721–730 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously dude? "American Airlines overcharged you by $1 and you're complaining? WHY NOT JUST START AN AIRLINE YOURSELF?" If only we were all god, your comment would be helpful.
More like you are outlining how much worse AA is than every other airline and a person says 'well, why don't you fly other airlines?'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had US police pull guns on me several times, thrown to the ground have been arrested and jailed overnight, despite not having committed a crime on any of the occasions. My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect, the whole stay in your car with you hands on the wheel, the yes sir, yes mam. One of these times was on a late night Santa Cruz to SF drive,…
>My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect Either you are a slow learner, or you make a point to be a smartass with cops. Do you think it's specific to American cops? Maybe try that with Algerian or Brazilian cops and see how things turn out for you.
So he still gets almost another full year in a UK jail. After that, where can he go? Let's just say he's somehow successful at avoiding US extradition (unlikely), he's not going to be able to stay in the UK (unless he has dual citizenship or can somehow claim dual citizenship through a relative). He'd have to request asylum from another European nation that he can safety get to without flying. Australia did little to…
My thought was the judge gave him a year to give him a chance to fight the extradition.
Without that - he possibly would have been snapped up pretty quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Er, Assange himself was the press, here. Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower who tried to keep her identity safe until Adrian Lamo (may God have mercy on his soul, because I sure won't) reported her to US authorities.
>Chelsea Manning was the anonymous whistleblower Manning was a spiteful security leak, not a whistleblower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect Either you are a slow learner, or you make a point to be a smartass with cops. Do you think it's specific to American cops? Maybe try that with Algerian or Brazilian cops and see how things turn out for you.
Classic victim blaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he was right. It happened. He was proven correct. The people who disagreed were just wrong. And I think it is OK to call the people who didn't believe this, to have been extremely misinformed.
He was extradited from the UK, not from Sweden.
In other words, the legal avenues that the moron could have availed himself of a decade ago are now open to him.
If anyone thinks that Assange was ever in danger of being extraordinarily renditioned to the US from Sweden then they need to consider that a decade ago he was high-profile enough for the Ecuadorians to stick their necks out for him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A system of justice that can be abused to go after political enemies. The Espionage Act is a piece of anti-democratic legislation passed during WWI in order to shut down opposition to the war. It's ironic that you're portraying its use to go after a journalist as a democratic act.
Just to be clear, 1600 of my coworkers are journalists, so I'm pretty confident in my support for journalists creds. Assange is not a journalist. Journalists don't encourage sources to break into classified systems and absolutely don't help them with it. When journalists get a stack of classified military docs, they don't indiscriminately release them to the public, they negotiate with the WH/DOD to avoid jeopardizin…
The New York Times withheld the story about Bush' illegal wiretapping program for a year, helping Bush secure reelection in 2004. They did so on flimsy "national security" grounds. The only grudgingly published the story when the journalist who had uncovered it threatened to publish it on his own. Some American news media is far too cozy with government. If they support the persecution of one of the most important journalists of our time, they're a truly rotten bunch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had US police pull guns on me several times, thrown to the ground have been arrested and jailed overnight, despite not having committed a crime on any of the occasions. My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect, the whole stay in your car with you hands on the wheel, the yes sir, yes mam. One of these times was on a late night Santa Cruz to SF drive,…
>My transgression in each case was to have not learnt the submission rituals that American police expect Either you are a slow learner, or you make a point to be a smartass with cops. Do you think it's specific to American cops? Maybe try that with Algerian or Brazilian cops and see how things turn out for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could leave the embassy at any time, which is where the purported damage was done. He is now in prison, where he cannot leave it any time. Melzer visited him recently in prison, thus your quote. It seems pretty clear. The parent may be lacking in nuance for his situation, but it is correct.
They were waiting in front of the embassy 24/7. We can now see that he was exactly right in his prediction of what would happen if he left, and how. He's been held in solitary confinement, itself already widely regarded as torture. Saying "he could have left" in this situation, after being shown exactly how that would have/did go down, is like camping out in front of your ex-girlfriend's house with a baseball bat, th…
As I said, framing it as that simple of a choice may lack some nuance in describing the pressure he was under. But it is factually true that he was not forced to stay in the conditions which are being criticised. Some would also say that the nature of the conditions was somewhat of his own doing, since the relationship with the embassy is well documented to have deteriorated greatly over time. I can't vouch either way, and it seems people are downvoting normal conversation so I doubt it will be productive to continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely no different than in the US. A government prosecutor needs to press criminal charges. The accused has the right to a jury trial. An alleged victim has no such right.
Ok, maybe I’ve seen too many movies, but I had the impression that at least for some crimes (misdemeanors?) the victim can opt to not "press charges"?