All European countries would demand some guarantees about possible penalties before extraditing anyone to the US.
He has repeatedly said that he fears being extradited from Sweden to the US, sure. It looks to me like he's lying, since he didn't seem to worry about extradition to the US back when he was politically significant. I believe he doesn't want to go to Sweden to face charges, and ISTM that the most likely scenario is that he is guilty of what he's accused of, and doesn't want to be punished for it.
Obama apparently couldn't figure a criminal charge that would stick to Assange. Publishing classified material is OK in the US, however inconvenient, and the only possible charges would be based on any assistance, or possibly encouragement, Assange gave Manning. Since he couldn't, and I doubt there's new evidence, this rumor is unlikely to lead to anything. Incompetence would imply that he could have come up with a good criminal charge, which was doubtful at best, and political weakness that a warrant for Assange would have been politically unpopular.
Snowden revealed a lot about the NSA that really should have been exposed, and a lot that should not have been. If he'd revealed only NSA internal operations, I'd be in favor of pardoning him. Since he didn't, there's a pretty strong and legitimate argument against it. As for Assange, if there was no likely charge for him to be brought up on, why would the subject of a pardon come up?
I'm sufficiently nearsighted so that, with my glasses off, I can focus nicely at a distance just beyond the end of my nose. Who needs a magnifying glass?
I have the ability to think and come up with new solutions to new challenges. If I'm suddenly required to program in a language I don't know, I'm going to need training of some sort. I can learn it myself, but it's probably going to be more efficient to find me some training, and my time doesn't come cheap.
The specification that the Fibonacci routine has to be recursive is obviously not intended to make an efficient generator, or one capable of handling large numbers. It's partly a test to see if the applicant can use recursion. The intention is to ensure that the applicant is at least barely competent, not to ensure that the applicant is actually good. Add a more efficient generator and you'll probably impress people more.
I was in an interview once when I was asked to write a query on the board. It was in the form SELECT...FROM...WHERE..., and I stayed at the whiteboard, prepared for a non-trivial question. I didn't get one. My conclusion was that they'd gotten applicants who didn't know even the most basic SQL.
In the biggest Agile project I was on (three developers for maybe nine months), we knew what we wanted (as much as we ever do for an innovative project) and what we were doing. It went great. We had the ability to adapt to things as they came up (we refactored a good chunk of the existing software early on), and we had fairly steady progress.
If you can prove fraud, you might be able to claw back unspent money from the assholes behind the corporation. In the US, it isn't going to be easy, and if the fraudsters have already spent the money you're SOL.
I was working in the industry at the time it started to go down. I was a contractor implementing predictive models. I learned that bundles of mortgages were sold in "tranches", where the first of four tranches got all the money collected up to a fourth of the bundle, and the second, third, and fourth got what was left.
The model dealt reasonably well with rising property values. The possibility that property values could fall seems to have never occurred to the modelers (nor did they have the data to build that into the model even if they'd been smart enough to realize it). The database columns that frightened me were STATED_INCOME and STATED_ASSETS, meaning the mortgage issuer had not asked for income and asset verification. (I think NINJA actually meant No INcome, Jobs, or Assets, or it may have had different meanings in different places.) Obviously, if someone getting a NINJA loan had verification, they could have gotten more favorable terms, so it was a pretty fair bet that the mortgagee wasn't going to pay off the mortgage.
The reason mortgage companies liked the bad loans is that the interest rates were so high, so there was lots of profit if the guy did pay the mortgage for a while.
The idea that the companies were selling people who don't do this finance thing very well was that they'd get the house, live in it for a while, and even if they defaulted on the mortgage the house would be worth more than the value of the mortgage, so they would at least be able to walk away without debt or even with some profit. The idea that they were selling other companies was that the lower tranches were actually worth money.
When you're dealing with probabilities and expected values, the expected value of all the bets in a group is the sum of the expected value of all the bets. This means that a liars' loan (another commonly used phrase for NINJA) with negative expected value was going to make any bundle containing it less valuable. The only way to make money off NINJA loans was to sell them to someone who was a bigger sucker than you were.
In my country, people who do not display "due care" when acting as officers of a limited liability company can be sued.
The Wells Fargo workaround is to insinuate to their workers that they can make fake accounts, and then put enough quota pressure on to make sure they have to. Then, when this is found out, the poor saps on the front line get thrown to the wolves, while the management that forced them to break the law or lose their jobs gets to claim innocence.
Arguably I'd be better off with fewer cards in my wallet, but only three of those deal directly with money. I've got a car insurance card, health insurance cards, a card good for a discount at Holiday gas stations....
A lot of this is reputation. I contribute to Kickstarter campaigns when either I generally trust the people and/or company involved or I'm willing to gamble the money on the chance of getting the product.
There are two cards I use. One is completely flat, with a printed account number, and one has very slightly raised digits for the account number, but on the back of the chip. I don't know how that would do with one of those carbon paper thingies, since my name and the account number are on opposite sides of the card.
Depends on whether there's fraud or not. I've heard of a case where the bank insisted that a guy who spent time in South Africa must have snuck into the UK again to use his chip&pin to withdraw money.
If you ever embarass the United States Government, there is no limit to the amount of time, resources and, if necessary, dirty or downright illegal tricks to ruin your life.
Lots of people make the US look bad and are ignored. An extradition request is neither dirty nor illegal. Extraordinary rendition would be, but the US has never tried that.
Their reaction, however, pretty much legitimizes the Wikileaks documents as no one puts this much effort into removing a source vs disproving false information.
So, after quite a few years, there's a rumor of an extradition request, and that's supposed to be an unusual amount of effort? The US has been leaving Assange alone for a long time, and (I think) hoping he'd just go away.
It's hilarious the USG would rather go after the messenger vs leading by example and just following the rules.
The US Government wouldn't be going after a messenger, but after a participant in the actual leaking. Assuming there's enough evidence for that. If the US wasn't following the rules, they'd have taken an illegal action long ago.
If Assange can be shown to have motivated or helped Manning, he may be guilty of crimes against the US. If he just received the documents and published them, well, that isn't a crime in the US.
So, what you're claiming isn't illegal is, in fact, not illegal. You may or may not be mistaken on the facts of the case. I can't tell, since I certainly don't know them in enough detail to say.
However, there's no point in pardoning someone when you don't anticipate possible criminal charges, nor if you'd rather bring someone up on charges if you could.
Assange is accused of rape in Sweden, and Sweden has asked the UK to extradite him. The UK found the request valid, and sought to get Assange to send him to Sweden, when he fled to the Ecuadorean embassy. He has clearly violated UK criminal law.
If the Brits get him, they have to send him to Sweden. Sweden will deal with him and ship him back to the UK. It's illegal for Sweden to do anything else. At that time, he faces UK justice for the UK laws he violated, and possibly an extradition request from the US. The only legal path for Assange to be extradited to the US, assuming there is an extradition request found valid by UK courts, is to go to Sweden, go through their process, which may include imprisonment for some time, go back to the UK, and go from there. The UK can't send him anywhere but to Sweden, and Sweden has to send him back to the UK. At that point, the UK would doubtless require some guarantees on possible punishment before sending him to the US.
Extraditing someone does require something at least analogous to charges. Typically it requires a statement that there's good evidence that the subject of the request did something that's illegal in the country the subject is in and the country issuing the request.
Assange WAS in a country the US has an extradition treaty with, and the UK has shown what I consider to be an excess of willingness to extradite people to the US. If he was concerned with being extradited, his actions were those of an idiot.
That's what is undetermined. If Assange didn't aid Manning or push him to his actions, he was just a publisher, and that's legal according to US law. If he did, then he may well be guilty of espionage. We would have to know what was going on between Assange and Manning in some detail to know that, and that's exactly the sort of thing a court is supposed to determine. Going after him would be stupid without having at least the potential of enough evidence to convict, but that's how the US executive branch is working these days.
He voluntarily moved to Sweden after the leaks. When Sweden became too hot for him, he voluntarily went to the UK. If you're trying to avoid being extradited to the US, the UK is about the last place you should go.
So, when he faced serious criminal accusations in Sweden, suddenly he was in danger of being extradited to the US. When the UK found the Swedish extradition request to be completely proper (including accusing him of things that are felonies in English law, not just Swedish), suddenly he was in danger of being extradited to the US.
Assange's issues are that he doesn't want to face Swedish justice, and he feels the need to put a good face on it.
I'm not a fan of the Cold War, and I'm really not a fan of heating it up.
Reagan heated it up to the point where the Soviets had two choices: attack or fold. I see no reason why anyone could be sure beforehand that they'd fold. Reagan risked Western Civilization to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union. Except in retrospect, I'm not sure that was a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
All European countries would demand some guarantees about possible penalties before extraditing anyone to the US.
He has repeatedly said that he fears being extradited from Sweden to the US, sure. It looks to me like he's lying, since he didn't seem to worry about extradition to the US back when he was politically significant. I believe he doesn't want to go to Sweden to face charges, and ISTM that the most likely scenario is that he is guilty of what he's accused of, and doesn't want to be punished for it.
Obama apparently couldn't figure a criminal charge that would stick to Assange. Publishing classified material is OK in the US, however inconvenient, and the only possible charges would be based on any assistance, or possibly encouragement, Assange gave Manning. Since he couldn't, and I doubt there's new evidence, this rumor is unlikely to lead to anything. Incompetence would imply that he could have come up with a good criminal charge, which was doubtful at best, and political weakness that a warrant for Assange would have been politically unpopular.
Snowden revealed a lot about the NSA that really should have been exposed, and a lot that should not have been. If he'd revealed only NSA internal operations, I'd be in favor of pardoning him. Since he didn't, there's a pretty strong and legitimate argument against it. As for Assange, if there was no likely charge for him to be brought up on, why would the subject of a pardon come up?
I'm sufficiently nearsighted so that, with my glasses off, I can focus nicely at a distance just beyond the end of my nose. Who needs a magnifying glass?
I have the ability to think and come up with new solutions to new challenges. If I'm suddenly required to program in a language I don't know, I'm going to need training of some sort. I can learn it myself, but it's probably going to be more efficient to find me some training, and my time doesn't come cheap.
The specification that the Fibonacci routine has to be recursive is obviously not intended to make an efficient generator, or one capable of handling large numbers. It's partly a test to see if the applicant can use recursion. The intention is to ensure that the applicant is at least barely competent, not to ensure that the applicant is actually good. Add a more efficient generator and you'll probably impress people more.
I was in an interview once when I was asked to write a query on the board. It was in the form SELECT...FROM...WHERE..., and I stayed at the whiteboard, prepared for a non-trivial question. I didn't get one. My conclusion was that they'd gotten applicants who didn't know even the most basic SQL.
It was in reference to good ol' US consulting companies that I came up with the division between in-house and outhouse software.
In the biggest Agile project I was on (three developers for maybe nine months), we knew what we wanted (as much as we ever do for an innovative project) and what we were doing. It went great. We had the ability to adapt to things as they came up (we refactored a good chunk of the existing software early on), and we had fairly steady progress.
C#. Duh.
If you can prove fraud, you might be able to claw back unspent money from the assholes behind the corporation. In the US, it isn't going to be easy, and if the fraudsters have already spent the money you're SOL.
I was working in the industry at the time it started to go down. I was a contractor implementing predictive models. I learned that bundles of mortgages were sold in "tranches", where the first of four tranches got all the money collected up to a fourth of the bundle, and the second, third, and fourth got what was left.
The model dealt reasonably well with rising property values. The possibility that property values could fall seems to have never occurred to the modelers (nor did they have the data to build that into the model even if they'd been smart enough to realize it). The database columns that frightened me were STATED_INCOME and STATED_ASSETS, meaning the mortgage issuer had not asked for income and asset verification. (I think NINJA actually meant No INcome, Jobs, or Assets, or it may have had different meanings in different places.) Obviously, if someone getting a NINJA loan had verification, they could have gotten more favorable terms, so it was a pretty fair bet that the mortgagee wasn't going to pay off the mortgage.
The reason mortgage companies liked the bad loans is that the interest rates were so high, so there was lots of profit if the guy did pay the mortgage for a while.
The idea that the companies were selling people who don't do this finance thing very well was that they'd get the house, live in it for a while, and even if they defaulted on the mortgage the house would be worth more than the value of the mortgage, so they would at least be able to walk away without debt or even with some profit. The idea that they were selling other companies was that the lower tranches were actually worth money.
When you're dealing with probabilities and expected values, the expected value of all the bets in a group is the sum of the expected value of all the bets. This means that a liars' loan (another commonly used phrase for NINJA) with negative expected value was going to make any bundle containing it less valuable. The only way to make money off NINJA loans was to sell them to someone who was a bigger sucker than you were.
The Wells Fargo workaround is to insinuate to their workers that they can make fake accounts, and then put enough quota pressure on to make sure they have to. Then, when this is found out, the poor saps on the front line get thrown to the wolves, while the management that forced them to break the law or lose their jobs gets to claim innocence.
Arguably I'd be better off with fewer cards in my wallet, but only three of those deal directly with money. I've got a car insurance card, health insurance cards, a card good for a discount at Holiday gas stations....
A lot of this is reputation. I contribute to Kickstarter campaigns when either I generally trust the people and/or company involved or I'm willing to gamble the money on the chance of getting the product.
There are two cards I use. One is completely flat, with a printed account number, and one has very slightly raised digits for the account number, but on the back of the chip. I don't know how that would do with one of those carbon paper thingies, since my name and the account number are on opposite sides of the card.
Depends on whether there's fraud or not. I've heard of a case where the bank insisted that a guy who spent time in South Africa must have snuck into the UK again to use his chip&pin to withdraw money.
I've used chip&pin at Target, and it works well. Everywhere else that I've had to use the chip, my experience agrees with yours.
Lots of people make the US look bad and are ignored. An extradition request is neither dirty nor illegal. Extraordinary rendition would be, but the US has never tried that.
So, after quite a few years, there's a rumor of an extradition request, and that's supposed to be an unusual amount of effort? The US has been leaving Assange alone for a long time, and (I think) hoping he'd just go away.
The US Government wouldn't be going after a messenger, but after a participant in the actual leaking. Assuming there's enough evidence for that. If the US wasn't following the rules, they'd have taken an illegal action long ago.
If Assange can be shown to have motivated or helped Manning, he may be guilty of crimes against the US. If he just received the documents and published them, well, that isn't a crime in the US.
So, what you're claiming isn't illegal is, in fact, not illegal. You may or may not be mistaken on the facts of the case. I can't tell, since I certainly don't know them in enough detail to say.
However, there's no point in pardoning someone when you don't anticipate possible criminal charges, nor if you'd rather bring someone up on charges if you could.
IANAL, but as I understand it:
Assange is accused of rape in Sweden, and Sweden has asked the UK to extradite him. The UK found the request valid, and sought to get Assange to send him to Sweden, when he fled to the Ecuadorean embassy. He has clearly violated UK criminal law.
If the Brits get him, they have to send him to Sweden. Sweden will deal with him and ship him back to the UK. It's illegal for Sweden to do anything else. At that time, he faces UK justice for the UK laws he violated, and possibly an extradition request from the US. The only legal path for Assange to be extradited to the US, assuming there is an extradition request found valid by UK courts, is to go to Sweden, go through their process, which may include imprisonment for some time, go back to the UK, and go from there. The UK can't send him anywhere but to Sweden, and Sweden has to send him back to the UK. At that point, the UK would doubtless require some guarantees on possible punishment before sending him to the US.
Extraditing someone does require something at least analogous to charges. Typically it requires a statement that there's good evidence that the subject of the request did something that's illegal in the country the subject is in and the country issuing the request.
Assange WAS in a country the US has an extradition treaty with, and the UK has shown what I consider to be an excess of willingness to extradite people to the US. If he was concerned with being extradited, his actions were those of an idiot.
That's what is undetermined. If Assange didn't aid Manning or push him to his actions, he was just a publisher, and that's legal according to US law. If he did, then he may well be guilty of espionage. We would have to know what was going on between Assange and Manning in some detail to know that, and that's exactly the sort of thing a court is supposed to determine. Going after him would be stupid without having at least the potential of enough evidence to convict, but that's how the US executive branch is working these days.
If that was his issue, he's an idiot.
He voluntarily moved to Sweden after the leaks. When Sweden became too hot for him, he voluntarily went to the UK. If you're trying to avoid being extradited to the US, the UK is about the last place you should go.
So, when he faced serious criminal accusations in Sweden, suddenly he was in danger of being extradited to the US. When the UK found the Swedish extradition request to be completely proper (including accusing him of things that are felonies in English law, not just Swedish), suddenly he was in danger of being extradited to the US.
Assange's issues are that he doesn't want to face Swedish justice, and he feels the need to put a good face on it.
I'm not a fan of the Cold War, and I'm really not a fan of heating it up.
Reagan heated it up to the point where the Soviets had two choices: attack or fold. I see no reason why anyone could be sure beforehand that they'd fold. Reagan risked Western Civilization to hasten the fall of the Soviet Union. Except in retrospect, I'm not sure that was a good idea.