Wikileaks' Assange Begins Extradition Battle 479
arisvega writes "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has begun his court battle against extradition from the UK to Sweden. He faces allegations of sexual assault against two women, which he denies. Mr Assange, 39, argues Swedish prosecutors had no right to issue a warrant for his arrest because he has not yet been charged with any offences. At the extradition hearing, in London's Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, his lawyers are also challenging the move on human rights grounds. Mr Assange's legal team, led by Geoffrey Robertson QC, argues that if their client is forced to return to Sweden he could be extradited to the US, or even Guantanamo Bay, to face separate charges relating to the publication of secret documents by Wikileaks."
What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
or even Guantanamo Bay
I think this line alone is a commentary on both the hyperbole used by his lawyers and the sad state of the US reputation in Europe.
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you think it is that ridiculous that someone might think the US would send an enemy to Guantanamo?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say that the existence of the Guantanamo Bay facility (set up outside U.S. soil to avoid the law) and the fact that people can arbitrarily be sent there to rot for years without trial speaks volumes about the current commitment of the United States Government to the ideals on which it was founded. In my youth the place to be feared was the Soviet Gulag. Now people fear Guantanamo Bay. I weep for what the government that represents this country has become, and am sad that my father (Vietnam vet) and his father (WW2 vet and survivor of the Bataan Death March) fought in vain for a government that has no respect for the ideas that brought it into existence. What the hell happened?
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. The obvious answer is that there is some massive resistance from within the government bureaucracy that is making it a difficult task. Or he learned something after taking office and getting "commander-in-chief" security clearance that changed his mind. I'm inclined to think that it's just the former.
Re:What does this say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. The obvious answer is that there is some massive resistance from within the government bureaucracy that is making it a difficult task. Or he learned something after taking office and getting "commander-in-chief" security clearance that changed his mind. I'm inclined to think that it's just the former.
Option 3: He was always a devious snake and never intended to live up to his campaign promises, just like every other politician.
Re:What does this say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah. That's too cliche. I've known enough people personally who actually *step up and try to make things better* - and fail to make everything better - to know that it's damned hard to change everything. If you really think that it's possible to promise massive political change and then actually make every promise come true (and anyone who doesn't is a devious snake), you're a deluded fool. The best that anyone can do, even at the level of POTUS, is to nudge things one way or the other and hope that some of it takes.
If you think you can do better, then by all means step up and give it a go.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
NIMBY is only a small part of it.
The remaining prisoners at Gitmo were put there through unlawful means. Under USA law, if they were to be brought to a fair trial the judge would have to let them walk. The evidence is that badly tainted by fucked up procedures that it would not be admissible.
Bush and Cheney could have done a final solution to these problematic prisoners while they were in office; do it under the cover of the emergency provisions they granted themselves, or just do it under cover: move all the prisoners to a detention barge in Guantanamo Bay and then do like the battleship Maine... oh so sorry, what could have caused that bang? But Bush and Cheney lacked the political guts to finish what they had started, and now we have a mess that is impossible to clean up.
Re:What does this say... (Score:4, Interesting)
The right course of action (Score:3)
It is sort of like arresting Al Cappone. You know you have someone who belongs behind bars, but the rules of the game say you cannot hang on to him without
Re:The right course of action (Score:5, Insightful)
"I am guessing that the people in Gitmo are die-hard enemies of the US"
Well, if they weren't when they were rendered, one can imagine that a decade of illegal imprisonment of even the most innocent man can probably make them a bit miffed.
And even handing them a load of money as an apology might not be entirely optimal; some who might not find money of adequate value to replace ten years of life could end up donating the funds to terrorists...
It's that age old problem. Once you start really screwing people over some of them can't seem to take a joke. So in trying to make the world 'safer', it ends up being both a worse and less safe world.
Re: (Score:3)
these guys haven't given up the desire to fight us.
No one has proven that they had a desire to fight us in the first place. Due Process FTW!
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Informative)
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
Because Obama is not the dictator of the United States but must faithfully execute[1] the laws passed by the Congress when they are within the power of Congress to regulate. As it happens, Congress has the explicit power to determine what happens to captures[2] during a time of war. So blaming Obama here is somewhat ridiculous as he is simply not in an office charged with
So far, Congress has forbidden the Executive from moving detainees from Guantanamo[3,4] by huge supermajority votes (90-6 in the Senate, for instance). The actual statutory language[5] is quite clear (quoted below). So if you want Obama to close Gitmo then you are essentially asking him to ask in open defiance of the law.
SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2011 may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.
[1] Article II, Section 1.
[2] Article I, Section 8.
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/us/politics/23gitmo.html [nytimes.com]
[5] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111aSU9NC [loc.gov]::
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, Congress has forbidden the Executive from moving detainees from Guantanamo[3,4] by huge supermajority votes (90-6 in the Senate, for instance). The actual statutory language[5] is quite clear (quoted below).
The statutory language is quite clear. They have not prohibited the closure of Guantanamo. They have not prohibited Obama from moving detainees from Guantanamo. They have prohibited him from using budgeted funds to move detainees to the US.
There are any number of ways to deal with this. First, you could just unlock the doors, shut off the lights, and walk away. This option is free! Alternatively, he could find other ways to fund the closure of Guantanamo. Set up a collection plate and I'll donate.
Re: (Score:3)
The statutory language is quite clear. They have not prohibited the closure of Guantanamo. They have not prohibited Obama from moving detainees from Guantanamo. They have prohibited him from using budgeted funds to move detainees to the US.
There are any number of ways to deal with this. First, you could just unlock the doors, shut off the lights, and walk away. This option is free! Alternatively, he could find other ways to fund the closure of Guantanamo. Set up a collection plate and I'll donate.
Doesn't matter, no Executive personnel can do anything to further that end. They cannot shut off the lights or unlock the doors. They cannot take a US government airplane off the island. They cannot hire a contractor to move the good back to some storage facility on the mainland.
The prohibition of funds to a particular end makes it unlawful for any employee of the US government to lift a single single finger towards that end.
What's more, if you want to argue stilted legalism, then don't be shocked when some
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second... If we ever had a president that actually had balls he would address the people and say... I promised you A, you voted for me.. The ball currently lies with congresspeople B-Z, they told me to go to hell, now go tell them what you want.
Of course anybody with that kind of balls would never make it that far in politics. What I don't get though is why don't they grow them once they become president? It's a dead end job anyway. Since when do former presidents go back into office in some other position? I guess I could see waiting until a second term but that is no guarantee to get re-elected. Wouldn't it be better to go down in a one term blaze of glory making huge waves then be just another 8 year pansy?
The solution to the problem? (Score:3)
You make an excellent point. The president has very few powers. But it brings up and interesting point of accountability: If the congress is responsible for holding prisoners at GitMo, couldn't they be individually charged wi
Re: (Score:3)
I think the bigger problem is voters voting for an office based on powers that office doesn't have. I mean, one person on this thread explicitly voted for Obama so he would close Gitmo, ignoring the fact that it's neither his job, or even in his power, to do so.
The US Constitution applies to the US government (Score:3)
And it doesn't have any "gotcha" clauses changing its effects on vs. off US soil.
The reason the US Constitution doesn't always apply off US soil is the same reason why it doesn't always apply on US soil: it's just a piece of paper which doesn't enforce itself. And if you can phrase your excuses for contradicting it in ways people want to believe ("Liberals, the Commerce Clause means we get to buy everyone puppies!" "Conservatives, none of that due-process, no-torture stuff applies to terrifying foreigners!
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was also a lot of fear about what would happen if some of these people were given fair trials and actually found innocent. It was felt even the possibility of such a thing was too politically dangerous to take chances with.
It was one of the first of many examples of this president preferring to alienate his base in order to maintain the naive hope that he could bridge the political divide in this country.
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
There was also a lot of fear about what would happen if some of these people were given fair trials and actually found innocent. It was felt even the possibility of such a thing was too politically dangerous to take chances with.
They are being illegally imprisoned without trial because they might be found innocent? Justice in the US is truly dead.
Because (Score:4, Insightful)
Because he's just George W. Bush with better speech-giving skills.
Re: (Score:3)
Guantanamo has not been closed yet because the persons remaining there cannot be prosecuted successfully under USA law, because their rights were so badly abused when they were taken prisoner that even with conclusive evidence that they have killed USA citizens, they would have to be allowed to walk.
Guantanamo is a legacy cesspool created by a total disregard for law, constitutional rights, and international rights before Obama came on the scene. We are going to be stuck with its stench for a long time...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I want to know why Obama hasn't closed the damn place yet. One of the major reasons I voted democratic in the last presidential election was to put an end to this sort of thing.
Because you were silly enough to believe that there really are two parties with different agendas and concerns? I gave up on believing that fantasy a long time ago... shortly after I found out that the tooth fairy wasn't real either. Actually, I'd say there's more evidence for the tooth fairy being real than there is evidence that the democratic and republican parties are much different when it comes to things of this nature. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are forgetting the german citizen that was kidnapped in germany and sent to gitmo.
Re: (Score:3)
I think people understand the nature of war quite well. That's why they are concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does this say... (Score:4, Informative)
Under the Geneva conventions enforced strictly, they should have been shot on the spot as non-uniformed combatants. POW status is only available to uniformed combatants. If you are trying to blend into the enemy civilian population you get shot, period.
So the US didn't do that. Instead, we treated them as some kind of cross between a combatant and a criminal with neither status being correct or even really definable. So you can't prosecute them as criminals because they haven't really broken criminal laws. Certainly they haven't broken any laws in the places where they were captured. You might be able to make up some kind of justification for them being criminals because of "conspiracy" but it has pretty well been established so far that even that kind of a stretch isn't going to work.
Treating them as a POW isn't going to work. The war isn't with Yemen or Afganistan or Islam. The war is with extremists that have linked a particularly vile form of Islam with the idea that they can reestablish the 12th century by fiat, explosives and death. There will never be a "winner" until they win because you can't really defeat a religion without wiping out all the adherents. If you can afford to take the really long view they are winning and are going to win in the end. It might take 200 years but they will eventually just out-populate the infidels. It is the way religions in the past have won wars and it works. Takes a really long time and uses up a lot of landscape and lives but it works.
Turning these folks over to some state, somewhere hasn't proved to work - nobody really wants them. For most of them, their own country (Yemen) has denied them repatriation. So there is no "sending them home". They can either be kept in a secure location or they can be turned loose, probably only in the US considering nobody else seems to want them. Repeatedly, various groups in the US (like the US Congress) has said they are not wanted in the US under any circumstances, even confined to prisons.
If there were any eligible islands, you might dump them there - but there are no truely remote islands anymore. You could give each one a handgun and put them down in Harlem and see how long they lasted. Probably not long, if there was any prior notice. I'm not sure there are any other options for these folks at all.
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the people kidnapped from places in Europe, that are not battlefields, or arrested in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. The Geneva Conventions apply to all prisoners. What rights (by which convention) they have is dependent upon whether they are adequately described by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention.
Also, it's not "uniform" but openly-visible distinguishing feature made readily apparent before and during an attack. You know, the thing armies must have before opening fire on people engaged in an attack (due to terms of engagement).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are absolutely wrong. We sent people to gitmo with no evidence but a neighbor saying "Yeah, that's the guy." Maybe they didn't like him, maybe he had the same last name as a terrorist. Absolutely, without a doubt, there are innocent men in gitmo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detainees [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
What a stupid complaint. Do you know how wikipedia's history feature works? Can you click on hyperlinked references? Grow up and stop trying to poison the well. If you have a real issue with the information I link to, address that, not some imaginary problem with wikipedia. Dissing wikipedia doesn't advance your cause at all.
Re: (Score:3)
A Canadian Citizen has been rotting in there for the past 8 years without a trial. He has since confessed to crimes, however it was a plea bargain to get released back to Canada. This reminds me of both the inquisitions, "hey just confess and we will stop torturing you!" and the line from Enemy at the Gates:
"Threw my ass in prison. What were you doing in Germany, huh? Excuse me, says I, but it was comrade Stalin who sent me there. Don't bring our glorious leader
into your treachery. Confess, spy bastard! Con
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think it is that ridiculous that someone might think the US would send an enemy to Guantanamo?
Even more to the point, the US has a reputation for sending people who aren't enemies to Guantanamo, and then not releasing them because they've become enemies.
It's also worth pointing out that Julian Assange is widely considered (by Americans who are familiar with his story) a friend of the US. He's just not a friend of some of the US's political leaders.
Re: (Score:3)
That is an outright lie. Guantanamo houses people who have done nothing worse than piss off their neighbors. "Yeah, you guys are looking for Saifiz Al Akbar? Uh, yeah, that's the goat-stealing bastard right over there. Well, his last name is Akbar, anyhow." There are plenty of cases of mistaken identity. There are plenty of cases of people being sent to Gitmo for political reasons. And Gitmo is not the worst possibility, one of the reasons we supported Mubarak for so long is that we kidnapped people we don'
Re: (Score:3)
". The reason for Gitmo is that we are effectively capturing enemy combatants that we cannot properly give Geneva Convention protections to because they do not fight in uniform, nor do they have a sovereign entity that can guarantee punishment for their illegal activities or failing that, who will feel the need or desire to protect our own imprisoned troops in exchange for protection of their imprisoned troops."
After WWII, German officers were hanged for not giving French and Soviet resistant fighters due p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one is calling Assange a terrorist or a combatant of any form
No one? I thought a number of people had, including the US vice president.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/assange-a-high-tech-terrorist-biden/story-e6frg6so-1225973696881 [theaustralian.com.au]
And didn't Sarah Palin say "He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/ [salon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No one is calling Assange a terrorist or a combatant of any form, legal or illegal.
You would be wrong about thatwould be wrong about that. Examples from the horses mouth: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ny03_king/kingsupportsprosecutionofwikileaks.html [house.gov] http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301603 [digitaljournal.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or even Guantanamo Bay
I think this line alone is a commentary on both the hyperbole used by his lawyers and the sad state of the US reputation in Europe.
Why do you think it is only in Europe that US reputation has suffered as a result of its actions over the past decade?
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
ORLY? When the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] is saying that he should be tried under the Espionage Act ... I don't think Guantanamo is exactly a big huge stretch to imagine.
Maybe that reputation is based on things like the CIA kidnapping people [msn.com] in foreign countries to be whisked away to "unofficial" places?
Re:What does this say... (Score:5, Insightful)
What truth? He engaged in espionage against the United States - that isn't in dispute.
That is very much in dispute. Publishing leaked information that is a protected government secret is legal according to the courts, ala the Pentagon Papers. Unless there is some evidence that he conspired to help get those secrets in the first place, then he's probably in the clear according to US law, but in any case that is a huge point that IS in dispute, at best.
Re:What does this say... (Score:4, Informative)
OK, how about the State Department [washingtonpost.com], or 'diplomatic sources' [slashdot.org], or Homeland Security [dw-world.de]?
If we want to be intellectually honest, let's remember that the op-ed piece I cited was basically one of the highest results from Google, and that numerous sources have identified that the US could, in fact, be pondering trying him under the Espionage Act or somesuch. It's not like I pulled the notion out of my ass.
There's no shortage of sources saying they'd like to be able to do that. It was all over the news in December when the news first broke.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There are multiple precedences where people were kidnapped from Europe and sent to both Guantanamo and Egypt/etc for torture and "vanishing".
It was called "extraordinary rendition".
Indeed, G. Bush might have been arrested (Score:4, Insightful)
The naive ex-president wanted to participate to a gala evening in Geneva, Switzerland, on Feb. 12th. Under the risk of being arrested for violation of international treaties about torture, his visit has been canceled today.
The US media like to give as motive threats of protesters...
Re: (Score:3)
Is it me (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it me or this guy gets all the attention that should instead be devoted to the leaks' content? I bet most people following assange' ascention to stardom don't even read wikileaks.
Re:Is it me (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the old song and dance
"Hey look! A guy who started a website for SHARING SECRETS! Never mind the secrets over there..."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well That and so far his defense is Swedish law is unfair and not english or Australian law and therefore he won't get a fair trial. At least he stopped trying to blame the USA for the case.
If you don't like the laws of the country don't visit it. Ignorance of the law is never innocence.
Rape laws are very confusing, you have some places where it isn't rape unless you can get the men who are doing the raping to testify for you. To places like sweden where the woman is almost always right.
Re:Is it me (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is the problem. They didn't have enough evidence to charge him when he was in the country, but then after he left they changed their mind. Considering that there originally wasn't enough evidence to justify having him in for questioning, I don't think that you can really assume that this is going to be a fair trial. At this point even if he is guilty, any guilty verdict is going to look politically motivated because the process has been so botched.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually he cleared with tthe original prosecutor that it was ok to leave. So he did.
ANother prosecutor, who does not have the legal authority in Sweden to issue an EAW, decided she wanted him back for questioning
He offered to do so in a place convenient to himself, just not to travel to Sweden - which is fine.
The Swedish case is *poor* beyond reckoning.
Re: (Score:3)
"If you don't like the laws of the country don't visit it. Ignorance of the law is never innocence."
The problem is that it seems the US believes the opposite is true. That if you commit an action on foreign soil that is legal there but illegal in the US, that you must come to the US and face trial even if you weren't a US citizen to begin with.
At least that is what some politicians are calling for...
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo! We have a winner!
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure to catch "How I Avoided Extradition" on newly rebranded "The WL".
Now with more hype, more editing, and more spin! We've taken the best of the Sci-Fi to Syfy transition and applied it to your favorite leaks!
Re:Is it me (Score:5, Insightful)
The NY Times spent a few weeks going over the leaks' content, with the leaks as the front page story quite often. I suspect other respectable outlets did the same. The problem is more that most people get their news from cable TV, where real news always takes second billing to scandals, shootings, and abductions of pretty white girls.
In fact, just to see how bad it was, I went over to CNN's website, where the title of this story is "Could Assange end up in Gitmo?" Typical of tabloid journalism, they take some outrageous and shocking headline, phrase it as a question (so that they can't be proven wrong), and rack up the page views. At least CNN gives the story a reasonably high booking. MSNBC is running with "Is Facebook the new Craigslist for hookers?" (there's that outrageous question again). And Fox's top story is "Did Google Exec Spark Egypt Revolt?" (yet another question, this time with an almost farcical suggestion).
Re: (Score:2)
cable TV, where real news always takes second billing to scandals
I thought the whole point of wikileaks was to leak scandals?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's just the US.
Seriously, go read a major European paper. Bonus points if you read a language other than English. In Europe they are giving a lot more coverage to the leaks than you will find in the comparatively uber-conservative, pro-establishment New York Times.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, because it's far easier to attack the individual. If you can discredit the individual you can discredit the cause.
Sweden and United Kingdom has similar laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether Sweden or the United Kingdom is more likely to actually follow their laws about extradition to the US in this case.
Re:Sweden and United Kingdom has similar laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Sweden has laws that are similar to those in the UK, so I see very little extra risk for Assange to be extradited to USA if he is transferred or travels to Sweden.
Factions of the Swedish government have been secretly and illegally collaborating with the United States intelligence agencies as exposed by Wikileaks itself. Thus, the laws on record may not be as important as you think. Second, politically speaking it would be difficult for the UK to ship a member of the commonwealth to the US under questionable legal circumstances, given the US's human rights record at the moment. The people that actually vote for the UK politicians would probably view that as just a little too close to home, as in making them afraid they too could be shipped away to be tortured. This would get the UK politicians kicked out of office.
On the other hand, if the UK were to ship him to Sweden to face unrelated charges, then the Swedish were to extradite him (legally or illegally) then the UK politicians could claim they were duped and likely keep their jobs. Swedish politicians would be seen extraditing a foreigner messed up with intelligence agencies and potential criminal acts and again, probably keep their jobs.
All of this is, of course, exceedingly unlikely, but that doesn't mean it is not possible. The argument that shipping him to Sweden could actually result in him being taken illegally by US intelligence, held outside the US, but by US agents, and denied basic human rights. This is the bed the US made and now we must sleep in it a while. There was no real risk in throwing the Guantanamo prisoners into our federal prisons and prosecuting them (aside from political risk). It was all part of the fear-mongering designed as electoral ploys. We threw away any pretense of honor and justice as principals of our government and now we are openly treated as treacherous and dishonorable and unable to be trusted to uphold even the most basic human rights according to treaties we helped write.
Is Julian Assange taking advantage of the US's shitty world image? Most likely. Who's to blame for this? We are, for giving his lawyers so much ammunition.
Re: (Score:3)
According to one of the leaked diplomatic cables, the US ambassador to Sweden stated that the Swedish government was helping to hide US surveillance of the Swedish citizens and that such surveillance was clearly against Swedish law as the courts would rule if it was discovered. The government officials overseeing those departments claim to have been duped by their subordinates who were secretly conspiring with the US. Here's a blurb from a wikileaks summary in the news:
According to Swedish television SVT, a yet-to-be-released cable from the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm reveals that Swedish authorities have secretly cooperated with the U.S. government handing over information about Swedish citizens, who might be associated with terrorism. According to the report the Swedish authorities knew about American surveillance of Swedish citizens but were hiding it from the public. Michael M. Wood, U.S. Ambassador to Sweden, writes in the leaked cable that this cooperation would not pass a parliamentary hearing, and that it could be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, he recommended to stick with the secret practice. The Sweden Minister for Justice claims she has no knowledge of this type of cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it makes them like a GIANT TRANSFORMER!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Umm , I hate to point this out to you , but the UK has been a member of NATO for decades and the UK didn't extradite him to the US.
But why let the facts get in the way of some cliched left wing rant eh?
Re: (Score:2)
How was the AC's post "left wing?" What about it was childish,or a rant? I don't think that AC was claiming that any NATO member would allow Assange's extradition. I think they were claiming Sweden's close ties to the US means that Sweden would allow Assange to be extradited.
Guantanamo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My only guess is that they see the extradition to Sweden as inevitable (which seems odd), and want to make sure that the Swedish prosecutors throw in a load of unnecessary agreements not to extradite him to the US.
Good luck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think Bill Clinton was in charge? About the only evidence I see of that was the ongoing effort to bring him down using a sex scandal.
Why be afraid of Sweden? (Score:4, Informative)
Although I'm sadly perfectly prepared to believe that the two people in Sweden may have been 'encouraged' to make their claims, I'm not sure that Swedish extradition conditions are more defavourable to Assange than those of the UK. Remember this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three [wikipedia.org]
Assange does seem to have a point; if he is not (yet) subject to formal charges, why should he be forced to return to Sweden for questioning?
So a computer geek walks into a bar ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... and some chick asks him what he does for a living. He answers, "I'm a computer geek." She replies, "Oh, wow, that turns me on! Go to the restroom and get some condoms, and then we'll go back to my place!" If any Slashdotter posted something like that, the responses would be, "Yeah, right, in your dreams!"
So then three days later, he goes to another bar, and a different chick hits on him. The whole story seems quite apocryphal.
If this story is true, it sounds like Assange must be as charming as Ge
Re: (Score:2)
Assange had two things going for him that many computer geeks do not. The first he seems very idealistic, there are a type of woman who is attracted to that. Secondly he has some degree of fame, something many women also find desirable. Not to mention that putting himself in the spot lite like he does requires some degree of self-confidence, something almost all women find attractive.
Of course that doesn't rule out your theory, but the idea that two women would come on to him probably isn't that surprisi
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that the girls were politically active liberals and basically his groupies before he even entered the country. It's not very often you can get internationally famous free speech activists into your home after all.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't extradite him because... (Score:2)
Re:We can't extradite him because... (Score:5, Informative)
We can't extradite him because... then he might be extradited. Doesn't that indicate that the proper place for this argument would be any future extradition hearing in Sweden?
No. One of the considerations of an extradition hearing is the human rights protected by the country to which he would be extradited. Many countries, for example, have the right to life enshrined in the legal system and so refuse to extradite anyone to a country where they might be executed (like the US) if the crime they are to be tried for could result in execution. They certainly don't leave it up to the courts in the other country to decide if that person is deserving of execution. Likewise, countries with a poor record of following their own laws or properly investigating may not be places where a country is willing to extradite people. Elements of the Swedish government have recently been discovered to have been illegally collaborating with US intelligence, thus bringing into doubt whether or not Mr. Assange's human rights would be adequately protected by the Swedish government.
It is absolutely important for a government to look at the protections for human rights and state of the legal system in another country before deporting a person there. I mean would you like to be deported to a country to face possibly spurious charges when that country has a history of collaborating with other nations that make people magically and illegally vanish to secret prisons to be tortured? If it was your extradition trial wouldn't you want the government of the nation you're in to look at the potential of your human rights being thrown out the window by the legal processes of the other country?
Re: (Score:3)
The legislature has already decided - it's for the courts to determine in each case whether those conditions apply or not. Which is what's happening here, UK law requires that extradition not occur if torture/the death penalty would be a likely outcome, the court will decide whether this is likely to be the case for Julian Assange, which is basically a) whether Sweden would extradite to the US, and b) whether he would face such a punishment in the US. Your point that they need to consider an infinite regres
US Human Rights Irony (Score:3)
I think it is great that someone is finally calling the US on human rights violations. I think it is ridiculous that the USA preaches to places like China and other human rights violators, while at the same time threatening to jail a journalist for printing information freely. Not to mention the whole no rule of law, torturing, and imprisonment without trial, etc...
Do as I say, and not as I do!
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell, what about wikileaks is "left wing?"
Re: (Score:2)
Are all "leftists" celebrating him? Are people of other political leanings not celebrating? Why do you feel that it is Wikileaks goal to damage the US? Why do you think liberals want to "knock the US down a peg?"
Re: (Score:2)
Your view of the left is completely inaccurate. I am on the "left" and I am a hardcore American Patriot. I believe that we are the greatest nation on earth, but that we have fallen a long way and have been overcome by corruption. We don't need to be knocked down a peg, we need to stand up and set the bar for a higher ethical standard. Exposing and undermining the dishonesty and secrecy of the corruption in the US is the first step in purging that corruption and restoring the honor and respect of our great n
Re: (Score:3)
Anarchism is not leftist. Libertarians are anarchists. Social anarchists tend to be left leaning, while individualist anarchists (frequently called "anarcho-capitalists") tend to hold more right wing views.
Anarchism means "No Archons." Archons were tyrants in ancient Greece. Anarchism means "No tyrants" not "No government." Parse it out, "No government" would be Anocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a steady spiral into what would be common denominator areas for quite a few years. But, then again, you'd have to define what 'news for nerds' is. Some nerds care about this kind of stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nothing Manning is saying to prosecutors should be allowed into a court of law. He is currently being tortured, so his testimony is invalid.
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the only thing we are doing to him, but yes, being held in solitary for long enough is definitely considered torture as it can lead to lasting psychological damage.
Re: (Score:3)
LTMGTFY. Here are the top five items for a google query "Bradley Manning Torture"
http://news.change.org/stories/un-investigating-bradley-manning-torture-claims [change.org]
http://news.change.org/stories/the-obama-administration-is-torturing-bradley-manning [change.org]
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning [salon.com]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/09551812291/us-is-apparently-torturing-bradley-manning-despite-no-trial-no-conviction.shtml [techdirt.com]
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/accused_wikileaker_bradl [truthdig.com]
Sarcasm? I hope? (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement [wikipedia.org]
Solitary confinement is a punishment or special form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is denied contact with any other persons, though often with the exception of members of prison staff. It is considered by some a form of psychological torture.[1] It is usually cited as an additional measure of protection from the criminal.
It is also used as a form of protective custody and to implement a suicide watch.
Solitary confinement is colloquially referred to in A
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We do not keep anyone in the general prison population in solitary for as long as we have Manning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement#Use_and_criticism [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hypocrite? If you're going to make that sort of insinuation you had better provide some sort of a citation. Assange is hardly a saint, but you really can't say that he hasn't towed the line and paid for his beliefs. He offered to come in for questioning while he was in Sweden and asked permission before he left. He's releasing leaks as he has the resources to, and those resources are harder and harder to get due to various dubious actions by money processors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's a hypocrite because he's quite happy to throw out private government files into the public domain but when it comes to details about himself he'd rather keep quiet about its a different story. Google about his current spat with The Guardian newspaper.
He's someone who's obviously not prepared to eat your his dogfood and frankly to me he comes over as a petulant childish authority baiter who'll potentially risk people lives just so he can feel better about himself by sticking it to the man.
Re:Hopefully he'll be extradited (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You really can't understand the difference between the secrets of a democratic government, and an individual citizen? How would releasing data about an individual help Wikileaks reach its stated goals?
Re: (Score:2)
if their client is forced to return to Sweden he could be extradited to the US Why would they think that? Do they think he did something wrong?
What an odd question. Why would you think you'd have to do something wrong to be secretly extradited to the US and locked away and denied due process? That certainly hasn't been the case in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he inconvenienced the US government without hiding his identity to prevent retaliation. This is generally regarded as a bad move.