I have no issue with seeing Mr. Assange being extradited to the US via Sweden. He made a conscious choice to leak knowingly classified information, now it's time to face the music.

@Lann I'll have the American government extradite you for that!

>> ^aurens:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.
Kinda like a jet plane's black boxes aren't irrecoverable... no wait, they were. FBI: "None of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered." But this defies reason. Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found? Anonymous source at the NTSB: "Off the record, we had the boxes,"
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't know what you mean by "produced,"He means if you have evidence that implicates a suspect of a crime, then you indict that person. You then find and arrest that person, charge them, and follow the rule of law. The FBI admits they have no "hard evidence" that OBL was behind the 9/11 attacks, yet he was immediately blamed for it. The Taliban offered extradition if we provided evidence and we refused. Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context...
You're talking about the Department of Defense. The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside? Never mind the approach the pilot took makes no sense. If your target is the Pentagon, you can cause the most damage and most causalities by doing a nose down crash in the top. Instead the amateur pilot does a high precision 360 degree turn, descending 7,000 feet in the last 2 minutes to impact the Pentagon in the front, the only spot with reinforced steel. He spends an extra 2 and half minutes in the air exposed and ends up hitting the exact spot that has been reinforced and also where the bookkeeping and accountants were. Day before 9/11: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has lost track of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.
Conspiracy? I think so. (Bonus: WeAreChange confronts Rumsfeld)
>> ^aurens:

Three videos, not one, were released.
And at least 84 remain classified. Why?
And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?
Conspiracy? I think so.

>> ^aurens:

I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens. If you spent anytime at all "thinking" or looking at the evidence, then you would recognize government lies for what they are. You don't have to know the truth to recognize a lie.

Well, I'll point to one example. When they went after Scientology I was quite surprised of the organization and setup. In multiple cities in the U.S. and in International places (mostly NATO countries) like London. They got hundreds in some locations and thousands of people/protesters to show up and protest Scientology's right to be a religion (as they're considered one in the U.S--not sure where they are, out of country of course). Usually, their Constitutional right to be a religion, would be something I would fight for, but they have crossed the line more than enough times that they seem like fair game to me. Hell, we had atleast a couple of hundred, maybe even one thousand, protesting the church in Utah of all places! Utah is far off from any of their headquarters or any major "church", installation, and "health" centers.

(Off-topic Sidenote: The Mormon or LDS church also crossed the line with Proposition 8 in California--I've seen the LDS church get involved in other political affairs, but only to the same extent all churches in this country do--block voting is ridiculous and should almost cause your vote to be counted as less-as you're actively using religion as a political pulpit and then voting from that; if a connection could be made I'd think those votes should be countermanded as well as the religion's tax exemption status--especially when you have meetings, literally, before a vote. Mormons do this, I'VE BEEN to them!)

The fact that Anonymous can pull that off over night means a great deal. They're most defiantly not weekend warriors in their mother's basement (although I'm sure there are plenty like that). They must have quite a few people that are highly trained in a wide range of topics as they've gone after many targets; easily separating, for the majority of Anonymous, what's an incorrect target and what deserves their attention. To me this means you can't write them off in any fashion; as they may have "Ivory Tower" support, due to their targets and being able to seem "right" and "innocuous" at every turn--people cheer them on.

If I had to pick, I would wager that Anonymous can and does affect more changes socially than al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda has a poor societal impact except the desperate or those that have nothing to lose--only if it used like-wise tactics, which they won't (likewise tactics meaning: terrorism, like 9-11). Their methodology is *flashy*, so every media outlet focuses their news-time and airtime on them. If Anonymous did these infamous type of events except against an U.S. enemy, would they have the same "deeply rooted" infamy/notoriety in American society? I'd say yes.

Outside the U.S. they may have that attribution (good doers/fighting evil or infamous) already in certain places. Right now, Americans are more concerned if their McMansion will be a viable end solution or if it's another "living beyond your means", moment.

I do agree with you that Anonymous must be worried about their banner being lifted by the wrong person. But, as their is no leader in Anonymous it will lead to inter-anon wars; we've seen a few, but most have ended blindingly fast. You almost never hear about it unless you dig around (and even then you find out it's a year old).

I'm just trying to remind people that if Anonymous whimsically can get Colbert to wear the mask in solidarity and can gets thousands of protesters to show up at your doorbell overnight (with same mask ), they may have power that I doubt they've even tapped into yet.

Plus, I do think China or any country willing to stand toe to toe with the U.S. would be grateful to have a voracious enemy of the U.S. on their side (yes, I agree that China would be bad; I also doubt that they would choose it--maybe more like Russia). Especially, if it ends up being one that knows the U.S. fairly well. Secondly, as before, taking random people off the street in Anonymous's name would only feed the machine. We have yet to see what happens if Anonymous, itself, is attacked. It's always been a side attack due to another on going event. The rules might change for both sides if it became a "war" (how they target and what is targeted, then how does the information become presentable). Yes, the U.S. could cut-off the Internet, but I think we've learned enough that THAT may be a grander problem for the U.S. than what it originally had (it's happened everywhere else; citizens revolting).

Yes, Anonymous "may" be getting too much credit, but since their anonymous... They might loose badly even in a straight up information war. But, none of this has happened yet or been tested... I agree with the majority of what you're saying @Yogi . I'm just reminding people that underestimation of your enemy (do we, as Americans, really want Anonymous as an enemy? The Colbert show seems to show the opposite...)

Get rid of one person and another falls in to place, and the hacks they do can be taught ridiculously fast. The other side requires *tax payers'* money or private contractors (using *tax payers'* money, or someone like Dick Cheney who has Halliburton), all of which seem shady as what they do is kill other Americans, arrest other Americans, kill NATO citizens or extradite NATO citizens, and heaven forbid: use black-ops for non-Western countries (Anonymous has enough foresight to get clear confirmation of any event and spread it virally; like a video).

If these guys lose one person it takes quite a bit of time to replace--even if they become misaligned with the publics' view, like the guy in Colbert's piece. Everyone will question his motives now except for the complete utter sheep with no in-the-know friends (to explain what Anonymous is doing).

All I'm trying to say is that in an age of information the U.S. may find themselves on equal footing in a war they'd have to start. The U.S. tries a physical response it will be posted in full glorious detail on the net with redundancy ad nauseum (one well placed real-time camera or auto-upload camera and it becomes a nightmare). The U.S. employs thousands of people that can barely log into their e-mail account(s)--these people are also responsible for enacting physical responses. Imagine an Anonymous that hacks, but keeps the game running. Key loggers, viruses, worms, trojans, hardware hacks, software hacks, people IN the government in on it...? Anonymous has always pulled their stunt quickly and shown everyone the ramifications; don't you think a prolonged version would be highly dangerous for both sides?

Again this assumes a lot about Anonymous just from what I've seen them accomplish in the past. They are most defiantly not some sort of elite commando force. What they lack is simply made up in their ability to manipulate data; which is HUGE in this day and age... Anyway that's long enough; respond to the areas you think need to be toned downed or clarified upon.

-grammar edit

His intention was good but it's rather unprofessional to leave in midst of an interview. Just sayin'.

It's sorta like capturing a window spider and releasing it outside in midst of a job interview or saying hello to his friend while he's at the principal's office. Do remember that he just came out of a police station fighting extradition facing a rape charge in Sweden. (which is another debating case of immaturity of him and people he mingles with)

It just goes to show his attitude towards all this media attention, that he's not taking things very seriously, not much different from a love-starved kid getting attention by being naughty.

What he's doing with wikileaks has made headlines, fighting against the tyrannies of corporate controlled and concentration of power. That's good. But he's also a man that does not care much for conventional rules, and he'd rather play this role of vigilante and in fact loving every minute of it. He's just as immature and selfish as any one of those crooks he is ought to expose them.

He likes the fact that he can play outside the boundaries, that he is above the law. In fact that's what his work is about, by means of backhand deals and illegal information leaks. But he's doing these bad things to the bad guys, which is the major difference and why some people view him as a hero. So his existence is in itself a constant clash of irony, a people's hero out to fight against world's problems, by practicing the same techniques the baddies are using, and enjoying his role in it.

Don't panic. Worst case scenario: they hold the copyright to the clip you posted. In that case they need to contact the video host to have them remove it. They can also contact VS to tell the admins to take it down. If dag and lucky feel that they're the legitimate copyright holders, they can remove it from the system. This isn't your site, nor is LiveLeak (or whatever site is hosting the video you posted), so the responsibility isn't yours. Viacom went after YouTube in its lawsuit, not after the hundreds of thousands of people who uploaded copyrighted material.

Besides, you live in Canada. Are they going to extradite you to Los Angeles just because you embedded a video that someone else uploaded? If you think about it like that, you realize the patent absurdity of it all. Also, Fusionaut and gwiz665 could be right: it might all be some sort of scam. Do NOT call them back.

Fuck. Them.

Nigeria IS a member state of Interpol. It wouldn't do anything, but it would be entertaining to see them try to issue an international warrant for his arrest and extradition. Failing that, I hear extraordinary rendition is pretty kosher now.

I think it was because he was afraid of being extradited... Not to ruin the joke or anything, but he seemed to be on the run the entire time.

You didn't read my post and you're setting me up as a straw man to argue against.

Obama's language in his executive orders that this is all about talk about respecting "international obligations, domestic laws, and humane treatment". So, I gather that means the only way rendition/abduction/arrest is going to be legit is if there's no reasonable government in place to do an extradition from like say a dude in Somalia plotting to blow up the French Club's trip to Paris. The language also specifies that it would be temporary confinement before due process and never to someplace where they could be tortured. The whole thing is ripe for nasty abuse but as I understand it they're trying to set up a legal framework that does not violate tenants of our society... it is a huge fucking legal mess but I don't see evidence that it's trying to do the stuff you're saying.
>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^alizarin:
Obama's renditions are different than Bush's in that :
Bush stuck people in Guantanamo for years with no end in sight or sent them to foreign countries to be tortured. Obama decried that.
Obama wants to maintain the ability to do renditions to places like Bagram only if it's
- for short periods of time (not endlessly imprisoning people without a trial)
- not putting them places where it's reasonable to expect they will be tortured
- not doing anything that's against domestic laws, international obligations, US policy, or humane treatment.
- plus he did effectively close Guantanamo imprisonment
- info
Still way too lacking in checks-and-balances protection from abuse for my tastes but you could make a good argument that he's not being hypocritical.

Utterly disgusting. Secret abductions? How does that not violate some tenant of our society? Due, fucking, process. How about some Equality Before the Law? Treat terrorists for what they are, criminals.

Emery's legal fight was a long battle, the Harper government's decision to bend over only took 2 minutes. >> ^gwiz665:

You know, 2 mins is not a "long battle"

>> ^dag:

I can't believe that Canada rolled over for this- extradition to the US prison system, where he has a good chance of being raped, getting hepatitis or generally abused should be considered cruel and inhumane punishment, a violation of human rights and and definitely an exception to any extradition treaties.
This is a shameful day for Canada and the US- and brings into question Canada's sovereignty.



.... exactly

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I can't believe that Canada rolled over for this- extradition to the US prison system, where he has a good chance of being raped, getting hepatitis or generally abused should be considered cruel and inhumane punishment, a violation of human rights and and definitely an exception to any extradition treaties.

This is a shameful day for Canada and the US- and brings into question Canada's sovereignty.

I see this as a turning point in Jodies life, I am interested in how her activism and life therefore turns out. I knew four years ago that marc would be extradited and Canada would be the usual pussy assed bent over a barrel subsidiary of the big bad USA dictatorship on the world wieners that we are and send him off.

what a sad place we live in.

ok, so I'm confused about the case (and none of the articles clear it up). Perhaps some canadians can answer:

1) is pot illegal in Canada (Vancouver specifically) ?
2) was he selling to Americans in USA ? (mail order seeds maybe?)

Next we'll hear the US government try to extradite all the marijuana "cafe" owners in Amsterdam....

I found this TIME article about Colombian drug lord extraditions to the US - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1881510,00.html
about 2 per week are sent to US for trial/jail, and it has done nothing to slow down the drug "war", and in many cases hindered local prosecutions in Colombia.

1. Prohibition is not the answer. Marijuana, if not all drugs, should be legalized or, at the very least, decriminalized.

2. We should not be extraditing Canadian citizens to another country for a crime committed in Canada. (Marc was not selling marijuana in the United States, he was selling to Americans from Canada.) Should Iranian-Canadians who give up Islam be extradited to Iran to be executed if Iran asks us to?

3. Unfortunately Marc was breaking the law and should have known better than to sell drug paraphernalia to citizens of a country obsessed with drug laws.