Julian Assange still hiding

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/07/julian-assange-fugitive-interview

I figured it had been quiet for a while on the Wikileaks front, so I figured I'd see what the morass is.

He's basically hiding in the embassy and left the people who supplied his bail high and dry. They lost their money, and in my opinion he lost a lot of standing by basically fleeing from authorities. He's not proving his innocence. And from what I've read in other sites, this isn't doing his health any good.

I'm not sure, but can the Swedish Government even able to fulfill the promises he requires before he turns himself in. (I don't understand the extradiction procedures that well)

I do know this.. the man left Bradley Manning high and dry. While he kicks back in the embassy with a trio of around the clock bobbies watching for him, Manning has spent the last year or more in extreme restriction conditions. I think, personally, he committed treason BUT he is due to a speedy trial.

[TheGlyphstone]

He even looks like a Bond villain...

[Callie Del Noire]

He even looks like a Bond villain...

He sounds like a rambling loon on interviews. I get the manic depressive vibe from him too. He NEEDS to be pursued and persecuted to feel vindicated. His actions and micromanagement has all but killed Wikileaks, and has driven most of the staff who supported him at the beginning.

[Neysha]

Regardless of his actions, he seems like an incredibly odious and wicked person in any personal regard.

[Callie Del Noire]

Regardless of his actions, he seems like an incredibly odious and wicked person in any personal regard.

I used, prior to his hideous editing of the guncam footage, to think that he was a man who had SOME redeeming value.. but with that video..then his idiocy with the courts and Wikileaks. (Particularly his treatment of his newspaper allies and Private Manning.)

[gaggedLouise]

Well, on the guarantees he asked for, the government here (like the UK) has a formal policy of not rendering people on judicial requests to a country where they "would be under risk of getting sentenced to death, or tortured" at their trial. And the foreign secretary here, Mr. Carl Bildt,  pointed to that when asked about the Assange case. But many people clearly realize that's just a way of evading the issue. Surely the U.S. State Dept. or their ambassador to Sweden would never say, on a direct question "yes, he might get sentenced to death and executed after he's tried here"? That's about as likely as Bush saying in 2007 "Well, I admit Saddam most likely had no WMDs". Obviously any answer from the U.S. would be "he is not going to risk a death sentence" which would be a void pledge as soon as the trial starts. And Sweden has a record of acting a bit spinelessly in recent years when it comes to U.S.-led rendition requests of this kind, while the cabinet here very likely want to get Sweden full status as a NATO member down the road - though that second bit isn't being pushed officially, it most likely is behind the scenes and shines through the way defence spending issues are getting presented. Which would not make them eager to displease the U.S. on this.

Plus, Sweden (its recent governments) has a way of not going the full mile to look after the rights of persons who are under her 'protection' abroad (citizens or others). I really don't trust my own government jack shit on this, and as for the judicial ballet itself it looks like there is a lot of prestige flashing on the part of the prosecutors here. They could easily have questioned Assange by a video link, but they have consistently refused. It's like, "we want him here, he's gotta come to ME!" even though there have been no definite summons for a hearing on whether he should be kept in custody yet - formally he's only wanted, at this point, for "providing more information" on that night.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't know about Assange as a person, but I don't think there's anything the least bit "villainous" about his deliberately staying away from an obvious abuse of the justice system designed to shut down WikiLeaks. There's more than enough odium around, and the politically-motivated prosecution of Assange has left its pursuers and their apologists thoroughly soaking in it. This isn't an attempt to bring Assange into the light to prove themselves right and him wrong about the issue of government secrecy: it's a transparently ginned-up attempt to shut him away and shut him up, and he knows it, and he's acting accordingly. So he should. (As for Manning's fate, the people who've put him in extreme lockdown have to answer for their behaviour, the disgrace of which is self-inflicted. Trying to hang that around Assange's neck is raw absurdity.)

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't know about Assange as a person, but I don't think there's anything the least bit "villainous" about his deliberately staying away from an obvious abuse of the justice system designed to shut down WikiLeaks. There's more than enough odium around, and the politically-motivated prosecution of Assange has left its pursuers and their apologists thoroughly soaking in it. This isn't an attempt to bring Assange into the light to prove themselves right and him wrong about the issue of government secrecy: it's a transparently ginned-up attempt to shut him away and shut him up, and he knows it, and he's acting accordingly. So he should. (As for Manning's fate, the people who've put him in extreme lockdown have to answer for their behaviour, the disgrace of which is self-inflicted. Trying to hang that around Assange's neck is raw absurdity.)

Okay.. on Manning's part.. Assange pledged to support him.. and raised  HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS a day with that.. and you know how much his lawyer got after PUBLICLY shaming Assange? Twenty Grand.. MONTHS after Assange's pledge. He outed names in his releases, said that there was no proof his actions killed people.. he's been a tyrant to the point that several other Co-founders of Wikileaks have left. One even deleted GIGS of material because he wasn't sure that Assange would protect the identity of their sources.

For a man who is all about transparency of the world's governments..he's damn good about protecting HIS privacy.

I wasn't trying to hang ANYTHING on Assange. I said up front.. Manning committed treason. That's my take. Assange .. worse he can get LEGALLY in the US is conspiracy to handle classified documents.. release of information.. nuts.. The DOJ has said not one thing they could charge him with comes in the purview of the death penalty, and the foaming ranting of conservatives who saw nothing wrong with the public disclosure of a US NOC Agent (and the ensuing obfuscation of the men who broke their oaths to maintain secrecy) don't count.

Could Assange go down for a decade for the 'theft' of American documents? Possibly. Death Penalty? He'd have to be a US citizen. He ain't. Most likely the worse thing we could realistically do is declare him persona non grata (which we have with folks like Ian Paisley and such) and bar him from the country.

[gaggedLouise]

Somebody pointed out to me that this case seems to be the first time that prosecutors in Sweden are using the European Arrest Warrant when it's only about initial-stage suspicions (that would need to be worked over and researched to provide grounds for a trial). In the past, they have been quite restrictive with using it, even when the crime was very serious and violent and they had a near-conclusive identification of the guilty person and knew exactly where to get him. There was a case some time ago where a man had been kicked senseless and robbed on board a cruise ship on the Baltic Sea. The police were able to identify with near 100% certainty who had done it and after nearly a year, they got word he was in jail in Ireland for another crime. The prosecutor who had the abuse case on his table gave a shrug: "Look, we can't ask for extradition every time we have a drunken brawl of this sort and a likely suspect, now can we?" - and did nothing.

For a man who is all about transparency of the world's governments..he's damn good about protecting HIS privacy.

There's nothing strange about someone deciding that he can't count on getting a fair trial. Nor about someone taking into account that he might be labeled an "illegal combatant" or something just as flimsy. Creative handling of justice is nothing new.

[Callie Del Noire]

Had he stayed in Sweden.. odds are he'd be done by now. I don't know about Swedish assault laws.. but the US ones would most likely have cleared him. I heard Sweden is more strict in that area.

I honestly think had he stayed, met and talked with the authorities.. it would have never gone this far. I think the warrant for him was at least in part due to the fact that he made the authorities look bad in the news.



And just so you guys know.. I'm ashamed of how Private Manning is being held. It's unconscionable that it has: A. Taken this long to get to court. B. That they kept him in isolation like they have for as long as they have. He might have committed treason but we have a responsibility to follow the precedents of law.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I dunno, I see these laundry-lists of supposed evils and none of it is all that convincing to me as being something we should be more concerned about than the evils and abuses of secrecy that WikiLeaks exposed:

- The "Bradley Manning is a traitor" stuff doesn't wash or is at minimum extremely questionable from where I'm standing (and Washington would need to put the people responsible for the Valerie Plame scandal in the dock to regain the authority to talk about "treason" with any coherency, which is one reason they haven't gone there... EDIT: correction, they did eventually charge him with "aiding the enemy," a potential death-penalty charge, so I guess they pretty much have gone there -- I guess we'll see if they can make it stick).
- I'm very dubious about your seemingly uncritical acceptance of the "blood on his hands" claims about Assange and WikiLeaks -- the underlying realities of such things aren't as straightforward as you keep trying to imply -- and (harking back to a prior thread) I don't particularly buy the outrage about the "Collateral Murder" video that implies there was some broader context edited out that would have made everything in that video okay (there isn't).
- I can find no reference to your claims about WikiLeaks fundraising and Manning -- the WikiLeaks fundraising I'm aware of has had Manning as one among a number of priorities being fundraised for, among them a financial blockade aimed at completely shuttering the site -- and I can find nothing terribly unexpected in that interpersonal stresses should arise among the staff of an organization placed under that kind of pressure. Aside from the bail money (notice only a handful of donors have quibbled about it -- for most of them the goal was to thwart a clearly warped misuse of judicial powers) the major scandal I'm aware of WikiLeaks being connected to is that it started putting up a donation "paywall" around its content, enraging those members of "Anonymous" who may not quite understand what a "financial blockade" really is.

Basically your attempts to interpret everything and anything connected with either Assange or WikiLeaks with the maximum level of antipathy seem to me to be overwrought, and to be warping your perspective and priorities. You seem to really really want Assange to be the villain of the piece; I don't think it's likely to work out that way, though. Or if it does, it will only be for whatever span of time we decide to pretend that we can turn a blind eye to the ongoing abuse of government secrecy.

[EDIT: To bring the point across a little more fully, compare and contrast a sampling of what WikiLeaks' disclosures actually exposed:

- Bipartisan American efforts to quash international torture probes.
- Attempts to hide 15,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
- Secret orders allowing US to ignore abuses including electrocution and rape by "friendly" Iraqi security forces.
- US forces opening fire on Reuters journalists.
- American pressure on Allies to shelter CIA assets from prosecution for torture and rendition.
- Deeply-compromised and directionless nature of an Afghanistan war that, like Iraq and Vietnam before it, was being presented falsely to the public.

And so on. And compared to stuff like this, I'm supposed to be impressed that oh my goodness, maybe Julian isn't a nice guy? It's pretty clear who the worse criminals are, here. At the end of the day I really don't give much of a toss about Assange's supposed foibles or the ins and outs of his sex life or office relationships. There are bigger fish to fry... and they're clearly eager to distract the citizenry from the skillet...)

[Callie Del Noire]

- The "Bradley Manning is a traitor" stuff doesn't wash or is at minimum extremely questionable from where I'm standing (and Washington would need to put the people responsible for the Valerie Plame scandal in the dock to regain the authority to talk about "treason" with any coherency, which is one reason they haven't gone there... EDIT: correction, they did eventually charge him with "aiding the enemy," a potential death-penalty charge, so I guess they pretty much have gone there -- I guess we'll see if they can make it stick).

Agreed. Plame's  exposure risked her life and most certainly got people she met with, possibly recruited, and who had worked for the US.. KILLED. Period. That was treason. The problem is that the greasiest VP I can think of was all set to protect HIS people over a little thing like violating Federal Law, getting intelligence assets killed and setting back CIA recruitment efforts back YEARS in those regions.

I personally think Dick Chaney and Karl Rove need to be in prison. I know a few HUNDRED servicemen who agree with me.

- I'm very dubious about your seemingly uncritical acceptance of the "blood on his hands" claims about Assange and WikiLeaks -- the underlying realities of such things aren't as straightforward as you keep trying to imply -- and (harking back to a prior thread) I don't particularly buy the outrage about the "Collateral Murder" video that implies there was some broader context edited out that would have made everything in that video okay (there isn't).
- I can find no reference to your claims about WikiLeaks fundraising and Manning -- the WikiLeaks fundraising I'm aware of has had Manning as one among a number of priorities being fundraised for, among them a financial blockade aimed at completely shuttering the site -- and I can find nothing terribly unexpected in that interpersonal stresses should arise among the staff of an organization placed under that kind of pressure. Aside from the bail money (notice only a handful of donors have quibbled about it -- for most of them the goal was to thwart a clearly warped misuse of judicial powers) the major scandal I'm aware of WikiLeaks being connected to is that it started putting up a donation "paywall" around its content, enraging those members of "Anonymous" who may not quite understand what a "financial blockade" really is.

Basically your attempts to interpret everything and anything connected with either Assange or WikiLeaks with the maximum level of antipathy seem to me to be overwrought, and to be warping your perspective and priorities. You seem to really really want Assange to be the villain of the piece; I don't think it's likely to work out that way, though. Or if it does, it will only be for whatever span of time we decide to pretend that we can turn a blind eye to the ongoing abuse of government secrecy.

As for the abuse of government secrecy .. I think he damaged in the release of those cables what little diplomatic confidence anyone in the region had with us after 8 years of George Bush. You don't tell the neighbors that you're talking about that.. and by revealing that Iran scares EVERYONE in the Gulf states to the point they tentative SUPPORT an Israeli airstrike is doing just that.

As for 'Collateral Murder'. I find it interesting that the entire MISSION tape was cut down to a 30 and 17 minute videos.

And what I mean by failure to support Manning is this.. till Manning's LAWYER went to the press.. Assange hadn't given ONE DIME to Manning's defense.

Having held a Secret and Top Secret clearance, I know there is a 'need to know' and that the difference between that and 'abuse' is very very very close. That is why we got oversight and such. It has gotten even more delicate since 9/11. I disagree with some of the measures.. such as the atrocity named the 'Patriot Act'. 

We, the people, have let fear drive us for 11 years.

Assange has an axe and an agenda with the Bush Administration and he set out to punish us for re-electing him. If I was the president.. I'd let the State Department declare him persona non grata and be done with it. We're empowering his ego by doing this. A simple 'we won't pursue this action' would things go away. And he do NOT want that.

I respected Assange in 06 when he came out with the revelation of an assassination order issued by Shiek Hassan Dahir Aweys. Not to mention his revelation of Kenyan politician Daniel arap Moi 's corruption. His leaking of Icelandic banking memos might have help trigger their financial crisis.. (which I seriously doubt.. at best he may have accelerated it)

I respect the aim of Wikileaks but I don't think Assange is the best fit for it. He has an advisory panel, many of whom have left over differences and the fact that he doesn't listen to them.

Lastly.. what lasting good comes out of publishing documents like the JDAM bomb hardware usage and maintenance manual? If someone leaked the methodology and construction criteria for a WMD would it be already to let that data go free?

As for 'I didn't kill anyone with my leaks' crap.. I didn't believe it with the Plame case.. why should I believe it with his leaks?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html

[Kythia]

I dunno, I see these laundry-lists of supposed evils and none of it is all that convincing to me as being something we should be more concerned about than the evils and abuses of secrecy that WikiLeaks exposed:

<snip>

And so on. And compared to stuff like this, I'm supposed to be impressed that oh my goodness, maybe Julian isn't a nice guy? It's pretty clear who the worse criminals are, here. At the end of the day I really don't give much of a toss about Assange's supposed foibles or the ins and outs of his sex life or office relationships. There are bigger fish to fry... and they're clearly eager to distract the citizenry from the skillet...)

Seriously?  I'm not a Swedish prosecutor, lawyer, law expert, hell, even citizen.  So I have no idea whatsoever whether his "foible" is legally rape or not.  I know thats how its commonly referred to and perhaps there are conclusions that can be drawn from that or perhaps not.  But you can't say "this guy exposed crimes therefore he should be immune to prosecution"  Regardless of whether you think he was right or wrong to release all that information - I personally disagree with it but I accept there are very good reasons for thinking it was right - the simple fact is that he is suspected to have comitted crimes in Sweden and Sweden, justly, wants to prosecute.  Sure, there are political factors and maybe they're stronger than the desire to prosecute internal crimes.  But you know how he could have avoided this?  Not raping people.  Simple. 

The law applies to everyone and doing one "good" thing - and even that isn't cut and dried - can't allow you to do whatever the hell you feel like afterwards.

[Avis habilis]

Most likely the worse thing we could realistically do is declare him persona non grata (which we have with folks like Ian Paisley and such) and bar him from the country.

I'm thinking the worst that could realistically happen to him is he disappears into a secret CIA prison somewhere, never to be seen again. These days, if I thought the Feds had a beef with me there aren't many lengths I wouldn't go to to stay out of their grasp.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm thinking the worst that could realistically happen to him is he disappears into a secret CIA prison somewhere, never to be seen again. These days, if I thought the Feds had a beef with me there aren't many lengths I wouldn't go to to stay out of their grasp.

Okay allow me to rephrase.  Most likely the worse thing we SHOULD realistically do is declare him persona non grata (which we have with folks like Ian Paisley and such) and bar him from the country.

I did say realistic before. To rendition him to any form of imprisionment would be politically stupid.

We shouldn't empower his persecution complex. And want to bet if we did, that he'd still findable reason NOT to turn himself in?

[Avis habilis]

We shouldn't empower his persecution complex. And want to bet if we did, that he'd still findable reason NOT to turn himself in?

If we rendered him he would find a reason not to turn himself in? Wouldn't it be too late at that point?

[Callie Del Noire]

If we rendered him he would find a reason not to turn himself in? Wouldn't it be too late at that point?

I meant the charges the SWEDES want him on. remember those? If the Stae Department publicly affirmed that the US would persue no extradiction I'd bet he'd find a reason NOT to turn himself in.

[Avis habilis]

I meant the charges the SWEDES want him on. remember those? If the Stae Department publicly affirmed that the US would persue no extradiction I'd bet he'd find a reason NOT to turn himself in.

If the U.S. State Department publicly affirmed they wouldn't pursue extradition, there'd be no reason to believe them. He would need something in writing from the Swedes that they wouldn't grant extradition no matter what.

[gaggedLouise]

I meant the charges the SWEDES want him on. remember those? If the Stae Department publicly affirmed that the US would persue no extradiction I'd bet he'd find a reason NOT to turn himself in.

But the U.S. state department making a clear and binding pledge not to pursue his extradition, that's just not going to happen. He's too hot property -and last time I checked it was the courts who would seek extradition of somebody, not the state. And the U:S. executive branch is not going to want to be seen as giving orders to the courts on what they can and cannot do, is it?
Plus, as I've already put it, the US are never going to answer a direct question about what fate Assange might risk if he were tried under US law by "Well, there is a slim chance he could be sentenced to death of course". That's just not happening, but nor is the Swedish government ever going to press Hillary Clinton hard on honesty in that direction. Neither side would want to commit to anything that could create trouble if the US should ask to have him extradited from Sweden - and the U.S: could legally ask for that even if he was acquitted for the sex assault charges here.

I'd add that sexual assault and rape, and suspicions/stories of them, are sometimes, lately, as ideologically loaded in Sweden as gay marriage and gun rights are in America. I'm not saying he's been the victim of the classic kind of honey trap, but there is a vociferous opinion around here whose people plainly want him jailed for rape no matter what, even though they are not very concerned about the WL site and what's happened around it. There's also a lot of political opinion here that see him and WL as a nuisance. The sex accusations have been flimsy and they were changed around a couple times by the law people but rape/asault trials here are sometimes conducted in a flimsy way too, and can be susceptible to public pressure and media campaigns.

[Callie Del Noire]

If the U.S. State Department publicly affirmed they wouldn't pursue extradition, there'd be no reason to believe them. He would need something in writing from the Swedes that they wouldn't grant extradition no matter what.

Using THAT logic it could be argued that there is NO one anywhere he could trust. 

I'm sorry, you could have easily said that the Swedish government, and judiciary, could not be trusted either. There is only so much diplomatic capital any government would be willing to risk on one man. If the US can't be trusted to keep their word on something this small who would trust us in bigger affairs? 

He,Asssange, won't go willing to Sweden..I bet that.. No matter WHAT concessions the US, Swedish or even EU governments make on extradition. He will find other reasons to refuse.

[Avis habilis]

I'm sorry, you could have easily said that the Swedish government, and judiciary, could not be trusted either.

The Swedes don't have a history of kidnapping other countries' citizens, imprisoning them in third countries & torturing them. I'm willing to trust them a little farther.

[TheGlyphstone]

The Swedes don't have a history of kidnapping other countries' citizens, imprisoning them in third countries & torturing them. I'm willing to trust them a little farther.

By that logic, what's stopping the US from kidnapping him even if the Swedes guarantee he won't be extradited?

[Callie Del Noire]

The Swedes don't have a history of kidnapping other countries' citizens, imprisoning them in third countries & torturing them. I'm willing to trust them a little farther.

Question is...will he?  I'm sorry but Assange doesn't strike me as the type to accept the blame for anything. I've read how he treated the staff at the Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel as well as his peers within Wikileaks. I've listed to several interviews with the media that he's given as well as reading his writing in the past.

Nowhere does he accept ANY blame or admit fault for ANYTHING it is always someone else's fault or mistake. No one gives Julian Assange a fair shake or his due.

Do you know he is considering running for office?

http://www.news.com.au/national/julian-assange-confirms-bid-for-australian-senate/story-fncynjr2-1226535741180

[Callie Del Noire]

By that logic, what's stopping the US from kidnapping him even if the Swedes guarantee he won't be extradited?

Or simply raid the Embassy he is in now and rendition him to points mysterious? The building is hardly a fortress and clearly we'd lose diplomatic standing by violating Ecuadorian law than EU sovereignty.

[gaggedLouise]

By that logic, what's stopping the US from kidnapping him even if the Swedes guarantee he won't be extradited?

It would look a lot messier if the U.S. (or UK special forces) made a commando raid, went into the Ecuadorean Embassy and extracted him. A legal rendition after he'd been tried in Sweden, the ordinary procedure, would look much cleaner, especially at the time - because neither counbtry would have to admit that he might risk a death sentence - or, let's say, life imprisonment,

As for "too big a loss of face to the US" I've learnt over time that one doesn't have to buy statements from media pundits to the effect that "this simply couldn't be done, it would be far too awkward or difficult to arrange".

[Callie Del Noire]

It would look a lot messier if the U.S. (or UK special forces) made a commando raid, went into the Ecuadorean Embassy and extracted him. A legal rendition after he'd been tried in Sweden, the ordinary procedure, would look much cleaner, especially at the time - because neither counbtry would have to admit that he might risk a death sentence - or, let's say, life imprisonment,

As for "too big a loss of face to the US" I've learnt over time that one doesn't have to buy statements from media pundits to the effect that "this simply couldn't be done, it would be far too awkward or difficult to arrange".

But following that logic indicates there is no way to resolve this than to allow him to simply walk away from any charges he might have on him.  I'm sorry you can't have it both ways.. He says he wants to be assured..then says no assurance can be trusted?

Sooner or later to do some sort of human interaction at all.. you have to give some modicum of trust.

[TheGlyphstone]

We're talking about international face, not internal (or both), not simply 'difficult to arrange'. The Obama administration has put a lot of work into repairing the US's international reputation after the Republicans spent 8 years grinding it into the mud...they'd have to be beyond stupid, even by the standards of politicians, to throw all that effort away just to guarantee punishing one guy who doesn't even know anything worth torturing him for.

Both politically, diplomatically, and strategically, nothing is gained by trying Assange on death penalty charges, and there's no way in hell he could be successfully 'disappeared' (if anything, his own blowhard nature would keep media attention on him).

[Callie Del Noire]

We're talking about international face, not internal (or both), not simply 'difficult to arrange'. The Obama administration has put a lot of work into repairing the US's international reputation after the Republicans spent 8 years grinding it into the mud...they'd have to be beyond stupid, even by the standards of politicians, to throw all that effort away just to guarantee punishing one guy who doesn't even know anything worth torturing him for.

Both politically, diplomatically, and strategically, nothing is gained by trying Assange on death penalty charges, and there's no way in hell he could be successfully 'disappeared' (if anything, his own blowhard nature would keep media attention on him).

I agree.. I worry about the 'get out of jail' free card that Assange is fishing for. If the US clearly states that they won't try to extradite him for the leaked cables, or Sweden gives his assurances that they won't allow extradition.. I still don't see him returning to Sweden to face the music.

I'm sorry.. that is way TOO much diplomatic capital invested by the President to lose in pursuing a legally questionable prosecution of the man. I personally think that only if he had done the exchange of the cables inside US territory could we prosecute him for anything under US law.

[gaggedLouise]

But following that logic indicates there is no way to resolve this than to allow him to simply walk away from any charges he might have on him.  I'm sorry you can't have it both ways.. He says he wants to be assured..then says no assurance can be trusted?

Sooner or later to do some sort of human interaction at all.. you have to give some modicum of trust.

He's offered a couple times to let the Swedish prosecutors interrogate him by video link to London, so that the circumstances could be clarified. He hasn't been formally *charged* with rape or sexual assault, in thge sense that he would be called to a trial ready to begin, or beginning very soon after he arrives. When the arrest warrant was lodged it was really to get him in for some questions and giving him the chance to tell his side of the story. I'm not sure precisely how this works in the U.S. but over here a prosecutor cannot sénd a major case to trial if they don't make a sort of audit first, together with the judge and court staff, and it's established that there is now serious evidence, enough of it to give a reasonable chance of a guilty verdict. A prosecutor is not simply allowed to pull in someone in a case they want to publicize in order to appear brave and muscled. The Assange case had not got anywhere near that grade of evidence or even proof of intention of rape. Basically the prosecutor Marianne Ny is just acting on the stories the two women provided, and she wants Assange in, formally, to make him give his side of the story. He could have done that from London long ago, but Ny and other Swedish prosecutors have refused - they want him hauled in and locked up while they work.

And it's a real outlier that someone has an international warrant out for them on these kinds of suspicions. I mentioned the case where a man had been beaten senseless on a cruise ship by a foreigner. The police were able to establish after som time who it must have been, but they couldn't get any info on where the guy was by then - only that he had left Sweden (he was in the passenger list and there were other strong indications). A year later they got word that he was now in jail in Ireland. According to the rulebook the prosecutor should have asked to have him rendered for a trial on counts of grave abuse and robbery in Sweden, leading to a prison term to be added to the one he was serving, but the prosecutor just said it was diddley, "we can't ask for every John Blow to be extradited".


Another example. A dozen years ago Courtney Love and Hole did a show at an open-air rock festival in Sweden, drawing a big and very excited audience, mostly teens, some below 15. Both she and many in the crowd were foghorn drunk, and it got very chaotic. At one point she urged the girls in the audience to storm the stage and when some got up, compelled them to show their tits, leading by example herself. Of course it created mayhem, people got into frantic movement and one 19-year old girl was trampled to death. Courtney could well have been charged with responsibility for manslaughter, and she was trashed in the papers around here for her idiotic stunt, but there were no attempts to hold her pending  trial or to get her extradited later - do you expect a local court to pin down a world-famous rock'n'roll star?


So by normal practice it's strange that the Swedish prosecutors have been pressing so hard to get Assange to sit under their table when the case itself is far from solid or half ready for a trial.

[Callie Del Noire]

He's offered a couple times to let the Swedish prosecutors interrogate him by video link to London, o that the circumstances could be clarified. He hasn't been formally *charged* with rape or sexual assault, meaning that he would be called to a trial ready to begin, or beginning very soon after he arrives. When the arrest warrant was lodged it was really to get him in for some questions and giving him the chance to tell his side of the story. I'm not sure precisely how this works in the U.S. but over here a prosecutor cannot sénd a major case to trial if they don't make a sort of audit first, together with the judge and court staff, and it's established that there is now serious evidence, enough of it to give a reasonable chance of a guilty verdict. A prosecutor is not simply allowed to pull in someone in a case they want to puiblicize tpo appear brave and muscled. The Assange case had not got anywhere near that grade of evidence or even proof of intention of rape. basically the prosecutor Marianne Ny is just acting on the stories the two women provided, and she wants Assange in, formally, to make him give his side o the story. he could have done that from London long ago, but Ny and other Swedish prosecutors have refused - they want him hauled in and locked up while they work.

And it's a real outlier that someone has an international warrant out for them on these kinds of suspicions. I mentioned the case where a man had been beaten senseless on a cruise ship by a foreigner. The police were able to establish after som time who it must have been, but they couldn't get any info on where the guy was by then - only that he had left Sweden (he was in the passenger list and there were other strong indicatiosn). A year later they got word he was now in jail in ireland. According to the rulebook the prosecutor shoudl ahve asked to have him rendered for a trail on grave abuse and robbery in Sweden, leading to a prison term to be added to the one he was serving, but the prosecutor just said it was diddley, "we can't ask every John Blow to be extradited".


Another example. A dozen years ago Courtney Love and Hole did a show at an open-air rock festival in Sweden, drawing a big and very excited audience, mostly teens, some below 15. Both she and many in the crowd were foghorn drunk, and it got very chaotic. At one point she urged the girls in the audience to storm the stage and when some got up, compelled them to show their tits, leading by example herself. Of course it created mayhem, people got into frantic movement and one 19-year old girl was trampled to death. Courtney could well have been charged with responsibility for manslaughter, and she was trashed in the papers around here for her idiotic stunt, but there were no attempts to hold her pending  trail or to get her extradited - do you expect a local court to pin down a world-famous rock'n'roll star?


So by normal practice it's strange that the Swedish prosecutors have been pressing so hard to get Assange to sit under their table when the case itself is far from solid or half ready for a trial.

You forget one very important fact. He embarrassed the system in the international media. They played (sorta) fair and he ran..then refused to play by the rules they offered. He's made a mockery of them. That makes for a lot less tolerance and compromise than they would normally have given.

No one likes egg on their face, metaphorical or real. So far he's done that in TWO jurisdictions in this case. Sweden and the UK. I doubt the British will be anyway less forgiving than the Swedes on this. That is the path of his life. He respects no one but himself, but insists on everything goes his way.

Additionally.. given his tech savvy reputation and following, do you honestly think they'd trust him to play fair in any situation online? And I don't think online video conferencing is what the court wants. They want him in court, sworn in and in their jurisdiction. Otherwise it could be argued that anything he said online wouldn't be admissible.

[gaggedLouise]

Callie, the point is that the evidence (and the way it fits with how the law defines rape or assault) is very thin. Assange said at one point that he isn't going to be at the beck and call of every prosecutor around the world who wants him in his room for a chat, and under the looming threat that he might have to go off to the police jail after some of those chats and spend some time there with very restricted access to newspapers, tv or internet. It was a punchy way of saying it but I think he was dead on target. There's never been a very solid case against him for sexual assault or the like, but what there is can be made to look more solid than it is - and the issues there are now could have been cleared up if he had been heard over a video link.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie, the point is that the evidence (and the way it fits with how the law defines rape or assault) is very thin. Assange said at one point that he isn't going to be at the beck and call of every prosecutor around the world who wants him in his room for a chat, and under the looming threat that he might have to go off to the police jail after some of those chats and spend some time there with very restricted access to newspapers, tv or internet. It was a punchy way of saying it but I think he was dead on target. There's never been a very solid case against him for sexual assault or the like, but what there is can be made to look more solid than it is - and the issues there are now could have been cleared up if he had been heard over a video link.

Okay.. how about this one.

Flight from prosecution. He was told to STAY till the questioning was done. He fled from a potential prosecution. The courts tried to do a discourse with him initially.. he pushed them off several times before they sought the extradition in the UK.

I'm sorry.. not buying it. I figure that had he stayed in Sweden the charges would have been cleared up by now. While I think he's a vile despicable man who goes through the world thinking everyone else is a cardboard cutout and only exists for his benefit, that it could have easily been cleared up by now and he'd be off (more quietly) pissing off governements.

Personally.. if I was him, I wouldn't worry about the CIA killing him.. I'd worry about one of those corrupt African politicians or the Russians killing him. As far as I can tell... he's never bothered the CIA.. the Department of Defense, the State Department, the President, the FBI, ICE and the Border Patrol..yeah.. the CIA.. not so much.

[Oniya]

Do you know he is considering running for office?

http://www.news.com.au/national/julian-assange-confirms-bid-for-australian-senate/story-fncynjr2-1226535741180

Isn't that rather hard to do when you are 'in hiding'?

[Cyrano Johnson]

you can't say "this guy exposed crimes therefore he should be immune to prosecution"

Immune to prosecution on ludicrously convenient charges trumped up from plaintiffs who've changed their stories multiple times? A prosecution being pressed on clear behalf of at least one of two major parties to the Iraq debacle, whose extreme criminality he had recently exposed through WikiLeaks? If what's happening wasn't a clear abuse of the judiciary I wouldn't care one way or another, but it is rather obvious that the purpose and function of the judiciary is being twisted here. I frankly don't believe there can be that many people who believe that the charges against Assange are entirely on the level -- not even among those who are siding with his accusers because they feel a programmatic responsibility to support rape prosecutions on behalf of female plaintiffs.

Real criminal conspiracies happen in the open all the time. They differ from fantasy conspiracies in that, unlike UFOs and Reptoids, they're often readily detectable with a modicum of common sense, the behaviour of their participants suspicious; all that's missing is the final proof. This was true of the Iraq War, and it's sure as shit true of the Assange prosecution. It is so suspiciously convenient, and the desperation to get at him whatever the cost and damn normal procedure so ludicrously brazen, that anyone who is buying that as a normal attempt at due process seems wilfully blind to me.

[Avis habilis]

Or simply raid the Embassy he is in now and rendition him to points mysterious?

I'm tolerably sure launching a military raid against another country's embassy is causus belli in anybody's books. Not that Ecuador would be much of an opponent, but it would cause enough diplomatic trouble to be worth avoiding.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Flight from prosecution.

Flight from clearly-corrupt prosecution is perfectly moral and sensible.

[gaggedLouise]

Isn't that rather hard to do when you are 'in hiding'?

Well, maybe he is planning a revolution, like Lenin did in his sparsely furnished rented rooms in Zurich? Lenin only had to travel a week by train to get to the centre of events...

[TheGlyphstone]

UK Ecuadorian Embassy to Australia is one hell of a commute, though.

[Oniya]

UK Ecuadorian Embassy to Australia is one hell of a commute, though.

And you can't open the windows.

[Callie Del Noire]

Flight from clearly-corrupt prosecution is perfectly moral and sensible.

Funny.. last I heard Sweden wasn't a puppet state to anyone. The worse I've heard is that they are 'soft' to US requests. I admit I find the charges a bit.. weak on the face of thing.. but had he stayed and faced them it would have long been over by now. At most he'd be in a Swedish prison serving time.

The US wasn't going to extradite him.. honestly we don't have a case to speak on.

Or is it that he doesn't see that he might have done something wrong?

No offense.. there is no gain to be had in pulling him into our jurisdiction and prosecuting him. Period. The only people who believe otherwise are the crazy ultra-conservative fringe like Sarah Palin.

Which brings me back to what I put in my original post. What would it hurt for the Swedish judiciary/state department/executive branch/whoever else to state they WON'T honor any US requests to extradite him on the cablegate charges? Like I said, I've read his writings (he's got a very interesting outlook on privacy in his writings.) He supports full disclosure of everyone else but himself in things. For example, his adminstration of Wikileaks is confidential as is the debates between him and the other administrators.

If he did get those concessions and returned to Sweden.. according to your outlook, the case would fall apart. I bet that he'd still find a reason to hide in the embassy.

[Callie Del Noire]

Let me sum it up this way... Why can I respect people like Daniel Ellsberg and not Julian Assange? Ellsberg blew the whistle to bring to light a criminal conspiracy that hid among other things, the true cost in lives the War in Vietnam. He knew he could got to prison for doing so but still released the papers after failing to get folks like George Wallace, who as a senator was immune from such consequences, reused to. He acted on conscience.

Assange on the other hand pushed his leaks to clearly promote his site and agenda. Witness his clashes with The New York Times AND The Guardian over their reluctance to link their online copy to Wikileaks for fear of tying their articles to his unredacted copies of the reports that he was putting up on the site. His 'insurance policy' of stolen emails from a BoA executive. And the way he refuses to impose the same transparency on the administration of Wikileaks that he demands from every corporate and governmental entity on the planet.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Yes, I totally get that you don't like Assange, Callie. However, not liking him and buying into a pretty open attempt to corrupt the Swedish and international judiciaries in the process of going after and attempting to silence him are two very different things. That's true even if you're correct that Assange was reckless and irresponsible in his actions; if he really has blood on his hands, if there really is a compelling argument to protect the kinds of secrecy he breached -- in the diplomatic cables case, at least, I could see an argument to be made -- then that's what they should be going after him for. This underhanded and cowardly mockery of due process isn't serving anyone at this point.

Ultimately, however, Assange's case is -- and is pretty clearly meant to be -- a distraction. I'd be a lot more interested in talking about the kinds of things that WikiLeaks revealed, which after all are the ultimate point. There are large questions there that are hugely important to answer and craft responses to: like, why has the American military establishment repeatedly gotten mixed up in large, strategically nonviable conflicts about whose purposes and conduct it had to lie (on a massive scale) to the public? That's a more interesting question to me than whether Daniel Ellsberg is a more stand-up dude than Julian Assange. (It's also not every day I get to discuss it on a forum with someone who apparently once had high-level security clearance, which is pretty interesting.)

[Chris Brady]

Ultimately, however, Assange's case is -- and is pretty clearly meant to be -- a distraction. I'd be a lot more interested in talking about the kinds of things that WikiLeaks revealed,

Why?

You honestly think that a site devoted to divulging privileged information which you and I have no right to, and that can get people killed, people who are trying to help stabilize (as well as those who destabilize) the world?

I remember one of the first incidents reported, an internal E-mail between a couple of diplomats (this wasn't as Tweet, but something sent among colleagues) where one complained about another country's diplomat and how they hated to work with that person.  Typical Watercooler stuff, right?  Remember the fall out?  The slighted diplomat complaining about it?

Doesn't really seem like much, does it?

But how much damage do you think that did to relations between the U.S. and the (I think) Koreans?  How much damage is it STILL doing?  How much harder is it for the U.S. to sell it's products overseas now?

No one seems to actually be considering the consequences.  Instead we (the public) are just using it as yet another gossip source, instead of celebrities, we're talking about behind the scenes politicking which would do well not to be known.

Imagine that you're father, mother, significant other, sibling, family, is one of those people who was outed by Private Manning.  Imagine the fear that you now have to live with, knowing that they are in danger, because some jackass put that sensitive and classified information out on the internet were terrorists can get access to.

Assange seems to have some clearly psychopathic mannerisms, and claiming that his 'WikiLeaks' is a good thing is both blind and foolish.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Why?

Because when you find out that your government is party to war crimes, that's kind of important, and attempts to bluster about how that information should have been kept secret from all of us are uninteresting. (I notice you avoid that uncomfortable stuff to bluster about diplomatic cables instead, but the cables disclosures also revealed some rather festering secrets that quite probably should not have remained secrets -- like systematized human rights abuses being kept under the rug in regions as diverse as Eritrea and the Punjab for the sake of diplomatic protocol. The argument that we needed all this secrecy or the world would end is a lot harder to sustain now, and certainly not possible to sustain without actually grappling with the meat of the disclosures.)

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes, I totally get that you don't like Assange, Callie. However, not liking him and buying into a pretty open attempt to corrupt the Swedish and international judiciaries in the process of going after and attempting to silence him are two very different things. That's true even if you're correct that Assange was reckless and irresponsible in his actions; if he really has blood on his hands, if there really is a compelling argument to protect the kinds of secrecy he breached -- in the diplomatic cables case, at least, I could see an argument to be made -- then that's what they should be going after him for. This underhanded and cowardly mockery of due process isn't serving anyone at this point.

Ultimately, however, Assange's case is -- and is pretty clearly meant to be -- a distraction. I'd be a lot more interested in talking about the kinds of things that WikiLeaks revealed, which after all are the ultimate point. There are large questions there that are hugely important to answer and craft responses to: like, why has the American military establishment repeatedly gotten mixed up in large, strategically nonviable conflicts about whose purposes and conduct it had to lie (on a massive scale) to the public? That's a more interesting question to me than whether Daniel Ellsberg is a more stand-up dude than Julian Assange. (It's also not every day I get to discuss it on a forum with someone who apparently once had high-level security clearance, which is pretty interesting.)

Let's see.. right off the bat.. let me sum up the difference..

"I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." -Daniel Ellsberg.

That was what he said when he turned himself in to the US Attorney's office in 1971. He said what had to be said.. he faced the consequences of it.. he acknowledged that there were consequences to his actions. And faced them.

What does Assange do when he released his 'findings'? He pimped his site for better hits and more donations. What did he say when he was asked about the implications of releasing after action reports that could lead the Taliban back to the cooperating villagers? "Not possible." or. "Not my responsibility."

Ellsberg moved forward to point out to end the death of a war. Assange is looking for points.. and doesn't care how he gets them.

Because when you find out that your government is party to war crimes, that's kind of important, and attempts to bluster about how that information should have been kept secret from all of us are uninteresting. (I notice you avoid that uncomfortable stuff to bluster about diplomatic cables instead, but the cables disclosures also revealed some rather festering secrets that quite probably should not have remained secrets -- like systematized human rights abuses being kept under the rug in regions as diverse as Eritrea and the Punjab for the sake of diplomatic protocol. The argument that we needed all this secrecy or the world would end is a lot harder to sustain now, and certainly not possible to sustain without actually grappling with the meat of the disclosures.)

If he's going on about attrocities.. why not cover the events of Mymar.. or more recently the ones of the more recent events in Moli.. oh wait! He doesnt' have an axe to grind with them.

I'm not saying the US is lilly white. And yes, I have issues with the 'War on Terror'. I spoke out against the Patriot act when it wasn't popular. I dislike some of the 'extraordinary' methods of interrogation and I definitely think Iraq was a mistake. Saddam was a brigand.. but he wasn't one of the masterminds of 9/11. We wasted lives, money and time that could have been better spent on the Taliban/Al Queda. I dislike the President's actions in the use of CIA controlled drones, his very unamerican outlook on detainment of Americans. I shudder to think what would have happened if Romney was moving into the White House next month.

We are in DIRE need of reform. We need to roll back the fearmongering and influence brokering. We need men like Ellsberg to show us what is wrong.. not a man who is set on stirring the pot for his own self-promoting agenda.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Going back a bit -- to a longer post from Callie much of which is agreeable -- I find this still sticks in my craw:

As for 'Collateral Murder'. I find it interesting that the entire MISSION tape was cut down to a 30 and 17 minute videos.

What is supposed to be "interesting" about this? This seems to me like saying that it's suspect to think a lynching photo proves anything if we didn't diarize the full days of each participant. What broader context are you thinking would have made the actions caught in those videos anything but war crimes?

[Cyrano Johnson]

Let's see.. right off the bat.. let me sum up the difference..

I think I just finished telling you I don't really care about the supposed differences between Ellsberg and Assange. (Although I think it's fallacious to pretend they were facing American judicial establishments that were very similar.)

If he's going on about attrocities.. why not cover the events of Mymar..

WikiLeaks has actually publicized atrocities related to all sorts of regimes in all parts of the world, incidentally. (Recently, for instance, the Syria files, which are quite fascinating.) Your "axe to grind with America" theory seems flawed to me.

[Callie Del Noire]

Going back a bit -- to a longer post from Callie much of which is agreeable -- I find this still sticks in my craw:

What is supposed to be "interesting" about this? This seems to me like saying that it's suspect to think a lynching photo proves anything if we didn't diarize the full days of each participant. What broader context are you thinking would have made the actions caught in those videos anything but war crimes?

Have you ever viewed a mission flight video? It's can be up to about seven hours long. I have. It's boring, time consuming and without the entire battle sequence you miss things. Like the fact that the MEN with the cameras.. were moving in the same routines/paths as men with GUNS. The gun camera also doesn't show the WHOLE scene.

Cut out segments to high-light.. YOUR message.. and you leave out things like return fire and other groups that might have shaped a less severe reaction in your audience.

'Collateral Murder' was shaped to push one point of view.. from the name all the way through to the selective editing of BOTH versions. Why is it okay for  this to be done in this case.. but folks scream when their favorites are quoted out of context? Was the death of the Reuter's crew and bystanders a terrible tragedy.. yes. What about the attacks in the area on the days before this event? What sort of events/enviroment were the crew used to dealing with? How often had they or their squadronmates been attacked in the same area?

I notice damn little commentary on the impact the insurgents had on their own people. Or rather.. the ones who weren't of the right ethnic group/sect of Islam.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Cut out segments to high-light.. YOUR message.. and you leave out things like return fire and other groups that might have shaped a less severe reaction in your audience.

So to be clear, you are claiming that the camera crew that was shot to pieces in that video were firing on the helicopter and this was edited out? What are you basing that on? (There's ongoing radio communication in both the long and short versions of the video -- all of it reflecting an apparent rationalization that they were supposedly firing on insurgents, none of it mentioning "return fire" that I can recall. Wouldn't that be pretty hard to edit around?)  And why exactly would seven hours of boredom or the fact that men with guns might take routes also used by civilians excuse firing on civilians?

[Callie Del Noire]

So to be clear, you are claiming that the camera crew that was shot to pieces in that video were firing on the helicopter and this was edited out? What are you basing that on? (There's ongoing radio communication in both the long and short versions of the video -- all of it reflecting an apparent rationalization that they were supposedly firing on insurgents, none of it mentioning "return fire" that I can recall.)  And why exactly would seven hours of boredom or the fact that men with guns might take routes also used by civilians excuse firing on civilians?

No I'm simply stating a 17 or 31 minute segment doesn't show the whole story.

I think working in a state of hyperawarness/vigalance over several days/weeks in an ill considered combat action might shape perceptions a bit. You start to see shapes/postions rather than LOOKING for specifics.. because those seconds could mean the difference between life and death. You see a guy in a zone that you KNOW is full of RPG users.. will you look at someone with something on his shoulder to clarify between a High-def camera and a RPG?

I'm not justifying it.. I'm pointing out it wasn't as callous and premeditated as it was presented.

[Chris Brady]

Because when you find out that your government is party to war crimes, that's kind of important, and attempts to bluster about how that information should have been kept secret from all of us are uninteresting. (I notice you avoid that uncomfortable stuff to bluster about diplomatic cables instead, but the cables disclosures also revealed some rather festering secrets that quite probably should not have remained secrets -- like systematized human rights abuses being kept under the rug in regions as diverse as Eritrea and the Punjab for the sake of diplomatic protocol. The argument that we needed all this secrecy or the world would end is a lot harder to sustain now, and certainly not possible to sustain without actually grappling with the meat of the disclosures.)

Really, and how much do you REALLY care?  Do you care enough to take up arms against it?  Or actually DO something about it?  Or will you just nod your head and wait for the next bit of the headlines comes along to distract you?

[Callie Del Noire]

Because when you find out that your government is party to war crimes, that's kind of important, and attempts to bluster about how that information should have been kept secret from all of us are uninteresting. (I notice you avoid that uncomfortable stuff to bluster about diplomatic cables instead, but the cables disclosures also revealed some rather festering secrets that quite probably should not have remained secrets -- like systematized human rights abuses being kept under the rug in regions as diverse as Eritrea and the Punjab for the sake of diplomatic protocol. The argument that we needed all this secrecy or the world would end is a lot harder to sustain now, and certainly not possible to sustain without actually grappling with the meat of the disclosures.)

Underlined by me for emphasis

Okay.. I'm sorry. I realized that I had missed putting in my comments on that.

Did Assange post any of the follow up memos in the US State Department, phone conversations with the rulers of the region, the use of Diplomatic pressure on trading partners, allies and/or neighbors. The minutes of meetings with other first world nations, the UN reps and so on?

Oh yeah..those weren't found or disproven. You don't KNOW that there might have been action outside the small envelope of geography and time the leak disclosed. That is a huge amount of data.. but not EVERYTHING generated at the time.

Once again.. you have the odor which is rank.. but not any of the long time planning that mgiht have been going on behind doors. You get a peak with the leaks.. but not the whole story.

If I pull out two or three chapters of a story and you only read those chapters.. can you get the whole train of events?

Furthermore, revealing those events in the memos.. did he do the course of diplomatic measures in play any good? Will the people who did the atrocities enjoy reading what the State Department knows/thinks about them? Does revealing the awareness of these events tell the doers that someone is 'talking out of house'?

Jimmy Carter was in talks with the Revolutionary Guard during his run for his second term, to get the hostages home. Word was that someone in the Reagan campaign interferred with the negotiations or made a hint or two towards the RG that made them stall the release till after Reagan was sworn in months later. Would Carter have even gotten them to talk to him, given the vitriolic rhetoric Tehran was putting out at the time if he had been KNOWN to be in talks? Could Nixon and Kissinger have set up diplomatic measures with China if they were publiclly known?

No. Secrecy lets leaders do both good and bad. In the cases I cited you had men doing acts that congress and the popular opinion of the time would have NEVER allowed go on.

Assanges release of the cables might have shown what we knew.. some of what we were doing.. but not the whole story.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Really, and how much do you REALLY care?

Enough to get informed and vote against anything in my own country which seems tainted by militarism, war profiteering and similar shenanigans. Does that qualify, or would you really rather I went out and shot somebody?

Callie: thanks for the response to the post above. We can talk more about context later, I just hope it's clear in the meantime that that post was a reply to Chris Brady, not to you.

[Callie Del Noire]

Enough to get informed and vote against anything in my own country which seems tainted by militarism, war profiteering and similar shenanigans. Does that qualify, or would you really rather I went out and shot somebody?

Callie: thanks for the response to the post above. We can talk more about context later, I just hope it's clear in the meantime that that post was a reply to Chris Brady, not to you.

The question still stands.. if you don't know the whole of the events is it still right to call what you do know as being evil? Wihtout knowing what pressure/events being done in the process that aren't in the data that you were shown.

[Cyrano Johnson]

The question still stands.. if you don't know the whole of the events is it still right to call what you do know as being evil? Wihtout knowing what pressure/events being done in the process that aren't in the data that you were shown.

While I don't think that particular question stands necessarily -- frex a murder is a murder, if the "Collateral Murder" video had been of Taliban gunners shooting American civilians that wouldn't even be up for debate -- there is valid question as to how much context can ameliorate some of these issues. Unfortunately I don't have time to get into that right at the moment, I'll have to come back for that.

[Callie Del Noire]

While I don't think that particular question stands necessarily -- frex a murder is a murder, if the "Collateral Murder" video had been of Taliban gunners shooting American civilians that wouldn't even be up for debate -- there is valid question as to how much context can ameliorate some of these issues. Unfortunately I don't have time to get into that right at the moment, I'll have to come back for that.

I was speaking of the events in the Punjab and Etirea. You have only proof of awareness of the events.. not the course of events at the highest levels of government and how they were handling them (or not). You said it was evil to condone it.. but if you don't know the whole course of the government's handling of events.

[Cyrano Johnson]

As I said, stay tuned.