Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@Mark Hewitt

No.

The aircraft from the UK to Sweden isn't in international waters long enough for the US to divert the aircraft to a US base and perform a rendition.

(If you can believe the movies...)

Maybe that's why Assnage won't go back to his native Australia?

@Windrose... Yes and No

Definitely a fairly well thought out and intelligent post.

But I do have to disagree with a couple of points...

"(c) The US would have to come up with a charge against him, complete with proof, of a crime which is ALSO a crime in Sweden - that'd get tricky, since Sweden have very good protections for publishers of material. Could be done tho; espionage would be one. But since it's reasonably clear he's NOT a spy (spies don't publish the information online, normally .... ) that's political maneouvering.

(d) The Swedish Court would have to determine whether there was a political component to the *US* request - which, uh, we all agree there would be. If there is one, they can't legally extradite.

(e) The Swedish Government would have to, according to EU law, ask the *UK* Government whether it is ok to extradite him to the US. Then the *UK* needs to say yes - and, presumably, the UK would not do so if THEY thought it had gone political-shaped."

-=-

First, Assnage is Australian not a UK citizen.Nor is he a Swedish citizen. IANAL, but AFAIK, citizenship plays a crucial role in the laws affecting Assnage. (Why do you think he was trying so hard to get Swedish citizenship?)

Second...

In the US, if the Grand Jury determines that there is enough evidence against Assnage, the US will formally charge him. They will then make a claim for extradition. Regardless if he is in the UK or in Sweden.

At the time of this post, no official charges have been filed (AFAIK), so everything is hypothetical. Assuming that Assnage will face charges of treason, if charged as such, he'd probably stand a better chance of fighting the extradition in Sweden than he would in the UK. Even though he's not a UK citizen, he is Australian and I think he's got some protections as a citizen of the commonwealth. But unlike Sweden, UK is a member of NATO. So what trumps what in a court of law? I don't know but I'd imagine that a charge of espionage would be reason enough for Assnage to get extradited.

If Assnage is in Sweden, the Swedes don't have to talk to the UK about extradition to the US.

The question is if Sweden wants to create an international incident over Assnage. Also in light of the recent terrorist attacks in Sweden, see:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/101212/suicide-bombing-sweden-stockholm-terrorist-attack

I don't think that Sweden will fight hard against an extradition.

Neither will the UK where unlike McKinnon, espionage is a more serious crime than criminal trespass...

As to your comment about a 'political motivation'... since the leaks span both a Democrat and a Republican party president/white house, one could reasonably argue that his extradition is not politically motivated.

I'm sure that within 5 years, there will be a movie made about Assnage and this whole Wikileaks thing.

@ jonathanb

Since the US hasn't charged Assnage you can't have an extradition request and the US can take the death penalty off the table to remove that hurdle.

Of course there's another rub.

How long can Assnage stay in the UK? He's a commonwealth citizen.

@ Captain Hook

"Gary Mackinnon , unlike Assange, has publically admitted breaking into US Government computers and stealing information, which is clearly a crime in the US using existing laws not some hastily made up laws after the event to charge Assange with, it's been 5 years since Mackinnons extradiction was first requested and he has still not been anywhere near the US because of our fear for his safety under US criminal system."

Uhm... did Mackinnon publish, sell or do anything with the data?

(I don't know...)

Is Mackinnon a UK citizen? ;-) Yup the last time I checked he was, and he's got a lawyer and he's fighting extradition under the laws which protect UK citizens.

Is Assnage a UK citizen? ;-) Nope. But he is a citizen of Australia which is a member of the Commonwealth... So what rights/protections does he have under the law in the UK?

But more to the point. 1917 Espionage Act is much older than Assnage. Or his parents for that matter. So how can you say that its a 'made up law' ?

@Foo Bar Baz

Actually if you were a real C programmer its Foo Bar Retz.

I think you need to actually look at the case and read what is being said in the press.

Do you think that Manning just decided one day to take a huge dump of all sorts of documents he had access to and upload it to Wikileaks on his own? Wow, what a wonderful idea. I'm going to expose the US government and dump anything I can find on the US that could be an embarrassment and let Wikileaks determine what's relevant. I did this all on my own... Is that what Manning did?

If you believe that... I've got a bridge to sell you in NY..

I don't have to 'Put up or Shut up' because I'm not the one who's about to file charges against Assnage. That's up to the GJ to determine if the US has presented enough evidence against Assnage and Wikileaks.

@AC

"If this guy had been active during the Bush era, he would probably have been "taken care of". If they weren't able to silence him we would all be living in a more fascist society and someone like Bradley Manning would already have been executed for treason during wartime."

You're giving Bush too much credit and the US Government too little credit. There are laws in place and the US Military and US Government act within the accordance of laws. True under times of war, when there is actually a declaration of war by Congress, the laws are slightly different however, Manning would still face a trial.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a bit different than Civilian Law.

Manning royally screwed himself.

@42

A child like attack against me doesn't help to prove the logic behind your posts.

As I said before, I'm neither a republican nor a democrat, but an independent. That is to say, I chose my politics carefully and I don't follow a party line.

As to being a nut job, the fact that I post here to debate this issue... well some would say that it does qualify... ;-)

Yet I digress. IANAL, but I'll try to make this as simple as possible so that you might be able to follow the logic...

The US Government has launched a Grand Jury investigation in order to determine if charges should be brought against Assnage. The allegations go along the line of that he coerced a US Serviceman to break the law and steal classified documents. That act, if true, would be considered an act of Espionage and under the 1917 law, Assnage would be eligible to face charges within the US.

That's not a trumped up charge. Its a pretty serious charge.

His co-conspirator/dupe is sitting in the brig. Assnage ala Wikileaks raised money for his defense fund.So far none of it has appeared. Ever wonder why?

Talk to a lawyer and ask them why would Assnage try and distance himself from his co-conspirator? ;-)

Wikileaks isn't the press and Assnage and Wikileaks didn't censor their 'publication'.

You probably weren't alive when Watergate happened. Nor for the fall of Saigon, Iran Contra, Regan getting shot. Sadat getting assassinated... Or a whole lot of shit from the 70's and early 80's.

Heck... to understand the actions taken in the 80's you need to look at the 70s and the 60's. To understand the 60's you need to look at the 50's which is based on the 30's and 40's which is based on the 10's and 20's... which is based on the imperialism of the 19th Century. (But I seriously doubt you've studied history to know any of this.)

You think you understand freedom, yet you've never had to pay the price for the freedom you enjoy.

A lesson that is clearly lost on the majority here including Assnage.

@Vic

The logic isn't incorrect, nor did I ever say that they were mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite actually.

Wikileaks could have been founded with both goals in mind by Assnage. Its ok, as long as the goals are aligned. However, when one path diverges from the other, there will come a time/point when others involved say enough is enough and walk away.

That's exactly what we're seeing here. At some point followers of Assnage need to determine whether his actions are for a greater good, or just some folly to foster his Messiah Complex and his quest for martyrdom. We're starting to see some people who are close to Assnage reach that point. Hence their desire to create 'wikileaks 2' sans Assnage.

You can interpret my post to mean whatever you like. The intent wasn't to show a mutually exclusive option, but one where individuals reach their own conclusion as to when the two fail to overlap.

So you don't like my post?

I cut/paste a link to a CNN story about Assnage's online dating profile.

Kind of shows how Assnage views himself and is the image he wants to project.

Instead of going to court and face his accusers, he is fighting his case in the court of public opinion. He's counting on the backing of liberal 'left wing' rich folks. He's getting it, but what happens when the truth comes out?

As another poster wrote, the rape laws in Sweden are different from what we expect. In Assnage's world, does No mean Yes?

He paints himself as the victim. Unfortunately the real victim sits in a Military jail and faces real serious charges.

Where's the money he promised to help defend his co-conspirator? Why did his fellow 'leaksters' leave and start their own leak site?

Could it be that they felt that Wikileaks became something to feed Assnage's ego rather than a site that exposes companies for what they are? Naw that would never happen.

Get real.

@AC

I post with my name? Why do you post as an AC?

But lets not go there.

At the time, Assnage was in Sweden they weren't sure of what to do with him. He wanted to leave the country and they didn't have enough evidence to hold him. Good cases are lost when the prosecution jumps the gun and arrest too early.

Even though Assnage left the country, the investigation went on. At the time they determined that they had enough evidence, they issued the arrest warrant.

Don't think Assnage a good guy because he finally turned himself in. He did it because the arrest warrant was already issued (Quite publicly) and his options were limited. Not to mention that he's facing much more serious charges in the US. So I'm sure he got legal advice that told him it was better for him to surrender than stay on the run. (Looking even more guilty and giving more weight to the US's charges. Not to mention it opens himself up to criticism that he's a deluded paranoid tinfoil wearing nut case.)

But with respect to your comment about Assnage's dating profile. I don't read Craigslist, and it doesn't change the fact that the profile was created by Assnage and reflects how he views himself.

But of course, you'd want to down play any legitimate journalistic investigation of your hero.

All nations have such arrangements.

The only time a foreign government that have extradition agreements will deny an extradition is when the country that requests the extradition has the death penalty on the table. In Assnage's case, the death penalty is not on the table so its a moot point.

What everyone here seems to forget is that Sweden didn't formally charge him until after he left the country. So there's no issue of double jeopardy until he's been tried, found not guilty and then tried again. There is no issue of harassment because the government of Sweden let him leave the country.

If the US wants Assnage, they will face the same hurdles in Sweden as they face in the UK so it doesn't matter. And unlike McKinnon, Assnage isn't a UK citizen (Austrailian) so they will less likely want to make a stink about him being extradited. Not to mention that unlike McKinnon, Assnage's guilt is pretty apparent. You can't say he didn't do it when the documents are all over the world in the press.

Sorry, your view of the world just doesn't hold water.

Joe Liberman? LOL...

Sorry no.

I'm actually an independent and while conservative with respect to foreign policy, I'm fairly liberal in terms of internal policy and laws within the US. That would make me either a 'moderate republican' or a 'conservative democrat'. But I hate both parties because they are being controlled by self serving boobs. The religious morons on the right? The too liberal short sighted boobs on the left.

And my politics aside, this doesn't change anything concerning Assnage.

What I find the most disgusting is that Columbia University's Journalism professors support what Assnage has done. But then again, responsibility and ethics in Journalism is long gone, and the fact that Assnage and Wikileaks isn't part of the press.

But that's a different story and apparently beyond the capabilities of many to discuss on this board.

Huh?

Once Assnage is formally charged the information against him will be released to his defense team. That doesn't mean that the information will become publicly available.

If/When Assnage is charged in the US, and then extradited, any evidence could be withheld from Assnage and the press, while his lawyers will know what they have and then provide a vigorous defense.

More than likely if Assnage gets to the US, he'll cop a plea to a lesser charge so that he doesn't face the full weight of the jail time.

I don't think people fully understand or appreciate the damage done by Assnage. Of course we'll just have to wait to see what Manning says about his 'hero'. His testimony could damn Assnage. When Manning's trial occurs and the truth is told, we'll see how Assnage fares.

BTW, I know its Assange not Ass-n-age. I just like it better the second way. ;-)

Thats absurd!

The US convenes a grand jury. The GJ determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. The US Government can go to Interpol and issue the same warrants that Sweden issued.

So to say that this is a plot against him? Too friggin funny. But then again, its the same twisted logic that paints the sociopath as a hero.

Sorry but he coerced a dupe to break the law and hand him documents, then bails on him after collecting money for the dupe's defense fund. (To date, no money has been paid to his lawyers from either Assnage or Wikileaks.

Too friggin funny.

Is he in jail?

Assnage has proven that he is a flight risk.

Being out on bail is a mistake and if Assnage has 'proof' of his innocence why then doesn't he go back and face his accusers?

Here's something that goes back to my view that Assnage is a bit of a nut job.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/assange.dating.profile/index.html?hpt=T1

He left his co-conspirator hanging with empty promises.

The youth of today...

Woodward and Bernstein were journalists who investigated and reported on the corruption behind the scenes. What they did was investigate and report within the law.

Assnage coerced a US Soldier in to provided sensitive documents which he then dumped on the world without considering the ramifications of his actions. (W&B did consider the ramifications)

W&B acted within the law. Assnage did not.

W&B did not leak classified documents. Assnage did.

Do you want to go on?

BTW, you want to talk about the US government. Look around you. Look at all governments.

Time to grow up and get a real look at the world around you. There are bad people doing bad things.

Good post but not 100% accurate..

There's a large difference. Assnage isn't a reporter and wiki leaks isn't part of the Press.

Its enough of a loophole to drive a truck through.

Add to this the fact that most of what was published indiscriminately and without censor. That could not be said of the NYT.

What Assnage did was not in the public's best interest. Not in the slightest.

@E2

Only when Assnage is actually charged and arraigned does the prosecution have to disclose their case and their evidence.

Until then ... Assnage is going to be shitting in his pants.

Only a fool didn't see this coming.

It means the lawyers are getting smart.

The lawyers realize that the domain name is in fact an asset of the company. So when a US corporation gets sued, if the domain name is controlled by a non-us registrar, the non-us registrar doesn't have to abide by a US court ruling and it forces the person suing the company to then file another lawsuit in a different country to get the domain name back under their control.

Sort of hiding an asset in plain sight.

Gee Charlie...

Ever watch the movie Brazil?

The point lost on you and others is that the 'eco system' will still be vibrant. FOSS works because corporations allow it to work. Why? Because if done correctly, it lowers their cost of development.

I tend to use Hadoop as the example because it is done correctly.

Java is a different beast and its not in everyone's best interest to have a complete FOSS version. Mobile licensing provided a revenue stream to help fund the continued development of Java within Sun. The problem you and many have with Oracle is that unless something makes money at Oracle, its not going to happen. Oracle unlike IBM is not an innovator. Cut the revenue stream or threaten to cut the revenue stream, Oracle will react negatively.

One of my posts that didn't make the cut was a bit of a flame at the Reg because they essentially made Oracle's lawyers case for them. Oracle snubbed Google in not mentioning them. El Reg said, 'hello can you say Oracle's mobile phone platform is *java*?' (Paraphrasing of course). In doing so, Google's defense that they are using their own product that isn't Java goes away. In short El Reg spoke the unspoken truth that the Chocolate Factory doesn't want known. We (peers in the community) know that Dalvik ?sp? is really Java. Even Apache walked away from some of Google's claims.

So you can call me a pompous arse. I've been called much worse, yet my points still hold true.

You may not agree with them, but perhaps if you took off your rose colored glasses you might see differently.

The other post was a flame against Assnage. But then Chicago Tribune reporter Kass made pretty much the same point in his recent article.

Mine's the Gore Tex jacket with the winter lining. Why? Cause I don't need a flak jacket. My skin is *that* tough.

But you just made the prosecution's case.

Looking for a video?

Who owns the top site?

Who provides advertisements on said site?

Who has the deep pockets to withstand the lawsuits from the companies where infringing material was stolen and downloaded? Where they can withstand the costs wearing down the opponents to where they get what they want and the opponents can lick their wounds.

Rumor has it Google wants Groupon. Not that Groupon is a big deal, but its another market Google can dominate with ease.

Like I said, you use your dominance in one market and expand and become dominant in another, then another, then another...

David vs Goliath...

In the court of law... it costs a lot of money to wage a lawsuit. If you don't have deep pockets (David), and you're fighting a company that has pockets so deep that they can not only keep this in courts for years, bleeding you dry, but on the off chance, you can survive, they can easily afford the court costs, fines, and a fat settlement check to you. (Goliath). Only its not Goliath, but an army of Goliaths.

There's an expression. An enemy of my enemy is my friend. So if it takes funding from 'friendly' Goliaths to help take down this army of Goliaths, you bet your sweet ass you're going to do it.