Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Assange...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by ad hoc View Post

    It doesn't seem complicated it seems confused. That a man who is obnoxious should be prosecuted for publishing evidence of heinous crimes that the perpetrators would prefer were hushed up. Because he's obnoxious. (or at the very least that his character defects should count towards the decision whether to charge him)
    Whose word is 'obnoxious'? Are you implying I used it? If so, show me where. Or maybe engage with the actual nuances I've mentioned which give me pause.

    Comment


      #77
      OK you started off with stuff about him being "dodgy as fuck" and you used the words "attempted rape smear" to support this (ironically I know, but this seemed to be the thrust of your "nuanced" pov) . Then you started throwing around the Democratic email hack as a secondary point which then seemed to become your primary concern. So I'll assume you're no longer talking about the rape stuff or the narcissism but about him publishing things you'd rather he didn't publish. I don't see how the latter works either. If a journalist comes by information that is in the public interest to publish whether or not I want that information to be out there is irrelevant surely? He's not accused of making anything up and as far as I know he has never been accused of that. Everything published seems to have been genuine documents.

      (btw obnoxious was my word. I've put yours in quotation marks for the avoidance of doubt)

      Comment


        #78
        Sorry, I'm being snarky. I need to let this bewilderment go. I just think you're massively dangerously wrong on this. But I realise I'm not going to change your mind

        Comment


          #79
          "Attempted rape smear" was in acknowledgment of some people's belief that it was a pretext to a) discredit him and b) arrest him so they could deport him. Whether it's true or not remains a mystery because he successfully hid from justice for 7+ years.

          Nobody is saying he's making anything up. What I said is that he publishes stolen (leaked, whatever) material and passes that off as 'journalism'. Virtually any stolen document is going to have some degree of public interest, but it doesn't mean it should have been stolen or published. I'm not sure what passes muster as a crime, but stealing classified documents and disseminating them sort of sounds like it to me. Were it done on a much narrower scale, it would simply be spying. Which is, you know, a crime. Doing it broadly is suddenly journalism?

          I'm not sure where you got the narcissism stuff, either. I didn't once mention anything remotely like that. But my broader point is not about whether I think he should publish them, but about a country's right to defend their secret documents against theft and dissemination. So, fine, let him get away with the war crimes one and charge him for the Democrats' emails.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
            Sorry, I'm being snarky. I need to let this bewilderment go. I just think you're massively dangerously wrong on this. But I realise I'm not going to change your mind
            Well, to be fair, I wrote a whole paragraph about why my mind is not made up and exactly why I'm vacillating.

            Comment


              #81
              https://twitter.com/jsternweiner/status/1346516307361943554?s=20

              Comment


                #82
                Not given bail:

                Two days after her ruling against the US extradition request, which is being challenged, district judge Vanessa Baraitser said the 49-year-old “still has an incentive to abscond from these, as yet unresolved, proceedings” and she was satisfied he would fail to surrender if bailed.

                “As a matter of fairness the US must be allowed to challenge my decision,” said the judge, sitting at Westminster magistrates court after overseeing the extradition hearing at the Old Bailey earlier this week and last year.

                Assange “had already demonstrated a willingness to flout” the orders of the court, she said, and people who had previously put their trust in him and given sureties had been let down and had their money forfeited. She was also satisfied that his mental health was being managed at Belmarsh.
                WOM - sorry for not coming back to you, I couldn't work out how best to.

                Comment


                  #83
                  No worries, TT.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Pamela calls for Julian's pardon

                    https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifest...-40209293.html

                    The least Trump could do, he would probably not have become the POTUS without the Clinton e-mail dumps

                    Comment


                      #85
                      https://twitter.com/euronews/status/1516763821523755009?s=20&t=42tEcmebyE2HheFcud7DiA

                      I presume that his chances with the High Court, even if slim, are better than they are with Patel.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        https://twitter.com/AP/status/1537729748171902976?t=XnS0T7BTwFLMQOFV9a38OQ&s=19

                        Comment


                          #87
                          I assume he will appeal.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Of course

                            Including to the ECHR if he loses at the High Court

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Disgraceful decision.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X