Slashdot Mirror
Photo Reveals UK Plan: "Assange To Be Arrested Under All Circumstances"
politkal writes with the lead from a CNN story: "A policeman in London appears to have accidentally revealed an arrest plan for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in what UK media have branded an embarrassing slip-up by London's Metropolitan Police. Clearly legible in a zoomed-in view of the clipboard, on a sheet of paper headed 'Restricted,' are the words: 'EQ Embassy brief — Summary of current position re. Assange. Action required — Assange to be arrested under all circumstances.' It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle."
On the other side of the pond, Bradley Manning is going to be put to death. Where are the Wikileak white knights?
He's stuck living in some guys office, sleeping on an air matres. And from what I hear, he's a really bad house guest. Leave him there, its punishment all around.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Then watch the machinations.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assange/
Please try to keep up.
First of all, kudos to the witty chap who zoomed in on that clip board after taking the photo. But really, who are we kidding? Assange has always been 5 steps ahead of any dignified authority who is after him for all of this. I think it would be a little naive to assume he hasn't seen this coming and doesn't have a plan (and/or successor) to continue on.
Instead of exhausting resources on trying to figure how to get to one man in an embassy, why not shift those efforts to his network and minions doing the heavy lifting for him? This is starting to feel like a '24' episode right now... WWJBD.
For a country to do this much to want to take him it means they will probable assassinate him or pass him off to some one who will do it.
How is the fact the the London police wish to arrest law breakers news?
Are not the vehicles considered extensions of the embassy itself? I thought that the power the embassy wasn't restricted to the physical location, but also extended to the belongings and methods of transport which that country owns. If they did smuggle him out in a box labeled "Diplomatic papers" England wouldn't have any authority to seize or inspect that package it's considered soveriegn property. It would be the same as the England invading Equidor. I mean what does England think they are the US?
Ecuadorean diplomats should now regularly ship moving crates, boxes, novelty oversized cakes and so forth out of the embassy on a daily basis.
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
how many rape victims would like that kind of police commitment to arrest their aggressors?
You must be reading Assange's PR bs ...... the "recanted" has being disproven time and time again.
really... do the police think they will cut him up and smuggle him out piece by piece?
President Obama is FURIOUS!
In the span of 15 minutes he started calling various Foreign Government Security Forces in attempts to arrange for the Assange killing for payment of Obama $$$$.
What a pitiful specter this Obama as the 'Bad News' arrived via telephone.
need more lube for U$A action?
His pinnie so winnie and shriveled more than a sarnine-ie.
When America say jump, Limey cunt ask how high. England is land of pussies. Mr. Bean is ok but all the rest suck.
That the "leak" comes from inside, from someone that feels Assange is right & ok by the law (plus certainly by the people)... any takers?
Do I *think* of him as a criminal??
No. Not at all in fact.
He reported facts he heard, and apparently so well, there is no "spin" possible... hence, the retribution errors being made.
I do feel others must feel that way, even on the "inside" perhaps even only subconciously but "slipping", so, there you are, as to my 1st statement above.
Proof's in the pudding... this article, exists as proof thereof.
APK
P.S.=> I think the world should move on now.
There's much larger issues @ stake than Mr. Assange out there, don't you all agree? Was interesting for a while, but, trying to frame up a guy on rape too?? Come on... that's what did it for me.
Talk about a "National Inquirer" level of professionalism. People aren't stupid & see right through that to the real heart of the matter - the guy acted as a responsible WORLD citizen, and reporter, & reported it. Leave him alone, be done & over with it. Put my tax dollars or someone else's to better use.
That's where ANY controlling interest goes wrong - you cannot tame the truth - or, how folks see it (hopefully based on facts established that are 100% verifiably correct)
Suppression's impossible, just like occupations... Just won't work, not with everyone, nor all the time - & especially over time
... apk
Nobody "accidentally" carries a restricted document outside on the front of a clipboard. Good for those coppers. They can't publically declare their support for Wikileaks and Assange's movement to Ecuador, but it's awesome of them to be helping out where they can.
That's more believable than the UK media.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
The road where they are driven ... NO.
He gets in a car, gets cornered and instead of being stuck in an office, he is stuck inside of a hot car with no food, water or bathroom.
Doesn't seem to include "assassination" in the list of options.
Sure, if you just wanted to be rid of Assange, that would be easy. Snipers. Bombs. Even just a guy with a pistol.
Problem is, you have him killed in any way that looks deliberate, and he becomes a martyr. I would hope that anyone in power is smart enough to know that, but I've also learned that you can never underestimate just how stupid people can be.
Now, you could try other ways. If he was just in hiding, not causing an international incident in an embassy, you could stage a "mugging gone wrong" or even just a car accident. "Problem" eliminated, but it doesn't look like you did it. If you were really good, try to make it look like it *was* deliberate, but a plan by Ecuador from the beginning to kill him for... some reason. Has to be a good reason, obviously, but it's plausible.
But even then, he dies "fighting". It's obvious that they want to first assassinate his *character*, not the person himself. Assange the man is a nobody, a mildly egotistic anti-authoritarian who started a website almost anyone could make. The problem is Assange the concept, Assange the idea. The lone rebel trying to show the evil empires for what they really are.
That's who they need to eliminate. They started with the rape allegations. Perhaps they simply embellished what actually happened. Perhaps they twisted what was said, what was done. Perhaps they made the whole thing up. They've blurred the charges so much that I can't even tell what he's actually charged with anymore. But they did a good job of it - Assange the Idea, at least to some, is gone, replaced with Assange the Man, a man who (at worst) is a hypocritical rapist scumbag, or (at best) a regular guy who made a few mistakes on par with public intoxication.
Their next step, obviously, is to milk the "common criminal" idea for all it's worth. I don't think they'll even extradite him to the US to face some vague treason charge - that brings back discussion of the leaks, the rebel and the big bad empire. No, they'll try to avoid even mentioning that. They'll hit him with rape charges to make him scum (rape is often considered the worst crime, worse even than murder). They'll probably bring in charges like shoplifting to make him seem petty, small. Then when they've finished their show trial, they'll lock him away and try to shut him up. Only once he's in prison will they think of trying to kill him, again while avoiding martyrizing him (if it were an American prison, just staging a prison fight and shanking would be enough).
And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?
That's probably a good place to start reforming the "justice" system.
. . .in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath. So whose trust was really violated here? And do you honestly think violating trust is the worst offense a man can commit? If that's the standard we should all be executed.
Assange is the new Bin Laden, another lie.
It might be true that he sex without a condom against their will and possibly while one of the women was unconscious. But that shouldn't matter because it's not legitimate rape. If the rape was legitimate the women would not have invited him over to dinner. Also I read on /. that the female body has ways to shut itself down to prevent any penetration during legitimate rape.
Assange is NOT a diplomat for any country. He is just an accused criminal hiding in an embassy.
I wonder how long the people of London would stand for it if 50 small trucks a day started pulling into the embassy garage, then pulling out again and heading for Europe. What kind of police presence would it take to search every one of them on a daily basis?
Maybe once in a while, just for a laugh, have somebody approximating Assange's physical appearance hop in for a ride around the city.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Diplomats are not created by the guest country, but by the host country. The guest country says "We have this person here that we wish to represent us to you," the host country then says "We accept that person as your representative and confer upon them status as a diplomat." There are various level of official ceremony that go along with this, depending on the rank of the diplomat (for example in the US an ambassador meets with the president and presents formal credentials and so on, whereas a junior lackey gets little more than an ok from the State Department).
You don't just get to declare someone to be a diplomat at any time because you feel like it. Remember that the whole thing is a treaty between countries, not a unilateral deceleration enforced by some higher power. This is also why diplomats can be expelled by the host country. They say "This person is no longer welcome here." In the event said diplomat doesn't leave, they lose their diplomatic status and can be subject to arrest and so on.
So no, Ecuador can't just say "Oh ya, he's a diplomat," the UK would simply say "No, sorry, we haven't recognized him as such."
Also even if they could there'd be the problem of diplomatic fallout. Not only with the UK, but other countries as well. Many nations might decide they weren't interested in having an diplomats from a nation if that nation would decide to make criminals (Assanage is a criminal in Britain, he skipped his bail) diplomats when it suited them.
The second girl even had a fingering session in the back of the cinema before the actual sex. The other said "may as well" on her account. You do not need a contract to have sex in Sweden, consent to sex is not required to be in the form of a verbal or written contract.
"The women appealed to have the charges reinstated."
After the second prosecutor convinced them to.
The extra evidence that came to light was the blog entry where girl 1 said she could use this law to get revenge on a cheating boyfriend. The second piece of evidence that came to light was the foreplay, and the third piece, the fact the girls had tried to sell their story to the papers before making a claim to police.
He did not 'flee' either, he asked if he was needed as he wanted to go to the UK and was told not, so he left. Only then did she issue an international arrest warrant citing his 'fleeing' as cause. This is a demonizing move, the 'fleeing' is to pretend he had something to hide. He was a man facing a nothing charge from tainted witnesses that in any other circumstances would face investigation themselves (for making false claims in order to profit from a news paper story).
Instead he became an criminal under the serious crimes, expedited extradition treaty that is only supposed to be used for major crimes like terrorism.
It stinks to high heaven.
what good has his uncovering done?
Are the now-well-informed people demanding those responsible be punished? Staging protests? Taking legal action?
Or is life just kind of going on as usual for most of the world, including the criminals that call the shots?
I thought the ring of police stationed 24 hours a day around the Ecuadorian embassy in London was evidence enough of the UK government's intentions!
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it. ... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred. Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
http://mashable.com/2009/10/19/cia-social-media-monitoring/>Perhaps like this?
'nuff said.
how did we ever allow something so retarded to exist on our planet
a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police told CNN "the document is not related to the Julian Assange case."
That's cleared that up! Nothing to see, move along.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred.
Assange fled police in the UK where he is a fugitive from the law.
None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
His fleeing the police in the UK and seeking asylum in the embassy of Ecuador is completely consistent with his being on the lam.
. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge.
The formal questioning he is wanted for is the step prior to charges being filed and a trial. It seems clear that is where this is heading.
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
It strikes me as a red herring.
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Snitchin'
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Manning may have uncovered a lot of things that should never have happened. However, he did leak a lot of secret information. If you look at the sheer volume of it, most of it wasn't "wrongdoing" and should have remained secret regardless. So he also did do a lot of wrong here, even if he intended it to be "the right thing". True, not a lot of big secrets were revealed, but someone in that position should not be leaking information, period.
I don't think there is evidence that Manning tried to get the wrongdoers prosecuted using the methods that should be in place to do that. Is there? I'd love to read that. By exposing them without doing that first, he was judge and jury himself, leaving the execution to the lynching mob that the press is in this case. I'm not saying those people were innocent, but laws, judges and all that exist for a very good reason and he chose to ignore that.
The enemy of my enemy is just that, he is not my friend nor is he my foe. He may have believed he did the right thing, but he did a lot of wrong things trying to do so. That doesn't mean he deserves what he is getting now. Just like everyone else, he deserves a fair trail and a humane treatment. If there is an existing medical condition that made him act the way he did, or had a big influence on how his thought patterns work, that should be considered in that fair trial.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
They started their own country inside territory already belonging to the British Empire. How would you like it if for instance Alabama suddenly said they were independent? You don't just "start your own country" and not harm the country you previously belonged to.
They would have revealed who Georges spies in France were, if they'd have that information and a way to get it to the French. Getting that information from someone and getting it across would mean months of dangerous travel at the very least, with very little effect. The risk and effort were just not worth the trouble of an attempt.
Emerrassing details aplenty in those days. They just weren't written down in official documents or published in newspapers. Go check the internet about the sexual relations and mistresses and all that of the UK monarchy and the US founding fathers if such things interest you. I can assure you that the gossip circuit in those days was probably bigger and more influential than it was now, since people didn't have a lot of independent sources to verify the word of mouth information they got.
Taking up arms was the most effective way to do things back then. Maybe it still is, maybe today the pen or the voting ballot is mightier than the sword.
Taking a stab at Mannings personality is cheap. Sure, he did do things that were illegal and probably wrong. I'm sure you've done a few wrong things in your life. Even if I knew what those were and what your personality is, pointing out the latter wouldn't make me a better person, nor make you a worse one.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
If you truly are willing to spend the rest of your life in jail, and likely in solitary confinement, for your ideals then that puts you in a very small minority.
Nobody is willing to die for their country yet a powerful minority are ordered to do so with depressing regularity.
While the USA was poisoning, bombing, raping and in various other ways commiting general acts of genocide in Vietnam, a small minority were getting killed for Uncle Sam there too. Meanwhile a very, very small minority were walking on the moon also courtesey of Uncle Sam. And some were burning draught cards. And then there was the Manson family...
The United States is ruled by a carde of people wo are out of touch with reality. They are a small minority of the millions of people who live there (and how many of those small minorities have equal and opposite rights? I.e. None!)
For all the ideals of fair play so called democracy is supposed to have in it, it is all based on small minorities.
Some more powerful than others.
But only temporarily.
I am waiting for a small minority of one to shoot George Bush. I don't think I am in the minority either.
--- start md5 hash of salt + below after this line ---
So have Ecuador work with a friendly (to Ecuador or to Assange) country (call it Ami-d-Eccange) and confer upon Assange status as a citizen of Ecuador and appoint him as an ambassador from Ecuador to Ami-d-Eccange. Presto-change-O! Assange is now a diplomat recognized by Ami-d-Eccange and Ecuador by mutual agreement.
I do not know if Ambassadors from country X to country Y would have safe haven during their travels through country Z. But if they do, then Assange could then arrange for safe passage.
--- end of text for md5sum hash
md5sum message
ad46d7f3dfc69f665962cdd27f566505 message
09h25 2012-08-26
A slight addition: Apparently Swedish law actually doesn't allow someone to be charged unless they are in custody. So the absence of charges doesn't have quite the same implications as in other legal systems.
I really want to see the same eagerness towards arresting Roman Polanski. Otherwise it is clearly hypocrisy.
it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge,
Perhaps you noticed that the "unusual tenacity" came to be when Assange became a fugitive from justice? Think about it. ... What did Assange do? Broke his bond and fled the police.
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred.
As part of the extradition process Assange was released on bail, part of his conditions of bail were that he should remain overnight in the residence of one of his supporters who (from memory) guaranteed the majority of the bail. His residence in the Ecuadorian embassy means that a bunch of people are likely to be out of pocket.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9343739/Julian-Assange-celebrities-could-lose-thousands-from-WikiLeaks-founders-bail-breach.html
Assange left Sweden weeks after the incident in question, with the express permission of the prosecutor's office. For that matter, he isn't even wanted on a rape charge, he's wanted for questioning in relation to a possible charge. He has offered numerous times to talk with the Swedish prosecutor or a representative while in the UK. None of this is terribly consistent with the actions of someone purportedly on the lam.
Worth noting, from a transcript of a Democracy Now discussion, emphasis mine:
"...Sweden and the United Kingdom both refused to provide assurances that once matters were dealt with in Sweden, that Julian would be permitted to leave the country and would not be extradited to the United States. They refused to provide those assurances."
This is probably the more salient point regarding Assange's reluctance to step again on Swedish soil.
Cheers,
The UK can't give any such assurances if he were to be transferred to Swedish custody, we don't have any control over Sweden. If the US wanted to extradite him from the UK they've had months to make a case.
Point is, nail somebody with a sex crime charge, nobody listens to him anymore. True or not, Assange's credibilty went down the shitter when the charges were announced. He'll never get past them.
And the kicker is that for each allegation, it is one person's word against another. No sensible court would even agree to have such a case heard.
So why did any further "investigation" take place?
And why put any citizen to the expense of travelling all the way to Sweden from Britain to talk about it?
If I was innocent I'd tell the bastards to **** off, too.
Who wouldn't?
Especially if I was broke.
The conspiracy theory is more than a mere theory. AND while we are at it:
There ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ever since George the Thick put them there. They litter the streets and the land fill. Depleted uranium and phosphorus shells. General Issue.
Thanks GIs. I must go there for my holidays. Sounds inviting.
The way the UK is treating the case has everything to do with the fact we're angry with him,
I'm not angy with him. He can stay here as long as he likes, it's none of my business.
What's upsetting me is that when the Queen dies all she has will be passed on to the dick head of the family. What a family of nobs that is going to be. I already feel depressed because some **** for brains voted for Tony Blair.
I haven't got over Thatcher yet!
As for that silly ******, Churchill....
Except for this:
"England held a hearing, let Assange defend himself"
Under the expedited arrangement, the charges are never laid, the evidence never shown, and he does not get to challenge any of it. The requesting country is ASSUMED to be playing fair, and he can only challenge the side issues.
It's not exactly unusual for rape charges to be used as a way fixing a problem either. Rape laws are lax, the conviction is largely based on how convincing the woman is, a few well practiced tear work wonders. Get a seconder and it works better, so better to get two claims than one.
Which remarkably is what we have here. Yet both girls were witnessed by third parties to be willing parties to the sex, even the extent of a foreplay session in a cinema with girl 'W' which was witnessed.
The police officer hasn't been reprimanded, so the 'leak' was obviously approved higher up the command chain. Why? Puts more pressure on Assange and the Ecudorans.
He made himself that when he skipped bail. So as part of the extradition proceedings the British police arrested him. Generally extradition treaties specify something like this. After all it does you little good to seek formal extradition if when the person finds out about it they can just take off. However he made bail and was released. The concept of bail has a long tradition in the UK and is formally law there, as many other countries.
However bail is NOT a pass to do as you please. Bail is an agreement where the court says you can go, but you have to promise to appear. Sometimes, it is as simple as that, people are released "on their own recognizance" meaning that they've agreed to return to court and that is good enough. Often though bond also has to be posted, an amount of money that will be forfeit should you fail to show (as was the case here). Sometimes there are other requirements like surrendering passports or the like.
So the appeals with the extradition process went on, and eventually the high court ruled that the extradition request was legal per the treaty and he was to be extradited. Remember the British courts didn't consider innocence or guilt here, that isn't their job, only if the request was valid under the extradition treaty with Sweden. They decided it was. That meant that per the bail Assanage had to now turn himself over to the court to be extradited.
He failed to do that, he skipped bail and ran to the Ecuadorian embassy. That is a crime under British law. Not a super serious one, one year imprisonment max (and forfeiture of the bond of course) but a crime all the same.
So like it or not he -is- a "common criminal". He skipped bail, which is a regular ole' crime.
If a woman can consent then withdraw consent *after*, then of course you'll get a lot more 'rapes'. Every spurned one night stand will use that law, it's no wonder they have twice as many 'rapes', half of them will be false charges.
In this case both Woman 'A' and Woman 'W' say they consented, then later withdrew consent, (at an unspecified time, the presumption is during sex). Except they made the rape claim days later, after they chatted.
Yet here we are, with a Swedish prosecutor claiming 'rape' for consensual sex. Sure they have may been one night stands and pissed off for it, but this is a flaw in the Swedish law not a problem with the Swedish men.
Please quote your links to the proof that the accusers asked for this case to be re-opened.
PS please explain why the condom apparently used to permit JA to have unprotected sex by breaking
a) was cut with a sharp blade
b) had no DNA evidence of being used in sexual intercourse between the woman and JA.
PPS there are scores saying "According to Swedish law, they can't charge him if he's not present". Got any proof of THAT? And any proof that if you can't be charged in absentia, that they can't prosecute with whatever evidence they have?
Go on, prove yourselves.
Why isn't anyone asking the question: Why is the British authorities so fixated on extraditing Assange to Sweden when he's only wanted in connection with an accusation concerning two counts of the mildest form of rape (consensual sex under false pretenses - without condom) ? - If convicted he can't even get jail time for a first time offense!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
No bond was broken, no fleeing occurred.
Incorrect. A £200,000 surety was lodged to the UK courts, shortly before he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29 says rape is not a big crime. You can rape a little girl and keep her.
Aggressors assumes aggression, I'm sorry but you've confused rape with coercion. In Sweden rape can simply be, you changed your mind after the act. Which is what the two women here are claiming.
Notice that woman 'A' and Woman 'W' both are allowed to remain anonymous as though there was aggression though, even though nobody has claimed that.
It shows you how bad Sweden feminism has got that consent to sex isn't enough for it not to be rape. I wonder how many innocent men are in jail because of these laws.
Few would vote "None of the above" because it would let Labour/the Tories in (delete as appropriate).
Indeed, our electoral system punishes third party candidates for merely standing. If people vote for you as a left-winger, you help the Tories win. If people vote for you as a right winger votes, you help Labour win. Somebody should make an ironic Flash game illustrating that perversity.
Sadly, the only chance in our lifetimes to stop permanent control of the country by the 2 big parties was lost in the AV referendum. We'll be lucky to see another shot at electoral reform before 2050.
Your lovely US media once again caught on spewing a bunch of utter lies and calling it "news". Oh my. Not a long shot from soviet Pravda, just a bit more "modern". Here is something worth looking for.. Lots of interesting stuff - especially for misled by corporate media propaganda US residents.
One of things that caught my attention was that after losing in UK Supreme Court Assange lawyers planned to appeal to European Court of Justice but were denied: standard 14-day term for filing an appeal was "magicaly" shortened to 0 days (!). That's the last one of a whole series of strange events in this case. Did you hear about this in CNN, folks from US ? Oh, you didn't ? Welcome to the real world.
So many things indicate that this was a setup from the beginning, yet even in this forum I see so many folks in this forum still seem to live in a fictional world of lies and propaganda fabricated by CNN and other "murdoch-media" organizations (as I call them). Sorry to say that but everyone still buying CNN crap deserves for any cruelty your lovely government serves you.
You are responsible for letting this ill system running and only you can shut it down by withdrawing consent and ignoring corporate propaganda outlets. It's a waste of time, folks ! Getting back to history books will be a MUCH better way to spend time than watching Fox News. Plus, after reading enough of these you won't need to see much media coverage to easily predict what really happened and what will happen tommorow.
...to CNN. Yet they refuse to guarantee it to the Ecuadorian foreign minister.
Why the fuck should we believe them?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Because nobody here is letting that happen. You, for example, insist he HAS RAPED. But proving that is the prosecutor's job, except you've not let him do it.
And it's complete bollocks to say that the case cannot be tried without Assange's statement, otherwise there would be nothing like "in absentia" which many people who didn't turn up to a court case lost because they couldn't argue their side of the case.
COMPLETE.
BOLLOCKS.
I think the expectation that Sweden should tear up their extradition agreement with the USA is a bit much to ask, don't you ?
More on Wikipedia
This nonsense is evidence that various governments are out to get Julian and that a fair trial simply can not take place. To me that means that he can not be brought to trial at all. Not to mention that all of us need to be thanking Julian for a glimpse at truths that are withheld from us.
someone forgot to tell him "you didnt do that"
C'mon guys. Love him or hate him, what he did was illegal. And illegal in every country on the planet. Whoever gave him the info is guilty of treason. Since he's not a US citizen, he is guilty of espionage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
Insert period here.
The US really has no choice but to go after him. It's their law. And the law in virtually every other country on the planet. He just happened to release docs from the USA.
As far as what he released... the majority being personal opinions like "this guy is stupid" that guys fat, this one smells funny... Gimme a break. That's human nature. Release tapes from any country on the planet and you'll likely get the same crap. People are people no matter where you go. Just human nature.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
.... You already have the people that could do the job, but I suspect there's too much pork, and possibly outright corruption, bound up in all that money that goes into local voting systems, to do it without a lot of resistance even if it was done at a state instead of federal level.
It's not so much pork or corruption, but a desire for local control, based on a distrust of higher levels of government. Where I live, we vote for the Town and School District budgets every year. Our property taxes are based on those budgets, so they are very important to every property owner. We have election procedures which are efficient and transparent. We don't want the State (or, worse, the Federal Government) telling us how to run our elections.
When I first moved into my town, ballots were placed in boxes. When the polls closed, volunteers counted in pairs: one counting and the other verifying. We switched roles occasionally to stay alert. When the lally was finished the ballots went back into the box in case the totals were close and someone called for a recount. Today, we use a Scantron for the preliminary count, with the paper ballots retained inside the machine. The results are available on the Town web site the day after the election.
If we were to convert to an electronic system, perhaps the results could be available an hour after the polls close. That would please the national media, but we are afraid of losing the transparency that makes our system work. I have seen the loser shake the hand of the winner after the preliminary count was complete, and wish him well. Without confidence in the accuracy of the count, close races might lead to endless bickering.
He broke the conditions of HIS UK HOUSE ARREST, you tool. They could have locked his ass up, instead they let him live at home and were, within the limits of their law, quite reasonable to him, and then he scarpered, which has pissed them off some.
In addition, the UK is really not keen on the idea that criminals can flee to the embassy of any tin pot dictator they may like to escape justice. Whether the president of Ecuador is acting with integrity I don't know(though I suspect his support for Assange is based more on how flipping the bird to the US plays out at home than any support for free speech), but there are plenty of countries with UK embassies who would overlook pretty much anything for a big enough cash payment. The UK cannot and will not let this stand.
They cannot provide those assurances - because no extradition request has been made.
They are legally bound to look at extradition requests and judge them on their merits, they cannot hypothetically say they would or would not extradite him were the US to issue one.
It is perfectly obvious and the continuing pedalling of that line, despite it having been explained over and over, is one of the most annoying parts of the Assange case.
Many people are imbeciles.
Not a peep about this on the BBC website, as far as I can see. I'm trying hard to think of a good reason for that.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
He asked for and got permission from Sweden to leave the country after the first complaint was made. He has offered to meet Swedish prosecutors in the UK to answer their questions. He has offered to return to Sweden if they promise not to extradite him to the U.S.
Now, you were smearing?
The Brits' determination to capture Assange at any cost, for a Swedish Chippie's thinking she remembers he might not have used a condom, after she learnt he had also booked into one of her competitors/friends, has turned into Living History! If he makes it it will be a 21st century edition of Mary Tudor, and numerous others from times to times, sneaking over the channel to France. If he fails it will be just like a number of other cases where the poor devil was apprehended and hauled back. It shows that history is not just some dry and boring old stories stuff. It is proof of the consistency of human stupidity, and the sanctuary that stupidity finds in halls of power.
Yes, my friends, Whitehall is the Equadoran Embassy for the powerfully idiotic. Always has been, always will be, Just like Washington, D.C.
It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle.
Or vagina.
It is hard for me to say what I feel for Mr. Assange, his pursuers, the women he allegedly abused, the Ecuadorians at the embassy, the British police force, the Swedish prosecutors, the US government, and so forth, but all of this is incredibly entertaining in some way.
How will Mr Assange escape now? At least he is not making it easy on anybody.
I must congratulate you on a most splendid misdirection. Well done.
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
Well, I hope that whoever pulls the trigger or flips the switch on ole Assange is humming the star spangled banner when he does it.
I'm so over Assange ....
They simply need a helicopter to hover/land at the embassy and pick him up, they could try to force the helicopter to land but getting him out of the embassy without stepping on British soil isn't that much of a problem.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
Metropolitan Police: You are a public service fully supported by the tax payer. Assange is an Australian wanted for charges of rape in Sweden (but really wanted by Uncle Sam helping distribute classified information) who is currently technically on Ecuadorian soil and is posing no threat of violence to any British citizens. Kindly stop wasting our money with this dick waving charade and get back to serving the British general public.
Yours,
A concerned UK citizen
Ecuador needs to purchase a skyhook equipped C-130, fly it as a foreign military flight for diplomatic personnel into a london area airport, then when leaving, do the extraction. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system
Helicopter is too obvious, the skyhook gives a better chance due to the unexpected nature, assuming police snipers don't try to shoot down the balloon.
It worked for Batman...
The truth must be suppressed.
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
.50BMG to the head(and most other .50 caliber rounds) - humane to the target, not so humane to those who have to witness it. Works well in combat conditions.
Nitrogen asphixiation - humane to the target - CO2 exchange is allowed, human body detects CO2 levels, not O2 levels, so asphixiation reflexes are never triggered. You just pass out/go to sleep. Often faster than you would underwater/holding your breath, because with no O2 in the air, with each breath you actually breath OUT O2. Doesn't work well in combat conditions. Cheap if you can build a reasonably air-tight room. No need to bargain with medical supply companies, the local welding shops have what you need. Many gasses would work, but nitrogen has the advantage of being the cheapest, on average.
Considered humane by some:
CO2 asphyxiation: Quick, but I wouldn't consider it humane because it does trigger asphyxiation reflexes.
Lethal injection: At the least I'd change up the drugs. Go to a straight opiate overdose. Worse, I don't like the idea of having to tie down the condemned and have somebody stick a needle in his vein. With Nitrogen, you just put them in the appropriate room and turn a valve.
Electric chair: Problems are obvious at this point
Short drop Hanging: You have the problem that you have to restrain the condemned, but if done right it's excellent. Problem is that it takes some practice to 'do it right'.
Really, the problems with execution is that we want an intact head afterwards.
I don't read AC A human right
Here's the big mistake the authorities made when fitting Assange up for extradition to Sweden: they didn't use underage girls. Had they set him up with a couple of very hot, mature looking but legally underage girls, he'd have been pilloried in the media as a "pedophile" and he'd be in jail in Sweden by now facing extradition to the US.
No-one cares about human rights or any other principles once "child sex" is mentioned, all reasoning goes out the window.
With respect, having a well devised system does not necessarily rule out it being implemented by local people. Due to that nature of elections being prohibitively expensive to run without the support of large numbers of volunteers that live near the polling stations I doubt that there is any sensible solution that does take a lot of the control out of the hands of local volunteers.
Of course I don't consider Diebold machines that communicate with a central server sensible for a very large number of reasons. One major reason is losing that transparency you mentioned - instead of having a large number of people aware of exactly what is occurring you have a black box that could be a vector for fraud without even observers in the same room noticing.
Where I live we have paper ballots and ballot boxes produced and supplied by a central body but the results are tallied and scrutinised at a local level by the same sort of people you describe as "local control" above. It's effectively something that covers all of your points above but is still consistent on a national level which avoids things like the insane mess you had in Florida 2000. How many different voting methods were used in that state alone? Who was the idiot that came up with that stupid thing with the hanging chads, and were the people that spent their taxpayers money on that thing offered kickbacks or just stupid?
All wearing bowler hats and black suites. You could blast Nina Semone's "Sinner Man" on the embassy speakers, tape the whole thing, put it on youtube, and make the UK look like an even bigger ass.
This is non news. Everyone is aware that Assange is wanted for skipping bail, irrespective of any other agendas, hidden or otherwise. The fact that plod was seen with a piece of paper on a clipboard which stated the "bleedin' obvious" adds little if nothing to the story, and merely demonstrates that plod needs clear and simple instructions on how to proceed.
1) I would not have done what Assange did for, on account of the deleterious effects on national security. Releasing shit on bankers and politicians is fair game- endangering sources and methods we need for serious reasons is really, really not O.K. He is not Ellsberg in my view; he's not getting a hold of proof the government lied about matters of national security. He's just data dumping everything and anything. Too bad if no one wants to help you sort it out before you dump. That's no excuse. In that case, you have some work ahead of you and if you can't do that work, then you've bit off more than you can chew and whose fault is that? It's not enough to have good intentions- you have to be competent in the follow through, especially if someone's life is at stake.
2) The rape case against him is a joke. Look into it from any reputable source and you'll see that it's a manufactured device to lose him public sympathy (he's a sex offender!!!) and specifically and obviously an attempt to split his would-be united sympathizers- leftists, including of course feminists
3) The whole thing is obviously and transparently the US trying to make sure that he doesn't go unpunished no matter what and to set an example of him to others. There is no other actual motivating factor for this guy's prosecution/ persecution.
4 The fact that the US media have been obedient sheep in the face of this, reporting what the US wants them to report in just the way they want it reported is also disgusting in the extreme.. they COULD tell it like it is - the whole thing is fascinating and telling and important. They COULD something other than lie about it. but there's a reason they won't and here it is:
The whole issue of whether a reporter has the right , that is can do so without going to jail , to reveal classified information to the public and in the public interest has never been fully adjudicated in the US. No one actually knows what the legal limits on reportage, reporters and newspapers are in this highly sensitive arena and they'd rather not find out.. If the obvious case - Assange releasing classified documents and claiming it's in the public good and the US government was lying to its people- if that case were tried, what might come down from the courts in the way of a ruling might be something very ugly as seen from the perspective of the free press. They don't want to go there until they absolutely have to and they sure as shit don't want to go there with THIS case with THIS guy at THIS time. It's a loser all the way around.
So they mouth the words of whatever script the US government is typing up and just don't GO there.
That's why the US press is being so negligent in this case. Better he should be arrested and tried for rape or tried in a military setting out of the sight of the press once he falls into the hands of the US.
5) The US has a totally legitimate point that this guy recklessly endangered national security. Without secrets, without operational secrets and without an ability to protect assets, the US's ability to protect its interests and people takes a major major blow. This can't be allowed to come to pass.
6) Assange is an idiot for doing what he did the way he did it. Don't emulate him- he's not a hero, he's a guy who wanted to be a hero and wasn't up to the task, didn't have the discipline, the operational capacity, the judgement for it. Maybe there's something nefarious regarding the US we all need to know about. Lots of hardworking, perfectly sincere people in the US government ALSO would want to know about anything of this nature. Dumping terabytes of classified data and having some nuggets of worthwhile ,but predictable, wrong-doing by some players fall out as a consequence is NOT uncovering coordinated, self-conscious, systemic and ongoing law-breaking at the highest levels of government ala the Pentagon Papers.
Nevertheless, now that we're here, what happens in this case and to this idiot matters a lot
Assange likely coerced and encouraged a member of the US military to release classified information.
Assange had charges filed against him by Sweden.
Assange had an EAW (European Arrest Warrant) issued for his apprehension.
Assange appealed his extradition through the legal hierarchy in England, losing every appeal.
Assange was scheduled for a flight to Sweden to face the charges, instead he fled to a foreign embassy, making a mockery of the political asylum process.
Clearly the USA and Obama are to blame for all of this.
If you agree with the rapist's politics.
Except for the fact that they think this is secret information ("Restricted" on the document), what's the big deal about this getting out?
I mean, they think he broke laws, so of course they'd want to arrest him "under all circumstances". That seems like it would be the case from the police for all suspected criminals.
You are either lying through your teeth, or delusional. Conservatives and orthodox Christians simply want marriage to not be redefined. Many of them even accept a "civil union" that grants hospital visitation and some other benefits.
From that to "round up all homosexuals and gas them"... Wow. This is the single most bizarre straw man that I remember ever seeing.