Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States The Courts

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Wins Appeal Over Extradition of WikiLeaks Founder

Comments Filter:
  • Uh oh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Here's a handy meme to explain things. https://imgflip.com/i/5xdm8s [imgflip.com]

    • How soon before Assange pulls an Epstein, and doesn't kill himself?
    • If Sweden had won, he would have been extradited to Sweden to stand trial. The US could then try and get him extradited once the process I Sweden had been completed. With him staying in the UK, the US asked for him to be extradited. Seems to me he would have been better off in Sweden, if the goal was to avoid the US.
  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @09:22AM (#62065847)
    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.
    • From what I understand, its well proven that Assange worked with the Russians to deliberately time info release to mess with the US elections. Thats not journalism. They guy is basically an enemy of the state and he hasnt been shy about admitting it. If you want protection as a journalist you gotta behave like a journalist. Hes like one of those Russians that claim theyre all peaceful while massing 150k troops on the border of a neighbor. Sorry, reality trumps your hot air.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

        • by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @11:04AM (#62066201)

          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.

          • 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.

        • 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)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        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

        • by lexman098 ( 1983842 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @10:05AM (#62065983)
          So much bullshit. Real journalists stay neutral and objective. Assange did not [nytimes.com]. Assange may not have been working with Putin directly, but he knew the democratic servers were hacked by Russian agents in an attempt to influence the election and went along with it anyway. Real journalists don't allow themselves to be used as tools for foreign agents. Then Trump was elected. Thanks Assange.

          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.
          • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday December 10, 2021 @10:09AM (#62065999) Homepage Journal

            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?

            • by shanen ( 462549 )

              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

          • by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @10:30AM (#62066101)
            "So much bullshit" is an accurate summary of your comment.
            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)

            Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <mitreya.gmail@com> on Friday December 10, 2021 @12:49PM (#62066597)

              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.

          • 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.

          • Real journalists stay neutral and objective.

            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.

          • by mysidia ( 191772 )

            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

          • 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.

            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.

        • Yes, yes, yes, but the facts on the tapes and documents made the US government and military look really bad. He may even have gotten his information from people who want the US to look bad! Can’t we just publicly execute him without trial? No? How about torture in some pit somewhere for a few decades then? /s
        • 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.

        • 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.

        • 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

        • by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @02:12PM (#62066881) Journal

          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.

        • Muehler report. Trump went out of his way to trash it because it hit uncomfortably close to the truth. And 25 percent of the country believes anything that comes out of trumps mouth. But every actual assessment concluded that muehler did his job like the professional he is. And he concluded that assange was NOT a neutral actor.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
        • 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)

        by ttspttsp ( 7600944 )

        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.

        • 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.

    • 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?

      • AFAIK AUS citizens do not have the basic rights that we enjoy (and fight and die for) in the US. Are you saying that the the US government should not be a beacon for democracy and liberty and exploit the level of oppression of a person's home country when exacting justice?
        • 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.

      • by blahabl ( 7651114 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @10:06AM (#62065989)

        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.

        • 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

          • 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.

        • by grogger ( 638944 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @11:03AM (#62066197)
          It seems to me if the US Constitution does not apply to Australian citizens, then US law should not apply either.
      • 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

      • 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

        • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

          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

        • by mysidia ( 191772 )

          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

    • by BeerFartMoron ( 624900 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @09:47AM (#62065929)
      I agree with you completely in that regard, even lousy journalists get First Amendment protections. What's different here is Assange is being charged with assisting in the original theft of the documents [slashdot.org]. That's extremely different than anything that Daniel Ellsberg and The New York Times did in publishing the Pentagon Papers.
    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        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.

      • 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

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        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.

    • 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.

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        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.

        • 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

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      Citizens are protected by the First Amendment, Assange is not. No one is protected by the Second Amendment.

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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

      • by mysidia ( 191772 )

        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

    • by Hodr ( 219920 )

      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.

    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      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

    • 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.

    • 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?

  • Will be found suicided in ..
    3
    2
    1
    ..
    • Why?

      If you publish everything leaked to you, killing you isn't going to protect any secrets.

      • Assuming hes not sitting on any sort of sweet blackmail.
        • 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.

          • by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            another possibility is that they are assuming he is sitting on more secrets. I find it odd that the guy that threatened to air the dirt about every big wig that took trips on the Lolita Express to Pedophile Island unless they got him out of jail, including the trips Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Prince Andrew took, suddenly suicides when he is holding all the cards. He had enough information to guarantee it would not go to trial. Suicide makes no sense. Aside from being killed, he was sure to go free. I a
  • 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].

    • 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.

  • The protest before a fourth estate self-execution form of journalistic immolation by state sponsored vengeance

  • by Burz ( 138833 ) on Friday December 10, 2021 @10:50AM (#62066165) Homepage Journal

    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 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)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...