Assange to face extradition
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
And what do they want to put him on trial for? That should be obvious even to the blindest buffoon. Lets not forget, the reason (he said) he wouldn't go to Sweden for the rape investigation he undoubtedly should have faced, was because he feared Sweden would allow him to be deported to the US to face 175 years in jail for exposing information about war crimes. 'Oh no, that wont happen' they said, but look where we are now.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
yes, your daftness is quite shocking.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
I am shocked you should resort to lies. Add to that teqniq trying to make a thing of stating that he’s not been found guilty rape in a court of law, and that the rape of two women is just lolz anyway and we are at classic Assange here. Epic stuff you two.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
what lies? You're the one making shite up.
Assange is being threatened with deportation because he exposed war crimes. That has absolutely nothing to do with his sexual crimes.
I hope you never have to be a union rep or owt - 'this guy is being unfairly dismissed' 'yeah, but he's a shit and I dont like him'
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
What do you think it’s about then? It’s not about sexual assault, it’s about exposing war crimes, crimes you seem to think are just ‘lolz’
so sorry that he’s only facing extradition so far, rather than the explicit trial, but if you can’t tell A leads directly to B, then that’s your problem.
Future tense. So, we agree he is currently not on trial for "exposing war crimes" at all. Its an extradition hearing to see whether he should be sent to the US to potentially be put on trial. Exactly as I said.
Lets not forget the reason he fled Sweden in the first place is a very good point.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
First, you don't have to consider Assange a hero to oppose what is being done to him.
Second, to equate the actions of a private group/individual seeking to expose wrongdoing kept secret by the state with the actions of a state in pursuing that group/individual is the height of stupidity. You are being a useful idiot if you do this. Sadly no irony involved at all.
andysays
Love and solidarity
Firstly, I'm doing neither of the things you suggest.
Secondly, no one could justifiably accuse you of being a useful anything.
Its like having two different conversation when speaking with you. There is what I'm saying which is factually correct and what your head is shouting which is something that may or may not happen in the future which you seem to think is fact. Its not.
The reason I'm hesitant about saying whether he may or may not face trial in the states because I'm not 100% sure he won't just be disappeared into the system as a trial may prove a bit to uncomfortable for the US government.
He's still a rapey cunt who no one should trust in the slightest but hey, we all have our heros.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Lol, the only reason you think you’re having two conversations is because your trying to justify to yourself supporting making someone pay for exposing US war crimes while saying you oppose those war crimes. That’s your contradictory mess.
you can keep lying, pretending that disagreeing with you means we must think Assange is a hero, but if we only supported the rights of people we think are heroes then we’d have no rights at all. two wrongs don’t make a right, whatever you may think.
This is quite frankly bizarre. You appear to be able to read but unable to understand what is being written. You are having the conversation which you want to have not the one we are actually having. Please direct me to where I said anything like you have just written. Anything? Have you got me mixed up with a different poster? Or is your way of communicating akin to shouting at a brick wall?
For the avoidance of doubt I have said:
- He is not on trial for exposing war crimes he is at an extradition hearing.
- If he does get extradited he will likely face a trial or will possibly just be disappeared into the system
- I don't think he should be extradited
- He's a rapey and cowardly cunt
So please go back and find where I said any of that weird shit your increasingly erratic brain created. I said this on the other threat but I reckon Assange was as likely hiding from his fans in that Embassy as he was arrest. Can't say I blame him.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
You’re right, you did, just about, say he should be extradited. But you wrapped it up in blather about how he was actually guilty and didn’t deserve defending. And you pretend that anyone defending the right of journalists to do journalism must be an Assange ‘fan boy’. So, in practise, you are siding with the extraditers I’m afraid.
I may well go ott in lambasting those like you from time to time, but I’d rather do that than be a useless liberal sitting on the fence and pretending to claim moral purity.
I may well go ott in lambasting those like you from time to time, but I’d rather do that than be a useless liberal sitting on the fence and pretending to claim moral purity.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Eh? He hasn't done any of that!
Its just downright weird.
andysays
Love and solidarity
you appear to have seriously lost the plot here belboid.
Someone, for example, correcting your factually incorrect claim that Assange is on trial for exposing war crimes by pointing out that he's currently going through an extradition hearing is not saying he's guilty, or supporting the US state in putting him on trial or the British state in extraditing him, should either or both of those things actually happen in the future.
Someone, for example, correcting your factually incorrect claim that Assange is on trial for exposing war crimes by pointing out that he's currently going through an extradition hearing is not saying he's guilty, or supporting the US state in putting him on trial or the British state in extraditing him, should either or both of those things actually happen in the future.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Looks like saying he’s guilty and you won’t be supporting any defense to me.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Of course he's guilty, the question is whether the civic duty to expose wrong-doing overrides the US laws surrounding the publication of US government documents/information.
I think he - and those who supplied him with that information - have a reasonable case in some the instances, and not in others.
But then I've not jumped down rabbit hole of taking a laughably simplistic view of a hugely complex and multi-faceted subject because I think I share politics with someone.....
No, there is a clear prima facie case that he has potentially committed crimes. That's not the same as saying he is guilty of those crimes, its saying that he has a case to answer. Also what kebabking says in the post above this one there is the question of whether journalists should be prosecuted in this regard.
I'm supporting his defense in the sense that I don't think he should be extradited because of what he represents and because of what has happened to Chelsea Manning. I think Assange the man is vile and I couldn't give two shits about his predicament. His more recent actions have made it impossible for me to have any sympathy for him on a personal level and I find myself unable to defend Assange the man because he disgusts me.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This is a massive oversimplification of whats going on. Wikileaks have released fucktons of information, documents, emails, realting to thousands of matters, not just "war crimes".
In itself "war crimes" is such a loaded and problematic phrase. For something to be a crime it needs to legislated against in some form and this case its the Geneva Convention. But what about incidents that happened before that? When Sherman burnt Atlanta on his march to the sea was that a war crime? In WW2 the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, can it be accused of war crimes in the strictest sense?
The reason I bring this up is because the Geneva Convention is one of the reasons countries generally don't declare ware these days because they are then bound by the convention. Instead we get conflicts and the like. This is why what happens at The Hague is often so iffy and just rich mans justice. Anyway, I digress.
The reason I bring this up is because the Geneva Convention is one of the reasons countries generally don't declare ware these days because they are then bound by the convention. Instead we get conflicts and the like. This is why what happens at The Hague is often so iffy and just rich mans justice. Anyway, I digress.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
So for the US charges he has a ‘case to answer’ but for the Swedish charges you’ve already found him guilty. Uhuh.
and this has nothing to do with ‘assange the man’ it is entirely to do with his activities as a journalist. It’s a classic tactic from the right to try to strip away their enemies support by peeling off the soft layers through lambasting them (the enemy) for unassociated acts. Letting Assange be deported will not do anything to reduce sexual abuse, or make him pay for any such crimes, it will just weaken the tights of journalists.
andysays
Love and solidarity
tbh, the idea that Assange is a "journalist" is also highly questionable.
He certainly doesn't appear to have had any of the traditional journalist's concern about protecting his sources from the consequences of his "journalism" or the potential harm caused to the innocent people his so called journalism has put at risk.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Moreover, should so called journalists be able to publish anything that they decide is in the public interest regardless of the levels of secrecy and other consequences of them doing so? Like it or not there is a need for some secrecy in diplomatic and military matters and most sensible people would probably prefer that Julian fucking Assange wasn't the arbiter of which secrets get leaked.
andysays
Love and solidarity
You're only saying that because you don't want Julian's children (you remember, the ones he very responsibly conceived when he was hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy avoiding the Swedish sexual assault charges) to ever see their daddy again, you monster.
elbows
Well-Known Member
In one or two interviews he gave at the peak of his powers, to the likes of the business press, he made it sound like he thought he/wikileaks was in the information brokerage business. Including laughable double-standards such as viewing the information leaked to wikileaks as wikileaks own property which he should have control over, and that it would be wrong for anyone else to disclose without wikileaks being in the driving seat. The idea of entities being able to pay Wikileaks in exchange for wikileaks then suppressing the info and making sure it never went public was also on the radar somewhere.
He also set himself up for failure by declaring that one of his goals was to make future whistleblowers and leakers feel like they could do that stuff without having their lives ruined. It was correct to identify this as a major factor in the game, but you therefore need a very cunning plan in order to hope to prevent that fate from happening to you too. Assanges own personal behaviour and apparent values made him especially ill-equipped for that challenge.
Similar threads
