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!

Photo Reveals UK Plan: "Assange To Be Arrested Under All Circumstances"

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the ok-let's-call-it-the-assange-effect dept.

The Media 847

politkal writes with the lead from a CNN story: "A policeman in London appears to have accidentally revealed an arrest plan for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in what UK media have branded an embarrassing slip-up by London's Metropolitan Police. Clearly legible in a zoomed-in view of the clipboard, on a sheet of paper headed 'Restricted,' are the words: 'EQ Embassy brief — Summary of current position re. Assange. Action required — Assange to be arrested under all circumstances.' It goes on to suggest possible ways in which he could exit the building, such as in a diplomatic bag or vehicle."

cancel ×

847 comments

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

That's nice (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126745)

On the other side of the pond, Bradley Manning is going to be put to death. Where are the Wikileak white knights?

Re:That's nice (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126793)

Right here http://couragetoresist.org/donate/bradley-manning.html

Since you're so concerned about the guy, maybe you should stuff your self-rightousness up your ass and go donate to his defense fund.

Re:That's nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126819)

I have. Maybe Wikileaks could send some of their money towards the people on the front lines. You know, the ones who supply the info that Wikileaks couldn't exist without.

Re:That's nice (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126871)

You really are too stupid to be on internet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/wikileaks-bradley-manning-defence-fund

WikiLeaks delivers contribution to Bradley Manning defence fund
Website honours pledge made last July to help pay legal fees of soldier accused of leaking US embassy cables

And given the current financial blockade against wikileaks they were lucky to get that out to the BM fund.

Re:That's nice (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126931)

This is hilarious. You two need to touch weiners, or something.

Re:That's nice (5, Funny)

Volguus Zildrohar (1618657) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127037)

You really are too stupid to be on internet

Hmm, maybe you're from the past. Hello, time traveller! On today's internet, that level of stupid simply places him in the 80th percentile. I hope you enjoy 2012, but you'll probably want to pick a different decade for your final journey.

Re:That's nice (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126957)

Maybe Wikileaks could send some of their money towards the people on the front lines.

You think Wikileaks is a big money-making venture?

It's funny how people believe anyone whose name is in the news must be rich. "Hey, did you see that guy who got a million hits on his YouTube video of his dog who skateboards? That guy must be like a millionaire or something!"

"Hell, man, Wikileaks must be rolling in it if Assange is in the news for trying to avoid arrest! Maybe they should spread some of that wealth around, you know? Oh, and Go Romney!"

Re:That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127161)

Go Romney!

I'm going with O'Bomney... He's Black Irish, right?

Re:That's nice (1, Interesting)

jjp9999 (2180664) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126933)

I read an interview with Adrian Lamo once where he said that when he turned in Manning, he didn't think Assange would actually go through and release the State Department cables. He thought Assage would put Manning's safety above releasing the cables.

Re:That's nice (-1, Troll)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126877)

As he should. There's a reason why treason is treated so seriously. Unfortunately, prosecutors don't intend to push for execution.

Re:That's nice (5, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126903)

Treason? The only treason I see having been committed was by the officials who did anything so embarrassing that it needed to be leaked. Maybe if politicians and bureaucrats weren't such unethical, scheming, corrupt slimebags there'd be no reason for people like Assange and Manning to do what they're doing.

Re:That's nice (4, Funny)

Adriax (746043) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126959)

That sounds like treason talk Mr BoberFett. Your comment will be brought up at the next House Un-American Activities Committee meeting.

Re:That's nice (-1, Troll)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127021)

Say what you want but a lot of people were put in danger and some actually died due to Manning's treason. If they don't execute him then they should never execute anyone. The man violated the trust placed in him.

Re:That's nice (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127059)

keep licking those boots. mmmm, good!

of course, you have it backwards. the ones who did the *larger* bit of crime are the ones manning reported on.

that doesn't bother you but the party-line is all you can repeat.

(let me guess; republican, right?)

Re:That's nice (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127085)

America is doing evil things. Those who do evil things deserve to die.

Fuck trust. How about transparency?

Whose trust is being violated here? (5, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127091)

people were put in danger and some actually died due to Manning's treason

And we're just supposed to take your word for that, right? Or if not yours, someone else's?

If they don't execute him then they should never execute anyone.

That's probably a good place to start reforming the "justice" system.

The man violated the trust placed in him.

. . .in order to shed light on government abuses of power, secrets which he probably didn't know he'd be required to keep when he was making his oath. So whose trust was really violated here? And do you honestly think violating trust is the worst offense a man can commit? If that's the standard we should all be executed.

Re:That's nice (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127157)

Not to mention, if you want to see real treason, you need look no further than the Obama administration, which leaked information about the Osama bin Laden raid to try and shore up support for his reelection.

Leaks which, unlike Wikileaks, DID get people killed. Leaks which compromised those who provided the intelligence that led to Bin Laden, getting them caught by foreign forces.

But do you think anyone is going to get in trouble for those leaks? Of course not, it allowed Obama to announce that he had killed Bin Laden!

Re:That's nice (5, Insightful)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127011)

America was founded on many acts of treason. If the men and women committing these acts of treason, against the king, were caught, they'd have been put to death. Since the rebels won, we Americans consider these treasonous rebels brave heroes and patriots. The Tories - not so much.

Treason is in the eye of the beholder.

Re:That's nice (5, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127065)

America was founded on many acts of treason.

I disagree. George III was a Hanoverian usurper.

-jcr

Re:That's nice (4, Insightful)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127081)

As he should. There's a reason why treason is treated so seriously. Unfortunately, prosecutors don't intend to push for execution.

Execution for those chopper pilots shooting ambulance and rockets at children and then laughing on comms like they were playing CoD.

Re:That's nice (5, Insightful)

yuje (1892616) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127127)

How does a non-citizen, non-resident commit treason against a country he owes no allegiance to?

Re:That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127131)

"Unfortunately"? You're a disgusting imbecile obsessed about revenge.

Why bother? (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126769)

He's stuck living in some guys office, sleeping on an air matres. And from what I hear, he's a really bad house guest. Leave him there, its punishment all around.

Re:Why bother? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126781)

Running from rape charges in an embassy sounds worse than fleeing to Mexico.

Re:Why bother? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126795)

Nope, not at all unusual for routine rape cases to involve threats of violating sovereignty. Nothing to see here folks.

Re:Why bother? (5, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126841)

"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.

Re:Why bother? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126851)

Then let him go to Ecuador. In that area, I'm sure some "accident" could be arranged with enough financial lubrication.

Re:Why bother? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127071)

This. Especially since he might feel relatively safe and go out in public. However, there is still that "insurance" file that he gave the people in the press. I'm sure if he died in the near future, the key for that file would be released (or at a minimum it is just random garbage and nobody knows it). Knowing how dirty they are, the major players may be too afraid to do anything to him.

Recanted .... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126859)

You must be reading Assange's PR bs ...... the "recanted" has being disproven time and time again.

Re:Why bother? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126895)

Not familiar with Swedish definitions of rape or whether the case would be prosecuted if it were so politicized, but in point of fact, neither of the girls have recanted. One of them says she's against the charges as being filed, but hasn't changed her testimony or disputed her given account of what he did.

If the case is really so strong, why are you making things up about it?

Re:Why bother? (-1, Troll)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126909)

I certainly hope his is disposed of properly. He intentionally and with forethought published state secrets. If he was a citizen of the USA he would be clearly guilty of violating the national security act and probably treason. As a foreigner he has proven himself an enemy of the United States and deserves what is coming to him.

Re:Why bother? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126929)

I certainly hope his is disposed of properly. He intentionally and with forethought published state secrets. If he was a citizen of the USA he would be clearly guilty of violating the national security act and probably treason. As a foreigner he has proven himself an enemy of the United States and deserves what is coming to him.

Let me give you a clue, you stupid fascist redneck fuck.

You are on the wrong side.

Idiots like you are the enemy of people who love freedom.

So take your fascist bullshit and shove it up your ass, "brett".

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127101)

I like you.

Re:Why bother? (5, Interesting)

Shaman (1148) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126943)

Bull. Everything is a state secret these days... what he has done is uncover the CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that the U.S. and its tight allies have been undertaking in other countries. 5% of the world does not control the other 95% - it likes to pretend, however.

Re:Why bother? (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127031)

I hardly expect citizens of foreign countries to worry about US security. That was Manning's job.

Re:Why bother? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127039)

*looks up from a book* Why? What exactly has he published that wasn't already widely known by all but the most close-minded? Even the DoD said that not a single death could be attributed to the release of that information. Can't exactly punish him for what are, at best, open secrets.

Re:Why bother? (4, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126981)

"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

The allegations against him include rape a molestation. The women didn't consent to have sex with him at that time, in that way. That is sexual assault.
The women appealed to have the charges reinstated.
One prosecutor did drop the investigation, and another reinstated it shortly afterwards.

How do you not know this?

This whole thing is so disgustingly shady that anyone who spends more than 5 minutes looking at it realizes it's a set up to try and get him into a US or UK controlled area so he can be disposed of properly.

Assange was in UK controlled territory for well over a year. If they wanted to dispose of him they could have done so at any time. The fact of the matter is that they were holding him to extradite him to Sweden to face the justice system.

What is shady is the way people keep repeating things that aren't true about this case. Have you spent at least five minutes looking into things? If you have you must have looked in the wrong place as you're spreading disinformation.

Renewed rape suspicions for WikiLeaks' Assange [thelocal.se]

A Swedish duty prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for Assange on August 20th over rape allegations. But chief prosecutor Eva Finne abruptly withdrew it the next day, saying new information had come to light.

Then last week Finne said there was no reason to believe a crime had been committed, adding however that she had enough evidence to keep looking into a molestation allegation from another woman against Assange.

The lawyer for Assange's alleged victims, Claes Borgstroem, lodged an appeal against Finne's decision to a special department in the public prosecutions office.

Assange, 39, has said the allegations against him are part of a "smear campaign" aimed at discrediting his whistleblowing website, which is locked in a row with the Pentagon over the release of secret US documents about the war in Afghanistan.

Ny, head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes in particular, overturned Finne's decision on the rape claim, and also said the investigation into the molestation claim would be extended.

Rather than the prosecution of Assange being political, it looks to me more like dropping the changes and the many defenses of Assange using false information are political.

Re:Why bother? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127045)

To be fair it did look strange that immediately after the release of the documents he was accused of rape. I don't know what he did or didn't do but my credibility alarmed pinged.

Re:Why bother? (5, Insightful)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127077)

The women didn't appeal to have the charges reinstated, a lawyer did so without the knowledge of the women. They came out and said it straight out in Swedish media right after the trial, and strangely we have heard absolutely nothing from either of the women and when they addressed the media that one time, at least one of the women wanted to have it all over with as she felt she was being used as an excuse for a witch hunt. All reference to these things have largely vanished from the internet and if you actually try to search for any of them approximately 16 of the top 20 search results now consist of web sites that appear to be in support of assange but now "have doubts" and if you read a few lines down they start spouting that he's guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and needs to be brought to justice for these poor women.

In fact as of right now they can't get the women to testify, and the women cannot redact their previous testimony as it has already been entered into the public record.

The guy is not a saint, and he is a bit of an ass, but without paper guarantee that he will NOT be extradited out of sweden at any time in the future and will be allowed to leave sweden by whatever means and in whatever direction he chooses once he has faced his charges in swedish court and served any jail time or done whatever service is due because of his crime. Without that he is perfectly legitimate in being fucking terrified of going back there.

I should also note that the story you post can't even remotely be correct. Assange remained IN SWEDEN for almost 3 full weeks after the charges were dropped. If what the story said is even remotely true he wouldn't have been allowed to leave the country, instead he actually got express consent to leave the country FROM THE PROSECUTORS OFFICE.

Re:Why bother? (1)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126987)

The amount of effort being exercised to get a guy accused of rape by women that later changed their story to 'he lied about wrapping it up' and then further to the prosecution dropping the suit because their clients recanted.

I don't know if he committed a crime in Sweden, but he is on the hook for some political persecution from what I can see and their is zero possibility of a fair trial. Ecuador sees it my way and grants him asylum. Good for them I think, and shame on the UK for being part of this political crap, they don't care about some extradition.

Re:Why bother? (4, Informative)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127111)

"Rape"? The case involves him failing to use a condom. The ladies involved have recanted. The prosecutor tried to drop the charges.

This again? Yes, it "involves" him failing to use a condom. But, with respect to one of the counts, it's a lot more than that: the allegation is that he had sex with a woman who was asleep, thus unable to consent. This lack of consent was aggravated by his knowledge that she didn't want to have sex without a condom. The other conduct described might be considered trivial by some, but this act qualifies as rape in most civilized countries.

The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law, and that it carries a maximum penalty of 4 years in Sweden. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf [bbc.co.uk]

Of course, it's possible none of that conduct occurred. Under the EU extradition system, it's not the U.K.'s job - either the government's or the courts' - to decide whether he's guilty.

The alleged "recantation" has been addressed a bit below.

Re:Why bother? (2)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126881)

On the nose.

I'm amazed the British government is making such a PR debacle of this by pursuing it so publicly. Surely Assange would be scheduled for a heart attack in a year or two instead, and leave it at that?

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127043)

On the nose.

I'm amazed the British government is making such a PR debacle of this by pursuing it so publicly. Surely Assange would be scheduled for a heart attack in a year or two instead, and leave it at that?

The British government can't "pursue this quietly" - no matter what they do, he is an internationally-known public figure for his actions. When you flagrantly conspire with others to enable them to break the laws of one country (espionage / treason), and are accused of breaking the laws of another country (rape), and then when you are caught and bailed out you flee to the sanctuary of a third country, is it reasonable to assume that you have a low regard for the law. The courts have ruled. It's now become a matter of embarrassment to the British government that they have allowed him to pull the wool over their eyes and flee to the protection of the embassy of Ecuador.

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression and freedom to pursue happiness have boundaries when they inflict harm on others. Julian Assange is facing the consequences of his actions. Who knows what regard he holds for the laws of Sweden and if he did molest or rape the girls as they claimed... I certainly don't know. However, it stands to reason that he is a criminal with a God complex and thinks that he is above the law. Perhaps he shouldn't have had sex with those women. Perhaps he shouldn't have released a bunch of diplomatic cables. Perhaps he shouldn't have duped a bunch of people into putting up bail money for him and then violating the terms of his bail by going to Ecuador's embassy.

Speech *and* actions have consequences.

Re:Why bother? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127079)

Indeed. The question on everyone's mind is "Why are they acting so afraid of this guy?" The over-powered disproportionate responses we've seen are more in line with taking out a head of state, or at least leaking details that he / she has been cheating on their SO with the football of a foreign country.

Which leads me to believe that either he knows more than he's hinted at (unlikely, but what the hell), or the people in power are scared that more people may take up 'the cause' (and hope overwhelming brutality will force compliance, ala the Iron Curtain). I'd expect this from the Soviets, not from the Allies.

Re:Why bother? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126899)

Nope, not at all unusual for routine rape cases to involve threats of violating sovereignty. Nothing to see here folks.

So you think it is routine for fugitives from justice who are accused of serial sex crimes, including rape, to be sheltered by a foreign embassy to avoid an extradition to a third country because the third country won't make a promise to the fugitive to not send him to a fourth country when the fourth country doesn't even have a warrant published? What part of the world do you live in where that might be "routine"?

Re:Why bother? (0)

FirephoxRising (2033058) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126977)

Serial sex crimes? Having consensual sex over a few days and staying in the morning to have breakfast together constitutes sex crimes? God I'm never going to Sweden, I'll be in huge trouble! The truth is they just want to get him, they'll do anything legal, illegal and eventually criminal to take him out.

Re:Why bother? (0, Flamebait)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127151)

Serial sex crimes? Having consensual sex over a few days and staying in the morning to have breakfast together constitutes sex crimes?

It isn't the consensual sex that is the issue, but the nonconsensual sex, i.e. the rape and molestation. I'm not sure how you missed or misunderstood that.

The truth is they just want to get him, they'll do anything legal, illegal and eventually criminal to take him out.

The truth is that Assange has many supporters that will say anything in his support, true of not.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127075)

I think your sarcasm detector may be faulty. From where I'm sitting, it would appear the OP is pointing out the unusual tenacity with which they're pursuing someone for a rape charge, and the flippant manner in which they consider violating someone else's national sovreignty for a dubious criminal charge that has not been proven to have any merit whatsoever.

Re:Why bother? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126847)

He hasn't been charged with anything.

Re:Why bother? (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127133)

Because, in Sweden, they can't charge him until he's present. It's a formal action that takes place in a specific way. BTW, in the U.S. (and I think in the U.K., but I'm not sure), many arrest warrants are issued before the person is charged.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126937)

Oh, you mean those rape allegations, not charges, which Ecuador offered several of interview options that have been used previously by Sweden in other even higher profile cases, yet they refused anything less than being in custody? Please....

Make him a citizen and diplomat (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126775)

Then watch the machinations.

Re:Make him a citizen and diplomat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127051)

Some claim that you cannot name someone a diplomat without having the host country (in this case UK) agree to it.
An alternative version of this is to make him the UN representative which gives him freedom to move to/from UN meetings and does not require UK to okay it.

Read it yesterday (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126789)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/24/police_plan_for_assange/

Please try to keep up.

Re:Read it yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126805)

My first thought. Looking through the other stuff Timmah has put on the front page today, holy shit, dude, the suckage is overwhelming.

Re:Read it yesterday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126839)

Hey maybe with Timmah, maybe we'll starting getting girls with big tits on the third page like some British tabloids.

Re:Read it yesterday (3, Insightful)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126967)

Dear AC,
Please edit and submit such stories when you discover them. The world is large and contains much news and your contributions might help sort it. If you have found, or do find an outlet successfully aggregating the sum of global affairs and technically-related interests, please inform the poor slashdot community at your earliest convenience and help spare us any delay in bleeding edge media coverage. Also, you might consider that if such high expectations are achieved, that less time for quality-control will be available and your valuable time may then be taken by your complaints on that matter.

Please rest assured that every possible effort is being made by the community to provide a solution to your grievance. With any luck, maybe slashdot can be as reliable as something like the BBC or Fox News.
Sincerely,
Trying

Re:Read it yesterday (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127025)

I think it took a while for anyone to decide if it was actually a problem (it's not) as the stated policy of the UK government is that Assange is to be arrested immediately if he leaves the embassy, this is the official written order, and they might even go into the embassy and drag him out.

With a day of reflection we can recognize this as proof that you shouldn't keep documents face up that you don't want people to see. At least it happened with something that was already stated official policy, and the details that weren't official policy aren't exactly anything surprising.

Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126797)

First of all, kudos to the witty chap who zoomed in on that clip board after taking the photo. But really, who are we kidding? Assange has always been 5 steps ahead of any dignified authority who is after him for all of this. I think it would be a little naive to assume he hasn't seen this coming and doesn't have a plan (and/or successor) to continue on.

Instead of exhausting resources on trying to figure how to get to one man in an embassy, why not shift those efforts to his network and minions doing the heavy lifting for him? This is starting to feel like a '24' episode right now... WWJBD.

Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126825)

Actually the fact he is stuck in the Embassy and in the UK right now and not some place that is much more friendly to him, like say Iceland, pretty much shows how naive Assange has been about the entire thing.

He knew they wanted him but he assumed they would have to play fair, and by the rules to get him, which isn't the case as he is now learning. Especially since traditional media sources are fully prepared to ignore and or tar n feather Assange

Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126905)

An extradition trial is "playing fair." It's a very normal thing that happens all the time. Otherwise every single person wanted by the police could just cross a political border and be free.

Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (4, Insightful)

dwillden (521345) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126951)

Let's be honest, the only reason he's in that embassy and not buried in an unmarked grave in outer Elbonia is because the parties have been playing fair and by the rules. The US has not asked for him, at all. The Swedes have issued a warrant on a serious crime. England held a hearing, let Assange defend himself but still decided he needed to go face those criminal charges. And he ran to the Embassy.

For all the great evils the CIA, Mossad and MI6 supposedly do on a daily basis, what is he doing still breathing? Oh that's right, the Nations in question are playing fair and they following the rules. Which historically is pretty unusual for a non-state actor who has so much highly sensitive data pass through his hands.

Re:Is Jack Bauer going to get called in? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127163)

He knew they wanted him but he assumed they would have to play fair

In what way has the UK not played fair? He has done a disservice to the UK through this nonsense, because they have had to waste a pile of money deciding whether or not he should be extradited to another EU country - a standard for which he had almost no chance of winning from the get go. The UK is then obliged, by their own laws, to extradite him, which is creating a mess for them, because he decided to fuck some women he'd just met. The UK is fairly upholding their treaty obligations, and fairly assessed his extradition request.

Outside the existing legal situation we can have all the theories we want about him being immediately re-extradited from Sweden to the US, and about the validity of the Swedish case, but if anything this highlights that extradition from one EU country to another is still more complicated than it needs to be, and that you should keep your dick away from hangers on. Both of which are things we knew already.

poor guy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126799)

For a country to do this much to want to take him it means they will probable assassinate him or pass him off to some one who will do it.

Re:poor guy (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127115)

.And in doing so, create a martyr.

Why is this news? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126801)

How is the fact the the London police wish to arrest law breakers news?

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126863)

Exactly. And when a fugitive is high-profile, no law enforcement agency wants to be seen to lose him. This guy's had a lot of media attention, and the British aren't about to back off.

Escape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126803)

Are not the vehicles considered extensions of the embassy itself? I thought that the power the embassy wasn't restricted to the physical location, but also extended to the belongings and methods of transport which that country owns. If they did smuggle him out in a box labeled "Diplomatic papers" England wouldn't have any authority to seize or inspect that package it's considered soveriegn property. It would be the same as the England invading Equidor. I mean what does England think they are the US?

Vehicle yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127053)

The road where they are driven ... NO.

He gets in a car, gets cornered and instead of being stuck in an office, he is stuck inside of a hot car with no food, water or bathroom.

Re:Vehicle yes (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127121)

Yes, and 5 minutes later, a number of British diplomats around the world get a bullet in the head. You break the diplomatic rules and it's chaos. This is how world wars get started.

Solution (5, Funny)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126835)

Ecuadorean diplomats should now regularly ship moving crates, boxes, novelty oversized cakes and so forth out of the embassy on a daily basis.

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126927)

Best comment ever

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126949)

No, you're comment isn't that great.

Re:Solution (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127035)

Oh yerr?

Re:Solution (2)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127135)

*your

It appears yours isn't either.

Re:Solution (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126939)

or schedule regular masquerade parties with 100+ people going in and out of the embassy...

Re:Solution (3, Funny)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126941)

Or, Ecuador starts rotating through their London embassy a gaggle of diplomats that look alarmingly similar to Julian Assange.

Re:Solution (1)

sixtyeight (844265) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126961)

For that matter, I wonder how much Assange's appearance itself can be altered.

Suppose the embassy were to play host to a convention with a large number of people?

how many? (5, Insightful)

maijc (1365289) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126849)

how many rape victims would like that kind of police commitment to arrest their aggressors?

Re:how many? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126985)

How many REAL rape victums would like that kind of police commitment to arrest their aggressors?

There, fixed it for you.

Re:how many? (1)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126989)

all of them

Re:how many? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126997)

It's a man's world...

How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? (1)

Mishotaki (957104) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126887)

really... do the police think they will cut him up and smuggle him out piece by piece?

Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? (1)

Oronar (942125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126913)

Diplomatic bags do not have to be literal bags. They can be large crates or any type of container. People have been smuggled out of countries in them before. Which leads to the question what they actually planned to do if he is smuggled in one. Cause a car accident and hope he really really has to pee?

Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? (3, Informative)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127001)

Britain claims that they can inspect diplomatic bags.

Re:How does he fit in a diplomatic bag? (4, Interesting)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127057)

Any sources for that claim? That would be worse than storming an embassy. Diplomatic bags often contain very sensitive communication. One time pads, encryption devices are all send using diplomatic bags. It would be unimaginable to claim that the host nation can violate diplomatic bags (unless they are certain that the bag violates the conventions governing diplomatic bags, and by opening it they can prove it).

US Obama $$$$ for Assange Killing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126891)

President Obama is FURIOUS!

In the span of 15 minutes he started calling various Foreign Government Security Forces in attempts to arrange for the Assange killing for payment of Obama $$$$.

What a pitiful specter this Obama as the 'Bad News' arrived via telephone.

Re:US Obama $$$$ for Assange Killing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126915)

President Obama is FURIOUS!

In the span of 15 minutes he started calling various Foreign Government Security Forces in attempts to arrange for the Assange killing for payment of Obama $$$$.

What a pitiful specter this Obama as the 'Bad News' arrived via telephone.

[citation needed]

Re:US Obama $$$$ for Assange Killing (1)

itzdandy (183397) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127005)

yes, either site some sort of evidence, or can someone delete. I'm not about censorship, but if this is an outright lie it doesn't belong here. shame on you.

Re:US Obama $$$$ for Assange Killing (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127145)

Wake up, hysterical lies is the basis for an entire political platform in the US.

Hey UK, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126911)

need more lube for U$A action?

Mr Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126921)

His pinnie so winnie and shriveled more than a sarnine-ie.

UK is just doing their job (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126923)

When America say jump, Limey cunt ask how high. England is land of pussies. Mr. Bean is ok but all the rest suck.

I'd be willing to bet (was I a betting man) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126947)

That the "leak" comes from inside, from someone that feels Assange is right & ok by the law (plus certainly by the people)... any takers?

Do I *think* of him as a criminal??

No. Not at all in fact.

He reported facts he heard, and apparently so well, there is no "spin" possible... hence, the retribution errors being made.

I do feel others must feel that way, even on the "inside" perhaps even only subconciously but "slipping", so, there you are, as to my 1st statement above.

Proof's in the pudding... this article, exists as proof thereof.

APK

P.S.=> I think the world should move on now.

There's much larger issues @ stake than Mr. Assange out there, don't you all agree? Was interesting for a while, but, trying to frame up a guy on rape too?? Come on... that's what did it for me.

Talk about a "National Inquirer" level of professionalism. People aren't stupid & see right through that to the real heart of the matter - the guy acted as a responsible WORLD citizen, and reporter, & reported it. Leave him alone, be done & over with it. Put my tax dollars or someone else's to better use.

That's where ANY controlling interest goes wrong - you cannot tame the truth - or, how folks see it (hopefully based on facts established that are 100% verifiably correct)

Suppression's impossible, just like occupations... Just won't work, not with everyone, nor all the time - & especially over time

... apk

London Policeman Obviously Supports Wikileaks (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41126953)

Nobody "accidentally" carries a restricted document outside on the front of a clipboard. Good for those coppers. They can't publically declare their support for Wikileaks and Assange's movement to Ecuador, but it's awesome of them to be helping out where they can.

Re:London Policeman Obviously Supports Wikileaks (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127087)

They can't publically declare their support for Wikileaks and Assange's movement to Ecuador, but it's awesome of them to be helping out where they can.

Huh, that's... evil. Let me get this straight: When you're employed by the government you can't openly show disapproval of any of their corrupt tactics? Man, someone needs to set up an anonymous whistle blowers websi-- Oh, wait...

Quick, post it to WikiLeaks! (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41126979)

That's more believable than the UK media.

The good side? (5, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#41127067)

Doesn't seem to include "assassination" in the list of options.

Sure, if you just wanted to be rid of Assange, that would be easy. Snipers. Bombs. Even just a guy with a pistol.

Problem is, you have him killed in any way that looks deliberate, and he becomes a martyr. I would hope that anyone in power is smart enough to know that, but I've also learned that you can never underestimate just how stupid people can be.

Now, you could try other ways. If he was just in hiding, not causing an international incident in an embassy, you could stage a "mugging gone wrong" or even just a car accident. "Problem" eliminated, but it doesn't look like you did it. If you were really good, try to make it look like it *was* deliberate, but a plan by Ecuador from the beginning to kill him for... some reason. Has to be a good reason, obviously, but it's plausible.

But even then, he dies "fighting". It's obvious that they want to first assassinate his *character*, not the person himself. Assange the man is a nobody, a mildly egotistic anti-authoritarian who started a website almost anyone could make. The problem is Assange the concept, Assange the idea. The lone rebel trying to show the evil empires for what they really are.

That's who they need to eliminate. They started with the rape allegations. Perhaps they simply embellished what actually happened. Perhaps they twisted what was said, what was done. Perhaps they made the whole thing up. They've blurred the charges so much that I can't even tell what he's actually charged with anymore. But they did a good job of it - Assange the Idea, at least to some, is gone, replaced with Assange the Man, a man who (at worst) is a hypocritical rapist scumbag, or (at best) a regular guy who made a few mistakes on par with public intoxication.

Their next step, obviously, is to milk the "common criminal" idea for all it's worth. I don't think they'll even extradite him to the US to face some vague treason charge - that brings back discussion of the leaks, the rebel and the big bad empire. No, they'll try to avoid even mentioning that. They'll hit him with rape charges to make him scum (rape is often considered the worst crime, worse even than murder). They'll probably bring in charges like shoplifting to make him seem petty, small. Then when they've finished their show trial, they'll lock him away and try to shut him up. Only once he's in prison will they think of trying to kill him, again while avoiding martyrizing him (if it were an American prison, just staging a prison fight and shanking would be enough).

Assange is the new Bin Laden, another lie. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127093)

Assange is the new Bin Laden, another lie.

Not Legitimate Rape (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41127119)

It might be true that he sex without a condom against their will and possibly while one of the women was unconscious. But that shouldn't matter because it's not legitimate rape. If the rape was legitimate the women would not have invited him over to dinner. Also I read on /. that the female body has ways to shut itself down to prevent any penetration during legitimate rape.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?