Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Rape Apologetics Go Here (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438689) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Learn how the Swedish legal system works, and you'll understand why: charges cannot be formally filed UNTIL he is given the interview for which the extradition request was filed.

It was described as the only time in history where Sweden knew exactly where someone wanted for an interview was extradited, rather than interviewed. Also, he was interviewed. Then let go, only to be re-interviewed, of they require an interview before charges, and he's been interviewed already, why do they need to do it again?

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438651) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

The US has not made any charges against him, and they have not requested his extradition from any country.

Right. The US refuses to lay "official" charges because those come with responsibilities. The EFF could start petitioning on his behalf. Demands could be made for a speedy and open trial, and other things the US doesn't want.

It would be silly for Sweden to promise this.

It would be perfectly sane to do so. It would be a statement that he'd be held for the "crimes" he is of interest for, and any charges from anywhere else would not be considered. It's not unheard of for countries to do so. Perhaps a promise that he'll be deported to Australia at the end of the proceedings for the pending Swedish charges, regardless of any intervening actions from any other governments.

Reasonable, and not unheard of.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438627) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant
Nope, the only thing standing between him and the US is the UK. It's standard practice to "invade" embassies. The only requirement is that you give sufficient warning (so that they can evacuate official personnel). As Assange isn't an official attache, he'd be arrestable the moment the embassy recognition from the UK ran out.

That's been done before. Argentina closed the UK embassy after the UK invaded the Malvinas.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438609) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Sweden does not have a consent requirement.

Consent was given. It was just conditional. Lying to meet those requirements is perfectly legal in the US, and not in Sweden. That's why there is such a misunderstanding. What he did would have been 100% legal in the US. But he wasn't in the US, but the Slashdotters have trouble separating out jurisdiction, and speak as if the US should force the world to live under US law.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438597) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Apply Occam's razor (gently).

Yes, lets. Sweden is, for the first time ever, refusing to interview a suspect abroad at their current location. So either they find something exceptional about him, or it was just a coincidence. The most simple answer is that there's something exceptional about him, and US involvement, or Swedish politics seem the most likely culprits. When asked for confirmation either way, the Swedes refuse to comment or clarify. If it were a simple matter, they'd have no reason not to. So the most simple explanation is the more complex one, as the simple one fails all basic logic.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438567) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant

Many here are trashing Assange because they're establishment shills, not because they genuinely care that he didn't wear a condom in an uber-feminist country.

I can't tell with the trolls if they are lying, or if they truly think themselves experts in events when they have the most basic facts wrong.

He committed what the conservative media calls "rape" by committing fraud for sex. He lied for personal gain. That's fraud. Fraud to obtain sex in Sweden is fraud. He is accused of fraud, no more. Consent was given conditionally. He violated that condition. Thus the sex was (At the time) unconsented. Strictly, that can be called rape. But because there was tentative consent, just not informed consent, it's not "rape", just a sexual misconduct without a legal analogue in the US, as lying for sex is called "sex", and lying for personal gain is a good thing.

Comment: Re:Sounds reasonable (Score 1) 233

by AK Marc (#48438545) Attached to: Swedish Court Refuses To Revoke Julian Assange's Arrest Warrant
The US has abused that tactic enough they England makes the US follow at least a few of the laws. Part of an extradition hearing is essentially trying the case and seeing if it has merits. If the US doesn't prove the merits of the case, then extradition should be blocked. But allowing a CIA kidnapping from Sweden has no such legal requirements. It was presumed a non-extradition extraction would take place. Perhaps a deportation to Australia with a stop in NYC (not necessarily the most direct route, but not an insane one), and in NYC he misses his plane.

The conspiracy theorists point out this is the first time in history Sweden knew the location of the suspect and refused to interview them at that location. Until Sweden can explain the uniqueness of this situation, it seems there must be some hidden agenda. If the agenda wasn't hidden, it would follow the previous times where interviews were conducted over the phone, video, or in person with Swedish officials who traveled abroad. Assange was never "in hiding". That was McAfee, who was at unknown/undisclosed locations. Assange gave Sweden his number, and they never rang, then complained that he didn't contact them.

Comment: Re:Wait what? (Score 1) 163

Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.

The discretion given police allows them to not enforce any law they don't like. The police could choose to stop enforcing all the stupid laws tomorrow. That's the point of the separation of powers. If the legislature passes a bad law, it can be "veto"ed by the executive not executing it, even if the law wasn't vetoed or the veto failed.

Comment: Re:I'm quite surprised it wasn't (Score 1) 486

by AK Marc (#48431335) Attached to: What Would Have Happened If Philae Were Nuclear Powered?

Could you post your calculations that lead you to that conclusion. Do you think that the engineers who designed the space craft forgot to make the same calculation?

Power falls off at the square of the distance. Nobody ever said that the engineers failed to make that calculation, but that the power levels of the craft would have to be lower than my phone power needs to be able to function at those distances. That seems difficult. Nobody said impossible. Nobody said it wouldn't work. Someone said that the power would be low that far out. The rest was fabricated by you.

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...