At his current rate he'll soon be wanted in every country on the planet for some reason or other - even the penguins in Antarctica will throw him out
- "We don't mind the scientists but no fugitives from justice thankyou"
gary
-- .Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
> At his current rate he'll soon be wanted in every country on the planet for
> some reason or other - even the penguins in Antarctica will throw him out
> - "We don't mind the scientists but no fugitives from justice thankyou"
> gary
I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
the Swedes would be foolish.
>> At his current rate he'll soon be wanted in every country on the
>> planet for
>> some reason or other - even the penguins in Antarctica will throw him out
>> - "We don't mind the scientists but no fugitives from justice thankyou"
>> gary
> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
> the Swedes would be foolish.
Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of his political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without a proper trial nobody knows. Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike whistle-blowing.
Whistle-blowing is not a political act; he really can't claim to be persecuted for his politics. Especially in Australia, his own country, or Sweden, one of the most enlightened countries there is. What he did (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a crime, but it is a crime in the US and quite a few other countries, not a political crime but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that the US should want him to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces the death penalty in the US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
Meanwhile, he's occupying centre stage and is likely to do so for some time.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>> On 24/08/12 06:10 AM, GaryN wrote:
>>> I think in the case of Julian Assange it can be safely said that the
>>> lunatics *have* takenm over the asylum
>>> At his current rate he'll soon be wanted in every country on the
>>> planet for
>>> some reason or other - even the penguins in Antarctica will throw
>>> him out - "We don't mind the scientists but no fugitives from
>>> justice thankyou"
>>> gary
>> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
>> the Swedes would be foolish.
> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on > those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of
> his political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without
> a proper trial nobody knows. Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike
> whistle-blowing.
> Whistle-blowing is not a political act; he really can't claim to
> be > persecuted for his politics. Especially in Australia, his own country,
> or Sweden, one of the most enlightened countries there is. What he did
> (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a crime, but it is
> a crime in the US and quite a few other countries, not a political
> crime but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that the US should
> want him to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces the death
> penalty in the US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
> Meanwhile, he's occupying centre stage and is likely to do so for
> some > time.
I suppose if you've pissed off western countries then seeking asylum in the embassy of a country that has pissed off several of the major corporations who run said western countries makes sense...
Particularly if all of it's small neighbours are likely to support that country in the event of any foolish actions being taken to winkle him out.
gary
-- .Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
>> the Swedes would be foolish.
Agreed. Especially given the Swedes' record of compliance with US wishes (1).
> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on > those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of his > political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without a > proper trial nobody knows.
If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
> Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike > whistle-blowing.
> Whistle-blowing is not a political act;
Woo-whee! Where have you *been*? Exposing lies at the very heart of a country's governmental structure can be nothing other than political.
> he really can't claim to be > persecuted for his politics. Especially in Australia, his own country,
With its own long history of kissing Pentagonal ass.
> or Sweden, one of the most enlightened countries there is.
Where they still openly practised eugenics until about 40 years ago, and (to bring it back to specifics) whose definition of what constitutes 'rape' seems to be remarkably widely drawn.
> What he did > (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a crime, but it is a > crime in the US and quite a few other countries, not a political crime > but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that the US should want him > to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces the death penalty in the > US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
What a mess of a statement that is! Prosecuting Assange (and there is a sealed grand-jury indictment waiting for him if Uncle Joe - sorry, I mean Uncle Sam - ever gets his hand on him) would be naked political. He has helped expose how US rhetoric has once again been contradicted by US *actions*. A fair trial would be impossible because of the ranting and screaming already done against him by senior politicians right up to La Clinton herself. And there are more ways of killing a prisoner than strapping him to a gurney and injecting him.
Bear in mind that President Obysmal - having promised protection for whistleblowers *before* he was inaugurated - has gone in exactly the opposite direction in office; even to the point of not only his officials but His Hopeness himself pronouncing Bradley Manning (2) guilty before that unfortunate young man has even faced the most sham of trials before a military court with a judge who is trying her best to give sufficient impression of being impartial so as to fool the public, but not convincing anyone whose brain-cells don't have to use semaphore to communicate with one another.
Manning is the US gummint's way of getting to Wikileaks without having to grab Assange. But having clear designs on putting Manning in the brig for the next fifty years will not preclude them from getting Assange if any way presents itself.
> PS. Nice to see some new posts on here; two days without one must be > some sort of a record.
Weeerrrrlll,
After the Sports Day lapse this seemed the most controversial/general interest subject to bring up.
Oh, apart from Prince Wossisname dancing naked with a naked bird, but frankly I don't think that's particularly interesting as news. I still do it in my 40's but nobody is taking pictures of me to sell to The Scum
[1]
Other than that it was kick starting with a rant about the useless twats at the DHSS but
a: Everyone in Britain knows how useless the bastards are.
b: It's not controversial for our foreign inhabitants.
Look on the bright side, 'Dodger' is out soon, for a given value of 'soon', so we can all argue about that:-)
gary
[1]By appointment only, 50/50 split on proceeds.
-- .Sig file abducted by aliens.
I was bored with changing it every week anyway but as a last gasp...
"And if California slides into the ocean,
like the mystics and statistics say it will,
I predict this motel will be standing,
until I pay my bill"
On Friday, August 24, 2012 4:29:35 PM UTC+1, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Lesley Weston wrote:
> > On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
> > Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on > > those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of his > > political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without a > > proper trial nobody knows.
> If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question > him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to > London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office > and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have > been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
I‡f they're on the level, I don't see that Mr Assange has a right to dictate such terms. Anyway, clearly they want to arrest him.
I am sceptical of the charges because when Roj Blake was arrested in episode one of _Blake's 7_ it was similarly on a charge of
committing a universally unacceptable act, but this was falsified in order to remove him as a political figure.
But I don't know the people involved and I don't know that the offences aren't genuine, or aren't offences as we would
consider them. From what I haven't been able to avoid hearing
about it, it's possibly a bit complex. According to some accounts and in some people's opinions, it is no more than the sort of
thing that goes on all the time with no one minding much.
But I'm not so sure. Anyway, I wasn't there.
As for the U.S. leaks, I was troubled by the press getting the wrong end of the stick, such as reporting the ambassador to
Oglaroon's report of seeing Osama bin Laden walking the dogs
of the French ambassador as evidence that they're all in on it,
instead of evidence that once again the U.S. ambassador has eaten too many Oglanuts.
I don't know how far it's true, but I've been told that these
folks tend to get the job in return for favours, and not
because they're good at it, or at anything. I expect there are exceptions.
For that matter, the U.S. ambassador might have been ordered to make up the story, to be used to justify the U.S. invading Oglaroon later on during a worldwide nut shortage.
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>>> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
>>> the Swedes would be foolish.
> Agreed. Especially given the Swedes' record of compliance with US wishes
> (1).
>> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on
>> those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of
>> his political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without
>> a proper trial nobody knows.
> If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question
> him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to
> London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office
> and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have
> been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
Why should they? Would they do that for someone who was not in the public eye? And he's not a "person of interest" anyway, he's been charged with the crimes and there is a warrant out for his arrest because of those charges. Which doesn't mean he did it of course, but until he is tried for it nobody except he and the women involved knows whether or not he did, and perhaps not then.
>> Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike whistle-blowing.
>> Whistle-blowing is not a political act;
> Woo-whee! Where have you *been*? Exposing lies at the very heart of a
> country's governmental structure can be nothing other than political.
Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow one's own government by legal or illegal means.
>> he really can't claim to be persecuted for his politics. Especially in
>> Australia, his own country,
> With its own long history of kissing Pentagonal ass.
That has nothing to do with Assange's politics or whether or not he is persecuted for them.
>> or Sweden, one of the most enlightened countries there is.
> Where they still openly practised eugenics until about 40 years ago, and
> (to bring it back to specifics) whose definition of what constitutes
> 'rape' seems to be remarkably widely drawn.
Do be careful, Nigel! Perhaps it's actually a Good Thing from the point of view of your safety that Esmeraldus is having trouble getting back onto afp. Sweden's definition of rape may seem too wide to you, but it doesn't to about half the world's population.
>> What he did (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a
>> crime, but it is a crime in the US and quite a few other countries,
>> not a political crime but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that
>> the US should want him to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces
>> the death penalty in the US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
> What a mess of a statement that is! Prosecuting Assange (and there is a
> sealed grand-jury indictment waiting for him if Uncle Joe - sorry, I
> mean Uncle Sam - ever gets his hand on him) would be naked political.
He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no connection with American politics. I agree that what happens outside the US stays outside the US, but I can see why the US (or any other country) gets alarmed when someone, their own citizen or not, reveals their secrets. Even such innocuous ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, an attack from outside, but it's not political.
> He
> has helped expose how US rhetoric has once again been contradicted by US
> *actions*.
Shock Horror! The US behaves like every other country, and we never knew it!
> A fair trial would be impossible because of the ranting and
> screaming already done against him by senior politicians right up to La
> Clinton herself. And there are more ways of killing a prisoner than
> strapping him to a gurney and injecting him.
A fair trial is always impossible once the media get hold of something. Which doesn't mean that Sweden shouldn't keep on attempting it.
> Bear in mind that President Obysmal
You would rather have Romney?
> - having promised protection for
> whistleblowers *before* he was inaugurated - has gone in exactly the
> opposite direction in office; even to the point of not only his
> officials but His Hopeness himself pronouncing Bradley Manning (2)
> guilty before that unfortunate young man has even faced the most sham of
> trials before a military court with a judge who is trying her best to
> give sufficient impression of being impartial so as to fool the public,
> but not convincing anyone whose brain-cells don't have to use semaphore
> to communicate with one another.
> Manning is the US gummint's way of getting to Wikileaks without having
> to grab Assange. But having clear designs on putting Manning in the brig
> for the next fifty years will not preclude them from getting Assange if
> any way presents itself.
Bradley is a soldier, subject to rather different rules from those demanded of civilians. He is charged with what amounts to treason because of this difference, but until he has been tried nobody knows whether he did what he is accused of. If he did, then he is guilty of treason as defined by his own government and by the chain of command that he willingly joined.
> On Friday, August 24, 2012 4:29:35 PM UTC+1, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>>> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on
>>> those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of his
>>> political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without a
>>> proper trial nobody knows.
>> If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question
>> him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to
>> London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office
>> and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have
>> been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
> I f they're on the level, I don't see that Mr Assange has a right to
> dictate such terms. Anyway, clearly they want to arrest him.
> I am sceptical of the charges because when Roj Blake was arrested
> in episode one of _Blake's 7_ it was similarly on a charge of
> committing a universally unacceptable act, but this was
> falsified in order to remove him as a political figure.
Well there you go then! If it was on /Blake's 7/ it's obviously documented fact, as you say.
> But I don't know the people involved and I don't know that the
> offences aren't genuine, or aren't offences as we would
> consider them. From what I haven't been able to avoid hearing
> about it, it's possibly a bit complex.
No really?
> According to some accounts
> and in some people's opinions, it is no more than the sort of
> thing that goes on all the time with no one minding much.
> But I'm not so sure. Anyway, I wasn't there.
That's the important point: Nobody was except possibly (not certainly) the women and Assange.
> As for the U.S. leaks, I was troubled by the press getting the
> wrong end of the stick, such as reporting the ambassador to
> Oglaroon's report of seeing Osama bin Laden walking the dogs
> of the French ambassador as evidence that they're all in on it,
> instead of evidence that once again the U.S. ambassador has
> eaten too many Oglanuts.
> I don't know how far it's true, but I've been told that these
> folks tend to get the job in return for favours, and not
> because they're good at it, or at anything. I expect there
> are exceptions.
> For that matter, the U.S. ambassador might have been ordered
> to make up the story, to be used to justify the U.S. invading
> Oglaroon later on during a worldwide nut shortage.
I can see why the US is getting itself into a tizz over this, without agreeing that what Assange did outside Sweden is necessarily a crime in my eyes, whatever the eyes of those directly affected report. What Bradley did though (if he did) is a crime IMO.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 08-24-12 8:29 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>>>> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
>>>> the Swedes would be foolish.
>> Agreed. Especially given the Swedes' record of compliance with US wishes
>> (1).
>>> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on
>>> those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of
>>> his political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without
>>> a proper trial nobody knows.
>> If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question
>> him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to
>> London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office
>> and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have
>> been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
> Why should they?
To help get their job done?
> Would they do that for someone who was not in the > public eye?
Yes. They have done it.
> And he's not a "person of interest" anyway, he's been > charged with the crimes and there is a warrant out for his arrest > because of those charges.
No. No. No. He has *not* been charged with anything. He is under investigation, and the Swedish authorities want to question him. If they want it that badly, than they should take advantage of Assange's offer. If they won't, then we must conclude that there may be other motives behind the prosecutor's decision to reinstate the warrant.
> Which doesn't mean he did it of course, but > until he is tried for it nobody except he and the women involved knows > whether or not he did, and perhaps not then.
>>> Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike whistle-blowing.
>>> Whistle-blowing is not a political act;
>> Woo-whee! Where have you *been*? Exposing lies at the very heart of a
>> country's governmental structure can be nothing other than political.
> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's > ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow > one's own government by legal or illegal means.
Oh really, Lesley! I sometimes wonder about your powers of apprehension. A political act is one which is intended to - or has the capability to - affect the political situation in a given place. The release of the cables illustrated in a way that not even the Pollyannas of the world could disregard that governments of the ever-so-moral West are bent like pretzels.
>>> he really can't claim to be persecuted for his politics. Especially in
>>> Australia, his own country,
>> With its own long history of kissing Pentagonal ass.
> That has nothing to do with Assange's politics or whether or not he is > persecuted for them.
If he were to return to Oz, pressure applied to the XXXX government from Washington would in all likelihood be acceeded to under some barely-plausible pretext.
>>> or Sweden, one of the most enlightened countries there is.
>> Where they still openly practised eugenics until about 40 years ago, and
>> (to bring it back to specifics) whose definition of what constitutes
>> 'rape' seems to be remarkably widely drawn.
> Do be careful, Nigel! Perhaps it's actually a Good Thing from the point > of view of your safety that Esmeraldus is having trouble getting back > onto afp. Sweden's definition of rape may seem too wide to you, but it > doesn't to about half the world's population.
The Swedish definition of what constitutes rape as 'half the world's population' would use the term seems to be far more broadly drawn than in most 'advanced' countries.
>>> What he did (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a
>>> crime, but it is a crime in the US and quite a few other countries,
>>> not a political crime but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that
>>> the US should want him to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces
>>> the death penalty in the US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
>> What a mess of a statement that is! Prosecuting Assange (and there is a
>> sealed grand-jury indictment waiting for him if Uncle Joe - sorry, I
>> mean Uncle Sam - ever gets his hand on him) would be naked political.
> He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no > connection with American politics.
Absolutely breathtaking statement, that! Hardly anyone locked up without trial in Guant�namo for the last ten years has been American or has lived there, but that did not stop, has not stopped and will not stop the US r�gime from assuming some gahd-given extraterritorial powers to grab whoever they want. As I said, US pols have given every indication of what they would/will do to Assange if they can get hold of him.
> I agree that what happens outside the > US stays outside the US, but I can see why the US (or any other country) > gets alarmed when someone, their own citizen or not, reveals their > secrets. Even such innocuous ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, > an attack from outside, but it's not political.
How can it *not* be political? I mean, really?
>> He
>> has helped expose how US rhetoric has once again been contradicted by US
>> *actions*.
> Shock Horror! The US behaves like every other country, and we never knew > it!
And the US behaves as if it were the moral superior to every other nation on the planet (with the possible exception of dear, beleaguered little Israel, of course). If they would come clean about their hypocrisy then there would be less cause to complain about it.
>> A fair trial would be impossible because of the ranting and
>> screaming already done against him by senior politicians right up to La
>> Clinton herself. And there are more ways of killing a prisoner than
>> strapping him to a gurney and injecting him.
> A fair trial is always impossible once the media get hold of something. > Which doesn't mean that Sweden shouldn't keep on attempting it.
I wasn't talking about Sweden, I was talking about the US, for the reasons I stated.
>> Bear in mind that President Obysmal
> You would rather have Romney?
I'd rather have someone who didn't abandon whatever progressive intentions he might have in order to create a fake 'bipartisanship' with some of the most regressive people on the planet, i.e. the Congressional GOP.
Perhaps Romney and his thinking-brain dog Ryan would be better, if only on the grounds that it is better to have to face a candid enemy than a false friend.
>> - having promised protection for
>> whistleblowers *before* he was inaugurated - has gone in exactly the
>> opposite direction in office; even to the point of not only his
>> officials but His Hopeness himself pronouncing Bradley Manning (2)
>> guilty before that unfortunate young man has even faced the most sham of
>> trials before a military court with a judge who is trying her best to
>> give sufficient impression of being impartial so as to fool the public,
>> but not convincing anyone whose brain-cells don't have to use semaphore
>> to communicate with one another.
>> Manning is the US gummint's way of getting to Wikileaks without having
>> to grab Assange. But having clear designs on putting Manning in the brig
>> for the next fifty years will not preclude them from getting Assange if
>> any way presents itself.
> Bradley is a soldier, subject to rather different rules from those > demanded of civilians. He is charged with what amounts to treason > because of this difference, but until he has been tried nobody knows > whether he did what he is accused of. If he did, then he is guilty of > treason as defined by his own government and by the chain of command > that he willingly joined.
So that when he signed up for the military, he signed away his right to a conscience as well? I think a set of tribunals held in a famous city in Germany sixty-odd years ago would grant that he did not, nor should it have been assumed that he did.
What Manning allegedly did was as a result of his being sickened by the knowledge that not only were his 'comrades-in-arms' being allowed - if not encouraged - to kill unarmed civilians and get away with it, but that the Great American Public (TM) were being systematically lied to by the entire military and political structure.
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> On 08-24-12 8:29 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>>>>> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
>>>>> the Swedes would be foolish.
>>> Agreed. Especially given the Swedes' record of compliance with US wishes
>>> (1).
>>>> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on
>>>> those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of
>>>> his political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without
>>>> a proper trial nobody knows.
>>> If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question
>>> him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to
>>> London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office
>>> and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have
>>> been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
>> Why should they?
> To help get their job done?
Their job at this stage is to bring the accused to trial.
>> Would they do that for someone who was not in the public eye?
> Yes. They have done it.
I can see why they would go this far out of their way to question a witness who is not accused of anything, but why would they when their objective is to apprehend someone for whom there is already a warrant and take him back to face trial?
>> And he's not a "person of interest" anyway, he's been charged with the
>> crimes and there is a warrant out for his arrest because of those
>> charges.
> No. No. No. He has *not* been charged with anything. He is under
> investigation, and the Swedish authorities want to question him.
> If they
> want it that badly, than they should take advantage of Assange's offer.
> If they won't, then we must conclude that there may be other motives
> behind the prosecutor's decision to reinstate the warrant.
You can conclude that if you like, and from experience of your previous postings it's clear that you do like. The rest of us can wait for the trial before drawing conclusions.
>> Which doesn't mean he did it of course, but until he is tried for it
>> nobody except he and the women involved knows whether or not he did,
>> and perhaps not then.
>>>> Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike whistle-blowing.
>>>> Whistle-blowing is not a political act;
>>> Woo-whee! Where have you *been*? Exposing lies at the very heart of a
>>> country's governmental structure can be nothing other than political.
>> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's
>> ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow
>> one's own government by legal or illegal means.
> Oh really, Lesley! I sometimes wonder about your powers of apprehension.
I'm fine, don't worry about /me/.
> A political act is one which is intended to - or has the capability to -
> affect the political situation in a given place.
Of which one is a citizen or at least a resident.
> The release of the
> cables illustrated in a way that not even the Pollyannas of the world
> could disregard that governments of the ever-so-moral West are bent like
> pretzels.
Which was hardly news.
>>>> he really can't claim to be persecuted for his politics. Especially in
>>>> Australia, his own country,
>>> With its own long history of kissing Pentagonal ass.
>> That has nothing to do with Assange's politics or whether or not he is
>> persecuted for them.
> If he were to return to Oz,
I don't think he's considered going home. If he did, perhaps there's a chance that the blokish culture of Oz might protect him on the rape charges, though I have reliable reports that Australia entered the 21st century when the rest of us did.
> pressure applied to the XXXX government from
> Washington would in all likelihood be acceeded to under some
> barely-plausible pretext.
>>>> or Sweden, one of the most enlightened countries there is.
>>> Where they still openly practised eugenics until about 40 years ago, and
>>> (to bring it back to specifics) whose definition of what constitutes
>>> 'rape' seems to be remarkably widely drawn.
>> Do be careful, Nigel! Perhaps it's actually a Good Thing from the
>> point of view of your safety that Esmeraldus is having trouble getting
>> back onto afp. Sweden's definition of rape may seem too wide to you,
>> but it doesn't to about half the world's population.
> The Swedish definition of what constitutes rape as 'half the world's
> population' would use the term seems to be far more broadly drawn than
> in most 'advanced' countries.
So it wasn't a legitimate rape? Seriously (and it is a very serious subject) rape is non-consensual sex. Period [1]. "Consensual" means that both (or all) parties freely gave their fully-informed consent /at that time/, which is hard to do if you're asleep.
>>>> What he did (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a
>>>> crime, but it is a crime in the US and quite a few other countries,
>>>> not a political crime but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that
>>>> the US should want him to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces
>>>> the death penalty in the US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
>>> What a mess of a statement that is! Prosecuting Assange (and there is a
>>> sealed grand-jury indictment waiting for him if Uncle Joe - sorry, I
>>> mean Uncle Sam - ever gets his hand on him) would be naked political.
>> He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no
>> connection with American politics.
> Absolutely breathtaking statement, that! Hardly anyone locked up without
> trial in Guantánamo for the last ten years has been American or has
> lived there,
Those are not in prison because of political action, but because they took part in a war against the US. Which is not to say that they should still be there: they should have been released with all the other prisoners of war.
> but that did not stop, has not stopped and will not stop
> the US régime from assuming some gahd-given extraterritorial powers to
> grab whoever they want. As I said, US pols have given every indication
> of what they would/will do to Assange if they can get hold of him.
>> I agree that what happens outside the US stays outside the US, but I
>> can see why the US (or any other country) gets alarmed when someone,
>> their own citizen or not, reveals their secrets. Even such innocuous
>> ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, an attack from outside, but
>> it's not political.
> How can it *not* be political? I mean, really?
Because he is not a US citizen and doesn't live there. It could be considered an act of war, as I said yesterday, but such an ineffective one that it really doesn't count.
>>> He
>>> has helped expose how US rhetoric has once again been contradicted by US
>>> *actions*.
>> Shock Horror! The US behaves like every other country, and we never
>> knew it!
> And the US behaves as if it were the moral superior to every other
> nation on the planet (with the possible exception of dear, beleaguered
> little Israel, of course). If they would come clean about their
> hypocrisy then there would be less cause to complain about it.
Again: Shock Horror! The US behaves like every other country, and we never knew it! God is on both sides in every war.
>>> A fair trial would be impossible because of the ranting and
>>> screaming already done against him by senior politicians right up to La
>>> Clinton herself. And there are more ways of killing a prisoner than
>>> strapping him to a gurney and injecting him.
>> A fair trial is always impossible once the media get hold of
>> something. Which doesn't mean that Sweden shouldn't keep on attempting
>> it.
> I wasn't talking about Sweden, I was talking about the US, for the
> reasons I stated.
I was talking about both.
>>> Bear in mind that President Obysmal
>> You would rather have Romney?
> I'd rather have someone who didn't abandon whatever progressive
> intentions he might have in order to create a fake 'bipartisanship' with
> some of the most regressive people on the planet, i.e. the Congressional
> GOP.
> Perhaps Romney and his thinking-brain dog Ryan would be better, if only
> on the grounds that it is better to have to face a candid enemy than a
> false friend.
Your choice [2] is between Obama and Romney. Someone who has tried to do the right thing in the face of unprecedented opposition, or someone who hates women, sick people and poor people [3] and keeps his dog in a cage on top of his car, hosing it down whenever it fouls itself.
>>> - having promised protection for
>>> whistleblowers *before* he was inaugurated - has gone in exactly the
>>> opposite direction in office; even to the point of not only his
>>> officials but His Hopeness himself pronouncing Bradley Manning (2)
>>> guilty before that unfortunate young man has even faced the most sham of
>>> trials before a military court with a judge who is trying her best to
>>> give sufficient impression of being
> In message <k1al66$1ig...@mud.stack.nl>
> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's
>> ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow
>> one's own government by legal or illegal means.
> Are you *insane* or just completely ignorant of the huge body of
> evidence Wikileaks represents of US double dealing, lies, murders, and
> more? One of the first things leaked was a video proving the USA covered
> up the mass murder of Iraqi civilians and a Reuters crew.
Indeed it was, along with all the other embarrassing stuff that Assange revealed. But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a political act.
>> He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no
>> connection with American politics.
> That's absurd. His actions have done real and lasting damage to the
> diplomatic machine of the USA and has exposed all sorts of duplicitous
> actions by the USA, and there is much more to come.
They have, though not as much as he hoped apparently. But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a political act.
>> I agree that what happens outside the US stays outside the US, but I
>> can see why the US (or any other country) gets alarmed when someone,
>> their own citizen or not, reveals their secrets. Even such innocuous
>> ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, an attack from outside, but
>> it's not political.
> It's completely political.
But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a political act.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
>> If they
>> want it that badly, than they should take advantage of Assange's offer.
>> If they won't, then we must conclude that there may be other motives
>> behind the prosecutor's decision to reinstate the warrant.
> You can conclude that if you like, and from experience of your previous > postings it's clear that you do like. The rest of us can wait for the > trial before drawing conclusions.
An awful lot of "sources say" in that. Not the soundest basis for an argument.
>> Oh really, Lesley! I sometimes wonder about your powers of apprehension.
> I'm fine, don't worry about /me/.
Mee-ow to you too, dear.
>> If he were to return to Oz,
> I don't think he's considered going home. If he did, perhaps there's a > chance that the blokish culture of Oz might protect him on the rape > charges, though I have reliable reports that Australia entered the 21st > century when the rest of us did.
>> pressure applied to the XXXX government from
>> Washington would in all likelihood be acceeded to under some
>> barely-plausible pretext.
Emphasis on the word "current". Given the attempts by the US to link Assange with Manning, there is nothing (not even a sense of embarrassment) to prevent the US - once it has held its kangaroo (sic) court against Manning - to claim a link with Assange and demand his being handed over to them. In the face of such an eventuality, the current governments in Stockholm and Canberra are likely to collude, given all we know about them.
> So it wasn't a legitimate rape? Seriously (and it is a very serious > subject) rape is non-consensual sex. Period [1]. "Consensual" means that > both (or all) parties freely gave their fully-informed consent /at that > time/, which is hard to do if you're asleep.
And yet the original prosecutor said explicitly that she didn't think that what he is alleged to have done consituted rape. It was only after she was replaced by Marianne Ny - someone with some, erm, *interesting* connections - that it suddenly became an alleged rape again.
>>>>> What he did (apart from raping people if he did) should not be a
>>>>> crime, but it is a crime in the US and quite a few other countries,
>>>>> not a political crime but a real crime, so it's quite reasonable that
>>>>> the US should want him to stand trial for it. He claims that he faces
>>>>> the death penalty in the US, but that seems seriously unlikely.
>>>> What a mess of a statement that is! Prosecuting Assange (and there is a
>>>> sealed grand-jury indictment waiting for him if Uncle Joe - sorry, I
>>>> mean Uncle Sam - ever gets his hand on him) would be naked political.
>>> He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no
>>> connection with American politics.
>> Absolutely breathtaking statement, that! Hardly anyone locked up without
>> trial in Guant�namo for the last ten years has been American or has
>> lived there,
> Those are not in prison because of political action, but because they > took part in a war against the US. Which is not to say that they should > still be there: they should have been released with all the other > prisoners of war.
(a) no proof has ever been furnished that a single one of them took part in a 'war' against the US, (b) don't you know that Little Shrub's 'war' is - by definition - never ending, and that the US has unilaterally voided (in its own mind, at least) its obligations under international law by redefining those men (and boys) as 'enemy combatants', and hence having no protection at all?
>> but that did not stop, has not stopped and will not stop
>> the US r�gime from assuming some gahd-given extraterritorial powers to
>> grab whoever they want. As I said, US pols have given every indication
>> of what they would/will do to Assange if they can get hold of him.
>>> I agree that what happens outside the US stays outside the US, but I
>>> can see why the US (or any other country) gets alarmed when someone,
>>> their own citizen or not, reveals their secrets. Even such innocuous
>>> ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, an attack from outside, but
>>> it's not political.
>> How can it *not* be political? I mean, really?
> Because he is not a US citizen and doesn't live there. It could be > considered an act of war, as I said yesterday, but such an ineffective > one that it really doesn't count.
What has where he is a citizen of and where he may or may or not live have to do with it? I notice in your response to Lewis further down that you use that line three or four times. You can flood Usenet with it, but it still won't bring it down a single percentage point on the Twaddlometer.
>> I'd rather have someone who didn't abandon whatever progressive
>> intentions he might have in order to create a fake 'bipartisanship' with
>> some of the most regressive people on the planet, i.e. the Congressional
>> GOP.
>> Perhaps Romney and his thinking-brain dog Ryan would be better, if only
>> on the grounds that it is better to have to face a candid enemy than a
>> false friend.
> Your choice [2] is between Obama and Romney. Someone who has tried to do > the right thing in the face of unprecedented opposition, or someone who > hates women, sick people and poor people [3] and keeps his dog in a cage > on top of his car, hosing it down whenever it fouls itself.
"Unprecendented opposition"? You mean the fact that he sat on his lawyerly ass for two years while his party had control of *both* houses on Congress and did nothing of any worth, concentrating - as I said - on his piffle about 'bipartisanship' and 'common ground' with the loonies of the congressional Republican Party? And then lost control of Congress so that, however 'progressive' he may have suddenly decided he wants to be, he can't get anything passed without watering it down to meaninglessness?
Romney is an asshole, Ryan is an ideological thug. The thing is, at least we *know* that that is what they are.
>>> Bradley is a soldier, subject to rather different rules from those
>>> demanded of civilians. He is charged with what amounts to treason
>>> because of this difference, but until he has been tried nobody knows
>>> whether he did what he is accused of. If he did, then he is guilty of
>>> treason as defined by his own government and by the chain of command
>>> that he willingly joined.
>> So that when he signed up for the military, he signed away his right to
>> a conscience as well?
> He signed an undertaking that he would not reveal his country's secrets. > He then did what he had legally sworn not to do.
So what amounts to contract law over-rides conscience? Ranks of dictators throughout history are now cheering you to the echo.
>> I think a set of tribunals held in a famous city
>> in Germany sixty-odd years ago would grant that he did not, nor should
>> it have been assumed that he did.
> Already? It's only been a few days. Rats, I was enjoying this one.
If that was a snarky reference to Godwin's Law, then you can shove it. I never mentioned the 'H' word; only referenced the clear view which came out of N�rnberg that 'simply obeying orders' is no valid excuse, and that disobeying a 'legitimate' order for the sake of one's humanity is no crime.
>> Manning is a prisoner of conscience.
> Manning is accused of treason (I don't know the exact legal charge), and > there is very strong evidence against him.
> On 08-25-12 9:24 PM, Lewis wrote:
> > In message <k1al66$1ig...@mud.stack.nl>
> > Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's
> >> ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow
> >> one's own government by legal or illegal means.
> > Are you *insane* or just completely ignorant of the huge body of
> > evidence Wikileaks represents of US double dealing, lies, murders, and
> > more? One of the first things leaked was a video proving the USA covered
> > up the mass murder of Iraqi civilians and a Reuters crew.
> Indeed it was, along with all the other embarrassing stuff that Assange > revealed. But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so > it's not a political act.
> >> He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no
> >> connection with American politics.
> > That's absurd. His actions have done real and lasting damage to the
> > diplomatic machine of the USA and has exposed all sorts of duplicitous
> > actions by the USA, and there is much more to come.
> They have, though not as much as he hoped apparently. But he's not a US > citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a political act.
> >> I agree that what happens outside the US stays outside the US, but I
> >> can see why the US (or any other country) gets alarmed when someone,
> >> their own citizen or not, reveals their secrets. Even such innocuous
> >> ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, an attack from outside, but
> >> it's not political.
> > It's completely political.
> But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a > political act.
> Lesley.
And IIUC the revelations are completely non partisan.
>> Their job at this stage is to bring the accused to trial.
> No, it is to find out whether there is any factual basis to the
> accusations which could lead to a trial
As I understand the situation there is a complaint against Assange but no charges have yet been filed. The Swedes have said that they want to interview him as part of the process of discovering whether any criminal acts have been committed. Assange has offered to be interviewed in the embassy but as far as I know the Swedes haven't acknowledged the offer.
>>> If they
>>> want it that badly, than they should take advantage of Assange's offer.
>>> If they won't, then we must conclude that there may be other motives
>>> behind the prosecutor's decision to reinstate the warrant.
>> You can conclude that if you like, and from experience of your
>> previous postings it's clear that you do like. The rest of us can wait
>> for the trial before drawing conclusions.
It's unlikely that there will ever be a trial either in Sweden or the US. There have been enough procedural errors in Sweden to have the case thrown out. His Wikileaks activities were all outside US jurisdiction and there is a lot of doubt about whether his actions break any US laws. US citizens feeding him information might have. (The US has a very clear definition of treason and none of the activities so far meet it. Neither Manning nor Assange could be convicted of treason under US law. Manning might be prosecutable for espionage though. It's possible that the US doesn't have enough evidence for that without corroboration from Assange.)
None of this makes any difference if Assange is taken to Guantanamo.
[...]
>> I don't think he's considered going home. If he did, perhaps there's a
>> chance that the blokish culture of Oz might protect him on the rape
>> charges, though I have reliable reports that Australia entered the
>> 21st century when the rest of us did.
As of now there are no charges of any sort. The accusations aren't of rape, that's press shit-stirring. Swedish law does have laws against rape but Assange isn't being accused of breaking them.
> > Their job at this stage is to bring the accused to trial.
> No, it is to find out whether there is any factual basis to the > accusations which could lead to a trial
> >> If they
> >> want it that badly, than they should take advantage of Assange's offer.
> >> If they won't, then we must conclude that there may be other motives
> >> behind the prosecutor's decision to reinstate the warrant.
> > You can conclude that if you like, and from experience of your previous
> > postings it's clear that you do like. The rest of us can wait for the
> > trial before drawing conclusions.
> An awful lot of "sources say" in that. Not the soundest basis for an > argument.
> >> Oh really, Lesley! I sometimes wonder about your powers of apprehension.
> > I'm fine, don't worry about /me/.
> Mee-ow to you too, dear.
> >> If he were to return to Oz,
> > I don't think he's considered going home. If he did, perhaps there's a
> > chance that the blokish culture of Oz might protect him on the rape
> > charges, though I have reliable reports that Australia entered the 21st
> > century when the rest of us did.
We would not protect him from rape charges. He would have to face them
in Sweden. Australia treats rape as a serious offence and anyway we
repsect the soverignty of other countries to enforce laws (even when it
involves death penalties, but see below). However, he would get full
consular assistance in Sweden.
> >> pressure applied to the XXXX government from
> >> Washington would in all likelihood be acceeded to under some
> >> barely-plausible pretext.
> Emphasis on the word "current". Given the attempts by the US to link > Assange with Manning, there is nothing (not even a sense of > embarrassment) to prevent the US - once it has held its kangaroo (sic)
> court against Manning - to claim a link with Assange and demand his > being handed over to them. In the face of such an eventuality, the > current governments in Stockholm and Canberra are likely to collude, > given all we know about them.
They would not. Neither Sweden nor Australia will extradite to a country
that has the death penalty for the crime supposed. Moreover, any
Australian government that failed to protect a citizen from a possible
capital case in the US, with secret trials, would be committing suicide
after the ways Australians were treated at Guantanamo.
> > So it wasn't a legitimate rape? Seriously (and it is a very serious
> > subject) rape is non-consensual sex. Period [1]. "Consensual" means that
> > both (or all) parties freely gave their fully-informed consent /at that
> > time/, which is hard to do if you're asleep.
> And yet the original prosecutor said explicitly that she didn't think
> that what he is alleged to have done consituted rape. It was only after
> she was replaced by Marianne Ny - someone with some, erm, *interesting*
> connections - that it suddenly became an alleged rape again.
Maybe. That is for testing in court. As I understand, he has not been
charged with rape but with failing to appear for questioning. But if he
were, and were fairly tried, in my opinion he should be convicted on
evidence.
...
-- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>>> If they
>>> want it that badly, than they should take advantage of Assange's offer.
>>> If they won't, then we must conclude that there may be other motives
>>> behind the prosecutor's decision to reinstate the warrant.
>> You can conclude that if you like, and from experience of your
>> previous postings it's clear that you do like. The rest of us can wait
>> for the trial before drawing conclusions.
> An awful lot of "sources say" in that. Not the soundest basis for an
> argument.
One of the sources being Reuters. If you're going to trust any of the media at all (and I agree that that could be a foolish action), Reuters is surely the one to trust.
<snip>
> Emphasis on the word "current". Given the attempts by the US to link
> Assange with Manning,
I thought it was already established, without either man attempting to deny it, that Manning passed the information to Assange?
> there is nothing (not even a sense of
> embarrassment) to prevent the US - once it has held its kangaroo (sic)
> court against Manning - to claim a link with Assange and demand his
> being handed over to them. In the face of such an eventuality, the
> current governments in Stockholm and Canberra are likely to collude,
> given all we know about them.
There is also nothing to stop all the molecules of air in both the room where you are and the one where I am from rushing into a corner of each room. But there's no reason to assume they will, either. The only relevant facts in the case are that the US has laid no charges and made no attempt to extradite him, and that US spokespeople are saying that they don't intend to do either.
>> So it wasn't a legitimate rape? Seriously (and it is a very serious
>> subject) rape is non-consensual sex. Period [1]. "Consensual" means
>> that both (or all) parties freely gave their fully-informed consent
>> /at that time/, which is hard to do if you're asleep.
> And yet the original prosecutor said explicitly that she didn't think
> that what he is alleged to have done consituted rape. It was only after
> she was replaced by Marianne Ny - someone with some, erm, *interesting*
> connections - that it suddenly became an alleged rape again.
So the legitimacy of the alleged rape is open to interpretation. The best way to clear it up is for Assange to return to Sweden and stand trial, rather than attempting to distract attention with his unfounded claims of persecution and death threats.
<snip>
>>> Absolutely breathtaking statement, that! Hardly anyone locked up without
>>> trial in Guantánamo for the last ten years has been American or has
>>> lived there,
>> Those are not in prison because of political action, but because they
>> took part in a war against the US. Which is not to say that they
>> should still be there: they should have been released with all the
>> other prisoners of war.
> (a) no proof has ever been furnished that a single one of them took part
> in a 'war' against the US, (b) don't you know that Little Shrub's 'war'
> is - by definition - never ending, and that the US has unilaterally
> voided (in its own mind, at least) its obligations under international
> law by redefining those men (and boys) as 'enemy combatants', and hence
> having no protection at all?
I don't think anyone is denying that the imprisoned men were fighting against US troops. I don't see why it's OK for US troops to kill enemy soldiers in battle, but not for those same enemy troops to return the favour, granted. But there's no point in pretending that there wasn't a war, with soldiers on both sides killing each other.
<snip>
>>>> Bradley is a soldier, subject to rather different rules from those
>>>> demanded of civilians. He is charged with what amounts to treason
>>>> because of this difference, but until he has been tried nobody knows
>>>> whether he did what he is accused of. If he did, then he is guilty of
>>>> treason as defined by his own government and by the chain of command
>>>> that he willingly joined.
>>> So that when he signed up for the military, he signed away his right to
>>> a conscience as well?
>> He signed an undertaking that he would not reveal his country's
>> secrets. He then did what he had legally sworn not to do.
> So what amounts to contract law over-rides conscience?
There's no point in signing a contract if you're not going to observe it, which is why there are penalties for breaking a contract. Ideally, everyone would just give their word and keep it and no country would have secrets anyway, but that's not how people work.
> Ranks of
> dictators throughout history are now cheering you to the echo.
I don't think dictators bother too much about the law.
>>> I think a set of tribunals held in a famous city
>>> in Germany sixty-odd years ago would grant that he did not, nor should
>>> it have been assumed that he did.
>> Already? It's only been a few days. Rats, I was enjoying this one.
> If that was a snarky reference to Godwin's Law, then you can shove it. I
> never mentioned the 'H' word; only referenced the clear view which came
> out of Nürnberg that 'simply obeying orders' is no valid excuse, and
> that disobeying a 'legitimate' order for the sake of one's humanity is
> no crime.
No, but it will be treated as one, and someone deciding to commit that "crime" should be aware of the consequences. Personally, I feel that agreeing not to betray your country's secrets, to which you have special access, and then doing so /is/ a crime.
>>> Manning is a prisoner of conscience.
>> Manning is accused of treason (I don't know the exact legal charge),
>> and there is very strong evidence against him.
> (a) No he isn't. (b) No there isn't.
He didn't reveal the contents of those e-mails? The only possible defence is that they've got the wrong man, and I haven't seen that suggested.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
>>> I don't think he's considered going home. If he did, perhaps there's a
>>> chance that the blokish culture of Oz might protect him on the rape
>>> charges, though I have reliable reports that Australia entered the 21st
>>> century when the rest of us did.
> We would not protect him from rape charges. He would have to face them
> in Sweden. Australia treats rape as a serious offence and anyway we
> repsect the soverignty of other countries to enforce laws (even when it
> involves death penalties, but see below). However, he would get full
> consular assistance in Sweden.
That's what I meant.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
> In article <k1da53$jl...@mud.stack.nl>,
> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08-25-12 9:24 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <k1al66$1ig...@mud.stack.nl>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's
>>>> ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow
>>>> one's own government by legal or illegal means.
>>> Are you *insane* or just completely ignorant of the huge body of
>>> evidence Wikileaks represents of US double dealing, lies, murders, and
>>> more? One of the first things leaked was a video proving the USA covered
>>> up the mass murder of Iraqi civilians and a Reuters crew.
>> Indeed it was, along with all the other embarrassing stuff that Assange
>> revealed. But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so
>> it's not a political act.
>>>> He's not American and doesn't live there, so whatever he does has no
>>>> connection with American politics.
>>> That's absurd. His actions have done real and lasting damage to the
>>> diplomatic machine of the USA and has exposed all sorts of duplicitous
>>> actions by the USA, and there is much more to come.
>> They have, though not as much as he hoped apparently. But he's not a US
>> citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a political act.
>>>> I agree that what happens outside the US stays outside the US, but I
>>>> can see why the US (or any other country) gets alarmed when someone,
>>>> their own citizen or not, reveals their secrets. Even such innocuous
>>>> ones. It might be an act of war, I guess, an attack from outside, but
>>>> it's not political.
>>> It's completely political.
>> But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a
>> political act.
>> Lesley.
> And IIUC the revelations are completely non partisan.
They seem to be mostly to do with boring stuff about personalities. I don't think any of them favour either Republicans or Democrats, as you point out.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
> In message <k1da53$jl...@mud.stack.nl>
> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08-25-12 9:24 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <k1al66$1ig...@mud.stack.nl>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's
>>>> ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow
>>>> one's own government by legal or illegal means.
>>> Are you *insane* or just completely ignorant of the huge body of
>>> evidence Wikileaks represents of US double dealing, lies, murders, and
>>> more? One of the first things leaked was a video proving the USA covered
>>> up the mass murder of Iraqi civilians and a Reuters crew.
>> Indeed it was, along with all the other embarrassing stuff that Assange
>> revealed. But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so
>> it's not a political act.
> That's a completely silly statement. Where he is a resident or citizen
> doesn't define if an action is political or not.
It define just that completely.
Lesley.
-- This address is real, but to reach me use leswes att shaw dott ca
On Monday, August 27, 2012 2:38:17 PM UTC+1, Lesley Weston wrote:
> On 08-26-12 4:54 PM, Lewis wrote: > > In message <k1da53$jld$1...@mud.stack.nl> > > Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 08-25-12 9:24 PM, Lewis wrote: > >>> In message <k1al66$1ig8$1...@mud.stack.nl> > >>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> Some e-mails about how the US ambassador found some other country's > >>>> ambassador boring? A political act is a direct attempt to overthrow > >>>> one's own government by legal or illegal means.
> >>> Are you *insane* or just completely ignorant of the huge body of > >>> evidence Wikileaks represents of US double dealing, lies, murders, and > >>> more? One of the first things leaked was a video proving the USA covered > >>> up the mass murder of Iraqi civilians and a Reuters crew.
> >> Indeed it was, along with all the other embarrassing stuff that Assange > >> revealed. But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so > >> it's not a political act.
> > That's a completely silly statement. Where he is a resident or citizen > > doesn't define if an action is political or not.
> It define just that completely.
Oh for heaven's sake. Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler wasn't Polish so this wasn't a political act?
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 26/08/12 17:32, Nigel Stapley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> Their job at this stage is to bring the accused to trial.
>> No, it is to find out whether there is any factual basis to the
>> accusations which could lead to a trial
> As I understand the situation there is a complaint against Assange but no
> charges have yet been filed. The Swedes have said that they want to
> interview him as part of the process of discovering whether any criminal
> acts have been committed. Assange has offered to be interviewed in the
> embassy but as far as I know the Swedes haven't acknowledged the offer.
They have rejected the offer.
See other posts: in Swedish law, charging is the point when the excused is
told the exact counts he will shortly be answering in court. It is not the
same as charging in British law. Sweden has Napoleonic derived law.
> As of now there are no charges of any sort. The accusations aren't of
> rape, that's press shit-stirring. Swedish law does have laws against rape
> but Assange isn't being accused of breaking them.
Untrue. One accusation of rape, one of sexual assault.
It is true thT the rape, as alleged, might not be thought so in other
systems. She says that after consensual sex, they both went to sleep. She
woke up to find her having sex with her, to which she had not given
consent. But if that is rape in Sweden, it is their country and their law.
And, if evidence is strong enough, it needs to be settled in court.
Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08-25-12 9:24 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> It's completely political.
> But he's not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US, so it's not a political act.
Most people would disagree with your use of the word political there.
Amnesty International UK is not a charity in the UK because it's actions
are regarded as political, even thought they entity relate to foreign
governments. Most people reckon that any attempt to change the
administration of anything is political until it escalates into war. You
are speaking your own private language if you stick with that definition.
Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <f4adnefiqYJSAKrNnZ2dnUVZ8v-dn...@brightview.co.uk> > Nigel Stapley <u...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 08-24-12 4:11 AM, larry wrote:
>>>> I think him trusting in the forbearance of the USA or the backbone of
>>>> the Swedes would be foolish.
>> Agreed. Especially given the Swedes' record of compliance with US wishes >> (1).
>>> Anybody else charged with sexual assault would have to stand trial on >>> those charges. Maybe it is a ridiculous trumped-up charge because of his >>> political activities, as he claims, but maybe it's not and without a >>> proper trial nobody knows.
>> If that is the sole reason why the Swedish authorities want to question >> him, then why have they refused Assange's offer for them to come to >> London to do it? The excuses offered by the Swedish prosecutor's office >> and their police ring somewhat hollow, as those same authorities have >> been willing to travel elsewhere to question 'persons of interest'.
> Because the only reason Sweden wants him is to turn him over to the US.
For which your evidence is? Tinfoil hat material if ever I heard it.
>>> Rape is a crime in most countries, unlike >>> whistle-blowing.
>>> Whistle-blowing is not a political act;
>> Woo-whee! Where have you *been*? Exposing lies at the very heart of a >> country's governmental structure can be nothing other than political.
> Yeah, this is one of the dumber statements I've ever heard.
And did Manning actually do so, rather than just showing that diplomats, as
opposed to governments, lie. It was said in the 17th century that a
diplomat is a man sent to lie abroad for his country. Nothing changed
there.
