That isn't really correct, is it? Sweden informed both Ecuador and the UK that it would like to interview Assange at the embassy. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry issued this weighty statement that it would consider the request in light of this and that, but didn't give permission. Really, what is this "paperwork" difficulty that is stopping things if Ecuador truly wished to cooperate with Sweden?
This is clearly a manufactured delay by Ecuador on behalf of Assange to help run out the clock on the statute of limitations.
Is that what you got out of the article? It looks different to me, actually pretty much the reverse of what you think it is. Let's look at the section in question. If you look at the section in bold below you see that the Swedes say they submitted a request to interview Assange at the embassy. Then we see this weighty statement from Ecuador that they will consider it in light of this and that. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry statement comes after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy which would seem to indicate that there was support for that in the embassy and Ecuador. (After all, would Assange make the demand repeatedly if he had no support for it from the Ecuadorians?) And finally we have the Swedish spokesman stating that there are "problems" with a number of the documents. It's fairly easy to see what is going on.
The Swedes made a request in good faith to Ecuador and the UK*(see below) and the government of Ecuador has decided to drag their feet and manufacture excuses to not allow the meeting to happen. They are providing cover for Assange with the statute of limitations for some of the charges rapidly approaching. What possible difficulty could there really be if Ecuador was of a mind to truly cooperate? What is this weighty decision?
This is political cover for Assange by Ecuador, plain and simple. I'm a little surprised you don't see it given your hyper-suspicion about the UK, US, and other Western countries. Ah, but there it is - Ecuador is a Leftist paradise offering refuge to Assange. No scrutiny needed there!
Fredrik Berg, press spokesman at Sweden's Prosecution Authority (Åklagarmyndigheten), did not want to comment, but said there had been problems with a number of documents that had delayed the process.
“We will do everything to ensure the interrogation happens in June or July,” he insisted.
Meanwhile, Ecuador said it was still considering Swedish prosecutors' request.
Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Swedish prosecutors said on Monday that they had submitted a request to British and Ecuadoran authorities to question Assange in June and July at the embassy, as reported by The Local.
Sweden's director of public prosecution Marianne Ny "has submitted a request for legal assistance to the English authorities and a request to Ecuadorian authorities regarding permission to interview Julian Assange at Ecuador's embassy in London during June-July 2015," a statement from her office said.
Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.
I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden
Your story is dated 2011, and I regret to inform you that the facts seem to have changed under your feet. There have been three court cases in the UK, going all the way to the UK Supreme Court, that have upheld the charges against him as rape even in the UK.
I also think it is a bit of a mistake to rely solely upon the views of Assange's barristers/lawyers even if the story was up to date.
Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.
Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened.
Assange admits that he had sex. I don't think Assange's accusers are accurately described as "girlfriends" as it was a transient relationship. It was more of a "hook up" with a couple of his supporters. (Perhaps that is what emboldened him to abuse them (allegedly).) The long delay between the alleged assault and the investigation is due to the change in prosecutors. The first one wasn't interested in pursuing the case, the second one was. There is no mystery there.
I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...
The circumstances are a bit different here in that Assange allegedly assaulted two women on different occasions.
The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.
Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?
By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.
Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
No, you don't. At best you skipped over some very inconvenient parts of the text for your view, and that is assuming you bothered to read it at all.
The "dog in this race" that I have is a preference for facts and truth to occasionally show up in the discussions of the supposedly intelligent people here. I know, it's mostly a forlorn hope, but still.... And I'll add to that I find pitiable the habit of so many here on Slashdot that apparently live such cloistered lives with such narrow and stunted views that the only reason that they can summon to mind for someone having a different view from them is either personal gain or they are on someone's payroll.
I've extracted and highlighted some bits you may have skipped over.
Today, D.O.s get the same basic training as medical doctors (M.D.s), but they also learn manipulation (hands on adjustments of muscles, bones, and ligaments) and use this along with more conventional medical treatments. Most D.O.s are primary care practitioners, specializing in family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, or pediatrics.
D.O.s practice in all specialties of medicine ranging from emergency medicine and cardiovascular surgery to psychiatry and geriatrics. D.O.s trained in various specialty areas take a whole patient (holistic) approach.
According to the American Osteopathic Association, more than 64,000 osteopathic physicians practice in the United States today. Although osteopathic manipulations were once used to treat all forms of disease, now they are considered useful mostly for musculoskeletal conditions (such as back pain).
Now if you want to present a case that the University of Maryland's Medical Center is a hotbed of quackery or simply wrong, I'd be happy to examine your evidence.
Maybe you could try suggesting to your friend that she start journaling, if she isn't now. It has both utility and appeal, and will help her track how she feels, what treatments she has tried, and could help inform her future choices. Maybe she'll eventually see she should try a more mainstream approach. Perhaps you could ask her if she has ever seen an osteopath. Modern osteopaths are essentially the same as MDs, and licensed to practice medicine like them, but they do take a somewhat more holistic view of health. If your friend is in some way afraid of doctors the name osteopath might not raise the concerns that the word "doctor" would and yet she would still receive modern medical treatment. I wish her well.
The corruption and abuse in the prison system, and the collusion between the prison industry, the unions, and the police, to keep it going, does not need to be "exposed" because it is done openly, and generally with the support of the public.
Could you expand on this? What is it you think is going on? Do you think people are put in prison that haven't committed a criminal offense? Note that is different from things being against the law that you think shouldn't be. Do you think people aren't being released properly? Is this a rant about private prisons? What exactly is your complaint? The concern about Russian and China wasn't solely a question of how many people were in prison, but how and why they got there.
Good call, but a pity that it was only the escape part and didn't expose massive high level corruption and abuse as well. I'm OK with Andy getting away, but not those two.
It strikes me that making unfounded allegations of racism for political gain is pretty uncivil, and that has been done in the case of Obamacare, and other matters during the current administration.
“It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare,” she said. “But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. . . . It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S., which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.” -- head of the Louisiana Democratic party, state senator Karen Carter Peterson (New Orleans)
So in stealing an unprecedented trove of millions of Top Secret documents Snowden has empowered adversaries of the US to act on things they already had, which they wouldn't have been in a position to do if Snowden hadn't stole the documents he did. Snowden - the gift that keeps on giving to the adversaries and enemies of freedom and the West.
Since they got a Hollywood set designer to do their operations room there are probably a long list of stupid failures from these toy soldiers possibly up to and including public internet connectivity and laptop misuse.
Maybe you could explain a few things here? For instance, why do you think that having a Hollywood set designer either design or have input to an operations room layout is a bad thing? Set designers in Hollywood are highly skilled professionals that have to mix artistic concerns with practical ones to produce a function product suitable for use. It was noted decades ago that the US Navy was interested in the layout of the science fiction program Star Trek's bridge layout, just as there was military interest in the layout of the set in the movie Wargames. You seem to have constructed this as a snarky comment that needed no explanation as to why it was bad, but I'm asking, why do you think it was bad? What fundamental failure do you think it shows to have a professional concerned with physical layout, eye lines, practicality, functionality, and utility, be involved with the design of a operations center? Which side does the failure reside, theirs, or yours? If you think it is theirs, what is your argument?
The mere fact that Snowden got so much and that there appears to be no records of how much he got shows some serious breakage.
Auditing of staff with privileged access can be a challenge, especially when they are knowledgeable, skilled, and malicious actors, which is what Snowden was. His window to operate was limited though, and was in fact closing since they were deploying software that would have nailed him. As it was his activities were detected at various points, but he was able to tell convincing lies to get away with it. It's a damn shame what he did to Australia with what he stole, don't you think?
you are now accepting articles from cold fjord? it may now be time to deregister from slashdot.
our 'favorite' bootlicker gets a submission. this is not a good sign; but then again, dice has been ruining slashdot for quite a while, now.
Slashdot has put 121 of my stories on the front page now, and they've been doing it for 5 years. I've submitted stories on many different topics. I believe this story is my first accepted submission. My posts go back many years before that. Does that scare you? (5 years? Hmmm... that seems to predate Snowden's arrival on the scene. Am I psychic?)
why CF is wants us to read bruce's article, though, is a mystery to me. CF is NOT a fan of snowden and yet this article defends snowden.
something seems a bit off, here.
Something is "a bit off"? Maybe you can figure it out. In your dwelling it is highly likely that there is something which is highly useful for this investigation. It is an artifact of human technology useful for helping to determine various facts. Some even attribute almost mystic powers to it as it reveals facts that would otherwise be unavailable to the human eye. But the revelations of this human technology are best approached with an open mind, a searching eye, and wisdom. This piece of technology is called a "mirror," and you should spend a little time in front of one. I regret that it may be a futile exercise for you since you are likely to struggle with two of the three qualities necessary for it to be effective. Your mind seems made up, and new facts don't seem to help much.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't really correct, is it? Sweden informed both Ecuador and the UK that it would like to interview Assange at the embassy. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry issued this weighty statement that it would consider the request in light of this and that, but didn't give permission. Really, what is this "paperwork" difficulty that is stopping things if Ecuador truly wished to cooperate with Sweden?
This is clearly a manufactured delay by Ecuador on behalf of Assange to help run out the clock on the statute of limitations.
Is that what you got out of the article? It looks different to me, actually pretty much the reverse of what you think it is. Let's look at the section in question. If you look at the section in bold below you see that the Swedes say they submitted a request to interview Assange at the embassy. Then we see this weighty statement from Ecuador that they will consider it in light of this and that. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry statement comes after years of posturing about questioning Assange in the embassy which would seem to indicate that there was support for that in the embassy and Ecuador. (After all, would Assange make the demand repeatedly if he had no support for it from the Ecuadorians?) And finally we have the Swedish spokesman stating that there are "problems" with a number of the documents. It's fairly easy to see what is going on.
The Swedes made a request in good faith to Ecuador and the UK*(see below) and the government of Ecuador has decided to drag their feet and manufacture excuses to not allow the meeting to happen. They are providing cover for Assange with the statute of limitations for some of the charges rapidly approaching. What possible difficulty could there really be if Ecuador was of a mind to truly cooperate? What is this weighty decision?
This is political cover for Assange by Ecuador, plain and simple. I'm a little surprised you don't see it given your hyper-suspicion about the UK, US, and other Western countries. Ah, but there it is - Ecuador is a Leftist paradise offering refuge to Assange. No scrutiny needed there!
Fredrik Berg, press spokesman at Sweden's Prosecution Authority (Åklagarmyndigheten), did not want to comment, but said there had been problems with a number of documents that had delayed the process.
“We will do everything to ensure the interrogation happens in June or July,” he insisted.
Meanwhile, Ecuador said it was still considering Swedish prosecutors' request.
Ecuador is evaluating the request “in the spirit of judicial cooperation” and will make a decision based on international law and “Ecuadorian jurisdiction in the area of asylum rights,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Swedish prosecutors said on Monday that they had submitted a request to British and Ecuadoran authorities to question Assange in June and July at the embassy, as reported by The Local.
* Sweden may quiz Julian Assange this month
Sweden's director of public prosecution Marianne Ny "has submitted a request for legal assistance to the English authorities and a request to Ecuadorian authorities regarding permission to interview Julian Assange at Ecuador's embassy in London during June-July 2015," a statement from her office said.
Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.
I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden
Your story is dated 2011, and I regret to inform you that the facts seem to have changed under your feet. There have been three court cases in the UK, going all the way to the UK Supreme Court, that have upheld the charges against him as rape even in the UK.
I also think it is a bit of a mistake to rely solely upon the views of Assange's barristers/lawyers even if the story was up to date.
Legal myths about the Assange extradition
Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.
Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)
Those two English court decisions have been backed by the UK Supreme Court. It's rape he is accused of, even if it was in the UK.
I seriously doubt you know what Assange did with this claim. Thing are not always cut and dry. What we have in fact is that his then girlfriend accused him of rape after being in a sexually active relationship. Then we get into inconsistent stories and a long delay between the time that charges were filed and the alleged "rape" happened.
Assange admits that he had sex. I don't think Assange's accusers are accurately described as "girlfriends" as it was a transient relationship. It was more of a "hook up" with a couple of his supporters. (Perhaps that is what emboldened him to abuse them (allegedly).) The long delay between the alleged assault and the investigation is due to the change in prosecutors. The first one wasn't interested in pursuing the case, the second one was. There is no mystery there.
I have plenty of personal anecdotes where people claimed "rape" and were not raped but frightened/guilty, etc... If the Duke Lacrosse team or UNVA fakery taught us anything, it should be that these claims are not always truthful, but sure harm the alleged perpetrators. Cui Bono and all that...
The circumstances are a bit different here in that Assange allegedly assaulted two women on different occasions.
The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.
Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?
By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.
Legal myths about the Assange extradition
[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]
Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)
Snark Fail. You're behind the times .... by decades.
Maggots and Leeches: Old Medicine is New
Leeches Cleared for Medical Use by the FDA
Too bad you didn't post under your own name, it would have been nice to associate that snark fail of yours to you. Do try to keep up.
If we would have had this discussion 150 years ago or so you would have been right, but not today, not in the present era. Things have changed.
No, you don't. At best you skipped over some very inconvenient parts of the text for your view, and that is assuming you bothered to read it at all.
The "dog in this race" that I have is a preference for facts and truth to occasionally show up in the discussions of the supposedly intelligent people here. I know, it's mostly a forlorn hope, but still .... And I'll add to that I find pitiable the habit of so many here on Slashdot that apparently live such cloistered lives with such narrow and stunted views that the only reason that they can summon to mind for someone having a different view from them is either personal gain or they are on someone's payroll.
I've extracted and highlighted some bits you may have skipped over.
University of Maryland Medical Center - Osteopathy
Today, D.O.s get the same basic training as medical doctors (M.D.s), but they also learn manipulation (hands on adjustments of muscles, bones, and ligaments) and use this along with more conventional medical treatments. Most D.O.s are primary care practitioners, specializing in family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, or pediatrics.
D.O.s practice in all specialties of medicine ranging from emergency medicine and cardiovascular surgery to psychiatry and geriatrics. D.O.s trained in various specialty areas take a whole patient (holistic) approach.
According to the American Osteopathic Association, more than 64,000 osteopathic physicians practice in the United States today. Although osteopathic manipulations were once used to treat all forms of disease, now they are considered useful mostly for musculoskeletal conditions (such as back pain).
Now if you want to present a case that the University of Maryland's Medical Center is a hotbed of quackery or simply wrong, I'd be happy to examine your evidence.
No, they aren't. You don't know what you're talking about.
Did she atleast turn in to Super Woman after taking that extremely potent elixir?
It's doubtful since he's the one that drank it. But you raise a good point, I'm sure he's glad that he didn't turn into Super Woman. :D
Maybe you could try suggesting to your friend that she start journaling, if she isn't now. It has both utility and appeal, and will help her track how she feels, what treatments she has tried, and could help inform her future choices. Maybe she'll eventually see she should try a more mainstream approach. Perhaps you could ask her if she has ever seen an osteopath. Modern osteopaths are essentially the same as MDs, and licensed to practice medicine like them, but they do take a somewhat more holistic view of health. If your friend is in some way afraid of doctors the name osteopath might not raise the concerns that the word "doctor" would and yet she would still receive modern medical treatment. I wish her well.
I don't believe that I've ever known anyone that either believed in or took homeopathic potions as cures. Who actually buys that stuff?
No, that isn't "literally the standard operating procedure in most of the US today." That is nonsense.
Your statement about "black children are incarcerated like this and put in debt bondage to the state" is rubbish, absolute rubbish.
The corruption and abuse in the prison system, and the collusion between the prison industry, the unions, and the police, to keep it going, does not need to be "exposed" because it is done openly, and generally with the support of the public.
Could you expand on this? What is it you think is going on? Do you think people are put in prison that haven't committed a criminal offense? Note that is different from things being against the law that you think shouldn't be. Do you think people aren't being released properly? Is this a rant about private prisons? What exactly is your complaint? The concern about Russian and China wasn't solely a question of how many people were in prison, but how and why they got there.
Good call, but a pity that it was only the escape part and didn't expose massive high level corruption and abuse as well. I'm OK with Andy getting away, but not those two.
It strikes me that making unfounded allegations of racism for political gain is pretty uncivil, and that has been done in the case of Obamacare, and other matters during the current administration.
“It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare,” she said. “But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. . . . It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S., which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.” -- head of the Louisiana Democratic party, state senator Karen Carter Peterson (New Orleans)
Anonymity was popular with the Ku Klux Klan. That's why anti-Klan laws often have a prohibition on being masked in public.
FDA bans frowns and criticism citing impact to healthcare costs
I think we've already crossed that bridge.
Oppose Obamacare? Racist!
:)
What a staggering lot of Linux driven devices in consumer hands. Mind boggling.
So in stealing an unprecedented trove of millions of Top Secret documents Snowden has empowered adversaries of the US to act on things they already had, which they wouldn't have been in a position to do if Snowden hadn't stole the documents he did. Snowden - the gift that keeps on giving to the adversaries and enemies of freedom and the West.
So you are saying that Bradley Manning's leaks did harm the US*? Delayed recognition is better than none I suppose.
*Not that there was any real question about that. High cost, no useful outcome.
Since they got a Hollywood set designer to do their operations room there are probably a long list of stupid failures from these toy soldiers possibly up to and including public internet connectivity and laptop misuse.
Maybe you could explain a few things here? For instance, why do you think that having a Hollywood set designer either design or have input to an operations room layout is a bad thing? Set designers in Hollywood are highly skilled professionals that have to mix artistic concerns with practical ones to produce a function product suitable for use. It was noted decades ago that the US Navy was interested in the layout of the science fiction program Star Trek's bridge layout, just as there was military interest in the layout of the set in the movie Wargames. You seem to have constructed this as a snarky comment that needed no explanation as to why it was bad, but I'm asking, why do you think it was bad? What fundamental failure do you think it shows to have a professional concerned with physical layout, eye lines, practicality, functionality, and utility, be involved with the design of a operations center? Which side does the failure reside, theirs, or yours? If you think it is theirs, what is your argument?
The mere fact that Snowden got so much and that there appears to be no records of how much he got shows some serious breakage.
Auditing of staff with privileged access can be a challenge, especially when they are knowledgeable, skilled, and malicious actors, which is what Snowden was. His window to operate was limited though, and was in fact closing since they were deploying software that would have nailed him. As it was his activities were detected at various points, but he was able to tell convincing lies to get away with it. It's a damn shame what he did to Australia with what he stole, don't you think?
Indeed
you are now accepting articles from cold fjord? it may now be time to deregister from slashdot.
our 'favorite' bootlicker gets a submission. this is not a good sign; but then again, dice has been ruining slashdot for quite a while, now.
Slashdot has put 121 of my stories on the front page now, and they've been doing it for 5 years. I've submitted stories on many different topics. I believe this story is my first accepted submission. My posts go back many years before that. Does that scare you? (5 years? Hmmm ... that seems to predate Snowden's arrival on the scene. Am I psychic?)
why CF is wants us to read bruce's article, though, is a mystery to me. CF is NOT a fan of snowden and yet this article defends snowden.
something seems a bit off, here.
Something is "a bit off"? Maybe you can figure it out. In your dwelling it is highly likely that there is something which is highly useful for this investigation. It is an artifact of human technology useful for helping to determine various facts. Some even attribute almost mystic powers to it as it reveals facts that would otherwise be unavailable to the human eye. But the revelations of this human technology are best approached with an open mind, a searching eye, and wisdom. This piece of technology is called a "mirror," and you should spend a little time in front of one. I regret that it may be a futile exercise for you since you are likely to struggle with two of the three qualities necessary for it to be effective. Your mind seems made up, and new facts don't seem to help much.
See you around, Ahab.