Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Coito ergo sum]

My point is not about who is right or wrong Gawd, take a minute to let that sink through your head. Its okay, take the time to reread it until you understand what I am telling you. I am saying that you are inefficient in your approach to discussion and convincing other people that your presuppositions are more correct than theirs. If you really cared about changing the world for the better you would not be arguing the way you argue. You are merely reiterating points and saying "your side is bad and I don't like them." This does nothing to further your cause. No matter how many links you post, how many valid points you think you have if you don't adequately (and seriously) address points others bring up you will get nowhere. Things like your pre-edited post are reasons you are viewed as a troll and not taken seriously.

Okay, Rob, tell me this: Why should I trust the American government after all it has and continues to do for the past 60 years?

Because too many people would have to be involved for them to effectively manufacture the evidence against Assange. The best they can do is cajole a witness to testifying against Assange, and unless they have some corroboration, they won't get a conviction based on one witness' say-so. So far, they don't have shit, and haven't brought an indictment. They are conducting an investigation, and that seems eminently appropriate. How else will they find out if Assange was involved pre-download to know if there is a conspiracy to commit espionage charge that can be proved?

You have this assumption that the US has done everything wrong all the time in the last 60 years, mainly you appear to base that on your idea that the Iraq war was wrong. I'll ask you, though, if the US was the country you say it is and Bush was the War Criminal you say he is, why didn't he do one simple thing that would have guaranteed he would have gone down in history as a fantastic President who made the right moves at the right time: planted evidence of WMD in Iraq? Here's a guy you claim controlled the world, and could engage in masterful conspiracies of the tallest order....yet, something as easy as trucking in some chemical and biological weapons and planting them in an underground storage facility in the desert was beyond him? Think about it.

[Gawd]

So IS it an accusation? Or more noise? Are you willing to name the prosecutor who is faking evidence? What about which evidence they are faking? Or is it just 'big pharm' 'big tobacco' 'big porn''big justice' who is out to get you?

I wonder how to tell if Gawd is real or a bot...?

You think those whores were not paid?

They are paid a salary. Plenty of prosecutors, though, would be glad to make a fortune on a tell-all about how they were bribed or threatened to bring a false prosecution. Being a federal prosecutor in the US is not such a high level position that these folks are among the ruling elite. All you really need is a law degree and the desire to start out as an attorney in the district attorney's office and work up to an assistant DA - moderate competence at law is all that's needed. These folks are middle class men and women with families. If you think they are all ready, willing and able to put their careers, reputations, and even freedom at risk to engage in blatant prosecutorial misconduct and lie to a federal judge while taking payola to falsely accuse an individual of a crime, well, I guess that just goes along with your "America controls everything and pulls all the strings" theory of global politics...

I was talking about the whores he slept with. Funny that you thought I meant the American prosecutors.

[Gawd]

My point is not about who is right or wrong Gawd, take a minute to let that sink through your head. Its okay, take the time to reread it until you understand what I am telling you. I am saying that you are inefficient in your approach to discussion and convincing other people that your presuppositions are more correct than theirs. If you really cared about changing the world for the better you would not be arguing the way you argue. You are merely reiterating points and saying "your side is bad and I don't like them." This does nothing to further your cause. No matter how many links you post, how many valid points you think you have if you don't adequately (and seriously) address points others bring up you will get nowhere. Things like your pre-edited post are reasons you are viewed as a troll and not taken seriously.

Okay, Rob, tell me this: Why should I trust the American government after all it has and continues to do for the past 60 years?

Because too many people would have to be involved for them to effectively manufacture the evidence against Assange. The best they can do is cajole a witness to testifying against Assange, and unless they have some corroboration, they won't get a conviction based on one witness' say-so. So far, they don't have shit, and haven't brought an indictment. They are conducting an investigation, and that seems eminently appropriate. How else will they find out if Assange was involved pre-download to know if there is a conspiracy to commit espionage charge that can be proved?

You have this assumption that the US has done everything wrong all the time in the last 60 years, mainly you appear to base that on your idea that the Iraq war was wrong. I'll ask you, though, if the US was the country you say it is and Bush was the War Criminal you say he is, why didn't he do one simple thing that would have guaranteed he would have gone down in history as a fantastic President who made the right moves at the right time: planted evidence of WMD in Iraq? Here's a guy you claim controlled the world, and could engage in masterful conspiracies of the tallest order....yet, something as easy as trucking in some chemical and biological weapons and planting them in an underground storage facility in the desert was beyond him? Think about it.

They don't care about a conviction. All they want is some false evidence so they can lock Assange up for years on end while "swift" justice takes place. If the Americans can detain those Guantamano Bay "terrorists" without a shred of evidence, what makes you think they won't do something similar to Assange?

Not everyone was in on Bush's WMD plan. You can't seriously believe that Bush would not have done that if he could. He and his entire government lied to everyone about having found WMD's.

[Coito ergo sum]

They don't care about a conviction. All they want is some false evidence so they can lock Assange up for years on end while "swift" justice takes place. If the Americans can detain those Guantamano Bay "terrorists" without a shred of evidence, what makes you think they won't do something similar to Assange?

In federal court, they wouldn't be able to hold him indefinitely, and he would have a right to an attorney. That attorney would likely be a very good one. And, he would be able to force a speedy trial if he wanted it. Unless the defendant waives his right to a speedy trial, a delay of more than one year from the date he is indicted is "presumptively" unfair. Barker v Wingo (SCOTUS). And, the case would have to be dismissed, unless the defendant agreed to a delay or the prosecution met a burden of proof to overcome the presumption by showing to the judge that there was a legitimate need to take longer (like if it had to secure certain witnesses for trial and just needed a short delay to get them served with process or something)

Not everyone was in on Bush's WMD plan. You can't seriously believe that Bush would not have done that if he could. He and his entire government lied to everyone about having found WMD's.

It wouldn't have taken "everyone." All that would have been required to plant WMD would be one or two people to know about it. The people transporting the material wouldn't even need to know what it was. They could be told they were moving weapons for the war effort and never know what was being transported. Planting WMD would have been so much easier than some of the ridiculous conspiracies advanced about Bush - like orchestrating 9/11/01.

[Gawd]

They don't care about a conviction. All they want is some false evidence so they can lock Assange up for years on end while "swift" justice takes place. If the Americans can detain those Guantamano Bay "terrorists" without a shred of evidence, what makes you think they won't do something similar to Assange?

In federal court, they wouldn't be able to hold him indefinitely, and he would have a right to an attorney. That attorney would likely be a very good one. And, he would be able to force a speedy trial if he wanted it. Unless the defendant waives his right to a speedy trial, a delay of more than one year from the date he is indicted is "presumptively" unfair. Barker v Wingo (SCOTUS). And, the case would have to be dismissed, unless the defendant agreed to a delay or the prosecution met a burden of proof to overcome the presumption by showing to the judge that there was a legitimate need to take longer (like if it had to secure certain witnesses for trial and just needed a short delay to get them served with process or something)

Not everyone was in on Bush's WMD plan. You can't seriously believe that Bush would not have done that if he could. He and his entire government lied to everyone about having found WMD's.

It wouldn't have taken "everyone." All that would have been required to plant WMD would be one or two people to know about it. The people transporting the material wouldn't even need to know what it was. They could be told they were moving weapons for the war effort and never know what was being transported. Planting WMD would have been so much easier than some of the ridiculous conspiracies advanced about Bush - like orchestrating 9/11/01.

Ha, "speedy trial" is an oxymoron in the USA. When was the last time you saw a "speedy trial" that lasted less than 5 years? And of course the judge will "grant" a delay since the American henchmen have to search for Assange's "terrorist network".

And planting a large enough quantity of WMD's in Iraq takes more than a couple of people. It's not like Bush could put a bleach bottle in a factory and call out, "I told you so!!!" You would have to get weapons manufacturers and military transport planes to move the stuff in quantity and without any one inspecting it or the locals getting suspicious. You would also need a whole platoon of soldiers to secure the buildings needed to plant the evidence, buildings that no one else have been in. You also have to do it without those pesky international reporters everywhere filming your move. And God forbid that someone might just leak the plans, a la Wikileaks. In short, Bush was too dumb to carry out the plan to completion.

[Cunt]

Ha, "speedy trial" is an oxymoron in the USA. When was the last time you saw a "speedy trial" that lasted less than 5 years?

I don't know, but I did find out that the longest EVER was just over that length...
From Wikipedia

After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history.

emphasis mine

It looks like your statement was either a flat-out lie, or stupidity. Could you please clarify which? Was it something else?

[klr]

Being interviewed on BBC Newsnight right now, and giving speeches in answer to most of the questions ...

[Hermit]

What generated the question, anyway? What's your beef?

The question was generated by your mention of "the concept of ideological masturbation" in connection with what is going on in this forum. I became curious as to whether you regarded yourself as free of ideology, and if not, free of ideological masturbation, because a great number of people imagine they are. Your reply, when it finally came (oops, I said "came") increased my estimation of you. No beef.

[Cunt]

I think, from what I gather here, the real asshole is whoever left the information so unsecure. We can't blame a low-ranking staff, humans must be expected to fuck up. We can't blame Assange, unless he conspired with the low-ranking staff member (even then, I would blame the idiots who claimed that they could secure information when they clearly couldn't)

He may indeed be a prick, but a blameless prick, I think.

Interesting to see if anyone still thinks it is a problem which can be blamed on a few 'bad apples', but if anyone does (Ian - I do hope you are listening), then take a half hour for an interesting TED talk which is, in part, about military atrocities and who should be blamed.

[Ian]

Interesting to see if anyone still thinks it is a problem which can be blamed on a few 'bad apples',

To which problem are you referring? Security of information? I think the Army has a ton of egg on its face. I deal with classified information all day, every workday, and I could never have done what Private Manning did. I can't bring a cellphone or camera in to work, nevermind flash drives or recordable media. If I stick a thumb drive into my computer, security will know about it immediately.

[Cunt]

I am referring to the problem of the leaked documents. I don't think such a sloppy 'espionage' effort can really be credited to the 'bad apples' (being Assange and the Armyman who physically stole the docs)

I hope you watch the vid, Ian. The man has some VERY interesting perspectives on organizations and responsibility with regards to evil. You might not be as far from it as you thing (nor I)

[Gawd]

Ha, "speedy trial" is an oxymoron in the USA. When was the last time you saw a "speedy trial" that lasted less than 5 years?

I don't know, but I did find out that the longest EVER was just over that length...
From Wikipedia

After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history.

emphasis mine

It looks like your statement was either a flat-out lie, or stupidity. Could you please clarify which? Was it something else?

Maybe you should actually do some fact checking instead of looking like George Bush:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The criminal case against the first detainee transferred from Guantanamo Bay for trial in a U.S. civilian court should be thrown out because he was denied the right to a speedy trial, defense lawyers argued on Monday.

The government countered that the prosecution of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani -- a Tanzanian national charged for his alleged role in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya -- was delayed for a legitimate reason: gathering high-value intelligence from Ghailani during interrogations.

The prosecution described its national security needs as "weightier, more significant" than a speedy trial demands.

The case is being watched for precedents that could affect others, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks, who is also due to be tried in Manhattan federal court.

Ghailani was taken into custody in Pakistan in July 2004 and interrogated outside the United States as part of the Bush administration's secret "extraordinary rendition" program under which terrorism suspects were captured in one country and interrogated in another.

He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006 and his case was moved to Manhattan federal court last June.

Ghailani has pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiring with Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda to kill Americans, and separate charges of murder for the 224 people killed in the African bombings.

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/id ... 111?ca=rdt

Oh, how "speedy". 6 years in prison straight and his trial just started a few months ago. That's Americans for yah.

[camoguard]

Simultaneously, despite appreciating having leaked information I would not suggest that any particular solider leak information. The soldier or insider doing the leak is the person who should have the most information to determine what should or should not be leaked. They leak, we read. It's very simple.

True, except that it's not that simple. PFC Manning downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents, more than he ever could have read and digested (or given his young age and rank, fully understood) and then forwarded them en masse to a publishing source. He didn't "determine" anything about all that information.

Moreover, he did it not for ideological or financial reasons, but because it satisfied his ego. He was dealing with a recent demotion, relationship issues, overseas deployment, etc. Many Wikileaks supporters have made the kid out to be some kind of folk hero sacrificing himself for free speech, but that characterization is a mile off the mark. He leaked a massive number of documents and promptly bragged about it to complete strangers on an internet forum. A comparison could be made to Robert Hanssen; he was another case of leaking information in order to boost his ego, not because he needed (or even spent much of) the money or because he was ideologically sympathetic to the Soviets/Russians.

As for Assange: His culpability depends upon whether or not he had any part in soliciting the information from Manning before Wikileaks actually received it, and whether this solicitation can be proven. If that's what happened and there's evidence of it, then Assange is guilty of a criminal conspiracy and he ought to be thrown in prison. If his website only published the material after receiving it, then on no account should he be charged with anything (other than terrible ethics, but that's not a crime). This detail, by the way, is what the Justice Department has been scrutinizing as it decides whether or not they can charge Assange with anything.

Sure. That side of the issue is a military failure. It doesn't confirm or dispute Julian Assange's reputation. I don't think recently demoted soldiers should be around classified documents just like I think recently separated previously married people probably don't need guns.

But still, once the information is out at all, it might as well be out for all of us and then there's no question about who has seen what. You address the leaked information and the surprised folks who discovered you said one thing and thought another and you move on. Julian is the last person who should look a gift of documents in the mouth. And while his priority might not be your priority, it's not a bad item to prioritize. Putting more real information out there is generally a good thing. I'd rather see folks err by posting too much.

[Coito ergo sum]

So IS it an accusation? Or more noise? Are you willing to name the prosecutor who is faking evidence? What about which evidence they are faking? Or is it just 'big pharm' 'big tobacco' 'big porn''big justice' who is out to get you?

I wonder how to tell if Gawd is real or a bot...?

You think those whores were not paid?

They are paid a salary. Plenty of prosecutors, though, would be glad to make a fortune on a tell-all about how they were bribed or threatened to bring a false prosecution. Being a federal prosecutor in the US is not such a high level position that these folks are among the ruling elite. All you really need is a law degree and the desire to start out as an attorney in the district attorney's office and work up to an assistant DA - moderate competence at law is all that's needed. These folks are middle class men and women with families. If you think they are all ready, willing and able to put their careers, reputations, and even freedom at risk to engage in blatant prosecutorial misconduct and lie to a federal judge while taking payola to falsely accuse an individual of a crime, well, I guess that just goes along with your "America controls everything and pulls all the strings" theory of global politics...

I was talking about the whores he slept with. Funny that you thought I meant the American prosecutors.

Well, I certainly don't think the women were paid to bring criminal charges. If it was discovered that occurred, they themselves would face prosecution and jail time. I'll need some evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

Ha, "speedy trial" is an oxymoron in the USA. When was the last time you saw a "speedy trial" that lasted less than 5 years? And of course the judge will "grant" a delay since the American henchmen have to search for Assange's "terrorist network".

All the time - happens every single day. The high profile trials you're talking about last a long time because the defense wants more time. If the defense wants more time, they can get more time. The median time from indictment to trial in federal courts is from about 6 to 12 months. But, don't let the facts get the way. J
Even the most famous trial of the last 100 years - the OJ Simpson Trial - lasted far less than five years. The murders occurred in June of 1994, and his trial started in January, 1995. That was in California Superior Court. A second trial occurred relative to OJ - the civil trial for money damages where he was found "responsible" for the deaths of the victims - the jury verdict was February 5, 1997 - so we had both a criminal case and a civil case go from beginning to end in less than 3 years.

And planting a large enough quantity of WMD's in Iraq takes more than a couple of people. It's not like Bush could put a bleach bottle in a factory and call out, "I told you so!!!" You would have to get weapons manufacturers and military transport planes to move the stuff in quantity and without any one inspecting it or the locals getting suspicious.

A small quantity would do, along with evidence of a "program" to develop weapons. The military has chemical and biological weapons materials on hand, and could easily make it look like saddam had a program going. Put a bunch of materials in a factory in Iraq and drop a bomb on it, so that the weapons material would be discovered as residue and that sort of thing. It would have been the easiest thing in the world. Much easier than the convoluted crap you folks claim the US is capable of....

I only WISH the US was as powerful and all controlling as you pretend it to be....we'd not be in the real danger we're in if we had that kind of power....

You would also need a whole platoon of soldiers to secure the buildings needed to plant the evidence,

That's simple. The soldiers don't need to know what's in buildings to secure them. Create a perimeter and lock it down. Then leak a rumor that it's because of a very monumental discovery made in the building...let everyone speculate and leak some stories about weapons materials being found...

buildings that no one else have been in.

Easy - find an underground bunker. Hussein had plenty of them. And, all you need is plausability - you'll always have people claiming things were faked. Heck, you have an army of people claiming the WTC attacks were faked by the Bush Administration.

You also have to do it without those pesky international reporters everywhere filming your move. And God forbid that someone might just leak the plans, a la Wikileaks. In short, Bush was too dumb to carry out the plan to completion.

But...he was behind 9/11/01, which was an inside job.... why didn't the same folks who orchestrated 9/11/01 in order to "lie us into war" plant some WMD in Iraq? Much smaller thing than the inside job was in the first place...