6 ms·

I wholeheartedly disagree with the UK's mass surveillance and the media/public's wilful ignorance of the issue but Assange is suspected of sexual assault and br

by mardoz 8y ago

I wholeheartedly disagree with the UK's mass surveillance and the media/public's wilful ignorance of the issue but Assange is suspected of sexual assault and broke bail. He's expected to face the law in the same way as anybody else.

zarriak 8y ago
The warrant for his arrest has been revoked by Sweden and the Swedish prosecutor found he committed no crime. He is not expected to face the law as anyone else, the UK government has already committed crimes in deleting emails regarding him but nobody went to jail. The UN has also ruled that he is being held in arbitrary detention. The only time you get punished is when you go against the US empire. Who was punished for the murder of the two journalists in Baghdad? You only face the law when you are inconvenient. Due to the embarrassment of the CIA w/r/t to the recent leaks the US government is going to try to prosecute a publisher of classified information for the first time ever.
- orcs 8y ago
  To be fair I don't think deleting emails in accordance with their procedures is a crime. And that being the case why would anyone go to jail?
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    There is no reason to expect their procedures are legal, this thread is an example of government procedure shown to be illegal.
    - orcs 8y ago
      And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either. True enough about the surveillance, but the two things aren't connected, just because one procedure was illegal doesn't make all government procedures illegal.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either Being illegal would be a good reason for going to jail, which is the question you asked.
        orcs 8y ago
        But they're not illegal so the point is moot. Also illegality does not mean jail. The severity of an illegal action dictates that.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >But they're not illegal so the point is moot They aren't? We both agreed that procedure could be a illegal, what reason do you have to assume this procedure is legal?
        orcs 8y ago
        Oh dear. 'Could be' and 'are' are two different things. Where's your actual evidence they are illegal? You don't have any. What reason do you have to assume this procedure is illegal? Other than some kind of irrelevant association with the surveillance program of a different part of the government proving to be illegal. I'll gladly accept the procedure is illegal provided with proof it is, so... over to you.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        I'm not stating that the procedure is illegal. Having never read the procedural guide or the relevant law, I fully confess my ignorance on the subject. You are stating that it is legal, and from my point of view your only reason is that the accused said they were following procedure. As following procedure doesn't show legality, why are you certain it is legal?
        orcs 8y ago
- MatthewWilkes 8y ago
  He has committed crimes in the UK that he is wanted for. The charges in Sweden were dropped for practical reasons, something the UK should also have done. It's a sunk cost fallacy, they've spent a huge amount of time and money trying to arrest him despite it not being practical.
- imotroubairitz 8y ago
  The US doesn't have an empire...
throw2016 8y ago
Authoritarian regimes using courts against dissenters is not new, this is like saying yes he is a dissenter but the court process must be allowed to complete. How is it that after the Snowden revelations not a single person is held responsible or accountable and its the whistle blowers who are facing the full force of the 'law'? Assange is stranded, Snowden is in exile and Manning faced the full force of the law. What law is this?

by mardoz 8y ago

zarriak 8y ago

The warrant for his arrest has been revoked by Sweden and the Swedish prosecutor found he committed no crime. He is not expected to face the law as anyone else, the UK government has already committed crimes in deleting emails regarding him but nobody went to jail. The UN has also ruled that he is being held in arbitrary detention. The only time you get punished is when you go against the US empire. Who was punished for the murder of the two journalists in Baghdad? You only face the law when you are inconvenient. Due to the embarrassment of the CIA w/r/t to the recent leaks the US government is going to try to prosecute a publisher of classified information for the first time ever.

orcs 8y ago
To be fair I don't think deleting emails in accordance with their procedures is a crime. And that being the case why would anyone go to jail?
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  There is no reason to expect their procedures are legal, this thread is an example of government procedure shown to be illegal.
  - orcs 8y ago
    And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either. True enough about the surveillance, but the two things aren't connected, just because one procedure was illegal doesn't make all government procedures illegal.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either Being illegal would be a good reason for going to jail, which is the question you asked.
      - orcs 8y ago
        But they're not illegal so the point is moot. Also illegality does not mean jail. The severity of an illegal action dictates that.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >But they're not illegal so the point is moot They aren't? We both agreed that procedure could be a illegal, what reason do you have to assume this procedure is legal?
        orcs 8y ago
        Oh dear. 'Could be' and 'are' are two different things. Where's your actual evidence they are illegal? You don't have any. What reason do you have to assume this procedure is illegal? Other than some kind of irrelevant association with the surveillance program of a different part of the government proving to be illegal. I'll gladly accept the procedure is illegal provided with proof it is, so... over to you.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        I'm not stating that the procedure is illegal. Having never read the procedural guide or the relevant law, I fully confess my ignorance on the subject. You are stating that it is legal, and from my point of view your only reason is that the accused said they were following procedure. As following procedure doesn't show legality, why are you certain it is legal?
        orcs 8y ago
MatthewWilkes 8y ago
He has committed crimes in the UK that he is wanted for. The charges in Sweden were dropped for practical reasons, something the UK should also have done. It's a sunk cost fallacy, they've spent a huge amount of time and money trying to arrest him despite it not being practical.
imotroubairitz 8y ago
The US doesn't have an empire...

throw2016 8y ago

Authoritarian regimes using courts against dissenters is not new, this is like saying yes he is a dissenter but the court process must be allowed to complete. How is it that after the Snowden revelations not a single person is held responsible or accountable and its the whistle blowers who are facing the full force of the 'law'? Assange is stranded, Snowden is in exile and Manning faced the full force of the law. What law is this?