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."
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.
Nope, not at all unusual for routine rape cases to involve threats of violating sovereignty. Nothing to see here folks.
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
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
That's actually a good idea. The death penalty is barbaric.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
for your ideals then that puts you in a very small minority.
Gee... and we wonder why America is in the shitter?
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.
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.
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.
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.