131–140 of 577 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the US is coming to the aid of the many dictators and despots whose crimes Assange has helped reveal. I.e. themselves.
You realize he may be a Russian spy, don't you?
Without any opinion the merits of this case in particular, which seems like a total mess all around and I haven't been following, on the topic more generally I found "Demystifying International Extradition" [1] last year to be an interesting summary of the process. It introduced me to concepts that don't really tend to come up in local law. Amongst other pertinent aspects is that while the US generally wants to avoid…
There's also just straight up extraordinary rendition, ie. showing up, black bagging someone, and flying off, outside the legal process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition Ironically, the UK doesn't allow extraordinary rendition, and it was a big deal to even let those planes refuel or use UK airspace, but Sweden historically has allowed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Ahmed_Agiza…
And now...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? I would be proud to have got this into postgres core, but perhaps you operate on a different plane of excellence. https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blobdi...
> What? I would be proud to have got this into postgres core, but perhaps you operate on a different plane of excellence. https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blobdi... . It's just a minor rewrite of parts of the commandline client. Mostly made verbose by by renaming structs members / moving members around. 22+ years ago. > but perhaps you operate on a different plane of excellence. I work on PG clos…
I never thought it would happen. He always seemed to stay a few steps ahead and he has plenty of of supporters and many countries that are hostile the US were willing to grant him asylum. I'm not sure how this would work. He would have to be kidnapped or given up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that’s true — it’s not, no emails have been shown to be fake — it’s not illegal to publish false information.
I didn't say the emails were fake. I said they were altered. The metadata, specifically. According to the NY Times they were alter to make it look like they were downloaded directly from a computer in the U.S. and to change the date the documents were obtained. And publishing false information is not illegal. Knowingly aiding a foreign government in their efforts to undermine an election is treason.
Assange is not a US citizen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason we try to uphold freedom of the press isn't to defend people like this or their actions. It always seems pretty clearly bad faith when people make this argument about Assange.
So far all we know that US is preparing to prosecute Assange for something. We don't know what that something is so you're jumping to a big conclusion that it has something to do with vague "freedom of the press". Freedom of press is about things like "government can't interfere with publishing of information through prior restraint" etc. Freedom of press doesn't provide immunity from crimes. We can table "freedom of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Freedom of the Press is dead. WikiLeaks isn't a news organization, especially when they released campaign emails during the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network.
Yes, they are a news organization. Covering the election is what a news organization should do, and it's hard to argue the Clinton emails weren't newsworthy. >They have been to be a known tool for the Russian government, even going as far as creating a show for Julian Assange on the state-backed RT TV Network This is untrue. There is nothing suggesting that Wikileaks has knowingly coordinated with Russia. And that TV…
RT's logo has a producer's credit in his show's credits. It's an RT show.
Wikileaks isn't a news organization. They don't do reporting. They are a publisher, which still has first amendment protections.
If true, this suggests that previous articles about assange being 'practically free to go', and 'just staying in the embassy for attention' were misinformed.
Which articles are you referring to?
Technically free to leave the embassy, so it's not a false statement. But would definitely be arrested and extradited if he did, so it's not quite a fair statement either.
Also found this article which said he wouldn't be prosecuted by the U.S. in 2013: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julia...
Also, lol @ this article from a right wing publication: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/27936-trump.... I wonder what the spin will be now that Trump's administration is going after Assange?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Believed' is a loose term, you'd have to be deluded to believe something like that.
You've apparently forgotten all about that whole Osama Bin Laden thing. You know, the person who Clinton sent a team to kill even though he was never charged with any crime. There's even a video of Clinton watching his illegal assassination.