61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
https://twitter.com/odotm/status/235916048921145344/photo/1
People seem to be jumping on this being a precursor to a raid by a British tactical team to recover Julian Assange (or however you spell his name) but I'm thinking they're just going to bag him the second he steps off embassy soil. Thoughts and opinions to the whole situation?
Update: Apparently I'm wrong as according to twitterers on the ground a British Tactical team has just penetrated the outer embassy
29408
Post by: Melissia
They'll probably jsut bag him the moment he steps off.
Don't believe EVERYTHING you hear on twitter.
11653
Post by: Huffy
Melissia wrote:They'll probably jsut bag him the moment he steps off.
Don't believe EVERYTHING you hear on twitter.
I'm pretty sure the rules state you can only post true things on the internet....
49272
Post by: Testify
I'd be very surprised if they were given orders to ignore embassadorial protocol. Britain's quite good at "high diplomacy".
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Melissia wrote:They'll probably jsut bag him the moment he steps off.
Don't believe EVERYTHING you hear on twitter.
I'm just reporting, I'm personally with you, we'll see shortly if we're wrong.
Live stream from the streets near the embassy: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/alburyj
Mostly just people talking
Edit again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623
Confirmation that the police are outside the embassy in Knightsbridge, and some political back and forth.
49272
Post by: Testify
Maybe the Ecuadorians are giving him to the British?
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
BBC link suggests that's not what's going on at present. But it's possible because of the pressure they're putting on Ecuador with a threat to revoke their diplomatic status.
11194
Post by: Krellnus
Britain probably wouldn't be able to deal with the gak storm if they go into the embassy to try grab him. Then agains, I don't think any country could deal with the gak storm.
121
Post by: Relapse
Krellnus wrote:Britain probably wouldn't be able to deal with the gak storm if they go into the embassy to try grab him. Then agains, I don't think any country could deal with the gak storm.
Britain has too much class to pull something like that. The Libyian Embassy didn't get raided when a police woman got shot And killed by one of the guards from there, so I really wouldn't expect a raid because of this guy.
18602
Post by: Horst
Relapse wrote:Krellnus wrote:Britain probably wouldn't be able to deal with the gak storm if they go into the embassy to try grab him. Then agains, I don't think any country could deal with the gak storm.
Britain has too much class to pull something like that. The Libyian Embassy didn't get raided when a police woman got shot by one of the guards from there, so I really wouldn't expect a raid because of thst guy.
Thats just a police grunt being shot, the government doesn't give 2 gaks. Here, a man dared to speak the truth about things decent and god-fearing governments were trying to cover up! He annoyed people in power! He MUST DIE!!!!!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Here, a man dared to speak the truth about things decent and god-fearing governments were trying to cover up!
Aaand indirectly resulted in the deaths of numerous people.
37231
Post by: d-usa
What abou our fancy intelligence and government reports that the leaks really didn't do any damage at all?
3802
Post by: chromedog
I just want them to bag him (tagging optional).
I went to uni with him and he was an anti-social douchebag then as well as being a sanctimonious git.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Wikileaks is not a big enough problem to ruin our relations with Equador.
As far as violating an embassy, I do not think it is being considered. Even Hitler respected embassies.
As for the whole mess, its about saving face for a US government which is led by a hostile president, over a core issue that is amoral, while backing up trumped up charges. Why are we bothering?
If an online media source publishes classified data outside the jurisdiction of the country the data was stolen from no crime is committed by the media, the people who sell/donate the data, yes, but not those who publish it.
Assange never has or had any moral responsibility to keep the US's secrets, and allowing for what was revealed can and does claim public interest.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
¬¬ It'd be a seriously stupid thing for the British government to manhandle Ecuador, which they've already did if their current statements on the matter are anything to go by. I mean other than annoying another country being a bad idea in general, Ecuador's a big supplier of oil in South America (and with the Argentine nonsense its probably not going to go well losing more faith in South America). The Tories aren't especially known for using much more intelligence than a playground bully, but just pulling a Thatcher and doing America's dirty work just isn't going to go well for them.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Wyrmalla wrote:The Tories aren't especially known for using much more intelligence than a playground bully, but just pulling a Thatcher and doing America's dirty work just isn't going to go well for them.
Care to explain, or is this just a cheap shot.
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Orlanth wrote:Wyrmalla wrote:The Tories aren't especially known for using much more intelligence than a playground bully, but just pulling a Thatcher and doing America's dirty work just isn't going to go well for them.
Care to explain, or is this just a cheap shot.
^^ I'm Scottish, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Tory party being incited at birth?
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Wyrmalla wrote:Orlanth wrote:Wyrmalla wrote:The Tories aren't especially known for using much more intelligence than a playground bully, but just pulling a Thatcher and doing America's dirty work just isn't going to go well for them.
Care to explain, or is this just a cheap shot.
^^ I'm Scottish, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Tory party being incited at birth?
Agreed on this.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
d-usa wrote:What abou our fancy intelligence and government reports that the leaks really didn't do any damage at all?
And don't forget the common sense report that everything he leaked we ALREADY KNEW.
Got get um Brits. Its about time someone made self-righteous arseholery a punishable offense 
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
African Swallow?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Got get um Brits. Its about time someone made self-righteous arseholery a punishable offense
Off-Topic will be a very quiet place soon...
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
=/ BBC's consensus right now is that it'd be a really dumb idea to take away Ecuador's right over their embassy, as it'd give a president for other nations that have a chip on their shoulder to do the same to us (perhaps in protest to our actions). They have noted that we should be tolerant of the Ecuadorians as they've actually bothered to take into account Assange's point of view. The Swedish authorities went to an embassy in Switzerland to interview a murderer, but they refuse to do so in this case...
18277
Post by: Khornholio
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
African Swallow?
SlaveToDorkness wins thread. 
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
Wyrmalla wrote:=/ BBC's consensus right now is that it'd be a really dumb idea to take away Ecuador's right over their embassy, as it'd give a president for other nations that have a chip on their shoulder to do the same to us (perhaps in protest to our actions). They have noted that we should be tolerant of the Ecuadorians as they've actually bothered to take into account Assange's point of view. The Swedish authorities went to an embassy in Switzerland to interview a murderer, but they refuse to do so in this case...
Assange's point of view is a matter of utter irreverence, he is wanted for extradition to another EU country. What makes him better than all of us that he can be exempted from the law? He says he is worried about extradition to the US, yet the US has made no request to extradite him or shown any interest in doing so.
The main legacy of the wikileaks saga was to get a load of Afghan and Iraqi interpreters killed, most of the info released was already in the public domain or just pointless low level diplomatic communications. His 5 minutes are up, no body cares about wikileaks any more.
37231
Post by: d-usa
A good comic that sums up the situation pretty good:
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Oh please. As much as I enjoy a good comic, claiming that two random women are involved in a secret government conspiracy is absurd. And as pointed out in other threads, Sweden is the last country to go in on it with us.
514
Post by: Orlanth
AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
That's easy.
Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.
Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.
53059
Post by: dæl
Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of humanity, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Tory party being incited at birth?
FTFY
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
People are reading far to much into this and jumping in with wild conspiracies. The whole thing is quite simple. He broke his bail conditions in the UK, like every one else who does that while in this country he is now a wanted criminal.
He is not even wanted in Sweden for trial just to give his version of events to Police in a case that probably wont even go to trial. If the US wanted him they could of requested extradition when he was in UK custody but they didn’t, they have no interest in prosecuting him for anything. The mans an idiot and dug him self into a great big hole, when there was absolutely no need to. Hope he enjoys the increasingly totalitarian state of Ecuador
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Our jock mates are quite correct saying they are indoctrinated at birth to loathe the Tories.
It has to be pointed out though, when has an action carried out due to childhood indoctrination ever been considered logical? 
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
How is this a live stream, or breaking pictures if they are taken at night?
It's still pretty light out in old Blighty at the moment...
21853
Post by: mattyrm
dæl wrote:Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of common sense, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Labour party being incited at birth?
FTFY
Good job!
49272
Post by: Testify
dæl wrote:Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of humanity, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Tory party being incited at birth?
FTFY
That's just stupid. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for hating the labour party, but nothing like the widespread ruin that the conservatives bought to large parts of the country. I have grown up around this desolation, as many people have.
53059
Post by: dæl
mattyrm wrote:dæl wrote:Wyrmalla wrote:I have a shred of common sense, need I say more about a natural loathing for the Labour party being incited at birth?
FTFY
Good job!
They are both equally incompetent, the difference being that the tories are motivated by greed and selfishness and the suffering they cause is actually part of their plan.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
That's easy.
Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.
Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.
Blow it up. Its the Chicago Way.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
dæl wrote:
They are both equally incompetent, the difference being that the tories are motivated by greed and selfishness and the suffering they cause is actually part of their plan.
Lets not get into a gak political debate mate, just go and read some impartial books on the subject, and then come back and admit you were wrong and I was right.
Seriously, the above quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen a grown man write. I'm not being funny, how old are you?
If you are under 15 and you believe every short sighted thing you read in Unison's monthly magazine, or on the national socialist workers party website, fair dos, your only young once.
But otherwise you should be embarrassed. British politics has become increasingly centrist the last two decades, one party is (slightly) more fiscally conservative, ergo is less inclined to give money out on social programmes, but that's pretty much it. The Tories have been in charge for a few years, and everyone is still living in their council houses, still drinking their special brew, buying their scratch cards and fething like rats to get more child support.
Ergo, everything you wrote is flat out wrong.
"Suffering is part of the plan"
If never working and still being able to get pissed 4 days a week and smoke 60 fags a day is "suffering" then fething strap me onto the suffering machine!
53059
Post by: dæl
mattyrm wrote:dæl wrote:
They are both equally incompetent, the difference being that the tories are motivated by greed and selfishness and the suffering they cause is actually part of their plan.
Lets not get into a gak political debate mate, just go and read some impartial books on the subject, and then come back and admit you were wrong and I was right.
Seriously, the above quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen a grown man write. I'm not being funny, how old are you?
If you are under 15 and you believe every short sighted thing you read in Unison's monthly magazine, or on the national socialist workers party website, fair dos, your only young once.
But otherwise you should be embarrassed. British politics has become increasingly centrist the last two decades, one party is (slightly) more fiscally conservative, ergo is less inclined to give money out on social programmes, but that's pretty much it. The Tories have been in charge for a few years, and everyone is still living in their council houses, still drinking their special brew, buying their scratch cards and fething like rats to get more child support.
Ergo, everything you wrote is flat out wrong.
"Suffering is part of the plan"
If never working and still being able to get pissed 4 days a week and smoke 60 fags a day is "suffering" then fething strap me onto the suffering machine!
I'm 27, and have no time for any of the main political parties. If you think the tories are causing no suffering then cool. Alas that is not the case, the workshy are doing fine but take some time and look at how welfare reform is affecting the disabled, be it through targeted work capability assessments, when 32 people a week are dying after being found "fit for work" or the number of suicides that have been attributed to welfare reform sine 2010. Hate crimes against the disabled are increasing exponentially year on year as the agenda of "punish the scrounger" is pursued, benefit scroungers make up a tiny percentage of the number on benefits and cost the country £1bn a year, which is one sixth of the Vodafone tax bill Gideon Osbourne wrote off last year. People, some of the most vulnerable ones in our society, are being mistreated and dying to pursue an agenda that has bugger all to do with cost and everything to do with appealing to the public's worst aspects for cheap political points.
But still, this is probably for another thread.
On Topic, I thought the Swedish case had been thrown out of court twice now.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.
Considering that Ecuadorian trade with Iran hasn't soured US-Ecuador relations, I sincerely doubt that any move on Assange that didn't violate diplomatic protocol would have any significant effect.
As for your statement that Obama has been openly hostile to the UK, well, we've been down that road a few times before and my conclusion has always been that your stiff upper lip is showing signs of quivering; so I'll just leave it at that.
37231
Post by: d-usa
If the UK isn't careful we will send Romney back and make him stay this time.
514
Post by: Orlanth
dogma wrote:
As for your statement that Obama has been openly hostile to the UK, well, we've been down that road a few times before and my conclusion has always been that your stiff upper lip is showing signs of quivering; so I'll just leave it at that.
Translation please.
34906
Post by: Pacific
From the other closed thread:
The point is, seriously.. protesters are just sad bastards! I hate all sorts of things, but what would you rather do? Spend 6 hours in the pub with your mates, or on a fething picket holding a sign and shouting?!
Sorry mate I was only joking about that! I don't give a jot about what other people think! I should have used a winking smilie 
Steven Stevenson wrote:I don't understand why people think its more likely that it is some convoluted conspiracy to extradite someone who is a minor irritation to the US than that the women are telling the truth and Sweden is just trying to enforce the law equally.
Hes just using the bizarre world he has built up around him to justify not facing justice in a fair and free country.
Some info you might not be aware of Steven Stevenson:
- The Ecuadorian ambassador offered the Swedish police entrance to the embassy to interview him (now the only thing they want from him, as charges have been dropped). The Swedes declined this offer.
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
- The wiki-leaks were a bit more than a minor irritation and I think you are understating how damaging the cables were to the US and its foreign policy. To give a few examples it caused a spate with Russia (Putin found out exactly what was thought of him), caused US ambassadors to be expelled in South America once those country's governments learned of what tomfoolery the US was up to there (including Ecuador - no doubt the reason they are giving Assange sanctuary). Some of the meeting moments from the Middle East were particularly enlightening, with the likes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia requesting the US to "please bomb country x for us". There has been a fair amount of hashish-pipe smoking needed since by US diplomats.
Seriously, I would thoroughly recommend an evening reading through some of the wiki-leaks stuff, it's thoroughly entertaining and will also reduce your confidence in the people in politics, and their intelligence, considerably..
- The fact that the UK government seemed to be seriously considering breaking the Vienna Convention to go into the Ecuadorian embassy to get Assange gives you some idea of what is happening here. Pretty much every solicitor in existence has now informed them that they mis-interpreted the law they were going to use to break the treaty, and it's now been put on the back burner. But, that this plan even raised its head gives some idea of external pressure.
- The US says 'we don't want him', and he would pick up his coat, go outside and get arrested. The fact that the US hasn't said this, or any kind of comment in fact, probably indicates that they are building up a solid case against him. Apparently 10 years imprisonment for every break of the 'secrets act', it would probably be a bad idea of him to leave the Embassy without a good collection of reading material at this point.
I agree that Assange comes across as massively slidy. But, this isn't about him, it's about transparency in government and international relations, and it will set a precedent for this kind of thing in future. The tragedy of all of this is that people seem more intent on getting Assange in the stocks and pelting him with rotten vegetables, when really he should be lauded for exposing so many politicians as being even more nefarious and amoral than many could have thought they would be, and perhaps even stopping a few of the worst plans in their tracks.
15447
Post by: rubiksnoob
Frazzled wrote:Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
That's easy.
Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.
Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.
Blow it up. Its the Chicago Way.
Roger that, package inbound.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Pacific wrote:- The wiki-leaks were a bit more than a minor irritation and I think you are understating how damaging the cables were to the US and its foreign policy. To give a few examples it caused a spate with Russia (Putin found out exactly what was thought of him), caused US ambassadors to be expelled in South America once those country's governments learned of what tomfoolery the US was up to there (including Ecuador - no doubt the reason they are giving Assange sanctuary). Some of the meeting moments from the Middle East were particularly enlightening, with the likes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia requesting the US to "please bomb country x for us". There has been a fair amount of hashish-pipe smoking needed since by US diplomats.
It's about as embarrassing as being caught telling a dirty joke about your friend at a party. Sure he gets embarrassed and a little PO'd, but in the end he'll let it go cause he's invested too much in his relationship with you to really stay angry forever of such a minor gaffe.
- The US says 'we don't want him', and he would pick up his coat, go outside and get arrested.
No he wouldn't. Assange drinks too much of his own Kool-aid and assumes everyone is out to get him.
The fact that the US hasn't said this, or any kind of comment in fact, probably indicates that they are building up a solid case against him.
... Or they don't think it's worthy of comment? Hell, the US government would probably love to put him from the ringer, but I doubt they feel like going out of their way to do it. If they really wanted to be rid of him, they'd just do something. But seeing as Assange is a satire of himself, I think the government is content to sit back and watch his stupidity play out.
But, this isn't about him, it's about transparency in government and international relations, and it will set a precedent for this kind of thing in future.
You realize the stupidity of that right? If there is no confidence that diplomatic discussions will be kept confidential, there's no reason for any country to speak to any other country with any confidence that what is said will be believed or regarded with seriousness. After all, if the US is just going to publicly announce how nervous the ME is about Iran, why would any country in the region bother expressing to us their concerns?
Transparency is just the toy word people like to throw out in place of "government bad." The nature of international relations forces some things to be secret, otherwise the system ceases to function.
The tragedy of all of this is that people seem more intent on getting Assange in the stocks and pelting him with rotten vegetables, when really he should be lauded for exposing so many politicians as being even more nefarious and amoral than many could have thought they would be, and perhaps even stopping a few of the worst plans in their tracks.
No. The tragedy is that a joke like Assange can make a fool of himself, undermine diplomatic relations with a silly little game of "oh look what I found", pretend what he's doing is actually great, be a complete douche and harass women, and get a free pass right off the bat cause he's a "great whistle blower."
The man's a joke.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Interesting.
Pacific wrote:
- The wiki-leaks were a bit more than a minor irritation and I think you are understating how damaging the cables were to the US and its foreign policy. To give a few examples it caused a spate with Russia (Putin found out exactly what was thought of him), caused US ambassadors to be expelled in South America once those country's governments learned of what tomfoolery the US was up to there (including Ecuador - no doubt the reason they are giving Assange sanctuary). Some of the meeting moments from the Middle East were particularly enlightening, with the likes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia requesting the US to "please bomb country x for us". There has been a fair amount of hashish-pipe smoking needed since by US diplomats.
Seriously, I would thoroughly recommend an evening reading through some of the wiki-leaks stuff, it's thoroughly entertaining and will also reduce your confidence in the people in politics, and their intelligence, considerably..
That is reason to hammer the guy who leaked the information. Wikileaks on the other hand has no moral obligation to keep the US's secrets.
The US wants Assange for revenge, not justice.
Pacific wrote:
- The fact that the UK government seemed to be seriously considering breaking the Vienna Convention to go into the Ecuadorian embassy to get Assange gives you some idea of what is happening here. Pretty much every solicitor in existence has now informed them that they mis-interpreted the law they were going to use to break the treaty, and it's now been put on the back burner. But, that this plan even raised its head gives some idea of external pressure.
This I find worrisome. Though it appears the UK is looking for treaty loopholes to use.
My take is don't bother: it will cost us a whole lot, in return for not much.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Cite an example.
Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kanluwen wrote:Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Cite an example.
Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.
Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Orlanth wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Cite an example.
Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.
Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.
It's stupid. It really is.
Do you think the CIA goes around coming up with ways to make pompous, arrogant gits like Assange discredit themselves?
I can't believe anyone still takes his claims of "innocence" seriously.
He had his chance to cooperate with the Swedish authorities when the event happened, and instead he went to England.
When England suggested they'd turn him over, it's a "conspiracy".
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
If the US is gunning for Assange why didn't they request the UK extradite him when he was in British custody?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
KalashnikovMarine wrote:If the US is gunning for Assange why didn't they request the UK extradite him when he was in British custody?
Because it would be too obvious. Clearly, the US would prefer a extravagent plan of numerous over complications rather than taking a single action that would solve the problem.
It's not a grand conspiracy until it's GRAND sir
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Cite an example.
Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.
Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.
It's stupid. It really is.
Do you think the CIA goes around coming up with ways to make pompous, arrogant gits like Assange discredit themselves?
I can't believe anyone still takes his claims of "innocence" seriously.
He had his chance to cooperate with the Swedish authorities when the event happened, and instead he went to England.
When England suggested they'd turn him over, it's a "conspiracy".
Well in order to try and get Gary McKinnon the US upgrades adding some trolling comments to a hacked US government website into multiple counts of damage exheeding $500 a computer. That threshold was needed to make the case extraditable.
McKinnon is harmless but causing embarrassment, so the case is ongoing. Thankfully for him extraditing McKinnon would be a major PR problem for the government, so the case is caught up in constant red tape.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
LordofHats wrote:KalashnikovMarine wrote:If the US is gunning for Assange why didn't they request the UK extradite him when he was in British custody?
Because it would be too obvious. Clearly, the US would prefer a extravagent plan of numerous over complications rather than taking a single action that would solve the problem.
It's not a grand conspiracy until it's GRAND sir
Of course how silly of me. 
21720
Post by: LordofHats
...
Comparing Gary McKinnon to Assange is a travesty. Assange is a 10 year old boy who likes to pretend he's fighting against the man and his actions amount to a minor annoyance on par with constantly asking "Am I important yet? Pay attention to me!"
Gary McKinnon is a computer genius who shut down numerous military computer networks and a small NASA network for 24 hours and cost tax payers hundreds of thousands while those systems were repaired, and deleted data files were restored. The sad thing for Gary McKinnon is trying to prosecute an autistic, not that his actions were harmless.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Orlanth wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Cite an example.
Assange is full of crap. He's claiming that the CIA engineered this whole elaborate honey trap using two Swedish women, with the collaboration of the Swedish government.
Well the US is gunning for him, its not that improbable a defence.
It's stupid. It really is.
Do you think the CIA goes around coming up with ways to make pompous, arrogant gits like Assange discredit themselves?
I can't believe anyone still takes his claims of "innocence" seriously.
He had his chance to cooperate with the Swedish authorities when the event happened, and instead he went to England.
When England suggested they'd turn him over, it's a "conspiracy".
Well in order to try and get Gary McKinnon the US upgrades adding some trolling comments to a hacked US government website into multiple counts of damage exceeding $500 a computer. That threshold was needed to make the case extraditable.
I think you need to step back and realize what you're saying.
Gary McKinnon accessed hundreds--if not thousands--of computers associated with the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies searching for in his own words "evidence of free energy suppression and knowledge about unidentified flying objects".
McKinnon is harmless but causing embarrassment, so the case is ongoing. Thankfully for him extraditing McKinnon would be a major PR problem for the government, so the case is caught up in constant red tape.
Er no. The case is "ongoing" largely because of McKinnon being mentally ill, suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.
There was an attempt made for him to have a severely reduced sentence (he currently faces ~7-10 years per count, with 7 counts--amounting up to 70 or more years). The deal was for 3 and a half to 4 years) which was rejected by his barrister on his behalf.
49775
Post by: DIDM
one great suggestion I heard was have him packaged up in a shipping crate as diplomatic property and shipped to Ecuador
18375
Post by: AndrewC
LordofHats wrote:Gary McKinnon is a computer genius who shut down numerous military computer networks
IIRC he used an 'off the shelf' product bought on the internet and gained access via poor security protocols. I would disagree that he is a computer genius. Otherwise he wouldn't have been caught.
and a small NASA network for 24 hours and cost tax payers hundreds of thousands while those systems were repaired, and deleted data files were restored. The sad thing for Gary McKinnon is trying to prosecute an autistic, not that his actions were harmless.
I wouldn't disagree, but the cynic in me can't help but think that the US inflated the 'damages' in order to fast track the entire process.
Cheers
Andrew
21720
Post by: LordofHats
AndrewC wrote:IIRC he used an 'off the shelf' product bought on the internet and gained access via poor security protocols. I would disagree that he is a computer genius. Otherwise he wouldn't have been caught.
While this is true, the feat is still marvelous. Back when he did this in 2002, it was an unheard of feat. Even with poor security, cutting into numerous networks at the same time, deleting OS security files, copy others, and compromising entire systems as a single operator within a matter of hours is an outstanding case of hacking (EDIT: To ad perspective, it takes Anonymous botnets and numerous operates to even execute simpler breaches against corporations today).
That he was caught was kind of inevitable. It's no where near as hard to track hackers as people seem to think it is.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Kanluwen wrote:Pacific wrote:
- Sweden has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process.
Cite an example.
This good enough?
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
Ecuador attempted to gain assurances from Sweden it would not extradite Assange to the US in order to consider releasing him. Sweden declined.
Ecuador then attempted to gain assurances from the US it would not request extradition. The US declined.
Make of that what you will.
To me, it's pretty obvious what is happening here, and I'm quite willing to consider these accusations against the guy conveniently appearing right when they did not being a coincidence. When the US government pressures corporations into blocking payments to Wikileaks, you really have to be in a bad case of denial to not see that there are some very dirty strings being pulled here.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
It's not.
Why? Because to put it bluntly: far too many countries had their hands dirty in that crap to paint it as "Sweden and the US are BFFs!".
Ecuador attempted to gain assurances from Sweden it would not extradite Assange to the US in order to consider releasing him. Sweden declined.
Ecuador then attempted to gain assurances from the US it would not request extradition. The US declined.
Make of that what you will.
Of course they made no assurances. There's no reason for extradition to take place from Sweden to the US.
The man is on trial for sexual assaults.
To me, it's pretty obvious what is happening here, and I'm quite willing to consider these accusations against the guy conveniently appearing right when they did not being a coincidence. When the US government pressures corporations into blocking payments to Wikileaks, you really have to be in a bad case of denial to not see that there are some very dirty strings being pulled here.
And this is why Assange is able to throw himself up on a plywood cross and get away with this bollocks.
49272
Post by: Testify
The guy wants amnesty in Ecuador, because he's afraid of the death penalty in the USA, when he faces charges in Sweden (which doesn't have the death penalty).
It would be unlawful for either the UK or Sweden to extradite him to the USA if he was facing the death penalty anyway. And I trust British or Swedish judges before I trust Ecuadorian judges
This is all ignoring the fact that the Yanks don't even want him.
34390
Post by: whembly
Testify wrote:The guy wants amnesty in Ecuador, because he's afraid of the death penalty in the USA, when he faces charges in Sweden (which doesn't have the death penalty).
It would be unlawful for either the UK or Sweden to extradite him to the USA if he was facing the death penalty anyway. And I trust British or Swedish judges before I trust Ecuadorian judges
This is all ignoring the fact that the Yanks don't even want him.
Is he a US citizen? 'cuz the only way I can see he'd get the death penalty is for treason... and that's not likely.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
whembly wrote:Testify wrote:The guy wants amnesty in Ecuador, because he's afraid of the death penalty in the USA, when he faces charges in Sweden (which doesn't have the death penalty).
It would be unlawful for either the UK or Sweden to extradite him to the USA if he was facing the death penalty anyway. And I trust British or Swedish judges before I trust Ecuadorian judges
This is all ignoring the fact that the Yanks don't even want him.
Is he a US citizen? 'cuz the only way I can see he'd get the death penalty is for treason... and that's not likely.
We're not even pursuing the death penalty for the idiot who did that massive intell leak for him, I don't remember his name so I'll just refer to him as weasel beast. I mean he wouldn't last long in the gp at Fort Leavenworth but still, JAG is just going for jail time.
27706
Post by: grrrfranky
I would imagine that the reason Sweden has declined to just send people to interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy is because it will be meaningless if they decide there is a case to answer. Can you see Assange turning round and deciding that in fact he will go to Sweden to stand trial after all?
grrr
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
grrrfranky wrote:I would imagine that the reason Sweden has declined to just send people to interview him in the Ecuadorian embassy is because it will be meaningless if they decide there is a case to answer. Can you see Assange turning round and deciding that in fact he will go to Sweden to stand trial after all?
grrr
Here's how that conversation would go.
Assange: "Inspector thank you for flying to London"
Swedish Cop: "Anything to pursue the truth of the matter..."
*long conversation and interview*
Swedish Cop: "Unfortunately Mr. Assange I've determined that there is indeed cause for a trial in this circumstance and would ask you to accompany me back to Sweden in police custody."
Assange: "How about you eat a dick?"
Though personally if I've already gone to the trouble of fleeing the country, imagining a massive conspiracy theory and getting refuge and being granted asylum at a foreign embassy within the foreign country I originally fled to, I doubt I'd go home if someone just asked me to politely either.
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
They forgot the air holes.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There should be enough air to take him to the airport in that thing. Although without air holes UK customs might hold it up a bit...
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
That's easy.
Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.
Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.
British police stops the car as it's involve in unlawful activities. They're not allowed to search the car, but nothing's stopping them from stopping the car and waiting outside until Assange grows tired of waiting in a car.
Lynata wrote:
Ecuador attempted to gain assurances from Sweden it would not extradite Assange to the US in order to consider releasing him. Sweden declined.
Guess what? The Swedish Government has no say over what the Supreme Court decides. That's how the system is supposed to work, after all.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Some more Assange related news and it features the weasel beast!
http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/08/hurt-locker-film-team-hired-by-wikileaks-set-to-produce-bradley-manning-biopic/
From the article:
Assange says he fights for open information and access to secrets for everyone — although he refused to share his credit card number or email password.
“We’ve tried to be transparent [and give al Qaeda every advantage] with our intelligence dumps and having the U.S. eliminate Bin Laden was [simply unacceptable and] a great thing for the world. WikiLeaks continues to stress the importance of a more open [source of intelligence for terrorists] and just world.”
37231
Post by: d-usa
What a completely non-biased "news" source. Wonderful work.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
In related news, really? That's what they're making a movie about?
I'm gonna go see the one with Seals shooting OBL in the head. It'll at least be more actiony that watching "Random Army Guy #345602" lip sync Lady Gaga
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Before any one gets too bent out of shape I confess that article is more then a little trolling, the Duffelblog is the Military equivalent of the Onion.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Kanluwen wrote:It's not.
Why? Because to put it bluntly: far too many countries had their hands dirty in that crap to paint it as "Sweden and the US are BFFs!".
This wasn't what we were talking about. Pacific said Sweden "has a terrible record of handing people over to the CIA without any kind of legal process". Which you opposed, for whatever reason. The link I posted is an example of what could very well happen to Assange too.
Testify wrote:It would be unlawful for either the UK or Sweden to extradite him to the USA if he was facing the death penalty anyway.
It was also unlawful for Sweden to extradite those two Egyptians for the very same reasons, and it happened.
http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/committeedocs/2006/20060606_ejdoc162006partii-final.htm
whembly wrote:Is he a US citizen? 'cuz the only way I can see he'd get the death penalty is for treason... and that's not likely.
Don't you have a death penalty for spies or something?
Not that I actually deem that likely. I think it's far more possible that he'd simply be locked away. From what I garnered, the powers-that-be simply want to send a message. Actually killing him would be ... well, "overkill".
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Guess what? The Swedish Government has no say over what the Supreme Court decides. That's how the system is supposed to work, after all.
Guess what? That's wrong.
Who takes decisions on extradition from Sweden?
The Government takes decisions on extradition from Sweden.
What is the process for extradition from Sweden?
A request for extradition from Sweden is submitted to the Ministry of Justice. Before the Government takes a decision on the matter, an opinion must be sought from the Office of the Prosecutor-General. If the person whose extradition has been requested does not consent to extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor-General hands the matter and its opinion to the Supreme Court, which examines whether there are any impediments to extradition under the Extradition Act. The Supreme Court then hands the matter to the Government for a final decision on extradition. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an impediment to extradition, the Government may not approve the extradition request.
-- http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/16007
This is somewhat similar to how it works in the US, too, by the way: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kanluwen wrote:
I think you need to step back and realize what you're saying.
Gary McKinnon accessed hundreds--if not thousands--of computers associated with the Pentagon, NASA, and other agencies searching for in his own words "evidence of free energy suppression and knowledge about unidentified flying objects".
Yep, harmless.
Kanluwen wrote:
McKinnon is harmless but causing embarrassment, so the case is ongoing. Thankfully for him extraditing McKinnon would be a major PR problem for the government, so the case is caught up in constant red tape.
Er no. The case is "ongoing" largely because of McKinnon being mentally ill, suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.
Er no. Mckinnon has already lost mounted and failed all his appeals including one to the European Human Rights court. However while he is technically free to be extradited ASAP doing so would be politically disasterous.
Kanluwen wrote:
There was an attempt made for him to have a severely reduced sentence (he currently faces ~7-10 years per count, with 7 counts--amounting up to 70 or more years). The deal was for 3 and a half to 4 years) which was rejected by his barrister on his behalf.
4 years for trolling. That is no wrist slap.
The counts total 70 years because the 'damage' he causes of several hundred thousand dollars. That is to say his 'hacking' touched lots of computers each of which had to have suffered $500 damage to make the case extraditable, so lo and behold they did.
McKinnon caused no damage, he trolled some US government computers leaving anti-US slogans mostly relating to cover ups of UFO's. Sorry this guy is just a harmless nut. Automatically Appended Next Post: reds8n wrote:
Just as well, there are no air holes.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The counts total 70 years because the 'damage' he causes of several hundred thousand dollars. That is to say his 'hacking' touched lots of computers each of which had to have suffered $500 damage to make the case extraditable, so lo and behold they did.
You realize that the government had to reinstall operating systems for desktops, servers, and redo the network structure on numerous networks? I'm amazed it only cost them $500 per machine. All that work would take two or three dozen people a whole day, and they'd still be fixing minor stuff for weeks.
That said, he's definitely a nut.
514
Post by: Orlanth
LordofHats wrote:
You realize that the government had to reinstall operating systems for desktops, servers, and redo the network structure on numerous networks? I'm amazed it only cost them $500 per machine. All that work would take two or three dozen people a whole day, and they'd still be fixing minor stuff for weeks.
Reinstall. So McKinnon exposed a security weakness and that is 'damage'. Its easy to charge time for staff to reinstall and puff up figures to $500, those staff are on payroll anyway, purportedly to run a secure system.
Its a simple case of lashing out after wounded pride.
LordofHats wrote:
That said, he's definitely a nut.
Oh indeed, he is a little boy who tugged a tiger by the tail and has been crying ever since.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Orlanth wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
There was an attempt made for him to have a severely reduced sentence (he currently faces ~7-10 years per count, with 7 counts--amounting up to 70 or more years). The deal was for 3 and a half to 4 years) which was rejected by his barrister on his behalf.
4 years for trolling. That is no wrist slap.
You have absolutely no clue what "trolling" is if you're associating intrusion and compromising computers with it.
The counts total 70 years because the 'damage' he causes of several hundred thousand dollars. That is to say his 'hacking' touched lots of computers each of which had to have suffered $500 damage to make the case extraditable, so lo and behold they did.
McKinnon caused no damage, he trolled some US government computers leaving anti-US slogans mostly relating to cover ups of UFO's.
Again: you have no clue what trolling is if you're associating intrusion and compromising of systems with it.
Also, "damage" is not necessarily physical damage done. It also includes things like lost wages, etc--or in this instance, overtime wages for IT personnel, time spent tracking down McKinnon, and more.
Sorry this guy is just a harmless nut.
He's a nut and while he certainly did not think he was causing harm in the nominal sense--he did still cause harm.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Orlanth wrote:Reinstall. So McKinnon exposed a security weakness and that is 'damage'. Its easy to charge time for staff to reinstall and puff up figures to $500, those staff are on payroll anyway, purportedly to run a secure system.
In his break in, he deleted files from multiple computers which caused them to stop working right forcing a reinstall first of the OS and then of all software. That does add up. While we can debate whether any 'harm' was done, I think claiming the US government trumped up the cost is showing a lack of knowledge in how much a computer and IT services are actually worth.
Oh indeed, he is a little boy who tugged a tiger by the tail and has been crying ever since.
Well he is autistic. I don't expect him to be up to par with everyone else, even if he's a wiz with the keyboard.
57235
Post by: Daemonhammer
a comment on that site: they cant go into the embassy because Ecuador will invade the UK and attack with nuclear missils
49272
Post by: Testify
Hmm, do you have any more info on this? Sweden is a civilised country, i find it hard to believe there would not be more to it than that.
45703
Post by: Lynata
Testify wrote:Hmm, do you have any more info on this? Sweden is a civilised country, i find it hard to believe there would not be more to it than that.
I was surprised as well, particularly as Sweden was pretty much singled out in the UNCAT investigation.
You just have to google the terms "Sweden" and "CIA" though, that's how I found the initial article I posted first.
Unrelated, but the CIA also promoted GLADIO operations in Sweden. I don't believe this is in any way connected to the current situation, but perhaps it is worth knowing that Sweden isn't as "untouched" as one might believe at first.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Parliament_resolution_on_Gladio
It's interesting what you can dig up when looking around. Just last month I discovered an old news article about how, in 1978, the secret service of Germany's Interior Ministry and a GSG9 special police team conspired to stage a prison break to further escalate the ongoing conflict between the state and the Red Army Faction terrorist group. So the state bombed a hole into one of its own prisons, thus attempting to "prove" the guiltiness of an inmate jailed for suspected RAF membership, and tools to help the escape were planted in his cell. Yet even though the bomb was detonated, there was no escape attempted.
The whole thing blew up a second time - figuratively speaking - when a news report published in 1986 uncovered that this attack was, in fact, not committed by other terrorists but by agents of the government. It led to a huge inquiry within the government. And then there's the curious fact that the suspected RAF member died in prison shortly before he would have been released as his sentence was up.
If you're interested, the whole incident also has an English wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole
Just goes to show what can happen behind the official veil of justice and laws.
514
Post by: Orlanth
You have absolutely no clue what "trolling" is if you're associating intrusion and compromising computers with it.
He was compromising computers as in visiting them. We are not causing damage to Dakak by visituing it. McKinnons visit was unwelcome, the 'damage' caused was in lost face and embarrassment. hacking the US governmentcomputers does not cause damage, instead if you see pathways into the system then nweed covering then that isjnt damage its cost that should have been bourne up already.
The only damage, mcKinnon actually caused WAS trolling. He left rude messages on the government servers. That damage can be summed up as: offense caused, which admittedly is actionable.
 Kanluwen wrote:
Again: you have no clue what trolling is if you're associating intrusion and compromising of systems with it.
It was explained clearly enough, try rereading properly. There was no actual damage caused. He broke in and left rude remarks when he couldn't find evidence of UFO cover ups. Thats all, no systems down, nothing smashed, no virus unleashed.
Kanluwen wrote:
Also, "damage" is not necessarily physical damage done. It also includes things like lost wages, etc--or in this instance, overtime wages for IT personnel, time spent tracking down McKinnon, and more.
Thats BS and you know it. If you steal something worth $100 and it costs the police $10000 to find you and you go to court and get fined. Your fine is calculated on the $100 stolen not the $10000 police costs.
Secondly if let us say the computers needed three walls each costing a million dollars, but build only two and someone exploits the third. The hacker hasn't cost you a million dollars for wall number three, that cost should already have been met.
Major government websites including military website access should not be open to mentally ill script kiddies looking for UFO's. Its not a fair cost to level at McKinnon, its just wounded pride.
Kanluwen wrote:
He's a nut and while he certainly did not think he was causing harm in the nominal sense--he did still cause harm.
i disagree, on aggregate he did the US a favour. Some far nastier could use the same entryway. He exposed the door and coorperated when interrogated. People have been pardoned and hired for less.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 Lynata wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Guess what? The Swedish Government has no say over what the Supreme Court decides. That's how the system is supposed to work, after all.
Guess what? That's wrong.
Who takes decisions on extradition from Sweden?
The Government takes decisions on extradition from Sweden.
What is the process for extradition from Sweden?
A request for extradition from Sweden is submitted to the Ministry of Justice. Before the Government takes a decision on the matter, an opinion must be sought from the Office of the Prosecutor-General. If the person whose extradition has been requested does not consent to extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor-General hands the matter and its opinion to the Supreme Court, which examines whether there are any impediments to extradition under the Extradition Act. The Supreme Court then hands the matter to the Government for a final decision on extradition. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an impediment to extradition, the Government may not approve the extradition request.
-- http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/16007
This is somewhat similar to how it works in the US, too, by the way: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/15mcrm.htm
Emphasis mine. The Government does not decide what the Supreme Court decides, that is not the way the system works. Thanks for proving my point for me.
 Testify wrote:
Hmm, do you have any more info on this? Sweden is a civilised country, i find it hard to believe there would not be more to it than that.
As a Swede, I can guarantee that there was quite a ruckus in Sweden and that, had she not been shot dead already, Foreign Minister Anna Lindh would probably have had to resign. Any government doing anything similar would find it's support severely weakened; people were outraged (and rightly so) over the extradition of the Egyptians.
Then again, find any country in the world that hasn't had an epic justice system failure.
45703
Post by: Lynata
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Emphasis mine. The Government does not decide what the Supreme Court decides, that is not the way the system works. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Did you read until the end? Let me shift that emphasis a little.
Swedish Government wrote:A request for extradition from Sweden is submitted to the Ministry of Justice. Before the Government takes a decision on the matter, an opinion must be sought from the Office of the Prosecutor-General. If the person whose extradition has been requested does not consent to extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor-General hands the matter and its opinion to the Supreme Court, which examines whether there are any impediments to extradition under the Extradition Act. The Supreme Court then hands the matter to the Government for a final decision on extradition. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an impediment to extradition, the Government may not approve the extradition request.
5534
Post by: dogma
You're overly sensitive, and tend to perceive insult where neutrality might exist. That's probably leftover from your idea that people must pick sides; which assumes binary logic.
You should never assume binary logic.
 Orlanth wrote:
i disagree, on aggregate he did the US a favour. Some far nastier could use the same entryway. He exposed the door and coorperated when interrogated. People have been pardoned and hired for less.
But his own initial access point was unsecured, which is a huge issue when you start accessing any important files.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
The McKinnon thing is a complete joke, it's completely vindictive behavior by the US.
I'm not sure why they wouldn't keep it quiet, instead of broadcasting how inept their security protocols were.
Back OT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19310784
Julian Assange is expected to make a public statement later on the diplomatic row that has engulfed him since being granted asylum by Ecuador.
Wikileaks says its founder is to speak outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has been since June.
He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.
The BBC's Andrew Plant reports from outside the embassy where crowds have gathered throughout the morning.
A lot of Police around to arrest an alleged rapist... great use of Police time and money.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Lynata wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:Emphasis mine. The Government does not decide what the Supreme Court decides, that is not the way the system works. Thanks for proving my point for me.
Did you read until the end? Let me shift that emphasis a little.
Swedish Government wrote:A request for extradition from Sweden is submitted to the Ministry of Justice. Before the Government takes a decision on the matter, an opinion must be sought from the Office of the Prosecutor-General. If the person whose extradition has been requested does not consent to extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor-General hands the matter and its opinion to the Supreme Court, which examines whether there are any impediments to extradition under the Extradition Act. The Supreme Court then hands the matter to the Government for a final decision on extradition. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an impediment to extradition, the Government may not approve the extradition request.
That's not a "may" as in "might not", it's a "may" as in "is not allowed to".
The original Swedish text reads:
Swedish Government wrote:En framställning om utlämning från Sverige ska ges in till Justitiedepartementet. Innan regeringen fattar beslut i ärendet ska yttrande inhämtas från Riksåklagaren. Om den som är begärd utlämnad inte samtycker till utlämning överlämnar Riksåklagaren ärendet jämte sitt yttrande till Högsta domstolen som prövar om det föreligger hinder enligt utlämningslagen mot utlämning. Högsta domstolen överlämnar sedan ärendet till regeringen för slutligt avgörande av frågan om utlämning. Om Högsta domstolen finner att det föreligger hinder mot utlämning får regeringen inte bifalla utlämningsframställningen.
The confusion seems to stem from someone who is weak in the art of English-fu translating the Swedish text into English; correctly and unambiguously translated it should read "If the Supreme Court finds that there is an impediment to extradition, the Government is not permitted to approve the extradition request.
I stand corrected though, it is indeed the government that gives final permission. The Swedish Government could indeed have chosen to give Assange a guarantee of not being extradited to the US, but did not. Regardless, the Swedish Government is under no obligation to provide guarantees to anyone. It'd be political suicide to hand him over to the US anyway.
 Medium of Death wrote:
A lot of Police around to arrest an alleged rapist... great use of Police time and money.
Wait, are you saying that the Police shouldn't be investigating allegations of rape?
19548
Post by: cpt_fishcakes
Medium of Death wrote:
A lot of Police around to arrest an alleged rapist... great use of Police time and money.
Its not like there hiring extra officers just to stand guard at the Embassy. Its London the Police are used to this sort of thing.
Can someone please tell Milky Joe and his legions of blind sheeple that he is not charged with anything in the USA and there not seeking his extradition. Once you look at the facts this whole thing is just stupid, and Assange is just some mewling moron who thinks theres some kind of global conspiracy to feck him over. The mess he is in is entirely a creation of his own paranoia and stupidity, he deserves no ones support and no ones sympathy he is just an idiot.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 cpt_fishcakes wrote:Assange is just some mewling moron who thinks theres some kind of global conspiracy to feck him over.
Indubitably. That really is all there is. Assange is just some worthless ass-hat that just HAD to politicize a neutral organization for his own twisted, paranoid, and mentally slowed fantasies.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I saw a good parody of him on the AI Secret Policeman's Ball performance last night. Sadly I can only find a fraction of it on Youtube right now, and it's missing most of the funny.
557
Post by: alphaecho
Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
That's easy.
Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.
Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.
Flaw in the plan. the Ecuadorian Embassy is not like the US one. It has no premises you can drive into. It is in a shared block so police can enter the building, just not the Ecuadorian offices.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
 Melissia wrote: cpt_fishcakes wrote:Assange is just some mewling moron who thinks theres some kind of global conspiracy to feck him over.
Indubitably.
That really is all there is. Assange is just some worthless ass-hat that just HAD to politicize a neutral organization for his own twisted, paranoid, and mentally slowed fantasies.
This. Assange is a couple shooters short of a grassy knoll. That's all there is to it. If the major Western governments wanted him dead or captured he would have either been dead or vanished from the face of the earth long ago. The problem for the United States or any other goverment isn't Assange, it's weasel beast and his confederates who've done the leaking. Assange has just hosted a website and giving himself a messiah complex.
514
Post by: Orlanth
alphaecho wrote: Orlanth wrote:AlmightyWalrus wrote:And Ecuador has granted him asylum. Wonder how they're planning on getting him there though...
That's easy.
Assange gets on an Equadorian registered diplomatic vehicle with CD plates on the embassy premesis. The diplomatic vehicle, which is Equadorian territory goes to the airport and Assange gets on an Equadroain diplomatic jet from the door of the limo without setting foot on the ground. The jet flies to Equador.
Done this way Assange never enters UK jurisdiction.
I hope he gets away, trying to stop this is going to do nothing but sour relations with Equador, which is already making ugly noises. If Assange's freedom upsets the Obama government so be it, not point in trying to help stop the egg on his face from running when it is plain as day he does nothing in return for us, in fact quite the opposite.
Flaw in the plan. the Ecuadorian Embassy is not like the US one. It has no premises you can drive into. It is in a shared block so police can enter the building, just not the Ecuadorian offices.
Ok, scratch that one. I didnt know about the grounds.
Blocking a group of embassies is going to cause a lot of inconvenience to third parties. It would not be improper for the other nations to complain home and have their governments summon the British ambassador back home to explain.
I really dont like at all this can of worms being stirred over as worthless a piece of gak as Assange. Be rid of him and let Sweden negotiate with Equador, if Equador wants to take responsibility for him they should be allowed to do so. We could express disappointment and support Swedens call for extradition. Trouble is the government has the bit between their teeth now, that moment has passed. By caving in they win nothing and piss off Sweden and the US as well as Equador.
What irks me is that until last week we had better relations with Equador than practically any other Latin American country, what the feth was the government thinking. Hague puts his point across well, but I rather wish he didn't. Automatically Appended Next Post:  KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This. Assange is a couple shooters short of a grassy knoll. That's all there is to it. If the major Western governments wanted him dead or captured he would have either been dead or vanished from the face of the earth long ago. The problem for the United States or any other government isn't Assange, it's weasel beast and his confederates who've done the leaking. Assange has just hosted a website and giving himself a messiah complex.
Hmm no. The US actually has stated it wants to arrest Assange, but cannot extradite him from a European country as their reasons to do so would be laughed out of court.
If the US wanted him dead they would know better than to kill him in a European country, it would have conspiracy theorists and human rights groups howling for a long time and it would heavily damage US relations.
I do not think the US wants Assange so bad they want him illegally, if they did there is no way Assange would want to flee to any Latin American country. The CIA would be rubbing its hands with glee if they wanted to snatch or kill him, and I really cant see Assange being that much of a fool as to walk into the firing line. What I don't understand is why Assange didnt try to flee to Oz. The Australians have no hesitation to stick the finger to the US if it makes demands, its the Aussie way, and Assange can shelter there being a natural Australian who has committed no crime under Aussie law (that the US is interested in).
21720
Post by: LordofHats
The CIA would be rubbing its hands with glee if they wanted to snatch or kill him, and I really cant see Assange being that much of a fool as to walk into the firing line.
I think you give him too much credit. He called releasing documents and video about US Army killing civilians in Iraq a triumph for transparency. The Army had released most of the documents and admitted fault for the incident a month prior.
Assange is a grand-standing idiot with a messiah complex. He's not that bright.
557
Post by: alphaecho
I bet Wikileaks won't release anything about Ecuador fpr a while. In the eyes of the non-biased Assange has lost any credibility after today's preaching about free press from the embassy of a country that has this said about it by Human Rights Watch:
Ecuador’s laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics. Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate ‘terrorism’ charges.
Link: http://www.hrw.org/americas/ecuador
Apparently his supporters at the Guardian paper had to be told to stop using a certain nickname they had for Assange, possibly due to bad or even lack of hygiene. Yes, even this international story can descend into farcical "Well, he smells" mud slinging.
My personal view is that I cannot trust anything from a bail jumper who did not care about the idiots who stumped up the £250000 bail for him on the first place.
514
Post by: Orlanth
 LordofHats wrote:The CIA would be rubbing its hands with glee if they wanted to snatch or kill him, and I really cant see Assange being that much of a fool as to walk into the firing line.
I think you give him too much credit. He called releasing documents and video about US Army killing civilians in Iraq a triumph for transparency. The Army had released most of the documents and admitted fault for the incident a month prior.
Assange is a grand-standing idiot with a messiah complex. He's not that bright.
Too much credit, or your not giving him enough?
He would have to be monumentally stupid to not realise that Latin America is the CIA's playpen, especially with all he understood about the murkier world from his own organisation.
Even if he was monumentally stupid he has become connected to and of importance to plenty of people, some of whom at least won't be.
I cannot see him going to Equador if he feared the the US government would use its intelligence community to hunt him there.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Too much. Assange isn't some brilliant person, he's an idiot with a chip on his shoulder. Wikileaks was doing just fine until he decided to politicize it for his own personal agenda. He isn't out to reveal the truth, he's just by his own admission attacking the US because he doesn't like us.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
LordofHats wrote:The CIA would be rubbing its hands with glee if they wanted to snatch or kill him, and I really cant see Assange being that much of a fool as to walk into the firing line.
I think you give him too much credit. He called releasing documents and video about US Army killing civilians in Iraq a triumph for transparency. The Army had released most of the documents and admitted fault for the incident a month prior.
Assange is a grand-standing idiot with a messiah complex. He's not that bright.
Well actually the video of the gunship attack which killed 2 reporters, at least one unarmed man attempting to help one of the reporters after he was shot and wounded that mans two children including giving one brain damage from shrapnel was not officially released prior to Wikileaks release of it. A Freedom of Information request for the footage made by Reuters (whose journalists had been killed) was blocked by the Pentagon.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
And is the video really that important?
Pentagon: "We are sad to announce that there was an incident in which an Army attack helicopter fired on and killed unarmed civilians in Iraq."
Reporters: "We want video!"
?
And yes. The Army had released the video. They released it before Wikileaks did, but after Wikileaks acquired a copy.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Well actually the video of the gunship attack which killed 2 reporters, at least one unarmed man attempting to help one of the reporters after he was shot and wounded that mans two children including giving one brain damage from shrapnel was not officially released prior to Wikileaks release of it. A Freedom of Information request for the footage made by Reuters (whose journalists had been killed) was blocked by the Pentagon.
This was discuss long ago. If I remember correctly the pilots were cleared afterwards.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
LordofHats wrote:And is the video really that important? Pentagon: "We are sad to announce that there was an incident in which an Army attack helicopter fired on and killed unarmed civilians in Iraq." Reporters: "We want video!" ? And yes. The Army had released the video. They released it before Wikileaks did, but after Wikileaks acquired a copy.
I would think that a helicopter opening fire on an unarmed civilian and his van causing the deaths of a civilian, a reporter and the wounding of two children is important. Also, this would disagree with your assertion that the US released the video first. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2010/04/20104814952153608.html The army had given its verdict on the investigation, not released the video. An internal legal review by staff at Forward Operating Base Loyalty in Iraq during July 2007 stated that the helicopters had attacked a number of armed insurgents within the rules of engagement, and that in an apparent case of collateral damage two reporters working for Reuters had also been killed. The review would not be released in full until 2010, after the video of the incident had been released by WikiLeaks.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.
Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.
[Add: also now see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]
(Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.)
One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.
(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)
Two: “Assange is more likely to be extradited to USA from Sweden than the United Kingdom”
This is similarly untrue. Any extradition from Sweden to the United States would actually be more difficult. This is because it would require the consent of both Sweden and the United Kingdom.
(See Francis FitzGibbon QC’s Nothing Like the Sun for further detail on this.)
One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three.
In reality, the best opportunity for the United States for Assange to be extradited is whilst he is in the United Kingdom.
Three: “Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA”
It would not be legally possible for Swedish government to give any guarantee about a future extradition, and nor would it have any binding effect on the Swedish legal system in the event of a future extradition request.
By asking for this 'guarantee', Assange is asking the impossible, as he probably knows. Under international law, all extradition requests have to be dealt with on their merits and in accordance with the applicable law; and any final word on an extradition would (quite properly) be with an independent Swedish court, and not the government giving the purported 'guarantee'.
(See extradition and criminal lawyer Niall McCluskey for further detail on this.)
Also Sweden (like the United Kingdom) is bound by EU and ECHR law not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture. There would be no extradition to the United States in such circumstances.
(See Mark Klamberg’s blog for further information on this.)
Four: “The Swedes should interview Assange in London”
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange’s many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or “indictment”). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not “disproportionate” as submitted by Assange’s lawyers:
160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange's surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.
The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.
Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.
Five: “By giving Assange asylum, Ecuador is protecting freedom of the press”
This is perhaps the strangest proposition.
Ecuador has a woeful record on freedom of the press. It is 104th in the index of world press freedom, and even the quickest glance at the examples of press abuse in Ecuador accumulated by Reporters Without Borders and Index on Censorship indicate a regime with a starkly dreadful and illiberal record on freedom of expression.
It has even recently been reported that a blogger called Alexander Barankov is to be extradited by Ecuador to Belarus, of all places, where he may face the death penalty.
Whatever the reason for Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange, there is no basis for seeing it as based on any sincere concern for media freedom either in Ecuador or elsewhere.
The way forward
Due process is important. It is the formal means by which competing demands and seperate interests can be accommodated and reconciled in any overall litigation process. This is why due process is an important liberal principle.
Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in Sweden. It was upheld.
He then repeatedly challenged the European Arrest Warrant in the United Kingdom. He lost at every stage, but each of his many legal arguments were heard and considered in extensive detail.
And in doing this, Assange had the assistance of first rate legal advice and advocacy from some of the UK's leading human rights lawyers, and he also had the benefit of having been granted bail in England in the meantime. The extradition was fought by him all the way to the Supreme Court.
Assange has been afforded more opportunities to challenge the warrant for his arrest than almost any other defendant in English legal history. This is hardly "persecution" or a "witch-hunt".
The English side of the process is now almost over: there is a valid European Arrest Warrant which has to be enforced as a matter of international law.
If Assange is extradited to Sweden, it may well be that the serious allegations of rape and sexual assault cannot be substantiated. But that is entirely a matter for the Swedish investigators and for any Swedish court. It is not an issue which can be dealt with by proxy in English litigation, and still less by heated internet exchanges. In the event of an extradition request by the USA then Assange has the same rights under EU and ECHR law as he has in the United Kingdom, together with an additional safeguard of consent being required from both UK and Sweden. It is difficult to see a sensible and well-based reason why Assange should not now go to Sweden.
Even taking the worries of Assange and his supporters at face value and at their highest, there is nothing which actually means the due process of a current rape and sexual assault investigation should be delayed any further or abandoned.
It is important to remember that complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too, even when the suspect is Julian Assange.
[Postscript, 22 August: the "temporary surrender" Zombie fact has now been exposed by legal blogger Greg Callus. This means all the supposed legal points argued by Assange supporters have been addressed by one UK legal blogger or other.]
David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman
59752
Post by: Steve steveson
 reds8n wrote:
Whatever the reason for Ecuador granting political asylum to Assange, there is no basis for seeing it as based on any sincere concern for media freedom either in Ecuador or elsewhere.
I thought the reason was clear. International willy waving by Ecuador. I suspect that Assange will very quickly find himself less than loved by Ecuador once they have got passed the fun of having the upper hand on the US and the EU for a while.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Great find reds8n, excellent post.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Yes, very interesting.
45703
Post by: Lynata
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Great find reds8n, excellent post.
And still wrong. As pointed out earlier, it is not the courts in Sweden that make a decision on extradition. It says so on the Swedish government's own website for anyone to see. The courts can supposedly prevent the government from extraditing anyone (as assured by AlmightyWalrus, who mentioned that the Swedish original text is less ambiguous than the English translation) - but so can the government by simply saying "no", and who still make the final decision on the matter.
Aside from the fact that Sweden practiced unlawful extradition in the past.
Now, I didn't read the entire quote in reds8n's post, but this error alone shows me that it is just as opinionated as any user's post on this thread and surely does not serve to dispel any "myths" when the author of that article himself doesn't have any idea how Sweden's legal system works.
I will add that I've come to believe that extradition still isn't likely, though, simply because of a lack of interest. The current charges - which, however, I still believe to be trumped up - merely serve to discredit and indirectly punish him for releasing this information. I don't think the powers-that-be actually have an interest beyond seeing him convicted for rape.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Link from the above..
http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/1179/Assange_-_what%27s_going_on%3F.html
See the paraghraph beginning " Assange has indicated.."
So in the likely situation it is the courts decision, not the Govts.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
That's quoted out of context though, Lynata is right. In the end it is the Govt. that decides whether someone gets extradited or not.
Swedish Government wrote:A request for extradition from Sweden is submitted to the Ministry of Justice. Before the Government takes a decision on the matter, an opinion must be sought from the Office of the Prosecutor-General. If the person whose extradition has been requested does not consent to extradition, the Office of the Prosecutor-General hands the matter and its opinion to the Supreme Court, which examines whether there are any impediments to extradition under the Extradition Act. The Supreme Court then hands the matter to the Government for a final decision on extradition. If the Supreme Court finds that there is an impediment to extradition, the Government may not approve the extradition request.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The nerve of him. Bringing up Manning again. Young chucklehead going to do hard time for a very long time.
|
|
