Slashdot Mirror


Justice Department Is Preparing To Prosecute WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange (wsj.com)

According to the Wall Street Journal, "the Justice Department is preparing to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source) and is increasingly optimistic it will be able to get him into a U.S. courtroom." From the report: Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012. The people familiar with the case wouldn't describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.

452 comments

  1. Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...leave the man alone.

    1. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has absolutely no jurisdiction over him. He's not an American citizen, nor has he ever lived in the United States.

    2. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Can't. He's a danger to the leading narrative

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      Assange has made his bed, now he can lie in it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 0

      I agree, but for a different reason to yours: He's a peacock, and needs the attention. This is giving him exactly what he wants, he'll be all over the news again for as long as he can make it last. Just leave him alone and the world can forget about him.

    5. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      It makes me sad to see there are more and more people like you who consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime.

    6. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's committing an act on French soil. What he did was
      basically (to quote Ronald Reagan) shout "to hell with Reagan" in
      front of the Kremlin which doesn't violate any U.S. law whatsoever.

      Reagan made that statement for the sole purpose to illustrate the
      limits of U.S. law. Assange did nothing on U.S. soil and violated no
      U.S. treaty provisions. Most of Reagan's speeches were jokes and
      you can probably find a copy of this one on U-Tube.

      We have to be careful how we twist things to meet our philosophical ends...

      CAP === 'insists'

    7. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assange quit exposing things for the sake of truth years ago. He used Wikileaks to pursue a personal agenda, and he made it very clear that he hoped to throw the US election.

      He was so eager to pillory his target that he sold himself out, not only to their domestic opponents, but to a not-exactly-friendly foreign nation as well.

      If there was ever anything to admire or respect about the man, there's precious little left of it now.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he sold out to Russia, he'd be protected there alongside . . . well, you know. That OTHER leaker. The Ecuadoran embassy could dump him in Moscow in a heartbeat and was their hands of the whole thing.

    9. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by William+Baric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth. Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime. I can understand you may be nationalistic (although your signature in French makes me doubt that), but then you should have the honesty to say your goal is only to increase the power of the US by all means necessary. Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.

      BTW, I'm not American. I live in Canada, and I certainly consider the US as a "not-exactly-friendly foreign nation".

    10. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good the we can treat his as an enemy combatant and have him tortured.

    11. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth and weaponized information that happens to be true are NOT the same thing. The illegal portion was the use of the information not the information itself, the illegal act was Assange conspiring to manipulate a US election and those will be the charges that get him in trouble if proven true to a jury.

    12. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Oh poor little corporate shill no none of that happened but if make you sleep better at night knowing that exposing what your government does, i.e., journalism, some how threw an election, feel free to continue in your delusion.

    13. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.

      You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

      The only thing relevant is that you want to crucify him only for exposing the truth.

      No, the other poster clearly indicated he wants to crucify Assange for using Wikileaks for personal gain and/or vendettas.

      Again, it makes me sad that people like you consider exposing the truth is an atrocious crime.

      The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.

      This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.

      Do not try pretend to have the moral high-ground, because you really don't, at least not in my eyes.

      That's ok. Sometimes people just want to enjoy a little schaedenfreude.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    14. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is he didn't really expose the truth, he exposed half a truth and mislead many people. We all know that he allowed Wikileaks to be used a vehicle for propaganda and helped the Russian intelligence agencies interfere in the U.S. election. He did so because he wanted to pursue a personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton. The amusing part is that he hated Clinton because she wanted to do what the Trump administration is trying to do to him now.

      This looks like a case of being hoisted by your own petard, and I have little sympathy for someone who deliberately helped Trump get elected when they are facing the consequences of Trump having been elected.

      He tried to manipulate an election by exposing evidence that indicated that Hillary Clinton was manipulating an election?

      THE CAD!! TO THE GALLOWS WITH HIM!!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    15. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a government agent or a fool?

      Are you sure?

    16. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will the CIA admit they paid the Swedish girls for the fake rape charges against him?

    17. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by McPierce · · Score: 1

      Except his activities involved illegally (by US law) accessing computers (on US soil) to retrieve information without permission. That puts his crimes under US jurisdiction.

      --
      Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
    18. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And at the same time he didn't expose any evidence of something that people kept asking on the other side? That's what they call incomplete information leak.

    19. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Ecuadorians have been complaining he hasn't been making his bed?

    20. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Two thoughts.

      Let no good dead go unpunished.

      Secondly, know your man by the quality of the enemies.

      He may (or may not) be an arse, narcissistic, rapist, etc. However, a lot of people were made very uncomfortable. Far too few of them faced the music. The only ones that I can recall being punished at all were those exposing the truth.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    21. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      Just as soon as they've admitted their roles in'

      The sinking of the USS Maine

      The assassination of McKinley

      The establishment of the Federal Reserve

      Their collusion with Nazi and feudal/fascist interests including La Cosa Nostra and the Yakuza... before, during and after the war

      Launching a coup against a democratically-elected government in Iran and putting a fucking monarchist on the throne

      Turning a blind eye when the IDF attackd a US Navy sigint vessel to hide the fact that they were about to invade Syria under false pretenses

      Planting people within the grassroots movement known as "the Sexual Revolution" (which threatened to lower the barriers between the sexes) so as to turn it into an astroturf movement called "FemLib" !which rather than liberating females, simply drove a wedge between the sexes - "divide and conquer")

      Planting people like Farrakhan within the grassroots movement known as "Civil Rights" - which threatened to bring blacks and whites together - to turn it into an astroturf movement called "Affirmative Action" (which has driven an incredibly effective wedge between the races)

      C. O. I. N. T. E. L. P. R. O.

      King, X and Kennedies

      The Gulf of Tonkin Incident... and the list goes on

      The amazing ways that steel and concrete - with the assistance of jetfuel - are able to defy the laws of physics

      *Yeah, I realize that they weren't even known as the OSS if you go far enough back... but they were controlled by the same families, as they are today

    22. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      and the list goes on

      Typo; should've been appended to the paragraph after it

    23. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The Ecuadoran embassy could dump him in Moscow in a heartbeat and was their hands of the whole thing.

      Yeah, maybe they could bypass MI5 by "beaming" him straight to Moscow using Chinese quantum radar...

    24. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Why? He's a rapist.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    25. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except he never set foot on US soil. That's the little tidbit you conveniently left out. If you send an email to someone in Japan saying "Fuck the king of Thailand" and that message is routed through Thailand to reach its destination, does that mean you should be extradited and executed for your "crime" (on Thai soil)?

      The US is disgusting, bigoted, hypocritical, uncultured and cowardly. Glad I left that cesspool behind years ago.

    26. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by McPierce · · Score: 1

      You're comparing apples and oranges.

      For most countries, if the crime is illegal in BOTH the country where you reside AND the country affected (like in this case with Assange) then most countries are extradition agreements to allow you to be punished for that crime.

      So it doesn't matter that Assange never came to the US to illegally access any computer system. The two counties have treaties that allow for extraditing someone being indicted between countries.

      --
      Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
    27. Re: Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he didn't have any?

    28. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason why he wanted to expose the truth is completely irrelevant.

      False. Intent matters. Assange's intent on getting his ego stroked, and this has rather obviously coloured his actions.

      I also do not at all appreciate your blatant attempts at projection, miscategorisation, and to put words in my mouth. I never said anything remotely like I wanted to "crucify" Assange. So stop claiming that I did, or KGFY.

      You also continue to ignore—even though I've made myself pretty clear on this point—that I don't object to uncovering facts. What I object to is Assange's highly selective use of selected information as a weapon to further a very self-interested agenda, one that takes no consideration of its effects on the well-being of countless ordinary Americans (and others) who've done no-one any harm, least of all Assange.

      And just so you know, I'm a US-Swedish dual national and, yes, I do consider myself a loyal citizen of both of my countries, and, no, I see nothing wrong with that.

      When you're ready to respond to things I've actually said, get back to me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    29. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, Slashdot seems to have mangled what I'm sure began as a thoughtful and articulate response...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    30. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      [...crickets...]

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    31. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False. Intent matters.

      False. Intent does not matter when absolute truths are involved.

      Such as publishing absolute, verifiable truth. It does not matter if Hitler himself, standing in the middle of a concentration camp were to announce that 2+2=4. It does not matter if the equation were to be used as some sort of justification of genocide. 2 and 2 still come to be 4.

      The messenger or the circumstance or the intent in no way affect the validity of the message itself.

      Cries of "intent" in respect to absolute truths are an exclusive domain those who wish to HIDE those truths for the simple reason that publishing truth impedes their malignancy. That means you.

      They wish to crucify messengers to prevent propagation of inconvenient truths. Just as you want to do. You want for truth to be regimented and controlled, rationed for the benefit of those who control access to it and you want all "unauthorized" dissemination of truth to be punished. Your, and your masters' lies on the other hand, naturally, are not to have any such restrictions.

      Also, Intent is unprovable. It would require you to have direct access to someone's thoughts.

      Yes, I know that various autocrats and totalitarians insist that it is possible for a "thought police" to function (usually by means of extrapolation, circumstantial associations and just plain guesswork) but it does not change the simple truth that until you come up with a continuous brain scan, thought reading technology you are out of luck there.

    32. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I don't know who you think you're talking to, but it doesn't seem to be me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    33. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know who you think you're talking to, but it doesn't seem to be me.

      I am talking to a guy who seems to think that truth should be rationed and suppressed because its release might stroke someone's ego or because truth has

      effects on the well-being of countless ordinary Americans (and others)

      and that is because truth is a bully of poor, poor innocents

      who've done no-one any harm

      .. other than, of course, just allowing their tax money to be used to finance all the fuckery Assange has been exposing, using their votes to propagate a terminally corrupt oligarchy masquerading as "democracy", etc., to mention just a few of the top - but hey, The Good Germans were not really complicit either, yes? Wink Wink? Nudge Nudge?

      Newsflash: if you are an American and are not for releasing the unvarnished truth, irrespective of source or quantity, or are not standing with Wikileaks and Assange, you are complicit in all the shit the US does and are an enemy of freedom, decency and integrity. Simple as that.

    34. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I did admire Assange and Wikileaks at the outset. I like ballsy people and stuff, and whistle blowers, particularly.

      The concept of an anonymous repository for documents representing a modern Guernica, I thought, was a much needed service.

      I think Manning, Snowden and even Winner moved in that direction.

      Your points correctly expose the problems caused by ego on the part of Assange and the need for funding on the part of Wikileaks.

      My admiration turned to disgust and disrespect when the vanity kicked in.

      I hope Assange gets screwed real good, and it's not because I object in any way to his reveals of sensitive material.

      No, I just don't like the sorry asshole.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    35. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument boils down to "Two wrongs make a right."

    36. Re:Fer Chrissakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf? The wrongs discussed here are suppressing the truth and attempts at punishing those who disseminate inconvenient truths in order to protect dogmas and lies.

      Its rather difficult to make those wrongs add up to a "right".

  2. Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.

  3. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Being both an asshole and paranoid didn't mean he was wrong.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  4. Assange's fears were correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    His fears were correct that the US justice department are getting ready to indict him, and somehow bring him back to the US?

    1. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by saloomy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right? I mean.... it's a crime in many countries to depict the Prophet Mohammed, and some of those countries are international treaty signatories, but that doesn't mean they get to extradite Charlie Hebdo artists.

      Was he in the US during any of his espionage activities?

    2. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More correctly they don't have the power to extradite. Bin Laden wasn't in the US either, but the US had the means to get him regardless and the strength to deal with the fallout.

    3. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by Koby77 · · Score: 1

      It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right?

      Probably not. If you were to hack into a bank and transfer the money into your own offshore account, then I'm certain that the country with the bank would have both some law saying that they can extradite you, as well as some treaty with a bunch of other countries that give permission for the extradition. Not that I believe it's okay to charge anyone outside of your country with anything, I'm just saying with certainty that such laws exist.

    4. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      X = Mohammed
      C===3 = a dick
      X3 = Mohammed taking it balls deep up the ass.

      #NeverFortgetX3

         

    5. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean.... it's a crime in many countries to depict the Prophet Mohammed, and some of those countries are international treaty signatories, but that doesn't mean they get to extradite Charlie Hebdo artists.

      They didn't need to.

    6. Re:Assange's fears were correct? by Megol · · Score: 1

      You messiah can see far into the future? While impressive how come he didn't see the problem before going to Sweden in the first place?

    7. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by Paxtez · · Score: 1

      Normally. But not always. If you do X drug in Country-Y where it is legal, country-Z generally can't do anything about it. But when it comes to crimes over the computer generally there will be a law saying that something to effect of: "If do something over the phone/internet to something/someone in our jurisdiction, we're going to count that it occurred here also"

      Extradition is a whole other thing, it's half "are you guys going to pay to come over here any pick this dude up?" and half "We're going to / not going to hold / help / allow you to pick this guy up." Generally they have to help you because you aren't going to have 'powers' outside of your jurisdiction and you (normally) can't go breaking into places and kidnapping people outside of where you have powers.

    8. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by the_xaqster · · Score: 1

      It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right?

      Probably not. If you were to hack into a bank and transfer the money into your own offshore account, then I'm certain that the country with the bank would have both some law saying that they can extradite you, as well as some treaty with a bunch of other countries that give permission for the extradition. Not that I believe it's okay to charge anyone outside of your country with anything, I'm just saying with certainty that such laws exist.

      Depending on the crime and where you live, actually it is. https://publications.parliamen...

      --
      I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
    9. Re:Assange's fears were correct? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I would say that if the DoJ is considering starting the process of putting together charges, then he wasn't correct, no. If the DoJ is considering charges now, then, at the time Assange said "Ooo I'm going to hide in an embassy and it's not because I've done anything that violates Swedish law it's because of the Americans honest" then we can be sure of two things:

      1. There were no US charges against Assange at the time.
      2. Because of (1) there was no chance of Assange being extradited to the US at the time.

      Everyone here posting "This means Assange was right!" has got this completely backwards. The announcement today means that Assange was completely 100% wrong. (And, to be honest, I suspect he know the excuses were false at the time anyway.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right?"

      Where does the Internet happen?

    11. Re:Assange's fears were correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what cognitive bias looks like, folks. If you find yourself saying something to the effect of 'this evidence that clearly contradicts my argument only makes my argument more correct,' stop. And while you're doing some introspection, pour one out for those who can't.

    12. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      some of those countries are international treaty signatories, but that doesn't mean they get to extradite Charlie Hebdo artists.

      No, they just brought the Muslim extremists to the artists! If you can't deport, you must import!

    13. Re: Assange's fears were correct? by psiclops · · Score: 1

      wouldn't CX be Mhammed taking it balls deep up the ass.
      X3 appears to be Mohammed regurgitating cock.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    14. Re:Assange's fears were correct? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The announcement today means that Assange was completely 100% wrong.

      Forget this week - the 2001 case of Sweden handing people over to the CIA to be tortured makes all of Assange's fears entirely reasonable. Anyone who claims otherwise is either woefully ignorant of relevant events or is purposely turning their brain off, and accept more BS from the same sort of people that lied you into Iraq. That one example of shenanigans is more than enough, but there are plenty more where that came from. And each one doubles the willful ignorance involved, like that old story about a kid getting a grain of rice from a greedy king, except each day that grain of rice would double:

      • There's the fact that Assange was questioned and cleared to leave Sweden by investigators, only for another, more politically motivated prosecutor to step in. And get an INTERPOL warrant. For a couple of women who asked for an STD test.

        There's the fact that Sweden has refused for years to either interview Assange remotely, or to send investigators to interview him in London - as they've done dozens of other times since Assange took refuge in the embassy.

        There's the fact that Sweden has refused Assange's offer to return to Sweden if they promise not to hand him over to the United States. A promise that would be easy to make, given America's fondness for torture. Speaking off...

        There's the fact that Obama had Chelsea Manning tortured with a year and a half of solitary confinement.

        There's the fact that the UK has spent millions of pounds to watch one person for...jumping bail. And pressured Sweden to keep up the investigation instead of dropping it.

        Then there's the fact that Sweden went to great lengths to nab a founder of the Pirate Bay from a non-extradition country - and as soon as he was on Swedish soil, interrogated him at length without a lawyer for an alleged crime in another country. Which meant it was their plan to do so all along. And as soon as his Swedish sentence was up, deported him to said other country (Denmark).

      And that's off the top of my head, there's probably some more I'm forgetting. But you're already at an entire kingdom's worth of willful dumbfuckery, based facts that have been readily available for years.

  5. Ecaudor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or hwo ver u spel it, nedz 2 xpunj asange 2da

  6. Matt Whittaker by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just remember, the head of the Justice Department is Trump's new appointee Matthew Whittaker, who was a patent troll whose company was shut down for fraud and whose claim to fame was a toilet designed for guys with really big dicks and a time-traveling bitcoin-based commodity..

    I did not make that up.

    https://boingboing.net/2018/11...

    https://theslot.jezebel.com/th...

    So if you have a problem with Julian Assange being prosecuted, take it up with Hair Furor.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      It seems PopeCrapso has forgotten that Assange is the evil man who, before the Russians-stole-the-election meme was the one accused of leaking information inn hillary and causing her loss to Trump.

      But yknow - whatever gets your Orange Man Bad oats going today.

    2. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I missed your apologizes on yesterday's thread about the ocean warming study retraction story...

    3. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really didn't just cite boingboing & jezebel like there some sort of definitive news source did you ?

      Sweet baby Jesus ./ has really fallen into the gutters.

    4. Re:Matt Whittaker by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney, served on the firm’s advisory board "

      Really doesn't sound like "His Company"

      It was enough Whittaker's company that he made promotional videos for them and wrote threatening letters to customers who complained about the fraud. He was apparently very involved with the company.

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/d...

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Matt Whittaker by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Well the WSJ articles are behind paywalls, so it's hard to comment on them

      But the WaPo had this on him "Whitaker was not named in the FTC complaint.( against world patent marketing)"

    6. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just remember, the head of the Justice Department is Trump's new appointee Matthew Whittaker, who was a patent troll whose company was shut down for fraud...

      Somehow we have defined down what we demand of the leader of the free world.

      The guy just made up an illegal alien invasion and used the troops as a prop to help win an election. Then to follow it up he appoints someone clearly incompetent to lead the Justice department. Jeff Sessions may have been the next thing to evil, particularly with kids in cages and such, but at least he was apparently competent.

      What happens if all our key agencies are led by toadying morons and we face a real threat? Seriously he has flat out said he will use the powers he has and the powers the republican senators have to directly attack his political enemies, not because there is a legitimate thing to investigate, but as flat out political attacks.

      What the hell does it take to get republicans to wake up and say, "Um, we may have a problem?" Do we wait till the gross incompetence costs a few thousand lives? There are countless ways they can manage it. Hell the shear destruction of the EPA alone will likely cause that over time.

    7. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wrong in your post is in every sentence so no point in refuting any of it. It would take way too long.

      I will just say this: your post is what happens when someone lives in a bubble where Vox, NPR and CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WAPO are you only sources of information.

      This is why you have not and never will convince anyone of anything.

    8. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...What the hell does it take to get republicans to wake up and say, "Um, we may have a problem?" Do we wait till the gross incompetence costs a few thousand lives?

      <cough>A few thousand lives? Like all the deaths from gun violence?</cough>

      I'm not holding my breath.

    9. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange is not even allowed to go into his own closet. He has to tell the Ecuadorians exactly what he wants and he probably doesnâ(TM)t even k ow whatâ(TM)s in there. He asked repeatedly for more freedom in the grounds and he was told no in no uncertain terms

    10. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, while you're linking to things, can you please link to the article retracting the ocean warming falsehoods yesterday, which you embarrassingly defended with blinders on?

      You are a complete fucking moron.

    11. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always count on puppet pope to parrot the current propaganda points of the globalist vermin. He was right there to spread the disinfo on Kavanaugh when he was commanded to and now he's begging for table scraps from his masters by doing his best to attack a person who threatens to indict his treasonous scumbag string-pullers. Like a plantation slave who protects his white master from harm, pope has been broken, all dignity and honor squeezed from him.

      Hey pope, the elites you whore yourself out for not only don't care about you, they view you as less than something they'd scrape off the bottom of their shoe in disgust. They tolerate your worm-like behavior as a useful idiot, but if they get control, will simply dispose of you as your sycophantic services would no longer required.

    12. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you've clearly bought into the delusions of Alex Jones, Breitbart and Russia Today.

      This is why you have not and never will convince anyone of anything.

    13. Re:Matt Whittaker by bmimatt · · Score: 1

      Hey, he provided legit links sto back up his story, why the downmods, peeps?

    14. Re:Matt Whittaker by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What they will be trying to prosecute, is that it is illegal for a foreign citizen in a foreign nation to report the criminal espionage activity of the United States government in those and other nations, interesting idea. So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact. So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.

      Perhaps some of you can grasp why this would be an extremely hard sell, for anything but an entirely corrupt third world nation, a puppet state of the US deep state. He was reporting on US criminal activities outside of the US, as a foreign citizen, in a foreign land. Now the US wants to make it illegal and global law, that the US is able to break any countries laws for any reason and that no citizen of any country, NO CITIZEN, is allowed to report those crimes and should they do so, be subject to prosecution and obviously illegal detention and probably torture. Go fuck yourself USA. So will the UK buckle, probably not, not matter how much the US extorts them with the bullshit white helmets and the theft of 200 million US dollars, even after the poms were forced to buy more crappy F35 Flying Pigs as a result.

      It would also be extremely poorly received in Australia and possibly result in a boycott of US goods, expect Breaker Morant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... messaging. Want to extradite Assange, do it from Australia, else face a major backlash and many Australians doing much worse than Julian Assange.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, the masculine toilet is not a bad idea. Nothing grodier than your dick hitting the bowl when you sit down. I always put toilet paper all over that part, but it's still gross. And now that women also have dicks, there could be twice the market for these!

    16. Re: Matt Whittaker by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      "Hair Furor"?! You're someone I'm likely to disagree with, yet... GODDAMMIT. You're entertaining. Thanks for the post, turdle wrinkle.

    17. Re: Matt Whittaker by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think PR isn't as malevolent as once assumed. If I frame him as a South Park caricature, he's rather benign.

    18. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but your analogy is maliciously flawed. The argument is that if you launder the stolen wallet of the guy the CIA agent murdered, and then deny that you saw anything, you're an accessory after the fact. It's not clear that Assange conspired to commit a crime, but it's clear that he colluded in the commission of the crime. It wasn't illegal for him to post the material; that's a clear free speech argument that's been won at the Supreme Court. However, conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime in every country.

    19. Re: Matt Whittaker by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      "Hair Furor"?! You're someone I'm likely to disagree with, yet... GODDAMMIT. You're entertaining. Thanks for the post, turdle wrinkle.

      It's nice to be appreciated. Most of my jokes are just casting pearl necklaces before swine, but it's gratifying when somebody gets one.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Matt Whittaker by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      PR offers facts, and you offer nothing but feels. Otherwise we'd see you refuting him rather than asking for cheese to go with your whine.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re: Matt Whittaker by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Please explain why Trump keeps axing his most competent aides, then...?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    22. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you become compassionate and courageous too, but must also add, more knowledgeable of rhetoric and written deception.

    23. Re:Matt Whittaker by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Again, no refutation, just more attempts to distract.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    24. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When, not if, that happens we will do what we always do. Elect Democrats to fix it with laws that are enforced, and get a payment plan in place, then whine about needing to pay for that and electing Republicans who promise free ponies once the big bad regulations on job creating international billion dollar companies are removed.

      Dems fix problems and get the economy turned i the right direction then Republicans drive off cliffs and cheer about how much faster we are going now, never admitting it is in a downward and ballistic trajectory.

    25. Re: Matt Whittaker by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The wrong in your post is in every sentence so no point in refuting any of it. It would take way too long.

      Excuses, excuses. Ante up or GTFO.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    26. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Assange committed NO CRIME. He is NOT under the jurisdiction of the US. It doesn't fucking matter what he did to piss off the US government.

    27. Re:Matt Whittaker by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      The projection is strong in this one.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    28. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for you and hope you can find compassion and courage within yourself someday.

      You're projecting.

    29. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be honest; this is all that the regressive left has to cling on to.
      Shitty clickbait sites that use phrases like;

      https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-story-of-acting-attorney-general-matthew-whitaker-a-1830444955

      in a move that may or may not violate the constitution

      As soon as their Russian hallucinations are FINALLY over, and they all decide to collectively swallow pills, suck-start shotguns, or carve their wrists open in the bathtub, the better off society will be.

    30. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=illegal+immigrant+caravan+arrives+at+border

    31. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It will be interesting to watch this precedent applied to the US in another decade though.

    32. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the end of the day the good ol' US of A wants to take a skin and hang it on the wall for all to see. None of this is about justice, it's about showing the next guy "Don't do that, here's why". In other words: It's a bullyboy tactic that's divorced from any notion of justice.

      The biggest threat of terror is the terror created by your own government. The bombs are chump change.

    33. Re:Matt Whittaker by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Puerto Rico, more thousands.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm beginning to think PR isn't as malevolent as once assumed. If I frame him as a South Park caricature, he's rather benign.

      Oh hey, there's an autistic guy in my office who still likes South Park too!

    35. Re:Matt Whittaker by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact.

      Under the witnessing laws passed in the 2001 Australian Anti-Terrorism Act you would be subject to a mandatory prison sentence of 5 years. Proof of your innocence would be taken from you at the same time burden of proof placed upon you.

      So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.

      Yep

      Now the US wants to make it illegal and global law, that the US is able to break any countries laws for any reason and that no citizen of any country, NO CITIZEN, is allowed to report those crimes and should they do so, be subject to prosecution and obviously illegal detention and probably torture.

      Yep

      Go fuck yourself USA.

      Yep

      Want to extradite Assange, do it from Australia, else face a major backlash and many Australians doing much worse than Julian Assange.

      Yep

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    36. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lawyer that's a douche-bag? STOP THE PRESSES! We got a hot scoop here!

    37. Re:Matt Whittaker by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      What they will be trying to prosecute, is that it is illegal for a foreign citizen in a foreign nation to report the criminal espionage activity of the United States government in those and other nations, interesting idea. So here I am in Australia, if I see an CIA agent murder an Australian in Australia, the US government wants to be able to prosecute me for the crime of espionage if I publicly report their crime, keeping in mind it is a crime to fail to report a crime, accessory after the fact. So the US government is attempting to demand that citizens all over the world, betray their own countries laws, to keep secret the criminal activities of the US government, in those countries.

      No, that's not it at all. Imagine that you are driving a car and reading and writing SMS messages ("text messages" for us US and Canada people) because you aren't paying attention you kill a pedestrian. And now you're crying about looking at 10+ years in jail because "the government doesn't want me to use my phone in the car". No, you're in trouble for killing someone through carelessness.

      The problem is not that it's a "crime to report a crime" as you basically claim. The problem is that the documents Wikileaks obtained were classified and they didn't have the US legal right to access them at all, let alone make them available to the world. Also, in the interesting catch 22 situation you came up with, I would hope that the Oz government would recognize your dilemma and not extradite you for obeying their law, but whether they would or not in your scenario is your problem with your government. Stating that the US government is angry about foreign nationals reporting illegal activities is a glib distraction from the real issue, which was illegally accessing classified documents and making them available to the world. The fact that Wikileaks was given the documents doesn't mean that they didn't break the law by having them in the first place when they weren't supposed to. Note that Wikileaks's one attempt to not face legal problems was to contact the US government and say "Hey. Some idiot gave us these classified docs." They didn't. They published them instead.

    38. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's more like American authorities arresting an Australian for driving on the left side of the road while in Australia?

      Or Australian authorities arresting an American in America for owning a gun that is illegal to own in Australia?

      Or Chinese authorities arresting an American journalist in America for reporting about Tiananmen Square on Fox news?

    39. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US, for some absurd reason, seems to execute in country law, externally.

      As an American, I find it abhorrent. Treaties do exist yes, however.... There are avenues of international agreement for this.

      If Assange is really an International criminal, as the US is essentially arguing by the 'merits' around his future extradition, Interpol should be engaged, and he should likely be tried at the Hague. Not for war crimes mind you, but in international court.

      He won't get a fair trial in the US. Ever.

    40. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter, the US government would Photoshop a nude body under your head and charge you with indecent exposure, send a black opps team to apprehend you and then strangle you 'accidentally' while your apple watch records the whole thing. (where do you think the Saudi's got there playbook?)

    41. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, the SCOTUS has already decided that Daniel Ellsberg committed NO CRIME even though he is a US citizen under the jurisdiction of the US because the US Constitution guarantees a free press. It doesn't fucking matter what he did to piss off the US government.

    42. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US cannot ask the court in the Hague to try Assange for one simple reason: the US does not recognize that court. For only one reason, so that the war crimes committed by the likes of Kissinger, Nixon, the Bushes, Dick, etc. are not prosecuted there.

    43. Re: Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop jerking off in front of your monitor, pearl necklace.

    44. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few lightning rods on this site that get down modded no matter what they post.

    45. Re:Matt Whittaker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the documents Wikileaks obtained were classified and they didn't have the US legal right to access them at all, let alone make them available to the world.

      The documents Wikileaks obtained are illegal to read inside the US, but it is completely legal to obtain, read and disseminate them elsewhere in the world. And since Wikileaks obtained and disseminated them outside of the US, they are and have always been in the clear, legally.

      The problem with the persecution of Wikileaks and Assange is that the US is trying to enforce US laws where they don't apply.

  7. Prosecute him for? by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What? Telling the Truth? Out loud? Without a Permit? I love how the people he EXPOSED are still FREE AS BIRDS, but this guy just HAS To be "Prosecuted"

    1. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled persecuted.

    2. Re:Prosecute him for? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      "Prostituted." Other countries are being turned into the prostitutes of the US, told to harass Assange while the US comes up with a plan.

    3. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flagged as hate speech. Fucking grammar Nazi's are worse than the real thing.

    4. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      52 dimensional pickup or some shit.

      Assange, pre-Trump: YAAAAAAAAAAY FUCK YEAH SMASH DA SISTIM

      Assange, leaking like Hillary's Depends about Hillary: ZOMG STAR WARS TRAYTOR

      Assange, post-Trump Justice Department: ORANJ MAN BAD WE TRUST ASSANGE

      It's rehab, because you dumb fucks don't quite understand how many bananas Obama tried to introduce to the Republic.

    5. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRUTH ISN'T TRUTH YOU fool!

    6. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda hard to get your golden showers when the woman is wearing Depends, ain't it? No wonder he despises her. Wow, Donald really does love everything about gold, doesn't he?

      Fucking uncouth pig. What kind of pussy-whipped election loser has to be told by his wife which staff members he should fire?

      Funny to see him so fucking embarrassed . You'd think that would teach that orange little bitch a lesson about taking the US Presidency seriously. You fuck with the citizens of the US, and we'll definitely fuck you up. Unfortunately, Trump is too stupid to learn that lesson. He keeps trying to plow forward.

      Sad.

    7. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how the people he EXPOSED are still FREE AS BIRDS, but this guy just HAS To be "Prosecuted"

      You won't BELIEVE who's being PROSECUTED -- discovered by a MOM!

    8. Re:Prosecute him for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "From a single crime, know the nation." -Virgil

  8. Jurisdiction? by rally2xs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.

    1. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same way a thug on the street has the "right" to take your wallet. Try and stop him.

    2. Re:Jurisdiction? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      They prosecute him in the USA and send extradition orders to whatever country he resides.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I originally supported Assange and would be right with you on this.

      It was when he started working with foreign against a single political party that he might have run afoul of some laws that might still apply even there.

      When you are an impartial actor leaking secrets because they deserve to be known, especially crimes like he originally did, you get those kinds of protections. It is when you start leaking for a single side with the express purpose of helping another that things get dicey.

      When you leak crimes to get the truth out for all, you get protected, when you leak for only a single side to help another, you might lose it.

      For Assange right now, when it comes to his old leaks from years ago, I would like to see him pardoned for them, when it comes to his new stuff. While I support them being leaked and it is BS on the part of the Democrats for screwing their voters in the primaries, that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't doing it to get the truth out and get things fixed, he was doing it to hurt one party for the benefit of a foreign enemy to help someone they support to get power. And he SHOULD face consequences for that.

    4. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.

      Obviously the answer is an executive order. Where have you been?

    5. Re:Jurisdiction? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      They don't have a clear way to do it. If they did, they would have already done it, instead of doing nothing but making noise for the past two years.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Jurisdiction? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you support leaking when it hurts the other party but not your own party, you are the problem. Fix your own party so you don't have to worry about leaking (and personally I'd be happy if both parties collapse. They don't represent the majority of the people, anyway).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Jurisdiction? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't be a spy unless you're an insider. You can't be a traitor unless you owe allegiance to a government. He was in neither situation with respect to the Untied States of Dumberica.

    8. Re:Jurisdiction? by Bradac_55 · · Score: 1

      Non-USA citizens are only protected by a partial 5th amendment and the measures given by the executive branch that changes every 4 or 8 years.

      It's amazing how little people know/understand US law around here.

    9. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embarassing Authority is absolutely NOT protected by our first amendment.

      Of course, making silly youtube videos that make fun of them or insult them...that doesn't embarrass them. They are mature enough to take it, and clear-headed enough to understand it is just noise.

      Releasing documents that prove that they committed crimes, or lied to us, or took unconscionable military action against civilians....THAT embarrasses them. No one who does something like that will ever get away with it.

    10. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You didn't hear me, I didn't say anything you are eluding to.

      I said when he leaks as an impartial actor, as in he leaks regardless of which side for the betterment of them all, which he originally did years ago.

      The newest batch was not the case, he was not an impartial actor, he was leaking targeted information about a single side as evidence suggests, in exchange for being snuck out of there.

      If he leaked the information about the Democrats as an impartial actor, he would have had full support, but he didn't. He leaked it with the intent to hurt them and help Trump at the behest of a foreign adversary. Motive matters.

      FYI, I am not a Democrat. I would gladly celebrate both parties collapsing and the system being rebuilt to allow for viable 3rd and 4th parties. It needs to happen to fix much of this.

    11. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument fails. He's not an American and why shouldn't be be able to express an opinion? Even an American should be able to express an opinion. He is publishing the information, not the one in a position to leak the information. He never made an agreement with anyone not to disclose information. That would be the person within the organization for which information was exposed. If the information was hacked the same thing would generally apply except that in this case a different set of laws apply. That is those against breaking into things and not agreements between parties. Breaking an agreement should not constitute the same level of crime either as one where something is broken into provided said systems were reasonably secured.

    12. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is zero evidence that a "foreign adversary" leaked Hillary's emails to Assange (or any other data). Assange himself denies it. Those emails were "hacked" as a result of Podesta falling for an email phishing scam and giving his password away to a bogus email. Easily detectable/traceable methods are not the hallmark of a foreign intelligence service with unlimited resources.

    13. Re: Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes you did. You said that you want Assange tried for harming your party. We all can see it in the chat log.

    14. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It was when he started working with foreign against a single political party that he might have run afoul of some laws that might still apply even there.

      If Julian Assange worked for Mi6 would you be saying the same thing? What if the leaks applied to China? Do you think the UK would hand over one of its agents to China for espionage? No? Yea, this is all utter bullshit where the only reason this is even pursued is that Wikileaks isn't a country and the UK and many other western countries are subservient to the whim of the US.

      Seriously, either get your head out of your ass.

    15. Re: Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Wrong. Top to bottom wrong. In your world there have be two sides and someone has to leak both equally to get protection? Ridiculous!

      There are so many ways this is just plain stu-ud. For example, what if there are more than 2 sides? What if there was only one side? What if there were two sides but only one was committing crimes? Should he make up stuff about the second side or not do anything because he has nothing on them? The real world permissions that conflict with your stupidity and countless.

      Leakers about bad people should be protected. Period. The moment you start writing exceptions all leakers are fucked. No one will be covered.

      Are you some sort of government agent or Hillary shill? Your post reads like some kind of psyops propaganda.

    16. Re:Jurisdiction? by Pseudonym · · Score: 0

      If Wikileaks had been presented with leaks from different political establishments and chose to publish one and not the other, THAT would suggest a lack of impartiality.

      That didn't happen as far as we know.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    17. Re: Jurisdiction? by wolf12886 · · Score: 2

      Fucking this. The hypocrisy from the anti-Assange crowd is unbearable.

    18. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yes, these leaks are good, Truth, Justice, and all that. Leave the man alone."

      ...
      "What? These leaks expose wrongdoing by the party I support?! ARREST HIM!"

    19. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.

      It is illegal for foreign nationals to give aid to american political campaigns. There is no 1st amendment protection for that, even if done within the borders of the USA.

    20. Re:Jurisdiction? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      They don't represent the majority of the people, anyway

      I'm sorry, what? Over 96% of the people that vote voted for them. Sounds like a pretty big majority to me...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:Jurisdiction? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      People don't always vote for the party that represents them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Jurisdiction? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      That's not the party's fault.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Trump is so very good at biting the hand that feeds. Ooh, the irony...

    24. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can leak whatever the fuck he wants. He is NOT subject to US laws, and the US has NO jurisdiction over him you fucking moron!

    25. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I saw it's illegal for you to post on Slashdot. You are not under my jurisdiction, so it doesn't fucking matter what I say regarding that.
      You are fucking retarded if you think the US has ANY legal authority of Assange.

    26. Re: Jurisdiction? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      He didn't say it was his party. And you should exercise more care when copying/pasting. "Chat log" LOL.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    27. Re:Jurisdiction? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1
      OT extradite him his crime has to be pretty much illegal in the country where he is resident. Leaking US classified information isn't illegal anywhere but the US - then you are reliant on other nations wanting to co-operate with the US, Which they might have wanted to do a few years ago, but whatever motivation they had to do so has now gone.

      Trump reportedly screamed at May over the phone the other day and his public spat with Macron and Macron's response show quite clearly that not even the US's closest allies care about staying on good terms with his administration.

    28. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every second you stay is proof of your hypocrisy.

      And yours is that you've never ever done anything to defend the democracy that sheltered you whilst attacking those who did.

    29. Re: Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are not US citizens are not subject to US law at all if they are not in the US. What US law says is utterly irrelevant in this case.

    30. Re:Jurisdiction? by Wizardess · · Score: 1

      The only thing, in a just world, for which Assange can be prosecuted for in and by the US is a copyright violation. Nothing else, such as the espionage act, matters. He is not a US citizen. So far as I am aware he is not and was not in the US when he received or released the data. But, he did pirate copyrighted data. And international copyright conventions makes him liable for prosecution.

      {^_^}

    31. Re:Jurisdiction? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.

      1) The first amendment covers you if you're given secret documents and republish them, it doesn't cover you if you solicit those documents and aid in their extraction. Assange did both of those things. This came up a while back when a journalist (I think Maddow) asked viewers to send her Trumps tax returns (not the partial return she published). The fact she solicited the documents meant she could have been charged if someone sent her the tax returns and she published them, while another journalist would have been in the clear.

      2) If you fire a missile at Ecuador from the US then Ecuador will certainly try to extradite you, similarly if you hack into their military database and steal a bunch of their classified intel. Just because you're not in a country doesn't mean you can't commit a crime against that country and have them try to charge and extradite you.

      Heck, if you insult the King of Thailand online they could presumably charge you and try to extradite, of course no other country is going to honour that extradition request. And it's not certain that Sweden or London would honour the US's extradition request if Assange ended up in one of those nations.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    32. Re: Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US laws do not apply to non-US people outside of the US, idiot.

    33. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Fix your party so leaks when they happen do no damage, because there's nothing in them that can hurt your party (ie: your party is all above board).

      THAT is the fucking problem.

    34. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is correct, no country will oblaige an extradition request for something that is not illegal in said country, unless they are patently corrupt or cucks. That is why I can burn a Quran and not be on a plane off to Pakistan to get a public lynching or a Jirga gang-rape.

    35. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easily detectable/traceable methods are not the hallmark of a foreign intelligence service with unlimited resources.

      Like the Russian spies that kept the receipt for their taxi journey from GRU HQ in their car? Nobody has unlimited resources, and everyone is fallible. In any case, it's become obvious that the Russians modus operandi isn't to go undetected, but to get the job done as simply as possible and then deny, deny, deny. There's enough useful idiots out there that will believe them, just like you.

    36. Re: Jurisdiction? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Countries have the right to defend themselves against attacks from other countries, idiot.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    37. Re:Jurisdiction? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      How do we get the right to prosecute a foreign national doing things in a foreign country that are protected by our own first amendment? Really don't understand this.

      Having a military force that's 5x larger than the next-nearest country probably helps.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    38. Re: Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange is not a country, idiot. He's someone with a pen. Who just exposed some war crimes that your bunch of mass-murdering assholes committed, and you're now pissed off.

      The country that attacks is the US. The US was never attacked, only retaliated against by the unlucky people the US wanted to rob.

      Points in case: Iran and the lovely CIA coup d'etat there. Iraq. Vietnam. Panama. And so on.

      You're a bunch of immoral, lying thieves and bullies, who "defend" your "right" to steal from others.

      That's all you are, idiot.

    39. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, is that why the pro-Israel lobby is so shtrong in the US that US pays 15 billion in taxes to Israel every year?

    40. Re: Jurisdiction? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You forgot: What if only one side is stupid enough to hire John Podesta or people like him that will fall for phishing scams?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    41. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he leaked the information about the Democrats as an impartial actor, he would have had full support, but he didn't.

      I don't know, man. Put yourself in his position. America is about to elect a piece of shit who is going to make both their country and the rest of the world a worse place, but you just don't know which one.

      Someone gives you somewhat juicy stuff on Democrats, and Democrats aren't tweeting their stupid thoughts and criminal outlook, so it's still a secret. So you release, embarrassing them.

      Meanwhile, you've got even juicier and more-embarrassing dirt on the Republicans, but it's not a secret because the Republicans are self-leaking through Twitter and television. All the dirty little secrets that Democrats have, Republicans openly show everyone, except with cherries on top. There's no subterfuge. Republicans straight-up tell you "I'm a fuckwit and I deal in bad faith, and I'll abuse any opportunity that you give me. Let's use government force and spend lots of taxpayer money to make everything suck more."

      So WTF would you do? Republish the Republicans' tweets so that people will say you're "fair and balanced?" Remind everyone of what the Republican candidate said on live TV in front of everyone? Nobody would give a fuck. People can just get it from the primary source; they don't need you.

      Wikileaks is based on the idea that the adversaries of humanity that they expose, try to hide. That's what exposing is. But when they don't hide, you don't need Wikileaks, because there's nothing unexposed to be exposed. That Wikileaks has been ignoring Republicans doesn't make me think they're partisan, because their mission isn't to show you what's in plain sight. Their mission is to leak and expose. Democrats are sneaky little bastards. Republicans are open, flaming douchebags.

      If the "Collateral Murder" video had originally been on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, do you think Wikileaks would have bothered to publish it too?

    42. Re:Jurisdiction? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      In fact Sweden wouldn't even be able to consider extradite him to the US since the UK extradited him (before he ran to the Ecuadorian embassy) with conditions that he would only stand trail for the rape case or be returned to the UK.

    43. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be a spy unless you're an insider. You can't be a traitor unless you owe allegiance to a nation. He was in neither situation with respect to the Untied States of Dumberica.

      FTFY.

    44. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. They hold the power to pass laws, which is the only way to change the voting method from first past the post to one that exposes the preferences of the voters better.

      The current parties benefit from the current system which is stuck in a local "optimum" where people have two choices, bad or worse.

    45. Re:Jurisdiction? by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      Nope, you're just passing blame. The voters have all the power they need to elect the people they want, but 96% of them like things just they way they are.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    46. Re:Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators still on the attack, eh? Guess they just don't like the message. Won't look themselves in the mirror and see the cause of all their problems. So very sad. You carry the rest of us over the cliff with you.

  9. The perfect jukebox for government lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikileaks has become one of the most emotionally resonant websites today. It is also shaping our narratives along the way.

  10. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I suspect he was very wrong. If he had dealt with that quickly it could have been handled before the US had a chance to develop a strategy and press any charges then he could have actually escaped to a nice safe harbour.

  11. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not paranoia when they're actually out to get you.

  12. But we were told that he won't be prosecuted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 years ago, we were told that Assange won't be prosecuted.

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/11/26/1431205/washington-post-assange-unlikely-to-be-prosecuted-in-us

    I just wish that the government would make up its mind...

    1. Re:But we were told that he won't be prosecuted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wish that the government would make up its mind...

      Did you not get the memo? Twitler is to Obama what antimatter is to matter.

      If Obama did it, Twitler has, or will undo it.

      If Obama didn't do it, Twitler will.

      Someone out there wants Assange badly enough to have given our Orangutang in Chief a lot of money to "get 'er done." And it's pretty clear that Hair Furor, as someone else called him, was on the verge of bankruptcy and will take money from pretty much anyone in exchange for doing their bidding.

      Connect the dots.

    2. Re:But we were told that he won't be prosecuted... by Koby77 · · Score: 2

      Naturally, it was a ruse back then to get Assange to drop his guard. My main hope at this point is that formal charges will get the ball rolling on actual due process. Fortunately, the Deep State usually hates laying its cards on the table, so I'm optimistic that if some authority is required by a court to lay facts and evidence down for all to see, then they'll scurry away and drop the charges.

  13. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, sorry, Julian actually knows the timeline of events in his life, and you don't. There was no point when he could have handled it in Sweden without risking extradition, in fact earlier it was even MORE likely.
    If you knew anything about his story you would have probably gleaned that much, so I suspect your assumptions come from the same place Trump pulls his rope from. Leave it in your ass, moron, you don't know shit.

  14. When is Hillary Going to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get the Same treatment?????

  15. Time to dig out the really interesting stuff by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    Here's hoping Assange ( or another of our favorite whistle blowers currently residing in Russia ) held back some seriously juicy documents for the world to ponder over in the event something like this ever becomes a reality.

    That's a really nice $illegal_as_hell_with_a_silly_operation_name Surveillance System you have there . . . . would be a shame if something happened to it. . . . . .

    1. Re:Time to dig out the really interesting stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm...I think Americans have resoundingly demonstrated that they don't give a shit what their government gets up to as long as they can keep up with the Kardashians.

  16. In court? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mr. Assange's platform has shrunk dramatically during his internment. If we had the audacity to put him on trial he'd become more powerful than he has ever been.

    That would not be permitted. There would be a Jack Ruby. I'd wager a pint on it.

    1. Re:In court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One pint it is!

    2. Re:In court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we had the audacity to put him on trial he'd become more powerful than he has ever been.

      Does this mean he has to lie to Trump's son about who his father really is?

  17. He's not a US citizen... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He's not a US citizen, he owes no fucking allegiance to the US. He has no duty to protect US secrets or to the US government. Screw the US for presuming that they can bully the world for publishing information they don't like.

    1. Re:He's not a US citizen... by speederaser · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's not a US citizen, he owes no fucking allegiance to the US. He has no duty to protect US secrets or to the US government.

      52 U.S. Code  30121 is a Federal law that makes it a felony for any foreign national to attempt to influence a U.S. election, and a felony for any U.S. citizen to help them do it.

      The DOJ appears to be trying to get Assange for conspiracy with Russians or Americans to influence the 2016 U.S. election. There is public information that Roger Stone, a long-time Trump associate, was in contact with Assange during the campaign, discussing how to handle the stolen DNC emails. Maybe that plays out, maybe it doesn't. In any case we'll know more when Mueller wraps things up.

    2. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US can and will extradite foreigners it does not like, and punish them.

      You think this is unfair? TOO BAD. You are just a little pipsqueak compared to the US.

      The big gorilla does what the big gorilla wants.

    3. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why he will be convicted in abstention. An international warrant will be issued by the US which will severely hamper any future travel should he ever try to leave.

      HRC? Still alive despite the emails discussing top secret information. As elections get closer I'm sure the DNC would LOVE for Assange to be buried alive.

      As for his political ambitions, the guy had little choice. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

    4. Re:He's not a US citizen... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The only thing that might apply there is the section on electioneering communications, but the law defines such a communication so narrowly that it probably doesn't.

    5. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could only use such a law against someone currently on your soil. Otherwise, they're out of your jurisdiction and the law doesn't apply to them. To say otherwise means opening yourself up to all laws from all other countries.

      Of course, the US has been run by evil, hypocritical liars and brigands for longer than we've been alive, so they don't really give a shit about any laws, morals, or ethics. "He done made them look bad, so they gots to gets revenge" is what it boils down to.

    6. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And like all federal laws, it applies to anyone within US jurisdiction. That's what "jurisdiction" fucking means. Assange isn't, and wasn't when he did - whatever it's alleged he did.

      At a time when Trump is apparently arguing that foreign nationals in the US aren't "subject to its jurisdiction", it seems even more than ordinarily hypocritical for his own justice department to be simultaneously arguing that foreign nationals outside it are.

    7. Re: He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen because a lot of Muslim countries have laws that make it illegal for any citizen anywhere to go against Sharia law. Are you seriously saying you and 96% of the USA should have Saudi Arabia try to extradite you for a trial?

      The USA nor any country should be "the world court" or you head down the worlds most slippery and dangerous slope that basically makes every single person in the world guilty of something somewhere.

    8. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess they should then target journalists everywhere, but that code doesn't seem to apply to journalists or non-US citizens living outside of the US, and it deals with economic contributions. Of course Assange could have been selling or donating a legislation manipulation service with the Russians on the side to the Republicans, but that would mean the Republicans would be in trouble now, not Assange unless he did so within the US, or intentionally solicited the service to the US residents involved in an election campaign via the magical power of the Internet.

    9. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The yanks don't get that Assange is acting as all good Australian people would - without fear of C***s doing C**t things ;)

    10. Re: He's not a US citizen... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's not how extradition works. The country from which the subject is extradited must agree that the subject's actions constituted a crime. I'm pretty sure that interfering in elections is also a crime in the UK.

      Additional restrictions may apply. For example, many countries that have abolished capital punishment will not extradite to a country that has the death penalty unless that country promises not to execute the subject.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, most Australians are decent and honest and hardworking people.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re: He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't in the US. US law is irrelevant.

    13. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you understand the simple concept that US laws do not apply outside US territory?

    14. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the Trump administration really so arrogant that they are not worrying about self-incrimination here, or are they resigned to going down and decided to take Assange down with them?

    15. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      a Federal law that makes it a felony for any foreign national to attempt to influence a U.S. election, and a felony for any U.S. citizen to help them do it

      So when are they going to indict and extradite these Australians for helping Bernie Sanders?

      When are they going to indict and extradite Christopher Steele, the "ex" MI6 agent that supposedly contacted Russians to compile his "salacious and unverified" Trump dossier? When are they going to prosecute those involved from the DNC, the Clinton campaign, the Department of Justice, and the FBI?

      It's funny, we're going on two years of this "Trump-Russia collusion" business, but the bulk of the evidence points to a criminal conspiracy to help the Democrats.

    16. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Clinton paying Chris Steele for Russian information on Trump?
      Like Betos paying to help the "caravan" get to the border to make immigration a bigger issue in the election?

      Or is this just a rule only applied to people you don't like? I believe there is a term for applying laws to people for political purposes and not applying the same law to others for political purposes.

    17. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asking questions about or even using Julian as a witness to the alleged crime(s) is very much different from prosecuting Julian (an Australian citizen) for a crime against the United States done in a foreign country that exposes the United States themselves committing crimes. Mendax committed many crimes but Julian did not commit espionage. He simply printed what he was given just as any reporter in the US would do.

    18. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You realise that anyone saying this is immediately identifiable as someone who's not an actual US citizen who's actually lived overseas, don't you?

      To start, I suggest you have a chat with the IRS, because they have a rather different take on things than you do.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, and legalese, it should be applied to pretty much the majority of the RNC.

    20. Re:He's not a US citizen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >when Mueller wraps things up
      Any day now...

    21. Re:He's not a US citizen... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      He's not a US citizen, he owes no fucking allegiance to the US. He has no duty to protect US secrets or to the US government.

      52 U.S. Code  30121 is a Federal law that makes it a felony for any foreign national to attempt to influence a U.S. election, and a felony for any U.S. citizen to help them do it.

      The DOJ appears to be trying to get Assange for conspiracy with Russians or Americans to influence the 2016 U.S. election. There is public information that Roger Stone, a long-time Trump associate, was in contact with Assange during the campaign, discussing how to handle the stolen DNC emails. Maybe that plays out, maybe it doesn't. In any case we'll know more when Mueller wraps things up.

      Uh oh, left wing dilemma here then ... did Assange "collude"??

      Prepare for heads to explode like a 60s sci fi robot caught in a contradiction!

    22. Re: He's not a US citizen... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Another reality is that Assange and Wikileaks did not harm just the US.

      In the back channels, the Allies are asking each other, "Who wants to step up and get this creep and set an example for all of us that espionage ain't cool?"

      The US is very willing to take Assange on.

      Look at it:

      Sweden don't like him. Australia don't like him. UK don't like him. Ecuador don't like him. Europe don't like him.

      Hell, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC would likely fund BOTH sides of the plaintiff/defense circus to get the advertising dollars.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  18. Treason / Sedition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the only charge.

    Expect more reporters to be charged with this.

    This is how democracy dies, not with a bang, but with thunderous applause.

    Now stand for our national anthem,

    USA, USA Uber Alles, Uber alles in der welt...

    1. Re:Treason / Sedition by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Impossible -- he's not an American citizen (or even a legal resident) and thus doesn't owe allegiance or fealty to the US.

  19. "Insurance" files by poity · · Score: 1

    Wonder if they're legit. That's his last resort.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  20. Assange is Australian by DMJC · · Score: 5, Informative

    And Fuck the Australian government for not protecting one of our own. Vote Independant next Federal election and turf these assholes out. Labor is making deals with China's Belt and Road and the Liberals are just scum. None of them deserve government.

    1. Re:Assange is Australian by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Better China than the US. China treats its own citizens like crap, but doesn't push countries outside their immediate vicinity around militarily. The US has been a worldwide bully since the end of WW2.

    2. Re:Assange is Australian by s4080326 · · Score: 1

      Better China than the US. China treats its own citizens like crap, but doesn't push countries outside their immediate vicinity around militarily. The US has been a worldwide bully since the end of WW2.

      That's a good point except the fact that Australia is in China's vicinity.

    3. Re:Assange is Australian by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      China hasn't been known to fuck with countries without a land border with them ... the US, on the other hand...

    4. Re:Assange is Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convenient escape clause there "outside of their immediate vicinity", their vicinity matters jack shit, it doesn't become any less wrong the closer to China that you get.

    5. Re:Assange is Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Taiwanese.

      Heck, the Chinese are very much fucking with the entire Pacific region right now, encouraged by Trump's evident lack of interest.

    6. Re:Assange is Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China hasn't been known to fuck with countries without a land border with them

      What was that saying again? Never get involved in ...

    7. Re:Assange is Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do. Don't be so naive. They don't do it with aircraft carriers (yet - oh wait South China Sea....), they do it with money and debt.

    8. Re: Assange is Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Australian government must protect the majority of its citizens, not jeopardize Australia's prosperity to protect just one who decided to challenge the most powerful country in the world. Australia has important ties with the US, economical and political, and they cannot be put in danger for one man.

    9. Re:Assange is Australian by thegarbz · · Score: 1, Informative

      And Fuck the Australian government for not protecting one of our own.

      From what? The only thing he's been accused of is rape charges. Charges that a British court (a country which operates under a very similar legal system to Australia) has determined as legitimate charges.

      Australia does not run out and protect people's criminal activities in other countries. Their bounds extend exclusively to ensuring the subjects aren't treated in a way that would be illegal to do in their home country. e.g. Assange goes to prison, tough shit, keep your dick in your pants. Assange gets the death penalty, wowowowowoow. Hold up! You can't do that because he didn't keep his dick in his pants, he should ONLY go to prison.

      Vote Independant next Federal election and turf these assholes out.

      To be clear: Fuck Off, I'm not changing any vote because you think some government should step in due to some alegedly criminal behaviour for which the government's citizen has actively refused to participate in what would very likely be a fair and normal trial.

      That's not how diplomacy works. That's not how the legal system works. That's not how ANY of this works, and any politician you vote that thinks otherwise should spend a bit of time behind bars for not following Australia's own legal practices.

    10. Re:Assange is Australian by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      China only pushing around it's immediate neighbors isn't because it doesn't want to, but because it doesn't have the force projection to do so just yet, with yet being the operative word.

      Not only have they already started setting up bases outside of the asian subcontinent, they're also investing heavily into aircraft carriers. Other than the originally Ukranian built sister ship to Russia's only carrier they've refitted and gotten into service, they've got a domestically built version of the same design undergoing sea trials and a third domestic design with CATOBAR launching under construction. Some reports say that they've also got two nuclear-powered ones under construction, but I'm not fully convinced of those reports' accuracy.

      The point is that China doesn't go around acting like world police because it doesn't want to, but because it can't do it just yet. Give it a decade and you can be sure that they will absolutely be competing with the U.S in doing what the U.S has been doing since WW2.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    11. Re:Assange is Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and the Liberals are just scum

      ???

    12. Re:Assange is Australian by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It's making good with the 2020 Clinton administration via providing an a peace "offering" in the form of Assange's head. That's right, this will NOT be a speedy trial; specifically because Democrats know Trump would pardon him prior to that time.

      And no, I won't tell you were I parked my time machine!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:Assange is Australian by Major+Blud · · Score: 1
      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  21. Assange's defense ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... will be that he's a publisher and protected by freedom of the press.

    When his name first surfaced in association with Wikileaks, he made it clear that he was simply the "spokesman," and did not "hack," or supervise the release of material, and had no way to know what the internal workings were.

    He was simply the front man.

    That's how he circumvented culpability for a hell of a lot of years.

    Wikileaks itself elevated interest in Assange when the organization turned political in a move to increase donations which had fallen off due to lack of interest by supporters.

    Wikileak's decline also affected Assange's visibility and he resented the lack of attention.

    Assange started to take some credit for the material Wikileaks was releasing.

    That was incriminating and blew his credibility as a distant spokesperson.

    For that reason, he asserted that he was a journalist and that Wikileaks was a publishing house.

    I'm leaving out the the narrative regarding his relationship with two women because those details are irrelevant.

    With the loss of Ecuador's support, Assange is in deep shit.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Assange's defense ... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "he's a publisher and protected by freedom of the press."

      And this is the stated reason why the Obama Administration was not pursuing Assange when everyone was spinning crazy conspiracy theories about extradition via Sweden. Seems rather quaint these days, when the White House Press Secretary will outright post doctored videos of a journalist to implicate them in a physical assault.

    2. Re:Assange's defense ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      No.

      Assange stated that he was protected by freedom of the press.

      No one in any administration, be it Sweden, UK, or the United States has given any stated reason by way of freedom of the press for not pursuing Assange.

      Your obscure correlation is irrelevant and off topic.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Assange's defense ... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "No one in any administration, be it Sweden, UK, or the United States has given any stated reason by way of freedom of the press for not pursuing Assange.

      Glenn Greenwald on November 16, 2018 wrote "As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom"
      https://theintercept.com/2018/...
      where he cites this Washington Post article by Sari Horowitz from November 25, 2013 "Julian Assange unlikely to face U.S. charges over publishing classified documents" https://www.washingtonpost.com... which includes this quote from teh then DoJ spokesperson:
      “The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”

      So we have had a stated reason for nearly five years.

    4. Re:Assange's defense ... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the WaPo journalist was Sari Horwitz, not Horowitz

    5. Re:Assange's defense ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. There's a gap in your story of ten years. You left out the evolution of Assange as spokesperson to publisher.

      I follow this story in detail and have covered it ever since it surfaced because it's so interesting.

      Go back and look at the details. Obama (I'll concede, but I didn't actual read your reference because of its position on the timeline) was addressing the issue as if Assange was a publisher/journalist precisely because Assange rebranded himself.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  22. so many things wrong here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Look, I am not a fan of Assange. I believe in trying Snowden for treason and that manning should still be in jail.
    BUT, Assange is not an American citizen. He is Australian. The fact that he received stolen data is no excuse for us to prosecute him.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:so many things wrong here by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe that sunlight disinfects. The fewer secrets countries and corporations are able to keep, the better off the world is. Snowden, Assange, and Manning are all heroes.

      The villains in the US are the officials that squandered $6 trillion (6 trillion dollars!) on military homicide sprees since 9/11. Money that could have been used better within the US. Want to put America first -- do it, don't give it lip service while dumping money into futile wars abroad.

    2. Re:so many things wrong here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree, and happy to see you wrote that!

    3. Re:so many things wrong here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say all countries in the world can't hide secrets from the USA. Is this good or bad?

    4. Re: so many things wrong here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad.

    5. Re:so many things wrong here by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowden and Manning did their civic duty. If the government is so corrupt, civic duty is heroic then government needs to be overhauled.

      Nonetheless, they did a significant national service.

      Assange has tried to play puppet master, controlling what information is given, selecting what you can and cannot know. I see no difference between him and the Pentagon, selective manipulation for personal gain.

      If they should be prosecuted, so should he.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    6. Re:so many things wrong here by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      All three did a service to the world at large, and that matters more than country. All three deserve to be free as birds, flipping the bird to government(s) worldwide.

    7. Re:so many things wrong here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowden and that manning faggot are traitors.

    8. Re: so many things wrong here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Manning out and out, committed treason and belongs in a life at levenworth. Snowden is interesting in that he originally spoke about nsa employees that went to far, and nsa systems that did not block such heinous actions. For that, he deserves a medal. The problem is, that he went on speaking about items that nsa was not just legal on, but set up to do. NSA job is to spy on foreign soils against would be enemies. To be fair, nsa went too far on that ( spying on British and German leaders? WTF were the thinking ). BUT, that did not give Snowden any rights to speak out about legal items. As such, he deserves 2 between the eyes.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re: so many things wrong here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sunlight in the right places does good. Neither Manning nor most of snowdens statements were legal or smart. As to America's war, we are right now chasing AQ and isis around the globe. Other than Ws invasion of Iraq, we have done what UN and/or NATO pushed us to do. Hell, Os invasion of Libya was because Europe, specifically France, Italy, and Germany invoking NATO. But what is interesting, is that today us the calmest that the world has been for several centuries, and only a fraction of ppl die due to war.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re: so many things wrong here by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      $6 trillion to avenge 3000 American lives lost on 9/11 was not worth it at $2 billion per life. Far better to spend the money domestically helping improve and save other Americans' lives.

    11. Re: so many things wrong here by jd · · Score: 1

      Legally, Manning did not commit treason, nor was he ever accused of it. He'd have won the case if he had, because American military law protects him on many different points.

      Snowden spoke of nothing he was not entitled to speak about, under American whistleblower laws.

      The thing about honour is that some of us are concerned about the act rather than the spelling. It would be good if those who felt concerned understood what the it was.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re: so many things wrong here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, Manning was originally charged with treason as well aiding/abetting. They either dropped the charges or came to agreement to not pursue. However, you are far more correct about treason/Manning than I am ( thanx for info ). In particular, purposeful intention to harm America is required. They were not able to apply treason charges on the Goldbergs. So yeah, interesting.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re: so many things wrong here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Told you last time fool that it wan't treason. Showing Windy reality one step at a time.

  23. These people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are such utter fucking morons. They really should count themselves enormously lucky. Instead, they want to bring it back up again.

  24. Re:Treason / Sedition SPY SHOOT HIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shoot him in the back of the head, Trump/Putin style.

  25. So were most people in Guantanamo Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so the US pretended that they could prosecute all of them in an somewhat American-ish place

  26. Tis the season for frying by jennatalia · · Score: 0

    Frying turkeys. Frying twinkies. Frying Assange. Can't spell Assange with out ASS.

  27. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Funny

    Leave it in your ass, moron, you don't know shit.

    How's he supposed to learn about shit if he leaves it in his ass?? Sometimes you've just got to get your hands dirty.

  28. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this particular conspiracy theory was right all along. It's theses execptions(?) that give the alt.right, UFOlogists, climate/moon/evolution/holocaust "skeptics", etc, the ammunition for their more outlandish claims.

  29. Its all been nothing more than ... by 3seas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .. a long string of Bluffs. There are no charges. The UK police had him and could have extradited him, they did not. Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer. The rape allegations turned out to be nothing. The UK police going into the Embassy was not to take him out but to verify he was still there. The UK Police and their leads know full well the embassy border laws. They went ion because I bluffed them. There was a single video feed of that night by a supposed independent, there were several streams/urls of this video feed but one with a chat box. I posted "Julian left the building two weeks ago". Verification was asked for, I stayed quiet, they went in (all this within 15 minutes).

    Why the Bluffs? It sends the message the people have no control over their government and that the news media better stay away from the truth. Apparently, they pretty much are and this is not the first time the news media has been threatened as there was an anthrax issue in 2001.

    There are no viable charges against Wikileaks nor Assange. Not by Sweden, UK nor the US.

    Julian has dug deep into the world of secrets and has seen how nasty some in power can be and have been, Snowden has contributed to this exposure. But knowing all this, how easy is it for Julian to see the Bluff?

    1. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by Corbets · · Score: 1, Troll

      Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer. The rape allegations turned out to be nothing.

      While I don’t support the idea of charging Asshole-Assange with a crime in the US, the two statements above are misleading.

      Firstly, if you’re accused of a crime, you don’t get to decide under what conditions you’ll turn yourself in. It’s an arrest, not a negotiation.

      Secondly, the rape allegations did not “turn out to be nothing.” The prosecutor realized that they were going to be unable to prosecute within sweden’s legal time limit and therefore made the choice to stop wasting state resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Who knows what might have come of it had he been available for arrest? While the result is similar to “turned out to be nothing” the reason is essential - and the same as the reason I don’t support extraditing that worthless, self-absorbed fuck to the US. The rule of law matters.

    2. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Firstly, if you’re accused of a crime, you don’t get to decide under what conditions you’ll turn yourself in. It’s an arrest, not a negotiation." WRONG. Often you do, especially with international jurisdiction issues at high levels.
      Most people accused of crimes actually DO negotiate with authorities about when to turn themselves in, they just usually don't have an Embassy willing to put up with their Plan B option for years and years.

      "Secondly, the rape allegations did not “turn out to be nothing.” -ALSO WRONG! He was charged with consenting sex with a condom which he removed during intercourse. Calling it "rape" is just showing ignorance.
      The prosecutors only pursued him because the US wanted him for OTHER THINGS, obviously. You are fucking ignorant, lol. You don't know jack about "law" either.

    3. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article is about charges from the US on things unrelated to all his other legal troubles. You're blathering about all the other stuff

    4. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he truly feared the US at the time, London would have been the last place he'd have gone (except for the US itself). And if he did have something to fear from the US at the time, there would never have been a reason to involve Sweden.

      The people whose opinion of the law matters, are called judges. Your classification (and description) of the events is wrong. Calling it "rape" is the intention of the law. If you don't like that arrangement, you shouldn't enter the country in question.

    5. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The UK police had him and could have extradited him, they did not.

      No they couldn't as they were waiting for the outcome of a trail in the UK.

      Julian offered to turn himself over in exchange for the release of Manning, They released him but Obama nullified Julians offer.

      Not quite. This was discussed at length when it happened here on Slashdot. There were technicalities of how the actions and promises of both side could be interpreted.

      The rape allegations turned out to be nothing.

      The rape allegations turned out to be rape allegations. How can you say they were nothing if they never went to trial? Skipping town in the hope that the other party gives up doesn't turn an allegation into "nothing".

      Why the Bluffs?

      Because the legal system has trouble dealing with the situation.

      There are no viable charges against Wikileaks nor Assange. Not by Sweden, UK nor the US.

      False. There were charges against him in Sweden for which he hasn't stood trial. These don't go away simply because he refused to go to trial.
      He is actually guilty of a crime in the UK, contempt of court. Claiming that there are no viable charges against him in the UK is probably the single dumbest thing people say about this.
      With the US I agree. There are no viable charges against him.

      Julian has dug deep into the world of secrets and has seen how nasty some in power can be

      If this is a euphemism for not keeping his dick in his pants then that sentence is just poetical genius. :-)

    6. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by jd · · Score: 1

      The rape charges ran out of time. We don't know the evidence, neither do you.

      Show me any of the offers you claim, infowars is not a source.

      Show me when the police could have legally extradited him, given British due process laws and the Vienna convention.

      I'm not arguing you're wrong, only lacking in details.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Because of the admitted facts. Try again moron.

    8. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      The authorities had every opportunity to interview Assange but they chose not too. The admitted facts of the case show he did not rape anyone.

    9. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because of the admitted facts.

      Yes, the prosecution admitted that Assange has evaded justice for so long that any attempt to get to the actual truth of what happened would be impossible.

      Try again moron.

      It's okay to be angry on the internet. I'd be angry too, all the time, if I got all my facts from the Daily Mail. I feel you bro.

    10. Re:Its all been nothing more than ... by jd · · Score: 1

      No, they really didn't, and no, they really don't.
      Proof by assertion isn't a useful technique.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  30. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Swedes are a bunch of pussies that will do whatever they are forced to.
    They also lay on their back spreading their legs for the Saracen invasion.
    65,000 "refugees" per month. Fucking clueless. Its over, Sweden.

  31. Julian Assange was wrong to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.

    Or... he's being charged for his actions while holed up in that embassy. In which case he was absolutely wrong not to go to Sweden.

    If he hadn't self-victimized himself into isolation and grievance he might not have felt justified to abandon the stated principles of wikileaks and allow himself to be co-opted by putin for his disinfo campaign against America.

    1. Re:Julian Assange was wrong to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am curious what are these "actions" that can cause charges from the US. Assange is not a US citizen, and he hasn't been near the US during all that time. It is quite impossible to charge him with doing something illegal in the US.

  32. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you meant to say FUCKLOADS of evidence.

  33. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a thought... he shouldn't have broken the law then they wouldn't be after him.

  34. Why make a martyr? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    His power was leaking things. It's surprisingly hard to do that from a maximum security prison. Heck, he hasn't leaked anything since the Trump election. It's not that his platform has shrunk, it's that he doesn't have any content.

    Kill him and you'll have decades of conspiracies and more than a few copy cats. Lock him up and he just goes away.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Why make a martyr? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lock him up and he just goes away." Incorrect, lock him up and you will still have conspiracies and copycats. The best way to deal with him is the same way you deal with trolls, ignore him and leave him alone. He was already starting to fade from the general public mind as nothing new had happened with him since Trump's election and if they had just left well enough alone he would have faded off into the distance. Take a look at the comments here, even the mention of the DOJ starting the process has people discussing the conspiracies that lead him into the consulate that hes been stuck in for years now. Now, his name is back in the news and it is sure to stay that way, even if they do manage to extradite him to the US there will be lengthy judicial processes that will be covered by the media and keep him and wikileaks at the forefront of peoples minds. You couldnt even rendition him because people would notice that he was missing.

      The best strategy was always to let him be, and let him keep pushing his conspiracy theories about the US thus making him look crazy and not to be taken seriously. Instead they just validated his entire story and reflamed the wikileaks fire.

  35. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe if you didn't pull numbers out of your ass like that you'd feel better.

  36. The Obama DOJ is still trying to find... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some crime they can pin on Trump and covering their own butts, they're far too busy to look at the numerous well-documented felonies that they have already admitted she committed. They're still drooling over Assange as well; he's "the one that got away" over the past few years and that's just intolerable.

    One thing the current era has finally put the coffin nail into is the lie that there is no "deep state" of permanent unelected and unaccounable government employees in Washington DC who think that they themselves, rather than the elected leaders, are the ones who should be running things. These people have large portions of the government on full autopilot in pursuit of agendas other than those of the President and congress.

    1. Re:The Obama DOJ is still trying to find... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You're not real big on that continuity of government thing, are you? Are you seriously proposing that every civil servant should be replaced by every incoming new Administration? Are you aware that Trump still—after nearly two years—hasn't filled half the appointments that he already needs to fill?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:The Obama DOJ is still trying to find... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      As I was channeling Nowhere Man, peddling in a stationary space dimension and changing time reference, the TV monitor above the bike was tuned to CNN and the crawler quoted someone as saying, "Trump administration has arsonists and firefighters. He's getting rid of the firefighters."

      I don't lean political, but this does address your point about lack of appointments.

      The arsonists are the holdovers from the Obama administration that the Trump team has no time to replace.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  37. Don't we have treaties with Australia? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the kind that make a crime committed in another country against our citizens or our gov't prosecutable via extradition treaty?

    I suppose you can argue that what he did shouldn't be a crime. Heck, I'm not even sure what they'd charge him with.

    Still, if you didn't want him prosecuted you were probably better off with Bernie. Yeah, Hilary cheated to win the primary, but she was such a lousy candidate that shouldn't have mattered. If she'd lost like she should have (by 10+ points) we'd be saying "Mr President" to Bernie right now. But folks either stayed home or registered GOP and didn't vote for him in the primary.

    The bad guys cheat. Get over it. It happens. But if the good guys stay home then what do you expect?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Don't we have treaties with Australia? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      the kind that make a crime committed in another country against our citizens or our gov't prosecutable via extradition treaty?

      You mean like invading a foreign country killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens in a "not a war" where you're basically occupying a country for no clear reason.

      Do send George W over so that *pick any country* can try him as a war criminal.

      Still, if you didn't want him prosecuted you were probably better off with Bernie.

      So the political arm of the US government is going to ignore separation of powers and assume control of the judiciary, just like a police state. That's effectively what you are saying.

      The bad guys cheat. Get over it. It happens. But if the good guys stay home then what do you expect?

      You can thank people like Assange and Snowden for the democracy you have.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "they were encouraged by recent developments"
    The recent encouraging developments involved the Ecuadorians begging for someone to help them get rid of their pain in the ass squatter. The only thing the US could legitimately charge him with is possession of stolen property. And even that charge is weak. Assange is not a US citizen so the Espionage Act doesn't apply. And he neither stole or distributed the stolen data in US territory. Assange created his own mess and had he not been looking to promote himself as a martyr the Ecuadorans would be rid of their obnoxious house guest.

    Assange's biggest mistake? Wikileaks was suppose to provide a conduit where someone could publish information while maintaining their anonymity. Instead of just publishing the information while keeping the submitter anonymous he took ownership and total control of the submitted information and proceeded to use that information to benefit only himself and push his political agenda. He went around to other media outlets making demands on how they would use the information when released. He solicited money in return for allowing access to the data by others. He alienated every single employee of Wikileaks because of his behavior.

  39. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly. It's tough to think of someone who comes off as more slimy and repulsive than Julian Assange. The man has a demeanor of a reptile. But Wikileaks and his work are the real reason he is being persecuted and no free thinking person who believes in democracy and rule by the people support that persecution.

  40. Re: Treason / Sedition SPY SHOOT HIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize Hillary wanted to have him killed via drone strike, right?
    I mean, really, you knew that, right?
    Oh? You didnt? Try expanding your news sources.

  41. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the dude is completely correct - you're not. Don't be a hater because you've been misinformed to be one. Cheers!

  42. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Funny how they complain about the immigrants, but are happy to let them do the shit jobs they don't want to be dirtied by themselves.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  43. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by eclectro · · Score: 2

    Not necessarily. No matter the charges, if he was found guilty on them and was sentenced, the time spent in prison might be less than the time spent in the embassy, which by any other form is just another prison.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  44. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You realize we are talking about the US right? Basically the only country in the world that still thinks it is okay to torture people?

  45. This is an improvement. by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    They're actually trying to do things a little bit more by the book.

    No shame though, my god!

  46. Re: Treason / Sedition SPY SHOOT HIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breitbart & Faux "News" don't count as news sources, just propaganda machines for the neocons..
    It's never been proven that Hillary proposed a drone strike so it stands to reason it's fake news. Or do you think fake news only happens to Trump and all else is gospel?

  47. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    You realize we are talking about the US right? Basically the only country in the world that still thinks it is okay to torture people?

    For values of "basically" approaching, "no, not really", yes.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  48. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

    What law are you referring to?

  49. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you meant to say FUCKLOADS of evidence.

    Any day now........

  50. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The eternal law: do not piss off powerful people if you want to live long.

  51. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an opinion, not a law. I will take unwritten code though for 2000.

  52. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US is just pissed Wikileaks exposed American war crimes.

  53. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Megol · · Score: 1

    The country he without any consideration could go to a few months before it became "dangerous"?
    The country that doesn't just extradite people to the US or elsewhere?
    The country that explicitly refuses to extradite people for political crimes and anything that could in theory lead to a death penalty?
    The country that isn't a NATO member with very close ties to the US?
    The country that _isn't_ the UK which is a NATO member with very close ties to the US, the country that Assange for some reason choose to stay even though "fearing for his life"?

    Yes he was right to not go to Sweden as being convicted as a rapist isn't nice for his image as a messiah. But is it any better to concont this kind of bullshit?

  54. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How lucky the founding fathers did not care about it.

  55. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would he be convicted of rape in Sweden?

  56. Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they deciding to prosecute someone before they figure out what they can charge him for?

  57. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say it is the other way around. The numbers pulled out of his ass makes him feel good. Not sure why though.

  58. Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.

    Much like any alleged rapist doesn't want to be brought into a courtroom. Nice though they are said to be, Swedish prison is still prison.

    The "Rube Goldberg" conceptions about extraditing Assange from Sweden instead of the UK are bizarre fantasies.

    For all you know this is just a troll to get Assange to continue imprisoning himself.

    --
    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
    1. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange isn't an "alleged rapist", you worthless paid CIA shill. Not even the government of Sweden is accusing him of rape anymore. It is clear to everyone but you that the whole "rape" theater was played by a few powerful US-friendly figures in the Swedish political and judicial system. For favors.

    2. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Much like any alleged rapist doesn't want to be brought into a courtroom. Nice though they are said to be, Swedish prison is still prison.

      Any innocent person doesn't like bring brought into a courtroom.... despite claiming that trials are "fair"; they are commonly biased against the defendant --- many jurors and officials will personally presume they are guilty, just because they have arrived in court ----- which means the police and the prosecutor believe that they have committed a crime, and people tend to believe the conclusions of these authorities.

    3. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Question remains if he actually can continue to imprison himself since Ecuador seams to have lost their patience with him.

    4. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Yes he is an alleged rapist. Sweden has withdrawn the European Arrest Warrant, but that doesn't mean they have dropped the allegations.

      Anyway, I allege he is a rapist. His actions in fleeing Sweden to Britain and then fleeing justice are only explicable if he thinks the allegations are true.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    5. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking nobody, what you allege is of noone's concern. The only people who can allege "rape" are the women that had sex with him, and they both deny the charges that the American shills in Sweden's socialist party and prosecutor office invented to pester the Wikileaks.

      Assange isn't fleeing "justice", he's fleeing persecution, just like people from China and North Korea flee persecution.

      Had you been born in the Soviet Uniton half a century years ago, you'd be one of those low-ranking party members who'd say "I haven't seen it, but I condemn it" about all the evidence of wrongdoing of their governments.

      You're a piece of a latent Communist shit.

    6. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't that Ecuador has "lost patience", more like the American puppet in power there is playing to the whistles from Washington.

    7. Re:Julian Assange - Fugitive from Swedish justice by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Agreed, however since he is the president he represents Ecuador so...

  59. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course Sweden is all of that... or..
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
    Just one of the bigger known things..

    Sweden has a history of being pushed by the US into doing things before..
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101226/00231112409/swedish-officials-complained-to-us-that-hollywood-pushed-ipred-anti-piracy-law-did-more-harm-than-good.shtml

    Not saying that the two links points to things that should have been protected, just that the US has a history of pushing Sweden to do what it wants..

    The Swedish rules for extradition are as follows:
    https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/international-judicial-co-operation/extradition-for-criminal-offences/

    Extradition is permitted, provided that the act for which extradition is requested is equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year. If sentence has been passed in the state applying for extradition, the penalty must be imprisonment for at least four months or other institutional detention for an equivalent period. Thus, extradition requires an offence punishable under the law of both countries ("dual criminality") that, in principle, is of a certain degree of seriousness.

    Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect. Nor, moreover, may extradition be granted if it would be contrary to fundamental humanitarian principles, e.g. in consideration of a person's youth or the state of this person's health. Finally, in principle, extradition may not be granted if a judgment has been pronounced for the same offence in this country. Nor may extradition be granted if the offence would have been statute-barred by limitation under Swedish law.

  60. Six years in inhuman conditions by Max_W · · Score: 1

    "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners" https://www.ohchr.org/en/profe...

    21. (1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits.

    The US and Sweden authorities could count these six years of inhuman conditions as a complete punishment. One year is such inhuman conditions could count at least as five years.

    1. Re:Six years in inhuman conditions by jd · · Score: 1

      Voluntary confinement, regardless of cause.

      He can't count a personal fetish as anything beyond that.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Six years in inhuman conditions by Max_W · · Score: 1

      Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/universal...

      Article 14.

      (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

      The US, the UK, and Sweden signed the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners". Not any petty criminal can enter an embassy and demad an asylum. Actually, several articles of "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners" are not followed in this case.

      I do not argue if he is gulity or not. I do not have an access to files, I cannot question witnesses under oath. But a human cannot be kept like this for years.

    3. Re:Six years in inhuman conditions by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      But it's not the US, the UK or Sweden that is hosting him as a prisoner so it doesn't matter that they have all signed article 14.

    4. Re:Six years in inhuman conditions by Max_W · · Score: 1

      De-facto they accepted that he has got an asylum in accordance with the article 14. And he is held in the embassy in London due to realistic fear of personal death. So they could either give him a free passage to the airport in a diplomatic car or bring his confinement in the embassy room in compliance with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners https://www.ohchr.org/en/profe...

    5. Re:Six years in inhuman conditions by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      That's not how things work. Since he is there on his on volition and Ecuador granted him asylum it's the responsibility of Ecuador to fulfill these conditions. If he surrenders to UK police I'm quite sure that they will honour article 14 while he serves what ever time he will for skipping bail. And Sweden have no say in how Assange spends his days in the Ecuadorian embassy nor how the UK will treat him.

  61. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden.

    Of course he was right, otherwise he'd be in a Swedish prison on rape charges.

  62. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first news of a sealed indictment were from the very month that new Sweden prosecutor who was on a US leash trumped up the "rape" charges while Assange was in London with permission from the very same prosecutor. Coincidence?

  63. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was the fear of being extradited to the US, either legally or by rendition, that had him worried.

    Remember this was happening around the time when the US was grabbing people off the streets of Europe and sending them to black sites in 3rd countries for torture.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  64. Salty old lib arts [...] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try. You seem to imply you're a tech/science guy, and know better. Look, idiot: I have a diploma in physics and don't want to find myself in a bucket with the likes of you.

    My take on you? No arts, sure. But then, no science, no engineering, no tech. No brains. You're a stain in an otherwise great USA.

    Keep denying climate.

  65. Others torture, don't say it is good, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, yeah, your link doesn't prove the GPP wrong. Try something else. Find out someone proud of torture being done, like the USA.

    1. Re:Others torture, don't say it is good, though. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No, actually, it *does* prove the GPP wrong, your attempt to hide it behind a slight change in phrasing notwithstanding.

      BTW, I imagine that death by ingestion of polonium or nerve agent would be quite unpleasant, rather like, well, torture, for lack of a better word. Don't you?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Others torture, don't say it is good, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to the scary narrative that the US and Brexitland "intelligence" services are pushing about the FSB allegedly poisoning Russian agents?

      You realize these are total and complete bullshit, right? The Brexitland gubbermint claims that 100 grams of that nerve agent was used, and failed to poison two. At the same time, the same service says 100 grams can poison tens of thousands.

      LOL.

  66. No, they didn't want to charge him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if they charge him, he has to see out the charges first and, if found innocent of the charges, they no longer have reason to extradite him to the USA, or if found guilty must serve out the sentence there before being extradited. Neither of which is required if you DON'T charge him and instead "ask him to attend questioning" then, when he is in custody, just extradite him without charges brought.

    Not even the women themselves say it is rape.

    Funny how the RWNJ are all denial of false rape charges until someone they don't like politically is accused by a prosecutor, not the "victims", of rape. Don't care so much about false accusation then, do you?

    1. Re:No, they didn't want to charge him by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Because if they charge him, he has to see out the charges first and, if found innocent of the charges, they no longer have reason to extradite him to the USA"

      A charge for rape that was claimed to have happened in Sweden would never be grounds to extradite from Sweden to the USA. If charged for a crime in the USA he could have been extradited form the UK more easily than from Sweden.

      The claim that the charge in Sweden was purely a setup for extradition to the USA never made any sense.

      (Note that I am making no claim about the validity of the rape charge in Sweden, just about the supposed connection between a charge in Sweden and an extradition to the USA.)

    2. Re:No, they didn't want to charge him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden would not legally extradite Assange. They would "lose" him on the way to Stockholm and miraculously, a CIA rendition team would "find" him.

  67. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    Basically the only country in the world that still thinks it is okay to torture people?

    The country thinks that? Or maybe Trump and his deplorables think that.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  68. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    His work includes carrying water for Russia and Trump?

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  69. So ISIS are right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They blew up 5000 people in the USA and they were right because they had the strength to do it.

    And if I asassinate your president and vice this too is absolutely fine because if I managed it, I had the might, and that makes it right.

    Oh, and I love the RWNJ now showing how violent and dismissive of their constutution they are. 'cos the constutution refuses that right (it is not mentioned in the constitution, which means to the people or the states only) you claim they have.

  70. They have been historically china. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, yeah, still applies. The USA is a far worse threat because china wants to control its own people, the USA wants to control everyone but themselves.

  71. He's never been wanted for rape. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's wanted for questions. And the charge of rape came not from the women who he is supposed to have raped, but the prosecutor. When it was that shithead who just became justice, you whined holy hell about false allegations of sexual misconduct. Now someone you don't agree politically with is being accused, not so worried. Despite there being no women accusing they have been raped...

    1. Re:He's never been wanted for rape. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If a prosecutor learns of actions that constitute crimes under the law, isn't he or she obligated to file charges against those who commit them?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:He's never been wanted for rape. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And the charge of rape came not from the women who he is supposed to have raped, but the prosecutor.

      Maybe your legal system works differently but in many countries in the world criminal charges can ONLY come from a state prosecutor, and Sweden is no exception.

      When it was that shithead who just became justice, you whined holy hell about false allegations of sexual misconduct.

      Nope, actually I whined a bit that those allegations weren't taken seriously nor investigated. Generally I whined that the way that judge behaved in under pressure and in front of questioning, and how he mounted his legal defense showed that he shouldn't be a justice, or judge, or any court. But mostly I whined that "derp derp I like beer" was decided to be the best out of 350million possible people (shortlisted to 12)

      Now someone you don't agree politically with is being accused

      Huh? What does politics have to do with someone fleeing criminal charges? I'm beginning to think you're confusing me with someone else.

  72. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Raenex · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's bullshit to claim you're hiding in the UK to avoid extradition from Sweden to the US. I highly doubt the leaked sealed indictment dates to this period.

  73. Remember Cuban Missile Crisis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently because Cuba got missiles and it was on US borders, it was a big problem. But it is still the case that Venezuela doesn't have any borders with the USA, nor NK, nor Iraq, Iran, et al. Yet the USA destabilises them and China doesn't.

  74. Relax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a smoke screen by the justice department because the investigation into Trump's "collusion" yielded nothing. I pray for Assange however.

  75. Julian Assange is a traitor by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Julian Assange is a terrible human being, who has everything coming to him.

    BTW, you lot know that in addition to being a traitor, he's also a child abuser too?

    Sorry about your "hero".

    1. Re:Julian Assange is a traitor by Max_W · · Score: 1

      I do not argue about the claims themselves. But until he is condemned (or exonerated) by a court of justice after the due process the wording "in my opinion" or "allegedly" would not be inappropriate.

  76. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't kid yourself.

    The US government is just like the Russian government in that if you publish things that harm those in power, they *will* come after you using whatever means are most expedient, ranging from discrete and mostly legal, up to extra-legal means including assassination, depending on the severity of the threat or damage done.

    The US is simply more discrete and circuitous in their methods than Russia (usually but not always...a Hellfire missile is not exactly the height of subtlety).

  77. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by luther349 · · Score: 1

    ill take black ops assassins for 500. trust me the only reason it has not happened is because everyone would know they did it,

  78. Is it criminal to be a useful idiot? by shanen · · Score: 2

    How the heck was that moderated as "Insightful"? Even for today's Slashdot, that's a bit of a stoop. I wonder if any of the comments are coming from people who have read any of the books about WikiLeaks or even today's story in question.

    Assange did start with an interesting idea. However he is basically a nutjob and he basically set himself up to be used and abused. He peaked out several years ago when he achieved useful idiot status. Before that, he had actually done some interesting stuff that was on the edge of journalism, but he never developed any mechanisms to deal with the incoming data, so it ultimately became a GIGO operation for anyone with garbage to propagate. While WikiLeaks had some credibility, it was useful to feed him garbage, but now that he lost the credibility, no one actually cares what Assange does.

    Notwithstanding, I doubt the useful idiot defense is going to work if they manage to get him into a US court. His best hope might be to seek the trial now and hope he can get the conviction thrown out when Trump tweets some idiotic and prejudicial thing. Except for the problem with the new judges out of Leviticus.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Is it criminal to be a useful idiot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he is basically a nutjob... he achieved useful idiot status... it ultimately became a GIGO operation for anyone with garbage to propagate...

      Nice attempts at character assassination per the talking points, troll.

      no one actually cares what Assange does.

      How come there's been a United States of A. warrant for his head for all these years, then?

      I doubt the useful idiot defense is going to work if they manage to get him into a US court

      No defense will work in a US court, because the US has already convicted Assange. He will have as much of a fair trial as Sacco and Vanzetti had, and that is if he gets to a trial alive. We saw what happened to some other indicted people who were snatched while Hitlery was in office. They drownded, after swallowing some lead pills.

  79. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by elrous0 · · Score: 2

    Wait, you mean the UK wasn't spending millions of pounds a year to surveil him around the clock just to return him to Sweden to answer questions about some vague sexual assault case that felt about as authentic as an episode of reality TV????

    Shocked...I'm just shocked I tell you...

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  80. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this particular conspiracy theory was right all along.

    It's not a conspiracy theory if the only people who think it's *not* true are idiots like AmiJoJo.

    Anyone who thinks the UK was spending millions of pounds a year surveilling Assnage around the clock just to return him for questioning on some vague sexual assault case in Sweden were deluded morons to begin with. It was pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that the intent all along was to extradite him to the U.S., and that the whole Sweden case was just a honeypot operation. They just wanted to get him on a plane before he could find asylum in some country that isn't a U.S. lapdog. And if it weren't for Ecuador having an embassy in London, he'd already be rotting in a U.S. prison (or worse, being held indefinitely in Guantanamo).
     

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  81. No great surprise by jd · · Score: 1

    Assange is not useful. America has no loyalty, Trump less so. It's all about usefulness.

    Assange was always expendable. This is regardless of any actual crimes.

    Mind you, that's true of any government or political figure. People into politics generally can't be trusted. People who know what's good for others is automatically a control freak who cannot be trusted. Same goes for idealogues.

    Don't trust any of them.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  82. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    You're cute if you think Trump's the only President who ever considered torture.

    --
    I tend to rant.
  83. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No but this means that everyone who kept saying the US wasn't trying to extradite him -are- quite obviously wrong.

  84. Re:not so much by jd · · Score: 1

    So were those who deployed him illegally. His deployment violated military law as he was deemed mentally unfit.

    So were those who posted passwords on post-it notes on secure computers, violating military law on such information.

    So were those who knowingly gunned down journalists and committed other acts of terror in violation of the Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention, plus US military law.

    Yet you defend those traitors.

    There can be only one law. A person cannot be guilty for embarrassing others. If they are innocent, so is he.

    US military law explicitly protects whistle blowers and those who refuse orders that violate the law.

    So legally Manning is protected by right of such laws.

    He was insane at the time, so is legally innocent by right of insanity.

    The uniform matters for nothing. You must prove guilt in this case, as you must show why medical rulings and DoD rules don't apply. You have not even tried because you can't.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  85. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So he avoided going to Sweden to avoid a possible prison sentence...while living in a prison of his own creation at the embassy of Ecuador.

    The man is effectively in prison already. Chances are if he had gone to face the criminal justice system in Sweden, worst case he would have gone to prison and then been released already. Instead he's stuck in the embassy, without any time served credits to show for it.

    I don't think this worked out the way Mr Assange expected.

  86. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they got tired of waiting to secure him from a Swedish handoff.

    They they could subcontract the exfil to the Saudis depending on how many pieces they want. I mean he's already in an embassy - Job is half done.

    He's portrayed as a disagreeable fellow - maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. The recent narrative has been shaped to discredit him - and again, may be correct or not. The adage probably holds - never meet your heros - you'll discover that they are all sociopaths cause it requires commitment.

    His agenda now or previosly, whether good or bad doesn't change the fact that Wikileaks did expose a huge embarrassment and acts which probably be considered evidence of criminal activity vigorously pursued by the US had they pointed to other countries rather than at home. And they also did attempt to shape other events as well.

    Not sure who is playing the better propaganda game.

  87. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your obvious disrespect towards APK is noted and repudiated.

    Sure, you think these comments should be somehow related to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. But you are wrong. Only APK and his hosts file engine matter.

    Weather the storm of "off-topic" moderation and focus on APK. His work is far more important than anything else, including your karma.

    ALL HAIL APK

  88. Deep Fry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killin's not good enough for this narcissistic fucker. THE CHAIR!

  89. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Committing rape is illegal.

  90. OOM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #NeverFortgetX3

    Fortget who?

  91. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bring him a leaky barrel and condemn him to fill it for eternity :)

  92. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct. Obama was our ruler at the time, so you just now he would make Assausage disappear like he did so many other people.

  93. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't Obama supposed to shut down Guantanamo bay?

  94. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    No, going to Sweden wouldn't have improved his chances of being extradited to the US over staying in Britain. They would have increased the chance of him being investigated for various sexual assault/rape charges, and he might have seen himself ultimately jailed for that, in a Swedish prison, but the idea that Sweden was going to extradite Assange to the US when the UK wouldn't is ridiculous - UK-US relations are far, far, closer and more interdependent.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  95. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who "committed rape"? It is surely no Assange, or the Swedish government would have brought charges. And no, they don't have to "interview" him beforehand.

  96. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gross. Still giggled.

  97. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Shooting unarmed journalists with prejudice is "legitimate combat action" how?

  98. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Why do people think it would be easier to extradite from Sweden than from the UK?

  99. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Except when the story was concocted that Sweden was trying to get Assange from the UK so the USA could extradite from Sweden, the USA wasn't trying to get him. This article says that these preparations started in the past year.

  100. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden never accused Assange of rape. Contrary to the media narrative, they have no problem pressing charges in absentia. Why was Assange not charged? Why were the arrest warrants dropped? Why did the government of Sweden insist on getting their dirty hands on the man himself, instead of charge and convict him in absentia? Their case would be much stronger if there was actual conviction based on actual evidence.

    But for lack of evidence, they used the extrajudicial expedience of Interpol warrants. Whenever Russia or China does this, they are accused of "targeting dissidents", and the targeted individuals are hailed as heroes.

    Disgusting that you useful idiots repeat the narrative.

  101. Yeah, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the way everything in the U.S. is an oxymoron.

    The "Defence" Department.
    The "Democratic" Party
    The "Justice" Department

  102. "WikiLeaks founder and Russian intelligence asset" by Maritz · · Score: 1

    FTFY.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  103. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden could have investigated, charged and convicted him in absentia, the lie that they need to "interview" him first notwithstanding. The Swedish prosecutor with thick American connections chose not to do so, she instead insisted on him being there in person. I wonder why.

    The allegedly "raped" women never accused him of rape, the government of Sweden has let the case lapse, and the only reason he's still guarded by the British is, as we have long suspected, the outstanding secret American "warrant", which, according to reports, has been outstanding for at least 7 years.

    This is a clear-cut case of political persecution of a guy whose only fault is pissing off the US "intelligence community". That is, the degenerate assholes who made Iran into a theocracy, Israel into a nuclear power, Cambodia and Vietnam into grave-covered poisoned deserts, the monsters who destroyed the lives of millions in Syria, Iraq and Libya and who even today support Saudi Arabia's terrorist regime so that you can destroy the planet by burning cheap gasoline in your gas guzzler.

    Die in a fire, please.

  104. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to ernest hemmingway.. literally killed the man by terrorizing him

  105. Illiberals against Liberty by mi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Assange quit exposing things for the sake of truth years ago.

    Translation: you loved him, when he was exposing the evil RethugliKKKunt$. Then, after his exposures of Her Who Should Be President, you began hating him.

    He was so eager to pillory his target that he sold himself out

    Yes, that disheveled billionaire hiding in a 3rd-rate embassy — sold himself...

    not only to their domestic opponents, but to a not-exactly-friendly foreign nation as well.

    Funny, how this possibility hasn't bothered you, when he targeted your own political opponents.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Illiberals against Liberty by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      To steal a phrase from R.A. Wilson, trying to discuss such matters with you is a bit like being an atheist who keeps getting asked whether he worships God or the Devil.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Illiberals against Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's stupid, atheists worship the devil whether they realize it or not. Strutting around with your neck beard and fedora spouting off about "le stupid sky fairy" and pwning the Christ-tards is the devils work, like it or not. How does it feel to be the unwitting tool of the devil? Check mate, athiests.

    3. Re:Illiberals against Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    4. Re:Illiberals against Liberty by mi · · Score: 1

      No, no, you don't get to use that pass to get out. Not after you've acknowledged that Assange has been "exposing truth" some time ago...

      Or, to use your own analogy, once you've admitted having worshiped one supernatural being, asking you, which one you worship today — and why — is fair.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  106. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Shotgun · · Score: 2

    Define "rape". My understanding is that he met a girl at a bar and they got it on. She later decided that it was rape because they were both drinking.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  107. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Red herring. He is not legally "in" the UK. Legally, he is in Ecuador. That's the whole point of embassies.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  108. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Hilary had "no plans" to run for office....

    It's a fucking TROPE, ferchrissakes.

  109. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your understanding is wrong. He met a female operative in a meeting. Then they got it on. Then she found out he had it going on with another woman, and made her to go to the police and complain about him not taking a HIV test. A prosecutor heard the case, dismissed it and let Assange leave Sweden.

    Then a second prosecutor decided to overturn the decision of the first one, call it rape despite nobody else calling it that, just because that prosecutor had made a very nice career with the help of a prominent Swedish politician who had very strong ties with the US, and because they were asked nicely by the US to lend a helping hand smearing Assange and hopefully putting him into the tender hands of the US secret service.

  110. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the contrary, the US has been trying to get him ever since they made that second prosecutor they own charge him. There were many articles about a secret indictment letter circulating back in the end of 2010.

    It is not a secret that Hillary tried to get him very, very hard.

    And failed, like she failed against Trump, because of her own faults.

  111. Truth is Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the Empire of Lies.

    Stop with the outrage theater.

    We all know it's true.

  112. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. Hillary Clinton failed because of her own inability to run a campaign. It was the second time she failed - remember that first time, when she ran against Obama for the Democrat nomination? Were the Russians behind her failure then?

    The professed Russian "involvement" in the US elections is to the tune of some hundreds of thousands of dollars. Clinton spent nearly a billion on advertising. Trump spent almost 400 million. That's a difference of 3-4 orders of magnitude.

    Do you really think anyone sane will swallow your moronic narrative about "Russian influence"?

    You're stupider than a Millennial.

  113. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill and Dubya were your rulers at the time when CIA started snatching people off the streets. You've been violating international law ever since it existed. There's a reason why you don't recognize international courts - you don't like to pay for your crimes.

  114. Re: not so much by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Where do you get that Manning was insane?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  115. Sharia applies to the internet too, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'cos you're fucked right up if they are. And if they aren't, then your question is irrelevant to releasing documents classified only for US citizens, and apparently not for the shitgibbon in chief.

  116. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

    ill take black ops assassins for 500. trust me the only reason it has not happened is because everyone would know they did it,

    I don't know. If he did mysteriously turned up dead I'd say it's 50/50 on it being US or Russia that did it. Depends on how it was done. Poison sounds very Russian while random bullet whizzing through the air "oh no how could that have happened" would totally be US all day, everyday.

    I figure Russia would probably want him dead too since I'm pretty sure they handed some intel from their office to him to put on W/L. His work with the whole Iraq war was great, but when he got trapped he became a pawn.

  117. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Being both an asshole and paranoid didn't mean he was wrong.

    Him being right the entire time makes you and every other Assange hater the asshole. Y'all are like a sniveling pack of high school cheerleaders, finding excuses to keep calling the unpopular girll a slut when you know she's never been on a date much less had sex. Does it make you feel proud to lick CIA boots stained with blood from all over the world?

  118. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    the idea that Sweden was going to extradite Assange to the US when the UK wouldn't is ridiculous - UK-US relations are far, far, closer and more interdependent.

    Sweden has actually extradited persons of interest to the US on specious grounds before, while the UK has very strong law government extradition that Sweden hasn't. These facts have been discussed to death in these discussions already, but you somehow either missed them or willfully ignored them. Either way, you're way way WAY off here.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  119. Connected to the mysterious toddandclare site? by gay358 · · Score: 1

    This brings to my mind the suspicuous dating site "approved by UN" that was used to attack Assange and the UN declaration that defended Assange:

    https://www.mcclatchydc.com/ne...

  120. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Even if there was rape, which is not proven, it happened in Sweden instead of USA. Why is USA trying to get him extradited to USA?

  121. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Your information is not true in practice. Sweden has extradited persons to USA who have been then tortured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  122. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the "victim" it wasn't rape until a few days after it happened. At the time they did it, nobody was raping anyone.

    I always wondered why Assange didn't counter-accuse, since if he retro-raped her then she might as well have retro-raped him too. C'mon, Asssange, it's never too late to withdraw your consent. Two can play this dirty, stupid, evil, mockery-of-the-crime-of-rape game.

  123. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by haruchai · · Score: 1

    It was the fear of being extradited to the US, either legally or by rendition, that had him worried.

    Remember this was happening around the time when the US was grabbing people off the streets of Europe and sending them to black sites in 3rd countries for torture.

    Not only that but in 2013 the plane of the Bolivian president was forced to land in Austria after being denied access to the airspace of France, Spain & Italy on the suspicion that Snowden was on board - a lie that Assange later took credit for.
    It's clear that America will not hesitate to strong-arm allies into violating diplomatic norms without more than a whisper of evidence

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  124. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    He was in the UK at the point in time when the issue of whether he would be extradited to Sweden and whether that was a precursor to being chain extradited to the USA came up.

  125. liar. You don't know what treason means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show how it could possibly be treason idiot.

  126. Re: not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same place as your treason, your respective arses.

  127. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, it wasn't that long ago that the last story about Assange was filled with +5 modded posts saying that Assange is just a paranoid narcissist, that no government cares about him. These are the same people who will bemoan living in a 'post-truth world.'

  128. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

    He didn't break a law, he published content from a leaker. The leaker broke the law, he just happened to be the only uncorrupted reporter with a media outlet willing to actually do his job and report (aside from Michael Hastings.)

  129. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Except when the story was concocted that Sweden was trying to get Assange from the UK so the USA could extradite from Sweden, the USA wasn't trying to get him. This article says that these preparations started in the past year.

    TIL there's actually people this ignorant of the world confident enough in themselves to speak. (Who am I kidding, it's not a TIL, it's just fucking sad.)

  130. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not uncommon for women who have been raped or otherwise coerced to feel such shame that they don't go to the police for several days, weeks, or months

  131. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Legally he's in the UK. Embassies are not foreign soil, there is simply a convention that you don't go into them.

  132. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Total immigration to Sweden from all sources is 160000 per year, net just over 120000, and net population gain 90000, so 65000 refugees per month is pure fantasy. In 2015 a bit over 80000 applied, 63000 approved and half that in 2016.

  133. Re: Julian Assange was wrong to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's not impossible. Many people have been extradited to the USA for causing crime to be committed in the USA, e.g. hacking, conspiracy, and recently financial crimes committed in the USA, but remotely.

  134. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    Regardless of what you think about the motivations behind the leaks or who they benefited the information was real and the truth does not lie. The DNC actively collaborated in a conspiracy to dupe the members of their party and rig the primary, the candidate they promoted took the booty and ran AFTER it was exposed.

    Ethically the only appropriate action would have been for Clinton to withdraw in favor of Sanders after this was revealed whether she knew the party cheated on her behalf before that point or not. Personally, I think scooping up the pot anyway after it was revealed she'd been playing with a stacked deck is what elected Trump. Maybe it gets lost in certain political echo chambers but most people actually are not okay with winning by any means necessary.

  135. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by nosfucious · · Score: 1

    I pretty sure that Assange would never actually set foot in Sweden. If he walked out of the embassy right now, he'd be arrested in the UK. Then the process to extradite to Sweden would start. However, while in the UK, the US would no doubt apply for extradition, and all the protections that Sweden could promise would count for nothing.

    --
    Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
  136. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Exactly. It's tough to think of someone who comes off as more slimy and repulsive than Julian Assange.

    Really. You use that to describe Assange, who's revealed war crimes and corrupt secrets from both parties in the USA and nations around the world, and not someone like Sean Hannity or Rachael Madcow, who's paid $30,000 to alternate between McCarthyism and gaslighting.

    So I have to ask....is your willful dumbfuckery powered by fusion?

  137. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Problem with that theory is that the Justice Department didn't prepare to prosecute him them. But now that he most definitely isn't in Sweden they are, so how exactly does this relate to Sweden at all? I would say not at all.

  138. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The recent encouraging developments involved the Ecuadorian government being led by a president who campaigned as a socialist but ended up being a CIA toady

    FTFY

  139. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    No you are completely wrong, the UK extradited him to Sweden under the specific requirement that he would only be tried for the Rape matter. If Sweden had decided to extradite him to the US then they would have broken their extradition agreement with the UK which would have quite grave consequences.

  140. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    We mostly don't. Lot's of Russian troll accounts pretending to be Swedish does however.

  141. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    And Hillary winning by 2.86 million while winning the primary by 4 million, having NOTHING to do with superdelegates, somehow supports this "Conspiracy" claim.
    Hint: It is the job of the party to put forth the most electable candidate.
    so, the reality is this is all about "collateral Murder" and offending the real power center, the War Department.

  142. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The country thinks that? Or maybe Trump and his deplorables think that.

    Please, stop trying to normalize Hillary's hate speech.

  143. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which would have quite grave consequences.

    Like what, the queen of Brexitland setting her corgis on the Swedish ambassador?

  144. Re: Julian Assange was wrong to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not impossible not because it is just, but because the US can twist the arms of its "partners". Wake me up when people from countries that are independent from the US oblige.

  145. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Why do people think it would be easier to extradite from Sweden than from the UK?

    What would be the pretext in the UK? Assange isn't accused of committing any crimes there and thus they would have no reason to detain or question him. Even now, as the Trump DOJ is proving all of Assange's fears to be completely rational and his haters to be assholes, a foriegn state doing a snatch-and-grab on the CIA's say so in broad daylight would force people to pay attention. And the UK has denied extradition to the USA based on how brutally America treats it's prisoners. Prisoners like Chelsea Manning, who was tortured with solitary confinement for a year and a half.

    As opposed to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on an alleged crime (even though he was questioned and given permission to leave by a prosecutor) and that government has had no problems giving people to the US to be tortured.

  146. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here's a thought... he shouldn't have broken the law then they wouldn't be after him.

    Here's a better though....stop buying the transparent pretext for arrest. If Sweden was serious about investigating an alleged rape (really the women only went to the state to ask for an STD test, not to press charges) then they could have sent investigators to question Assange in the UK or remotely via Skype other other video conferencing, as Assange has offered to do. As they've done dozens of other times in other cases since Assange has sought asylum.

    Assange has also promised to return to Sweden if they promise not to hand him over to the United States. A promise Sweden could have easily made, given Obama's prolonged torture of Chelsea Manning, and Sweden being a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture. Which forbids prisoners being handed over to regimes that engage in it.

  147. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the "victims", and to the independent prosecutor who looked over it first, it is still not rape. The person who made it into a "rape" case was a prosecutor who was glad to service the US for her personal gain.

  148. Re:"WikiLeaks founder and Russian intelligence ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cambridge Analytica is Zionist. The Russian narrative is one of the most impressive displays of misdirection in modern history.

  149. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    The fuck are you on about? I think the guy is a crappy human being, but I don't hate him. He's never done anything sufficiently close to personal for me to bother with love or hate. Mostly it has been amusement as he tests everyone's patience simultaneously, when I bother to care at all. I also always thought there was a good probability he was right about fearing falling into U.S. custody.

    You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to make it personal for no visible reason. Kindly go fuck your hat.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  150. Transparency is a good thing by DougDot · · Score: 1

    I'm a big fan of equal-opportunity leaking. If a government agency doesn't want me to see something funded by my tax dollars, I suddenly become very interested in whatever it is they are trying to cover up.

  151. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    Frankly, he has a better chance of avoiding extradition to the USA if he is in Sweden than if he is in the UK. Unless you mean he was right not to go to Sweden because he would have been convicted of rape, if he did.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  152. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    Nobody isn persecuting him. He's in the Ecuador embassy of his own free will.

    Right now the only people who want Assange are the British and that is because he undeniably jumped bail to avoid facing rape charges in Sweden.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  153. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by jeremyp · · Score: 1

    He obviously thinks he is guilty of rape, otherwise he wouldn't have become a fugitive from justice. He would have been a lot safer from extradition to the US in Sweden than in the UK.

    --
    All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  154. Supreme Court Nomination Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Pussy-Grabher will nominate this douche for Baterginsburg's seat..

  155. Re: Daddy Issues.. We You Raped As A Child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Founding Daddies are big with paedophiles. Ask Elon Musk!!

  156. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, "powerful" people. The US is a fucking cesspool filled with uneducated, uncultured and cowardly morons.

    *Any* American, come at me and I'll end you.

  157. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please share your name and address, Iâ(TM)ll be happy to take you up on your offer.

  158. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't Obama supposed to shut down Guantanamo bay?

    The Republican'ts made that impossible after he was elected, but before he took office.

  159. Re: not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was found guilty of Espionage act. That is treason.

  160. Re: not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahaha show where fool.

  161. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    More like putting a termination to the extradition agreement between Sweden and the UK, something no prosecutor in Sweden would want to be responsible for. Also Sweden is a heavy export country so creating such a huge political scandal between the two countries would be seen as very bad by our big exporting companies that have big influence in politics so no few politicians would want to bear the blame for that either. Not to mention the political and economical implications of been seen as a country that cannot be trusted to honour agreements.

  162. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not how it's done in the US. Someone doxxes you for your comment, then an angry hormonal teenager SWATs you. We just let our police murder idiots dumb enough to challenge the Internet at large.

  163. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, legally he is in Ecuador.

    You fucking dumbass, would you try to tell me that mainland Ecuador isn't foreign soil? After all, those borders are just political, and it's only a convention that you don't go in there.

    Motherfucker please.

  164. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    The fuck are you on about?

    The point was perfectly clear the first time. You have a pathological need for Assange to be a "crappy human being" - despite the lack of any reasoning or evidence whatsoever - because if he's not, then you sir, are the piece of crap masquerading as a human. You and every other tool engaging in mindless character assassination.

    You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to make it personal for no visible reason. Kindly go fuck your hat.

    Says the ratfucker who has nothing but baseless personal smears.

  165. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Hillary winning by 2.86 million

    Hillary didn't "win". Hillary participated in the election game knowing fully well what the rules are well in advance, and agreeing to them. Trying to make her losing the election a "win" just shows you're an idiot.

  166. Re: Julian Assange was right to not to go to Swede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You continue with your attempts of character assassination, but avoid my question. Again, why would he be convicted of rape in Sweden, when he didn't commit one?

  167. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I can see how the most trustworthy US poodle in Europe, the Brexitland, would punish Sweden for doing what US told them to do. Really.

  168. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incessant blabber about "Russian trolls" is the easiest way to spot the CIA shills here.

  169. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, he ran to the embassy when UK decided to force him into the hands of a country that has no qualms about giving people to CIA rendition teams - Sweden.

  170. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first news of a secret indictment for Assange from the USA were from the end of 2010. Go lie somewhere else.

  171. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Ok, so on that note do you have any information where I should pick that up that paycheck from CIA?

  172. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Back then there was no talk about the Justice Department preparing prosecution but "Assange and others were being investigated by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia" that's apples to oranges if anything.

  173. You are just a sorry excuse for a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all well and good to thank people for correcting you. But why the fuck do you post so much bullshit without checking first? Hope people will believe your lies and then say sorry when caught?

  174. Why you lie so much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Manning out and out, committed treason and belongs in a life at levenworth.

  175. Re: not so much by jd · · Score: 1

    His doctor classified him as such and prohibited deployment. This was published by the military at the time. Don't blame me if you don't follow events.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  176. Re: not so much by jd · · Score: 1

    No, treason is a specific charge. He was not tried on a charge of treason. And, as the Birmingham Six can testify, being found guilty isn't the same as being guilty.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  177. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "What would be the pretext in the UK? "

    The same as extraditing from Sweden.

    A lot of people here seem to be confused about the basis for extradition: it's about a charge in the country the person is being extradited TO, not a charge in the country they are being extradited FROM. Any charge in the country being extradited from has nothing to do with the extradition, and may in fact interfere with extradition as that country may want to process their charge first.

  178. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Quote from DoJ spokesperson in 2013:
    “The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists,” said former Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “And if you are not going to prosecute journalists for publishing classified information, which the department is not, then there is no way to prosecute Assange.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  179. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Is that supposed to be in favor of your point? What they're doing now is proof he was right, nothing you can say will change that.

  180. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    What would be the pretext in the UK? Assange isn't accused of committing any crimes there and thus they would have no reason to detain or question him. Even now, as the Trump DOJ is proving all of Assange's fears to be completely rational and his haters to be assholes, a foriegn state doing a snatch-and-grab on the CIA's say so in broad daylight would force people to pay attention. And the UK has denied extradition [theregister.co.uk] to the USA based on how brutally America treats it's prisoners. Prisoners like Chelsea Manning, who was tortured with solitary confinement for a year and a half. As opposed to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on an alleged crime (even though he was questioned and given permission to leave by a prosecutor) and that government has had no problems giving people to the US to be tortured.

    Yes, that is a copy & paste. Because you completely ignored the lack of a pretext for questioning in the UK, the UK's recent refusal to extradite some prisoners to the USA because of how brutal the prisons are, and Sweden not having a problem handing people over to be tortured.

  181. ...which is ironclad by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    When his name first surfaced in association with Wikileaks, he made it clear that he was simply the "spokesman," and did not "hack," or supervise the release of material, and had no way to know what the internal workings were.

    Irrelevant distinction. Freedom of the press covers all of said press, it's hardly limited to reporters. Otherwise the government could haul in anyone from an editor to the owner and charge them with something.

    That's how he circumvented culpability for a hell of a lot of years.

    Culpability for what. Publishing information the powerful and corrupt would rather keep hidden? That is the ultimate act of journalism, not covering for war criminals or politicians who rig their own elections.

    Wikileaks itself elevated interest in Assange when the organization turned political in a move to increase donations which had fallen off due to lack of interest by supporters.

    You mean when banks cut off donations to Wikileaks because the CIA asked them to? The reason Assange was couch surfing in Sweden in the first place?

    Wikileak's decline also affected Assange's visibility and he resented the lack of attention.

    Funny how this line of sniveling dipshittery isn't deployed against people like Brian Williams or Rachael Maddow, who are paid twenty to thirty thousand per day to propagandize you.

    1. Re:...which is ironclad by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant distinction. Freedom of the press covers all of said press ...

      TL;DR

      My first line didn't mention freedom of the press. What I said was that Assange was a spokesperson. He had every right to speak, and I'm not quibbling with that.

      Because you missed the point, I disregarded the rest.

      However, we do have swell parting gifts.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  182. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    You don't need a pretext in the country you are extraditing *from*.

  183. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "Is that supposed to be in favor of your point? What they're doing now is proof he was right, "

    My point is that the US was not trying to prosecute at the time that the "extradite from Sweden" story was concocted, and the quote supports that.

  184. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    The quote supports nothing. Just because you're too blind to read signs around you doesn't make them false, and it doesn't make anyone who can wrong. More likely though, you can read and interpret just fine but you want to lie because you dislike the man.

  185. Re:Julian Assange was right to not to go to Sweden by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You most certainly do, when you're putting on a big show of not wanting to extradite someone to the USA when that is in fact your goal. It wouldn't even be the first time Sweden has used such a pretext - with a large helping of interrogating the suspect in solitary confinement but without a lawyer - with the destination country being Denmark rather than the US.