Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-13-2018, 04:58 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
It's no longer a case of sanctuary. He's a citizen of Ecuador. Revoking citizenship is generally a higher legal hurdle.



They naturalized him last December. It was part of a ploy to get him diplomatic protection so he could then travel to the airport without being arrested. The UK chose not to recognize him as a diplomat.



I'm sure it sounded like a good plan .


Because of course they never heard of the host nation declining to recognize a credential... wow.
  #252  
Old 11-13-2018, 06:58 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Because of course they never heard of the host nation declining to recognize a credential... wow.
Annual performance evaluations for the involved civil service folks at the embassy had to be fun this year.

"How badly did you get Assanged in your review?"
"It was shittier than the litter box."
  #253  
Old 11-13-2018, 07:15 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,771
"I didn't join the Ecuadorian Diplomatic Corps to get peed on by the Ambassador and some Aussie squatter's cat."
  #254  
Old 11-15-2018, 07:54 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,843
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #255  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:33 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged under seal, per the Washington Post.

Quote:
The disclosure came in a filing in a case unrelated to Assange. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer, urging a judge to keep the matter sealed, wrote that “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” Later, Dwyer wrote the charges would “need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.”
D'oh!
  #256  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:51 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,194
Doops!
  #257  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:40 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,429
ROFL  😄  

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
  #258  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:43 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,482
Perfect catastrophe.
  #259  
Old 11-16-2018, 05:25 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
I bet he’s feline worried now!
  #260  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:25 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
I would have thought that hacking the embassy's network would provide a sufficient "out" for the Equadorians. No one would blame them for kicking him out now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Based on a more recent Lawfare post, it seems that the US doesn't actually have any criminal charge assigned to Assange, and potentially he's saved from anything by First Amendment laws, so the whole question may be irrelevant. There are some options to try and get him, but none is a slam dunk and there's no knowing whether we'll actually try to charge him at the moment.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/if-assan...assy-what-next
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
Quite. The whole palaver over the possibility of his being extradited to the US has only ever come from his own imagination, AFAIK.
Uh, yeah the idea that there was a sealed indictment was sooooo crazy.
  #261  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:21 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Uh, yeah the idea that there was a sealed indictment was sooooo crazy.
And the corollary to that is...

... if he had been extradited to Sweden, the US indictment would have been unsealed and he would simply have been passed on to the US.

In terms of the Swedish-American extradition treaty, if a person is facing any charges in Sweden, he can automatically be extradited to the US on different charges for an indefinite period of time without the Swedish charges being resolved, under what is called 'temporary surrender'. The Swedish Government, NOT the courts, is the final authority in all matters of extradition. The Swedish Government has previously cooperated with the US in acts of 'extraordinary rendition', i.e. kidnapping and torture.

By now I've pretty much lost all sympathy for Assange, but the Swedish charges were always exceptionally flimsy and dubious. He has been proved right about the sealed indictment, and therefore right about the most likely effect of being extradited to Sweden.
  #262  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:26 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Uh, yeah the idea that there was a sealed indictment was sooooo crazy.
If you read what I wrote as saying that the idea was crazy, then you may want to think about scaling back your rhetoric meter.
  #263  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:51 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Uh, yeah the idea that there was a sealed indictment was sooooo crazy.
I'm sure some people didn't think an indictment could exist, but I think most people were arguing that Assange's contention that Sweden trumped up charges in order to get him out of the UK and into Sweden so that he could be extradited was the soooooo crazy part. And that remains soooo crazy.
  #264  
Old 11-16-2018, 11:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If you read what I wrote as saying that the idea was crazy, then you may want to think about scaling back your rhetoric meter.
I quoted your post to keep PatrickLondon's post in context. Sorry.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-16-2018 at 11:55 AM.
  #265  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:13 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,643
nm

Last edited by Buck Godot; 11-16-2018 at 12:15 PM.
  #266  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:19 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Except that some governments are more equal than others.

Apparently Hilary Clinton's emails were a far higher priority for Wikileaks in 2016 than Putin's dealings... or Trump's.


WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign

The leak organization ignored damaging information on the Kremlin to focus on Hillary Clinton and election-related hacks.

Wikileaks is not a neutral organisation. Assange has his own political agenda, and he is probably hoping for eventual asylum in Russia.
After watching this thread's videos highlighting Russia's disinformation campaign, and observing that all of what is published by wikileaks was the sewing or division and distrust, but that looking over the list of Wikileaks publications, which include embarrassing documents spanning the globe, I noticed that there was a conspicuous absence of any documents that were embarrassing to Russia. (if I missed any that were please correct me).

This makes me wonder whether the Assange and the whole wikileaks concept could be product of the Russian disinformation campaign, or it not originally formed by it quickly co-opted by it. I've never had much respect for Assange, but now I'm vacillating between useful idiot and full on enemy agent.
  #267  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:48 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 82,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... was the soooooo crazy part. And that remains soooo crazy.
The more "o"s, the crazier?
  #268  
Old 11-16-2018, 12:58 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,893
My question after all of this is, what the heck is Ecuador getting out of all of this that would make them want to house him all of this time?
  #269  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:07 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
After watching this thread's videos highlighting Russia's disinformation campaign, and observing that all of what is published by wikileaks was the sewing or division and distrust, but that looking over the list of Wikileaks publications, which include embarrassing documents spanning the globe, I noticed that there was a conspicuous absence of any documents that were embarrassing to Russia. (if I missed any that were please correct me).

This makes me wonder whether the Assange and the whole wikileaks concept could be product of the Russian disinformation campaign, or it not originally formed by it quickly co-opted by it. I've never had much respect for Assange, but now I'm vacillating between useful idiot and full on enemy agent.
I moved him over to the "enemy agent" column a few years ago. As you note, the information is one sided and well timed.
  #270  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:10 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
The more "o"s, the crazier?
The more ghosts that are involved.
  #271  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I'm sure some people didn't think an indictment could exist, but I think most people were arguing that Assange's contention that Sweden trumped up charges in order to get him out of the UK and into Sweden so that he could be extradited was the soooooo crazy part. And that remains soooo crazy.
Not really. The optics of extradition while in Sweden over a criminal charge would have been much more favorable than extradition from the UK out of the blue. "Hey, we want to extradite that rapist" is definitely more palatable than "Hey, can you give us that guy who spilled all our secrets".
  #272  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:23 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Not really. The optics of extradition while in Sweden over a criminal charge would have been much more favorable than extradition from the UK out of the blue. "Hey, we want to extradite that rapist" is definitely more palatable than "Hey, can you give us that guy who spilled all our secrets".
This is an imaginary concern.
  #273  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:33 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
No it isn't.
  #274  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:38 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No it isn't.
Of course it is imaginary. Edward Snowden is walking around Moscow, and yet President Obama didn't hatch some plot to accuse him of some crime in an EU country for which he could face extradition from Russia, and then extradition from that EU country to the US.

Further, the US has insisted on extradition of individuals from the UK for controversial reasons, without resorting to trumping up rape charges in some non-UK jurisdiction in order to make the "optics" better.

The "optics" issue is made out of whole cloth, probably from the same sort of sources that have been quaking in their boots about the possibility of Assange being "droned" in downtown London. Boy, that laughable scenario had a bunch of Wikileaks fanboys all in a tizzy for a while.
  #275  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Lol. Yes, Snowden in Russia is a perfectly reasonable comparison to Assange in London.
  #276  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:47 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lol. Yes, Snowden in Russia is a perfectly reasonable comparison to Assange in London.
I see you've reduced your argument from "Of COURSE Obama hatched an international plot with the leaders of two other European allies to frame a Draco Malfoy lookalike for rape because OPTICS" to just simply a rolleyes.

Frankly, the rolleyes emoji is stronger in content than your optics nonsense; so I advise sticking with that.
  #277  
Old 11-16-2018, 01:49 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
My question after all of this is, what the heck is Ecuador getting out of all of this that would make them want to house him all of this time?
Random whistleblower in South America sends information to Wkileaks. Wikileaks forwards info to Ecuador then sends the info into the editorial pipeline to decide whether to publish and how much to redact if so.

My guess would be that Ecuador gets a sort of free spy agency for the cost of housing one man and his cat.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 11-16-2018 at 01:49 PM.
  #278  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:01 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I see you've reduced your argument from "Of COURSE Obama hatched an international plot with the leaders of two other European allies to frame a Draco Malfoy lookalike for rape because OPTICS" to just simply a rolleyes.

Frankly, the rolleyes emoji is stronger in content than your optics nonsense; so I advise sticking with that.
Wtf? No, I said that the fact that Obama didn't hatch plot to frame Snowden is a completely idiotic defense of America not setting up a frame job in Sweden. It's bizarre, because I am rather certain you don't think the alliances, legal framework, animosity and optics are remotely equivalent. I guess you hate Assange so much you're willing to ignore all that.
  #279  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:06 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
This makes me wonder whether the Assange and the whole wikileaks concept could be product of the Russian disinformation campaign, or it not originally formed by it quickly co-opted by it. I've never had much respect for Assange, but now I'm vacillating between useful idiot and full on enemy agent.
Russian intelligence would certainly try to coopt Assange. SOP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I moved him over to the "enemy agent" column a few years ago. As you note, the information is one sided and well timed.
Edward Snowden comments:
You can despise Wikileaks and everything it stands for. You can think Assange is an evil spirit reanimated by Putin himself. But you cannot support the prosecution of a publisher for publishing without narrowing the basic rights every newspaper relies on.
Snowden links to article by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an organization founded 5 years ago; he and Daniel Ellsberg serve on the board:
Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, has issued the following statement:

“Any charges brought against WikiLeaks for their publishing activities pose a profound and incredibly dangerous threat to press freedom. Whether you like Assange or hate him, the theories used in a potential Espionage Act prosecution would threaten countless reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the many other news outlets that report on government secrets all the time. While everyone will have to wait and see what the charges detail, it’s quite possible core First Amendment principles will be at stake in this case.”

https://freedom.press/news/prosecuti...press-freedom/
  #280  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:10 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
CarnalK I have no idea what you're saying there. Frame job? No frame job? Are you saying that Snowden and Assange are or are not equivalent?

To return to the earlier question, why would the US need to ask Sweden to create a rape charge in order to extradite Assange?
  #281  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:20 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Russian intelligence would certainly try to coopt Assange. SOP. Edward Snowden comments:
You can despise Wikileaks and everything it stands for. You can think Assange is an evil spirit reanimated by Putin himself. But you cannot support the prosecution of a publisher for publishing without narrowing the basic rights every newspaper relies on.
Snowden links to article by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, an organization founded 5 years ago; he and Daniel Ellsberg serve on the board:
Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, has issued the following statement:

“Any charges brought against WikiLeaks for their publishing activities pose a profound and incredibly dangerous threat to press freedom. Whether you like Assange or hate him, the theories used in a potential Espionage Act prosecution would threaten countless reporters at the New York Times, Washington Post, and the many other news outlets that report on government secrets all the time. While everyone will have to wait and see what the charges detail, it’s quite possible core First Amendment principles will be at stake in this case.”

https://freedom.press/news/prosecuti...press-freedom/
Of course I can question the information supplied by any publisher. I should do so, in fact. I don't see it as an assault of the Freedom of the Press to do so. Second, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a publisher is releasing distorted information at the direction of a hostile government in order influence a US election then a) my judgment is that they are not a member of the Press, and b) if applicable, I want to see them get the trial they are entitled to receive for their actions. Third, there is a difference between reporting on confidential, even secret, information, and using and distorting that information in a targeted manner for a predetermined or desired outcome at the hands of a terrorist group or State actor. The former is the action of the Press, and the latter is espionage.

In other words, are Wikileaks/Assange acting as an espionage group rather than some kind of white hat hacker brigade for the common weal? If so, fuck them. I am not required to protect them in order to protect the Press.
  #282  
Old 11-16-2018, 02:23 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
CarnalK I have no idea what you're saying there. Frame job? No frame job? Are you saying that Snowden and Assange are or are not equivalent?

To return to the earlier question, why would the US need to ask Sweden to create a rape charge in order to extradite Assange?
How can that possibly be confusing? No, they are not equivalent. A frame job to get someone out of an allied Western country is not equivalent to a frame job to get someone out of Russia. A lone man who blows the whistle is not equivalent to a guy who runs an organization for the purpose of (selective) whistle blowing.

And I didn't say they would need a frame job to extradite him, I said the optics look better to extradite a rapist leaker rather than just a leaker.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-16-2018 at 02:28 PM.
  #283  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:02 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
A frame job to get someone out of an allied Western country is not equivalent to a frame job to get someone out of Russia.
Yes, a frame job to get someone out of Russia is MORE plausible on its face, because:

1. US can't extradite someone from Russia, but they can extradite someone from, say, Austria or whatever EU country you wish.
2. US CAN extradite someone from the UK, and it is basically no more or less difficult to extradite from Sweden

Quote:
And I didn't say they would need a frame job to extradite him, I said the optics look better to extradite a rapist leaker rather than just a leaker.
Again, this is just made-up nonsense. There's been enough people extradited on controversial grounds to say with confidence that the United States doesn't need to make some unidentified audience feeeeeeel better through optics to enforce the terms of a treaty. The US can just insist that the other country hold up their end of the bargain, as legally required.

Mind you, I'm not totally satisfied that Assange has actually committed a crime, in that generally being a piece of shit isn't a violation of title 18 of the United States Code.
  #284  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yes, a frame job to get someone out of Russia is MORE plausible on its face, because:

1. US can't extradite someone from Russia, but they can extradite someone from, say, Austria or whatever EU country you wish.
2. US CAN extradite someone from the UK, and it is basically no more or less difficult to extradite from Sweden
That makes absolutely no sense. There is no point setting up a frame job where extradition is unlikely, as in the case of Snowden/Russia. I have no idea where you're even coming from here. I quite clearly said that extraditing someone under a rape investigation would have better optics than just scooping them up out of the blue. You're basically saying a useless frame job is more plausible than a useful one.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-16-2018 at 03:51 PM.
  #285  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:55 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
My question after all of this is, what the heck is Ecuador getting out of all of this that would make them want to house him all of this time?
The government of Ecuador is not a fan of the United States.
  #286  
Old 11-16-2018, 03:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Ravenman, you seem to be leaning heavy on the fact that the US could simply ask the UK to hand him over and ignoring the idea that Sweden handing him over under the cloud of a rape allegation would make Assange look a lot worse. A rather infantile view, imho.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-16-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #287  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:00 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 14,165

Premature threat assessment


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Of course I can question the information supplied by any publisher. I should do so, in fact. I don't see it as an assault of the Freedom of the Press to do so. Second, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a publisher is releasing distorted information at the direction of a hostile government in order influence a US election then a) my judgment is that they are not a member of the Press, and b) if applicable, I want to see them get the trial they are entitled to receive for their actions. Third, there is a difference between reporting on confidential, even secret, information, and using and distorting that information in a targeted manner for a predetermined or desired outcome at the hands of a terrorist group or State actor. The former is the action of the Press, and the latter is espionage.

In other words, are Wikileaks/Assange acting as an espionage group rather than some kind of white hat hacker brigade for the common weal? If so, fuck them. I am not required to protect them in order to protect the Press.
Popular speech doesn't need protection. Only unpopular speech requires protection.

None of your claims address the precedent set in the case against Assange, a precedent that could affect mainstream news publications. They can't. They can't because the charges are classified. Once they are revealed, it is a legal question what sort of precedents would follow by hypothetical decisions against Assange. Personally, I'll have to wait to see what the ACLU says.
  #288  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:15 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That makes absolutely no sense. There is no point setting up a frame job where extradition is unlikely, as in the case of Snowden/Russia. I have no idea where you're even coming from here.
Yeah, I think the problem is that you may not understand a few facts.

Russia may extradite non Russians to certain countries, including many EU countries. It will not extradite non Russians to the US.

So if a country with an extradition agreement with Russia says Snowden is wanted for a serious crime in their territory, Russia may have to take that request seriously.

If Snowden were extradited to that EU country, Snowden night then be subject to extradition to the US. This bounce pass is exactly what you’re alleging Assange is subject to... except that the UK has a legal obligation to extradite to the US and Russia has a legal obligation not to extradite to the US.

How can you not understand this?
  #289  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:22 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ravenman, you seem to be leaning heavy on the fact that the US could simply ask the UK to hand him over and ignoring the idea that Sweden handing him over under the cloud of a rape allegation would make Assange look a lot worse. A rather infantile view, imho.
The idea that a cloud is needed to extradite Assange is an idea from some other planet. Seriously, it’s nuts

The Obama Administration prosecuted significant numbers of leakers without framing them of rape. Why weren’t all those leakers framed for violent crimes in order to make the “optics” look better for their prosecution?

Answer: because it’s a crazy idea that such optics matter.
  #290  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:38 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The idea that a cloud is needed to extradite Assange is an idea from some other planet. Seriously, it’s nuts

The Obama Administration prosecuted significant numbers of leakers without framing them of rape. Why weren’t all those leakers framed for violent crimes in order to make the “optics” look better for their prosecution?

Answer: because it’s a crazy idea that such optics matter.
I guess in your bubble that's true. I'm not sure Sweden or the the UK populations would have agreed. Because you see, the fact that Obama chose to prosecute other leakers would have had less impact on Swedish and UK voters, when evaluating their government's decision to hand someone over, than you seem to think.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-16-2018 at 04:39 PM.
  #291  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
You seem to be thinking that I believe some frame up is required for an extradition. I don't think that because that's stupid. I'm saying a frame up is useful to give friendly governments cover for an extradition, which you seem to be kinda clueless about.
  #292  
Old 11-16-2018, 04:56 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I guess in your bubble that's true. I'm not sure Sweden or the the UK populations would have agreed. Because you see, the fact that Obama chose to prosecute other leakers would have had less impact on Swedish and UK voters, when evaluating their government's decision to hand someone over, than you seem to think.
My bubble is called planet Earth, thank you very much.

The perception in the UK or Sweden is irrelevant. The three countries have legal obligations that make feeeeeeelings like you cite totally irrelevant.

Besides, how stupid do you think Brits and Swedes are that they would say, “Oh, Assange is being extradited to face charges relating to Wikileaks. I’d normally oppose such a thing, but since he was accused of sex crimes, that changes EVERYTHING!”

Give me a break.

But please explain to me how you think this conspiracy to frame Assange worked. Do you suppose Obama chose the crime he’d be framed for? And then did Joe Biden make a secret “October surprise” mission to Stockholm to convince local prosecutors to join the conspiracy? Were the accusers actually sleeper CIA agents? And most importantly, did the same conspirators later say, “Hey, we framed Assange for sexual assault, let’s do the same for Judge Kavanaugh!”

Lay it on me man. Tell me how deep this Qanon like rabbit hole goes.
  #293  
Old 11-16-2018, 06:04 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
My bubble is called planet Earth, thank you very much.

The perception in the UK or Sweden is irrelevant. The three countries have legal obligations that make feeeeeeelings like you cite totally irrelevant.
See, here is where you display how clueless you are. Sweden and the UK have elections. People's "feeeeeeelings" come into effect. Leaders of allied democracies, unlike yourself and Trump, understand that.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-16-2018 at 06:06 PM.
  #294  
Old 11-16-2018, 07:30 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
See, here is where you display how clueless you are. Sweden and the UK have elections. People's "feeeeeeelings" come into effect. Leaders of allied democracies, unlike yourself and Trump, understand that.
I’m wondering what you think that has to do with anything. What do elections have to do with extradition treaties, rape, and espionage?

Please answer that second, but the Qanon-like conspiracy theory that you subscribe to is definitely a higher priority for an answer.
  #295  
Old 11-16-2018, 08:49 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Popular speech doesn't need protection. Only unpopular speech requires protection.

None of your claims address the precedent set in the case against Assange, a precedent that could affect mainstream news publications. They can't. They can't because the charges are classified. Once they are revealed, it is a legal question what sort of precedents would follow by hypothetical decisions against Assange. Personally, I'll have to wait to see what the ACLU says.
I agree with the overall sentiment that speech, popular and unpopular, should be protected.

I do find it ironic that I think I know enough to label Assange as a spy because of the activities of the press. I also take anything he says with enormous skepticism. I find that I object to the hacking and other shenanigans. I don't dispute his right to say things, however.
  #296  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I’m wondering what you think that has to do with anything. What do elections have to do with extradition treaties, rape, and espionage?

Please answer that second, but the Qanon-like conspiracy theory that you subscribe to is definitely a higher priority for an answer.
Uh huh. Thinking the U.S. might have leaned on the Swedes a bit is a "Qanon-like" conspiracy? Yeah, I'm the whacko.
  #297  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:33 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Uh huh. Thinking the U.S. might have leaned on the Swedes a bit is a "Qanon-like" conspiracy? Yeah, I'm the whacko.
I repeat: your roll eyes emoji continues to be the most sound of the weak arguments you have brought here. Stick with your “strong” points, such as they are.
  #298  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:39 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,429
Everyone is missing the point. The extradition to Sweden was about legal issues.

In the UK an extradition request would be fought through all the courts, all the way up to the European Court of Justice. (This whole issue started long before Brexit.) Assange would argue that he is a journalist, and he would base his case on freedom of speech, whistleblowing, etc. and the outcome would be doubtful. The extradition request could be denied.

In Sweden, on the other hand, the government could hand him over to the US without going through the courts.

Currently, the situation is that if Assange steps out of the embassy the extradition request would still go through all the courts, but he will be in a UK prison for years while it is doing so.
  #299  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:55 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,429
And the US would certainly not have to lean on the Swedish government.

Sweden and the US have been cooperating smoothly on security matters for decades. The Swedish government would cheerfully hand over Assange to the US, as would the British government. However, in the UK the courts have a say in the matter, in Sweden they don't.
  #300  
Old 11-16-2018, 09:56 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Popular speech doesn't need protection. Only unpopular speech requires protection.

None of your claims address the precedent set in the case against Assange, a precedent that could affect mainstream news publications. They can't. They can't because the charges are classified. Once they are revealed, it is a legal question what sort of precedents would follow by hypothetical decisions against Assange. Personally, I'll have to wait to see what the ACLU says.
This isn't about popular or unpopular speech. It's not even about releasing redacted secret info. It's now about releasing illegally obtained information in an attempt to harm our elections. It's about being an arm of the Russian cyber military. The second he crossed over to that, he lost the support from those of us who supported the transparency aspects.

And I can very much support the precedent that you shouldn't report on info illegally obtained. Since a lot of this info is info from hacking, I can support that.

If someone else who isn't connected with Wikileaks says that these laws go beyond that, then I'll give their argument a listen. Until then, I'm for shutting down Wikileaks.

If they'd not played around with espionage (as Sunny Daze put it), I might be on their side. But now they lost both sides. Maybe don't try to get an enemy of the press elected if you want the press on your side.

Last edited by BigT; 11-16-2018 at 09:56 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017