British Police Stop 24/7 Monitoring of Julian Assange At Ecuadorian Embassy (ibtimes.co.uk)

It's a TRAP! by Derekloffin · 2015-10-12 12:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Come on now, we all know they just replaced them with under cover officers...

Re:It's a TRAP! by TWX · 2015-10-12 12:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Honestly, if any entity literally ran out of money and could no longer afford an enforcement action and simply stopped for budgetary reasons similar to Lucas' first movie THX1138, I would expect it would be the British.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-10-12 12:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

This hypothesis needs to be tested using an Assange look-alike.
Re:It's a TRAP! by lucm · 2015-10-12 12:49 · Score: 2

What about the Greeks?

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:It's a TRAP! by KGIII · 2015-10-12 12:56 · Score: 2

It's a trap! (Not that kind, the real kind.)

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:It's a TRAP! by gweihir · 2015-10-12 13:12 · Score: 1

You do not need that. Rough similarity in body-structure and hiding his face will be enough.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:It's a TRAP! by ShanghaiBill · 2015-10-12 17:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

What about the Greeks?
No. Greece ran out of money in 2010. They have squandered an additional 200B euros since then. There is little reason to stop wasting money as long as someone else is paying the bills.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 19:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well, the money given to greece has been spent primarily in paying previous debts and interests to european banks, so little of it was available to the greek government. Think of it as a 'under cover' aid to banks...
Re:It's a TRAP! by stooo · 2015-10-12 19:36 · Score: 1

>>Honestly, if any entity literally ran out of money and could no longer afford an enforcement action and simply stopped for budgetary....
it's not a law enforcement action, it's an harassment action.

--
aaaaaaa
Re:It's a TRAP! by jandersen · 2015-10-12 20:21 · Score: 1

Come on now, we all know they just replaced them with under cover officers...
From what I have heard on the news, it makes sense to stop wasting money on this. It was never necessary, really; he isn't going to be able to just walk out of the country, and he will still be arrested if he ventures out in the open. Placing somebody on guard outside was really more of a symbolic gesture - and probably directed more at Ecuador than Assange, to show them in a very public way that the British government was very unhappy about Ecuador's stance in this case. There is no reason to call this a trap - after all, you don't place a warning sign over a real trap.
Personally, I don't think the Swedish police would just hand him over to the Americans - the Scandinavian countries have demonstrated several times in the past that they don't simply roll over when the States tell them to. That said, it seems a bit stupid to engage in this kind of stand-off - and I think all sides have shown a spectacular lack of common sense; Assange could have maneuvered through this much more intelligently, I would have thought, but instead chose a course of action that made him appear both cowardly and suspicious, and the authorities in both UK, Sweden and the States could have shown more willing to be flexible. It is unfortunately often what happens when people with small minds get their hands on too much power.
Re:It's a TRAP! by MichaelSmith · 2015-10-12 20:37 · Score: 1

Better get Julian a fast car with a turbine engine and a cooling system.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 20:53 · Score: 1

The Scandinavian countries have demonstrated several times in the past that they don't simply roll over when the States tell them to? Do you have any examples of that? They generally share all their data with the NSA, they have illegally shut down piracy websites, not a single one of them has even made a token attempt at offering asylum to Snowden (but have tried to dig their claws into Assange, but CLEARLY not to send him to the US...)
They're the greatest countries in the world to live in, with some of the highest levels of freedom, equality, education, opportunity, and so on. There are countless good things you could say about them. However, they're still essentially pawns of the USA when push comes to shove.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 21:05 · Score: 5, Informative

Personally, I don't think the Swedish police would just hand him over to the Americans - the Scandinavian countries have demonstrated several times in the past that they don't simply roll over when the States tell them to.
Scandinavian here (Denmark)... I think you put way too much trust in our governments. Maybe Norway is still willing to stand up for themselves (they can afford it), but Denmark and Sweden tends to roll over when the US says so. Examples: Both Denmark and Sweden are EU members, and thus fall under the EU privacy directive. Yet, both countries are actively supplying information to the US. Or take the pirate bay. The founders got convicted, even though until the case, none of the lawyers sending DMCA notices to the pirate bay could come up with a Swedish law they were breaking. Not even the one Swedish university complaining about pirated books could find such a law. Yet, they all got convicted, including they guy whose only job function was speech (as in "freedom of") - the spokesperson for TPB.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 21:05 · Score: 1

Doesn't the USA run out of money almost every year and have a complete national shutdown?
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 21:08 · Score: 1

And that's not even mentioning that Sweden previously has allowed the US to pick up terror suspects to fly them off to Guantanamo bay, in breech of Swedish law. When the US wants somebody, Sweden will happily play along, and then have a government inquiry later, with no consequences for whomever authorized the breech.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 21:27 · Score: 1

Is that because it's the only country apart from the USA that you've heard of?
Re:It's a TRAP! by jeremyp · 2015-10-12 23:09 · Score: 1

If Assange didn't want to be harassed by our law enforcement agencies, he should not have broken the conditions of his bail.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:It's a TRAP! by fey000 · 2015-10-12 23:11 · Score: 2

Dude, you're supposed to reboot it every now and then.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2015-10-12 23:32 · Score: 2

The only real losers in this have been the UK Tax Payers and the poor saps who posted his bail for him. As for Assange himself well he can't leave his 5* hotel/embassy.

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:It's a TRAP! by byornski · 2015-10-12 23:55 · Score: 1

There was an EU arrest warrant for him. He went to court to fight it. It was decided that it was legitimate but he was released on bail. He left the jurisdiction. I'm not really sure how the UK could have been more flexible without violating treaties or trying to rewrite other countries' laws.
Re:It's a TRAP! by hairyfeet · 2015-10-12 23:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh Please! Sweden showed it was nothing but the USA's bitch when the Ecuadorian diplomat made it clear that all they had to do was agree they wouldn't ship him to the USA and they promptly REFUSED.
Do you REALLY believe they went to all this trouble for a rape charge where the "victim" not only didn't call the cops while he was sound asleep in the bed, but instead actually went out, bought groceries, and then made him breakfast, really? If you but that horseshit I have a bridge you might be interested in.
We all know that if Assange tried to go back to Sweden he'd never get to touch Swedish ground, they would divert the plane in the air to the USA where he would get stuck in Gitmo as an "example" of what happens when you dare to not bow down. they even have a name for this, its called a "rendition ride", look it up.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:It's a TRAP! by flink · 2015-10-13 00:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhaps. But it's also true that a country might refuse to guarantee it won't do something it has no intention of doing because it considers the demand an affront to its sovereignty.
Or it might be that the ambassador has no legal authority to make such a guarantee. For example, if a country has a with no death penalty has a law not to extradite criminals to countries where they may be executed, it might refuse to extradite a person wanted for a capitol crime to the US. If it's not a federal charge, and assuming the state in question has a death penalty, our ambassador wouldn't be able to promise much: he has no constitutional authority to tell the state DA what to do.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 01:01 · Score: 1

Welcome to the Hotel Ecuador. You can check out but you can never leave.
Re:It's a TRAP! by WormholeFiend · 2015-10-13 01:43 · Score: 1

And putting his name on a seat in an Ecuadorian diplomatic flight to Quito.
Re:It's a TRAP! by rockout · 2015-10-13 01:53 · Score: 1

You only addressed one part of the mountain of evidence that illustrates why the Sweden charges are completely trumped up and designed to get Assange to the US. What about the rest of his very valid points?

--
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Re:It's a TRAP! by flink · 2015-10-13 02:14 · Score: 2

Oh, I think the rest is all very likely. It's quite believable that Sweden is acting as a proxy for US interests. I think Assange would be foolish to get on any commercial flight, especially after what happened to the Bolivian president during the Snowden incident. I just wanted to point out that there are many motivations to consider when weighing why an ambassador acted in a particular way.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-10-13 02:38 · Score: 1

This would be a good test of the Assange-is-free hypothesis, but depending on how badly Washington really wants to get rid of Assange, it could also endanger a whole planeload of people.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Archangel+Michael · 2015-10-13 03:31 · Score: 1

I think you put way too much trust in our governments.
Personally, I don't trust my government, and I certainly don't trust anyone else's either. The biggest reason appears in my signature. One of my other favorite quotes is "None of us are as dumb as all of us". And if you want to see how dumb some of us are, look up Mark Dice on YouTube and watch stupid people agreeing to stupid (and sometimes scary) ideas.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:It's a TRAP! by BasilBrush · 2015-10-13 03:56 · Score: 1

The only real losers in this have been the UK Tax Payers and the poor saps who posted his bail for him.
No one "posted his bail". This quaint wild-west tradition is not practiced in the UK. There's bail for some offences, but no bond or bondsmen.
Re:It's a TRAP! by elrous0 · 2015-10-13 04:18 · Score: 1

Wrong:
http://www.theguardian.com/med...

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:It's a TRAP! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2015-10-13 06:20 · Score: 1

Maybe he shouldn't have dropped all those dox with his face and name all over it.
He's been grandstanding this entire time. I don't care if the rape charges are legitimate or not(I am inclined to believe they are; I also suspect something deeply embarrassing is probably also going on that ironically Assange wants to keep hidden). What he did was illegal for a pretty damn good reason.
I think he's undermining his cause because what the US has been doing has been atrocious too. I have no sympathy for Assange or the US intelligence apparatus here. he's making this about himself and less about the abuses of power by the US. He's been a creepy slimy prick for years before this even happened.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Triklyn · 2015-10-13 06:21 · Score: 1

ask for it from the .5% of you that's gotta be german.
Re:It's a TRAP! by davester666 · 2015-10-13 06:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm 99%+ German... doh.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:It's a TRAP! by thoromyr · 2015-10-13 06:53 · Score: 1

how was GP wrong? I read your link. GP said, "There's bail for some offences, but no bond or bondsmen" and that does in fact appear to be the case.
Now, if you had been a little more nuanced in your reply, rather than simply stating "wrong" there might have been something to comment. But having read the article I can assure you that what is described is nothing approaching the US bail system.
Re:It's a TRAP! by Triklyn · 2015-10-13 07:35 · Score: 1

:) well, that worked out better than i'd hoped.
Re:It's a TRAP! by elrous0 · 2015-10-13 07:49 · Score: 1

Maybe you missed his first sentence, which was wrong. Whether or not there are bail-bondsmen in the UK is irrelevant, since the original commenter said nothing about them, merely saying that the people who posted his bail were losers in the deal (which was absolutely correct). The GP was being a snide dick, and now you're being one too. And double dicking is something only admirable in porn.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re: It's a TRAP! by Ginger+Unicorn · 2015-10-13 12:34 · Score: 1

Unfortunately we have almost no say over what the shower of cunts that calls itself out government do. We marched in the millions against helping the shower of cunts that calls itself your government from invading iraq, to avoid the cost of billions of pounds and thousands of lives but it meant fuck all. The elite do as they please, and we are totally fucking impotent. There will be no armed uprising that american gun nuts fantasise about, in the US or the UK. And if there were it would just replace one shower of cunts with another shower of cunts. The only solution i can imagine is if enough people learn to stop being cunts that they eventually outnumber them and organically end up replacing them. But most people are cunts, even the people that should know better, so for the time being, we're fucked.

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Re:It's a TRAP! by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 21:54 · Score: 1

Honestly, if any entity literally ran out of money and could no longer afford an enforcement action and simply stopped for budgetary reasons similar to Lucas' first movie THX1138, I would expect it would be the British.
I bet a French person modded this interesting. They still haven't forgiven us for Waterloo.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:It's a TRAP! by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 22:13 · Score: 1

And that's not even mentioning that Sweden previously has allowed the US to pick up terror suspects to fly them off to Guantanamo bay, in breech of Swedish law. When the US wants somebody, Sweden will happily play along, and then have a government inquiry later, with no consequences for whomever authorized the breech.
But so has the UK government. So if there was this huge conspiracy, why didn't Britain just ship him off to the US while they had him in custody?
I've not seen a convincing explnation as to why Sweden would be seen as more of the US's lapdog than the UK.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Gift Horse by RDW · 2015-10-12 12:26 · Score: 5, Funny

And as a gesture of goodwill, they've also left him a large wooden horse with a bow tied around it outside the embassy.

Re:Gift Horse by Feral+Nerd · 2015-10-12 13:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

And as a gesture of goodwill, they've also left him a large wooden horse with a bow tied around it outside the embassy.
At least the British still have a degree of respect for the diplomatic status of embassies even if they have a hard time being civilised about it. If Edward Snowden had sought shelter in the Ecuadorian Embassy in Washington it would probably have stood an excellent chance of been stormed by delta forces inside of 24 hours. I thought that the US Govt. showed uncharacteristic restraint when they made do with convincing France and Spain into refusing Evo Morales' jet entry and thus forced it to land in Austria. I was expecting them to simply send fighters to intercept the plane over the Atlantic and forcing it to land on some US airbase. I'd like to know just how close Obama and his administration came to actually going ahead and doing that.
Re: Gift Horse by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 15:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except America has never done anything remotely like that, ever. Your story is a total fucking lie.
Re: Gift Horse by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 18:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's a link to something that never happened:
Re:Gift Horse by Opportunist · 2015-10-12 18:57 · Score: 1

And in accordance with our ancient religions, we will ceremoniously burn it to ashes as soon as possible!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Gift Horse by BlackPignouf · 2015-10-12 20:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

THe CIA has done so much crazy shit, it actually makes sense to assume that they did something similar, and that we just didn't hear about it.
Re: Gift Horse by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-12 22:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

The US has been using European airspace and airports for illegal kidnapping (rendition) flights. I wouldn't put much past them.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: Gift Horse by Dereck1701 · 2015-10-12 23:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah, the US government has never done anything crazy like abducting someone off the the streets, flying them to a foreign country black site for a little torture, and them realizing "oops, we grabbed the wrong guy" so lets dump him in the countryside another foreign country, oh wait.................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re: Gift Horse by umghhh · 2015-10-13 00:05 · Score: 1

This post should actually be modded funny not insightful.
After all somebody forced the airplane of this Moralez guy to land in Vienna or why would otherwise friendly skies be closed suddenly and only for one airplane?
Re: Gift Horse by meta-monkey · 2015-10-13 01:00 · Score: 1

Pretty sure we'd hear about them storming an embassy to extract a high profile target.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Gift Horse by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-13 02:15 · Score: 1

Someone has been watching too much 24.
Embassy grounds are sovereign soil that belong to the foreign government in question. "Storming" an embassy would essentially be a military invasion of Ecuador, otherwise known as an unprovoked act of war. More than that, it would demonstrate a massive disregard for decades of international law and diplomatic procedure, and open up ALL of the US Embassies worldwide to attack.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re: Gift Horse by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-13 05:07 · Score: 1

Idiot. Go read a book.
Reagan had US jets track, approach, and force down the airliner carrying the Achille Lauro hijackers after Egypt's President Mubarak had negotiated their escape.
Murica said, "FUCK YEAH!"
The rest of the world said "Goddam cowboys!"
From the BBC archives: "The crisis ended on 10 October [1985]. Egypt gave free passage to the hijackers in exchange for the rest of the hostages. But US Navy jets intercepted a chartered Egypt Air 737 carrying the gunmen and forced it to land in Italy."
Prove yet again, with another historical reason, that Saint Reagan was dangerously senile and incompetent.
Re: Gift Horse by ZeroWaiteState · 2015-10-13 05:17 · Score: 1

You mean like when the US bombed the Chinese embassy during the war in Bosnia?
Re: Gift Horse by cold+fjord · 2015-10-13 07:22 · Score: 1

oh wait, that involves terrorism. I'm pretty sure all of those examples do. Assange isn't accused of terrorism.
Do you have some examples that don't involve terrorism? Or are you claiming that Assange is involved with terrorism?
Or are you trying to muddy the water with irrelevant information?
Silly me, we know what is going on. Assange isn't at risk. Your reference if BS in regard to Assange.

--
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
Re: Gift Horse by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-13 08:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, because accidentally dropping a bomb on an embassy in the middle of a war zone is exactly the same as breaching the gate, shooting guards, kicking in doors, in order to extract a foreign national.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re: Gift Horse by cold+fjord · 2015-10-13 08:08 · Score: 1

That is only related to the war against the international terrorist jihadist group al Qaida being waged by the US.
Are you suggesting that Assange is affiliated with al Qaeda? Do you have any proof of that? Or do you have proof that it is being used for handling ordinary criminal justice matters, which is what Assange would fall into ... if the US even had a warrant out for him (which it doesn't).

--
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
Re: Gift Horse by Dereck1701 · 2015-10-13 13:30 · Score: 1

Oh wait, some in the highest levels of government have been portraying Assange's "actions" (aka journalism, somewhat sloppy journalism but journalism all the same) as "aiding our enemies (terrorists)". Congressman Peter King stated that Wikileaks should be designated as a terrorist organization. Others have suggested he should "vanish", still others have said he should be prosecuted for espionage, material support of terrorism, aiding the enemy or a number of other charges.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
http://www.theatlantic.com/int...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
Re: Gift Horse by cold+fjord · 2015-10-13 14:07 · Score: 1

Oh wait! A Congressman can make all of the speeches he wants, even on the floor of Congress, and it doesn't constitute government policy. You might notice that Congressmen are not policy makers in the Executive branch. POLICY MAKER. Like President, Secretary of State, Attorney General, etc. Policy makers decide, they order. Members of the Legislature make speeches, occasionally vote, and rarely get some meaningful law passed. Constitutionally they can't even target an individual by name in a law.
All that constitutes is hot air, nothing more. It isn't a threat to Assange. It is just opinions. That's it.
Trying to spin that into an actual something is rubbish.

--
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
Re: Gift Horse by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 22:28 · Score: 1

The US has been using European airspace and airports for illegal kidnapping (rendition) flights. I wouldn't put much past them.
Those aren't high profile people like Assange. The whole point about the illegal rendition flights was that no one was supposed to find out about them.
It would have been a bit obvious if Assange had disappeared one night from a Swedish jail and ended up in front of the cameras in a Washington DC court the next day.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

"..it will remove the dedicated officers.." by turkeydance · 2015-10-12 12:30 · Score: 1

with those who will get the job done.

Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 12:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Spending $18m to monitor him was surely appropriate when he was wanted for "questioning in a sexual assault case", when anyone that wanted to interview him could visit him in the embassy.

Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by aevan · 2015-10-12 13:18 · Score: 1

When they give consent. There is probably some kink out there for willing sleep-sex.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 13:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, it does. The charges kept changing to make them worse, but the version of the charges I read (translated, of course) indicated that it was rape because the woman withdrew her consent after the act. Such a chance of mind wouldn't be rape in the US. He lied to her to get her in bed, that sexual fraud is "rape" in Sweden, but not in most places. Some of the press releases by the police made the charges sound worse, which is why I read the charges themselves in their entirety (translated of course).

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by KGIII · 2015-10-12 13:40 · Score: 1

And wearing the agreed upon prophylactic device. (That was the right case, right? I really need to start keeping up on things. I was never a fan of his so I don't pay much attention unlike Snowden whom I do pay attention to.)

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 13:48 · Score: 1

That's interesting. As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries.
e.g. the US would not extradite someone to Saudi Arabia who was accused of blaspheming the prophet Mohamed because that's not a crime in the US.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 14:02 · Score: 2

The US is extraditing Kim Dotcom for a "crime" that wasn't a "crime" in NZ. So I'm not sure that standard is true. The extradition treaty the US has with most places doesn't require it be a crime in both places, but can refuse an extradition if the expected punishment is excessive for the crime (most places without the death penalty will not extradite to the US unless the death penalty is guaranteed to not be invoked).

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by lucm · 2015-10-12 14:37 · Score: 1

There's 2 different things. First one is the "not wearing a condom" thing, which is what the Assange cult members are repeating ad nauseam to make the charges look less serious.
The second one is the girl waking up while he was inside her. That part is typically swept under the rug by the Assange cult members because it's more difficult to argue that "she was asking for it". See:

The judges said: "It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did."
Another bullshit statement from the Assange cult members is that he agreed to be interviewed by the Swedes in the Ecuador embassy in London but that they declined. Apparently none of those zealots bothered to check Wikipedia (or maybe it's another CIA plant):

In March 2015, Marianne Ny indicated that she would allow Assange to be interviewed in London. The interview will be conducted by a deputy prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren, as well as a police investigator. As of August 2015, an agreement has not yet been reached with Ecuador which would allow Assange to be interviewed in the Embassy.
The guy's a rapist, full stop. As for being a fraud and an asshole, that's up for debate.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 14:53 · Score: 4, Informative

He was done in by the prosecutor who is free to file charges even if the victim fails to press charges (same as in the US, for any crime) http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09... for an example where the "victim" objected to the prosecution of her sisters for plucking out her eyes.

You are wrong about this being the law on university campuses. Nowhere in the US is a woman allowed to give consent before sex, then revoke consent after, and have the sex then be treated as rape. Go on, name one place where that's the case (in law, not just according to the statements of the defendant). If you can't, then you are a MRA lying and whining to slander SJW because you hate women, not because you are actually upset over the laws.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by KGIII · 2015-10-12 15:04 · Score: 1

I must be doing it wrong. To me it didn't seem to minimize anything when I read about it. If anything it made it worse. I've never liked the guy (or even what he does) so I didn't pay a lot of attention. This just confirmed he was an egocentric narcissist and an asshole. Adding rapist, with or without a condom, doesn't do much to help him out in my views. Seriously? They thought the whole condom thing would be minimizing it? No... No! That makes it worse!

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 15:05 · Score: 1

The claim was "As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries." The example for the claim was the US refusing extradition for something meeting that claim, but that was not the claim itself.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Panoptes · 2015-10-12 15:11 · Score: 1

" these rules are law on many American university campuses, if you didn't know."
No. They are regulations made (and only enforceable by) a university. They are not 'laws'.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by arglebargle_xiv · 2015-10-12 15:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder who decided at which point things went from "appropriate" to "inappropriate"? Is there a government guidebook that says that spending up to $17M monitoring someone who's charged with having a quick shag in Sweden is appropriate, but once the bill reaches $18M it's getting a bit out of hand?
Just to put this into perspective, the cost of this little adventure would have put nearly two hundred extra police on the streets over the period in which it ran. So watching one attention-seeking Australian in an embassy potentially took two hundred policemen off the streets catching actual criminals.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 15:30 · Score: 1

He wouldn't be extradited for the rape. He would be charged for the rape, then once in custody he'd be extradited for espionage.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by ArmoredDragon · 2015-10-12 15:50 · Score: 2

No, not exactly. What a country will extradite and will not extradite somebody for is spelled out in the treaty itself, and varies from treaty to treaty.
As a rule though (and this is spelled out in treaties the US has with other nations,) the US will not extradite somebody for doing something that is protected by the constitution. If it isn't protected by the constition but is legal in the US and not legal elsewhere, then the US will extradite.
There are some very rare exceptions to this rule though. For example, if somebody does something outside the US that is protected by the constitution but while they're here they commit some kind of crime that makes them eligible for deportation, then they'll be extradited.
Other countries have other rules as well. For example China won't extradite one of their own citizens under any circumstances.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by unrtst · 2015-10-12 16:10 · Score: 1

You are "doing it wrong".
Using the "not wearing a condom" thing to make the charges look less serious assumes that the charge is directly related to not wearing a condom (ie. that, because of that, it is defined as "rape" there, though it may not be in most other places). No one is saying implying that an undeniably clear rape charge isn't as bad if the rapist was or wasn't wearing a condom.
FWIW, I don't have a horse in this race, and I'm not trying to make him look better or worse. Just trying to help explain one of the things people are saying.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by sectokia · 2015-10-12 18:18 · Score: 1

Just goes to allow how pathetic government are... $18 million to watch a building for a few years... 6 million per year, that's probably close to twenty officers at any one time.... Rediculous. What happened is simply that conservative government isn't giving big budget increases, so they have had to actual cut some of the stupid fat.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by NoKaOi · 2015-10-12 19:55 · Score: 2

That's interesting. As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries.
I think you may have the burden backwards. If it is a crime in both countries, then they are obligated to extradite him. If it's not a crime in both countries, they can still extradite him if they want to.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by serviscope_minor · 2015-10-12 20:08 · Score: 1

As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries.
Not where the US is involved. Which is why that poor kid nearly got extradited for criminal copyright infringement to the US where what he did in the UK probably wasn't a crime. I say probably wasn't because the CSP said they weren't sure and it would have to come before a judge as a test case before they knew which side of the law it was on. The only reason he wasn't extradited because politics got heavily involved.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by allcoolnameswheretak · 2015-10-12 20:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why does every piece of crap the government does always cost millions? What's the salary of a police officer? Lets be generous and for easy calculation say 100k in London. Say you have three police officers involved (2 in a car, monitoring, one in the office) working 8 hour shifts, so you need three shifts, meaning 9 police officers, lets make that 10.
10 police officers for 100k a year is a million bucks. How does it cost EIGHTEEN times as much? Give another million for the cars and surveillance equipment, office work, whatever. How are the other 16 million justified?
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 21:12 · Score: 1

... China won't extradite one of their own citizens under any circumstances.

I can't remember the USA allowing the extradition of a US citizen in the last 20 years, regardless of its legality or the evidence.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by thegarbz · 2015-10-12 22:47 · Score: 2

Management, overhead, replacement cost, equipment cost.
You've got to be kidding yourselves if the cost of any operation is the sum total of the salary of those involved, and this is absolutely nothing unique to the public sector.
Heck I internally bill my time to another department at close to 4 times my salary. That is simply made up of my salary + overheads + lost opportunity cost. It's like those people who complain that contractors make twice as much money as staff without realising that they spend half of it on managing their own affairs.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by meta-monkey · 2015-10-13 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Can we please end this "only wanted for questioning" deception every time Assange comes up? The Swedish criminal justice system does not work like the US criminal justice system. In the US, "questioning" is just questioning, and comes at the beginning of the investigation, followed by charging, then investigation, then a trial. In the Swedish system, charging comes at the end, and is preceded immediately by questioning so the suspect has the opportunity to say "no, copper, you got it all wrong!" And that can actually work, because the Swedish investigatory system is inquisitorial rather than adversarial. But once the questioning happens, the "right to a speedy trial" bits kick in, so they cannot simply question him without the ability to immediately charge and try him. Which is the goal, as they believe they can convict him of rape.
In the US, Assange would already be charged, and they'd be trying to bring him in for arraignment.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by allcoolnameswheretak · 2015-10-13 01:44 · Score: 2

I was being extremely generous with the salaries and accounted 1 million for equipment, which is ridiculous unless London police are driving Ferrari's. Sure, there are management costs, but somebody was managing these police officers anyway, whether they were monitoring Assange or not.
Actually, I made a mistake above only considering the costs of one year. 18 million was the cost for three years of montoring.
But even if we double the labor costs of a police officer (200.000$ a year), and multiply by three, this still leaves
10 million unaccounted for.
I just can't believe it costs 6 million a year to have somebody who is stationary professionally monitored 24/7.
I work in IT industry, and we have a team of about 10 qualified and well paid professionals working on complex technical projects that cost our customers only a fraction of that.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by david_thornley · 2015-10-13 03:14 · Score: 1

However, Assange appealed the extradition in the British courts, and the ruling all the way up was that it was a legitimate rape charge according to UK law, not just Swedish law.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by EvilAlphonso · 2015-10-13 03:31 · Score: 1

The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA, Title 2 of Pub.L. 107–206, H.R. 4775, 116 Stat. 820, enacted August 2, 2002) is a United States federal law that aims "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party." Introduced by U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and U.S. Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) it was an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (H.R. 4775). The bill was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.
Full text here, search for "American Service"

Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. Specifies restrictions on: (1) participation by covered U.S. persons in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations; (2) transfer to the Court of U.S. classified national security and law enforcement information; and (3) the provision of U.S. military assistance, with specified exceptions, to the government of a country that is a party to the Court.
(Sec. 2003) Prescribes conditions for a presidential waiver of the prohibitions and requirements of this Act.
(Sec. 2004) Declares that the requirements of this Act shall not prohibit: (1) any action authorized by the President to bring about the release from captivity of any U.S. military personnel (covered U.S. persons) and certain other persons (covered allied persons) who are being detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court; or (2) communication by the United States of its policy with respect to a matter.
(Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
(Sec. 2009) Urges the President to report to appropriate congressional committees on the degree to which: (1) each military alliance to which the United States is a party may place U.S. armed forces under foreign control subject to the Court's jurisdiction; and (2) U.S. armed forces engaged in military operations pursuant to such alliance may be exposed to greater risks as a result of being placed under such foreign control.
(Sec. 2010) Authorizes funds withheld from the U.S. share of assessments to the UN or other international organizations pursuant to the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 to be transferred to the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance Account of the Department of State.
(Sec. 2011) Sets forth the relationship between the President's exercise of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, this Act, and actions taken with respect to a specific matter involving the Court, requiring congressional notification as specified.
(Sec. 2014) Amends the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 to repeal the limitation on use of division A funds to provide assistance to the International Criminal Court or its prosecutorial activity.
(Sec. 2015) Permits the United States to continue rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-10-13 03:44 · Score: 1

Because "I disagree" always equals "hate _________"
This is the real problem I have with SJW, is that there is absolutely no grey ever, and you are a "hater" if you disagree. SJW is nothing but Political Correctness stupidity. When everything is "extreme", it diminishes the actual "extreme" cases that should be treated that way.
A slut having a tad bit of buyers remorse is not the same as rape, and is more of a victim of her own choices. Here's a thought, make better choices to start. If you dress up like a street working whore, then you can't be offended when people mistake you for one.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Archangel+Michael · 2015-10-13 03:46 · Score: 1

Regulations enforced are laws. Actually, they are often worse than laws, because there is no ability to contest the charges in a fair impartial hearing, with lawyers and such.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by KGIII · 2015-10-13 04:25 · Score: 1

I kind of assumed your FWIW - it wasn't rage filled or apologetic enough to be for one side or the other. And yeah, to my mind it added to the other claims and didn't detract from them. It made him seem more a creep to me.
All of those "information wants to be free" people never seem inclined to give me their personal details.
Ah well... I guess I'll just have to be content with doing it wrong. In my mind it makes him more a jackass than he would be without it. Assuming he's guilty, of course. Even if he's still not guilty, I consider him a cretin. While my moral compass may seem screwy, I'd like to point out that I do see Snowden as a hero - a dumb hero but a hero nonetheless. Assange is not even remotely on the same level. He's just a bottom feeder and a shit stirrer. If people can't figure out the difference between the two then I'm not sure what to say.
Ho hum...

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by Cederic · 2015-10-13 05:27 · Score: 1

Forgive me if I am unimpressed with the swiss about this.
Yeah, damn those watch-making chocolate eaters. They should've invaded Ecuador or something.
Wait, what?
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · 2015-10-13 08:17 · Score: 1

In the US there is a presumption of innocence (not held to a high standard) and a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction standard.

But the presumption of innocence pretty much applies as a jury instruction, and nothing else. The police shooting unarmed people in the back are certainly not presuming innocence. Judges and grand juries rely on a much weaker standard to bring charges.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by AK+Marc · 2015-10-13 08:23 · Score: 1

A slut having a tad bit of buyers remorse is not the same as rape, and is more of a victim of her own choices.
It isn't anywhere in the world, except Sweden, based on what I've seen around this case.

Here's a thought, make better choices to start. If you dress up like a street working whore, then you can't be offended when people mistake you for one.
So it's more important that the woman dress like your mother, than the men decide to not attack and rape women? And you wonder why you and SJWs don't get along...

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by thegarbz · 2015-10-13 09:47 · Score: 1

but somebody was managing these police officers anyway, whether they were monitoring Assange or not.
That's not how costs work. Costs are reported on an opportunity basis, i.e. consider this all new equipment all new people, and not which would otherwise be doing something else.
You're absorbing some real costs in overhead. It's not about having x number of police. It's also about planning and scheduling resources. I work for a relatively large company. It costs $300 in real terms to buy a lightbulb. No I'm not kidding. As the size of a company grows the overhead per unit grows considerably larger per head. This gets even more insane as cost pressures increase (very counter intuitively) i.e. if we're trying to save every penny then it would cost $400 to buy that lightbulb because you have to add a whole team of people spending 10 minutes to discuss if the purchase is worthwhile.
You sound like a nice small lean operation, not a company which employs 49000 people of which over 1/4 are assigned roles that can be best described as overhead instead of a primary function.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by lucm · 2015-10-13 11:19 · Score: 1

Wikipedia, Google and common knowledge disagree with you, but don't let that get in the way of your Devotion to His Cult.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 22:58 · Score: 1

Nowhere in the US is a woman allowed to give consent before sex, then revoke consent after, and have the sex then be treated as rape. Go on, name one place where that's the case (in law, not just according to the statements of the defendant).
Well, there are some cases that come very close. For example, Occidental College: Student Found Guilty of Sexual Assault After Incapacitation Standard Is Misapplied And then there are numerous articles that make it explicit that consent can be withdrawn any time during sex and going a few seconds past that "No" counts too. For example, this story. There should be more than 5-10 second grace period on that, don't you think?
Call me old fashioned or a SJW, but if I'm having sex and the other person says "no, stop" then I'll fucking stop, and stop fucking.
You don't need ten seconds to think about it.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Yeah, makes perfect sense... by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 23:01 · Score: 1

If you dress up like a street working whore, then you can't be offended when people mistake you for one.
So it's legal to rape prostitutes where you live?
That is such a stupid argument.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Trap. by grub · 2015-10-12 12:37 · Score: 1

""London police has announced it will remove the dedicated officers"

Who and from what department is replacing them?

--
Trolling is a art,

Re:Trap. by TWX · 2015-10-12 12:45 · Score: 1

""London police has announced it will remove the dedicated officers" Who and from what department is replacing them?
Maybe these guys are now on the case...

Or, given that they spent $18,000,000 (or would it be 18,000,000 British Pounds?), perhaps that's the unit that was on the case from the beginning...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

maths seem off by rmdingler · 2015-10-12 12:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m.

So dollars, then? Six million a year for 24 hour surveillance. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

$684.93 per hour. Thank you Wolfram Alpha. This has the smell of one of those 1000 kilo drug busts that calculates the value of the seizure by multiplying by the gram price.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:maths seem off by dheltzel · 2015-10-12 12:52 · Score: 3, Funny

I hear they eat a lot of donuts while on guard duty.
Re:maths seem off by lucm · 2015-10-12 12:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is small potatoes. That government spent $15 BILLIONS on a patient records system for the national health services before giving up. That's 7x more than the wonderful healthcare.gov website (which at least is "working").

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:maths seem off by rmdingler · 2015-10-12 13:00 · Score: 1

Right. Donuts, hookers, and cocaine.
To stay awake, of course.
Was there not a single employee at the Ecuadorian embassy willing to leave a door unlocked for less than 18 million?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:maths seem off by AHuxley · 2015-10-12 13:03 · Score: 1

Add in the teams for real time facial recognition, license plate readers and other technical surveillance (internet, wifi, cell, sat) of the site or anyone walking near the site.
Expert support 24/7 with its overtime is expensive beyond just officers outside.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re:maths seem off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 13:06 · Score: 1

It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m.
So dollars, then? Six million a year for 24 hour surveillance. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
$684.93 per hour. Thank you Wolfram Alpha. This has the smell of one of those 1000 kilo drug busts that calculates the value of the seizure by multiplying by the gram price.
It's not very often that you actually run into someone foreign to the concept of government waste.
I mean that's the only logical explanation here.
And one million or eighteen. $100/hr or $700/hr. What the fuck does it matter? Waste is waste, and this is a perfect example considering the end result was jack shit.
Re:maths seem off by angel'o'sphere · 2015-10-12 13:11 · Score: 1

If you have ten people working on it, eight even, it sound quite reasonable.
I charge around 70 pounds per hour ... and I guess in that scenario, if you want to calc total costs, you have to take into account cars, fuel, accountants, probably hotels, probably the rent of the building from which some guys do observations etc etc.
So the math does not seem off at all to me.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:maths seem off by gweihir · 2015-10-12 13:16 · Score: 5, Informative

And to add insult to injury, apparently nobody is responsible for that massive fuckup. It is just stealing from the taxpayer, no crime in that.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:maths seem off by rmdingler · 2015-10-12 13:17 · Score: 1

Add in the teams for real time facial recognition, license plate readers and other technical surveillance (internet, wifi, cell, sat) of the site or anyone walking near the site. Expert support 24/7 with its overtime is expensive beyond just officers outside.
Quite. I suspect no expense was spared; no technology denied this Assange hunt.
Interestingly, three of the four charges against him expired last month vis-a-vis stautes of limitations. If he remains on sovereign Ecuadorian ground until 2020, the last charge is reported to be null and void.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:maths seem off by rmdingler · 2015-10-12 13:23 · Score: 1

There is a vast difference between what I would pay for a competent surveillance service and the tab a governmental organization would run up.
Cheese and rice... 70 pounds an hour? Good for you! ($107 or €94)

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:maths seem off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 13:24 · Score: 1

not $684.93 per hour. are you a product of the new common core math or something?
3 years of operation
365.2425 days per year
24 hours per day
8 persons on task around the clock (surveillance, action squad, support, etc., iow, it was not a one man job)
18.4 million usd spent
equals 87.47 usd per hour, not bad for government work.
covering 8 spots around the clock requires 40 persons (three 8hr shifts on weekdays, two 12hr shifts on weekend days, plus covering time off amongst themselves).... at a modest 60k usd salary per year, plus (good government) benefits, per person. you're probably looking at about 10 million usd for personnel with the rest (about 8 million usd) for support services, management, training, contingency planning, equipment, vehicles, and other expenses.
Re:maths seem off by sconeu · 2015-10-12 13:32 · Score: 1

International incident. Act of war.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:maths seem off by bloodhawk · 2015-10-12 13:55 · Score: 1

considering the number of people deployed for this for around the clock surveillance, the support staff and equipment this actually sounds insanely cheap. I wonder if they have actually left off some of the costs to reduce the embarrassment.
Re:maths seem off by ClickOnThis · 2015-10-12 13:57 · Score: 1

Six million a year for 24 hour surveillance. 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
$684.93 per hour.
A quick Google search indicates they had "at least four" officers at a time watching the embassy. Let's say 5, to accommodate the times when there are more. That works out to $137 per hour per officer. Their base salary is only part of that. There's overhead -- something I can imagine is quite steep for a police officer, given the extensive supporting infrastructure in the police department compared to other kinds of businesses. And perhaps there are also bonuses, overtime, etc., for these kinds of assignments.
In short, the cost does seem peculiarly high, but not outrageously so.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:maths seem off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 15:22 · Score: 1

There are no charges. There are allegations, but no formal charges are outstanding against Assange. While you're correct about the statutes of limitations having expired for three allegations (again, not charges), the entire point of statutes of limitations are to set hard bounds on the amount of time the state has to formally charge a person with particular crimes (in many jurisdictions, there are no limitations on the time to charge a person with the most severe of offenses, frequently including murder).
Assange has repeatedly offered to allow Swedish authorities to interview him at the embassy, and they have declined to do so. Assange is a political prisoner for pissing off the wrong governments, and anyone saying otherwise is full of shit. -PCP
Re:maths seem off by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 18:38 · Score: 1

This is about to happen in my country, too. The scale is a lot smaller, around $1.8 billion, but concidering our country is vastly smaller, it's a *lot* larger slump of money per capita. Before the project has even fully began, our lovely southern neighbours threw a truckload of salt on our politicians by doing the exact same thing for $10 million... Literally, they did it for no more than $10 million. They had a guy with an actual background in IT managing the whole project. He was obviously able to call $1.79 billion worth of bullshit on the suppliers.
Wasting tax money like this should be a crime.
Re:maths seem off by Opportunist · 2015-10-12 19:09 · Score: 1

So I wasn't the only one wondering what makes UK policemen so expensive?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:maths seem off by Opportunist · 2015-10-12 19:10 · Score: 1

Government can be insanely efficient. Simply make someone accountable for blunders and you'll see him be the most responsible person ever.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:maths seem off by stooo · 2015-10-12 19:57 · Score: 1

The USA usually does not bomb things inside UK.
But they thought about it.

--
aaaaaaa
Re:maths seem off by dbIII · 2015-10-12 20:00 · Score: 1

Since it looks a lot like Hillary kicked this whole thing off the US taxpayer is probably getting the bill.
Re:maths seem off by stooo · 2015-10-12 20:01 · Score: 1

10 people 24/7 amounts to 34 people at full working time.
What are those 34 people working for again ?

--
aaaaaaa
Re:maths seem off by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-12 21:53 · Score: 1

It's the figure given by the police. Wikileaks simply sent them a Freedom of Information request asking how much money they spent on the operation, and they said Â£12m. That's the police's own figure.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:maths seem off by gweihir · 2015-10-13 00:28 · Score: 1

My take on it would be to punish people that waste tax money just the same as people that evade taxes. That would be fair IMO. Of course, numerous "public servants" would go to prison for decades if that ever was implemented. Having these people out of the decision chain permanently would be a good thing.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:maths seem off by Archangel+Michael · 2015-10-13 03:50 · Score: 1

nobody is responsible for that massive fuckup.
If you really pay attention, the really big fuckups only people near the bottom get blamed. The people who all thought it was a good idea, keep getting rich (or reelected) in spite of the fact that they have proven themselves idiots.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:maths seem off by beefoot · 2015-10-13 04:03 · Score: 1

Easy -- just pay someone in the embassy to trigger the fire alarm or start a small fire. Get everyone out of the embassy during the fire and arrest him.
Re:maths seem off by gustygolf · 2015-10-13 20:55 · Score: 1

The sad thing is, they justify a healthcare system's cost by saying that the new software will save the doctors 1-2 minutes per patient -- the old software is rubbish and has UI latency issues --, and multiplies that by the doctors' salaries.
You do in fact get "this software will save billions of pounds" based on those calculations, but that doesn't make its price any more palatable.

--
"Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by fisted · 2015-10-12 12:45 · Score: 2

How can this be shown to be false before he actually tries it?

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

Citation needed by rsilvergun · 2015-10-12 12:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Also your sig doesn't match with the sentiment your expressing.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:He hasn't been charged by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 12:57 · Score: 1

Says the idiot who confuses Sweden with Switzerland.

18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by BrookHarty · 2015-10-12 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?!

Yup, no political motivation, move along citizen.

Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 13:29 · Score: 5, Informative

No, he has not been charged.
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 13:38 · Score: 5, Informative

You're a liar. Assange has repeatedly offered to be interviewed at the Equadorian embassy. Swedish officials have interviewed people abroad in similar circumstances numerous times in the past. Those officials are every bit as dishonest and dishonorable as you are in this case. Read this. -PCP
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by careysub · 2015-10-12 13:40 · Score: 5, Informative

That's not how things work here. The police typically interview you before charges are file. Assange has refused the interview.
No he hasn't. The Swedes are refusing to interview him in the Embassy. Now, why would that be? Think, think...

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 13:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

He refused the interview by having it, being cleared, leaving, then being re-charged for what he was already charged and dismissed for. Double jeopardy at its finest, though that's OK in most places.

The delay in the charges was sufficient to indicate US interference in the case.

Sweden has remotely interviewed others in similar circumstances, yet refuses to do so here? Why?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 14:01 · Score: 2, Informative

He was questioned by the police while he was in Sweden. He was in Sweden for 40 days after the allegations were first made to to the police and was not stopped from leaving the country. They could have withheld his passport and ordered him not to leave the country while he was under investigation, but they did not do so.
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 14:13 · Score: 1

"18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?!
Yup, no political motivation, move along citizen."
Don't be silly, they'd spend that kinda cash on ANYONE not charged for anything yet accused of not wearing a rubber. All perfectly normal. We hear about ex-boyfriends being hunted down across the globe by international police for years ALL the time in the news.
UK should send Sweden the bill. They are the ones they're doing this for aren't they? Officially I mean. :p
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by l0n3s0m3phr34k · 2015-10-12 15:03 · Score: 1

blah blah blah anonymous coward. Your such a troll, there are already several posts here that explain how your wrong. No wonder your posting as AC.
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 18:05 · Score: 1

Because an interview inside the embassy is just a chat and not a real interrogation (which can end by the prosecutor detaining the suspect)?
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by dunkelfalke · 2015-10-12 20:02 · Score: 3, Informative

For skipping bail actually.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 21:27 · Score: 2

He has an outstanding arrest warrant against him from Interpol. This arrest warrant lists the reason for the arrest warrant. This reason is called "charges". Interpol doesn't recognize Sweden's "request to interview for the purpose of filing charges for someone who doesn't have formal charges", so Sweden officially charged him with a crime, at least in the eyes of Interpol and international law, for the purposes of holding and deporting him for the pre-charging interview Sweden uses.

Much like the charge is sexual misconduct, usually mis-translated to rape. What he did is legal probably everywhere but Sweden, so the investigation isn't well translated. And the media's attempt to vilify him also leads to the "worst" possible translation, rape.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by meta-monkey · 2015-10-13 01:13 · Score: 1

The AC is right. The Swedish criminal justice system is different than the US criminal justice system. They need him in Sweden so they can question and then charge him. They cannot charge him in abstentia. In the US he would already be charged, and the purpose of the extradition would be for arraignment and trial.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by Theaetetus · 2015-10-13 02:06 · Score: 1

That's not how things work here. The police typically interview you before charges are file. Assange has refused the interview.
No he hasn't. The Swedes are refusing to interview him in the Embassy. Now, why would that be? Think, think...
Because in Sweden, the defendant investigation is the last thing that happens before trial, and by law, trial must occur within one week?
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by angel'o'sphere · 2015-10-13 12:56 · Score: 1

(facepalm) The US have charged him! Hence the request for extradition. Can't be so hard to grasp that.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:18 million for someone that was NEVER Charged?! by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 23:22 · Score: 1

He was questioned by the police while he was in Sweden. He was in Sweden for 40 days after the allegations were first made to to the police and was not stopped from leaving the country. They could have withheld his passport and ordered him not to leave the country while he was under investigation, but they did not do so.
It raises the question of why they let him go, then went through the whole alleged legal charade of "rape" claims, in order to get him back to Sweden from the UK so that teh US could renditionalize him to Guantanamo Bay.
Why not just hand him over to the CIA the first time?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by gweihir · 2015-10-12 13:13 · Score: 1

"Shown to be false" is not actually possible to do here. You must be soft in the head.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:He hasn't been charged by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 13:16 · Score: 1

As another poster noted, Sweden isn't Switzerland, and you should probably educate yourself before making making an even bigger mockery of yourself. Although reading may be difficult for you, it is imperative that you read the entire referenced piece to prevent further demonstrations of extreme idiocy. Have a nice day, champ. -PCP

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by iggymanz · 2015-10-12 13:22 · Score: 1

Wrong, the extradition treaty between the USA and Sweden does NOT apply if charges made by USA were cyber crime or theft. In fact, the USA could be very creative in making charges that do not apply to the "political" exception the treaty has.

In short, you make up nonsense in ignorance.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 13:30 · Score: 1

You are right. The US would not "extradite" him. He would be intercepted in-flight (re-directed to a friendly port for arrest by the US), or kidnapped by the US government. Not "extradited" for the crime of publishing documents. But "extradited" is sufficient to express the sentiment.

And what has been shown to be false? That the US keeps an open case against him, with orders to arrest, were he to come into US jurisdiction? Anything short of a presidential pardon would seem to indicate that it has *never* been proven false.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:He hasn't been charged by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 13:37 · Score: 4, Informative

There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).

By US standards, he was charged, then dismissed of the crime, and is now being tried a second time for the same crime. Almost nowhere else in the world has the strict double jeopardy laws the US has, but if we apply US standards, the charges and process are invalid many times over for many different reasons.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:He hasn't been charged by chill · 2015-10-12 13:37 · Score: 1

George W Bush, is that you?

"Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden," Bush said. "They're the neutral one. They don't have an army."

Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: "Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army." Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.

Bush held to his view. "No, no, it's Sweden that has no army."

The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.

A few weeks later, members of Congress and their spouses gathered with administration officials and other dignitaries for the White House Christmas party. The president saw Lantos and grabbed him by the shoulder. "You were right," he said, with bonhomie. "Sweden does have an army."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

18 million pounds by Dunbal · 2015-10-12 13:49 · Score: 2

OK the average British bobby earns about 45k a year. Lets have 18 of them, that gives us 6 policemen x 3 spots which should cover weekends and 3 shifts easily. 18 cops x 45k gives 810,000 a year. Ok let's round that up to 1 million pounds a year. Assange has been there 3 years now, so thats 3 million pounds. Now I realize there's plenty of other stuff to cover other than actual manpower, but I'm wondering where the other 15 million pounds is coming from.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:18 million pounds by bloodhawk · 2015-10-12 14:05 · Score: 2

average british bobby may directly earn 45k a year but the real actual cost with benefits, equipment etc is significantly more. 6 policeman x 3 spots is unlikely to cover such extensive surveillance. add at least another couple of people per shift and support, equipment etc. 18 million actually seems extraordinarily cheap. it is also in dollars not pounds, so about 12 million pounds.
Re:18 million pounds by Dunbal · 2015-10-13 04:20 · Score: 1

That's why I rounded up to 1 million pounds a year. 200k buys a lot of training and sick days. But still ok, double the salaries. There's still a good 12 million pounds to account for.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:18 million pounds by painandgreed · 2015-10-13 06:09 · Score: 1

OK the average British bobby earns about 45k a year. Lets have 18 of them, that gives us 6 policemen x 3 spots which should cover weekends and 3 shifts easily. 18 cops x 45k gives 810,000 a year. Ok let's round that up to 1 million pounds a year. Assange has been there 3 years now, so thats 3 million pounds. Now I realize there's plenty of other stuff to cover other than actual manpower, but I'm wondering where the other 15 million pounds is coming from.
You're forgetting management and supervisors to those 18 officers (and there are probably more as they'll need complete coverage plus overlap including sick time, vacation, and other duties). There are probably also rented office space close by to manage their duties as well as space rented to set up video recording devices to have a record of what happens if he does try to leave and check to make sure he hasn't left. Add in people to run, observe, and check that video equipment. Vehicles on standby incase they need to chase him. etc. etc. I doubt if the just stuck a few regular guys outside and called it quits.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 14:48 · Score: 1

The rumours were that he was going to be extradited from the UK, which is why he didn't stay in UK custody. The proof of conspiracy? The US refuses to deny they'd seek extradition if he were held in the UK. All that would need to happen is the US file extradition with the UK, and Sweden would drop all charges, then he'd be cleared for extradition. If the hearings were going poorly, Sweden would reinstate the charges, and the UK would extradite him to Sweden for a do over.

The US could clear up all these silly rumours by stating whether they would or would not extradite him. But the US refuses to.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 14:48 · Score: 1

What an extra-ordinary person then Assange person is, above laws and able through divine right to dictate to nations the terms under which he will make himself available to their justice system to answer for accusations of rape. We must all abandon all notions of democracy and justice and bend the knee to his holiness...

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by quenda · 2015-10-12 14:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Assuming they even bother with the formality of extradition.

Remember, Sweden (like other European countries) has a record of just handing over foreign suspects to the CIA for torture.

The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P.

I don't think any extradition lawyers were present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 14:56 · Score: 1

Compare the extradition treaties between the UK & the US & between Sweden & the US. The US/UK treaties make it much easier to extradite Assange from the UK but of course believing the creed of Assange makes everything else irrelevant.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:He hasn't been charged by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 14:59 · Score: 3, Informative

Double jeopardy is about being tried and found innocent by the court, and then being tried again for the same crime. It says nothing about being arrested/charged, then released, then being re-arrested/re-charged, as the outcome of the charge was never decided by a court. A judge may optionally dismiss a case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back before the courts unamended.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 15:06 · Score: 1

Snort, you're certainly right. Debates between people with specific experience of the US/UK & US/Swedish extradition treaties in previous /. stories are at fault...

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 15:11 · Score: 1

By comparing the US/UK & the US/Swedish extradition treaties. The US/UK treaties make it enormously easier from the UK directly.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:He hasn't been charged by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 15:24 · Score: 1

In Sweden, the people who defend his "arrest warrant" when he hasn't been charged indicate that an arrest in Sweden is akin to a preliminary trial in the US. You don't get charged until after a trial, of a sorts. So getting charged required judicial involvement, much like a grand jury indictment in the US. If you are indicted in the US and dismissed, that counts as a full trial "not guilty" verdict. Why aren't you applying the same standard here?

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by AK+Marc · 2015-10-12 15:25 · Score: 2

When he was in Sweden and initially charged, he cooperated fully. After he was released, and cleared to leave the country, the US pressured Sweden to press charges. So his dismissal was reversed, and he was re-charged after being cleared. He has notified Sweden of his location and invited Sweden to interrogate him in person or via phone, and Sweden refused, despite having done that with other people.

He's not made any special demands of Sweden, and doesn't act like he's above them. He just has acted in a manner to avoid increased chance of contact with US officials. He has "dictated" nothing extraordinary.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by blackest_k · 2015-10-12 15:46 · Score: 1

What an extra-ordinary person then Assange person is, above laws and able through divine right to dictate to nations the terms under which he will make himself available to their justice system to answer for accusations of rape. We must all abandon all notions of democracy and justice and bend the knee to his holiness...

It's more extraordinary circumstances. He is subject to ecuadorian law , not us law or swedish law or french law currently due to his location. Its more unusual than whats happening in Europe right now where thousands are claiming asylum being subject to persecution is one reason why asylum is granted.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by drinkypoo · 2015-10-12 15:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Compare the extradition treaties between the UK & the US & between Sweden & the US.

OK. Sweden has just handed us people without proper process before. Has the UK?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Snowden will never leave Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 16:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Much like Kim Philby and others"

Oh well done, slipped that in nicely.

Snowden's a fooking hero, revealing massive law breaking and an out of control UStasi that threatens the very basis of the democracy. Every US candidate has a file on them in Alexanders database, because a fooking General decided that he was bigger than his country and it leaders.

He shouldn't have to learn Russian, he should simply retire in the US protected by whistleblower legislation. Because he isn't, we know the US isn't free from military control and those Presidential leaders are more puppets than leaders.

Re:Snowden will never leave Russia by Frosty+Piss · 2015-10-12 16:16 · Score: 1

You totally missed the point. The actual and real fact is, he can never return here. It's simply a fact.

Not a good fact, but none the less the reality.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Interesting.... by erp_consultant · 2015-10-12 16:24 · Score: 2

I wonder how much this has to do with the frosty US/UK relations as of late? If you think about it this whole Get-Assange-At-Any-Costs thing is mostly for US benefit. The conventional wisdom is that if the UK gets him they immediately turn him over to the US authorities who want to lock him up and throw away the key.

Personally, I think that many countries - not just the UK - are a bit pissed at the US for the middle east retreat and the resulting onslaught of refugees. Maybe I'm connecting too many dots here but this might be just a Fuck-You-Obama-Go-Get-Him-Yourself kind of thing, *Shrug*

Either that or... by Xenna · 2015-10-12 17:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

"He believes that once he is in Sweden, he will be extradited again to the US where he could face espionage charges"

Hold on. That's what he says he believes. It's also quite possible that he believes he will be convicted for the sexual assault charges, but that he stands a better chance claiming that he's the victim of a conspiracy.

Everybody loves a free speech martyr. Sexual predators are usually not so popular.

Re:Either that or... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 18:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are no sexual assault charges. Assange is not formally charged with anything at all. He has repeatedly asked the Swedish authorities to come question him at the Equadorian embassy with regard to as-yet completely unjustified allegations from years ago. The Swedish authorities, against all reason and without explanation, have refused to come question him. Why do you think that might be? -PCP
Re:Either that or... by dbIII · 2015-10-12 20:07 · Score: 1

Everybody loves a free speech martyr. Sexual predators are usually not so popular.
Which was the plot for framing a political prisoner at the start of the British SF show "Blakes 7", something Assange probably watched when he was young since it was very popular in Australia.

Avon: I am not expendable, I'm not stupid and I'm not going.
Re:Either that or... by Xenna · 2015-10-12 20:38 · Score: 1

"The Swedish authorities, against all reason and without explanation, have refused to come question him. Why do you think that might be? -PCP"
That's just what governments do, really. Mine does many things that I find unreasonable.
I find it highly unlikely that the Swedes (unreasonable or not) would extradite him to the US. Much more likely that they would charge him with sexual assault. (they're -un-reasonably fanatical in that area)
Re:Either that or... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 22:38 · Score: 1

"I find it highly unlikely that the Swedes (unreasonable or not) would extradite him to the US"
They've done it before. Why do you think in this one singular case they wouldn't?
Re:Either that or... by Xenna · 2015-10-12 23:20 · Score: 2

This makes a pretty convincing case, IMHO:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/would-sweden-ever-extradite-assange-to-the-united-states/
Re:Either that or... by meta-monkey · 2015-10-13 01:14 · Score: 1

Because in the Swedish criminal justice system you cannot be charged in absentia. They need him in Sweden so they can charge and try him.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 17:11 · Score: 1

While awaiting the findings of the UK courts he was also subject to UK law. Come on, you remember, the laws he promised to obey as a condition of not being placed in detention as a flight risk? Yeah, those laws he broke in fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy that he thinks don't apply to him -- because he only has to obey the laws he wants to.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 17:44 · Score: 1

Compare the extradition treaties between the UK & the US & between Sweden & the US. The US/UK treaties make it much easier to extradite Assange from the UK but of course believing the creed of Assange makes everything else irrelevant.

The fact that he's spent way more time inside the embassy than he'd ever (under any sort of normal, not completely political farce, sentencing) be sentenced to for the alleged crimes in Sweden does seem to indicate that he does believe it. Don't know if this is correct, but read somewhere that Sweden apparently has a non-judicial system where the US could request to 'borrow' Assange for assistance into investigating other crimes, and that decision would be made by some civil servant, not a judge. Once on US soil...

No more tourist attraction by Phil+Karn · 2015-10-12 17:51 · Score: 1

My guess is that the Metropolitan Police is far from gone from the area; they simply got tired of being an overt tourist attraction. The Ecuadorian Embassy is right around the corner from Harrod's and also the hotel where we stayed as tourists last summer. I got the definite impression that the police on duty were photographed a lot...

No longer proportionate? by Opportunist · 2015-10-12 19:15 · Score: 1

So, in other words, you actually really honestly think it was at some point in the past? When would that have been?

Fuck, when some of your MPs date rape some sluts it ain't even worth the quid to prosecute them even if you don't have to do a 24/7 siege on their premises.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by dave420 · 2015-10-12 19:18 · Score: 1

Which, while true, has nothing to do with your original assertion...

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by dave420 · 2015-10-12 19:36 · Score: 2

You're clearly not bothered with listening to what anyone else has to say on this matter - you've already made your mind up it seems. AK Marc has spelled out why your nonsensical narrative is nonsensical, but you seem to be incapable of listening.

Re:Snowden will never leave Russia by stooo · 2015-10-12 19:40 · Score: 1

Never say never.

--
aaaaaaa

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by dbIII · 2015-10-12 19:52 · Score: 1

What makes me laugh out loud here is the post directly above yours renders it entirely worthless and makes it look like the bleatings of an apologist ignoring 99% of the issue. I suggest you try harder.

Re:He hasn't been charged by NoKaOi · 2015-10-12 19:57 · Score: 1

There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).

That's because the point was never to convict or even charge him with rape, it was to get him to somewhere where he could then be extradited to the US.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by serviscope_minor · 2015-10-12 20:32 · Score: 1

OK. Sweden has just handed us people without proper process before. Has the UK?

Can't prove a negative, but no, not that anyone knows of. The main involvement of the UK in that particular debacle was use of small airports.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by serviscope_minor · 2015-10-12 20:38 · Score: 1

First of all, the US/UK treaty allows for a LOT more ways that somebody can get extradited than the US/Sweden treaty, so the whole notion that he would fare worse in Sweden is a load of horse shit.

Where's the bit where the UK handed over people to the CIA to get tortured? Care to remind me which country was involved in that?

Second of all, no European state has any extradition treaties that permit the death penalty.

One more time: tell me which country it was which handed over people to the CIA to get tortured?

And this is the problem. Is Assange a skeezy scum bag? Yeah probably, if I had to bet I'd put money on it. Has Sweden completely lost the moral high ground on this one? Yep very much so.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-12 21:29 · Score: 1

... available to their justice system ...

It's fascinating how quickly whingers forget the facts.

He did make himself available to the Swedish justice system and they declined to charge him. They still haven't charged him despite a court hearing about his possibility of guilt in Britain.

... the terms under which he will make himself available ...

Then you should submit yourself to ISIS justice for violating their laws against having Jewish/Christian faith (I'm guessing).
Or you could submit to Saudi law for consuming alcohol (I'm guessing).
Or you could submit to Iranian law for dancing (I'm guessing).
Or you could submit to Italian law for working on a Sunday (I'm guessing).

Yes, Assange did break British law while he was in the country. Britain wanted to extradite him for an 'interview' in Sweden. I think that extradition would qualify as a 'first' on several points of procedure.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by RuffMasterD · 2015-10-12 22:15 · Score: 1

So, you mean they want to catch him in the UK and then extradite him directly to the US. Why else would they spend so much resources waiting for a guy with such a small case against him?

--
Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence

Re:He hasn't been charged by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-12 22:17 · Score: 1

The Swedish have interviewed nearly 50 people in the UK since they first said they wanted to talk to Assange again. They really need to explain why he is so special that they can't do the same for him.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 22:23 · Score: 1

Sorry, Iggymanz post is incomprehensible so I'm assuming you're laughing at the cognitive dissonance of his contradicting himself..

If I'm wrong and making up nonsense, how is it that the Sweden>US extradition treaty excludes the torts that the US would use to claim Assange? Ah, because Assange claims that there are secret charges brought against him & that these are the charges that will be used to extradite Sweden>US. Thus it once again becomes how easy it is according to each treaty for the US to claim Assange and clearly it is from the UK & not Sweden.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-12 22:49 · Score: 1

No, Had the US wanted Assange in a massive secret conspiracy as he pretends, it would have been enormously easier to ask for him from the UK (prior to his jumping bail & running to the Ecuadorian Embassy). Thus Assange's justification for avoiding extradition to Sweden isn't to avoid the evil US boogeyman as he falsely claims.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

3 year sentance by jellomizer · 2015-10-13 00:09 · Score: 2

I guess a three year sentence was what they wanted to give him. This guy is so paranoid that he imprisoned himself for years vs just trying to face the justice system, and perhaps getting out with a fine, or even declared innocent.
This guy had locked himself to prevent dealing with the legal systems of the UK, Sweden, and the United States. While they are not perfect and need reform, are still considered the world's fairest justice systems. Compared to the many other parts of the world where you would just had been shot or poisoned.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:3 year sentance by chilenexus · 2015-10-13 05:17 · Score: 2

Can you really call it paranoia when your opponent has a long and sordid history of doing exactly what you are afraid they are going to do, and have publicly stated they're out to get you?
Re:3 year sentance by Cederic · 2015-10-13 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

still considered the world's fairest justice systems
How anybody could describe the US justice system as justice, let alone fair, escapes me.
Re:3 year sentance by Pseudonymous+Powers · 2015-10-13 05:54 · Score: 1

This guy is so paranoid that he imprisoned himself for years vs just trying to face the justice system, and perhaps getting out with a fine, or even declared innocent. This guy had locked himself to prevent dealing with the legal systems of the UK, Sweden, and the United States. While they are not perfect and need reform, are still considered the world's fairest justice systems.
It's worth noting that the reason given by the representatives of these justice systems for attempting to arrest Assange is that he was wanted in Sweden for sexual assault. Assange, meanwhile, claimed that that the real reason they were trying to apprehend him was because he had embarrassed the U.S. government, and thus they had ordered their sycophants in the British government to extradite him to Sweden, so that the Swedes could pass him on to the United States, so that the U.S. government could make an example out of him.
If you're trying to decide who to believe, ask yourself: How many times have you heard about the police staking out a foreign nation's embassy 24-7-365/6 for three solid years in order to catch an alleged date rapist?
Re:3 year sentance by Triklyn · 2015-10-13 07:05 · Score: 1

about the same amount of times i've heard of an alleged date rapist seeking and being granted asylum in a nations' embassy.
this one is all around wierd, but we've also spent 8-10 million on manhunts in the US before.
because sometime it's not about the money, sometimes it's about the principle.
if the US and UK roles were reversed, i'd say let him stay there forever. And when he finally comes out, i'd arrest him, extradite him to sweden, and that would literally be that.
Re:3 year sentance by jellomizer · 2015-10-13 08:43 · Score: 1

There is the rest of the world to contend to.
You can still suck but if you suck less than the others you are still the best.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:3 year sentance by tehcyder · 2015-10-13 22:21 · Score: 1

Assange, meanwhile, claimed that that the real reason they were trying to apprehend him was because he had embarrassed the U.S. government, and thus they had ordered their sycophants in the British government to extradite him to Sweden, so that the Swedes could pass him on to the United States, so that the U.S. government could make an example out of him.
The only logical reason to extradite him to Sweden would be to answer the sexual assault allegations. Given the Iraq and Afghanistan episodes does anyone seriously think that Britain would be less likely than Sweden to co-operate with the US in kidnapping him and taking him to the US? So why not just do it straight from the UK?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Nidi62 · 2015-10-13 00:41 · Score: 1

Assuming they even bother with the formality of extradition.

Remember, Sweden (like other European countries) has a record of just handing over foreign suspects to the CIA for torture.

The police took them to Bromma airport in Stockholm, and then stood aside as masked alleged CIA operatives cut their clothes from their bodies, inserted drugged suppositories in their anuses, and dressed them in diapers and overalls, handcuffed and chained them and put them on an executive jet with American registration N379P.

I don't think any extradition lawyers were present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Because no one is going to notice when an attention whore like Assange goes missing....

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Re:Snowden will never leave Russia by Jason+Levine · 2015-10-13 00:48 · Score: 1

The only way it would be even remotely safe for Snowden to return would be if he received a presidential pardon for any "crimes" he committed while revealing the NSA spying activities. However, do President will do this for fear of being branded a "in league with a traitor." Even if a President were to pardon Snowden, you can bet he'd be under constant surveillance and the first time he stepped out of line (say, drove 5mph over the speed limit), he'd wind up getting the maximum penalty. This could be used to harass him and make his life miserable. He could also wind up the victim of a "horrible freak accident." He's angered a lot of people who have a lot of power and his actions have made it slightly harder for those people to get even more power. This isn't the kind of thing that just vanishes because one person says he's pardoned.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by serviscope_minor · 2015-10-13 00:56 · Score: 1

don't tell that to the atheists

10/10 for the excellent non sequitur.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:He hasn't been charged by MachineShedFred · 2015-10-13 03:13 · Score: 1

If it was about extradition to the US, why wouldn't they have done that when he was sitting in a UK court being granted bail?

I don't buy it.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

Re:He hasn't been charged by flopsquad · 2015-10-13 03:25 · Score: 1

Double jeopardy is about being tried and found innocent by the court, and then being tried again for the same crime. It says nothing about being arrested/charged, then released, then being re-arrested/re-charged, as the outcome of the charge was never decided by a court. A judge may optionally dismiss a case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be brought back before the courts unamended.

Correct, but nitpick: jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled, or in a bench trial when the first witness is sworn, not just upon acquittal.

That said, neither of the above have occurred in Sweden, and in any case the US is not trying to prosecute Assange for sexual misconduct. Even if it was, jeopardy only applies to a single sovereign (state acquittal, foreign conviction, etc. don't foreclose later federal charges brought on the same facts), so Sweden could convict Assange on these charges and the US could still bring identical charges (if a US law was somehow broken by an Australian national's sexual activities with a Swede in Sweden).

A prohibition on double jeopardy is also codified in international law (e.g. in ICCPR, Article 14(7)), but AFAIK only applies to readjudication in the same country. So basically, what has happened to Assange does not invoke, and is not analogous to, double jeopardy.

However, GP's underlying point (made by him and others across a number of posts) is that this situation is fishy, and smacks of US intervention. That appears to be at least as plausible as the alternative--that the investigation, dropping of the arrest warrant, explicitly allowing Assange to leave, and the ensuing "return for an interview" extradition debacle these past years has been 100% the good faith efforts of the Swedish judiciary.

--
Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.

The British Taxpayer by Meat+Boy · 2015-10-13 03:26 · Score: 1

"It is estimated the cost of deploying the officers outside the Embassy in London all day for the past three years has cost the British taxpayer more than $18m."

Boy, do I feel bad for that guy... They should let other people help pay the taxes, right? What an odd country.

Assange's story smells by david_thornley · 2015-10-13 04:15 · Score: 1

Is there any actual evidence that:

The US wants Assange in the first place?
The US wants Assange strongly enough to resort to extralegal methods?
The US couldn't charge him with some sort of espionage and attempt to extradite him from Britain?

So far, what I've been seeing is Assange moving to Sweden (where he's afraid of being snatched), getting into legal trouble, moving to Britain (which has a history of rolling over for US extradition requests), and then frantically resisting going back to Sweden, on the basis that the US might grab him.

He moved to Sweden. If he was afraid of the US getting him from Sweden in the first place, he would have been stupid to move there. If he was afraid of getting extradited, moving to Britain would have been stupid, and resisting going back to Sweden would be stupid, since from there he couldn't be legally extradited without both Swedish and British cooperation.

Therefore, either he's stupid, or for some hypothetical reason I can't see the US has recently decided to nab him, or he's making this up to avoid going to Sweden and facing a court. I'm betting on the last.

From the US point of view, the Assange case is very different from the Snowden case. Assange is not a US citizen, has not (to my knowledge) been in the US, and as far as I know simply published materials given to him, which isn't illegal. The counterpart to Snowden is Manning. The counterpart to Assange is the British journalists who published Snowden's revelations, and I haven't heard of them getting into trouble with the US.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Police resources by dhaen · 2015-10-13 04:58 · Score: 1

I'm sure the police are happier about this than anyone. It wasted resources that should have been used for fighting real crime rather than symbolism. The undercover operatives that will surely replace the police will hopefully be paid from a different budget.

Re: Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Uberbah · 2015-10-13 11:42 · Score: 1

Extradition in Sweden is decided independently by courts. The government cannot promise anything about the courts potential decisions. Ministerial intervention in individual cases is banned by the Swedish constitution.

You've been listening to Imperialist Apologists too much, as of course the government can refuse to extradite people. The courts can try and block the government from handing people over, say to regimes that are fond of execution and torture like the United States - but not the other way around.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Uberbah · 2015-10-13 12:12 · Score: 1

What an extra-ordinary person then Assange person is, above laws and able through divine right to dictate to nations the terms under blah blah blah blah

Assange was offered asylum for a reason, and that's the penchant for Sweden to hand people - innocent people - over to the United States to be tortured. That happened. Then there was the two years of torture - and yes, solitary confinement is torture - inflicted on Bradley Manning.

We must all abandon all notions of democracy and justice and bend the knee to his holiness...

All the pompous asshattery in the world doesn't deflect from the elephant in the room: the refusal of Swedish authorities to make this about rape, if it is in fact about rape.

Hell, take Assange and the CIA out of it and switch the subject to the police standoff of your choice. Suspect offers to give himself up if the cops promise not to shoot him in the back or beat him to death after he's handcuffed - things other cops have done to other suspects. What police lieutenant isn't going to roll his eyes and say:

"Fine. We wont beat or shoot you to death. Now go ahead and turn yourself in."

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by dbIII · 2015-10-13 13:54 · Score: 1

Sorry, Iggymanz post is incomprehensible

So, you expect us to take your very large number of ridiculous posts seriously despite your poor ability to comprehend English?
Tell us please, how can you write so much when you don't have a grip on the language?

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by dbIII · 2015-10-13 14:05 · Score: 1

Sorry, Iggymanz post is incomprehensible

I'm actually referring to the post by "quenda" which appears directly above yours as another reply to "iggmanz" - it's a post about the extralegal removal of a person from Sweden by a US agency which is the sort of thing Assage has said he's worried about since very early in this situation.
Are you going to address that issue or play the card of the idiot who cannot read but is by some magic capable of writing yet again?
It appears that when the going gets tough weaklings play dumb. Are you really that weak?

Hostage trade by ChrisMaple · 2015-10-13 15:59 · Score: 1

Why not swap Hillary Clinton for Assange? They've both given secrets to enemies.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by tehcyder · 2015-10-14 00:58 · Score: 1

It has been said many times already in this thread that the UK has already colluded in extraordinary renditions through its airports, so it would presumably have been easier for the US to do this to Assange while he was being held in custody in the UK, rather than go through the legal process of extraditing him to Sweden first.

Although, of course, this would be so far removed from a covert kidnapping that the CIA might as well take out an advert in all the national newspapers announcing their intention in advance if they were really going to nab him.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by dbIII · 2015-10-14 01:25 · Score: 1

It has been said many times already in this thread that the UK has already colluded in extraordinary renditions through its airports

Not so obviously and as undeniable as in the Swedish example quoted above.
Besides, I'm waiting for something from phayes who has written a very large number of posts on this yet suddenly become evasive then silent.

Re:Snowden will never leave Russia by metrix007 · 2015-10-14 18:13 · Score: 1

Fucking, Not fooking. Retard.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-15 07:26 · Score: 1

I don't obsess over Assange reading & rereading the comments like some here do so I saw the first 40 posts & direct replies to my posts.

Just how long ago, for what pretence and under which president did this extralegal rendition occur? Over 8 years ago, because they thought he was an active terrorist & that lives were at stake & when Bush was president. Only the hardcore nutcase Assange cheerleaders believe that Obama would tarnish his peace prize in extralegally rendering Assange from Sweden or on his way there when it would be so much easier to get him by asking for the UK to hand him over.

An Assange cheerleader calling someone else weak, how amusing...

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-15 07:37 · Score: 1

the penchant for Sweden to hand people - innocent people - over to the United States to be tortured.

How long ago, under which pretences & during who's presidency did that occur?
- Over 8 years ago,
- Because the administration believed that he was an active terrorist & that lives were at stake
- When Bush was president

How many people has Obama extralegally snatched from Sweden eh? Yeah, that's right, none. This is just another transparently false excuse from Assange attempting to hide the real reason he's hiding: He raped two women & doesn't want to be condemned for it.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-15 07:42 · Score: 1

I don't expect people who believe in the transparent lies Assange has been spreading to comprehend anything. You've obviously surrendered your ability to think coherently.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by Uberbah · 2015-10-15 13:10 · Score: 1

Under which president did the torture and persecution of Bradley Manning occur? Which president has used the Espionage Act to prosecute more whisteblowers than all other presidents combined, times too?

This is just another transparently false excuse from Assange attempting to hide the real reason he's hiding: He raped two women & doesn't want to be condemned for it.

Then. Call. His. Bluff. And. Promise. Not. To. Hand. Him. Over. To. The. United. States.

But that would require Swedish authorities, and people such as yourself, to stop being tools and fools for American hegemony for two seconds.

Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie by phayes · 2015-10-15 18:03 · Score: 1

ASSANGE__IS__NOT__ABOVE__THE__LAW__AND__DESERVES__NO__EXTRAORDINARY__TREATMENT!

Once again, the denial of the extraordinary treatment Assange believes he merits is no proof of anything other than that he is the only one who thinks that he deserves it.

But that would make his cheerleaders gnash their teeth and rend their hair & whine some more that their idol is above the laws that apply to everyone else.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Exactly. by Uberbah · 2015-10-17 05:53 · Score: 1

ASSANGE__IS__NOT__ABOVE__THE__LAW__AND__DESERVES__NO__EXTRAORDINARY__TREATMENT!

Then take the Extraordinary possibility of extradition to the United States off the table, and make it be about the goddamn rape, if it's actually about rape. Glad you stopped gargling James Clapper's balls long enough to see reason.

By the way, you guys wouldn't be so obviously full of shit if you weren't all a bunch of single-rape activists. Assange and Manning revealed Hillary's State Department covering up a contractor that bought boys to be raped for our Afghan "allies". Or that these same boy-fuckers are still allowed to rape kids on U.S. military bases.

But hey, it was never really about rape for you guys, was it?

Re:Exactly. by phayes · 2015-10-17 08:09 · Score: 1

When Assange surrenders to the UK authorities & then does his prison time for jumping bail & is then extradited to Sweden as anyone else would be, THEN it will be about the Swedish rape charges.
All the handwaving you've been spouting about how it's the evil US Bush government still in power & plotting to snatch Assange ass soon as he leaves the UK is bullshit as I've said all along.
As Assange has already raped in all probability two women I can see why pedophilia is a likely next step for him, one you seem eager to emulate given your fixations and how you worship him.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:Exactly. by Uberbah · 2015-10-20 20:26 · Score: 1

When Assange surrenders to the UK authorities & then does his prison time for jumping bail & is then extradited to Sweden as anyone else would be, THEN it will be about the Swedish rape charges.
You mean when Sweden makes it clear it's about fucking rape, and nothing but the rape, you 50 pounds-of-dumbfuck-in-a-five-pound-sack idiot. Every time you open your mouth, you add another 10 pounds to the sack. Since the previous 18 demonstrations of what a goosestepping fool you are have gone over your head, lets go for 19:
Like the boy who cried wolf, you lose the right to be butthurt when anyone questions your honesty and motives, after you've proven your motives and honesty should be questioned.
Sweden has turned people over to the CIA to be tortured, and the only person who has been sent to prison for the CIA's torture program is the man who revealed its existence. So not only is Assange's demand that he not be handed over to the CIA not unreasonable, he'd have to have a whole in his head not to demand such a condition.
This really isn't hard to understand, even for a goosestepping fool such as yourself. If the cops want to question you for alleged drug possession, it would seem crazy to insist that they don't sexually assault you with multiple colonoscopies, over the better part of the day, just to show that you aren't actually hiding drugs up your ass. Unless the warrant is from Hidalgo County, where the cops have been known to do just that.
Those cops have completely lost the right to act indignant and butthurt over being asked for such a guarantee, since they've done exactly what the suspect is accusing them of doing. And it would be the easiest thing in the world for an honest DA to say "fine, we wont shove a probe up your ass time and time again". But we aren't dealing with honest prosecutors.

As Assange has already raped in all probability two women I can see why pedophilia is a likely next step for him, one you seem eager to emulate given your fixations and how you worship him.
Then. They. Would. Make. It. About. Rape. If. It. Was. About. Rape. But thanks for making it clear you don't actually give a shit about rape, by not giving a shit about rape far worse, and far more widespread than anything Assange is accused of doing. You Nazi shit-for-brains pecker head, you.
Re:Exactly. by phayes · 2015-10-21 01:48 · Score: 1

Thanks for showing one again just what dimwits Assange's most vocal supporters are. A bunch of foul mouthed idiots that keep reciting the same obvious falsehoods, discounting everyone who dare disbelieve the infallible prophet's holy words. Pathetic. Not as pathetic as Assange, but still pathetic.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Slashdot Mirror

British Police Stop 24/7 Monitoring of Julian Assange At Ecuadorian Embassy (ibtimes.co.uk)

219 of 336 comments (clear)