Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by FatPhil on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:22PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the shoulda-taken-the-tea-chest-option-years-back dept.

Breaking: Met police confirm that Julian Assange has been arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy.

Mr Assange took refuge in the embassy seven years ago to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault case that has since been dropped.

The Met Police said he was arrested for failing to surrender to the court.

Ecuador's president Lenin Moreno said it withdrew Mr Assange's asylum after his repeated violations to international conventions.

But WikiLeaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Mr Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law".

[...] Scotland Yard said it was invited into the embassy by the ambassador, following the Ecuadorian government's withdrawal of asylum.

After his arrest for failing to surrender to the court, police said he had been further arrested on behalf of US authorities under an extradition warrant.

He doesn't look happy, to say the least.

Update: As this is a breaking story, more information is coming out regularly - one source that updates their reports frequently is Zero Hedge - thanks boru!

Previously: New Analysis of Swedish Police Report Confirms Julian Assange's Version in Sweden's Case
Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities
UK Said Assange Would Not be Extradited If He Leaves Embassy Refuge
Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange
U.S. Ramping Up Probe Against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Says
Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London


Original Submission

Related Stories

New Analysis of Swedish Police Report Confirms Julian Assange's Version in Sweden's Case 22 comments

The Indicter reports

Author and investigative reporter Celia Farber has prepared for publication in The Indicter, an updated analysis of the Swedish Assange case. The in-depth analysis concludes that the police reports confirm Julian Assange's testimony, as given to the prosecutor in her questioning conducted at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It has also been established that the crucial allegations against Mr Julian Assange, as have appeared in the Swedish and international media, in fact were constructed by the police and were not what the complainants really said or wished to achieve.

It has been discovered that it was the police, or the prosecutor's office, which unlawfully and/or unethically leaked the "allegations" to the evening paper "Expressen", which is clearly known for its declared NATO sympathies. Regrettably, but also predictably, this was an opportunity for Western mainstream media to create a scandal around the founder of WikiLeaks. Likewise, it was an occasion used by the MSM to insidiously attack the organization that had partly exposed the corruption of the governments they represent, and partly surpassed them in journalistic efficacy and objectivity.

But it was more than purely vendetta-time; it was a well-articulated campaign which started that day in August 2010 when--according to the Snowden documents--the US government asked the countries participating in the military occupation of Afghanistan under US command to prosecute Julian Assange. Sweden obeyed; others cooperated.

Nevertheless, the Afghan Logs and the Iraq Logs exposed by WikiLeaks remained published. The WikiLeaks founder did not surrender. The Assange case, already politically in its origins, turned into a spiral of increasing geopolitical dimensions.

[Continues...]

Ecuador Reportedly Almost Ready to Hand Julian Assange Over to UK Authorities 114 comments

Ecuador Will Imminently Withdraw Asylum for Julian Assange and Hand Him Over to the UK. What Comes Next?

Ecuador's President Lenin Moreno traveled to London on Friday for the ostensible purpose of speaking at the 2018 Global Disabilities Summit (Moreno has been using a wheelchair since being shot in a 1998 robbery attempt). The concealed, actual purpose of the President's trip is to meet with British officials to finalize an agreement under which Ecuador will withdraw its asylum protection of Julian Assange, in place since 2012, eject him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and then hand over the WikiLeaks founder to British authorities.

UK Said Assange Would Not be Extradited If He Leaves Embassy Refuge 33 comments

The United Kingdom told Ecuador in August that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would not be extradited if he left the country's London embassy, where he has lived under asylum since 2012, Ecuador's top government attorney said on Thursday.

[...] Salvador said Ecuador passed on the UK's response to Assange's lawyers, but noted that if Assange stayed in the embassy Ecuador would put new conditions on his stay. "Mr. Assange had a choice between turning himself in to British authorities with those assurances, or staying in the embassy of Ecuador, but given that the asylum had lasted six years with no signs of immediate resolution we were going to place certain rules." Salvador said at a news conference.

[...] The relationship between Assange and Ecuador has grown increasingly tense in the past year. Assange filed a lawsuit in an Ecuadorean court last week claiming the new asylum terms, which require him to pay for medical bills and telephone calls and to clean up after his pet cat, violate his rights.

Previously:
Julian Assange Sues Ecuador for "Violating His Fundamental Rights".


Original Submission

Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange 94 comments

Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange

Prosecutors Have Prepared Indictment of Julian Assange, a Filing Reveals

The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, marking a drastic escalation of the government's yearslong battle with him and his anti-secrecy group. It was not clear if prosecutors have filed charges against Mr. Assange. The indictment came to light late Thursday through an unrelated court filing in which prosecutors inadvertently mentioned charges against him. "The court filing was made in error," said Joshua Stueve, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia. "That was not the intended name for this filing."

[...] Seamus Hughes, a terrorism expert at George Washington University who closely tracks court cases, uncovered the filing and posted it on Twitter.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to say on Thursday what led to the inadvertent disclosure. It was made in a recently unsealed filing in an apparently unrelated sex-crimes case charging a man named Seitu Sulayman Kokayi with coercing and enticing an underage person to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Mr. Kokayi was charged in early August, and on Aug. 22, prosecutors filed a three-page document laying out boilerplate arguments for why his case at that time needed to remain sealed.

While the filing started out referencing Mr. Kokayi, federal prosecutors abruptly switched on its second page to discussing the fact that someone named "Assange" had been secretly indicted, and went on to make clear that this person was the subject of significant publicity, lived abroad and would need to be extradited — suggesting that prosecutors had inadvertently pasted text from a similar court filing into the wrong document and then filed it.

"Another procedure short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged," prosecutors wrote. They added, "The complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and the proposed order, would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter."

U.S. Ramping Up Probe Against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Says 20 comments

U.S. ramping up probe against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks says

American federal prosecutors have been pressing witnesses in the U.S. and abroad to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, WikiLeaks says, offering further evidence that the Justice Department is building a criminal case against the man who leaked Democratic emails hacked by the Russians in the 2016 election.

In a new submission to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, based in Washington, WikiLeaks is urging the Justice Department to unseal the charges that appear to have been secretly filed against Assange in the Eastern District of Virginia. A mistake in a Justice Department court filing in November inadvertently suggested the existence of those charges.

Previously: Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange


Original Submission

Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London 46 comments

Looks like Assange may go from the loving arms of the Ecuadorian Embassy to London's finest cell when he is evicted, which is now imminent.

UK police outside Ecuador embassy amid WikiLeaks tweets

Also at The Hill.

Ecuador denies WikiLeaks claim it plans to release Julian Assange

The Ecuadorian government on Friday rejected claims by WikiLeaks that founder Julian Assange would be ousted from his sanctuary at the country's embassy in London "within hours to days."

Ecuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement released Friday that the allegation was "an attempt to stain the dignity of the country," according to an NBC News translation. Ecuador "has made significant expenditures to pay for his stay" and has "endured its rudeness," the ministry continued.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

Julian Assange Charged with U.S. Espionage Act Violations 47 comments

Assange Indicted Under Espionage Act, Raising First Amendment Issues

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks leader, has been indicted on 17 new counts of violating the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the Justice Department announced on Thursday — a novel case that raises profound First Amendment issues.

The new charges were part of a superseding indictment obtained by the Trump administration that significantly expanded the legal case against Mr. Assange, who is already fighting extradition proceedings in London based on an earlier hacking-related count brought by federal prosecutors in Northern Virginia.

[...] On its face, the Espionage Act could also be used to prosecute reporters who publish government secrets. But many legal scholars believe that prosecuting people for acts related to receiving and publishing information would violate the First Amendment.

That notion has never been tested in court, however, because until now the government has never brought such charges. The closest it came was indicting two lobbyists for a pro-Israel group in 2005 who received classified information about American policy toward Iran and passed it on. But that case fell apart after several skeptical pretrial rulings by a judge, and the charges were dropped.

Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr. Assange does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from what traditional news organizations like The New York Times do: seek and publish information that officials want to be secret, including classified national security matters, and take steps to protect the confidentiality of sources.

Julian Assange Sentenced to 50 Weeks in Prison for Bail Breach 30 comments

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

Judge blasts Assange for jumping bail, sentences him to almost one year

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy in London while on bail in 2012. At the time, he was facing possible extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges.

Assange remained in the embassy until last month, when he was evicted by his Ecuadorian hosts and re-arrested by British authorities.

Wednesday's sentencing is unlikely to be the end of Assange's legal problems. Shortly after he was re-arrested last month, US authorities unsealed an indictment charging him with conspiring with Chelsea Manning to crack a hashed password belonging to a Pentagon computer in 2010. At the time, Manning was an Army private leaking confidential military documents to WikiLeaks. Assange was unable to learn the password, but the US argues that his attempt is sufficient to charge him with conspiracy.

In a letter to the court, Assange argued that he had fled to the embassy out of fear that he'd be extradited to the United States and wind up being held indefinitely at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Also at BBC, The Guardian, CNET, and The Register.

Previously: Inadvertent Court Filing Suggests that the U.S. DoJ is Preparing to Indict Julian Assange
U.S. Ramping Up Probe Against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Says
Ecuador Denies That Julian Assange Will be Evicted From Embassy in London
Wikileaks Co-Founder Julian Assange Arrested at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London
Julian Assange Associate Arrested In Ecuador


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

Julian Assange Associate Arrested In Ecuador 54 comments

Assange associate Ola Bini has been arrested in Ecuador for alleged involvement in hacking government computer systems. A large quantity of electronic equipment and credit cards were allegedly found in his suitcase and during a raid of his home.

Assange's arrest was designed to make sure he didn't press a mysterious panic button he said would bring dire consequences for Ecuador

Julian Assange's arrest at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London was carried out in a specific way to prevent him from pressing a mysterious panic button he said could bring dire consequences for Ecuador, its foreign minister said.

[...] It is not clear exactly what form the "panic button" took: whether it was a physical device or a metaphor for some other easily activated insurance measure. It is also unclear what leverage Assange thought he had over Ecuador.

Assange's lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on the nature of the button and whether it existed. According to Valencia, though, it was serious enough for Ecuador to warn British authorities and carry out the raid in such a way that Assange was not able to get back into his room after learning of his imminent arrest.

Julian Assange must face Swedish justice first - MPs and peers

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough 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: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:24PM (83 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:24PM (#827894) Journal

    Julian Assange Charged by U.S. With Conspiracy to Hack a Government Computer [nytimes.com]

    The United States has charged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange with one count of conspiracy to hack a computer related to his role in the 2010 release of reams of secret American documents, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Thursday just hours after British authorities arrested him in London.

    The single charge, conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, stems from what prosecutors said was his agreement to break a password to a classified United States government computer. It is significant in that it is not an espionage charge, a detail that will come as a relief to press freedom advocates. The United States government had considered until at least last year charging him with an espionage-related offense.

    Mr. Assange, 47, has been living at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012. British authorities arrested him after he was evicted by the Ecuadoreans. The Metropolitan Police said that Mr. Assange had been detained partly in connection with an extradition warrant [police.uk] filed by the authorities in the United States.

    Time for many "I told you so"s.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:36PM (27 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:36PM (#827903)

      "I love wikileaks"- Candidate Trump
      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUtT0b0EnSw [youtube.com]

      Interesting to see how this plays out, Trump has shown no shame in reversing his position on the " big fat ugly bubble"... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xn9jLy_TB4 [youtube.com]

      Then again, perhaps it is a scheme to let the Seth Rich truth finally come out in court.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:46PM (21 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:46PM (#827914)

        But will Trump go against the military on this one? He claims to "looooove" the military, so this will test his ... um ... fuck, it's a coin flip.

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:01PM (20 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:01PM (#827930) Journal

          A Trump decision is not a coin flip. It is a Schrodinger's Kittens superposition of states. Each kitten has a Cheshire cat like state connected to the other kittens with non locality distance less than the planck length.

          --
          While in an airport, never use the word "balm".
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:45PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:45PM (#827964)

            So wait. Are you telling me Trump is a quantum computer?

            My God!

            • (Score: 4, Funny) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:26PM

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:26PM (#828088) Journal

              Claims to have all the answers now but really not enough current knowledge to solve things a pocket calculator can?
              A really popular and over-hyped subject that real people shouldn't care about in the slightest but are fascinated with?
              Something which promises to revolutionize everything yet nothing has really yet changed except a whole bunch of money has been spent without real result?

              Yep. Trump is a quantum computer by that definition.

              --
              Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
            • (Score: 3, Funny) by sjames on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:15PM

              by sjames (2882) on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:15PM (#828120) Journal

              More like an evil Beowulf cluster of quantum magic 8-balls.

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:59PM (2 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:59PM (#827985)

            Comparing Trump to a Shroedinger's Cat doesn't work though, because that implies that after being observed he settles on one opinion and sticks with it.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:08PM (#827992) Journal

              But he DOES stick with it.

              BREAKING NEWS - - - BREAKING NEWS - - - BREAKING NEWS - - - BREAKING NEWS

              FoxNews Alert: We have always been at war with Europe!

              --
              While in an airport, never use the word "balm".
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:21PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:21PM (#828197)

                To be fair all politicians change their view, they are just better at lying. Thats why they are called... politicians.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:34PM (#828019)

            Well, that explains his hair color.

          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:36PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:36PM (#828023)

            Its not complicated - trump says and does whatever he thinks is best for him in the moment. Its been well established the guy has narcissistic personality disorder.

            What's interesting is the origins of the disorder in childhood. One leading theory is that genetic tendencies are exacerbated by an environment where the child can not rely on future relief from emotional stress. For example, a bullied child can usually rely on having a loving mother at home who will kiss their booboos and make them feel safe and secure. A child without that, or even worse a child with a mother who abuses them instead of nurturing them, leaves the child without hope that the future will be better. That warps their time perception - they don't develop a strong distinction between past/present/future. They understand the concepts, but their brain doesn't "live' in a time linear fashion. Instead its more like a perpetual state of "now" - like the worst kind of living-in-the-moment.

            Consequently they literally don't have the mental facilities required to be consistent. They are only ever concerned with dealing with whatever is directly in front of them. They only care about consistency to the point where it can be used to get them what they want right now. Otherwise its literally not important to them. Truth or lies, promises made yesterday, promises made 2 minutes ago, its all about soothing the constant emotional injuries of daily life. Which is why they are also so prone to fits of impotent rage when they can't make the pain go away by bullshitting. In a sense they are the ultimate snowflakes.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:59PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:59PM (#828054)

              Nah, he isn't delusional. That is just his attitude towards life:

              Mr. Trump: You never know, you know again, the word—– I don’t know what the word permanent means, OK? I never know what the word permanent means.

              https://www.wsj.com/articles/transcript-of-donald-trump-interview-with-the-wall-street-journal-1515715481 [wsj.com]

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:11PM (7 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:11PM (#828068) Journal

              MODDED UP!

              And this is a fair description of a few people on this site I can name too...

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:44PM (6 children)

                by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:44PM (#828105) Journal

                Someone wants to try feeding some psychoanalytic AI all of Azuma's kind outbursts of compassion towards other SN users, so that she can finally be certified with Mother Theresa levels of sanity?

                --
                Account abandoned.
                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:39PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:39PM (#828211)

                  ButthurtBot always whining. One could easily conclude its all about soothing the narcissistic injury of realizing others can see his psychic wounds more clearly than he can himself.
                  Cue more whining.

                  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:18PM (1 child)

                    by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:18PM (#828272) Journal

                    >Others can see his psychic wounds more clearly than he can himself.
                    I find it difficult to believe, you miss a lot of detail. It's like tele-surgery, you don't smell the blood.

                    --
                    Account abandoned.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:08PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:08PM (#828309)

                      Cue more whining.

                      Exactly as predicted dude. As someone suffering the personality disorder as described, you literally can't let a perceived narcissistic injury pass without trying to hit back because its the only way for you to self-sooth. The irony of it all is that we can all see through you, but you are opaque to yourself.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:36PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:36PM (#828376)

                  Your response is so weird. Azuki bean didn't name any names, didn't even describe any particular events. Just a generic "there are some of those here too."

                    A healthy mind would have said "yeah, sure, there are some really disturbed people on soylent" and kept on going. A disordered mind would see a personal attack in a generic statement like that and get defensive. A remarkable self-own there.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:03PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:03PM (#828592) Homepage Journal

                    Except of course, your bean has named names. We all know who she talks about when she starts talking about Soylent members.

                    --
                    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:01PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:01PM (#828591) Homepage Journal

                  Now, that's some funny shit, Bot. If you start standup comedy, I want to attend.

                  --
                  “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:37PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:37PM (#828026) Journal

            No, it's a coin flip. He just calls heads AND tails.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:20PM

              by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:20PM (#828274) Journal

              He is not a real politician until he throws the coin and it disappears already.

              --
              Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:01PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:01PM (#828117)

        And we have our answer:

        President Trump told reporters in the White House press pool that "I know nothing about Wikileaks. It's not my thing."

        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-11/julian-assange-arrested-london [zerohedge.com]

        This guy cracks me up...

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:56PM (3 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:56PM (#828218) Journal
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:16PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:16PM (#828229)

            Yep I posted above a video of him saying he "loves" wikileaks.

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:22PM

            by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:22PM (#828277) Journal

            The fallacy here stems from your implicit and unproven assertion that a presidential candidate knows what he/she/it is talking about.

            --
            Account abandoned.
          • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @04:49AM

            by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @04:49AM (#828480) Homepage Journal

            2016, long time ago. Long time. And I thought Wikileaks was the one with the incredible pictures. With the Bio "Pages" and so many amazing "pages" about things that you never even heard of in your entire life. They have a Bio of Lenora Fulani. And, a Bio of David Duke. People that you probably never heard of. I heard of them, I was running against them. Considering running against them. But, they ruined my Party -- Reform Party. That, by the way, is why I became a Democrat. That, and it's hard to get far in N.Y. as a Republican. I got as far as anyone can get. On my first try -- it's called GENIUS. And I get so many compliments on winning that one so overwhelmingly. When everyone thought Crooked would win.

            Wikileaks, I asked my Cyber Security Advisor about that one. Rudy Giuliani, maybe you've heard of him. Very famous, very smart guy. Whether it's politics, cyber or anything else. Who was the one and only Mayor of New York, he turned New York into this unbelievable place. I said, is Wikileaks the one with the beautiful pictures and stories? Where you have to be famous to get in? And if your name is Michael David Crawford (RIP!!) you're not famous enough. But, Rudy told me "no." He says, this one is about leakers. Leakers and liars. And I've had it up to hear with the leakers and the liars. We have so many. In the White House, in many places. You can't see where I'm pointing. But, I'm pointing at my head, at the top of my head. My fabulous Hair. We did the Prison Reform, the Sentencing Reform -- First Step Act. A gift from me to our Crack users -- and dealers. Our wonderful Inmates. But if they lock up the leakers, lock up the liars for a really long time -- good! That's good for our Country. We locked up Chelsea Manning. Formerly known as Bradley Manning. U.K. has this Assange guy locked up, pretty soon we're going to bring him here. Like we brought El Chapo. And my military guys say it's very good. My C.I.A. guys say it's very good. My Attorney General says it's very good. So I'm thinking, this is very good. I'm thinking, let's lock up all the leakers. All the liars. And win our Wars much more easily. Because we'll stop so much negative (Fake) coverage. I'm the biggest Free Press guy you've ever seen in your entire life. But Fake News has gone too far. They call it News, it's not News. It's LEAKS & LIES. We spent $7 TRILLION in Middle East. Because of Chelsea (used to be Bradley) Manning. Because of this guy Assange. And a few other people like them. At the Amazon Washington Post, at the Corrupt Failing Fake News New York Times. C.N.N. And places like that. LOCK THEM UP AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!!

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:56PM (7 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:56PM (#827926) Homepage
      "British government had confirmed in writing that Mr Assange "would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty"."

      So not the US, then.

      Clearly to another country which hasn't made such a promise, and then they can send him to the country which tortures and kills.
      --
      I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:08PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:08PM (#827938) Journal

        Oh but they won't torture or use the death penalty on him, so that's all right then.
        Proof? How many British extraditions occurred last year, despite Britain being fully aware that the U.S. has persons tortured or facing the death penalty? One answer from the horse's mouth. [usembassy.gov]

        --
        Keep everyone ignorant of the magical world! KEEP AMERICA OBLIVIATE!
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:14PM (#827943)

        Or they extradite him on non death penalty charges, and they get added once he is in the US.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:18PM (1 child)

        by zocalo (302) on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:18PM (#827946)
        There's no legal issue with extraditing someone to a country with the death penalty *provided* that they will not be sentenced to death, which could potentially mean a commitment to commute a death sentence to life in prison if the extradition request were to be made in connection where such a penalty was possible. Since the US' extradition request makes no mention of such a crime - and in fact states the maximum sentence for the charges is five years in jail - then that's not a valid reason to block it, although that might change if they start adding to the charge sheet. A country could, theoretically, ignore that once they have their suspect, but by doing so they'd basically be providing solid ground for a defence lawyer to get any future extradition requests to rejected. Personal opinions aside, I doubt very much the DoJ will make that kind of policy decision just for someone like Assange.
        --
        UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:35PM (#828020)

          What the US wants, the US gets eventually. Your laws be damned, remember the Austro-Bolivian affair.
          The only countries with a hope of frustrating the US are China and Russia.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:04PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:04PM (#828060)

        "would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty"

        The US doesn't torture* anyone.






        * just ask them

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:18PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:18PM (#828076)

          Then what do you call Trump's Press Briefings?

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:24PM (#828084)

            I call them fake news.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:07PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:07PM (#827936)

      It is difficult to say who benefits from this more. The left MM has claimed this guy is responsible for everything but little green men. Maybe they've convinced themselves that their propaganda has turned him into a wedge issue they can win with. On the other hand, it is a huge 1st amendment case, and he has a hell of a case in the U.S. We could actually end up giving him money and patting him on the ass and sending him on his way.

      Somebody wanted to put this ball in play. But I don't think anybody has any idea on how this is going to end. In any case there are a lot of minions grinning about this thinking that the guy is going to get his just desserts. The thing is, that content he exposed... Yeah, that is still out there. And the whole prosecution really still does look like a vendetta when you examine the facts.

      My guess is they'll use a rubber stamp judge, and refuse to actually talk about what he actually did, in lieu of talking about what MM says he did. Then they'll declare that there is some "secret" that needs to be protected and seal the courts. It is a straight up 1st amendment case, and they are probably going to prosecute it in secret because they are unlikely to win any other way. If you don't see the problem with that, you aren't an American.

      See you on the protest line.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:54PM (7 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:54PM (#828045) Journal

        I love how you can blame the action of Trump's DOJ on the left.

        When the left was in charge of the DOJ it DID NOT PROSECUTE due to the very free speech issue you seem so concerned about.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:17PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:17PM (#828122)

          Not to mention that all the far-leftie sources have been defending Assange. Right-wingers consistently amaze me.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:44PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:44PM (#828214)

            Its the unfalsifiable logic of conspiracy theorists - everything that contradicts the conspiracy is either completely ignored or co-opted as further proof of the conspiracy.

            Frankly once you learn to recognize the pattern, it is tiresome AF because you can't reason someone out of a belief they never reasoned themselves into. And then they go around declaring that you must respect their idiocy as if critical thinking and emotional pandering are equally valid methods for understanding the world.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:57PM (#828589)

            Finding the left wing contemptible does not make one right wing. Most independents find the right just as contemptible. You're misplaced assumption demonstrates you either are a sucker, or you're trying to make suckers out of other people.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:22PM (#828129)

          are you referring to the "trump doj" that has been trying to get him arrested or impeached since he got in office? fucking authoritarian state socialist piece of shit.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @05:07AM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:07AM (#828486) Homepage Journal

          Another 100% FALSE, 100% WRONG DeathMonkey Tweet. Can we call it a lie? Why not, right?

          "And when this information, or reports, whether true or false, surface on the front page of newspapers, that makes the job of folks on the Front Lines tougher and it makes MY job tougher. Which is why since I’ve been in office, my attitude has been ZERO TOLERANCE for these kinds of leaks and speculation!!!

          Now we have Mechanisms in place where, if we can root out folks who have leaked, they will SUFFER CONSEQUENCES. In some cases, it's criminal. These are criminal acts when they release information like this! And we will conduct thorough investigations, as we have in the past." Cheatin' Obama.

          And if you couldn't tell. That's something he said when he was the President. When he had TOTAL & COMPLETE CONTROL. They called it the War on Whistleblowers. And they even made a movie about that one -- by the same name. And it wasn't fiction. Documentary!!!! imdb.com/title/tt2910440 [imdb.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @05:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @05:37AM (#828497)

          The left was never in charge of the DOJ; center-right corporate democrats were. Other than that, yes.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:16PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:16PM (#828599) Homepage Journal

          Uhhhhhmmmmmm - who did they not prosecute, exactly? Are you talking about someone else, or are you talking about people whom they couldn't apprehend?

          --
          “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:59PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:59PM (#828053)

        What's "MM"?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:07PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:07PM (#828064)

          In this context I would assume "MM" is "Mainstream Media".

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:35PM (1 child)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:35PM (#828332)

            From the context, I assumed it was Malcolm Marshall. [wikipedia.org]

            Seems right, there are huge number of cricket fans on this site aren't there?

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:42PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:42PM (#828340) Journal

              Seems right, there are huge number of cricket fans on this site aren't there?

              Yeah, love 'em, especially Jiminy.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:29PM (33 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:29PM (#827952) Homepage

      Yeah, for computer offences, with a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

      Which, let's be honest... I could probably stand up in any court in the world and get him prosecuted for... because he's definitely and knowingly released private information gained by *someone* intruding into computers that don't belong to them - and knew that.

      He's gonna serve time for breaking bail. Get extradited (still a maybe, it's only a request at the moment, and he can stand trial / appeal against it from within a UK prison, no problem). Be in prison (probably in the US) for a few years, then be out. Then probably get sent back to Australia and it'll be really hard for him

      By then, it having been several years since he's been on the news rather than several weeks, nobody will care at all about what he has to say.

      At worst, he'll give us about seven years of glorious silence once the fuss dies down.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:39PM (11 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:39PM (#827956) Journal

        Yeah, sure. This is the last thing the U.S. will charge him with. They threw the book at him, but could only find 1 "computer crime" charge.

        Hopefully he or Wikileaks will continue to raise some hell. If you want silence, wear some earplugs.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by ledow on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:53PM (1 child)

          by ledow (5567) on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:53PM (#827977) Homepage

          The US extradition request ONLY mention computer charges. Sure, they could add more in theory later.

          But by definition the very FIRST thing they have to charge him with are the computer crime charges. Because without that, the extradition request doesn't even get activated.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:19PM

            by Pav (114) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:19PM (#828273)

            Up to 45 years [canberratimes.com.au] apparently.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:34PM (8 children)

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:34PM (#828207) Journal

          Hopefully he or Wikileaks will continue to raise some hell. If you want silence, wear some earplugs.

          It would be very gratifying if Wikileaks had a nuclear option to trigger now. A huge cascade of revelations to trigger a broad Arab Spring-style uprising in the West. I would love to walk up to the roof of my building on its height in Brooklyn and watch the Wall Street schmucks swarming the helipad on the East River in full panic. I would even pop popcorn and throw a party.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:22PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:22PM (#828234)

            A huge cascade of revelations to trigger a broad Arab Spring-style uprising in the West. I would love to walk up to the roof of my building on its height in Brooklyn and watch the Wall Street schmucks swarming the helipad on the East River in full panic. I would even pop popcorn and throw a party.

            I'm appalled! WTF is wrong with you? You are just an evil person with no moral anchor or scruples of any kind! How could you do such a thing?

            Popcorn is disgusting, wrong and evil! The smell alone makes me want to hurl.

            Go with guacamole and chips instead, you monster!

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday April 13 2019, @12:47AM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 13 2019, @12:47AM (#828808) Journal

              Nah, my downstairs neighbors are bringing the guac and chips. I'm bringing the popcorn. The fourth floor is making the sangria.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:27PM (4 children)

            by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:27PM (#828283) Journal

            > a broad Arab Spring-style uprising in the West
            People don't self organize like that. First you need to make people desperate, then you need to organize them into an issue then present the solution, then you have the uprising. Ask socialists, they master this stuff.

            --
            Account abandoned.
            • (Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:37PM

              by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:37PM (#828334)

              Ask socialists, they master this stuff.

              Funny thing to call the CIA.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @02:51AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @02:51AM (#828444)

              Ask socialists, they master this stuff.

              Yes... It comes from a study of the objective social forces that shape history, which leads to a better analysis of current events.

              First you need to make people desperate

              This is the easiest step for a socialist, since they don't need to even lift a finger here. Capitalism takes care of it for them while they're busy off ruminating about theory and dialectic and studying history. The wswswsws series This Week in History is particularly interesting (this week's edition [wsws.org]).

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:22PM (1 child)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:22PM (#828602) Homepage Journal

                So, you're saying that capitalists were in control of both Russia and China when the commies started their genocidal purges? Got it, the Tsar was a capitalist, and so were the Nationalists in China.

                --
                “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @02:20PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @02:20PM (#828959)

                  No, GP is saying that "the capitalists" were in control of the country which is responsible for the oppression and/or mass murder of the people in Iran, Guatemala, Albania, Syria, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Congo, Bolivia, Ghana, Chile, Afghanistan and many others.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @12:44AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @12:44AM (#828408)

            It would be very gratifying if Wikileaks had a nuclear option to trigger now. A huge cascade of revelations to trigger a broad Arab Spring-style uprising in the West.

            I wouldn't hold my breath. At least not until Guccifer [wikipedia.org] 3.0, or whatever Putin's lackeys are calling themselves these days, get a pretty good haul.

            Failing that, I'm guessing a webcam inside Bernie Sanders' toilet, or maybe a deepfake [wikipedia.org] video of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer bumping uglies and plotting the downfall of western civilization.

            But you won't see anything that hurts L'Orange. I wonder why? Not.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:41PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:41PM (#827960) Homepage Journal

        Where have we heard that, and similar, phrases before?

        --
        “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:56PM (11 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:56PM (#828049) Journal

        ... because he's definitely and knowingly released private information gained by *someone* intruding into computers that don't belong to them - and knew that.

        That's not a crime so long as you did not participate in the penetration. Which is why the Obama DOJ chose not to go after him.

        Now, to be fair to the current DOJ, what they are alleging is that he DID participate in the penetration and that is a crime.

        • (Score: 1, Redundant) by ledow on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:43PM (9 children)

          by ledow (5567) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:43PM (#828103) Homepage

          You need to read what Manning has testified he told her to do.

          It's a conspiracy charge, so he only has to have encouraged it, known about it and not reported it, and yet he went much further than even that - encouraging her to continue to do it more, knowing exactly that what they were doing is illegal.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:53PM (1 child)

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:53PM (#828112) Journal

            Yep, agreed, that would count as "participation" in my book.

            Mostly just pointing out that all the arguments claiming it's a clear free speech issue are missing the point.

            • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @05:31AM

              by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:31AM (#828494) Homepage Journal

              Thank you, I agree. 100%. This is not about Free Speech. Also referred to as, Free Press. This is about COLLUSION -- CONSPIRACY. On a Computer. Can you imagine if Fake News C.N.N., Corrupt Failing Fake News New York Times or the horrible Amazon Washington Post said to somebody, "oh, turn on Computer so you can steal many Documents for us!!" They don't do that. They don't need to -- they make up the Documents with their imagination. Because they know, if they started with the leakers. And if they started with Computer, with Computer Leaks. With Stolen Documents -- MAJOR PRISON TIME. I put up with so much from them. But at least they don't do that. And with Julian locked up, they're not going to. They can see we mean business. And we're Keeping America Great!!!!

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Friday April 12 2019, @03:10AM (6 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Friday April 12 2019, @03:10AM (#828450)

            Illegal in the USA. He wasn't in the USA when he did it. Assange committed no crime on American soil.

            • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @05:36AM (3 children)

              by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:36AM (#828496) Homepage Journal

              Computer belonged to America. To America's Army. Which is now my Army. And you seem to think, "oh it's O.K. to Hack American Computer, so long as you do it from another country." From Sweden or wherever. Very foolish and that's not the way it works.

              • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday April 12 2019, @05:53AM (2 children)

                by Mykl (1112) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:53AM (#828505)

                I'm sorry - I didn't realise it was Julian Assange who personally undertook the hacking.

                What's that? Oh, he didn't?! All he did was to provide encouragement and advice to someone else, while not on US soil at any point? If that's a crime in the country he's in, then prosecute there. But it's not a crime for the US courts to prosecute.

                Corollary - While in Sweden, I give a gun/polonium/viper/bottle of TMB's sweat to an assassin. That assassin travels to the US and shoots/feeds/bites/douses the victim, who dies. My supply of the murder weapon is not a US crime, though it may be a crime in Sweden.

                • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday April 12 2019, @05:59AM (1 child)

                  by Mykl (1112) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:59AM (#828506)

                  Sorry, just realised that I didn't add my context to the above.

                  I don't believe he was involved in the actual hack itself. Why? Because they're only just claiming that now as a way to get the extradition to work. If it was actually the case, it would've been claimed looong ago.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:26PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:26PM (#828605) Homepage Journal

                    Who knows WTF has been claimed in some secret court?

                    --
                    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
            • (Score: 2) by ledow on Friday April 12 2019, @08:15AM (1 child)

              by ledow (5567) on Friday April 12 2019, @08:15AM (#828529) Homepage

              So if I hack into the White House door control system from the UK, and trap Trump in a door and kill him, does that mean I can't be charged and tried in the US for that crime?

              That's not how it works. For a start, that's what extraditions MEANS. This guy broke *our*laws, we'd like him to face our justice system, please. And then the other country (where he just so happened to be / do it from) oblige by arresting and extraditing him.

              "American soil" means nothing, and that's not just America's rule. If you hacked into MI5, the NHS, GHCQ, Downing Street, etc. then you can be pretty damn sure that they'll want to bring you before a UK court, wherever you happened to be.

              The system he *gained unlawful entry to* was based in the US. That's enough, even by 50-year-old laws, let alone laws that take account of the global Internet.

              Hell, did you know you can get done for "inter-state" crimes because you were in one state and posted things / accessed things / sent money to another state.

              You honestly need to seriously review any international legal case for the last... 100 years or more.

              Extradition is literally the process designed for exactly such cases, and you do not have to be on any particular soil to have commited a crime against a certain country.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:24PM (#828236)

          what they are alleging is that he DID participate in the penetration and that is a crime.

          I thought that was in Sweden. He raped 'murikkan women too?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:30PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:30PM (#828206)

        definitely and knowingly released private information gained by *someone* intruding into computers that don't belong to them - and knew that.

        Not a crime, at least in the United States, where there is no "Official Secrets Act". Please see the "Pentagon Papers", from an earlier generation.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @05:37AM (5 children)

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @05:37AM (#828498) Homepage Journal

          Pentagon Papers was NOT Computer, dummy!!!! That one was stolen with Xerox Machine. Big big difference!!!!

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:29PM (4 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:29PM (#828609) Homepage Journal

            Allow me to paraphrase an earlier post. "On a computer" means jack shit. Stealing data is stealing data. You've read too much of those idiot patents, where an ages old idea is submitted for a new patent because "on a computer".

            --
            “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
            • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @03:39PM (3 children)

              by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @03:39PM (#828640) Homepage Journal

              You don't like reading. And that's O.K., I love the poorly read. But, maybe you can read the name. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, sometimes known as C.F.A.A. Famous American Law and that one's 34 years old. Almost 35, you have to be 35 to be President. Ivanka, by the way, is old enough and I think if she ran for President she could win very easily. Very easily.

              C.F.A.A., very special Law that's all about Computer. Nothing about Patent, or Patents. Incredible that they thought of that one in 1984. When Computer was just getting started. Remember DynaTAC? DynaTAC had just come out, we were on DynaTAC in those days -- those of us that were very successful. You were somebody if you had DynaTAC. And if you had the special antenna that swings around and around, the revolving antenna, you were really somebody very special!!!!

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @03:58PM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @03:58PM (#828647) Homepage Journal

                I love reading. I am expressing my contempt for all the stupid SOB's who think that a crime, or any other process, is special because "on a computer".

                Scenario 1: I pick your pocket, and get $1000
                Scenario 2: I hold you up at gunpoint, and get $1000
                Scenario 3: I hold you up at knife point, and get $1000
                Scenario 4: I break into your home or office, and steal $1000
                Scenario 5: I scam you on the telephone, and steal $1000
                Scenario 6: I scam you on a computer, and steal $1000
                Scenario 7: I kidnap you, and get ransom of $1000
                Scenario 8: I kidnap your kid, and get ransom of $1000

                Which of those is the most morally corrupt act? And, which is the least morally corrupt? And, why?

                Think about it, and maybe I won't have to explain my contempt.

                --
                “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
                • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 12 2019, @04:39PM (1 child)

                  by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 12 2019, @04:39PM (#828657) Homepage Journal

                  My Tweet was too long, or too hard for you. O.K. We have a special law about Computer. Called C.F.A.A. And that's what Julian is charged with!!!

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @05:09PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @05:09PM (#828669) Homepage Journal

                    *sigh*

                    You tweet like any vacuous bird brain. Yeah, you do tend to stay in character, most of the time. Do we try this one more time? I am in utter contempt of anyone who feels the need to say "on a computer". Know what? I may just patent that. Bird brains, on a computer. I'll use your portrait where most people would put drawings and other graphics.

                    --
                    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @02:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @02:04PM (#828593)

        "maximum sentence of five years in prison"

        That is a hugely bad assumption. The reason they are only charging him with one count, is so that they can then widen the net later. If they say "hey we are just talking about this" and prove it, then that changes everything he received from being a journalistic source, to being a product of espionage. Subsequent charges then follow.

        They may only have one charge, but they'll never settle. Make no mistake, they are going to try and lock him up for life.

        The one charge isn't accidental. The fact that the MM is flinging this number around, though they all know better isn't accidental either.

  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:33PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:33PM (#827899)

    They bent over backwards to make the best of this situation.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:44PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:44PM (#828037) Journal

      Those poor hazmat teams who have to clean his room, though. I hope they make it out alive.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Friday April 12 2019, @02:24AM

      by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Friday April 12 2019, @02:24AM (#828434)

      Ecuador got credit already, in the form of a $4.2 Billion IMF Loan that closed two weeks ago.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:35PM (66 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:35PM (#827901) Journal

    Assange is an egotist. He has grown a strange beard. But he's been one of the last still doing what journalists used to do, which is to investigate and expose the high and mighty. If any person ever deserved the protection of the world's most powerful democracy, he is it. Trump must pardon him (and pardon Snowden, too, while he's at it). If he really wanted to punch the Deep State in the nuts, that is what he'd do.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:41PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:41PM (#827908)

      Assange is an egotist. He has grown a strange beard.

      That is what you care about regarding this situation?

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:02PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:02PM (#827933) Journal

        It means he is qualified to be employed working on Unix.

        --
        While in an airport, never use the word "balm".
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:30PM

          by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:30PM (#828287) Journal

          Beard check
          Mastering leaks check

          A blessing for any project written in C actually.

          --
          Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:36PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:36PM (#828209) Journal

        No. It is what the chattering classes will inevitably focus on. It is what will matter to the small-minded.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:47PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:47PM (#827915)

      If you want to know what it's like to see people beneath you that you want to govern, head over to Reddit where people are complaining about his 'colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary', 'purposefully disclosed the names of spies to harm the USA' and 'looks like a bum'. Looking like a bum may be the only thing remotely close to the truth for those of us who have been observing him and Wikileaks for these many years, believing in the 'ideals' of western democracy, but Assange is not landing on public support.

      In the last 10 years, freedom of speech, constitution and journalistic integrity have suffered and propaganda has won. While deep state exposed it also made pointing out at deep state look a loony conspiracy theory and nothing more.

      • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:13PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:13PM (#828191)

        "In the last 10 years, freedom of speech, constitution and journalistic integrity have suffered ..."

        Its been declining for much longer than just ten years. The Patriot Act in 2001 was only a sign that the "slippery slope" had suddenly become steeper. Even before September 11, 2001 the US government has been slowly eroding the Constitutional and Civil rights of the people, it was just being done more subtly.

        Want some food for thought? Try watching "A Noble Lie" [imdb.com] for starters. Pay attention to the part about the files relating to the Whitewater investigation against the Clintons, and what happened to the TV station and news program that didn't shut up about the additional explosive that had been reported, and what happened to Officer Terrance Yeakey.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:50PM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:50PM (#827920)

      I can only hope Assange ends up at a black site for renditioning and what America doesn't consider "torture" anymore.

      Alas, Assange will turn like the rat that he is and he will start singing like a canary. He'll still do time, but he'll trade his cooperation for safe confinement from the international retribution that awaits him after he turns on everyone.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:49PM (13 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:49PM (#827969) Homepage Journal

        That actually sounds pretty silly. Assange "turned on everyone" years, and years ago. He exposed stuff in the UK, in Russia, in the US, he pissed off many smaller countries with his exposes. Somehow, he missed Ecuador, so they granted asylum. Then, revoked it when he pissed them off.

        Tell us, who does NOT have a reason to go after Assange?

        Like many another would-be-great men, he was brought down by a woman - or in this case three women. Remember that when your little head starts thinking for you.

        --
        “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
        • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:06PM (#827991)

          He is a great man, having done, having seen and having the balls to stand for his beliefs. He was brought down by the corrupts. You kept quite because it was through a woman - or in this case three women - because that is who you are.

          Of course, he has made a mistake. It is to try to hold your superiors accountable. I don't. You don't.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:16PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:16PM (#828000) Homepage Journal

            It is to try to hold your superiors accountable. I don't. You don't.

            Maybe you presume a little too much. I'm supplying no details, but I have had superiors who regretted various actions that they shouldn't have taken. Whistle blower hotlines actually work sometimes. And, if there is no hotline, sometimes a direct report to your boss's boss has good results as well.

            As for the "great man" bit - he's a damned good man, but I think he falls short of great. That's cool though - you choose your own heroes, based on your own criteria.

            --
            “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:06PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:06PM (#828062) Journal

          That actually sounds pretty silly. Assange "turned on everyone" years, and years ago. He exposed stuff in the UK, in Russia...

          Actually, he declined to release damaging information on Russia. [foreignpolicy.com]

          So the claim that he was an equal opportunity leaker is suspect.

          That said, so long as he didn't participate in the hacking and simply released stuff he was given it's still protected by the first amendment.
          And also, as mentioned up thread, the current allegation is that he DID participate in the hacking.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:41PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:41PM (#828101)

          If a woman didn't get him Polonium-210 would. Guys like this have to be thinking YOLO all the time. So if I were in his line of work I'd take all the pussy they threw at me, because tomorrow I may glow.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:19PM (8 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:19PM (#828124) Homepage Journal

            I'd take all the pussy they threw at me

            If you remember the details, that's just about what happened. Both of the women involved in this sordid little affair seduced HIM, not the other way around.

            --
            “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:26PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:26PM (#828202)

              I'm still somewhat on the fence as to whether that was a honey trap. It just so happened to happen right after his big leaks in 2010, and Sweden had promised the US to send him there when they were done with him. That strikes me as suspicious.

            • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by Magic Oddball on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:11PM (6 children)

              by Magic Oddball (3847) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:11PM (#828265) Journal

              No, his supporters claimed that the women seduced him. According to the official police complaint [theguardian.com]:

              One of the women, named in court as Miss A, told police that she had arranged Assange's trip to Sweden, and let him stay in her flat because she was due to be away. She returned early, on Friday 13 August, after which the pair went for a meal and then returned to her flat.

              Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she "tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again". Miss A told police that she didn't want to go any further "but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far", and so she allowed him to undress her.

              According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

              The second woman, "Ms. W", states that while she contacted him with the idea of hooking up, she made it abundantly clear that she never had sex without a condom and refused to do so; her ex-boyfriend told police that they'd never had sex without a condom as she found the idea "unthinkable." Later that night, Assange reluctantly put one on later that night in order to get laid, but upon finding her asleep the next morning, decided to screw her bareback anyway.

              So the first woman didn't seduce him at all, and the second one had a mutual hookup with him before he decided to violate her wishes once she wasn't awake enough to protest.

              Not to mention that even if somebody invites a person to their home, lets them in wearing sexy attire and begins to get intimate, the minute either of them begins clearly objecting to an activity, continuing to do it or waiting for them to be unable to protest isn't acceptable or legal behavior.

              • (Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:32PM (5 children)

                by Pav (114) on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:32PM (#828375)

                That's a misleading framing of events. NEITHER of the women had a problem until they found out about eachother, and they approached the police NOT to press charges, but to find a way they could force Assange to take a sexually transmitted disease test, which apparently they couldn't. A prosecutor in a different part of the country caught wind of this, and in a highly irregular way tried to get the women to press charges. One refused outright, and the other withdrew her support years later. A well respected Australian investigative reporter travelled to Sweden at the time to find out exactly what was going on [abc.net.au], and the political intrigue surrounding Wikileaks and the Pirate Party etc...

                • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:41PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:41PM (#828384)

                  That's a misleading framing of events. NEITHER of the women had a problem until they found out about eachother

                  And THAT is a misleading framing of events. It can take a while for people to process things that happen to them, especially things they have no frame of reference for. The fact that finding out about each other's experiences prompted them to start re-examining what happened to them doesn't invalidate the conclusions they eventually came too. Smart people change their minds given new information, its pedantry to stubbornly insist that a better understanding doesn't allow you to re-evaluate how you feel about something that happened to you.

                  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Pav on Friday April 12 2019, @12:17AM (2 children)

                    by Pav (114) on Friday April 12 2019, @12:17AM (#828398)

                    But there's no evidence to suggest what you're saying... actually quite the contrary. Both were angry at his two-timing, and the younger in particular was afraid of being infected with an STD. That investigative report I posted above says they a) wanted to publicly embarrass him (and presumably warn other women he was a womaniser, but the report doesn't specifically mention that warning others was part of their motivation), and b) force him to take an STD test. Both are on record saying they didn't feel they had been raped. Highly irregularly they were contacted by a prosecutor from another part of the country. Why would something like that happen? Presumably one of them was helped or perhaps even pressured into a different conclusion at a later date, though the other refused that "help".

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:49AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:49AM (#828429)

                      Your linked article isn't even close to conclusive. The women don't speak and their lawyer gets about 4 lines in the entire interview, meanwhile pro-assange people are spouting off left and right.

                      For you to claim that it is some kind of straight-up, even-handed analysis reveals that you are crazy biased and nobody should trust a word you say.

                    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Friday April 12 2019, @08:26AM

                      by ledow (5567) on Friday April 12 2019, @08:26AM (#828530) Homepage

                      Guess what most rape / sexual assault victims do when the world's press suddenly starts focusing on them, interviewing them, pursuing them, questioning them about their sex life?

                      They drop charges and don't want to discuss it.

                      There's a reason that a prosecutor is able to continue to press charges even if the victims themselves won't proceed.

                      You can no more assume that Assange is telling the truth than the women, so don't pretend you can.

                      Asking a sexual partner for an STD test after they have had sex with you unprotected is a not-unreasonable request. It's not like Assange denies having sex with them at all, in any way, whatsoever. They just want him to get tested.

                      If it had been the other way round and Assange thought he caught something from them, you can be damn sure that he'd want them to get tested, and that would have been aired to the world's press at the time, too.

                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:46PM

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:46PM (#828615) Homepage Journal

                    #metoo

                    --
                    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheFool on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:59PM (7 children)

      by TheFool (7105) on Thursday April 11 2019, @01:59PM (#827929)

      I think we're more likely to see the "Assange is a Russian agent!" narrative spin back up so that it's too inconvenient to pardon the guy. But it will be interesting to see what he does, anyway.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:02PM (5 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:02PM (#827988) Journal

        They're going to try him secretly, claiming state's secrets, in order to deny him a platform to upbraid the power-elites.

        It would be wonderful, though, if he were given a public trial and his every word was published for months. It would be his double gift to transparency and democracy.

        You know, we ought to crowdfund a Mt. Rushmore-like monument to these heroes of privacy, transparency, and democracy, with Assange, Manning, and Snowden (others?).

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:41PM (#828245)

          You know, we ought to crowdfund a Mt. Rushmore-like monument to these heroes of privacy, transparency, and democracy, with Assange, Manning, and Snowden (others?).

          https://hanshowe.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/image001.jpg [wordpress.com]

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by J053 on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:21PM (3 children)

          by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:21PM (#828322) Homepage
          OK, that's your guess - here's mine: Assange will be tried in open court in the US based on evidence (testimony) provided by Chelsea Manning that Assange offered to help crack a password to a secured computer, and he'll get 3-to-5.

          $20 on it?
          • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday April 12 2019, @03:07AM (2 children)

            by legont (4179) on Friday April 12 2019, @03:07AM (#828449)

            Will he admit that Hilary leaks were provided by Putin?

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @05:05AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @05:05AM (#828485)

              Will he admit that Hilary leaks were provided by Putin?

              Yes, he will leave a suicide note containing a full admission of it before shooting himself twice in the back of the head.

            • (Score: 2) by J053 on Friday April 12 2019, @11:01PM

              by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Friday April 12 2019, @11:01PM (#828782) Homepage

              He won't even be asked about that in court. It's not relevant to the indictment.

              Look, if Assange had any blockbuster news about HRC or BHO, he's had years to tell it. The US only waited until he was no longer in the Ecuadorian embassy to charge him with the CFAA violation because there was no point in charging him while he was there.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:58PM (#828177)

        I think we're more likely to see the "Assange is a Russian agent!" narrative spin back up so that it's too inconvenient to pardon the guy. But it will be interesting to see what he does, anyway.

        In fairness to this, what percentage of Wikileaks things were uncomfortable and/or anti-US, what percentage were anti-western-countries, and what percentage were anti-Russia/anti-China? If there is a teacher in a class who always points out when Sam does something wrong but ignores all the other students, I'd suggest they were anti-Sam.

        Of course, it takes a step further to go from "unwitting convenient tool" to be an outright "agent," but then again, I've not heard any formal charges that accuse him of being such. Moreover, even if he was, I doubt that would be illegal in US law as he wasn't in the US when doing such activities. However, we'll see what develops in the coming months.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:22PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:22PM (#827948)

      He has grown a strange beard.

      Damning indeed. And I'm sure it has nothing to do with a lookalike he prepared with a switcheroo in mind.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:51PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:51PM (#827973) Homepage Journal

        Yeah, well, he sat on his ass far too long. I'd have gone for that switcheroo long ago. It would have been best to act while the Ecuadoreans were still friendly toward him. At that point in time, they probably wouldn't have helped any, but they wouldn't have raced each other to the phone, to notify the Brits.

        --
        “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:27PM (#828091)

        Maybe Ted Cruz is his hero.

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:44PM (24 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:44PM (#827962)

      What really ticked me off was the "Collateral Murder" video he released. There were two versions, the short popular one with his narrative and the full uncut original. The short version claimed to show American military recklessly and gleefully slaughtering children and a news reporter, seemingly for the fun of murder. The long version makes the truth clear if you are not an idiot and you imagine yourself there in the battle. There were people running around with rocket launchers, cut from the short video, and the reporter had a ridiculously long camera lens that looked like one. He kept peeking out from around the corner of a building, looking like he was about the fire a rocket at the American military. The children were brought to the battlefield concealed in a minivan that was being used to pick up a fighter. Yes, the minivan was shot at, just as any military would shoot at the equivalent of a JEEP or HMMWV being used to ferry the enemy around the battlefield. Eh, don't bring your kids to a war if you love them. Assange cut and narrated the video to make the American military appear to be enjoying the sport of killing civilians. This of course caused outrage as Assange had planned, and most likely generated more terrorists.

      Given that Assange was totally non-US at the time (not really our jurisdiction) and has self-imprisoned for 7 years, maybe I'd let him off if he'd do one thing: testify that Seth Rich was indeed the DNC leaker. It breaks a promise to leakers, but Assange and his mother have both already hinted that Seth Rich was the leaker. Also, Seth Rich is long dead anyway, suspiciously killed in DC. He was shot for no normal reason; nothing was stolen and he was just walking home. Over 90% of the people with his type of gunshot survive if they make it to the hospital breathing, as he did, but he didn't survive. Normal hospital procedure for DC shootings wasn't followed, with cops keeping the normal nurses out of the room. (something they shouldn't witness?) The one doctor there had ties to the Podestas, one of whom mentioned in a leaked email that the DNC should make examples out of leakers. It's pretty damn ominous.

      As for Snowden, that is a really different situation. He was 100% American, a US citizen on US soil, having signed the secrecy agreements. He didn't just leak the one questionable thing that was later found unconstitutional. That was but a tiny part of the huge pile of secrets he leaked, and he'd like to hide behind it as some sort of shield against prosecution for everything else he leaked. Car analogy: an accountant at Ford disagrees about the legality of a tax strategy and happens to be right. (most of the office thinks it is legal, and others don't want to rock the boat) He leaks this along with all market strategy, union negotiation strategy, payroll data, CAD drawings, studies of combustion, product plans, contracts with vendors, sealed legal settlements, executive security plans, unfilled patents, and more. He dumps everything, claiming that he did the right thing because he was a whistleblower about that tax violation.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:57PM (5 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @02:57PM (#827981) Homepage Journal

        All true. Yet, Assange only moderately angered me with that narrative thing on the video. Yeah, he was wrong, and he dumped on a lot of good men and women. That was dirty. But - freedom of the press. He doesn't HAVE to print stuff that you and I agree with, to enjoy "freedom" of the press. We have hundreds of "reporters" right here in the US who anger me far more than Snowden did. Treasonous sons of bitches, whose obvious intent is to undermine the US and it's government. At least Assange, not being a US citizen, didn't commit treason in the making of that video and the false narrative.

        Wikileaks has done enough other good work, that I can forgive them for being fuckwits now and then. No one can be right all of the time.

        --
        “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:09PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:09PM (#828152)

          Yet, Assange only moderately angered me

          Its hilarious how you always have to make things about YOU. Nobody GAF how "angered" you were. But that's what you bring up first because in your disordered mind your feels are the most important factor of any analysis.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:14PM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:14PM (#828153) Homepage Journal

            Your point? Is there someone in the room with you, holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read my posts? You can tune in, tune out, change the channel, turn the volume down, do whatever you want to do. Or, you can whine about Runaway.

            --
            “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:16PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:16PM (#828314)

              Lollards! Here you are whining about what I wrote and your big argument is that I don't have to read your posts. The hypocrisy of the egotist, its fucking awesome! You degenerate clown.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @12:56AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @12:56AM (#828411)

                Lollards! Here you are whining about what I wrote and your big argument is that I don't have to read your posts. The hypocrisy of the egotist, its fucking awesome! You degenerate clown.

                Don't hold back, friend. Tell us how you *really* feel.

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:40PM

            by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:40PM (#828290) Journal

            Frankly between the opinion of $randomGuyOnTheNet and the infused truth coming from above, wikipedia style, I'd rather have the first. (u c what I did here)

            --
            Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:12PM (3 children)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:12PM (#828070) Journal

        testify that Seth Rich was indeed the DNC leaker.

        The guys who started that lie have already admitted it was a lie.

        Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi Pushed Seth Rich Lie After Privately Admitting Hackers Stole DNC Emails [thedailybeast.com]

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:24PM (#828130)

          She lost. Get over it.
          She is an evil witch and if she runs again she'll lose, again, and Trump will win, again.

        • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:27PM (#828131)

          They wouldn't know one way or the other. Assange is one of very few people who would know.

          Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi are allowed to change their mind, switching from "hackers" to "Seth Rich". At this point the circumstantial evidence is very strong, and we're just waiting for Assange to confirm it.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:43PM (#828165)

          As usual, fake news. I explained it here:
          https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=31039&page=1&cid=828108#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

          All that email proves is the Trump campaign had no inside info, they learned about Seth Rich from Assange's interview just like everyone else.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:47PM (13 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:47PM (#828140)

        Except that when you strip away all your characterizations what you get is:

        A group of people were walking down a street the way anybody would in a combat zone (don't clump up). We now know at least two of them had things slung which were not weapons. Could others have had weapons? At 3:01, right before the Apache opens up, you see one person on a cell phone and one person with his camera, and all other hands you can see are clearly empty. But let's say for the sake of argument they did - as they were walking up before the photographer peers around the corner a couple of the frames look that way and the military wants to say that they were.

        A civilian journalist was acting with the same caution anyone does who has half a brain, peer around corners before moving. He had the misfortune to be the only person with an object that could be mistaken as a weapon, but now it's pretty clear that it wasn't a weapon. So the aircrew fucked up on that call. Only the photographer had anything that one could judge as a weapon in the same way cops manage to shoot people with cell phones. They were perceived as a threat wrongly. They get shot up. Well, that's the breaks and maybe I can acknowledge that.

        Then, an individual crawling with no demonstrated intent of hositlity and they open up again for no defined reason. Please tell me why that second series of shots is justified?

        Then a van was making pickup on the area.

        The aircrew previously acknowledged the civilian did not have a weapon when he was crawling. "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." Combatant or not, there was no indications that the van was engaging in combat. There was no picking up of weapons in the video, even though the aircrew says they are picking up weapons when they request engagement and receive it. They shot up people rendering aid and that is the beginning and ending one can make of that. That there were children in the vehicle at most makes it more heinous, it does not absolve the aircraft crew from having fired on an unarmed rescue mission. If the enemy had done that the U.S. would have been swinging it's dick around condemning that full force. Except now we've proven that we cannot be trusted to not fire on unarmed rescue people, so they have no reason to give ours any quarter either, do they?

        The first bit is arguable. The last two are murder, plain and simple.

        Finally, it's just another use where the U.S. position would be all anyone ever knew, except for Wikileaks. Why were all the other requests under FOIA denied? Oh, because that would have embarassed the shit out of the government.

        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:58PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:58PM (#828176)

          How was the helicopter pilot to know that there were "people rendering aid"? (not that I agree that it matters; aiding the enemy makes you an enemy IMHO) For that matter, how is it that you know that there were "people rendering aid"? There was no giant red cross on the roof of the vehicle, or even a goddamn crescent. For context: similar vehicles had been used to move active combatants around the battlefield. It's no different from a JEEP or HMMWV moving our soldiers from point A to point B.

          The "individual crawling with no demonstrated intent of hositlity" had in fact demonstrated hostility. He did that, hid, and then went for the vehicle. He's trying to continue the fight. He isn't waving a white flag. He isn't carried off in a stretcher.

          Now that I think about it, I suspect the kids were brought there to die. People there do some pretty fucked up disgusting things, and they damn well know how to manipulate the American public.

          In any case, both the minivan and the crawling combatant were fully legitimate targets. Had they not been, there is still a lot of room for "oops" between "legit" and "murder".

          • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:58PM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday April 11 2019, @10:58PM (#828354) Journal

            This post, with the post-hoc justifications and "narrative-fitting" interpretation, is demonstrative.. Not that other "interpretations" are necessarily correct, either..

            There are two sides.. Those who have pre-conceived opinions, and those with open minds.
            This is true aross the political spectrum; there is no left/right, red/blue, there is just.. interpretation.

            Alas, "truth" is now irrelevant.

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @03:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @03:13PM (#829859)

            Well, let's see. What were they doing in that van that classified them as hostile? Oh, they were picking up people who were shot. If they were picking up weaponry the full video does not show it - that was an assertion of the radio chatter but there is no proof offered of that which I've seen. If you saw that please do let me know, as that would make them a legit target.

            Now, what HOSTILE INTENT was that vehicle displaying? None. It was not a military target.

            Providing medical care to anyone is not aiding that side by long held convention. Oh, wait, I see. You think the prisoners should have been shot by our side. Oh, our side patched up the kids? How is that not aiding the enemy, then? It's OK. Should we ever meet I'll just let you die.

            The "individual crawling" was no longer a hostile. The Apache crew are on tape just begging for him to pick up a weapon so they could take him out. He crawled away and then was being carried by two people to the van. Don't know what video you were watching. In case you've never been educated on the subject one may use force against an enemy only to the extent necessary to stop them from being hostile. Once they cease hostility they are not a target anymore. Shoot someone and if they drop their gun you're not allowed to put a round in their head "just to be sure."

            In any case, the minivan was never a legitimate target. The hostile was not a legitimate target. Targeting them was murder, however you want to try and rationalize it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:32PM (#829918)

            And one more thing while I'm on a roll. How do I know they were "people rendering aid." Well, they stopped. They picked up the wounded man in an extremity carry. They were attempting to load the person and did nothing else until the Apaches opened fire on them. What would you call it, people hunting for dinner?

            If you think the wounded guy (who was the driver for the reporter if you hadn't connected the dots) was still trying to fight by crawling away, well, I'm glad you're not in uniform, dude.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:30PM (1 child)

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @11:30PM (#828373)

          Did you watch the full video? Tell us what happened when the ground troops secured the van?

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:14PM (#829907)

            After making multiple radio calls about it they got the two kids out of the van and over to a Humvee. (There's much more that can be said if you Google Ethan McCord for starters...)

            Now you tell me: What actions precipitated the order to shoot up the van with the kids in it?

            And again, I'll reiterate: The only reason you or I saw that full video was... Wikileaks.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 12 2019, @02:58PM (6 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:58PM (#828623) Homepage Journal

          You need to look at the full video again, and actually count weapons. There are rifles in the video. They look remarkably like AK-47's. There aren't enough of them to go around, but most of the people in that video do indeed have weapons. Don't look at the "collateral murder" version, but the full version, with all the helicopter chatter going back and forth. Listen closely, watch closely. If you don't see any rifles (dare I say "assault rifles"?) then either A: you have very bad eyes, or B: you don't WANT TO SEE those weapons. I'll grant that the quality of the video makes it a bit difficult to pick out weapons, but they are there if you look.

          Furthermore, the Apache was called in BECAUSE our ground troops in the area had been fired on by these guys. These guys, not some other random bunch of local yokels. There were no other local yokels to be found in the area. That is in fact what the reporter was there to report on. He was EMBEDDED in an insurgent "unit" for the purpose of recording the war from the insurgent's perspective.

          You have plenty of clues now - let's see what you can do with them.

          --
          “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:24PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @04:24PM (#829912)

            No, you're seeing a bunch of things that look like weapons. Watch in the second half of the video when the Apache crew says the Humvee ran over one of the dead bodies and even the crew couldn't be sure or if that was just an image artifact. So, I'll readily acknowledge that three of the eleven people shown are carrying things that could be interpreted as weapons. And it's more than just AK's: The US asserts there was an RPG plus someone carrying an RPG round. Plus the radio chatter makes clear when the security element reaches the scene one person looks like he's on top of an RPG round.

            Now let's deal with the conclusions you are jumping to:

            "....had been fired on by these guys." No proof it was "these guys" who had fired on them. (And especially if you broaden that just a smidge - I doubt the reporter or his driver were firing on them). Next, please differentiate for me the difference between a "local yokel" and an insurgent. Then for dessert you can suggest how you tell a Viet Cong from a Vietnamese civilian (and for the cherry you can linguistically trace how and why Vietnamese civilians were called gooks by the troops).

            But you need to go back and read my first post. As I said, that the reporter and his driver were hit aren't terribly relevant. What I'm focusing on was that black minivan and why firing on it was justified. (No, "because it was in the area," is not acceptable - see above.) I await your reply.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 15 2019, @04:53PM (4 children)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 15 2019, @04:53PM (#829928) Homepage Journal

              I can't really "justify" firing on the van. All that I can offer you is, we are just Monday morning quarterbacks. I can sit here and tell myself that I probably wouldn't have fired on the van. But, we don't second-guess the man at the trigger. He answers to his superiors, and he was told to fire. I think it was wrong to shoot the van up, but even if we all agree that it WAS wrong - there was no war crime committed. The people in the van were rendering aid to a known enemy unit. It's justifiable under the rules of law. It's part of that "fog of war" you read about. That doesn't exactly make it justified in my opinion.

              Now, I ask one thing of you. Put yourself in the gunner's seat. You've just shot up a bunch of known bad guys. Some unknown people show up, attempting to rescue your bad guys. You report it, your superiors order you to fire. No matter at this point, yet, that you do, or do not, want to shoot the van up. You follow orders, unless you can clearly argue that those orders are unlawful. After you've shot the van, ground troops arrive, and inform you that you've shot up a bunch of unarmed dummies, AND THEIR KIDS.

              I can damned near guarantee that gunner lost nights of sleep, and probably had to visit a shrink. He may now be one of those homeless PTSD veterans we read about. It probably had an effect on the rest of the crew, but none so much as that gunner.

              And, it all boils down to "War is hell" and "shit happens" and fucking Murphy.

              THAT is why I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I put every bit of responsibility in Bush's and Cheney's laps. The sons of bitches violated a number of laws before, during, and after that war. Worse, they mutilated common sense.

              It would have been an outrage if the Pentagon told Bush they would not comply with his order to invade Iraq. It would have been the biggest scandal in US history. But, I think that would have been better than destroying a country, just to get the top 50 or so leaders.

              --
              “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @05:32PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @05:32PM (#829941)

                True. We are criticizing after the fact. And you're correct, we're not there. I'll say that it was both indicative they had a problem with it and also a sign of trying to justify or grow emotional callouses about it when they say on the video, "Ah damn. Oh well." and later, "Well they shouldn't have brought kids into a war zone." They're already beginning the process of living with what they did, and to some degree making excuses for it.

                Now, I will do as you ask and place myself in their shoes - I did while watching it originally. (And yes, I've worn the uniform and carried a rifle).

                First, if unknown people show up rescuing the bad guys, if they are making pickups on wounded the big question is: What's the threat?

                Yes, they're amped up, they just took out what looked like --- and you're right, likely was --- a squad of armed insurgents and they're still thinking in that mindset. Even properly marked and badged medics have been killed in combat "by accident" and as someone else pointed out these people weren't marked as medics.

                But a couple of distinguishing things - these guys are in helicopters. There are no indicators they were ever in any danger at all, at any point.... Now they're up there protecting the ground troops and that's an important and high-adrenaline thing to be doing. In fact, it can be even more nerve wracking than being on the ground. But it was the chopper crew who told the superiors that they were picking up bodies and weapons. If you're the superior officer back at base and you're told people are collecting weapons, that's not a hard call to make to clear the engagement. I'm sure that I would do that and so would you.

                But the reality is that they helicopter crew was given permission to engage, not orders to engage, and that permission came because of the way they described the situation. Which, as far as the video shows, is false. If they had radioed in, "Looks like this black van has two people who are making pickup on one of the wounded down there," does that change how you as the commander would clear them? Me, I'd ask, "What else are they doing that makes them a target?" I'd realize from my protected position back at base that U.S. position has always been that wounded individuals who aren't fighting are always afforded Rule 110 [icrc.org] protection, and that many nations recognize that just because they're not afforded enemy combatant status or the pickups aren't properly credentialed is not an exception to that. What would you do if you were the clearing authority and were given a different picture of what happened?

                I've read some things that did say, though, that the black van did come from a compound that was suspected of being an insurgent stronghold. (And who knows, maybe the van was seen picking up weapons earlier by those crews). But neither of those carries weight to automatically qualify the van as a belligerent force.

                And yes, were I the gunner it would cause me a lot of lost sleep and probably some counseling. (Then we can look at how those who want to get that kind of help in bang-bang units are often pressured into not doing so). But I don't assume that everyone else feels that way (guilt or remorse) because there are a lot of amoral SOB's in the world, too. Some of them wear uniforms. And it doesn't cut them a free pass that it's OK because war, any more than a commander who says, "Yep, if an IED goes off waste everyone you can see." They are paid way too little and have way too much responsibility, but as soldiers it is their job to make the right calls about whom they kill. (Which doesn't mean they should be locked up, either. But discharged without prejudice, or ensured that they'll never be promoted and they're removed from combat duty and will never advance - that I can live with. Maybe the next crew will think, then, before firing.)

                I can empathize with them. But I won't sympathize or say "well, that was OK, then."

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 15 2019, @05:50PM (2 children)

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 15 2019, @05:50PM (#829946) Homepage Journal

                  Dayum. I've argued what happened in that video many times. You're the first person who makes me want to go back and check what I saw and heard. Yeah, I think you're right - the chopper crew reported that they were picking up weapons. I want to look, see if they actually picked up anything that looked like a weapon.

                  Thanks for the perspective.

                  Let me ask one more question before I go looking for the video again, maybe you'll answer before I get back:

                  How convinced are you that those erroneous reports that you allude to might constitute a war crime? Like, 1%, or 20%, or 50%?

                  BBL

                  --
                  “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 15 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 15 2019, @06:51PM (#829975) Homepage Journal

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI [youtube.com]

                    Ethan McCord testimony on the incident. He specifically states that when he arrived on scene, he saw an RPG and an AK-47. He does describe pretty graphically how bad it was. As he testifies, the Wikileaks video is played. That report to superiors seems to be accurately transcribed at the bottom of the video:

                    Yeah, Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching, and picking up the bodies. . . . . Where's that van at? . . . Right down there by the bodies. . . . Okay, yeah. . . . Bushmaster, Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons . . . Let me engage . . . Can I shoot? . . . Roger. break.

                    It is not clear whether Ethan actually saw an RPG, or he mistook the camera for an RPG. I have absolutely zero doubt that he properly identified an AK lying on the ground among the dead.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik [youtube.com]
                    The unedited version of the collateral murder video. I see no evidence that any of the four men in the van, or the reporter reached for anything that looked like a weapon. As I've already said, I, personally, cannot justify firing on the van. There were both dismounted and mounted troops very close by to apprehend the people in the van. But, as we've already agreed, neither of us were there. In my mind, still no war crime.

                    And, I will note that "war crime" is a kind of emotional thing. If the chopper crew were put on trial, in Iraq, with a jury consisting of Iraqis, they would probably be found guilty. A trial in Europe, it would depend on the jurists. We could stack the jury with SJW's and convict them, or we could stack the jury with veterans, and they would walk. A trial in the US, very much the same as Europe.

                    I've watched this video too many times now. Bottom line, I'm not 100% in agreement with that final call, but I stand with the troops who were there. I see no wrongdoing, and certainly not a war crime.

                    You may ask, could I, or would I, condemn the troops, if things had been just a little different? Well, yes, I could. Let us speculate that the chopper crew had said something like this: "There are no weapons nearby, all the weapons were dropped at the corner, in the street." "Yeah, well we ought to stop those people trying to rescue our wounded guy." "Yeah, well, screw it, let's light them up."

                    In that case, yes, I would condemn the flight crew.

                    Yes, there were some callous remarks after the fact. Can't condemn them for that. As you stated yourself, they have to cope somehow.

                    I want to thank you for your thoughtful and informed comments. I get so frustrated with people who know nothing, but have all the answers. Salutes, brother.

                    --
                    “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ― George S. Patton on Ukraine
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:49PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 15 2019, @07:49PM (#829991)

                      Yes, and there are people who doubt McCord's version of the events (I'm saying people disputed it defending the troops who were there). And likewise, I've become much more convinced that the group was carrying weapons which justifies the initial burst. One thing we haven't looked at, at all... The vast majority of journalists are in fact just journalists who do a dangerous job. But there's nothing that doesn't say that they embedded with that group and the photographer was doing recon for the insurgents peering around the corner with his camera. (The camera was examined afterwards and they did find digital images of the Humvee that the Apache was concerned about.... That's why I think it was the reporter aiming his camera around the corner that the Apache thought was an RPG.) And I'm actually most convinced by the image that the DoD says was an RPG round and the radio traffic identified as such. Add all that up, and that initial burst of fire could in fact be justified.

                      Do I think this was a "War Crime," akin to Nuremberg or Yugoslavia? No. It's not a War Crime. I do believe it could be a crime that happened in a combat environment. One for which there certainly are mitigating circumstances, but nevertheless a crime. And one that the United States very conveniently swept under the rug until Chelsea Manning supplied Wikileaks with this evidence. And the sort of thing that if you believe the critics does happen frequently. When you get ground commanders who give orders like "an IED goes off shoot everybody in the area," it reveals something. That things like this video pop up and happen and never become news not only degrades ourselves as a nation but also turns people over to the other side. (i.e. Of course the enemy will pop off an IED when 'innocents' are in the area because every mistaken kill becomes another link by which both our government and the one we back becomes the enemy and loses legitimacy to the people there who don't care about the politics). Sorry for the soapbox. TLDR is no, not a war crime but an ordinary crime.

                      I wouldn't even want the flight crew to get a BCD, nor do I think they should have jail time. But administrative punishment for a lapse in judgment (the hosing of the black van) seems very appropriate and never happened. To truly understand whether it was in fact a crime we'd have to have access and spend time analyzing the Rules of Engagement. Wikileaks has published them IIRC, but I won't go to that length. That it is classified information, in my mind, is questionable at best exactly because of situations like this. Yes, there are some security implications (as in the enemy will find and exploit the flaws in the any such plan) - but why exploits should be in such a plan is a good question. The biggest problem is it puts the military beyond civilian review of their actions - something that should never occur in a democracy where the military are in fact subject to the citizenry. And yes, the reporters should have been wearing Press garb.

                      You're right - horrid things happen in war. That doesn't justify everything that happens in warfare, though. (Nor does it means mistakes happen, either).

                      Thanks for being reasonable, yourself!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:21PM (7 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:21PM (#828005)

      But he's been one of the last still doing what journalists used to do, which is to investigate and expose the high and mighty. If any person ever deserved the protection of the world's most powerful democracy, he is it.

      Why do you think the high and mighty of the world's most powerful "democracy" have been doing everything in their power to get rid of him for approximately 20 years?

      Also, if you think Trump's going to protect him because he owes Assange one, you obviously haven't been paying attention to what Trump does when he owes people. Like all sorts of high-and-mighty types, loyalty is only expected to flow upwards, not downwards.

      --
      Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:53PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:53PM (#828043)

        Why do you think the high and mighty of the world's most powerful "democracy" have been doing everything in their power to get rid of him for approximately 20 years?

        I like how this logic works - the high and mighty are unstoppable forces of evil and yet with all of their nefarious power they couldn't take out one guy. Dude, we got internet distributed malware on to air-gapped computers deep inside an iranian secret facility and used it to blow up their centrifuges. If the "high and mighty" wanted to "get rid" of assange they could have done it a long time ago.

        Don't fall for his hype. He had a good idea, but his own vindictive personality flaws are his biggest enemy. He's a gnat as far as the ruling elite are concerned.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:00PM (1 child)

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday April 11 2019, @04:00PM (#828055)

          I like how this logic works - the high and mighty are unstoppable forces of evil and yet with all of their nefarious power they couldn't take out one guy.

          I never said they were "unstoppable". Exposing them for the fools that they often are is part of stopping them.

          --
          Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @06:05PM (#828150)

            Oh please. If your only rebuttal is to quibble about a minor point of hyperbole you didn't have a defensible argument to begin with.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:48PM

          by Bot (3902) on Thursday April 11 2019, @09:48PM (#828300) Journal

          Have you ever noticed how the evil ones want you to take responsibility for the bad situation you end up with? "you signed the contract" "you clicked on the EULA" "You didn't listen when we put a horse head in your bed", and so on?
          Have you also ever noticed that vengeance served cold is more powerful?

          I do not imply that this is what is happening to Assange, but you better acknowledge how evil works.

          --
          Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:14PM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 11 2019, @07:14PM (#828192) Journal

        Also, if you think Trump's going to protect him because he owes Assange one, you obviously haven't been paying attention to what Trump does when he owes people. Like all sorts of high-and-mighty types, loyalty is only expected to flow upwards, not downwards.

        I don't know that I do think that. I did expect Obama to pardon him and Snowden, but he proved he was at least a good measure of the worthless piece of shit the conservatives claimed for 8 years. Directing the three-letter agencies to spy on the Trump presidential campaign because of a DNC-funded dossier has confirmed an additional good measure of the worthless piece of shit the conservatives claimed. (I still don't believe that he was a Manchurian candidate, an Alinsky acolyte, secretly a non-citizen, the central figure in a global pedophile ring, a closet Muslim, married to a dude named Michael, or any of the other whispered claims around crazy campfires, but it's all lagniappe next to what he actually did as President.)

        In other words, I have very low expectations for any president now. On the other hand, Trump pledged he would kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership and instantly did that upon assuming office, so I allow for a non-zero chance that he might do the right thing here.

        I do call for Assange to be pardoned and for the United States to tell the UK and everyone else in the world to back the fuck off because it's the right thing to do, according to the lights of the country I grew up in (and wish still abided). I would hope that regardless of sour grapes, bitter tribalism, or bilious media memes that men and women of good conscience could at least agree on this much: arresting and imprisoning a real journalist based on fabricated bullshit is a direct assault on everyone's freedom.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:34AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @01:34AM (#828422)

          Manchurian candidate: from dictionary.com I get this: "A Manchurian candidate is a person, especially a politician, being used as a puppet by an enemy power. The term is commonly used to indicate disloyalty or corruption, whether intentional or unintentional." Clearly he was disloyal to the USA and was corrupt, so he qualifies both ways by the second definition. That does it, but let's look at the first definition too. I'm not sure where to set the threshold on how metaphorical "puppet" can be. One extreme would be literally a doll with a hand up his ass, and I don't think he qualifies under that definition. (have not seen his ass however) The other extreme would be somebody merely under strong influence, and there I think he does qualify. Consider the hot-microphone comments made to the Russian president, where Obama offers more flexibility after his election. It sure looks like Obama is taking orders but wants a delay.

          Alinsky acolyte: Being a follower of Alinsky should not be surprising. Obama just needs to act the part, as he did, and he qualifies. He would not be alone.

          secretly a non-citizen: This is a fascinating one. When giving a talk at a library in Cambridge as a law student, discussing his book, Obama was introduced as having been born in Kenya. He may have been making the opposite false claim, pretending to be Kenyan for some sort of exotic foreign credibility in leftist circles. The birth certificate uses fonts that didn't exist at the time. It could be a legitimate Hawaii birth certificate that was modified to hide some other issue. In any case, what is our standard of proof? We have three levels ("beyond a reasonable doubt", "clear and compelling", "preponderance of evidence") and two polarities ("he is", "he isn't"), making for six possible standards of proof. In any case, what could we do at this point? He already bombed 7 countries and spied on a political opponent, and just about all of his presidential orders have been undone.

          central figure in a global pedophile ring: He doesn't seem the type, although you never know. John Podesta, Jeffrey Epstein, and Bill Clinton all seem more likely. If anything, I'd suspect Obama of using knowledge of such things as blackmail. The main currency within congress is information for blackmail. This is how they manipulate each other.

          closet Muslim: Obama clearly isn't a practicing Muslim. He did once slip up in an interview though, saying "my Muslim faith". (video on youtube) It is also clear that Obama has a fondness for Islam. He even directed NASA to focus on making Muslims feel proud of stuff. NASA!!! Both of Obama's stepfathers were Muslim, which makes Obama unavoidably a Muslim from the perspective of Muslims. Obama did elementary school in Indonesia with Muslim classmates; the chances that Obama never said the statement of faith (becoming permanently Muslim) are slim.

          married to a dude named Michael: Obama's wife sure does have something down there. I suspect it is just an incontinence pad. Depends... or something like that.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @06:57AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12 2019, @06:57AM (#828519)

          Trump killed the TPP, but now provisions from the TPP are being inserted into the NAFTA renegotiation.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @08:26PM (#828237)

      If he really wanted to punch the Deep State in the nuts, that is what he'd do.

      That's rich! Trump is a creature of the swamp. He'd sooner cut his own throat than destroy his natural habitat. Get real!

(1) 2