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).
The case was suspended, since he was inaccessible. The one who did this indicated that they could quickly reopen the case if he were to ever become available. It's as meaningful as reprogramming your ICBM targeting computer to no longer point at your enemy.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
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'd probably rather risk doing a few years in a Swedish prison than go into self-imposed exile in an embassy for several years. So he probably was actually worried of deportation to a black site.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Freedom is dangerous. Big Brother will save us from Freedom. Because Big Brother loves us all.
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.
There are photos and video of him apparently being carried/escorted out of the embassy by British police, so it seems more likely the Ecudoreans had just had enough and decided to let them come in and arrest him.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
He was never inaccessible. The Swedish prosecutor consistently refused to send someone to interview him (as had been done in several cases of suspected murder with the accused out of the country) and was censured for it (and subsequently resigned) because she only wanted to make a name for herself by prosecuting a high profile target. Instead, she issued the EAW to try and get him returned to Sweden because US had secretly agreed an extradition with her.
That way, she could claim credit for apprehending and prosecuting a fugitive and US could get their hands on a whistleblower who embarrassed them.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
You still believe that garbage? It's becoming more and more obvious that it was Hillary and the Democrats who were working with the Russians in order to discredit Trump. Wait for the indictments.
Nobody with half a brain accused him of Treason. He's not a US citizen, he can't commit treason against the US, he has no expectation of loyalty to it. Not even for releasing the footage of the lawful Apache combat actions. (The actions in the footage are not crimes under the Laws of Land Warfare as outlined in the various conventions.)
As to Assange, he cannot be held criminally liable for any of the classified data leaked to Wikileaks and published by him on the site. He never agreed to protect the information from release. The traitors that released it, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are the ones facing criminal charges, as they both signed lawful contracts to protect the secrets of this nation.
The way it works is: If I have a security clearance (I did until it expired after I retired from the Army) and I give you classified information I should be protecting, I am then criminally liable for my actions or inactions that allow the security compromise and the release of the classified information. You however are not. As a US citizen there is a tenuous responsibility that you might hold for receiving but it's not commonly prosecuted unless you also have a clearance. But if you are a citizen of a foreign nation, like Assange, even if that nation is closely allied with the US. You are under no obligation at all to protect that information.
Now, if you directed me to collect and give you information, then you fall into the realm of conducting international espionage actions. If caught in the US you can be arrested and confined until such time as we trade you back to your home country. But more likely we would just declare you persona non-grata and kick you out of the country. If discovered conducting such activities in another country, we could ask them to do the same things and if allied they might, but they would not extradite you to the US. You would be subject to their laws regarding captured spies.
The US has never asked anyone to arrest him with the intention of extraditing him. We have nothing we can extradite him for. I won't deny that we might have quietly encouraged the Swedish government to press the issue and the British to make the arrest for extradition to Sweden with the intent of at least making it harder for him to run Wikileaks and leak secrets our own traitors have given him. But Extradition to the US is out of the question. There is literally nothing we can extradite him for. He did not violate any US law that he is subject to.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
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
Funnily enough, the US has placed an extradition request, as confirmed now by the UK metropolitan police. So I'm afraid you are wrong.
From The Guardian:
Extradition request from US confirmed
Scotland Yard has confirmed that Assange was arrested on behalf of the US after receiving a request for his extradition.
In a statement it said:
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 as soon as possible.
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
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!
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.
"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 US has put in a formal extradition request and he was re-arrested on that basis.
It's not clear what they want him for. Could be related to Manning, could be related to Snowden, could be related to Russia and the Clinton emails, could be all three.
Apparently Ecuador got a written guarantee that he would not face the death penalty or torture. Such things are illegal under UK law anyway. At his extradition hearing he will doubtless raise concerns about potential torture in the US judicial system, in light of Guantanamo and the use of extended periods of solitary confinement in prisons. It would be illegal for the UK to extradite him if it could reasonably foresee him being subject to any of that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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/
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.
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.
> 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?
Sweden is interested in Assange because other people request them to be interested
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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....
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!
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.
1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
I'm Canadian and not a US citizen. If I hack into your American bank account from Canada and steal all your money I've still committed a crime and I'm still subject to US laws.
If American law enforcement figures out who I am, they can extradite me and have me stand trial in the USA.
> Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
We can. Anyone can. Capacity for violence is almost always the ultimate arbiter of acceptable behavior.
The thing is, once you enter the realm of "law by right of arms", the person/group capable of the most decisive violence wins. And unless you're a government with legions of heavily armed and well indoctrinated soldiers, spooks, cops, etc. at your command, that's not you.
And one of the first laws most governments enforce is "we have an exclusive right to use violence". There's some good reasons for that, as it disrupts what otherwise tends to become perpetual cycles of revenge and counter-revenge. But it also means that in taking up arms yourself, against anyone, you are challenging the government's primacy, and can expect to be stomped down, if only as an example to discourage more potentially credible threats.
Once you leave the domain of a single cohesive government, such as entering international politics, there is no longer any single entity with an agreed upon monopoly on violence, which inevitably means that the capacity for violence is *always* a subtext in any conflict. Which is why nations around the world routinely violate treaty and trade agreements with impunity when they no longer serve their goals. Refraining from international violence has nothing to do with ethics or morality - it's all about profit and loss. So long as it's more profitable for everyone involved to abide by a treaty than to violate it, the treaty survives. Once that changes for one of the signatories, you can expect them to violate it.
Just as happened when Russia invaded Crimea - doing so was a clear treaty violation, but a valuable strategic move (it gives them much more secure military access to the Mediterranean). They judged that the loss to the other major signatories was less than the losses associated with going to war over it (more profitable to everyone who mattered to avoid war), and so they went for it. And they judged correctly - the U.S. and others did the minimum necessary to defend the Ukraine as outlined by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty they had signed on to - sending a strongly worded letter. Of course that also means they sent a clear message to every other signatory that the treaty was absolutely worthless and they had better start making their own nukes if they wanted a real deterrent, but apparently the threat of more 2-bit nuclear powers arising in order to defend themselves was considered a more acceptable price to pay than war.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There are several big differences that I'm aware of:
1) It sounds like Assange is being accused of actively soliciting classified data, which is crossing the line, legally speaking, whereas the NYT and other publications were not accused of doing so. They've received classified documents, but they don't encourage people to steal documents, nor do they walk their sources through the steps necessary to exfiltrate classified data, both of which Assange is being accused of, from what I can gather.
2) Whereas Ellsberg (and Snowden) did his due diligence by raising concerns with his superiors in an attempt to resolve the issues internally before going public, Manning made no such attempt. Likewise, whereas there were specific concerns that Ellsberg (and Snowden) hoped could be resolved by making those concerns public, Manning seemingly had no awareness of the contents of the data he exfiltrated, nor of any specific threat to the public's wellbeing. Those distinctions are both legally and morally important when drawing the line between "whistleblowers" and "leakers". Whistleblowing is a final step that is taken in the public interest in response to a specific threat after all other avenues have been exhausted. Leaking is something that anyone can do at any time for any reason. As such there are good reasons why the one is (at least somewhat) protected, while the other is not.
3) The NYT (and the multitude of other papers that published content from the Papers, as well as those reporting on Snowden's data) exercised editorial discretion in what they actually published. It's estimated that they only printed 5% of the Papers' actual contents. In contrast, wantonly dumping classified leaks online without fully vetting them, as Wikileaks has done numerous times with Manning's data, demonstrates a gross disregard for the lives, safety, and property of those who may be affected. Legally, this may or may not make a difference (I don't know either way), but morally it's reprehensible.
All of which is to say, while I think that Assange and Wikileaks have acted reprehensibly, I also think the world needs something like Wikileaks, or at the very least a free and unrestrained press. Likewise, while I think that Manning failed to do his duty both as a service member and a "whistleblower", I think there are others who have faithfully fulfilled their legal and/or moral obligations, such as Ellsberg and quite possibly Snowden.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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?...
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.
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?
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/
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?
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.
I think it's relevant to consider that Assange is not a pure-hearted useful idiot. He was also motivated by spite and anger. I think the funny part is that Obama was pursuing Assange for making Dubya look bad. Most of the current mess in the Middle East is Dubya's fault (though it was Cheney's decisions), but when you bring that up now, the usual reaction is "Dubya who?"
I can really see Trump pardoning Assange and proclaiming himself the defender of non-fake journalism. The problem is that Assange is not reliable and he might have another spasm of bad journalism, with Trump as the new target. I was only partly joking when I suggested taking Assange's cat hostage.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.