41–49 of 49 posts
Establishment media thinks julian assange got what he deserved? How shocking. When will the atlantic and the establishment media get what they deserve? How many illegal wars have they pushed? When are they going to end up in jail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Making a law that declares a crime over people not under your jurisdiction that happened on territory not under your jurisdiction is a mockery of the idea of sovreignty. No, it's not. It is exactly the idea of sovereignty; limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty, and are typical of authorities which are not sovereign but instead…
>...limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty... That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world. Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. We can get further sources if you need >Sovereignty is the full right and pow…
No, I'm using the same definition generally used in political science.
> Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it.
Wikipedia is sometimes a good way to find decent sources, but it's hardly an authority. But, in this case the quote supports my position, not yours (now, were the US not merely to prosecute the offense but to seize Assange against the will of the State in which he was present in order to do so, that would be a violation of the idea of sovereignty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well, let's see, one of them went to Russia, the other didn't. Ah, the old “Snowden fled to Russia” trope. That’s false. He was in Russia when the US canceled his passport. As a consequence of that, he was unable to leave Russia.
Assange was granted Ecuadorian citizenship. Since Snowden was destined for Ecuador he likely could have requested the same.
Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude a blasphemer against Allah.
(Just, as a head-start hint, "I think Assange is a terrible person, therefore he should be extradited" is not a principled perspective.)
That the mainstream US media inexplicably supports the US government's position should alarm you. Yes, you, reading this. As above, I would love to hear an articulated principle that cleaves Wikileaks from the wider community of news media, that also does not allow for the arrest and prosecution of any of the journalists who actually covered what Wikileaks wrote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...limitations beyond that of your practical power on the exercise of your authority would be contrary to the idea of sovereignty... That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world. Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. We can get further sources if you need >Sovereignty is the full right and pow…
> That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world. No, I'm using the same definition generally used in political science. > Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. Wikipedia is sometimes a good way to find decent sources, but it's hardly an authority. But, in this case the quote supports my position…
At this point we are just arguing over definitions and not the actual topic that started so I am bowing out before this becomes a flame war
That there is common-people support for the US position at all feels truly crazy-town to me. Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude…
A rather poor choice of examples, I'd say.
Extradition for blasphemy from the United States runs afoul of the dual criminality requirement. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality)
The US also has no extradition treaty with China. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because when you're wrongfully charged, you're often imprisoned, etc etc. And the cost of defending yourself can be astronomical.
>Wrongfully charged You've seen all the evidence?
For the defendant, the burden is incredible. Often you're jailed, so no income. Legal costs are high, and if you're middle class, ruinous. Then the nature of most trials is that despite "innocent until proven guilty," the government typically benefits from a favorable reputation in the jury room.
Finally, look at what normally happens when the government and its agents falsify evidence? Normally a slap on the hand, a dismissal of the case, etc etc. The prosecution can treat the discovery process as if it's optional with no real repercussions.
So imho, it's not even close to a fair match. Remeber Richlieu's boast? "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That might be how you view it, but at this point you are using a different definition of sovereignty than the rest of the world. No, I'm using the same definition generally used in political science. > Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia if you don't want just my take on it. Wikipedia is sometimes a good way to find decent sources, but it's hardly an authority. But, in this case the quote supports my position…
I've got a degree in poli sci. Sovereignty was never defined as your ability to force others to do things. That was a violation of their sovereignty and meant that the polity being forced to do something or who could not enforce their borders no longer had sovereignty. No where other than this conversation have I ever seen someone claim that going to someone else's land and taking doing what I want is sovereignty. At…
I've seen it elsewhere on this site (I think from rayiner?).
It's plausible that it's actually used that way in some contexts (legal, maybe?), but I agree that's not what most people think of. The whole concept of "violation of sovereignty" would seem to rely on there being some limits to what countries can do to each other. If it's simply a matter of "what a country has the power to do" - otherwise sovereignty could not be violated, only demonstrated lacking.
That there is common-people support for the US position at all feels truly crazy-town to me. Those who support the US on this, should in principle also support extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China, from anywhere in the world. If you disagree with that, I would love to hear your perspective: please do articulate a principle of extradition that would include Assange and exclude…
> extradition of blasphemers to Pakistan, or anti-government protesters to China A rather poor choice of examples, I'd say. Extradition for blasphemy from the United States runs afoul of the dual criminality requirement. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality ) The US also has no extradition treaty with China. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit... )
What prevents a reasonable claim that these laws you cite are unjust, given that it is just to extradite a foreign national for the transgression of a US law, that occurred on foreign soil?