Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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

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.

They forgot the air holes.

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...

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.

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.”

What a completely non-biased "news" source. Wonderful work.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

a comment on that site: they cant go into the embassy because Ecuador will invade the UK and attack with nuclear missils

Lynata wrote: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

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.

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:


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.


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.

 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:

Lynata wrote: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

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.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

Translation please.

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.

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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.