You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange
December 1 2021 8.47pm

Julian Assange

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 9 of 14 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 Feb 13 3.18pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 2.51pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 2.12pm


Governments have authority and influence beyond that attainable to the individual, and the capacity to protect itself through control of information that is prejudical, and routinely operates to do so (hence the need for whistleblowers and leaks).

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the UK and US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was unlawful and in violation of international law, and even then predicated on wholely selectively presented and false information, and that as a result tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives.

I'd be suprised if anyone else really thought otherwise, especially in hindsight.

Also, I think it would be wholely false to suggest that the UK and US were not actively involved in torture, and kidknapping (rendition) and imprisonment without trial, as well as illegal extraditions to states of individual for torture (or complicity to allow their airspace and resources to be used for such).

Thats established fact, and all are criminal actions in violation of UK undertakings under international and domestic laws. It'll never get to court, because ultimately political necessity means self protection.



I don't agree with much of your 'established facts'. You use the word 'illegal' out of context. It's not a fact, it's an opinion.

Cases based upon some of your arguments have been taken to different courts.

None of them have succeeded.

The wars were framed to be legal in the context of international law....Or to be more exact, framed to be difficult to prove as anything other than legal.

What is 'legal' in international law has the regular habit of changing to suit the agendas of those setting it.

The word, 'consequences' sufficed for war and in terms of legality that's pretty much that.

Not really, the use of torture in the UK is illegal. Just because you do it overseas, doesn't make it legal.

Rendition and imprisonment without trial is unconstitutional in the US and UK, it violates the right to a fair trial. Rendition is a nice way of saying kidknapping, because the legal route is called extradition.

International Law forbids acts of aggression against soverign states, without security council approval (excepting the right to self defence of those aggressed or occupied).

Essentially when a lawful state abandons the idea of due process and legal rights, it resorts to tyranny.

All of these, where they being pursued against british citizens by an independent state, would be called crimes by the UK government (and in some cases acts of war - drone stikes).

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Feb 13 3.37pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

You know this 'illegal' tag is pretty silly.

The world isn't a state, international law doesn't operate like a national court.

Calling a war illegal in a way is just nonsense....All war is illegal in a sense. If it was officially proven to be 'illegal' which isn't going to happen then who is going to enforce this so called breaking of 'international law'?

Are we going to somehow jail a former president and Prime Minister? How about the other twenty of so countries involved, how culpable are they in this 'illegal war'?.....Sounds very French revolution to me.

Even if the US would let it happen...Which it won't The US, who basically fund the UN as we know it would isolate themselves far more. It would be just the excuse that many Republicans would like....The country that attracts all that hate feeds more poor children than most of the rest put together.

Everything is a balancing act, we can't have the world just as we'd like it.

Really, if the reality that some push for actually happened then I think the world would be far more dangerous than it currently is......Probably be forced to be Chinese within a generation if the world were run by 'world government' idealists like yourself.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Feb 13 3.48pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 3.18pm

Not really, the use of torture in the UK is illegal. Just because you do it overseas, doesn't make it legal.

Rendition and imprisonment without trial is unconstitutional in the US and UK, it violates the right to a fair trial. Rendition is a nice way of saying kidknapping, because the legal route is called extradition.

International Law forbids acts of aggression against soverign states, without security council approval (excepting the right to self defence of those aggressed or occupied).

Essentially when a lawful state abandons the idea of due process and legal rights, it resorts to tyranny.

All of these, where they being pursued against british citizens by an independent state, would be called crimes by the UK government (and in some cases acts of war - drone stikes).


Yes, really.

It's already an 'established fact' that international law doesn't act as you think it should.

There's a lot of high minded language, but history has always been the justice of the victor and I don't see that changing anytime soon. In fact with China increasing in power and intent...To paraphrase Hitler to the Indians.....'you don't know how good you have it'.

To say it again, these are definitions of war.

All war is 'illegal' in the minds of one or both sides.

Definitions can be made to fit whatever you like......You can argue the toss all you like. The reality is that no state or individual is going to be convicted of bugger all in regards to the Gulf wars.

'illegal' is a pointless mantra.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Feb 13 4.06pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Rendition and imprisonment without trial are both wrong. That's my position on that....What to do about it, well that's another question.

On the wider point I don't believe in letting possible threats knowingly walk the streets and I don't agree it's valid to spend large amounts of money keeping tabs on thousands of people.

We will unfortunately always have to spend some cash keeping tabs on those who who wish us ill. It's just one of the wonderful benefits of high immigration that the left keep telling us about.

I'd structure our law....Yeah, our law not the EU's to allow us to far more easily deport those we considered dangerous.....Though they deserve an independent hearing to ensure government has due cause for suspicion and can be overturned.

This is just my opinion, I'm well aware that this is all considered as beyond the pale by most on here.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View npn's Profile npn Flag Crowborough 26 Feb 13 5.16pm Send a Private Message to npn Add npn as a friend

my tuppence worth and view on the salient facts:

Sweden has asked for his extradition to face charges.

If he has a case to answer by UK/Swedish extradition agreements he should be sent.

The fact that the US may subsequently seek his extradition from Sweden, and Sweden may allow it is none of my concern and is an issue entirely between the US and Sweden.

Personally I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye while he slips out of the country to Ecuador or wherever, and becomes someone else's problem.

I find it interesting that everyone is happy to completely dismiss this sex case hanging over him simply because they see him as 'fighting the power'. Personally I don't give a stuff about him or his case so haven't bothered to look into it in any detail, but I imagine if a UK court has agreed his extradition, then there's a case to answer.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 26 Feb 13 5.33pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.09pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 9.22pm

Quote Mongo Like Clunge at 25 Feb 2013 9.16pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Feb 2013 9.09pm
They could after all have beaten Sweden to the chase and applied to extradite him from us.

Once they have him, I presume they could try him on all sorts of petty matters the like of which i've mentioned.


No, America has not yet begun extradition with neither Sweden nor the UK. Here is a really good article with three legal opinions on the likelihood and frailties of the case. [Link]


I know, I've said this about 4 times in recent posts. They could have, were they going to do what Assange keeps telling us he thinks they'll do via Sweden.

As it stands there is no case, he should stop using that as his defence against A) going to Sweden and B) breaking our laws.

In all fairness the US could not extradite him until he's extradited to Sweeden, that would prevent the Sweedish extradition from the UK.

I didn't say they could.

I said they had plenty of time to do so before the Swedish case arose, if they'd wanted to.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 26 Feb 13 5.35pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.01pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 10.50am

Quote banksy at 26 Feb 2013 12.59am

I couldn't agree more with Jamiemartin721. He has made it very clear that Assange should not be in any way terrorised for simply disclosing the dirty secrets of the US and other governments. As such he is doing the world a huge public service. There is a difference between genuine issues of national security and nasty cover ups of wrong doings. What horrified me a few days ago was reading a number of comments on these boards that vilified Assange and made him out to be the villain of the piece. I hope those fans in due course realize how he is doing them and all of us a service by shining light on evil acts. A brave man indeed!


Public service! All he's done is promote himself and his own self importance. He's not important, nor elected as Stirling has pointed out.

All he really is, is a serial law breaker hiding being a fake political stance.

Isn't that what governments have done in their pursuit of him and the consequent media coverage? I'd never really paid much attention to wikileaks or Assange prior to the 'gulf war' revelations, and increasing persicution by assorted embrassed governments.

I'd suggest that since its inception in 2006, Wikileaks has served the public interest.



No. Which ones have persued him exactly? Other than ones where he's broken laws or due to face trial (ie UK and Sweden)

I'd suggest they're no more a public service than the other hackers.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 26 Feb 13 5.41pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote npn at 26 Feb 2013 5.16pm

my tuppence worth and view on the salient facts:

Sweden has asked for his extradition to face charges.

If he has a case to answer by UK/Swedish extradition agreements he should be sent.

The fact that the US may subsequently seek his extradition from Sweden, and Sweden may allow it is none of my concern and is an issue entirely between the US and Sweden.

Personally I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye while he slips out of the country to Ecuador or wherever, and becomes someone else's problem.

I find it interesting that everyone is happy to completely dismiss this sex case hanging over him simply because they see him as 'fighting the power'. Personally I don't give a stuff about him or his case so haven't bothered to look into it in any detail, but I imagine if a UK court has agreed his extradition, then there's a case to answer.

This a million times. Apart from letting him slip off, well not unless he comes up with 3m plus interest. Actually even then i'd still want him to be charged with breaching his bail and all that goes with it.

You can't set a precedent by letting anyone do what he's attempting to do.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 Feb 13 6.03pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm

You know this 'illegal' tag is pretty silly.

The world isn't a state, international law doesn't operate like a national court.

Calling a war illegal in a way is just nonsense....All war is illegal in a sense. If it was officially proven to be 'illegal' which isn't going to happen then who is going to enforce this so called breaking of 'international law'?

The UN is pretty clear on what is an isn't legal in terms of war, and has prosecuted a number of war criminals for statute crimes, most notably in result to the conflicts in the Balkans. War Crimes are on the UK statute of laws, and are enforcable, as are crimes against humanity, and even less offences regarding the abuse of public office and fraud offences relating to lying to parliment.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm

Are we going to somehow jail a former president and Prime Minister? How about the other twenty of so countries involved, how culpable are they in this 'illegal war'?.....Sounds very French revolution to me.

Yes, we should, even if its only in relation to relatively minor offences, or complicity/conspiracy charges relating to the deaths of UK service men. And we should also pursue cases against others involved if they enter our jurisdiction. I don't care if the US would permit it, I'm not a US citizen, the alleged crimes relating to the UK government and agencys associated are our responsibility to resolve.

Ethically, we have a responsibility, as a lawful democracy to present ourselves us such, rather than taking the easy route of sweeping the deaths of innocents and UK citizens under the carpet of convenience.

We as a nation seem happy to intervene in the affairs of other nations (Libya) and yet when it comes to the home, we protect the guilty because of their station and status, not their innocence.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm
Even if the US would let it happen...Which it won't The US, who basically fund the UN as we know it would isolate themselves far more. It would be just the excuse that many Republicans would like....The country that attracts all that hate feeds more poor children than most of the rest put together.

I don't care what the states does, just because everyone else acts in a manner of moral hypocracy to the deaths of foriegners and our own service men, doesn't mean we should.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm

Everything is a balancing act, we can't have the world just as we'd like it.

Well you can, it seems, if you're wealthy enough or powerful enough. In fact it seems if you are the Tony Blair or George Bush and cronies, you can have the world the way you like it.

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 3.37pm
Really, if the reality that some push for actually happened then I think the world would be far more dangerous than it currently is......Probably be forced to be Chinese within a generation if the world were run by 'world government' idealists like yourself.

You think the invasion of Iraq made the world safer. Afghanistan and Iraq removed the two major opponants of Iran from the world stage, weakened the security of pakistan, a nuclear power and essentially created a situation that has positively encouraged Iran and North Korea to pursue nuclear capability as a matter of necessity.

If anything, the actions of the West in the pursuit of 'democracy in the middle east' has done far more harm than good, and led to massive improvements in the position of Islamist movements (many of whom ultimately will end up looking to the Russians and Chinese for support, and enriching their coffers for arms and technology).

Rather than protect us from the tyranny of china, it has promoted Chinese interests world wide.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 Feb 13 6.05pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 5.35pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 26 Feb 2013 12.01pm

Quote Stuk at 26 Feb 2013 10.50am

Quote banksy at 26 Feb 2013 12.59am

I couldn't agree more with Jamiemartin721. He has made it very clear that Assange should not be in any way terrorised for simply disclosing the dirty secrets of the US and other governments. As such he is doing the world a huge public service. There is a difference between genuine issues of national security and nasty cover ups of wrong doings. What horrified me a few days ago was reading a number of comments on these boards that vilified Assange and made him out to be the villain of the piece. I hope those fans in due course realize how he is doing them and all of us a service by shining light on evil acts. A brave man indeed!


Public service! All he's done is promote himself and his own self importance. He's not important, nor elected as Stirling has pointed out.

All he really is, is a serial law breaker hiding being a fake political stance.

Isn't that what governments have done in their pursuit of him and the consequent media coverage? I'd never really paid much attention to wikileaks or Assange prior to the 'gulf war' revelations, and increasing persicution by assorted embrassed governments.

I'd suggest that since its inception in 2006, Wikileaks has served the public interest.



No. Which ones have persued him exactly? Other than ones where he's broken laws or due to face trial (ie UK and Sweden)

I'd suggest they're no more a public service than the other hackers.

They're not hackers, they commit no crime in the obtaining of information, its hosted by them online. They don't actually steal the information, they rely on others to provide it for them.

Much in the way news media operates with leaks and informants.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 26 Feb 13 6.15pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 4.06pm

Rendition and imprisonment without trial are both wrong. That's my position on that....What to do about it, well that's another question.

Isn't this why we have a secret service, to do the dirty things, and not get caught (or at least make them deniable). How hard is it to actually get a conviction for conspiracy to commit terrorist offences - We didn't need special rules against the Irish Republicans, or torture or rendition - You only have to show three or more people in cahoots to break the law, and its then down to them to prove their innocence (Conspiracy charges are unusual as the onis is on the accused to prove their innocence).

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Feb 2013 4.06pm
On the wider point I don't believe in letting possible threats knowingly walk the streets and I don't agree it's valid to spend large amounts of money keeping tabs on thousands of people.

Problem is, most of the people picked up aren't really that much of a threat. Mostly they were people who were pro-Islamist in their home nation and involved in terrorist funding overseas, and we'd turned a blind eye to them between the 1980s and 2001.

After 9/11 they served much more as people who provoked the media, rather than actually carried a real threat or risk to citizens of the UK (those held in Belmarsh for example, were advocates of Jyhad).

All of them had pretty much committed offences for which they could have been jailed, just not very serious ones. Although after the new labour anti-terrorist laws, it became very easy to become a terrorist, even by association.

The degree to which someone is a threat, when the evidence is suppressed, and the hearings held in closed court, with no jury, is entirely down to the statement of those making the accusation.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mongo Like Clunge's Profile Mongo Like Clunge Flag Bumfuck City, Texas 26 Feb 13 6.42pm Send a Private Message to Mongo Like Clunge Add Mongo Like Clunge as a friend

I'm bowing out of the thread with this one, but in the interests of transparency, here are the leaked testimonies and witness transcripts regarding the two cases:

[Link]

Despite some of them being really hard work, I urge you to read them for yourselves.

 


WORRIED that your teeth will be stained after a heavy night drinking red wine? Fear not; drink a bottle of white wine before going to bed, to remove the stains.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 9 of 14 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Julian Assange