[I]Asylum

[GaryN]

I think in the case of Julian Assange it can be safely said that the
lunatics *have* takenm over the asylum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881

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"

Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"

[larry]

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
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881
>
> 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.

[Lesley Weston]

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

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:k17umm$6bg$1...@mud.stack.nl:

I did wonder why Ecuador? Then I found this:-

http://thecurmudgeonly.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/ecuador-next-threat-to-
world-peace.html

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.

[Nigel Stapley]

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.

(1) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/may/12sweden.htm
(2) http://www.bradleymanning.org/

PS. Nice to see some new posts on here; two days without one must be
some sort of a record.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[GaryN]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in
news:f4adnefiqYJSAKrN...@brightview.co.uk:

<snip>

> 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.

[Robert Carnegie]

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]

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? 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.

>
> (1) http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/may/12sweden.htm
> (2) http://www.bradleymanning.org/
>
> PS. Nice to see some new posts on here; two days without one must be
> some sort of a record.
>

Here I agree with you.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-25-12 2:14 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> 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.

[Nigel Stapley]

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.

Manning is a prisoner of conscience.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-25-12 9:32 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Allegations_of_sexual_assault

or http://tinyurl.com/cbttfva

That's his own entry in Wikipedia.

> 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.

There's this, though:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/julian-assange-wikileaks-no-criminal-charges-in-us_n_1823159.html

or http://tinyurl.com/8v8zhf8

and from Reuters themselves:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSBRE87L12W20120822

or http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7

>
>> 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.

Again: http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7

>>>
>>>> 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.

http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7

>
>> 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 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?

He signed an undertaking that he would not reveal his country's secrets.
He then did what he had legally sworn not to do.

> 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.

>
> 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.

Then he should have left the army at the first opportunity (I don't know
how long a hitch lasts in the US), after which he could have gone
public. That's what Dallaire did, and it wasn't even his own government
that he was criticising.

>
> 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.
>
[1] Including then.

[2] Actually not yours of course, nor mine, since neither of us can vote
in US elections.

[3] So presumably a triple dose of hatred for anyone who is all three.

[Lesley Weston]

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.

>
>> 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.

[Nigel Stapley]

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

>
>> 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.
>
> There's this, though:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/julian-assange-wikileaks-no-criminal-charges-in-us_n_1823159.html
>
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/8v8zhf8
>
> and from Reuters themselves:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSBRE87L12W20120822
>
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7

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.
>
> Again: http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7

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.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7

See above.

>>
>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

"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?

(For an overview of what I mean, see Bill Maher:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a99_1295832297 ).

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.
> >

(a) No he isn't. (b) No there isn't.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <k1da53$jld$1...@mud.stack.nl>,

And IIUC the revelations are completely non partisan.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Bernard Peek]

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.

>
>
>>
>>> 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.


--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[John S. Wilkins]

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.
> >
> > Again: http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7
>
> 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

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-26-12 9:32 AM, 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
>

There is a warrant out for his arrest, and the prosecutor says that
there is a case for him to answer.

>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> There's this, though:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/julian-assange-wikileaks-no-criminal-charges-in-us_n_1823159.html
>>
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/8v8zhf8
>>
>> and from Reuters themselves:
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/22/us-wikileaks-assange-usa-idUSBRE87L12W20120822
>>
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/bqomsj7
>
> 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 Weston]

On 08-27-12 4:51 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>

<Assange>

>>>> 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.

That's what I meant.

[Lesley Weston]

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 Weston]

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.

[Robert Carnegie]

Oh for heaven's sake. Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler wasn't Polish
so this wasn't a political act?

[larry]

On 26/08/12 12:14 AM, Lewis wrote:

> Assange wouldn't last a week in US custody. No trial, just an
> 'accidental' prison murder.
>

Regrettably, and by a fellow prisoner - an administrative review of the
facts surrounding the occurrence has been ordered.

[Alec Cawley]

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.

[Alec Cawley]

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.

[Alec Cawley]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <f4adnefiqYJSAKrN...@brightview.co.uk>

> Nigel Stapley <un...@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.

[Alec Cawley]

Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
> Lesley Weston wrote:

>

>> 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.

According to posts elsewhere by legal bids, the position of charging in
Swedish law is different from English law. It Only occurs when a certain
decision has been made to prosecute, and the trial /must/ start in 14 days.
The Swedish police definitely want to arrest him, but (as in many British
cases), he may then be reseated without charge when his replies to the
allegations have been heard.

>>> 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.
>

While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
nature, which is not, I think, the case.

And you have to remember that not all the martial which appeared on
Wikilieaks came via the alleged Manning path. Before the Manning material
appeared, they released some information which did appear to show US forces
behaving in a ruthless manner - not Holocaust level, but certainly outside
the rules of war. But the possibly MAnning matrial has only shown diplomats
axing one thing to their host nation (what a nice president you have) and
another to their bosses (the president is a paranoid kleptomaniac idiot).
Totally unsurprising, and not the sort of material to invite Nuremberg
comparisons. Just. Breach of confidentiality, and a large handful of grit
in the already not very smooth works of diplomacy. I see no sign that the
alleged Manning leaks revealed anything that the US would not have owned up
to in general though not in detail.

> 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.
>
> Manning is a prisoner of conscience.

Can you back that up, with Manning material, not the earlier mAterial on
Wikilieaks?

[Nigel Stapley]

Alec Cawley wrote:

Alec, will you please read what you've typed before you post it? Your
posts look like the operating instructions for a Korean DVD player
translated by a language school in Jakarta.

[Nigel Stapley]

"Lessons will be learned."

[larry]

On 27/08/12 03:55 PM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> larry wrote:
>> On 26/08/12 12:14 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Assange wouldn't last a week in US custody. No trial, just an
>>> 'accidental' prison murder.
>>>
>>
>> Regrettably, and by a fellow prisoner - an administrative review of
>> the facts surrounding the occurrence has been ordered.
>>
>
> "Lessons will be learned."
>

We would like to take this opportunity to express our deep regret and
condolences to his family.

[larry]

On 27/08/12 01:31 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:

> 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.

Manning inconvenienced, surprised and embarrassed his political masters
- the only crime a servant, (civil or military,) may not be forgiven.

[larry]

On 27/08/12 01:31 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:

Was he aware that he was committing an illegal act at the time? The
Swedish definition seems more stringent than what he would've been used
to in Oz.

[Robert Carnegie]

Being unaware of local customs is neither a defence nor an excuse.

_The Joy of Sex_ says it's rather a nice way to be woken up, but
thus fails to address the consent problem. I think you're not
allowed to do it in the UK either, strictly.

[Robert Carnegie]

A bit of a catch there if he's treated like Manning, who, and here I may
be misinformed, is in solitary confinement, has not seen or interacted
with another human being for a long time, and presumably by now is
entirely insane.

Perhaps they'll put him in with Assange, and no food, and let nature
take its course.

[Nigel Stapley]

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, August 27, 2012 5:42:54 PM UTC+1, larry wrote:
>> On 26/08/12 12:14 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Assange wouldn't last a week in US custody. No trial, just an
>>> 'accidental' prison murder.
>> Regrettably, and by a fellow prisoner - an administrative review of the
>> facts surrounding the occurrence has been ordered.
>
> A bit of a catch there if he's treated like Manning, who, and here I may
> be misinformed, is in solitary confinement, has not seen or interacted
> with another human being for a long time, and presumably by now is
> entirely insane.

He *was* kept in those conditions for a number of months, both in
Iraq/Kuwait and then at Quantico, Va. International outrage forced even
the US Military to back down. They moved him to Leavenworth and placed
him in a far less restrictive regime.

[Robert Carnegie]

I would guess that that's sufficient time to do irreversible damage,
but I don't know much about it. I certainly doubt that international
outrage had any influence whatsoever. Internal outrage slightly so,
perhaps, but the military is a separate state - or several such states.

And if the Commander in Chief so pleased, Manning would have been killed,
butchered, and served up as as the White House Correspondents' Dinner,
and I don't think much would be said about it, except by the U.S.'s few
surviving preachy liberals that basically nobody listens to.

[larry]

Perhaps it was a STI prevention / condom issue.

It's our experience that morning sex is more fun so we agree with JoS; I
can understand someone incorrectly understanding sexual consent on
waking up, cuddling, next to a recent sex partner, undressed.

[larry]

On 27/08/12 11:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message<706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>

> Alec Cawley<al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>

> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
>

Not in the league of the 20th Century Holocausts but killing of the
unarmed violated the Rules of War as generally understood.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-27-12 10:31 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <f4adnefiqYJSAKrN...@brightview.co.uk>
>> Nigel Stapley <un...@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.

I've been carefully avoiding that phrase. But you're right: it is time
to bring it out.

>
>
>>
>>>> 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.
>

That's what's so pathetic about the whole thing. A few embarrassing
things said in private are revealed and nobody takes much notice apart
from a certain amount of hurt looks from the US Government. Then the
revealer finds himself in trouble over a completely unrelated matter,
and claims (without any evidence at all) that he's being persecuted and
his life threatened because of his revealing. What he revealed is still
just as un-startling as it was before he was accused of rape.

[Lesley Weston]

No it wasn't. It was a reprehensible act (be careful not to confuse the
two) and also an act of war, but it wasn't political as far as Poland
was concerned. I suppose it could be considered political in terms of
its effect on German perceptions of him, just as Todd Akin's remarks
about "legitimate rape" are a political act.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-27-12 10:31 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@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.

However, the OED agrees with me. I don't have it online and I'm not
going to type out the lengthy entry for "political", so people will have
to check it for themselves if they're interested enough.

> 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.
>

Mine and the OED's.

[Lesley Weston]

It was definitely a creepy act (if that's what happened), legal or not;
however, ignorance of the law is no defence. He was in Sweden, not
Australia.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-28-12 2:56 AM, larry wrote:
> On 27/08/12 08:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:04:46 AM UTC+1, larry wrote:
>>> On 27/08/12 01:31 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Was he aware that he was committing an illegal act at the time? The
>>> Swedish definition seems more stringent than what he would've been used
>>> to in Oz.
>>
>> Being unaware of local customs is neither a defence nor an excuse.
>>
>> _The Joy of Sex_ says it's rather a nice way to be woken up, but
>> thus fails to address the consent problem. I think you're not
>> allowed to do it in the UK either, strictly.
>
> Perhaps it was a STI prevention / condom issue.

There was something about him not using a condom, but I don't know if it
was that alleged assault or the other one he's charged with.

>
> It's our experience that morning sex is more fun so we agree with JoS; I
> can understand someone incorrectly understanding sexual consent on
> waking up, cuddling, next to a recent sex partner, undressed.
>

If there is consent then nothing at all is inappropriate and couples
should do whatever floats their boat. But someone who is asleep can't
possibly be giving their consent to anything, unless it's pre-arranged.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-27-12 12:54 PM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Alec Cawley wrote:
>
> Alec, will you please read what you've typed before you post it? Your
> posts look like the operating instructions for a Korean DVD player
> translated by a language school in Jakarta.
>

With a little thought it's easy to figure out what he wrote rather than
what his ipad wrote. Which then leaves you with several strong points to
answer.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>

> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>

> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
>

It does, you know. Check the history of just about any country in just
about any period. Which is not to say that the US should have done it,
if they did.

[Nigel Stapley]

Robert Carnegie wrote:

>
> And if the Commander in Chief so pleased, Manning would have been killed,
> butchered, and served up as as the White House Correspondents' Dinner,
> and I don't think much would be said about it, except by the U.S.'s few
> surviving preachy liberals that basically nobody listens to.

The C-in-C has actually said - in advance of anything that could be
called 'a trial' - that Manning is guilty:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056566-503544.html

Barack Obama - the black Tony Blair.

[Alec Cawley]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <k1imks$2dj2$3...@mud.stack.nl>

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>
>>> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>>>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>>>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>>>
>>> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
>>> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
>>>
>> It does, you know.
>

> More atrocious than murder and then having a government coverup of the
> murder? What's more atrocious? More murder and more coverup?

Genocide, chemical weapons against cities, rendering humans down for their
chemicals, flying jets into skyscrapers.

>
>> Check the history of just about any country in just
>> about any period. Which is not to say that the US should have done it,
>> if they did.
>

> *IF*? WTF? Wikileaks released the video tape *SHOWING THE MURDER*. What
> more proof do you need?

It showed some people being killed in a helicopter attack. The US
authorities state that the people being killed were legitimate military
targets, other people say that were largely bystanders and reporters. The
points you state as facts, while they may well be true, are at this point
allegations. I think it is more likely than not that you are correct, but I
think a more temperate tone would me more in tune with rational debate and
the spirit of a.f.Pratchett.

[Alec Cawley]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <k1ikmd$2cmi$1...@mud.stack.nl>

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's what's so pathetic about the whole thing. A few embarrassing
>> things said in private are revealed and nobody takes much notice apart
>> from a certain amount of hurt looks from the US Government. Then the
>> revealer finds himself in trouble over a completely unrelated matter,
>

> Wow. You sure left out a whole hell of a lot. Like the fact that the US
> Government has gotten Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and pretty much every
> other payment system in the world to embargo donations to wikileaks.
>
> Yeah, he's *just* paranoid.

That is a totally different subject from the allegations against Manning,
his treatment, the allegations against Assange, and his treatment. While I
am not saying it should not be discussed, it is changing the subject in a
manner which does not contribute to the debate. If you feel that point is
important enough to discuss, can you take it to another thread rather than
add another tangle to this already twisted one?

[Alec Cawley]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>
> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>
> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.

Did that information come from the alleged Manning leaks or, as I believe,
a different source before the Manning case? I believe the evidence for
that, which I agree appears to be an atrocity, came from video tapes, and
the Manning leaks were only emails. While undoubtedly serious and needs to
be investigated, it has nothing at all to do with the Manning leaks.
Indeed, the furrow over Manning, Assange etc is distracting attention from
that much more serious case.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:k1im9l$2dj2$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 08-28-12 2:56 AM, larry wrote:
>> On 27/08/12 08:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:04:46 AM UTC+1, larry wrote:
>>>> On 27/08/12 01:31 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

<snip>

> If there is consent then nothing at all is inappropriate and couples
> should do whatever floats their boat. But someone who is asleep can't
> possibly be giving their consent to anything, unless it's
> pre-arranged.

So I can charge the woman who jumped on top of my Morning Glory with
rape despite the fact that we had consensual sex twice the night before?

I woke up to find her on top of me bouncing up and down having achieved
full penetration so it must be rape Eh? I certainly didn't agree to it,
although I didn't complain a lot (or at all).

I went to bed with her, had sex twice, fell asleep and woke up to find I
was having sex again. If you go to bed naked with someone I tend
towards the view that this indicates a certain agreement of purpose.

Sexual Harrasment perhaps, rape it isn't.

I suspect any jury is likely to agree with my PoV.

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"

Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:k1ilt6$2ded$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 08-27-12 5:04 PM, larry wrote:

<snip>

>> Was he aware that he was committing an illegal act at the time? The
>> Swedish definition seems more stringent than what he would've been
>> used to in Oz.
>>
> It was definitely a creepy act (if that's what happened), legal or
> not; however, ignorance of the law is no defence. He was in Sweden,
> not Australia.

It's not creepy, it's fun with the right partner. As to ignorance of
the law there are so many available it's impossible to avoid breaking
any.

I was arrested in 1998 for being a damn nuisance in the police station
but actually charged under section 29 of

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89

Because they couldn't find anything else. Really true!

Which went to court, where it was laughed out. But that law (all of it)
is still valid, still on the books.

Have a read through ye Englishmen and see how many you broke in the last
24 hours!

[GaryN]

Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in
news:1401410794367874556.68...@news.individual.net:

I think the problem with that one is not that civilians and a news crew
were, or were not, killed. The problem is that the leftpondian
government did such a crap awful job of trying to cover it up.

If they'd just admitted "Yeah we fucked up in a hostile environment",
which everyone could believe given the Septics record on 'friendly
fire', they tried to deny it and therefore fucked up in another hostile
environment - the media.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:k1ildv$2d2o$1...@mud.stack.nl:

Pardon? The legitimate political powers in Poland were suborned by the use
of force in order to put in place the political machine of the Nazis.

How the hell is that not political?

Hitler signed a treaty with Stalin in '39 then invaded Russia in '41. The
treaty was a political expedient to keep Russia out of the war until Hitler
had subdued Europe (except the UK). So that wouldn't be political then?

> I suppose it could be considered political in
> terms of its effect on German perceptions of him, just as Todd Akin's
> remarks about "legitimate rape" are a political act.

I never thought I'd say anything like this but - go back to your knitting
Lesley..:)



> Lesley.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:k1iljd$2d47$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 08-27-12 10:31 AM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@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.
>
> However, the OED agrees with me. I don't have it online and I'm not
> going to type out the lengthy entry for "political", so people will
> have to check it for themselves if they're interested enough.

But the Materialist Dialectic would disagree with you, as would the
Historical Dialectic. Since that is the basis of Marxist/Engelist
theory (a load of bollocks) you must be incorrect.

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/whatheck.htm

If the OED, written by the uberclasse, tells the prolateriat what a word
means then the definition, according to the dialectic, must be
incorrect.[1]

>> 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.
>>
> Mine and the OED's.
>
> Lesley.

Yeah, but the OED doesn't know what a 'bury' is in Kent so fuck them.


[1] Spot who's been reading a book which mentions the dialectic a lot
and was stupid enough to look it up.

[2]Actually the dialectic makes some sense until you get some bastard
using it for political purposes.

[GaryN]

Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in

news:463083238367874371.782...@news.individual.net:

Oh crap, and I went and added Materialistic Dialectic in response to one
of Lesleys posts further up!

I know where the door is.

gary

[larry]

On 28/08/12 07:28 PM, GaryN wrote:

> I think the problem with that one is not that civilians and a news crew
> were, or were not, killed. The problem is that the leftpondian
> government did such a crap awful job of trying to cover it up.
>
> If they'd just admitted "Yeah we fucked up in a hostile environment",
> which everyone could believe given the Septics record on 'friendly
> fire', they tried to deny it and therefore fucked up in another hostile
> environment - the media.
>
> gary
>

Transparency and honesty would have been the trick winning the hearts
and minds war (the only one that matters when you are an invading and
occupying power.)

[larry]

On 28/08/12 07:58 PM, GaryN wrote:

> [2]Actually the dialectic makes some sense until you get some bastard
> using it for political purposes.
>
>
>

'To a person with only a hammer, all problems look like nails'

Dialectic Materialism is a useful tool {if && only if} it's not your
only tool.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:32:14 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> So I can charge the woman who jumped on top of my Morning Glory
> with rape despite the fact that we had consensual sex twice the
> night before?

I'm not a lawyer but I think rape would be if she inserted something
of hers into your body and not vice versa. I suppose that if this
really is the current law (I'm also not sure where to check, but I
think I read about it) then it will be some sort of sexual assault.
So you need to wake the other party up first without, er, well,
I think I'll just wish you luck.

I wonder if there's a defence of not being really awake yourself
either, in such a case. Supposing that it was so.

[GaryN]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in news:c69072ad-4d29-
4358-885b-1...@googlegroups.com:

Are you suggesting that it isn't rape if a woman takes advantage without
the consent of the male? For the blokes here most of us do wake up with
an erection, correct me if I'm wrong but I find that to be the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL27Sezboto

Is it OK for a female to jump on and insert my bits into her when I'm
not awake or so inclined, or not even aware of it happening?

Why didn't she just sod off and make me a coffee?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:21:54 PM UTC+1, GaryN wrote:
> Are you suggesting that it isn't rape if a woman takes advantage
> without the consent of the male?

According to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as interpeted here,
<http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Definitionofrape2.php>

"Rape" is intentional penetration, with a penis,
"if A does not reasonably believe that B consents."

Without a penis there is an offence of "assault by penetration".
But that still means the victim /being/ penetrated.

I suppose that this includes non-consensual French kissing.
And non-consensual feeding.

It also seems to oblige the victim to distinguish a penis (presumably
part of A's living body) from any facsimile thereof. But I suspect
that in practice (1) it doesn't make a lot of difference and
(2) usually you can be pretty sure that it was a penis.

> For the blokes here most of us do wake up with an erection, correct
> me if I'm wrong but I find that to be the case.

How do you know about the other fellows?

> Is it OK for a female to jump on and insert my bits into her
> when I'm not awake or so inclined, or not even aware of it
> happening?

It isn't OK without consent. Was anything said? And was it
before or after the new law kicked in in 2004?

> Why didn't she just sod off and make me a coffee?

I'm not sure where I left _The Joy of Sex_, but I think my edition
does conclude that coffee is an even better way to be woken up.
First.

[GaryN]

larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote in news:Crmdndti9sJdZKDNnZ2dnUVZ_t-
dn...@wightman.ca:

Mostly it's an amusing intellectual exercise, bit like Facism. Actually
almost exactly the same. Outcome is the same - capitalism mostly works and
wins.

May not be great but it works better than the others.

gary

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-28-12 12:32 PM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:k1im9l$2dj2$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 08-28-12 2:56 AM, larry wrote:
>>> On 27/08/12 08:49 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:04:46 AM UTC+1, larry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/08/12 01:31 PM, Alec Cawley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> <snip>
>
>> If there is consent then nothing at all is inappropriate and couples
>> should do whatever floats their boat. But someone who is asleep can't
>> possibly be giving their consent to anything, unless it's
>> pre-arranged.
>
> So I can charge the woman who jumped on top of my Morning Glory with
> rape despite the fact that we had consensual sex twice the night before?

If that's the way you see it, yes. Unless it's understood from before
that you'll be happy with such activity, you haven't given your consent.
Obviously that's not the way you see it, but it might be the way some
other man sees it and it is certainly the way the Swedish woman
concerned and the Swedish legal bodies see it.

>
> I woke up to find her on top of me bouncing up and down having achieved
> full penetration so it must be rape Eh? I certainly didn't agree to it,
> although I didn't complain a lot (or at all).
>
> I went to bed with her, had sex twice, fell asleep and woke up to find I
> was having sex again. If you go to bed naked with someone I tend
> towards the view that this indicates a certain agreement of purpose.
>
> Sexual Harrasment perhaps, rape it isn't.
>
> I suspect any jury is likely to agree with my PoV.

That would depend on the law in the country where it happened. The
jury's job, in any country, is to determine whether or not the accused
did whatever (s)he is charged with, not to decide whether or not that
activity constitutes a crime.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-28-12 12:53 PM, GaryN wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:k1ilt6$2ded$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 08-27-12 5:04 PM, larry wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Was he aware that he was committing an illegal act at the time? The
>>> Swedish definition seems more stringent than what he would've been
>>> used to in Oz.
>>>
>> It was definitely a creepy act (if that's what happened), legal or
>> not; however, ignorance of the law is no defence. He was in Sweden,
>> not Australia.
>
> It's not creepy, it's fun with the right partner.

If both partners have previously agreed that it's fun, then it is. If
one partner was not expecting it and hadn't previously indicated that
they would like it, it's creepy. More comparable to ordering for her in
a restaurant or announcing their engagement without asking her first
than to leaping out of bushes or beating her up, but still creepy.

> As to ignorance of
> the law there are so many available it's impossible to avoid breaking
> any.

But many of them don't matter unless someone objects.

>
> I was arrested in 1998 for being a damn nuisance in the police station
> but actually charged under section 29 of
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89
>
> Because they couldn't find anything else. Really true!
>
> Which went to court, where it was laughed out. But that law (all of it)
> is still valid, still on the books.
>
> Have a read through ye Englishmen and see how many you broke in the last
> 24 hours!

It's not peculiar to England. I break the law multiple times every
Sunday, except in really cold weather, by stepping outside my house
without a hat on. I'm assuming a toque counts as a hat.

[Lesley Weston]

The Nazis conquered Poland and set themselves up to govern their
newly-conquered land. That has nothing to do with Polish politics. Those
didn't start again until Russia withdrew and Lech Walesa took over, much
later.

>
> How the hell is that not political?
>
> Hitler signed a treaty with Stalin in '39 then invaded Russia in '41. The
> treaty was a political expedient to keep Russia out of the war until Hitler
> had subdued Europe (except the UK). So that wouldn't be political then?

No. Treacherous, devious and even unkind, but not political. And anyway
it backfired.

>
>> I suppose it could be considered political in
>> terms of its effect on German perceptions of him, just as Todd Akin's
>> remarks about "legitimate rape" are a political act.
>
> I never thought I'd say anything like this but - go back to your knitting
> Lesley..:)

Better if you hadn't said it now. Oh and there's this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/12-hilarious-reviews-of-a-pen-just-for-women

or http://tinyurl.com/8zws5rj

[Lesley Weston]

If you're going to delve into official Communist literature, then you'll
be occupied for quite some time. I don't think I'll join you.

[Jonathan Ellis]

"larry" <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jtKdnWfT05IfZaDN...@wightman.ca...

And as for the news crew: I'm not sure you can call it "murder" if the
attackers were genuinely mistaken about their identities. Murder is a thing
that requires intent of some kind, either of knowing who the target is or
not caring: if it can be proved that the attackers simply "fucked up in a
hostile environment" and believed their target to be hostile, rather than
civilians and a news crew, then it's a tragedy, but not murder.

So, is that particular incident a case of mis-identification of target, or
were they attacked *knowing* that they were a news crew? (And were the news
crew, themselves, trying to reach or obtain close-range footage of places or
people that the US were actually targetting?)

Of course, there's the whole argument over how legitimate the whole war was
in the first place, in which I believe very much that (a) it wasn't, and (b)
even if the US had a case either for Afghanistan (which certainly could be
made) or Iraq (which probably couldn't, although there was considerably more
justification for Operation Desert Storm in 1991-2), Britain certainly had
no case to join in on a lie, and Blair should be arrested and put on trial
for the crime of deliberately misleading Parliament and abusing his powers
to take us into a war we did not want, based on a known and deliberate lie.

-- Jonathan.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-28-12 9:05 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k1imks$2dj2$3...@mud.stack.nl>

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>
>>> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>>>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>>>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>>>
>>> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
>>> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
>>>
>> It does, you know.
>
> More atrocious than murder and then having a government coverup of the
> murder? What's more atrocious? More murder and more coverup?

That would be one case, yes. Perhaps murdering well over six million
civilians for no particular reason might be considered another. You're
very lucky that you consider the murder and coverup of a couple of dozen
people at most "It doesn't get more atrocious than that"; clearly you've
led an enviably sheltered life.

>
>> Check the history of just about any country in just
>> about any period. Which is not to say that the US should have done it,
>> if they did.
>
> *IF*? WTF? Wikileaks released the video tape *SHOWING THE MURDER*. What
> more proof do you need?
>

You've never seen a faked video? For instance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=l_R4bPGjDTc

Which is doubly faked.

Chances are the Wikileaks one is not faked, since such things do happen
in wars, but its existence is far from being definitive proof.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-28-12 7:26 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <1401410794367874556.68...@news.individual.net>

> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> In message <k1imks$2dj2$3...@mud.stack.nl>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>
>>>>> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>>>>>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>>>>>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
>>>>> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
>>>>>
>>>> It does, you know.
>>>
>>> More atrocious than murder and then having a government coverup of the
>>> murder? What's more atrocious? More murder and more coverup?
>
>> Genocide, chemical weapons against cities, rendering humans down for their
>> chemicals, flying jets into skyscrapers.
>

> Those are all just murder, and most of them don't involve government
> cover-ups.
>
That's all right then. I'm not sure how many people would agree that a
cover-up is more atrocious than mass murder.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-28-12 8:29 AM, Nigel Stapley wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>>
>> And if the Commander in Chief so pleased, Manning would have been
>> killed, butchered, and served up as as the White House Correspondents'
>> Dinner, and I don't think much would be said about it, except by the
>> U.S.'s few
>> surviving preachy liberals that basically nobody listens to.
>
> The C-in-C has actually said - in advance of anything that could be
> called 'a trial' - that Manning is guilty:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056566-503544.html
>
> Barack Obama - the black Tony Blair.
>
Yes, he could have put it better, and if he had been reading a
teleprompter no doubt he would have. It's clear what he meant, but of
course he must be judged on what he actually said. What does his colour
have to do with it?

[Lesley Weston]

Materialistic Dialectic is always relevant. Ask any Bolshevik.

[Nigel Stapley]

Lesley Weston wrote:

>>
> If you're going to delve into official Communist literature, then you'll
> be occupied for quite some time. I don't think I'll join you.
>

It's OK - by your definition it's probably not political.

--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

[Walter Bushell]

In article <TcudnYUb2t5tKKHN...@wightman.ca>,
larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27/08/12 11:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
> > In message<706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>
> > Alec Cawley<al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
> >> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
> >> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
> >
> > The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
> > then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
> >
>

> Not in the league of the 20th Century Holocausts but killing of the
> unarmed violated the Rules of War as generally understood.

That is a very low bar to clear. Methinks you could get over it in a
wheelchair.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Alec Cawley]

No, I think in most jurisdictions the possibility of female on male rape
exists: coercive sex is rape either way round. I know that an Italian woman
was convicted of the rape of a malleable young man "you will do me NOW!"
and I think the same applies in many other jurisdictions. For obvious
reasons, it is relatively infrequent.

[Alec Cawley]

"Jonathan Ellis" <jle3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "larry" <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jtKdnWfT05IfZaDN...@wightman.ca...

> And as for the news crew: I'm not sure you can call it "murder" if the
> attackers were genuinely mistaken about their identities. Murder is a thing
> that requires intent of some kind, either of knowing who the target is or
> not caring: if it can be proved that the attackers simply "fucked up in a
> hostile environment" and believed their target to be hostile, rather than
> civilians and a news crew, then it's a tragedy, but not murder.
>
> So, is that particular incident a case of mis-identification of target, or
> were they attacked *knowing* that they were a news crew? (And were the news
> crew, themselves, trying to reach or obtain close-range footage of places or
> people that the US were actually targetting?)
>
> Of course, there's the whole argument over how legitimate the whole war was
> in the first place, in which I believe very much that (a) it wasn't, and (b)
> even if the US had a case either for Afghanistan (which certainly could be
> made) or Iraq (which probably couldn't, although there was considerably more
> justification for Operation Desert Storm in 1991-2), Britain certainly had
> no case to join in on a lie, and Blair should be arrested and put on trial
> for the crime of deliberately misleading Parliament and abusing his powers
> to take us into a war we did not want, based on a known and deliberate lie.

Agreed on all points. You have saved me a deal of typing.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-29-12 5:48 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <k1lbjr$225c$1...@mud.stack.nl>

> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08-28-12 9:05 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <k1imks$2dj2$3...@mud.stack.nl>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <706931805367779592.420...@news.individual.net>
>>>>> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While manning undoubtedly has a duty to prevent Holocaust type actions, you
>>>>>> have to prove that the information that he leaked was of such an atrocious
>>>>>> nature, which is not, I think, the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> The US *murdered* a Reuters news crew and several Iraqi civilians and
>>>>> then covered it up. It doesn't get more atrocious than that.
>>>>>
>>>> It does, you know.
>>>
>>> More atrocious than murder and then having a government coverup of the
>>> murder? What's more atrocious? More murder and more coverup?
>
>> That would be one case, yes. Perhaps murdering well over six million
>> civilians for no particular reason might be considered another. You're
>> very lucky that you consider the murder and coverup of a couple of dozen
>> people at most "It doesn't get more atrocious than that"; clearly you've
>> led an enviably sheltered life.
>

> No, I haven't led a sheltered life. Murder is murder. Murder and a
> government coverup is murder and a government coverup.

Undoubtedly true. And a screw-up in the heat of battle is a screw-up in
the heat of battle. Hardly the most atrocious thing possible though, bad
as it is, when you consider previous atrocities.

>
>> You've never seen a faked video? For instance:
>

> On what basis are you claiming the video is fake? You're the first
> person I've heard make that claim.
>
>
I'm not. I'm saying that the existence of a video showing anything at
all is not definitive proof of that thing.

[larry]

> Lesley.
>

Manning up and apologizing instead of covering up would have been classy.

[Alec Cawley]

larry <ssall...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Manning up and apologizing instead of covering up would have been classy.

"Classy", "US Government". No, sorry, no match found.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:48:20 PM UTC+1, A. Reader wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:49:17 -0700 (PDT),
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Being unaware of local customs is neither a defence nor an excuse.
>
> Mens rea. Necessary in non-totalitarian jurisdictions since, broadly,
> the Age of Enlightenment, when they threw out the laws where you
> could be done for what someone else dreamed about you, or for
> breaking some law that you'd never heard of, or one that couldn't
> be understood by your common-or-garden-variety Reasonable Person.

Hmm, but I assume that they wouldn't let me beat my wives as I do in
our homeland.

That's a joke of course, I'm not married. Yes, I'm available, ladies.

[larry]

On 29/08/12 09:07 AM, GaryN wrote:
> larry<ssall...@gmail.com> wrote in news:Crmdndti9sJdZKDNnZ2dnUVZ_t-
> dn...@wightman.ca:
>
>> On 28/08/12 07:58 PM, GaryN wrote:
>>
>>> [2]Actually the dialectic makes some sense until you get some bastard
>>> using it for political purposes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 'To a person with only a hammer, all problems look like nails'
>>

>> Dialectic Materialism is a useful tool {if&& only if} it's not your

>> only tool.
>>
>
> Mostly it's an amusing intellectual exercise, bit like Facism. Actually
> almost exactly the same. Outcome is the same - capitalism mostly works and
> wins.
>
> May not be great but it works better than the others.
>
> gary
>

Churchill's comment on democracy (fsvo,) applies; for getting the right
medium sized boxes to people on time and at a reasonable price, it's the
class.

[larry]

On 30/08/12 09:25 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message<329815211368059641.521...@news.individual.net>

> +1
>
Too true, Honey Child, too often.

[Lesley Weston]

Of course it would. But it's still not the worst atrocity possible.

[Lesley Weston]

On 08-30-12 11:51 AM, A.Reader wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:49:17 -0700 (PDT),
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> Being unaware of local customs is neither a defence nor an excuse.
>
> Mens rea.
>
> Necessary in non-totalitarian jurisdictions since, broadly, the
> Age of Enlightenment, when they threw out the laws where you
> could be done for what someone else dreamed about you, or for
> breaking some law that you'd never heard of, or one that couldn't
> be understood by your common-or-garden-variety Reasonable Person.
>

Those examples are not equivalent. If it's illegal to do something in
the place where you are, then if you do that something there it's
totally irrelevant whether or not you knew that it's illegal or
understood the relevant law. If you did it then you have broken the law,
though leniency when it comes to sentencing might be appropriate in that
situation.

[Lesley Weston]

Exactly! There have been attempts to introduce Sharia or Mosaic Law into
western countries. Fortunately, they have always been defeated so far.
I'm not sure that Sharia Law wouldn't be gladly accepted by the current
US Republicans though, at least as it pertains to women.

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:k1qi0q
$27hd$1...@mud.stack.nl:

If I'm not allowed to drink alcohol in their country because it's against
their law then they can't beat their wives in my country because it's
against our law.

If they don't like that then they can fuck off.

Seems simple to me.

Mind you, sometimes the women get their own back. The following
paraphrased from "Private Eye 1321", 'Funny Old World'

"He got back about 3 am and preferred to sleep with me. His other 5 wives
burst into the bedroom armed with sticks and knives demanding that he have
sex with them too. He had intercourse with 4 of them but as the fifth wife
was moving to the bed he stopped breathing. All the other wives ran off
into the forest laughing leaving me with his corpse"

'Asia One News (Singapore)'

Don't bite off more than you can chew!

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"

Warren Zevon, from "Desperados Under The Eaves"

[GaryN]

Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in

news:k1qhd8$26mr$1...@mud.stack.nl:

> On 08-30-12 12:53 PM, larry wrote:
>> On 30/08/12 09:02 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> On 08-29-12 5:48 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <k1lbjr$225c$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 08-28-12 9:05 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>> In message <k1imks$2dj2$3...@mud.stack.nl>
>>>>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message

>>>>>>>> <706931805367779592.420118alec-
spamspa...@news.individual.ne

Did you not just say further up

>>>>> More atrocious than murder and then having a government coverup of
>>>>> the murder? What's more atrocious? More murder and more coverup?

Lesley, or is that my news client playing up?

[Alec Cawley]

GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:k1qhd8$26mr$1...@mud.stack.nl:
>
>> On 08-30-12 12:53 PM, larry wrote:
>>> On 30/08/12 09:02 AM, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> On 08-29-12 5:48 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <k1lbjr$225c$1...@mud.stack.nl>
>>>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08-28-12 9:05 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <k1imks$2dj2$3...@mud.stack.nl>
>>>>>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08-27-12 8:34 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message
>>>>>>>>> <706931805367779592.420118alec-
> spamspa...@news.individual.ne

In my newsreader, Lewis said that.

[GaryN]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in
news:slrnk42u9h....@mbp55.local:

> In message <XnsA0C0F242C45D5...@216.196.109.145>

> GaryN <webm...@oxtoyrun.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Did you not just say further up
>
>>>>>>> More atrocious than murder and then having a government coverup
>>>>>>> of the murder? What's more atrocious? More murder and more
>>>>>>> coverup?
>

> I think that was me.
>

Apologies all round then, must have miscounted the arrows.

I still think the coverup is the worst stupidity of it though. With the
US record of 'Friendly Fire' incidents on allied troops it would just
have been written off as "Those stupid Septics cocking up again",
particularly if some of the victims were 'ragheads'.

Having a reputation for screwing it up can work in your favour. I know
that one of our air strikes took out some yanks but that was just
payback for all the times they've hit our lot (that quote direct from
source and very definitely not on the news and it was a yank FAC who
called the strike, getting the coordinates wrong, the Tornados just
happened to be closest)