101–110 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what kind of taxi receipt shows the pick up point?
https://images.wired.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18184147/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When the announcement itself heavily impedes So you're claiming if this was kept secret the odds of catching the person would increase dramatically? What stats do you base this on? >as would be standard under such situations Where is this standard? There are plenty of indictments issued all the time followed by arrests. What evidence do you have that unsealed indictments has a higher arrest rate?
Look what they did with Julian Assange. Secret indictment until he was already in friendly custody.
We extradited El Chapo, Abu Hamza al-Masri , Victor bout, Ira Einhorn, Roman Piscotti, and many others.
So if we’re just making claims on anecdotes, so far I’ve presented that 6 times as many people get extradited after indictments than your anecdote.
I figured you had more reason to make such strong claims than simply an opinion without data.
I'm torn when it comes to the utility of making public indictments of this sort when the truth is there will never be any arrest or trial. Making them public lets Russia know we're aware of their actions, which in turn may drive them to greater efforts to make these actions harder to detect and therefore harder to defend against. I also wonder if making these public, detrimental and unnecessary, is just a cynical plo…
The US federal government has already imposed a wide range of sanctions on Russia. What other tangible consequences are you asking for? https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=IF1...
So what I'm asking for should be obvious: Additional sanctions for each additional hostile act. Keep making it harder and harder, the consequences higher, each time. Use diplomacy with our allies to get them to do the same.
I'm torn when it comes to the utility of making public indictments of this sort when the truth is there will never be any arrest or trial. Making them public lets Russia know we're aware of their actions, which in turn may drive them to greater efforts to make these actions harder to detect and therefore harder to defend against. I also wonder if making these public, detrimental and unnecessary, is just a cynical plo…
>I also wonder if making these public, detrimental and unnecessary, is just a cynical ploy before an election to give the appearance that this administration has been tough on Russia, when actual toughness on Russia would mean not just indictments, but also sanctions and other tangible consequences. Honestly, I don't mind cynical ploys as much if they involve an agency doing it's usual job. They might be trying to de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look what they did with Julian Assange. Secret indictment until he was already in friendly custody.
So all your above claims are based on one anecdote? We extradited El Chapo, Abu Hamza al-Masri , Victor bout, Ira Einhorn, Roman Piscotti, and many others. So if we’re just making claims on anecdotes, so far I’ve presented that 6 times as many people get extradited after indictments than your anecdote. I figured you had more reason to make such strong claims than simply an opinion without data.
The point though is that, from the prosecutor's perspective, the end goal of trying and winning trials is ultimately hindered by making an indictment like this public, and that the option to make these indictments secret even in the case of extremely geopolitically charged indictments exists. Which leads one to the idea that of making this indictment public is contrary to the standard goals of prosecuting a crime, then there's a different goal in mind. That goal is intrinsically linked to making public declarations you can't execute on.
I can't think of a better definition of propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US federal government has already imposed a wide range of sanctions on Russia. What other tangible consequences are you asking for? https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=IF1...
When a person commits a crime and is punished, we don't say "they were already punished, what more are you asking for?" When they go on to commit yet another crime. So what I'm asking for should be obvious: Additional sanctions for each additional hostile act. Keep making it harder and harder, the consequences higher, each time. Use diplomacy with our allies to get them to do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the past they have texted specific GRU agents on their personal phones: https://www.wired.com/story/cyber-command-ira-strike-sends-s... > As The New York Times reported last October, Cyber Command operators sent direct messages to individual Russian staffers that they had identified as involved in election interference, and were tracking their activity. The Post reports that the IRA was troubled enough by those me…
IRA is not GRU
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://images.wired.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18184147/...
has his name and signature on it. i guess he kept it to expense the $10. a bit too convenient. if true, it means this guy is a spy carrying a ticket in his pocket that says "i spy for russia". he is so bad at his job that we have nothing to worry about
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all your above claims are based on one anecdote? We extradited El Chapo, Abu Hamza al-Masri , Victor bout, Ira Einhorn, Roman Piscotti, and many others. So if we’re just making claims on anecdotes, so far I’ve presented that 6 times as many people get extradited after indictments than your anecdote. I figured you had more reason to make such strong claims than simply an opinion without data.
I mean I can give more examples despite them being secret initially which would incorrectly color the public statistics in a way against my argument. The point though is that, from the prosecutor's perspective, the end goal of trying and winning trials is ultimately hindered by making an indictment like this public, and that the option to make these indictments secret even in the case of extremely geopolitically char…
There are benefits to it - it opens doors, gets other law enforcement involved, can lead to public awareness to help apprehend, etc.
I think you formed an opinion not based on the evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I can give more examples despite them being secret initially which would incorrectly color the public statistics in a way against my argument. The point though is that, from the prosecutor's perspective, the end goal of trying and winning trials is ultimately hindered by making an indictment like this public, and that the option to make these indictments secret even in the case of extremely geopolitically char…
So why would anyone make any indictment public before arrests? Yet we do it all the time internally. And I’ve never heard prosecutors complain that this is making it harder to arrest people. There are benefits to it - it opens doors, gets other law enforcement involved, can lead to public awareness to help apprehend, etc. I think you formed an opinion not based on the evidence.
What "public awareness" is going to help bring these people in from Russia when we show them our hand of "we know who you are and what you do"?
Like what's specifically different about them versus Assange that makes it more likely to bring them to trial by publicly announcing the indictment?