IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US. This would be complicated by several things: 1) Whether the extradition treaty recognizes espionage as an extraditable offense - some do, some do not; 2) Espionage is a capital offense, and so the death penalty *is* a legitimate concern - some countries will refuse to extradite because capital punishment is an option, some countries will require a guarantee that no death penalty will be sought, and other countries will simply refuse. 3) They must have evidence that he committed espionage - i.e., actively sought out and solicited the information - and was not simply a passive recipient of the data that PFC Manning leaked.
If he was a passive recipient of the information, then you're right - he had no obligation to keep it secret, and he was engaged in nothing more than journalism - sloppy journalism, given the partial redaction of informant names and info in many of the documents - but journalism all the same. If he actively solicited the classified documents - i.e., sought out PFC Manning, encouraged him to use his access to leak the documents, and published them, then that would be considered espionage, whether you're a Chinese hacker, a journalist in DC, or a wikileaks founder in Australia.
I'm sorry, try again. Why is this guy blocked but not Assange?
The question is answered in the second paragraph of your link: "Two judges sitting in London allowed an appeal against extradition by fugitive Shawn Sullivan, 43, after the American authorities refused to give an assurance that he would not be placed on a controversial sex offenders treatment programme in Minnesota."
Presumably, Sweden was able to provide sufficient guarantees to satisfy the UK that the Swedish government would not place Mr. Assange in a controversial sex offenders treatment program in Minnesota.
Add to that the fact that Sweden and UK are both signatories to the EAW framework as EU members, which streamlines the process for extradition between two EU member states, while the US hasn't yet been admitted to the EU, and you've got a fairly clear picture of why the UK would extradite Assange to Sweden, but decline to extradite Mr. Sullivan to the US.
Look, the UK has TWO treaty obligations that are in direct conflict here:
1) Their treaty with the other member states of the EU agreeing to be bound by the EAW extradition framework; 2) Their diplomatic treaties with Ecuador;
Pretending that one "trumps" the other, or one is stronger than the other is stupid. The UK government decides which obligation serves its own interests better - other countries can lodge complaints, and make an argument at the UN or in the media... but what it boils down to is, the only way to "force" another nation into doing what you want if they decide they can't satisfy the terms of the treaty, is to declare war.
So, answer a few questions for me, if you would:
1) Why would the US need to go through Sweden to get Assange? If they filed an extradition request with the UK, what makes you think the UK wouldn't agree to it? Cursory review of previous extradition shows that the UK has extradited numerous people to the US to face charges, and the relationship between the two countries is fairly cordial. In addition, the UK seems eager to be rid of him, so I can't imagine they'd object TOO strongly if the US filed extradition charges, as well.
2) Why would Sweden agree to behave as a middleman, knowing full well that extraditing a suspect to a non-EU member state (say, the US) after they've been surrendered to Sweden by that EU member state *requires* the approval of the state originally surrendering the suspect to Sweden (i.e., the UK)? For Sweden to be involved, they would need to be prepared to violate all of their obligations under the EAW framework, for absolutely zero benefit - and the US would STILL need to get the UK's approval to do it legally - so why not just request extradition from the UK directly?
3) Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?
Under Swedish law, they cannot file formal charges in Sweden until they interview him. Whether or not that interview strictly needs to take place in Sweden is an open question - I've seen some lawyers claim it must, I've seen other lawyers claim there's no such law, but I've yet to see anything remotely like a definitive answer, either in the wording of the law, or specific precedents where it's been done before.
Though even if it isn't required to happen in Sweden, I would say that it's unwise to set a precedent in which you allow a suspect in a criminal matter to dictate the terms under which he'll agree to an interview about the charges. In any other situation, if a judge says, "return here for an interview," and the suspect says "yeah, no thanks, but you can totally send someone over here for a chat," the suspect will get slapped with contempt of court sanctions... allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.
Yes, I read the whole thing. And I can safely conclude that this is not "journalism," but an attempt to paint the picture as sympathetically to Assange as possible. There are no citations supporting the details in ANY of the dated entries, but they do include such loaded gems as:
"That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction." -- well of course this is all well documented, and there is proof of all of it, right?
"They turn out to be false and distorted accounts of his consensual sexual encounters with Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén." -- well really, Assange *alleges* they are false and distorted accounts of his consensual sexual encounters. If they "turned out to be false, and distorted," there is no case, and charges are dismissed.
Also, the timeline would seem to contradict your statement that the 2 entries you quoted somehow suggest that one of the women has changed her mind and will not cooperate with the prosecution: "A politician-lawyer named Claes Borgström, who is in the midst of an election campaign and who is struggling to restore a tarnished legal reputation, becomes the publicly financed representative of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén." Four days after you're suggesting she's refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, she retains a lawyer? How does that work, exactly? And where is Ms. Wilen's statement to that effect?
I'm not sure who "nnn.se" actually *is*, but they are writing clearly biased coverage, providing no citations to support their statements of fact, and none of this constitutes a statement from Ms. Wilen, Ms. Ardin, or their respective spokespeople, indicating that they are refusing to cooperate with the prosecution any more. So once again: where are their statements to this effect, in their own words, in an interview, or in writing? If you're going to keep arguing that they're not cooperating, surely you must have some actual evidence to back the claim?
Oh, you thought that they were getting embroiled in a game of diplomatic chicken with one of the richest and most influential countries on this planet because it was "the right thing to do"? That's quaint.
If Ecuador really cared about "doing the right thing," they'd have a much better record on human rights than they do. No, this entire pissing contest is a way for Ecuador to burnish its own image with none of the risk that comes from taking a meaningful stand on something. But then, why enact significant reform, when you can make a token gesture and have this happen:
The mother of the hero of wikileaks goes on the record saying: "I was hopeful because I knew that President Correa, his government and the people wanted to ensure Julian’s safety, and they have a strong record of human rights and free speech," about a country who throws people in jail for 3 months up to 2 years, depending on the government official who was "offended" (look up "desacato"), and which the president has *taken advantage of*... that's a government that's REALLY committed to free speech and human rights.
Why enact reforms to fix problems, when you can just buy yourself the allegiance of wikileaks?
And before you start with "the US and UK and Sweden are just as bad on human rights," - spare me. If they're just as bad, then Ecuador should be getting criticized just as roundly as the rest of them, not hailed as some sort of hero for the singular, *self-serving* act of helping Assange avoid answering questions about his alleged crimes.
Yes, except that such a transparent and self-serving abuse of ambassadorial powers would also reflect poorly on Ecuador, and no doubt cause them serious diplomatic repercussions, as well.
Whether or not Mr. Assange is worth those repercussions for them remains to be seen. Much as whether or not the UK's government will believe handing him over to Sweden is more important than the diplomatic damage that the UK would do by dissolving the embassy, ordering Ecuador's embassy staff out of the country, and simply collecting Mr. Assange by force, in order to satisfy their obligations to Sweden under EU treaty.
Both are "exploitable" loopholes which carry significant repercussions.
A diplomatic agent is the head of the mission - as in, the ambassador - or one of his staff, selected for the role by the "Sending" country, and *approved* for the role by the "receiving" country. The "person" of a diplomatic agent is... the BODY of the diplomatic agent. Think 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons [...]" - legally, this means your body, and your immediate possessions. Not "people who happen to be standing around near you."
Replacing it with "child" makes it legal nonsense, as the treaty specifically enumerates the protections for family members of a diplomatic agent, which would CERTAINLY include children of the ambassador and his diplomatic staff, who would also have the right to inviolability of their person.
The VCDR says NOTHING about "people seeking political asylum."
but, in reality, if they refuse to let a UN ambassador leave it would cause a major incident.
Actually, I'd think that Ecuador randomly declaring someone with no ties to Ecuador prior to seeking asylum there as their UN ambassador would be the cause of a major incident far more than the UK refusing to recognize a clear attempt to subvert the intent of these protections and detaining the person who's using the cover of such protection to flee prosecution.
person of a diplomatic agent. Big difference. That's anyone the diplomatic staff says is under their protection.
Wrong. "person" of a diplomatic agent is their body and immediate physical possessions. This does not include "anybody who happens to be with them that they say is totally a cool guy."
A diplomatic courier may be designated ad hoc, but in your selective reading, you also neglected to read Article 27, paragraphs 5 and 6:
5. The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
6. The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.
What this means is that Ecuador *could* designate him ad hoc as a courier, but that as soon as his courier duties were finished, he would cease to have any immunities provided to diplomatic agents, and thus be subject to immediate arrest and detention, as before.
In addition, granting ad hoc diplomatic immunity through some sort of "courier loophole" to help someone escape taking responsibility for their crimes would certainly undermine the intent of the VCDR - they are not, and never were intended to be, "get out of jail free" cards.
The original person who laid the charges has now dropped them and will not co-operate with the prosecution
Citation? I keep seeing this assertion made, but I've seen no actual statement from "the original person who laid the charges," or her spokesperson. All I've seen is a report, credited to "anonymous sources in Sweden," that "rumors suggest" that one of his accusers has stopped cooperating.
Where's Ms. Ardin's statement to that effect, or her spokesperson's statement? Why isn't Julian Assange himself shouting this from the rooftops, if it's a verifiable fact? My guess is that you read the same story as everybody else spouting this "fact," on Crikey.com, and you have concluded that that unnamed, unspecified rumor is truth, even though it has never been confirmed by any of the parties involved. If you actually do have some evidence to support your claim, I'd love to hear it, because it would certainly change my opinion about the situation as it appears to stand today.
Scenario A: "Police officer kicks in door of your family's home, restrains your mother, goes downstairs into the basement, drags you out of bed and out of the house to his waiting car."
Scenario B: "Police officer knocks politely on your front door. Your mother opens the door, and the police officer identifies himself, and produces a valid warrant for your arrest. Your mom begins to argue with him in an loud and aggressive manner, at which point he pushes his way inside, restrains your mother, and proceeds to execute the arrest warrant by going downstairs into the basement, and dragging you out of bed and to his waiting car."
The crucial difference? It's legal if he has a warrant. You could paint both instances as a police officer "storming" your house and dragging you off to jail, but if it was done in accordance with due process, then it is *completely legal and valid* for the police officer to have done so, if he has a valid warrant for your arrest.
It's amazing to me that suddenly everybody here on Slashdot is an expert in the field of treaties, UK law, and the UK constitution, as well as the history and precedents surrounding asylum seekers, and that they are able to - with a straight face - assert that there is NO way the UK could do anything like this legally, that any attempt to arrest Assange on embassy property is, always has been, and always will be, illegal, an act of war, a violation of UN treaties, and tantamount to igniting world war 3.
I'm fairly certain that if the MoJ was willing to put in writing that they have "legal authority" to come in and take him if Ecuador pushes the issue, they've considered whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on, and are fairly certain it would be a completely legal maneuver. "Unpopular with slashdot" does not necessarily mean "illegal."
And you were pointed to at least 1 study that breaks down the 17.6% lifetime figure as 14.8% "completed" and 2.8% "attempted" rape - the study defines a rape as "forced vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse," and it distinguishes between "attempted" and "completed."
So... what, exactly, is "misleading" about these statistics, in your opinion? What are we to conclude, except that 1 in 7 women are *actually* penetrated sexually against their will, at some point in their lives, and that 1 in ~6 women will either *be* raped, or experience an *attempted* rape in their lifetime?
16% of these assaults are "attempted" - that means 84% are "completed." If those numbers were reversed, then you'd be right - lumping them together is misleading - but in their actual form, including "attempted" rape accounts for - at worst - a slight exaggeration of the situation. Including them or excluding them, the picture painted is pretty fucking bleak.
Yes, I understand that, but your belief that "if 1 in 5 women are raped, then surely men would hear about it!" fails on multiple levels:
1) Look at the responses here - it's been asserted, and supported with statistical surveys, that approx. 1 in 5 women will be raped during their lifetime. In response, there are NUMEROUS men doing the virtual equivalent of "see no evil / hear no evil," and either loudly asserting that the statistics are lies, or that they're biased, and evidence of some feminist conspiracy. Nobody's offered a critique of the studies themselves, the methodology or findings - it's just blanket assertions that "those stats are wrong." So there is a at least a vocal minority of men who are *willfully ignorant* of the issue - when presented with the facts, they deny them, and can offer no counter-evidence to support their denial.
2) Even if every rape was performed by a male, and there was a 1-to-1 correlation between each rape and a unique individual male, 80% of men would NOT be rapists. Since it is possible for a woman to sexually assault another woman, and it's possible for one man to do the same to multiple women, it's likely that the number of "non-rapist" men is higher than 80%. Wild ass guessing, I'd say it's probably more like 85-90% of men are NOT rapists.
3) Rape is not something that is often talked about. Even if you speak frankly about your sexual conquests with your friends, it's tremendously unlikely that you (or any of them) are going to say, "SO yeah, I raped a bitch the other night. Shit was cash." By the same token, it's tremendously unlikely that a casual female acquaintance of yours is going to say, "So yeah, I got raped last night. Shit sucked." It's not a topic that is broached lightly on either side, and it's likely that there is a VERY small number of women in your life who you are close enough to that they would feel comfortable talking to you about their sexual assault at the hands of someone else.
Add these all up, and you have a small number of men behaving badly, a large number of men who behave all right, but refuse to believe the evidence they're presented with because it conflicts with their anecdotal evidence and "feelings" on the matter, and a bunch of men who are famous for their issues forming relationships with women. And then you seem surprised that "men aren't aware of it?"
I'm disappointed that a bunch of geeks can disregard facts and offer up "instinct" and "ancedote" as counter-claims, but I'm not surprised in the slightest that they're "not aware." They choose not to be, even when the evidence is shown to them.
Your anecdotal evidence is great, but it doesn't constitute a convincing argument that rape statistics are misleading. You could start by reading some of the CDC studies posted above, understand their methodologies, and then formulate a logical argument of how the study could be done "better" or "more accurately" by changing wording of the questions, categorization of assaults, or something else. Explain how the specific study is wrong, or could be done more accurately, and people might listen.
Otherwise, you're relying purely on speculation based on your own anecdotal evidence (which is not "data" in any useful sense of the word), and any conclusions based on that evidence are highly suspect.
People have provided links to CDC studies above. Why don't you go read them, understand their methodologies, and then formulate a coherent argument about the specific shortcomings of one of those studies?
For everybody saying "the statistics are questionable," I don't see any specific elaboration of that point in regards to the articles that have been posted. And as far as I'm concerned, the CDC has more credibility when it comes to statistical surveys than J. Random Guy on Slashdot, who "feels" like the issue is being overplayed, but can offer no specific criticism, facts, or logical arguments to explain how or why.
Most likely because most women aren't comfortable talking about their rape or assault in great detail with many people, if ANYBODY exists that they're comfortable talking about it with.
According to some of the studies cited elsewhere above, 15-20% of women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetimes. Do you know more than 5 women? It's likely one of them has been raped or sexually assaulted - now, of the 5 women you just thought of, are all of them close enough to you that you think they'd tell you this sort of detail? Would you be comfortable sharing the details with them, if the same happened to you?
Where's the data on the ruined lives of men that were provably innocent? Rape-related perjury or lying to authorities almost never gets punished.
FBI data suggests that 8% of rape reports are "unfounded." From here: "That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false."
False allegations of rape can CERTAINLY have an awful effect; they do not, however, make up even a LARGE minority of rape reports. The bad behavior of the small number of women who file false allegations of rape does not excuse the much larger number of men who actually are rapists - both groups are deserving of punishment and social opprobrium.
Feel free to cite actual statistics and figures that support your apparent belief that false accusations of rape are far more prevalent, but again, "I FEEL like this is a huge problem," is not sufficient.
Where's the data on male victims of rape? Those crimes are almost certainly even less reported. In our culture, if a man gets raped by a woman, it's somehow his fault.
So you took exception to the studies cited, but didn't even bother to peruse them? The first link has numerous stats to offer about men reporting rape - the number is roughly 3% of the male population reporting a rape or sexual assault, per their first chart.
So yes, the numbers DO include male rape. And the men or women raping the men in the study deserve to be punished equally as harshly as the men or women raping the women in the study.
So you conclude that the number is nonsense, and then go on to concede that you have NO idea "what the list of questions is," and are basing your dismissal of the number on solid scientific thinking like, "they typically include things like 'did not get explicit verbal consent.'"
Since you know what they "typically" include, then I'm shocked to hear that you actually don't know what the list of questions they asked was, in the study you're dismissing because it's "sloppy science."
Feel free to debunk these "sloppy" studies which both concluded ~18% of women will experience rape in their lifetime. I look forward to reading your scholarly rebuttal, so that we can understand how sloppy science has perverted our views of the prevalence of rape.
Short term - all self-driving cars required to stay in the "Self driving car" lane on the highway.
Long term - most people will be letting their car handle the bulk of the driving while they read the paper, make some phone calls, take a nap, or enjoy a cup of coffee. Why would they get angry?
Not really sure, but if I'm the engineer putting these types of systems together, I'm thinking...
(1) Construction zone, worker standing with a temporary "slow/stop" sign indicating when cars can proceed on a one-lane section shared between both directions alternately.
Either:
1) Bring the vehicle to a safe stop at the side of the road and revert to manual control until the problem area is cleared. 2) give the worker with the slow/stop sign a transmitter attached to his slow/stop sign that provides relevant instructions for the onboard computer - e.g. "Stop here. Wait for signal to proceed."
(2) Baseball rolls out into street in residential area, followed soon by child who was initially invisible behind a parked minivan. I knew ball might be followed by someone, and slowed way down so this wasn't a problem. At normal speed, it would have been.
Program the computer to behave just like a competent human driver - in this case, it'd probably be relatively simple: 1) Constantly scan for objects moving into and out of your path of travel, or which are moving in a trajectory that will take them *into* your path of travel. 2) When such an object is detected in your path, slow the vehicle, or stop it completely if the item is not clearing the car's intended path. Once the object is clear, or the vehicle is past the location where the object crossed it's path, continue driving at a slow speed for N seconds (where N is 10-15s), to be sure that there's not a child running after the object. 3) Obey the speed limits in the first place. In most areas where it's likely that a ball will cross your path, followed by a running child, the speed limit is 30-ish mph or less. And people regularly do 45-50 mph through these zones. 4) Make roads where these cars will drive safer by blocking easy pedestrian access to them - put up a fence, or require a wide, flat shoulder (and no parking) wherever possible so you can see possible hazards approaching from the side.
What world do you live in where these things are cheap, easy, and require no time? Seriously. The less time you spend managing billing and payments, the more time you spend... writing your software, handling customer requests, and coming up with new products.
It is a bargain for the exposure and infrastructure you get access to, no matter how much you want to believe in the absurd myth that you're going to run a successful software business on a shoestring from a laptop in your closet over a dialup line.
Oh, I'm sorry - you're under the impression that this case is solely about that single patent. Never mind, then - I stand in awe of your reductionist logic.
The line of argument was "considering how much money Apple makes through the sale of third party apps" - they make (demonstrably) very little money from the app store, and all comments they've made so far indicate that it's about a "break-even" proposition for them. It is far from a significant contributor to their revenues or earnings.
Even if the DoJ forced them to close their app store tomorrow, or sanction competition, there would be little to no appreciable hit to their bottom line, because profits from app sales are very nearly a ROUNDING ERROR in their financial statements.
Forcing them to open up the app store somehow would arguably affect user experience and security - but it would barely affect Apple's bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be purposefully obtuse.
IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.
As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US. This would be complicated by several things:
1) Whether the extradition treaty recognizes espionage as an extraditable offense - some do, some do not;
2) Espionage is a capital offense, and so the death penalty *is* a legitimate concern - some countries will refuse to extradite because capital punishment is an option, some countries will require a guarantee that no death penalty will be sought, and other countries will simply refuse.
3) They must have evidence that he committed espionage - i.e., actively sought out and solicited the information - and was not simply a passive recipient of the data that PFC Manning leaked.
If he was a passive recipient of the information, then you're right - he had no obligation to keep it secret, and he was engaged in nothing more than journalism - sloppy journalism, given the partial redaction of informant names and info in many of the documents - but journalism all the same. If he actively solicited the classified documents - i.e., sought out PFC Manning, encouraged him to use his access to leak the documents, and published them, then that would be considered espionage, whether you're a Chinese hacker, a journalist in DC, or a wikileaks founder in Australia.
The question is answered in the second paragraph of your link:
"Two judges sitting in London allowed an appeal against extradition by fugitive Shawn Sullivan, 43, after the American authorities refused to give an assurance that he would not be placed on a controversial sex offenders treatment programme in Minnesota."
Presumably, Sweden was able to provide sufficient guarantees to satisfy the UK that the Swedish government would not place Mr. Assange in a controversial sex offenders treatment program in Minnesota.
Add to that the fact that Sweden and UK are both signatories to the EAW framework as EU members, which streamlines the process for extradition between two EU member states, while the US hasn't yet been admitted to the EU, and you've got a fairly clear picture of why the UK would extradite Assange to Sweden, but decline to extradite Mr. Sullivan to the US.
Look, the UK has TWO treaty obligations that are in direct conflict here:
1) Their treaty with the other member states of the EU agreeing to be bound by the EAW extradition framework;
2) Their diplomatic treaties with Ecuador;
Pretending that one "trumps" the other, or one is stronger than the other is stupid. The UK government decides which obligation serves its own interests better - other countries can lodge complaints, and make an argument at the UN or in the media... but what it boils down to is, the only way to "force" another nation into doing what you want if they decide they can't satisfy the terms of the treaty, is to declare war.
So, answer a few questions for me, if you would:
1) Why would the US need to go through Sweden to get Assange? If they filed an extradition request with the UK, what makes you think the UK wouldn't agree to it? Cursory review of previous extradition shows that the UK has extradited numerous people to the US to face charges, and the relationship between the two countries is fairly cordial. In addition, the UK seems eager to be rid of him, so I can't imagine they'd object TOO strongly if the US filed extradition charges, as well.
2) Why would Sweden agree to behave as a middleman, knowing full well that extraditing a suspect to a non-EU member state (say, the US) after they've been surrendered to Sweden by that EU member state *requires* the approval of the state originally surrendering the suspect to Sweden (i.e., the UK)? For Sweden to be involved, they would need to be prepared to violate all of their obligations under the EAW framework, for absolutely zero benefit - and the US would STILL need to get the UK's approval to do it legally - so why not just request extradition from the UK directly?
3) Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?
Under Swedish law, they cannot file formal charges in Sweden until they interview him. Whether or not that interview strictly needs to take place in Sweden is an open question - I've seen some lawyers claim it must, I've seen other lawyers claim there's no such law, but I've yet to see anything remotely like a definitive answer, either in the wording of the law, or specific precedents where it's been done before.
Though even if it isn't required to happen in Sweden, I would say that it's unwise to set a precedent in which you allow a suspect in a criminal matter to dictate the terms under which he'll agree to an interview about the charges. In any other situation, if a judge says, "return here for an interview," and the suspect says "yeah, no thanks, but you can totally send someone over here for a chat," the suspect will get slapped with contempt of court sanctions... allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.
Yes, I read the whole thing. And I can safely conclude that this is not "journalism," but an attempt to paint the picture as sympathetically to Assange as possible. There are no citations supporting the details in ANY of the dated entries, but they do include such loaded gems as:
"That night they engage in a lengthy session of consensual sex, during which she utters not a word of objection or dissatisfaction." -- well of course this is all well documented, and there is proof of all of it, right?
"They turn out to be false and distorted accounts of his consensual sexual encounters with Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén." -- well really, Assange *alleges* they are false and distorted accounts of his consensual sexual encounters. If they "turned out to be false, and distorted," there is no case, and charges are dismissed.
Also, the timeline would seem to contradict your statement that the 2 entries you quoted somehow suggest that one of the women has changed her mind and will not cooperate with the prosecution: "A politician-lawyer named Claes Borgström, who is in the midst of an election campaign and who is struggling to restore a tarnished legal reputation, becomes the publicly financed representative of Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén." Four days after you're suggesting she's refuse to cooperate with the prosecution, she retains a lawyer? How does that work, exactly? And where is Ms. Wilen's statement to that effect?
I'm not sure who "nnn.se" actually *is*, but they are writing clearly biased coverage, providing no citations to support their statements of fact, and none of this constitutes a statement from Ms. Wilen, Ms. Ardin, or their respective spokespeople, indicating that they are refusing to cooperate with the prosecution any more. So once again: where are their statements to this effect, in their own words, in an interview, or in writing? If you're going to keep arguing that they're not cooperating, surely you must have some actual evidence to back the claim?
Oh, you thought that they were getting embroiled in a game of diplomatic chicken with one of the richest and most influential countries on this planet because it was "the right thing to do"? That's quaint.
If Ecuador really cared about "doing the right thing," they'd have a much better record on human rights than they do. No, this entire pissing contest is a way for Ecuador to burnish its own image with none of the risk that comes from taking a meaningful stand on something. But then, why enact significant reform, when you can make a token gesture and have this happen:
The mother of the hero of wikileaks goes on the record saying: "I was hopeful because I knew that President Correa, his government and the people wanted to ensure Julian’s safety, and they have a strong record of human rights and free speech," about a country who throws people in jail for 3 months up to 2 years, depending on the government official who was "offended" (look up "desacato"), and which the president has *taken advantage of*... that's a government that's REALLY committed to free speech and human rights.
Why enact reforms to fix problems, when you can just buy yourself the allegiance of wikileaks?
And before you start with "the US and UK and Sweden are just as bad on human rights," - spare me. If they're just as bad, then Ecuador should be getting criticized just as roundly as the rest of them, not hailed as some sort of hero for the singular, *self-serving* act of helping Assange avoid answering questions about his alleged crimes.
Yes, except that such a transparent and self-serving abuse of ambassadorial powers would also reflect poorly on Ecuador, and no doubt cause them serious diplomatic repercussions, as well.
Whether or not Mr. Assange is worth those repercussions for them remains to be seen. Much as whether or not the UK's government will believe handing him over to Sweden is more important than the diplomatic damage that the UK would do by dissolving the embassy, ordering Ecuador's embassy staff out of the country, and simply collecting Mr. Assange by force, in order to satisfy their obligations to Sweden under EU treaty.
Both are "exploitable" loopholes which carry significant repercussions.
A diplomatic agent is the head of the mission - as in, the ambassador - or one of his staff, selected for the role by the "Sending" country, and *approved* for the role by the "receiving" country. The "person" of a diplomatic agent is... the BODY of the diplomatic agent. Think 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons [...]" - legally, this means your body, and your immediate possessions. Not "people who happen to be standing around near you."
Replacing it with "child" makes it legal nonsense, as the treaty specifically enumerates the protections for family members of a diplomatic agent, which would CERTAINLY include children of the ambassador and his diplomatic staff, who would also have the right to inviolability of their person.
The VCDR says NOTHING about "people seeking political asylum."
Actually, I'd think that Ecuador randomly declaring someone with no ties to Ecuador prior to seeking asylum there as their UN ambassador would be the cause of a major incident far more than the UK refusing to recognize a clear attempt to subvert the intent of these protections and detaining the person who's using the cover of such protection to flee prosecution.
Wrong. "person" of a diplomatic agent is their body and immediate physical possessions. This does not include "anybody who happens to be with them that they say is totally a cool guy."
A diplomatic courier may be designated ad hoc, but in your selective reading, you also neglected to read Article 27, paragraphs 5 and 6:
What this means is that Ecuador *could* designate him ad hoc as a courier, but that as soon as his courier duties were finished, he would cease to have any immunities provided to diplomatic agents, and thus be subject to immediate arrest and detention, as before.
In addition, granting ad hoc diplomatic immunity through some sort of "courier loophole" to help someone escape taking responsibility for their crimes would certainly undermine the intent of the VCDR - they are not, and never were intended to be, "get out of jail free" cards.
Citation? I keep seeing this assertion made, but I've seen no actual statement from "the original person who laid the charges," or her spokesperson. All I've seen is a report, credited to "anonymous sources in Sweden," that "rumors suggest" that one of his accusers has stopped cooperating.
Where's Ms. Ardin's statement to that effect, or her spokesperson's statement? Why isn't Julian Assange himself shouting this from the rooftops, if it's a verifiable fact? My guess is that you read the same story as everybody else spouting this "fact," on Crikey.com, and you have concluded that that unnamed, unspecified rumor is truth, even though it has never been confirmed by any of the parties involved. If you actually do have some evidence to support your claim, I'd love to hear it, because it would certainly change my opinion about the situation as it appears to stand today.
Can you spot the difference here?
Scenario A: "Police officer kicks in door of your family's home, restrains your mother, goes downstairs into the basement, drags you out of bed and out of the house to his waiting car."
Scenario B: "Police officer knocks politely on your front door. Your mother opens the door, and the police officer identifies himself, and produces a valid warrant for your arrest. Your mom begins to argue with him in an loud and aggressive manner, at which point he pushes his way inside, restrains your mother, and proceeds to execute the arrest warrant by going downstairs into the basement, and dragging you out of bed and to his waiting car."
The crucial difference? It's legal if he has a warrant. You could paint both instances as a police officer "storming" your house and dragging you off to jail, but if it was done in accordance with due process, then it is *completely legal and valid* for the police officer to have done so, if he has a valid warrant for your arrest.
It's amazing to me that suddenly everybody here on Slashdot is an expert in the field of treaties, UK law, and the UK constitution, as well as the history and precedents surrounding asylum seekers, and that they are able to - with a straight face - assert that there is NO way the UK could do anything like this legally, that any attempt to arrest Assange on embassy property is, always has been, and always will be, illegal, an act of war, a violation of UN treaties, and tantamount to igniting world war 3.
I'm fairly certain that if the MoJ was willing to put in writing that they have "legal authority" to come in and take him if Ecuador pushes the issue, they've considered whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on, and are fairly certain it would be a completely legal maneuver. "Unpopular with slashdot" does not necessarily mean "illegal."
Here's a link directly to the CDC / NIJ paper - apologies, it was posted in a separate branch of commentary to this article.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf
And you were pointed to at least 1 study that breaks down the 17.6% lifetime figure as 14.8% "completed" and 2.8% "attempted" rape - the study defines a rape as "forced vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse," and it distinguishes between "attempted" and "completed."
So... what, exactly, is "misleading" about these statistics, in your opinion? What are we to conclude, except that 1 in 7 women are *actually* penetrated sexually against their will, at some point in their lives, and that 1 in ~6 women will either *be* raped, or experience an *attempted* rape in their lifetime?
16% of these assaults are "attempted" - that means 84% are "completed." If those numbers were reversed, then you'd be right - lumping them together is misleading - but in their actual form, including "attempted" rape accounts for - at worst - a slight exaggeration of the situation. Including them or excluding them, the picture painted is pretty fucking bleak.
Yes, I understand that, but your belief that "if 1 in 5 women are raped, then surely men would hear about it!" fails on multiple levels:
1) Look at the responses here - it's been asserted, and supported with statistical surveys, that approx. 1 in 5 women will be raped during their lifetime. In response, there are NUMEROUS men doing the virtual equivalent of "see no evil / hear no evil," and either loudly asserting that the statistics are lies, or that they're biased, and evidence of some feminist conspiracy. Nobody's offered a critique of the studies themselves, the methodology or findings - it's just blanket assertions that "those stats are wrong." So there is a at least a vocal minority of men who are *willfully ignorant* of the issue - when presented with the facts, they deny them, and can offer no counter-evidence to support their denial.
2) Even if every rape was performed by a male, and there was a 1-to-1 correlation between each rape and a unique individual male, 80% of men would NOT be rapists. Since it is possible for a woman to sexually assault another woman, and it's possible for one man to do the same to multiple women, it's likely that the number of "non-rapist" men is higher than 80%. Wild ass guessing, I'd say it's probably more like 85-90% of men are NOT rapists.
3) Rape is not something that is often talked about. Even if you speak frankly about your sexual conquests with your friends, it's tremendously unlikely that you (or any of them) are going to say, "SO yeah, I raped a bitch the other night. Shit was cash." By the same token, it's tremendously unlikely that a casual female acquaintance of yours is going to say, "So yeah, I got raped last night. Shit sucked." It's not a topic that is broached lightly on either side, and it's likely that there is a VERY small number of women in your life who you are close enough to that they would feel comfortable talking to you about their sexual assault at the hands of someone else.
Add these all up, and you have a small number of men behaving badly, a large number of men who behave all right, but refuse to believe the evidence they're presented with because it conflicts with their anecdotal evidence and "feelings" on the matter, and a bunch of men who are famous for their issues forming relationships with women. And then you seem surprised that "men aren't aware of it?"
I'm disappointed that a bunch of geeks can disregard facts and offer up "instinct" and "ancedote" as counter-claims, but I'm not surprised in the slightest that they're "not aware." They choose not to be, even when the evidence is shown to them.
Your anecdotal evidence is great, but it doesn't constitute a convincing argument that rape statistics are misleading. You could start by reading some of the CDC studies posted above, understand their methodologies, and then formulate a logical argument of how the study could be done "better" or "more accurately" by changing wording of the questions, categorization of assaults, or something else. Explain how the specific study is wrong, or could be done more accurately, and people might listen.
Otherwise, you're relying purely on speculation based on your own anecdotal evidence (which is not "data" in any useful sense of the word), and any conclusions based on that evidence are highly suspect.
People have provided links to CDC studies above. Why don't you go read them, understand their methodologies, and then formulate a coherent argument about the specific shortcomings of one of those studies?
For everybody saying "the statistics are questionable," I don't see any specific elaboration of that point in regards to the articles that have been posted. And as far as I'm concerned, the CDC has more credibility when it comes to statistical surveys than J. Random Guy on Slashdot, who "feels" like the issue is being overplayed, but can offer no specific criticism, facts, or logical arguments to explain how or why.
Most likely because most women aren't comfortable talking about their rape or assault in great detail with many people, if ANYBODY exists that they're comfortable talking about it with.
According to some of the studies cited elsewhere above, 15-20% of women will be raped or sexually assaulted during their lifetimes. Do you know more than 5 women? It's likely one of them has been raped or sexually assaulted - now, of the 5 women you just thought of, are all of them close enough to you that you think they'd tell you this sort of detail? Would you be comfortable sharing the details with them, if the same happened to you?
FBI data suggests that 8% of rape reports are "unfounded." From here: "That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false."
False allegations of rape can CERTAINLY have an awful effect; they do not, however, make up even a LARGE minority of rape reports. The bad behavior of the small number of women who file false allegations of rape does not excuse the much larger number of men who actually are rapists - both groups are deserving of punishment and social opprobrium.
Feel free to cite actual statistics and figures that support your apparent belief that false accusations of rape are far more prevalent, but again, "I FEEL like this is a huge problem," is not sufficient.
So you took exception to the studies cited, but didn't even bother to peruse them? The first link has numerous stats to offer about men reporting rape - the number is roughly 3% of the male population reporting a rape or sexual assault, per their first chart.
So yes, the numbers DO include male rape. And the men or women raping the men in the study deserve to be punished equally as harshly as the men or women raping the women in the study.
So you conclude that the number is nonsense, and then go on to concede that you have NO idea "what the list of questions is," and are basing your dismissal of the number on solid scientific thinking like, "they typically include things like 'did not get explicit verbal consent.'"
Since you know what they "typically" include, then I'm shocked to hear that you actually don't know what the list of questions they asked was, in the study you're dismissing because it's "sloppy science."
Please see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043545&cid=40970491
Feel free to debunk these "sloppy" studies which both concluded ~18% of women will experience rape in their lifetime. I look forward to reading your scholarly rebuttal, so that we can understand how sloppy science has perverted our views of the prevalence of rape.
Short term - all self-driving cars required to stay in the "Self driving car" lane on the highway.
Long term - most people will be letting their car handle the bulk of the driving while they read the paper, make some phone calls, take a nap, or enjoy a cup of coffee. Why would they get angry?
Not really sure, but if I'm the engineer putting these types of systems together, I'm thinking...
Either:
1) Bring the vehicle to a safe stop at the side of the road and revert to manual control until the problem area is cleared.
2) give the worker with the slow/stop sign a transmitter attached to his slow/stop sign that provides relevant instructions for the onboard computer - e.g. "Stop here. Wait for signal to proceed."
Program the computer to behave just like a competent human driver - in this case, it'd probably be relatively simple:
1) Constantly scan for objects moving into and out of your path of travel, or which are moving in a trajectory that will take them *into* your path of travel.
2) When such an object is detected in your path, slow the vehicle, or stop it completely if the item is not clearing the car's intended path. Once the object is clear, or the vehicle is past the location where the object crossed it's path, continue driving at a slow speed for N seconds (where N is 10-15s), to be sure that there's not a child running after the object.
3) Obey the speed limits in the first place. In most areas where it's likely that a ball will cross your path, followed by a running child, the speed limit is 30-ish mph or less. And people regularly do 45-50 mph through these zones.
4) Make roads where these cars will drive safer by blocking easy pedestrian access to them - put up a fence, or require a wide, flat shoulder (and no parking) wherever possible so you can see possible hazards approaching from the side.
What world do you live in where these things are cheap, easy, and require no time? Seriously. The less time you spend managing billing and payments, the more time you spend... writing your software, handling customer requests, and coming up with new products.
It is a bargain for the exposure and infrastructure you get access to, no matter how much you want to believe in the absurd myth that you're going to run a successful software business on a shoestring from a laptop in your closet over a dialup line.
Oh, I'm sorry - you're under the impression that this case is solely about that single patent. Never mind, then - I stand in awe of your reductionist logic.
The line of argument was "considering how much money Apple makes through the sale of third party apps" - they make (demonstrably) very little money from the app store, and all comments they've made so far indicate that it's about a "break-even" proposition for them. It is far from a significant contributor to their revenues or earnings.
Even if the DoJ forced them to close their app store tomorrow, or sanction competition, there would be little to no appreciable hit to their bottom line, because profits from app sales are very nearly a ROUNDING ERROR in their financial statements.
Forcing them to open up the app store somehow would arguably affect user experience and security - but it would barely affect Apple's bottom line.