Assange Wins Right To Submit Appeal 144
beaverdownunder writes "Julian Assange has won the right to submit an appeal of his extradition to Sweden on 'public interest' grounds. He now has two weeks to come up with a convincing argument for Britain's Supreme Court. From the article: 'The judges ruled that Mr Assange's case is of general public importance, but the Supreme Court could still refuse to hear his case. Mr Assange now has 14 days to formally lodge an appeal, meaning his stay in Britain, where he has been staying since his arrest in December last year, is certain to stretch into 2012.'"
First he has to win this appeal... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK. If he travels anywhere else that has an extradition treaty with Sweden then he's at risk again, including possibly in his native Australia.
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:5, Informative)
If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK. If he travels anywhere else that has an extradition treaty with Sweden then he's at risk again, including possibly in his native Australia.
That does include Australia. If he wins the appeal, the only way he goes home again is if he just goes to Sweden and stands trial.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2004C00142
Sweden also has extradition treaties with the rest of the EU, the US, and Canada. New Zealand doesn't even require an extradition treaty for another country to submit an extradition request. So if Assange ever wanted to live outside the UK again, he wouldn't have many First-world options left.
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:5, Informative)
Most countries only extradite criminals. The main point is that he is only wanted for questioning and there has been no suggestion of there being a charge ready. Britain should not have arrested him as there are no valid grounds for that. If there was an charge pending then yes but there is not. The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:4, Informative)
The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
The US and UK are having disagreements about extradition laws these days. The US recently passed a law saying we would never extradite anyone for a libel case since the UK has fucked up libel laws, for example, but that's hardly the first shot.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
The US and UK are having disagreements about extradition laws these days. The US recently passed a law saying we would never extradite anyone for a libel case since the UK has fucked up libel laws, for example, but that's hardly the first shot.
As libel is a civil rather than a criminal matter, it is unlikely anyone would ever be extradited for it anyway.
By the way, no one from the US has any right to criticize any UK law as "fucked up" while you still have the death penalty. However unfair the outcome of a libel case, at least it can't end in state sanctioned execution.
Re: (Score:2)
As libel is a civil rather than a criminal matter, it is unlikely anyone would ever be extradited for it anyway.
The UK had criminal libel until 2010 [wikipedia.org]. Right now we're behind machinations to have Assange extradited for questioning for a crime which it very much appears he did not commit, so I'd say protecting citizens from extradition is important. What if we should sign an extradition treaty with a country under sharia law?
By the way, no one from the US has any right to criticize any UK law as "fucked up" while you still have the death penalty.
That's a stupid thing to say. We can easily criticize each other's bad laws.
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:5, Insightful)
We Brits do have a legal process and it is being followed to the letter in this case. That the case now looks likely to go to the Supreme Court is pretty good evidence of that (implying, indeed, rather more scrutiny than you might get around a "normal" extradition case). The thing with a legal process is that it will sometimes produce decisions you like, and sometimes produce decisions you don't. That's normal - not evidence of a conspiracy at work.
There are elements of the case that are worrying (though more in general than wikileaks-specific terms), but both the Swedish and UK legal systems do seem to be "working as intended".
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were him, I'd be concerned about any travel, even if the destination fits your description. The reason is that the people he has pissed off are powerful enough that they may well trump up an emergency landing in some country that would extradite him. I don't even think they would work much at hiding it . . . something like a flight from London to Paris making an emergency landing in Oslo . . . the idea being that the emergency landing isn't anywhere near a straight line between points A and B.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're done with the subtle, the London-Paris flight may as well make an emergency landing in Washington DC and save a trip.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
Why? Because your entire premise is wrong in the first place.
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:4, Informative)
Most countries only extradite criminals...
Actually, countries generally are required by treaty to extradite anyone for whom the requesting country has issued a valid arrest warrant regarding a crime so they can be held over for trial--you don't have to have a conviction in hand to request extradition, just a warrant. And once presented with a valid arrest warrant, the country receiving the warrant is required by treat to arrest and detain the accused to ensure that extradition occurs. For logistical and political reasons it doesn't always work out that way, and most countries don't even bother requesting extradition unless the crime in question is a pretty serious felony; but that's the letter of the law in most cases.
Also note that, under some treaty provisions, an uncooperative person not accused of a crime can be extradited as a material witness to a crime if the crime in question is considered sufficiently serious. And in the US, unindicted suspects who have fled the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred can also be extradicted from another state and held over if indictment is imminent (i.e. the district attorney has declared his intention to indict to the court and now it's just a matter of filing the paperwork). I'm unfamiliar with the intricacies of Swedish law, but something similar might be happening here.
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:4, Informative)
And 2 women that both admit consenting to sex with him, and maybe sorta possibly having second thoughts during the act is a serious felony? (note that neither women screamed NO or fought or do anything that would CLEARLY tell an aroused male with his penis in the good spot that he had to stop. Whatever the legal requirement is, the human race wouldn't exist if males found it easy to stop having sex)
Heck, each of them would have let it go had they not met each other and feared STDs that they did not contract, or we would have heard about it. (because once they knew he wasn't using protection with multiple women, they rationally feared disease). They told their story, and it's some prosecutor somewhere that sees an opportunity to make a name for themself.
And the maximum penalty for the charges he faces (that have not been filed) is 4 years in the world's most pleasant prison system.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
As you note, the terrible flaw in that conspiracy theory is that the UK already HAS an extradition treaty with the US, and is pretty good buddies with us. If the end goal was to get him into the US, why wouldnt he already be here?
Most countries only extradite criminals.
Its hard to extradite a "criminal" when that label requires a trial first, which assange has not had. Hes wanted for questioning to determine if there is a case against him.
From Wikipedia:
Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or co
Re: (Score:2)
I don't honestly know how it works in Sweden, but if he has the right to remain silent, I don't see how interviewing him would add to their ability to file a charge. Either the stories of the women involved are compelling enough or they aren't. If they aren't, and if he has the right to remain silent in Swedish law, if he's smart he's going to keep his mouth shut and let their case wither on the vine.
I wou
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. That's what makes the entire thing so weird. If he had just gone to Sweden and done the whole interview thing the whole case would have been dropped ages ago.
Fighting it just makes him look guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. That's what makes the entire thing so weird. If he had just gone to Sweden and done the whole interview thing the whole case would have been dropped ages ago.
Fighting it just makes him look guilty.
I remember reading that while he was in Sweeden, he asked something along the lines of "do you need me for questioning on this, or am I ok to leave the country?", was told that he was not needed, so left (probabaly thinking that the case had been dropped so he wouldn't hear about it again). Afterwards, they changed their minds (or someone else took it upon themselves to take control of the case). I can see why he might be slightly suspicious at least. You are right, the whole thing is a bit weird.
There ar
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries only extradite criminals. The main point is that he is only wanted for questioning and there has been no suggestion of there being a charge ready. Britain should not have arrested him as there are no valid grounds for that. If there was an charge pending then yes but there is not. The whole thing is just a show to get him to a country that will role over and give him to the US. I am not sure why the UK didn't ???
I don't know how the law works where you live, but in the UK we do the questining and evidence gathering before we charge or convict someone. Do you think Sweden could or should simply try Assange in his absence without giving him a chance to put forward a defence?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. If he wins his appeal then he's safe in the UK.
Yeah, but he won't. The whole thing is corrupt from top to bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
If the USofA loses the proxy extradition to Sweden, expect some kind of Bin-Ladin-esq black helicopter type kidnapping so the can get busy making an example of him!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If that was really true, the UK would have just given him to the US via the extradition treaty in place currently. They haven't, so...
Re: (Score:2)
The UK likes to pretend it isn't in the USA's pocket...if they can get the Sweden thing to work then they look blameless so it's worth a try.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First he has to win this appeal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the level of paranoia he and his supporters are publicly showing, he's never going to be "safe", someone will always be out to get him...
For example, the huge fuss made over "number plate recognition cameras" that his supporters claim were "recently installed" near his bail address. Turns out that not only are they bog standard excessive speed warning cameras (which don't even record vehicles breaking the speed limit), but they had been there since 2002 and 2003.
Re: (Score:1)
Just Because You're Paranoid Doesn't Mean They're Not Out to Get You.
The reason why wikileaks failed and keeps on failing, is because they try to detach themselves from politics. It's impossible, everyone is involved willingly or not to some degree.
That's why the Pirate Party is so incredible.
Re: (Score:2)
. It's impossible, everyone is involved willingly or not to some degree.
Its a hell of a lot more credible when you dont insert political commentary into the material you release, then throw huge press conferences whenever said material is anti-US, and refuse for several months to release un-commentaried and edited material.
Re: (Score:2)
Limecat, here's a tip for you:
It's possible to have a debate without lying to support your position. If your position can't be supported without lies, maybe it's not a very good position to take?
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
I've driven in the UK, I spent the whole time fretfully glancing between my speed dial to make sure I wasn't going over the limit, my periphery looking for a speed camera and very occasionally in front to see where I was going. By the time I left, I was feeling paranoid too.
If you've got millions of people who can listen to a man like Jeremy Clarkson every week and say "hmm, I think he's got a point", it's pretty safe to say that the status quo must be pretty off balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have trouble maintaining a constant speed to the point where you are worried you might be caught for accidentally speeding, then perhaps you should be leaving a healthy margin between the speed you want to maintain and the set speed limit.
If you really were driving as you suggest, then you were essentially driving without due care and attention - if you cannot drive sensibly without a huge effort, then perhaps you shouldnt be driving.
Clarkson does have a point, but equally so does the government - yo
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK the cameras are set for +10%, but regardless its very easy to stay within the speed limit and I reiterate my previous comment about how if you cannot maintain your speed, then you should be making allowances for that with a margin. I can tell when the car is speeding up uncommanded, its not that hard to do - also, anticipation is something you should be well aware of anyway as a driver, and you should be anticipating the fact that going down a gradient will cause the vehicle to speed up.
The fine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for the UK law, but I know there are two concerns for speed limits in the US. Safety and emissions. Being overly concerned with one's speed isn't too good for either, especially in areas where the roads aren't always flat and straight. That's why I'm not okay with my local police engaging in predatory tactics trying to catch someone going just fast enough to issue a speeding ticket.
Why don't you just try driving properly? In the UK, breaking a speed limit is a criminal offence, you can't complain if the police enforce it. If you're not criminally aware/clever/skilled/evil enough to avoid getting caught by cops or speed cameras, don't speed in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, I've never received a speeding ticket in my life, but I still object to the tactics that certain law enforcement officers engage in, making the roads
Re: (Score:2)
actually, the Association of Chief Police Officers guideline for the threshold for enforcement is +10% +2. But this is is the 'you absolutely should be ticketing people above this speed' limit, not the 'you should not issue tickets below this speed' limit. Safety Camera Partnerships can, and do, set the cameras dead-on the limit without notice to anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
10kmph is about 6mph, which isnt a huge margin, but considering the size / weight of a vehicle, it isnt a speed change which "just happens". You need to actually apply some pressure on the accelerator to go up that much.
Theres about a 1 mile-long hill near my house, and I can just about coast down it in neutral without gaining more than 10mph.
More to the point, if youre really having a problem with this, just start using cruise control.
Re: (Score:2)
10kmph is about 6mph
It's more accurate to say 8 kph is 5 mph. So 40=25, 88=55, 120=75. I've got a Suzuki with a metric speedometer and the conversion has become second nature. Every cop car has rolling radar and I would like to avoid tickets if at all possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Ratio is 1.6 to 1. 6 mph=9.6kmph~= 10kmph.
Re: (Score:2)
You got the sound of the gears, the sound of the air friction, and the speedometer.
In modern vehicles, the gear and wind noise is gone, engine noise is almost gone and the speedometer is in the center of the dash, away from your field of view (thanks car manufacturers!).
The only way to make it easy to stay under the limit is to drive a really slow car. Makes driving less frustrating if you live in a country with slow drivers too.
Re: (Score:2)
In modern vehicles, the gear and wind noise is gone, engine noise is almost gone and the speedometer is in the center of the dash, away from your field of view (thanks car manufacturers!).
If you are incapable of driving safely by being constantly aware of your vehicle and surroundings, and flicking your eyes to the mirrors, speedo or other instruments, you shouldn't be driving.
Re: (Score:2)
But why add such a completely artificial and unnecessary challenge to the mix by posting ridiculously low speed limits? I could do it, but why add the unnecessary distraction and frustration?
Re: (Score:2)
I've driven in the UK, I spent the whole time fretfully glancing between my speed dial to make sure I wasn't going over the limit, my periphery looking for a speed camera and very occasionally in front to see where I was going. By the time I left, I was feeling paranoid too.
If you've got millions of people who can listen to a man like Jeremy Clarkson every week and say "hmm, I think he's got a point", it's pretty safe to say that the status quo must be pretty off balance.
A few points:
(1) you should be constantly monitoring your vehicle's speed anyway regardless of speed limits
(2) you see speed cameras in front of you, by the side of the road, not in your peripheral vision, and they are nice and colourful and easy to spot
(3) Jeremy Clarkson's comedy is a matter of taste, and you'd be unwise to take his words as gospel, he's hardly the fucking Messiah
(3) fuck you and your paranoid shit, just stick to the speed limits, and teh evil government won't be able to touch you
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the huge fuss made over "number plate recognition cameras" that his supporters claim were "recently installed" near his bail address. Turns out that not only are they bog standard excessive speed warning cameras (which don't even record vehicles breaking the speed limit), but they had been there since 2002 and 2003.
Sounds like a typical US slashdot post, no doubt the phrases "it's an Orwellian nightmare in the UK" or "LOL the Brits are using 1984 as a handbook not a warning" were bandied about.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone appeal against an appeal? If that's the case, whose legal fund do you think will run out first?
Re: (Score:3)
Generally decisions can only be appealed to higher courts, and there is a finite hierarchy of courts. If the supreme court agrees to hear his case and then decides in his favor, that particular episode should be done.
The story won't; something else will be tried. I expect Assange will not be safe anywhere on the planet for a long time, and he's no better off if he hides in the shadows. Extradition from a first-world country is a small concern compared with the relative ease of abduction or assassination in
Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (Score:3, Interesting)
I just have to ask --- does it *really* make someone a loser if they support the principles behind defending someone, even if they're confident that person is "scum" or a loser?
From plenty of accounts I've read online, I get the idea that yes, Assange is a pretty nasty character and seems to have little respect or regard for women, as well as no qualms about backstabbing someone if it furthers his personal agenda.
Does that mean his entire wikileaks project is a bad thing? I don't think so. Maybe it took an
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks may not be a bad thing in principle, but the idea that "there should be no secrets" and the whole anti-US sentiment kind of poison the whole thing for me. Put someone else at the helm who will focus on non-biased leaks without political drama and commentary, and who can be responsible in what they release (ie, NOT diplomatic cables unless they have urgent, must-be-made-public information in them), and I would wholeheartedly support it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Might just be replying to a troll, but .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Got a question for you. What, exactly is it that he betrayed? The Western/American ideals of freedom, truth, and liberty?
re: secrets (Score:2)
I agree with your first statement; freedom, truth and liberty don't mean there are no secrets. But the issue here seems to be a belief that sites like wikileaks are somehow "wrong" for making public the secrets they've come across.
I'd counter that if we're so hung up on the idea of it being "wrong" to intercept a nation's military secrets, it should be immoral and unjust to EVER employ a spy to steal secrets from another nation.
In reality, it's all one big political game. Every nation tries to make secret
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension FTW. I wasnt arguing specifics, I was arguing against a broad, unsupportable generalization and freedom and trutth somehow justify any and all leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
The hilarious thing is that you hate the US government and think it's completely corrupt and can do no right. But when someone airs the US government's dirty laundry, you call them an anti-American traitor.
The irony with people like you would be delicious if it weren't so frustrating to have to deal with on a regular basis.
--Jeremy
How the hell did you gather that from what he said? He said "government should be allowed to at least have some secrets".
And as an aside, what US dirty laundry did Wikileaks air, again? Besides the gunship video, I'm not sure what US wrongdoing Wikileaks has exposed. Specifically, where are the incriminating cables? If you want to give me examples, I do check my comment history somewhat regularly for replies.
Public interest? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Public interest? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Public interest? (Score:5, Funny)
Yea, God damn those crazy, left wing Swedish liberals, always pushing their ridiculous "anti rape" agenda on the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There may not be formal charges, but there are certainly accusations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the swedish judicial system works differently from the UK . It isnt based on english common law like UK, USA, canada ,australia, etc
Of course you are an expert in such differences so my point is wasted.
Of course you also realize it is illegal for sweden to then extradite Assange to the USA. He has togo back to the UK first. Saying he is going to Sweden to face false rape charges to just get sent to the USA is ignorant at best.
Fact assage stuck his dick in two differemt women, they found out about
Re: (Score:2)
Except the swedish judicial system works differently from the UK.
Except that he is in the U.K. Except that when he was in Sweden, the then prosecutor didn't see ground for prosecution. Except that "If Sweden were to say sucking toes without washing them first is rape, then would that be an extradition offence?"
Of course you also realize it is illegal for sweden to then extradite Assange to the USA
Oh ok, if it is "illegal" then no worry [hrw.org].
Also any guy in a high profile position(see Clinto, Cain,Spitzer) needs to be fully aware where he sticks his dick
Only if they live in places where a pitch-fork-yielding populace is unduly concerned in a creepy way about the sex life of other people (like U.S., Iran, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he is in the U.K. Except that when he was in Sweden, the then prosecutor didn't see ground for prosecution.......Oh ok, if it is "illegal" then no worry [hrw.org]..
Wait, im not getting this. So hes in sweden, and could be extradited-- but the US whispers to Sweden "no, this is too easy, and not illegal enough-- wait till hes out-of country, then extradite him BACK on dubious grounds, THEN extradite him to the US illegally!" So they postpone the charges-- all with this plan in mind, wait till hes in another US-friendly country (with an extradition treaty), and then, instead of extraditing directly to the US, they want to bring him to Sweden so they can them ship him
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing seems ludicrous; the simpler explanation of "he is being brought to Sweden to stay in Sweden and face charges" seems a lot more plausible.
Sigh... What "charges"? People keep saying "charges". There are no "charges".
Re: (Score:3)
From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Assange has not yet been formally charged with any offence;[30] the prosecutor said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, formal charges will be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning.
Argue with their legal system, but dont blame them for not following it.
Re: (Score:2)
BUZZZZ, Wrong.
Extradition can happen with a warrant. And for your conspiracy theory to make sense, you need to cleverly explain away the fact that the UK already has an extradition treaty with the US, and is just as cozy with us (if not more) than Sweden. Why hasnt assange been shipped off from Scotland yard to the US yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then what exactly is the conspiracy thats supposed to leap into action when he gets to sweden?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then what exactly is the conspiracy thats supposed to leap into action when he gets to sweden?
The conspiracy states that the notoriously right wing and pro-American Swedish government is far more likely to stick him on a plane to Guantanamo Bay than the practically Leninist and anti-American British government.
This does not seem very plausible to many people.
Re: (Score:2)
If he's received death threats (as I believe has been reported) then why does the questioning need to take place in Sweden? Surely if the Swedes were willing to pay for a (potentially one-way) plane ticket for Assange and a round trip ticket for an officer to bring him to Sweden, they could pay for a Swedish officer to travel to the UK and question him there; if it turns out that they want to charge him after that questioning, then they just need a second one-way plane ticket for the ride back to Sweden. Or
Re: (Score:2)
Jurisdiction would be an issue, wouldnt it?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely if the Swedes were willing to pay for a (potentially one-way) plane ticket for Assange....
I don't think they were. One of Assanges objections was that he asked if he was wanted for questioning, was told he wasn't, so left the country, then was expected to buy another plane ticket to come back for questioning he was originally told wasn't going to happen.
Or they could make use of videoconferencing and save themselves the cost of the tickets if there's no reason to bring him to Sweden.
This is a very rational point, I believe one that Assanges lawyers made, but was rejected for some reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
None of what I've heard has sounded every a tiny bit like rape. What have you heard?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is he had permission to have sex conditional on his wearing a condom, during intercourse the condom broke or came off which broke the conditions agreed to and the continuation of the sex act became rape.
Re:Public interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
No the summary is awful, when I read it I thought "Oh god, people are going to completely misunderstand that", and it seems by the second post they have.
The "public interest" bit refers to the fact that it's within the public interest to determine in British courts whether it's right for a prosecutor for the government to issue a European arrest warrant when such warrants are meant to be issued by the judiciary. It's also questioning whether Assange can even be referred to as the accused, when the Swedish police still to this date haven't yet even actually charged him with anything.
So "public interest" isn't about Assange, it's about examining the issues Assange's case raises - the public interest is ensuring justice is done, at question because it's not clear that the European Arrest Warrant has been correctly issued not whether the British people have an interest in seeing Julian himself protected.
Effectively, it would not be in the public interest for someone to be extradited if there is no legitimate legal grounds to do so, whether they're Julian Assange, Abu Hamza, or Gary McKinnon, justice must be upheld regardless of whether they're perceived middle ground, bad, or good.
Re: (Score:1)
This! I hope this comment gets modded up to 5... way better than the summary!
This isn't a story about Assange... it's about the validity of the process which has been used in efforts to have him extradited.
He's just a more polarizing headline, so his involvement will, likely, outweigh coverage of a potentially significant precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
No the summary is awful, when I read it I thought "Oh god, people are going to completely misunderstand that", and it seems by the second post they have.
Not really. The second post (...462) [slashdot.org] fell for the first, and only the third post (...484) [slashdot.org] fell for the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Public interest? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can never predict every scenario that will arise.
I doubt when the extradition treaty was being written and signed that anyone thought a public prosecutor would issue an EAW because they're not part of the judiciary, but now that that situation has arisen, the question has to be dealt with, and the courts are the best place to do that.
Interesting opinion piece (Score:2)
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3713222.html [abc.net.au]
here is a couple of convincing arguments (Score:5, Funny)
http://i.imgur.com/EjALn.jpg [imgur.com]
did his "victims" have the same right of appeal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. And I'm sure that not only do they have the ability to expose such information, but the corporations and world governments that he's targeted do so all the time.
what's his beef if he is innocent? (Score:2)
What's this guys beef if he is innocent? The more he fights extradition for questioning, the guiltier he looks.
I don't buy for one femtosecond the concept that the Swedes are acting as a proxy for the Americans to punish him. (Though I might if it was the British. sorry.)
Trust me, if the American government wanted him that badly, he would already have been disappeared, Britain or not, by extraordinary rendition with a bag tied over his head, into a black prison and never seen again.
Assange looks like a man
Re:He already lost (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the leak?
Please point out where these are presented as "leaks". My point is that this counters that Wikileaks is "effectively dead".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So - defending himself against the trumped up character assassination that he's been targeted with is self aggrandizement?
I guess you buy your cool aid by the barrel...
Idiot? By becoming the figurehead he knew the risk (Score:2)
If you dare to report information without permission and censorship, no law or principle will be safe to protect your life from being permanently harmed. The more blatant disregard of the rule of law the better... right up to the edge of the victim becoming a motivating character.
The fame and sex may not have been worth it but somebody had to take the brunt of the backlash of the power elite. Governments especially like to make symbolic examples of the small people to terrorize the others. By focusing larg
Re: (Score:2)
If you want pointers on your grammar, here it goes.
I hereby suggest and call for support at slashdot, to point out the importance of having to ascertain the importance of a fair ethical consideration to be of importance for Julian Assange's appeal.
That section is very repetetive and unclear. What is it you wish to be pointed out? The importance of a fair ethical consideration of Assanges appeal? If so, a better wording might be
"to make known the importance of a fair ethical consideration of Julian Assange's appeal."
Since the courts themselves surely is not to decide s
"Is" would not be the proper word here, since "is" is only used for third person singular, and "courts" is third person plural ("courts" would fall under "they", not "he, she, or it").
Re: (Score:2)
I was not attempting to insult or ridicule. You asked for grammar comment, and I did so. Your first sentence was extremely difficult to understand, and I dont think that needs ridicule, but I would be remiss not to point that out. I suggested a thesaurus because my time was limited, and that was the extent of the help I could provide, without knowing more specifically what you were trying to express.
I commented on the use of "ascertainment", which, if it is an english word at all, is very much non-standa
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny, but when this guy had his servers, etc., he was "cock of the walk". But when he got hit with legal troubles and the money dried up, now, all of a sudden, he's on the receiving end. I wonder what he thinks about now that his whole life has been de facto "wiki-leaked' for all the world to see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pontificating on the morality of WikiLeaks - once the info is out of the bag, you can never really put it back in. However, I am simply commenting on the irony of Mr. Assange's situation. And, assuming that all his legal troubles can be put behind him, what kind of future will he have? My point is that this guy will always be under the microscope. Will he ever be able to have a "normal" life ever again? I;m doubtful about this. John V. Karavitis
No, he probably will not have a normal life again. And you know how he could have avoided it? By releasing only documents showing wrongdoing, rather than releasing thousands of documents indiscriminately and saying "have at it!" That is irresponsibility and naivety to the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he probably will not have a normal life again. And you know how he could have avoided it? By releasing only documents showing wrongdoing
Who determines what is 'wrong'?