send to the gallows or send to walking street in Pattaya...same-same

20 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

As I say, naive. There has never been, nor will there ever be, or could be, true transparency in protecting freedom. To believe that there can be is to believe in a unrealistic World, where all is bright and beautiful and no bad people. bad governments, terrorists, religious fanatics, dictators, crooks, fraudsters, mafias etc.  

Bad actors do not need to be dealt with in the shadows. 

 

Other than hiding obvious operational details and operatives names from enemies, what enforcement actions do you believe need to be hidden from citizens in order to protect their own freedom? And why would anything need to be hidden a decade after any operation and/or actions?

23 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

As I say, naive. There has never been, nor will there ever be, or could be, true transparency in protecting freedom.

There are powers that be who are working diligently, and making headway I might add, to make the lives of the public completely transparent.  Transparency in government is not an impossible ideal.  Argue for your limitations and they're yours.

To decide this question one must understand what the US charges are and what they are not.

What they are Not:

• connected to allegations that Assange worked with Russian agents to disseminate hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential campaign that were damaging to Hillary Clinton and helpful to then-candidate Donald Trump.
• issues about journalism vs government right to secrecy
• issues about freedom of speech vs government right to secrecy
• act of espionage

What they Are:

• conspiracy to commit computer intrusion under 18 USC P.371, 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(ii) to break into computers to obtain classified information that “could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation.”
• Assange allegedly “agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense [classified] computers,” which allowed her to log on under a different username, making it harder for investigators to track. https://qz.com/1592762/the-us-charges-against-julian-assange/
• Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange wherein Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information (by illegal means). https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy
• Assange was allegedly aware that Manning was providing him information in violation of Army regulations. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/us-charges-wikileaks-co-founder-julian-assange-with-conspiracy-to-commit-computer-hacking.html

The government's indictment is fairly narrow¹ which makes some of pro-Assange arguments irrelevant in a court of law. Assange is likely to argue that he didn't conspire with Manning nor encourage Manning to commit federal crimes. Assange as a defendant needn't prove his innocence as it will be the government's burden to present proof that Assange committed federal crimes beyond a shadow of doubt.

¹There were indications by CNN that Justice Department officials expect to file additional charges against Assange (presumably) upon Assange's detention in the US.

Give him the Peace Nobel price. He is a great Australian who wanted to "keep the bastards honest".

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hogwash.

 

Those making accusations that Farage is an agent of a foreign power (Russia) want him to stand trial in open court of law.

 

Those who claim his innocence are keen that he does not stand trial.

 

I say, follow the due process of the law.

Chomper, ultimately what we're dealing with is an information war.  Be very careful of what you decide to believe.  Best to do your own research from as many sources as possible and evaluate information objectively . . . if you can allow yourself to be objective.

 

Also, it is wholly evident that laws are not applied equally, respecting the U.S. and the UK in this instance.  To simply say, "follow the due process of law," is to assume that the law is enforced equally in every instance.  We know that it is not.  Ask yourself, if you were persecuted by a government, a government which has absolute control over how the law is applied, would you surrender yourself to said government with the belief that your innocence would be proven and upheld?  Not I, my good sir.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hogwash.

 

Those making accusations that Farage is an agent of a foreign power (Russia)

Interesting ! Didn´t know that Nigel Farage was a Russian spy

49 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Chomper, ultimately what we're dealing with is an information war.  Be very careful of what you decide to believe.  Best to do your own research from as many sources as possible and evaluate information objectively . . . if you can allow yourself to be objective.

 

Also, it is wholly evident that laws are not applied equally, respecting the U.S. and the UK in this instance.  To simply say, "follow the due process of law," is to assume that the law is enforced equally in every instance.  We know that it is not.  Ask yourself, if you were persecuted by a government, a government which has absolute control over how the law is applied, would you surrender yourself to said government with the belief that your innocence would be proven and upheld?  Not I, my good sir.

The British Government does not have absolute power over how the law is applied, that’s the job of the courts.

4 minutes ago, pikao said:

Interesting ! Didn´t know that Nigel Farage was a Russian spy

My mistake, but then wrt Assange Farage has some explaining to do.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Apply due legal process.

 

If his extradition is approved by a court and he fails to have it overthrown on appeal, then yes extradite him.

 

If his extradition is not approved by a court or he wins an appeal don’t extradite him.

 

 

 

So he will be at the mercy of corrupt governments

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The British Government does not have absolute power over how the law is applied, that’s the job of the courts.

As in the U.S. then, the UK courts are independent of politics and outside pressures.  Theoretically.  Practically speaking?  If corruption exists within government can it exist within the judiciary?  Does it exist in the judiciary?  To what extent is all that I believe can be argued.

 

In any case, one need only review historical examples of gross miscarriages of justice and examples of corruption within the judiciary to understand that there are no guarantees of equitable and just verdicts.  You would be at their mercy and I would pray for you.

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

As in the U.S. then, the UK courts are independent of politics and outside pressures.  Theoretically.  Practically speaking?  If corruption exists within government can it exist within the judiciary?  Does it exist in the judiciary?  To what extent is all that I believe can be argued.

 

In any case, one need only review historical examples of gross miscarriages of justice and examples of corruption within the judiciary to understand that there are no guarantees of equitable and just verdicts.  You would be at their mercy and I would pray for you.

More hogwash arguments.

 

Assange is facing trial in open courts of law and has rights of appeal throughout.

 

Take your tin foil hat off.

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

To decide this question one must understand what the US charges are and what they are not.

What they are Not:

• connected to allegations that Assange worked with Russian agents to disseminate hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 presidential campaign that were damaging to Hillary Clinton and helpful to then-candidate Donald Trump.
• issues about journalism vs government right to secrecy
• issues about freedom of speech vs government right to secrecy
• act of espionage

What they Are:

• conspiracy to commit computer intrusion under 18 USC P.371, 1030(a)(1), 1030(a)(2), 1030(c)(2)(ii) to break into computers to obtain classified information that “could be used to the injury of the United States and the advantage of any foreign nation.”
• Assange allegedly “agreed to assist Manning in cracking a password stored on United States Department of Defense [classified] computers,” which allowed her to log on under a different username, making it harder for investigators to track. https://qz.com/1592762/the-us-charges-against-julian-assange/
• Manning and Assange engaged in real-time discussions regarding Manning’s transmission of classified records to Assange wherein Assange actively encouraged Manning to provide more information (by illegal means). https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-computer-hacking-conspiracy
• Assange was allegedly aware that Manning was providing him information in violation of Army regulations. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/11/us-charges-wikileaks-co-founder-julian-assange-with-conspiracy-to-commit-computer-hacking.html

The government's indictment is fairly narrow¹ which makes some of pro-Assange arguments irrelevant in a court of law. Assange is likely to argue that he didn't conspire with Manning nor encourage Manning to commit federal crimes. Assange as a defendant needn't prove his innocence as it will be the government's burden to present proof that Assange committed federal crimes beyond a shadow of doubt.

¹There were indications by CNN that Justice Department officials expect to file additional charges against Assange (presumably) upon Assange's detention in the US.

I think that " Beyond Reasonable Doubt  "only applies in criminal trials (with a jury empanelled, not Judge alone trials) in UK NZ and Australia, not for an extradition hearing/

I do not think the Beyond Reasonable Doubt applies in any USA jurisdiction let alone Federal Courts unfortunately.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More hogwash arguments.

 

Assange is facing trial in open courts of law and has rights of appeal throughout.

 

Take your tin foil hat off.

You DO remember the UK judicial scandal of 2011, right?

 

If you believe that the UK (or USA) court/judicial system is a level playing field, I’ve got some prime land in Issan you should come look at...

21 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I think that " Beyond Reasonable Doubt  "only applies in criminal trials (with a jury empanelled, not Judge alone trials) in UK NZ and Australia, not for an extradition hearing/

I do not think the Beyond Reasonable Doubt applies in any USA jurisdiction let alone Federal Courts unfortusnately.

Are you ignorant or simply spreading lies.

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/1/case.pdf

 

Edited May 5, 20197 yr by Chomper Higgot

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You DO remember the UK judicial scandal of 2011, right?

 

If you believe that the UK (or USA) court/judicial system is a level playing field, I’ve got some prime land in Issan you should come look at...

I’ve never claimed US/UK justice is a level playing field.

 

I’ve challenged as utter hogwash claim made above that in these jurisdictions the application of the law is under absolute power of the respective governments.

 

Real tin foil hat stuff.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Are you ignorant or simply spreading lies.

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/1/case.pdf

 

You will see I used "I Think" ( which is different from stating a fact) read and comprehend please

Thank you for informing me, I stand corrected.

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve never claimed US/UK justice is a level playing field.

 

I’ve challenged as utter hogwash claim made above that in these jurisdictions the application of the law is under absolute power of the respective governments.

 

Real tin foil hat stuff.

 

 

I was addressing your statement, “Assange is facing trial in open courts of law and has rights of appeal throughout“. Which seems to imply you believe he will receive a fair hearing. I don’t know if he will or not, but there is a real possibility he won’t.

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I was addressing your statement, “Assange is facing trial in open courts of law and has rights of appeal throughout“. Which seems to imply you believe he will receive a fair hearing. I don’t know if he will or not, but there is a real possibility he won’t.

Assange will be represented by the best lawyers money can buy and his trials will be conducted in the full glare of the international press.

 

I think you are being a tad over dramatic with your claims.

No.

Finish his jail time then deport him to Australia.

4 hours ago, Kerryd said:

He should be.

He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system and received a massive amount of lucrative information in return.

 

And if you think he (and WikiLeaks) isn't making money from that (and other "leaks") then you really need to get an education. (A couple years ago it was reported they were making $9-10 million a year - that was known about - not including whatever they were able to hide - got to love Bitcoin when you are a crook.)

If Assange was a Russian or Chinese or Iranian agent, there'd be NO question about it and he certainly wouldn't be viewed as some kind of hero.

 

As well, think about it. If you worked at a bank and I helped you crack a password that let you send me millions of dollars - would you think I was totally innocent of any wrong doing ?

NO, you wouldn't. You would consider me, at the very least, to be complicit and more likely to be the mastermind of the crime.

Also keep in mind that Assange was a convicted criminal long before he started Wikileaks (having been convicted in his native Australia for various hacking crimes). He isn't some "white knight" valiantly defending free speech.

He is a criminal that makes money off of stealing people's secrets and then exposing them (or not) for profit.

 

“He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system”. 

 

And you know this how?  Because the ultra reliable and honest security agencies told us so?  What happened to due process?  Let’s see if the US can build a strong enough case to have him extradited.  Though this may not be too difficult a thing with UK subservience to the US.

Don't shoot the messenger.

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Assange will be represented by the best lawyers money can buy and his trials will be conducted in the full glare of the international press.

 

I think you are being a tad over dramatic with your claims.

It’s ok. I think you are more than a tad naive.

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

It’s ok. I think you are more than a tad naive.

I’m not wearing a tin foil hat and spouting conspiracy theories of deep state players, a judicial system that is under control of government and all that other hogwash Assange’s supporters rely on.

 

No. Not under any circumstances. He will not get a fair hearing in the USA.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not wearing a tin foil hat and spouting conspiracy theories of deep state players, a judicial system that is under control of government and all that other hogwash Assange’s supporters rely on.

 

Nor am I. I just like to stay tethered to the way the world actually works rather than burying myself in my own entrenched beliefs.

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are taking a rather myopic view of what constitutes a crime. Take time to read up on Criminal Conspiracy and why it is considered as serious if not more so than the crime being conspired. 

 

Criminal conspiracy, like a government using one of it's law enforcement agencies to illegally spy on political rivals hoping to turn dirt up prior to an election campaign? Or a political party conspiring with a foreign former espionage agent to compile a file of made up information to discredit political opponents? Or perhaps a political party's national committee conspiring with a "preferred" candidate to rob the real winner?

51 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

 

“He committed espionage. He assisted a member of the US Military with hacking a secure computer system”. 

 

And you know this how?  Because the ultra reliable and honest security agencies told us so?  What happened to due process?  Let’s see if the US can build a strong enough case to have him extradited.  Though this may not be too difficult a thing with UK subservience to the US.

 

Yes, yes, but he attacked Hilary, the Democrats chosen one. He must be punished regardless of rights and wrongs, the law, justice, freedom of speech and judicial process with presumptive innocence.

 

None of that matters to the vengeful Hilary and her Democratic mob. 

8 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

No! The world and especially the US themselves need to start accepting they do not always get what they want. 

 

I am wondering when the generals and decision makers in the US government mass killings of innocent civilians, and subsequently attempted coverups, then exposed in wiki leaks, are going to be extradited to the countries where the victims' families reside. Why is it all so one sided? 

 

You can say "war is war" all you want. But covering up civilian death numbers is not "war", it is outright crime and proves the depths of their prevarication and deception.  

 

I fully agree with you. Besides, the USA will never extradite an American citizen to another country to be tried there, but apparently they fully expect other countries to cooperate and extradite their citizens to the USA. Seems like a bit of a double standard to me, to say the least.

Just now, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes, yes, but he attacked Hilary, the Democrats chosen one. He must be punished regardless of rights and wrongs, the law, justice, freedom of speech and judicial process with presumptive innocence.

 

None of that matters to the vengeful Hilary and her Democratic mob. 

Is the current indictment a result of the work instigated by Pompeo and Sessions