This is horrifying. As a European I'm afraid to even visit the USA. I'd expect this from some third world hellhole but not from a country which professes to have the rule of law.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/supreme-court-cr...
> Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that "regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications" and that any risk of undermining border security provides a "reason to hesitate."
Basically absolutely nothing will happen, except maybe your country's foreign ministry wagging a finger at US, if that.
The more insidious stuff to my mind is anything that can be made to look fuzzy or complicated.
The populace gets divided on tiny/minute details and speculation, even _if_ they discuss things, which is not a given when it's something that can be made to look unclear or contested.
It's true that you have no rights as a non-US citizen at the US border, you can be detained for any reason on entry; so ask yourself: Would the media be interested in the fact you got detained for 9hrs? Even if you were abused in custody? (and not provably so).
I think that's unlikely, but that's a big deal to most people.
1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not).
2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not).
3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't).
But, for the sake of refuting what you _actually_ said, lets go with "Western as an economic definition":
From Wikpedia:
-----8<-----
The term "Western world" is sometimes interchangeably used with the term First World or developed countries, stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. This usage occurs despite the fact that many countries that may be culturally "Western" are developing countries – in fact, a significant percentage of the Americas are developing countries. It is also used despite many developed countries or regions not being Western (e.g. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), and therefore left out when "Western world" is used to denote developed countries. Privatization policies (involving government enterprises and public services) and multinational corporations are often considered a visible sign of Western nations's economic presence, especially in Third World countries, and represent common institutional environment for powerful politicians, enterprises, trade unions and firms, bankers and thinkers of the Western world.
----->8-----
So, "Western" is often used interchangably with first world; Countries in the first world, also according to wikipedia:
-----8<-----
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The Western-aligned countries included:
Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan
The neutral countries included:
Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and (now former) Yugoslavia.
----->8-----
This is because "First world"/"Western" has roots in the cold war.
"Second world" == Soviet bloc
"Third world" == everywhere else. (yes, that's a tepid definition when you think about it because most people take it to mean impoverished)
> According to Samuel P. Huntington, some countries are torn on whether they are Western or not, with typically the national leadership pushing for Westernization, while historical, cultural and traditional forces remaining largely non-Western. [...] Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington.
(Hi dijit!)
This boy was killed at the U.S. border. Anytime nobody makes an effort to address something, it is de facto acceptable. There might be solid reasons it is not being addressed, such as lack of power, or too high a cost to attempt to put pressure on the U.S. But it remains the case that it is currently considered acceptable.
But even murdering people for fun on the border seems to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg
Outrage happens too. But reprecussions?
From the looks of it, a guy turned up to the border with an illegal substance in a drinking bottle; proceeded to drink it, and the officer gestured and the person took another few sips. Before succumbing to an overdose because it was a highly concentrated narcotic.
I don't think this is a defence or support of anything, I don't have more facts like: what was said, where did the drugs come from, was coercion involved, etc;
It just looks sad, certainly not an indictment of border officials.
We in the 5-eyes nations are all proxy subjects of the USA now. Our militaries no longer answer to us.
I understand the long history of cooperation between the US and UK (not always balanced) but has anything substantive changed since, or because of, Brexit?
I'm from Germany, and I can totally see things like this could happen here too.
But they do refer to the complete publishing of the diplomatic cable, where apparently quite some irakian sources were mentioned in plain text, or with enough information to identify them.
So it is possible, that indeed people died of it. (killed by ISIS or alike) And this point is also the weakest in the defence of Assange in my point of view. (generaly speaking. I am not in favor of extradicting him)
Because the goal of the leaks was to uncover war crimes etc. But by just publishing everything, even though wikileaks worked with newspapers before to especially prevent informants from being exposed, he went over the line.
On the other hand, the whole invasion of iraq was against all international right. So from that point of view Assange did not care for informants for the US. (he actually said so, said some press people involved)
In fact, Assange made extra efforts to warn the White House that the leaks had been published with cleartext names.
So no, nobody died because Assange published leaked data. If anybody got into trouble at all because their names were revealed, its because German journalists published the password to decrypt the files containing the names of informants involved.
So, this is an even worse travesty of justice on top of the existing torture, already.
"It was German journalists who revealed the names in the leaks, not Wikileaks/Assange."
British, not german:
"In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full Cablegate file."
And he also did only revealed the password.
"Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to him"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
And after that password was revealed, Assange said, now state actors could decrypt it, it is better to just publish it, so everyone can read it.
I can't imagine where this is going to lead if Assange is not freed as a result of these proceedings. We are watching the West eat itself.
I can strongly recommend the book by the Secret Barrister:
".. if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed."
https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/being-black-eu#Tab...
Perhaps Europe could learn a thing or two from US culture.
> Normal courts in this country are public buildings, deliberately placed by our ancestors right in the centre of towns, almost always just up a few steps from a main street. The major purpose of their positioning and of their architecture was to facilitate public access in the belief that it is vital that justice can be seen by the public... When enquiring about facilities for the public to attend the hearing, an Assange activist was told by a member of court staff that we should realise that Woolwich is a “counter-terrorism court”. That is true de facto, but in truth a “counter-terrorism court” is an institution unknown to the UK constitution. Indeed, if a single day at Woolwich Crown Court does not convince you the existence of liberal democracy is now a lie, then your mind must be very closed indeed.
Something very fishy is going on here, it seems. So while the proceedings might appear to be above board, it seems that Mr Murray (the reporter here) is convinced of otherwise:
> It’s the Lubyanka.
[0] https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-...
I don't think this is anything to be concerned about - and I believe building courts attached to prisons where people are held pending arraignment or trial is common practice in many countries for the same practical reasons, including some which are arguably in the interests of the defendants (it facilitates a speedy trial for example and can offer them and their defence team better physical security where they might be widely hated eg terrorist suspects or high profile murder trials).
:)
I'm not sure if it's quite as distinct here where it's an extradition hearing though.