SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

Assange apologists stating that he would have gone to Sweden if he could have had a guarantee not to be sent to the US is total misdirection. Firstly because I don’t believe he would have and secondly Sweden was in no position to make such a promise at the time. He skipped bail to avoid extradition on a rape charge.

Why do you think Sweden was in no position to make such a promise? Lawyers made representations and sweden refused, not said they couldn't do it. Pure speculation.

But just so we can stop talking about rape, I'll make it very clear, again: I'd be very happy to see him extradited to Sweden to face rape charges.

Now. Can we get back to the important thing:

Do you think he should be getting extradited to the US?
Does the minor misdemeanour of potentially hacking a computer not balance out against the atrocities that Wikileaks uncovered and published?

I.E. Should whistleblowers not receive protection from prosecution for minor acts when releasing vital information in the public interest?



Simple question @Wij. But you will keep trying to bring the topic round to the minor question, rather than the major one. Put your cards on the table eh?

 

[DaGaffer]

Jeez...

Thread:


View: https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1116597761128845312


Assange did not hide in the embassy to escape US charges. He hid there to escape Swedish rape charges. That’s what started it. Read the thread about those charges and about further extradition.

Assange apologists stating that he would have gone to Sweden if he could have had a guarantee not to be sent to the US is total misdirection. Firstly because I don’t believe he would have and secondly Sweden was in no position to make such a promise at the time. He skipped bail to avoid extradition on a rape charge.

No, sorry, he definitely hid in the Embassy because he expected the Swedes to extradite him; he's been saying that since the start.

 

[Scouse]

Totally.

 

[Embattle]

No, sorry, he definitely hid in the Embassy because he expected the Swedes to extradite him; he's been saying that since the start.

Then I guess he should of been less of a jackass while he was there then, either way I still see no issue other than random people trying to pick who should and shouldn't be subject to extradition treaties rather than it being decided in the place it has already been....you know in the courts.

 

[Wij]

Then I guess he should of been less of a jackass while he was there then, either way I still see no issue other than random people trying to pick who should and shouldn't be subject to extradition treaties rather than it being decided in the place it has already been....you know in the courts.

Courts or GTFO tbh.

 

[Wij]

I.E. Should whistleblowers not receive protection from prosecution for minor acts when releasing vital information in the public interest?

No. He broke the law and he's a shit anyway.

 

[Scouse]

No. He broke the law and he's a shit anyway.

That's not what I asked.

Your religious hatred of Trump, and therefore Assange, has led you to a course of thinking where you'd throw all whistleblowers under the bus regardless of how vital it is that we understand the workings of our government.

Most whistleblowers break laws to provide information. I find it quite sad that you can't bring yourself to admit that.

 

[Gwadien]

I don't think it's a good idea to allow any trial in a country who is heavily influenced by the US.

International courts or gtfo.

 

[Wij]

That's not what I asked.

Your religious hatred of Trump, and therefore Assange, has led you to a course of thinking where you'd throw all whistleblowers under the bus regardless of how vital it is that we understand the workings of our government.

Most whistleblowers break laws to provide information. I find it quite sad that you can't bring yourself to admit that.

He isn't being charged for whistleblowing and I disliked Assange before Trump. You aren't going to make me care sorry.

 

[Scouse]

You aren't going to make me care sorry.

I don't care if you dislike Assange. It's the fact that you refuse to discuss whistleblowers that aren't Assange.

You're utterly single-minded on it and I find it bizarre is all :\

 

[Wij]

It won’t affect other whistleblowers:

The Arrest of Julian Assange Is Not Bad for Journalism - The Bulwark

 

[Scouse]

It won’t affect other whistleblowers:

The Arrest of Julian Assange Is Not Bad for Journalism - The Bulwark

What a source you've found!

And what a cunt that guy is: "In the March 2006 issue of Commentary, Schoenfeld called for the government to prosecute a number of reporters and editors at The New York Times under the espionage statutes after it broke the story of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of people within the United States"

Can see which side his bread is buttered. Accuses New York Times journalists of espionage because they published that the US government carries out warrantless surveillance of their own public - in breach of their own bill of rights.

Espionage! That's a capital punishment offence. He wanted to kill the journalists reporting on governmental crime.

Bravo.

 

[Wij]

What a source you've found!

And what a cunt that guy is: "In the March 2006 issue of Commentary, Schoenfeld called for the government to prosecute a number of reporters and editors at The New York Times under the espionage statutes after it broke the story of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of people within the United States"

Can see which side his bread is buttered. Accuses New York Times journalists of espionage because they published that the US government carries out warrantless surveillance of their own public - in breach of their own bill of rights.

Espionage! That's a capital punishment offence. He wanted to kill the journalists reporting on governmental crime.

Bravo.

Shooting the messenger. The article is correct. The charge is narrow. Stealing and publishing are different. Journalists know they aren’t allowed to help steal info or offer to do so. Journalism 101.

 

[Gwadien]

Shooting the messenger. The article is correct. The charge is narrow. Stealing and publishing are different. Journalists know they aren’t allowed to help steal info or offer to do so. Journalism 101.

I wouldn't even consider Wikileaks as journalism anyway.

 

[Wij]

I wouldn't even consider Wikileaks as journalism anyway.

I can agree with that.

 

[Scouse]

Whatever. Large raft of academics disagree with you. And your messenger deserves shooting, because he's an authoritarian cunt.

Shame you weigh the rights of the people to know what illegal shit their governments are doing so lightly against the punishment of leakers for misdemeanors.

 

[DaGaffer]

Then I guess he should of been less of a jackass while he was there then, either way I still see no issue other than random people trying to pick who should and shouldn't be subject to extradition treaties rather than it being decided in the place it has already been....you know in the courts.

Ever read the original accusations against him? It screams "fitup". Now, maybe he is guilty, but speaking as just-about the least tinfoil-hat wearing person on Earth, I still get a "dark forces at work" vibe.

 

[Wij]

Ever read the original accusations against him? It screams "fitup". Now, maybe he is guilty, but speaking as just-about the least tinfoil-hat wearing person on Earth, I still get a "dark forces at work" vibe.

There were several allegations against him and they sounded quite reasonable to me. He can defend himself in court like everyone else.

 

[Wij]

Whatever. Large raft of academics disagree with you. And your messenger deserves shooting, because he's an authoritarian cunt.

Shame you weigh the rights of the people to know what illegal shit their governments are doing so lightly against the punishment of leakers for misdemeanors.

The leaks happened. It’s done. Now he can be prosecuted for breaking laws that won’t stop future leaks.

 

[Scouse]

The leaks happened. It’s done. Now he can be prosecuted for breaking laws that won’t stop future leaks.

Rubbish. Chilling effect. Absolutely.

Say experts that don't want to kill journalists.

 

[Wij]

Rubbish. Chilling effect. Absolutely.

Say experts that don't want to kill journalists.

Some. Not all by a long way. And they're wrong. In the articles we've both posted there have been real journalists involved in leaks. They are not being prosecuted. Assange will be prosecuted for rape or aiding hacking.

 

[Scouse]

Some. Not all by a long way. And they're wrong.

The ones you chose are right tho? You know, the ones that want to prosecute for espionage.

Assange will be prosecuted for rape or aiding hacking.

With you on the rape. Hacking is fine if it uncovers murderous atrocity and government lies.

Not just fine in fact - to be positively encouraged.


We're going to go round in circles, so I'm going to leave it there m8.

 

[Wij]

Richest 3% Russians Hold 90% of Country’s Financial Assets – Study

 

[Scouse]

Richest 3% Russians Hold 90% of Country’s Financial Assets – Study

8 men own the same wealth as half the world.

 

[Job]

Id like to see a breakdown of how that actually plays out in day to day economics.

The super rich dont actually sit on a pile of money they have taken out of the economy...do they personally use it to influence?
Or is it left to fund managers to keep the world ripe for profits.
Would 'giving' it back help anyone.

I need to find a for dummies youtube post.

 

[Job]

Well you know..lol and all.


View: https://youtu.be/Py1NZT5_NlA

 

[old.Osy]

Well you know..lol and all.


View: https://youtu.be/Py1NZT5_NlA

Such a shitty video.

Replace refugee with "total stranger", same shit. Nobody would.

Quality journalism right there.

 

[Job]

Oh I see.
Only refugees they know?

Its undeniable liberal virtue signalling bullshit exposed for what it has always been.
'Let them in you Nazis!'

So ..er someone else can deal with them.

Puts Archers back on.

 

[Wij]

8 men own the same wealth as half the world.

Not quite comparable though. That’s net wealth not asset ownership. The bottom 20% of people have negative wealth and then the next 20% is making that back to zero. That’s nearly to the 50% on a bullshit comparison. Net wealth is a dumb measure.

Having said that wealth and income inequality is getting worse and it’s a bad thing. That’s why political messaging from Koch bros and Russian oligarchs is such a bad thing.

 

[fettoken]