Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 20, @04:27AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

Julian Assange's extradition from UK to US approved by home secretary

Priti Patel has approved the extradition of the WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange to the US, a decision the organisation immediately said it would appeal against in the high court.

The case passed to the home secretary last month after the supreme court ruled there were no legal questions over assurances given by US authorities over how Assange was likely to be treated.

While Patel has given a green light, WikiLeaks immediately released a statement to say it would appeal against the decision.

"Today is not the end of fight," it said. "It is only the beginning of a new legal battle. We will appeal through the legal system; the next appeal will be before the high court."

Also at NYT.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Reply to Article Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:32AM (43 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:32AM (#1254515)

    His immense ego and hubris have caught up to him.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by dalek on Monday June 20, @05:11AM (33 children)

      by dalek (15489) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @05:11AM (#1254520) Journal

      Ego and hubris aren't crimes. What crimes has Assange committed?

      He's being extradited for publishing materials that the US didn't want published. But what separates Assange from a journalist reporting on leaked information? I fail to see a substantial difference between Assange releasing documents that were given to him and the New York Times publishing the Pentagon Papers. Assange didn't break into computer systems to obtain documents. They were given to him, and he helped to sort through the information and publish what he thought was appropriate. The only thing that might be different from what Assange did versus a traditional journalist is that he published the material instead of crafting a story around the documents that were delivered to him.

      Journalism is protected by the first amendment. Assange acted as a journalist and his release of documents, however controversial, are protected by the freedom of the press. A person cannot be denied constitutional rights on the basis of ego and hubris.

      Accepting a presidential pardon is not an admission of guilt. Biden should do the right thing and immediately pardon Assange. It would not admit any guilt, and I do not believe that Assange is guilty of any actual crimes.

      --
      EXTERMINATE
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:43AM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @05:43AM (#1254525)

        Ah but once he's in the US he's no longer a person, he's an alien without rights isn't he?

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @07:24AM (9 children)

          by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @07:24AM (#1254538)

          See, that's the difference between a civilized society and a banana republic: In a civilized society, even non-citizens have basic human rights.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:06AM (#1254546)

            Constitution applies equally to foreigners and citizens. There is no distinction. You should really know that. Having said that, here are the places where they claim parts of it don't apply because ...

            https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone [aclu.org]

          • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20, @03:25PM (5 children)

            by legont (4179) on Monday June 20, @03:25PM (#1254628)

            Is First Amendment a basic human right in your book?

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:58PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:58PM (#1254752)

              Is First Amendment a basic human right in your book?

              Um, yes? In everyone's book, because it is stated in the International Declaration of Human Rights [ohchr.org]:

              Article 19
              Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

              Nice how they anticipated Net Neutrality way back in 1948.

              aristarchus (the one being denied human rights under the IDHR)

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 21, @02:41AM (2 children)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 21, @02:41AM (#1254807) Journal

                Your right to express yourself hasn't been taken away or denied you - you are expressing yourself in the comment I am responding to.

                Nowhere in the IDHR or the First Amendment does it give you the right to insist that we publish your expressions. You are free to create your own site and publish whatever you wish, or write to the press, or to use Twitter etc. We are also free to publish whatever we wish.

                --
                We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:09AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:09AM (#1254833)

                  Expect a case before the European Court of human rights, you brexited bastard! It says right there, . . . oh, you didn't read it, did you? Pretty soon SoylentNews will be left with khallow/Runaway legal interpretations, and the totally unreflective British racism of the Eds. And who, besides Americans, would troll mod the UDHR? Do they not now it was First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt that pushed it through? And nowadays, in collusion with the Brits and the Auzzies, America seeks to undermine the very same, and to get immunity from the International Criminal Court where its war criminals, like Tom Cruz, could be tried.

                  [BTW, if you knew what measures I have to take to just get an AC post to appear on SoylentNews. Bad posting notices, invalid forms, Cowboys slowing down, the whole circus is quite amusing, and totally ineffective. I imagine that if I was not a Soylentil from the beginning, committed to the Cause, I might be deterred by such trivial measures. But, Freeze Peaches, you Blimey Bag of Bollocks! I will be back. ]

                  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 21, @02:23PM

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 21, @02:23PM (#1254893) Journal

                    you didn't read it, did you?

                    Yes, I did. But unlike yourself, I also understood it. It doesn't say any medium 'of your choice', but you can use any of those that will permit you to. We simply moderate you. Have you tried WaPo, or BBC News? Think of the coverage you could get from them for your valuable and insightful political views.

                    I wonder how all those European countries managed to get RT off the air - they must be queuing up to be in the dock before a judge of the International Court for walking all over Putin's human rights?

                    --
                    We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21, @08:13AM

              by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday June 21, @08:13AM (#1254840)

              Not just mine, the international declaration of human rights would say so, too:

              "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

              Note, though, that it doesn't expect you to have the right to impose your opinion on anyone. You have the right to speak. Nobody has the obligation to listen.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21, @11:02AM (1 child)

            by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday June 21, @11:02AM (#1254853)

            Am I the only one who finds the "disagree" mod on this one kinda ... frightening?

            Seriously, do people really disagree with the idea that humans should have basic human rights independent of their origin?

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:26PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @06:26PM (#1254978)

              I hate to break it to you, but yes, some do.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday June 20, @08:04AM (10 children)

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @08:04AM (#1254544) Homepage Journal

        You don't have to like the guy. Not only did he just act as a journalist, he (a) did not perform any of these actions while in the US, and (b) is not a US citizen. What possible basis for prosecution does the US have?

        Of course, the US will trump up some charges. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, they will keep in in jail for years, as the process plays out. More likely, they will trump up some charges that they can stick him with. Think "Martha Stewart", if nothing else.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @02:16PM (8 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @02:16PM (#1254605) Journal

          he (a) did not perform any of these actions while in the US, and (b) is not a US citizen. What possible basis for prosecution does the US have?

          If you hack a bank online from Australia and the US authorities manage to catch you then those charges are all very much legal. There is no difference if that "Bank" happens to be a US intelligence agency.

          Now, whether or not Assange actually did that will be decided by a jury. I make no claim one way or the other on that. I'm just pointing out that your legal analysis above is very flawed.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Monday June 20, @02:41PM (3 children)

            by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @02:41PM (#1254612) Homepage Journal

            My analysis was simplistic, yes. However, see this lovely summary of applicable law [justice.gov], especially the section on jurisdiction on page 113. The relevant bits from the Patriot Act, which is likely the relevant law applicable here:

            Any person who, outside the jurisdiction of the United States, engages in any act that, if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States, would constitute an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section, shall be subject to the fnes, penalties, imprisonment, and forfeiture provided in this title if—

            (1) the offense involves an access device issued, owned, managed, or controlled by a financial institution, account issuer, credit card system member, or other entity within the jurisdiction of the United States; and

            (2) the person transports, delivers, conveys, transfers to or through, or otherwise stores, secrets, or holds within the jurisdiction of the United States, any article used to assist in the commission of the offense or the proceeds of such offense or property derived therefrom.

            Summarized: As I understand this legalese, Assange would have to have (1) accessed a sensitive device in the US (he didn't, Manning did), and (2) stored data in the US (unlikely, but possible - where was his storage located).

            AFAIK, the plan of the prosecution is to claim that he helped Manning to steal the documents, by providing technical advice. Unlikely, since Manning simply had to copy documents to which he had access - no hacking necessary.

            --
            Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20, @03:22PM (3 children)

            by legont (4179) on Monday June 20, @03:22PM (#1254626)

            If you hack GRU of Russia and Russian authorities managed to catch you anywhere in the world regardless of you working or not for the US or any other government...
            Come to think about it, if you designed a tool and sold it to the perpetrators...

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @03:39PM (2 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @03:39PM (#1254637) Journal

              Yes, and the opposite is also true. Remember how all those indictments against Russian citizens for illegally interfering in the 2016 election are just meaningless paper?

              • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday June 20, @03:42PM (1 child)

                by legont (4179) on Monday June 20, @03:42PM (#1254639)

                Well, I am pretty sure Assange will be hard pressed to admit the whole Wikileaks is Russian intelligence operation.

                --
                "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday June 20, @11:33PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Monday June 20, @11:33PM (#1254782)

          Think "Martha Stewart", if nothing else.

          Except that Martha Stewart actually did some criminal stuff involving breaking securities laws. Julian Assange has, as far as anyone can tell, broken no US law whatsoever.

          My understanding is that the theory of prosecution is that he solicited the crime of hacking the Clinton campaign, rather than somebody doing that without his direction and giving him the information to publish. But really, it's just an excuse to get him behind bars any way they can, and his political protection disappeared once he annoyed both powerful Democrats and powerful Republicans.

          --
          Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
      • (Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20, @03:14PM (8 children)

        by srobert (4803) on Monday June 20, @03:14PM (#1254624)

        "Journalism is protected by the first amendment."

        That implies that Assange is protected by the first amendment. But that's rubbish. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitiuton only applies to those within the borders of the U.S. Foreigners in foreign lands have no such rights or protections against being prosecuted (or persecuted) by the United States government. For precedent I site the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Assange is not an American, and was not within the U.S. when he committed his heinous crimes. The evidence before the court is incontrovertible. There's no need for the jury to retire. In all my years of judging I have never heard before of someone more deserving of the full penalty of law. ...It fills me with the urge to defecate!

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @03:41PM (5 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @03:41PM (#1254638) Journal

          They had to define a whole new class of enemy soldier to pull off Guantanamo...

          As of now he is just a normal foreigner who committed a crime against a US entity. This is a well established and very common occurrence for countries with extradition treaties.

          • (Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20, @03:52PM (4 children)

            by srobert (4803) on Monday June 20, @03:52PM (#1254642)

            "As of now he is just a normal foreigner who committed a crime against a US entity."

            Exactly! Journalism when committed by foreigners in foreign lands may be deemed a crime, and not protected by the 1st amendment. Although, the warning will extend to Americans that such "acts of journalism" will not be tolerated when committed by them either.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @04:01PM (3 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @04:01PM (#1254648) Journal

              I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand what he's actually being charged with but here it is directly from the indicment:

              to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized
              access,
              to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in
              furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a
              violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e).
              (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2),
              1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).)

              Maybt it'll stick, maybe it won't, but he is no longer merely being charged with reporting information he was provided.

              • (Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20, @06:23PM (2 children)

                by srobert (4803) on Monday June 20, @06:23PM (#1254693)

                Yes, those are ostensibly the "official" charges. But those charges only exist to whitewash the true source of animosity that the MIC has for Assange and the reason behind his prosecution, i.e. for exposing the actions and the attitude of American military personnel while they were killing innocent civilians.

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @06:39PM (1 child)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @06:39PM (#1254700) Journal

                  It is possible to expose government misdeeds and also commit a crime.

                  You don't get to say "I'm just a journalist" when you are personally doing the hacking.

                  It is now up to the DOJ to convince a jury that he personally did the hacking. No shadowy conspiracies required....

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:33PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:33PM (#1254783)

                    a jury of Windows, ipad and Facebook users...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:07PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:07PM (#1254754)

          That implies that Assange is protected by the first amendment. But that's rubbish. The first amendment to the U.S. Constituton only applies to those within the borders of the U.S.

          American's ignorance of their own Constitution is astounding.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @08:42PM (#1255047)

            Yeah, nowhere in the first amendment does it say it only applies to US citizens. It is a restriction upon the government, whether it wants to go after US citizens or non-citizens.

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:28PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:28PM (#1254779)

        Dalek Your ego and hubris were your undoing vs. APK on Symbiote. What's always BOUND TO HAPPEN to you is you losing to APK as always He got you yet again https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=49835&page=1&cid=1254772#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] with solid proof he is right hosts files block symbiote C2 servers which is all you really need to do to nullify their communication. Exfiltration isn't possible without orders either. Orders come from C2 servers!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:55AM (#1254791)

          apk is loosing again. So sad. Say what you want about MDC, but at least he was an interesting crazy person. apk, not so much.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @02:12PM (8 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @02:12PM (#1254603) Journal

      Trump finally got his man!

      A reminder of the timeline:

      Obama chooses not to indict Assange due to first Amendment concerns. [theintercept.com]
      Trump then tried to SECRETLY indict Assange but hilariously failed at the secret part. [reuters.com]
      Then team Trump indicts Assange officially since all those brave free speech warriors decided to DEFEND the secret indictment. [theguardian.com]

      So now that there's no magic (R) involved everybody on the right loves Assange again.

      So here we are, Trump finally caught his guy!

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @02:39PM (7 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @02:39PM (#1254611) Journal

        Obama chooses not to indict Assange due to first Amendment concerns.

        We don't know that. What we do know is that the indictment was ready the moment that Assange stepped out of the embassy. And that Obama's administration tried to frame [katoikos.world] Assange before.

        [Interviewer] You are “the minister” who refused to cooperate with the FBI because you suspected their agents on mission in Iceland were trying to frame Julian Assange. Do you confirm this? [Ögmundur Jónasson] Yes. What happened was that in June 2011, US authorities made some approaches to us indicating they had knowledge of hackers wanting to destroy software systems in Iceland. I was a minister at the time. They offered help. I was suspicious, well aware that a helping hand might easily become a manipulating hand!

        Later in the summer, in August, they sent a planeload of FBI agents to Iceland seeking our cooperation in what I understood as an operation set up to frame Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

        Since they had not been authorised by the Icelandic authorities to carry out police work in Iceland and since a crack-down on WikiLeaks was not on my agenda, to say the least, I ordered that all cooperation with them be promptly terminated and I also made it clear that they should cease all activities in Iceland immediately.

        It was also made clear to them that they were to leave the country. They were unable to get permission to operate in Iceland as police agents, but I believe they went to other countries, at least to Denmark. I also made it clear at the time that if I had to take sides with either WikiLeaks or the FBI or CIA, I would have no difficulty in choosing: I would be on the side of WikiLeaks.

        This interview was in December, 2016 at the tail end of the Obama administration. My take is that if Assange had left the embassy during Obama's term, the US would have found something to extradite him on just like they did now. Notice that nothing has changed even though it's now Biden in charge. This demonstrates the futility of blaming it all on Trump.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @02:54PM (6 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @02:54PM (#1254617) Journal

          Obama's indictment was so secret that we STILL don't know if it exists!

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @03:07PM (5 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @03:07PM (#1254622) Journal

            Obama's indictment was so secret that we STILL don't know if it exists!

            You keep whistling past that graveyard. Indictments routinely are secret - the Trump one was secret, for example, until it was deployed.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @03:15PM (4 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @03:15PM (#1254625) Journal

              Correct, which means we now have evidence to present for a claim that Trump wanted to arrest Assange. And now Assange has been arrested based on the orders issued by the Trump admin.

              For Obama, your claim is only based on the LACK of evidence. There is no public indictment, you have no evidence for a secret indictment, and he was never arrested. (indictments become unsecret super quick if you use them for their purpose which is to arrest people!)

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @03:53PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @03:53PM (#1254643)

                Khallow tries so HARD to sound objective and logical, then undoes it all with extreme rightwing propaganda. Annoying having the same arguments over and over just to keep the bullshit in check.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @04:35PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @04:35PM (#1254657) Journal

                For Obama, your claim is only based on the LACK of evidence.

                Lack of evidence like an Obama-era FBI mission to Iceland to frame Wikileaks? Yours is an argument from ignorance fallacy even if there really were LACK of evidence.

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @05:23PM (1 child)

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @05:23PM (#1254674) Journal

                  They wouldn't need to frame him if they already had an indictment!

                  So what you have provided is actually evidence AGAINST the claim there was a secret indictment already in place already for Assange.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @07:28PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:28PM (#1254710) Journal

                    They wouldn't need to frame him if they already had an indictment!

                    You have it backwards. The frame needs to be in place first before the indictment. Notice also this was during the same time span as the Swedish rape accusations. My take is that they attempted to discredit Wikileaks in 2010 by having Assange accused of rape by Swedish prosecutors. Assange immediately contested the extradition on the grounds that it was prelude to extradition to the US. If the US had then indicted and issued an extradition request at that time, the optics would have looked bad and may have scuttled both extradition requests.

                    Further, this wasn't a theoretical concern because then US Attorney General Eric Holder had stated [boston.com] (November, 2010):

                    The Justice Department will prosecute anyone found to have violated U.S. law in the leaks of classified government documents by online whistleblower WikiLeaks, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday.

                    "This is not saber-rattling," said the attorney general, who declared that the Obama administration condemns the leaks.

                    Holder said the latest disclosure, involving classified State Department documents, puts at risk the security of the nation, its diplomats, intelligence assets and U.S. relationships with foreign governments.

                    "To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law, who put at risk the assets and the people I have described, they will be held responsible; they will be held accountable," Holder said at a news conference on another topic. He called the WikiLeaks probe "an active, ongoing criminal investigation."

                    Incidentally, that announcement came two weeks after the international arrest warrant issued by those Swedish prosecutors.

                    My take is that the Iceland adventure in 2011 came about (the FBI incidentally is under Holder's control) because the extradition to Sweden took so long. And after Assange sought political asylum with Ecuador, there was no opportunity to deliver said indictment/extradition request until he was kicked out in 2019.

                    That's the thing that gets missed. Strategically, it made no sense to issue a public indictment at any point during that eight years prior to Assange's department from the Ecuador embassy. Prior to the Swedish rape charge, Assange's reputation was solid enough to endanger an extradition request. Prior to the final resolution of the Swedish extradition request, an indictment would have backfired, confirming Assange's narrative in court. Prior to Assange getting kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy, an indictment would have politically confirmed Assange's narrative of being a political refugee. The US couldn't have revealed an indictment any sooner than they did.

                    And of course, there's been no change in the US tactics here despite yet another transition to the Biden administration. Sure, if you wish to continue to believe that the Obama administration had some respect for the First Amendment, that's your choice. None of the rest of us need to be that gullible.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:05AM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:05AM (#1254528)

    Julian Assange: what is Australia’s position on his extradition, and what options does it have? [theguardian.com]

    Speaking to reporters in Melbourne, the prime minister reaffirmed his previously stated position, while suggesting that he would not take a more forthright public position.

    “I have made clear what my position is publicly,” he said. “I made it clear last year. I stand by my comments that I made then.

    “But I make this point as well – there are some people who think that if you put things in capital letters on Twitter and put an exclamation mark, then that somehow makes it more important. It doesn’t.

    “I intend to lead a government that engages diplomatically and appropriately with our partners.”

    ...

    The foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, and the attorney general, Mark Dreyfus,... said they planned to “continue to convey our expectations that Mr Assange is entitled to due process, humane and fair treatment, access to proper medical care, and access to his legal team”. This is a similar position to what the former Australian government repeatedly said in public.

    But there was a critical addition to the statement alluding to new overarching representations to the US and the UK: “The Australian government has been clear in our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged on for too long and that it should be brought to a close. We will continue to express this view to the governments of the United Kingdom and United States.”

    So... shoot him and put him out of his misery? (grin)

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:46AM (16 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:46AM (#1254535)

      Translation: The US owns us, and we won’t defend our own.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:53AM (12 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @06:53AM (#1254536)

        Also "Britain", now a subsidiary of India, run and overrun by Prity Patels.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 20, @07:25AM (11 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:25AM (#1254539) Journal

          So she was born British, and was educated in Britain. Her parents were born in Uganda. Her grand-parents are Indian. I detest the woman, but if you want to cast off-topic slurs at least try to keep them honest and accurate.

          --
          We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
          • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday June 20, @08:32AM (3 children)

            by Nuke (3162) on Monday June 20, @08:32AM (#1254551)

            Many of the white administrators of UK descent in the British Raj (the British government of India until 1947) were born in India, and hardly knew Britain. Gandhi (who, these days, people seem to consider to be an example to us all) and the other Indian nationalists objected to them nevertheless, and they were kicked out in 1947.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:44AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:44AM (#1254557)

              What a joke. Do you get paid to spread this bullshit or you do it free out of hatred?

              White administrators weren't "kicked out". They left to their home country being the racists that they were, and they still own and get free money from the rent of the land their ancestors owned in India.

              It is obivous you have never been to India. If you had, you would find resorts owned by people who don't live in India.

              • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday June 21, @08:28AM (1 child)

                by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday June 21, @08:28AM (#1254843)

                I have known two white people whose families left India after its independence : a guy I worked with, and a GF (actually her grandmother was Indian). Their families left partly because the breadwinner was kicked out of their job (one was a police officer and one was a surveyor), and partly through fear. No doubt the level of danger to remaining whites varied according to area, because some whites did remain. I've never been to India but from videos I've seen of it is it rare to see a white person in the scene, unlike in the West where Indians are visible everywhere.

                • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday June 22, @01:02AM

                  by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday June 22, @01:02AM (#1255155) Journal

                  Quite a lot of Australians visit India, and generally have positive things to say about it. I suspect the apparent lack of whites in your videos is due to sheer numbers. There are over a billion Indians - even a million whites would show up as a one in a thousand face in the crowds.

                  --
                  No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
          • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @09:43AM (5 children)

            by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @09:43AM (#1254556)

            So? When a cat has a litter in a stove, the kittens don't become bread rolls.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @02:26PM (4 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @02:26PM (#1254608) Journal
              While I love your analogy, there's not much difference between someone with a lot of ancestors in England and a second generation UK citizen. As the poster noted, they both lived and were educated in the UK. Kittens and bread rolls are pretty different. Humans with moderately different ancestry aren't.
              • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @03:28PM (3 children)

                by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @03:28PM (#1254630)

                The point is that your ancestry means jack. I'd rather have someone who has been here as a first generation immigrant who wants to participate in my country's progress than someone whose parents and grandparents were already lazy bums that had nothing better to do than mooch off the work of everyone around them.

                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @05:25PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @05:25PM (#1254678) Journal

                  Good thing that the massive effort involved to actually move the the US by definition weeds out all the lazy bums!

                • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday June 21, @08:19AM (1 child)

                  by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday June 21, @08:19AM (#1254842)

                  a first generation immigrant who wants to participate in my country's progress

                  Depends on what you mean by progress, it can take different directions. The progress that the Chinese and Indians have in mind seems to be their colonisation of the rest of the world. They have numbers on their side.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @05:22PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @05:22PM (#1255407)

                    You lily white panty sniffers have a new acronym, FOBR fear of being replaced. What knuckle draggers.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:21PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:21PM (#1254758)

            but if you want to cast off-topic slurs at least try to keep them honest and accurate.

            British racism is nothing if not prim and proper, careful to use the proper slurs. Watch your language whist out "Paki bashing".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @07:33AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @07:33AM (#1254542)

        Even so, it's not quite that black or white [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20, @03:25PM (1 child)

        by srobert (4803) on Monday June 20, @03:25PM (#1254627)

        "Translation: The US owns us, and we won’t defend our own."

        True, but it is the UK, rather than Australia, that is in a position to refuse the dictates of the US. Fortunately, the US own them too. At least since WWII, the UK has functioned as an obedient colony of the American empire. They will do as Washington dictates.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @07:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @07:03PM (#1254705)

          It's a special relationship with a special country full of special people. Or it is the kind of relationship between a lapdog and its owner.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:42AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:42AM (#1254577)

      Making up a charge doesn't seem to be a problem, so can't Austrailia make a more creative one and get first dibs on extradition since he from there?

      If he were to plead guilty, would that let him ensure the travel direction?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21, @12:49AM (#1254790)

        How would that help on long term?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Monday June 20, @06:39AM (22 children)

    by Barenflimski (6836) on Monday June 20, @06:39AM (#1254534)

    I'm not 100% sure of what crimes he actually committed. I was looking at wikipedia -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment_and_arrest_of_Julian_Assange [wikipedia.org]

    The gist of the Wikipedia article is that he published Chelsea Mannings stuff. The main charges are Espionage, usually something reserved for government employees, and Computer Intrusion, which is a 5 year max penalty.

    The Espionage charges weren't brought until 2019.

    So you have to wonder, why the urgency, when other main-stream publications published this same stuff, without all the hoopla.

    Just based on this info, one must ask themselves, 'Was he a government employee at the time? Was there some agreement that he violated that is still sealed?'

    I read somewhere that the government was upset with him, because he supposedly coerced Manning to do these things and their case is that without Assange, Manning wouldn't do the things Manning did. No idea if that is true...

    The whole thing seems over the top to me, but of course I'm a lowly peasant and am sure my government is doing the right thing to keep us all safe. All hail the chief!

    I must ask though, how many millions have been spent on this while my kid does more and more lockdown drills at school?

    I guess my problem is I wish this was all logical.

    • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday June 20, @08:13AM (2 children)

      by Nuke (3162) on Monday June 20, @08:13AM (#1254548)

      The main charges are Espionage, usually something reserved for government employees

      The charge of espionage is not reserved for government employees. It just happens that they are more likely to be involved because they have easier access to the secrets.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @06:18PM (1 child)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @06:18PM (#1254691) Journal

        The main charge IS NOT ESPIONAGE.

        People are just throwing around bullshit without even looking at what he is charged with.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:58PM (#1254765)

          Great thing is, in order to commit the crime of "espionage" , even under the Universal Code of Military Justice, the nation has to be in a state of war, a legal, declared state of war. You cannot give information to the "enemy" unless there is one. More and more, however, the "enemy" of the intelligence agencies, whether ISI or CIA, seems to be the public, and thus, journalists.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:16AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @08:16AM (#1254549)

      I must ask though, how many millions have been spent on this while my kid does more and more lockdown drills at school?

      I guess my problem is I wish this was all logical.

      Speaking of logic, what's the logical relation between the waste of money for $PURPOSE and your kid doing more or less lockdown drills?
      It's not like the cause of your kid doing lockdown drills is "not enough budget, because it was diverted", is it?

      • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @09:45AM (1 child)

        by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @09:45AM (#1254558)

        What are lockdown drills?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @01:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @01:12PM (#1254596)

          Were I to take a wild guess, I'd say they are the complete opposite of openup screws.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:21AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @09:21AM (#1254554)

      I must ask though, how many millions have been spent on this while my kid does more and more lockdown drills at school?

      Your kids get lockdown drills in schools because of some value guns more than life. But it's ok, nothing can be done about it, says the only nation in the world where this is a regular occurrance.

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/justice-burger-2nd-amendment-meme/ [snopes.com]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22No_Way_to_Prevent_This%22,_Says_Only_Nation_Where_This_Regularly_Happens [wikipedia.org]

      https://www.thebulwark.com/doug-mastriano-christian-nationalism-and-the-cult-of-the-ar-15/ [thebulwark.com]

      So, Assange is something that can be done to harass and "warn" others. Like Putin's poisoning of his enemies abroad, but this is American equivalent. And this was going on how long? Obama? Trump? Biden? so, it's not one party thing. But hey, what do I know.

      But don't equate that to reason your kids need to learn to smear blood of dead classmates on their body to pretend to be dead. That's 100% internal to your own problems you have created and pretend that nothing can be done about it. And has NOTHING to do with Assange or spending money on anything or not spending money on something.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @02:27PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @02:27PM (#1254609) Journal

        Your kids get lockdown drills in schools because of some value guns more than life.

        Seems like we could fix that by getting school administrators that value kids more than guns. We do have those in the US somewhere, right?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:00PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:00PM (#1254646)

          I love when your rightwinger attitude just can't help shining through. What can school admins do if they just cared more about the kids???

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by unauthorized on Monday June 20, @10:21AM

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 20, @10:21AM (#1254562)

      The big charge that they have against him is that he allegedly aided Manning in acquiring the data by providing instructions, rather than simply publishing it. Yes, it's flimsy as fuck, but the USA security state has already won by destroying this man's life and created a chilling affect against others who would reveal evidence of American warcrimes. Even if they don't get a conviction and get to pretend that due process was respected, as if adhering to the letter of the law somehow overrides the gross injustices already committed.

    • (Score: 2, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @11:58AM (5 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @11:58AM (#1254581) Homepage Journal

      All charges are bogus. Maybe if Assange had provided technical assistance to Manning while Manning was committing his crimes, they would have a legitimate charge. Assange's only 'crime' is pissing off the people in power. That would primarily be Hillary Clinton and the DNC, but includes pretty much everyone involved in the US Military Industrial Complex and the US Intelligence services. Members of government who are outside of those two communities seem to be less pissed off at Assange, but they feel the need to protect the American Empire.

      --
      Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @12:14PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @12:14PM (#1254586)

        That is exactly what he is being charged with... so you are OK with the charges then?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @04:05PM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @04:05PM (#1254651) Homepage Journal

          No, I am not alright with any charges. Manning didn't go on any army bases, or access any army computers. Any charge that he was the technician responsible for extracting data is bogus.

          And, that is NOT the only charge against him. He is charged with an array of bogus charges.

          --
          Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @09:00PM (2 children)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @09:00PM (#1254753) Journal

            Any charge that he was the technician responsible for extracting data is bogus.

            That's for a jury to decide. Neither one of us knows whether it is bogus or true.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 20, @10:56PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @10:56PM (#1254773) Homepage Journal

              And, you're kinda missing the point. All the charges are bogus, if for no other reason, he was never within US jurisdiction. The prosecution of Assange is a clear signal to journalists throughout the world. "Be nice to us, or suffer Assange's fate. Play the game like we tell you to, or you'll be out of the game with two broken legs, or worse."

              And, we have the gall to complain when some Arab crown prince has a journalist dismembered.

              --
              Our first six presidents were educated men. Then, along came a Democrat.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @08:53PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, @08:53PM (#1255680)

                And, we have the gall to complain when some Arab crown prince has a journalist dismembered.

                Oh please! It's an act. Imagine what the tabloids would say if we didn't "complain". And now, Biden is going over there to kiss some Saudi ass and say, "it's all good, please don't kill the petrodollar"

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @03:01PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @03:01PM (#1254620) Journal

      So you have to wonder, why the urgency...

      Statute of limitations?

      Goddamn, the swooning and handwringing about how this is all just so darn complicated our feeble minds can't figure out......on this particular forum.....is coming off super bad faith to me.....

    • (Score: 2) by loonycyborg on Monday June 20, @04:49PM (1 child)

      by loonycyborg (6905) on Monday June 20, @04:49PM (#1254661)

      His charge isn't just general Espionage but rather violation of Espionage Act of 1917, which also covers things like foreign propaganda. Also it's criticized as overbroad and suppressive in nature. I'm not sure why there wasn't made an argument of its in-applicability on UK soil in those appeals. An act not being not a crime in the country that is supposed to perform the extradition is sufficient to deny the extradition. If such an argument isn't made then US in future could just extradite UK intelligence operatives if they gather data on US as part of their job.

  • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @09:49AM (9 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @09:49AM (#1254560)

    I mean, seriously, what exactly did he do?

    • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @11:04AM (#1254568)

      At this point it is not what he did anymore.
      It`s the value he can represent for the USA.

      A scapegoat for other whistle blowers who will think twice before following a moral compass of a country without one.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @02:24PM (7 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @02:24PM (#1254607) Journal

      Here's the indictment (aka: list of charges) [justice.gov]

      If proven in court, these allegations are the ones I would wager will land him in hot water:

      On or about March 8, 2010, Assange agreed to assist Manning in cracking a
      password stored on United States Department of Defense computers connected to the Secret
      Internet Protocol Network, a United States government network used for classified documents and
      communications, as designated according to Executive Order No. 13526 or its predecessor orders.

      The actual charges:

      (A) to knowingly access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized access,
      to obtain information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant
      to an Executive order and statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for
      reasons of national defense and foreign relations, namely, documents relating to the
      national defense classified up to the "Secret" level, with reason to believe that such
      information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States and the
      advantage of any foreign nation, and to willfully communicate, deliver, transmit, and
      cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same, to any person not entitled
      to receive it, and willfully retain the same and fail· to deliver it to the officer or employee
      entitled to receive it; and
      4
      (B) to intentionally access a computer, without authorization and exceeding authorized
      access, to obtain information from a department and agency of the United States in
      furtherance of a criminal act in violation of the laws of the United States, that is, a
      violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 641, 793(c), and 793(e).
      (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 1030(a)(l), 1030(a)(2),
      1030(c)(2)(B)(ii).)

      Pretty simple stuff, honestly....

      • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @03:30PM (6 children)

        by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @03:30PM (#1254632)

        So breaking the secrets of other countries' is a reason now to be extradited to that country?

        When are we going to ship our CIA agents over to Iraq and Afghanistan?

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @03:48PM (5 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @03:48PM (#1254641) Journal

          1: Yes, hacking computer systems in the US is a crime and crimes are generally prosecuted in the district in which they occurred.

          2: We do not have extradition treaties with Iraq and Afghanistan so No, the answer is No. Might does make right though, so the opposite direction is no guarantee!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:04PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @04:04PM (#1254650)

            Bzzt wrong

          • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday June 20, @05:32PM (3 children)

            by Opportunist (5545) on Monday June 20, @05:32PM (#1254683)

            1. And what if I'm not actually in the US?
            2. I'm kinda glad that the countries I pissed off aren't the US and can't just steamroll over my country, because else I'd have a really, really hard time now.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday June 20, @05:53PM (2 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday June 20, @05:53PM (#1254686) Journal

              1. And what if I'm not actually in the US?

              If you live in a county with an extradition treaty with the US you get extradited.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 20, @07:33PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 20, @07:33PM (#1254711) Journal
                There's more than that (such as the activity being a crime or a legal expectation that the defendant would be tried fairly in accordance with UK standards), but this has been covered by the extradition court case.
              • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Tuesday June 21, @11:00AM

                by Opportunist (5545) on Tuesday June 21, @11:00AM (#1254852)

                So if I had an abortion in my country, where this is legal, I'd be sent to Texas because they wanna?

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @01:24PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, @01:24PM (#1254598)

    How long until Assange does an Epstein?

    • (Score: 2) by srobert on Monday June 20, @03:33PM (1 child)

      by srobert (4803) on Monday June 20, @03:33PM (#1254635)

      You mean hangs himself in his cell when all the cameras are turned off, and the guards aren't paying attention? Oh, that's possible. But the MIC wants Assange's "trial" to be a media circus. They want to make an example of Assange in a prolonged and publicized event to serve as a warning to others who might take up a notion to do actual journalism. It's the same reason the Romans used to publicly crucify people.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @01:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22, @01:12AM (#1255160)

        No, some of them want him to serve as an example. Some want him dead. I predict that he will die if it looks likely that anyone is going to question him about Seth Rich.

(1) 2