101–110 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were all sorts of reports that he was a pretty taxing guest as well. Cleaning, hygiene, etc.
Ad hominem attacks; refuge of the lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly Manning is the most simpathetic of all mistreated 'leakers'. Truly, what does anyone gain by having her locked up?
I mean, Manning is in jail because Manning chooses to be in jail. Manning had an immunity deal to testify in front of a grand jury and refused to do so, leading to the contempt of court charge that currently has her in jail. She says she doesn't believe in the concept of being compelled to testify, which is fine, but the penalty for that is jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The judge said she will remain jailed until she testifies or until the grand jury concludes its work." Wow. Not even some specific number of months or anything. Appears not as a punishment but a blackmail. (edit: yes I miss the right word for this is, there is certainly a better one, I'd be happy to read a better one; edit2: right, extortion, thanks).
Its not a penal sentence, no; insofar as it is a pinishment it is a punishment for an ongoing offense, and continues as long as the offense continues. And, blackmail is threatening to reveal a secret to get someone to comply, so, no, it's not that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manning revealed war crimes, yet the only person who went to prison was Manning. That's all we need to know really. The system is broken und unable to fix itself. Edit: Free Reality Winner
The system is not perfect, but the reason Manning went to jail is because she made an indiscriminate leak of secrets of which she did not review before she released them. Had she only released material on stuff she had thought to be a crime, then there would have been a much stronger case to be made as a whistle blower. It would be like if someone working at a hospital exposed a medical fraud scheme but leaked all th…
And what gives a government a right to have secrets in the first place? Except itself of course...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still bitter that he became so thoroughly partisan, though. I don't think it's a matter of becoming partisan, I think it's more a matter of getting new opportunities for the orientation he's always had and pursued. > Especially since his organization has or had the motto: "to publish fact-based stories without fear or favour". If you had an organization designed from it's inception to selectively leak informati…
>If you had an organization designed from it's inception to selectively leak information with a clearly biased perspective, it would defeat the purpose if you labeled it that way. For some reason, The Intercept comes to mind, and people here just love em…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/11/assange_death_penal... Penalties have gone pretty sideways in the US when it comes to being associated with terrorism, and what qualifies as terrorism extremely broad and nebulous.
An EU country cannot fulfil an extradition if there's a chance of the death penalty.
Who says the UK will be an EU country if/when it gets around to extraditing him? I mean, the bail jumping charges should give them some leeway on timing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if Ecuador didn’t see hosting him as a kind of insurance against being targeted by wikileaks.
Correa was a genuinely good person. There are a number of other ways he demonstrated this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not a penal sentence, no; insofar as it is a pinishment it is a punishment for an ongoing offense, and continues as long as the offense continues. And, blackmail is threatening to reveal a secret to get someone to comply, so, no, it's not that.
Yeah, those insignificant pedantic reasons make it not a punishment and not blackmail /s
But it's far closer to extortion than blackmail.
But that's true of compulsory legal process generally, not a special feature of confinement for contempt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clinton was predicted to be the next president by everyone. If you had to choose the target of your limited efforts the person who was projected at winning with 70% by the most conservative estimates, and had already turned the middle east into a charnel house, she would have been the one you should spend all your efforts on by any sane calculus. There should be a name for the mental disorder where you see one group…
So you deliberately chose to ignore the personal/conspiracy/bs dirt he was throwing all over the place even after the Clinton show was over? I have no idea what you want to say with the second paragraph since even the 4-page summary confirms that the Russians did it.