Julian Assange Will Not Hand Himself In Because Chelsea Manning's Release Won't Happen Immediately, Lawyer Says (independent.co.uk) 564
President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning's prison sentence yesterday, reducing her time required to serve behind bars from 35 years to just over seven years. Prior to the commutation, WikiLeaks' Julian Assange pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Roughly 24 hours have passed since the news broke and it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice. The Independent reports: Mr Assange's lawyers initially seemed to suggest that promise would be carried through -- telling reporters that he stood by his earlier comments -- but it appears now that Mr Assange will stay inside the embassy. The commitment to accept extradition to the U.S. was based on Ms Manning being released immediately, Mr Assange's lawyer told The Hill. Ms Manning won't actually be released until May -- to allow for a standard 120-day transition period, which gives people time to prepare and find somewhere to live, an official told The New York Times for its original report about Ms Manning's clemency. "Mr. Assange welcomes the announcement that Ms. Manning's sentence will be reduced and she will be released in May, but this is well short of what he sought," Barry Pollack, Assange's U.S.-based attorney, told the site. "Mr. Assange had called for Chelsea Manning to receive clemency and be released immediately."
liar (Score:5, Insightful)
liar liar pants on fire
Re:liar (Score:5, Funny)
Marge, don't discourage the boy. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals!... Except the weasels.
Re: liar (Score:5, Funny)
Upon reflection, I want to apologize to everyone here at Slashdot for my stupid and bigoted comment. I wasn't thinking, and I used ugly racist terms (and I misspelled, "brits").
My mom noticed the comment when she brought me my hamburger and macaroni bowl, and now she's pissed and is threatening to take away my computer privileges if I don't make a sincere apology.
I'm really not a bad person, I just got used to saying this stuff because I thought it was funny, but it's not funny, it's hurtful and makes me look really stupid. Again, I apologize, and I will try to be a better person in the future.
Re: liar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have altered the deal pray I do not alter it any further
This. Exactly this. Jullian Assange just went from hero to zero in 0.1 seconds. From "I'll sacrifice myself" to "I need to save my own ass, no matter what".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:liar (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the biggest thing is: Who the fuck didn't see this coming? He's such a fucking weasel. The whole reason he claims to be avoiding Swedish authorities to begin with is just a big load of shit, and anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive to believe that Sweden is even the slightest bit more interested in handing him over to the US than the UK.
That point is especially clear when you consider that Sweden is a serial violator of the second worst sin in the eyes of the US: Harboring known pirates of hollywood movies. The only worse sin is harboring a known terrorist.
Re:liar (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the biggest thing is: Who the fuck is still supporting this dickweasel? I would like to think the Ecuadorians are frenetically searching for a way to expel him without looking like fools, but I am bewildered to think there might be people who are still donating money to Wikileaks because they believe in its original charter.
I suppose Mr Assange has a new, quiet line of credit from somewhere in Russia, and he feels he can burn some more bridges now.
Re:liar (Score:4, Insightful)
What good would any line of credit do him? Short of Russia having teleportation technology, he has no way out of the embassy. The second he sets foot outside the door, British police will have the handcuffs on him. Money does him no real good, because there's nowhere to spend it. He's in a prison as it is, though perhaps a more commodious one than awaits him once the Brits get their hands on him.
Now maybe Trump will return the favor for Assange's help with the DNC email dump, but if I were Assange I wouldn't count on the incoming President feeling any great debt. Unless Assange has some juicy details sufficient to change Trump's mind, I'd say he's going to be in that embassy as long as Ecuador tolerates him. The fact that they shut off his Internet access after the DNC leaks says even their willingness to play along with him has its limits.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think people liked the idea of WL initially, as central go to for various, anonymously leaked information. Assange emerged as a spokesperson and then took on a life of his own far beyond what people initially supported, especially during the recent US election. Those working behind the scenes also changed and the site has largely just followed the path Assange has. It's hard to tell what his real goal is anymore, but it certainly isn't as noble as it initially was or was thought to be. He either wants to
Re:liar (Score:5, Interesting)
Wired claims that Assange revealed his endgame some years ago.
Want to Know Julian Assange’s Endgame? He Told You a Decade Ago [wired.com]
Essentially, he believes that even though our system of government is based on an adversarial relationship between political parties, between defense lawyers and prosecutors; between plaintiffs and respondents, among candidacies of opposing viewpoints, participants (or in his parlance, co-conspirators), should not be allowed the privilege of discussing and formulating strategy out of earshot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My thoughts exactly. I once supported Wikileaks seeing it as a potentially powerful weapon against the high and mighty; Bankers, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, police states...
But for some reason Wikileaks decided to target almost exclusively the United States, now even helping a political liability like Trump into power, playing into the hands of countries like Russia and China - enemies of freedoms and human rights.
Fuck Wikileaks and Assange.
Re:liar (Score:4, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. I once supported Wikileaks seeing it as a potentially powerful weapon against the high and mighty; Bankers, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, police states... But for some reason Wikileaks decided to target almost exclusively the United States, now even helping a political liability like Trump into power, playing into the hands of countries like Russia and China - enemies of freedoms and human rights.
Fuck Wikileaks and Assange.
So, you supported the exposure of corruption all the way until it exposed something you did not like?
Re:liar (Score:4, Interesting)
How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.
Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.
Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?
Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.
Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?
Re: (Score:3)
How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.
Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?
Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.
Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?
Would Trump be in power without Wikileaks? Very unlikely.
Is a Trump administration more corrupt than a Clinton one would have been? Very likely.
How can this be? Exposing corruption from both sides is fighting corruption. But exposing corruption from only one side, particularly the less corrupt side, empowers the corrupt.
It's actually one of the favourite tactics of repressive governments, the corrupt regime gets dirt on the less corrupt opposition and uses it to discredit them. Putin used it in Russia to cr
Re:liar (Score:5, Interesting)
The proof of their partisanship is the timing of their releases. Assange pretty much declared that he was releasing stuff in dribs and drabs to keep the flow of anti-Clinton stuff more or less constant. That's not 'release the information and let the chips fall where they may'. That's agenda-driven media manipulation. Who knows what Assange's actual agenda is - but he most certainly has shown that he's agenda driven, and that agenda included harming Clinton or helping Trump or both. Whether he cares about Russia and Putin one way or another is a different point - and he hasn't revealed anything about that yet...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:liar (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:liar (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, the whole "[X] Derangement Syndrome" meme is another of those false equivalencies the right loves to trot out.
People upset about Bush lying us into war, declaring he had a mandate after losing the popular vote (and yes, barring some botched Broward County ballots, the Florida vote too), etc. are not 'deranged'. They're upset about something real.
People upset about Obama being elected president despite being black (or because of a bogus question about his place of birth) are deranged, in the sense that they are creating or latching on to falsehoods to justify their feelings. People that think Obamacare is a 'job-killing disaster' (despite a steady pace of job creation), but who think the Affordable Care Act is a good thing that we should keep are blindly parroting stuff they don't understand, and to the extent they have strong feelings about it, that can be reasonably called 'derangement' as well.
People upset about Trump are upset about a president who lies constantly, shows no sense of respect for the truth, and insists on punking the public and the media with outrageous statements rather than acting like a President. It's not 'deranged' to be upset about those things. If he starts acting like a responsible leader, this will likely quiet down. But he has shown no indication that he will.
Re: (Score:3)
Grandpa, leave the slang to the kids, you suck at it. Nice lawn, though.
Re:liar (Score:4, Insightful)
anybody who has defended him at this point is either stupid or naive
We are not defending the man. We are defending the fundamental principle of free expression. Assange is not being persecuted because he "raped" anyone, but because he said things that powerful people didn't like. That is wrong, and isn't any less wrong just because he is a slimeball weasel.
Re:liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: liar (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. The US doesn't even have an extraction action against Assange, and if he did come here, he'd be protected by the same laws that protect the others who publish secrets. The US goes after the sources (Manning, Snowden), not the publishers.
Assange is an alleged rapist too scared to stand trial in Sweden. He's recently shown himself to also be a self-serving liar and a poor publisher (lying about sources, personally filtering info to publish, failing to remove non-relevant personal information).
Those who truly support open access to info and accountability of governments should run away from Assange.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many have. Wikileaks is little more than a personality cult at this time. His followers are a kind of Cult of Napoleon, with their brave heroic leader stuck on his own personal St. Helena.
Re:liar (Score:4, Insightful)
So far there's no evidence that anyone was persecuting Assange. He was wanted for questioning, tried to convince British courts not to extradite him back to Sweden, and failing that jumped into the Ecuadorian embassy. Yes, it is true that if British authorities want to get their hands on him, because he is evading arrest and violating court order, and for that alone, even if Sweden decides not to pursue him, he's going to spend real time in a real prison. But that particular problem is one he created.
Re:liar (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone knows who wants Snowden.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes it hard to believe no one is after Assange, given the secrets he's leaked.
Re: (Score:2)
he is a slimeball weasel
At least now i know what a slimeball weasel looks like, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
And further further, he may simply be waiting until Manning is *actually* released before giving himself up.
(Homer Simpson voice) Now who's being naive?
Re: (Score:3)
It's £11.1M. [theguardian.com] That was released by Scotland Yard, who have the biggest cause to lie in the opposite direction because it's embarrasing for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
>"it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice"
And that surprises anyone? I see it now: "Oh, I said pardon, not reduced sentence." "Oh, I meant immediately." "Oh, I meant within 5 minutes of it being announced." "Oh, I only meant if the record was expunged completely too". Whatever.
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you hit right on. It was clearly a stunt.
From the summary:
The commitment to accept extradition to the U.S. was based on Ms Manning being released immediately,
This folks, is what we call a technicality.
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems everyone is jumping the gun on announcements, even Julian. No acceptance of extradition can be made until the US as applied for extradition with specified crimes and substantiated evidence. With the current state of US politics clearly under the destructive influence of finance corporations and arms industry, pretty much any charge would be made, no matter how spurious, with the intent of extended life threatening imprisonment drawn out by a purposefully extended trial process designed to be it's own punishment ie years or prison under the worst possible conditions, whilst the trial drags on and on and on.
So Assange needs to correct his statement to, I am waiting for the US secret punishments via corrupt prosecutions to come clean with the secret warrants. Ideally Assange should return to Australia, as an Australian and should the US wish to attempt extradition, they can do so in the Australian legal system. Assange has a legal responsibility to ensure that in legal relations between Australia and the USA, that the USA is forced to adhere to the principles of Australian law when seeking application of law from within Australia.
Julian has a moral responsibility to ensure that the US government is forced to treat with Australian citizens under Australian law. So out of the UK and back to Australia and then lets see what will happen. Will the UK want him back, will Sweden seek extradition, will the US just slink away too embarrassed to put their claim before the Australian high court (I am sure there are others that the US wants to drag out of Australia for persecution via corrupt prosecution, for which they are also to cowardly to put before a real court for an extradition claim).
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
He is unable to go to Australia without first going through UK territory, which would result in extradition to Sweden. So it would be Swedish courts deciding whether to extradite to the US if the US ever actually found some charges to press.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing Assange worried about is fading into obscurity and losing his cherished martyr status. The US has not even filed an extradition request and since he is not a US citizen he hasn't broke any law that the US could realistically prosecute. He didn't steal anything and publishing the information delivered to him is not a crime. That being said this guy is still a narcissistic drama queen.
Re: (Score:3)
To Mr. Assange it is all about Mr. Assange. It has come down to his sexual misdeeds in Sweden and that they are not going to back down on his prosecution.
His life will be allot less fun if he was in a Swedish prison doing a few years for rape. Then he will just be another "common criminal" and not worth bytes to write articles about his latest proclamations.
That Ecuador was stuck with this guy is rather interesting[ Now they are stuck with him and I bet he is getting tired of eating cuy (guinea pig).
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a trend these days to tweet something on then go back on your word almost immediately.
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's called goalpost shifting and acting in bad faith. Two reasons: 1st, a release in 120 days is immediate (those days are to begin a transition to post-prision life, not punishment). 2nd, and far more relevant to this "technicality" claim, Assange never specified what type of clemency was required for him to surrender. As he phrased the offer, Obama could meet his conditions of clemency by knocking a single day off Manning's sentence.
Look, I'm not surprised that Assange backed out - whatever you feel about him he doesn't have a great record of making and keeping commitments.
Exactly, this was completely expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprise! (Score:2)
From the WIkileaks twitter account:
"Assange is still happy to come to the US provided all his rights are guarenteed despite White House now saying Manning was not quid-quo-pro."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah, not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
What did Assange get? He's still stuck in his Ecuadorian mom's basement, and now he looks like a coward and a fraud.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Clemency is commutation, assange specifically said clemency.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/819630102787059713 [twitter.com]
If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case
Can you tell me where it says pardon?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he can be extradited if the US doesn't request it. He's just hiding to keep the news interested in him. It's like the guy in a bar fight who yells "don't hold me back!" while his friends aren't. It's only mildly better played here.
Re: (Score:2)
Except he did not. He said "clemency", which includes a reduced sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the US Justice Department appears to agree with you, he has not been charged. this article agrees. The real reason he won't turn himself in is that it would be embarrassing to walk away from the yawn.
Re: (Score:3)
I think there's the tiny matter of the British authorities prosecuting him for evading an extradition order. Even if Sweden decides not pursue the matter any further (and Swedish prosecutors seem to have little interest in helping him stay on his martyrdom pedestal), the British government is almost certainly going to throw him back in handcuffs, at least so long as it takes to throw him out of the country. Since the extradition order still stands, that means after what will doubtless be a brief stay in a B
Pussy says what? (Score:5, Funny)
Come on. Show of hands. Who thought Assange would really leave the embassy just for Chelsea Manning? He's holding out for that sweet Fox News money once Trump makes him an official member of the politburo. He's blond, so he might be Megyn Kelly's replacement.
Re:Pussy says what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Assange is going to suffer Benedict Arnold's fate; loathed by everyone in equal measure.
Re:You saying that makes me rethink BA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You saying that makes me rethink BA (Score:4, Interesting)
"Vlasov claimed that during his ten days in hiding he affirmed his anti-bolshevism, believing Joseph Stalin was the greatest enemy of the Russian people, and there is evidence that suggests Vlasov may have changed sides in a bid to give his countrymen a better life than the one they had under Stalin. His critics
Does the US government want him? (Score:3, Interesting)
Julian Assange pledged to surrender himself to U.S. authorities if Manning was pardoned. Roughly 24 hours have passed since the news broke and it appears that Assange will not hand himself in to the Department of Justice.
Great. Has the US asked for extradition? Is there a warrant for his arrest? I have not seen that.
How has what he has done any different than any other journalistic source?
Re: (Score:3)
No to both questions. Which is curious given the British wanting to arrest him.
Re:Does the US government want him? (Score:4, Insightful)
He wouldn't turn himself in to the US because they'd likely just end up giving him to Sweden just like the UK would, which is what he really wants to avoid.
Re: (Score:3)
He wanted to avoid being handed over to Sweden because, once in Sweden, he feared the US requesting extradition, and then treating him like they did Chelsea Manning. Now Trump is coming in, who the fuck is going to grant him any clemency?
Re: (Score:2)
The British put an arrest warrant out for him because he failed to convince the British courts that he shouldn't be returned to Sweden. At the moment, he's in violation of British court rulings saying he is to surrender and be sent to Sweden. The whole "the US is out to get me" has been Assange's attempt at misdirection since the rape accusations in Sweden came out, but no actual evidence that the US actually wants to take him into custody has ever been demonstrated.
The British government does not want Assa
Re: Does the US government want him? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest fear Assange has is that he leaves the embassy and the U.S. doesn't care.
Re:Does the US government want him? (Score:4, Insightful)
I never got the impression that the Alt-right had any time for Manning. I was lectured yesterday by many Alt-righters here on /. on how Manning is mentally ill and that gender dysphoria is a fake disorder and so on and so forth. I'm beginning to get the sense that the Alt-right are filled with a lot of people whose world view could be charitably described as chaotic and disordered.
Re:Does the US government want him? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're threatening violence and have the gall of accusing the other side of damaging the civic character?
"Don't stand up for trans people or we will hurt them". If that happens, the fault is on those initiating the violence, bigoted scumbags like you.
Assange lacks integrity. (Score:2, Insightful)
Assange posted he'd turn himself in IF Manning was granted clemency.
The words "Immediate release" are not in the Tweet.
Obama could have signed a Pardon to reduce the 35 sentence to 34 years,
And that would still be clemency requiring Assange to turn himself in.
Assange broke his promise and proves he can't be trusted.
Now that Assange is playing dirty, the US probably just needs to play dirty and send some thugs out in the dark at night to sneak into the embassy and capture assange to extradite, whatever t
Re:Assange lacks integrity. (Score:5, Interesting)
From my understanding, a president has two options: he can pardon someone, meaning the whole conviction is removed and things like e.g. voting rights are restored; or he can commute a sentence, which lowers the penalty but upholds the original conviction. So, after being released from her commuted sentence, Manning will still be a convicted felon and traitor, probably won't be eligible to vote or stand for election, will never get security clearance, etc etc. Also emotionally, a pardon would acknowledge that what she did was (somewhat) right, while a commutation means that she is still guilty and her acts were wrong, just not deserving of such a hash treatment. This also sends quite a different message to would-be whistleblowers.
So, the difference between pardon and commutation is not a technicality, it is very real.
Re: (Score:2)
The words "Immediate release" are not in the Tweet
Yes, twitter is a problem when it comes to write more than 140 chars. "Immediate" and "release" are too long words!
WHat I said on ars: (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what I said on Ars. It applies equally here.
1. It is premature to say that Assange is weaseled out until Manning is actually out of jail.
2. There is a difference between a pardon and commutation. Manning certainly will not be able to live the same life as though Mannig were pardoned. There are still restrictions placed on a person whose sentence was commuted. Whether those differences are significant enough is up to debate.
3. The biggest thing to strike me is that this suggests that there will be no last minute pardon of Hillary. The arguments that Obama gives for not pardoning Snowden apply equally to Hillary. We shall see.
Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score:5, Informative)
And what pray tell is Hillary going to be pardoned for? She's been investigated more than any candidate in US history, and if there was something to bring charges against her over, it would have happened by now. And if you think Trump is going to pursue charges, then you're nuts, because if Trump does that, then it would invite his successor, should that successor be a Democrat, to do the same to him, and so on and so forth. ]
You can safely abandon the Clinton criminal syndicate rhetoric now. She's not going to be President, Trump has won, so can we all just please move on..
And yes, Assange is a weasel. This has nothing to do with the US, which has never put out an arrest warrant for him and has never shown any actual desire to bring him into custody. Demanding clemency from people who have no obvious intention of even laying charges against him is ludicrous. His legal problems are with Swedish and British authorities.
Re: (Score:3)
Lying under oath to Congress IS illegal, and she did it.
So did Trump's nominee for Secretary of State [vox.com].
I won't bother going through the rest of your items, but almost every single one is either false or something that's been done by high profile member of the incoming administration.
If you want to throw Clinton in jail you're going to run into some serious issues of double standards.
Re: (Score:2)
What was Assange's quote? Because that matters a lot to your argument.
Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score:4, Informative)
There is a difference between a pardon and commutation.
...which doesn't matter, of course, because the Wikipedia specifically said "clemency" (which is explicitly defined as including commutation). There is also a difference between jeans and grapefruit, but that's also irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Re:WHat I said on ars: (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he would return (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he would return if our prison system focused on rehabilitation rather than abuse and over-revenge without any regard to the fact that released prisoners are angrier, less remorseful, and more evil?
Maybe he would return if the prosecutors saw the justice system as something other than a game they must win?
Why would anyone subject themselves or anyone else to our justice and prison system? Why would anyone subject anyone besides the worst violent criminals to it? It doesn't do anything but further scramble the criminal mind.
I just have one simple question. (Score:5, Insightful)
For all of this spectacle, all the attention paid to the actors and pawns in this charade--Assange, Manning, Snowden, Obama, the US government, Sweden, UK--what has ever come of the actual substance of these disclosures? Has no one bothered to ask who should be held accountable for the lives of those journalists shot down in Iraq? Has no one lifted a finger to ensure that the NSA does not continue to violate the US Constitution?
Why is this such a difficult issue for so many people to stay focused on? Why is it that, even now, people are still focused on the players and not the crimes? Assange is no less guilty than the US government for playing his part to deflect attention from the real issues in his desire to grandstand in the spotlight. That nothing has come of these revelations that Manning and Snowden brought to the attention of the American people and the entire world, is the greatest success that fascists could ever hope for, because it means that even when massive criminal wrongdoing is exposed, the people will not force change: there is zero accountability and the government can act with impunity.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure you knew and were expecting this answer: The majority of the sheeples pay attention to what the media tells them to pay attention to. And I guess the media has decided the actors are far more interesting than the actual issues brought up.
I wish people would pay attention to the issues at hand, too, but.. I guess that requires too much independent thinking for sheeple to be bothered with.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, things have changed. The NSA program you object to was ended by Congress.
Assange. (Score:3)
So not only do you expect prisoner exchanges (when the US hasn't even asked for you) on your terms, despite being a criminal in the UK for skipping bail, but when the part you demand happens (whether related or not, I'm guessing not to be honest) within a few days despite the intense complications of such an action, it has to have been immediate for you to keep your promises?
He's an attention-seeking prat, and always will be.
Ecuador - kick him the hell out of the door already.
You believed him? (Score:3)
It's not as though he had it written on the side of a bus or something
Y'all can't see why pardoning would be critical? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Y'all can't see why pardoning would be critical (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone's all "he's such a weasel, yeah like we didn't see this coming" ... c'mon, you can't see in his case why it would be critical whether Manning was pardoned vs. just let out early?? C'mon, use those brains God gave you to see through your personal prejudices on the issue.
You could also READ what Assange said and see that he asked for "clemency" which does NOT mean a pardon. It can include a pardon, but it is not limited to a pardon. So who is failing to use the brains that God gave them? What we see here is Assange moving the goalpost and it suggests that even if Manning had received a pardon Assange would have still made an excuse as to why he couldn't turn himself over to Swedish (and not US) authorities.
Re:Y'all can't see why pardoning would be critical (Score:4, Informative)
you can't see in his case why it would be critical whether Manning was pardoned
I know you know what that word means, but did you know Assange never used it? [twitter.com]
My personal prejudice is that Assange is every bit the man he has just proven to be. He demanded Clemency, Manning got Clemency, and his criticism is well deserved.
Just attention seeking, no substance (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just typical Assange style attention seeking. He has been out of the news for a while and desperately needs people not to forget about him.
The main reason he won’t be handed over to the US any time soon is because he is not wanted by the US. If Assange was wanted by the US there would have been an arrest warrant and an extradition request.
The best chance for the US, if the US indeed had some interest in him, would have been while Assange was walking around freely in the UK between his extradition hearings trying to stop being extradited to Sweden. The US-UK extradition treaty is extremely one-sided in favour of the US so he could been put on a plane the same day.
Now, considering nobody has ever seen a US arrest warrant for Assange and the US has never attempted to have him extradited it is safe to assume that is not one of his major worries.
Right now, Assange is a fugitive of two police forces. The British justice system wants him for jumping bail, the Swedish justice system wants him for a double rape inquiry.
Assange has always maintained he doesn’t want to go to Sweden because he worries about being extradited to the US (even though that is a very weak argument, see above). If he would now have fewer issues with going to the US, why doesn’t he just go to Sweden and face the rape inquiries if he is so confident he has done nothing wrong?
Is GTMO closed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its incredible the double standard around here.
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling -> weasel, liar, attention whore because he won't surrender for the torture country;
On the other hand we have the mass murderer, who kept people who lied to congress in control of the intelligence, that was caught lying to help his candidate, and that didn't stop the human right abuses he promised to -> nobody is criticizing him.
I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity. We need Assange free and working more than we need him keeping up with his PR stunts.
Re:Is GTMO closed? (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth
Huh? Where?
I really hope he does not keep up with this "promise". Who will enable the next Manning? Who will save the next Snowden? The Guardian? WP? Only Wikileaks go the extra length to protect whistleblowers and to publish the truth in adversity.
If Wikileaks is one man (of evidentally low integrity) then your system is already broken and you may as well start looking for a replacement now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And he attempted to cover it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some evidence of any "hardon"? There have been some pretty intemperate remarks from the US intelligence community about Assange, and obviously the current US Administration, not to mention quite a few lawmakers in both parties, don't like the man, but there's been no charges laid against him, no request for his extradition, indeed no legal proceedings at all. I've heard many a tale spun about how he's going to end up in some Third World hellhole with car battery leads tied to his testicles while
Re:Stop calling Snowden a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
This is wrong. You are also an idiot.
Snowden was a sysadmin you tool he had legitimate access to all of the stuff he released because the NSA/CIA gave it to him.
Snowden swore an oath to uphold the constitution when he took his job at NSA/CIA, not an oath to protect the illegal activities of the agencies he worked for. When he saw what happened to people who tried to raise issues "through proper channels" he realized that he could either uphold his oath or continue working for those agencies. He chose to tell the world, but more importantly Americans, about how their constitutional rights were being pissed all over by a security apparatus who simply didn't give a shit about the little people or the constitution.
That make him a whistle blower.
IIRC Manning didn't have legitimate access to a lot of the stuff he passed on, he was accidentally given higher access than he warranted by mistake.
Re:Stop calling Snowden a whistleblower (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Snowden never turned *anything* over to WikiLeaks at any point in time. He turned those documents over to respected journalists, who he believed (rightly) would be careful to ensure that no potentially damaging information about the US would become public. There was a time when a whistleblower might reasonably turn information over to WikiLeaks, but by the time Snowden released his documents WikiLeaks had proven itself irresponsible and hell bent on causing harm to the US.
IF he had turned his documents over to WikiLeaks, THEN you could make the case that he was not a whistleblower but a traitor. But he did not. He turned them over to journalists, and exposed a hell of a lot of government corruption and civil rights violations in the process. Most people consider exposing corruption while taking great precautions to ensure no undue damage occurs to be whistleblowing, which is why people keep referring to Snowden as a whistleblower.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Probably the single biggest blow to Wikileaks, and the point where I think that organization jumped the shark, is that Snowden eclipsed it both in the extent of the leak, and in the fact that, whatever you think of Snowden, he worked with actual journalists
Re: (Score:3)
> whatever you think of Snowden, he worked with actual journalists
So did Wikileaks previously. I guess everyone just forgot that part where they were originally working with the NYT & co.?
Re:Assange Is A Coward (Score:5, Funny)
Trump will force Assange to answer the accusations against him?
Trump: Did you in fact grab her by the pussy?
Assange: Well...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The male half?
Re:Assange Is A Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth noting that Manning was locked up but those spooks who sold a little boy into sex slavery in Afganistan are still free.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Clemency = {pardon, commuting, reprieve}
(possibly others, but those are the only ones I can think of)
Re: (Score:2)
May 2010. It took me about 15 seconds to look it up, why didn't you bother to?
Re: (Score:3)
They can have him, once he's served time for contempt of court / skipping bail in the UK.