Comment Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 847
I cannot say what kind of rape it is, obviously, but the statistics are real. But there have been cases of false accusations of rape in Sweden, just any other country nowadays.
I cannot say what kind of rape it is, obviously, but the statistics are real. But there have been cases of false accusations of rape in Sweden, just any other country nowadays.
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?
I don't know, but Assange is not in Australia. However, I will give you that Australia has certainly not been showing any signs of being interested in helping Assange.
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.
This is mainly calling people names.
Be that as it may, many Swedes I often talk to echo this sentiment, although would not use this strong turn of phrase. Sweden is notorious for routing around opinions it does not deem to be 'decent'. And it is not law enforcement, but rather society at large that will shut out extremist opinions. Communists and fascists have a hard time getting anything said in Sweden.
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.
I also doubt Russia would risk that diplomatic uproar with the UK. It could also have been a British official who misspoke and mentioned that the UK had such laws, but forgot that mentioning it would certainly sound threatening. British law enforcement has a long history of incompetence.
I am not saying Ecaudor isn't without its right to be mad at the US, and I completely understand why they are doing what they are doing. I am just saying why they are, rather than assuming that Ecuador has definitive prove that Assange will be extradited to the US.
Assange has not committed access of espionage. He has not unlawfully approached secret information, instead, Bradley Manning went to him with the information, or rather Wikileaks. The way Wikileaks is set up means that Assange or Wikileaks in general, cannot know who leaked information to them. This ensures more safeguards for Wikileaks.
Manning's trial will start soon and I am sure he will be convincted. Assange on the other hand, have not committed any form of espionage in the USA. Furthermore, espionage count as military engagement, an area Sweden will not extradite under.
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. Sweden has the highest number of rape cases per capita of any country in Europe. And not just by a small margin, twice as many as the country in second place, the UK.
Getting Assange to Sweden to be questioned and perhaps convicted of a rape would set a great example, not just at home, but abroad, considering the international fame of Assange. At least, that is the thought of the Swedish prosecutors.
If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
Ecuador is using the situation to make a stand off against the USA, the UK and Sweden, because of its own demented obsession with its Anti-American sentiment. I don't know if Ecuador honestly believes he won't receive a fair trial in Sweden, but that doesn't really matter, because Ecuador can 'make a stand' against the USA.
I could also ask you a counter-question: Why is he not getting extradited from the UK? Sweden - unlike the UK - has never been an ally of the USA. Not that they are enemies, but they are not active allies. Sweden is far too liberal to be thinking about extraditing Assange to the USA.
And one more question: What laws can the USA extradite Assange for? Assange hasn't broken any American laws. And even if they could, those laws would likely fall under military or political prosecution, two areas Sweden will not extradite people under.
Well, I'll be damned. I stand corrected. Thank you.
There are not even 200 countries in the world. The teams that FIFA and the IOC allows to compete are not necessarily actual countries.
Calling it an 'incorrect spelling' was a joke. I guess all humour is triumphed by pedantics.
Considering the mistake, I am more offended by people modding my comment 'Funny'.
'Deep Space' means something different in Danish. I will not tell you.
Since I am 25 and do nothing for a living, your incorrect spelling of 'affect' affects me.
Better than the
Slashcomma.org, I love that site!
Coming up next: Wireless petrol stations. Just aim for the tank.
What's wrong with users changing passwords every week?
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: Most users are human, and won't be able to remember their passwords if they change them often. Especially since most people have a handful or more passwords and PINs they have to remember.
Frequent password changes lead to either simplified passwords with a single short element that changes, or passwords that are written down on a post-it note or similar.
The greatest enemy of safe authentication is the CFO. After him or her, it's the user. You have to get both to play ball, and you don't do that by annoying either of them.
Correct, but I think he was pointing out that Bengie wrote 'week passwords' rather than 'weak passwords', i.e. I think the post was meant to be humorous.
Nice story. But this is Europe, I think it is rather far-fetched that his name is Joe.
Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
