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."
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.
Right here http://couragetoresist.org/donate/bradley-manning.html
Since you're so concerned about the guy, maybe you should stuff your self-rightousness up your ass and go donate to his defense fund.
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.
How is the fact the the London police wish to arrest law breakers news?
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 really are too stupid to be on internet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/wikileaks-bradley-manning-defence-fund
WikiLeaks delivers contribution to Bradley Manning defence fund
Website honours pledge made last July to help pay legal fees of soldier accused of leaking US embassy cables
And given the current financial blockade against wikileaks they were lucky to get that out to the BM fund.
really... do the police think they will cut him up and smuggle him out piece by piece?
Treason? The only treason I see having been committed was by the officials who did anything so embarrassing that it needed to be leaked. Maybe if politicians and bureaucrats weren't such unethical, scheming, corrupt slimebags there'd be no reason for people like Assange and Manning to do what they're doing.
I read an interview with Adrian Lamo once where he said that when he turned in Manning, he didn't think Assange would actually go through and release the State Department cables. He thought Assage would put Manning's safety above releasing the cables.
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.
You think Wikileaks is a big money-making venture?
It's funny how people believe anyone whose name is in the news must be rich. "Hey, did you see that guy who got a million hits on his YouTube video of his dog who skateboards? That guy must be like a millionaire or something!"
"Hell, man, Wikileaks must be rolling in it if Assange is in the news for trying to avoid arrest! Maybe they should spread some of that wealth around, you know? Oh, and Go Romney!"
You are welcome on my lawn.
That sounds like treason talk Mr BoberFett. Your comment will be brought up at the next House Un-American Activities Committee meeting.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
That's more believable than the UK media.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
yes, either site some sort of evidence, or can someone delete. I'm not about censorship, but if this is an outright lie it doesn't belong here. shame on you.
America was founded on many acts of treason. If the men and women committing these acts of treason, against the king, were caught, they'd have been put to death. Since the rebels won, we Americans consider these treasonous rebels brave heroes and patriots. The Tories - not so much.
Treason is in the eye of the beholder.
You really are too stupid to be on internet
Hmm, maybe you're from the past. Hello, time traveller! On today's internet, that level of stupid simply places him in the 80th percentile. I hope you enjoy 2012, but you'll probably want to pick a different decade for your final journey.
When confronted with one problem, some think "I'll use recursion". Now they are confronted with one problem.
keep licking those boots. mmmm, good!
of course, you have it backwards. the ones who did the *larger* bit of crime are the ones manning reported on.
that doesn't bother you but the party-line is all you can repeat.
(let me guess; republican, right?)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
America was founded on many acts of treason.
I disagree. George III was a Hanoverian usurper.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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).
As he should. There's a reason why treason is treated so seriously. Unfortunately, prosecutors don't intend to push for execution.
Execution for those chopper pilots shooting ambulance and rockets at children and then laughing on comms like they were playing CoD.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
America is doing evil things. Those who do evil things deserve to die.
Fuck trust. How about transparency?
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.
.And in doing so, create a martyr.
I am John Hurt.
Yes, and 5 minutes later, a number of British diplomats around the world get a bullet in the head. You break the diplomatic rules and it's chaos. This is how world wars get started.
Take the Red Pill.
How does a non-citizen, non-resident commit treason against a country he owes no allegiance to?
Wake up, hysterical lies is the basis for an entire political platform in the US.
Take the Red Pill.
Not to mention, if you want to see real treason, you need look no further than the Obama administration, which leaked information about the Osama bin Laden raid to try and shore up support for his reelection.
Leaks which, unlike Wikileaks, DID get people killed. Leaks which compromised those who provided the intelligence that led to Bin Laden, getting them caught by foreign forces.
But do you think anyone is going to get in trouble for those leaks? Of course not, it allowed Obama to announce that he had killed Bin Laden!
That's actually a good idea. The death penalty is barbaric.
I haven't run across that disproof, got a link?
Assange is NOT a diplomat for any country. He is just an accused criminal hiding in an embassy.
If so, then what exactly is the USA case again Assange? He is neither subject to US laws, nor is he as a non-citizen, non-resident owed anything to USA to protect its so-called secrets, since it is a country he owes no allegiance to. Please decide if you want to have your cake or whether you want to eat it.
You're missing a number of rather important details.
First off, the founders of the USA made an open statement of their problems with King George, having worked to resolve them.
Second, instead of publishing who King George had agreements with, or who his spies in France are, or some other embarassing detail, they simply started their own country and said: if you don't like it, this is who we are; come get some.
Third, they took up arms and resisted the people the King sent after them, when he did indeed come after the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
If you're trying to say Bradley Manning has the balls or integrity to do any of the above, then you're not paying attention or you're willfully lying.
He's a little jag who had a temper tantrum because his boyfriend dumped him, and then got demoted for having that temper tantrum at work. Since he was demoted, he grabbed everything he could get his hands on and gave it to where he thought it could do the most damage, while trying desperately to stay anonymous.
Bradley Manning is a coward, a whiner, and a drama Queen. And you are an idiot for comparing him to anyone who ever actually put himself on the line for anything.
I have bad news for you, if you think that soldiers regularly fight battles without trying to dehumanize them. If they had been correct in their identification, their actions would probably have not been noteworthy at all; the issue is that they misidentified the targets.
Bradley manning is not only a citizen and a resident, he is a member of the armed forces-- hence why this is being handled in military courts.
> some actually died due to Manning's treason
citation needed.
*chuckle* Much like nobody got in trouble for leaking the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, thereby endangering her.
Yes, your comment deserves to be modded up because you're right. No matter who it is, when the leaks serve those in power, it doesn't matter if anybody is hurt, nobody is prosecuted.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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.
Err, you can be subject to US laws even if you are no American and never set a foot in America. All you have to do is break US laws.
Now, treason charge is quite impossible, for obvious reason. But there is no reason why they can trump up a bunch of BS like "aiding the enemy" or "encouraging and materially aiding in acts of espionage" or "conspiracy to commit theft of state property" or similar.
There is enough laws to hang Assange in the US, even if treason is not one of them.
Aren't modern laws great? You can always make them "work" if you put your mind to it.
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.
Seriously, Bober, you're giving unethical scheming corrupt slimebags a bad name by roping them together with politicians. It's like the difference between a carp and a politician. One's a scum sucking bottomfeeder and the other's a fish.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The man violated the trust placed in him.
Manning betrayed the people who betrayed their countrymen. Manning is guilty only if you have no allegiance to your country.
Exposing a criminal is treason only to criminals.
What was the name of that CIA chick the Old Regime outted?
That's why whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by law, which is what Manning should have been.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
"Say what you want but a lot of people were put in danger and some actually died due to Manning's treason"
Maybe you could comment on how many of Valerie Plame's contacts were put in danger by Cheney's deliberate treason in identifying her as a CIA agent handler. Actually, Cheney placed any foreign citizen who had ever shaken hands with her in extreme danger.
The Bush administration set the standard and since none of the people who were involved were ever charged with anything, the same standard should be applied to Manning. And by the way, none of the criminals like the helicopter gunmen who blew away the Reuters reporters were ever charged with anything.
When there is no rule of law, there is no rule of law.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
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!
There is no US case, nor any US charges. And obviously there are not likely to be any because the New York Times and The Register both published the same material.
Manning is obviously guilty of violating the Espionage Act because be had a security clearance and gave US secrets out where he knew that they would be posted publicly where anybody, including legitimate enemies of the United States, would have access to them. That could be punished by death, though life is more likely.
Assange, however, not being a US citizen, not having been granted any special access to secrets, not having extensive activities or presence in the US, not being in the US when he received the materials, and clearly being a journalistic source considering that much of the material was initially released by other (mainstream) media outlets that he had partnered with, is totally outside US jurisdiction and if he was in US jurisdiction he would be protected under US law. The US making statements that they would enjoy arresting him for something and that he is a bad awful guy is not the same thing as there being actual accusations against him.
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."
The sad thing is most Americans wouldn't vote for anybody even if you put a gun to their heads. Until you all get off your arses and vote you'll just get the people that help out their donors instead of people that are worth voting for. I know it's stupidly on a Tuesday and their are hoops to go through instead of easily registering as a voter at 18, but in most other democratic countries and the early USA it was seen as a duty of a citizen to vote. If hardly any of you can be bothered you'll get one extreme or another nearly every time.
I read an interview with Adrian Lamo once where he said that when he turned in Manning, he didn't think Assange would actually go through and release the State Department cables. He thought Assage would put Manning's safety above releasing the cables.
Did I just read that right? The man who betrayed Manning blames the man whom he claims respected his wishes?
Or maybe it's Opposite Day and nobody told me. Again.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I'd say since he was a serving member of the military in a war zone he has more balls and most likely more integrity than you are putting on show.
(let me guess; republican, right?)
I think it's cute that you believe this issue doesn't span party lines.
Everyone's got the disease, now, not just the Repugnants.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Except that, right after you sign those rights away, they go about pounding the words "honor" "loyalty" and "integrity" into your skull.
Then they get pissed off when you apply those words where they were meant to be applied.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Thanks. That you think exploding someone's skull is humane or not barbaric speaks volumes.
I'd rather sit sedated in a chamber and have 100% nitrogen pumped in. Nicer for everyone. Little cleanup, and I'd just drift out of consciousness and be gone.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
You're missing a number of rather important details.
First off, the founders of the USA made an open statement of their problems with King George, having worked to resolve them.
Second, instead of publishing who King George had agreements with, or who his spies in France are, or some other embarassing detail, they simply started their own country and said: if you don't like it, this is who we are; come get some.
Third, they took up arms and resisted the people the King sent after them, when he did indeed come after the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
If you're trying to say Bradley Manning has the balls or integrity to do any of the above, then you're not paying attention or you're willfully lying.
He's a little jag who had a temper tantrum because his boyfriend dumped him, and then got demoted for having that temper tantrum at work. Since he was demoted, he grabbed everything he could get his hands on and gave it to where he thought it could do the most damage, while trying desperately to stay anonymous.
Bradley Manning is a coward, a whiner, and a drama Queen. And you are an idiot for comparing him to anyone who ever actually put himself on the line for anything.
Truth.
Though, clearly you didn't get the memo. Since the US == Supreme Evil of the Universe it only makes sense that anything that may possibly put it or anything it stands for in a good light is bad, unless it can be tied to someone/something the group think has deemed as "good". In which case the US was only doing whatever it was out of some 'evil' self interest.
Also, we're supposed to worship the drama queen Assange and anyone or anything associated to him. Sorry, the people responsible for getting you your memos will now be sacked.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Ever heard of the Nuremberg trials? The Allies hung plenty of people who were following orders. Talking about international laws as if they magically make things right and wrong is stupid beyond belief. You do what you feel is right. If your government is corrupt, you out them. If your orders are immoral, you don't follow them.
So, in order to say "hey we did it!" we had to point out the informants? Bullshit. We had plenty of other proof we could have offered up.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
You,Sir, are an idiot!
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
What's really sad is that this isn't some random general-population site on the internet, this is supposed to be the home of geeks and nerds, people who are supposedly smarter than the average. Even so, your words are true; this level of stupidity is normal here in 2012. The intelligence level here on Slashdot, like everywhere else in American society, has fallen greatly in the last 10 years or so.
Oh, and a psychopath!
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
Getting out and voting doesn't make a difference here. In case you haven't been following things, the elections are highly controlled so that you end up with two really shitty choices for President (and the other elections aren't any better), thanks to our first-past-the-post voting system that hasn't changed since the 1700s, rather than the proportional election systems you Europeans use. There are some exceptions at the local level, where there's proportional systems, runoff systems, etc. used, and those are indeed better, but the chances of any of those ever being used in national elections is nil.
Yes, and America belongs to Spain, in the first place ... out with you, English Scum!
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
"House Un-American Activities Committee meeting."
That's so 1950's. Now they just send SMS's.
You sign away your rights and freedoms when you join the military. You, as a grunt, such as Manning, have signed their lives away willingly to do what the Army asks them to do. And to follow orders.
Exactly. And if the Army orders you to throw people into gas chambers, that's what you need to do. Great to see that everyday Americans are no different than the Nazis.
"We had to destroy the Republic in order to save it"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I've never heard of it being OK to shoot wounded soldiers or people who are trying to take them away to get medical attention, and certainly not when there's children in their car (since they don't have the resources for proper ambulances and such).
It's really pretty sick just how evil Americans are now, and what kinds of crimes they will defend. Americans make Nazis look not-so-bad.
You think Wikileaks is a big money-making venture?
It's funny how people believe anyone whose name is in the news must be rich. "Hey, did you see that guy who got a million hits on his YouTube video of his dog who skateboards? That guy must be like a millionaire or something!"
WikiLeaks Donations Topped $1.9 Million in 2010
Wikileaks has been criticized for their lack of transparency in handling of donations.
The controversial website WikiLeaks, which argues the cause of openness in leaking classified or confidential documents, has set up an elaborate global financial network to protect a big secret of its own—its funding. . . .
The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. WikiLeaks encourages donors to contribute to its account at the foundation, which under German law can't publicly disclose the names of donors. Because the foundation "is not an operational concern, it can't be sued for doing anything. So the donors' money is protected, in other words, from lawsuits," Mr. Assange said.
The German foundation is only one piece of the WikiLeaks network.
"We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."
Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us and say 'I'll give you 60,000 or 10,000,' " he said, without specifying a currency. -- How WikiLeaks Keeps Its Funding Secret
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
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.
Nah.. It will look like a robbery gone wrong or something stupid like a drug overdose with plenty of witnesses talking about his slide into depression.
I suspect with something like the 80+% turnout the USA had in the 1830s you would have a very different political landscape and the actual mechanism of collecting and tallying votes would be improved and run professionally on a state or federal level out of necessity.
Delivering poorly designed machines to untrained volunteers on the day (and the million other utterly stupid stuffups) is not acceptable - something that important should be planned properly so that the volunteers know how to run the polling station before the day. Having a wide variety of voting methods within even the same state for no actual practical reason (Florida 2000 was a joke) is a barrier to getting a clear result and bit of an insult to the voting public that have to wait insane amounts of time in some cases. If there was some sort of independent national body that ran elections then they would go as smoothly as those that US experts run on behalf of the UN in some countries. 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.
You imagine the US would play by it's own laws on this? I seriously doubt that. If they want him, they'll get him. There are many ways to do so. They could make up charges for something unrelated, even fabricating evidence... like, for example, rape. Or they could simply disappear him to a secret prison somewhere - it's very Soviet, but I've no doubt the US has a few people that would be happy to make it happen. Or they could do the simplist approach: The show trial. Make it clear to the judge and every official that any verdict other than guilty means they'll never work in the legal profession again, and it doesn't matter what legal arguments he uses about jurisdiction.
The average person is so breathtakingly stupid that simply being "smarter than average" doesn't amount to much.
Huh? George the III was the rightful heir to George the II who was the rightful heir to George the first of Hanover.
Now it can be argued about whether George the first was an usurper, but the only one with a better claim to the throne was James Stuart the III and VIII, a Catholic, after the English had a revolution to stop the Catholics from being King (they believed in the divine right of Kings, very un-british).
The actual usurper was perhaps William of Orange, who was invited (with his wife Mary, daughter of the King) by Parliament to take up the Crown usurping James Stuart the II & VII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
hahahahahaha... $1.9 million is rich now? Wikileaks don't pay their employees or for their datacentres?
Linking WSJ just shows how much you're willing to lap up the Murdoch propaganda.
Bradly Manning was exercising his constitutional rights, namely the very first amendment to the Constitution that said that Congress can not pass any laws restricting speech. How you can damn someone for exercising his rights I don't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Not only did they hang low ranking germans who were only following their orders, and who would likely have been executed or tortured by their own superiors had they not obeyed those orders...
But they didn't do anything whatsoever about the various atrocities committed by stalin and his followers.
As they say, history is written by the victors.
If you were an ordinary german at that time, and hitler gave you an order... Your choice was between obeying it, or face being rounded by by the ss and taken to a concentration camp as a traitor. Regardless of how immoral you felt the order was, your only other alternatives were either extremely risky (try to escape and defect, you might get caught doing so, or germany may win the war and recapture you), or involved certain torture and death.
It's very easy saying the orders they followed were immoral, but when faced with the choice of either torturing and killing total strangers, or watching your family being tortured and killed and then being tortured and killed yourself the instinct for self preservation usually takes over.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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?
I read an interview with Adrian Lamo once where he said that when he turned in Manning, he didn't think Assange would actually go through and release the State Department cables. He thought Assage would put Manning's safety above releasing the cables.
You do remember who it was that leaked most of the cables, right? Hint: it wasn't Wikileaks.
No sig today...
Your system of broken beyond voting machine snafu's and other voting mechanisms.
You have an electoral system. You don't decide who gets to be president, you get to decide who your State thinks should be president. And that State gets a vote that is dependant on how many people there are (ideally). If 49% of people pick Republican, and 51% pick Democrat, then 100% of the electoral votes of the State go towards the Democrat. And because of this, other parties can't get a word in edgewise.
There have been states that have gone to vote for third parties (or independents), but these were barely even a blip because mainly it's Republican or Democrat.
Let's face it, the concept of United States is dead anyway; the federal government has seized so much centralized power since the Civil War, it's no longer a collection of states with a small central government. So either fix that, or don't pretend any more and go the full monty. National elections, where every vote is a vote.
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.
I'm from the UK and we've tried with a couple of pretty successful petitions to have 'none of the above' put on the list of choices. Trouble is, they're scared to death of it because it would win nearly every time. Then we could spend a pleasant five years, moron-free, building small alternative structures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-voting
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Do you really believe the complicated to use, easy to hack and manipulate machines are not according to plan? Even the larger countries in Europe handle voting with ballots with ease, no corruption or confusion but American politics system insist on it for a long, long time. The whole thing is rigged to make sure that certain parties are in power. Even after this the general incompetence level catches up and then they lose an election. Bush stole two elections and only the first one raised some eyebrows in the rest of the world.
Manning, have signed their lives away willingly to do what the Army asks them to do. And to follow orders. ... to carry out their orders to the t, and not to question them.
anyone who would unconditionally agree to something when they don't even know what they are agreeing to is a complete and utter imbecile. fortunately, every now and then someone with enough brain capacity to make informed decisions slips in. i.e. Manning .
when you violate the trust they put in you by acting like a traitor, well you deserve to be punished under the full extent of the law.
when you violate basic humanity, you deserve to be re-educated until you can fit in without further violations or failing the possibility of that - removed from society - not rewarded and promoted.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
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.
Well, I, as a part of the the rest of the word, have a problem with your "rules of engagement" which leads to deaths of innocent people and children. Don't try to weasel out of it.
We are decent people and when we see a people in pain, in injury or distress, we stop and help them out. The last thing we want is some murderous pilot and his handlers deciding on killing us on a whim. The release of the "Collateral Murder" video was the right thing to do and shows to the rest of the world what a crooked military system America has. Bush even signed a law which would lead to the invasion of a friendly country (Holland) in case an American soldier was arrested and charged for war crimes. Go and google The Hague Invasion Act.
Which is exactly what's wrong with our and any military. Blind obedience and a culture of oversimplified dichotomies.
[Citation needed].
Also in Nuremberg, the humanity was reminded that blindly following orders is not OK and a person was supposed to stand up against the wrongs committed by the military. US executed war criminals based on this. You cannot have it both ways.
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.
thing is, if you're raped, you get to the police right away. (well both of them should). you don't wait for 2-3 days until you realize who you had sex with.
Can I light a sig ?
Even if they "recant", it is very commonly known for the rape victims to withdraw allegations under pressure. It is a part of the male privilege, apparently it's always the women that got it wrong and the rape was actually a friendly fuck. Yeah, right, and I'm a Dutchman.
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.
But on the last Opposite Day you said you absolutely definitely wanted to be told about the next one, so I thought that meant...
Never mind.
And I thought that's the usual London traffic experience!
Watch the entire video. They attacked people attempting to help the wounded, as well.
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.
The executive is pretty much unrestricted in how it chooses to deal with classified information, since that's where the ability to classify stuff comes from.
And I suppose Rommel was a traitor to Germany for attempting to kill Hitler?
Morality trumps the wishes of the elite any day.
Their actions would still have been noteworthy, perhaps not illegal, but certainly noteworthy. Bear in mind that they essentially just spotted a bunch of people standing on a street corner and decided to kill them all when they saw that a few were carrying weapons. That's noteworthy. People excuse this by saying "it's war," although calling the continued occupation of Iraq a war is about as honest as the "war on terror." More than that though, even in a real war it's not as though all military action, even properly executed military action, is okay.
Consider: Scenario 1 - Germany invades France, the US eventually invades France with the goal of liberating it and shoots German soldiers from a helicopter in the process. Scenario 2 - The US invades Iraq and shoots Iraqi soldiers from a helicopter in the process.
Both wars involve soldiers doing their thing, in basically the same way, but one is okay and one isn't.
William of Orange was actually invited to rule the land because another Stuart had contracted a case of catholizism.
20 minutes into the future
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) --
The fuckl? They're being hounded by the very same fascist scum.
Did you have a point or anything?
Nerve conduction isn't a purely electrical process ; it's a rolling wave of membrane depolarisation, has a biochemical element, and is much slower than an electrical impulse through a copper wire.
Couple that with the fact that the brain itself has no ability to sense pain, and the .50 cal round to the head method of execution probably is painless. Soldiers used to commit suicide by holding a grenade to their head and that's probably painless too.
But it is definitely gross.
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.
Unfortunately indeed. You fucking bootlicker.
Nerve impulses are actually pretty slow. So yes, a bullet will reach the brain before the impulses from the skin where it hits.
But it should be. Government should make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Her name was Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby took the fall for outing her. (I scrolled down, but didn't see anyone respond).
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
amiga3D is actually a boot licking Republican though.
Oh, I wasn't aware the Republicans orchestrated a secret coup d'etat. Last I knew, Obama/Democrats have been in charge of the DOJ and TLAs for the last 3 1/2years.
But please, don't let facts or reality spoil a good narrow-minded, cheap, partisan dig when both parties are and have been equally guilty of ignoring and pissing all over the Constitution and the Rule of Law for at least the last 50 years or more.
Carry on.
And people wonder why US politicians view the citizens as willfully stupid, blind, ignorant, and easily-manipulated sheep?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You've got to be kidding.
It's funny that the Wall Street Journal you link to would consider $1.9 million to be distinctly "middle class" when it comes to tax policy, but in the case of an organization serving the world it's suddenly "rich".
You think the Wall Street Journal would consider $1.9 million "rich" if it was the cutoff point for taxing "the rich"?
Anyway, considering the most powerful nations in the world are after Assange for pressing his penis against a sleeping girl with whom he was sleeping and are prepared to storm embassies and engage in other acts of war in order to get their hands on him, I'm guessing $1.9million is going to get burned through pretty quickly in legal funds alone (assuming he ever sees the inside of a courtroom).
Come on...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Every individual and every nation has both good and evil within... this whitehat/blackhat stuff is nonsense. I'm an atheist, but didn't Jesus speak on just this ie. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", the parable of the Good Samaritan etc? ie. parables on this issue at both at the individual and national level?
If you want to know about the theories NeoCons and the ruling elite subscribe to search "Leo Strauss" look at his philosophies. His students became the founders of the Neo Conservative movement and applied these theories. To summarise : the nation should get simplified "whitehat/blackhat" versions of issues that aren't necessarily even true - it's just a glue to hold society together. The elites know the truth, but hide it from the people when they deem it necessary. Sound democratic?
Proof's in the pudding
No, the saying goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
And for this pudding, it needs to be extradited.to be had. That's the only way we will see any proof.
What was the name of that CIA chick the Old Regime outted? That's why whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by law, which is what Manning should have been.
Her name was Valerie Plame.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
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.
Except at the moment you're being nice to the Tories because they're the majority of the UK coalition government at the moment, and you want something. See also "Saddam Hussein" and "The Taliban" in the 1980s. There was even a film about the latter being brave heroes alongside John Rambo.
A significant proportion of the UK agree that this is all one big stitch up to put Assange in US hands, and frankly (as a Brit), I'm siding with Ecuador and their allies on this one.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Look up Tunisia and wikileaks... basically the whole arab spring was in part crystalised out of the leaked cables, in particular the disclosure that America didn't particularly like or support their current dictator... and confirmation of the theft of vast amounts of resources by the ruling family. This is according to the BBC.
none of the people who were involved were ever charged with anything,
This is not true, they prosecuted and convicted Scooter Libby over the Valerie Plame outing, and he lost his job. I am pretty certain he was pardoned, though not exonerated. It looks like he took the fall for the Cheney office.
The worst part is Cheney wasn't even after Plame, he was after Plame's husband for reporting that Saddam Hussein was _not_ shopping for yellowcake uranium ore in Africa. For interfering with the Iraqi WMD lie, the White House outed the wife of the messenger (former diplomat). Cheney and Bush thought they were playing war with their toy soldiers-- war is so often a perversion old men engage in using young men as their living toy soldiers.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
Remember the people calling for him to be tried for treason in the US are the same ones who recently asked a NASA official what it's like to land a shuttle on the moon. Politician != intelligent.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
In my time in uniform I was instructed by senior NCM's, officers (commisioned and non-commissioned) that it was a primary duty to respect and defend my country to the detriment of self -- which most definately included that I was to do what was required of me including actions that could put me in front of a military court martial or civilian court in order to protect the rights of people. I was to question and if necessary by word and action refuse orders that contravened the rights of people both within and outside my nation. Furthermore it was instilled in me that it was my duty to defend the people of my nation against oppressors from outside and inside my nation and that if it meant speaking out or acting against those who gave the orders I was expected to do my duty. I knowingly and willingly gave up some of my rights for the express intent of protecting my country - that protection I offer should not stop when it's being attacked from someone inside the chain of command or government officials.
Fomer Uniformed Canuck
You missed the words "possibly outright corruption" in my final sentence.
...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.
Slavery is against the law. But then, governments have a tendency to think themselves above the law in general.
And yes, it is my place to decide on transparency, you fucking neo-Nazi apologist.
You're right, they just gun them down in the streets like dogs from attack helicopters.
The moment the authorities arrested him he was already doomed.
Releasing the cables was vengeance.
I must have missed the evidentiary hearing. When did it happen and where? Also, you do realize that if most of the stuff didn't reveal wrongdoing, that also means that some of the stuff did, right?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Nothing is more un-american than stuff that would make our founding fathers turn in their graves.
Valerie Plame was the person hurt most.
Outed as a spook, her career was torched.
"The intelligence level here on Slashdot, like everywhere else in American society, has fallen greatly in the last 10 years or so."
quite right
The obvious solution is to get rid of those newbies who lower the average IQ. We should just dump any member whose number is higher than, oh, say 195815...
...omphaloskepsis often...
Who said the US has a case against Assange? Even if they do, who said that treason was the charge? Please decide if you want to sound intelligent or continue to post your lines of "reasoning".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I think the expectation that Sweden should tear up their extradition agreement with the USA is a bit much to ask, don't you ?
Sure. Completely correct. And I'm saying that maybe we should think about whether we want the same 'obey at all costs' mentality.
First you are only required to follow legal orders as well as refuse illegal orders. Secondly Manning was an Intel analyst, he worked on a computer in an air conditioned room, Grunts on the other hand work with hands-on weapons like rifles and grenades in the heat, mud, dust and blood of the battlefield; don't insult real Grunts by confusing Manning with them.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
America is pressuring the UK to send Assange to Sweden?
On the other side of the pond, Bradley Manning is going to be put to death. Where are the Wikileak white knights?
One major difference is that Bradley Manning has been accused of something that is punishable by the death penalty. Assange had no requirement to be loyal to the US. He can do pretty much whatever he wants, with regard to keeping the US's secrets. PFC Manning did/does not have that luxury.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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
That's what the Laws of War say, too. So I guess in this case the Nazis were in good company.
The International Committee of the Red Cross says (rule 47) says someone is hors de combat and protected if:
"(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party; ...
(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or
(c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;
provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
According to Additional Protocol I, immunity from attack is conditional on refraining from any hostile act or attempt to escape.[39] This is also set forth in several military manuals. The commission of these acts signifies that the person in question is in fact no longer hors de combat and does not qualify for protection under this rule."
The insurgents in the video--who were themselves in the midst of committing a war crime by engaging in combat while out of uniform--did not meet this requirement. It's perfectly acceptable to continue to engage them.
if we didn't have such happy voluntary grunts, we'd have no wars!
grunts are stupid morons. and these days, they willingly give their lives for some rich oil CEO.
how stupid can you be! there's no honor in that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I have never once, here or elsewhere, "insisted" (or even just "said") that Assange raped anyone. I am in no position to state that with any degree of certainty. What he is is wanted on suspicion of rape. There's enough evidence for a court to have issued a warrant for his arrest. I would not get away with refusing to comply. You would not get away with refusing to comply. Why should he?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I just bit the bottom out of an ice cream cone on a Sunday then stuffed the remains in my back pocket, next to the nude picture of Marilyn Monroe before chaining my pet 'gator to the fire hydrant outside and opening an umbrella to keep the sun off him.
Come get me, Alabamians!
By the way, all those things are completely legal in England, so fuck you - and the horse you rode in on.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
PS. Nice try with the "in absentia" thing, but that's not what I'm saying and you know it. Every judicial system I know of allows the police to arrest someone before they've been convicted. Get a grip.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Assange gets most of the Wikileaks salary budget paid to him. Wikileaks relies on volunteers. They have been reported to receive much free or reduced cost hosting over the years.
Julian Assange paid two thirds of WikiLeaks salary budget
. . . Mr Assange was paid $86,000 (£56,000) in salary in 2010 – two-thirds of the total WikiLeaks salary budget of $130,000 (£84,000).
WikiLeaks Spending Rises Dramatically to $500,000 - By Kim ZetterEmail Author12.13.10 4:47 PM
WikiLeaks’ expenditures have risen dramatically from a paltry $38,000 between October 2009 and July 2010 to more than $495,000 in the last five months, according to a foundation that manages most of the organization’s donations.
The jump in expenses appears to be due to salaries the organization recently began paying staff members. WikiLeaks said in the past — before it began paying salaries — that its operating costs run only about $200,000 annually.
“Personnel costs are a relatively recent development,” Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel. “WikiLeaks now pays some of its employees salaries. The staff members give the organization an invoice, and WikiLeaks hands them over to us.”
It’s not known how much WikiLeaks staffers earn, or how many staffers receive salaries — the organization is said to have only two or three staff members, but hundreds of volunteers. This information should be detailed in a financial report the Wau Holland Foundation is expected to release before the end of the year.
The report, which was supposed to be released in August, will be the first public disclosure of WikiLeaks’ finances. The organization, and founder Julian Assange, have been criticized by supporters and others for failing to provide a transparent accounting of donations and expenses. According to The Telegraph, the Wau Holland Foundation has recently been issued two official warnings by charity regulators in Germany for failing to file the required financial reports.
It has long been known that the most effective "propaganda" is the truth, or at least factual information. You seem to be short of that and seem to be relying on snark which isn't really a substitute, is 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
links?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Americans make Nazis look not-so-bad.
Normally we could say you Godwined the thread, however for today I'd like to suspend that and actually debate this. The Nazis used to execute their own political prisoners with wire garrotes. They deliberately dropped fire bombs on civilian targets. They used to starve newborn babies to death in controlled experiments in concentration camps. The Nazis did not stop gay people getting married; they sent them to their deaths. In recent US massacres of civilians up to several hundreds of people have been killed and even in the largest battles it seems a maximum of a few thousand combatants were killed. Compare with Leningrad where 1.5 Million people were killed in the city alone including 0.5 Million civilians which should be added to another half million or so who died trying to leave the city. Or Stalingrad with about 1.5 million casualties, of them 600k Russian soldiers and 40k Russian civilians.
Comparing these two just looks silly. I could understand the claim that current changes might take us in that direction, however, we aren't nearly there yet and may never get close.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Shall we presume that you support actions like this from Wikileaks then?
The treachery of Julian Assange
Perhaps you have acquired a taste for some variety of leather yourself? (Let me guess: progressive, right?)
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
.... 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.
And none of this makes a damned bit of difference to this case. Even if Assange was personally responsible for every act of Wikileaks (which he isn't), and even if his actions within Wikileaks were above reproach(they aren't, a lot of the material they released needed to be released, but some of it should have stayed secret, Assange didn't care), and even if everything you say about the results of Wikileaks actions is true(which may or may not be true, very little in the diplomatic cables surprised anyone), it still doesn't give him a free pass on rape.
If the US tries to extradite him, I'd support him, for all that I loathe the man, but that's not what has happened.
Outside of CBN training in boot camp? They don't. But ever hear of a place called My Lai? It was only after Rusty Calley was convicted of war crimes that the UCMJ was fixed to allow a soldier to refuse an illegal order. Yeah, tradition at the time was, you could refuse an illegal order, but the reality was, refuse it and face a court martial with limited defense options.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Why do you get so upset over four characters at the end of my posts? Are you just incensed that I do what I want, instead of what you want?
Try to work it out in therapy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
A usurper's heir is still a usurper.
In any case, I would argue that the American revolution was not treason, because any duty of loyalty that Americans of English descent may have once had to England was removed by the English government's betrayal of its duty to preserve the liberty and safety of Englishmen in America.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it is OK to shoot anyone. Sometimes (when it is a question of self-defence; i.e one person is definitely going to die, so it may as well be the person instigating the incident) it might be justifiable, but I'm not sure it should ever be OK...
On shooting wounded soldiers it depends on how wounded they are and if they still have the means to engage in combat. Under the typical laws of land warfare, medical personel are typically non-combatant medical personel and will display a red cross or red cresent which supposedly gives the medics both protections and obligations. Using wounded soldiers to bait their comrads into the fire zone is concidered dishonorable by professional soldiers, but is very commonly employed tactic. Many Islamic Militants are taught that the red cross is the mark of Satan and they use it as a target.
Rushing into or out of an area of active combat is always a hazardous activity, acting like a combatant in a combat area where combatants don't wear uniforms is always a stupid thing to do.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I recommend reading this post discussing possible ways for Assange to get out of the Ecuadorian embassy, starting at "So – can he?"
As usual when law (and especially international law) is involved, it is far more complicated than it seems. Also, England isn't really a country - it would be the UK invading Ecuador.
Well there is ANZUS The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, and there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization"> South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), I imagine that there is a lot of sub-treaty agreements and letters of understanding. Austrailia like Canada has always been a heavy liffter defense wise always contributing far more than one would expect for their respective population sizes; so you might be very surprized what the lawyers can dig up from the existing pool of national laws, treaties and international agreements.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
And even that's not real treason.
Sources, please. You're an AC making a statement point blank.
Actually, I guess I should have articulated it better rather than write that out so hastily: Americans today make the German citizens living under the Nazis (and supporting their regime verbally) look not-so-bad. Now obviously, not all Americans are like this, there's still a small contingent that believes in things like gay rights, not engaging in useless wars, etc., but there's no shortage of American citizens who would be happy to round up all homosexuals and gas them. We've even had politicians say things to this effect. Or to invade Iran; lots of Americans are chomping at the bit to start yet another war. We're just lucky that our regime hasn't started taking these actions, yet (I fully expect to see an invasion of Iran within 2 years). Some of them they're prevented from doing so because of politics (the other "side" takes the other position to get votes from the more-moderate Americans who aren't quite as far-right-wing as the ones who want to murder gays, so it stalls this action, and there's significant parts of the country where people are more-moderate like this; if the people in the "heartland" states for instance had all the power, we'd already have concentration camps).
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I think it's definitely justifiable to stop a greater crime. If you had a gun in hand and were near the door when the Colorado movie shooter busted in and was about to start shooting people, would you seriously have not shot him to prevent a dozen dead and scores injured? How can that action not be OK?
However, what we saw in "Collateral Murder" was NOT self-defense in any way, and was even less so when they opened fire on people trying to rescue the injured.
So because some people shoot at red crosses, the US thinks it's OK to shoot at anyone trying to help injured people?
And no one in that video was acting like a combatant. Camera lenses are not guns, and don't even look like them.
I'd say since he was a serving member of the military in a war zone he has more balls and most likely more integrity than you are putting on show.
Don't mean to put the guy down, but Manning never went outside the wire. He signed up to sit in a room full of computers and compile reports. (Yes, I did go outside the wire, and was combat arms.)
Manning was an adult, had taken the oath and is responsible for his actions, and yes, they're going to throw the book at him. They should: that intel has disrupted our peaceful diplomatic efforts, it included names and addresses of people in dangerous situations, etc. I don't care what terrible secrets of the government were uncovered, none of that was worth the life of even one poor son of a bitch in some hellhole who was feeding us intel so he could feed his family.
But, at the same time, he was a young dude who was going through a difficult time, and he was callously manipulated by Assange's people. That organization is designed to find a sucker they can manipulate to fall on his sword while they keep far enough back to be legally untouchable. And they don't care if the leaks harm innocent people.
And why don't they care? Because you, the fans, don't care, you'll never hold them to account. You're so fucking self-righteous that you worship this creep Assange and make excuses for his sexually assaulting those women. You don't care about the brown guy in Shitcanistan who gets tortured to death because of the leaks. You don't care if our peaceful efforts at diplomacy are derailed. You just want to be part of a big circle jerk around your stupid conspiracy theories. You really are worthless excuses for human beings.
I would love to be able to cast a ballot for "None" and if that selection gets the most votes, the position is abolished. If people want true choice in elections, let's have "None of the above" be one of the choices.
the issue is that they misidentified the targets.
The soldier at the scene who picks up the child from the minivan (Ethan McCord) believes that the attack on the van was a war crime. They seemed all too quick to decide that people were carrying weapons and all too eager to shoot. I've heard many accounts where all civilians were considered as the enemy whether or not they were armed. e.g.
McCord told Van Auken: "He [Kauzlarich] goes, 'If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherf*cker on the street.'" McCord said that he had also witnessed the order carried out, saying: "I've seen it many times, where people are just walking down the street and an IED goes off and the troops open fire and kill them."
thing is, if you're raped, you get to the police right away.
Thing is, if you're raped, you react in one of any number of diverse (and many irrational) ways because it's one of the most traumatic things that can happen to anyone and you probably wouldn't find yourself thinking straight "right away" or even a week later.
Not that I'm for one moment suggesting that's what happened here - just saying, there's no standard operating procedure in the human brain for this situation.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
I'm not sure that would help. I see breathtakingly stupid posts by low-UID users all the time. It's not just younger/newer people who are stupid, it's the older people too; I think it's like a disease that's infecting Americans and turning them stupid (stupider than they already were), regardless of their age.
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?
Thank you for proving my point. You sound like a typical American.
I love how none of the soldiers who took part in these atrocities were given any kind of punishment.
It's more complicated than that actually. Yes, in some states, the winner of the popular election gets all the electoral votes for that state. In other states, the electoral votes are divided proportionately based on the results of the popular vote. Every state is different (which is the case for many other political issues too). I'd say the failure of the Founders to devise a proportional election system is probably their biggest failure.
I'm not a UK citizen nor a European, but I've heard people on both sides say that the UK isn't really part of Europe, that UK citizens aren't really Europeans, etc.
(Not the AC)
I don't see how the 50cal to the brain is barbaric. From the point of view of the person executed (i.e. the person whose opinion matters), it's painless and instantaneous. If done at close range, a bullet that large wouldn't require a second shot. Pigs used to be slaughtered that way - one of my earliest memories was seeing a pig head with a bullet hole in it at the meat market where my dad worked.
It is rather messy for the people watching, but really, isn't execution partly to dissuade people from committing similar crimes?
Your proposal, on the other hand, is barbaric, unless by "sedated" you mean "unconcious". Your body would start to hyperventilate and trigger a panic reaction that would last until you passed out. A better option would be carbon monoxide or some other gas which causes you to fall unconcious before you asphixiate.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
The vehicle was unmarked. The combatants being shot at were violating the laws of war by engaging in combat operations while out of uniform. You're on crack if you think they weren't acting like combatants. AKs and RPGs are clearly visibile in the video, and you're lying if you deny it.
There's no obligation to refrain from killing the wounded so long as they are not hors de combat. Attempting to escape is evidence that they are not. They must indicate intention to surrender.
You can't shoot Red Cross or Red Crescent personnel. You can't shoot wounded prisoners that are in your control (flying over them in a helicopter doesn't count - you have to have them as a prisoner or have control of the battlefield). You can't shoot anyone outside the field of battle, or anyone who surrenders to you.
Basically, you can't shoot anyone who isn't an enemy combatant.
That's what the Geneva Convention says, and U.S. soldiers are taught these rules during training. I was taught them, even though I was just a network jockey in the Air Force.
The key point here is determining who is an enemy combatant. If you pull a weapon in a battlefield, you're automatically one. If you assist the enemy in any way (excepting Red Cross stuff, as above), you're one. If you put on an enemy uniform, you're one.
Now, I haven't read the news story all this is about, so I'm not going to comment on the particulars, but if it was indeed misidentification that was the issue, then it basically falls into the "shit happens" category. If the host country for those soldiers has beef about it, they can raise the issue with the UN to see if it qualifies as a war crime. I wouldn't hold my breath, though - evil shit happens in any war, not just those the Americans fight. The difference here is that the government has to at least pay lip service to public opinion, so if enough people get up in arms about it the government will take steps to prevent it from happening again.
Those steps won't totally prevent this sort of occurance, of course - shit happens. But maybe they'll make it less likely. It's the best you can hope for in war.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Pigs used to be slaughtered that way - one of my earliest memories was seeing a pig head with a bullet hole in it at the meat market where my dad worked.
Sure you're not thinking of a captive bolt pistol?
And no, nitrogen shouldn't cause hyperventilation as it allows CO2 exchange. Am I mistaken here?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
ah coward, I lick no boots. Believing that when someone puts on the uniform, raises his right hand and swears an oath of loyalty that he should be held to it is not boot licking. It's the way civilization works. What you propose, that every man is a law unto himself, is anarchy.
It's an evil world full of evil people. Think Polly Purebread is gonna survive? All governments have secret organizations that wage secret wars against others....or they're just victims and get tromped on by the big boys. Name one major country that doesn't engage in this kind of activity.
man that crap burns
Sure you're not thinking of a captive bolt pistol?
Pretty sure. That meat market got most of its animals locally, IIRC, and this isn't exactly pig country here. I doubt the farmer would have had one of those, but I'm sure he would have had access to a 12 gauge.
And no, nitrogen shouldn't cause hyperventilation as it allows CO2 exchange. Am I mistaken here?
You may be right - I hadn't thought about that. If it doesn't induce the panic reaction, then I retract what I said about it being barbaric.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
There were plenty of total surprises eg. revelations about US contractor involvement in child prostitution, but I don't see how rock solid confirmation of suspected shadowy dealings is bad either - what citizen in ANY country wants their government acting as if scrutiny isn't even possible? I've also demonstrated above how these revelation helped precipitate important world events.
Regarding Assange - perhaps you don't realise what's at stake here. There are reporters who've already said they'll start self censoring if another reporter is declared an enemy combatant and jailed indefinitely. Also, perhaps you aren't aware of how much circumstantial evidence on the trumped up nature of this case exists. For example Karl Rove, the same guy who resigned from the Bush administration after suspected corruption of the Department of Justice ie. sacking US prosecutors over not persuing political cases "correctly"... yeah, that guy... well, he works for the Swedish Prime Minister these days.
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
False. There are only 2 states that divide up the vote (Nebraska and Maine), and neither of them matter much due to low population. Source: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#wtapv
Every other state is winner-takes-all, which is why voting in any state that is not a swing state basically doesn't matter. Politicians know this. Check out spending per state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Focus_on_large_swing_states
California and Texas have almost no money spent on them despite their huge number of electoral votes. If you live in those states, your vote REALLY doesn't matter.
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.
US troops on the scene were taking fire. If a bunch of men in the area the fire is coming from are milling around with weapons they're gonna get lit up.
I don't think that Assange has done anything wrong(at least based on what we know) in terms of his involvement in Wikileaks. I think convicting him of anything in this regard would be a gross miscarriage of justice. That doesn't mean he shouldn't face trial in Sweden or that he's not a narcissistic little shit.
As to self censoring, bull shit. Anyone who is really going to self censor is already going to be doing so because they're convinced that the only thing preventing him from being tried and executed is him being in the embassy after all that's what "everybody" knows.
The only thing that would actually cause anyone new to self censor is if he actually gets taken to the US tried in a normal court and found guilty. That would have a chilling effect, for the rest of it it doesn't matter stuff all whether Assange actually gets tried if everyone believes he's going to be. Above and beyond that, doing the right thing comes at a cost, sometimes that cost is just sometimes it's not, paying it is what makes you a hero. Bradley Manning for instance is a hero, Julian Assange is not.
Well, not really "false", since 2 states is enough to qualify as "some", but thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize is was only 2, I thought it was somewhat more than that. Thanks for the links.
And basically, if you're in a non-swing state, your vote doesn't matter either, not just CA and TX. And then people keep trying to tell us that "your vote matters!" BS. This also explains why the popular vote is so close to the electoral vote, and why it rarely differs enough to matter: lots of people don't bother to vote because their vote really doesn't matter, leaving only those whose preferences align with the majorities in their state to bother going to the polls, so that reinforces the result that the popular vote closely matches the electoral vote.
Anyway, considering the most powerful nations in the world are after Assange for pressing his penis against a sleeping girl with whom he was sleeping and are prepared to storm embassies and engage in other acts of war in order to get their hands on him, I'm guessing $1.9million is going to get burned through pretty quickly in legal funds alone (assuming he ever sees the inside of a courtroom).
The prosecutors in one small European nation, Sweden, are after Assange for inserting his penis into a sleeping woman in a manner which she had previously expressly forbid, and to which she could not consent as she was asleep. (But you already knew that, didn't you?) Intercourse without consent is rape, even if they had previously had sex. (Perhaps you remember the debates about the legal question -can a husband rape his wife?) The UK is honoring its treaty obligations to Sweden by honoring the INTERPOL arrest warrant. After losing his legal fight to avoid extradition from the UK to Sweden, Assange fled the UK police, became a fugitive from justice, and took refuge in a foreign embassy of a nation currently oppressing its journalists. Breaking bond and escaping custody of the police is one easy way to turn even a minor crime into part of a much more serious offense. The UK had made it know that they could withdraw recognition of the current embassy grounds, not storm the embassy. Assange's legal bills would be much more modest if he wouldn't continue to create problems for himself. If he is lucky he will only end up serving time in a Swedish prison for sex crimes, and not be returned to the UK for bail jumping and fleeing the police. What about Russia and China? Not involved. The USA? It isn't involved in the matter of resolving the allegations of sexual assault against Assange other than to be the object of a red herring about extradition from Sweden to the US before Assange faces justice in Sweden.
Is $2,000,000 a big deal? Many small businesses hope to make that kind of money. Ask these guys.
That's funny, I thought $250,000 was the new rich.
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 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
Soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution. Turning in the scumbags in Washington that piss on that document daily is defending it.
I'm prior service (US Army, 92-94) and I'm not sure I'd have the stones to do what Manning did. I for one salute him.
Good idea, report it through the appropriate channels. So he can be quickly and quietly silenced in a military "accident" a few days later.
California and Texas have almost no money spent on them despite their huge number of electoral votes. If you live in those states, your vote REALLY doesn't matter.
Yeah, in non-swing states the politicians only really spend time there to raise capital to better campaign in the swings.
I don't read AC A human right
.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
This article seems to pretty clearly refute arguments that Obama's administration was the source of those leaks.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
The prosecutors in one small European nation, Sweden, are after Assange for inserting his penis into a sleeping woman in a manner which she had previously expressly forbid, and to which she could not consent as she was asleep. (But you already knew that, didn't you?) Intercourse without consent is rape, even if they had previously had sex.
You're conflating two different occasions...
On the first occasion, Assange had consensual sex with a woman. The woman wanted to have sex with a condom, but the condom broke, and Assange proceeded having sex without it. This is the allaged rape.
Two days later, Assange had consensual sex with another woman, and afterwards, when she slept, the woman claims Assange tried to have sex with her again. This is the alleged molestation. I haven't heard any claims about actual penetration on this occasion.
The women themselves weren't sure they had been raped or molested; they only went to the police for "advice". And they only decided to do this after they had met each other and talked.
The UK is honoring its treaty obligations to Sweden by honoring the INTERPOL arrest warrant.
There was no arrest warrant. Sweden requested the extradition to question Assange, not to arrest him.
This is an important distinction, since it means there wasn't sufficient evidence to have Assange arrested.
Of course, what the Swedish government decides to do once he's in Sweden, is another matter.
After losing his legal fight to avoid extradition from the UK to Sweden, Assange fled the UK police, became a fugitive from justice, and took refuge in a foreign embassy of a nation currently oppressing its journalists.
At most, Assange is suspected of breaking his bail with the UK authorities. He's not been formally charged with any crimes.
And talking about "oppressing its journalists" is rather ironic. Assange is a journalist. Publishing information on web sites instead of in newspapers is just journalism in the Internet age. And he's oppressed by the US government, since he's been harassed and threatened for revealing embarrasing classified information, which is legal both in the USA and in Assange's own country of residence (Australia).
Is $2,000,000 a big deal? Many small businesses hope to make that kind of money.
In any case, it's not much money for a medium-sized international organisation that goes up against powerful governments.
Releasing the cables may also have been life insurance for Manning, since it ensured he had the world's attention and the US government couldn't just let him slip between their hands.
Most of the stuff Manning revealed didn't provide any evidence of wrongdoing, so he's not protected as a whistleblower. The "collateral murder" video, for instance.
That's just your opinion. The US government apparently disagreed, since they were embarrassed enough about the video to deny its existence when the event was formally investigated.
Regardless of whether the video actually shows any wrongdoing, leaking the video proves that the US government lied. In that situation, I think it's appropriate to leak the video so people can decide for themselves.
Legally, it is. But if those documents were classified to hide how badly the war was going, it may be morally right to break the law.
The war is paid for by the public, and the public can only make an informed decision on whether to support the war if they have access to relevant information. If the government is hiding information just to avoid embarrassing themselves, it's a betrayal against the public.
You sign away your rights and freedoms when you join the military. You, as a grunt, such as Manning, have signed their lives away willingly to do what the Army asks them to do. And to follow orders./quote
There are also national laws which trump military orders. If your officer asks you to send a rocket into a nearby residential area during training, it's hardly a war crime, but I doubt you'd be court-martialed for refusing that order.
No matter what country the first and last part of that sentence is still treason. If he had found something that was wrong, there are appropriate channels to funnel information to the proper people to handle it, within your own country. Instead of broadcasting it out to every foreign nation in the world wouldn't you agree?
Do you also believe that if you report a policeman's inappropriate behaviour to the police, the problem will be dealt with in a swift and fair manner?
Advocating anarchy is a good way to get yourself killed.
You are either not from the USA or you don't love your country enough to know about what her heroes died for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
See, the Constitution says there are rights you can not sign away. EXACTLY the ones you mention! Isn't that a strange coincidence.
If you back up to the GGP, you'll see it's about Bradley Manning, not Assange...
A real spy would try to hide the fact that he had obtained the information, to prevent the enemy from changing their codes and procedures.
My opinion is that the rape allegations are used as an excuse to cause trouble for Assange. Not even in Sweden has a man been charged with rape because he had sex with a woman without a condom when she only agreed to have sex with one -- much less internationally wanted for it.
The women themselves weren't sure they had been raped and molested -- they only decided to go to the police after they met and talked, and then they only went there for advice, not to file charges.
Sometimes we fight our own country and commit illegal acts, specifically because breaking the law is the ethical thing to do. For instance: The revolutionary war which led to the creation of the United States of America was totally illegal and involved attacking our government's (British) troops. Manning's actions were those of an idealistic revolutionary. Nothing more or less.
Since when is shutting off your mind, your moral compass and proceeding to "carry out their orders to the t" make you a man?
A man (or woman) questions authority.
A man (or woman) thinks for themself and doesn't just blindly follow orders.
A man (or woman) will risk their own life for their ideals.
A man (or woman) is willing to DIE for a cause, not KILL for a cause.
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?
You're mixing up two different accusations.
Go read up on the Assange case and get back to me before you spend to much time barking up the wrong tree.
You are welcome on my lawn.
What's really sad is that this isn't some random general-population site on the internet, this is supposed to be the home of geeks and nerds, people who are supposedly smarter than the average. Even so, your words are true; this level of stupidity is normal here in 2012. The intelligence level here on Slashdot, like everywhere else in American society, has fallen greatly in the last 10 years or so.
Smarter than average, less socially adept than average, poorer hygiene than average, being a gamer. There's a lot of reasons people self associate or are associated with being geeks/nerds. As technology and gaming have become a bigger chunk of the economy and society, it seems the "geeks and nerds are smarter than average" correlation has become weaker over time.
And, this site isn't about geeks and nerds who are smarter than average. There are lots of good sites on the Internet that probably meet those criteria. While that may have been true in the past, Slashdot is really little more than a hangout for a growing polarized set of self-identified geeks and nerds who believe in a few common things above reason. I've said before this is the Fox News of tech sites now, and all evidence suggests that is, in fact, the case.
No amount of stupidity surprises me here anymore. There are some key subjects that really pull the dims out of the woodwork, though.
It appears that you stopped reading to reply without reading my whole comment. You missed this part, as metacell expands upon in his reply.
Then they get pissed off when you apply those words where they were meant to be applied.
You really should read someone's whole post before you reply. I know - you might read something and get fired up - but you need to finish reading first.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
Excellent post with several insightful points. Thank you.
I saw the video, both the full version, and the version edited to paint the US soldiers involved in the worst possible light, and in both everybody's behavior was combative, They were armed with assault rifles, weapons were pointed outward, they were moving in a military combat formation and the cameraman was located central and rearward in the formation which is SOP location for crew served weapons like Rocket Propelled Grenade launcher
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
Eat shit and bark at the moon.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I've never heard of it being OK to shoot wounded soldiers or people who are trying to take them away to get medical attention, and certainly not when there's children in their car (since they don't have the resources for proper ambulances and such).
It's really pretty sick just how evil Americans are now, and what kinds of crimes they will defend. Americans make Nazis look not-so-bad.
War is sick - that has not changed since the dawn of time. Instead of blaming the soldiers who are fighting the war, perhaps you should blame the people who got us into the war? Especially since it was unnecessary and nothing good has come of it.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"We had to destroy the Republic in order to save it"
We had to destroy the Republican in order to save him.
As Dogun points out, the executive office isn't bound by classification of documents. The President is Commander-in-Chief, and has supreme authority over the US military. That includes the ability to countermand any order, reclassify any document the military has classified, etc.
If you want a real example of treason, though, try the Iran-Contra affair. Negotiating with foreign powers and selling weapons to them without approval (remember that the President can negotiate treaties, but they must be approved by the Senate to take effect), then taking the proceeds from it and using it to back a war that Congress had voted for the US not to get involved in... especially when you toss in the fact that the weapons were being sold to a declared enemy of the United States. Of course, Reagan and Bush managed to successfully deny knowledge, which then allowed Bush to pardon the rest of the crew.
I disagree: we should blame both, the politicians who started the war, and the degenerates they sent to fight it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre
Go Blue Team, Booooo Red team!
Or is it the other way around?
Cool! Does this count as a Godwin incident?
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.
Two things.
First the above poster called Manning a coward. He may be called many things, but do you really think it's appropriate for a civilian to call a member of the military a coward just becuase they don't like something that person did which has nothing at all to do with cowardice? Would you put up with a civilian like daemonenwind or myself calling you a coward? I don't think you should have to.
Second, while your convenient strawman may be a worthless excuse for a human being I only wrote the single line about a civilian calling a soldier a coward above and not the huge pile of extra baggage you've brought to build your strawman.
... until voters become so lazy that when the opposite side turns out to vote it completely upsets the balance for a term.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You haven't heard of drones I suppose.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
If the American people didn't bother to rise up for Iran Contra or the various incidents in South America, then the American people won't care about anything Assange digs up either.
Turns out the average American is a navel-gazing jerk and just doesn't care about what his or her country does elsewhere in the world to other people.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
And as worker action proved in the strikes that lead to unions, when everyone grows a pair and stands up for what's right, there's nobody left to order around.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You're mixing up two different accusations.
Go read up on the Assange case and get back to me before you spend to much time barking up the wrong tree.
Could you shine the light up there? I think I see something.
New details emerge about Assange accusers
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
So states are non-swing states because of the way people vote. And because of being in a non-swing state, the way people vote doesn't matter? Wow.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I salute you for going out of your way to prove my point.
The women didn't even realize there had been a crime.
And for this, this "crime" where the victim had a nice breakfast and was "sarcastic" about it to the monster Assange, the British are prepared to storm a foreign embassy.
I'll bet they'll also try to extradite him to Sweden via the US for overdue library books.
I'm not trying to minimize rape, but for christ's sake, we're talking about an act of war over something that is not a crime almst anywhere but Sweden.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He may be called many things, but do you really think it's appropriate for a civilian to call a member of the military a coward just becuase they don't like something that person did which has nothing at all to do with cowardice?
I'm a civilian who happens to be a veteran. And like others, I have to vote for civilian government that has a duty to maintain the UCMJ which defines, among other things, cowardice. I forget which article, but it's in there.
We are the government, and we have a duty to govern. Ergo we have a responsibility to form and develop opinions, usually through debate and other civic processes, about all matters including military. We can't simply ignore large portions of that responsibility when we don't have direct experience in those fields.
In particular, if I am prior service and you have wrong views on military affairs, I can only set you straight if you speak your mind and I am presented with an incorrect opinion and the opportunity to correct it.
Finally, there are plenty of forms of cowardice besides running away, moral and intellectual being two very prevalent ones.
Second, while your convenient strawman may be a worthless excuse for a human being...
Hard as it may be to believe, that entire post wasn't directed at you.
Since the strawman attack started with the word "you" that is how it appears.
Anyway, my entire point is the poster above is a civilian who stayed at home shouting "coward" at a guy that signed up to serve in a war zone, and whatever crimes he may have committed are not anything that fits a definition of cowardice I'm aware of.
I'm a civilian myself but would not like my relatives in the military to be treated like that.
I hope you're not being incredulous, because this is all very well-established. Non-swing states have voting records that are very well historically established, for one party or the other. The chances that they'll have a close election are very, very slim (i.e., the chances that Texas will be anything but overwhelmingly in the Republicans' favor is pretty remote, the same with Illinois and the Democrats). So if you're going to vote for the opposite party (or 3rd party), it's not going to make a difference in all likelihood.
Ok so this gives Texas a disadvantage. The cause is Texans' own voting behaviour, fix is also in Texans' voting behaviour. But you are saying that Texans are too busy appearing helpless to themselves and others , and have no interest in SOLVING the problem that is being a non-swing state.
If the "solution" is still not clear to you, it is for Texans to stop voting for Republicans. Solution is clearly not to declare voting is useless.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
WTF are you talking about? You're babbling and not making much sense.
Texans don't think there's a problem with them being a non-swing state. They like it that way. That's why they keep voting Republican, because the vast majority of Texans agree with GOP principles and the GOP platform. Texans aren't going to stop voting Republican; why would you even say such a thing? No matter what you do, Texans are going to continue voting Republican, happily. So if you live in Texas and don't like the Republican candidate, you might as well vote for whomever you like the best. It's not going to make a difference to their electoral votes, because the vast majority of Texan voters are going to vote for Romney regardless. There's nothing you can do to change that. Voting for Obama is a wasted vote (unless you really love Obama that much), because there is absolutely no way Obama will win Texas. However, a vote for a 3rd party candidate, while it also will not change the outcome for the 2012 election, could help that 3rd Party get over 15% nationwide, and then be eligible to take part in the debates in 2016.
Understand yet? Or is this still over your head? You remind me of religious fundamentalists who vigorously deny reality when it conflicts with their fantasy or their view of how things should be.
1. Texans don't think there's a problem with them being a non-swing state
2. So if you live in Texas and don't like the Republican candidate
The 2 contradict each other. Either ALL Texans are guaranteed to like the Republican candidate or not.
because the vast majority of Texan voters are going to vote for Romney regardless
Since all Texans are going to vote for Romney, all Texans must vote for Romney else not vote at all. Circular logic at its best.
In ANY voting methodology over many voters, a single vote is unlikely to do anything. If everyone has this defeatist assumption that since all other will vote the other way, why vote my way; the way will BECOME true. Otherwise , maybe not. This is not specific for the US system, or the Texan system, or the winner-take-all system.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I don't know what your problem is. If you think the state of Texas is going to elect Obama, you're an idiot. I'm done with you.
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.
None of that excuses firing on people who are no longer fighting back, and are trying to leave the scene to get medical help (because you've just shot them).
Furthermore (and I think this is pretty important), none of what you say is remotely relevant. The soldiers in question were not infantry, they were helicopter pilots. They don't have to worry about being up all day and night for three days, and certainly don't have to worry about being in mud, dealing with booby traps, or being shot at by 14-year-olds (Apache gunships are heavily armored, with depleted uranium armor protecting the pilots). Basically, for these assholes, it's not much different from safely playing a video game. They just fly around and shoot at stuff with very little danger to themselves.
Finally, none of this excuses the fact that the US forces have no legitimate enemy there. The Iraqi people did nothing to threaten the US, except try to start selling their oil in Euros instead of Dollars. If you can't fight a war professionally, don't go over there.