizens live at a pleasant level of luxury with a sufficient sense of security and sufficient hope for a better future. Because of this, they would rather not get involved in politics very much at all (mostly they just vote to impose their morality on their neighbors, or to resist having their neighbors impose their morality on them).
The American public finds it very comforting to believe that they are safe and free and an example to the world of how to do governance properly. This belief is not challenged by their circumstances (as mentioned above), and so it persists despite the right-out-in-public actions that directly contradict this belief, and that the American government continues to take without hesitation or remorse.
In fact, the unchecked tyranny of the American government actually benefits most of the American people, as it ensures that Americans can continue to have their cheap goods and relatively steady jobs and not have to make any sacrifices to pay down the beyond-their-capacity-to-envision national debt.
Therefore, anyone who points out the real injustices perpetuated by the American government, most Americans just write it off as conspiracy theory nonsense, without expending the slightest modicum of effort at checking the facts. The problem isn't just that they don't know, but that they don't want to know. And they sure don't want to put themselves at risk, or make any kind of sacrifice, to protect those other people in other countries from their beloved government. Nor do they want to protect those boat-rockers right in their own country, as such boat-rockers seem to be spewing nonsense and offer only to make things worse for the very people of whom they are demanding action.
Until the majority of Americans feel the pain of their Government's actions, directly, they will NOT get up and hold their government accountable. They will just vote for the next charismatic man who uses words like "hope" and "change" and feel smug about having voted, as usual.
Sometimes change required a world war and occupation.
Sometimes it was be done by (non-)violent revolution.
Democracy is something you have to defend all the time.
And waiting until shit hits the fan is something very undesireable.
I'd say you can still repair the damage in a non-violent way and should do so now.
Our actions and decisions are what shapes the course of history.
people shouldn't know what their government is up to
You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime. Also, home addresses of the wives of people working covertly in places like North Korea or Yemen. Also, we should circulate a spreadsheet showing the schedule and routes of moving nuclear material. And when the government acts to put someone in protective custody or witness protecction, such covert activities - where the public doesn't get to know where the person is and what they're doing - should definitely be considered the sleazy act of an insufficiently GNU-Open-Secrecy-Is-Bad government.
Or is it possible that there are benefits, when doing things like talking to political parties in countries that are on the brink of a civil war, in being able to assure such a group that they can speak frankly while policy matters are hashed out?
What ever was I thinking?
Don't beat yourself up about it. Most other people don't think about reality, either.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Good luck trying to get your government's Foreign Policy department to function properly if all the correspondences with foreign sources have to be made available to the public.
How long before that happens?
(Or maybe for a small fee one of those Olympic missiles might accidentally misfire.)
All stopped clocks show the correct time when Julian Assange is in the room.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
bullshit.
if it was 'information' they wanted, he offered to meet with them, virtually (and safely) and answer questions.
they declined.
THEY declined.
its like 2 kids: "come here." "what do you want?" "I just want to talk, come over here." "can't you talk from over there?" "come, on, just come closer."
you can see this, of course. we all can.
this isn't about sex. never was.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Ask somebody there in their 20s what happened there in 1989. Their resposne "nothing I know of."
Tell them that you are going to get on a plane and visit Thailand for the weekend and ask if they want to come along. Their response will be, I have to go down to the police station to apply for a visa.
Just because the USA doesn't support your view of "anarchy" doesn't mean that it isn't the "land of the free."
And the choice of weapon is .... Polonium 210.
Tried and true. Works every time.
This is Slashdot. Obama is to blame for everything. George W. Bush was wonderful, but even if there was any little tiny thing that was bad about Bush, Obama is to blame for that too!
Due process my ass.
Presumption of guilt, now?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Are brain cells somehow becoming an endangered species even here on Slashdot?
Swedish legal protocol has been compromised so badly in this case it's hard to imagine a trial happening even if the guy IS guilty, but don't believe me, here's the considered opinion of a retired Swedish prosecutor. Read it... it's informative. This situation could EASILY be solved by interviewing Assange in the UK according to Sven-Erik, and according to evidence on the public record. Why the insistance on extradition in this case? The guy might be an asshat sometimes, but that doesn't deserve a ticket to gitmo... and this whole thing feels very bad. I think the average citizen in the west has been lied to enough that some healthy skepticism is long overdue, and frankly I'd be happier to see it err on the side of paranoia than apathy.
Oh puhleeze... mod parent informative.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
China isn't thinking, "UK never invades embassies, therefore we won't either." They are already free to do that. They chose not to invade the US embassy because they didn't want to.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I still find it strange that wikileaks got burned by a NEWS agency that supposedly leaked the decryption key.
Why would a news agency shit on its own sources like that?
Out of a total lack of respect. Should we pretend to be surprised?
Except he didn't rape anyone.
Actually, you are about right. They change the puppet and studio lighting every so often. But otherwise, the cabal of interests that manipulated an unknown, failed haberdasher into the Presidency are the same.
They had their Truman ( 97th Grand Master of the Masons of Missouri. In 1945, he was made a 33Â Sovereign Grand Inspector General and an Honorary Member of the supreme council at the Supreme Council A.A.S.R. Southern Jurisdiction Headquarters in Washington D.C. In 1959, he was awarded the 50-year award)
Now, they have their Obama. Peculiar phantoms without personal history or achievement that explain the sudden catapult to the forefront. And after them... An unrecognizable transformation of the country and people.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Assange has changed the game. People run governments and Assange has exposed that they are vulnerable when they don't act in the interest of their people. The cat is out of the bag at this point.
I'm really curious, why do you think Sweden would be more willing to give Assange to the US than the UK? The UK tends to be a US lapdog, after all.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This editorial from today's Sydney Morning Herald is of interest. Key quote: "The case is a dark hole of legal and human rights suspicions that needs the light of transparent judicial process." Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/assange-the-superpower-and-the-little-nation-that-wont-give-him-up-20120819-24gc7.html#ixzz240iu0lzQ
Yep. Thank you. Every time I get enraged at my US government's tyranny, I get reminded how much more corrupt and subverted other forces in the world are, like the UN, the ICC, and the forces behind Kyoto. It's hard to find instances where these forces are resisted, but you listed three fine examples.
A bit, yeah.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This might be the worst post I have ever seen. I wish there was a 'best of slashdot' forum or something where we could highlight this dude's idiocy.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
now you see the true face of your government
Which is saying we didn't sign a treaty that we didn't sign? The horror.
God, the +5 ACs on this page are stomach churning.
Slashdot, I know you're trying real hard to be radio talk show, but there's a lot of tech news out there, you don't need to pander to these vapid morons to get page views and commentary. Look at the quality on this page. Are page views all you care about?
Why don't you guys just own up and call this place Weekly World News for Nerds?
Why? Who really cares how much you pay in taxes or how much you made? I certainly don't. Maybe a vengeful ex-wife would, but then it is your own fault for hiding it in the first place.
The only thing that should be eligible for classification is material that WILL BEYOND ANY DOUBT get someone killed or significantly weaken the security of the country if it is made public. This information was not either of those things, and is only being treated as such because it was embarrassing to the administration in charge of most of the hideous things on the leaked information.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
That isn't going to prove one way or another if there was a sexual assault. All that will do is ensure that the various governments unhappy with the victim(yes, Assange is the victim here) have their way with him under the guise of legal proceedings.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
If the UK pulls through with its bullshit, China is free to declare the US embassy in China no longer protected, march in, grab whoever they want, shit on the smoldering parts (sorry, those flashbangs set the carpet on fire), waltz out and say "told you so".
If the UK were to attack the USA embassy in China, that's an act of war against the USA and against China however. But that has nothing to do with US privilege. Only if the Chinese failed to try and prevent the UK would they be in violation of Vienna.
I'm not sure what your analogy is but with all your sarcasm its hard to figure out you are talking about. How about less emotion and just a pure rendition of facts.
"They accused me in absentia, they tried me in absentia, they convicted me in absentia. Let them execute me in absentia."
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Someone posted a link to a PDF copy of that very thing during a discussion on another recent Assange story, but don't let facts get in your way.
...unless you're talking about a one-off special, rather than an extradition treaty, but in the presence of the latter there's no need for the former.
As bad as the US may be vs. how it used to be and/or what it claims to be, do you really think that FBI rises to the level of the NKVD or that Robert Mueller rises to the level of Lavrentiy Beria?
There are arguments for and against this. Firstly, UK->US extradition is politically sensitive at the moment, after a number of high-profile cases (see McKinnon, Tappin, O'Dwyer to name a few). Most of it is political nonsense and right-wing grandstanding, but it might make things a bit awkward.
Secondly, if the US seeks extradition after the Swedes already have (although it should be noted that the two processes are significantly different), the case has to go back to court, go through a series of appeals, issues of whether or not the extradition to the US is acceptable, whether it should take preference, Sweden then get to have a say as well and it takes years for it all to get sorted out. Whereas if he goes to Sweden first (whether convicted or not) they only have to get a nod from the UK as well as going through one lot of extradition proceedings in Sweden. Plus, if he is found guilty in Sweden, they have the bonus of being able to call him a convicted rapist/sex offender, which may help with the politics.
That said... Sweden is still bound by the ECHR and EU law, so it isn't exactly going to be that much easier to extradite him than it would be in the UK.
If that's all he'd done nobody would care. But:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/15/whats_happening_to_those_named_wikileaks_sources
You will note that while Assange sits in a comfortable flat in London, complaining of 'witchhunts' because a government he dislikes might possibly consider charging him with crimes, that might eventually include one carrying the death penalty; those two generals in Zimbabwe are actually charged with crimes carrying the Death penalty.
Umm, parent and I are both clearly anti-US.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
And in addition to my other comment, my UID and comment history will probably suggest that I predate COINTELPRO thinking.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Let's assume that the conspiracy theories are right for a second. Somehow U.S. agencies are behind the charges against Assange in Sweden and believe they have enough control over the Swedish judicial system, and in extension the Swedish government, to get him delivered into their hands.
Even if we assume that Sweden is an U.S. lapdog, we're still talking about a relatively open society, so this might be harder to do than in some other countries, but for the argument's sake: They really want to get Assange.
Knowing all this, what does Assange do? Try to escape to Ecuador, of course, because the same agencies who managed to arrange the situation in Sweden will have no chance of getting to him there. I mean, who have ever heard of U.S. clandestine operations in South America? And of course the government and courts of Ecuador is much less corrupt than those of Sweden.
Anyone else see a problem with this theory?
There are many things you don't want to be public, besides national secrets and all, such as your tax information and various other private records.
I'm willing to make that trade. We have a lot more to gain from openness than we have to lose.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Why kill him? They'll just send him to prison, classify him as a sex offender because of his conviction and or charges in Sweden. The prison will have a preponderance of sex offenders and Julian is such a pretty boy, it will not take long before somebody plays hide the sausauge with his ass. Before he gets out, he'll be able to take two fists in the brown-eye without lube.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Ken's cancer has just recently begun to spread to his right lymph node but his Oncologist has assured us that this is 80 percent curative if he gets the needed surgery in time.
Unfortunately, his 1100 dollar a month SSI disability disqualifies him for Medicaid care and the local county low-income insurance he was receiving. This leaves us with about 2 weeks to either raise enough money for at least the OR for the surgery (we are hopeful of finding a surgeon to do the work pro bono) or raise enough money for the entire procedure. We've spent hours upon hours researching and contacting the links some of you have provided but they are so limited in scope that 90 percent of them are not helpful at all.
We are looking at two weeks, maybe three before the cancer spreads past the point of surgery being an option. After that, we've been told just to make him as comfortable as possible until he passes. I'm not ready to accept that.
Stupid, the Medicare exclusion. Pitch in if you can.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
My analogy is that the UK is threatening to unilaterally cancel the Vienna treaty. On the basis of some ridiculous act they made in the 80s. Which, by itself is already a violation. Yes, they can revoke the diplomatic privileges of the Ecuadorian Embassy. They have to give the residents in there free travel rights out of the country, though. My point here is, if you give up civilized treatment of embassies, expect to be treated in kind.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The fact his example will influence the future of disclosure of truth in our future is reason enough to support his well being. CAN YOUR EGO GET THAT FACT?
1) Ego. An easy attack against anybody who stands up openly to get pounded on by the giant. MLK was attacked in the same way. They all get the attack and it sticks to various degrees depending upon how they come across and what kind of person they are (appearance being most important.) I do not find his Ego any bigger than a newspaper editor (so then it is larger than average. )
2) the US planned to attack wikileaks by undermining its image to supporters; it was leaked. A good smear distorts or reframes the truth. Also, EGO is an old attack that always works well on activist groups. You should know this, right?? Idealistic groups' values system makes ego into a sin or blasphemy against their ideals. You undermine from within as well as their making their outward message look insincere, inauthentic, and self serving. It is the BEST attack for such groups. You don't have to be an expert in the CIA to use or know this (but they are the experts and he falls under their jurisdiction as well as the state dept.)
3) Americans have a simplistic view of political issues. For a democracy, they tend to limit their views to only authoritarian hierarchies! Wikileaks would have a "head ringleader" even if they did not have one. The US media and politicians still have a hard time grasping the occupy movement desperately trying to find some figurehead or make/find 1 volunteer to symbolize as a single representative for the movement. Notice how we always kill the #2 and now #1 man in the boogie man terrorist organization despite it hardly qualifying as an organization; if a terrorist lived he'd probably not know about his promotion until the news reported his death.
4) Wikileaks is a really small organization; much of it is distributed to small players or hidden secret players. Assange has made himself the public face of wikileaks and due to (3 above) he is the #1 target so he gets priority over all the others (leakers are another dept.) Assange HELPS everybody by being the focus of attack and being a good example (being a dick doesn't help anybody; but they were smearing him before he gave them fuel-- works both ways, the USA is trying to make a negative example of him.)
A coward CEO suddenly forgets everything and shifts leadership to diffuse the damage to his peers-- pleading incompetent while still expecting the unjustified salary... Many groups decide who is going to be the fall guy. Assange as the founder/editor is the legal target and he knew it.
5) Surely, a wiseman would realize that nobodies are disappeared and who knows or cares?? As the final decider and founder HE GOES TO JAIL not his PR man. By becoming his own PR man and fostering celebrity status he becomes a known person in our celebrity obsessed culture which protects him as the legal fall guy as well as wikileaks AND it increases exposure as well as humanizing an organization that is bound to be subject to dehumanizing techniques. The WISE move is what he did ego or not. I'm not saying that somebody acting wisely or who is wise will be wise in all their actions for their whole life (or not accused of foolish behavior.) Righteous positions give people great power and it goes to anybody's head at least a little bit.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The United States and China both support the Vienna convention which holds that the US embassy in China is under US law.
please do your homework.
The US wasn't standing up to the UN or the ICC. It was punishing those that did not dance to its tune. The UN and the IOC may be corrupt, but the US is both corrupt and powerful.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
since the typical strategy is (for example, against AQ):
1) disrupt leadership and
2) choke finances
having Assange under de facto house arrest should be having this effect.
If he spends the next 15 years in the Ecuadorian embassy, it's unlikely he'll be very effective. That will also be 15 years for the US to be able to lean on, overthrow, bribe or coerce the Ecuadorian government into turning him over. If Ecuador is willing to oppose the US by sheltering a high profile person like this, I'm guessing the CIA is already bank rolling the political and military opposition to the current government (e.g., Iran, Chile, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc). Which, even if it is not effective in regime change, will increase the cost of opposition to US desires for the regime in power (and so be a bargaining chip - turn over Assange and we'll make the guerrillas go away).
Also, the 'chilling effect' should be working: what is to stop new WL from popping up? Why aren't there a hundred or thousand other leak sites? By harassing assange they make sure to send a clear message to those who would follow his example that life will be unpleasant.
So it would seem that 'Operation WikiChill' is succeeding on some level.
Pentagon Papers
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell. —Justice Black
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=713
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If it is, I'm certain the Chinese will be happy to know. Especially the next time we shelter one of their dissidents at our embassy.
U.S. embassies do not offer asylum, according this dissidents have to actually get into the U.S. before asylum can be applied:
The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States grants asylum only to aliens who are physically present in the United States.
That's a nice story, but those things weren't in the Wikileaks cables. Try again.
Not even a good straw man complaint, there. I'm replying (as you obviously know) to the GP's implication that government shouldn't do things in secret. Which is nonsense on the face of it. And you know that, but you're trying to change the topic so that reality doesn't get in the way of your politics. You try again.
Oh, and just in case you don't know about (though you do, and you're just asserting an alternate reality for bogus political points), the leaked cables absolutely do give up details of all sorts of covert operations, quiet conversations between nations, at-risk protesters with families living under brutal regimes like Iran, etc. Exactly the sort of stuff that's kept out of the public discourse for a reason. It must me relaxing to think there's nothing at stake in the world, and that none of people who risk their necks to get things done are of any worry to you. But then, that's what it's like to be in junior high school, right? Let me guess - 9th grade? Ah, those were the days.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Just so you know, most of the world don't care which "side" you're on, we see the US government as being the US government regardless of who's in charge. So yes, you're right, but bringing Obama into it is the same as arguing over whether MacDonalds or Burger King produce the best burgers to feed to your kids every day.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
in this matter. Rove was internationally infamous, so it can't be a simple case of foreign political blindness on the Swedes' part.
Every policy or alignment is subject to change with each new generation and Sweden is no exception. In fact they have a recent history of supporting US Neocon adventurism including illegal renditions of asylum-seekers to Egypt.
So what's worse?
1: Killing people
2: Putting people at risk by revealing they killed people?
Your argument seems to suggest killing people is fine as long as nobody else finds out.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Technically it has to do with those people whose credentials are received not those people who happen to reside there. So for example if there was a secretary in the USA embassy without credentials the UK could rightfully hold her for espionage.
And why the hell are US agents working coverly in Yemen to begin with? Maybe if the government kept its nose out of other countries business the safety of US spies wout be a moot point since there wouldn't be any.
You have the wrong treaty. The one you are linking to covers treaties not embassies.
Done at Vienna April 18, 1961;
Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America
September 14, 1965;
Ratified by the President of the United States of America November
8, 1972
Ratification of the United States of America deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations November 13, 1972; Proclaimed by the President of the United States of America
November 24, 1972;
Entered into force with respect to the United States of America
December 13, 1972.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/17843.pdf
Has Sweden given any assurances that it won't hand Assange over to the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cold_War_pilot_defections
An asylum person is someone who has left their country of origin for fear of persecution. They've asked for permission to stay in another country and are waiting for a decision to be made on this.
On May 28, 1987, Cuban Brigadier General Rafael Del Pino Diaz defected to the United States in a Cessna 402 airplane of Aerocaribbean, with his third wife, his daughter, and his son Ramses, an ex-MiG-23 pilot. Del Pino Diaz remains the highest-ranking Cuban defector.
Sure, we recognize Diplomatic Asylum. Just not any asylum that blunts our pitchforks and snuffs out our torches. Its pretty obvious Julian Assange if not granted Asylum, would be eating that world renound lemon pepper fish down in Guantanamo.
let the whitehouse finish a few slices of humble pie this time.
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. There shouldn't be any government undercover cops working against organised crime.
2. There shouldn't be people working covertly in places like North Korea and Yemen.
3. People should know precisely everything about every nuclear load that various agencies, including government move around them.
AFAIC all the things you mentioned shouldn't even happen, and if they do happen and somebody leaks this information - good. Everybody must know what governments do.
You can't handle the truth.
But with Assange not being a US citizen they don't have much to throw at him, so it has been receiving no publicity (yet). When/if that case does hit the CNN/FOX news cycle, at that point the Brits would have some pretext to rendition him.
The UK authorities have nothing to act on until then.
Karl Rove and Co. seem to think that shaming him with the Swedish accusations is the best way to proceed for now; he is even advising the Swedes on this matter according to one government official.
If an extradition to Sweden were somehow to go ahead, I believe an abduction is in the cards so that the US military can try to lump him in with Bradley Manning as a co-conspirator. (Remember, you're only a "conspiracy theorist" if your suspects are rich and powerful members and hangers-on of the US establishment... otherwise, suspicion is passionately encouraged.)
I don't think reasonable people advocate knowing *everything*. On the contrary, we just want to know the potentially illegal and unethical stuff; witness protection and undercover cops are neither illegal or unethical. If the only reason a certain piece of information is classified is to prevent some power-tripper from having egg on his face or getting thrown into jail, that's abuse of secrecy power and deserves to be publicized.
:(){
I should have said the UK authorities have nothing else to act on until then.
I disagree, I think personal income records should be public record if we all truly believe in the "Free Market" and allowing competition to chase profit.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Why won't a court issue the extradition request?
Why won't the police interview him in the UK?
If the answer to these is "Its not done that way in Sweden", then I'll doubt it with good reason.
I love the way you managed to get the International Olympic Committee into this conversation.
Look, give me a call, I'll take you out in the Pink district in Manchester and we'll find you a nice boy of your own.
It's legal here, you don't have to hide it.
In the case you refered to they wanted to arrest the defendant in absentia, which the courts declined. In Assange's case the court has ruled that he should be arrested in absentia. Probably because they are harder on sex crimes (the state feminism of Sweden is quite draconian when it comes to sex crimes).
Furthermore, in the summary of the case you refered to the court says;
"Med hänsyn till gärningarnas omfattning och karaktär får det anses befogat att L.O.K. är personligen närvarande vid det förhör som nu skall hållas. "
Which means that they think it is justifiable that the defendant should appear in person for questioning. In other words, the same finding as in the Assange case. So this case doesn't support your arguments at all! (Perhaps this was changed on appeal or something, but nothing indicates that this should have been the case in the finding you linked to!)
Also, in the case of Assange, we are talking about a sex crime. There might be other reasons for wanting to have him come in for questioning, such as making a request for DNA samples or something. I haven't actually heard that this should be the case, but it is not unreasonable considering the allegations against him.
I think that Sweden's sex crime laws are draconian an contraproductive. But, in accordance with the law we have today, the treatment of Assange is quite correct. Whether or not they are reasonable is another matter, but they are following the law such as it is. Believing that this is a honey trap with the purpose of extradating Assange is just silly. Sweden's sex laws are very hard and if you are in Sweden you have to obey them and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.
alot of 7-digit usernames and AC's on this thread....
Thank you Dave Raggett
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
witness protection and undercover cops are neither illegal or unethical
Unless they are, right? What if they're being paid off to protect (or betray) the wrong people? If you say there's nothing unethical about lying about a person's identity, giving them other people's tax money to buy a house, start a business, and get a fresh new life ... but that there is, by definition, something unethical about having off-the-record diplomatic exchanges with, say, the leader of a pro-democracy movement in Iran - then what standards are you using, exactly, to define "ethical?" Should we choose Julian Assange to be the arbitor of that, case by case?
So you've got standards about what you think counts as appropriately covert and inappropriately convert communications and record keeping. But you're not saying how you would decide when it's being handled correctly. You obviously don't trust people like Nancy Pelosi to be honest about her take on what she's been briefed on, and you clearly don't trust elected executive-branch people to make the right call. So, how do you see that working? The government can appropriately handle sensitive matters only as long as they run it past you, first?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Because the UK has nothing to nab him with until the US is willing to go public with a (presumably weak) case against him. As of now, that process in the US is still secret. http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/64235-secret-us-grand-jury-stalks-wikileaks-founder
What the despots have to work with is whatever took place during that time he was in Sweden.
Assange is not a young man, and in the stark absence of other accusers from other chapters in his life stepping forward, the double-whammy he is getting for something that supposedly happened within a short time frame seems really suspicious. One of the accusers worked with a US-funded political group that is probably a CIA front.
There are also the (now erased) tweets from one the accuser's Twitter feed indicating she was really awake when she claimed to be sleep-raped by Assange.
As far as I can tell, this sh!t against him is all made up and notice it is being driven by the police, not the court system. It is probably a political maneuver by a Right-leaning political branch. These Swedish police are lying through their teeth: Saying they don't interview suspects remotely, when they do in fact, and that the 'case' has nothing to do with the US at the same time they are using Karl Rove as an adviser, there being no bigger lying scoundrel from the US with which they could choose to associate.
And why the hell are US agents working coverly in Yemen to begin with?
They're working to understand and push back against groups operating there - you know, groups who've said it's their sacred purpose to destroy western civilization, or to at least kill members of western civilization whenever they have the chance. By, you know, doing things like sinking ships, flying aircraft into buildings, getting their hands on WMDs for use in western cities, blowing up trainloads of people in Madrid or London for the sin of being insufficiently Islamic and allowing women to read - that sort of thing. That group has had its cozy Taliban-hosted summer camp taken away from them, and they're looking at places like Yemen and Somalia to set up shop again.
... rather than face that, you're opting for la-la-la-if-we're-just-nice-to-them-they'll-be-happy. Which is a joke.
You'll recall that a well known recruiter and PR mouthpiece for that movement - the guy involved in helping to plan and stage the attempted destruction of an inbound airliner over Detroit - was operating out of Yemen. Not to bother you with any details or anything. They didn't send that guy to try to kill a few hundred people so we'd stay out of Yemen. He did it because he thought that western civilization should cease to exist, and that his vision for a global Islamic culture should rise - killing off contemporary liberal non-Islamic democracies with death by a thousand cuts over time. You know, that guy operating in Yemen. Hence our working with people there to attampt to shut him down.
Of course, you already knew all of that, but rather than deal with the reality of the existence of people who don't merely want to be left alone, but who want to see your culture and lifestyle cease to exist
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There shouldn't be any government undercover cops working against organised crime.
Because ... you like groups that murder, extort, enslave young girls in the sex trade, deal in narcotics, and use force and threats to corrupt government employees? What's your agenda, actually, in looking to make life easier for such people, rather than seeing a solid case built against them, and a successful prosecution of their crimes? Oh, I get it. You're a libertarian purist gone wrong, and think that there's no such thing as crime, and would just shrug your shoulders if your own sister or daughter was the one having to do strangers at gunpoint.
There shouldn't be people working covertly in places like North Korea and Yemen
Because you like the idea of a Stalinist state that starves millions of people in labor camps, and like the idea of Sharia law and undamentalist wackos shooting school teachers in the head for daring to teach girls to read? You're painting a very flattering picture of yourself, here.
People should know precisely everything about every nuclear load that various agencies, including government move around them.
Including where and when they can put an IED or twelve in order to destroy the trucks carrying it?
You have some really twisted priorities.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
From what I understand, the maximum penalty he could receive is less than the time he already served "in custody" in the UK, plus a rather small fine, relatively speaking. Also, he is not wanted for a trial, but only for questioning. The Swedish police so far have not taken up the invitation to question Assange in the UK, personally, via teleconference or in writing. Even if he was extradited and went to trial in Sweden and indeed found guilty, they could only make him pay the small fine, since the time he spent in custody in the UK will count as well. The whole "witch hunt" has no merit, he already went to jail, is being restricted against his will for a long period and I doubt that he'd mind paying the fine if the result would be that he'd be able to walk around free again. Things just don't add up, there must be an alternate agenda behind all this. Don't get me wrong, this is not about Assange being right or innocent, this is about an extradition request that makes no sense.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Wikileaks used to be stronger for his leadership. Now he's accused of being a rapist, and the accusations aren't going away. If he secures his freedom without facing these allegations, Wikileaks will never be respected again.
Assange claims he can't face these allegations because he will be extradited to the U.S. and I expect that is correct. That either means that they beat him, or that he really is a rapist. So what if we gave him the benefit of the doubt? He has still been beaten. The question is whether beating Assange also means they have beaten Wikileaks.
Openleaks sounded like a total pile of crap when it first launched. I hope that there are other capable people that share the core values of Wikileaks. Every day until Assange hands over leadership and control to those people, Wikileaks is further diminished.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Because the UK has nothing to nab him with until the US is willing to go public with a (presumably weak) case against him. ...What the despots have to work with is whatever took place during that time he was in Sweden.
Wait, so you're saying the US is going to extradite him from Sweden because of a rape case that happened in Sweden? And this makes more sense to you than just extraditing him from England?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I think you have a bit of a skewed version of the events. There has been no massive level of hunting going on, only normal legal methods, that have then gotten drawn out by his behaviour.
So it starts with Assanage going to the UK. Sweden then says "We want you back here for questioning regarding these charges." He says "No you can question me remotely, but I won't come back." They say "That's not ok, you have to come here in person." He refuses. This is all consistent with not only Swedish law, but pretty much anywhere. Cops like to interview people in person for many reasons and you'll find that if you say "No, just call me and interview me that way," they will make the in person thing more compulsory.
So Sweden files for extradition. This is normal between countries. If a country has someone you want, you have to formally file for extradition. In Europe it is even more common given how many countries are close to each other, they have a fairly streamlined setup, agencies like Interpol and so on. Pretty much have to unless you want criminals evading justice by skipping national lines.
This is just a pro-forma thing, the extradition treaty is such that this is a legit request. So Assanage is held by the British Police to make sure he doesn't run (as the treaty specifies) and is released on bail (as British law provides). However Assanage's legal team then fights this extradition tooth and nail over any issue they can. It finally goes all the way up to the British High Court who rules that this is a legal extradition request per the treaty and thus is going to happen. Remember they aren't concerned with the validity of the crime, that is for a Swedish court to decide, just if the request is a legit one per the treaty.
Well then Assanage runs off to the Ecuadorian embassy. At this point, he's now a criminal in Britain: He skipped on bail. Prior to that has was in no trouble there, they were just watching him because of the extradition request. However when he skipped bail, he broke British law. So now they have a criminal complaint against him, and are probably fairly angry. The whole idea of bail is you promising to appear as required, and as such being allowed to go free until then.
Ecuador then granted Assanage asylum, which is a slap in Britain's face. Part of being a diplomat in a foreign country is you are a guest and you are supposed to obey their laws. You don't shelter criminals or the like. So now the UK is quite angry, and understandably so. It is a major diplomatic breach and they are threatening retaliation. This is legal. Embassies are not some complete inviolable entity that some people seem to think. They can be dissolved unilaterally by the host country. The diplomats and their papers must be allowed to leave without hindrance, but the embassy can be dissolved. Also there are provisions for the police to enter and get someone. They can't arrest any of the diplomats, nor touch any of the papers, but they can arrest a non-protected person in there.
So this really isn't that unusual except in the lengths that Assanage has gone to in trying to avoid going to Sweden. If the police in a country, particularly in the EU, want to talk to someone in another country and that person won't come in, an extradition request is how you deal with thing. For example the UK received about 4,000 extradition requests from other EU countries in 2011. It is quite a standard activity.
Now they are just angry because he has broken UK law by skipping bail, and they are angry with Ecuador for pulling this stunt. There really isn't anything witch-hunty going on unless you consider the original charges in Sweden to be that. All the stuff in terms of extradition and the UK are quite normal.
The US killed people in the Iraq war, including civilians. That's part of war and if what Assange "revealed" was anything new to you, you were pretty naive.
Is that OK? Given the large number of people Saddam Hussein was killing, the war probably overall saved lives. However, it wasn't America's responsibility to get its hands dirty in this war. We should have stayed out of it out of simple self-interest. Let the people in the Middle East take care of their own problems.
I suspect that Manning will be convicted and spend several years in prison. He seems to be a sympathetic pathetic character to me. If, as what I read suggests, he broke the promises he made to get a clearance, broke the law, and his action damaged US interests and endangered lives, then serious punishment is appropriate.
US claims against Assange seem less clear. I don't know what US law he violated and I don't know how the US can claim jurisdiction. I found reference to a rumor of an indictment at wikipedia, but I'm not sure that the US has charged him. The Swedish charges seem plausible and unrelated.
I have more sympathy for Manning than Assange, perhaps because the case against him looks clearer and more serious.
And let the journalists worry about the government. Openleaks is better on a conceptual level, it's decentralized.
The way to avoid witch-hunts is not to build a centralized leaking service and then put one guy at the top of it to be beheaded.
The way to avoid witch hunts is simply to write the code, build the concepts, do the theoretical work, and separate that work from the practical implementation which requires a completely different set of skills. Hackers don't make good journalists and don't navigate the political world very well. Hackers should focus on helping good people do good things in defense of human rights, develop the technology just like Bitcoin or Tor or whatever and let the people decide what to do with that.
Going on TV giving speeches isn't as efficient as connecting journalists to a secure Anonymous Pipeline of leaks. Create the dumb pipe.
Wizard calls for end of witch hunt. Film at 11....and once again at the stroke of midnight.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Well, in that case, the US should have no trouble providing the assurances that Assange requires, yes? All the US has to do is clearly and unambiguously state that they will not seek to prosecute WikiLeaks staff or supporters. I mean, if as you say, they have no intention of persecuting these people, there's no downside to making those promises is there? Of course, if they do intend on doing so, they won't issue those statements.
How about we sit back and see what they do, hmm?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If organized crime was legalized, then there would be no organized crime. Actually, wait, that's precisely what government is, organized crime.
Name one way the documents have actually helped Iran or North Korea or actually helped the United States. You were you (or your father) also bleating that the Pentagon Papers 'helped deliver sensitive documents' to the Soviet Union?
Nevermind that the Assange-hating DOD can't even come up with a single example of that, of course.
And of course nevermind the callous corruption revealed by those documents. What a good little fascist ostrich, you are.
Leak the sealed indictment from the U.S. and we'll know.
Which makes it obvious that the UK ignoring centuries of precedent on diplomatic immunity and the refusal of Sweden or the U.S. to agree to not extradite him to Gitmo is in fact evidence of a witch hunt.
Go Cardinals!
So why didn't the idiot state that in the first place.
Since the government of the USA has been established and supported by the people of the USA, it could be argued that broad policies are indeed established by the people of the USA as well.
Or perhaps he is stating that America no longer recognizes popular dissent over such policies and that the system is so corrupt that it has become a kleptocracy.
Regardless, the anti-American tripe was so awful that it can only be considered an insult to all Americans as well as the government. I sure as hell am not apologetic.
What Assange should do is try to travel to the US and if he gets arrested, take his case all the way up to the SCOTUS. Groups like the ACLU would have a field day with the case and it would bring some legal clarity for future whistle blowers. Assange would actually be respected for his backbone, instead of sounding like a nutcase.
...and totally wouldn't end up locked up for years without trial like Bradley Manning. I'm sure he's willing to risk years of imprisonment and not-torture-because-its-legal to convince kenorland on slashdot that he has backbone.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Holy shit, you're right.
If there's no such thing as 'diplomatic immnunity' in the US and never has been...
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
Assange should stop calling those women witches. He has hunted too many women and may have to suffice with Ecuadorian embassy pussy for quite some time.
I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime.
That'd be interesting! Let's see how much enforcement is spent actually busting mega-crooks instead of throwing a significant proportion of the minority male population in jail over minor possession and petty theft.
Also, home addresses of the wives of people working covertly in places like North Korea or Yemen.
Cool! Wonder how that stacks up with those undermining democratically-elected governments in places like Bolivia, Palestine or Algeria? Or infiltrating peace and labor organizations stateside?
schedule and routes of moving nuclear material
Would actually like to know where Israel keeps all it's nukes, wouldn't you?
protective custody or witness protecction
Yes, wouldn't want to disrupt the delicate operations of the DEA and FBI allowing high-level criminals to carry out their business in return for fingering minor players ...
talking to political parties in countries that are on the brink of a civil war
Yes, like Syria, or Libya, where the US stands up for open dialog, and wouldn't think of arming Islamist militants or calling in air strikes!
I'd sure like to shine MORE lights on how the US is fighting crime and keeping the world safe for democracy!
It's not really that ACs have become more intelligent, its that whenever someone seems to say anything truthful but damaging to some predetermined world view, they get all their comments down moded and their karma trashed by idiots who can't handle the truth or want to bury it in the score system. They generally use overrated as it doesn't get metta modded and they open your comments page and start going down the list. If your karma is bad, this will even stop you from posting too.
This means that a lot of otherwise logged in people will hit the post anonymously button to avoid those buthurt buffoons clown raping their posts. Of course ./ could stop that from happening by simply limiting the number of times someone could mod a specific account within a certain amount of time, but it seems the editors and staff are happy with the outcomes.
Julian Assange is the leader of a world movement for freedom of expression. He is an inspiration to many around the world. This movement is loosely coupled via Internet.
What we see in Egypt, in Moscow, in Virginia, etc. is the direct result of his work.
Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are the first western dissidents. They continue the humanity's work of freedom and truth together with such courageous people as Natan Sharansky, Andrey Sakharov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
American and Australian people be proud that mother-nature sent them this time to those parts.
There is precedent.
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 UK authorities have nothing to act on until then.
The UK authorities have a decision from their Supreme Court that says he can be extradited to Sweden, and a valid warrant from Sweden, in accordance with EU treaties. I also very much doubt that the US is going to abduct him from a Swedish jail cell.
You post is pretty much all nonsense, and diversion, mixed with hysteria. By the way, you do realize that Karl Rove has been out of government for years now, don't you? I'm quite certain that if the current Democratic administration wanted to influence the Swedish government they would find plenty of talent on their bench instead of using the despised Republican Karl Rove. Of course once you start mixing facts into the kool-aid, it doesn't taste as sweet, does 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
How can you go into bed with the south american bunch of opressors (opressing press, society, opposition) instead of trusting the countries which have been proven to have independent courts, time after time. Maybe Mr. Assange likes to speak freely in Equador. Oh, but be careful; insulting the president can give 2 years of jails there.
So from somebody who popularized the idea of free speech (other leaking websites predate wikileaks significantly), he becomes to a mascot of oppression. His speech reminded me of the speeches which we heard from eastern Europe during the cold war, includign the significant reveresal of roles.
The ironic part is, that after all he has said now, the worst thing the US and Sweden could do to him would be to let the transport to Sweden happen, and release him there direcltly after questioning him one time. This would annihilate his credibility completely; after that he could never state again that he was oppressed. The last two years of using Money which was given to him for another purpos, his clinging to the leadership of WL, going to bed and interviewing dictators (solely based on the fact that they also dont like the US) would appear in a strange moral light.
And so what WL criticised (very rightfully in my opinion), namely the fact that the US foreign policy has an neverending "The end justify the means" way of handling international affairs, could not be critizised any more. Once you saluted to Equador as an example of freedom it may get a little difficult to critizise the US for not condeming all of their "friends" of a similar kind.
Which brings me to the point: why would he do that? Sweden may not extradite anybody into a country where they may be punished by the death penalty. On the other hand, it is highly rational that inside the EU where you can travel freely, also extrations inside the EU must be possible. If this thing with Equadorian embassy personal works, then a new route of bussiness for failed states would be to offer this. So i could commit any crime, if i am getting caught, i go to London, pay a few thousand Euro to Equador, and get diplomat status.
The obvious abuse of the diplomat status makes the request for transparency, clarity, and honety, which WL was originally about, a farce.
So the only reason he may do what he does is: He wants to escape a fair trial/legal process in Sweden. The less evil assumption about him would be that he does that because he is paranoid (even if giving away the key to the encrypted data in a hand-waving way to prove the size of his balls, and thus losing control over the publicaiton process would indicate otherwise).
Once a ponner time there was this kerfuffle in Britain that did immense damage to the local law enforcement agencies and it all could have been circumvented if the perp had just put his head on the block right at the start.
It's not as if he needed a fair trial or anything; he was king after all.
People had a bit of a skewed version of the events. There was no massive level of hunting going on, only normal legal methods, that got drawn out by his behaviour.
Don't you think this is all quite extraordinary?
Yes, I do think it's quite extraordinary. Quite extraordinary that national governments are making threats about violating the embassies of other nations over extraditing a guy who kept going after the condom broke, especially when murderers and war criminals have been in the same position. It's almost like there's more to it than the official reasons isn't it?
Should the US have to extend similar statements before any other alleged rapist or other criminal in Europe will surrender to police, or just Assange?
Any others who have been accused of espionage, and threatened with the death penalty by the US' elected representatives, yes.
We are deep into the theatre of the absurd when this farce is claimed to show respect for the rule of law.
This is quite obviously not about the law any more. That was obvious from the time Swedish authorities declined to interview Assange over the phone, or in person at the embassy. They have his testimony for the asking, which is what they say they want. But what they are demanding is his person.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
lol.. That doesn't mean there was no sexual assault. It just means that one prosecutor didn't follow through with the accusations and another one did.
How many times have you passed a cop while driving faster then the posted speed limit and the cop never pulled you over or gave a warning instead of a citation? Your speeding wouldn't have disappeared or we now know you weren't speeding, it just would have meant you didn't get busted at that time.
if it was 'information' they wanted, he offered to meet with them, virtually (and safely) and answer questions.
The next step in the Swedish legal process is to interview Assange, after which charges can be filed, and he can be taken into custody. When they next interview him the conversation like likely to end like this: "Yes, that is what we thought, you don't really have a good explanation for those events. This matter needs to go to trial. Please come with us, we are filing charges." Do you think he would come along? Would he leave the embassy? Or will he refuse, and then invent yet another reason why he cannot be held accountable like other men? When you write, "safely", what you mean is beyond the arm of the law. What new country will he demand assurances from to surrender? Russia? Norway? That is the usual process in European countries, right? Accused rapists can demand the foreign ministers of other nations besides where the crime occurred provide guarantees and statements before they surrender to police? I'm curious, when has this sort of nonsense occurred before? What circus was it?
I will grant you this - you are right when you write it isn't about sex. Rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of violence. Assange is a fugitive from justice, an accused rapist, and finds support on Slashdot just as the murderer Hans Reiser did, to the shame of many.
Tell me, why do you think Assange should not be accountable for his actions in Sweden? If the price of keeping Wikileaks going is a free Assange and string of future rapes, do you think that is a good trade off?
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
Ecuador should just change its ambassador to a blond guy who looks like Assange.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
As I see it, either a) Assange did rape one or both of the women who have complained, in which case he will be found guilty, and rightly, serve a sentence for his crime. Or b) he didn't do it, and he was set up. If he was in fact set up, then it stands to reason that he was set up by somebody with the wherewithal to ensure that the case is solid enough to lead to a conviction. Either way, if he was to face potential charges in Sweden, I can't see a case in which he would be found not guilty.
Of course, this is all moot, because the US would have him trussed up and Gitmo-bound within 5 minutes of landing on Swedish soil.
Manning is getting a trial. It's pretty clear that he is guilty, and he should go to prison for at least some time.
For Assange, it's not clear whether he is guilty. If the Obama justice department brought charges, the case would go through the courts all the way up to SCOTUS. Jail is a possibility, but unlikely. More likely, they'd just not let Assange travel to the US anymore and that would be the end of it.
You mean reasons other than that European criminal justice is a mess? That Europe is still a bunch of squabbling nation states who can't agree on anything? That political correctness is so out of control in parts of Europe that you can be convicted of rape for what Assange did? I think a simple look at the political and judicial mess in Europe is ample explanation.
You need conspiracy theories to explain this only if you start with the incorrect assumption that Europe is intrinsically perfect and just, and all problems must therefore be America's fault. That's really the same kind of thinking that used to blame all of Europe's problems on "the Jews".
US representatives don't speak for the legal system. European communist or fascist MPs say stupid things all the time too and nobody pays any attention either. No, the US government doesn't go around making assurances that it won't do stupid things that US representatives of the opposing party want it to do, any more than European governments do.
Assange will have to live with the fact that he won't get assurances. If he chooses to rot in the Ecuadorean embassy out of paranoia, that's his choice. I think it's poetic justice.
releasing documents without ANY thought
WL released them in conjunction with three major newspapers in Germany the UK and the US, the four independent organizations worked together in secrecy for weeks to weed out informants names,etc. They then synchronized the publication so none of the newspapers could claim a "scoop". I'd say Assange, at least three major publishers, their chief editors, and four legal departments, all thought long and hard about what it was they were releasing.
But still, perhaps the people who were scanning the documents were sloppy. Let's assume they missed some stuff in their rush to publish. So now that everybody has had time to go through them with a fine tooth comb, where are the bodies piling up? All the millions the US and others have spent investigating this, all the macho chest beating in congress about WL and "harm's way", yet they still haven't shown us so much as a broken kneecap?
Disclaimer: None of this makes me an "Assange supporter", I am a "Free press" supporter. I don't like the majority of his personality traits, which is just one more reason I am reluctant to brand him a witch. "A dingo ate my baby" is no longer that funny to Aussies who were adults in the early 80's, it a reminder to me of how easy it is for an entire nation to burn the socially inept at the stake.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Do they have any oil?
Yeah, but American companies have already extracted a lot of those riches for a pittance by bribing and pressuring officials. No need for a war to get at it. Oh, and they also destroyed huge areas of rainforest while doing so.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Public sector jobs (or at least the ones I know) tend to all have wages (and I'd assume taxes as derived from such) listed as public information.
Isn't there a single US Congress man who can stand for Assange?
Casteism
So you are saying that if someone steals a car and gives it to me, and I drive it knowing it's stolen, I haven't broken any laws??? Seems that similar to what Assange did .. he knowingly received information that was stolen, and then published that information.
I have no sympathy for someone who is willing to attack others and then whines and moans when he becomes the object of attacks. He isn't a whistle blower as much as he is an attention whore. He is just as bad as Anonymous, a coward who hides behind others pushing his own personal agenda because of an overblown ego and overdeveloped sense that he, and only he, knows what is right.
Baby wasn't a good term to use. Spoiled brat is more appropriate.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
"What is "normal," though not in Sweden obviously, is that any interview prior to charges being laid be voluntary."
Except that he's already been ordered arrested in Sweden. His interview is no longer voluntary at this point, and his attendance is required. It's required on Swedish soil, since this formal questioning is — as the British High Court noted — the equivalent of an arraignment, and the next step is that he'd be charged and arrested if the prosecutors agree that the charge is warranted. The court explicitly said that a) the acts he's accused of would indeed be crimes in the UK, and b) that were this case being tried in the UK, he'd be charged if it had progressed to the point the Swedish case has.
So, let's say they (in this one very special case) allow an accused criminal to dictate the terms of his own questioning, and question him by telephone in his hidey-hole in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Based on that, they indeed decide to charge him.
What then? They can't arrest him if he's outside of Swedish jurisdiction (like Britain; or Ecuador). Are they supposed to extradite him a second time?
... car ...
Yeah, but no one here stole a car so your thoughts about that are hardly relevant, are they?
c++;
If organized crime was legalized, then there would be no organized crime
So you're all for extortion, arson as insurance fraud, groups that target and steal cars for black export, groups that steal cabling from construction sites and find scrap metal dealers intimidated into buying it from them (or else!)... yes, we should definitely make it easier for that sort of thing to happen. And when someone decides to kill someone else over protection racket turf, and uses his organized group of criminal friends to present false alibis ... cool, right? Because if it weren't illegal for a group of people to conspire in the act of committing a crime, then those crimes wouldn't happen, right? You're an idiot.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That link is a pile of lies. A "source" is where you got the leak from. A "source" is not someone named in a communication. There was a private communication that named multiple people, and one of the named people is getting pressure for content in the leaked content. That's not action against the "source". Unless that person leaked a damaging cable with his own name in it.
At no time do they talk about the person that delivered the content to wikileaks being under threat because of any action or inaction on the part of wikileaks.
Learn to love Alaska
That's a hell of a distinction. Two people actually get arrested and charged with treason because some asshole leaked their names to the world in plaintext, but it doesn't count because instead of saying "US Embassy Source cited in cable leaked by Wikileaks," it said "Wikileaks Source."
For the record the Generals in question are not gonna be shot:
http://www.zimpapers.co.zw/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6015:chiwenga-speaks-on-wikileaks-&catid=37:top-stories&Itemid=130
But I doubt the Belarussians are gonna be satisfied with anything less then jail terms in Stalinist Gulags, and the Ehriopians have already exiled a guy.
Wikileaks protects leakers. Wikileaks never promised to protect people whose crimes are revealed through a leak. That doesn't sound like splitting hairs. They've never promised that their leaks won't lead to prosecution or persecution of those doing "bad" things. If you didn't do it behind a closed door, Wikileaks wouldn't have affected you.
Learn to love Alaska
The US just confirmed they're just that.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
He wasn't "granted diplomatic asylum", he was simply allowed to live in the US Embassy. If he'd been "granted diplomatic asylum", that would imply that China was obliged to give him safe conduct to leave the country, and that's clearly not the case.
I didn't say Wikileaks were lying, or breaking their word, or anything like that. I said they were assholes who got the opponents of oppressive regimes locked up because their previous strategy (which involved editing the cables so names those folks couldn't be identified) wasn't getting Lord Julian enough face-time on CNN.
And yes, in Zimbabwe opposing the regime is illegal. Which means "freeing the information" that two Generals opposed the regime constitutes both a) exposing crime, and b) supporting dictatorship.
Or maybe exposing the idiocy of the dictatorship ends up saving millions? Some have attributed the recent spat of revolutions in the middle east area on leaks showing the dictatorships being verifiable bad, rather than just assumed to be.
Learn to love Alaska