Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Will Not Hand Himself In Because Chelsea Manning's Release Won't Happen Immediately, Lawyer Says (independent.co.uk)
President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's prison sentence yesterday, reducing her time required to serve behind bars from 35 years to just over seven years. Prior to the commutation, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Roughly 24 hours have passed since the news broke and it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice. The Independent reports: Mr Assange's lawyers initially seemed to suggest that promise would be carried through -- telling reporters that he stood by his earlier comments -- but it appears now that Mr Assange will stay inside the embassy. The commitment to accept extradition to the U.S. was based on Ms Manning being released immediately, Mr Assange's lawyer told The Hill. Ms Manning won't actually be released until May -- to allow for a standard 120-day transition period, which gives people time to prepare and find somewhere to live, an official told The New York Times for its original report about Ms Manning's clemency. "Mr. Assange welcomes the announcement that Ms. Manning's sentence will be reduced and she will be released in May, but this is well short of what he sought," Barry Pollack, Assange's U.S.-based attorney, told the site. "Mr. Assange had called for Chelsea Manning to receive clemency and be released immediately."
liar liar pants on fire
>"it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice"
And that surprises anyone? I see it now: "Oh, I said pardon, not reduced sentence." "Oh, I meant immediately." "Oh, I meant within 5 minutes of it being announced." "Oh, I only meant if the record was expunged completely too". Whatever.
Come on. Show of hands. Who thought Assange would really leave the embassy just for Chelsea Manning? He's holding out for that sweet Fox News money once Trump makes him an official member of the politburo. He's blond, so he might be Megyn Kelly's replacement.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He never intended to turn himself in. The game plan from day one was simply to attention whore a bit and get his name in the news, which is literally the *only* thing Assange cares about.
This is wrong. You are also an idiot.
Snowden was a sysadmin you tool he had legitimate access to all of the stuff he released because the NSA/CIA gave it to him.
Snowden swore an oath to uphold the constitution when he took his job at NSA/CIA, not an oath to protect the illegal activities of the agencies he worked for. When he saw what happened to people who tried to raise issues "through proper channels" he realized that he could either uphold his oath or continue working for those agencies. He chose to tell the world, but more importantly Americans, about how their constitutional rights were being pissed all over by a security apparatus who simply didn't give a shit about the little people or the constitution.
That make him a whistle blower.
IIRC Manning didn't have legitimate access to a lot of the stuff he passed on, he was accidentally given higher access than he warranted by mistake.
The biggest fear Assange has is that he leaves the embassy and the U.S. doesn't care.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
Actually, Snowden never turned *anything* over to WikiLeaks at any point in time. He turned those documents over to respected journalists, who he believed (rightly) would be careful to ensure that no potentially damaging information about the US would become public. There was a time when a whistleblower might reasonably turn information over to WikiLeaks, but by the time Snowden released his documents WikiLeaks had proven itself irresponsible and hell bent on causing harm to the US.
IF he had turned his documents over to WikiLeaks, THEN you could make the case that he was not a whistleblower but a traitor. But he did not. He turned them over to journalists, and exposed a hell of a lot of government corruption and civil rights violations in the process. Most people consider exposing corruption while taking great precautions to ensure no undue damage occurs to be whistleblowing, which is why people keep referring to Snowden as a whistleblower.
From my understanding, a president has two options: he can pardon someone, meaning the whole conviction is removed and things like e.g. voting rights are restored; or he can commute a sentence, which lowers the penalty but upholds the original conviction. So, after being released from her commuted sentence, Manning will still be a convicted felon and traitor, probably won't be eligible to vote or stand for election, will never get security clearance, etc etc. Also emotionally, a pardon would acknowledge that what she did was (somewhat) right, while a commutation means that she is still guilty and her acts were wrong, just not deserving of such a hash treatment. This also sends quite a different message to would-be whistleblowers.
So, the difference between pardon and commutation is not a technicality, it is very real.
Trump will force Assange to answer the accusations against him?
Trump: Did you in fact grab her by the pussy?
Assange: Well...
Of course he's a coward. What has happened to Manning for the last seven years has shown what happens to heroes even when they plead guilty. Thirty-five years even after admitting the crime? It was a record.
It's worth noting that Manning was locked up but those spooks who sold a little boy into sex slavery in Afganistan are still free.
This is what I said on Ars. It applies equally here.
1. It is premature to say that Assange is weaseled out until Manning is actually out of jail.
2. There is a difference between a pardon and commutation. Manning certainly will not be able to live the same life as though Mannig were pardoned. There are still restrictions placed on a person whose sentence was commuted. Whether those differences are significant enough is up to debate.
3. The biggest thing to strike me is that this suggests that there will be no last minute pardon of Hillary. The arguments that Obama gives for not pardoning Snowden apply equally to Hillary. We shall see.
Maybe he would return if our prison system focused on rehabilitation rather than abuse and over-revenge without any regard to the fact that released prisoners are angrier, less remorseful, and more evil?
Maybe he would return if the prosecutors saw the justice system as something other than a game they must win?
Why would anyone subject themselves or anyone else to our justice and prison system? Why would anyone subject anyone besides the worst violent criminals to it? It doesn't do anything but further scramble the criminal mind.
For all of this spectacle, all the attention paid to the actors and pawns in this charade--Assange, Manning, Snowden, Obama, the US government, Sweden, UK--what has ever come of the actual substance of these disclosures? Has no one bothered to ask who should be held accountable for the lives of those journalists shot down in Iraq? Has no one lifted a finger to ensure that the NSA does not continue to violate the US Constitution?
Why is this such a difficult issue for so many people to stay focused on? Why is it that, even now, people are still focused on the players and not the crimes? Assange is no less guilty than the US government for playing his part to deflect attention from the real issues in his desire to grandstand in the spotlight. That nothing has come of these revelations that Manning and Snowden brought to the attention of the American people and the entire world, is the greatest success that fascists could ever hope for, because it means that even when massive criminal wrongdoing is exposed, the people will not force change: there is zero accountability and the government can act with impunity.
Actually, he WAS owed for his contributions to the war then bypassed by nepotism then accused of stealing when he actually used his own personal funds. Benedict did had genuine grievances and reason to flee his sleazy enemies. It's not hard to research either.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
A 20th century equivalent was Vlasov, a Soviet general captured by the Nazis, and who then changed sides (so a reverse of the German general Paulus), not particularly effectively, a major reason being distrust of him by the Nazis, a distrust that was not entirely unjustified when "at the war's end he changed sides again and aided the Prague uprising".
... argued that Vlasov adopted a pro-Nazi German stance in prison out of opportunism, careerism, and survival, fearing Stalinist retribution for losing his last battle and his army.
In 2016 Russian historian Kirill Alexandrov in his habilitation thesis analyzed the careers of 180 Soviet generals and officers who joined the Vlasov army and concluded that most of them personally experienced atrocities committed by the NKVD during the Great Purge and previous purges in the Red Army, which made them disillusioned with the leadership of Stalin and motivated them to defect to the Nazis. Alexandrov's work was reported to the FSB by Russian nationalists as 'inciting hatred' but his university, regardless of the political pressure, voted in favor of its scientific value."
"Vlasov claimed that during his ten days in hiding he affirmed his anti-bolshevism, believing Joseph Stalin was the greatest enemy of the Russian people, and there is evidence that suggests Vlasov may have changed sides in a bid to give his countrymen a better life than the one they had under Stalin. His critics
You're threatening violence and have the gall of accusing the other side of damaging the civic character?
"Don't stand up for trans people or we will hurt them". If that happens, the fault is on those initiating the violence, bigoted scumbags like you.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth
Huh? Where?
I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity.
If Wikileaks is one man (of evidentally low integrity) then your system is already broken and you may as well start looking for a replacement now.