Julian Assange - Still a Class-A prick

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

The word "finally" is inappropriate. I answered your question directly and immediately.

[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?

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.

Your (sarcastic, bullshit) question was

When was the last time you saw a "speedy trial" that lasted less than 5 years?

The fact that the few exceptions we can find are newsworthy kind of makes it look like they are exceptions, rather than the norm.

When was the last time 'I' saw a trial last less than 5 years? Just about every trial I have observed. When was the last time you saw one last less than 5 years? Be honest now, don't just look for a few exceptions...

Do we REALLY have to pull the statistics?

<then I noticed the previous post...oops - too late>

[Coito ergo sum]

Do we REALLY have to pull the statistics?

Most cases never go to trial, but those that do go to trial usually in a matter of months, and as we get up around a year, that's about as long as they go. The supreme court has held that more than a year is presumptively the max, unless the defendant himself delays the matter by either requesting a delay or taking delay-inducing actions in his own defense. I.e. - the defendant can't cause the delay himself and then claim that the delay is improper, and the defendant can waive his speedy trial right if he wants more time to prepare his defense.

Gawd is wrong. 5 years is not the average, is not common, and is only the case in a very very small minority of cases, and it's almost always because of the defendant that the trial lasts that long...

[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.

Your (sarcastic, bullshit) question was

When was the last time you saw a "speedy trial" that lasted less than 5 years?

The fact that the few exceptions we can find are newsworthy kind of makes it look like they are exceptions, rather than the norm.

When was the last time 'I' saw a trial last less than 5 years? Just about every trial I have observed. When was the last time you saw one last less than 5 years? Be honest now, don't just look for a few exceptions...

Do we REALLY have to pull the statistics?

<then I noticed the previous post...oops - too late>

Do you really not see that there is no such thing as a right to a "speedy trial"? It is a myth and the American government abuses it at will. Assange will just be like the Guantamano prisoners.

[Cunt]

Do you really not see that there is no such thing as a right to a "speedy trial"? It is a myth and the American government abuses it at will. Assange will just be like the Guantamano prisoners.

How can I tell the difference between you, and a 'bot' which merely simulates participating in the conversation?

[JimC]

Do you really not see that there is no such thing as a right to a "speedy trial"? It is a myth and the American government abuses it at will. Assange will just be like the Guantamano prisoners.

How can I tell the difference between you, and a 'bot' which merely simulates participating in the conversation?

Bots find it hard to give a convincing simulation of a single-issue fanatic...



But more seriously, Gawd, even if you (unrealistically) ascribe only totally malicious motives to the US, one segment of their motives would be spin. If we follow this logic, it is one thing to do nasty things to brown-coloured muslim terrorists after a clear attack on one's country, quite another to do the same to a blond haired nordic type, citizen of an ally, in the blazing glare of world publicity...

[Cunt]

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.

To suggest that Private Manning did this is, to me, more than a little disingenuous. The systems had to be in place to allow, and possibly to encourage this kind of leak.

Someone with a bit more authority than Manning should be investigated.

[JimC]

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.

To suggest that Private Manning did this is, to me, more than a little disingenuous. The systems had to be in place to allow, and possibly to encourage this kind of leak.

Someone with a bit more authority than Manning should be investigated.

More a lack of appropriate systems in place, I would think. I can't see any way anybody in authority would have wanted to encorage this, unless there is a bizarre civil war with the defence and foreign affairs community...

But his superiors and supervisors certainly stuffed up; heads should roll, if only for utterly slack supervisory practices...

[Hermit]

To suggest that Private Manning did this is, to me, more than a little disingenuous. The systems had to be in place to allow, and possibly to encourage this kind of leak.

Someone with a bit more authority than Manning should be investigated.

Yes, the system was certainly in place, but I doubt that someone with a bit more authority than Manning had an active hand regarding the leak.

From what I have been reading - and I think someone else mentioned it in this thread earlier on - it was decided some time after 9/11 that restricting the flow of classified information too strictly inhibited dissemination of information to those who ought to receive, analyse and act on it to such an extent that knowledge about the terrorists' plans to hijack planes and fly them into buildings never made it to the people who needed to know - people who could have done something to prevent the disasters. The flip-side of opening channels for the flow of such information, of course, is that leaks are bound to occur.

[Trolldor]

No-one higher than private manning needs to be investigated because he confessed to an independent third party that he was responsible, and the reasons for him leaking them.

[Gawd]

I think I will join the American army. Anyone know the phone number for Osama bin Laden?

[Robert_S]

No-one higher than private manning needs to be investigated because he confessed to an independent third party that he was responsible, and the reasons for him leaking them.

We have his word, surely he wouldn't lie.

[Trolldor]

And the chat logs, provided by that third party.

[Cunt]

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.

To suggest that Private Manning did this is, to me, more than a little disingenuous. The systems had to be in place to allow, and possibly to encourage this kind of leak.

Someone with a bit more authority than Manning should be investigated.

More a lack of appropriate systems in place, I would think. I can't see any way anybody in authority would have wanted to encorage this, unless there is a bizarre civil war with the defence and foreign affairs community...

But his superiors and supervisors certainly stuffed up; heads should roll, if only for utterly slack supervisory practices...

My suggestion is that the systems themselves are flawed. I don't know enough about the command structure to say who, but it is likely a few offices, rather than a few people.

If the systems are set up expecting some 'human factor' (such as this leak), is it really fair to blame Private Manning? I mean, he did break laws, but was empowered by these systems. I think it will be up to people something like Ian (only older), but I hope they put more criticisms into the system that they put into the Private.

[Ian]

My suggestion is that the systems themselves are flawed. I don't know enough about the command structure to say who, but it is likely a few offices, rather than a few people.

If the systems are set up expecting some 'human factor' (such as this leak), is it really fair to blame Private Manning? I mean, he did break laws, but was empowered by these systems. I think it will be up to people something like Ian (only older), but I hope they put more criticisms into the system that they put into the Private.

The system was flawed. Manning used recordable CDs and data sticks to download his trove of information (this is still a massive crime any way you cut it - Manning is facing on helluva trial). The Army ought to be embarrassed and I'm sure it is, but blaming his superiors is like blaming the bank manager for the teller that swiped a handful of bills from the cash drawers and went shopping before the cash was missed. Yeah, security was lax, but the teller had a certain amount of trust placed on him to begin with.

Anyway, security precautions are being put into place. Hopefully the Army will get its act together. If I had ever tried to do what Manning did, I would've been automatically detected. Probably followed by a trap door opening under my chair.