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).
Seems Ecuador decided to evict him, and once he was on the street, British police arrested him.
Source
There are several things that can happen:
1) He is deported to Sweden, questioned and released
2) He is deported to Sweden and then send to Gitmo, the US or somewhere else
3) He is questioned in the UK and released.
The fact that the US wqill not get involved could mean that they want to paint him now as a silly person and play the "See we told you we wanted to do notiong"-card. If that is the case, in a few months he WILL be deprted somehow to the US.
It could also be that he is deprted to Sweden and convicted there. Swedes taker the blam for it, while the Mericans where the force behind it. I think that is the most likely situation.
And as a convicted criminal, they can make his life miserable in a lot of ways. Limiting his access to countries, putting him on a no-fly list and a lot of other legal shit.
Becausxe we all know the rape allegations where withrawn, so this has not been about the (Swedish legal definition of) rape in a long time.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I'm confused, why do you find this a wow-worthy statement? Isn't that a basic element of any functioning justice system?
In depth analysis of the political situation surrounding his arrest, endless exploration of whether he'll be extradited to the US, complex discussions on why the police were permitted to enter the embassy to arrest him.
Not a single fucking mention of his cat.
What's happening to the cat! Come on BBC, step up, help us with the important question here.
I would've expected lots of people to show up and make it impossible for the police to arrest the guy while he walks to another embassy.
Kinda interesting why he got booted, though: Changing political landscapes back in Equador. Who are now in bed with Chinese firms to roll out facial reconition to track all citizens in public "for safety".
Freedom is dangerous. Big Brother will save us from Freedom. Because Big Brother loves us all.
"functioning justice system"
Exactly...
Sweden was never the problem. The Swedes aren't really interested in him except as a favor to Hillary Clinton.
No sig today...
I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.
Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses?
Do you think the British police should ignore him breaking the law?
Do you have evidence that the law is being inappropriately applied?
Are you just being a cunt?
The last question is rhetorical.
The demand was to ask him about the incident, not arrest him, and Sweden have interviewed BY SKYPE someone they wanted for murder, so it clearly is possible for them to do it. One of the reasons why this entire case is a load of bollocks and clearly a way to pander to the USA. Though with trump's bullying cowardice and shitheaded arrogance it's entirely possible Sweden could ignore their prosecutor who is married to a politically connected american businessman (IIRC, he could be a lawyer too) and tell the USA that they won't deport merely on their say-so.
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.
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.
Assange worked for Putin.
Assange worried America would nab him.
Putin controls Trump.
Trump ain't gonna do shit.
Assange's worries are over.
Or maybe not. Remains to be seen.
Good God, give it a rest already.
There was no Trump/Russia collusion.
There WAS spying on the Trump campaign for political reasons by the Obama administration, and the lid is about to be blown off THAT.
Which is probably why Democrats and the media (BIRM) are shitting their pants right now.
You SURE you want to see the full Mueller report? The full contents of the documents directing what Mueller was to investigate remain secret. Hmm, what if he was also looking into the spying Obama did on Trump's campaign?
Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Yates, McCabe, Strzok, and maybe even Obama himself might be getting measured for orange jumpsuits right now.
I know your pseudonym damages your credibility but perhaps you could at least fucking explain just what the fuck you think is wrong with 'nobody is above the law'.
The problem is Javid said it, an avid Tory and prospect to replace Maybot and they are a group of people who very much think they are above the law.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
.. I misclicked
Do you think Assange should be free to break any and all laws he chooses?
Exactly this.
I get that many people see him as some kind of hero, but you have to look at things like Wikileaks from a number of perspectives.
Is it interesting to know all about government secrets? Certainly.
What if revealing those secrets endanger people's lives? Hmmm. Are they all evil?
What if revealing those secrets upsets international diplomacy considerations?
That last question is the serious one. Wars have been fought for less that some of the things made public in various leaks.
Sometimes leaking is important, like knowing about shady agencies using dodgy tools to snoop on us. Other things, like diplomatic cables are probably best left un-leaked, even if they'd be interesting to read? It's a bit like taxes. If you ask people, pretty much 100% of them would say that if they had a choice they wouldn't pay taxes. But if no-one paid taxes, civilisation as we know it would collapse. What people want isn't necessarily what is best, even when people just want to know "the truth". Every country has spies, and they often do some pretty damn important work. Releasing documents that reveal what some spies have done (for instance) isn't of benefit to anyone, other than an interesting bit of reading material - and surely that's not a good enough reason to endanger lives. It's great that we all get to see governments' dirty laundry, but doing so isn't without consequences.
Thoughts?
Like the prosecutors in Sweden and the UK doing a political dog and pony show?
Who in the UK has acted improperly, immorally or unethically, against International law, against UK law, against obligations agreed to in legally created treaties or indeed in a way that damages justice, regarding the Assange situation?
Other than Assange, I mean.
Like the people implicated by Wikileak's leaks?
Outside of UK jurisdiction. But if you do feel Wikileaks have demonstrated a breach of UK law then you're very welcome to bring a criminal prosecution in the UK.
Not to mention that the UK has become a parade example of how using laws as political weapons does not make them right.
While it's easy to find examples of any country doing shit like that, I'm not seeing its relevance in context. With no politics involved whatsoever Assange broke the law and has been arrested.
Someone found guilty of manslaughter broke the law in a similar fashion, was extradited from another country and was today sentenced to six months in prison. Are you going to pretend that was politically motivated?
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.
It's obvious that journalism needs new economic models, but WikiLeaks is NOT one of them. Having read several books about WikiLeaks, I think the underlying problem was the lack of a viable economic model. There was a good idea under there, but it was buried so deeply and Assange got so far away from any form of actual journalism that the cart got in front of the horse.
At first WikiLeaks actually understood that the documents should be vetted to make sure they weren't being used to propagate propaganda. Also real journalism requires considering the possible negative ramifications of the release of the information, as when an innocent person might get murdered because their identity is revealed to a vengeful criminal. Multiple sources are important, too, and it is very rare that information cannot be verified by some method or other.
However Assange rather quickly decided it was more important to prioritize the releases of information for maximization of the value to WikiLeaks, including how the information would affect the increasingly important financial donations WikiLeaks needed. Fairly early in the process, they were overwhelmed with more information than they knew what to do with, so they were forced to start picking and choosing what to reveal, and when, and that is when Assange started tasting the poisonous fruit. Follow the money.
Solution time? My own proposed solution approach for the economic troubles of journalism would be a solution-based approach. The readers would be able to contribute to solution projects with the journalists earning a percentage for revealing and publicizing the problems. I think there would also need to be an independent entity (I call it the charity share brokerage) that would provide project guidance and evaluation, as well as handling the money.
Disappointed but not surprised that I couldn't find any substantive comments here on Slashdot, and especially not among the trolls' mods. Enough time for now, so I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I'm still trying to get a sense of Javid. He's a career politician, clearly looking to progress up the ladder and that all by itself diminishes him, but he does seem to be a little less incompetent, authoritarian and dishonest than most of the other holders of his current role in the past two decades.
Admittedly that's not a high bar.
From the standpoint of the United States Assange is a hostile foreign intelligence agent, but that alone is not enough to try to charge and extradite him here, and he isn't an American citizen. So I'm wondering if they've got him on something more specific than publicizing the dirty laundry that other agents handed to him, because it sounds likely US officials are going to try to get him from the British authorities at some point.
Imagine the fireworks that would happen if Trump tried to pardon him instead...
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.
Wikileaks has the Mueller report.
Either the report or Assange will be "released". Ecuador wanted nothing to do with this blackmail, so it rescinded asylum.
Would make a decent movie, maybe.
BlameBillCosby.com
Source:
Important background for journalists covering the arrest of Julian #Assange by Ecuador: the United Nations formally ruled his detention to be arbitrary, a violation of human rights. They have repeatedly issued statements calling for him to walk free--including very recently. pic.twitter.com/fr12rYdWUF
The Queen is above the Law.
Except for the fact that he was peddling stolen information.
"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."
You must be kidding.
"He did not violate any US law that he is subject to."
Wait, what planet is this?
That gets my vote.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Funnily enough, the US has placed an extradition request, as confirmed now by the UK metropolitan police. So I'm afraid you are wrong.
It wasn't me! Some impostor using my slashdot handle!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act on behalf of US authorities. The Swedes seem to be planning on re-opening their assualt charges as well, so there's a potential he'll be making a detour to Scandinavia before crossing the Atlantic, which might not be all that unlikely if the objective is about keeping him bottled up as long as possible. Given he's now a proven flight risk I suspect his chances of bail while all this drags on through the appeals courts (which has taken years in other high profile cases) are pretty slim, so even if he ultimately prevails and avoids extradition it's likely to be quite some time before he's getting out of custody.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Front page of the BBC all day.
Don't forget that the stiffed his bail donors, reneging on his promise to stand trial, and thus the bail was confiscated. Supposedly, some of the donors are really pissed of, and have the means to aggressively pursue repayment (including, for example, the option to put a lien on the proceeds of any future book deals, etc. he might be offered). With interest, his debt is now to the tune of several million pounds. As soon as the first civil suit in this matter hits the courts, he will most likely have to surrender his passport because he certainly is a flight risk. I expect that will happen in the next days.
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.
The only UK crime that has definitely been committed is jumping bail.
This was caused by someone promising a UK court that they wouldn't run and would turn up when requested. That person then *DIDN'T* abide by that.
You might say the Swedes or the US might have political motivations but literally the only UK crime is being punished.
There is an extradition request. Which will go before a UK court. And be treated like an extradition request.
Painting the UK as the bad guy is a really dumb idea. Hell, we sent the Swede's request forms back to them THREE TIMES because they were improper.
And when one of your allies - in law as well as politically - says "Hey, we have an extradition request", it's not your part to question whether that partner, a member of certain legal agreements which prevent them doing certain things, is going to do those things and withhold your co-operation - at least without a TON of evidence that things are improper.
We don't extradite to the US if people are facing a death sentence, we ask for it to be commuted to life imprisonment. Beyond that, we don't ask questions, and have no need to. If the US or Sweden choose to lie and break their agreements, that's on them. We can't try and convict them and withhold co-operation based on the *suspect's* hearsay that they might do something illegal with him. That's not how it works.
Assange will face trial and - based on the prima facie evidence that he skipped bail - be convicted of skipping bail. Then the extradition request will be handled in a court, quite publicly I should think. Then if all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, and we have no cause to think the US will break their legal agreements, then he gets extradited. Then it's the US's problem. And no doubt we will sanction appropriately if they do something they shouldn't.
But you can't lay the blame at the middlemen who *definitely* 100% certainly had a crime committed against their justice system by him.
Hell, if you want to blame someone, blame Ecuador for supposedly protecting him all this time when we told them that he would never be recognised as such, harbouring a known criminal, and then ultimately giving him up (*they* granted permission for the police to enter, which has only ever been the obstacle to the UK doing so!).
The context is: Swedes wanted him. Swedes didn't get him because UK said No. Swedes asked properly. UK started the process. Which included an arrest (which means "to stop", and is used to give time to ascertain the situation and whether charges are warranted). That arrest resulted in Assange being bailed. He broke the bail. Fled the UK law enforcement system. Hid inside Ecuador's embassy in the UK for the better part of a decade, putting out press release, thumbing his nose at authority, costing the UK an *incredible* amount of money. UK then get permission to enter embassy to arrest him, do so. They also get an extradition request, they schedule him in front of a UK court to defend himself against that request. He'll probably even be eligible for legal aid if he wants it.
At what point has the UK done more than the minimum required under their agreements with the EU/US? At what point have they had the (legal or illegal) capability to do much more to see him behind bars and refused to take those paths?
The guys a prat. He's going to jail for skipping bail, simple as that. While there, he's going to have a lot of expensive lawyers argue on his behalf about whether any extradition request is valid or not. Then he'll be extradited.
Good-fecking-riddance.
All he, Snowden and Manning have done is demonstrated that poor whistleblowing will see you in jail, nobody cares about what they whistleblowed about, and that if you try to pretend you're above the law, you'll ruin your life and end up before it anyway. Oh, and that none of them should have ever trusted any of the others with their information, and certainly not Assange.
"Julian Assange, 47, (03.07.71) has today, Thursday 11 April, been further arrested on behalf of the United States authorities, at 10:53hrs after his arrival at a central London police station. This is an extradition warrant under Section 73 of the Extradition Act. He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates' Court later today (Thursday, 11 April)."
The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.
IIRC, there's one part of the video that's questionable. At one point during the action, a vehicle pulls up to load the wounded and is destroyed. Other than that, yes, this was manufactured controversy, and the clip's name "collateral murder" was just click bait.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
"Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US," So then, why is the US extraditing him?
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
missing at least some of the facts
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
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/
ERRMAGAWD!! Russians! Quick bury your head in the sand deeper!
They're both members of the ruling class. And besides, if it's one thing The Mueller investigation did do it's show us Trump has a complete lack of gratitude for the folks who helped put him where he is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
That's immaterial. The federal government has so many lawyers that it can invent whatever pretext it feels like to charge anyone in the world, jurisdiction-shop for a compliant judge to sign off on the deal, and go after that person.
Recall that Assange was originally charged with rape in Sweden, rather than treason against what is to him a foreign country. Whatever happened to that one?
Don't worry, I'm sure as he progresses the tory ladder he will increase his levels of incompetence, authoritarianism and dishonesty. He is following Boris Johnson as mayor, the man who spend £50million on a vanity project that never got built and £3million on some riot trucks that couldn't be used so he does have to plunge that bar pretty low.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
If you are a citizen of a foreign nation, and have security clearance that also provides clearance for the US military, then you also can be criminally liable.
Secure document handling rules state that if you are in possession of documents that you do not have the clearance needed to be in possession of the documents, then you are committing a violation. If I was under such a clearance, and even if the documents were released by someone else, but I had them in my possession, then I would have a security violation. If I had a copy of the Wikileaks documents, and not cleared to have them, then I would be in trouble.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Given he's now a proven flight risk I suspect his chances of bail while all this drags on through the appeals courts (which has taken years in other high profile cases) are pretty slim, so even if he ultimately prevails and avoids extradition it's likely to be quite some time before he's getting out of custody.
In the USA, yes, he would probably be denied bail or subject to very stringent monitoring with an electronic ankle bracelet. In Sweden? I don't know. I'm hearing that people in Norway are apparently already feeling sorry for their biggest mass murderer in history who might, maybe, have to stay locked up for 25 years. Norway is not Sweden but it's probably not all that different either, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedes granted bail and Assange found a way to sneak into Russia.
We have nothing we can extradite him for.
So the US doesn't have laws for interfering with an election, computer fraud and abuse, theft of data, espionage or being an accessory to any of those things?
Interesting.
I guess Assange will simply walk free then.
Assange is a dead man walking. He embarrassed the powers that be. A trial would be to revealing of the reality of the world. So he will die. How he dies is hard to say. Plane crash maybe. Shot dead by a madman full of alleged moral outrage. He is a lose end and will be snipped from the land of the living. He is allegedly having psychological problems so a suspicious suicide. The ways an enemy of the state can die are many.
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.
Anybody remember Pentagon Papers? Then there was the Bay of Pigs.
More recently, NYT and other other leftist MSM have released mountains of classified leaks to smear Trump.
Why should wikileaks be treated differently?
We have nothing we can extradite him for.
So the US doesn't have laws for interfering with an election, computer fraud and abuse, theft of data, espionage or being an accessory to any of those things?
Interesting.
I guess Assange will simply walk free then.
People from foreign nations are completely above the law here in the USA.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Just saying...
Requiem for the American Dream
> In this case he knew those leaks were classified and he chose to publish them.
So? Is that supposed to be illegal or something? The MSM does this all the time.
Assange does not have a clearance, and is not even a US citizen. Those who gave him classified information may have committed crimes, but Assange did not.
Is that supposed to be a crime or something? MSM does that all the time.
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?
I think Julian will be free in a year or, probably, less, similar to Bradley Manning. He is too big to be kept in a prison.
Who know the US chief prosecutor's name? No one, except some aficionados. But Assange is known all over the world, he is a cultural icon, a personage of historical, or even biblical scale.
Do you think anyone truly knows what a true rhetorical question is?
Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
Those laws apply to US citizens.
Also, the MSM publishes classified leaks all the time.
Given the issue is the words of the British Home Secretary I don't think exploring those words in the context of the criminal charges to which they refer is distracting from the issue.
What the fuck are you talking about?
So we can treat him as an enemy combatant. I hope he likes getting waterboarded.
They just lock you up without any trial.
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him.
Sadly the facts have now overtaken your careful and well-reasoned argument. The US has requested his extradition on computer hacking charges for helping Manning.
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?
Nope. You can be indicted for those things regardless of your nationality or where you committed the crimes providing the crimes are in US jurisdiction. Plenty of people have been extradited to the US from countries where they have extradition treaties.
When they commit crimes under US federal law subject to US jurisdiction and are stupid enough to be in countries with extradition treaties to the US. That's when.
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.
Sure, you believe what your partisan bias inclines you towards, just like you were inclined to rant that Obama locked up children en masse as the default policy enough that you ranted about it while claiming you ended it. The same week you fired half your homeland security leadership be abuse they wouldn't reinstitute the policy.
Oh wait no, that was your incompetent glorious leader.
Look, I get it, you are a total shill. But can't you find a figurehead that isn't suffering from rapid onset dementia?
And I'm a total shill?
I at last recognize my bias and am aware of the facts here through independent investigation (I've actually listened to most of the public testimony of the guys I name and have looked at the primary sources we have available). You though, don't seem to be aware of even the basic facts about what happened during the 2016 campaign. But as being a shill, let's investigate your claim...
Would a "total shill" be telling you that they don't expect this to rise very high in the Obama administration? The only real political appointee I've named in Brennon as CIA director, everybody else I'd expect are lower level career types. And I'm not holding my breath on any of these. Clearly Comey and McCabe are in legal trouble for lying to congress, Stroke and Page may get caught up in that mess. Comey mishandled classified information, by his own admission, and where that's likely only going to result in his loosing his clearances, which he doesn't have now anyway, and possibly a criminal conviction if things go badly but I doubt it will result in prison time. The FISA abuse allegations are what really matters here though, and they only really matter politically.
Now if that's what a total shill would be saying, unlike Hanity and Limbaugh who are clearly saying this will implicate people high in the Obama administration, political appointees, if not Obama himself, then I wonder about your objectivity... I've never been a "Lock her up" type, I know how this field is striped and where I think Hillary did mishandle classified information, and Comey let her off when he should not have, I NEVER thought she'd be locked up or even handcuffed. All I ever said was that she should loose her security clearances, which, to be fair, would happen anyway in time. Personally I feel it was a waste of time, but I get the political impact of that chant..
So, where I'm obviously biased, I don't think I'm the "total shill" here..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Is that the one where the Iraqi journalists and their bodyguards get gunned down? The one that was on LiveLeak first?
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
What a joke.
The US does as it likes and you, my friend, are its tool.
The system you believe in and are so vocal in describing is a farce that is applied only when it gives the wanted results.
Nobody is going to see the inside of a courtroom. The fact was that the Trump campaign and Russian officials and representatives were in communication. So far as I can see, the job of any intelligence agency is to monitor the activities of foreign agents. The fact that Trump surrounded himself with idiots who didn't think anyone in the signal agencies would notice them being chatted up by Russians is not an indictment on those agencies. Perhaps someone should consider why Trump surrounded himself with such a pack of simpering treacherous halfwits. I mean, they're crooks, maybe traitors, but they are also some of the most jaw droppingly stupid people one could imagine encountering.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
They do like to wrap it in official stamps though:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-e...
Not entirely true. Assange has, in fact, been offically charged with aiding Manning in cracking passwords on classified government computers, not simply publishing the documents provided to wikileaks. Assuming the facts as presented by the prosecutor are correct, this hacking is the sort of crime which can be laid against anyone, regardless of nationality.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Even now, you can see the same old character assassination and word salads being tossed at Assange, when he is arrested and the immediate talk is of extraditing him to the United States, NOT SWEDEN. This whole farce was nothing but a pretext to get him in US custody so he can be prosecuted for being a journalist. I hope people in the press that have spent years sneering and smearing at Assange find their own dumb asses indicted the next time they publish classified information that is leaked to them.
Like Russiagaters after the Mueller report, and Iraq war superfans after no WMD's were found, it's time for you to not just apologize for ten years of bullshit, but eat it up with a spoon.
Apparently, the US does think they have something they can extradite him for, because he's now been arrested under the extradition act [police.uk] on behalf of US authorities.
I can sue you right now. That doesn't mean I have anything I could sue you for with a hope of winning. Making an extradition request and having it granted are two different things.
Quite specifically this will have to go through a whole new legal trial since the previous extradition to Sweden was based on a completely different crime, country, and circumstance.
Horseshit. Assange always offered to return to Sweden if the government would promise not to use the charges as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, for the crime of being a journalist.
And guess what this arrest proves, dipshit: Assange was always right, and tools like yourself were always wrong. Or did you not notice the extradition hearing is going to be to the United States, NOT SWEDEN?
They can still charge him with a bunch of stuff, eg. unauthorized use of a computer etc., but they can't charge him with actual treason.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
People from foreign nations are completely above the law here in the USA.
That's nonsense. Try robbing a bank in another country, or hacking into a computer system.
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...
It was to be expected since Equator received their payment last month. It just took this long to find out if the trumped up charges of sex assault could still be used, or if it was time to open up the game and show what everybody knew, that it was the USA behind it all.
Equator's payment was $4.2bn from IMF - https://www.enca.com/business/imf-approves-42bn-loan-ecuador
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....
Except for the fact that he was peddling stolen information.
Peddling? Was he selling it?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
What crime? Afaik, the espionage act has never been successfully prosecuted against a member of the press. Even if he conspired to gain access to classified documents, so what? The pentagon papers decided that outcome almost 50 years ago, and it didn't go in the government's favor.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
There is literally nothing we can extradite him for.
Then it's a plain old kidnapping, isn't it? They usually do that with unknowns, but public opinion will let this one pass.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
People from foreign nations are completely above the law here in the USA.
That's nonsense. Try robbing a bank in another country, or hacking into a computer system.
Whoosh - I was being extremely sarcastic towards the Slashdot lawyers who pronounced Assange above the law.
And for the Slashdot lawyers, if an American traitor were to give an ambassador of another nation state secrets, the Ambassador is going to be in trouble as well. And Assange doesn't have a shred of diplomatic immunity to hide behind.
That last sentence wasn't sarcasm, just a statement.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Then why did he lock himself up in a prison for 8 years ?
Cvvfjgn
You have three war crimes in that video:
Targeting civilians
Targeting journalists
Targeting first responders
And in a massively illegal war sold on lies. None of the liars or war criminals have been brought to account - but hey lets prosecute those who told us the truth!
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.
I think you can get the firing squad for espionage too.
If he's missing measurable facts, can you enlighten all of us? Not snarkiness - I'm being serious.
If by non-morons, you mean people who just make shit up to defend Trump, then sure.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I bet the US has communication between manning and Assange, or snowden and Assange, where Assange directs/instructs either to gather secret information and send it to him - that would put Assange in legal trouble as a co-conspirator on espionage.
Ken
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.
that's why you're not hearing anything. Never trust cats. Shoulda got a dog.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you follow the Wikileaks Twitter account, they have ben reporting for about a week that he would be evicted from the embassy, and the British police were waiting to arrest him... a number of videos they posted showed undercover police outside the embassy 24x7 for the last few days.
Hard to form a flash mob though when you don't have an exact time something will happen, just knowing it will happen soon is not enough as you can't keep a large crowd of people on standby. It would have been interesting to see if they could have got a small group together to march outside the embassy 24x7 for a week or so... but I guess no-one tried that.
Honestly I think JA may be better off outside what was essentially an Ecuadorian prison anyway. I wonder if he'll at least be allowed to communicate from a UK jail...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The jurisdiction of the US is its territory. We can dronestrike whoever we want, of course - intelligence agencies and extralegal recourse go together. A foreigner on foreign soil exposing US secrets? Not a legal issue, or should not be in any reasonable world. Now maybe said foreigner is in a nation with a treaty with the US to punish it's own people under its own laws for revealing US secrets, but that's a different matter.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> 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.
Thanks for your advice AC. Particularly for the words that came out of your imagination, not in anything I wrote.
Or, now that the Mueller report is out and all indictments against folks like Stone and Manafort have been filed the last remaining possible loose end to establish collusion between Trumps campaign and Russia is Assange so he ends up committing suicide about 2 weeks from now. Certainly after 6 years of being holed up the timing is interesting.
Straw men and tu quoque arguments.
I'm fairly certain that Assanage had no such clearance, so it's not relevant. Manning clearly violated his clearance, but that's not relevant to Assange. And reporters routinely receive and release such classified information (usually with some measure of responsible redaction) without legal repercussion, because there is not actually any law against doing so, even for US citizens, unless it materially aids an enemy of the US.
The only halfway credible claim I've heard against Assange is that by actively encouraging Manning to acquire and share classified documents with him he was acting as a foreign intelligence agent - which is one of those things you really don't want to be accused of without a powerful foreign government protecting you.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And exactly what crime did Assange commit in US jurisdiction?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him....
Not so fast. They're not getting him on classified, they're going after him for hacking.
https://www.apnews.com/328522a... "A U.S. official says the Justice Department is preparing to announce charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/w... "US seeks extradition on hacking charges"
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
Just another day in Paradise
Mod parent up, please. Intelligent, informative post.
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....
The narrative has changed. We're now living in a world full of bots who will make pro-Chinese posts on any Slashdot article slightly critical of the Chinese government. There's ample evidence the same is happening for anything regarding the US government. The mood on Assange here on Slashdot has suspiciously shifted to "he deserves to be jailed".
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
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.
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
Please point to the documents leaked by Manning or Snowden via Wikileaks that were covering up illegal activities.
Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. And US law makes a very large distinction between US persons and non-US persons.
He only needs to be charged with a crime. Easy to come up with some bogus charges. He then tries to escape, and, very regrettably, had to be shot in the back.
IIRC, that vehicle was a regular passenger van, not an ambulance or anything else marked as "we're just picking up wounded". Which gives a legal fig leaf.
But overall, I agree that it was just click bait. Innocent people get killed in wars. That's one of the big reasons to avoid fighting them.
"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."
You must be kidding.
He's not kidding. And it's true.
If you never got a security clearance, then you never signed away your first amendment rights. Which means you can publish any classified information that lands in your lap.
The key is the information must "land in your lap". If you become an active participant in the leak (direct what to leak, offer a reward, provide technical help, etc), then you've crossed the line into being a co-conspirator.
The jurisdiction of the US is its territory.
I guess we're just going to have to see how this turns out, to see if Assange is as you indicate, above all law.
To be certain, if Assange was in the United States when he did his work - he would still be 100 percent immune from prosecution?
Seems you have made a fine case for the concept that spying is not only legal, but beyond prosecution. Not a US citizen, so it's all good.
Are you so certain of this that you would try it?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Interpol is only supposed to step in when crimes are committed by the same people in multiple countries (their job is to coordinate all the police forces involved).
That didn't stop them putting out an arrest warrant for JA even though he's only wanted for "an interview" in a single country.
No sig today...
Die in a fire... and when you get to Hell, tell the Devil all about the logical fallacies he's making.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
He's always looked older than he was, but now he looks like he's at least 65. In the video where they were dragging him out of the building he looked like a thin Santa Claus. I guess being trapped inside a building for years takes its toll on a person.
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,
And the earth is flat, the moon landings were a hoax, O'Blama is a Kenyan citizen, and Chemtrails are loaded with chemicals that emasculate males, and Pizzagate is real and ongoing.
Do go on though, I love what you post. Do you have a newsletter, or at least T-shirts.
Not my problem, the science says I can tell you the truth and you won't believe it. You gullibly believe evolution has selected for reality perceiving brains, when there is overwhelming evidence from religion most human beings were not. So that means there's inequality in perception and hence inequality in accurate perceptions of reality. You've provided no evidence for your position. The US government is known to be corrupt and has a huge history of corruption and that is well documented in academic circles. But it's obvious from your posts your not educated enough to talk about these things.
Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.
Not my problem, the science says I can tell you the truth and you won't believe it. You gullibly believe evolution has selected for reality perceiving brains, when there is overwhelming evidence from religion most human beings were not. So that means there's inequality in perception and hence inequality in accurate perceptions of reality. You've provided no evidence for your position. The US government is known to be corrupt and has a huge history of corruption and that is well documented in academic circles. But it's obvious from your posts your not educated enough to talk about these things.
Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Pure gold you are posting. Pure gold.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
False, comrade. Manning's sentence was commuted which means the length of prison time was reduced. The conviction itself still stands untouched. From the article:
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
Foreign citizenship and a foreign locale does not provide immunity for hacking into US computers. You might have noticed how Mueller had indicted Russians in Russia. Same thing here. Assange is accused of assisting Manning in the collection of classified data. Such assistance crosses the line and takes him outside of journalistic shielding, he did not merely publish if the accusations are accurate.
If I burn a Koran in the public square in my midwestern US town, am I subject to being extradited to Iran to face punishment?
No, Anonymous Coward, you aren't.
For extradition to occur two criteria have to be met -
1) The alleged offense has to be considered a crime in both countries. This is typically determined by a judge at the extradition hearing.
2) There has to be an extradition treaty between the two countries.
Neither criteria are met in your example, both criteria are met in the Assange situation.
(In some circumstances there also has to be assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. For example, Canada will not extradite individuals charged with murder to the USA unless the USA guarantees the alleged perpetrator will not be executed if found guilty.)
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.
he'd get sentenced under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Unless there's more information that has not been released, this is very unlikely. So far, he's being charged with helping Manning to hack a password.
Strawman. Plenty of liberals don't want to see him rot in jail.
Fucked up when exposing the truth is seen as collaboration with neo nazis. Projection perhaps?
The BBC and other sources are saying that Assange is being charged and that he is facing extradition to the US. From the Justice Department:
WikiLeaks Founder Charged in Computer Hacking Conspiracy
From the BBC:
Julian Assange: Wikileaks co-founder arrested in London
Both the Clinton's and Obummer really want his ass since WikiLeaks showed what kind of ass clowns they all were.
Are you sure about that? It sounds like you're saying: If a person from a foreign nation tries to rob a store in a US city, the local police would forego arresting and charging that person?
if the readers are contributing how is that any different than buying a subscription to a website, newspaper or magazine?
I think our best bet is UBI so that folks who want to do Journalism can just do it and not worry about making a living off it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1) Non-US citizens doing crimes on American soil does make you subject to US laws.
2) The thing is here it looks like he's being charged with trying to ACTIVELY HACK US computers on US soil.
3) If the MSM tries to break into your house to steal your papers, then yeah, it's a crime.
4) I believe he has explicitly claimed to be a journalist.
That is just absolutely false. Where on earth did you get the idea that Interpol only tracks people who commit crimes in multiple countries?
https://www.interpol.int/en/Wh...
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/
The jurisdiction of the US is its territory.
I think that answers the questions you asked. Was he on US soil? The he may have committed a crime under US jurisdiction. Maybe not, though: ordinary US citizens don't break any laws by revealing US secrets either. You have to agree to give up some rights before you can be charged for that (which of course you must to to get access to anything secret). I suspect they'll go for a conspiracy charge, which is at least vaguely plausible, but only again if he was on US soil.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
he helped give us Trump, and he should have known better. Trump is nobody's friend. Also he was irresponsibly leaking un-redacted documents. But the charges he fled were so obviously an excuse to get him into custody so that the US could extradite him as to be laughable. We don't need to ask if the US would have extradited him, the first thing the US did when he was no longer protected by Ecuador is file to extradite.
He's not a child throwing a tantrum, he's being railroaded because he crossed some very rich and very powerful people. His real crimes were those financial documents that got leaked and showed how much money was stored in offshore tax havens. It let us know just how much wealth the 1% has siphoned out of the economy and for anyone paying attention we now know why we're all living under austerity despite the biggest GDPs in history.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you didn't notice because several economic booms fueled by technology ( post WWII, Internet, Housing/Investment Bubble ) hid the effects from a lot of us. You didn't notice because the economy was doing so well that the scraps the 1% leaves us were, for a short time, some mighty tasty scraps. They've noticed how good those scraps are now and are taking those too. Because of that you're starting to notice shit like this again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I didn’t believe they would try to extradite him, as I wasn’t aware of any crime he’d committed. The indictment makes it clear that he’s being charged for something which is a crime, but I’ll admit that I was wrong. I’ll be a bit surprised if it’s enough to get him actually extradited.
I’m still laughing that he got his sorry ass thrown out, though. Wrong or not, he’s still a self-aggrandizing biotch.
Are you sure about that? It sounds like you're saying: If a person from a foreign nation tries to rob a store in a US city, the local police would forego arresting and charging that person?
Should have been picked up as sarcasm. Yes, breaking US law can be prosecuted in the US, even if the person is not a US citizen.
Pretty much the same as any country. That's one of the reasons there are extradition treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Now, they are not always honored, but in a case where Assange is located in Great Britain, it is very likely to be honored. There are some cases where a country might refuse extradition if the country demanding extradition intends to seek the death penalty, and in any event, refusal to extradite rests as a soverign right.
But Assange isn't likely to be charged with anything calling for a death penalty. And while within their rights to refuse Extradition, GB would be playing a game with a future extradition request to the US.
Where the Slashdot Lawyers have got off thinking that there is no recourse, that Assange is unindictable because he isn't a US citizen, is pretty obviously based on their hatred of the US and support of Assange and the people he works for than actual law. Read the replies to my posts. It's more 'Murrica is evil, dammit!" than actual knowledge.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Active imagination? You are the one renaming people "Boris."
Were there commies under your bed at night during the Cold War? You'd better open up your windows and doors to air out the mustiness.
Did I get the name wrong, Ivan?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Not sure beyond trolling what your point is but yes you're subject to the request, there's about zero chance the US state dept would turn you over.
Any country is free at any time to file an extradition request for anybody for any reason. The host nation is also free to politely, or not so politely say, fuck off.
The jurisdiction of the US is its territory.
I think that answers the questions you asked. Was he on US soil? The he may have committed a crime under US jurisdiction. Maybe not, though: ordinary US citizens don't break any laws by revealing US secrets either. You have to agree to give up some rights before you can be charged for that (which of course you must to to get access to anything secret). I suspect they'll go for a conspiracy charge, which is at least vaguely plausible, but only again if he was on US soil.
Seriously, lgw, do some research on extradition treaties, and come back and tell me that it isn't possible to charge a non-US citizen with a crime if he isn't in the USA.
I make jokes about flat earthers, but dammit - the immunity that you people grant Assange with is more related to your support of what he has done, and your hatred of the USA than it is to actual international law. This is why there is law. You simply support anything that harms your enemy. As I noted before, being in Great Britain, the US can invoke the Extradition treaty with GB. There are certain reasons they can refuse under the treaty, and have a right to do so in any event. But simple refusal makes it less likely that a future request of their own be honored.
IANAL, but I do know some law. Assange's best hope is that the present folks in power refuse to make an extradition request as a payback for the help he has given them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You can't run and you can't hide. Putin won't save you.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Nothing in that video violates any convention on warfare.
The fact that nothing in that video is illegal is one of the big reasons going to war is bad.
It wasn't a war zone. It was a city.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
If I see you in a car, I'll pipe bomb your ass to hell, because you're not in an ambulance
If it's a random vehicle, soldiers are allowed to assume it's bringing reinforcements. If it's an obvious medical transport, they're supposed to be a bit more cautious.
Unfortunately, the real law is
"If you piss off a high powered politician, you are guilty"
That is indeed the problem.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
As pointed out by another poster, the vehicle was not marked in any way as an ambulance. Personally, I have issues with it, but from a legal perspective, it's not a war crime. Also, again IIRC, the "loading the wounded" part was NOT the reason for the "collateral murder" narrative, it was ancillary to the "zOMG, they're shooting at armed people in a war zone" outrage.
Armed combatants in a war zone tend to get shot at. You can debate the reasons for the war all you want to, you can debate the overall conduct of the combatants, you can certainly call out things like abu Ghraib, but this particular action does not war crime make.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I can't stand the modern libtard crowd pretending to care about freedom
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Given the maximum sentence he faces for absconding is 1 year in prison.
He will likely receive a sentence at upper end because his actions were wilful, he's shown no remorse and resisted his arrest once the Ecuadorians threw him out.
I'm hearing that people in Norway are apparently already feeling sorry for their biggest mass murderer in history who might, maybe, have to stay locked up for 25 years.
"People," as in one blog article, or a verifiable chunk of the population?
Norway is not Sweden but it's probably not all that different either, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedes granted bail and Assange found a way to sneak into Russia.
There's no bail in the Swedish judicial system. They instead detain suspects if certain criteria are met, which this investigation seems to do on several points.
Yeah but that seams to be for gaining unauthorized access to some computer and not for the data leaked by WikiLeaks.
They've arrested David Letterman by mistake.
Nullius in verba
He fought extradition all the way to the UK supreme court and lost at every stage.
I personally hope he does a dump of everything he has related to corruption within the US govt and political parties in exchange for immunity.
Wouldn't that be something?
He was arrested for jumping bail.
I really cannot decide, but the propensity of his apologists to just make shit up is quite staggering and very amusing.
Keep it up you're adding to his world of hurt.
Back then the claims was they they wanted to either put him in gitmo or straight out execute him and that he would be extradited in secret from Sweden. That is why those theories where deemed conspiracy theories. Now we have the DoJ wanting him for an actual crime with a maximum sentence of 5 years, not quite the same situation.
Z^-1
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Hey Anonymous Cupcake, what is the exact criminal charge Assange is facing?
So it's a crime in the UK to publish US documents? When you aren't even a citizen.
He hasn't been charged with "publishing documents," Anonymous Coward.
He's been charged with criminal conspiracy and criminal hacking, both of which are a crime in the UK.
In the UK he has been charged with breaching bail.
Assange's arrest proves once and for all that the rape charges were always a farce, that it was always a pretext to get Assange into US custody
Sadly no, it's quite possible that the rape charges had a grounded basis in reality and that there were also plans by America to seek extradition.
Today's events have however addressed the allegations that people fearing an extradition attempt by the US are conspiracy theorists. They may or may not have been but they were clearly bloody right.
According to the Verge, he's been charged with "one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Actually now is the least-bad time for him to be arrested. He helped Trump's campaign, and they both share a raging hate-boner for Hillary. Perhaps he can expect a presidential pardon?
Kind of an interesting comment, with traces of insight, though troll-modded into near invisibility.
To actually deserve the insightful mod (which is where the mod wars have left your comment at this time), I think you should have considered the underlying dynamics of journalism. The objective of all journalism, even at Wikipedia in the early days, is to reveal the truth. Not a problem except for people who have dirty secrets to hide, and there are plenty of them. Actually, if you are looking for dirty secrets to reveal, Trump is the mother lode.
Now if Trump thought that Assange was holding dirty secrets about him, then that would be the only factor determining whether or not Trump would intervene. If Trump believed that Assange was about to release Trump's tax returns unless he was pardoned, then you can safely bet Trump would pardon Assange in the proverbial New York minute.
In contrast, if Assange was a real journalist and he had received Trump's tax returns, then he would have first attempted to validate their authenticity, and if satisfied with their authenticity, he would have released them already. That was the original idea of WikiLeaks before Assange became the story. To me the question of guilt is whether Assange made himself into the story, in which case he is certainly guilty of bad journalism, or whether it was inevitable that Assange would become the story, in which case Assange is merely incompetent and the underlying crime is the state of journalism today.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
So, also a crime in the UK and therefore extraditable.
The mood on Assange here on Slashdot has suspiciously shifted to "he deserves to be jailed".
You really think that? Almost everybody suggesting a prison sentence is needed is referring to the UK law he broke.
I'm seeing very little to no support for locking him up in the US. You seem to be paranoid, agenda pushing or just fucking terrible at assessing written information.
When you say "insurance policy", are you speculating that Assange might have some interesting dirty on the great dirtbag himself? Perhaps more drone videos? This time showing Trump cheating at golf?
Seriously, I'd love to see a video of Trump kicking the other player's ball into the bunker.
Even more seriously, the FBI should be bugging Trump's phone to see if Assange calls to offer a deal for a pardon. LOTS of categories of information that a REAL journalist might have revealed... WikiLeaks must have some of it?
Hmm... That gave me a weird idea. Maybe it goes back to Putin and his plans for Trump? I'm actually skeptical that any P-tape exists (though perhaps I shouldn't believe in any limit to Trump's idiocy), but Assange wouldn't care about the authenticity at this point. If Putin gave such a putative tape to Assange and then recorded Trump talking with Assange about it... Well, the kompromat doesn't get any better than that.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The U.S. has charged him with one count of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), according to the Verge.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
>Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws
What the heck are you both smoking? Anybody is subject to US laws if US gets custody of the guy.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The pentagon papers were exfiltrated by a patriot and then given to the media. At no point did a NYT reporter say, thanks for part one, but can you steal xyz for us too, here is a false badge to get into the nuclear code room, or anything like that.
"Julian Assange's crime is to violate the fundamental principles of government, to lift the veil of secrecy that protects power from scrutiny and keeps it from evaporating. It is well understood by the powerful that lifting the veil may cause power to evaporate. It may even lead to authentic freedom and democracy if an aroused public comes to understand that force is on the side of the governed, and that it can be there for them if they choose to control their own fate. We should all thank Julian for his courage and integrity in providing us with this precious gift, at great cost to himself, much to our shame." - Noam Chomsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Z^-2
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
So they have. Wired has an interesting discussion. https://www.wired.com/story/ju...
Dicey at best, since it sounds like he may have only made the offer to crack a password, but the CFAA is extremely broadly worded.
Worse, the statue of limitations ran out years ago, and so they have declared it an act of terrorism in order to get around that little inconvenience.
Terrorism? Seriously? Exactly which civilians were threatened?
Is it any wonder that so many people assume this is a case of the US government exacting revenge for embarrassing it?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Thanks for that. And it still won't be a valid argument to the subject in question.
it is OK to publish classified information as long as it "landed in your lap"?
Yep. At least if you define "OK" as "Legal". Your personal morality may disagree, but your personal morality is also not the law.
As long as you're a civilian who never had a security clearance, and you did not assist the leaker, you can publish away.
Heck, if you're a civilian with a clearance and don't receive anything of value for the leak, and you leak it "to the public" instead of handing it over to a foreign country, you also haven't broken the law. See: Ellsberg.
The Founders of the United States fought for and established, as Thomas Jefferson summed up, A Government Of, For, And By the People. This inherently requires the people to know what their Business of Government is doing. The Grand Jury in this matter has been and continues to be in contempt of the peoples right to know. Why is it not obvious to those so against Assange? The Second Amendment is second for a reason, where the first is about talk as is made clear in Declaration of Independence.
So consider this a test for you, where do you stand in honoring the Founders of the United States or otherwise? This is about the Peoples Business of Government as intended by the Founders of the US, so a work order based on the Declaration of Independence and in consideration of population growth to the point the people are no longer being heard due population size, so read and do http://3seas.org/ , send it to your representatives to resolve this change in population to be in alignment with honoring the Founders of the United States!
Note: I have become aware of politicians hiring people to filter their mail with bs excuses of not being a constituent regardless of their working on a federal level that effects ALL US citizens.
Manning, Julian/Wikileaks & Snowden have honored the Founders of the United States, how about you?
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. ... Extradition to the US is out of the question.
Let's just say your post didn't age very well.
Both of you guys are forgetting that there's an American base in Cuba. Some people are there. I hear it sucks.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Andy McCabe, Comey, maybe Brennon, but I'd be totally surprised if any of these get much jail time..
And don't forget Strzok.
Even a little jail time is going to be excellent because these tools have been getting a celebrity treatment from the cable TV media, publishers, the democratic members of congress, and on other liberal platforms. We need to expose the crocks that they were, and all the media that gave these rogue unhinged spies a platform should be shamed.
Wait, so your argument is that to fight corruption, we should ignore the law at the whim of... who exactly? You don't seem to realize that is just another form of corruption. Your argument boils down to "People I like should only have to follow the laws I agree with (right this second)." That is the picture of a corrupt state. I think it is you that needs to do a bit more thinking. Most of us reading this live in democracies. We can hold a corrupt government accountable by voting for different people and changing laws. The current problem, in the US at least and other places as well, is that a large fraction of the public is more interested in corrupting the government in their favor rather than reducing corruption.
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.
Of course you can. You just have to do it legally. Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras helped Snowden leak a whole bunch of stuff and they haven't been touched by US law enforcement:
* https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/11/glenn-greenwald-returns-united-states-laura-poitras_n_5133584.html
Assange's problem is that you didn't just received and expose information, he is accused of helping Manning to break into classified computer networks. That is what the indictment is and what he is being extradited for.
If you had simply leaked received documents he would have been fine from US prosecution. He chose to be an active participant.
enjoy your troll mods, you son of a bitch. Don't waste our time with your fallacious bullshit.
U mad bro?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
There is certainly more than enough evidence to question whether FBI's spying on Trump campaign was lawful. They used Steele's fake "dossier" as a justification to start monitoring Carter Cage in the FISA application in the summer of 2016. Any FBI agent must have known then that this "dossier" was a work of fiction that belongs on the same shelf with James Bond and Jasson Boerne. This was also about the same time when atent Strzok was boasting in his texts to sweatheart that they were working on the "insurance" for the case if Trump won. He also moanded that certain FBI bureaucrat was questioning the integrity of the source in the FISA app. The source of couse was that British Steele who managed to plant his work of fiction in FBI and on the desks of major newspapers. We have to give Steele credit because he was actually good at doing the later.
the difference is that Trump vs Hilary didn't matter to anyone with any real power. Despite what Glen Beck will tell you Hillary really doesn't have a global kill squad of female assassins with the "Can I talk to your manager" haircut. She's just a dumb broad good at manipulating inter-party politics to her advantage (but not good enough to beat a moderately charismatic black guy from Hawaii).
The Hillary stuff didn't impact the People Who Matter (tm) because whether it was her or Trump they still won. Hillary was a right of center candidate who wants to accelerate corporatism and outsourcing. Trump's all that with a bit more Evangelical crazy (thanks to Pence) and a $1 trillion dollar tax cut. The tax cut was a nice bonus, but it was just that, a bonus.
Now, those other docs he leaked let the world know where those rich were hiding their taxable dollars. Parts of Europe are busy cracking down. They'll fail, because their voters will get distracted by nonsense like scary Muslims, Brexit, and whatever passes for wedge issues and minorities over there, but it'll take some effort to right that ship and get back to eliminating the middle class. Assange screwed with the plans of the powerful. The People Who Matter (tm). He's going to jail. Probably for the rest of his life.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not forgetting, but that comes later, after he's been handed over. He is accused of terrorism after all (the statute of limitations on the CFAA has already run out, but apparently terrorism accusations can extend that)
It is a good reminder of exactly what sort of sadistic illegal treatment the US government is happy to inflect though.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
They can subpoena him regarding the origin of the DNC emails. He insists that they didn't come from Russia. Perhaps it wasn't Seth Rich, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an inside job.
We can only sit and wait to learn the truth. Hopefully Assange can continue to help us uncover it.
It would be interesting if Tim Cook was extradited to the EU.
But like it's being said, the US protects it's oligarchy.
with his inevitable train-wreck of a presidency
Thank goodness a reasonable number of the burning boxcars have Democratic cargo in them.
Trump is the Drano president. All the screeching grease in the drain is refreshing to witness.
to what ever they charge him with in Sweden.
Swedish jails are luxury compared to US hell holes. And he aint getting out of a US jail any time soon. (Would need to have a democrat president give him a pardon.)
The more likely scenario is that the rape charges have nothing to do with the USA and that they are bogus.
The Swedish prosecutor is a rabid feminist. And her behavior throughout has been terrible. Always refusing to interview and charge Assange outside Sweden even thought the practice was common place.
So now she is in a bad place. She will need to put up or shut up. That will be the next phase in this farce.
But if Assange has any brains he will plead guilty to whatever he is charged with. Swedish jails are holiday camps compared to US hell holes.
(And with US "tough on crime" he is in for decades. The first charge is just to get him out of the UK.)
Great... so mass surveilance and political bribery is legal, and what one wishes was still standard journalistic practice is illegal.
I think I agree with your reaction, especially the last part, and it is part of why I have reconsidered and reformed my position on this story. Not much credit to Slashdot, but mostly some other stuff I read and probably one video news story. (However your comment is now partial reinforcement for my new analysis.)
Now I'm thinking that Assange's big crime was bad journalism, and even though I think Assange was quite guilty of quite bad journalism, I now basically think it is wrong for the government to attack him only on that basis. Lots of better journalists could be attacked for their mistakes if every incident of "bad journalism" was a crime. Right now I'm not clear what crimes they think they can stick on him, but I'm even considering a theory that the current charges are deliberately "trumped up" so that Trump can prevent Assange from going down.
I do NOT think that Trump is capable of thinking up this strategy, but it is within the cunning and guile of Kellyanne Conway, the greatest liar still working for Trump. I think Trump is about to pardon Assange and claim he is a champion of free speech and "REAL" journalism.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If there are no enemy combatants and only civilians as you say... what do you call someone who takes up arms and engages in war like activities.
Republicans?
When the law is virtuous, rule of law is a great benefit to mankind.
When the law is wicked, rule of law is a curse from the gods.
I largely agree with you, but I'm seeing things differently after getting some more input on it.
My current theory is that they deliberately trumped up a ridiculous charge against Assange so that it will look relatively innocuous when Trump pardons Assange and proclaims himself the champion of free speech and non-fake journalism. Not actually Trump's idea. Nowhere near smart enough, but I think it's right in Kellyanne Conway's line of confusion. If so, the pardon might come out as soon as they Assange lands in the States (though Trump could not care less about any effects on the election in that shithole country Australia).
The only residual problem is if Assange does more bad journalism, but this time against Trump. On that theory they might be holding the cat hostage.
I do think Assange is pretty much worthless as a journalist. He made himself into the story, mostly in search of more money. However bad journalism is not a crime.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
US law applies around the world, even if you aren't a US citizen. The reach of US law enforcement is long, like my dick. You f with the US govt, they will grab you out of the hole you're hiding in half way around the world and drag your ass back to federal district court to face the music.
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.
Exactly. Same thing with Kim Dotcom (founder and owner of MegaUpload) - he operated a popular bitlocker and made money selling storage space and bandwidth. In order to get him extradited from New Zealand they made up a bunch of stuff, including conspiracy and what have you. In reality he just aided copyright infringement which is a misdemeanor and thus very far from an extraditable offense.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
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.
Well, the charges from Sweden were rather far-fetched but not completely insane as Sweden has a pretty feminist rape law that basically allows women to change their minds after the fact and still get a rape conviction against the man they had sex with. In the Assange case he had sex with two women in Sweden and both now claims that they agreed to have protected sex only and Assange didn't use a condom. He claims there was no conditions to the sex and a written contract or similar is not required so it's words against words, and the law then favors the women only.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Not forgetting, but that comes later, after he's been handed over. He is accused of terrorism after all (the statute of limitations on the CFAA has already run out, but apparently terrorism accusations can extend that)
You're good at reading between the lines. Thank you.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Yeah, but what if I hack an American bank, steal some money and the send it to you. Are you criminally liable?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I can't take credit for that - Wired has an article with a good breakdown of what's going on.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You can't take credit for reading an article that applies to a discussion here, and applying what you read in that article to this discussion? Well, I'm still glad that it happened, whoever did it. ;)
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Well, maybe that part - not so much reading between the lines though :-D.
My understanding of legal maneuverings has been in decline ever since Groklaw went silent.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Yeah, but what if I hack an American bank, steal some money and the send it to you. Are you criminally liable?
If you just send me a thousand bucks and I don't know it was obtained illegally, then no. If you're caught however, I may be required to give the money back.
If, on the other hand, I know the money was obtained illegally, then yes, I've broken the law.
...so all we owe him is a "thank you". If the truth is highly damaging to your candidate - you must have an extremely shitty candidate, one who deserves to lose.
Assange didn't rig the DNC primary, wanted Trump as a general election opponent, force Hillary to be such a right wing warmongering racist, or prevent her from bothering to show up in the Rust Belt states that were decisive in the election.
For perfectly valid reasons, toolbag. Which is why Ecuador granted him aslylum in the first place, and why the UN declared his de facto detention unjust and arbitrary. And he only lost appeals in the UK because the country is as much a poodle of the United States today as it was during the the Bush Administration. But there's even precedent for the UK to block extradition for alleged hackers because the United States has a medieval prison system.
Look, this isn't hard. If this was ever really about alleged rape allegations, all Sweden had to do was promise not to hand Assange over to the United States. Even if you think Assange was lying about returning to Sweden upon such a promise, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to give him asylum, meaning Sweden would have him back one way or the other.
Heads you're wrong, tails you're wrong.
When. When has Assange lied about anything, much less "every stage". Unlike every pundit, media organization and online troll such as yourself, Assange and Wikileaks have a 100% record of authenticity.
But lets go ahead and say Assange was lying about his offer to return to Sweden if the government promised not to hand him over to the United States - if such a promise was made, Ecuador would no longer have a reason to grant Assange asylum, meaning Sweden would have him back in their custody regardless, in short order.
Your mindless character assassination on behalf of a club you'll never be allowed into is noted, shitweasel.
The GP is referring to international law.
So was I. Under international law, it is illegal to target civilians, first responders and journalists. And the war was illegal in the first place as well.
The GP is referring to international law.
So was I. Under international law, it is illegal to target civilians, first responders and journalists. And the war was illegal in the first place as well.
Then you do not understand international law. Men openly carrying arms in an area of active combat are not civilians. Wearing civilian clothes does not make them civilians. In fact wearing civilian clothes may make them illegal combatants under international law. Making them legal targets, making them ineligible for treatment as POWs, making them subject to the laws of the occupying power they are fighting against, etc. Some sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance is required for militias, partisans, etc when wearing civilian clothing rather than military uniforms.
Regarding first responders and journalists, none were identifying themselves as such with any sort of distinctive markings visible at a distance as required. The journalist was indistinguishable from the armed men in the group. The van was indistinguishable from vehicles armed men had used in the region. Regrettable misidentification, one which proper marking are supposed to help prevent. Again, sadly, the journalists and first responders were legal targets due to their lack of compliance with the laws of war.
Then your projected ignorance is noted, along with your lack of understanding of who was shot in the Collateral Murder video.
FTFY. Those supposed weapons were actually cameras held by reporters, making up two of your three war crimes. But even if they were weapons, that doesn't make the people holding them not civilians. In the first place, you can't tell me with a straight face that you can illegally invade another country, blow the shit out of it's people, government and infrasturture, set off a sectarian civil war, and then call anyone who carries a weapon to defend themselves
Fuck that. Fuck it with a giant dick. Fuck any imperialist nazi sack of crap who says they can illegally invade and occupy a people for bullshit reasons and then police how people choose to defend themsleves.
Look, imperialist, the UK and the US explicitly allowed the subjects of their illegal, immoral invasion to keep weapons - where they not merciful?
Fuck your requirements, it wasn't your fucking country, you fucking shit-for-brains. It was no more your business to gun down these people that it's the business of Russian gunships to gun down everyone from cops in Ferguson to the Bundy's in Oregon.