In Response to Open Letter, France Rejects Asylum For Julian Assange 146
Several outlets report that Julian Assange has requested, but been denied, political asylum in France, by means of an open letter published by Le Monde.
From The Globe and Mail's coverage, linked above: Less than an hour after his letter was published by Le Monde's website, Hollande's office issued a statement saying the asylum request was rejected.
"France has received the letter from Mr. Assange. An in-depth review shows that in view of the legal and material elements of Mr Assange's situation, France cannot grant his request," the statement said.
"The situation of Mr. Assange does not present any immediate danger. He is also the target of a European arrest warrant," it noted.
Assange wrote in the letter that his youngest child is French, and so is the child’s mother. "I haven't been able to see them in five years, since the political persecution against me started," he said. Worth noting: Assange's legal team says that Assange's letter has been mischaracterized, and that it is in fact not a request for asylum per se; instead, they assert, the letter merely expresses Assange's "willingness 'to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities.'"
"France has received the letter from Mr. Assange. An in-depth review shows that in view of the legal and material elements of Mr Assange's situation, France cannot grant his request," the statement said.
"The situation of Mr. Assange does not present any immediate danger. He is also the target of a European arrest warrant," it noted.
Assange wrote in the letter that his youngest child is French, and so is the child’s mother. "I haven't been able to see them in five years, since the political persecution against me started," he said. Worth noting: Assange's legal team says that Assange's letter has been mischaracterized, and that it is in fact not a request for asylum per se; instead, they assert, the letter merely expresses Assange's "willingness 'to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities.'"
Re:France (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you assume that they're succumbing to US Pressure?
This is fucking France, which spent most of the Cold War technically out of NATO [bbc.co.uk], and didn't come back until it was safe in '09. They actively supported Rwanda's genocidal government because they thought the English-speaking rebels were lying about the genocide, to the point of sending troops to try to protect [wikipedia.org] the fleeing government troops. Their response to PRISM was to condemn it as 'espionage' [dailymail.co.uk] the very fucking day [lemonde.fr] their biggest paper announced they'd been doing the same damn thing to their citizens for years.
They support Assange and Snowden in public, solely because idiots like you will mistakenly assume this means they actually support Assange and Snowden. In private they will do their best to get those guys fucked over, because if those guys are fucked over they can't do interesting things like tell Le Monde about the DGSE. Which is why, despite their PR as privacy advocates, neither guy has actually asked for Asylum. It's not a surprise they were one of the countries that got Morales' plane stopped, and that of the four involved they were the only one that had clout with the other three (Portugal [cnn.com], Spain and Italy [wikipedia.org] were all in the midst of EU-recovery programs at the time, and guess whose the most important economy in the Euro not named Germany?).
So they have a long history of fucking privacy activists over, and then letting the US take the blame.
Re:France (Score:4, Funny)
Speaking of stopping Morales's plane, that was actually Assange's doing [telesurtv.net]. Largest "SWATting" prank in world history.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of stopping Morales's plane, that was actually Assange's doing [telesurtv.net]. Largest "SWATting" prank in world history.
So Assange ordered the plane stopped?? Or did the US with a bunch of countries bending the knee?
Assange planted a rumour, but stoping the plane was not his doing in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Much like a drug raid on your neighbor's house is in no way your doing if you secretly called the police to report a meth lab in the basement? Try that one on a judge.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much like a drug raid on your neighbor's house is in no way your doing if you secretly called the police to report a meth lab in the basement? Try that one on a judge.
Oh, I get it!
Saying something untrue which someone else learns of, and then decides to tell police, who then in an over-the-top knee-jerk reaction make utter fools of themselves, is *exactly* the same as intentionally and personally filing a false police report!
C'mon! I expect much better propaganda than this for my tax dollars!
https://youtu.be/qztuEucrNBc [youtu.be]
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I get it! Saying something untrue which someone else learns of ...
So you are in effect saying that Assange didn't deliberately plant the story? Maybe you should revisit the question of, "do you get it".
C'mon! I expect much better propaganda than this for my tax dollars!
I post my own opinions in my spare time. If you want someone from the government here, or government funding for someone, write your Congressman. It will help if you aren't an ass about it (like that comment).
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of stopping Morales's plane, that was actually Assange's doing. Largest "SWATting" prank in world history.
So just to be clear, when they forced his plane down, which would have been illegal even if he did have Snowden on board (because he wouldn't have done that without using proper measures to extend his immunity) that was something Assange did? I don't recall him forcing anyone to violate any laws. It seems to me what he does is tell us when other people have already violated laws. Maybe you could explain how he issued an order to illegally ground a plane, and why it was followed.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about French Gaullist tradition (from Charles de Gaulle), and yes, French geopolitics was relatively independent from the US.
Since Sarkozy they have made a 180-degree turn. They are now one of the most pro-US countries in Europe, beating UK in some issues.
http://www.economist.com/blogs... [economist.com]
http://www.economist.com/node/... [economist.com]
http://fablognewsweeker.canalb... [canalblog.com]
http://www.economist.com/blogs... [economist.com]
Hollande, though from the rival socialist party, follows entirely the path paved by Sarkozy.
Re: (Score:1)
Asange can only get asylum in Colombia or Ecuador or Peru, where it is still legal to burn people at the stake for heresy
Unfortunately there are some people so out of touch with other countries that they may think that that is true. Of course it isn't true at all.
sillybilly [slashdot.org] is a professional troll who only writes stupid flamebait like this, so just ignore him and down-mod him when possible.
Snowden deserves asylum; Assange doesn't (Score:2, Troll)
Snowden deserves asylum - he's wanted for a political crime, he's clearly guilty of violating US laws, and the US government doesn't accept a necessity defense when they're the ones he blew the whistle on, and even if he got a jury trial they'd make sure no juror who supports him would be picked.
Assange is a different case - the US wants him for political reasons, but Sweden wants him on trial for rape. There's a significant risk that if he goes back, gets a fair trial, and is found not guilty, the US will
It isn't rape. (Score:1)
Not even the women who he had sex with say it was rape. It wasn't and isn't rape.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is Assange's Ego which is keeping him locked away. Not big brother who is SOOO INTERESTED in getting him.
For the most part America Assange isn't the bad guy, just a jerk to happens to hate America. Manning was the person that the US really wanted, Manning was the one who stole classified data and gave it Assange.
The crime they are trying to get him for in neutral Sweden is for rape. Why would any government give asylum to an individual who is hiding from a crime that is more or less universally
Re: (Score:3)
Why would any government give asylum to an individual who is hiding from a crime that is more or less universally not tolerated.
You never know, France is known for offering asylum to convicted multiple muderers [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Given the awfully broad "rape" law in Sweden, I don't mind.
The bizarre thing is that without the ongoing investigation it would probably be easier for Assange to get asylum in Sweden. Sweden expressly forbids ministers of government from having any direct involvement over administrative authorities. If he applied his case would in theory be handled under the exact same process as everyone else regardless the political situation. The Swedish prime minister would not be able to accept or reject anything, it would only be up to the responsible administrative authority
Re: Why should they change? (Score:1)
The solution? Make video recordings of every encounter. For your own safety, of course.
Would you like (Score:1)
some Freedom Fries with that?
Re:Competent Authorities (Score:5, Insightful)
What does Assange's personnality, and your opinion of it, matter ? That's Ad Hominem put to the extreme. What about his work ?
I don't dive into a chef's private life before eating their food; I've no idea about musicians' procilivities and motivations, some of the writers I like are disgusting anti-role-models or pity-worthy dysfunctional wrecks. Ditto directors, actors, even friends... and let's not talk about politicians.
In the end it doesn't matter: the work is more important than who's doing it. Incomparably more. Your character assassination is fully besides the point.
Re:Competent Authorities (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the man, not his work, who is seeking asylum.
Actually, even as far as the work itself is concerned, since Assange selects what information he presents, there is a degree of judgment and choice involved. If Assange is prone to making choices based on personal interests rather than objective truth, then even the value of his work is questionable. That is why considerations about the person ("ad hominem") are relevant not just to his asylum request, but also to his work.
Re:Competent Authorities (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the man, not his work, who is seeking asylum.
But it is his work that is important, regardless of this. Nay, not even his work, the work of the dozens to hundreds of brave souls who fight the slavers and face death constantly so that you may live under the freedom they provide. Something that bears mentioning regardless of the topic.
Actually, even as far as the work itself is concerned, since Assange selects what information he presents, there is a degree of judgment and choice involved. If Assange is prone to making choices based on personal interests rather than objective truth, then even the value of his work is questionable. That is why considerations about the person ("ad hominem") are relevant not just to his asylum request, but also to his work.
Hahaha. You jest right? You complain that one man may be cherry picking what secret documents he reveals, when he has revealed thousands or more... While the other side lies, cheats, steals, fabricates, leaks and murders to deploy their overwhelming propaganda.
We live in a world where the entire mainstream media are controlled by the intelligence services, even as paid assets at the very top. Where stories are censored in multi-continent wide blackouts. Where they are crafted to fit the interests of the rulers of the world. Where a whitehouse and pentagon leak secret material on a weekly basis when it's of interest to them. Where they don't even have to leak secret info if they don't want to because just BullShitting to the media will get your words repeated as truth, with no fact-checking.
Among all of this, you object to one man working against them? I think you woke up and tried to put one pant leg on a flea and the other on an elephant.
Re: (Score:3)
But it is his work that is important, regardless of this. Nay, not even his work, the work of the dozens to hundreds of brave souls who fight the slavers and face death constantly so that you may live under the freedom they provide. Something that bears mentioning regardless of the topic.
And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?
His work and the things his work stands for goes on without him. His work on Wikileaks does not give him a free pass to do whatever the fuck he wants.
Re:Competent Authorities (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an "IF" as to whether Assange cherry picks things for political reasons. He does. There are lots of things he's deliberately kept back with threats to release if certain things happen that he doesn't want (unredacted cables, files against NewsCorp, etc). The most famous was his "insurance file" which was to be released "should anything happen to him", which was left vague enough that it wasn't clear whether he was talking about "being killed" or simply "being sent to Sweden" (the statement being made during his fight to avoid surrender to Sweden). The scummiest blackmail on his part, IMHO, was his threatening to release unredacted documents that could get various aid/human rights organizations' employees killed if said organizations didn't provide him money (most famously his $700k shakedown of Amnesty International).
He refers to the leaks in Wikileaks' possession as his "property", and made all Wikileaks staffers sign an onerous NDA [cbsnews.com] imposing ridiculous fines if they do anything to reduce the monetary value of said property, such as by leaking it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA isn't about his work, it's about: "In Response to Open Letter, France Rejects Asylum For Julian Assange".
I didn't "complain", I corrected you. You stated that Assange's personal agenda didn't matter to his work at all. I pointed out that it very much does.
Re: (Score:2)
replying to cancel inadvertent mod
He lies in his work too (Score:4, Insightful)
What about his work ?
Well he's shown that he is willing to lie in his work also. Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
Re: (Score:1)
Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
He edited a leaked video, which the US Government had claimed did not exist. The events in the video where not as important as the exposure of the lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
He edited a leaked video, which the US Government had claimed did not exist. The events in the video where not as important as the exposure of the lies.
The fact remains that he is willing to lie in his work.
Re: (Score:2)
He edited a leaked video, which the US Government had claimed did not exist.
Could you expand on that? Did they actually say it didn't exist, or that you can't have it? Or did they say something else entirely? What is the basis for claiming they lied?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, let's not forget the Wikleaks Funnies while we're at it, such as when they presented a Nigerian scam email as proof of US military corruption [csmonitor.com]. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is a hypocrite that lets his personal agenda and politics determine what he releases.
If you can't understand why that matters you really can't be part of the conversation, sorry. You need to learn to think for yourself, critically.
But riddle me this, what does his work have to do with the fact that he's a criminal? He's a criminal with or without his work. When you look at his 'work' and notice he does the same lying bullshit to manipulate reality. He modifies what he release to show parts that
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't understand that personal foibles matter, but not to the point of blotting out everything else, *you* are the one not qualified to comment on anyone else's work.
You seem to have a very immature world-view: black/white, hero/villain, truth/lies. In real adult life, everything is shades of grey. I'm sure Assange has done despicable things. It doesn't change the fact that on the whole, the world is a better place thanks to him.
Re:Competent Authorities (Score:4, Informative)
Which is, of course, false. AA has accused Assange of lesser sexual crimes, and SW has accused him of rape. There are no counts of rape against Assange concerning AA on the EAW, only three lesser counts (2x molestation and 1x unlawful sexual coersion). There is one count of rape on the EAW (count #4) concerning SW, in line with what the women have accused him of and also in line with what the Svea Court of Appeals has found probable cause for. Both women sought and retained legal representatives who have pushed the case forward for them (initially, both of them retained Claes Borgström, who was the one whose appeal got the closed portion of the investigation re-opened. More recently AA fired Claes because she thought he wasn't doing a good enough of a job with the case and was more focused on self aggrandizement; her new legal representative since started a new push to get Assange handed over to Sweden).
There's a lot more detail on these topics and more here [blogspot.com].
The Assange-echo-chamber meme "Neither of the women involved have ever accused Assange of rape" is based on a simple distortion of a key element. SW (the one who the rape charge is concerned) didn't want to have to file charges - she only wanted to force Assange to take a STD test. She didn't want the thing to turn into a giant media circus that basically ruined her life and forced her into hiding from angry Assange fans. But there's a difference between not wanting to file charges and not accusing Assange of rape. She did accuse Assange of rape - first in conversations with her friends while coming to grips with what happened, and then went to the police station, where they told the officer on duty that they wanted advice on how to report a rape (see the statement by Linda Wassgren, the on-duty officer on the 20th). They were then interviewed separately where she described being raped, and after the interview she took a rape kit and sought a legal advocate (getting, ultimately, Claes). Since the leak of the Memoria file (a scummy act on Assange's side, I should add, as it's full of identifying personal details about his accusers and their families that have been used to harrass them - and we know it came from Assange's side because the cover page has a note to Assange's attorney telling him that it's confidential and must not be released), there have been a number of other followup interviews and investigations, and at no point have any objections from AA or SW been recorded. There is absolutely nothing in the record supporting a claim "Neither of the women involved have ever accused Assange of rape". SW has pretty much had to disappear after the event; AA went into hiding for a while but has since resumed taking part in some of the old forums that she used to; last fall she mentioned the case for the first time since the one brief statement she had given to the press after going to the police, mentioning offhand in an unrelated thread that a couple years ago she was the victim of a sex crime and that the perpetrator still hasn't been brought to justice, but rather she's still attacked by his fans for daring to report it. She didn't mention Assange by name, but it's obvious who she was referring to.
Most people who are raped don't want to file charges. They don't want the viscious attacks that come with it and want to shove the event in the past and not have to keep reliving it. A hundred times over when the accused is someone famous who has a lot of loyal fans. But claiming "not wanting to file charges" means "wasn't raped" is a massive distortion.
Re: (Score:2)
The USGOV fears truth.
So does Assange, that's why he edits things to remove inconvenient truths, to portray things as he wishes them to be seen. To both the US gov and Assange the truth is only sacred when it coincidentally fits their agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
This affects you personally, yes? (Score:2)
[... long rambling personal attack against Assange...]
He's a douche, so much a douche that even France thinks he's a douche. How sad do you have to be when even France doesn't capitulate?
Apropos of nothing, where are you getting your information?
Your post reads almost like one of those sock puppet things, you know? Paid to promote a particular point of view, without regard to truth or logic.
I'm not saying you're a sock puppet, mind you. It just that your post was a little one-sided, overly emotional and outspoken for the scope of the incident.
Sort of like the "say it loud enough and often enough" propaganda type of post.
How has this incident personally affected you, that you get so riled up
Re: (Score:2)
Assange was publicly exposed as a jerk long ago. These aren't even the really choice stories.
WikiLeaks rival plans Monday launch after internal split, founders say [cnn.com]
Another former WikiLeaks staffer said he had brought up his discontent with Assange, but that the WikiLeaks founder had not wanted to listen.
"Eventually this ended with me arguing with Julian about basically his dictatorial behavior, which ended in Julian saying to me that if I had a problem with him I could just 'piss off,' I quote," Herbert Snorreson said.
Lifting the Lid on WikiLeaks: An Inside Look at Difficult Negotiations with Julian Assange [spiegel.de]
For some time now, Julian Assange has been sparring with New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller. ...
Keller describes the stormy relationship with WikiLeaks founder Assange, comparing the Australian to a character straight out of a Stieg Larsson thriller, "a man who could figure either as a hero or villain." Keller claims that the journalists who worked with Assange saw him as a "source," a man who "clearly had his own agenda," and was not a "partner or collaborator."
Keller goes on to describe Assange as being "elusive, manipulative and volatile." He also writes that Assange's relationship with the New York Times became "openly hostile," and, in the end, the Australian wanted to exclude the newspaper from publishing any further WikiLeaks documents in the future.
The treachery of Julian Assange [theguardian.com]
Are Wikileaks Activists Finally Realizing Their Founder Is a Megalomaniac? [gawker.com]
The Sexual Demigod: Wikileaks Founder Worshipped By Christian Women [gawker.com]
Re: (Score:1)
cold fjord is our sockpuppet.
we can usually tell him even without his signature.
yes - I am quite sure that there are many paid and unpaid (not directly) people who are doing all they can to discredit those who are the real heros.
shameful, CF. really really shameful. I am tolerant of alternate views but you sockpuppets really should just go somewhere else. your cover is blown and no one takes you seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I am tolerant
Tu le rant, en effet
... of alternate views but you sockpuppets really should just go somewhere else. your cover is blown ...
You like people to agree with you. When they do not: "sockpuppet!" I seldom agree with you, hence the outrage. Nothing has changed in 10 years.
yes - I am quite sure that there are many paid and unpaid (not directly) people who are doing all they can to discredit those who are the real heros.
On the contrary, I honour real heros ....
French Resistance heroes inducted into Pantheon in Paris [bbc.com]
Veterans to receive French Legion of Honor for World War II service [orlandosentinel.com]
'British Schindler' Sir Nicholas Winton dies aged 106 [theguardian.com]
. . . and call others to justice ....
Julian Assange Demands Rape Case Files Before Sweden Questions Him [ndtv.com]
It is Independence Day i
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one who sounds like an intolerant axe grinder and name caller. Cold fjord furnished substance with references. You didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get your point. What does being a jerk have to do with anything? The guy took on a massively funded secret organisation in the US government that has the ability to assassinate people with no consequences, and put that country back onto the path of accountable democracy. He put the US on the first step of fixing their democracy. Next is their corrupt Senate and system of lobbying, but that's not his battle.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing that shocks me so far is that Sweden has a statute of limitations that doesn't take into account that the accused is running from the law. Its one thing to timeout on things when you have no idea who you're looking for ... but they know who and where he is.
The primary purpose of a criminal justice system is to keep society functioning peacefully. If a fugitive can hide with freedom for long enough that the statutory time limits expire, then he has demonstrated his ability to function in society. From a philosophical point of view, he has provided solid evidence of his rehabilitation, whether he needed it or not. A trial and further punishment would serve only vengeance, not justice. Similarly, even if the police know where a fugitive is hiding, the cause of j
Re: (Score:2)
I've got to hand it to you, an absolutely fascinating argument.
Sweden's case won't really matter (Score:5, Informative)
The UK now has a case against him, and a very strong one. He fled bail, and that is a crime. That crime is still ongoing since he's still fleeing said bail. So they can arrest and charge him for that. Doesn't matter if the original matter is log dropped, he is still on the hook for this.
That's the thing with court dates, bail, and all that jazz: Even if the case against you was going to be dismissed, if you skip bail you are now guilty of another crime. You have agreed to appear in court and a failure to do so is against the law.
The UK had no beef in this originally, they were just acting on an EU arrest warrant. Sweden said "We want this guy," the UK looked at the warrant and said "looks valid per the treaty" and thus arrested him. They had no interest or ability to decide on the validity of the charges, only if the request required them to act per treaty. It did so he was arrested, and then released on bail.
He challenged the extradition all the way up to the high UK court, but the courts found it was a valid request that the UK had to honour. Nothing to do with his guilt, just that the request was a valid one and they were bound by treaty to hand him over. Had he gone to Sweden then, that would have been the end of the UK's involvement. His bail would be returned and the UK would have no further interest in what happened.
However he fled rather than handing himself over. So at that point, he became a fugitive in the UK. They now have a case against him. It is totally separate from the original case, it is simply a case of skipping bail.
Likely they'll want to act on it too, since he's been flaunting it in their face for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Likely they'll want to act on it too, since he's been flaunting it in their face for years.
Indeed.
Ecuador urged to hand over Julian Assange as police costs spiral to £11.5MILLION [express.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the actual law [legislation.gov.uk].
If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of an offence.
Re: (Score:2)
There is one thing where the UK would have had a role even if he hadn't fled bail, in that the UK would have been the EAW "sending state". Under an EAW surrender, the sending state has certain rights and responsibilities - for example, if a request comes for extradition to a third party, it has to not only go through the receiving state's judiciary system, but also the sending state's judiciary system; the receiving state can't just hand off someone that they received under an EAW at will. Which is one of t
That was the funniest part to me (Score:2)
The claim that Sweden would hand him over to the US. Were I to worry about anyone in the EU doing that, it would be the UK. The US and UK have a relationship literally called the "special relationship." They back each other on diplomatic and intelligence matters in a way rarely seen among other nations. So they would be the one I would peg to hand him over all quiet like, if anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that Sweden would hand him over to the US. Were I to worry about anyone in the EU doing that, it would be the UK. [...] So they would be the one I would peg to hand him over all quiet like, if anyone.
What's hilarious is that the reason why this isn't a realistic threat is contained in the comment to which you just replied: "Under an EAW surrender, the sending state has certain rights and responsibilities - for example, if a request comes for extradition to a third party, it has to not only go through the receiving state's judiciary system, but also the sending state's judiciary system; the receiving state can't just hand off someone that they received under an EAW at will." By traveling to the UK, Assan
Re: (Score:1)
Assange is wanted on a European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden. In Sweden it is standard procedure to detain someone under investigation for rape. Given Assange's flight risk it seems pretty certain that he will not be a free man once he steps foot in Sweden again. Under treaty Sweden can't hand Assange over to anybody without the UK agreeing. If the point was to extradite Assange it would be simpler to do it from the UK where only one country has to agree (the UK). In Sweden there are two countries t
Re: (Score:1)
"The UK had no beef in this originally, they were just acting on an EU arrest warrant"
They acted on an invalid EU warrant. They post-fixed the paperwork later when he was in solitary. And why was he unnecessarily put in solitary? There were so many things wrong about the way the UK went about it.
Bail-jumping was a serious thing to do but Assange had weighed up his options. The risk of being executed evidently outweighed being cooped up in a hole for years. He was pretty much screwed either way.
Phillip.
Sorry but no (Score:2)
The UK courts heard the matter, all the way to the top, and decided that it was a valid request. Your opinion on that doesn't particularly matter, only the opinion of their courts. That is how it works in any case of a nation which has an extradition treaty with another nation: The courts of the nation being asked to extradite decide if said request is allowable per the treaty. What that requires varies treaty by treaty.
In the EU, the extradition treaties are pretty strong. Countries don't have a lot of cho
Re: (Score:1)
So I guess the opinion of those who think that white cops murdered black civilians doesn't matter because the courts said they didn't. Or the opinion of the Chagos people who were evicted from their island home only they weren't because the courts said so.
Your faith in an infallible legal system is disturbing. Even popes (for whom infallibility is a job description) don't get that blind obeisance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, America's founding fathers thought they were above the law too, and look where it got them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's strange you label 90% of the people as "having no fucking clue". Even if they are the silent majority, most people appreciate the work Assange has done. A lot of them are actually quite literate. He has made a lot of sacrifices, ones that most of us would never make. Without Assange, we would never have had Snowdon. There would be no public debate. Just the gradual slide of democratic nations into a police state.
Your knowledge of France, the law, or even the word capitulate, is suspect. I think you hav
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He's shown he thinks he's above the law and that he thinks EVERYONE else is corrupt and out to get him.
well... here's the thing, the law is deeply flawed and was exploited on behalf of the US, a powerful nation that can bend any country to its will if it wants it enough. i don't think he perceives everyone as being against him or corrupt, just the companies and governments he's exposed as well as the officials that have been talked into charging him (remember, the charges were initially dropped until a big wig stepped in). the warrant is a pretext constructed by the CIA to get him in custody at which point
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of bullshit and lying...
So you agree that it's the US, not Swedish law, that wants him imprisoned and made an example of? Because your assertion doesn't really make sense otherwise.
Whether or not Assange is personally admirable or even likable, it's the US and its allies who're the villains in this story.
Re: (Score:2)
He's shown wikileaks is about his ego, not truth.
Right. So did he lie?
Yes. Repeatedly and publicly (ex: his acceptance of bail conditions before fleeing justice), yet somehow for the true believers like you, every instance can be argued away.
But France is capitulating, again, to the skull-caps.
Sure, not sharing your messianic opinion of Assange and wanting him to be judged like a normal person is capitulating...
Re: (Score:2)
Read the original quote. Notice how it talks about Wikileaks not being about truth. The issue is not whether Assange has ever told a lie in his life (because everyone has, and frankly it doesn't matter except for a smear campaign), it's whether the leaks he published
Re: (Score:2)
He's shown wikileaks is about his ego, not truth.
Right. So did he lie?
Yes. Repeatedly and publicly (ex: his acceptance of bail conditions before fleeing justice), yet somehow for the true believers like you, every instance can be argued away.
Read the original quote. Notice how it talks about Wikileaks not being about truth. The issue is not whether Assange has ever told a lie in his life (because everyone has, and frankly it doesn't matter except for a smear campaign),
And as predicted, the attempt at explaining away the unexplainable starts.
Sure, not sharing your messianic opinion of Assange and wanting him to be judged like a normal person is capitulating...
Right. So do you think a normal person would be judged like this for not wearing a condom?
Eminently. According to the statements Assange didn't have consent to unprotected sex. Without consent it's rape.
Assange thinks that rules don't apply to him & people like you have their logic ass backwards in attempting to paint this as Assange being unfairly victimised. People could have had their doubts about his innocence until Assange turned this into a circus by first off claiming that it was all a smear campaign so that the
Re: (Score:2)
And this is what it all comes down to. You're trying to turn attention from documents published by Assange to Assange himself (or to Russia, China or France). It's not going to work. Even if you manage to smash the mirror, it's still your image it showed
Re: (Score:2)
Snort, sure it does, as long as "the powerful" are those that Assange has an axe to grind on. Why doesn't Assange have any dirt on Russia? China? France? No other countries in the entire world merit a little of the light he claims to be bringing to society?
And this is what it all comes down to. You're trying to turn attention from documents published by Assange to Assange himself
Nope. Just pointing out that the claims of the church of Assange's faithful that the Holy Member is a counter to "the powerful" are only for those that Assange has an axe to grind on. @lt;- See that there? It's called a period, also known as a full stop. It isn't the starting point for all your fantasies.
Even if you manage to smash the mirror, it's still your image it showed, and you need to either live with it or change.
Hey, I'm French. I don't have the hangups with nudity/morality/etc that they have in the US. I'd love for Wikileaks to get off of Assange's axe grinding with the US/UK. How come the only image that matters
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, not sharing your messianic opinion of Assange and wanting him to be judged like a normal person is capitulating...
Not even that> Assange asked for asylum (and now, like the fox with the sour grapes, suddenly he never wanted it), and France sees no reason to give him asylum. Firstly, because he is not in France. You have to be in France or in a French embassy to get asylum in France. Second, because they don't find any reason to grant him asylum. No fear for his life, no fear of an unfair court trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. But Ecuador believes that. Or did, I expect. They (Ecuador) think they're thumbing their noses at the US. Too bad for them that we hardly care about what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
This [slashdot.org] says you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not Assange is personally admirable or even likable, it's the US and its allies who're the villains in this story.
Sometimes there are no heroes, only anti-heroes and villains. And sometimes there are only villains.
Rather odd timing... (Score:4, Interesting)
That makes for rather "odd" timing, don't you think? Just days after Wikileaks leaks pilfered documents revealing NSA spying in France Assange makes an open appeal to be "invited" to France, and throws in everything but the kitchen sink in the appeal?
... In his letter to Hollande, Assange said that the mother of his youngest child is French. He said he is restricted to a space of 5.5 square meters (60 square feet), lacking access to “fresh air, sun as well as any possibility to go to a hospital,” and noted that police say round-the-clock surveillance of him has cost $17.6 million."
"only France now has the ability to offer me the necessary protection against, and exclusively against, the political persecution that I am currently the object of". Such an offer of protection would be a "humanitarian and symbolic gesture" and send a message of encouragement "to journalists and whistleblowers around the world".
It seems that the attempted quid pro quo failed. SInce there are no doubt many French people in solidarity with Wikileaks that have access to secrets I suppose France should brace itself for retaliation by Wikileaks. That could be a much more dangerous game for Assange than what he has played with the Americans. The French state is known to play rough when it feels it is needed in ways that the Americans are very unlikely to match.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they'd kill him. They don't play that rough.
But if he pisses them off then it will be very difficult for any EU state to accept him. And their public statements on him are always bound to be much more pro-Assange then their actual actions.
The French state is more secretive, and more info-hungry, then the US; because it's a good deal more Machiavellian then any comparable advanced Democracy, including the US. It supports guys like him because they piss off the US, which allows France to keep playing
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the attempted quid pro quo failed. SInce there are no doubt many French people in solidarity with Wikileaks that have access to secrets I suppose France should brace itself for retaliation by Wikileaks.
On attend/espère que cela...
Re: (Score:2)
That could be a much more dangerous game for Assange than what he has played with the Americans. The French state is known to play rough when it feels it is needed in ways that the Americans are very unlikely to match.
You think that France is going to assassinate someone that Russia has in their pocket? That would be a very, very bad decision indeed. Russia can afford to throw away more operatives than France even has. They certainly would not ever do this.
What I find ridiculous is that France mentioned his warrant. France has sheltered people wanted by other countries before, they never cared before, why now?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have paid money to see a jump by Assange that got him directly from the Ecuadorian embassy in London to France without passing through a UK prison. Because, really, I don't see how it's possible.
Media whore (Score:1)
Every time it's been a few months since Assange has made the headlines, he pulls some useless stunt like this to keep himself in the news. He's become nothing more than a media whore/glory hound.
He hasn't done anything relevant or useful in years.
Re: (Score:2)
"Competent authorities" (Score:1)
... the letter merely expresses Assange's "willingness 'to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities.'"
Competent authorities? No danger of that happening in France.
Entitlement. (Score:1)
Assange's legal team says that Assange's letter has been mischaracterized, and that it is in fact not a request for asylum per se; instead, they assert, the letter merely expresses Assange's "willingness 'to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities.'"
"Hosted?"
How gracious of Assange to say he would willing to trade his Ecuadorian broom closet for a rent-free garden flat in Paris, if France would be kind enough to send him an engraved invitation.
There are two particularly flavorful Yiddish words that come to mind here, "chutzpah" being one of them.
Re: (Score:1)
France is stuck (Score:3)
If France wants to keep its top staff at the NSA/GCHQ standard to enjoy total network collection France will have to take into account how the US and UK will respond.
France should have fully understood what it was doing politically when it had its early 1970's French (~JIC) meeting with the GCHQ.
What was the French SDECE worked very well with the UK over the what would have been the UK Zircon sigint satellite projects and options for sharing resulting material with the French. The UK French deal and later sharing was more about making France dependent on US and UK access than helping France share with the UK.
Generations of French crypto officials have now worked with and under UK and US advisors and now like the US/UK systems France is using globally.
France was very happy to help with UK with all aspects and details of its weapons sales during the Falklands war.
The US did not help New Zealand re the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour.
France cannot easily undo its linked hardware, access and software that the US and UK now offer.
It seems the French political elite understand what the French security services have been doing for decades and what France can do or will not have access to. France also seems more aware of just how deep the US is to French crypto and networks.
France should have understood the lessons from the 1950's when the US and UK had near total access to all French communications at all levels.
How or why the French left their secure networks so open to the US after the 1950-60's is a mystery. Decades later the upgraded French networks are still open to the US and UK??
French political policy has to always reflect on obligations back to the UK and UK for that collect it all sharing access.
The only long term option for France politically is to secure its own codes "again" and spend big on better quality French sigint for France globally.
Stop acting like the Manson family (Score:1)
Too many people in the geek/nerd/slashdot/etc communities treat Julian Assange like the women of the Manson family treated Charlie; they worshipped the dirtbag and refused to see his flaws - even today, decades later they worship the guy who carved a swastika into his own forehead and blames THEM for the murders.
WAKE UP!
Assange is a nasty piece of work. He pretends to be hiding out from the big bad American government as his excuse for actually hiding out in an embassy to avoid facing a trial for rape in Eu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see that the comparison to Manson's fanatical women hit a bit close to home.
A rhetorical asylum seek (Score:3)
I'm sure Julian Assange knew the request would not be granted and it's probably a simple maneuver to remember us which side France is on.
Since 2009 France is officially a full NATO member and a couple years later, it showed full allegiance and with the US it attacked Libya, a sovereign country. If we hold this to the same standards as the invasion of Iraq then that was a particularly abject and monstrous crime, which also makes France directly responsible for the rise of Islamic State.
In France, foreign policy affairs are typically directed by the president, who is totally unaccountable once elected (a republican monarch). There's never any debate about foreign policy, esp. in the media. The president styles himself as left-wing, though that is contested. But I haven't heard anything on the left about NATO and the wars, though it seems to me there's that obvious elephant in the room, that France is fully allied to the US, UK, Saudi etc. which implies embracing the neocons goals and methods.
More directly to the point I will say that Hollande and Fabius are comparable to Bush, Cheney, Tony Blair etc. and that the neocons cabbal is the gravest threat from the West since the nazis. Denouncing the US threat is fine (it's one of the few most dangerous countries on Earth) but it does not make intellectual sense to stop at the US or UK border and fail to consider that France is in. We need some great (democratic) purge that throws pro-war officials out of office. France need not embrace a dangerous ideology that worships death and destruction of States, presenting them with a convert-or-die deal (join the Empire or we'll destroy you) or pushing Arabs to kill one another to increase weapons sales.
slashdot (Score:3)
Examples: Steve Jobs was a cruel narcissist, but he "had to be" to turn Apple into what it is. Linus Torvalds has on occasion treated people nastily, but that's something to be absolutely admired and never criticized. Hans Reiser was being persecuted because he was a geek. Terry Childs was the epitome of integrity for locking out his supervisors. Julian Assange isn't a self-obsessed narcissist, he's the noble target of an international conspiracy to besmirch his good name.
Here's my view:
Julian Assange did a lot of good through wikileaks, and should be praised for that.
He's also on a personal level an objectionable human being and that should not be excused or explained away.
If he is accused of committing a crime in Sweden, he should fight those charges in Sweden.
Whether he's innocent or not of those charges, he's probably not innocent of violating bail, and should be charged with that as well.
The first point I made above is completely consistent with all the ones that follow. people who were I think a lot of it is a sort of
Re: (Score:3)
Steve Jobs was a cruel narcissist, but he "had to be" to turn Apple into what it is.
I am generally anti-Apple and think Steve Jobs was a massive cock, but I still think that's true. Look at how ineffectual Apple is without him.
Linus Torvalds has on occasion treated people nastily, but that's something to be absolutely admired and never criticized.
It's often criticized, and over the last few conversations on the subject I'd say that the tone on slashdot has been more muted, with less support for his level of abuse. On the other hand, when has Linus gone off on someone who hadn't definitely earned a less-than-polite brush-off?
Hans Reiser was being persecuted because he was a geek.
Where are those people now? We haven't heard from them basically since... well, you kn
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs was a cruel narcissist, but he "had to be" to turn Apple into what it is.
I am generally anti-Apple and think Steve Jobs was a massive cock, but I still think that's true. Look at how ineffectual Apple is without him.
Jobs had a vision which the current execs at Apple seem to lack. You don't need to be a cruel narcissist to have a vision and act upon it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but I just don't agree that "but he made a lot of money" excuses cruelty or nastiness. We didn't and still don't need Apple.
Re: (Score:1)
There's always been this weird dynamic on Slashdot where if someone has done something good or useful, or is perceived as "one of us," you get this absolute defense of every single action of that person, no matter how objectionable.
absolute defense?
The whole thing about Sweden, UK and Assange simply stinks. I think most of your so-called "defenders" simply just care enough, that they don't want Assange to get deported to 'murica and I agree with that. I actually don't want anyone get deported to 'murica. And that's what probably would happen.
He's stuck and he put himself there. (Score:2)
Yeah I'm sure we'd all like a little place on the French Rivera. Good luck with that while you're stuck in the same room you've been in for the past few years. It's kind of like prison, oh wait it is prison.