Who died because of his actions? Name a single person who died. Link to a single story in a reputable newspaper that details how someone lost their life as a result of leaks he published.
When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".
The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.. . .
I seem to recall there being at least a few more incidents.
To summarize: It's the inconsistency of the whole affair that looks odd. They seriously reopened a case that was previously said to be baseless, initiated an international manhunt for one of the mildest possible sex crimes defined anywhere in the civilized world, and then put the guy in solitary?
"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape," director of prosecutions Marianne Ny said in a statement.
"The basis for further considerations is not sufficient at the moment. More investigations are necessary before a final decision can be made (concerning possible charges)," she added.
A Swedish duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange on August 20th over rape allegations. But chief prosecutor Eva Finne abruptly withdrew it the next day, saying new information had come to light.
Then last week Finne said there was no reason to believe a crime had been committed, adding however that she had enough evidence to keep looking into a molestation allegation from another woman against Assange.
The lawyer for Assange's alleged victims, Claes Borgstroem, lodged an appeal against Finne's decision to a special department in the public prosecutions office. . . .
Ny, head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular, overturned Finne's decision on the rape claim, and also said the investigation into the molestation claim would be extended.
"Based on the information available, the crimes in question come under the heading of sexual coercion and sexual molestation," she said.
Ny told AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either."
The prosecutor was asked several times to come to London during the last 450+ days of house arrest but refused without saying why.
Or even better, why didn't they fly a judge from Sweden to the UK to have the trial there, acquit Assange, and send him on his way? Isn't that the way that Justice normally works? When the suspect refuses to return and fights extradition, don't you normally fly the judge to them? Is that what your country does? Why not? Do you claim that they "refused without saying why"? You seem to have a very odd view of how the judicial system works in any country, let alone Sweden.
If a prosecutor is enough of a "judicial authority" (not in this country they aren't) to authorise a EAW then the Swedish embassy is Swedish enough to be a venue for questioning.
Yes, and the point must be made once against that Sweden has its own legal system with different laws and customs than yours. There is more than one country in the EU in which prosecutors are considered judicial authorities, so there is nothing odd there. Now tell us, when has your country flown a judge or prosecutor to a foreign country to interrogate a suspect in a rape case who is a fugitive from justice and refuses to return? Why do you think Sweden should adopt this unusual practice and not your country?
Then something weird and as yet unexplained happened and another prosecutor decided he was guilty of something without including the two women the original questioning had been about.
It isn't unexplained, or weird, you are just uninformed.
"There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape," director of prosecutions Marianne Ny said in a statement.
"The basis for further considerations is not sufficient at the moment. More investigations are necessary before a final decision can be made (concerning possible charges)," she added.
A Swedish duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange on August 20th over rape allegations. But chief prosecutor Eva Finne abruptly withdrew it the next day, saying new information had come to light.
Then last week Finne said there was no reason to believe a crime had been committed, adding however that she had enough evidence to keep looking into a molestation allegation from another woman against Assange.
The lawyer for Assange's alleged victims, Claes Borgstroem, lodged an appeal against Finne's decision to a special department in the public prosecutions office. . . .
Ny, head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular, overturned Finne's decision on the rape claim, and also said the investigation into the molestation claim would be extended.
"Based on the information available, the crimes in question come under the heading of sexual coercion and sexual molestation," she said.
Ny told AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure), but not so out of the ordinary either."
Actually war is a state that can be entered between two nations.
There is apparently a flaw in your reasoning somewhere. Bin Laden declared war on the US on behalf of Al Qaeda in 1996, after which they conducted numerous attacks, killing many thousands of Americans. Eventually the US responded with an Authorization for Use of Military Force against those who committed 9/11, and then attacked back, killing or capturing thousands or more of Al Qaeda. Somehow, what you declared impossible has happened. How do you think that is? Hint - a flaw in your thinking.
Terrorism, beside not being a country is a very unclear label.
Exploding a car bomb in a busy market or shopping area is pretty clear. Membership in a particular terrorist organization is even clearer.
(You do realize, that the Founding Fathers, nowadays would be labeled Terrorists, right?)
No, they wouldn't. They would be rebels, as they were at the time to the British crown, not terrorists. You are completely wrong there.
We are not at war with another nation-state, thus we are not at war.
Well, bad luck for you. It turns out that the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of 9/11, and the US Supreme Court has previously held that sort of document as legally equivalent to a declaration of war. The US is at war despite the nonconformance of reality with your declaration.
Yes, who can ever forget when Hewlett-Packard received the corporate death penalty for running a cell phone hacking scheme through a third-party contractor.
Let me know when hackers are subject to the death penalty for phone hacking, then we can talk about corporations. And you can't really forget something you didn't know.
SAN JOSE, Calif.--More than four and a half years after a California judge effectively dismissed criminal charges against the major players in Hewlett-Packard's spying scandal, federal prosecutors are bringing the case back to life.
A father-and-son team of private investigators went before a judge today in the U.S. District Court in San Jose intending to plead guilty on charges relating to HP's controversial probe of boardroom leaks to journalists, which took place in late 2005 and early 2006.
Matthew DePante, 32, and his father Joseph DePante, 64, were arraigned last week on charges of conspiring to . ..
War is supposed to be authorized by Congress and not something the president can decide unilaterally and use as justification to kill anyone anywhere. The Constitution clearly did not intend for the executive branch to be able to plan and execute killings without at least one other branch of government being involved.
The Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda, so one other branch of government was involved. After that is became a military matter, and the President is Commander in Chief. Quite straight forward.
Arguing against judicial review of targeted killings because of a right to face one's accusers is ridiculous.
There is no legitimate role for judicial review. The President is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief in directing military action against people making war against the United States. And again, under American law, there is no trial in absentia anyway.
Furthermore, who said that the accused was deprived of a right to face his accusers? In most cases, he (or more likely his lawyers) could be invited to attend.
If an American member of Al Qaeda wants a trial, they can surrender. Otherwise they are a legitimate target of war. It isn't a question of criminal law, but the law of war.
There is no reason why the president needs to decide these cases by himself. The US could hold a trial in absentia where the executive branch presents evidence to judges; that would allow two of the branches of government to have input into the cases, and it would provide much better documentation for why they were killed and what the evidence was.
Under the US Constitution you have a right to face your accusers, so no trial in absentia. Further more, this is a question of war, not a judicial matter, not a criminal matter. It is a matter for the Commander in Chief - the President. Anyone who takes up arms against the United States is at risk of being killed.
There should not be any American citizens being targeted by the US army, since we stopped fighting a war against American citizens 147 years ago.
I guess it's news to you but German Americans serving in the German Army in WW1 & 2 were killed or captured by the American army. Italian Americans serving in the Italian Army in WW2 were killed or captured by the American Army. Iraqi Americans serving in the Iraqi Army in the two Gulf Wars were killed or captured by the American army. Muslim Americans who have joined Al Qaeda to make war on the United States are . . . guess what? Yes, they are being captured or killed by the American army. Pretty consistent pattern, yes?
Yet here we are, looking at a list of American citizens to be executed without trial.
What you are looking at is a list of Americans who have joined with a foreign power to make war against the United States. They are being target as enemy combatants. And they are quite valuable to Al Qaeda with their knowledge of the workings of American society and how it might be attacked. They aren't being executed, they are being killed as would be any other combatant. It is completely proper. If they want a better deal, they can surrender.
You must understand that American stupidity is a moderate stupidity, plumbing neither the heights nor depths of what is achieved in European civilization and many of its offshoots. (I expect you'll take this news sitting down.)
Denial of Service is difficult to defend against, but it is impossible to retaliate against, since it universally uses botnets. It is not "hacking," either. You basically have no recourse of any kind in that situation other than some not-so-useful technical stopgaps to mitigate damage. If you go after people who "attacked you," you're simply further hurting innocent civilians, and deserve to be slapped with the same jail time as the original attackers.
PARIS — Interpol said yesterday that 25 suspected members of the loose-knit Anonymous hacker movement have been arrested in a sweep across Europe and South America.
The international police agency said in a statement that the arrests in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Spain were carried out by national law enforcement officers working under the support of Interpol’s Latin American working group of specialists on information technology crime.
The suspects, between ages 17 and 40, are suspected of planning coordinated cyberattacks against institutions including Colombia’s defense ministry and presidential websites, Chile’s Endesa electricity company and national library, and other targets.
(A little old to be called "script kiddies", BTW.)
No, then it's a BETTER idea. Not only is it better for you to have legal protection from being sued for disabling the system, but it's a BETTER idea for someone to stop the compromised system which is probably also leaking very sensitive identify data from patients.
Yes, and the lawful way you accomplish that is to call the hospital and inform their IT staff*. You don't hack the hospital, especially if you don't want to be sued for the downtime and costs to repair the damage you did that both the hospital and its vendors had to work to repair.
A punch comes from a direction, you disable the guy obviously punching from there. Possibly someone else told him to do it; that's one less guy punching you right now though. That's one less guy he can tell anyone ELSE to punch (or worse).
IP packets aren't a punch. You are justified in alerting the hospital, and blocking their packets anywhere from your network to the edge of theirs. You are not justified in hacking them.
*You do realize that hospitals are 24 hour a day operations, right?
No court system in the world has any jurisdiction over "private contractors", or they won't be "private contractors"
Either you are trolling or there is a huge gap between your understanding of the law and what the situation actually is. I suggest you talk to a lawyer before you test your theory in real life.
It's the same kind of nonsense people said about blacks during WW2 ("They are not sane or intelligent enough to handle big equipment like tanks or planes.").
You left out at least one group - the Taliban (well, several actually). The Taliban aren't freedom fighters (I would think that would be a mistake that is hard to make), they are wannabe conquerors trying to retake the nation to impose a religious dictatorship on them. And yes, they do play dirty, just like Al Qaeda.
Dehumanizing people who are being bombed is a common strategy, but an evil one. And someone modded you up, too.
Aren't you demonizing the poster you are responding to, a sort of dehumanization? Could that be evil? And someone modded you up, too.
By the way, killing the terrorists in their hiding places with a small missile is completely legitimate whether or not they are called bad names and "dehumanized".
Drones are fine tools for finding and killing the enemies we already have, but this isn't particularly useful if we also create more of them with every use.
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
Somewhere, Georgetown’s Christine Fair — full disclosure: a friend of this blog — is pumping her fist. Fair has been a proponent of the strikes as a sensible counterterrorism tactic. And she’s blamed the widespread unpopularity of the drones in Pakistan on a “disinformation campaign” by terrorist sympathizers in Pakistan’s intelligence service. (Also, she claims based on her travels in Pakistan that the drones are more popular within the tribal areas, but independent confirmation for that claim is dicey.) For a senior Pakistani general to embrace the drones is quite a vindication.
Slashdot Mirror
Who died because of his actions? Name a single person who died. Link to a single story in a reputable newspaper that details how someone lost their life as a result of leaks he published.
As you wish.
Julian Assange, monk of the online age who thrives on intellectual battle
When I try to question him about the morality of what he's done, if he worries about unleashing something that he can't control, that no one can control, he tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".
The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.. . .
I seem to recall there being at least a few more incidents.
To summarize: It's the inconsistency of the whole affair that looks odd. They seriously reopened a case that was previously said to be baseless, initiated an international manhunt for one of the mildest possible sex crimes defined anywhere in the civilized world, and then put the guy in solitary?
I'm afraid you're misinformed.
Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange
The prosecutor was asked several times to come to London during the last 450+ days of house arrest but refused without saying why.
Or even better, why didn't they fly a judge from Sweden to the UK to have the trial there, acquit Assange, and send him on his way? Isn't that the way that Justice normally works? When the suspect refuses to return and fights extradition, don't you normally fly the judge to them? Is that what your country does? Why not? Do you claim that they "refused without saying why"? You seem to have a very odd view of how the judicial system works in any country, let alone Sweden.
If a prosecutor is enough of a "judicial authority" (not in this country they aren't) to authorise a EAW then the Swedish embassy is Swedish enough to be a venue for questioning.
Yes, and the point must be made once against that Sweden has its own legal system with different laws and customs than yours. There is more than one country in the EU in which prosecutors are considered judicial authorities, so there is nothing odd there. Now tell us, when has your country flown a judge or prosecutor to a foreign country to interrogate a suspect in a rape case who is a fugitive from justice and refuses to return? Why do you think Sweden should adopt this unusual practice and not your country?
Then something weird and as yet unexplained happened and another prosecutor decided he was guilty of something without including the two women the original questioning had been about.
It isn't unexplained, or weird, you are just uninformed.
Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange
Why does it seem like the past 15 years of politics have been "Wag the Dog" repeated over and over again?
Apparently you aren't getting past the fringe politics and conspiracy theories to an understanding of actual events. 9/11 - Wag the dog? No.
See if you can figure out why this American citizen was killed.
In essence he received the same treatment legally as these other Americans shot down en mass by the Federal government. All completely legal, and correct. Their leader even asked for that treatment. Go figure.
Thai official: Iran terrorists targeted Israeli diplomats
Iran’s End Times Documentary
Actually war is a state that can be entered between two nations.
There is apparently a flaw in your reasoning somewhere. Bin Laden declared war on the US on behalf of Al Qaeda in 1996, after which they conducted numerous attacks, killing many thousands of Americans. Eventually the US responded with an Authorization for Use of Military Force against those who committed 9/11, and then attacked back, killing or capturing thousands or more of Al Qaeda. Somehow, what you declared impossible has happened. How do you think that is? Hint - a flaw in your thinking.
Terrorism, beside not being a country is a very unclear label.
Exploding a car bomb in a busy market or shopping area is pretty clear. Membership in a particular terrorist organization is even clearer.
(You do realize, that the Founding Fathers, nowadays would be labeled Terrorists, right?)
No, they wouldn't. They would be rebels, as they were at the time to the British crown, not terrorists. You are completely wrong there.
We are not at war with another nation-state, thus we are not at war.
Well, bad luck for you. It turns out that the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of 9/11, and the US Supreme Court has previously held that sort of document as legally equivalent to a declaration of war. The US is at war despite the nonconformance of reality with your declaration.
Yes, who can ever forget when Hewlett-Packard received the corporate death penalty for running a cell phone hacking scheme through a third-party contractor.
Let me know when hackers are subject to the death penalty for phone hacking, then we can talk about corporations. And you can't really forget something you didn't know.
War is supposed to be authorized by Congress and not something the president can decide unilaterally and use as justification to kill anyone anywhere. The Constitution clearly did not intend for the executive branch to be able to plan and execute killings without at least one other branch of government being involved.
The Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda, so one other branch of government was involved. After that is became a military matter, and the President is Commander in Chief. Quite straight forward.
Arguing against judicial review of targeted killings because of a right to face one's accusers is ridiculous.
There is no legitimate role for judicial review. The President is acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief in directing military action against people making war against the United States. And again, under American law, there is no trial in absentia anyway.
Furthermore, who said that the accused was deprived of a right to face his accusers? In most cases, he (or more likely his lawyers) could be invited to attend.
If an American member of Al Qaeda wants a trial, they can surrender. Otherwise they are a legitimate target of war. It isn't a question of criminal law, but the law of war.
There is no reason why the president needs to decide these cases by himself. The US could hold a trial in absentia where the executive branch presents evidence to judges; that would allow two of the branches of government to have input into the cases, and it would provide much better documentation for why they were killed and what the evidence was.
Under the US Constitution you have a right to face your accusers, so no trial in absentia. Further more, this is a question of war, not a judicial matter, not a criminal matter. It is a matter for the Commander in Chief - the President. Anyone who takes up arms against the United States is at risk of being killed.
There should not be any American citizens being targeted by the US army, since we stopped fighting a war against American citizens 147 years ago.
I guess it's news to you but German Americans serving in the German Army in WW1 & 2 were killed or captured by the American army. Italian Americans serving in the Italian Army in WW2 were killed or captured by the American Army. Iraqi Americans serving in the Iraqi Army in the two Gulf Wars were killed or captured by the American army. Muslim Americans who have joined Al Qaeda to make war on the United States are . . . guess what? Yes, they are being captured or killed by the American army. Pretty consistent pattern, yes?
Yet here we are, looking at a list of American citizens to be executed without trial.
What you are looking at is a list of Americans who have joined with a foreign power to make war against the United States. They are being target as enemy combatants. And they are quite valuable to Al Qaeda with their knowledge of the workings of American society and how it might be attacked. They aren't being executed, they are being killed as would be any other combatant. It is completely proper. If they want a better deal, they can surrender.
Wars are a special case obviously— but INITIATING war is pretty fucking tyrannical in the first place.
Free clue: Bin Laden's Fatwa
Terrorist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, , in U.S. death threat video - 8 Nov. 2010
Cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki's Killing A 'Major Blow' To Al Qaeda
Nah, Americans are stupid all year long.
You must understand that American stupidity is a moderate stupidity, plumbing neither the heights nor depths of what is achieved in European civilization and many of its offshoots. (I expect you'll take this news sitting down.)
Well..if the US government (stuxnet for example) can do it (with no declaration of war), then it mustn't be illegal right? /ironyoff
If Iran can do it without a declaration of war, then it mustn't be illegal, right? (After all, what is a string of assassinations and a little planning for genocide among friends? No doubt the Iranians are envious because they didn't think of it first.)
At least they have a clear vision for the future, one that seems remarkably free of Jews in the Middle East.
Denial of Service is difficult to defend against, but it is impossible to retaliate against, since it universally uses botnets. It is not "hacking," either. You basically have no recourse of any kind in that situation other than some not-so-useful technical stopgaps to mitigate damage. If you go after people who "attacked you," you're simply further hurting innocent civilians, and deserve to be slapped with the same jail time as the original attackers.
Not necessarily.
Interpol says 25 arrests target hackers
February 29, 2012
PARIS — Interpol said yesterday that 25 suspected members of the loose-knit Anonymous hacker movement have been arrested in a sweep across Europe and South America.
The international police agency said in a statement that the arrests in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Spain were carried out by national law enforcement officers working under the support of Interpol’s Latin American working group of specialists on information technology crime.
The suspects, between ages 17 and 40, are suspected of planning coordinated cyberattacks against institutions including Colombia’s defense ministry and presidential websites, Chile’s Endesa electricity company and national library, and other targets.
(A little old to be called "script kiddies", BTW.)
No, then it's a BETTER idea. Not only is it better for you to have legal protection from being sued for disabling the system, but it's a BETTER idea for someone to stop the compromised system which is probably also leaking very sensitive identify data from patients.
Yes, and the lawful way you accomplish that is to call the hospital and inform their IT staff*. You don't hack the hospital, especially if you don't want to be sued for the downtime and costs to repair the damage you did that both the hospital and its vendors had to work to repair.
A punch comes from a direction, you disable the guy obviously punching from there. Possibly someone else told him to do it; that's one less guy punching you right now though. That's one less guy he can tell anyone ELSE to punch (or worse).
IP packets aren't a punch. You are justified in alerting the hospital, and blocking their packets anywhere from your network to the edge of theirs. You are not justified in hacking them.
*You do realize that hospitals are 24 hour a day operations, right?
No court system in the world has any jurisdiction over "private contractors", or they won't be "private contractors"
Either you are trolling or there is a huge gap between your understanding of the law and what the situation actually is. I suggest you talk to a lawyer before you test your theory in real life.
I hope you aren't mixed up in this nonsense: Sovereign Citizens: Radicals Exercising 'God-Given Rights' or Fueling Domestic Terrorism?
That would be unlikely to end well. Sovereign Citizens - A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement
I was under the impression that "private contractors" had something to do with "shrinking genitalia." Which would also be somewhat effective.
Indeed.
Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital
Benin alert over 'penis theft' panic
Journalist Tracks Rumors Of Penis Thievery
---
As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." -- GK Chesterton
To describe 10 million Iranians as "insane" smacks of anti-persian racism.
Could you list a few of the suicide bombings that black Americans carried out in WW2, including against the United States? Any like the Beirut bombing? - The 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing: Connecting the Dots
Iran’s End Times Documentary
It's the same kind of nonsense people said about blacks during WW2 ("They are not sane or intelligent enough to handle big equipment like tanks or planes.").
92nd Infantry Division, 784th Tank Battalion, 761st Tank Battalion , , 858th Engineer Aviation Battalion
Tuskegee Airmen
Not so much, no.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
You left out at least one group - the Taliban (well, several actually). The Taliban aren't freedom fighters (I would think that would be a mistake that is hard to make), they are wannabe conquerors trying to retake the nation to impose a religious dictatorship on them. And yes, they do play dirty, just like Al Qaeda.
Taliban hang 7-year-old boy for "spying"
Including the (non-trivial) civilian casualties that they don't like? Who cares about that, right?
Actually the innocent civilian casualties are a small percentage of the people killed in the attacks.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
Dehumanizing people who are being bombed is a common strategy, but an evil one. And someone modded you up, too.
Aren't you demonizing the poster you are responding to, a sort of dehumanization? Could that be evil? And someone modded you up, too.
By the way, killing the terrorists in their hiding places with a small missile is completely legitimate whether or not they are called bad names and "dehumanized".
Drones are fine tools for finding and killing the enemies we already have, but this isn't particularly useful if we also create more of them with every use.
Which they don't particularly do.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome