Photo Reveals UK Plan: "Assange To Be Arrested Under All Circumstances" 847
politkal writes with the lead from a CNN story: "A policeman in London appears to have accidentally revealed an arrest plan for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in what UK media have branded an embarrassing slip-up by London's Metropolitan Police. Clearly legible in a zoomed-in view of the clipboard, on a sheet of paper headed 'Restricted,' are the words: 'EQ Embassy brief — Summary of current position re. Assange. Action required — Assange to be arrested under all circumstances.' It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle."
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Right here http://couragetoresist.org/donate/bradley-manning.html
Since you're so concerned about the guy, maybe you should stuff your self-rightousness up your ass and go donate to his defense fund.
Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the fact he is stuck in the Embassy and in the UK right now and not some place that is much more friendly to him, like say Iceland, pretty much shows how naive Assange has been about the entire thing.
He knew they wanted him but he assumed they would have to play fair, and by the rules to get him, which isn't the case as he is now learning. Especially since traditional media sources are fully prepared to ignore and or tar n feather Assange
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.
This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.
how many? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Treason? The only treason I see having been committed was by the officials who did anything so embarrassing that it needed to be leaked. Maybe if politicians and bureaucrats weren't such unethical, scheming, corrupt slimebags there'd be no reason for people like Assange and Manning to do what they're doing.
Re:Why bother? (Score:0, Insightful)
I certainly hope his is disposed of properly. He intentionally and with forethought published state secrets. If he was a citizen of the USA he would be clearly guilty of violating the national security act and probably treason. As a foreigner he has proven himself an enemy of the United States and deserves what is coming to him.
Let me give you a clue, you stupid fascist redneck fuck.
You are on the wrong side.
Idiots like you are the enemy of people who love freedom.
So take your fascist bullshit and shove it up your ass, "brett".
Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (Score:4, Insightful)
For all the great evils the CIA, Mossad and MI6 supposedly do on a daily basis, what is he doing still breathing? Oh that's right, the Nations in question are playing fair and they following the rules. Which historically is pretty unusual for a non-state actor who has so much highly sensitive data pass through his hands.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
You think Wikileaks is a big money-making venture?
It's funny how people believe anyone whose name is in the news must be rich. "Hey, did you see that guy who got a million hits on his YouTube video of his dog who skateboards? That guy must be like a millionaire or something!"
"Hell, man, Wikileaks must be rolling in it if Assange is in the news for trying to avoid arrest! Maybe they should spread some of that wealth around, you know? Oh, and Go Romney!"
Re:Read it yesterday (Score:4, Insightful)
Please edit and submit such stories when you discover them. The world is large and contains much news and your contributions might help sort it. If you have found, or do find an outlet successfully aggregating the sum of global affairs and technically-related interests, please inform the poor slashdot community at your earliest convenience and help spare us any delay in bleeding edge media coverage. Also, you might consider that if such high expectations are achieved, that less time for quality-control will be available and your valuable time may then be taken by your complaints on that matter.
Please rest assured that every possible effort is being made by the community to provide a solution to your grievance. With any luck, maybe slashdot can be as reliable as something like the BBC or Fox News.
Sincerely,
Trying
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.
The allegations against him include rape a molestation. The women didn't consent to have sex with him at that time, in that way. That is sexual assault.
The women appealed to have the charges reinstated.
One prosecutor did drop the investigation, and another reinstated it shortly afterwards.
How do you not know this?
This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.
Assange was in UK controlled territory for well over a year. If they wanted to dispose of him they could have done so at any time. The fact of the matter is that they were holding him to extradite him to Sweden to face the justice system.
What is shady is the way people keep repeating things that aren't true about this case. Have you spent at least five minutes looking into things? If you have you must have looked in the wrong place as you're spreading disinformation.
Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange [thelocal.se]
Rather than the prosecution of Assange being political, it looks to me more like dropping the changes and the many defenses of Assange using false information are political.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Treason is in the eye of the beholder.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hardly expect citizens of foreign countries to worry about US security. That was Manning's job.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
keep licking those boots. mmmm, good!
of course, you have it backwards. the ones who did the *larger* bit of crime are the ones manning reported on.
that doesn't bother you but the party-line is all you can repeat.
(let me guess; republican, right?)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
The women didn't appeal to have the charges reinstated, a lawyer did so without the knowledge of the women. They came out and said it straight out in Swedish media right after the trial, and strangely we have heard absolutely nothing from either of the women and when they addressed the media that one time, at least one of the women wanted to have it all over with as she felt she was being used as an excuse for a witch hunt. All reference to these things have largely vanished from the internet and if you actually try to search for any of them approximately 16 of the top 20 search results now consist of web sites that appear to be in support of assange but now "have doubts" and if you read a few lines down they start spouting that he's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and needs to be brought to justice for these poor women.
In fact as of right now they can't get the women to testify, and the women cannot redact their previous testimony as it has already been entered into the public record.
The guy is not a saint, and he is a bit of an ass, but without paper guarantee that he will NOT be extradited out of sweden at any time in the future and will be allowed to leave sweden by whatever means and in whatever direction he chooses once he has faced his charges in swedish court and served any jail time or done whatever service is due because of his crime. Without that he is perfectly legitimate in being fucking terrified of going back there.
I should also note that the story you post can't even remotely be correct. Assange remained IN SWEDEN for almost 3 full weeks after the charges were dropped. If what the story said is even remotely true he wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country, instead he actually got express consent to leave the country FROM THE PROSECUTORS OFFICE.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
As he should. There's a reason why treason is treated so seriously. Unfortunately, prosecutors don't intend to push for execution.
Execution for those chopper pilots shooting ambulance and rockets at children and then laughing on comms like they were playing CoD.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck trust. How about transparency?
Whose trust is being violated here? (Score:5, Insightful)
And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?
That's probably a good place to start reforming the "justice" system.
. . .in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath. So whose trust was really violated here? And do you honestly think violating trust is the worst offense a man can commit? If that's the standard we should all be executed.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
How does a non-citizen, non-resident commit treason against a country he owes no allegiance to?
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually a good idea. The death penalty is barbaric.
Re:That's nice (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing a number of rather important details.
First off, the founders of the USA made an open statement of their problems with King George, having worked to resolve them.
Second, instead of publishing who King George had agreements with, or who his spies in France are, or some other embarassing detail, they simply started their own country and said: if you don't like it, this is who we are; come get some.
Third, they took up arms and resisted the people the King sent after them, when he did indeed come after the people who signed the Declaration of Independence.
If you're trying to say Bradley Manning has the balls or integrity to do any of the above, then you're not paying attention or you're willfully lying.
He's a little jag who had a temper tantrum because his boyfriend dumped him, and then got demoted for having that temper tantrum at work. Since he was demoted, he grabbed everything he could get his hands on and gave it to where he thought it could do the most damage, while trying desperately to stay anonymous.
Bradley Manning is a coward, a whiner, and a drama Queen. And you are an idiot for comparing him to anyone who ever actually put himself on the line for anything.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair it did look strange that immediately after the release of the documents he was accused of rape. I don't know what he did or didn't do but my credibility alarmed pinged.
Not really surprising, no. He was full of himself at that moment. High on media. I don't find it particularly surprising that he would think more of himself and less of others at that time.
Re:Why bother? (Score:2, Insightful)
The women didn't consent to have sex with him at that time...
He said, she said... From now on, before I fuck a chick, I'm getting a written, notarized contract specifying exactly the hours, place, and methods permitted, along with how much change I should leave on the dresser. Bitch!
Better yet, I'm goin 'gay.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
> some actually died due to Manning's treason
citation needed.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US want to legally jail him up for life and parade him around on TV as an example to everyone else. It's not about getting revenge it's about using him as an example to the rest of us.
Time to get creative (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how long the people of London would stand for it if 50 small trucks a day started pulling into the embassy garage, then pulling out again and heading for Europe. What kind of police presence would it take to search every one of them on a daily basis?
Maybe once in a while, just for a laugh, have somebody approximating Assange's physical appearance hop in for a ride around the city.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
The man violated the trust placed in him.
Manning betrayed the people who betrayed their countrymen. Manning is guilty only if you have no allegiance to your country.
Exposing a criminal is treason only to criminals.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by law, which is what Manning should have been.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time to get creative (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder how long the people of London would stand for it if 50 small trucks a day started pulling into the embassy garage, then pulling out again and heading for Europe. What kind of police presence would it take to search every one of them on a daily basis?
Maybe once in a while, just for a laugh, have somebody approximating Assange's physical appearance hop in for a ride around the city.
Embassy garage? This isn't some enormous castle, it's a ground floor flat.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
"Say what you want but a lot of people were put in danger and some actually died due to Manning's treason"
Maybe you could comment on how many of Valerie Plame's contacts were put in danger by Cheney's deliberate treason in identifying her as a CIA agent handler. Actually, Cheney placed any foreign citizen who had ever shaken hands with her in extreme danger.
The Bush administration set the standard and since none of the people who were involved were ever charged with anything, the same standard should be applied to Manning. And by the way, none of the criminals like the helicopter gunmen who blew away the Reuters reporters were ever charged with anything.
When there is no rule of law, there is no rule of law.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
And that the women had lunch with him the next day and didn't press charges until the two of them met, and apparently decided after swapping stories that what had actually happened was rape.
At best this is two women abusing Sweden's legal system to get back at a cheating boyfriend.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I read an interview with Adrian Lamo once where he said that when he turned in Manning, he didn't think Assange would actually go through and release the State Department cables. He thought Assage would put Manning's safety above releasing the cables.
Did I just read that right? The man who betrayed Manning blames the man whom he claims respected his wishes?
Or maybe it's Opposite Day and nobody told me. Again.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
(let me guess; republican, right?)
I think it's cute that you believe this issue doesn't span party lines.
Everyone's got the disease, now, not just the Repugnants.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
All reference to these things have largely vanished from the internet
So the fact that there's not a shred of evidence to support any the stuff you're saying proves that there is a huge conspiracy. Because otherwise, there's no way to explain why there isn't anything on the internet to back up what you're saying.
In other words, you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass.
Re:Whose trust is being violated here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rest assured, obstruction of justice [wikipedia.org] is still illegal in the US military. Not that it matters since it's a pretty easy thing to get away with.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting out and voting doesn't make a difference here. In case you haven't been following things, the elections are highly controlled so that you end up with two really shitty choices for President (and the other elections aren't any better), thanks to our first-past-the-post voting system that hasn't changed since the 1700s, rather than the proportional election systems you Europeans use. There are some exceptions at the local level, where there's proportional systems, runoff systems, etc. used, and those are indeed better, but the chances of any of those ever being used in national elections is nil.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
You sign away your rights and freedoms when you join the military. You, as a grunt, such as Manning, have signed their lives away willingly to do what the Army asks them to do. And to follow orders.
Exactly. And if the Army orders you to throw people into gas chambers, that's what you need to do. Great to see that everyday Americans are no different than the Nazis.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its called the chilling effect [wikipedia.org] and works quite well and I'm sure will work in this case. After all what person is gonna be willing to say or print shit in any high profile capacity against the USA if they see Assange dragged before a kangaroo court before being dropped in a deep dark hole somewhere?
Oooohhh Ooooooh! *raises hands*
Right here. If I was in the position to do so, I would not hesitate for a second to air the dirty laundry of the government. In fact, it is my duty to do so as a patriotic American . I could never live with myself allowing the government to continue to do something contrary to the ideals that we cherish. They failed us with their behavior and shamed all of America with their previously hidden actions.
My family history has members in WWII, WWI, and the Civil War. They bled for my freedom, as well as yours. They did not run away scared, or react to some chilling effect.
I would be proud to be dropped in a dark hole somewhere if I knew that I was exposing corruption in the country, that although I am currently deeply ashamed and disappointed in, I love for its ideals.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
for your ideals then that puts you in a very small minority.
Gee... and we wonder why America is in the shitter?
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Somehow none of this sounds as if there is something completely unimportant happening. And somehow it doesn't sound as if Julian Assange is the one trying to inflate the importance.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how you put "Patriotic American" in bold and italics. Like it means something. Patriotism is just another system of control used by people in power to get the masses to do things they wouldn't normally do. You and your family wasted your lives obeying a system of control that gives freedom to the wealth at the expense of the poor. The only freedom you see is a prison of lies and deceit that try to turn you in to a model citizen to serve the corporate rulers of this country. Im sorry its really time you need to wake up to the fact that freedom in America is a bold faced lie. It only exists in your mind. Try to do something that really sets people free and you will surely lose any freedom you think you have real quick.
Re:Why bother? (Score:1, Insightful)
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. Sweden has the highest number of rape cases per capita of any country in Europe. And not just by a small margin, twice as many as the country in second place, the UK.
Getting Assange to Sweden to be questioned and perhaps convicted of a rape would set a great example, not just at home, but abroad, considering the international fame of Assange. At least, that is the thought of the Swedish prosecutors.
If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
Ecuador is using the situation to make a stand off against the USA, the UK and Sweden, because of its own demented obsession with its Anti-American sentiment. I don't know if Ecuador honestly believes he won't receive a fair trial in Sweden, but that doesn't really matter, because Ecuador can 'make a stand' against the USA.
I could also ask you a counter-question: Why is he not getting extradited from the UK? Sweden - unlike the UK - has never been an ally of the USA. Not that they are enemies, but they are not active allies. Sweden is far too liberal to be thinking about extraditing Assange to the USA.
And one more question: What laws can the USA extradite Assange for? Assange hasn't broken any American laws. And even if they could, those laws would likely fall under military or political prosecution, two areas Sweden will not extradite people under.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I, as a part of the the rest of the word, have a problem with your "rules of engagement" which leads to deaths of innocent people and children. Don't try to weasel out of it.
We are decent people and when we see a people in pain, in injury or distress, we stop and help them out. The last thing we want is some murderous pilot and his handlers deciding on killing us on a whim. The release of the "Collateral Murder" video was the right thing to do and shows to the rest of the world what a crooked military system America has. Bush even signed a law which would lead to the invasion of a friendly country (Holland) in case an American soldier was arrested and charged for war crimes. Go and google The Hague Invasion Act.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, let's consider what we do know then. The Swedish authorities have have multiple opportunities to interview Assange and the invitation is still open to them, but they don't. They want him to go to Gothenburg rather than Stockholm, which coincidentally is where they run extraordinary rendition flights from. The UK does not allow such flights and it is unlikely we would extradite him if the US formally asked, considering how much of a fight there has been over people being extradited for things that won't result in their torture or execution.
Sweden needs to explain why they won't resolve the situation. They could come to the UK, do the interview and if they decide not to proceed that would be the end of it. Even if they did want to charge him then at least things would move forwards. They don't seem interested in actual justice though, just getting him to Sweden.
As it is the situation is costing the UK £50,000 per day to police. We look like chumps and Assange looks like a martyr, a cause that people can rally around.
Assange doesn not get to defend himself (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for this:
"England held a hearing, let Assange defend himself"
Under the expedited arrangement, the charges are never laid, the evidence never shown, and he does not get to challenge any of it. The requesting country is ASSUMED to be playing fair, and he can only challenge the side issues.
It's not exactly unusual for rape charges to be used as a way fixing a problem either. Rape laws are lax, the conviction is largely based on how convincing the woman is, a few well practiced tear work wonders. Get a seconder and it works better, so better to get two claims than one.
Which remarkably is what we have here. Yet both girls were witnessed by third parties to be willing parties to the sex, even the extent of a foreplay session in a cinema with girl 'W' which was witnessed.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
And I suppose Rommel was a traitor to Germany for attempting to kill Hitler?
Morality trumps the wishes of the elite any day.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
- removed from Amazon with no notice
- VISA accounts seized
- Matercard accounts seized
- Paypal account revoked
- DNS registers erased (threatening the credibility of ICANN as a political neutral entity, which is kind of a big deal)
These things have been done outside any legal process. In fact, wikileaks is apparently currently winning the trial to recover their funds.
When you are the head of an organization that has been the target of such an aggressive campaign, outside the rules, by the US government, I think that you won a strict application of presumption of innocence.
Missing question (Score:4, Insightful)
Why isn't anyone asking the question: Why is the British authorities so fixated on extraditing Assange to Sweden when he's only wanted in connection with an accusation concerning two counts of the mildest form of rape (consensual sex under false pretenses - without condom) ? - If convicted he can't even get jail time for a first time offense!
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no way of knowing how many people died as a result of actions by Manning and Assange
We have no way of knowing how many people die instantly when distracted from driving by a recollection of an episode of Cheers. That's not exactly a convincing argument you've got there.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Assange has not committed access of espionage. He has not unlawfully approached secret information, instead, Bradley Manning went to him with the information, or rather Wikileaks. The way Wikileaks is set up means that Assange or Wikileaks in general, cannot know who leaked information to them. This ensures more safeguards for Wikileaks.
Manning's trial will start soon and I am sure he will be convincted. Assange on the other hand, have not committed any form of espionage in the USA. Furthermore, espionage count as military engagement, an area Sweden will not extradite under.
Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the great evils the CIA, Mossad and MI6 supposedly do on a daily basis, what is he doing still breathing?
Because no one wants to make a martyr out of Assange.
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Irrelevant.
I refuse to live the life of a coward. If government is a willing to abuse us and repress us, and with our cowardice we continue to enable them to do so, then we deserve that government.
I'm willing to die to make sure my country remains free. Granted, it is in a world of shit right now, but I don't back down just because the authority threatens me with further loss of freedom, or my life.
If and when the time comes to prove it, I believe in my heart, that I have the courage to make such a sacrifice and would be proud to do so.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're one nasty person.
First you are cynical that nobody would be willing to sacrifice to step up to do something right, I answer and tell you that I am, and you can do nothing but continue to berate me and paint horrific pictures of my torture to come.
Well, okay. I don't care. I answered your question, I am not a coward, and I will risk death, HIV, and all that horrible stuff to do what is right.
You don't need to comment back about how something even more disturbing is going to happen to me. I get it, I just don't care.
Re:That's nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Soldiers take an oath to defend the constitution. Turning in the scumbags in Washington that piss on that document daily is defending it.
I'm prior service (US Army, 92-94) and I'm not sure I'd have the stones to do what Manning did. I for one salute him.
Re:That's nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Legally, it is. But if those documents were classified to hide how badly the war was going, it may be morally right to break the law.
The war is paid for by the public, and the public can only make an informed decision on whether to support the war if they have access to relevant information. If the government is hiding information just to avoid embarrassing themselves, it's a betrayal against the public.