To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

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

To be fair to these guys - sounds like she should be asking these questions to the Justice Department if the Treasury doesn't have the statutory authority to prosecute - and that's a good question - why Doesn't Eric Holder pull these guys in?

The answer may at least partially be that these crimes were committed overseas - harder to prosecute and extradite for American laws being broken in places where these are not even crimes perhaps. It's messy.

As much as I like Chris Hedges, I think he is wrong on Al Awlaki, considering that a) AA was a top ranking Al Queda leader who planned attacks on innocent civilians, b) Yemen refused to extradite him and c) Yemen refused to allow a land capture. Killing him was much preferable to allowing him to kill innocents, and because of Yemen's refusal to cooperate, it was the best option on the table. Most of the people who complain about this issue leave out the context.

*promote
AS REPORTED by the BBC 17 October 2012, the decision by Home Secretary Theresa May to block the extradition of British computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the US is scrutinized by the UK press with most overjoyed that Captain Asperger gets to skate on having hoses and wires connected to him should he be hauled to the United States and made an offer he might be unable to refuse....More on this broken story, as it envelops!

Good grief someone having a logical non rabidly anti-US thought? You'll be lynched. Of course they dont want him, why go through all that hassle and bad PR this long after the damage is done. He wants to give the impression that the US is desparate to get their hands on him so he can keep his little rapist butt out of prison. Plenty of dumb asses like those who posted bail for the self styled 'freedom fighter' willing to swallow everything he says, and of course theyll be screwed over as well. Just sit back and enjoy the Assange one man show as he gets increasingly desparate for attention.

As for this 'news', an analyst showing interest and sympathy in wikileaks soon after an analyst leaks massive amounts of secret data to said site, and the military reacts with suspicion. Wow, shocking.

>> ^entr0py:

If the US justice department wanted Assange, why wouldn't they just request extradition from the UK? Do they need to let the Swedish sex crimes investigation play out first?

If the US justice department wanted Assange, why wouldn't they just request extradition from the UK? Do they need to let the Swedish sex crimes investigation play out first?

The media would play it up, all right, but from the wrong side. The CBC and BBC, the two most strongly independent outlets of mainstream media have both already done clear hit pieces on Assange, wildly out of character. Strong Independent media like TYT and HuffPost would get dragged through the mud. If you think Tea Party v. OWS was a nation divided, that was nothing.

And the issue is too complex for the average Joe Lunchpail to understand, so it's going to be won, as usual, by bluster. And all the mainstream media together can produce more bluster than all the independent media, and there's not a hope in hell that any but a small portion of independent media outlets will withstand the pressure and put any effort into taking up Assange's case.

Like @Hybrid said, dead man walking.>> ^L0cky:

I'd love to tell Assange to just do it, hand himself over, get extradited, and trigger a huge campaign to have him released; thus bettering society in the long run; etc.
However, I have a funny feeling not enough people would turn out, and the media wouldn't play it up enough; and eventually he'd be left to rot in a cell, all but forgotten; and we'd just be worse off.

I'd love to tell Assange to just do it, hand himself over, get extradited, and trigger a huge campaign to have him released; thus bettering society in the long run; etc.

However, I have a funny feeling not enough people would turn out, and the media wouldn't play it up enough; and eventually he'd be left to rot in a cell, all but forgotten; and we'd just be worse off.

This means in practice that USA is allowed "legally" to kill this guy, no question asked. It's just atrocity that US thinks they can use their internal laws all over the globe, like it's de facto international law..

The day Assange is extradited/killed i'll turn to enemy of the state. It ends any support of a nation that thinks it can do whatever it wants and starts my active resistance to bring down that government.. And i'm western white middle class pacifist but there's only so much crap i will take.

In my (fantasy world) opinion, the machines have already taken over and we're in the midst of a slow genocide, because time is not a barrier in a system built to take as long as possible before a pattern can be verified. Minimize our rights, blur the line between what defines a person, allow time for acclimation, make it difficult not to break laws and/or policies to minimize as many opinions as possible, if someone begins falling outside that system attach a constructed sexual assault case to their name and extradite; slowly lower the impact human death has on our collective conscience, and THEN murder all humans with a number of doomsday machine scenarios. Or just depress them until their birthrate dwindles to near nothing and sterilize the surviving populace.

That's how Terminator should have played out. A loose conspiracy with no human names or communication outside of encrypted messages sent between machines. Money trails lead to people on opposing party lines because the entire democratic process is orchestrated.

I'm going to go kill myself to speed this along. GG, machines, GG.

The thing is if he surrendered and was extradited to Sweden at any point when he is on Swedish territory the US can demand he be extradited to the US because Sweden and the US have an treaty. Assange would never face trial and would be brought to the US for indefinite containment.

>> ^gwiz665:

Well, he should be properly questioned for whatever he did/did not do. I don't think there's any doubt there. I get the heebeejeebees when they refuse to question him in the Equadorian embassy, and insist he must be extradited. That's sorta where it starts to smell fishy. If they question him and he is found guilty in the end, THEN they should totally extradite him.
His works with wikileaks doesn't absolve him of crimes.
He should, however, in now way be extradited to the US for instance, where he would likely receive a Bradley Manning and be detained until he breaks from it.


If I was Manning I'd be inclined to go down the hunger strike route. How else can he protest his incarceration? And I'm not sure I'd want to cope with the treatment he receives each day.

Well, he should be properly questioned for whatever he did/did not do. I don't think there's any doubt there. I get the heebeejeebees when they refuse to question him in the Equadorian embassy, and insist he must be extradited. That's sorta where it starts to smell fishy. If they question him and he is found guilty in the end, THEN they should totally extradite him.

His works with wikileaks doesn't absolve him of crimes.

He should, however, in now way be extradited to the US for instance, where he would likely receive a Bradley Manning and be detained until he breaks from it.

Its not up to me to convince you rape is wrong, its not even part of this discussion.

The only reason Britain is involved is the small point that Assange is here? Im sure there are many people like me who wish he was far far away. As to what he thinks, that's irrelevant. You cant seriously argue that perpetrators of crimes should be able to think their way out of responsibility? Anyway, I have no idea what point you are making, so this is just going round in circles.I cant stand the fucker, you seem to admire him, lets leave it at that.

As to the foreign office cocking things up spectacularly, yes they did. Took all the focus off Ecuadors human rights record and slathered it with neo colonialist bull. Thats what happens when Hague gets left in charge, we can only thank god he never got to be PM.

>> ^dannym3141:

Perhaps if you keep repeating this then it will become true and i will be happy for him to get away with rape. You never know. Keep repeating it and see if it works out for you.
Yes he's been charged with something, but he thinks that the government (or several governments) is (are) conspiring against him. So he applied for asylum to another country who granted it.
Now unless ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US, why are we still discussing this? In fact, even if they do - why are we discussing this? I keep telling you that i want britain to keep out, yet you keep accusing me of being a rape supporter. You haven't read a single post i've written so far. Every reply has been either a lie or about something i didn't say.
You're not convincing anyone that either a) i'm a supporter of rapists, or b) that you're not simply a julian assange hater for whatever reason.
However i do agree with your last post - some fucking idiot tory silver spoon rich boy opened his stupid mouth to flex nuts that no one wanted flexing by saying "Actually, we can take him if we want." I bet the diplomatic guys are furious at the shit-storm that created.
>> ^thumpa28:
And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?>> ^dannym3141:
If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?

Perhaps if you keep repeating this then it will become true and i will be happy for him to get away with rape. You never know. Keep repeating it and see if it works out for you.

Yes he's been accused of something (not charged), but he thinks that the government (or several governments) is (are) conspiring against him. So he applied for asylum to another country who granted it.

Now unless ecuador has an extradition treaty with the US, why are we still discussing this? In fact, even if they do - why are we discussing this? I keep telling you that i want britain to keep out, yet you keep accusing me of being a rape supporter. You haven't read a single post i've written so far. Every reply has been either a lie or about something i didn't say.

You're not convincing anyone that either a) i'm a supporter of rapists, or b) that you're not simply a julian assange hater for whatever reason.

However i do agree with your last post - some fucking idiot tory silver spoon rich boy opened his stupid mouth to flex nuts that no one wanted flexing by saying "Actually, we can take him if we want." I bet the diplomatic guys are furious at the shit-storm that created.

>> ^thumpa28:

And you sound like his mother. You want him to get away with his crimes because what? He happened to run a company that released something someone else stole? That make sexual assault ok in your book?>> ^dannym3141:

If he is a rapist, then he should be brought to justice - but how can you trust law/court justice when the law/court is effectively an involved party?