Julian Assange: UK Judge Blocks Extradition of Wikileaks Founder to US (bbc.com) 126
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States, a court in London has ruled. The BBC reports: The judge blocked the request because of concerns over Mr Assange's mental health and risk of suicide in the U.S. Mr Assange, who is wanted over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011, says the case is politically motivated. Expressing disappointment at the ruling, the U.S. justice department noted that its legal arguments had prevailed. Its position is that the leaks broke the law and endangered lives.
"While we are extremely disappointed in the court's ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised," the justice department said. The U.S. authorities have 14 days in which to lodge an appeal and are expected to do so. Mr Assange will now be taken back to Belmarsh Prison -- where he is being held -- and a full application for his bail will be made on Wednesday. His lawyer Ed Fitzgerald QC told the court there would be evidence to show Mr Assange would not abscond. [...]
If convicted in the U.S., Mr Assange faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail, his lawyers have said. However the U.S. government said the sentence was more likely to be between four and six years. Mr Assange faces an 18-count indictment from the U.S. government, accusing him of conspiring to hack into U.S. military databases to acquire sensitive secret information relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was then published on the Wikileaks website. He says the information exposed abuses by the U.S. military. But U.S. prosecutors say the leaks of classified material endangered lives, and so the U.S. sought his extradition from the UK.
"While we are extremely disappointed in the court's ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised," the justice department said. The U.S. authorities have 14 days in which to lodge an appeal and are expected to do so. Mr Assange will now be taken back to Belmarsh Prison -- where he is being held -- and a full application for his bail will be made on Wednesday. His lawyer Ed Fitzgerald QC told the court there would be evidence to show Mr Assange would not abscond. [...]
If convicted in the U.S., Mr Assange faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail, his lawyers have said. However the U.S. government said the sentence was more likely to be between four and six years. Mr Assange faces an 18-count indictment from the U.S. government, accusing him of conspiring to hack into U.S. military databases to acquire sensitive secret information relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was then published on the Wikileaks website. He says the information exposed abuses by the U.S. military. But U.S. prosecutors say the leaks of classified material endangered lives, and so the U.S. sought his extradition from the UK.
Suicide? Or Suicided? (Score:3)
Risk of Assange committing suicide? Or the more likely risk that he'll be "suicided" while in prison?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably the latter. The UK government can't fail to recall what happened to Epstein, Manning, etc.. Assange is at extreme risk of torture or murder if extradited.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably the latter. The UK government can't fail to recall what happened to Epstein, Manning, etc.. Assange is at extreme risk of torture or murder if extradited.
The upper class is going apeshit since the internet was invented, they see it as the biggest threat to their power. For those of you interested, the cold war for the american upper class hasn't ended. See this talk by former national security advisor of the united states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So the elites of all western states are in full propaganda mode to divide and conquer and keep the peasants from realizing the rich and ceo's of the world are the cause of their ills with their corrupt la
Re: (Score:2)
Can you add a sentence or two explaining what any of that has to do with a judge in the UK blocking Assange's extradition to the US?
Thanks in advance.
Re:Suicide? Or Suicided? (Score:4, Insightful)
>Can you add a sentence or two explaining what any of that has to do with a judge in the UK blocking Assange's extradition to the US?
The UK blocking assange's extradition, is not the issue, the question concerning us is how we got to this point, why is Assange being hunted for exposing war crimes of the US government? Shouldn't that tell us that the upper class doesn't like the peasants knowing about their military misadventures abroad and that they are enraged that anyone would challenge their criminal authority and are using Assange as a message to anyone who would challenge their power and criminality to expose lies and corruption in the corporate world and government.
You have to understand as someone who lived through the bailouts of 2008 in the US, in a deeply corporately indoctrinated society, the whole of western education system is their to blind you to the reality that you've always lived in a two tier society of lawless elites who've always taken state subsidies and don't apply their same freemarket/capitalist principles to themselves.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publica... [imf.org]
No one with a functioning brain would bring themselves to a world with two sets of rules, one for the rich, and one for everyone else, we live in an age of corporate impunity and total corporate lawlessness.
"Parallel construction" and terms like "surveillance capitalism" is a world that is in deep denial that something has fundamentally gone wrong with the human project here on earth and many of the brighter nerds like myself are doing serious hardcore research because we see corporate malfeasance in our everyday lives and would like to have a future where human beings don't ww3 themselves to extinction.
We acquire deep doubts about the whole of our species towards the end of our lives, we see too much bullshit and insanity coming from our kind to have anything like confidence that most people, even educated people are politically and historically.
The history of mankind is the history of war, religious insanity and tragedy, it is not one of kindness and love. It's a sea of greed, blindness, obviousness of both the working masses and their leaders. If we as a species are ever to break the evolutionary bondage of our predatory territorial we're going to have to take that we are badly made creatures who's cognitive thought processes are broken and keep us in a state of ignorance and blindness more seriously.
Oswald spengler in his decline of the west predicted the western world's descent into corporate lawlessness and a kind of barbarism as a result of the stupidity of the masses and rapaciousness of the upper class ~100 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We're now just finding out that our brain doesn't see the world as it is through science, and that means we now have perceptual inequality, where certain groups have better perceptions and political views closer to reality and large segments of the public don't.
https://www.youtube.com/channe... [youtube.com]
The problem though, is that those of us with a deep ability to see through bullshit and think clearly are outnumbered by a large margin by people educated and non who are marginally educated, aka you can tell someone is ignorant by the strength of their convictions when you have read widely, the more widely you read and study human beings, the more aware you become that most people don't put any time or effort into their understanding of the world, nor have opened many books in their lives. They've never taken the time out of their lives to think deeply, they are caught in the haze of corporate workaholism and family life to step away for years on end do some deep reading and self criticism of ones views.
Here on
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! I ask for a couple of sentences, and I get 28 paragraphs and over 1,300 words. Now that's what I call service!
Re: (Score:3)
It would not be slashdot without real nerds posting from time to time, the problem is there is too much to learn in too little time for the average careerist or blue collar person to take in.
Just trying to give you context, the time it takes to become accurately informed is an enormous undertaking when every institution in our societies is designed to lie and misinform and deflect by design.
Re: (Score:2)
>Posting interminable, presumptuous, discursive diatribes is a sign of a "real nerd"? Good to know. It's certainly important to be able to identify who the real nerds are around here.
This right here just proved my thesis that modern slashdot is filled with pseudo-intellectuals that aren't interested in thinking for themselves. Given your short curt answers. Anyone with a functioning brain and a grasp of history knows assange is being used to send a message to those who would stand against corruption.
Ni
Re: (Score:3)
So, my refusal to let you tell me how to think is proof slashdot is full of pseudo-intellectuals that aren't interested in thinking for themselves. LOL, your superior cognitive ability is truly breathtaking.
Anyone who is genuinely interested in discussion would not take you seriously, you need to show why my claims are bullshit and show your work or you are talking out your ass. You can't just claim "all of the above" and not show your work.
If I am wrong then show the slashdot audience why I'm an idiot and why I said is wrong, if you can't do that, you're talking out your ass. If someone asked me for further information about why I came to the conclusions I did, I'd give and state my reasons honestly. Notic
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who is genuinely interested in discussion would not take you seriously, you need to show why my claims are bullshit and show your work or you are talking out your ass.
Put on your listening ears, because I'm only going to say this once:
It is not up to me or anyone else to disprove your claims, IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVE THEM. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." [wikipedia.org]
You should take a break from your hardcore original research and go take a "Logic for Dummies" class at your local community college.
You don't strike me as someone who was even interested in adult conversation.
I'm plenty interested in adult conversation, just not with those who are ignorant of simple logic, or those who huff and puff about their
Re: (Score:2)
Put on your listening ears, because I'm only going to say this once:
It is not up to me or anyone else to disprove your claims, IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVE THEM.
You did pay attention to the IMF documentation I provided on those sweet state subsidies going back decades right for the upper class?
https://www.imf.org/en/Publica... [imf.org]
Case closed you are too stupid to understand you're own stupidity. I provided plenty of evidence that is easy to discern you live in a lawless oligarchy aka the state helps the rich and well todo and they don't go to jail. Maybe you missed the bailouts in 2008 tipping off anyone with a brain the rich won't get punished for their misdeeds.
htt [thebalance.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You did pay attention to the IMF documentation I provided on those sweet state subsidies going back decades right for the upper class?
Oh, I paid attention to it all right. It really stood out because it was one of only three goddamned sources you offered in support of your 1,300+ word rambling dumpster fire of a post. A post that instead of answering my simple question, pivoted to a moronic theory about evolution directing our brains to deny reality. Everyone's brain except your own, of course.
I marvel at the level of dumbfuckery required to believe government subsidies of any kind have anything to do with Assange's extradition being
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I paid attention to it all right.
Let's put this in a way your pee brain can understand, the subsidies are evidence that you live in a lawless oligarchy idiot moron. You said "I marvel at the level of dumbfuckery required to believe government subsidies of any kind have anything to do with Assange's extradition being blocked by a UK judge".
The UK blocked the extradition but that is of no consequence because they got assange you idiot. Assange is still going to have his life ruined, and the legal precendent said is a bad one for journalism
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put this in a way your pee brain can understand, the subsidies are evidence that you live in a lawless oligarchy idiot moron.
Can you fucking read? Of course you can't. One more time: I haven't disputed any of your "lawless oligarchy" claims, you dumbass.
You said "I marvel at the level of dumbfuckery required to believe government subsidies of any kind have anything to do with Assange's extradition being blocked by a UK judge".
You're such a blithering idiot you don't even realize the logical implications of your own moronic statements. You fail to realize your "logic" applies to any and all government expenditures, therefore...
Soybeans are connected to Assange's persecution! Wind power is a factor in Assange being hunted down! Medicare is tied to Assange because it paid for 80% of Warren Buffett'
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to show government subsidies are connected to the persecution of Assange using actual logic,
You've misread every thing I have said you idiot moron, I NEVER SUGGESTED subsidies are connected to extradiction in any way, you are the one misinterpreting my post because you are stupid as fuck, everyone who upvoted knew I was subsidies as an argument attached to lawless oligarchy that says one thing and does another, AKA if you have one class of people to whom the law and fee market ideology doesn't apply, then you don't live in a world where the rule of law exists.
Subsidies were to show us in our glori
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the tried and true "I got modded up, you didn't" gambit. The most pathetic appeal to authority known to Slashdot.
You're so fucking thick, you believe positive moderation by a handful of people means EVERYONE who read your posts agrees with what you said. But you have absolutely no fucking idea the reason(s) why someone upvoted a 1,300 word post covering everything from lawless anarchies to World of Warcraft to bailouts to evolutionarily crippled brains. Furthermore, it would not surprise anyone
Re: (Score:2)
Dude it's obvious people are ignoring you because you're a fucking idiot, you are a troll and people know you are a troll. If what you said had any value at all you'd be being upvoted.
Re: (Score:2)
So the elites of all western states are in full propaganda mode to divide and conquer and keep the peasants from realizing the rich and ceo's of the world are the cause of their ills with their corrupt laws and increasingly orwellian surveillance capitalism dystopia.
Perhaps writing letters to politicians about the effects of proposed laws would be more effective than posts to an internet forum.
20 years ago when those laws began to be put in place I realized that whilst a politician can be bought with campaign funds nothing is more effective than filling their office with letters from the constituency that votes for them.
That is because democracy is more than just voting for someone, you can express your will to your congress critter or MP and if enough people do it
Re:Suicide? Or Suicided? (Score:4, Insightful)
>Perhaps writing letters to politicians about the effects of proposed laws would be more effective than posts to an internet forum.
You don't that you don't live in a democracy, western states are setup specifically to protect special interests. You don't seem to understand capitalist democracy itself is propaganda, the purpose of the state is specifically there to protect the opulent corporate minority from the average citizen.
I know you might find that hard to believe but anyone acquainted with history knows the state does not work for the public. That is why history is a shitshow of disaster, the public is not competent enough , politically or historically aware enough to even begin to know how to be political and that has to do with the education system purposely turning out people are misinformed and who can't think critically because they just accept that because they've been to university or been through school they are now "educated". The purpose of education is not education, it is to instill blindness and subservience to corporate power.
Now I don't say that lightly, it took me years for the fog to slowly fade from where you exist now. Since I'm an old nerd now, but in my hyper capitalist days of my youth, before you read widely and deeply, you will begin to understand most people don't have the time, the intelligence or the wherewithall to challenge their own perceptions of reality or their entire society because the whole thing is exhausting and psychologically frightening, people build their identities around the culture and values in which they are born, very few people are naturally resistant to bullshit.
>In other words we get the democracy we deserve.
Not quite, the nature of capitalist society precludes most people from becoming educated, the purpose of schooling is not to inform the public it's to keep the public blind to the truth both working class and professional by feeding them myths and distorted half truths when the reality is simple.
As someone who never fully bought into humanity and its politics, as a natural born skeptic. I've always been leery and had a deep fear that there is probably something wrong with us biologicaly that we are too stupid figure it out which is driving this mad cycle of war and greed, so I've been doing my own original research out my own curiosity.
So far my working thesis it that - our brain is still the delusional superstitious conglomerate of weird microbes distorting our thoughts and perceptions giving birth to false conclusions and false realities driving the cycle of war, greed and stupidity.
AKA religion is a sign the brain is in a state of disease, not in a state of health, that we aren't thinking clearly because our brain never evolved to think clearly or perceive the world accurately to begin with. Putting it into biological context, it's quite possible our entire species in a state of biological disease that isn't enough to immediately kill us but warps our minds and thoughts leading to war, anti intellectualism and disaster.
And given the issues with covid 19, I think that our bodies war against disease and death, some load of creepy crawlies that became part of our brains over volutionary history are generating false narratives, perpcetions and twisted thought patterns keeping us in this cycle.
It avoid the leftwing/right wing bullshit and strikes at the heart of the matter, if we can use science to show us that our minds and bodies of our entire species is compromise and we are perceptually blind to the truth of our own flaws and backwardness, then we win the game and human beings of all political persuasions lose their political credibility, since we've been operating on the idea that our brain works and is functioning, perhaps we should operate on the opposite conclusion. That we are constantly malfunctioning biological creatures filled with disease and microbial madness through no fault of our own.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to Manning? Took and oath as a soldier, violated it, and suffered the consequences. You think sending your top secret information stolen from the US government to Wikileaks absolves you of any responsibility for your actions?
And as for Snowden, while not a soldier, his story follows a similar trajectory as a government contractor.
Re:Suicide? Or Suicided? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to grasp, when criminals control the government there is no alternative but to do what is necessary to expose corruption and malfeasance.
While you may technically believe the laws of the state are written by honest but flawed men, that no longer applies when corrupt men get power and can pass their own corrupt rules. When the system is dysfunctional because it is populated with criminals there is no choice for someone who has a conscience but to disobey.
It's all well and good for you to theorcraft, but if the government was bearing down on members of your own family you'd most likely defect to expose the rot even at great person cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like most of them were entrepreneurs or children of entrepreneurs [jagranjosh.com]. Most of them don't seem like people with a lot of political power. Number 19 in particular (Jack Ma) is notable for his lack of political power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jack is also notable for having disappeared from public few a few months ago, after he loudly denounced some of the powerful people in Chinese government,
Re: (Score:2)
Torture? For what, the passwords to his Wikileaks email accounts? What state secrets do you imagine Julian Assange has at this point? He does have intimate knowledge of the floor plan of the Ecuador Embassy...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to know.
The fact is, the US government still wants to extradite him. They feel that he's important. That is telling by itself.
On to speculation: it might be for nothing more than saving face, but that would betray a certain level of weakness. Cracks in the mask...
Certainly, the US might be aware of some other threat he somehow poses, but the fact remains that they are still working themselves up over extraditing Assange. I don't need to imagine reasons, amusing as it might be--they've signaled
Re: (Score:3)
They want to make an example of him to cow anyone else who might want to expose US war crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be fooled. The judgement was entirely corrupt, the cunt judge was able to brand Assange as a treasonous spy by hiding it behind the denial of extradition under bullshit reason. So now the extended torture can commence through two higher courts, the case drawn out for years, even decades, until Assange dies. Pommie cunts are entirely corrupt, Assange would not be in prison now if that were not true. So the corruption of the legal process will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
For what? Epstein had incriminating knowledge of the high and mighty. Manning was in a military prison. Neither scenarios apply to Assange, presumably neither does "etc".
What reasoning do you have to think that Assange would receive the same treatment? People in jail don't get tortured or murdered "just because".
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the UK does not support the death penalty and the U.S. does.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the UK does not support the death penalty and the U.S. does.
When was the last time the UK had a husband murder his pregnant wife in front of their two daughters, drive them with the dead body in his truck to his place of work where he killed both daughters, one of whom watched him kill the other daughter [foxnews.com], stuffed the bodies in oil drums, then lied [nytimes.com] about knowing anything when their disappearance became known?
Re: (Score:3)
Let me know if he ever gets the needle.
Connecticut had a nasty triple murder by two thugs 10 years ago involving home invasion, kidnapping, rape, and arson. The mother was raped and strangled. One of the daughters (age 11) was raped and died of smoke inhalation while tied to her bed. The older girl managed to free herself but didn't make it out of the house. The perps got the death penalty. Then, the CT Supreme Court said, oh no, let's ban executions let's give them life without parole. Google Petit murders
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it worse punishment to keep such scum alive? Locked in a small cell for the rest of their lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the UK does not support the death penalty and the U.S. does.
When was the last time the UK had a husband murder his pregnant wife in front of their two daughters, drive them with the dead body in his truck to his place of work where he killed both daughters, one of whom watched him kill the other daughter [foxnews.com], stuffed the bodies in oil drums, then lied [nytimes.com] about knowing anything when their disappearance became known?
We've had worse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So because there are some vicious assholes, you need to be the same right back at them? Problem with that: It makes you a vicious asshole as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So because there are some vicious assholes, you need to be the same right back at them? Problem with that: It makes you a vicious asshole as well.
And yet, when a dog bites someone, or a bear attacks someone on a trail, the first immediate response is we need to put that vicious animal down. Never mind it's an animal with little cognitive reasoning, unlike humans who, last I heard, are the smartest animals are the planet. Nope, it attacked someone and it might do it again so we need to get rid of it.
So why the hypocrisy when this vicious animal kills the person he married and his two daughters?
Re: (Score:2)
Because errors happen. And death is kinda irreversible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the more likely risk that he'll be "suicided" while in prison?
Why? The only reason to do that is if the person has information you don't want to get out. Is Assange hiding something from all of us?
You don't kill him for being a PITA. That makes him a martyr. Instead, you just lock 'em in supermax and let his fame fade away.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He could literally say anything and it'll be dismissed as either hes making it up. He presents no threat whatsoever to anyone. Second, if there was anything major that he knows it would have already been on Wikileaks .. and wikileaks did nothing anyway. Did it change anything or reveal something nobody knew? No. Assange can't do anything to anyone.
Re:Suicide? Or Suicided? (Score:5, Informative)
Risk of being tortured with solitary confinement until he kills himself.
My summary of the ruling [judiciary.uk] from looking through it briefly is that the judge expects him to be subjected to "Special Administrative Measures" involving extreme isolation because classified information or other vague national security issues are involved, and, based on Assange's mental status as evidenced by his behavior and evaluation in UK custody and his past history, this would lead to him finding a way to commit suicide. And yes, Epstein's suicide is mentioned at least on page 95 if not other places as are the conditions other prisoners were subjected to in PRE-trial as well as post-trial.
The judge does not seem to be very sympathetic to most of the defense's claims pertaining to the substance of the case. The finding doesn't have anything to do with that. It says Assange cannot be extradited because section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003 forbids extradition if the mental or physical health of the individual would make it oppressive. Where likelihood of being driven to successful suicide by unjust measures is considered by case law as part of mental health. (see pages 89-90) Seems pretty solid to me. This is the US's history of torture of national security prisoners being taken at face value.
It is notable that the ruling does not delay extradition for later reconsideration (one option under section 91) but outright discharges Assange from extradition threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Her sentence was commuted by Obama. So she got out of prison.
She refused to testify before a grand jury, which got her held in jail for a year for contempt. That ended in March.
Re: (Score:2)
Treatment of prisoners in the US is like something out of a nightmare. Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib. Even within US borders, the treatment of Manning was appalling. We won't mention the fact that Epstein most certainly did not kill himself. Or the fact that prison violence and rape is so common that people have come to treat it as a joke, or worse, as part of the punishment.
This ought to be embarrassing to the US. Sadly, it's not, instead it lauded as "tough on crime" or somesuch...
Re: (Score:2)
If the US government really wants him killed, he will be killed. Whether he is in a US prison, or walking down the street in London will not change that. Accidents happen everywhere.
He is alive because nobody gives enough of a fuck to get sign-off on his execution.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US government really wants him killed, he will be killed. Whether he is in a US prison, or walking down the street in London will not change that. Accidents happen everywhere.
He is alive because nobody gives enough of a fuck to get sign-off on his execution.
Well, the US is a rogue nation, same as Russia. Only those do murder of the kind you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the more likely risk that he'll be "suicided" while in prison?
Why? To whose benefit? He wasn't running a pedophile ring for politicians. What's the point of killing someone who has no impact on you? Wouldn't it be more fun to watch them rot in prison?
If you have some conspiracy about Assange having a secret stash of incriminating evidence about the high and mighty that they may cover up, holy shit that ship has sailed, sunk to the bottom of the ocean, and James Cameron has a movie in the works about it. There's no way that wouldn't have come out in the past decade.
Re: (Score:3)
He's a warning to others who would expose the crimes of the wealthy and powerful.
Remember the Pentagon Papers? Newspapers fell all over each other for the chance to interview Ellsburg and he is still thought of as a hero. That doesn't happen today, especially in the Untied States. Almost 30 years later came the revelations that the CIA was protecting and facilitating cocaine smuggling into the US. The only newspaper to touch the 'Dark Alliance' series was the little San Jose Mercury News, every major ne
Dupe (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot Editor Doesn't Block Posting of Duplicate
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I have a strange feeling of deja vu [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot Editor Doesn't Block Posting of Duplicate
Yup - editors talking to each other about posting stories will come right after Slashdot implements proper unicode support.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot Editor Doesn't Block Posting of Duplicate
Duplicated, and not even updated.
Assange was offered political asylum from Mexico seemingly within an hour of the original article being published.
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
He never does. He never will.
Slashdot is all about the dupes.
So... Just checking... (Score:4, Interesting)
but it IS illegal to publish information given to you by someone else ( who may have gotten it illegally) about a foreign country you are not a citizen of?
I mean so If a Chinese dissident sent me classified films from Tinmen square I'm not allowed to publish them on the internet?
Re: So... Just checking... (Score:3)
Not illegal in the US. The charge they are trying is as a co conspirator to get the information, not the actuall publishing.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is paper-thin at best and only serves to get him in their hands.
Re:So... Just checking... (Score:4, Insightful)
but it IS illegal to publish information given to you by someone else ( who may have gotten it illegally) about a foreign country you are not a citizen of?
US Law, since that's the relvent law here:
If you do not have a security clearance, you can publish anything you can get your hands on. You still have first amendment rights. People with clearances or in the military have signed away their first amendment rights when it comes to classified, so they can't.
But as a non-cleared person, you have to be entirely passive in your acquisition. Someone gives it to you, you're fine. If you tell someone, "Hey, go download some files for me", then you're violating US law. Or if you help the cleared person get classified to you via providing tools to get the data, media to store it on, etc.
Assange was charged because he allegedly gave directions and tools to Manning.
Re: So... Just checking... (Score:2)
So why do you think he should be subject to any US laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he in the US when the alleged crime was committed.
So why do you think he should be subject to any US laws?
If I'm overseas, and hack into your computer, get your bank account information and transfer out thousands of dollars from your bank account, why should I be subject to any US laws?
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he in the US when the alleged crime was committed.
So why do you think he should be subject to any US laws?
If I'm overseas, and hack into your computer, get your bank account information and transfer out thousands of dollars from your bank account, why should I be subject to any US laws?
You shouldn't, period.
The law of the country where you did the above should apply. If your action was legal in that country, good for you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, unfortunately for both Assange he broke UK law as well. For extradition from the UK the law you allegedly have broken must also have been a law on the books at the time in the UK. The judge agreed this happened.
Assange conspired to obtain secret classified information from the government. MI5 would be no more or less forgiving than any three letter agency or military arm in the USA.
Re: So... Just checking... (Score:3)
Unless you think a US citizen who steals from a Saudi bank should get their hand chopped off at the wrist?
Re: So... Just checking... (Score:2)
It's up to the bank providing a multi national service to prosecute the thief in the thief's home country.
Unless you think a US citizen who steals from a Saudi bank should get their hand chopped off at the wrist?
No, they do not need to prosecute in the thief's home country.
Yes, that's exactly how it would work, _IF_ the US had an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia, and it does not, because of the hand choppy thing more or less.
If a US citizen robs a UK bank, they would be prosecuted in the UK and extradited.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he should or he shouldn't, I don't know. But he is because of extradition treaties.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he in the US when the alleged crime was committed.
Sorry, he spent some time in the US during the time he was helping Manning.
In addition, nothing in the statute requires the person to be a US citizen or within US jurisdiction. Whether or not the US gets to charge the person depends on whether or not other countries will extradite the person, or if they're dumb enough to return the US on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly then, since Assange will not be extradited, he won't be charged.
Well, first I said "charged" when I should have said "tried". Assange has been charged (aka indicted), which is what lets the US apply for extradition.
Whether or not he actually stands trial will depend on whether or not he enters the US. The current ruling is the UK won't extradite, for reasons entirely different than niftydude was talking about, but the US is going to appeal that ruling.
So, not completely decided yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So why do you think he should be subject to any US laws?
He isn't. UK law requires the act for extradition to be illegal in the country where they are being tried. The UK agreed what he did was illegal in the UK as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean so If a Chinese dissident sent me classified films from Tinmen square I'm not allowed to publish them on the internet?
You can publish it, but don't accept the Chinese government to roll over and say "fair enough, you got us" and ignore your actions.
The questions you have to ask are a) is this a crime in China, and b) does my country have extradition agreement with China? If the answer to both of those questions is "Yes", you may find yourself on a plane to China, in the name of maintianing harmonious relations between your country and China.
Re: (Score:2)
but it IS illegal to publish information given to you by someone else ( who may have gotten it illegally) about a foreign country you are not a citizen of?
I mean so If a Chinese dissident sent me classified films from Tinmen square I'm not allowed to publish them on the internet?
Sane laws: No
US laws: Anything we do really not like anybody does anywhere in the universe justifies > 100 years imprisonment, torture and, of course, extradition.
I wish this was an exaggeration. It is not really one.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect an unexpected loud knock at the door.
The dirty sod has suffered enough... (Score:2)
Let the guy go; he's obviously paid the price for the condom thing by now.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Go against the justice system itself
No, Assange was exercising the rights he had available to avoid a threat to his life from the judicial system. That's why human rights are important. If your argument was valid then no one would ever claim a tax deduction.
Re: (Score:2)
This is propaganda, the reality is the US leaned on the swedes and the swedes said "yes master". The US uses it's military might and economic power to intimidate people to lie and do its bidding.
If you believe assange raped women you aren't bright enough to understand politics. Anyone with a brain and a fucking clue know they were trumped up charges because they found people they could easily manipulate and threaten economically. Most people will buckle under that kind of pressure of the greatest militar
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they were talking about his cat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The court system was really fast, the appeal has been done and rejected. Assange is free to go now.
Judege should have written "suicide" (Score:2, Interesting)
The judge blocked the request because of concerns over Mr Assange's mental health and risk of suicide in the U.S.
She should have written it as "suicide" (with quote), as in 'and risk of "suicide" in the U.S.', as in how Epstein died of "suicide" while in U.S. law enforcement custody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You "suicide" someone when they have information you don't want to get out.
You don't "suicide" someone who's only been a PITA, because that turns them into a martyr. You put them in supermax and let their fame fade away.
Are you saying Assange is hiding stuff from us?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because no one credibly accused of sexual abuse has ever chosen to take their own life before?
If, and it's a big if, Epstein was "suicided" it was because he chose, for decades, to document the intimate secrets of some very powerful men and women, any one of which has the resources and the connections to "deal" with him...
Assange is little more than a guy with a website with a penchant for receiving secret material from anonymous sources. What real threat does Assange personally pose? He personally provides
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Epstein had a whole mountain of dirt on the high and mighty powers that be in the USA. What does Assange have that he's been secretly sitting on that makes it worthwhile going through the risky process of "suiciding" someone?
You've fallen into the same trap of "OMG EPSTEIN" without ever actually wondering why or how it would apply in this case.
Beau doesn't read slashdot, but you should. (Score:2)
FFS, how hard can it be TO DO YOUR JOB ?
Right decision (Score:4, Interesting)
for the wrong reasons.
Journalism is not a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
But are dupes a crime?
Re: (Score:2)
for the wrong reasons.
Journalism is not a crime.
It is when you're doing your job and someone doesn't like it [msn.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Journalism is not a crime.
Hacking, or assisting to obtain classified information is not journalism. Had Assange simply published stuff which was given to him he wouldn't be fighting a court case in the UK about extradition to the USA (he still would have been holed in an embassy because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants). And note no claim was made that he couldn't publish what he had.
He wasn't tried for "journalism".
Re: (Score:3)
It’s a federal crime to lie to an insurance company. It is no crime for an insurance company to lie to you. It is a federal crime to lie to a credit agency. Once again, no crime for them to lie to you.
Who gives a flying monkey shit what these fucks say is a crime. Things that hurt the elite are made crimes. Everyone else can eat shit.
Fuck it, dude exposed these assholes for wrongdoing. What kind of browbeaten lemming is going to shout “crime! He must be in a cage!” when so much worse h
Re: (Score:2)
It is no crime for an insurance company to lie to you.
It is a crime. It's called "fraud". Which kind of fraud (mail, wire, etc) depends on what they were doing when they lied.
It wasn’t the content of DNC emails that cost them the election, it’s the revelation that cost them the election.
What, exactly, do you think was in those emails that was problematic?
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a flying monkey shit what these fucks say is a crime.
Usually people accused of a crime.
Things that hurt the elite are made crimes. Everyone else can eat shit.
Man you have a jaded world view. Now back in reality there are a large number of crimes that exist to protect you from the elite, and crimes you'll find typically apply to people. I.e. It's not crime to murder a millionaire, it's a crime to murder a person.
Please join us back in reality before you run off as some freedom fighter bombing shit, because holy shit man claiming laws are for the elite to keep the common man down is exactly the kind of shit you get from a terroris
Re: (Score:2)
Man you have a jaded world view
No, you're just oblivious. You've always lived in a lawless oligarchy where the rich do what they want and take billions in state subsidies for their favorite corporations while telling you they can't afford healthcare or social services for the poor. They seem to have enormous amounts of money for spending money on toys killing people mysteriously.
Free markets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Huge subsidies for big business
https://www.imf.org/en/Publica... [imf.org]
Good (Score:3)
However, what right does America have to prosecute a foreigner that did not commit a crime on our soil? NONE. He received stolen goods, a crime, but it was not on our soil. The ONLY one that should be in prison at this time, is Brad/Chelsea Manning. S/He swore an oath that he violated. Some of what he handed out was illegal stuff and in my mind, it was OK to whistle blow. BUT, he continued and simply downloaded anything/everything that he could get his hands on, regardless of whether it was illegal stuff or legal stuff that he would do major damage to America. Manning should STLL be in prison and it is disgusting that Obama pardoned him/her.
Manning needs to go to Sweden to answer for the rape charges, and then sent away, but, he should not be answering anything here.
Re: (Score:2)
However, what right does America have to prosecute a foreigner that did not commit a crime on our soil?
It's not about rights. In international politics, the only thing that matters is what a country can do, and what a country can't do.
Re: (Score:2)
However, what right does America have to prosecute a foreigner that did not commit a crime on our soil?
He spent some time in New York while he was communicating with Manning.
He received stolen goods, a crime, but it was not on our soil.
No, he has not been indicted for receiving or publishing classified information. He has been charged because he allegedly helped Manning by giving her directions and tools.
Duplicate post? (Score:2)
Ms. Mash posted the same story, earlier today - don't Slashdot editors talk to each other? Perhaps check their own website before posting?
See https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
If proven... (Score:2)
Mr Assange faces an 18-count indictment from the U.S. government, accusing him of conspiring to hack into U.S. military databases to acquire sensitive secret information
relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which was then published on the Wikileaks website. He says the information exposed abuses by the U.S. military. But U.S. prosecutors say the leaks of classified material endangered lives, and so the U.S. sought his extradition from the UK.
If proven, conspiring to hack into US Gov't databases is a serious crime - that goes beyond simply receiving material stolen from US Gov't databases, and is a crime that should be punished.
He's accused of hacking the US Gov't, no
Oh I See (Score:2)
Mr Assange faces a possible penalty of up to 175 years in jail, his lawyers have said. However the U.S. government said the sentence was more likely to be between four and six years.
Then why in the motherfuck is the possible penalty 175 years in jail? If the ‘likely” range is 4-6 years then why oh why is it possible to sentence someone to one hundred seventy five years in a cage?
Weren’t we embarrassed as hell when that was said out loud?
How do you respect a justice system that sentences p
Re: (Score:2)
Then why in the motherfuck is the possible penalty 175 years in jail?
Because it's legally possible to sentence Assange to the maximum penalty for each crime, and to make those sentences consecutive instead of concurrent.
Basically, some journalists did some math by adding up the worst possible scenario. We sentence almost nobody to the worst possible scenario, be cause we actually are relatively civilized.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the US couldn't "rendition" him at a later date.
Especially if he somehow makes it back to Australia.