I'd be interested in hearing the rational for the idea that "we have no right to be spending tax dollars on a space program." Why the space program? What else do we supposedly not have the "right" to spend tax dollars on? Or are you claiming that we have no right to be collecting taxes?
Sounds like all the US would need to do is wait until the issue with Sweden is resolved. Sweden extradites Assange, he is tried and found not guilty. He is no longer in Swedish custody, but he is still in Sweden. At that point, what would keep the US from extraditing him from Sweden? But again, I am not a lawyer and certainly not a European lawyer, so this is all just guesswork on my part.
Ah, but they would not be "taking him and passing him on," would they? They would be taking him and then, oh my! The US wants him for something entirely different.
Are you suggesting that, if a person is extradited for one crime to one country, but then a third country finds they have committed a completely different crime, the person is immune to extradition to the third country simply because they had been extradited to a second country for a different crime? Wow. If that were true, you could get away with murder if you timed it right.
Thanks for providing that link, the section you wished me to read backs up my theory.
24.—(1) A person shall not be surrendered under this Act unless the issuing judicial authority gives an undertaking in writing that the person will not be extradited to a third state without the consent of the High Court and the Minister.
(2) The issuing judicial authority may request in writing the High Court to consent to the extradition to a third state by the issuing state of a person surrendered to the issuing state under this Act.
(3) The High Court shall not give its consent to a request under subsection (2) unless the extradition of the person concerned to the third state in respect of the offence concerned would be permitted under the Extradition Acts 1965 to 2001, were a request for such extradition to be received by the State from the third state.
But again, that is just my interpretation. I could be wrong. But think it through logically, if your theory is right, then a person could indeed commit a relatively minor crime in one nation, go to second nation and commit murder, then go to a third nation. If the first nation is the first to extradite, then the second nation could not extradite for the greater crime of murder unless the first nation consents. That makes no sense to me, but this is government we are talking about and "makes no sense" never stopped them before.
Why do you think it is in bad taste? It's a pun on the names of some of the Shuttles. Sure, Challenger is referenced, but Columbia is not, so the quip is not primarily referencing shuttles that blew up. It's just referencing shuttles.
You really have not proven what you think you have proven. The website you quote does not make it clear whether someone can be extradited from Sweden for a different crime than they were extradited from the UK for. The way I read it, if someone is extradited from the UK to Sweden, Sweden can not then pass them along to a third country for the same crime. But I see nothing prohibiting extradition for a different crime.
As I explained, the US may not extradite him from the UK by way of Sweden if the UK objects. However, the US has not presently asked for extradition. Therefore, the UK may not object based on that fact. After Sweden has extradited him, the US can file for extradition from Sweden, and the UK can not object because they would no longer be involved, and the extradition would be for a different charge. See how that works? All on the up and up, technically, which is much better from the standpoint of intimidating other potential leakers.
Now, I feel I have to ask: why the insults? I understand we disagree, but I have kept things civil. I am not insulting you, why do you feel compelled to insult me? Are you so enamored of the current US administration that you feel a slight against them is a slight against you?
You seem shockingly ready to accept a government's word at face value. Why do you think the US has not requested extradition yet? They will let Sweden get him, then request extradition. The UK will not be able to object, they will have extradited him to Sweden, fair and square under the law, and only then will the US ask for him, when it is too late for the UK to protest. Duh. It took me all of five seconds to think up that scenario. How come you couldn't see it? Perhaps, because you don't want to?
As for Manning, the US will simply torture him until he says that Assange conspired with him to steal secrets. After that, Assange is a dead man. The point is not to stop wikileaks, the point is to put the fear of torture and death into anyone who would attempt to make a second wikileaks. If you think we wouldn't do it, you do not understand realpolitik. The world is not a pretty place, the people running the US are not heroes, and good only triumphs in the very long run. I feel like someone should have explained these truths to you long ago.
I use wikipedia as a reference because they link to many different sources. And, you know, because wikipedia articles have been proven to be at least as accurate as other encyclopedias. Do you not understand how to click on the reference links provided? What is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article? If you have a specific complaint about the accuracy, make your complaint. If you generally mistrust wikipedia, click on the reference links to read the source material. Problem solved, without having to insult anyone.
You've got nothing, so you try to impugn my sources without actually saying where you feel they are inaccurate. You may as well admit you've lost the argument, you've got nothing but logical fallacies left. I'd link to the article on "poisoning the well" in wikipedia, but you'd probably claim that was innacurate, too, without stating how.
What a stupid complaint. Do you know how wikipedia's history feature works? Can you click on hyperlinked references? Grow up and stop trying to poison the well. If you have a real issue with the information I link to, address that, not some imaginary problem with wikipedia. Dissing wikipedia doesn't advance your cause at all.
In order to be incarcerated in a normal prison, inmates must go to trial. What trial found any evidence that any of the men in Gitmo deserve to be there? None.
When there is mistaken identity in a normal criminal case, it comes after a lengthy investigation and actual trial. The men in Gitmo had no chance to defend themselves or prove their innocence.
The US has disappeared plenty of folks, there is still a Canadian citizen in Gitmo. And how would anyone know where Assange went, or who took him? He would simply disappear, never to be seen again. The US has a lot to gain from acting as Assange's lawyers say: no more people like Assange. They need to send a crystal clear message to potential whistle blowers: if you leak embarrassing secrets, we will "secretly" torture you to death.
The diplomatic cables themselves outline exactly why Sweden would be more likely to allow extradition than the UK.
"No Hierarchy" is a good fit as it's got that "archy" root in it. I worked with anarchist groups quite frequently in my youth, and I can say from experience they do have a power structure, but it wider than it is tall and it is not rigid. Any time there are more than two people present (and most of the time there are only two present) you will find a power structure. But in real anarchist groups the structure results from power freely given rather than power stolen.
Uh, what do you think a rat-line is? Rat-lines were underground railroad type escape routes for Nazis. I fail to see how the concept applies to wikileaks.
Yeah, I know about that act. It basically evens up the burden of proof between the US and the UK for extradition. The UK used to have, by treaty, lower standards for refusing an extradition request by us than we had for refusing a request by them. But the UK can still refuse extradition if they think the country requesting the individual will torture or kill them. T
The UK wouldn't extradite him, Sweden would. Why do you think Sweden is trying so hard to get him back? Because we are pressuring them to, because it would be far easier to extradite him. The UK would say "No way, you are going to torture him to death." Sweden would say "Here you go!"
You are absolutely wrong. We sent people to gitmo with no evidence but a neighbor saying "Yeah, that's the guy." Maybe they didn't like him, maybe he had the same last name as a terrorist. Absolutely, without a doubt, there are innocent men in gitmo.
That is an outright lie. Guantanamo houses people who have done nothing worse than piss off their neighbors. "Yeah, you guys are looking for Saifiz Al Akbar? Uh, yeah, that's the goat-stealing bastard right over there. Well, his last name is Akbar, anyhow." There are plenty of cases of mistaken identity. There are plenty of cases of people being sent to Gitmo for political reasons. And Gitmo is not the worst possibility, one of the reasons we supported Mubarak for so long is that we kidnapped people we don't like and sent them to him to torture, in fact his vice president was also head torturer. The idea that we might send someone to gitmo for political reasons is only hyperbole if you do not know anything about the place or its history.
Are you claiming that everyone in Guantanamo was found waving a cheap AKM copy and firing at US soldiers? I hate to disappoint you, but most people in Guantanamo are there on no more evidence than a pissed off neighbor saying "Yeah, that goat-stealing bastard is a terrorist, lock him up!"
Slashdot Mirror
Okay... But sticking them in your ass and running down the street naked yelling "I'm a camera! I'm a camera!" is hardly normal use.
I'd be interested in hearing the rational for the idea that "we have no right to be spending tax dollars on a space program." Why the space program? What else do we supposedly not have the "right" to spend tax dollars on? Or are you claiming that we have no right to be collecting taxes?
The Register did it first: http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/paris/
I certainly hope things are as you say.
Sounds like all the US would need to do is wait until the issue with Sweden is resolved. Sweden extradites Assange, he is tried and found not guilty. He is no longer in Swedish custody, but he is still in Sweden. At that point, what would keep the US from extraditing him from Sweden? But again, I am not a lawyer and certainly not a European lawyer, so this is all just guesswork on my part.
Ah, but they would not be "taking him and passing him on," would they? They would be taking him and then, oh my! The US wants him for something entirely different.
Are you suggesting that, if a person is extradited for one crime to one country, but then a third country finds they have committed a completely different crime, the person is immune to extradition to the third country simply because they had been extradited to a second country for a different crime? Wow. If that were true, you could get away with murder if you timed it right.
Thanks for providing that link, the section you wished me to read backs up my theory.
24.—(1) A person shall not be surrendered under this Act unless the issuing judicial authority gives an undertaking in writing that the person will not be extradited to a third state without the consent of the High Court and the Minister.
(2) The issuing judicial authority may request in writing the High Court to consent to the extradition to a third state by the issuing state of a person surrendered to the issuing state under this Act.
(3) The High Court shall not give its consent to a request under subsection (2) unless the extradition of the person concerned to the third state in respect of the offence concerned would be permitted under the Extradition Acts 1965 to 2001, were a request for such extradition to be received by the State from the third state.
But again, that is just my interpretation. I could be wrong. But think it through logically, if your theory is right, then a person could indeed commit a relatively minor crime in one nation, go to second nation and commit murder, then go to a third nation. If the first nation is the first to extradite, then the second nation could not extradite for the greater crime of murder unless the first nation consents. That makes no sense to me, but this is government we are talking about and "makes no sense" never stopped them before.
Why do you think it is in bad taste? It's a pun on the names of some of the Shuttles. Sure, Challenger is referenced, but Columbia is not, so the quip is not primarily referencing shuttles that blew up. It's just referencing shuttles.
You really have not proven what you think you have proven. The website you quote does not make it clear whether someone can be extradited from Sweden for a different crime than they were extradited from the UK for. The way I read it, if someone is extradited from the UK to Sweden, Sweden can not then pass them along to a third country for the same crime. But I see nothing prohibiting extradition for a different crime.
As I explained, the US may not extradite him from the UK by way of Sweden if the UK objects. However, the US has not presently asked for extradition. Therefore, the UK may not object based on that fact. After Sweden has extradited him, the US can file for extradition from Sweden, and the UK can not object because they would no longer be involved, and the extradition would be for a different charge. See how that works? All on the up and up, technically, which is much better from the standpoint of intimidating other potential leakers.
Now, I feel I have to ask: why the insults? I understand we disagree, but I have kept things civil. I am not insulting you, why do you feel compelled to insult me? Are you so enamored of the current US administration that you feel a slight against them is a slight against you?
You seem shockingly ready to accept a government's word at face value. Why do you think the US has not requested extradition yet? They will let Sweden get him, then request extradition. The UK will not be able to object, they will have extradited him to Sweden, fair and square under the law, and only then will the US ask for him, when it is too late for the UK to protest. Duh. It took me all of five seconds to think up that scenario. How come you couldn't see it? Perhaps, because you don't want to?
As for Manning, the US will simply torture him until he says that Assange conspired with him to steal secrets. After that, Assange is a dead man. The point is not to stop wikileaks, the point is to put the fear of torture and death into anyone who would attempt to make a second wikileaks. If you think we wouldn't do it, you do not understand realpolitik. The world is not a pretty place, the people running the US are not heroes, and good only triumphs in the very long run. I feel like someone should have explained these truths to you long ago.
You think? Based on what?
I use wikipedia as a reference because they link to many different sources. And, you know, because wikipedia articles have been proven to be at least as accurate as other encyclopedias. Do you not understand how to click on the reference links provided? What is wrong with the information in this wikipedia article? If you have a specific complaint about the accuracy, make your complaint. If you generally mistrust wikipedia, click on the reference links to read the source material. Problem solved, without having to insult anyone.
You've got nothing, so you try to impugn my sources without actually saying where you feel they are inaccurate. You may as well admit you've lost the argument, you've got nothing but logical fallacies left. I'd link to the article on "poisoning the well" in wikipedia, but you'd probably claim that was innacurate, too, without stating how.
What a stupid complaint. Do you know how wikipedia's history feature works? Can you click on hyperlinked references? Grow up and stop trying to poison the well. If you have a real issue with the information I link to, address that, not some imaginary problem with wikipedia. Dissing wikipedia doesn't advance your cause at all.
After reading this, I'm not entirely sure what your point is. All I can see is more misunderstanding of what anarchism is and what anarchists want.
In order to be incarcerated in a normal prison, inmates must go to trial. What trial found any evidence that any of the men in Gitmo deserve to be there? None.
When there is mistaken identity in a normal criminal case, it comes after a lengthy investigation and actual trial. The men in Gitmo had no chance to defend themselves or prove their innocence.
The US has disappeared plenty of folks, there is still a Canadian citizen in Gitmo. And how would anyone know where Assange went, or who took him? He would simply disappear, never to be seen again. The US has a lot to gain from acting as Assange's lawyers say: no more people like Assange. They need to send a crystal clear message to potential whistle blowers: if you leak embarrassing secrets, we will "secretly" torture you to death.
The diplomatic cables themselves outline exactly why Sweden would be more likely to allow extradition than the UK.
"No Hierarchy" is a good fit as it's got that "archy" root in it. I worked with anarchist groups quite frequently in my youth, and I can say from experience they do have a power structure, but it wider than it is tall and it is not rigid. Any time there are more than two people present (and most of the time there are only two present) you will find a power structure. But in real anarchist groups the structure results from power freely given rather than power stolen.
Uh, what do you think a rat-line is? Rat-lines were underground railroad type escape routes for Nazis. I fail to see how the concept applies to wikileaks.
If all you have is poisoning the well, you've already lost the argument, because poisoning the well isn't argumentation, it is a logical fallacy.
Yeah, right. Obama is a right wing hawk in (very poor) disguise, of course he does that.
Yeah, I know about that act. It basically evens up the burden of proof between the US and the UK for extradition. The UK used to have, by treaty, lower standards for refusing an extradition request by us than we had for refusing a request by them. But the UK can still refuse extradition if they think the country requesting the individual will torture or kill them. T
The UK wouldn't extradite him, Sweden would. Why do you think Sweden is trying so hard to get him back? Because we are pressuring them to, because it would be far easier to extradite him. The UK would say "No way, you are going to torture him to death." Sweden would say "Here you go!"
LTMGTFY. Here are the top five items for a google query "Bradley Manning Torture"
http://news.change.org/stories/un-investigating-bradley-manning-torture-claims
http://news.change.org/stories/the-obama-administration-is-torturing-bradley-manning
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/09551812291/us-is-apparently-torturing-bradley-manning-despite-no-trial-no-conviction.shtml
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/accused_wikileaker_bradley_mannings_torture_by_isolation_20101215/
And you think everyone in gitmo has been proven to have broken laws? How naive.
You are absolutely wrong. We sent people to gitmo with no evidence but a neighbor saying "Yeah, that's the guy." Maybe they didn't like him, maybe he had the same last name as a terrorist. Absolutely, without a doubt, there are innocent men in gitmo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
That is an outright lie. Guantanamo houses people who have done nothing worse than piss off their neighbors. "Yeah, you guys are looking for Saifiz Al Akbar? Uh, yeah, that's the goat-stealing bastard right over there. Well, his last name is Akbar, anyhow." There are plenty of cases of mistaken identity. There are plenty of cases of people being sent to Gitmo for political reasons. And Gitmo is not the worst possibility, one of the reasons we supported Mubarak for so long is that we kidnapped people we don't like and sent them to him to torture, in fact his vice president was also head torturer. The idea that we might send someone to gitmo for political reasons is only hyperbole if you do not know anything about the place or its history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees
Are you claiming that everyone in Guantanamo was found waving a cheap AKM copy and firing at US soldiers? I hate to disappoint you, but most people in Guantanamo are there on no more evidence than a pissed off neighbor saying "Yeah, that goat-stealing bastard is a terrorist, lock him up!"