131–140 of 144 posts
I find it interesting that this news was largely over-shadowed by the news that he was acquitted on the two rape-charges in Sweden (again). The so-called rapes could/should have been dropped a lot earlier as they did not amount to what generally would be considered rape (i.e broken condom in consensual sex), but they choose to do it the same day this story broke.
I find it interesting that this news was largely over-shadowed by the news that he was acquitted on the two rape-charges in Sweden (again). The so-called rapes could/should have been dropped a lot earlier as they did not amount to what generally would be considered rape (i.e broken condom in consensual sex), but they choose to do it the same day this story broke.
He wasn't acquitted. The prosecution have chosen not to pursue the investigation because of the elapsed time. And it was one rape allegation that they've stopped pursuing, not two. I don't believe there was a second one. The other allegation was for sexual molestation which passed the statute of limitations a while ago.
Sweden really did a number on Assange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Surely some laws in the UK were broken? The surveillance in the embassy is in clear contravention of the Vienna Convention that the UK ratified on one proviso: that the surveillance wasn't sanctioned by the Ecuadoreans. If they did sanction it, it's not clear what, if any, law was broken. The article states that there's evidence that the US also had laser surveillance outside the embassy. This would definitely be i…
They might not have happened at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He wasn't acquitted. The prosecution have chosen not to pursue the investigation because of the elapsed time. And it was one rape allegation that they've stopped pursuing, not two. I don't believe there was a second one. The other allegation was for sexual molestation which passed the statute of limitations a while ago.
The real news is that it has emerged Swedish authorities wanted to drop this years ago and were "dissuaded" by UK authorities. Now that US extradition is likely, and a competing claim by Sweden would put that at risk, they conveniently withdraw - what are the chance they were "persuaded" by someone else, again? Sweden really did a number on Assange.
Do you have a source for that?
> a competing claim by Sweden would put that at risk
The prosecutor tried but a court in Uppsala refused the detention request so the Yanks got in first.
To the people who say "of course": > The Spanish lawyer Aitor Martinez, one of the lawyers in Julian Assange's legal team filmed by UC Global, tells Repubblica: "Over the years Mr. Assange and his defense team held legal meetings inside the embassy. Those meetings were protected by the lawyer-client relationship and the fundamental right to defense. What about this fundamental right? > However we can see those meetin…
The right to attorney-client confidentiality does not apply in the context of national security intelligence gathering. The United States was within its rights to gather intelligence about a foreign person in a foreign country. Such intelligence would be absolutely inadmissible in court. But intelligence agencies aren't interested in prosecuting people. They are tasked with national security, not prosecution.
So I guess Russia has every right to spy on americans, right?
I too am curious about the legal issues involved here. While I agree "this is what intelligence services are for", this was not inside the United States and the CIA doesn't automatically get free pass to break the laws of other countries. Surely some laws in the UK were broken? Or was all this sanctioned by the UK government? Or does the fact that it's an embassy mean that Ecuadorian law is applicable? How does this…
Their mandate is based on US law not whichever country they operate in, if they are caught they will be charged with espionage.
There is no such thing as a legal CIA operation, it might get permission from the host nation to operate but it doesn't make it a legal act in the nation in question.
If MI6/5 whoever gives the CIA permission to rendition or even assassinate a target from the UK that doesn't mean it's legal according to UK law.
Intelligence agencies operate in grey areas where there is an agreement in place as long as no one gets caught and most things are either kept so secret that no one would ever get to them or there is simply no paper trail at all.
The UK knows very well who is that CIA station chief in London despite them being there under false pretences which is a violation of UK laws, same goes for most of the CIA / any other TLA agency staff operating in a diplomatic mission under cover.
They all get some US State Department BS title and assignment and diplomatic papers but in reality they aren't diplomats and any competent nation knows all if not the majority of the TLA staff stationed in the US missions operating within it's borders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spying on foreign people in foreign countries is pretty much every intelligence agency's raison d'etre
Yes, and part of the game is if you get caught you get into serious trouble. Ignoring it is a complete wrong approach. Assassinating political dissidents is also part of that game, so shouldn't we be angry at Russia? They just did their job, did they?
Only if there are consequences. If you get caught killing another country's spies or otherwise behaving badly, they may retaliate and kill yours. They may invoke treaties or launch ICJ cases. If they have leverage, they may use it.
Ecuador has no leverage.
> Assassinating political dissidents is also part of that game, so shouldn't we be angry at Russia?
They were Russian agents killing Russians defectors. That's an egregious violation, but they were ultimately taking care of their own. Wanna be a dissident, fine -- play dangerous games, win dangerous prizes. These killing also got a lot of attention because 1) they involved polonium / radiation poisoning, which is a particularly ruthless way of killing someone, and 2) they were in the western media.
All of the people the CIA or MI6 had shot in response didn't get any airtime...
> They just did their job, did they?
Moral arguments notwithstanding, this is just another day in the spy game. I would take years of cloak and dagger casualties over another Iraq, or Vietnam, or a World War. Geopolitics gonna geopoltic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real news is that it has emerged Swedish authorities wanted to drop this years ago and were "dissuaded" by UK authorities. Now that US extradition is likely, and a competing claim by Sweden would put that at risk, they conveniently withdraw - what are the chance they were "persuaded" by someone else, again? Sweden really did a number on Assange.
> and were "dissuaded" by UK authorities Do you have a source for that? > a competing claim by Sweden would put that at risk The prosecutor tried but a court in Uppsala refused the detention request so the Yanks got in first.
Spanish company, how far would they get with a GDPR request? Are security companies exempt?
The GDPR contains explicit exceptions for police and national security; see Recital 16, Article 23(1), etc.
Does anyone actually find this "shocking"? It's pretty much what I expected.
Why does it have to be shocking? Is that the gold standard of news nowadays? That it has to be shocking, or else it isn't newsworthy?
I'm just pointing out the over the top outrage.
It would be a better article if it just described what happened and why it's bad.