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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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.
How does a non-citizen, non-resident commit treason against a country he owes no allegiance to?
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 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.
I wonder how long the people of London would stand for it if 50 small trucks a day started pulling into the embassy garage, then pulling out again and heading for Europe. What kind of police presence would it take to search every one of them on a daily basis?
Maybe once in a while, just for a laugh, have somebody approximating Assange's physical appearance hop in for a ride around the city.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Diplomats are not created by the guest country, but by the host country. The guest country says "We have this person here that we wish to represent us to you," the host country then says "We accept that person as your representative and confer upon them status as a diplomat." There are various level of official ceremony that go along with this, depending on the rank of the diplomat (for example in the US an ambassador meets with the president and presents formal credentials and so on, whereas a junior lackey gets little more than an ok from the State Department).
You don't just get to declare someone to be a diplomat at any time because you feel like it. Remember that the whole thing is a treaty between countries, not a unilateral deceleration enforced by some higher power. This is also why diplomats can be expelled by the host country. They say "This person is no longer welcome here." In the event said diplomat doesn't leave, they lose their diplomatic status and can be subject to arrest and so on.
So no, Ecuador can't just say "Oh ya, he's a diplomat," the UK would simply say "No, sorry, we haven't recognized him as such."
Also even if they could there'd be the problem of diplomatic fallout. Not only with the UK, but other countries as well. Many nations might decide they weren't interested in having an diplomats from a nation if that nation would decide to make criminals (Assanage is a criminal in Britain, he skipped his bail) diplomats when it suited them.
The second girl even had a fingering session in the back of the cinema before the actual sex. The other said "may as well" on her account. You do not need a contract to have sex in Sweden, consent to sex is not required to be in the form of a verbal or written contract.
"The women appealed to have the charges reinstated."
After the second prosecutor convinced them to.
The extra evidence that came to light was the blog entry where girl 1 said she could use this law to get revenge on a cheating boyfriend. The second piece of evidence that came to light was the foreplay, and the third piece, the fact the girls had tried to sell their story to the papers before making a claim to police.
He did not 'flee' either, he asked if he was needed as he wanted to go to the UK and was told not, so he left. Only then did she issue an international arrest warrant citing his 'fleeing' as cause. This is a demonizing move, the 'fleeing' is to pretend he had something to hide. He was a man facing a nothing charge from tainted witnesses that in any other circumstances would face investigation themselves (for making false claims in order to profit from a news paper story).
Instead he became an criminal under the serious crimes, expedited extradition treaty that is only supposed to be used for major crimes like terrorism.
It stinks to high heaven.
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.
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."
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.