US Wins Appeal Over Extradition of WikiLeaks Founder (techcrunch.com) 220
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is facing the prospect of imminent extradition to the US after the UK High Court granted an appeal by the US government against an earlier (January) refusal by a UK judge to extradite him on mental health grounds. From a report: A final decision on whether or not to grant the extradition will be made by the UK secretary of state. The US wants to put Assange on trial for conspiracy to hack and computer misuse. He also faces a number of charges under the controversial Espionage Act. In all he faces 18 counts connected with "obtaining and disclosing defence and national security material" through the WikiLeaks website, primarily in 2009 and 2010 but also "to some extent since," per a court summary.
Uh oh (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's a handy meme to explain things. https://imgflip.com/i/5xdm8s [imgflip.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And perhaps Saudi Arabia will name a street [npr.org] after Assange.
Re: Uh oh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump administration was the first to try to extradict Assange.
Right, in my opinion President Trump caved to the intelligence agencies and didn't honor the wishes of his constituency. He wimped out.
If you think Trump was on the side of civil liberties, I have a New York skyscraper to sell you.
I don't think Donald Trump is on the side of civil liberties. I think he is on the same side as all politicians, the side that gives them the best chance to be reelected.
Re: (Score:3)
You know that Trump wanted to prosecute the shit out of him, right? His administration wanted to lock this guy up and throw away the key.
Even as petty as Trump is, why would you think he would go "soft on crime / soft on national defense" on his way out the door just to stick it to Biden? That would run counter to his election fraud bullshit as well. In order to backstop the bullshit, they had to act as if they were going to be there another 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference being that Snowden is Russia's boy, actually holed up in Moscow. Trump appears to be (allegedly) beholden to Putin, so it's really not that much of a surprise that Putin may want a massive political win while he still had a puppet in place - a presidential pardon for Snowden would have been a huge finger in the eye of the homeland security apparatus and would have gone a long way to back up what Russia has been saying ever since Snowden arrived there.
None of this is what it seems at face val
Assange is a journalist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
lol, by that definition most US journalists are "enemy of the state"...which, ya, you might have a point on that.
At least Assange didn't fabricate things; I don't think anyone is arguing that what he posted wasn't factual. That's a step up from our domestic press.
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, given the state of the US government at present and for at least the past 150 years, it is the duty of a journalist to be its enemy. Or at least to reveal the truths its wants to keep hidden, which will cause the state to designate the journalist as an "enemy".
See Ambrose Bierce, Mark Twain, Albert Jay Nock, Charles Edward Russell, H.L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, I.F. Stone, John Hersey, Michael Herr, Morley Safer, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Gore Vidal, Gary Webb, Garry Trudeau, Barbara Ehrenreich, Seymour Hersh, Paul Craig Roberts, Bre Payton, Jack Perry, Fred Reed, etc, etc., etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Try the past 40000 years, or whenever the first groups of thugs picked up clubs and visited two farmers trading at a crossroads, demanding a fee to keep things safe.
This is why the First Amendment is there, for the people to have free speech to talk about the government and the corrupt people who frequent it. And the press, the organizations and mechanical means of mass production of speech for distribution.
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:2, Interesting)
At least Assange didn't fabricate things; I don't think anyone is arguing that what he posted wasn't factual.
Wrong. Easiest example was the "Collateral Murder" video . The title alone was anything but neutral, and the first version he published was heavily cut/edited to cast the worst possible light on the US troop actions. It was only after a lot of loud noise that he eventually replaced it with the original raw footage, which painted a much different picture of the events.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, Assange has fucking nothing on Comey in that regard, and that fucker had a book tour instead of an indictment. Second, I have yet to see any evidence presented that Assange willfully aided the Russians, instead of simply doing the same thing the news media does, and reporting things that people are interested in reading.
If anyone should be convicted of willfully aiding the Russians without any actual evidence it's the DNC, though. Voters chose Sanders in one primary and were shot town by the anti-dem
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, the DNC may have favored Hillary but they didn't really interfere in the primary as much as you make it out. Voters did not choose Sanders in a primary. Sanders lost fairly because more primary voters voted for Hillary (unfortunately) because they thought being a moderate, she had the best chance of defeating Trump (whoops). This is why elected Democrats are often so inept; they're a reflection of their voting constituency.
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:4, Informative)
So much bullshit. Real journalists stay neutral and objective.
Oh? So where are they? Because I can't remember the last time I read a news article with no opinions in it. Even what facts are reported and which are omitted is down to bias. News has always been biased, and this notion of a golden age when news was reported faithfully and completely is total horse shit that no one who has actually read news can believe. By your definition, there are no real journalists. Did you come up with that yourself, or rent that opinion from Faux News?
Re: (Score:2)
Where did my earlier reply go? At risk of repeating myself, but mostly to check the health of Slashdot:
Not a bad FP branch, but I still think he should have emphasized that the First Amendment says nothing about the quality of the journalism. I basically think Assange qualifies as a bad journalist, perhaps the worst journalist on record, but you'd have to twist the definitions quite hard to claim he's no sort of journalist at all.
Now liable law is a different question. If they were pursuing Assange for liab
Re: (Score:2)
many didn't bother to vote in the primaries after that
So it's the DNC's fault that people didn't bother voting for the candidate they really wanted?
Re: (Score:2)
So then there's no difference between Fox News and CNN. They're both biased, so is Assange, and everyone is equally shitty at journalism?
If you can find the part of my comment where I said everyone was equally biased, I'll send you a dollar. But since I didn't say that, you're being deliberately disingenuous. Don't think no one will notice.
So it's the DNC's fault that people didn't bother voting for the candidate they really wanted?
Yeah, I thought I said that. They misled people, and lies often work or no one would bother telling them.
Re: (Score:2)
According to scientific studies, yes, CNN and Fox are equally biased.
Yeah we're gonna need to see those studies if you want a claim like that to stand
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.allsides.com/media... [allsides.com]
https://www.allsides.com/media... [allsides.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism and the evils it has wreaked on the people of earth
Could you please list these evils? I mean, with data. As in, the precise conditions of living and social structures, including of exploitation and oppression, people lived under in different countries before 1790 or so, vs. the precise conditions of living and social structures, including of exploitation and oppression, people live under in 2021, with numbers, absolute differences, and percentual variations?
I'm looking forward to either have my mind changed by the hard, concrete, factual data you're going t
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:5, Interesting)
First, unless Assange himself possessed the RNC server materials, there's no argument. It's patently absurd to suggest someone must withhold evidence of wrongdoing of one group just because they weren't given the same evidence on another. The blame should fall far more on the wrongdoers than those who exposed them, regardless of their motives. If I turned a child rapist in because I was angry he ripped me off in a drug deal, would you ignore the rape because my motives weren't pure?
And it's fucking amazing to me how you're able to blame Assange for Trump, but then consider the media being 100% in for Clinton because of their alignment with the DNC, pushing the win as a foregone conclusion because their rules had already rigged things for her via superdelegates, on top of the endless hit pieces on Sanders and sycophantic praise of Clinton, amounts to a perfectly fair election where an informed choice was made between canadidates on a level playing field. That is an epic level of bullshit and cognitive dissonance. And you wonder why there's such conflict in the party? You can't even fucking admit how one side is screwing the other, so until you can cure yourself of that blindness you'll just keep losing and blaming the side angry about being fucked instead of the side doing the fucking.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton may not be popular, but most intelligent people know the reasons she's unpopular are mostly bizarre conspiracy theories that only an extreme group
This. This right here is a good summary. Clinton (and Democrats in general) are not popular precisely because of this attitude.
Making it clear that all people who don't like her are just stupid and/or conspiracy theorists is exactly how she lost. (yes, there were ridiculous conspiracy theories, but she was also disliked by people who otherwise would have voted for Democrats).
He doesn't propose solutions so much as rail against the status quo.
I respectfully disagree. Sanders absolutely proposes solutions (e.g., minimum wage, unemployment, free college, medicare for all, etc). It is not clear if these solutions are practical or whether they will work as intended, but he has an actual platform.
Re: (Score:2)
You cite the New York Times to show that Assange is not neutral and objective?
Really???
Moreover, while a journalist should seek to be objective about facts, the other half of the job is to comment on them and to help the people understand what is being done in their name - not just what they hear in speeches on TV.
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:2)
How inconvenient for you that all journalists remotely worth their salt, and virtually every international journalist organization, as well as Amnesty and HRW, everyone you ever pretended to look up to or would hold up as better than Assange, say BOLLOCKS to that attempted argument.
You're going to have to manufacture some new whistleblowers and investigative journalists, because you're on the wrong side from all the old ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Real journalists stay neutral and objective.
False. Journalists can have opinions - Not all pieces are neutral and objective.
but he knew the democratic servers were hacked by Russian agents in an attempt to influence the election and went along with it anyway.
A journalist can be in favor of election being influenced by information they have to expose.
Real journalists don't allow themselves to be used as tools for foreign agents.
By definition Asange is a foreign agent; why wouldn't he be? Australian natio
Re: (Score:2)
You ignore the fact that a large number of those "voters" were Superdelegates. Once Clinton got enough of those on her side, it was over and any primaries after had had meaningless results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone should be convicted of willfully aiding the Russians without any actual evidence it's the DNC, though. Voters chose Sanders in one primary and were shot town by the anti-democratic DNC, and voters would likely have chosen him again except the DNC willfully attacked his campaign with lies and misdirections the next time.
What does "aiding Russia" have to do with shafting Sanders? Generally, your logic is pretty easy to follow but in this case I can't see the connection.
If there is any smoking gun that proves Assange willfully aided the Russians, as opposed to just spewing news without sufficient care (which is what the media does) then I'd like to see it.
You're probably right about that. It seems that Russia reacted to WikiLeaks rather than Russia aiding WikiLeaks. But the US was gunning for Assange long before any of this started (for example, Australia's 4 Corners Sex, Lies and Julian Assange [abc.net.au] from 2012.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a lot of respect for Bernie but the democratic party doesn't like him and he wasn't even a member until recently. The party sabotaged his chances by bringing up the fact that he's jewish and that wouldn't go over well in the south. That came straight from the DNC.
Re: (Score:2)
First, Assange has fucking nothing on Comey in that regard, and that fucker had a book tour instead of an indictment.
Yeah, I know, how dare he drop the 1000's of felony counts of revealing classified information he had against Hillary. I can't believe that he allowed her to get away with crimes that they had significant proof happened, as she handed them the evidence. Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton too for meeting in private while Hillary was under investigation, what were they thinking?
I have yet to see any evidence presented that Assange willfully aided the Russians, instead of simply doing the same thing the news media does, and reporting things that people are interested in reading.
I am sure when the case comes to trial, plenty of evidence will be presented, or the case will be dropped. You personally not seeing t
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:4, Insightful)
The "D" in DNC stands for Democrat. Sanders isn't, and wasn't, Democrat. It's their party, and if the game they want to play is "fuck Bernie", that's the game that gets played.
The problem is the two-party system, and the state laws around what it takes as a matter of effort to run for public office. The game is very much rigged towards being in a major party. Not to mention the federal rules on matching funds.
If you're going to try and when the nomination as a major party candidate, and you're not one of them, you better bring a lot of friends. See Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I have yet to see any evidence presented that Assange willfully aided the Russians
It's Battle Straw Man, where competing sides knock down irrelevant claims that have nothing do with the accusations.
He's accused of helping person access and leak classified information from a US military computer system. Assisting to get the information. A journalist does not do that. A journalist reports on it afterwards, but if you send them an email and ask them what they want you to steal, they are not going to enter into some conspiracy to help you steal something useful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I understand, its well proven that Assange worked with the Russians to deliberately time info release to mess with the US elections.
What proof? And don't tell me "it's classified". Journalistic freedom hangs in the balance here in my opinion, maybe our most important societal feature.
Re: (Score:2)
In this context, "It's classisfied" might be a convenient lie anyway. Because it means no real evidence is given, so you can trust the information only as far as the person who is giving it.
Personally, I think that means "not at all" in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is a journalist, people that leaked secrets to him can be prosecuted, but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment.
What is the first amendment of Australia's constitution, and how does it protect Australian citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the breezy way people are silenced in these democracies where braggards proudly say, "We don't need no stinking First Amendment!", it's a shit sandwich either way.
Re:Assange is a journalist (Score:5, Informative)
Assange is a journalist, people that leaked secrets to him can be prosecuted, but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment.
What is the first amendment of Australia's constitution, and how does it protect Australian citizens?
The first amendment of US constitution (you know, the guys after him) says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Please tell me how it applies only to US citizens. Seen the word "citizen" anywhere in it? No, your constitiution and the Bill of Rights are very careful to use the words "citizen" only in the context of right to vote, and nowhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, the first amendment does have accepted carve-outs for public safety, criminal acts, etc. For example, perjury is a law that necessarily "abridges free speech". So are fraud statutes, and laws against libel and slander. As well as espionage. Those laws have been upheld by a century of case precedents, and this weak shit won't be what overturns it.
You've never been able to say or do whatever the fuck you like even with the broad language of 1A, and that's the way it should be. However, outsi
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a journalist doesn't get away with it when he commits a crime to obtain information, and assisting someone in the acquisition of the information by illegal means, as he is accused of, has no bearing on the rights of a journalist under the first ammendment.
Re:Assange is a journalist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, although we don't extend all of the rights in the bill of rights to all persons.
So you openly admit that you apply your Constitution selectviely, according to your own whims and biases.
By the way, whom do you denote by "we"? Do you identify with the Executive Branch? If so, why?
Re: (Score:2)
For example foreign nationals aren't entitled to protections of the second amendment, though arguably that right is not protected in general* as a number of states have laws which directly contradict it.
Green Card holders can own firearms while living in the US.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q... [atf.gov]
Illegal aliens, who have already committed the crime of illegal entry, or overstaying their visas, and those in the country legally who are visiting on a visa aren't. Mostly because criminals in the US are not allowed to own firearms (at least at the felony level), and most visas would be temporary visitors. I am not sure how something like visiting to hunt, or for example for the Olympics works.
IANAL, so I only kn
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is a journalist, people that leaked secrets to him can be prosecuted, but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment.
What is the first amendment of Australia's constitution, and how does it protect Australian citizens?
The first amendment to the Australian Constitution was the Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) Bill 1906, which established that Senate terms began on 1 July and end on 30 June.
The Australian constitution, unlike the US Constitution, doesn't have an explicit Bill of Rights. Australian rights are part of the received common law (this means the body of English laws, relevant to Australia, were taken as Australian laws after the Constitution came into effect January 1, 1901). There have been several a
Re: (Score:2)
The First Amendment begins:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
I don't see any words there that restrict the First Amendment to US citizens. It says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
I hope that no one else in the USA can make laws other than Congress. So if it is not allowed to make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that no one else in the USA can make laws other than Congress. So if it is not allowed to make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, there can be no such law.
Much as I agree with your point overall--the Constitution explicitly defines what the federal government can do, "citizen" is not a factor in that--the above is poorly worded.
Plenty of bodies in the US other than Congress can and do make laws--State, County, and Municipal governments all may do so. Under the 1st amendment as drafted, Congress could make no law [abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc]. The several States were free to do so--and did--where said laws did not conflict with their
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any words there that restrict the First Amendment to US citizens.
The 1st amendment applies to all people, of course. The Criminal charges they are formally using as justification to extradite Assange are Not for what he published but for "Conspiracy to hack into computers (located in the US)".
Thus there is no First Amendment defense Assange can use against those charges.. although you and I know full well that the reason they are charging him in the first place is because of what he publis
Re:Assange is a journalist (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Assange to hackers/activists: ”Here’s the kind of stuff we are interested in, send anything like that our way and we’ll publish it”
The charging documents [justice.gov] provide a bit more detail as to the alleged collusion between Manning (and others) and Assange.
Trump on national TV: “ Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30000 emails that are missing.” Well, despite Russia hacking and stealing information right after and making it public it’s really just hearsay. It was a joke at best. Totally innocent in every way, you’re the criminal for thinking that was a high crime abuse of office.”
Yeah, that Trump dude is criminal, IMHO. I'm continually shocked by the lack of spine in the US DOJ.
Assange may be human garbage but the level of cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
You may be confusing Slashdot with the US DOJ as to the source of the dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
Abuse of office? Trump did not hold any gov office at that time.
Yeah, the abuses of office came later. That was just collaboration with a foreign power to influence a US election.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is a journalist, people that leaked secrets to him can be prosecuted
No. Assange directly assisted the leaker in getting access to the documents. That's the charge, not one protected by any amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
A journalist that publishes secrets given to him can't be prosecuted. And Assange is not charged with that.
Assange helped Manning get the secrets Manning leaked. Assange is being charged with giving that help.
Re: (Score:2)
but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment.
Please explain how an Australian citizen, living in Europe, is entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment.
Please explain how an Australian citizen, living in Europe, is entitled to protection under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that "things the federal government is never allowed to do" (like abridge the freedom of speech and of the press) can be done to non-citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
1) WikiLeaks worked with NYT on publishing leaks; making them similar to foreign corespondents, a routine situation where US press has foreign sources and foreign collaborators. This is a new way to protect sources that has to be terrorized by the USA and made an example despite multiple methods to protect sources now exist... the FEAR must be instilled by crushing the figurehead. Oddly, they haven't gone after everybody involved with wikileaks to really instill fear; like China would do. It's such a tiny
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st amendment protects ALL persons but it is moot. Asange's act of publishing news is not on US soil: thus outside of US criminal jurisdiction.
However, Assange conspiring to obtain the documents by hacking happens in the US and is not protected by the bill of rights and is a crime, and is what is about to cause his extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment is not carte blanche. There are judicial exceptions for public safety and criminal acts such as slander, fraud, perjury, and espionage. If they can prove a crime under the espionage act, then the first amendment need not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can prove a crime under the espionage act
They need to prove they did a crime within US jurisdiction such as involvement in conspiracy to commit a crime that was committed on US soil. An "espionage" charge for receiving leaked documents and publishing a leak would not hold water for an Australian national publishing documents in their own country - Those actions fall outside of US jurisdiction.. Only Assange actions that caused a crime to happen inside US borders can be alleged criminal acts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that DoD computers that had classified material stolen from them counts as within United States jurisdiction, as such computers would either be within territory of the United States (either within borders, or within diplomatically recognized territory such as leased military bases, embassies, etc.). Any espionage charges would likely be conspiracy charges as he was not actually stealing the data himself, but rather suborning the espionage on behalf of his own interests, and aiding in the ac
Re: (Score:2)
Citizens are protected by the First Amendment, Assange is not. No one is protected by the Second Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is a journalist, people that leaked secrets to him can be prosecuted, but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment.
...in his role as publisher, not in his role as leaker. That's what makes his situation different from the other publications you cited.
I agree that major news publications haven't faced a significant legal challenge on this issue since the Supreme Court ruled in '71 in favor of the NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers, but it's also why—contrary to your assertions—Assange's situation is different from the NYT's or WaPo's. From what I recall, Assange has been accused of participating in the act of
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but a key part of being a whistleblower is seeing illegal conduct, and blowing the whistle on it. Here, a soldier was disgruntled, and wanted to hurt the US to punish their poor treatment. That's not whistleblowing.
And for example, the helicopter video was doctored to create the impression of a war crime that doesn't exist in the full, unedited video. They spliced different sequences together to create what sounds like a damning conversation, but that conversation never happened.
Re: Assange is a journalist (Score:2)
Assange is a journalist, people that leaked secrets to him can be prosecuted, but Assange himself is protected by the First Amendment. If you can prosecute Assange, you can also prosecute NYT or The Washington Post for publishing leaked Trump materials. Keep that in mind in forming your opinion.
It doesn't matter what you call yourself. If someone gives you classified material you can release it because you're not under any obligation to keep it secret. But if you ask someone to go get it for you, you're now taking an active part in breaking various laws. My understanding is that's the primary Charge here: by actively soliciting material from Manning he goes from being a Journalist to a Co-conspirator.
On top of that, I've heard mumblings about evidence that the way he released material, the timing
Re: (Score:2)
But if you ask someone to go get it for you, you're now taking an active part in breaking various laws.
This is a bit problematic.. imagine saying the cashier at the grocery asked for $50 by saying "That would be $50, please.", and so someone robbed a bank to get the $50, thus the cashier is now a bank robbery conspirator.
That sound ridiculous. It might be different if they were giving instrumental motivation such as hiring them as a partner or providing meaningful assistance ('Psst.. the alarm code a
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while (obviously) but from what I recall they are not pursuing the publishing angle, but participation in the act itself.
Yes, if a source comes to you and gives you something and you publish it you are likely protected. If you work to develop a source, point them at a target, and/or pay for information then you are part of the act itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad FP, but I still think you should have emphasized that the First Amendment says nothing about the quality of the journalism. I basically think Assange qualifies as a bad journalist, perhaps the worst journalist on record, but you'd have to twist the definitions quite hard to claim he's no sort of journalist at all.
Now liable law is a different question. If they were pursuing Assange for liable, then his publication of lies would become an important question. As far as I know, what they are actually
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it would be better if the NYT and Washington Post were prosecuted for telling lies, and Assange was set free for telling the truth.
It is because the reverse is true that I don't trust my government.
Even without the first or fourth amendments, the NYT and Washington Post would never be prosecuted because they seem incapable of speaking the truth in the first place, much less speaking the truth to power.
Re: (Score:2)
If a journalist works with a US soldier deployed overseas to access military computers, and that journalist even gives them instructions on what data to steal, that person isn't just a journalist. They're a spy and will be arrested.
The accusation is not a complicated issue. Why waste people's time misrepresenting the accusation?
Re: (Score:2)
Supreme God Emperor Obama, Forever Ruler of the Known Universe, has decreed otherwise.
The same Supreme God Emperor Obama who would always pledge his fidelity to the principle that all people are create equal.
You learn that trick in Doublethink 101.
Re: (Score:2)
Will be found suicided (Score:2)
3
2
1
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
If you publish everything leaked to you, killing you isn't going to protect any secrets.
Re: Will be found suicided (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that would go against everything he claims to believe. So, he either isn't, or is a massive hypocrite.
Not to mention, the time to use that blackmail would be before the extradition case when he can quietly get away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Will be found suicided (Score:4, Interesting)
You may not like it but a boatload of evidence points to the fact that Jeffrey Epstein did in fact kill himself.
The only evidence that I'm aware of that's been publicly released is some footage that fails to show anyone entering his cell the night he died. The medical evidence is inconclusive [wikipedia.org] but strongly suggests that it was not suicide.
you don't need to go into a world of fantasy just because the truth isn't nearly as fun for you.
The truth is that there is NOT a "boatload" of evidence that Epstein killed himself. In fact the strongest piece of evidence is the camera footage, and the best thing you can say about that is that it fails to contradict the suicide theory. But two other cameras "malfunctioned" mysteriously during the night in question, so the video evidence is also incomplete, and the fact that two different relevant cameras "malfunctioned" at the same time is suspicious (though again, proves nothing.)
Your assertion that there is a boatload of evidence that Epstein committed suicide is false.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
On August 8, Epstein signed his last will and testament, witnessed by two attorneys who knew him. The will named two longtime employees as executors, and immediately gifted all his assets, and any assets remaining in his estate, to a trust.[26][27]
This is not the choice of a man that is planning to live.
Re: (Score:2)
It also seems like the choice of someone who should be put back on suicide watch. What I'm really curious about is how often did both of those guards fall asleep at their desks for hours? Was it a regular thing, or did it just happen that one time? If it was a regular thing, then it should have been verifiable with video records. If it wasn't a regular thing, it does seem pretty weird if they both fell asleep just that one time.
Re: (Score:2)
It also seems like the choice of someone who should be put back on suicide watch.
Agreed. However, the actual transfers were unlikely to have occurred before the following Monday (they met on Thursday). Attorney-client privilege prevented anyone from listening in on what he was doing and nobody is monitoring his fiances. Rich people rarely face the kind of imprisonment he was facing so there probably isn't a protocol for it.
What I'm really curious about is how often did both of those guards fall asleep at their desks for hours? Was it a regular thing, or did it just happen that one time? If it was a regular thing, then it should have been verifiable with video records.
A) Video recording for prisons are not archived. That costs money and would result in possible accountability.
B) Cameras are commonly busted in prisons and there
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough regarding changes to the will.
A) Video recording for prisons are not archived. That costs money and would result in possible accountability.
B) Cameras are commonly busted in prisons and there is little incentive to repair them.
Like I wrote, prisons are poorly maintained because almost nobody cares about prisoners.
That's just unconscionable, really. There has to be some way to verify it though. They must have logs for doors being opened and closed, at least?
Anyway, I suppose Epstein's death seems so fishy because so many people, myself included, were thinking that he was going to go into prison and die of "suicide". The predictions came true, then it became a matter of determining if it was suicide or "suicide". I've got to say, looking at the pictures on the wikipedia page,
Re: (Score:2)
That's just unconscionable, really.
Yeah, in the US if you're in prison then you're considered to be human refuse. Not much can be done without people who care.
There has to be some way to verify it though. They must have logs for doors being opened and closed, at least?
I'm pretty sure they do... but that don't stop people from thinking it could be altered.
Anyway, I suppose Epstein's death seems so fishy because...
Well, it's not just you because that was the point. Epstein himself was a lifelong manipulator and apparently staged his first suicide attempt to try to get released on bail (and then flee), under the guise of conspiracy to murder him. This was his last ditch effort to escape and after it failed
Re: (Score:2)
This snip from the Wikipedia article is interesting as well.
According to Baden, the neck wound was in the center of Epstein's neck, not under his mandibles as in a typical hanging. Baden said this is more common when a victim is strangled by a wire or cord. Baden also said that the wound was much thinner than the strip of bedsheet, and although there was blood on Epstein's neck, it was absent on the bed-sheet ligature.[25] In response to Baden's claims, Sampson stood by the conclusion that Epstein's death was suicide.
Seeing that there is a wound on his neck, and lack of blood on the bed sheet would be pretty conclusive that something happened to his neck prior to him hanging from the bed sheet. I doubt there was anything found in the cell that explains the neck wound, so it does make me wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not into conspiracies but no way did Epstein kill himself. The cameras magically didn't work and no guards saw anything. He had links to rich and powerful people from billionaires to royalty. Here's Epstein at a cabin owned by Queen Elizabeth. https://people.com/royals/jeff... [people.com]
Re: Will be found suicided (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cameras magically didn't work and no guards saw anything.
Prison cameras a regularly broken. Seriously, right now, most prison cameras are broken. There is little incentive to fix them because nobody cares about prisoners. The prison guards likely slept regularly on their shifts because again, nobody really cares about prisoners.
He had links to rich and powerful people from billionaires to royalty.
That doesn't keep a prison guard who regularly sleeps on his shift from sleeping. Seriously, he wasn't even interesting to the guards because he wasn't considered to be dangerous.
Re: Will be found suicided (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
read this thread: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
As for Mcafee, I haven't read anything to indicate he ever mentioned he even had information of value. There's no reason for anyone to want him dead. Seriously, I'm pretty sure there are more that are pissed off that they put in so much work to get him extradited only for him to die than people who wanted him dead.
The USA achieved its primary aim (Score:3)
of neutering wikileaks -- OK: it is still there but little new is added. So further abuses will remain unreported. Now what it is doing is to put the fear of god into anyone else who might think of exposing wrong doing. Assange's trial will take a long time and result in him being locked up for long time.
Meanwhile those exposed are not investigated: eg those in the helicopter gun ship who laughed while shooting up innocents [dailymail.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile those exposed are not investigated: eg those in the helicopter gun ship who laughed while shooting up innocents
They're not being prosecuted because everything in the video is legal.
Wikileaks helpfully identified the AK being wielded by one of the people. That makes it legal. They also identified the over-the-shoulder camera one person was carrying, and those are commonly mistaken for weapons. Which is also legal.
One of the reasons war is bad is incidents like that are legal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a goal of many people. Look at Yelp and Amazon reviews, with fake reviews against competitors and astroturfing of one's own business's reviews.
To wit: Extra-judicial prudence (Score:2)
The protest before a fourth estate self-execution form of journalistic immolation by state sponsored vengeance
Dear Biden Administration: (Score:3)
1. Assange is more popular than you may think.
2. This is not the "gift" from the UK government you may think it is.
Has he ever been in America Before? (Score:2)
Has he even ever been to America before? Last I remember this was a country mad about someone who never set foot there... Is that the case?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)