'I do not wish to surrender' Julian Assange tells court over US extradition bid Julian Asssange unsurprisingly told a judge today that he did not “wish to surrender myself” to a US extradition request. Appearing via video link from HM Prison Belmarsh in south-east London, the day after he was sentenced to 50 weeks’ imprisonment for jumping bail, Assange said: “I do not wish to surrender myself for …
FREXIT is the French equivalent of Brexit
RIC, is a referece to a demand for referendums in France - the Citizens’ Initiative Referendum - that wants (some) govmt policies put to the people before implementation. Similar to what exists in Switzerland. I think there may be procedures in place already, but they've not been used (or some people want them changed to be more widespread - see https://www.france24.com/en/20181217-france-yellow-vests-battle-popular-referendum-RIC-citizens-initiative-macron-philippe)
Of course they do, SORTIEFR would sound ridicule.
And the necessaire Russian verb Сортийфрить, c'est affreux, sounds like some kind of potato lottery. That would never do. We speak English, rather than descend to the abîme of ugly. Or as you say in English, the pit of ordure.
If they free Julien and send him to France, that is FRassangeFR, non?
Have a joli Weekend, mon ami.
This post has been deleted by its author
please remind me if they have been after those who Assange exposed for doing wrong; eg the helicopter crew who laughed while shooting innocent people ?
This is a case of 'shoot the messenger' - there is a clear message to other who might expose USA wrong doing.
I did not downvote the original comment but i did downvote yours. Is it possible they downvoted the original comment for playing ye' olde bait and switch? The fact that Assange did some good (allegedly) does not mean that he doesn't deserve to get the legal book thrown at him for his wrong doings. The fact that the people he has called out have not found justice does not mean he shouldn't.
Of course, i'd rather see him go to Sweden than the USA but hey ho. I'm happy just to see him go.
What Assange would face in the USA is not what I'd call justice. Neither would I call it justice if the laughing helicopter crew haven't faced any.
Then again, you could easily call it American Justice and be perfectly correct; although any likeness between American Justice and justice, would be purely coincidental IMHO.
Right.
Let the laughing killers keep firing bullets while you rush to get justice for a couple of women who had a bad sexual experience (with no preserved evidence and one of the women questioning the accuracy of the police recording of her statement).
Kids seeing their innocent parents blown to bits in front of their faces while the shooters laugh like they play a game, the government covering it all up, to help their own carry on with the shooting again tomorrow. I saw the video. Did you? But no, I suppose in your eyes a bad sexual experience, that hurt nobody, is a greater crime than blowing a dad to bits in front of his screaming children.
"Let the laughing killers keep firing bullets while you rush to get justice for a couple of women who had a bad sexual experience (with no preserved evidence and one of the women questioning the accuracy of the police recording of her statement)."
Rapist releases footage of shooting, along with thousands of classified but unnewsworthy documents. Since he released one video, he can go around committing rape, no worries.
It's great when people who have never faced a weapon being aimed at them, or having shells and RPGs land near them criticize those who have on many occasions. Ive seen attitudes change and boys grow up when witnessing the first time they hear the whiz of a bullets passing near them before the noise of the actual shot can be heard. Or witness someone suddenly dropping to the ground next to them before hearing shots.
Yet, how they enjoy the ability to criticize veterans beneath the cover of freedom they so enjoy each day. To ensure, the worst thing in life they have endured is waiting in line for an electronic device.
You need to do a bit more research, and also understand... there is also video of the same attack which shows the danger the helicopters were under. Yet of course, these videos weren't published--even though they were known to exist.
The narrow mind, often can't understand how sound tracks can be added, how videos can be edited. That, the press is never wrong--well, unless they are showing something the narrow mind doesn't agree with, right?
Something tells me karma is affecting you in ways you don't understand or see--or perhaps I'm wrong, and everything in your life is going great right now.
Those of my family and friends who have been in service, have not treated their responsibilities with a light heart or jollity. They have been marked badly by their service; and those I have talked with about this, are perhaps the most offended by the crews laughter than anyone else I've talked with on this subject... and they would have more reason and experience than I, to feel that way.
If the audio was faked, then I would believe that the American authorities would have acted very quickly to disprove the footage. They haven't, so there is more reason to believe it is accurate.
Indeed - this article records the Americans confirming the validity of the footage - https://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military
I'm sorry, but were these people conscripted? Because otherwise, it seems to me they signed up for service knowing that there might be "a weapon being aimed at them" and other emotive imagery you used. And if its a matter of "growing up" after the first time they get in a firefight for real, sounds to me like a tacit admission that we send people into combat knowing they aren't actually making the decision to serve for sound reasons...
Moving on, if you're going to claim that the sound track has been altered or the footage taken out of context, you're going to need to actually offer some proof or reference, otherwise all it seems you've said is "people are narrow minded just because they disagree with me."
Another one who seems to think that when he opens his mouth unquestionable holy words are emitted.
"Yet of course, these videos weren't published--even though they were known to exist."
Link?
Oh wait they wernt published... so how can you know of them?
Link to someone who knows of the existence? As you stated, these people exist and you know of them and how to locate their statement of the fact that these videos exist. Although you say they WERE known to exist. So who destroyed them? LInk to the article that states that these videos no longer exist?
...
the ability to criticize veterans
I don't really like the term veterans which has emerged from US militarism and is finding its way into right-wing discourse in the UK. But I think we not only have the ability but the necessity to criticise those who willingly set aside their personal moral responsibility to enable and facilitate the ludicrous military adventures of incompetent politicians. I can't think of one significant military campaign undertaken by the US or the UK in my lifetime that was not fundamentally misguided and ultimately counterproductive. That's as much the fault of the people who signed up to do whatever they were told, right or wrong, as the people who told them to do it.
I do have some sympathy for the rootless and unhappy teenagers the British Army, at least, seems to prey on to make its recruitment numbers - they're being cynically exploited by people who ought to know better making light of the realities of combat. Not, however, sympathetic to the extent that I believe their service should be elevated above that of people whose contribution to society is more consistently positive - doctors, nurses, teachers and, yes, even technologists.
This post has been deleted by its author
>how they enjoy the ability to criticize veterans beneath the cover of freedom they so enjoy each day.
I still find it difficult to identify how the US attack on Iraq has enhanced the freedom of either Americans or Iraqis. Perhaps American companies have secured the oil, but that's "freedom" only in the sense of "freedom to loot". For Americans, the government spies on them more than they did before. For Iraqis, who had a dictatorial government but relative equality between the sexes, freedom from religious bigotry, and a decent educational system with a fairly high standard of living, that has been traded for a huge number of deaths, a corrupt government, sectarian strife, little to no health care, crime, and a collapsed standard of living.
>how they enjoy the ability to criticize veterans beneath the cover of freedom they so enjoy each day.
I still find it difficult to identify how the US attack on Iraq has enhanced the freedom of either Americans or Iraqis. Perhaps American companies have secured the oil, but that's "freedom" only in the sense of "freedom to loot". For Americans, the government spies on them more than they did before. For Iraqis, who had a dictatorial government but relative equality between the sexes, freedom from religious bigotry, and a decent educational system with a fairly high standard of living, that has been traded for a huge number of deaths, a poisoned landscape, a corrupt government, sectarian strife, little to no health care, crime, and a collapsed standard of living.
One could invent an alternative sound track--or an infinity of sound tracks--showing the same horrific events regarded with different sensibilities. And different accents and languages.
Since this is in very very bad taste, I will provide an example. English accents only.
Trevor! They said "take away the curry", not "take out the Kurd".
Phyllida, would you agree that the Role Playing Gamer needs to know that his turn is finished?
etc.
Please downvote me. I would.
If you are speaking about WW2 (when bombs were dropped on the public during the war on both sides) I'm sure they were not laughing.They were probably wondering if their children had been bombed back home, not to mention if they were going to even get back home. I would expect that the german pilots had much the same going through their minds too.
Back then, bombing the non-combatants happened on both sides and was thankfully outlawed in future wars.
Today, the helicopter pilots are very different from those back then. They have computerised weapons that can pick out individual targets miles away from danger and take them out. They can hover their chopper behind a building, pop up and get a look, pop down again to select targets, pop up and fire. Their weapons are able to so much more than simply dropping a bomb hoping it will hit the right target, they literally see like eagles and have full control over what/who they hit assuming that the systems are working correctly.
Todays armed forces have this ability because of the outlawing of simply dropping bombs on people and crossing fingers.
Helicopters aren't all that safe in combat. They're generally considered "ground troops" and attached to army units, because they're going low and slow enough to often be vulnerable to small arms fire and RPGs. Whereas planes can go faster, and run away quicker.
the reason drones are increasingly popular with militaries, is that if they get shot down while loitering slowly above battlefields, nobody dies.
Boy are you ever wrong. Liaison, spotter, recon, and transport aircraft are all used by the Army.
Look up the Key West Agreement and what followed.
The Air Force, after their inception, did not want the Army to have fixed wing weapon platforms, and really pushed back on armed helicopters.
I have flown in Army fixed wing aircraft (OV-1 Mohawk, look it up).
Facepalm, since you will when you realize you didn't research before posting.
Are you sure? Really sure? For each and every pilot and their crews? All good people, no idiots?
War makes you quite insensible, you have to become it, or you would end mad or kill yourself.
What about the "funny" words they wrote on bombs they were deploying on civilians? Are you sure that crews while bombing in the middle of AA fire and fighter trying to kill them didn't enjoy they were killing those "hated enemies" - even when their bombs were killing harmless people?
A school full of children nearby were I work was hit (the plane was American though, as it was a daylight bombing, Britons preferred night ones) - I hope the crew just mistook the target.
What about Dresden? The idea was to kill as much civilian as possible. In an horrible way. When the war was almost over. Just to test the bombers capabilities.
That's what war turn you into. As you understood, you never know if you return alive, and adrenaline flows. All the technology you have on today aircraft does help, but up to a point. It's not a videogame, you don't have different icons for different things - you still have to interpret the situation if a few seconds or less, and there are no safe places. Even behind a building, you can be a target from another side, and every time you hide, you don't know what happens.
And mistakes happen.
The helicopter crew engaged armed people during a combat operation. Other units involved were having gun battles at the time. According to the "Collateral Murder" video released by Assange they would have no charges to answer. The gunner correctly identified armed people wandering around, then called out that he saw an RPG poking round the corner of a building and engaged. Sadly that "RPG" wasn't a shoulder mounted rocket grenade, but a shoulder mounted camera.
They then proceeded to make some awful comments and act like arseholes. But if being an arsehole was illegal Julian Assange would already be serving a life sentence.
I've since read it argued that there is a bit of the video that might be considered a war crime. It was ironically cut out by Wikileaks when they edited the footage to make the pilots look guilty, they edited out the armed people - which rather fucks up Assange's journalistic credentials.
Anyway it was a while ago, and I've not watched the whole video, but this piece talked about a later bit where some armed guys run into a building, and the helicopter shoots at it. Seeing as the pilots had only seen guns on those people, and didn't know who else was in the building, she argued that this was a disproportionate use of force, and might aguably constitute a war crime. Although as they didn't know they'd shot a cameraman and not an RPG armed insurgent, so thought this group had RPGs and intended to shoot them down, and other US helicopters had been taken out with RPGs, that seems like one of those rather lawyerly arguments that are rather hard on the troops on the ground.
I was involved in peacekeeping & combat operations in Afghanistan for four and a half years, including a six month stint in Sangin Valley, my eldest son was also in one of the DC's in Sangin Valley attached to 3PARA as a JTAC - I won't identify him any further. In close combat ops, air support is crucial but potentially deadly to both sides, many times my Son called in fast air and rotaries in 'danger close' missions, it's documented that many of the occupants of the DC's, British, Danish & Afghan shouted, cheered and laughed when air support carried out strafing runs, dropped munitions or otherwise 'brassed up' those seeking to do them harm. The same goes for the aircrews, their job was incredibly stressful, having to protect the ground forces, themselves, other air assets and correctly identify targets according to the RoE - I was one of the ground forces providing fire support to other assets whilst a JTAC had to direct an A10 to fire 30mm cannon on a location < 50 metres from our position, yes, we cheered, shouted and enjoyed the moment (no whooping though!) - and then got on with the job. If you've never been in that situation, either on the ground or above it, IMO you can never know what adrenaline rushes can do.
What gets me is that there's no outcry about all the killings of civilians by groups such as the ISIS unless it's in one's own 'back yard". Not just random bombings like we've read about in the last couple of weeks but videos on Youtube of them (ISIS) taking civilians, lining them up and killing them because "they're not believers" or some such reason.
As for the laughter on the video... pretty normal for men in combat to laugh when stressed like that or relieved when the stress is over or even in the middle of the stress. I and others did it in Vietnam. Others have done it in every war since the beginning of time.
This has not been a war of armies, but of armies vs. insurgents who have no scruples, no signing of the Geneva Convention to abide by "rules".
You do know that two RPG launchers were found with the bodies, and RPGs _are_ visible in the video, but hard for a non-expert to recognize, right?
The "sadly" refers to the the fact that a decision was made to attack based on faulty evidence that the RPGs were about to be used. The Apache pilots saw what was (probably) a lens poking round the corner, assumed it was an RPG, and asked for / received permission to attack.
But the RPGs and AK's were there.
Further to my anon. post above, one of the nightmare scenarios for aircrew was to be shot down, survive and be taken prisoner by Taliban / AQ. Literally, a fate worse than death.
I lost good colleagues and friends when a lucky shot with an RPG brought down C130-K XV179 in Iraq in 2005. It took CSAR 45 minutes of pure hell to find the crash site, during which time, any survivors would have been spirited away. 'Thankfully', there were none. I mention this to underline the reactions of aircrew to preventing their own potential death
The Swedish arrest warrant lapsed after it was not renewed by the authorities when Assange disappeared into the Ecuadorean embassy. However the Swedish authorities are reported to be thinking about issuing a new one since some of the (potential) charges that Assange will face in Sweden have not expired.
Given the vagueness of the allegations in the indictment it doesn't sound like the United States of America Grand Jury has sufficient evidence to back up the indictment.
Perhaps that evidence will come out at the next hearing, but will it stand up to scrutiny as genuine (i.e. is it video or audio of the meetings, of the hacking, of evidence Assange was directly controlling the actions)?
Sounds like the extradition should be denied, Asswipe should serve his 22 weeks (assuming he can behave and earn parole), and on "release", Asswipe should be taken directly to an airport and put on a plane to Australia. In those 22 weeks the Swedes might re-open their request as one charge doesn't expire until 2020. Sweden or Australia, I don't care, just get him out of the UK.
It was only a ten minute hearing. If he'd accepted extradition willingly, that might have been it.
Actual evidence will come in a later hearing. There has to be actual evidence too. The US will have to prove that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute in a UK court - and that it's a charge that also exists under UK law.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
