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."

139 of 847 comments (clear)

  1. Why bother? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?"
    1. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nope, not at all unusual for routine rape cases to involve threats of violating sovereignty. Nothing to see here folks.

    2. Re:Why bother? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

      This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.

    3. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then let him go to Ecuador. In that area, I'm sure some "accident" could be arranged with enough financial lubrication.

    4. Re:Why bother? by sixtyeight · · Score: 2

      On the nose.

      I'm amazed the British government is making such a PR debacle of this by pursuing it so publicly. Surely Assange would be scheduled for a heart attack in a year or two instead, and leave it at that?

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
    5. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not familiar with Swedish definitions of rape or whether the case would be prosecuted if it were so politicized, but in point of fact, neither of the girls have recanted. One of them says she's against the charges as being filed, but hasn't changed her testimony or disputed her given account of what he did.

      If the case is really so strong, why are you making things up about it?

    6. Re:Why bother? by Shaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bull. Everything is a state secret these days... what he has done is uncover the CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that the U.S. and its tight allies have been undertaking in other countries. 5% of the world does not control the other 95% - it likes to pretend, however.

      --
      ...Steve
    7. Re:Why bother? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

      The allegations against him include rape a molestation. The women didn't consent to have sex with him at that time, in that way. That is sexual assault.
      The women appealed to have the charges reinstated.
      One prosecutor did drop the investigation, and another reinstated it shortly afterwards.

      How do you not know this?

      This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.

      Assange was in UK controlled territory for well over a year. If they wanted to dispose of him they could have done so at any time. The fact of the matter is that they were holding him to extradite him to Sweden to face the justice system.

      What is shady is the way people keep repeating things that aren't true about this case. Have you spent at least five minutes looking into things? If you have you must have looked in the wrong place as you're spreading disinformation.

      Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange

      A Swedish duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange on August 20th over rape allegations. But chief prosecutor Eva Finne abruptly withdrew it the next day, saying new information had come to light.

      Then last week Finne said there was no reason to believe a crime had been committed, adding however that she had enough evidence to keep looking into a molestation allegation from another woman against Assange.

      The lawyer for Assange's alleged victims, Claes Borgstroem, lodged an appeal against Finne's decision to a special department in the public prosecutions office.

      Assange, 39, has said the allegations against him are part of a "smear campaign" aimed at discrediting his whistleblowing website, which is locked in a row with the Pentagon over the release of secret US documents about the war in Afghanistan.

      Ny, head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular, overturned Finne's decision on the rape claim, and also said the investigation into the molestation claim would be extended.

      Rather than the prosecution of Assange being political, it looks to me more like dropping the changes and the many defenses of Assange using false information are political.

      --
      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
    8. Re:Why bother? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hardly expect citizens of foreign countries to worry about US security. That was Manning's job.

    9. Re:Why bother? by Ironhandx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The women didn't appeal to have the charges reinstated, a lawyer did so without the knowledge of the women. They came out and said it straight out in Swedish media right after the trial, and strangely we have heard absolutely nothing from either of the women and when they addressed the media that one time, at least one of the women wanted to have it all over with as she felt she was being used as an excuse for a witch hunt. All reference to these things have largely vanished from the internet and if you actually try to search for any of them approximately 16 of the top 20 search results now consist of web sites that appear to be in support of assange but now "have doubts" and if you read a few lines down they start spouting that he's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and needs to be brought to justice for these poor women.

      In fact as of right now they can't get the women to testify, and the women cannot redact their previous testimony as it has already been entered into the public record.

      The guy is not a saint, and he is a bit of an ass, but without paper guarantee that he will NOT be extradited out of sweden at any time in the future and will be allowed to leave sweden by whatever means and in whatever direction he chooses once he has faced his charges in swedish court and served any jail time or done whatever service is due because of his crime. Without that he is perfectly legitimate in being fucking terrified of going back there.

      I should also note that the story you post can't even remotely be correct. Assange remained IN SWEDEN for almost 3 full weeks after the charges were dropped. If what the story said is even remotely true he wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country, instead he actually got express consent to leave the country FROM THE PROSECUTORS OFFICE.

    10. Re:Why bother? by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

      This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.

      The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf

      Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.

      The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.

    11. Re:Why bother? by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair it did look strange that immediately after the release of the documents he was accused of rape. I don't know what he did or didn't do but my credibility alarmed pinged.

      Not really surprising, no. He was full of himself at that moment. High on media. I don't find it particularly surprising that he would think more of himself and less of others at that time.

    12. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The women didn't consent to have sex with him at that time...

      He said, she said... From now on, before I fuck a chick, I'm getting a written, notarized contract specifying exactly the hours, place, and methods permitted, along with how much change I should leave on the dresser. Bitch!

      Better yet, I'm goin 'gay.

    13. Re:Why bother? by LingNoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US want to legally jail him up for life and parade him around on TV as an example to everyone else. It's not about getting revenge it's about using him as an example to the rest of us.

    14. Re:Why bother? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point, which is to make him an example. After all if they merely wanted to off him they would be helping pack his bags to Ecuador and have a sniper waiting on him there, no muss and no fuss.

      Nope the entire point is someone high up in the chain of command wants to make sure like Manning his ass suffers VERY publically, so that the next Manning to come along won't have anyone to accept the dirty laundry they have for fear of being "Another Assange".

      Its called the chilling effect and works quite well and I'm sure will work in this case. After all what person is gonna be willing to say or print shit in any high profile capacity against the USA if they see Assange dragged before a kangaroo court before being dropped in a deep dark hole somewhere?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:Why bother? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China is hurting for oil. Ecuador has a shit load of oil. China has loaned a lot of money to Ecuador in exchange for a secured oil supply. Meanwhile America has offshored its economy to China. You do the math.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    16. Re:Why bother? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that the women had lunch with him the next day and didn't press charges until the two of them met, and apparently decided after swapping stories that what had actually happened was rape.

      At best this is two women abusing Sweden's legal system to get back at a cheating boyfriend.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Why bother? by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair it did look strange that immediately after the release of the documents he was accused of rape. I don't know what he did or didn't do but my credibility alarmed pinged.

      Not really surprising, no. He was full of himself at that moment. High on media. I don't find it particularly surprising that he would think more of himself and less of others at that time.

      The whole thing reminds me of Beria after Stalin. Before Stalin died, Beria was head of the NKVD, the precursor of the KGusetaBe. He was the front runner to take over. Then he got hit with over 150 allegations of rape, molestation, child molestation, the at the time version of sexual harrassment, and mopery and dopery. Beria died in prison 'attempting to escape', the date unknown.

      Point is, nail somebody with a sex crime charge, nobody listens to him anymore. True or not, Assauge's credibilty went down the shitter when the charges were announced. He'll never get past them.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    18. Re:Why bother? by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All reference to these things have largely vanished from the internet

      So the fact that there's not a shred of evidence to support any the stuff you're saying proves that there is a huge conspiracy. Because otherwise, there's no way to explain why there isn't anything on the internet to back up what you're saying.

      In other words, you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

    19. Re:Why bother? by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its called the chilling effect [wikipedia.org] and works quite well and I'm sure will work in this case. After all what person is gonna be willing to say or print shit in any high profile capacity against the USA if they see Assange dragged before a kangaroo court before being dropped in a deep dark hole somewhere?

      Oooohhh Ooooooh! *raises hands*

      Right here. If I was in the position to do so, I would not hesitate for a second to air the dirty laundry of the government. In fact, it is my duty to do so as a patriotic American . I could never live with myself allowing the government to continue to do something contrary to the ideals that we cherish. They failed us with their behavior and shamed all of America with their previously hidden actions.

      My family history has members in WWII, WWI, and the Civil War. They bled for my freedom, as well as yours. They did not run away scared, or react to some chilling effect.

      I would be proud to be dropped in a dark hole somewhere if I knew that I was exposing corruption in the country, that although I am currently deeply ashamed and disappointed in, I love for its ideals.

    20. Re:Why bother? by dosius · · Score: 2

      An ostensibly "of the people, by the people and for the people" government should have no fucking state secrets.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    21. Re:Why bother? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you truely 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.

    22. Re:Why bother? by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      for your ideals then that puts you in a very small minority.

      Gee... and we wonder why America is in the shitter?

    23. Re:Why bother? by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
      If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
      If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?

      Somehow none of this sounds as if there is something completely unimportant happening. And somehow it doesn't sound as if Julian Assange is the one trying to inflate the importance.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    24. Re:Why bother? by Intrinsic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like how you put "Patriotic American" in bold and italics. Like it means something. Patriotism is just another system of control used by people in power to get the masses to do things they wouldn't normally do. You and your family wasted your lives obeying a system of control that gives freedom to the wealth at the expense of the poor. The only freedom you see is a prison of lies and deceit that try to turn you in to a model citizen to serve the corporate rulers of this country. Im sorry its really time you need to wake up to the fact that freedom in America is a bold faced lie. It only exists in your mind. Try to do something that really sets people free and you will surely lose any freedom you think you have real quick.

    25. Re:Why bother? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, let's consider what we do know then. The Swedish authorities have have multiple opportunities to interview Assange and the invitation is still open to them, but they don't. They want him to go to Gothenburg rather than Stockholm, which coincidentally is where they run extraordinary rendition flights from. The UK does not allow such flights and it is unlikely we would extradite him if the US formally asked, considering how much of a fight there has been over people being extradited for things that won't result in their torture or execution.

      Sweden needs to explain why they won't resolve the situation. They could come to the UK, do the interview and if they decide not to proceed that would be the end of it. Even if they did want to charge him then at least things would move forwards. They don't seem interested in actual justice though, just getting him to Sweden.

      As it is the situation is costing the UK £50,000 per day to police. We look like chumps and Assange looks like a martyr, a cause that people can rally around.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Why bother? by Weatherlawyer · · Score: 2

      What about things like the identities of spies, plans for future military operations, and details of ongoing criminal investigations?

      Which parts of:
      "of the people, by the people and for the people"
      give you the most difficulty?
      Perhaps we can help.

      You see, there is this ******** big country that is thousands of miles from any potential enemy (but making more and more of them every minute) that is full of people armed to the teeth and rich as **** with umptythousands of way of mobilising... food coming out their ears and....

      What does it need spies for?
      And who are they spying on?
      And why?

      What criminal investigations?
      Are you talking about diebold voting machines?
      Or is it the use of passenger images as porn?
      Rendition?
      Gitmo?
      Investigating the perverts who examine women going abroad who are about to hit rag week?

      Is that who you mean?
      Or are we talking Quartzsite again?

       

    27. Re:Why bother? by Sique · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.

      No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?

      In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.

      This is mainly calling people names.

      Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.

      It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    28. Re:Why bother? by c0lo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you have any links to back this up? It's obvious that Equador is independent of the US's control, but this is the first time I've heard of long term exclusivity contracts on Equador's oil contracts.

      Maybe not exclusivity... but consider:

      Petroecuador was to hold a 60 percent stake in the joint venture, and Sinopec the remaining 40 percent

      China hands over $1bn for Ecuador oil

      China's CNPC in talks with Ecuador over $12.5 bln refinery

      Ecuador’s Rating Raised By S&P On China Loans, Oil Proceeds

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    29. Re:Why bother? by kbg · · Score: 2

      And one more question: What laws can the USA extradite Assange for? Assange hasn't broken any American laws. And even if they could, those laws would likely fall under military or political prosecution, two areas Sweden will not extradite people under.

      The Espionage Act of 1917.

    30. Re:Why bother? by 21mhz · · Score: 2

      In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. Sweden has the highest number of rape cases per capita of any country in Europe.

      Hmm. Even assuming this is true, might it mean that their occurrence of rape cases is closer to the occurrence of actual rape? It is well known that rape goes underreported due to social stigma and difficulty to prove the offender guilty (as more rapes are perpetrated by people known to the victim than the "dude jumping on a random woman in the park" variety).

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    31. Re:Why bother? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget that it is also probably because they anticipated the "rape" case that US did several "firsts in history" to his organization :
      - removed from Amazon with no notice
      - VISA accounts seized
      - Matercard accounts seized
      - Paypal account revoked
      - DNS registers erased (threatening the credibility of ICANN as a political neutral entity, which is kind of a big deal)

      These things have been done outside any legal process. In fact, wikileaks is apparently currently winning the trial to recover their funds.

      When you are the head of an organization that has been the target of such an aggressive campaign, outside the rules, by the US government, I think that you won a strict application of presumption of innocence.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    32. Re:Why bother? by CapuchinSeven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As much as you're maybe being a little overdramatic, what you say is very true. I say this as an Englishman about both our countries, people over here would rather allow themselves to be distracted by the Olympics for a few weeks.

    33. Re:Why bother? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have no way of knowing how many people died as a result of actions by Manning and Assange

      We have no way of knowing how many people die instantly when distracted from driving by a recollection of an episode of Cheers. That's not exactly a convincing argument you've got there.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    34. Re:Why bother? by Pav · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have grandparents who were in camps in Poland during WWII, a great-uncle priest who was "disappeared" in soviet Russia, a flatmate whos grandparents survived fascist Italy. Naomi Wolf is a reporter who in this 2007 talk gives a chilling argument on how she thinks the fascist playbook is being replayed in America. It's a list of steps that's predictive, and she says she'll start self-censoring when another reporter is declared an enemy combatant. She HAS spoken very recently on Assange. Lets hope he doesn't get imprisoned - the integrity of the media will start self-censoring otherwise (or at least the few corners still up and batting on this stuff).

    35. Re:Why bother? by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I could also ask you a counter-question: Why is he not getting extradited from the UK? Sweden - unlike the UK - has never been an ally of the USA. Not that they are enemies, but they are not active allies. Sweden is far too liberal to be thinking about extraditing Assange to the USA.

      Indeed.

    36. Re:Why bother? by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Assange is not being called to give a "witness statement", he's being arrested in order to be formally interviewed as part of the established criminal process in Swedish law.

      Except they can - and have in the past - done these sorts of interviews in other countries.

      Assange has had an open invitation to the Swedish authorities since day 1 to interview him in the UK.

    37. Re:Why bother? by Pav · · Score: 5, Informative

      An aside...

      You know Karl Rove, right? The guy that resigned from the Bush administration under a cloud after being accused of trying to corrupt the Department of Justice ie. sacking US prosecutors for not persuing cases in a 'party political' manner? Guess who he's working for these days - the Prime Minister of Sweden.

      That's just one of the bad smells around this whole thing.

    38. Re:Why bother? by Svippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Assange has not committed access of espionage. He has not unlawfully approached secret information, instead, Bradley Manning went to him with the information, or rather Wikileaks. The way Wikileaks is set up means that Assange or Wikileaks in general, cannot know who leaked information to them. This ensures more safeguards for Wikileaks.

      Manning's trial will start soon and I am sure he will be convincted. Assange on the other hand, have not committed any form of espionage in the USA. Furthermore, espionage count as military engagement, an area Sweden will not extradite under.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    39. Re:Why bother? by Svippy · · Score: 2

      That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.

      No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?

      I don't know, but Assange is not in Australia. However, I will give you that Australia has certainly not been showing any signs of being interested in helping Assange.

      In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.

      This is mainly calling people names.

      Be that as it may, many Swedes I often talk to echo this sentiment, although would not use this strong turn of phrase. Sweden is notorious for routing around opinions it does not deem to be 'decent'. And it is not law enforcement, but rather society at large that will shut out extremist opinions. Communists and fascists have a hard time getting anything said in Sweden.

      Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.

      It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.

      I also doubt Russia would risk that diplomatic uproar with the UK. It could also have been a British official who misspoke and mentioned that the UK had such laws, but forgot that mentioning it would certainly sound threatening. British law enforcement has a long history of incompetence.

      --
      Clicked pie.
    40. Re:Why bother? by mantissa128 · · Score: 2

      From the testimony of Sofia Wilén:

      They had foreplay for hours. They slept. They woke and had sex. They slept. They woke and had sex. They slept. They woke and had sex. They slept. They woke and had breakfast, then they had sex. They slept. Assange woke her by penetrating her without a condom, which she said she didn’t want. They spoke. She let him continue. They spoke some more.

      "Raaaaaaaaaape."

      Look at all the police outside the embassy.

      If you think that the international community is standing behind these women trying to obtain justice for them, you are insane. Those women are being used, and so are you.

    41. Re:Why bother? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2

      Have you heard about the influence of Money? It'll work in Sweden too.

      Bradley Manning hasn't even been charged yet, while he waits out Room 101 -- I'm sure he'll get a proper charge with all the evidence he can provide after they've got their hands on Assange. It would work even better to quash "rogue journalists" who aren't beholden to a large multinational corporation like the ones we allow to give us news, if Assange just disappears. Everyone already worried about a police state will use their imaginations to wonder at the "anal probing" and drug testing that will go on, and the people who don't wonder, will continue thinking that Pravda and Al Jazeera are less credible than NPR.

      One or two of the "rape accusers" were working for a far right wing media company with ties to the CIA. The other, dropped her charges and fled to Israel -- she was contacted by the first lady to bring forth testimony. I wonder what motivated THEM to let Assange shack up?

      Next time, the CIA/Mossad won't be hiring amateurs who really don't have the cold blooded spirit to make the crime seem worse and press their charges. Assange is just lucky they didn't find Kiddie Porn on his laptop -- but my guess is he has better than an average firewall.

      Rove is rumored to be spearheading the efforts against Assange --so you can realize how much integrity is being brought to bare.

      We don't need to think that there is a witch hunt against Assange, I'm sure that England is ready to break into embassies all the time on the say-so of a Swedish prosecutor for an alleged broken condom.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    42. Re:Why bother? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And that the women had lunch with him the next day and didn't press charges until the two of them met, and apparently decided after swapping stories that what had actually happened was rape.

      Actually... not immediately complaining is fairly common in rape cases. Myth 10 in the CPS's list of rape myths might be worth a mention here, and some of the others are worth reading.

      From their testimony, it seems that one of them wanted to complain but wasn't sure how to, and trying to find out, managed to get in touch with the other, who accompanied her to the police station. I doubt whether either of them thought it was rape, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what he is accused of, and whether that amounts to rape.

    43. Re:Why bother? by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Irrelevant.

      I refuse to live the life of a coward. If government is a willing to abuse us and repress us, and with our cowardice we continue to enable them to do so, then we deserve that government.

      I'm willing to die to make sure my country remains free. Granted, it is in a world of shit right now, but I don't back down just because the authority threatens me with further loss of freedom, or my life.

      If and when the time comes to prove it, I believe in my heart, that I have the courage to make such a sacrifice and would be proud to do so.

       

    44. Re:Why bother? by EdIII · · Score: 2

      But im not stupid enough to reiterate over and over how I wont turn into a coward. No person really knows what he or she will do when faced in unknown situations. In fact its better not to know because when that time comes you wont be surprised by your own internal struggle.

      It's one thing to be going around announcing that you are no coward and are ready to fight for anything at a moment's notice. It's another to speak up when somebody says that it is too dangerous to fight and better to back down.

      In this case it was specifically asked, and almost in a way that was assuming that nobody would be willing to risk themselves to shed light on activity by the US government, and other governments, that quite frankly really needs to be seen by everyone.

      I answered. When I say coward, it is only to somebody that is willing to give up the struggle before they even have it. When the time comes I am sure I will have a struggle, and I might have more to lose. I believe in myself that I will have the courage when the times comes to do so. Not just myself, but I believe that plenty of others will have the courage to do so as well, you included.

    45. Re:Why bother? by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're one nasty person.

      First you are cynical that nobody would be willing to sacrifice to step up to do something right, I answer and tell you that I am, and you can do nothing but continue to berate me and paint horrific pictures of my torture to come.

      Well, okay. I don't care. I answered your question, I am not a coward, and I will risk death, HIV, and all that horrible stuff to do what is right.

      You don't need to comment back about how something even more disturbing is going to happen to me. I get it, I just don't care.

  2. Make him a citizen and diplomat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Then watch the machinations.

  3. Re:That's nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually the fact he is stuck in the Embassy and in the UK right now and not some place that is much more friendly to him, like say Iceland, pretty much shows how naive Assange has been about the entire thing.

    He knew they wanted him but he assumed they would have to play fair, and by the rules to get him, which isn't the case as he is now learning. Especially since traditional media sources are fully prepared to ignore and or tar n feather Assange

  5. Solution by sixtyeight · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      or schedule regular masquerade parties with 100+ people going in and out of the embassy...

    2. Re:Solution by FrankDrebin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or, Ecuador starts rotating through their London embassy a gaggle of diplomats that look alarmingly similar to Julian Assange.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    3. Re:Solution by lexsird · · Score: 2

      *your

      It appears yours isn't either.

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    4. Re:Solution by Cwix · · Score: 2

      It was just a tribute.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  6. how many? by maijc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how many rape victims would like that kind of police commitment to arrest their aggressors?

  7. Re:That's nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:That's nice by BoberFett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's be honest, the only reason he's in that embassy and not buried in an unmarked grave in outer Elbonia is because the parties have been playing fair and by the rules. The US has not asked for him, at all. The Swedes have issued a warrant on a serious crime. England held a hearing, let Assange defend himself but still decided he needed to go face those criminal charges. And he ran to the Embassy.

    For all the great evils the CIA, Mossad and MI6 supposedly do on a daily basis, what is he doing still breathing? Oh that's right, the Nations in question are playing fair and they following the rules. Which historically is pretty unusual for a non-state actor who has so much highly sensitive data pass through his hands.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  10. London Policeman Obviously Supports Wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:London Policeman Obviously Supports Wikileaks by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh no, this has happened many times before in the UK. Usually it is politicians carrying top secret documents as they walk into Number 10, but the police and army have both been caught out as well.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:London Policeman Obviously Supports Wikileaks by Cederic · · Score: 2

      Nobody "accidentally" carries a restricted document outside on the front of a clipboard.

      Actually yes, they do. Government ministers have had internal documents photographed while walking into Downing Street before now.

      This wasn't even a restricted document. It's handwritten notes, probably taken down during a briefing, and probably being carried around by a senior officer to make sure his people are all aware of the directions they've been given.

      "Policeman can write" hasn't been news for over a century.

  11. Re:That's nice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe Wikileaks could send some of their money towards the people on the front lines.

    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.
  12. Re:That's nice by Adriax · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  13. Re:Read it yesterday by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear AC,
    Please edit and submit such stories when you discover them. The world is large and contains much news and your contributions might help sort it. If you have found, or do find an outlet successfully aggregating the sum of global affairs and technically-related interests, please inform the poor slashdot community at your earliest convenience and help spare us any delay in bleeding edge media coverage. Also, you might consider that if such high expectations are achieved, that less time for quality-control will be available and your valuable time may then be taken by your complaints on that matter.

    Please rest assured that every possible effort is being made by the community to provide a solution to your grievance. With any luck, maybe slashdot can be as reliable as something like the BBC or Fox News.
    Sincerely,
    Trying

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  14. Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? by itzdandy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Britain claims that they can inspect diplomatic bags.

  15. Re:That's nice by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:That's nice by Volguus+Zildrohar · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  17. Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any sources for that claim? That would be worse than storming an embassy. Diplomatic bags often contain very sensitive communication. One time pads, encryption devices are all send using diplomatic bags. It would be unimaginable to claim that the host nation can violate diplomatic bags (unless they are certain that the bag violates the conventions governing diplomatic bags, and by opening it they can prove it).

  18. Re:That's nice by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  19. Re:That's nice by jcr · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  20. The good side? by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:The good side? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      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.

      So, what you're saying is Assange is the hero the world deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So they'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian of truth, a watchful whistle blower.

      The governments are just trying to keep him from becoming Batman?

  21. Re:That's nice by citizenr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  22. Re:That's nice by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America is doing evil things. Those who do evil things deserve to die.

    Fuck trust. How about transparency?

  23. Whose trust is being violated here? by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    people were put in danger and some actually died due to Manning's treason

    And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?

    If they don't execute him then they should never execute anyone.

    That's probably a good place to start reforming the "justice" system.

    The man violated the trust placed in him.

    . . .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.

    1. Re:Whose trust is being violated here? by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The collateral murder video shows unarmed civilians (including a reporter) being killed by US helicopters. The incident was later covered up by the US military. It was not, by and stretch of the imagination, a friendly fire incident. The criminal act exposed was the coverup.

      Morgan Tsvangirai is doing very well, thank you very much. He was never in any danger, and is not in any danger today. Any fallout from the article published was political only. And do you believe that Zimbabweans don't deserve to know that their prime minister was was secretly urging the US to continue sanctions while publicly he asked them to discontinue them? I think it's wrong to say one thing and do another, but maybe that's just me. It's not like the people of Zimbabwe are going to say "in light of that, maybe Mugabe isn't such a bad guy." Most of the people I talked to when I was over there hated they guy and couldn't wait to be rid of him.

    2. Re:Whose trust is being violated here? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Accidentally shooting the wrong people during war is legal. You don't have to like it, or like that it is legal, to understand the accepted law of war on this.

      I found the video disturbing, but that is how war goes. They were at least pretending to think it was a combatant, and in a war zone that is good enough.

    3. Re:Whose trust is being violated here? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

      Do you honestly believe this is legal behavior? This is an obvious case of obstruction of justice, but also would have involved making false statements in legal reports. What are you smoking?! It is not legal for the military to cover up civilian casualties they've caused. Not ever.

    4. Re:Whose trust is being violated here? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rest assured, obstruction of justice is still illegal in the US military. Not that it matters since it's a pretty easy thing to get away with.

    5. Re:Whose trust is being violated here? by Stormshadow · · Score: 2

      The collateral murder video shows unarmed civilians (including a reporter) being killed by US helicopters. The incident was later covered up by the US military. It was not, by and stretch of the imagination, a friendly fire incident. The criminal act exposed was the coverup.

      Yep. All fine and dandy until you realize a few things like:

      1. The video was edited to remove context. Assange admitted this much.
      2. The van with the kids was observed dropping off armed insurgents prior to the scene in the original wikileaks video thus making it a legitimate target.
      3. Under the Law of Armed Conflict, aiding combatants makes you a combatant.
      4. AQI SOP was to pick up weapons to stage fake 'civilian' massacres to use as recruiting tools.
      5. Reporters were required to have specific types of markings on them to make sure air units could recognize them. These guys weren't wearing them.
      6. Hanging around with guys toting AKs and RPGs in an active warzone where the other side has air support orbiting your position is not a smart idea.
      7. In fact, hanging around with armed combatants makes you a legitimate target under the Law of Armed Conflict.

      Given #2 through #4, the van was a legitimate target and was serviced appropriately. Given #4 through 7, the "reporters" had made themselves into legitimate targets, either knowingly or through their own negligence. It sucks for their friends/families; but play stupid games, win stupid prizes, good shoot.

  24. Re:That's nice by yuje · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How does a non-citizen, non-resident commit treason against a country he owes no allegiance to?

  25. Re:That's nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  26. Re:Why is this news? by lightknight · · Score: 2

    And the higher ranks of law enforcement can play politics as well as a Vogon. They are amply aware of the unique circumstances surrounding this case, and can recognize this case as a political land-mine. It's the real life equivalent of "Officer Bob, why don't you take three of your men down to the old mill where people have been disappearing, and uh, do it without any of your weapons. Just walk around for a bit, make a little noise. That's a good chap." The fallout, in any case, may be on par with that of a badly designed Ukrainian power-plant; if they catch him, they get the equivalent of a donut and some coffee, a hand-shake from the powers, maybe some 'good' press; however, like all things of this design, the pendulum will swing the other way in 6 months, when he becomes a martyr; once heroes, they will be known as villains, and quietly asked to retire; on the other hand, if they don't catch him, the powers will beat them with the equivalent of a rolled newspaper, and possibly make some threats, which depending on 'how' they didn't catch them, will mean anything from nothing to 'new policies' for the department. Recognizing that this situation may be a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' it's best to find a quick way of avoiding the entire thing.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  27. Re:That's nice by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . If they don't execute him then they should never execute anyone.

    That's actually a good idea. The death penalty is barbaric.

  28. Re:Recanted .... by sjames · · Score: 2

    I haven't run across that disproof, got a link?

  29. Re:That's nice by daemonenwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:That's nice by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  31. Re:That's nice by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > some actually died due to Manning's treason

    citation needed.

  32. Re:That's nice by Omnifarious · · Score: 2

    *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.

  33. Time to get creative by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Time to get creative by isorox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      Embassy garage? This isn't some enormous castle, it's a ground floor flat.

    2. Re:Time to get creative by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      No underground parking? I thought it was some kind of apartment building. Not that it matters. Minor adjustments would still yield the same results (i.e. a sudden increase in the number of rolled-up carpets going in and out.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  34. Doesn't work that way by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  35. They DID consent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  36. Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? by arth1 · · Score: 2

    A car or a boat can also be designed a diplomatic bag, if its stated purpose is to contain correspondence to or from the embassy.

    That doesn't prevent the police from stopping the car, just from searching it. If stopped, the embassy can send another diplomatic bag, I mean car, to take over the duty, and anyone with diplomatic immunity can safely walk from one car to the other.
    Assange can't. The second he sets foot on UK ground, he's arrestable.

    So his only way out is to literally be smuggled out.

    My guess: Ecuador will bask in the extra attention for a while, and then get tired of him. At which point they'll drive him towards the airport, quietly tip the police, and then act all innocent and outraged when he gets arrested. They get another round of publicity, Sweden gets it molestation suspect, the conspiracy theorists will find a new cause, and everyone is happy.

    Well, except Assange and the people who paid for his bail bond, of course.

  37. Re:Why is this news? by LingNoi · · Score: 2

    He hasn't been charged with any crime, he needs to go to sweden to "answer questions".

  38. Re:That's nice by amoeba1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  39. Re:That's nice by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  40. Re:That's nice by GPierce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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
  41. New revelation? by JamesRing · · Score: 2

    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!

  42. "Leaving country with permission" == "Fleeing"?? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."
  43. Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

    Er, the Vienna convention rules obviously covers any sort of inspection of the bag, including xrays. If xrays (and other sort of waves) are allowed the whole thing becomes useless.

  44. Re:That's nice by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  45. Re:That's nice by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  46. Re:That's nice by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  47. Re:That's nice by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (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...
  48. Re:That's nice by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...
  49. Re:That's nice by EvolutionInAction · · Score: 2

    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.

  50. Re:That's nice by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  51. Re:That's nice by j35ter · · Score: 2

    Oh, and a psychopath!

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  52. Re:That's nice by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  53. Re:That's nice by j35ter · · Score: 2

    Yes, and America belongs to Spain, in the first place ... out with you, English Scum!

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  54. Re:That's nice by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  55. Re:That's nice by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  56. Don't believe everything you read, sheeple! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Don't believe everything you read, sheeple! by BigBadBus · · Score: 2

      They must think we're imbeciles. The document has his name on it!

  57. Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? by Khith · · Score: 2

    I can't recall the source offhand, but I read that they were going to use infrared detection equipment on any containers. I don't see how this is legal, but considering that they're talking about storming the embassy, I doubt they care.

  58. Re:That's nice by dbIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  59. Re:That's nice by sortius_nod · · Score: 2

    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.

  60. Re:That's nice by dryeo · · Score: 2

    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
  61. Re:That's nice by Bert64 · · Score: 2

    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!
  62. Re:That's nice by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  63. Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? by u38cg · · Score: 2
    --
    [FUCK BETA]
  64. Re:That's nice by hughbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  65. Re:That's nice by M1FCJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  66. Assange doesn not get to defend himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  67. Re:That's nice by robably · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or maybe it's Opposite Day and nobody told me. Again.

    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.

  68. Re:That's nice by Dogun · · Score: 2

    Watch the entire video. They attacked people attempting to help the wounded, as well.

  69. Re:That's nice by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And I suppose Rommel was a traitor to Germany for attempting to kill Hitler?
    Morality trumps the wishes of the elite any day.

  70. Missing question by xenobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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) --
  71. Sweden deny they'll be sending JA to the US... by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

    ...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.
  72. Re:That's nice by swell · · Score: 2

    "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...
  73. Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For all the great evils the CIA, Mossad and MI6 supposedly do on a daily basis, what is he doing still breathing?

    Because no one wants to make a martyr out of Assange.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  74. Re:That's nice by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    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."
  75. Re:That's nice by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

    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.
  76. Nothing on the BBC about this? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    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.
  77. Re:That's nice by BoberFett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  78. Re:That's nice by BoberFett · · Score: 2

    Good idea, report it through the appropriate channels. So he can be quickly and quietly silenced in a military "accident" a few days later.

  79. Re:That's nice by metacell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.