UK Court Denies Bid To Extradite Assange To the US (mercurynews.com) 151
A British court has ruled that Julian Assange can't be extradited to the United States on espionage charges unless U.S. authorities guarantee he won't get the death penalty, giving the WikiLeaks founder a partial victory in his long legal battle over the site's publication of classified American documents. From a report: Two High Court judges said they would grant Assange a new appeal unless U.S. authorities give further assurances within three weeks about what will happen to him. The ruling means the legal saga, which has dragged on for more than a decade, will continue -- and Assange will remain inside London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, where he has spent the last five years. Judges Victoria Sharp and Jeremy Johnson said the U.S. must guarantee that Assange, who is Australian, "is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed."
What crime (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What crime (Score:5, Informative)
That is the question. His detractors say he actually instigated Manning to deliver to him secret data. And that would make him an accomplice to espionage and would remove his protection as a journalist.
If Manning had gotten the data and given it to Assange without the latter having a hand in any of it to that point, that would be a different matter.
That is my take on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US laws that are unique to the US are no more applicable to Assange or other EU residents than GDPR and DMA are to US citizens and corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think extraditions are for?
If you break a law in one country but reside in another, if the two countries like each other, they'll arrange a little trip for you.
This usually only happens if what you did is also a crime in the country you're in.
Taking it to the extreme, if you shoot and kill someone across the border of a country, you didn't kill anyone in the country you were standing in. Who's law did you break?
Re: (Score:3)
There's all sorts of other extenuating circumstances such as fair treatment of a prisoner, political persecution, refugee status, etc that modify extraditions as well. Assange easily qualifies for s
Re: (Score:2)
If you think extradition is just something that happens automatically when a country wants its enemies sent back to them
It's hard to believe that anyone would think that in this case. It's been five years and the UK just imposed additional conditions. Clearly it doesn't just happen automatically.
Clearly, also, what the UK should do isn't as obvious as you're suggesting. Else it wouldn't have taken five years already.
Re: (Score:2)
US laws that are unique to the US
Except they aren't. For extradition to be successful a crime needs to be a crime in both jurisdictions. Espionage is not unique to the USA. Most countries have this as a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Also has to be roughly the same punishment. Canada won't extradite a murderer without assurances of no death penalty as one example.
Re: (Score:2)
Espionage is not unique to the USA. Most countries have this as a crime.
Espionage against the USA is not a crime in most countries. Russia actually hires people willing to do that, so obviously it's not a crime in Russia. And espionage against other countries is not a crime in the USA.
You'd just have to be careful not to do things that are a crime in both countries. Like killing someone to get at secret documents would be murder. Removing secret documents from a drawer might be burglary, but you usually don't get extradited for burglary.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries will absolutely extradite a wanted person in another country for a crime against another country that is not a crime in their country- as long as the extradition treaty that governs the exchange allows for it.
The UK (and most extradition treaties) do.
However, the caveat, is that the UK (and no modern European country) will extradite for a capital crime. An Espionage Act charge is a potentially capital offense, so he will not be extradited for it. And for that reason- he w
Re: (Score:2)
Two more. Wrong answer.
Assange is avoiding extradition by a kind of funny situation. The espionage act allows capital punishment. European states will not extradite if the person faces capital punishment.
If they were charging Assange with less, he would have been extradited.
Re:What crime (Score:4, Informative)
I hear your sentiments, but Assange is in the UK, and they speak English and not German because the US did precisely not fuck off
Hitler had given up plans to invade the UK long before the USA arrived. By the time the USA turned up the Royal Navy had sunk most of the German surface fleet with the remainder stuck in Norwegian Fyords because as soon as they ventured into the North Sea they were sunk, and the RAF destroyed most of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain finally ending Hitler's plans of an invasion. The USA only started to send aid and get involved once the British had won the Battle of Britain and it was obvious an invasion wasn't going to happen. Prior to that the policy of the USA was that it was a war in Europe and not to get involved because Britain was a lost cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, those German scientists weren't going to kidnap, uh, liberate themselves.
Re:What crime (Score:5, Informative)
Let's strive for accuracy here. Churchill was convinced that the only way Britain was going to win the war against Germany was to entice the US into the fight. Basically, the measure was ingot tons of steel and Britain was never going to compete with Germany on that score; the US was required to produce the materiel - ships, planes, artillery, tanks, small arms - to defeat Germany. It really wasn't about US soldiers; the Brits understood defeating Germany would be possible using their soldiery and the Commonwealth. But you couldn't have expected D-Day landings in Normandy; it would have been a more casualty-averse approach and the Soviets would have taken more of Europe.
Roosevelt on a personal level didn't like Germans, but he was intensely conscious of what happened to Wilson's popularity after intervening in WWI. He needed a good excuse. The actions of the US from 1940-41 can be interpreted as escalations slowly antagonizing Germany in a way that wasn't interpreted within the US as intervention. Occupying Iceland, the US navy convoying Brit merchant vessels halfway across the Atlantic, Lend-Lease, the 50 destroyer loan, etc.
Then the Japanese attacked Pearl, and Hitler gave the Western Allies a gift. He declared war on the US on 11 December. Roosevelt took the fait accompli and ran with it. He didn't have to beg Congress to fight the Nazis, which especially after Pearl might not have worked out the way he wanted.
So let's forget this lost cause bs and the effect of particular military operations. They were inconsequential to the actual motives of the parties.
Re: What crime (Score:2)
the Soviets would have taken more of Europe.
That was the only variable. Germans were doomed as soon as they invested two thirds of their army into the USSR.
It is a question of whether the French would be speaking Russian, rather than whether the English world be speaking German.
Re: (Score:2)
You are performing a Soviet style rewriting of history, not in defense of England but in a poor defense of Assange
Without the lend-lease destroyers and American ships and resources, German U boats would have starved both the English war building economy and the English people into submission. As it was, the Battle of Britain was a close affair and with much less ressources needed to build the spits and hurris, without the high octane gasoline needed to fuel them and without all the other resources England d
Re: (Score:2)
And here I was thinking it was the practical application of a rather new technology, Radar, that warned the RAF fighters suddenly long before the German planes crossed the channel to do their attacking. Instead of reacting close-by or over Britain, now a lot of battles could already play out over the Channel. And it is also a lot easier to planes around when and where they are actually needed. That increases the success rate of defending airspace tremendously.
That, and the Hurricane and Spitfire warplanes w
Re: (Score:2)
That, and the Hurricane and Spitfire warplanes were relatively easy to produce. Problem at the time was not having enough pilots to fly these. In the beginning the survival rate of a British fighter pilot was very low, think around 20 hours of flight time. At the end, with radar as their aid, the survival rate became much higher and now you had aerial fights between experienced pilots on both ends, with the Spitfire warplane outclassing the other planes, mainly by being more maneuverable than the other planes.
No, the problem was that Britain didn't have the fucking steel to make them, or the fuel to keep them going, or the money to pay for them.
By 1942, the US was sending Britain somewhere around $607 million in materiel a month.
By 1942, Britain was broke. And that's why we were sending that meteriel at zero cost to the Brits.
Sure, some American dipshit trolling your ass is worth chiding, but you're deluding yourself if you think Britain had a snowball's chance in hell of surviving WW2 without the US.
The G
Re: (Score:2)
However, Britain was in dire straits. There's a reason lend-lease materiel was provided at no cost. Britain was broke. It's ability to prosecute the war further was rapidly diminishing, while its enemy only grew stronger.
Re:What crime (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What crime (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah? Well, if France hadn't helped the newly born USA with weapons, troops and money, you'd be speaking ... well, English!
Re: (Score:3)
well, English!
Just a more colourful version.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps when Germany declared war on the USA, you should have surrendered instead of retaliating.
Re: (Score:2)
We had been keeping Britain afloat for 9 months at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country has laws regarding taking, receiving, and/or disseminating classified documents
Oh no, you're retarded.
They're not the same laws. They have different provisions, requirements, and stipulations to be guilty of them, and the information you need to leak is often specific to the country the law hails from.
UK law doesn't say it's illegal to share US government secrets.
Also, Assange didn't steal or receive the information, he just provided a platform where someone else linked them. Technically, he could probably argue Section 230 protection for this if it existed at that time, but
Re: (Score:2)
Does Assange have any obligation to protect US classified information? I don't think he does.
He does not. However, "instigating Manning to deliver to him secret data" would be "espionage" rather than an "obligation to protect classified information."
Re:What crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
while you're in the middle of a firefight
You are mistaken. The helicopters were a long way away, in no danger, there were no people who the helicopter was protecting, and there was no firefight going on. These were just people standing around on a street corner.
The US justified its actions in this case by a rule that they made which said that they could fire on anyone with a gun, and by the fact that earlier in the day some insurgents had shot at an American vehicle from a nearby location.
Exacerbating the problem was the fact that one of the
Re: (Score:2)
A valid argument against charges of treason, which Assange was not charged with.
If some nation catches you stealing their secrets, good luck with the "I never said I wouldn't!!" defense.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between duty to protect, which he arguably does not have, and inducement to procure such information through illegal means. These are issues for the finder of fact to determine.
If someone finds loose diamonds on the street, they might not be prosecuted for picking them up. However, if someone asks another to take a few diamonds home and hand them over, that is another thing.
Assange did not get much of a victory here. I suspect the U.S. government can easily assure the U.K. governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Does Assange have any obligation to protect US classified information? I don't think he does.
Assange had the obligation to protect US classified information if he wanted to live in a country with an extradition treaty with the US. And both the UK and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. A country's laws don't just apply to citizens, unless the country makes that stipulation in the law. If it is against US law to release classified information, that applies to all people anywhere in the world. I don't know the specifics of Russian or Chinese law, but I assume it is against their laws for a
Re: (Score:2)
Does Assange have any obligation to protect US classified information? I don't think he does.
Irrelevant. You don't need an obligation to protect classified information in order to be charged with espionage. In fact *most* charges are against foreign agents who expressly *don't* have such an obligation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what we'd normally do when someone outside the country inspired a citizen to send them classified data. As far as I've seen from other cases, nothing. Maybe put them on a no visa list. That's about it.
The US has convicted and imprisoned foreign spies before. Rudolf Abel is one example I found in a quick Google search. He was convicted for a 30 year sentence, but was released after four years in a prisoner exchange for a downed U-2 pilot.
Catching, prosecuting, and convicting spies is not that uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual foreign agents living overseas are never hunted down except for Assange.
Well, they aren't prosecuted. They may well be hunted down. How much that actually happens and how much it's just in thriller plots, I doubt anyone here knows, and if they know they almost certainly can't say.
But it's certainly plausible that the only reason Assange is being treated differently is because he's a public figure whose actions are known to the world, whereas a more typical spy would just be killed or maybe framed so his own country would put him in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The US indictment. Or one of them anyway:
https://int.nyt.com/data/docum... [nyt.com]
Re: (Score:3)
has he committed?
He embarrassed the USA by exposing all sorts of things. Eg the video of US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians [theguardian.com] -- none of the air crew have been prosecuted - which is hippocritical.
This is very much a case of shooting the messenger.
How can he be prosecuted by the U.S.? (Score:4, Insightful)
Under what legal theory can Assange, a non-U.S. citizen, be prosecuted for "crimes" that he didn't commit in the U.S.?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who count votes in most democracies are the people. Around here they tend to be retirees because they have the time to volunteer. US federal elections are run by the states and I think the actual mechanics can even vary at the local level, but it looks like it's mostly also regular people who sign up to do it.
The US has a quaint presidential election system where those votes don't necessarily matter, although in modern times they are used to select from a pool of actual voters who are appointed mostly
Re: (Score:2)
We have more guns - so everyone else doesn't have to, and counts on Uncle Sugar to keep them safe. I guess you are now surprised that there is some minimal cost for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a way to opt out of this protection racket?
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a way to opt out of this protection racket?
Sure. Declare strict neutrality, and pay for your own defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what we've been doing for a couple decades.
Now kindly piss off.
Re: (Score:2)
And other countries help out with facilitating US.Troops and equipment, transport of those, medical facilities over the globe....that all counts for nothing?
If you think your military is spending a lot already (and you would be right about that, but that is another discussion), imagine how much it would be if your military needed to pay for all of those facilities. Rammstein is a great example. How bad would it be for troops overseas, if those facilities there wouldn't be readily available anymore? Suddenly
Re: (Score:2)
We have more guns than everyone else.
It's not even that so much as "Do as we say or we cut off trade/investment/loans/grants".
America may be in decline, but it still has a lot of influence, money-wise.
Re: (Score:2)
We have more guns than everyone else.
It's not even that so much as "Do as we say or we cut off trade/investment/loans/grants".
America may be in decline, but it still has a lot of influence, money-wise.
First world problems: we have all the guns, money, and influence but our country is "in decline" because the price of chicken nuggets is up this week and someone has purple hair.
Re: (Score:2)
First world problems: we have all the guns, money, and influence but our country is "in decline" because the price of chicken nuggets is up this week and someone has purple hair.
In case you haven't been to a grocery store, car dealership, realtor, college bursar, etc lately, the price of pretty much everything is up. Maybe you're making so much money that you hadn't noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you?
Forgive my question, but the U.S.A. has been fighting many wars over the years all over the world. Citing costs as a reason, they hardly ship back any of the weaponry that was used in those wars. But not being shipped back doesn't mean the actual weaponry is out of existence.
Youtube is lately filling up my 'next to view'-videos with youtubers from the U.S.A. showing and using their guns for some reason, so I am quite sure your claim will be close to the truth. Still, weapons tend to last quite a long
Re:How can he be prosecuted by the U.S.? (Score:4, Informative)
Under what legal theory can Assange, a non-U.S. citizen, be prosecuted for "crimes" that he didn't commit in the U.S.?
The legal principle is that you cannot direct harm from another state however something has to be an offence in both nations. He isn't being prosecuted in the UK, he's been held as a result of an extradition request. He was prosecuted and served time for jumping bail but continued to be held because of the extradition request and how much of a flight risk he posed.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK and US have an extradition treaty. IANAL but the general guideline, as I understand it, is that if the UK agrees that what Assange is accused of is a crime under UK law, the UK may send him to the US to be prosecuted for that crime.
In the extreme case: If you were to take out a contract for a hitman to kill someone on US soil, you better believe someone's going to try to extradite you whether or not you happened to be in the US at the time you took out the contract.
Re:How can he be prosecuted by the U.S.? (Score:4, Informative)
Canada won't extradite to the US if the death penalty is on the table either. There are limits to the extradition treaties.
Re:How can he be prosecuted by the U.S.? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How can he be prosecuted by the U.S.? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just as a complement, to me the most important argument is that it isn't necessary. It is sometimes necessary to kill during intervention to protect the life of innocents, but when someone reaches Court, there isn't a necessity anymore. The main goal of justice, which is to protect society (the main goal isn't to punish), can be accomplished by the less drastic solution of very long jail time, and government power should always use the solution of minimum intervention that still solves the issue.
The argument was made by Montesquieu ("every punishment which does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical") and brought to fame against death penalty by Beccaria when defining the 3 guiding principles of penal law: principle of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Re: (Score:2)
To me the most compelling argument is a corollary to your point. Because death is final and courts are fallible, we in the US bend over backwards allowing all sorts of extra appeals and judicial processes to reduce the likelihood that we kill someone who is an innocent. Aside from the point that we still execute innocents even with that big extra helping of court procedure, the fact is that the extra procedure costs the state so much to carry out that it is cheaper to lock them up for life with no possibili
Re: (Score:2)
that he didn't commit in the U.S.?
According to the charges, he helped hack into an American system. If there are effects to a country for a crime, that country may very well consider themselves to have jurisdiction. The whole thing is such nonsense anyway, like he is not an American, why should he be held to keep US state secrets? This should have ended with Manning being found guilty. So he helped crack a hash? And he is effectively being imprisoned for this for a decade now?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it's called an extradition request, not an extradition order.
Extradition orders have historically been delivered by the US military; just ask Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.
Re: (Score:2)
If I, as an American, get ahold of Japanese secret documents in the U.S., you don't think Japanese law would apply to me? I never set foot in Japan and am not a Japanese citizen.
Japanese law would not apply to you just because you received Japanese secret documents.
However, if You conspired with someone in Japan to assist them to steal those documents and deliver them to you in the US, then a charge for the conspiracy could apply, And they could request extradition in that case which could be granted if
Re:How can he be prosecuted by the U.S.? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. A civilian who holds no collateral clearance has no duty to guard the secrecy of classified documents, nor does he have a duty to not to further disseminate them. If he helped steal them in the first place he could be in hot water however.
Re: (Score:2)
Under what legal theory can Assange, a non-U.S. citizen, be prosecuted for "crimes" that he didn't commit in the U.S.?
The indictment said conspiracy to violate sections of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act.
The crimes happened in the US, and Assange allegedly committed acts advancing the crime that happened in the US as a conspirator.
A conspirator can be physically located ANYWHERE, and you're still subject to extradition -- as Long as that type of conspiracy would also be a crime in the country they were lo
Re: (Score:2)
Under what legal theory can Assange, a non-U.S. citizen, be prosecuted for "crimes" that he didn't commit in the U.S.?
How can the state of Texas prosecute Pornhub, a Canadian company registered in Luxembourg. First day on the Internet?
Re: (Score:3)
They can't. They CAN prosecute any part of Pornhub that enters Texas, or maybe other states in the US. Lol, Pornhub enters Texas.
The US can't prosecute Assange while he's in the UK either. That's why they've asked the Brits to pretty please put him in handcuffs, toss him on an airplane and send him there.
Re: (Score:2)
Under what legal theory can Assange, a non-U.S. citizen, be prosecuted for "crimes" that he didn't commit in the U.S.?
The crime and victim are US based. Not being a citizen doesn't make you immune from laws. Not being in the country is precisely the reason extradition treaties exist, and there are rules and processes in place for this.
This is all well understood legal theory. The question of legal jurisdiction isn't even up for debate here. That has already been passed and found to be valid by courts in both countries. Now it's down to procedure.
Not denied (Score:2)
Wtf made the editors think this is a denial? This is a pretty standard requirement even when extradition is granted.
Re: (Score:2)
Wtf made the editors think this is a denial? This is a pretty standard requirement even when extradition is granted.
If you want non-clickbait headlines you came to the wrong website.
Just stay away from News in general. Its all like that. More for entertainment than information.
Re: Not denied (Score:2)
This even sounds like they're granting extradition rather than denying it. The way they're talking, so long as the US meets these terms, Assange won't be allowed to appeal any further. That also means they've established dual criminality, meaning what he did is also illegal in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you want non-clickbait headlines you came to the wrong website.
I don't know about you but I come to slashdot to be gaslit and belittled and by golly, they've always delivered!
Hold on... (Score:3)
Is it illegal in the UK to spy on the US?
If not, what exact reason would there be to extradite him? Even the accusation is rubbish.
Re: (Score:2)
The dark secret is that, while it's illegal for the USA to spy on it's own citizens, the UK spy centres are outside of US jurisdiction. Meanwhile, while there are likewise some restrictions on what UK intelligence can look into of its own citizens, the US is outside of UK jurisdiction. So - hey.. You give me what you've got, and I'll give you what I have.
This has been going on for decades: A brilliant means of gaining any information on anyone at any time without n
Re: (Score:2)
If not, what exact reason would there be to extradite him?
Criminal conspiracy to hack a government system.
It's similar to the thing overseas malware authors can be charged with due to the actions of their software.
Specifically from the indictment [justice.gov]:
Re: (Score:2)
Probably the reasons in this treaty between the UK and USA
https://assets.publishing.serv... [service.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Is it illegal in the UK to spy on the US?
Yes. Espionage is illegal in the UK.
(although, of course... the Government is allowed to do it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it illegal in the UK to spy on the US?
The laws do not specify specifically on who needs to be spied on. The act is illegal in both countries.
Even the accusation is rubbish.
Two courts, including appeal courts in two different countries disagree with you and have found the accusation perfectly valid and grounds present to grant extradition. Your ignorance of the law does not set a legal precedent in the system.
Isn't this standard? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is standard. This really is non-news, except for the fact it involves Julian Assange.
Re: (Score:2)
This really is non-news
What's weird is that it is represented as a win for Assange, when it actually foreshadows a win for the US. It sounds like they're ready to rule for the US, they just need the formal assurance.
The US absolutely does not ever seek the death penalty for this sort of crime, the US courts wouldn't even allow that if they tried. It's in the law in case it happens during a major (WWII-level) war.
Re: (Score:3)
It's standard and when was the last time we executed a spy anyway?
I believe that was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg [wikipedia.org] - in 1953.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Federal executions (Score:2)
The US Federal Government has only executed 16 people since 1963 [wikipedia.org], and all them committed murder. The last federal execution that did not involve murder was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 for stealing and selling nuclear secrets (and much more) to the USSR. There was only one other set of executions by the US for espionage and sabotage, which was for the roles six men played in the Nazi's Operation Pastorius [wikipedia.org] during WW2.
In other words, in the modern era, people have only been executed by the US Federal Go
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no way Assange would get the death penalty even if found totally guilty.
Sure.. however it's still a legal objection they could raise to the extradition, and the court Likely still has to address it as a matter of formality. The death penalty is still on the books in the US, and the country handing him over doesn't necessarily know what the full set of charges will be - just the charges giving rise to the request for extradition
Re: (Score:3)
Well, officially and publicly anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
you don't know that. All of them were convicted of murder. Given the accuracy of the judicial system outs a stretch to say for sure they all did commit murder. And that is the core problem with execution. Judicial systems are flawed, but execution is final.
Free speech argument is important... (Score:2)
I would love to see a legal expert explain if "New York Times Co. v. United States" applies to the Assange case and if not, why not.
Re: (Score:2)
It does apply, in the sense that there has never been any suggestion that he would, should or could be charged with publishing secret documents. Nor, really, any suggestion that he should have offered the documents up for review to some censorship body before publishing them.
The US charges involve conspiracy to steal secret documents, and accessory to stealing secret documents. If he had sat back and waited for the documents to come to him, and then published them, as the New York Times did, he'd probably
Re: (Score:2)
What country was Assange residing in at the time the alleged crime took place?
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see a legal expert explain if "New York Times Co. v. United States" applies to the Assange case and if not, why not.
Assange is not being charged with anything even remotely related to speech or publishing. Free speech argument is not only not important, it's completely off topic. Your right to free speech does not grant you immunity from charges of gaining unauthorised entry to a computer, or espionage.
I don't think we actually want the headache. (Score:2)
What color of American citizen? (Score:2)
Huge miscalculation (Score:2)
He flew to the UK. Then behaviour he could be arrested and extradited to Sweden, he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy where he holed up for a few years. At some point he was asked to leave, and promptly arrested for breaking his bail conditions. Sweden dropped their charges, so now the only extradition requ
A satisfying solution (Score:2)
Julian Assange and death penalty...... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Assange is a prisoner right now exclusively because he skipped on bail. Politics has zero to do with it. Most people awaiting extradition don't normally do so from jail, that is reserved for idiots who disobey judges.
Re: (Score:2)