Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Julian Assange Loses Extradition Appeal

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the us-enhanced-interrogators-filled-with-glee dept.

Censorship 311

judgecorp writes "Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, has lost his appeal in the British High Court against extradition to Sweden on charges of rape. His team has 14 days to appeal to the Supreme Court — but would have to show a 'wider issue of public importance' to justify such an appeal. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has suspended publication because it says a 'banking blockade' has cut off its sources of funding."

cancel ×

311 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Que Nelson (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918702)

Ha, ha!

Re:Que Nelson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918726)

If ya gonna be a leaker, don't be a tweaker.

Re:Que Nelson (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919078)

Is that what people are saying about him? Likes the meth? Not surprising, he kind of acts like that.

Re:Que Nelson (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918976)

Julian, this is Tyrone. He will be your cell mate for the next few years.

Awww..... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918706)

...my heart bleeds for the coward.

Not!

Re:Awww..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918772)

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.

Re:Awww..... (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918848)

Coward? He left Sweden legally, after asking whether there were any objections or challenges that would have prevented this. He was told that he was free to go.

He was also told, and agreed to, make himself available for future questioning if necessary. When it became necessary, he decided to refuse to return for questioning, a warrant was issued, and he began fighting extradition.

Re:Awww..... (2)

Tukz (664339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918780)

So you don't care someone is being railroaded on bogus accusations?

Re:Awww..... (1)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918818)

What do you expect of "Anonymous Coward" calling someone a "Coward"? I'd suggest you use shorter words than "accusations" if you want him to consider facts of the case or understand it.

Re:Awww..... (1)

BetterThanCaesar (625636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919068)

Only valid under the assumption that the accusations are bogus.

Re:Awww..... (1)

Osiris Ani (230116) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919172)

Only valid under the assumption that the accusations are bogus.

The accusations are... confusing.

"Despite what has happened, the woman who organized the event and had Assange stay at her apartment told Aftonbladet that she never intended that Assange be charged with rape.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/02/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-assange-criminal-probe/ [aolnews.com]

Re:Awww..... (2)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919268)

They were dismissed as such by the first prosecution authority in Sweden. That it is not a warrent for arrest, just for "questioning", also calls in to question the accusations, or at least the evidence for them. Lastly calling removal of consent after the fact "rape" is insulting to anyone who has undergone the real horrible crime, and should properly terrify anyone who doesn't get on with an ex partner.

Re:Awww..... (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919124)

That's why we have a justice system: to figure out if the accusations are bogus or not. I'm sure if we just sent people to prison based on public opinion, we would have a few more guilty people in jail. But we would have a HELL of a lot of innocent people in jail too.

Re:Awww..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919200)

I know. Julian the Messiah could never do anything wrong. This must be bogus! It must!

Good. (0, Flamebait)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918710)

I know it won't be a popular sentiment around here, but nobody should be able to hide from Justice.

Assange should be extradited and have his day in court. This is a good decision. Well done, British court system.

One person's "justice" (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918770)

Is another person's dirty tricks rape accusation. A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html [huffingtonpost.com] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/21/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-warrant-sweden [guardian.co.uk]

Re:One person's "justice" (1)

teg (97890) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918826)

A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden.

In Sweden, Swedish law applies - the "would only be rape in Sweden" argument holds no water, as that was where the events (rape or no) happened. If it is just "buyer's remorse", he can use that defense there in the actual trial.

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.

Re:One person's "justice" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918898)

So what happens in Sweden, regardless of weather a reasonable person agrees with them, is subject to Swedish law, but the Iranians are not allowed to make up the rules for what happens on their sovereign land? You are saying, local laws should apply, unless you disagree with them.

Re:One person's "justice" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919178)

I don't see where he said that anywhere. You just making stuff up as you go along or what? If a law is broken in Iran and Iran has an extradition agreement with another country they can extradite for violation of local laws. You don't like it? Make sure your country doesn't enter into extradition agreements with these countries. A Swedish Judge determined that grounds for arrest were valid and issued a warrant. What you or the UK think about the law in question is not relevant. As long as the warrant is valid the suspect gets extradited.

Re:One person's "justice" (2)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919372)

Unless we in the UK believe that the country is violating treaties by abuse of the warrant system. Say for calling removal of consent after the fact "rape", or issuing european warrants for "questioning" rather than arrest.

Seriously the UK does judge the correctness of laws overseas, and the possiblities of fair treatment (including blocking extradition where the death penalty, not legal in the UK, could be applied), hence we don't deport Christians under other country's blasphemy laws.

In any case this moves on to the UK Supreme Court.

Re:One person's "justice" (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918916)

Usually you can only be extradited from your own country for crimes are also illegal in you home country. There might be in a crime in the eyes of Swedish prosecutor, but that doesn't mean there is any reason in the eyes of the English court to force him to Sweden.

The problem is this basic principle is being watered-down, especially for any persons that it suits the home country to punish.

Re:One person's "justice" (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919278)

The problem is that someone is pulling strings in the swedish prosecutor's office to blow this way out of proportion when the two women who have after the fact rage have their hurt feelings exploited by special interests from abroad.

Wikileaks has pissed off some powerful people.

This is not a coincidence.

Re:One person's "justice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918980)

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.

Re:One person's "justice" (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918998)

"on the belief ". In contrary to religious beliefs which by definition cannot be proven wrong scientifically, this kind of "belief" is disproved regularly in Western society: extrajudicial killings of your own citizens in foreign countries, unlawful detainment, selective application of law, etc.

Re:One person's "justice" (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919214)

Right! If Sweden says winking lasciviously at a proper lady is a criminal offense, then you better not do that in Sweden.

Re:One person's "justice" (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919246)

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.

Right now the belief is that the Swedish justice system is being used as a mule to drag Mr. Assange into a country for which the United States has Extradition arrangements (unlike the UK, his current place of residence). The spectre of US political Manouvering combine with a charge that's somewhat specious has my BS meter go into the Red.

If Sweden were so concerned that "justice" was served, then they would publicly guarantee Mr. Assange's complete immunity from deportation to ANY country until after this affair is put to rest. It might be that he's investigated in Sweden and released; if so, he's released DIRECTLY back to the UK from whence he was taken. It might be that this case goes to trial. If he's found guilty and goes to jail, then when he's released it is arranged that he goes DIRECTLY back to the UK from whence he came. If he's found innocent then when he is released it is arranged that he goes DIRECTLY back to the UK from whence he came. I bet that the US could "place" some operative in a Swedish federal PMITA prison and/or have Mr. Assange shanked during any potential stay -- That would be cleaner I guess than having him choking on his Wheaties during a Sunny morning breakfast in the UK.

I'm not sure (nor am I speculating on it) if Mr. Assange did something illegal in Sweden. I am however, against the notion of the US staging a scenario where he can get extradited to the US because they took a black eye over the WikiLeaks situation.

I'm not even saying I agree or disagree with what happened with the US over Wikileaks. I AM however, saying that I'm against the US manipulating the sitation to get their way over this since they can't do it up front.

Re:One person's "justice" (3, Insightful)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919582)

The justice system is based in the Western world on the belief that he will get a fair trial in Sweden and other similar countries - you should not be able to escape unpleasantries by crossing borders. It's not Iran he's being extradited too.

However, you should be able to "escape unpleasantries" by cooperating with the authorities as you are detained for a month at your own expense during the investigation until you are exonerated and informed by the prosecutor that the case against you has been dropped and that you are free to leave the country.

If, after all that, they try to force you back to defend yourself against the same charges all over again then you fight tooth and nail against extradition, because you have pretty much no expectation of a fair trial anymore.

Re:One person's "justice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919096)

It doesn't matter. Sweden is an ally with a very strong record of respecting human rights and civil liberties. There is not reason to suppose he wouldn't get a fair trial, in the event that charges are brought.

Re:One person's "justice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919158)

Most 1st world contries hold that if you withdraw consent, anything after is rape. The Julian Assange rape case isn't some international conspiracy.

Re:One person's "justice" (1)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919398)

Not after the fact. Before or during certainly.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918782)

Assange should be extradited and have his day in court.

Which shows just how prejudiced the situation now appears to be. He hasn't been charged with anything - he's being extradited for questioning.

Re:Good. (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918884)

You can be extradited for a suspected crime - always have been able to. It's hard to only extradite convicted criminals without convicting them beforehand and in their absence, which is hardly fair.

Re:Good. (1)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919630)

Yes you can be extradited under criminal charges. Not just for questions normally under the European warrant scheme.

Re:Good. (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918890)

Then it shouldn't be a big deal, right? Answer some questions and you're done.

Re:Good. (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918960)

Julian Assange has offered to be questioned over video or phone conference, which Sweden refused. That strongly suggests that Sweden wants him in physical custody more than it wants questions answered.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918792)

except when the charges are made up, dismissed/withdrawn, pushed back in by a bigger brother to forward his agenda
I question your wits

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918844)

I hope you get extradited to Iran in that case.

Re:Good. (1, Interesting)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918872)

The problem is of course that he didn't do anything. It's exactly the same as what happened to Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He was accused of rape, lost his job and any prospects of a future career because of this, then sat in a courtroom for a few months until it was decided the evidence was too weak and the victim's story too incoherent for the court to reach a conclusion. So he was let go and now he has nothing. Which is exactly what the people who set up the "rape victim" intended to do.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918996)

How do you know he didn't do anything? That's for the courts to decide. A rape accusation is disruptive, but in no way precludes a career if found innocent. Anyway, Assange works for himself so I doubt he'd have any issue being rehired. You may think this smells odd but you have absolutely no evidence of that, so your bald statement "he didn't do anything" is unjustified.

Even on the off-chance that this really is a conspiracy to discredit Wikileaks via Assange, I don't really have a problem with it anyway, seeing as his organization has placed people in harms way by releasing information on them (albeit "by accident", but who watches the self-appointed vigilante watchers?)

Re:Good. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919026)

DSK now has nothing? You're kidding right?

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919104)

The problem is of course that he didn't do anything.

And you know this how? You _assume_ he did nothing (which is fair - innocent until proven guilty and all) but you cannot say, with certainty, that he didn't do anything. He may very well have done something illegal.

Re:Good. (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919346)

And you know this how?

I've met rape victims, that's how.

It's not something they brag about next day on Facebook. They also don't usually throw a party and invite their rapist over so they can present him to their friends.

Calling him a rapist is an insult to all rape victims everywhere and doesn't make you look too bright.

Gitmo (0)

kbg (241421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918904)

Except this means that the Sweden authorities will extradite him to the US, and since US holds people in prisons indefinitely without trials he is basically finished.

Re:Gitmo (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919424)

The US has not shown any real or official interest in extraditing him to the US. Radio, Print, and TV talk show pundits don't have the power to issue warrants no matter how much they shout and stomp their feet. The only possible charge they could level against him would be receiving stolen property and even that charge is weak so why bother at this point. Why give this guy a bigger bully pulpit to preach his gospel? And you can not be held in a US prison indefinitely without an indictment and the amount of time a person can be held on suspicion only is clearly defined and enforced rigorously. And please don't use Guantanamo as your basis for your BS. If he was going to Guantanamo they certainly would not let little things like warrants get in the way. If the US really wanted him they would already have him. As it is the only person being prosecuted for the Wiki leak data leak and distribution is Manning.

Re:Good. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918926)

I don't disagree with you in principe, but it seems that Assange hasn't even officially been charged with anything in Sweden, it does seem a bit weird to me that someone who is just wanted for questioning can be extradited like that

Re:Good. (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919094)

As opposed to having to convict him in a foreign court in his absence where he'd be unable to put up any sort of defence if he didn't turn up? Because that's fair too.

Extradition has *ALWAYS* been allowed for suspected crimes. The problem is more whether the extradition arrangement takes account of whether the crime is able to be committed in both countries involved.

It's not like the UK are bowing down and throwing him to the Swedes in a game of catch - the UK police made them refile their order four times for inconsistencies and incompleteness and now the courts have ruled on what they do know. If the law says he has to be extradited, you can't break the law your country has signed up to - not without literally forcing through new laws just to handle this case. And it's *really* not important enough to worry about that.

At worst, a UK court could probably insist that Sweden can't let him be extradited anywhere else. They'd either have to agree or it would be somehow illegal for them to agree (i.e. they have treaties with the US that somehow override the EU rights granted to humans).

Nobody's throwing him to the wolves willingly, even if he cries like a boy that's sees one at every step. But then, when you deal in confidential military information, I'm more shocked that they haven't just put a bullet in his head quietly already. Nobody would really care or be surprised, especially if you brought out the "He was endangering the lives of 'Our Boys' with his antics" line.

Hell, the Russians did a lot worse to one of their former agents on UK soil in a crowded restaurant and we still haven't been able to do anything about that yet.

Re:Good. (1)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919126)

I don't disagree with you in principe, but it seems that Assange hasn't even officially been charged with anything in Sweden, it does seem a bit weird to me that someone who is just wanted for questioning can be extradited like that

In Sweden, being charged happens late on during the course of the prosecution. The defence were pushing the line that he was just wanted for questioning but it was an argument that the court rejected.

Re:Good. (2)

kubernet3s (1954672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919284)

The bigger issue is that the case had already been thrown out, due to insufficient evidence. It was only after the details of the case hit the media and the case reappealed that they decided it was worth pursuing. For better or for worse, it is in fact Assange's identity as the founder of Wikileaks that is on trial

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918944)

Justice for the victims of Sabra and Shatila.

Re:Good. (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918956)

I think you are forgetting that Western judicial system is influenced by politics. In some cases it is not, in some cases it raises suspicion and in some cases it's obvious. Throwing away the context of the trial is idealistically simplistic way of seeing Assange's alleged rape affair.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918972)

He wasn't trying to escape justice. He hasn't even been charged yet, he's argued all along that the Swedish prosecution could question him in the UK and then if there's a case for him to be charged they could go ahead and do that and try and extradite him based on the charges.

What he's trying to avoid is being extradited to Sweden without charge, and then being passed on to America. Particularly when in Sweden the case has already become too politicised because even their PM has basically pre-judged him in TV interviews.

Your assumption is simply that he'll get a fair trial in Sweden, but as with the TPB trial which was overseen and the outcome determined by a judge who was a member of a content industry political lobbying organisation, who was good friends with the content industry lawyers in the prosecution and was pushed forward at the behest of American pressure as demonstrated by leaked cables we know that Sweden isn't capable of ensuring that this will be the case.

This isn't a job well done by any measure but I'm not suprised, we in the UK are as much a puppet state of the US as Sweden is. When we can't even protect our own people like Gary McKinnon from extradition to the US even now, with a coalition government in which both leaders previously stated they were against his extradition though it's far from certain he wont be extradited still then frankly, Assange, a foreign citizen, had no hope- that much has been clear all along.

If Sweden just questioned him here in person, or via video link, and then charged him I'd be far more supportive of this, but extradition for a case with massive politicisation in the country trying to extradite when they haven't yet even been willing to produce solid enough evidence to charge him hence based entirely on an accusation? Fuck no, that's not justice.

Would you like to be extradited to a country like China because of nothing more than some random person there claiming you raped them when you went there on holiday despite a complete lack of evidence and no charge being put forward by Chinese authorities? Sure the US isn't China, well, for most people, but for someone like Assange whom the US makes exceptions to it's supposed love of liberty, justice, and free speech, it really is that draconian a situation.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919190)

Apparently:

1. The extradition was instigated by a single person, not a court.
2. His day in court will be not shown to the public and it will comprise of a judge and 2 politicians (that don't like him).
3. There is a high risk that the US will try to extra-extradite him, using the espionage act and the Australian government doesn't have a history of properly supporting it's citizens against the US (David Hicks).

No, BAD (4, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919238)

This is not about Assange and alleged criminal behavior, it's about silencing someone who made powerful figures look stupid.

The "crime" that he is accused of is almost never prosecuted in Sweden. This may be the first time in the history of the Swedish judicial system that anyone has been extradited for this class of offense. One of the accusers has left the country and is not available for either the prosecution or defense.

There is little chance of justice in this circumstance. He is being railroaded. The international banking system has shut down WikiLeaks. How is he going to be fairly defended? By some junior public defender? If you believe that you must also still believe in the tooth fairy.

The US is pulling every string they can to destroy Assange and WikiLeaks. I think they are planning to extradite him to the US or, if they think that they can get away with it, Guantanamo. Even if he ends up on US soil, they will give him the same treatment they gave Manning, which is real torture. Sleep deprivation, using the pretense of a suicide watch to keep the subject unclothed and with no bedding, multiple day interrogation by rotating teams of unaccountable "contractors", no real access to legal assistance. You don't have to inflict direct pain to effectively torture someone.

Just watch for Sweden to get some sort of sweet economic deal from the US as a reward of they get Assange. A new military base, some sort of co-development in the artic, joint mineral development. whatever. That's how the CIA got secret prisons in Poland. The Polish government got the promise of the anti-missile bases, which would have put a big long term chunk of US dollars into their economy. It's called bribery, and it works (at least in the sort run).

I almost can't believe that you expect "justice" in this relentless pursuit of Assange and WikiLeaks. Are you really that stupid? You really should spend more time over here in the real world, as opposed to whatever fantasy you seem to be inhabiting.

"I fought the law..." (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918714)

"...and the law won."

boom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918718)

Is he still holding material leaked to wikileaks hostage in his data bomb to be released if he gets assassinated instead of doing with the data what it was given to him for, namely publishing it?

Re:boom (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918896)

Nope, that was the encrypted file which had its key leaked in a book recently. Now the US has nothing to lose by going up against him, especially since that incompetent or malicious idiot DDB deleted all the other leaks that had been placed on the Wikileaks server, likely including the BoA leaks.

And I'd say there's a good chance he'll be renditioned to Guantanamo or somewhere if he walks away from the court battle in Sweden. Jeppesen Dataplan, one of the shell airlines that runs the torture taxis, has an office there after all...

After sweden (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918742)

guantanamo bay

Not a good public rep (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918808)

Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks. I think a lot of people support the idea of wikileaks, but his involvement and his serving as the public face of the group has been a huge problem for the organization. If wikileaks survives (which seems unlikely right now) it will be despite him, not because of him.

Julian, for the good of the cause you've championed, please step down from wikileaks.

Re:Not a good public rep (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919174)

I am not sure about the integral effect on it. It brings attention to Wikileaks, good or gad, and I think that people who are in position to leak do not care much of Assange is accused of rape.

Wikileaks is a messenger, in contrary to news media, it does not editorialize (well, they were withholding some leaks at the request of (who? I forgot), but that hardly counts), and in this case it does not matter how grey sexual mores of it's leadership are.

Lemmiwinks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919496)

Wikileaks, you have chosen a path of evil and now you shall pay. Sparrow Prince, Catatafish!

Look! I think Lemmiwinks killed him!

Re:Not a good public rep (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919298)

In any movement there needs to be a degree of professionalism to the movement. The problem with a lot of these modern movements is the vilification of their opponents, because doing it this way is the easiest way to get a quick (large) group or radicals together. But in the grand scheme of things it does little to solve the problem because the moderates thou opponents are feeling personally attacked by the group.

The idea of "I don't believe in what you are saying, but I will fight for the right for you to say it" concept is going away. They take opposing view then vilify the opposition. Eg. OWS: A bunch of Lazy Bums who are whining because their liberal art degrees wont give them a good job. Tea Party: A bunch of racist Red Neck Hicks who controlled by those big oil corporations. In really both groups are actually more diverse and complicated then the other side wants to admit. But they disagree with their message so they will do anything possible to make them seem like one sided idiots.

Re:Not a good public rep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919394)

Doesn't matter who the target would have been.

any leader of any wikileaks that actually leaked meaningful things
is going to be targeted. Its the law.

Julian is the progenitor.

if Noam Chomsky had been the progenitor, his ass would be in the blender
right about now.

Re:Not a good public rep (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919588)

Assange has, unfortunately, been very bad for wikileaks.

How very convenient for the powers that be. Almost too convenient.

If you don't want to go to jail for rape... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918814)

... then don't rape people. It's pretty simple. If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

Assange is a criminal and a terrorist through and through, and he deserves what he gets. I know this won't be a popular opinion among the commie pinko lefty OWS-worshiping socialists on Slashdot, but it's the cold, hard truth.

Re:If you don't want to go to jail for rape... (0)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918942)

Obvious coward is obvious.

Anonymous Coward touched me - everyone get him before considering it rationally or letting the law decide.

Censorship? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918840)

This story should not have been tagged censorship. The fact that it was is evidence of an implicit bias. We can do better.

Perfect time for Bitcoin to shine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918850)

...because it says a 'banking blockade' has cut off its sources of funding"
This is a perfect time for Bitcoin to shine!

Re:Perfect time for Bitcoin to shine (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919030)

For once a Bitcoin fan is right. One thing Bitcoin is good for is untraceable payment. Wikileaks would just have to set up a shell company to accept the payments since the credit card companies are now the Payment Morality Police. If child porn sites can collect membership fees with Bitcoin then I don't see why it can't work for Wikileaks.

Focus (1)

unsanitary999 (2482414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918852)

The more the public focuses on his sex extradition hearings, the less attention is given to the damning documents Wikileaks has published. Which is really the important part.

Re:Focus (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919130)

Well, the government in Iraq paid attention to the documents and as a result, rejected Obama's pleas to keep troops in Iraq longer. In other words, because of Wikileaks, the US is pulling out of Iraq (at least if you don't count mercenaries etc). Assange deserves a peace prize despite anything else about him.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/23/wikileaks_cables_and_the_iraq_war/singleton/ [salon.com]

House of Lords (0)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918870)

Small point, but last I heard, the highest court in the UK was the House of Lords, where cases are heard by the Law Lords. Not the Supreme Court of the US, Canada or Austrailia (not to be confused with various other "Supreme Courts" which are not supreme at all (Cdn.prov).)

Of course this case has higher public interest. At question is whether Her Majesty will protect her subjects (Assange is .au citizen) and residents against foreign depredation. Assange is wanted for questioning, not even charged, and the alleged offense is a misdemenor in .sw and no offense in most other places. I think the real worry is Sweden has extradition treaties with the US that will used to forward Assange. If the UK renders Assange, they ought at least insist on a guarantee of return irrespective of any other treaty. Otherwise, the UK is shown as Washingtons slave.

Re:House of Lords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918918)

where cases are heard by the Law Lords.

Are Law Lords anything like Time Lords?

Re:House of Lords (1)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918990)

where cases are heard by the Law Lords.

Are Law Lords anything like Time Lords?

Essentially, just take a lot longer.

Re:House of Lords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918920)

You're a little out of date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom replaced the House of Lords for judicial functions a few years ago.

Re:House of Lords (2)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918930)

Used to be. UK does have a supreme court now.

Re:House of Lords (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919086)

Sorry, I'm behind the times. Thanks for the correction.

Re:House of Lords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37918948)

Small point, but you're out of date. The UK now has a "Supreme Court".

Re:House of Lords (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919074)

Otherwise, the UK is shown as Washingtons slave.

Which we already knew anyway. Don't act so surprised.

Re:House of Lords (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919164)

There is a difference between being constrained by others powers in a given area (so cooperating), and surrendering your own when you don't have to. It would be a new bootlicking low, and I wonder if the proud English will stoop so low.

Re:House of Lords (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919304)

After Tony Blair, it would be very, very hard to reach a new bootlicking low. This doesn't even come close to e.g. Iraq.

Re:House of Lords (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919410)

I grant you Tony was appalling. A Labour PM marching into war alongside the US! Especially staying after the russians repo'd all the WMD thru Syria. And then putting down three backbencher revolts. Clearly shows the UK as an elected dictatorship.

However, Iraq was a security / military matter wherein the UK has important alliances with the US. Assange is at most a criminal matter, and appears essentially to be pure personal vengence from embarrassed officials.

Failing to tell them to "get stuffed" is to become onesuch.

Re:House of Lords (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919122)

Yes, I think my only interest in this case is if it is used to render Assange to the US which would clearly be a reprehensible act of revenge by the US and worthy of condemnation.

Other than that, good luck to him in explaining his offensive behavior towards the Swedish women. Its not likely to lead to very much more than a slapped wrist but it says quite a lot that he appears to have no cultural sensitivity, which may influence how we regard Wikileaks.

Re:House of Lords (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919288)

Granted his behaviour violates Swedish norms. However, he was obviously a foreigner, and these women persued him as such and for his fame. Swedish law might have expectations (ignorance of the law is no excuse), but these women could not reasonably expect automatic local behaviour.

Re:House of Lords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919402)

That's a very interesting legal standpoint, but I doubt that it would last ten seconds in court. Ignorance is no excuse. Arguing that the women "could not reasonably expect automatic local behaviour" is tantamount to saying "let him off because he's foreign". You also imply that the women persued him for his fame: possibly so, but hard to prove, and anyway how is that relevant? Are famous people allows to get away with bad behaviour? And I find the idea that Assange was persued because he was a foreigner, well, be reasonable. Swedes are a fairly cosmopolitan lot, I would imagine especially in the circles where Assange is"famous".

Re:House of Lords (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919524)

It still smacks of entrapment. Small wonder Swedes themselves consider this a "sexfalla" -- honeypot. Pursuit is easy to prove -- they payed for his transport & other expenses. AIUI, they met him after he spoke to an audience.

Re:House of Lords (1)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919586)

Nope - I think it is closer to saying that local customs are not the same as laws. Suggest you re-read the previous comment. Remember he hasn't been charged, the warrant was issued for "questioning".

Re:House of Lords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919512)

Other small point - there is no such things a the "British High Court". This is the High Court of England & Wales. Next step up is the UK Supreme Court which applies to Scotland and N. Ireland as well (but theres a bit of an argument as it is seen to override our legal systems with English laws - a bit like the US supreme court vs state law, but with the Supreme court following another state's laws)

However, as most US /.ers cant tell the difference between England, Britain or the UK (3 separate entities), they have no chance of figuring out the court system.

The CIA and MI6 are wimping out (5, Funny)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#37918938)

If he'd pulled this trick during the cold war, he would have had a mysterious "car accident" in the country late at night with lots of empty bottles and a young male prostitute in the car with him. That .45 caliber wound to his head would have obviously been from the steering wheel, of course.

Now they just set him up on a phony charge for not requesting sexual relations via the Swedish government-approved triplicate form. What's next, claiming he killed someone with secondhand smoke, or arresting him for going over his personal carbon cap?

Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919066)

Oh please. If! On wikileaking against the US he would have Soviet protection, and vice versa.

Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919274)

As a way of dealing with troublemakers who may have significant public sympathy, that's a far too old fashioned and ham fisted method. Nowadays unrelenting psyops/dirt raking campaigns are employed until the public has lost sympathy/forgotten about them. At which point they can be quietly 'disappeared'.
In the future the aim of course is to have a general populace that is so ignorant and apathetic that the dirt raking and waiting around steps aren't even required.

Re:The CIA and MI6 are wimping out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919368)

When it takes a braver person to be ignorant and apathetic than not...

Political actions (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919186)

Every time somebody says or does something not in favor with other political forces, there is always some sort of sex alligation to destroy their reputation, job, finances, moral, etc. etc.

The accusation against Julian came right after some big cable releases. I have no doubt it is nothing more than an attempt of the United States government to get him out of the way or to get ahold of him.

If for any reason he were to end up in US custody, it should be assumed they will hold him and try to imprison him without just cause. If Julian is smart, he has set aside some money for a rescue plan.

Re:Political actions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919492)

What you mean like the plane being diverted to a US airbase during the flight due to "weather" or "mechanical emergency".
 
That is pretty far fetched.

As planned (2, Insightful)

mrquagmire (2326560) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919254)

It looks like things are proceeding exactly as planned...

Nothing untypical here (0)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919296)

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

It's happened all through history

Re:Nothing untypical here (3, Insightful)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919616)

The messenger in this case has did a better job harming himself by his own actions and behavior than any 3rd party could possibly do.

Allegations, not charges. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919302)

He hasn't been charged with anything.

Too bad for him (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919318)

Too bad for him. But good for justice.

If he is guilty, I hope he will be convicted.

If he is innocent, let us hope he won't be convicted anyway.

As of now, he still is innocent.

I'm sure the Swedes will give him a fair hearing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37919340)

Its not as if we're sending him to any of those places the US renders terrorist suspects to for a little robust interrogation, is it? Given the rather lax and one-sided extradition regime between the US and the UK,especially where the McKinnon case is concerned, I'm surprised that the US hasn't demanded Assanges head on a plate already.

How to take care of Assange (2, Funny)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919390)

Put Mexican drug cartel info on wikileaks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?