I can 'proceed without you', judge tells Julian Assange after courtroom outburst Julian Assange has been told to hold his tongue and not interrupt court proceedings by a judge as he contests US attempts to extradite him from Britain to stand trial over his WikiLeaks website. During the cross-examination of human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith, one of Assange’s own witnesses in his extradition trial, …
"There needs to be a prima facie case for extradition for each charge."
Under the UK - US extradition treaty, the UK is obliged to demonstrate "probable cause", whereas the US has to show "reasonable suspicion", both of which are considerably less than presenting a prima facie case.
Several papers are reporting today that she didn't have diplomatic immunity. Quote from the metro:
The parents of Harry Dunn have been told by the Director of Public Prosecutions that his alleged killer did not have diplomatic immunity when she fled the UK
Not been reported in more reputable sources, but we'll see
She didn't have immunity as the indefatigable Craig Murray has reported.
There is a list of registered people with immunity, she's not on it.
The facts are plain our government allows people to come here, spy on us, kill us, and flee with impunity.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-office-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/
One person is not "people". Inflating the issue doesn't make your argument better, it merely makes you look smaller.
For the record, I think the cowardly drunk needs to be returned to Blighty for trial ... but I also think it's a completely different case than the one we are supposedly discussing in this comments section. Trying to talk about the two together, as if they somehow have anything to do with each other, dilutes both issues.
-On the contrary, the cases are indeed linked, given they are both political in nature.
"Inflating the issue doesn't make your argument better, it merely makes you look smaller."
You're welcome to your opinion, care to address the points you walked away from during our last discussion, while we're discussing "looking smaller".
One person is not "people". Am I to understand it is your contention that this is a one off, an abberation, in the unblemished record of the US wiping it's feet on the laws of countries around the world, and Britain. E.g. funding IRA attacks that nearly took out the government of Thatcher, Funding the Irgun. Prove it, there are at least 15 incidents related to that base alone, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-51209882
Funny enough the best place to find them is in US media , here's one - https://www.stripes.com/news/wife-children-of-mildenhall-airman-killed-in-car-crash-1.12166 From that source
The crash was the third involving fatalities from the base in recent months along the same stretch of road. Staff Sgt. Gerald Nicholls, 32, was killed in a two-car crash on March 7. Andrew Waxler, the husband of an airman at the base, was killed two weeks later in a one-car accident on a foggy morning.
Remind me what the plural of person is ?
The only thing that has changed in recent times, is everyone has a camera and access to some sort of web publishing. Previously a D-Notice would be put out and that would be the end of the coverage.
It's been going on for a long time, and until the rule of law counts for something here and in the US, it will keep happening as the craven government bends the knee and averts its gaze.
The political behaviour of our craven government, is why Assange is being broken on the wheel.
Indeed his case turns on proving it's politically motivated, and therefore a violation of the extradition treaty.
The drunk is not the problem, the problem was the Foreign Sec, allowed this to happen, and betrayed his country. The US is used to shitting on local people throughout the world, and the only issue here is that some people are mug enough to think that doesn't include us, despite all evidence to the country.
In this case the US is not at fault for protecting it's citizen, it's us, Britain, which must hang it's head in shame at this utter betrayal of the most basic duty of government.
Assange, is being persecuted for publishing, he's denied a full defence. I'm surprised you don't care more, after all this entire thread is about people arguing about the life of a white guy.
One would have thought you'd be up in arms about it, or maybe "all lives don't matter" and really we should just shut up and suck it up.
Being an apologist for evil is wrong, stop it. My country right or wrong, is the language of fools.
The cases show as Brits we swapped sides in a colonial relationship, some of us noticed.
"In this case the US is not at fault for protecting it's citizen, it's us, Britain, which must hang it's head in shame at this utter betrayal of the most basic duty of government."
Then why on Earth are you (and many other Brits in this forum) spending so much time berating the US, which will have no effect on anything whatsoever, as you are not US voters (not that it would matter if you were, I doubt US politicians even know ElReg exists, much less care a whit about the opinions of us conmmentards) .... Shirley you should be spending your time and effort doing something meaningful about your own government if you are honestly all that passionate about it?
Re berating the US, I responded to the guff spewed forth by cliffwilliams about the US being the worlds policemen. I don't blame the American people for their government, anymore than I accept responsibility for Bozo and Jaj Jaj of the jaundiced gillet. The US has real power, it could make things better for the world, shit it could start with making life better for its own people. Forgive me for the stan lee quote, but "with great power comes high electric bills*"
The behaviour of the British Government is deeply shameful, we have people standing up in Parliament and saying that international treaties no longer bind us, our word is worth shit.
That's tragic, for us. Unfortunately, we are completely powerless, the US has checks and balances, fwtaw, we have none, The PM can and will do whatever he likes, and there is nothing we can do about it.
Indeed the more extreme the behaviour, the more entrenched people have become. We are cheerleading the destruction of the GFA..
The Assange case is just a particular egregious case, and the brazen nature of it offends people.
I agree it will not change the results in the US, but should we be complicit and silent?
We have hippies protesting a printing plant, being called "an organised crime group". We're screwed here..
Have a drink with me, we can agree that governments are gits..
You'll find that maté is a fairly common choice among so-called "natural tea" aficionados here in the United States, too. You can find it in everything from the traditional dried, chopped up yerba maté brewed with hot water, to typical Yank cold & fizzy & saturated with sugar.
I'm sorry but you have misunderstood the point of the UK-US extradition treaty. Whatever the wording is, it never, in fact, applies to American citizens.
It's a bit like the war crimes investigations into American soldiers in Afghanistan. You don't try to charge US soldiers with war crimes and if you even think of it the USA will put personal sanctions on any judge at the Hague who tries.
US Espionage Act only only needs an answer whether secret information was published or not. Obviously Wikileaks participated in publishing of that information, which means there is no defence for Assange in US court. Assange is on his way from one court of clowns to another.
"For the extradition hearing, they need to show that what he is accused of is illegal in England or some other part of the UK."
Sadly, this is not the case. As was seen with the NatWest Three, the UK - US extradition treaty allows the extradition of UK residents whose alleged crimes were acts carried out while they were in the UK and were acts that are not illegal in the UK.
were acts that are not illegal in the UK.
In what way were their acts not illegal in the UK? They were UK employees of NatWest, and attempted to defraud NatWest, by selling NatWest's stake in a dodgy Enron business to a shell company in which they had shares, which then sold it to Enron for 20x what it paid, letting the three pocket $7m between them. It's clear that they & their banker friends have justified themselves by claiming that what they did was only immoral, not illegal, but as the saying goes "they would say that, wouldn't they".
Apologies for the pedantry but I don't believe Assange is prosecuted for the publication of the information. He is prosecuted for (allegedly) being complicit in stealing the information.
A lot of this information was published collectively by a consortium of media including (from the top of my head) El País, The Guardian, Wikileaks, New York Times and Der Spiegel. None of those publications or their journalists have been in legal trouble over the publication of these files.
You know the Snowden case is unrelated, right?
Besides, Snowden was a government contractor (like Chelsea Manning) and so at the very least broke their employment contract and a bunch of other rules. People working for The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Wikileaks, El Pais etc. were not US government contractors. That makes the legal situation very different from Snowden's and Manning's.
Besides, what happened at The Guardian was not a function of American law. It was a function of the UK being a US vassal state and the Cameron government wanting to suck up to its boss.
That's not how it works.
Chelsea was *always* a she (quote from wiki "since childhood" ). That the body didn't match at the time, nor how she was treated/conditioned to behave, is not relevant to her being a 'she'.
If she had *never* come out as trans, she would still be a woman. I'll compare it to being gay - a gay person is still gay, even if they don't tell anyone.
Not knowing, or making certain assumptions towards cis/het norms is understandable, and to some extent, forgivable.
While gender fluidity *is* a thing, this is not that.
Having depression or anxiety brought on by gender dysphoria can affect your judgement. Dysphoria that might be caused by having to live as a male, when you feel you are not a male.
I don't see your implied contradiction.
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness and a crime. Still is, in less civilised places. Just ask Alan Turing.
Coming to terms with the fact one might not be cis/het can cause all sorts of mental health issues. Compare "gender identity disorder" with "struggling with [your] sexuality".
You know the Snowden case is unrelated, right?
I refer you to the article to which we're responding: "Assange is also accused of committing crimes by helping US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden"
Besides, what happened at The Guardian was not a function of American law
Well, no. That was rather my point.
You obviously don't know how the Federal court system works. The odds are stacked against any defendant, especially in 'national security' cases. He's toast.
But then that's the point. Its not about justice, truth or anything like that, its about 'pour encourager les autres'.....just in case anyone else gets any bright ideas about disseminating information in the future.
(Yes, as a matter fact I am an American......we keep away from Federal law enforcement for our own good.)
In the USA evidence gathered illegally is not admissible as evidence, but in the UK evidence before the court is evidence regardless of how it got there, although it may open the person bringing illegally obtained information to criminal charges (it being used in court being an admission of guilt and all given that you've proven that you've got it.)
Technically speaking in the UK if you were a sole parent then I think they would just have jailed you for the term and if the children went into care then that's part of the "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" approach we take. I don't think we allow for plea bargains where somebody who's been caught can not get the time if they decide to identify their accomplices.
But if the Americans did do that, then plea bargains are legal in America and so information produced as a result of one wouldn't be inadmissible in evidence.
The testimony of the hacker is completely admissible in US Courts. The police and prosecutors can lie to you, threaten you with legal action, threaten you family with legal action including taking you children away to get you to talk. It happens every day. This is the real justice problem in the US that no one wants to talk about. It happens to young black men every day.
"But if the Americans did do that, then plea bargains are legal in America and so information produced as a result of one wouldn't be inadmissible in evidence."
Yes. Plea bargains are legal in America. Keep in mind that plea bargains have to be reviewed and accepted by a judge. This is because it is actually a plea of guilty, the difference being that the judge is agreeing to the reduced sentencing proposed by the prosecutor in exchange for testimony. He cannot be compelled to testify against himself, but he can agree to do so. Does this make hist testimony less believable or more believable? That question is left up to the jurors.
Sorry, but it's not blackmail, and it would not have been abduction had US authorities indicted and tried Mr. Monsegur. If he were convicted (which would have pretty much been a slam dunk), someone would have had to care for his child; in the UK it would be called being "taken into care," right?
Using various forms of "pressure" (which are usually of the sort: "You have two options, one of which involved a lot of hard time and separation from your family, and the other involves helping is nail a bigger fish") is a common way to secure testimony against alleged criminals who have committed more serious crimes, in the US. It keeps a lot of small-time crooks, such as street-level drug dealers or mules, out of prison in return for help in putting away the real villains. "Copping to a lesser," though generally without imprisonment, at the judge's discretion, is generally part of the plea bargain.
It was exactly the kind of deal offered to one Mr. Cohen, former shyster to our Crook-in-Chief (though he had to serve some prison time, which has become home confinement since Covid started spreading in US correctional institutions.... come to think of it, pretty much what most of us are "enjoying" now).
>> Yeah, it's a messed up situation. "Co-operate or you'll face time in prison, and your children will need to be put up for adoption as you won't be there to care for them" is both brutal truth and also coercion.
> Sorry, but it's not blackmail, [...] someone would have had to care for his child; in the UK it would be called being "taken into care," right?
There's a big difference between foster-care and adoption.
"
"You have two options, one of which involved a lot of hard time and separation from your family, and the other involves helping is nail a bigger fish"
"
Yes, I understand the reason. The problem being that it is a powerful incentive to provide false testimony against an innocent person as well. What's better - provide truthful evidence against a "Mr. Big" who would very likely have you tortured to death for being a grass, or provide false evidence against an innocent person who is in no position to retaliate?
"Having been threatened with having his child forcibly removed for adoption unless he identified his fellow hackers, single father Monsegur is said to have passed on information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."
The FBI are supposed to be the good guys. Yet they threaten the well being and long term emotional stability of a child to get what they want.
I guess their motto is now Fidelity, Bravery, Intimidation.
One wonders what you'd suggest the FBI should do if, say, they detained someone accused of mas murder who happened to be a single parent?
Taking the accused into custody would "threaten the well being and long term emotional stability of a child".
And the FBI didn't offer the guy anything. That's not what they do. The US attorneys to the deals, usually via their assistants (as there are only 93 of them, and they're political appointees). So if you want to blame someone, blame the USAA, not the FBI.
The language in the article is badly emotionally loaded. If the accused is offered a deal that allows for bail and the possibility of no jail time, they may well take it (regardless of actual guilt) in order to avoid the risk of losing their kid. In this specific case, it seems like there is no real question of "actual guilt", so one might equally frame the situation as the US attorney offering him a good deal that would allow him to raise his child. But again, that's emotionally loaded the other way, and the underlying truth is probably somewhere in the middle (they government threatened to add charges but also was willing to agree to a deal, one likely proposed by the accused's lawyers).
Meanwhile, what did Assange's outburst even mean? "I'm here and also by proxy" is not exactly coherent... the best I can come up with is that he meant he was in court and had lawyers, which seems a bit of a waste of breath...
"Kinda overblown hysterics to compare the things alleged against Assange to mass murderers..."
Regardless, the effect is the same. Get incarcerated for any length of time, and your kids are going to be raised by someone else until they reach the age of majority. This is true regardless of the crime committed by the parental unit(s).
Suggestion: Don't do anything to get incarcerated if this matters to you.
"
Suggestion: Don't do anything to get incarcerated if this matters to you.
"
Yup. If you see a police officer beating someone to death, turn a blind eye. If you know that a politician is being bribed to influence government policy - stay silent.
Just don't then complain if your kids then have to grow up in a police state or malevolent dictatorship.
That attitude stinks jake!, Guilt by accusation. Frankly most people faced with never seeing their loved one, will be compliant, and that is antithetical to the interests of justice.
"Suggestion: Don't do anything to get incarcerated if this matters to you."
Unfortunately, being the wrong colour in the US is enough to be deprived of your liberty or your life.
Being poor is criminalised, being black is criminalised, being mentally unwell is criminalised, being falsely accused is a way of life for the people subjected to the vengeful legal system in the US.
Unless one is extremely wealthy, staying the hell away from the place is about as good as it gets.
But it's not a crime to walk the streets in KKK robes, or torture people in "black prisons", or murder them with flying bombs, or to fit up innocent people. Not a single person rescued by the innocence project, has seen the manifestly corrupt people who inflicted that harm on them prosecuted.
Just like us, and the >1000 people died in police custody, have yet to see a single killer prosecuted.
I stand corrected, #45 commander bone spurs is indeed an fine example, of how one can rise to the highest position in the land, shaking off the disadvantages of obvious dementia.
In mitigation, I did point out that wealth tends to insulate one from this issue, take OJ, I think he probably did it, but "you can't put the juice in Jail", because "I'm not black I'm OJ".
Back to the covidiot in chief,
"If you get them in order, you get extra points"
"I know words, I know all the best words"
"I'm like a smart person"
"losers"
Yeah, he's a putz.
What stinks? In a civilized country, if a single parent is incarcerated his (or her) children become wards of the court. The alternative is to throw them out on the streets, to fend for themselves. Are you seriously advocating that? Or are you suggesting that having kids should make you immune from incarceration?
I didn't realize this was a black/white issue. However, might I point out to you and your pre-conceived misconceptions about race in America that we had a black man in the Oval Office for not one, but two terms just prior to the current idiot-in-chief's term. Note that he won not just the electoral college vote, but also the popular vote. Twice. If allowed, I suspect he would have won a third term.
Staying the hell away from the place has obviously taught you absolutely nothing about it. I strongly suggest closing your mouth and being thought a fool than opening it and removing all doubt. Or perhaps open your mind, come visit, and see for yourself.
What stinks is the refusal to accept that, arresting a person, holding them in savage conditions unless they have access to life changing amounts of money, and threatening to deprive them of their children, is not a recipe for honesty. It's lawfare. To treat that so flippantly as "if you don't want to lose your kids don't go to jail" is spoken as someone who believes it couldn't happen to you.
In other words, bad things only happen to bad people, and if you're innocent you'll be okay.
It's not a race issue, it is a black and white issue, unfortunate choice of words.
I'm no fan of the deli-bama, he's a black tony blair. He queered his pitch before he even took office, by squandering the immense amount of leverage he had in the 100 days prior to his first day.
He's a regular run of the mill US president, in otherwords a bit of a cunt, (carter excepted), GITMO, drones, and the same shite as has happened previously.
He had a brain, with a background in law, just like blair. But Sorry not being Bush Junior, is not that high a bar, so you can pick that card back up.
The guy under discussion is nearly an alibino, he could hide under rice, I think its funny that you complain that people don't make a fuss when it's a white guy being badly treated by the law.
And yet here you are, saying you don't care. Incase you missed it, it's an accusation of hypocracy rather than racism, for the record, I don't think you give a single shit what colour someone is.
Staying the hell away from the place has obviously taught you absolutely nothing about it
On the contrary, I know a lot of Americans, I count many of them as my friends and colleagues, but your .gov is fucked, and is a stain on the planet.
Being a fool, is an occupational hazard, being thought a fool, is beneath my notice.
What he and Manning did was put peoples lives at risk. This information looks bad when placed on a web site without any situational context. War is hell, fighting the kind of war that involves terrorists is even worse. There are probably documents hidden away from the 2nd world war that would look quite terrible in a modern context, it doesn't mean those actions were War Crimes.
What Manning and Assange did was espionage, plain and simple. He should thank whatever gods he believes in that he lives in this day and age. If this were during the height of the cold war, both these "men" would have been found dead in a ditch somewhere.
Yes, the child of the mass-murderer would also be taken into care - but the father in that case would not be offered the chance of preventing it by implicating someone who the FBI didn't like. No matter whether deliberate or as a natural consequence, if a witness has benefitted or is likely to benefit considerably as a result of their testimony, that testimony should be treated with a very large pinch of salt. It's why I do not trust the testimony of people who claim they were abused decades ago when they stand to be paid large sums of compensation as a consequence of being given official victim status.
It works both ways - a defence witness who stands to gain significantly if the defendent is aquitted should also not be relied upon.
According to the Registers article this is what is happened "Investigators reportedly coerced the unemployed dad into cooperating by threatening him with two years in prison away from his children on the easy-to-prove ID theft charges alone" .
If you go to jail then being away from your children is a statement of fact, I can't see anything about abduction.
"
If you go to jail then being away from your children is a statement of fact
"
Yes, which is even more reason why the threat of jail should not be used to elicit testimony against (or for) another person. Nothing a person says as a witness in a different trial should affect whether or not they get sent to prison.
You must be joking. Monsegur is taking the plea bargain, thus admitting his own guilt in the identity thefts. So you are of the opinion that the child is better off with the criminal father. Some might argue that the child would be better off if the criminal father were locked up, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Also, the FBI doesn't do the bargaining, the prosecution does.
"
If you're going to do illegal things while being a parent, it is you and you alone who are putting your child at risk, especially when your adversary is known to play hardball.
"
Yes - and that's the reason why very few Germans did anything against the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis.
The threat to take a kid away from a single father who's accused [and therefore coerced into testimony] sounds as though it's WAY above the jurisdiction of the FBI, and in light of OTHER alleged FBI abuses, currently being investigated by the D.O.J., could eventually work in Assange's (and others') favor. Convictions can be overturned as a result of evidence being declared "inadmissible" due to rights and even procedural violations by police.
That being said, I'm not really happy with the way Assange is being sought after by our F.B.I. unless the evidence they have is compelling enough to warrant it. So far I haven't heard any, and the media is making this sound like a political hit job. OK the FBI _has_ been informally accused of doing things _like_ "political hit jobs" as well (and is under investigation by the D.O.J.). All this could end up being decided by the U.K. court in Assange's favor, in light of these *kinds* of things.
I hope Assange isn't extradited. But he's definitely getting his day in court. We shall see. He needs to let his lawyers do the talking and shut up.
There's just NOT enough information to say anything else about it, in my bombastic opinion.
Immediately puts the guys 'evidence' into question as he's giving it under duress/threat.
I suspect in most cases this would undermine the guys credibility but some how I think the justice systems in all countries involved with Assange will do as its told and look the other way.
Just in case you are missing it .......
amanfromMarsSeptember 9, 2020 at 16:58 .... saying still more on https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-7/
The USA is quite adamant in declining to join the ICC, because it would mean USA soldiers could be prosecuted for 'war crimes' in a court outside the control of the USA Supreme Court. ..... Eclectic ManWhy is the UK entertaining any sort of judicial request from the USA whenever they are so clearly stating their contempt of courts and internationally recognised norms of legal behaviour ....... when the above statement is true.
It surely more than suggests the UK criminal justice system is fundamentally corrupt, or easily corruptible, with any such proceedings and prosecutions in aid of Uncle Sam being blatant and wilful perversions of justice ?
Which is not so odd a thing to say and ask whenever today we hear of Boris's gang's intention to break the law with regard to what were thought to be binding agreements with EU partners and unionist supporters over certain contentious and long fought over Brexit matters.
And let's not even start to consider the Anne Sacoolas/Harry Dunn farce/travesty.
What on Earth is Blighty doing? Do they not have enough problems they cannot solve?
J'accuse.
To Hell in a Handcart springs to mind :-)
That is mixing politics and law. There is a legal basis, a current extradition treaty, which spells out on what grounds Assange can be extradited and it's a matter for the courts to interpret existing law.
The US refusing to sign up for the ICC may be a reason to end the extradition treaty in your view. Then you need to yell at Downing Street 10 and Parliament for that, not at a judge. Separate processes, and be glad for it :)
Why, indeed ? Because it's the law: the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty, as ratified by the 2003 Extradition Act, as passed by Parliament, and ratified on the US side by the United States Senate in 2006.
Extradition treaties and agreements are generally between 2 nations, and "international norms" do not apply.
In principle, you're right. In practice, whenever anyone who's not chummy with the Chinese or the Russians wants someone with a credible threat of force to do "peacekeeping," it's not Germany or the UK they call, because they remember how everyone in NATO sat on their hands until the US intervened in the former Yugoslavia. If US troops are subject to prosecution for alleged misdeeds in such circumstances, that already singles them out from nearly all other nations in so far as liability goes — almost no one else will do the work.
So you're left with a choice: no US participation in the ICC, or no US intervention when things get extremely ugly. We saw what happened when the latter option was chosen in Rwanda.
Quite true. There are sound reasons for the USA not to join the ICC, as well as good reasons for them to do so. To ignore either the "pro" or the "con" arguments is simply arguing in bad faith, although reasonable people may conclude that one side outweighs the other and disagree on which!
But since neither China nor Russia are members, it seems a bit of a contrived accusation that the US isn't a member either.
Personally, as I understand it, I think the US should join, and should take advantage of the fact that the ICC only acts when the other jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to act. Then accusations against US people could be heard in US courts subject to US laws and US rules of evidence.
(Accusations against US political leaders would never be heard by the ICC despite grandstanding like efforts to charge Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Notwithstanding the lofty ideals, the only practical way a head of state gets to stand trial is when he becomes a deposed head of state...)
(Accusations against US political leaders would never be heard by the ICC despite grandstanding like efforts to charge Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Notwithstanding the lofty ideals, the only practical way a head of state gets to stand trial is when he becomes a deposed head of state...) ...... Malcolm Weir
Malcolm, Hi,
As populations become smarter and/or better virtually informed and remotely programmed .... more effectively brainwashed ...... why ever would any exclusive status quo establishments, with extant embattled and embittered and enabling powers that be, waste any revealing time and incur any revolving expense on charges and trials whenever there is JFK/Soleimani/Gaddafi option always available for instant resolution.
You might like to think that is why the MainStreamMedia feeds you so much nonsense and monumental garbage to keep you constantly serially uninformed and undereducated for the ongoing maintenance and retention of the blissfully sunny uplands of the stupid and stupefied. Heaven forbid that one should ever discover how everything works and how everyone is put to work for the greater benefit of just a few.
However, do yourself a favour and short that putrid stock. It's had its day and is now mortally toxic to both support and hold.
What does WWII have to do with NATO and Yugoslavia? The US entered WWII in the Pacific because we were attacked. We entered WWII in Europe because Germany declared war on us.If we had not entered the war in Europe the entire continent would have ended up under Soviet rule with the possible exception of the UK. Europe/NATO has been feckless on most of the conflict post Korea. Was it right for the US to get involved in these conflicts? That is debatable, but many of us here are just done with it.
The Russians gave a generation of blood and treasure to liberate western europe.
The Americans came a day late (two years) and a dollar short (3.4 Billion in that time)
They were handsomely paid for their "help".
The flag flying that liberated berlin was the hammer and sickle.
Frankly the US was quite sympathetic to the nazi's and only entered the war due to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour, see https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-quarterly/pearlharbor.pdf for some interesting discussion on the matter.
The racism on open display in the US, doesn't point to much in the way of discord with the racism of the Nazi party. For example, red-lining https://ncrc.org/holc/ that map is from 1938, "a federal agency, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC)"
It's a federal agency setup to promote the same race based policies the nazi espoused.
The US has been a force for evil almost throughout it's modern history, it's perfectly represented by Trump, and the "all lives matter" crowd.
The US also has the seeds of a wonderful ideal, and has given the world much in the way of advancement and improvement to humanity, its people represent a great hopefulness.
That tension is yet to be resolved, and one hopes the positive will accelerate and outweigh the bad, leaving it just as the history all countries would rather forget.
The ICC is a political organization run by political "anti-American" hacks. Why are they not investigation charges against the Chinese for their criminally negligent handling of the Corona Virus? I am not holding my breath.
No we will not place ourselves under the authority of this court. If Europe does not like how we do things, then defend yourselves, We are tired of doing it and paying the bills.
So lets look at the biggest hot spot int he world today, the Middle East. Who is responsible for this situation? Europe! It was not the policies and actions of the US after the 1st and 2nd world wars that created this mess.
We are tired of cleaning up your messes.
The ICC is a political organization run by political "anti-American" hacks. ...blah, blah, blah ... No we will not place ourselves under the authority of this court. If Europe does not like how we do things, then defend yourselves, We are tired of doing it and paying the bills. .....blah, blah, blah .... It was not the policies and actions of the US after the 1st and 2nd world wars that created this mess.We are tired of cleaning up your messes. ..... Cliffwilliams44
Do yourself and everyone else here a favour, Cliffwilliams44, and read about the abiding systemic US problem highlighted and unfortunately so very clearly and succinctly documented [or you can deny the veracity of the claims if you so wish] in "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA ... by Tim Wiener .... before venturing any further down that trail you are blazing.
It makes for some extremely uncomfortable reading, revealing as it does, a fundamental vulnerable and inherent weakness, most probably initially thought of as a magnificent strength, to be relentlessly exploited and ruthlessly attacked.
And a right riveting read it is too, El Regers, explaining as it does why so much of today is as it is because of what was trialled before.
The Middle east.
So that would be providing material support to the terroists campaign against the US's 'Ally' Britain, by the Irgun, culminating in the murder at the king david hotel.
That would also be propping up the head choppers in Saudi and, the rest of the gulf states.
That would be allowing Egypt to be the US torturer in chief.
Let's be clear, as Europeans, and especially as Brits, our hands are not clean. However,
that you lack any understanding of your own history, doesn't excuse you for the dodgy shit, foisted on the rest of the world.
The US is a force for evil, and a great deal of the American people, are trying to change that, but you need to start by accepting that https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321
The number of coups, and flagrant contempt for the rule of law, can be evidenced again, and again.
So please, wind your neck in.
Don't forget the IRA, largely funded by Americans (not government). Easy to fund terror when one doesn't have to live near it and it's reported that terror attacks in the US were instrumental in the reduction in funding by Americans as they finally realised what terrorism was all about when it got close to home for them.
Well quite. There is a decent amount of support for funding for terrorists in the US, but remember the IRA don't count, as only brown people are terrorists in the US.
In fairness to the original poster, he mentioned the Middle East, as of course his history starts with Sept 11th, ignores the displacement of millions of people, and all the other conflicts around the world.
The history is just too sordid to describe from the smallpox blanket, CONTRA, MK-ULTRA, arguably the biggest victims of the US are the American people. The rest of the world, has a long list of complaints, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
So-called "smallpox blankets" came about during the siege of Fort Pitt, during Pontiac's War in 1763. The United States didn't exist yet. It was Field Marshal Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst attempting germ warfare. As he wrote in a footnote of a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet on July 16th, 1663 P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race.
In other words, he was knowingly attempting genocide under the athority of the Crown. Nice group of folks, you Brits. Have you hugged your Golly today?
" only brown people are terrorists in the US."
Stop it with this line of bullshit, already. You make yourself look silly. Are you old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing? The perp was a good Roman Catholic, Republican, US Army decorated, Gulf War veteran. There have been many more. Unabomber, Son of Sam, Zodiac, "Army of God", "Christian Identity", "Creativity", "Aryan Nations", etc. etc.
You believe that he is as guilty as sin. In your estimation from limited knowledge. But that is not proof. In a court of law, we require proof to be offered, challenged, and then found able to stand (guilty) or shown to be unable to stand (innocent). Which is why we require courts of law and not courts of public opinion. Especially as we proceed on the basis that the accused is innocent.
The link above to Crag Murray's website makes for troubling reading. Assange's trials have been, from my understanding, demonstrably unfair and being tweaked by some outside power manipulating the judges. Not the first or the last time our judicial system has over-identified with the political side of things.
There are two issues that seem to get conflated: (1) did the effects of Wikileaks publishing everything (without review, unlike with the Snowden leaks) cause more good than harm? and (2) did Assange break the law in getting stuff to publish?
There seems to be a lot of noise about how Wikileaks revealed information about bad conduct, but less about the damage that the leaks definitely did cause, such as the identification of Iraqi citizens who helped the US forces,
If someone breaks into a house and reveals information about, say, a fraud being perpetrated by one of the residents, does that excuse the housebreaking? I would say no, but I would also say it would be a factor in mitigation of the sentence.
HOWEVER... what trials? Assange hasn't faced trial for the rape he was accused of, he hasn't faced trial for the leaks. The only trial he has faced is for skipping bail in the UK ("failing to answer his bail"), which we all know he actually did. Since the purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused shows up in a court of law to see the proof be offered and challenged, the fact that Assange deliberately evaded the process (with a pathetically incoherent rationale) seems to be pretty conclusive evidence that if Assange hasn't had a fair trial, it's because he's avoided them, which makes it rather his own fault!
> (1) did the effects of Wikileaks publishing everything (without review, unlike with the Snowden leaks) cause more good than harm?
Once again ... Wikileaks did not publish everything without review and did not ever intend to publish without review. A stupid Guardian journalist did that by publishing his password.
"I would say no, but I would also say it would be a factor in mitigation of the sentence."
I would say no, and that the evidence gained wouldn't be admissible in court ... Neither in the mitigation of the sentence of the housebreaker, nor in the prosecution of the fraudster.
In the USA, you have the benefit of "the fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine where evidence obtained unlawfully/illegally is not admissible. We in the UK don't have the same protection* - it doesn't matter how the evidence was obtained, the judge can allow it to be included. Thus, in the example given, in the USA the evidence could not be used**, but in the UK it could
* I'm using "UK" properly here, since the legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all have the same rule.
** In general, subject to Appeal Court judges being "creative".
"
... the evidence gained wouldn't be admissible in court ...
"
In the U.S. such evidence would not be admissible, but in the UK it most certainly would be admissible. The UK has no equivalent to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" clause that makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible.
The UK has no equivalent to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" clause that makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible.
That's weird, I distinctly recall hearing that term used by the defence advocate in a Scottish court where I was a witness in a theft case. This was a long time back but the phrase caught my attention as it sounded really esoteric and lawerly.
"
If someone breaks into a house and reveals information about, say, a fraud being perpetrated by one of the residents, does that excuse the housebreaking?
"
In law it certainly does if the housebreaking in question was carried out by law enfocement equipped with a search warrant. And while a private citizen cannot get such protection from the law, the morality of the situation is 100% identical.
On this case it's the extradition hearing.
The US/UK relationship is ... complicated. Having lived ~20% of my life in the UK, and most of the rest here in California, and having payed attention to this kind thing these last ~50 years, I couldn't come close to guessing which way things will go in any given situation of this nature. IMO, it has been made to be convoluted intentionally, and thus it's a crap-shoot that depends entirely on who is politically grandstanding at the moment.
".... impossible for Julian to get a fair trial in the US."
Having served on several juries, I don't believe that is true.
I'd say his odds are probably better in the US, where juries can ignore the law and find a defendant innocent (jury nullification) if they choose. And in this case, for the US charges, there are jurors who would do just that.
I was the Wanno One (meaning 3 months in HMP Wandsworth)
Two trials to get me there. Domestic Violence Assault charge
In fact my female partner was the violent one, I just defended myself.
And they were just minor incidents. Although she nearly killled me by trying to push me backward down the stairs then pushing me backwards over a child gate and chopping at my face with the loft pole.
I was upside down and kicked her in the face (not too hard) at that point
For first trial the CPS didn't know whether to go with Common Assault or ABH and asked for a deferral.
1st trial not too bad. 2nd trial you would think I was the worst wifebeater in the world.
I was just totally disbelieved and crucified.
My police statement and 2 x testimony was the truth.
My ex girlfriends was wildly different
She later made up stories about other men, one of whom didn't get to see his kids for two years.
I didn't see mine for ten.
I was waiting till they were 18 but they jumped the shark at 14 and 15 and took their Mum to court and won.
Early twenties now and we are in regular contact and visits. Tough years though, for them and me.
They were badly neglected.
I fear that's not allowed, although trash publications like this by Assange followers could suggest the temptation certainly exists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-54092547
"Harry Dunn's family say they have been told prosecutors do not believe the woman accused of killing the teenager in a crash had diplomatic immunity."
So she fled the country to avoid prosecution, and now the US are refusing to extradite.
The argument given is that she had diplomatic immunity, and that waiving it in one circumstance would set a precedent, which would not be good given the sort of countries in which the US and GB have embassies. Not my argument, just what has been discussed.
Yet Assange was an accredited journalist, not an American, wasn't in the US, published material, not protected under any free speech principal. Prosecuting him sets a bad precedent too.
It's odd how many folk who once espoused his values are now indifferent to his fate... whilst it is very possible that he is jerk, it's also plausible that this is an effective long-term smear campaign. It's also possible that Trump offered him amnesty if he testified that Russia didn't know Trump.
Assange is a friend of Philip Adams, and I'm inclined to listen to Mr Adams - in fact I do, four days a week on ABC.net.au Late Night Live. He produced the film Barry McKenzie and has been sacked by Murdoch twice. Listen to him chatting to a huge number of prominent statesmen, economists, historians, comedians and others over the last twenty five years.
The argument given is that she had diplomatic immunity, and that waiving it in one circumstance would set a precedent, which would not be good given the sort of countries in which the US and GB have embassies. Not my argument, just what has been discussed.
This is a flagrant lie, https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-office-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/
It's just craven cowardice on behalf of the Conservative government, nodding along to his master's voice.
Incorrect.
The individual who currently goes by the name Chelsea Manning did serve in the Army.
You are trying to make the argument that they had a different name when they were in the army - that is irrelevant. People change names often - marriages being the most frequent cause I expect.
When someone changes their name, it is customary for references to that person's historical actions to be retrospectively attributed to their current form of identification - to do otherwise would be an obfuscation of communication.
On a more personal note, why is the point of someone's name such a bone of contention for you?
> When someone changes their name, it is customary for references to that person's historical actions to be retrospectively attributed to their current form of identification
Indeed. This convention extends to honorific titles too. Eg "Sir David Attenborough, who presented the series Life On Earth...", even though at the time he made the series he was just Mr Attenborough, not Sir David.
Whether or not he is guilty as charged is irrelevant: the US want him and are willing to put extreme pressure on the UK (cough Brexit /cough) to get their man no matter what the cost.
What people don't realise is that even to face one of the espionage charges can result in at the very least life + 50 though its highly unlikely the death penalty will be sought because the US is also accountable for its actions and this would violate ECHR as well as established treaties.
Thanks to 9/11 many of the checks and balances have been removed permitting things like Gitmo where charges are brought, agreed upon and sentences passed with no judicial review whatsoever, and George Orwell was absolutely right in describing the horrors this can cause.
If Assange is ever deported he loses any chance of clemency, and this is the truth.
AC, but not for the reasons you think..
You mean that he didn't encourage people with access to a classified military system to access files they weren't authorised to, for purposes they weren't authorised for, and then hand him the data so that he could leak it to The Guardian?
I never understand quite what people think is going to happen in those circumstances because I can't fathom that it would be anything other than bad for all involved. Which is... well... Manning went to jail, Assange is wanted, and Snowden has to spend the rest of his life hiding in Russia because everybody else wants him.
The only reasoning I ever hear is "the end justifies the means", but the fact is that the means were still quite clearly criminal and the "victim" was a nation state. That's never going to end well.
It's like robbing a bank vault in order to "expose" that the bank was holding the funds of a tax evader or something. Sure you can say it was for "journalistic" (cough) reasons, but the fact is that you still robbed a bank.
And no court is going to just excuse one because of the other - they'll want to punish both for their individual and respective crimes. (P.S. I don't see any other nation state calling for the US to be brought before an international court for the things that were "revealed", and the evidence has been in the public domain for years now, so good luck with getting that done).
No, manning used authorized access to a system to exfiltrate information which assange published.
No hacking was required, as the motion to quash, admits the provision of thousands of classified documents to wiki leaks, well before the "password hacking" allegedly took place.
http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Manning-motion-to-quash.pdf
The password nonsense is to turn up the heat, even the description is nonsense. "Part of a password hash".
It's typical of the US legal system, throw any old shite at the defendant, so they take a plea.
To Manning's credit, she admitted her part and served her time.
It costs me little to address Manning as "her", by the way, I don't think any of (Dr Dre, Dr Fox, or Dr J) were real doctors, still they wanted to be called Dr, who am I to demure.
I've never spent time in prison to expose war crimes by the most powerful nation in the world. That's enough courage to have earned a choice of pronoun if nothing else.
Incidentally, should Manning decide to prefer being addressed as jabberwocky, I don't really see the harm in acceding to the request.
I don't really give a monkey one way or another how Manning chooses to live, but you've decided to "self-identify" as JCitizen, so surely you like to be addressed as such?
Also having your sentence commuted is good fortune no doubt, but I'd not like to spend even a single day in a Prison. I've spent some time in the police cells in the UK, I can only imagine it's luxurious in comparison to where one might be sent, given the charges laid against Mannings.
"No, manning used authorized access to a system to exfiltrate information which assange published."
So he misused credentials to access classified materials and then use them in an unauthorised way by sending them to an unauthorised party without classified access.
He's also on record as having encouraged Manning to do that, deliberately and specifically.
So you're STILL saying he didn't conspire to break into a classified military system?
So tell me... if I told you to break into your company's salary database - and even allegedly offered techniques, assistance and further contacts to advise you, and then you send it all to me, and I published it online, you think that's not classed as conspiracy for unauthorised computer access? That the act itself isn't unauthorised access or dissemination of privilieged data? That you should go unpunished if it showed that the CEO lied about what he was paid? That neither of us could ever possibly go to jail?
And that's just "private" information. Classified is a whole other ball game.
Seriously, have five minutes and think about it. If I asked a guy at the company you're working at now to give me a copy of your browser history, salary, personnel record, and then I put it online and embarrassed you, you think we should both go unpunished? That it's not consipiracy on my part? And now scale that up to classified information (and please don't say "but it wasn't high-level" - it was classified. That's the end of it, in the eyes of the law and the military).
"No, manning used authorized access to a system to exfiltrate information which assange published."
"So he misused credentials to access classified materials and then use them in an unauthorised way by sending them to an unauthorised party without classified access."
1. Use of authorized credentials to access a system is not misused, that's the function of the credentials.
2. Dissemination of classifed information is the crime, for which a strong public interest defence applies, e.g. your crimes are not covered by confidentiality.
3. Publishing leaked information, has long and noble history, even in the US, e.g. deep throat/Bernstein.
"He's also on record as having encouraged Manning to do that, deliberately and specifically."
He's on record as saying something along the lines, of "thirsty eyes never run dry", i.e. acting as a journalist cultivating a source, like "woodward and bernstein"
So you're STILL saying he didn't conspire to break into a classified military system?
Yes, he published thousands of documents, which were taken using the "authorized access" that Manning had. There's no need to break in, as Manning had access already. Try to read the facts of the case rather than parroting rubbish at people, who clearly can read. "Authorized Access".
"So tell me... if I told you to break into your company's salary database - and even allegedly offered techniques, assistance and further contacts to advise you, and then you send it all to me, and I published it online, you think that's not classed as conspiracy for unauthorised computer access?"
Why don't you it doing whistling dixie with your thumb up your arse, it's your fantasy.
Being a journalist is protected in the US, being a publisher is not being a hacker, this is tech site mate, perhaps try wired.
That the act itself isn't unauthorised access or dissemination of privilieged data? This makes no sense, try to wipe away the froth, and restate.
That you should go unpunished if it showed that the CEO lied about what he was paid? That neither of us could ever possibly go to jail? Are we still in your fantasy?
Manning broke the law, Assange didn't. Manning conspired to publish information, which was classifed, Manning admitted it, served time for it. Assange as a publisher and journalist, acted properly within the law.
Seriously, have five minutes and think about it. I don't require more than a picosecond to dismiss your evidence free rubbish, based on a scenario you pulled out of your unwiped arse.
"Use of authorized credentials to access a system is not misused, that's the function of the credentials."
Incorrect. As a computer and networking consultant, I have credentials to access anything I need to do my job. That means root access to the entire system. It also means I have the ability to access all of the data at any of the companies that I consult for. That doesn't make it legal for me to access all that data, much less pass it along to any third party I deem fit.
I "have users" too. That's not the point, Manning broke the law, no dispute. But the system was essentially an unsecured sharepoint type site, and the credentials were sufficient to access the docs.
Let me be more specific, the credentials used were issued to Manning, and did not require some exploit for the removal of documents.
That doesn't mean all the actions taken whilst logged in were authorized, clearly that's not in dispute.
But Manning didn't break into anything, and neither did Assange.
Assange does seem to have encouraged him to cover his tracks by using someone else's login, according to the indictment.
Why bother with these years of trial ?
He is going to be extradited to his doom; the US 'Courts' will find him guilty; and he will serve his sentence --- although those who scream about him would prefer alongside the old murderess Hillary that he be droned --- as so many people have been droned by American presidents before.
I was an extremely minor and ineffectual peace protester in the UK for four years with no serious legal repercussions, and then I exposed two police infiltrators. The police started targetting my elderly and infirm parents with thirteen visits / raids over the next seven years even though they knew I lived elsewhere and was always willing to voluntarily visit any police station. It wasn't Chechen or Belarusian or American abuse, but it was low level gangsterism.
The last time I put in a police complaint I was told that to progress it they'd have to visit my parents and take them to the station to give statements. I was "encouraged" to close the complaint.
The last time I was in court I asked to defend myself but the sheriff denied me that right, assigned a court lawyer, and banned me from even speaking in court except to confirm my name and plead. Plus I couldn't hear what the lawyers and sheriff were saying, my hearing was a bit shot. I felt like the love child of Kafka and Solzhenitsyn.
I suggest to those of you here who have great respect for the British justice system, as I used to, that is probably because it hasn't stamped down on you. Yet.
If you mean that a flawed British justice system is better than none, well, I'd readily recognise things are much better here than elsewhere.
However, it is either just or unjust, and if it is only a 'smoke and mirrors' appearance of a judiciary then I'd be better off in Oz.
[Oh, and I don't mean Australia, and I didn't downvote you! For example, I have proof I was questioned on terrorism allegations for Non Violent Direct Action against state violence. Just last week the XR climate folk were threatened with being charged with being terrorists. That is not just ridiculous, it is chilling and telling.]
So, I read in this fine article that "Having been threatened with having his child forcibly removed for adoption unless he identified his fellow hackers, single father Monsegur is said to have passed on information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."
The use alone of such criminal - and dare I say: inhuman - methods should be reason enough to deny the extradition request.Though, mind me, I would love to see Assange being put to trial for his often shady activities.
i really don't care if Assange gets deported or not
However - based on the fact the US would not let Anne Sacoolas be deported to the UK for driving on the wrong side of the road and killing some young bloke i'd have to say the UK should not deport Assange for being a reporter (i use that word loosely)
I'd rather send him to share a room with Ed Snowden in some god-awful place
Remember when Assange was proclaiming to the world that he ran to the UK for safety from the naughty naughty Swedes who might ship him off to the US?
This is exactly how I expected things to eventually play out, the only question is whether the UK can figure out some way to hand him over to The Boss more than once for extra credit.
It's tragic, regardless of his guilt or innocence, he should be afforded a fair trail with access to his legal team.
We have a government in the UK, cheerfully breaking the law left and right. The only crime he's definitely guilty of, is skipping bail, for which he has been incaserated and served his time.
The current US Administration holds the record for most members convicted during a single term.
The outcomes of this trial in a sense don't matter, as the appearance is having the desired effect, be you innocent or guilty, publish evidence of war crimes (murder of journalists and civilians) and you will be destroyed.
It seems that he'll end his days in a dark place, despite the good he's done by publishing the evidence of war crimes. The war crimes that nobody seriously contends are not evidenced by the "Collateral Murder" video amongst others.
When Assange decided to hide in the embassy of Ecuador, I thought that was a bad mistake. Turns out it was.
He would have been extradited to Sweden, worst case spent a year in a comfortable jail. Since he was extradited to Sweden from the UK, Sweden would have had no right to send him to the USA, only either back home or to the UK. At that time the Obama government was still running the show, and they didn't care too much about him. And importantly, the UK wouldn't have been pissed off with him in a major way. So there would have been no extradition request, and if there was one, extradition would have been much less likely.
I think it was 2-5 yrs with time served on remand and time off for good behaviour. IF convicted
Then deported to Aussie.
His big mistake was jumping bail (not a good idea) and then pissing off the embassy he was hiding in after 7 yrs....
Hopefully one day he'll come to his senses and realise just what a dumbass he actually is instead the smartass he thinks he is...
The law is a moral code :D Secrets only help keep you enslaved to the profit motive system. This is nothing more than the big boys being terrified that their info is leaking out and it'll serve as a warning to all the other sheep...if this guy goes down, for even longer, then you're deluding yourself if you think you're in for a better future. At least life is finite, right?
Oh, he broke the law..the law, very well could be an ass :)
Posted Anonymously because i'm scared of what they will do to me if they ever find out who I am and I trust the el Reg security and information policies. And, also, because this web site is so secure. Living in fear is great.
What happens when the conspiracy theories are proved correct on Monday, and we find out that we have been essentially LIED TO for over 50 years?
This eclipses what Assange may or may not have done, if the US Government suppressed something this important and kept mainstream science back for decades while secretly developing technologies to which the public do not have access and probably never will.
I would say that a formal exoneration and apology to a certain G Mckinnon signed by Pres. D Trump wouldn't go amiss as would releasing all the archives and classified patents for everyone to see.
The whole problem with anonymity is that it simply adds to the conspiracy.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html
The US appoints a rapist to it's supreme court because a majority of the Senate like his position on: a woman's right to choose (against); and voter suppression (in favour)
It's a real condemnation of the UK that a commonwealth citizen should be sent for trial in a system of such manifest dubiety.
Many here are arguing over legal technicalities, but look at the bigger picture: various scandals, including war crimes, committed by corporations and our governments, were exposed by wikileaks. What's happening now is that Assange is getting done for exposing the nasty truth, as a warning to other potential trouble makers. The mainstream media are complicit.
There's an interesting article about it here: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2020-09-02/media-assange-persecution/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
