Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 173

How fitting that you use the word "zombie" .... I think this deals with that nonsense. Pay special attention to the section "Sweden and extradition".

The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange - Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong

It is about sexual assault, pure and simple.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 173

Less than 800 prisoners in total have been held in Guantanamo, and at present there are only about 120 left there. They have been held there legally. You're taking nonsense.

It is stupid to think that Assange is going to end up in Guantanamo. He isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda, nor does anyone seriously assert that, and those are the only people that end up in Guantanamo.

I can't spare you or take from you a quality you possess.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 173

They are in a prisoner of war camp.
Criminal courts are completely irrelevant regarding prisoner of war status. Not even the same body of law.
Guilt or innocence are irrelevant. The question is, are they enemy combatants? Once again, not a question of criminal law.
No, the term "extra-judicial imprisonment" doesn't apply since it isn't a judicial question to begin with. All that is required is that a competent tribunal approve their detention, and that has occurred.

Would Britain have been helpless in the face of an invading German army unless they littered or something? You know, a criminal offense? Were the German and Italian prisoners held by Britain held illegitimately (minus those held for littering, or rape)?

You might have exhausted this line of thought, do you care to go on about torts committed by al Qaeda and the proper thing is to sue them? Or maybe move on to some admiralty offense? Or perhaps environmental law? I would have to assume that chopping off the heads of Christians in the surf as ISIS have been doing lately is going to mean untreated blood polluting the waters which may be an offense under environmental legislation. Perhaps that environmental outrage will finally stir up people of certain political persuasions against them when the head chopping won't.

I think something like 30% of the "totally innocent" prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay there were released went back to the battlefield and terrorism.

Comment Re:You win! (Score 1) 173

I'm sure. But anyway ..... The US doesn't operate by a parliamentary system in which members of parliament become ministers in charge of government ministries after their faction is able for form a government. The executive and legislative branches are completely separate. In the US if the chairman of the House agriculture committee thinks you should be captured or killed I doubt there is much to worry about since he or she has essentially no means to enforce that. Not even the head of the armed services committee could do anything by order. That can't be said if it is the head of the FBI or CIA that says it. And in either case there is always a question of legality. Making war against al Qaeda is one thing, dealing with Assange is completely different. There is zero chance he'll be attacked with a drone by the US government or sent to Gitmo, unless he wants to join al Qaeda or ISIS.

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 173

Swedish legal procedures have been discussed here often enough that I have to assume you are engaging in wilful distortion. Before Assange can be tried he has to be charged, before he can be charged under Swedish law he has to be questioned. Questioning him remotely if they expect to change him does no good since he can't be arrested to face Swedish justice. Your insinuation that he would be sent to the US is nonsense, and both Sweden and the UK would have to agree. Only Assange's fantasist supporters then it would be easier to extradite him from the UK to Sweden and then to the US when both the UK and Sweden would have to agree to the extradition than to simply extradite him from the UK where only the UK has to agree. For the UK to agree there would have to be a warrant from the US and charges, and nonesuch exists.
 

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 173

The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay aren't there because of "extra-judicial imprisonment." They are being held prisoners of war in the conflict against al Qaeda and its associates. Assange isn't a member or associate of al Qaeda. There is no way he is going to end up there.

Or did somebody share a "pinky swear secret" with you, dear, dear "fellow patriot"? Please good sir, share with us your news .... make that evidence?

Comment Re:Yes? And? (Score 1) 173

Former officials, candidates for office, and even current members of the legislature aren't "government officials." They can blow as much smoke and wind as they want, it doesn't constitute policy.

There is essentially no chance any of that will happen. The only people that have been subject to that are either members or associates of al Qaeda or other terrorist groups at war with the US. Assange isn't a member of al Qaeda, or do you have some proof that he is?

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 1) 453

Do you really think that? Money lost in damages comes from taxes which mean taxes go up. That means both unhappy voters and less money for city government. That is before you get to the question of a judge overseeing operations of a city and its police force, which is both humiliating and unpleasant for all involved. There is also the question of state involvement: investigations, oversight, prosecution.

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 0) 453

Why don't you simply renounce your US citizenship? You'll probably be happier if you do. The next US president will probably be a Republican, and you know you'll hate to visit the country just knowing that. He or she might even get two terms. I doubt you'll survive the anger from it.

Comment Re:Yeah, nah. (Score 1) 453

The people being collected from "all over the room and loaded into buckets for disposal" are being targeted because they want to commit terrorist attacks that will cause dozens or hundreds of other people to be "collected in buckets for disposal" for every attack they commit. Preventing them from attacking others reduces the number of buckets needed. Innocent people in village markets have a chance at having nice things since they are less likely to be attacked by terrorists. Why do you oppose protecting the innocent?

You scratch my tape, and I'll scratch yours.

Working...