Bolivia Demands Assange Apologize For Deliberately False Leaks To the US 161
Rei writes In 2013, during Edward Snowden's brief and chaotic search for asylum that ultimately landed him in Russia, the US faced criticism for handing information to various European nations that Bolivian president Evo Morales was smuggling him out of Russia, leading to the grounding of his flight. In a new twist, in the documentary Terminal F about this time period, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange admitted that he was the one who deliberately leaked the fake information to the US government. Bolivia has been none too pleased with this news and is now demanding that Assange apologize for putting their president's life at risk.
Huh? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's been asked by the Bolivian ambassador to call their president to apologize. This is certainly not a bad thing, and certainly not uncalled for.
It could be a good opportunity to repair relations with an ally.
Assange apologise? That'll be a first. (Score:2, Insightful)
In his eyes he can do no wrong so what does he have to apologise for? If the president had died, well, just collateral damage for the greater good, right?
Re: (Score:1)
The US government had no business grounding the flight regardless of the correctness of the information.
This is a typical case of victim blaming.
Snowden didn't call for the plane to be grounded. The US government did, and they are the ones who should apologize to the Bolivian president.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The plane was barred overflight. The plane could have legitimately run out of fuel before being able to land. It was a real concern because once you can't fly over European airspace you just added 1000 miles to the trip.
Re: (Score:2)
Non-issue. The plane declares a fuel emergency and is immediately cleared for the nearest runway.
There would be issues to sort out after. But it is that simple. Fuel emergency (or any emergency) == landing clearance.
You might recall an American military spy plane that landed in China after being rammed by a Chinese fighter.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the bulk of the last 75% of the flight is diagonally across the Atlantic where there are no islands where would you suggest they land. Maybe you should trace a map from Moscow to Belize that isn't allowed to cross European airspace to understand the concern that without the required fuel the plane would crash in the Atlantic.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd stop drinking so much of the Assange Kool Aid if I were you and pay a visit to fanboy detox.
Re: (Score:3)
It could be a good opportunity to repair relations with an ally.
Yep - let's hope he's a smart enough opportunist to leverage the situation. Remember, the USG thought the Bolivia scenario was plausible enough to take extreme illegal action. So that confirms a willingness.
Re: (Score:2)
He's been asked by the Bolivian ambassador to call their president to apologize. This is certainly not a bad thing, and certainly not uncalled for.
It could be a good opportunity to repair relations with an ally.
So once again, based on false evidence, the United States decided to risk war by forcing down another countries Presidents airplane, just so the USA could check to see if a fugitive was on it.
While it's possible Snowden paid a part in this, it was the USA choice to risk war by forcing the Bolivian plane. Snowden isn't the bad guy here, the USA still is.
Re: (Score:1)
You're a looney. That's how it's always been said, about any country.
And more snarkily; What do you mean "we"? Can you please stop referring to the postings of a handful of people as if those were from all of us? My guess is the average person couldn't care less.
Re: (Score:3)
Prison (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that.
There's bogus info being spread all the time; a lot of it by political operatives. The next couple of years promises neck-deep bullshit on an industrial scale.
Sometimes, I would love to see folks go to jail for that, but really, the fault lies in the idiots that brought the story.
Re: (Score:1)
We have had neck deep bullshit since the first president.
http://www.mountvernon.org/res... [mountvernon.org]
The united States of America has been living on a foundation of lies and bullshit from day one. This is what our country is founded on and built for.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you name a country that isn't? America is hardly the oldest country.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean leaking false information is a crime because it led to the US government doing something illegal?
I'm sorry, but embarrassing the USA is not a crime. The US government does it every day.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you think that this is an OK way to treat human beings? Would all the people who cared for you when you were young be proud to hear you say things like this, or do you think they would be ashamed?
Re: (Score:1)
Traitors? He's Australian and wanted for questioning for allegations of breaking a condom(purportedly with the intention of doing so).
Who did he betray? Safe sex? Durex Condoms? The accuser's pussy troll?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
False. He's wanted on four charges (which there have been now two court findings of probable cause on review of the evidence). The condom one is only molestation, one of the most minor charges he stands accused of. The most major of the four is rape, for F*ing a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to unprotected sex with her (the second most serious charge is unlawful sexual coersion, for pinning down a girl and trying to pry her legs open against her resistance until she agreed to sleep wit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be more specific, from the EAW:
Re:Prison (Score:4, Insightful)
It becomes very interesting however, when the injured party is no longer a party. Didn't the woman say she wanted nothing to do with the prosecution here and they are continuing on without her?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, she did not. This is, again, the problem with the Assange echo chamber.
The leaked police report states that the interviewer saw that she (SW) looked distracted and decided to terminate the interview, that she then consented to a rape kit, and requested a legal respresentative. Her legal representative, Claes Borgström, then pushed the case on for her, including filing the appeal that got her portion of the case reopened when it was were briefly closed (AA's portion was never closed)
Are we supposed
Re: (Score:2)
Except that she has. Not that the investigation has anything to do with her; it's to haul Assange to the US.
Re: (Score:1)
Asserting something does not make it true. She absolutely has NOT. There is literally zero evidence to back up your claim, and a wealth of evidence that states clearly otherwise.
Re: (Score:1)
Well I don't want to interrupt your guys pissing match but I _did_ read that she did on her very own twitter after which she deleted it.
Re: (Score:2)
SW doesn't even have a twitter account. You're confusing AA and SW. And AA mentioned in a forum conversation just last year that she was the victim of an assault and the perpetrator was never brought to justice, and that his followers still continue to smear her for daring to report it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood that reasoning. Britain has been our lapdog for a long time now. Why would we want to move Assange to Sweden, with Sweden swearing not to extradite him anywhere without British permission, if the idea was to bring him to the US? If we did bring him here, what would we do with him? What US laws has he broken?
Re: (Score:2)
One did walk away, because she was disgusted with being used.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but the EAW lists them as charges. They're listed as charge #1, charge #2, charge #3, and charge #4. Asserting otherwise doesn't make it the truth.
Every level of the UK court system ruled the EAW warrant validly issued. Your parroting of Assange's lawyer's arguments that got torn up in court doesn't make them fact.
I could pick any of the UK rulings on this matter, but just at random I'll take the lower court's:
Re: (Score:2)
There is an EAW which lists four charges. This is what the UK courts work with. They have ruled it valid, properly issued, and in force, at every level of the courts system.
In Sweden, Assange is not "charged" for the simple matter that the Swedish court system use British/American laws and English language; nobody in Sweden will ever be "charged" because that is not a Swedish word. This may sound like nitpicking but it's actually a key point. The english concept of "charging" is under Swedish law split into
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A case could probably be made against Assange for aiding and abetting in the theft and compromise of Australian and Commonwealth defence secrets due to the assistance he provivded Snowden.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now let's be happy and rejoice that you aren't the president of anything. Just a Slashdot hot-air.
Re: (Score:2)
So you recommending they Pick up the American President and all of Congress? Because All they do is play those games.
As an american, I completely support that. 100% disgusted with all of Congress and the President. Can they grab all the Republican and Democratic politicians in the country as well?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but dont blame Snowden.
Quite right, but I think you meant Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
but dont blame Snowden
Agreed. But what about Assange?
Re:hes not the one to blame. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, Assange may have thrown out some false information.
But diverting a presidential plane against diplomatic immunity, forcing it to land, and searching it?
That is entirely to be owned by the countries who did it and the country who asked for it.
Even if he was on a presidential plane, they had no legal right to divert it or search it.
Assange is an ass, and he may have lied, but the stuff that was done to divert the Bolivian presidents plane was flat out illegal according to diplomatic rules. And that has nothing to do with Assange.
He could apologize in case he needs another place to hole up. But he sure isn't responsible for what was actually done with that information.
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is an ass, and he may have lied, but the stuff that was done to divert the Bolivian presidents plane was flat out illegal according to diplomatic rules.
Assange was at the controls of the F22 that had a RADAR lock on the President's plane.
Created danger. Doncha know. All his fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Given Assange's past, I doubt he had anything to do with it. He's an attention whore and his 15 minutes of fame flamed out years ago. He's tried to find the spotlight ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
Whom did he throw the bone to? Was it to the NSA, who were listening to his calls? How else? He must have told someone that he was on that plane. He most certainly didn't call up the White House to tell them. He must have told someone, knowing full well that person would rat him out, or he knew his calls and emails were being monitored in real time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And presidents have diplomatic immunity. Just as monarchs do (so why you brought it up is anyone's guess). It's why your president or senators can travel in many places without being kidnapped to face war crime tribunals.
PART OF that soverign immunity is the agreement to accord the laws of international agreement.
The drug enforcement agencies have large powers by international agreement. If a country decided to arrest all the DEA officers for drug offences the USA would go, literally, ballistic. Nuclear, ev
Re: (Score:2)
Assange is just a SWATing early adopter.
Disinfo is the oldest game in the book. Assange is stuck in a hole in London due to the oldest. :sigh:
Re:hes not the one to blame. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hes not the one to blame. (Score:4, Informative)
By the way, has Bolivia asked for (and gotten) an apology from any of those countries?
According to reports, yes.
Assurances they'll never do such a thing again? Hardly. Violate the treaty and send the Ambassador to apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The UK court that approved extradition found that the offenses he was being extradited for constituted sexual assault, making he eligible for extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheney. Plame. (Score:2)
Cheney and his little cohort committed cold blooded murdered when they outed Valerie Plame and her Iranian anti-nuke intel program. Just to get even with her husband. That's Kingpin-level asshole murder. Any Iranian associated with her front groups was tortured to death as a traitor.
Bill Kristol is floating the idea that Cheney should run for President this week. I don't see Cheney imprisoned in any embassy. I don't see roboposters slamming his rep and spreading false charges on every. single. thread. on. t
Re: (Score:2)
Espionage. It's a dirty game.
Re:What. The. Hell. (Score:5, Funny)
What is that Assange guy doing?
Masterfully trolling the US government?
I mean, c'mon... Getting us to take down a plane carrying the president of a sovereign nation? Fucking beautiful!.
And can you deny that we deserve it, for listening to intelligence from someone actively resisting extradition not because he fears because he fears a cushy Swedish prison, but because he fears subsequent rendition to the US?
Re:What. The. Hell. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not just a stunt: It also let him find out how much the US wanted him by testing their willingness to take extreme action. If they are going to risk a major diplomatic incident, then it means he has very good reason to be paranoid and should start assuming every stranger he sees is potentially a CIA deniable assassin.
Re: (Score:2)
How did Assange "give" them that intel?
Re: (Score:3)
This.
Assange is a blowhard.
Title (Score:2)
And who is going to apologize for that title grammar?
Re: (Score:3)
What is the grammatical error you perceive to be present?
Re: (Score:2)
Could be me. Took multiple readings to understand the structure of that phrase. Capitalisation might be to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of "demands" with little context to determine at that point whether it was a verb or a noun probably didn't help.
Capitalisation might be to blame.
Title case for news headlines is a ridiculous tradition that deserves to die.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, okay, I can see the point about noun vs. verb. I'm not sure that non-title capitalization would have helped, but now that you mention it, it is kind of a silly tradition.
I suppose this could have been cleared up by adding the word 'that', e.g. "Bolivia Demands that Assange Apologize". It's an assumed word in this particular context. Another option might have been "Bolivia Demands Apology from Assange" or some such. Really, though, this is semantics more than grammar.
Apologies from more than just Assange? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Assange SHOULD apologise. After all, he was risking the life of a head of state (admittedly, the risk was probably fairly minimal). That said, it seems like Morales deserves an apology from a lot of countries, including the U.S. Right or wrong, it would be the diplomatic thing to do. Not apologizing just reinforces the perception of the U.S. as imperialist/bullying. It seems like France is the only one to have issued an apology so far...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
Apologies already offered (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Morales has already gotten apologies from the countries involved. The new information here is that Assange lied in an effort to precipitate an incident like this.
So anybody care to tell me why Assange is such a reputable source that the U.S. will drop their pants when he points at his dick? Will they bomb Russia when he says that they plan a nuclear attack?
The U.S. intelligence agencies really are hard to beat in all of the categories of stupid, dangerous, and useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Who did he lie to, again? Did he phone them up and tell them, or did he drop that turd on the NSA listeners? Either way, he didn't point any gun at anyone.
WE DID.
Re: (Score:3)
What's the precident here? I don't think grounding and searching the presidential plane of another world leader was a reasonable act. It's not reasonable to blame Assange for failing to anticipating it. If you lied to your spouse about going to the bar and drinking with your friends instead of working late and that caused them to show up and shoot everyone there, are you responsible for their insanity? It is reasonable for Bolivia to be upset that Assange got them mixed up in the whole affair, but in no
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I do wonder if he thought that US allies would never stoop to stopping a diplomatic flight, and that it was safer than selecting a commercial flight and dangering the public, or whether he chose the president's flight *because* it would cause a diplomatic incident.
There's a plus side for the Bolivians (and anyone who isn't absolutely behind the US), they now know that their diplomatic flights are not secure.
Re: (Score:2)
If he was risking the life of a head of state then the US was happy to risk his life to apprehend him no?
Perhaps Assange should ask Obama for an apology.
drama queen (Score:1)
heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Something of a dick move. But it highlighted the kinds of crap USA can pull with virtual impunity.
Misplace anger (Score:3, Insightful)
Something of a dick move. But it highlighted the kinds of crap USA can pull with virtual impunity.
Got any of that anger available for Russia and China, who both also consistently do all kinds of nasty things "with virtual impunity"?
Re: (Score:1)
Why should we not be pissed at China and Russia too? Our anger is not exclusive to this, but this is the story for which is being presented now and anger rightly shown toward. China and Russia will be another day.
Re: (Score:1)
I might, if I lived there, or if it affected me. I can't be angry about everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence that the US had any hand in this particular incident? From what I have read this was all on Spain, France, Italy and Austria that got a little overzealous when they were notified of the possibility of Snowden being on the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, conspiracy theories, no actual evidence. Thank you for playing the game.
Shows just how far the U.S. will go to get him (Score:5, Interesting)
If they'll forcibly ground the Presidential plane from a sizable country, do you really think they wouldn't stoop to trumping up some rape charges and put a little pressure on Sweden too?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they bother? Sweden is less likely to cooperate with the US government than the UK is. If they really wanted him, they'd have just gotten the UK to extradite him, instead of fiddling around with getting Sweden to extradite him from the UK, then extraditing him from Sweden....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You would think so. But apparently Assange enjoys broad public support in the UK, putting the government in a bit of a tough spot [justice4assange.com]. As bad as they want to suck Obama cock, they're already under mounting public criticism just for spending so much [theguardian.com] to guard the Ecuadorian Embassy. If they openly extradited him the U.S., they would likely face riots in the streets.
Even extraditing him to Sweden had most UK politicians all but pissing in their trousers in cowardly fear. If they weren't such pathetic U.S. lapdogs,
I know you didn't ask wanting an answer (Score:3, Informative)
But you're going to get one anyway.
Sweden have this law that they can extradite people back to their country of origin if they committed an offence in the country, but IF they're wanted by someone else for a crime, they can extradite to that third party country. What Sweden are doing is NOT charging him, since if they did, they'd have to send him to court FIRST, and if they find him guilty, would have to jail him first. But as long as they don't actually charge him, they can just kick him out. HOWEVER, they
Re: (Score:1)
This properly describes the game rules. Sweden, and the woman Assange slept with, has no interest in Assange. The US is in cahoots with Sweden to grab Assange for crimes against America.
The Assange case is cold ... cold as Snowden is becoming.
Any perceived threats and damages by either are historically interesting.
Appreciate that Snowden does not have any documents, so this applies to him.
Handing people over (Score:1)
Yes. One strong consideration in regards to the UK is that just handing people over to foreign governments (US or otherwise) doesn't work quite as well for high-profile persons. Sure, some people are going to be upset if you hand over "random person X" to a foreign power where he/she may likely be tortured or abused, but in many cases those people might not even be in a position to know it was done by the government, just that Bob didn't show up for work one day and nobody knows where he is.
If the UK govern
Re: (Score:1)
Publicity.
Get Assange on espionage charges, and you make a martyr. No matter what you do to him, he'll remain a hero to many. But get him on a rape conviction and you destroy his reputation: His supporters will shuffle uncomfortably away, and no institution of media will continue to defend him.
Re: (Score:1)
There are no "rape charges". Never were. He's wanted, by order of a single right-wing prosecutor which our intel boys carefully selected, to answer questions about not using a condom once during a threesome - a session be conducted only on a particular spot next to a convenient airport for the US to snatch him up and drag him to a kangaroo trial wherever they care to hold one. If they even bother to charge him. They refuse to ask the questions anywhere but where the US can snatch him. For this he's been in
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "rape charges". Never were. He's wanted, by order of a single right-wing prosecutor which our intel boys carefully selected, to answer questions about not using a condom once during a threesome - a session be conducted only on a particular spot next to a convenient airport for the US to snatch him up and drag him to a kangaroo trial wherever they care to hold one. If they even bother to charge him. They refuse to ask the questions anywhere but where the US can snatch him. For this he's been in
Re: (Score:1)
I love how multi-governmental conspiracy theories are more plausible to some people than sexual assault allegations.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, considering that a multi-governmental conspiracy has been proven while the sexual assault has not I love that too.
It reinforces some of my lost faith in humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, yes - but only because Assange really is someone of such high profile that a government conspiracy is not only plausable, but expected. America pulled strings and had a presidential plane grounded on just an unconfirmed suspicion Assange might be aboard - do you think their moral standards would prohibit them meddling in Swedish law enforcement?
Re: (Score:2)
If they'll forcibly ground the Presidential plane from a sizable country, do you really think they wouldn't stoop to trumping up some rape charges and put a little pressure on Sweden too?
The plane of the President of Bolivia was not forcibly grounded. If you want to claim that, which country used fighter jets to force it down? It was denied transit of airspace. Do you deny that nations control their airspace?
The sexual assault allegation against Assange came from women that everyone acknowledges were his sex partners, not from the US embassy. Rape is a serious crime in Sweden, why do you think Swedish prosecutors wouldn't investigate the allegations?
How do you think the US could influen
Re: (Score:3)
Kicked around not just large powers but NGO's too (Score:2)
Do it again. (Score:2)
F*** all of these a-holes, see if they fall for it twice, aim for a more important leader next time.
yeah, not too surprising (Score:1)
He has proven that he will go to great lengths to get what HE wants, regardless of whom it damages.
Re: (Score:2)
When he spoke about the spying on Americans, he was doing the right thing.
When he spoke about the NSA spying on other nations and terrorists, he became a traitor.
The reason is that the NSA was set up to SPECIFICALLY to spy on other nations, terrorists, foreigners, etc.
And consider that just about every nation in this world attempts to do the SAME THING, and regards it as legal, means that it is legal for NSA TO DO THE SAME.
Thanks for the info.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, my personal stalker returns. How's life in the bushes over there?