451–460 of 1001 posts
Chelsea Manning, who actually leaked things, is still in prison because of it. Apparently nobody cares.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/23/chelsea-mann...
Is this common in US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a lot of appeal to emotion in your post. Can we both agree that war is bad and things are always more complex than they seem? In the grand scheme of things these events rank pretty low on the list of priorities when you are fighting a war.
Read up on the Geneva Conventions. War is brutal, yes, but at the end it's a conflict between state powers & while violence is necessary to force the issue, a line must be drawn. See the use of economic sanctions as a method to compel without direct violence. There's enough power between parties which agree to the Geneva Conventions so that if one party is not agreeing to those terms, additional resources can be tapp…
and considering the public mood after a several year campaign to demonize Wikileaks and Assange by the US media, chances are pretty high that he will rot in a US prison for life or have his ashes thrown into the sea the same way as they did with Osama bin Laden. The US is a terror state that uses torture and secret prisons. I hope that EU countries will stop extradition asap.
> or have his ashes thrown into the sea the same way as they did with Osama bin Laden. The UK won't extradite if the death penality is on the cards. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94
I just want to know, from the people who seemed to have turned against Assange, how do you know it's not a concerted disinformation / propaganda campaign to remove all his credibility and reduce public support? By my reckoning It's really hard to know what to even believe about a guy who might credibly be targeted by that.
- By everything I've read of his behaviour, even before he became famous, the accusations seemed to be very much his style - The specifics, i. e. secretly removing the condom, seem to invite all sorts of "that's not rape" opinions, making them a rather bad choice compared to stereotypical violent rape. - The supposed CIA connection of the accuser is a laughable 10-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon connection involving her atten…
So the existence of doubt is proof of invalidity of the said doubt. That is some Olympic level mental gymnastics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grand Juries have a very high indict rate, especially federal ones, but there’s arguments about why that is. One argument is obviously that grand juries are pushovers and indeed would literally indict a ham sandwich. The other argument, hinted above, is that prosecutors only move to indict if they think they have a chance to win at trial. Since the evidentiary standards are much higher for conviction, that means they…
I also read in the DOJ report that they dismiss not so significant number of cases for the lack of overwhelming evidence or for the lack of criminal intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I can't understand how so many people stay loyal to a guy who just wasted seven years of his life in a self-imposed prison with absolutely no upside except delaying whatever awaits him now. Or how many will, when given a choice between: (a) a wild conspiracies theories about a totally-average Swedish woman being paid by the CIA to make up some not even that damning rape charges, then asks him for an $20/5min STD…
> Swedish woman being paid by the CIA Your comment is the only one I've read today that uses the word 'paid'; it doesn't look like anyone believes that. The argument is that the victim(s) of this 'sexual assault' charges doesn't seem to think they are that big of a deal; and the charges do not, in and of themselves, warrant the complicated mess of extraditions that the Swedish prosecutor has triggered. We should assu…
People denying that such behaviour is rape make me ... sad? It's perfectly fine to stipulate a difference between this and the stereotypical violent assault by a total stranger in the dark, and Swedish law and sentencing practices do indeed take such factors into account. But to apparently consider this perfectly fine seems indefensible.
The comments here disgust me. People here used to have some principles, now there's so many people just repeating establishment talking points.
And I can't understand how so many people stay loyal to a guy who just wasted seven years of his life in a self-imposed prison with absolutely no upside except delaying whatever awaits him now. Or how many will, when given a choice between: (a) a wild conspiracies theories about a totally-average Swedish woman being paid by the CIA to make up some not even that damning rape charges, then asks him for an $20/5min STD…
(c) he did actually sexually abuse women, and that's being used to get him into custody and facilitate his illegal extradition to the US.
I just want to know, from the people who seemed to have turned against Assange, how do you know it's not a concerted disinformation / propaganda campaign to remove all his credibility and reduce public support? By my reckoning It's really hard to know what to even believe about a guy who might credibly be targeted by that.
wikileaks/Assange during the recent US presidential elections. that’s what did it for me. even now, knowing what we now about Russian interference, they still have the “Hillary Clinton email archive” proudly displayed on their homepage. also, there are those rape cases for which he ran away. shady stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only does my post appeal to emotion, it openly appeals to emotion. On the other hand, your post uses the appeal to middle ground fallacy. If your list of priorities starts with anything other than stopping the routine torture of children, then your grand scheme of things is probably evil.
This is hardly the rational discussion you claimed to be starting.