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 Plans Modeling Debut At London Fashion Show

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the photo-leaks dept.

United Kingdom 173

An anonymous reader writes with news about a possible new direction for Julian Assange. Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September. The Australian WikiLeaks founder will reportedly model for Vivienne Westwood’s son, Ben Westwood, at a fashion show staged at the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he has been seeking refuge for the past two years. He is avoiding extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over claims of sex offences. “Julian’s been in the embassy for two years and it’s important that he doesn’t slip into obscurity,” said Ben Westwood. “I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”

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

Can we asume ... (4, Funny)

bigjocker (113512) | about 4 months ago | (#47349645)

... he will bare it all?

Re:Can we asume ... (4, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 4 months ago | (#47349697)

I just want to double-check- are we absolutely, 100% positive that this is a legitimate news story, and not a leaked script for a sequel to Zoolander or the latest Austin Powers movie?

Re:Can we asume ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349949)

In a twist, the bit where he's sandwiched between the two Finnish dwarves and the Maori tribesmen ends with him being extradited without charge and holed up in an embassy for two years.

Re:Can we asume ... (3, Informative)

AndyAndyAndyAndy (967043) | about 4 months ago | (#47349701)

No, but someone will anonymously release pictures from the changing room.

Re:Can we asume ... (2)

Aeros (668253) | about 4 months ago | (#47349847)

ugg..thats a scary pasty-white thought there.

New category of Who Cares? (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 4 months ago | (#47349661)

This is now at level of E!.
Modeling debut? Good grief.

Re:New category of Who Cares? (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 4 months ago | (#47349799)

Who cares? He has had his 15 minutes of fame.

Re:New category of Who Cares? (5, Funny)

homey of my owney (975234) | about 4 months ago | (#47349813)

Good grief.

No, not really. This is to quash any idea that he's an attention whore.

Re:New category of Who Cares? (1)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47349981)

Just like the Calle 13 rap, the Lady Gaga hangout, and the mulletted "You're The Voice" music video did.

Re:New category of Who Cares? (0, Offtopic)

Threni (635302) | about 4 months ago | (#47350223)

There's always this instead:

http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]

Stupid name, but fewer stupid stories, so...

and yet (3, Interesting)

Aryden (1872756) | about 4 months ago | (#47349673)

Had he just taken the damn HIV test, he'd be at home leaking more stuff.

Re:and yet (2, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 months ago | (#47349723)

If by "home" you mean "Gitmo" and by "more stuff" you mean bodily fluids you generally try to keep inside...

Re:and yet (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#47349769)

Personally I would had wanted to find out if my country really deserved to lit on fire or whatever he's just a chicken.

Re:and yet (2, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47349787)

Why would he go to Gitmo? His leaks were a joke at best. He lost all credibility at the ridiculously edited collateral murder video and then actually managed to go down hill more after that. He has done more to destroy his own credibility than anyone in the US government could have possibly done. A couple senators tried to politic it up by shouting silly things about him to get people worked up but at no point was he ever going to be extradited nor was he ever going to gitmo, at least not for any of these 'leaks'. He didn't steal the data himself even, he got it from others. He's nothing more than an attention whore, and a pretty shitty one at that.

As far as keeping body fluids inside, only if you're trying to get her pregnant.

Re:and yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349843)

For various definitions of "destroy" and "credibility." People are still fellating Snowden as some sort of hacker genius/security expert/patriot, despite the absurdity of that, and despite his current status of clearly eating out of Putin's hand. People will believe what they want to believe and worship whom they want to worship; facts rarely enter into it.

Re:and yet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349931)

and despite his current status of clearly eating out of Putin's hand

Yeah because a wanted man who seeks asylum with Russia is *really* in a position to refuse what Putin wants. Sure thing man.

Re:and yet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349989)

A wanted man who seeks asylum with Russia.... from the United States.... has pretty much already ruined his credibility. But, hey, nice attempt to completely railroad the point, jackass.

Re:and yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350081)

Sorry forgot credibility was only given by USA according to retards. But hey, nice denial of the point, retard.

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350781)

You're the one beating up strawmen. Maybe that counts as "genius" in your country, but here we pity the likes of you.

Re:and yet (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350123)

I guess if you were in Snowden's shoes, you would have sought asylum somewhere other than Russia. Of course, by now you'd be back home rotting in solitary confinement awaiting your trial. A trial in which you have no ability to challenge the evidence presented against you.

But please, tell us where you would seek asylum from the US. Afghanistan? Iran? North Korea? Can't decide?

Perhaps you should worry about your own credibility.

Re: and yet (5, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47350861)

This is misinformed - he was transiting through Russia when the US revoked his passport, and according to the stupid nation-state rules, that grounded him. If anybody chose where to cause Snowden to seek asylum it was John Kerry. He would have been in Latin America if not for the US State Department. Which, ironically would have been worse for him because the USG has no compunction about doing covert ops there. #monroedoctrine

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349911)

Congress disagrees with you. If he was a joke, they wouldn't be pulling every favor from both the UK and Sweden just to get this one man.

They could probably get Chinas cooperation on removing Kim Jong-Un with less effort (as far as I know, the Chinese governement doesn't exactly like him either).

Re:and yet (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#47350015)

Every favour?

You mean like going through channels and demanding extradition to the US? Or going for the secret rendition route that they did from the UK for years but don't seem to have done from Sweden?

The plan to have him extradited to Sweden on frankly bizarre charges, and then have him extradited from there to the US, which would need both Britian and Sweden's agreement seems a very covoluted way of doing things. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350539)

If they could legally do it in a more straightforward way, they would. They can't, so they don't.

Re:and yet (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47350061)

"Pulling in every favor" - and your evidence is?

You do realize that it's an explicit violation of the Swedish extradition treaty with the US to extradite someone for political, military, or intelligence crimes, don't you? They couldn't even hand over Edward Lee Howard, the greatest CIA defector to the Soviets during the cold war, and he didn't even have the cover of being a journalist (Sweden having the strongest whistleblower protections on Earth, as repeatedly noted by Assange at the time when he was moving there). And I assume that you know that someone surrendered under an EAW requires both the consent of the receiving (Sweden) *and* sending state (Britain) to be forward-extradited to a third state, meaning that being surrendered under an EAW only increases your protections against extradition. Britain, of course, being the country that took most of a decade to hand over Abu Hamza, a guy everyone hated and who was setting up terrorist training camps in the US, and which wouldn't hand over at all Gary McKinnon (the most costly hacker of US military systems in history) because he (like Assange) has Aspergers. Oh, and I'm sure you you know the ECHR, the world's greatest refuge for people seeking to avoid extradition, has the final say.

Lets just see if I've got the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy(TM) down pat. For reasons only beknownst to them, they can only nab Assange from Sweden, not the the UK, or any of the vast numbers of far-easier countries that Assange regularly globetrots to. No, it has to be Sweden. Let's just take that as a given for some Unknown Shadowy CIA Reason. Now, Assange was applying to live in Sweden when the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy decided, "Instead of waiting until we're ready to nab him for our charges, since he's planning to live here, wouldn't it be so much more fun to frame him for a crime? Yeah! And let's pick a crime that has a pathetically low conviction rate! Let's not only frame him for rape, but let's frame him for rape but use a case that involves the women having consented to certain acts but not others, have them do delays and other actions that could potentially hurt their case, etc, just like in real rape situations, where victims don't live their lives as though they're about to be judged in a trial, instead of a phony "knife to the throat" hollywood-style rape case." Why? Because the Shadowy CIA Conspiracy just rolls that way, stop asking questions! And because our CIA psychics have foreseen this event for decades in advance, we can now activate Sleeper Agent SW who we've had spend decades misleadingly cultivating herself as a young Swedish museum worker with a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex. Now, let's install our CIA Plant, Ms. Ny, to prosecute him - because of course, we at the CIA have infiltrated the top levels of all of the major governments' of the world's judicial systems just for this purpose (we also run all of their courts, so that we can have the Svea Court of Appeals, the Swedish Supreme Court, the UK District Court, the UK High Court, and the UK Supreme Court each rule against him in turn). But, for fun, let's have the prosecutor take several weeks to get him, and let's let the news totally leak out during the time that they're getting ready to arrest him so that Assange can run. And let's just let him flee the country, and not tell Sweden so that they can stop him. Then when he exhausts his legal options in the UK and jumps bail to run into the embassy of a country with an anti-western leader who's a fan of his, let's do absolutely nothing - it'll be fun!

Is this how it went down, in your mind? Great job, Shadowy CIA Conspiracy. Who's heading the CIA these days, Bozo the Clown?

Re:and yet (1, Troll)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47350389)

You do realize that it's an explicit violation of the Swedish extradition treaty with the US to extradite someone for political, military, or intelligence crimes, don't you?

LOL, okay, yeah. It's also illegal to render people from the EU to other countries, torture them, throw them in a prison camp without trial and keep them there for years. Still happened though, even with help from some European governments.

Framing him was part of their attempt to discredit Wikileaks. They did the same thing to Snowden in the early days, making all sorts of claims about his girlfriend. Considering how dodgy the case in Sweden looks it's hard to see how any rational person in Assange's position would risk going back there.

Re:and yet (2, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47350625)

LOL, okay, yeah. It's also illegal to render people from the EU to other countries

Ahem. [thelocal.se]

There's been more action taken in the EU against the US rendition program than anywhere else in the world.

Framing him was part of their attempt to discredit Wikileaks.

Why thank you, Amazing Kreskin, for your ability to know more than everyone actually involved in the case, including the three investigating officers, two (Gehlen, Wassgren) wanted him charged for what would become 5 charges (1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation, 2x rape), while one (Krans) wanted him charged with 4 (1x, 2x, 1x); the original prosecutor (Finne), who began investigating for 5 (1x, 2x, 2x), but changed it to 3x (1x, 2x, 0x) before SW's statement made it into the system; the appeals board which found her in error for reducing it without having even reviewed the victim statement; the second prosecutor (Ny), who sought (1x, 2x, 2x); the lower court judge, who approved a warrant for (1x, 2x, 2x); the Svea Court of Appeals, who held a full court hearing on appeal from Assange, including testimony from Assange's attorneys and a review of all evidence, and reached an official finding of probable cause for (1x, 2x, 1x); the Swedish Supreme Court, who refused his appeal; the British lower court, who heard Assange's claims alleging flaws in the Swedish process and malicious prosecution, and ruled against him on all counts; the UK High Court, which did the same; and the UK Supreme Court, which again did the same.

No no, we don't need any freaking judicial system, we have Amazing Kreskin here to tell us what's what!

They did the same thing to Snowden in the early days, making all sorts of claims about his girlfriend.

Huh? Pretty much everything I saw about his girlfriend was supportive of Snowden, along the lines of "Look at what he sacrificed in order to release this information!" If there was anything trying to condemn him over his girlfriend, I sure didn't see it. And even ignoring that, what the media chooses to focus on in one case to do has no bearing on what every level of two countries' judicial systems rules on a completely unrelated case..

Re:and yet (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#47350725)

I'm not entirely convinced that a governmental group thoroughly bungling an operation proves that they weren't attempting the operation. Assuming that conspiracies have to be totally effective seems unrealistic. It's like saying that because the Masons didn't take over the world, they weren't a secret society. No, they just didn't accomplish their goals (that we know of).

But deciding whether the rape charges were a happy coincidence or a happy "coincidence" seems to be more or less a matter of paranoia at this point.

Asking for evidence of favors is also rather iffy. It's a favor; of course they're not going to document it.

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350215)

Congress disagrees with you. If he was a joke, they wouldn't be pulling every favor from both the UK and Sweden just to get this one man.

The witch hunt of Assange (and Snowden) is primarily the responsibility of the Obama administration.

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350719)

Congress disagrees with you. If he was a joke, they wouldn't be pulling every favor from both the UK and Sweden just to get this one man.

The witch hunt of Assange (and Snowden) is primarily the responsibility of the Obama administration.

With our separation of interests in the US government, it's exactly the executive branch and not the legislative branch that should be doing our witch hunts.

Re:and yet (-1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 4 months ago | (#47350099)

The joke is that people who make trite comments about gitmo dont actually understand who goes to gitmo and why.

Protip: If you arent a foreign combatant you arent going to gitmo.

Theres also the fact that Sweden is less likely to extradite than the UK, but then this was never about reality but about appearances.

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350583)

From Assange's point of view, the issue is not whether Sweden is more or less likely to extradite than the UK. It's entirely about whether Sweden and the UK are more or less likely to extradite THAN MUTHAFORKING ECUADOR.

Re:and yet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350609)

> Protip: If you arent a foreign combatant you arent going to gitmo.

No. If the US accuses you of being an 'unlawful combatant' [wikipedia.org] then they have no compunctions about sending you to gitmo.

The key here is that just the accusation is sufficient and because it is completely arbitrary is why the jokes work -- the situation is fucked up.

Re:and yet (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#47350745)

Gitmo shouldn't exist at all. The fact that is does means I don't assume those in charge will studiously adhere to their guidelines about who they can and can't illegally detain there.

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350599)

I find this terribly inaccurate and incredibly naïve - almost to the point of sockpuppet territory.

Re: and yet (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47350919)

You don't rendition a prisoner to a black site for punishment - you do it to send a message to would-be followers. The UK flight tracking club has already disclosed that the CIA rendition plane was sent to Scotland as he was fleeing west and we know they grounded President Morales's plane to grab him the next day. That's a preponderance of evidence.

Re:and yet (2, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | about 4 months ago | (#47349819)

If by "home" you mean "Gitmo"

So you really, honestly believe that if he'd answered the questions that the Swedish investigators wanted to ask, that he'd have been sent from Sweden, via some flavor of rendition, right to Gitmo? Assange's nearly Jobs-like reality distortion field is definitely getting to you. Or, you're just trolling in the interests of ... what, exactly?

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349971)

He already answered the questions the Swedish investigators wanted to ask. He was then told that there was no case and he was free to leave. Shortly after, a different crime unit, with no connection to the sexual assault case, reopened the case and put out a warrant.

And this is Sweden we are talking about, a country with documented cases of cooperaing with the CIA on renditions. The big question is how he thought it would be a good idea to go there in the first place.

Re:and yet (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 months ago | (#47350001)

Maybe not Gitmo. Maybe the brig on a Navy ship somewhere or a prison on the mainland US. Maybe he would have got a regular plane ride instead of a trip on the Torture Taxi. But I'm quite certain he would have been put in US custody and extradited. An embassy in London has been surrounded by cops 24/7 for years in case he ever steps foot outside. The demand to bring him in for questioning hasn't been dropped even though the condom he was allegedly wearing had none of his DNA on it.

Do you really, honestly believe he's just wanted for questioning about a rape? I'm on the other side of a reality distortion field from you, but who's inside it?

Re:and yet (5, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47350165)

The funny thing being that according to Wikileaks itself, in 2006 Sweden created a major diplomatic incident with the US by diguising their special forces as airport workers and hijacking a US rendition flight to stop the US from renditioning people through their airspace [thelocal.se] . The very Swedish foreign minister that Assange rails against (Carl Bildt) is the same guy who was prime minister when Sweden refused to hand over Edward Lee Howard to the US because Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence crimes.

No country is perfect, and every country has bad marks at some point on its record, so anyone who wants to can pick attacks for any country. However, in Sweden, these sort of things are few and far between. The peer-reviewed World Justice Project Rule of Law Index ranks Sweden #1 in the world [worldjusticeproject.org] for fundamental rights of the accused. Assange on at least two occasions called Sweden his "shield" before the incident due to their having such good whistleblower protections**, and was applying for residence there. It was only after he got anklagad for rape that he suddenly changed his tune and decided that Sweden is an evil US lackey bent on his downfall. Funny how that works.

(** It's actually those very whistleblower protections that are responsible for why we know so much about the case. In Sweden, it's illegal to even look for a person who leaks documents if they consider it whisteblowing; as a result, pretty much every high-profile criminal case in Sweden leaks like a sieve)

Re:and yet (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#47350419)

Sweden refused to hand over Edward Lee Howard to the US because Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence crimes.

This isn't an intelligence crime. Assange is accused of terrorism and actively harming US security and interests. What you are suggesting is that he takes a huge risk, and the result of losing will be rotting in gitmo forever.

Re:and yet (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#47350687)

What he is accused of in the US is absolutely irrelevant. It's what the Swedish court says that would matter.

Re:and yet (4, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47350709)

Assange is not accused of anything by the US. There are no US charges against him. There is still an investigation open, but it's questionable that they'll ever even be able to charge him with anything [washingtonpost.com] . Just assuming that they did, a terrorism charge would get utterly laughed out of each of the *five* different bodies (Swedish courts, Swedish governments, British courts, British government, and ECHR) that would have independent veto authority over a US request. You might as well accuse him of of beating to death an astronaut on the moon, it's about as plausible. And the US could barely get Abu-freaking-Hamza extradited, an *actual* who everyone hated, a guy who was working to set up terrorist training camps in the US (and even when they finally did, a decade later, they couldn't even put him in a supermax prison because the EU considers that too cruel). And "actively harming US security and interests" isn't even a charge in the US, let alone anything that would even remotely meet even the basic double criminality standard.

Re:and yet (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#47350815)

Interesting link, but the article doesn't say they hijacked the aircraft, only that they boarded and confirmed there were prisoners onboard.

I'm also trying to figure out what they mean by "carried out without the knowledge of the Americans." If the Americans knew about it, why would the Swedes even bother going in undercover? Unless they knew about it and chose to do nothing I suppose, since it sounds like it was on Swedish soil.

Re:and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350571)

He did take the test btw...and went for an interview... and asked if he could leave Sweden.

Good move (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 4 months ago | (#47349677)

What happened to him is totally unfair.

Yes. It is totally unfair, but nevertheless it seems quite fashionable.

Egotistical narcissist, no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349683)

Yeah, compete with the Kardashians. Way to improve credibility there.

runway model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349687)

Seems like he is less qualified for a "catwalk" and more for a "perp walk".

Escape Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349695)

Looks like an ideal opportunity to disguise him and smuggle him out.

Re:Escape Plan (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 months ago | (#47349743)

Seriously, have him swap places with an androgynous model. The cops would have to risk a lot to arrest a rich celebrity on suspicion that she's Julian in disguise.

Bizarre (4, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | about 4 months ago | (#47349707)

Can things possibly get any more bizarre with Assange? I have an idea. Let's lock Julian Assange, John McAfee and Edward Snowden in a room for a week and see who is left surviving at the end. We can call it Hunger Games - Nerd Edition (my bet's on McAfee).

Re:Bizarre (2)

aliquis (678370) | about 4 months ago | (#47349777)

Can't we just film it and call it Big Brother 2.0?

Re:Bizarre (4, Funny)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about 4 months ago | (#47350059)

My money's on Hans Reiser.

Re:Bizarre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350405)

My moneys on Steve Ballmer if there are chairs in there.

Re:Bizarre (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#47350457)

Put Phil Specter in too.

Bizarre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350349)

Unless Assange and Snowden get to team up and have weapons, I'll bet on McAfee all day, every day. The mans a savage.

Re:Bizarre (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 4 months ago | (#47350463)

But this will be when he's not high on drugs.

Re:Bizarre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350619)

> Can things possibly get any more bizarre with Assange?

Two years locked in one building and you'd go stir crazy too.

Re:Bizarre (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#47350707)

Are you kidding? McAfee would have them both dead by the time the door is locked.

Now, how about we take McAfee deep into whatever country he's pissed-off lately and tell him to go hunt the other two? He seems to have some experience handling local South American officials...

Fifteeen minutes of fame. (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 4 months ago | (#47349709)

Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September.

What begins as tragedy ends as farce.

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame. (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#47349991)

More like, "what begins as a farce has jumped the shark."

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350085)

What have you done, asshole?

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame. (1)

halivar (535827) | about 4 months ago | (#47350103)

Hopefully, avoided a ridiculous career as a male model.

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame. (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47350637)

Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September.

What begins as tragedy ends as farce.

At least you're talking about him. If the general consensus in this thread were "Assange who?" he'd already be getting waterboarded.

Re:Fifteeen minutes of fame. (0)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#47350717)

The only tragedy is that some people ever took that moron seriously...

Attention Whore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349731)

Was there ever, really, any doubt?

May we call this ... (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about 4 months ago | (#47349765)

... the "Zoolander" gambit?

Re:May we call this ... (1)

halivar (535827) | about 4 months ago | (#47350117)

Damn that Assange; he's so hot right now!

Diplomatic immunity? (1)

cronostitan (573676) | about 4 months ago | (#47349817)

I don't understand why the Ecuadorians don't make him a countryman and give him a diplomatic passport?

Re: Diplomatic immunity? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349841)

You cannot get immunity for previous crimes.

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 4 months ago | (#47349875)

Because it's not that simple. You can't just declare your citizens diplomats. The UK would have to accept his diplomatic credentials.

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349905)

He can't leave the building anyway. Sex without a condom has some SERIOUS fuckin consequences huh?

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (2, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47350243)

Sex without a condom has some SERIOUS fuckin consequences huh?

Haha... because "On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity" (charge #4 on the EAW, the one with the checkbox ticked for rape) is best summed up as "sex without a condom". Such a frivolity!

Come on, girls, stop this nonsense, don't you know that Assange is the awesomeest awesome that ever awesomed? So what if he waits until you're asleep to f*** you for a bit in a way that you explicitly and repeatedly prohibited while you were awake, it's not something to ruin a great man's life over - just lie back and take it!

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (2, Insightful)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 4 months ago | (#47350525)

Not disagreeing with the other facts you stated, but the girls did not press charges, nor did the swedish gov't - the got an extradition warrant so that they could question him. The fact that the refuse to do this via webcam, phone, letter etc and that they are doing this even though the women don't want to press charges shows that the extradition is political.

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (0)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#47350755)

Yeah, like long-distance questioning is the norm. It's probably less bureaucratic to just drag him over Sweden.

Add to that the fact that they probably considered he posed a high risk of fleeing to some third world country (which he did, in a way)...

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350249)

You mean rape without a condom.

Re:Diplomatic immunity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350005)

The whole diplomatic system works by the target country "inviting" in the diplomats. You cannot force another country to accept diplomatic status for a person.

When a country "invites" a diplomat, there is then agreement that the worst thing they can do to this person is kicking him out of the country. This agreement is the only protection a diplomat gets. The only thing preventing a country from withdrawing from this agreement and arrest diplomats anyway, is that it is usually a two way agreement, and the other country would then be free to do the same thing. But in this case, no such agreement exists, so the only protection he gets is the agreement they have about the building.

it's not unfair - he shoulda worn a rubber (0)

jsepeta (412566) | about 4 months ago | (#47349865)

The sexual assault comes from hiring hookers and not following their terms of the verbal agreement -- "wear a condom or don't have sex". The hookers were totally in the right for calling Assange out for being an asshole.

Re:it's not unfair - he shoulda worn a rubber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350105)

coz that is exactly what they did, they said he raped them .. oh wait that's different than being an asshole? you'd know right, being an asshole and all.

Re:it's not unfair - he shoulda worn a rubber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350261)

And yet they still decide to go through with it? AND THEN ACCUSE HIM OF RAPE, unambiguously and directly, before RETRACTING THAT ENTIRELY?

Re:it's not unfair - he shoulda worn a rubber (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350307)

The sexual assault comes from hiring hookers and not following their terms of the verbal agreement -- "wear a condom or don't have sex". The hookers were totally in the right for calling Assange out for being an asshole.

that was julian's mistake. an all too common one too. if you are doing things that piss off powerful people you cannot afford to blatantly indulge in vices like these. they will be used against you in every way possible.

mod9 down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349913)

be trEated by your Slashdot's insisted that THAT HAVE RAGED Arrogance was

Maybe he'll give new meaning to the phrase... (1)

Shoten (260439) | about 4 months ago | (#47349919)

"Orange is the New Black"

Re:Maybe he'll give new meaning to the phrase... (1)

rvw (755107) | about 4 months ago | (#47350235)

"Orange is the New Black"

I guess you're not mexican!

if only! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349921)

"it's important that he doesn't slip into obscurity"

Hopefully he can remain in the public spotlight by posthumously winning the Guinness World Record for choking on the largest bag of dicks.

Re:if only! (2, Funny)

Rei (128717) | about 4 months ago | (#47350383)

Oh come on now... the guy may be a tea party-aligned rape fugitive who overrode his political party to caucus with the Neo-Nazis [theaustralian.com.au] , gave the dictator of Belarus [aljazeera.com] an advance on leaks to be used in purges against his enemies, attempted to blackmail aid agencies [zdnet.com] by threatening to release information that could get their sources killed (including Amnesty International, to the tune of $700k), makes his volunteers sign 7-figure ultra-repressive NDAs [cbsnews.com] , caused the defection of most of Wikileaks's staff due to complaints from authoritarianism to diverting the organization's money to himself, writes on his blog [cryptome.org] about how he's a god to women and women's brains can't do math, made a fake op-ed [talkingpointsmemo.com] in the name of one of his opponents supposedly supporting him and promoted it with a fake twitter account in his name, wanted his book [lrb.co.uk] to be called "Ban This Book: From Swedish Whores to Pentagon Bores", wanted it to be full of his sex stories and at one point interrupted his ghostwriter to leer at a couple of 14-year-olds before remarking that one was "fine until I saw the teeth", cyberstalked a 17 year old before he got famous [gawker.com] , and so on down the line ad nauseum... ....that's still no reason to wish him ill.

I love the... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349997)

... fact they mention he's wanted for "Sex offences" but never mention they are entirely trumped up. The less informed won't know any better.

Re:I love the... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#47350113)

then let him face the charges a good lawyer can do wonders

Re:I love the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350229)

HE won't face the charges because it's obvious he's as guilty as hell.

Re:I love the... (0)

BitZtream (692029) | about 4 months ago | (#47350325)

I like the fact that people still repeat this silly bullshit excuse.

Its fucking SWEDEN. If there was ANY country on the entire planet that would give him a fair shake, it'd be Sweden. You're an ignorant idiot to still believe he did nothing at all wrong.

Re:I love the... (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 4 months ago | (#47350851)

Just because he broke local laws doesn't mean the U.S. isn't also out to get him.

Why do we care about this? (1)

robstout (2873439) | about 4 months ago | (#47350019)

Assange is modeling? Yay, I guess.

Fuck beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350051)

Sure, this is news..., but the fucking owners of /. ratcheting it up a notch, this morning landed again on beta, despite for not asking it.
Than the clicker to go back to classic did not work...
I was like WTF, they now need extra scripts or what to make that trip back to the old...
About a minute or so, the page reloaded and the link work as it is supposed too.
I think I was just subject of an experiment, very much like the one on farcebook, forced to look at the vomit called beta...
The message is, beta is coming, resistance is futile
You can mod me off-topic or whatever you want but I think this tactics we are witnessing here is despicable at best
Just tell WHY WHY, really WHY????

Re:Fuck beta (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350453)

Could be worse. It could look and taste like the shite that Soylent News began as and continues to be...

Naive (2, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#47350111)

“I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”

He's in self-imposed exile and he made it worse on himself by running into the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. Somebody needs to tell this twit that life is unfair, get used to it.

Re:Naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350577)

Yeah, I think if I were Julian, I'd be telling Westwood a thing or two about now.

What's with all the CIA astroturfers today?

Re:Naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350685)

Or maybe DOD/NSA? A contractor? Has all the earmarks of a some kind of campaign, anyway.

Not bizarre, but honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350263)

Finally he is living his vanity in plain sight, good for him on getting to terms with himself.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47350497)

I'm sure Assange would be an excellent model if he chose, but somehow this one just doesn't pass the smell test. Sounds more like somebody trying to cash in on somebody else's notoriety. Has anyone actually asked him? Is all this just Westwood trying to rope him into something?

If I accidentally see pics... (1)

sribe (304414) | about 4 months ago | (#47350853)

I will gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?