Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Co-founder Julian Assange Arrested in London (theguardian.com)
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder was granted refuge in 2012 while on bail in the UK over sexual assault allegations against him in Sweden. From a report: At the time, Assange claimed that if he was extradited to Sweden he might be arrested by the US and face charges relating to WikiLeaks's publication of hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables. The journalist and Assange supporter John Pilger called last week for people to "fill the street outside the embassy and protect him and show solidarity with a courageous man." US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange, but in November 2018 a mistake in a document filed in an unrelated case hinted that criminal charges might have been prepared in secret. London's Metropolitan police released a statement which said officers had executed a warrant after the Ecuadorian government withdrew asylum.
You don't expose Hillary and just walk away.
At least Hillary didn't make president. She would have hung, drawn and quartered him.
Maybe the USA has had time to cool off. Me? I'm betting he'll be over there within three months.
No sig today...
The worst thing that could happen to him now is that the US doesn't try to extradite him and England only questions him and lets him go. He'll have thrown away 7 years of his life voluntarily and look like a narcissistic idiot (more so than he already does).
Freedom is dangerous. Big Brother will save us from Freedom. Because Big Brother loves us all.
Assange did good work with Wikileaks, years ago. Then he grew an inflated ego, and (um, literally) screwed around. Rather than face any charges (which, iirc, were never formally filed), he fled.
Ultimately, he imprisoned himself for 8 long years.
I have no idea whether the US would have tried to extradite him from Sweden. Maybe they would have, if Sweden had actually charged him with a crime. But in the meantime, the Swedish case has ended. And the UK can't charge him with much more than skipping a court appearance, which is pretty trivial. He should have long since left the embassy.
And now this. Ecuador has finally had enough, and tells him to leave. Rather than acting like an adult, and walking out with some dignity, he has to be carried out like a child throwing a tantrum. Pathetic.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
You still believe that garbage? It's becoming more and more obvious that it was Hillary and the Democrats who were working with the Russians in order to discredit Trump. Wait for the indictments.
Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US, he has no expectation of loyalty to it. Not even for releasing the footage of the lawful Apache combat actions. (The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.)
As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.
The way it works is: If I have a security clearance (I did until it expired after I retired from the Army) and I give you classified information I should be protecting, I am then criminally liable for my actions or inactions that allow the security compromise and the release of the classified information. You however are not. As a US citizen there is a tenuous responsibility that you might hold for receiving but it's not commonly prosecuted unless you also have a clearance. But if you are a citizen of a foreign nation, like Assange, even if that nation is closely allied with the US. You are under no obligation at all to protect that information.
Now, if you directed me to collect and give you information, then you fall into the realm of conducting international espionage actions. If caught in the US you can be arrested and confined until such time as we trade you back to your home country. But more likely we would just declare you persona non-grata and kick you out of the country. If discovered conducting such activities in another country, we could ask them to do the same things and if allied they might, but they would not extradite you to the US. You would be subject to their laws regarding captured spies.
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. I won't deny that we might have quietly encouraged the Swedish government to press the issue and the British to make the arrest for extradition to Sweden with the intent of at least making it harder for him to run Wikileaks and leak secrets our own traitors have given him. But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
So you have an organisation which very reliably publishes information to the citizens about what its managers are doing. That's what actual journalism is about, not the stuff you see on CNN or MSNBC.
So the managers tell you where to look instead: that Assange doesn't look after his cat. That he's a rapist and a bail jumper and a Russian stooge like Trump.For the rest nothing to see.
This is an assault on the freedom of the press. The purpose of all the propaganda is to make you cheer it. And by God, that is what you're doing.
As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.
It's cute that people still think the US intelligence apparatus follow any sort of rules or laws.
Not the most informed statement from the UN there, or from Snowden for parroting it. Yes, he would have been arrested had he done so, but Assange could have left the embassy at any time; he was there of his own volition having skipped bail, which is *a crime in its own right* in the UK legal system, and that's what the UK initially arrested him for this morning. That's an important distinction, because the UN is basically saying that Assange should be above sovereign UK law in the matter of skipping bail because reasons. Motivations for seeking asylum aside, he basically went from being a suspect for rape and assault to actual wanted felon all by himself, and at the very least there's a case to be made there.
I'll grant there are differing - and potentially quite valid - opinions on the motivation behind the Swedish cases and the US' extradition request (for which he's now also been arrested), but the UK's charges are about as black and white as they come.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
If it did then helping Trump would have paid off. He exposed financial records of a boatload of rich and powerful. In America that didn't really matter but the tax man in Europe and Asia took notice. This isn't about which members of the oligarchy he pissed off. The oligarchy takes care of their own. The 1% is like the mob or any other form of organized crime. Mess with one and you've messed with them all, and a hot like Assanage did was never gonna be forgiven.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The arrest of Assange demonstrates our freedom to criticize the state to evolve our culture is over. Dissent will not be tolerated and any illusion of First world freedom is a myth concocted to keep us in the mindset of slaves to interest rates on housing loans.
I've been studying the changes to freedom of speech and association laws in the US, UK, Canada (well the english half), Australia and, NZ. I've written hundreds of pages of submissions about Anti-terrorism law, its structure and wording to try to do anything I could to fight to preserve the freedom we have left and failed 95% of the time.
Knowing these laws, I can certainly say that I fear for Assange if he is charged under them. The absolute power the state has over an individual in that circumstance is terrifying and was previously reserved for those conducting espionage. Activism, such as what Assange has conducted, threatens the status quo so much it must be crushed with an iron fist. Soviet style.
In the first double bind of this law, the state assumes control of all evidence that can defend you which you are responsible for presenting. Even people witnessing an arrest and telling a family member can be charged and sentenced to 5 years jail. All sentences are strict liability so magistrates have no authority to vary time served. These laws are designed to destroy lives.
I only spend hundreds of hours doing what I do, these people give up everything trying to preserve our freedom. Whistle blowers are heros. More so, what does it tell us that more of these whistle blowers are from military and intelligence services. Snowden, Manning and lessor known people like Annie Machon (UK), David Shayler (UK) and Susan Lindauer (US) were all former intelligence agents trying to tell us the mess being made with these laws. Shayler died whilst arrested under these laws and an attempt was made to chemically lobotomize Lindauer and attack her mental health to destroy her reputation. Machon was the only one who refused to face arrest which has preserved her mental health.
The pages of law, in our first world countries, dictating how technology can be used to suppress the populace has grown from nothing in 2001 to well over 2400 pages in 2019, constitutionally adjusted to suit each nation. That's just the stuff I've read, there were bills I missed.
Lindauer suggests that these laws are lifted from the Soviet criminal code and looking at them it's not hard to believe it. I had to lobby against the power to body cavity search minors as young as 8 yrs as unacceptable for a first world democracy, the government changed it to 14.
Knowing this makes our countries a parody of the freedoms they once stood for.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.
It's cute that people still think the US intelligence apparatus follow any sort of rules or laws.
It's really cute that some people think that you can publish Secret documents from any nation and be revered as some sort of untouchable saint, completely above the laws of earth. People have enjoyed polonium cocktails for less.
Meanwhile, Slashdotlawyers should probably read this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/1...
Better call the DOJ to let them know that they can't do that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.
3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?
4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?
What you are saying confirms that governments, the US government in particular, do whatever they please without having to follow any kind of law. It confirms that power and violence are the only "laws". So why should we follow those laws? Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
He's not wrong, in that they're not charging Assange with treason or with receiving classified materials.
They've made up charges, saying he "hacked" a classified system with Bradley Manning, and the two of them "hacked a password" as part of a conspiracy to retrieve classified documents.
Yes, seriously, Assange is being charged with conspiracy to hack a password. It's the only way they could come up with to extradite him.
Somebody needs to read up on jurisdiction and extradition. Being beyond a nation's borders, or of a different nationality does not mean you cannot commit a crime and be subject to justice in that nation.
1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.
3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?
4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?
True. IANAL, but a more plausible charge would be a conspiracy charge based on his actions with Manning. His emails, any phone conversation, chats, etc. would most probably have gone through US servers as well as had direct contacts with Manning in the US, thus establishing a nexus and US jurisdiction over his actions. It's a tenuous link but could be what is used to bring hm to trial or at least get extradition. What happens afterwards is up to the courts.
I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It's really cute that some people think that you can publish Secret documents from any nation
Meanwhile, Slashdotlawyers should probably read this https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/1...
Better call the DOJ to let them know that they can't do that.
People like you can't read between the lines, you can't hold a corrupt government accountable when they can make they can classify their corruption and bad behavior as state secrets. So while you are sitting their in a pile of your own festering stupidity unable to see through the lies of the corporate state, people with a brain know how corruption actually works. When corrupt people are writing the laws and making the policies, of course you're going to be "breaking the law" that's how corruption works idiot. The laws are corrupt themselves and can be made to mean anything depending on "who's guys" are interpreting them.
If in doubt just look at what has happened to the public domain in intellectual property law in the united states. It's been totally destroyed.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Funny how many American apologists were all over themselves to scream that the US never wanted him in the first place, and that it was all just conspiracy theory that they were trying to lay their hands on him. And yet, the instant he's out of the embassy, there's a US extradition warrant waiting for him. Funny that, it's almost as if this was an obvious thing right from the start....
I'd go one step further:
Making an extradition request, having it granted, and having it be legally sound are *three* different things.
The UK and US have a long and ongoing history of collaborating to circumvent their own laws, such as sharing surveillance collected on each others populations that they're not legally allowed to collect themselves. And the US has already clearly brought serious political pressure to bear on several countries trying to get their hands on Assange. You really think that the only way the UK would honor an extradition request is if it was completely above reproach?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
I'm Canadian and not a US citizen. If I hack into your American bank account from Canada and steal all your money I've still committed a crime and I'm still subject to US laws.
If American law enforcement figures out who I am, they can extradite me and have me stand trial in the USA.
> Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
We can. Anyone can. Capacity for violence is almost always the ultimate arbiter of acceptable behavior.
The thing is, once you enter the realm of "law by right of arms", the person/group capable of the most decisive violence wins. And unless you're a government with legions of heavily armed and well indoctrinated soldiers, spooks, cops, etc. at your command, that's not you.
And one of the first laws most governments enforce is "we have an exclusive right to use violence". There's some good reasons for that, as it disrupts what otherwise tends to become perpetual cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. But it also means that in taking up arms yourself, against anyone, you are challenging the government's primacy, and can expect to be stomped down, if only as an example to discourage more potentially credible threats.
Once you leave the domain of a single cohesive government, such as entering international politics, there is no longer any single entity with an agreed upon monopoly on violence, which inevitably means that the capacity for violence is *always* a subtext in any conflict. Which is why nations around the world routinely violate treaty and trade agreements with impunity when they no longer serve their goals. Refraining from international violence has nothing to do with ethics or morality - it's all about profit and loss. So long as it's more profitable for everyone involved to abide by a treaty than to violate it, the treaty survives. Once that changes for one of the signatories, you can expect them to violate it.
Just as happened when Russia invaded Crimea - doing so was a clear treaty violation, but a valuable strategic move (it gives them much more secure military access to the Mediterranean). They judged that the loss to the other major signatories was less than the losses associated with going to war over it (more profitable to everyone who mattered to avoid war), and so they went for it. And they judged correctly - the U.S. and others did the minimum necessary to defend the Ukraine as outlined by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty they had signed on to - sending a strongly worded letter. Of course that also means they sent a clear message to every other signatory that the treaty was absolutely worthless and they had better start making their own nukes if they wanted a real deterrent, but apparently the threat of more 2-bit nuclear powers arising in order to defend themselves was considered a more acceptable price to pay than war.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There are several big differences that I'm aware of:
1) It sounds like Assange is being accused of actively soliciting classified data, which is crossing the line, legally speaking, whereas the NYT and other publications were not accused of doing so. They've received classified documents, but they don't encourage people to steal documents, nor do they walk their sources through the steps necessary to exfiltrate classified data, both of which Assange is being accused of, from what I can gather.
2) Whereas Ellsberg (and Snowden) did his due diligence by raising concerns with his superiors in an attempt to resolve the issues internally before going public, Manning made no such attempt. Likewise, whereas there were specific concerns that Ellsberg (and Snowden) hoped could be resolved by making those concerns public, Manning seemingly had no awareness of the contents of the data he exfiltrated, nor of any specific threat to the public's wellbeing. Those distinctions are both legally and morally important when drawing the line between "whistleblowers" and "leakers". Whistleblowing is a final step that is taken in the public interest in response to a specific threat after all other avenues have been exhausted. Leaking is something that anyone can do at any time for any reason. As such there are good reasons why the one is (at least somewhat) protected, while the other is not.
3) The NYT (and the multitude of other papers that published content from the Papers, as well as those reporting on Snowden's data) exercised editorial discretion in what they actually published. It's estimated that they only printed 5% of the Papers' actual contents. In contrast, wantonly dumping classified leaks online without fully vetting them, as Wikileaks has done numerous times with Manning's data, demonstrates a gross disregard for the lives, safety, and property of those who may be affected. Legally, this may or may not make a difference (I don't know either way), but morally it's reprehensible.
All of which is to say, while I think that Assange and Wikileaks have acted reprehensibly, I also think the world needs something like Wikileaks, or at the very least a free and unrestrained press. Likewise, while I think that Manning failed to do his duty both as a service member and a "whistleblower", I think there are others who have faithfully fulfilled their legal and/or moral obligations, such as Ellsberg and quite possibly Snowden.
I love getting you true cowards spun up. Seems your hero Assange is out of a job, so why don't you troll around for traitors and take up his recently vacated position.
You can think that all you want, people with a brain know Assange has been stalked with trumped up charges from the very corrupt people he's been exposing, the whole thing is a sham for those who are educated. Only morons and ill bread non reality perceiving animals like yourself believe in a concept like 'patriotism' and 'traitors' the world is much more complex then your one dimensional worldview. And if it was your ass on the line or your family member being offed by your own government, you might feel differently on how the powerful treat little useful idiots like yourself. You'd finally come to realize - the powerful only care about themselves, you're nothing but rabble in their presence.
You have three war crimes in that video:
Actually ZERO war crimes. Just bad decisions on BOTH sides and the fog of war.
Targeting civilians
Civilians carrying arms (rifles and RPG) in an active combat zone, in an area where American forces had received fire from, an area where Americans were approaching. The arms and context make the group a legal target.
Targeting journalists
The journalists embedded themselves with a group of civilians carrying arms in a combat zone, the journalists were not wearing distinctive clothing identifying themselves. Additionally a shadow of the camera lens was mistakenly believed to be another RPG. The journalists were collateral damage. Regrettable but legal.
Targeting first responders
The van was not marked as a first responders vehicle. The civilians in a civilian van were mistakenly believed to be additional insurgents collecting insurgent wounded/dead *and weapons*. Very regrettable but legal.
Because that could variously lead to a charge of contempt of court, obstructing justice, aiding and abetting, etc.?
And, to be honest, even if it worked, everyone involved would be in even bigger trouble than they are now.
Fact is, nobody cares enough about him to get arrested. Not after the loyalty he showed the people who put up his bail money.
I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy. She never once threatened to upset their apple carts. What doomed Assange was getting on the bad side of people with unlimited access to money and power. That he escaped them for as long as he did is a minor miracle.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/