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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Political asylum is not the same thing as diplomatic asylum.
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.
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.
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.
and clears his name
No, that's not how criminal justice works at all.
'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);
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.
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.
Obama wasn't even born in 1954, why is it his fault that the US wasn't a party in the 1954 OAS Convention?
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.
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.
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.
again to avoid being interviewed by the first country where the alleged rape-ish behavior took place.
Sweden allows these kinds of interviews to be done via video conference and Assange has suggested the interview take place with him inside of the embassy. The fact that Sweden is so ardent about bringing him in person is highly suspect.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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
Hardly, the USA won't sign those treaties either... For that matter the USA won't generally sign any treaty that isn't horribly one-sided, and if they do in fact sign a treaty giving equal rights to both sides, they'll simply ignore it whenever it is inconvenient.
The USA is the schoolyard bully of the international stage, they do things however they feel, whenever they feel, with no regard for the consequences, and can't understand why everyone isn't in love with them.
Ask somebody there in their 20s what happened there in 1989. Their resposne "nothing I know of."
Much like King George III's supposed diary entry for July 4, 1776: "Nothing of importance happened today."
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.
And if you ask a young American the same, the response will likely be "Thailand? Is that like a country?"
Then tell them that it borders four other countries, and ask them to name just one of them.
Just because the USA doesn't support your view of "anarchy" doesn't mean that it isn't the "land of the free."
ITYM your view of anarchy. See, the rest of us don't consider basic human rights to be anarchy.
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.
Just because someplace else is worse, doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the problems we have here. And the situation here has clearly been deteriorating.
Since you brought it up, let's take 1989 for an example:
In 1989, the US was a place people fled TO, in order to get AWAY from repressive governments; not the government doing the repressing.
In 1989, you could go on that trip to Thailand without being irradiated with backscatter x-rays, taking you shoes and belt off, or getting felt up by some thug at the airport; and your friends or family could accompany you to the departure gate to see you off.
In 1989, you could pop over to some of the closer countries such as Canada, Mexico, or The Bahamas, for a visit; and be re-admitted to the US with nothing more than your drivers' license.
In 1989, no one had heard of a "free speech zone". The entire *country* was a free speech zone.
In 1989, you could go to concerts, amusement parks, nightclubs, and ballparks without being groped by some thug, having to show the contents of your pockets, backpack, or purse to another, going through a metal detector, or being under constant 1984-ish CCTV surveillance.
Maybe we're still free enough, in comparison to countries like China, to be considered "the land of the free". But we've been becoming progressively less free for years.
Imagine all the people...
No, here in Sweden we don't allow these kinds of interview to be conducted via video conference
You need to read your own law, dude. According to that ruling by the Swedish Supreme Court, if a subject is abroad and cooperating, video conferencing is appropriate. Up until very recently Assange was inarguably cooperative.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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?
Have you actually read the case you are refering to? It doesn't say that video conferencing is appropriate and the subject in the refered case is not willing to cooperate, and so on. It most certainly isn't applicable to the Assange situation.
Um, yeah, I read it. The man was in Dubai and they brought him up on multiple tax evasion charges. The prosecutor said he needed to show up in person for the interview and the judge said he didn't. Substitute the UK and Assange in that sentence and then explain how it is that different. If Sweden is up for remotely interviewing a suspect on high value tax fraud then interviewing Assange in his case shouldn't be a problem.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
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
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.
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?
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.