back to article 'United States must renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks'

This was the week when the UK's telecoms regulator Ofcom decided it totally wouldn't make any difference to competition if it just went ahead and gave Everything Everywhere a 4G monopoly. Plus the fact that Britain wants to be seen as a modern country worthy of bucketloads of investment even though it still doesn't have an up to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Matt 21

    I've got to say

    your comments on Wikileaks seem a bit puerile as if you were determined to misinterpret them.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US said they weren't interested in the man concerned. Then we'd see if he's fleeing justice or avoiding becoming the victim of a witch hunt.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I've got to say

      He's fleeing rape charges, nothing else.

      1. Dave 15 Silver badge

        Re: I've got to say

        Fleeing rape charges my arse. You know, I know, we all know, with certainty that this is an attempt to get him to the US so they can lock him up in Guantanamo (I doubt they will even bother bringing charges).

        The excuse that the 'US haven't requested extradition yet' is just that - an excuse, we ALL know that the minute the Brits get him they will either hand him direct to the US or onto Sweden, if he is handed to Sweden the US will immediately file for extradition and get it.

        The rape accusations were just too close to the leaks embarrassing the US for it to have been mere coincidence. The US are upset and want to have their revenge.

        1. BillG
          Thumb Up

          Re: I've got to say

          Obama has his sights set on Assange, and Obama will see Assange's ass sitting in jail.

          Deal with it.

        2. wayne 8
          Pirate

          Re: I've got to say

          The rape charges were laid coincidentally at the time of Assange announcing there would be a major data dump of a large US bank's information. The dump never happened, but the rape charges are still sticky.

          Who's in charge? The bankers. The US military enforces the US dollar as the reserve currency. Assange has a right to be afraid. Who in the world is benefiting from all of the bailouts, etc.?

      2. ChaosFreak
        FAIL

        Re: I've got to say

        Well, he would say that the charges are a pretext to take him out and silence him. The fact that the UK has deployed counter-terrorism forces to arrest him would seem to indicate he is a bit more than a common rapist.

      3. Eduard Coli
        Stop

        Re: I've got to say

        A broken condom during consensual sex is rape in Sweden...

    2. Bernard M. Orwell
      Megaphone

      Re: I've got to say

      El Reg also appears to be determined to misquote Lady Rimmington, trying to imply that she condemned the actions of Wikileaks as unimportant because the data they obtained was not significant. This is NOT the main thrust of what she was saying. Lady Rimmington has long been a campaigner and advocate of open and free information and your portrayal of her is entirely unfair. If you read the entire transcript of her statement you will see that, whilst critical of the value of the information she also questions whether it was appropriate for such things to be held as "secret" in the first place and goes on to discuss her belief that, wherever possible, information should be held in the public domain and not, as now, defaulted to "classified" simply at ministerial whim. Indeed, you even make report her REAL point in an earlier arcticle which you published a few days ago:

      And I quote...

      "Speaking in Australia, where she today delivered an address to the International Council on Archives conference , Rimington told The Reg that one of the issues public sector archivists need to deal with is what they do given at a time when much communication takes place casually. Prime Ministerial TXT messages, for example, may be key to reconstructing events [b]for which the public rightly wants them to be held to account and therefore belong in public archives. [/b]"

      Stop selectively misquoting and editing statements, El. Reg! We expect better!

      That said, Assange is still a complete muppet and would best serve Wikileaks by ending his association with it.

      1. The Baron
        Boffin

        Lady Rimmington

        If I may be excused for making a totally irrelevant aside, "Dame Stella" would be the correct form of address.

        Rimington (one "m") holds the rank of Dame Commander of the Order of the Bath, and as a female member of a knightly order other than the Garter or the Thistle, she's correctly addressed as "Dame Stella" - just as her male counterparts are known as "Sir" followed by their forename.

        Since you're no doubt now wondering, female members of the Garter or the Thistle are addressed as "Lady" followed by their forename.

        Only if she were married to a knight, but not a member of a chivalric order in her own right, would she be addressed as "Lady Rimington".

        There are even more confusing rules for peers, but covering the gentry is probably enough for one day. Now you know :-)

    3. Local Group
      FAIL

      Re: I've got to say

      England could agree to fine him for the bail jump.

      Sweden could agree not to extradite him for any crimes committed before June 2012.

      The US could agree not to charge him with any crimes committed before June 2012.

      Or England can take out the brutal record of 15 years by communist, totalitarian Hungary who confined Cardinal Mindszenty. (Does anyone recall if Hitler busted into a foreign embassy to make an arrest?)

      As the years go by with Assange confined in the Ecuadorian Embassy, which way will public opinion move: to England or to Assange?

      1. Dave 15 Silver badge

        Re: I've got to say

        These agreements would be made by politicians, now who in their right mind would trust a politician - we have a trail of broken promises we could fall back on as good reasons why you wouldn't. Politicians have no morals, no manners and care only for the size of their wallet.

      2. Bob. Hitchen

        Re: I've got to say

        This coward decide to set up camp in the Embassy he can rot there.

        The UK should throw Equador's ambassador and Embassy out of the country for interfering in its legal system and allowing its premises to be used as a pulpit. Unfortunately the P.M. lacks balls.

        1. MrZoolook
          Megaphone

          Re: I've got to say

          Quote: This coward decide to set up camp in the Embassy he can rot there.

          The UK should throw Equador's ambassador and Embassy out of the country for interfering in its legal system and allowing its premises to be used as a pulpit.

          So we should just disregard somone seeking political asylum and hand then over to the regime they are fleeing, right?

          Obviously by you are American and by taking that tone you are showing us WHY he wishes to avoid US justice, his rights, both human and legal, will be totally disregarded.

          On the plus side, perhaps some kind of prisoner exchange can be negotiated. How about we give you Asange, you give us McKinnon?

          1. BillG
            Megaphone

            Re: I've got to say

            > So we should just disregard somone seeking political asylum and

            > hand then over to the regime they are fleeing, right?

            Whoever said Assange was seeking POLITICAL asylum? Politics has nothing to do with it, Assange is just being cowardly. If it DID have to do with politics, why choose Equator, a country with an oppressive attitude towards free press?

            Should Equator just disregard the legal system of the U.K., their host country, and interfere with the laws of the E.U.?

            It's really hypocritical when Equator complains that the U.K. is interfering with Equator's interference.

        2. Local Group
          Facepalm

          "Unfortunately the P.M. lacks balls."

          Either that, or he is not entirely bereft of common sense.

  2. nexsphil

    The Wikileaks comments were pathetic and disgraceful. A massive black mark for Parnell, and sadly yet another for the once-great Register.

  3. phulshof
    WTF?

    Straw man

    Now there's a straw man argument if ever I saw one. Where and when did Assange state that he or his staff shouldn't be prosecuted for any and all crimes they may or may not have committed? He only states, and I agree with him, that they should not be prosecuted for bringing the truth to light via Wikileaks. He's been more than willing to go to Sweden if they would promise not to extradite him to the US. Considering how the US has been handling these kind of cases lately, I wouldn't want to be extradited there either.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Straw man

      But Sweden has ALREADY said they can't extradite him to the US due to EU law, since a charge of Espionage in the US can warrant the death penalty. It's just that Assange doesn't seem to want to take the EU law at face value, believing they'll weasel a way around the law.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Straw man

        And if the US told them they wouldn't execute him? Then that would be ok right? So take what they did to Bradley Manning and do that to Assange for 70 years and see whether death looks so bad after all. What a pathetic answer.

      2. JimmyPage

        Re: Straw man

        IANAL but I believe you can extradite for capital offences, as long as the prosecuting authority (State or Federal) give undertakings not to seek the death penalty. Understandably, prosecutors intensely dislike this (as do the US public) as it highlights the fact that the US is one of the few "civilised" countries in the world that executes people.

        I believe there have been a few cases where suspects have fled to Canada, who also will not extradite if the death penalty is a possibility.

        There was a guy wanted in the US for child porn offences that the UK refused to extradite recently, as the state prosecutor refused to give assurances he wouldn't be put on some sort of "program" which the ECHR had determined was a cruel and unusual punishment.

      3. phulshof

        Re: Straw man

        If that is the case, then what harm would there be in giving him the assurance that he requested? If it's really that simple to proof him a liar, then why not do so?

        1. Annihilator Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: Straw man

          "If that is the case, then what harm would there be in giving him the assurance that he requested? If it's really that simple to proof him a liar, then why not do so?"

          And what would this promise of magic beans look like exactly? There is nothing they can provide, assurances or otherwise, that his legal team wouldn't just say "that's worthless" to. And again, they know that. It's like asking for a magic carpet.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Straw man

            So basically you're saying that the UK and Swedish governments would WILLINGLY violate EU law and international treaties and draw international condemnation...at the drop of an American hat? How would Assange respond if the challenge were put THAT bluntly?

    2. Annihilator Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Straw man

      Not to mention Sweden *CAN'T* declare they would ignore or decline any extraditions to the US without first seeing it. Any guarantees they make would be meaningless and probably illegal as it pre-judges a non-existent extradition request. Assange and his legal team know this too.

      1. phulshof

        Re: Straw man

        I see no reason why Sweden couldn't give out a guarantee not to extradite him to the US, and simply return him to the UK after the trial (and punishment in case he's found guilty) has been completed.

        Considering what has happened to Manning, not to mention Guantánamo Bay (didn't Obama make a campaign promise to close that place down?), I wouldn't want to run the risk of being extradited to the US over "terrorist" charges either.

        1. David Dawson

          Re: Straw man

          I see no reason why Sweden couldn't give out a guarantee not to extradite him to the US, and simply return him to the UK after the trial (and punishment in case he's found guilty) has been completed.

          =====

          They'd be breaking their own legal obligations under treaties agreed. In the case of expulsion, I would expect that he'd go to australia. Why would the UK want him? Except maybe to prosecute him for jumping bail.

          1. phulshof

            Re: Straw man

            As well they should. I have no problem with him being prosecuted for jumping bail, nor for being prosecuted for the rape charges. I do have a serious issue with the way the US has been handling this entire leak situation, starting with Manning.

            As for the extradition to the US: I seriously doubt Sweden could not find a political solution here. Besides: if he's as likely to be extradited to the US from the UK as he is from Sweden, then my proposed solution would either expose him as a liar or it would solve this whole mess.

            Currently however he's been granted asylum in Equador. Not exactly a place I'd want to be, but it's certainly created a situation that requires some serious political negotiation.

            1. Beachrider

              Manning is a soldier-at-arms...

              Manning was processed in an overseas military process. He had sworn an oath of fealty. He subsequently broke.that oath. He is serving punishment for that. If anyone filed a writ to bring him to civilian court, it would fail because of the agreement in the oath/agreement...

              Manning is screwed. Assange must have foreseen that process. Assange simply didn't take the usual measures to protect his source. Assange is trying to talk his way out of Manning's predicament, but Manning isn't going to be released. No military person in the world believes that Manning is going to see an unbarred wi Dow anytime soon.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Manning is a soldier-at-arms...

                Manning confessed his leaking of the docs to Adrian Lamo, Lamo then passed the emails to the FBI.

                Can't really see what 'usual measures' Assange was supposed to of taken to prevent that?

              2. Beachrider

                Re: Manning is a soldier-at-arms...

                Sources can be protected by edit-reductions or cross-pollinating key information with other sources. It is Journalism 101. If Assange keeps silent with properly edited/mixed info, then Manning cannot be singled out. Assange might get a contempt citation, but Manning isn't 'outed'.

                Manning got caught because his material was used in very-pure form without any other intermixing. Manning's confession might not have been sought if the normal journalistic practices were followed. He only confessed after being presented with the case.

                Manning had no way out, once Assange published what he published.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Manning is a soldier-at-arms...

                  "Manning got caught because his material was used in very-pure form without any other intermixing. "...

                  "He only confessed after being presented with the case."

                  Utter nonsense

                  "His material" was identical to the material that it seems any Private could of laid their hands on, and it was his confession that led to a case against him, not the other way round.

                  "Lamo, 30, dubbed the "world's most hated hacker" for his role in passing information on Manning to military intelligence after the soldier befriended him on internet chat"...

                  "Lamo ( ... ) passed the details of the internet conversation to the US military. On 26 May, Manning was arrested on duty at the Forward Operating Base Hammer outside Baghdad, where he was working as an intelligence officer."

                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/hacker-adrian-lamo-bradley-manning-wikileaks

                  1. Beachrider

                    Re: Manning is a soldier-at-arms...

                    You are digging into your diaper and telling us that it is gold.

                    1) He CONFESSED.

                    2) Lamo is part of the investigation.

                    3) Private citizens DO NOT have access to the classified stuff that Assange published

                    Except for that, you and I are saying the same thing...

  4. vic 4
    Thumb Up

    Wish I could up vote you more, I'm sick of hearing him distort reality to make it sound like is stand is a noble one, there is no legal reason Sweden would extradite him, if there was we'd probably have been obliged to do so too. If the charges are as weak as people say he'll be free pretty quickly and this has all been a publicity stunt. Or if found guilty we won't have to hear from him for years.

  5. Mike Row
    FAIL

    Second time around.

    Vic 4. You seem completely unaware of the fact that Swedish authorities already investigated this "crime" and found the allegations to be "unfounded".

    They only started chasing after this again after that fact.

    So the facts bear witness that there may be a hidden agenda behind this.

    "It's not paranoia when everyone really is our to get you"

    1. David Dawson

      Re: Second time around.

      This and all the other defences continually thrown up have been examined at length through the many court cases that have taken place before coming to this point.

      Each one has been proven to be incorrect, ill conceived (based on confusing the swedish legal process with the UK or US one) or just wrong.

      They are out to get him, yes, because he's accused of rape.

      1. DiViDeD Silver badge
        Alert

        Re: Second time around.

        "They are out to get him, yes, because he's accused of rape"

        No, 'they' are out to get him because he has been accused, several days after the fact, of Sex by Surprise. If the Swedish authorities are so keen to see 'justice' done, why don't they simply declare him guilty in absentia and sentence him to the maximum penalty permissible by law, which I believe is currently a 5,000 kronor (around 500 quid - curse these Aussie keyboards!) fine?

    2. vic 4
      FAIL

      Re: hidden agenda

      The simplest and most obvious is usually the reason for things. Things I've read online certainly imply some rather flaky claims. If that is true and I was him I'd want to clear by name asap, I wouldn't be able to stand the thought of anyone thinking I could do something like that.

      All this posturing smacks of either desperation or egotism, I for one am tired of him been plastered on the tv, especially when he delays a speech for hours. Was he held up in traffic maybe or just trying to create some sense of drama. Personally I think he was getting off listening to the letters of support.

      But to think that the UK or Sweden are going to publicly pack him off to the US or turn a blind eye while he magically disappears and turns up in the us is frankly ludicrous.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Coffee/keyboard

    You learn something new every day

    ... like the existance of the word "splaffed." I can't find a definition anywhere but I'll keep that one for a future bout of scrabble.

    1. Bucky 2
      Pint

      Re: You learn something new every day

      Google to the rescue.

      Q:

      define:splaff

      A:

      SPLAFF is your source for eco-conscious sandals, belts, bags, and accessories made of natural hemp, used bike inner tubes, and recycled race car tires.

      "splaffed" would therefore be the past tense of splaff--that is, used hippie sandals.

      QED.

  7. I Am Spartacus
    Coat

    How to solve the Assange problem

    It is very easy. Assange has broken UK law (he skipped his bail). That is an offence that could carry a prison sentence. But why bother? why waste the money?

    He is effectively under house arrest now. He can't go out of the embassy because he will be arrested. Just wind the police presence down to two bobbies, one at the back and one at the front to arrest him if he puts a foot outside. Otherwise, let the Ecuadorian s feed and house him.

    See, he becomes Schroedinger's Assange: he is free and not free at the same time. Everyone wins.

    Mines the one with Quantum Jail Principles in the pocket.

    1. JimmyPage

      Re: How to solve the Assange problem

      Given the public assurance given by the Ecuadoran ambassador that they will not smuggle him out of the UK, why bother with *any* police presence ? Save the money. I suspect that the second he leaves the embassy, Ecuador will suddenly not want him back again.

      I read on another forum an interesting observation that given the Ecuadoran ambassador is quite foxy, and Assange is notoriously permanently on heat, and the embassy is a small flat, the situation might be resolved quicker than we think ....

    2. vic 4
      Thumb Up

      Re: How to solve the Assange problem

      Pu your coat back on, best solution going, though I'd just get an undercover policeman to sit around the corner in a taxi, when he comes out causally drive past and bobs you uncle (actually, bob is my uncle, find your own)

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Splaffing Imperiously

    When did El Reg turn into a government media organ?

    Open your eyes, if you're able.

    http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition?cat=commentisfree&type=article

    1. Annihilator Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Splaffing Imperiously

      "Comment Is Free" - well you certainly get what you pay for...

      All that article says, in a long rambling diatribe (I assume he's paid by the word) is that a government can overrule extradition orders by the court (same way Home Secretary can be appealed to here). Doesn't change the basic premise that a) the same government official would be in place if extradition was served or b) that to pre-judge and rule on a non-existent extradition request outside of due process is fundamentally flawed.

      Glenn Greenwald has effectively corrected a spelling mistake and thinks he's debunked the entire argument.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Local Group
    FAIL

    @ Annihilator Another Example of Splaffing Imperiously

    A country's laws on extradition do not have to be justified to other nations, any more than it's laws on rape do.

    Annihilator:"Doesn't change the basic premise that a) the same government official would be in place if extradition was served or b) that to pre-judge and rule on a non-existent extradition request outside of due process is fundamentally flawed."

    If so the US would be in the International Court of Fundamentally Flawed Laws at the Hague faster than you could say 'extraordinary rendition'.

    1. Annihilator Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: @ Annihilator Another Example of Splaffing Imperiously

      "A country's laws on extradition do not have to be justified to other nations, any more than it's laws on rape do."

      Do keep up, even if that were true (and it's not), they do have to be justified and written in their own statutes and they're highly unlikely to change them on the whim of a suspected rapist and bail dodger.

      1. Local Group
        Thumb Down

        Re: @ Annihilator Another Example of Splaffing Imperiously

        You are partially right. When a country changes it's extradition or diplomacy laws, it can annoy the nation with whom it has the extradition treaty but still prevail. Or it can annoy every nation on earth and end up wiping its butt with a travesty like its Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 and not prevail.

        Really, with all these fora, do you consider the interest in Julian Assange, suspected rapist and bail dodger, merely a whim? Interesting.

  10. Derpity
    Thumb Down

    Ugh

    I'm REALLY getting tired of this Assange guy. Can't he just enjoy the hospitality of the Ecuadorians in silence or at least without press coverege every time he wants to open his yap?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's just a matter of time

    Assange will go to trial and then prison. He can spout off from there and see if anyone actually cares.

  12. b166er

    AC@20:02

    I only care that you are not allowed on a jury.

  13. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  14. karlj
    Thumb Up

    Wikileaks needs a better name

    As long as people do not go around divulging Gov and Trade secrets I say have at it.

    ClassifiedTopSecrets.com domain is for sale.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How's that denial workin 4 U?

    Assange and Anon seem to think they are immune from prosecution just like pirates and hackers. It's actual quite comical when these folks get in to a courtroom and try and tell a judge they are "entitled". The judge and jury proceed to send them to prison to ponder their "entitlement" for years to come. It makes for great entertainment.

  16. ShadowDragon8685

    This again?

    On the one hand, a man who is accused of sexual misconduct ought to face the music and let his guilt or innocence be decided by a jury as appropriate.

    On the other hand, the fact is that the United States is almost certainly out to prosecute him - and let's face it, said prosecution will most likely be persecution. (I'm an American, I can say that.) I've had blazing rows with my aunt and uncle (whom I live with) when they adamantly stood by the accusation that Julian Assange was a self-evident traitor and should be shot at such. It took me at least ten minutes of repeatedly explaining to them that Julian Assange was an Australian citizen and as such, couldn't possibly be held liable for treason against the United States, as he had no obligation TO the United States to betray! They still think he should be tried as a spy. There are pundits in this country who have, on national television no less, called for his murder: not execution, murder.

    The way I see it, he is right to be attempting to duck being returned to face the music on the sex charges, because the moment he steps foot on Swedish soil, he's likely going to be picked up be a couple of State Department stooges, flown back to the United States, tried before a jury hostile to him and promptly sentenced to death, or at least life imprisonment. I am absolutely certain in my conviction that, if Julian Assange reaches the United States, he's a dead man. He'll either be executed, or sentenced to life in prison, which very likely means death anyway.

    If there was any real intent in seeing him fairly tried for the sexual allegations and convicted or acquitted as determined by the proper course of Swedish law, there would be (very public) promises (in writing, notarized, filed with lawyers,) that he would not be extradited to the United States. The fact that such documents have not been drafted and filed speaks volumes, in my opinion.

    If he can't feel assured of a fair trial for the charges he is stated to be facing without the potential of being grabbed by some unpleasant men in black suits and hauled promptly to a land where the average citizen on the street would gladly see him dead, what else is he to do? Show up anyway and hope that doesn't happen?

    That's not to say that I support Mr. Assange. His actions regarding WikiLeaks - to wit, treating it like a dictator, getting his claws into it and refusing to let go - have been disastrous. The idea was sound, even noble, but he couldn't find it in him to man up and let go of his creation when it became self-evident that he was sinking and dragging it down with him. Now he's hiding in an Embassy, essentially under siege, spouting off rank manure.

    It's shameful, really. What he created has crumbled because he gripped it too tightly, and in the end he's dragged it down with him. That he did this knowingly, after being called upon by both his inner circle and his political backers to set aside, to cut himself loose from WikiLeaks and let it continue on while he faced the music, is disgraceful. As a result, WikiLeaks has become nothing but a caricature of what it once was.

    So, in the end, it doesn't really matter. Julian Assange has already sabotaged his life's work. Executed, he'll be no martyr at all, acquitted in Sweden and allowed to go home, he'll be nothing more than the tin-pot tyrant clinging to the husk of the creation he made, then murdered. WikiLeaks will never be what it could have been; was, for a brief, shining, glorious moment in time. If he should reach Equador somehow (supposing they put him in a big crate marked diplomatic pouch and march him right out and onto a plane,) he'll wind up a puppet of the Equadorian government.

    He can't win anymore. He lost, a long time ago. The only question now is... Why do we even care?

  17. ChaosFreak

    It all Comes Down to Whether you Love or Hate Assange

    It seems to me there are two possibilities:

    1) Assange is a common rapist who is crying "political persecution" to claim asylum and avoid facing charges.

    2) The rape charges are a pretext to put Assange in jail to silence him. Once in jail he will be charged with additional crimes or possibly extradited to the US to face more charges and longer sentences in order to keep him silent forever.

    All of the writing, blogging and commenting I've seen on this proves one thing. No one can really know which of the two scenarios is the truth, but everyone seems to take a strong opinion based solely on whether they like or dislike Assange. El Reg clearly has a personal dislike for Assange which colors all their coverage of the case. As for me, I find it curious timing that Assange is suddenly charged with rape by a US ally just as he's pissing off the US and its allies. Also, I find it highly unusual that the UK Police would mobilize anti-terrorism forces if he were really just a "common rapist". Does the UK pursue all extradition requests with this level of zeal?

    The peripheral facts seem to point towards witch hunt, but no one can be sure. A third possibility is that both scenarios are true... he really is guilty of rape AND the US is capitalizing on this in order to obtain his extradition. J. Edgar Hoover made a career of taking out his enemies with "focused" prosecutions like this. The same thing happened recently to Elliot Spitzer in the US...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It all Comes Down to Whether you Love or Hate Assange

      Actually it comes down to law and order. Assange has violated law in several countries and he will be held accountable regardless of rather you love or hate him. That's the way it should be and the way it will continue to be in any civilized country. Ecuador will be ostracized by the world community for their poor judgement in this matter.

  18. Bernard M. Orwell

    @Local Group

    "If so the US would be in the International Court of Fundamentally Flawed Laws at the Hague faster than you could say 'extraordinary rendition'."

    Yeah, because the highly illegal practice of Extraordinary Rendition sent loads of people to answer for breaches of international law in the Hague, didn't it?

    Oh....Wait....

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020