|
fishmech posted:I'm asking for evidence that he's actually under investigation by the US with any sort of view towards crimes that could invoke the US-Sweden extradition treaties, since it's quite improbable with him not being a US citizen nor in the US in decades (I think he was here in the 90s last?) nor otherwise committing crimes on US soil. But "Arbitrary detention" is patently false, as he's wanted for a very specific and world-wide legit reason: he jumped bail, a crime that's been on the books/in common law for centuries. He once again bears no right to go free on a crime he blatantly committed just because. Given Assange's condition, the US would almost certainly need to successfully extradite Assange from Sweden. Also, there is no question that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in the US into Assange related to his work with WikiLeaks (I think we agree on this?). The prosecutor and grand jury are working in secret, so we can't get first hand evidence of their exact strategy. But in light of the fact that the US is actively trying to build a criminal case against Assange, and the near-certainty that the US would need to extradite Assange from Sweden, it seems obvious that one of the chief aims of the prosecution would be to build a case which would be able to successfully extradite Assange from Sweden. I don't think it would make sense for the US to conduct such a large scale criminal investigation that completely neglects the legal challenges associated with actually apprehending the defendant. What would be the point of that? It seems fair to assume that if the US is spending large resources to build a criminal case against Assange, they also plan to prosecute Assange for those crimes. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the US is investigating Assange's crimes with a view toward extraditing him from Sweden (among many other opportunities to get him into the US). A more modest argument is that at least the US must be investigating Assange with a view toward getting him into the US SOMEHOW. And if the prosecution's strategy will not attempt to extradite Assange from Sweden, we could speculate endlessly about their actual designs. But even in this case, there is no reason for Assange to want to be in Sweden, given that they have refused to guarantee he will not be extradited despite the urging of amnesty international. Also collaboration among authorities in different countries is routine when prosecuting international criminals. Given that Ecuador has guaranteed they will not extradite Assange, and given that Sweden has not released a similiar guarantee, and that it is reasonable to believe that the US prosecutor in charge of Assange's case would want to take the opportunity to extradite Assange from Sweden if it were available so as to actually prosecute the case, and that even if the US had no plans to extradite from Sweden there is still the possibility that Swedish authorities would aid the US mission to apprehend Assange, there are very good reasons for Assange to want to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy which are more plausible alternatives to the theory that he is avoiding a certain conviction of his sex crime in sweden. I'm far from knowledgable about Swedish extradition law but I have never heard any talk of Assange needing to be a US citizen or a frequent visitor to the US in order for him to be extradited to the US. Is this true? fishmech posted:There wasn't going to be indefinite imprisonment, until he decided to lock himself into that by jumping bail and fleeing to the embassy. The UK was holding him to send back to Sweden on the warrant, and Sweden doesn't do life sentence things (and neither Sweden nor the UK currently have the death penalty, and certainly not for dodging bail and rape). Nor would any crime he could actually be charged with in the US lead to a life sentence or the death penalty. Manning leaked tons of stuff, and was tried under harsher military law, and is still only in for 35 years with parole opportunities starting at 12 years. Assange would have been indefinitely imprisoned while awaiting his trial in Sweden. But again, the real concern is indefinite imprisonment after extradition to the US. Why do you say that no crime he could be charged with in the US could lead to a life sentence or the death penalty? I think it is a matter of public record that a congressional inquiry into the possibilities of ways to prosecute Assange included the possibility of the death penalty. I think they said that if it could be proven that a WikiLeaks leak lead to the death of a person who was acting on behalf of the US the death penalty was an option. I think Manning could possibly have gone away for something like 100 years for crimes of an arguably lesser magnitude than those that Assange could be charged with. I'll look for sources if you dispute these claims. fishmech posted:Assange only faces long term imprisonment if he was actually guilty of charges against him in Sweden. And if he is guilty of them, well, he absolutely should be locked up for that crime. As mentioned by other people life in a Swedish prison would be substantially better and more free for him then his current situation in two crammed embassy rooms - for starters he'd get to go outside frequently. This is pretty obtuse thinking. In order to accept your first statement, we must be willing to accept the idea that the Swedish legal system is 100% correct all of the time. You are also forgetting the fact that Assange also faces long-term imprisonment (and possibly death like I claim above) if he is extradited to the US. fishmech posted:It would have been better for him to go to Russia, because not only would Russia almost certainly never extradite him to the US, they'd also not be likely to extradite him to Sweden on the rape charges. So for both his fake claimed reason and his actual reason, Russia would have been a far better choice. Wikileaks has previously published releases critical of the Russian government and powerful figures in Russia, and I seem to recall that people have actually gone to jail in Russia for collaborating with Assange (I will verify this). I'm less familiar with Russian politics. But there is definitely reason to believe that Russia would be inhospitable toward Assange. I cannot think of a reason why the Russians would be receptive to Assange. Besides that, it should be noted that Ecuador has already guaranteed his protection from extradition and he is located in an English speaking city where the public is familiar with his work and he has some means of interfacing with them. I don't see why you think Russia is such a great choice since they view Assange as a threat and his work with WikiLeaks has given them trouble in the past and London is far better suited to allow him to continue his work and attempt to maintain some social ties with people in the west. Traveling to the East seems like a pretty dangerous idea to me. Why do you think Russia is good? Everything you mentioned he already got with Ecuador. fishmech posted:The thing is his "imagined alternative" of forever prison or execution simply had zero possibility of happening. Barring of course the US deciding to send some special ops CIA team to abduct him, but if the US wanted to do that to him then he isn't safe anywhere, not even if the UK and Sweden were to drop all charges and allow him to be a free man. And also it's unreasonable to see England as a lower risk of extradition due to the fact that the UK has almost the easiest extradition laws to the US that there are. Keep in mind that just because he wasn't in a jail cell doesn't mean it's harder to extradite him. If he was wanted for extradition than all the places to legally leave the country would be ordered to bar him the ability to leave to somewhere else and there'd be a national manhunt out for him. Like I said before, the only country where he could be at more risk of extradition is Canada. Well, I hope you'll come to agree that the possibility of extradition to the US and facing long term prison or death had (and still has) a likelihood higher than 0 after this post. At the time of Assange dipping out of bail, the US had already admitted there was an ongoing investigation of WikiLeaks and Assange. I don''t know why you are claiming that there is 'simply' 0 chance of Assange facing extradition, as though this is some obvious truth. The investigation was known to exist but its proceedings were secret. Why is it so clear to you that Assange and his people should have known there was 0 possibility the investigation would attempt to make a move? I'm especially confused that you seem to think that a previously unmentioned or discussed CIA assassination mission had a higher likelihood of getting to Assange than the large scale investigative apparatus which had been created with the express purpose of prosecuting Assange for his crimes. I agree that just because he wasn't in a jail cell doesn't mean it would be harder to extradite him, but I don't see your point. Man this post is too long to proofread gently caress it
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Dog Jones posted:
As it turns out the post was also too long to read. Seriously, if you are going to strait up admit that you do not care enough about your work to bother with 5 minutes of proof-reading then it is obvious your work is not worth my time as a reader.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:But in light of the fact that the US is actively trying to build a criminal case against Assange, and the near-certainty that the US would need to extradite Assange from Sweden, it seems obvious that one of the chief aims of the prosecution would be to build a case which would be able to successfully extradite Assange from Sweden. how do we know the united states is trying to prosecute assange? first, it is a secret. second, it is the us government. third, assume they are trying to prosecute assange... Prester Jane posted:As it turns out the post was also too long to read. if you admit that you're not willing to read giant rambling posts which are certainly just repeats of the same arguments made earlier itt without further nuance, just a lot more unnecessary detail, then it's clear you lack commitment to free inquiry and unbiased research into the certain probability of assange's maybe eventual death at the hands of the us government
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the thing is though you're reflexively assuming people aren't as knowledgable as you on a topic beacause they disagree with you. remember what prester jane was saying earlier about otherwise intelligent people convincing themselves they couldn't be incorrect? I am not 'reflexively assuming' anything. There is direct evidence that many people are making claims in this thread without doing the smallest amount of verification. Every single time I have accused a person of being uninformed, it has been a direct response to a claim which contradicts rudimentary information about the subject, information which could be readily verified by a simple google search. I don't think you understood what you were saying when you claimed i was 'reflexively assuming' that people were uninformed and making false claims, and you just chose a phrase you had heard before which sounded critical. I would never entertain the idea that I could not be correct, because that is an obviously stupid idea. And of course I have never claimed that I could not be incorrect, because a claim like that is indefensible. I don't know why you asked me that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
hey dog jones, while you are here and reading my posts - why is it that of all the people who the us government could be hounding to the ends of the earth, none of them feel as assange does, that it is necessary to hide in an embassy for reasons?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
TBH after the work he did during the election I would think he'd be pretty popular with the US administration come inauguration day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
I want to know how exactly Assange could face the death penalty "Someone said he should" is not proof of this
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I want to know how exactly Assange could face the death penalty well assange maybe committed treason, even though he is not a us citizen or employe, and maybe this gets him the death penalty, and maybe he can even be prosecuted, because of the possibility he will be extradited from sweden to the us, because maybe he raped a woman in sweden, and maybe she isn't lying, but the one thing we know for certain is that it is extremely logical and noble to hide from the police inside of an embassy for multiple years and this is not at all the embarassing actions of a coward
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In over 3 years neither Wikileaks nor Assange have been charged with anything, so they must not be pursuing charges that aggressively The fact that wikileaks and assange have escaped criminal charges for 3 years does not necessarily mean that the prosecutors are not pursuing charges aggressively. This is a logical failing on your part. You don't need to be particularly imaginative to think of other reasons why the investigation has not made its move yet. A few that immediately come to mind: - the prosecutors plan has preconditions which must be fulfilled before they can begin to prosecute the case - there are too many difficulties associated with prosecuting the case currently and more work is required / they must wait for a more opportune moment - there is no political motivation to prosecute the case currently as assange is already 'arbitrarily detained' according to the UN So you can't conclude that that they are not aggressively pursuing charges, though it is a possibility. I don't know why you think that the New York Times publishing classified information and not facing criminal charges is enlightening in regards to the way wikileaks and assange are being treated. I wasn't aware that the supreme court had established that publishing secrets is acceptable, but thats also irrelevant since no one has claimed that the US would try and prosecute Assange for publishing secrets. I have never accused anyone of being a conspiracy theorist because they posted publically available information. That wouldn't make sense. But if I had said that I could see the irony in suggesting the rape charges are fabricated -- another claim I have not made. I don't think Assange or his supporters would say that the bail jumping charges are fabricated since Assange has admitted to jumping bail and discussed why he did it at length, and I think there was a campaign to try and raise his bail money after the fact. Personally I see no reason to doubt that Assange jumped bail, and I am not aware of anyone who claims that the bail-jumping charges are fabrications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
There's a Trapped in the Closet joke here somewhere
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:As it turns out the post was also too long to read. Come on cut me some slack man I'm trying to talk to a ton of people at once. I think it should be perfectly readable!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I don't know why you think that the New York Times publishing classified information and not facing criminal charges is enlightening in regards to the way wikileaks and assange are being treated. I wasn't aware that the supreme court had established that publishing secrets is acceptable, but thats also irrelevant since no one has claimed that the US would try and prosecute Assange for publishing secrets. lmao "nobody is even saying the government is trying to prosecute assange! except me, repeatedly, itt, over and over again, without evidence!" so are you making any claims at all or are you just repeating what other people said, theoretically. you just said that you never said the us is actually trying to prosecute assange, and you said that you never said the rape charges could be fabricated (except you did) hey, if i never actually make an argument it can never be disproven! i'll always be correct! it's foolproof!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:hey dog jones, while you are here and reading my posts - why is it that of all the people who the us government could be hounding to the ends of the earth, none of them feel as assange does, that it is necessary to hide in an embassy for reasons? Like who? By the way did you come around and read my post that you were so proud of ignoring earlier?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:TBH after the work he did during the election I would think he'd be pretty popular with the US administration come inauguration day. Maybe, but Trump also appointed a CIA director who is on the record saying "assange should be killed" or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Like who? By the way did you come around and read my post that you were so proud of ignoring earlier? no, that post was probably really bad because most of your posts are really bad, and after the second or third time reading them they get tedious. but there are or were other members of wikileaks, like Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah Harrison - why aren't they dodging rape and bail charges in legal limbo? or really anyone else involved in wikileaks? why is it just this one guy who is somehow so dangerous that he can't even go to court for skipped bail charges for fear of his life? you're willing to speculate that this conspiracy can fabricate charges of rape against assange, why is everyone else safe from like fradulent identity theft or traffic tickets or whatever
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Come on cut me some slack man I'm trying to talk to a ton of people at once. I think it should be perfectly readable! I'm only holding you to my own posting standards. I have had a number of large threads over the years that were primarily the entire thread responding to me and frequently my responses were about probably quadruple the length of the post in question here. Edit: Granted, sometimes my own proofreading was a bit lacking, but I never ended a post with "fuckit, this is too long to proofread". Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:I want to know how exactly Assange could face the death penalty As I understand it, there was a congressional report or some poo poo that was assessing avenues which could be used to prosecute Assange / WikiLeaks, and I think Manning as well. One of the conclusions was that if it was discovered that their leaks had lead to the death of a person who was acting as an agent for the US, the people who disseminated that information could face the death penalty. I think this is the report: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf I hope "someone said he should" is not your characterization of the argument on this topic I put forth earlier! Thats pretty uncharitable
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:As I understand it, there was a congressional report or some poo poo that was assessing avenues which could be used to prosecute Assange / WikiLeaks, and I think Manning as well. One of the conclusions was that if it was discovered that their leaks had lead to the death of a person who was acting as an agent for the US, the people who disseminated that information could face the death penalty. yes, this is definitely a valid concern since the execution of chelsea manning
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:you just said that you never said the us is actually trying to prosecute assange I have always maintained that the US is investigating ways to prosecute Assange, given that this is publicly available information. In the post you quoted I said "no one has claimed that the US would try and prosecute Assange for publishing secrets." You claim that I said "no one has claimed the us is actually trying to prosecute Assange." Can you see the difference? "prosecuting Assange for publishing secrets" is different than "prosecuting assange [at all]." I have not claimed that the US will prosecute Assange for publishing secrets because there is very little to go on when reasoning about what their strategy will be. Earlier someone said that the supreme court has ruled that publishing classified info is okay, so that would seem to indicate that this is not a viable way to prosecute Assange. But my understanding of that congressional report is that people who disseminate information which leads to the death of an agent who represents the interests of the US could face the death penalty, so it's not clear to me if it is even possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
haha so the post i made making fun of you for never actually making a claim but rather just asserting what other people have claimed was actually true, nice. The Man Who Was Just Asking Questions so if your position is that the us government is probably looking into the possibility of perhaps investigating assange at some point in the future then why are you spitting out giant walls of text in defense of that bold stake also why is assange the only member of wikileaks hiding in a pillow fort that says "no feds allowed". it couldn't possibly be that he's a delusional person suffering a mental breakdown, could it? boner confessor fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
If they aren't planning to prosecute him for publishing classified information what are they planning to prosecute him for? Being too dank with his memes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:no, that post was probably really bad because most of your posts are really bad, and after the second or third time reading them they get tedious. but there are or were other members of wikileaks, like Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah Harrison - why aren't they dodging rape and bail charges in legal limbo? or really anyone else involved in wikileaks? why is it just this one guy who is somehow so dangerous that he can't even go to court for skipped bail charges for fear of his life? you're willing to speculate that this conspiracy can fabricate charges of rape against assange, why is everyone else safe from like fradulent identity theft or traffic tickets or whatever I don't know why you think that these 3 individuals must necessarily be in circumstances similar to Assange. It seems like you are saying since they were all involved with WikiLeaks, then they all ought to be subject of a large scale criminal investigation and international diplomatic controversy. I don't know what to say about that besides that it is crazy. I am not familiar with the work those 3 individuals do and their legal circumstances, they may in fact be in similiar legal circumstances for all I know. I think one possible answer to your question, is that they are different people. I don't know what else to tell you. They come from different backgrounds, and the actions they took during the course of their lives, and the nature of the work they did for WikiLeaks were almost certainly different than what Assange did and where he came from. That is why different things are happening to them. If you want to understand how Assange's contribution to WikiLeaks and the things he did independent of WikiLeaks led to him being in the unique circumstances he is in now, you should read something -- anything -- about him. I'm glad you said that MOST of my posts were really bad. Which ones did you think were merely bad?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Given Assange's condition, the US would almost certainly need to successfully extradite Assange from Sweden. Also, there is no question that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in the US into Assange related to his work with WikiLeaks (I think we agree on this?). The prosecutor and grand jury are working in secret, so we can't get first hand evidence of their exact strategy. But in light of the fact that the US is actively trying to build a criminal case against Assange, and the near-certainty that the US would need to extradite Assange from Sweden, it seems obvious that one of the chief aims of the prosecution would be to build a case which would be able to successfully extradite Assange from Sweden. There's actually a lot of question that there's an investigation into him in the US that could lead to criminal charges severe enough for extradition, because he hasn't been here in decades, is not a US citizen and hasn't committed any serious crimes here. All the actual illegal stuff so far was done by other people, sometimes with his prompting, but that's really not enough to extradite him. What makes you think the Swedish legal system is going to gently caress up with him specifically? And once again, Assange only faces long term imprisonment in the Swedish prison system, and then only if he did the crimes. And he has absolutely no risk of facing the death penalty in the US because he hasn't done anything like that? Manning once again did way more and only has a 35 year sentence. If she's not getting executed, why would he get executed? Also the reason it's relevant that he's not a US citizen and hasn't been there when the alleged crimes (which you can't even name) happened, is that the extradition treaty and the court considers those pretty important factors in agreeing to extradite someone. And? He's also published things against Ecuador and every other country. All he has to do is shut up a little about Russia to stay there indefinitely if he wanted to dodge his rape charges. Snowden's kept quiet about Russia a lot to stay there after all. Also no, the only thing he's "got" with Ecuador is two cramped rooms in an office building with no ability to even go outside. In Russia he could have a nice old house like Snowden has now, and even travel a bit. No, the likelihood is still 0, and the likelihood of getting the death penalty is also still 0. However if you actually believe he might get extradited to the US, then he's not safe in the Ecuadorian embassy as he can get kicked out at any time, at which point the Brits will absolutely arrest him for his jumping bail. IT should be clear to him because he made up "i'm going to get extradited" as a lie, when he knew he was just trying to dodge the rape charges in Sweden. And once again, going to the UK put him at much more risk of extradition, because the UK is about the second easiest place in the world to get extradited to America in. Practically anywhere else would be better. Because, since you can't read, I'll explain this again: the actual aboveboard extradition process requires public announcement of the charges, and long negotiations back and forth to approve extradition, which have very high chances of not succeeding, especially with a country already wanting to try him for a different crime and likely to find him guilty. Meanwhile, a secret CIA spy mission to abduct him could happen at any time, no charges filed, and not even a revelation that the US has him - he just gets disappeared to a black site like thousands of people have been. My point is hiding in the embassy does nothing for Assange besides prevent him from going to trial for rape. boner confessor posted:haha so the post i made making fun of you for never actually making a claim but rather just asserting what other people have claimed was actually true, nice. The Man Who Was Just Asking Questions Adrian Lamo is a US citizen and actively pressured Manning into releasing the diplomatic cables and poo poo, and he's not even jail. And this is despite previously going to jail several times before his wikileaks involvement. If Assange is "justified" in believing he'd have a long US prison term and the death penalty for the high crime of "bragging about leaks other people sent to him" then Adrian Lamo should be in a bunker shouldn't he? fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yes, this is definitely a valid concern since the execution of chelsea manning This is your reasoning: - Chelsea manning was charged with crimes which were punishable by death. - The prosecutors decided not to pursue the death penalty. - Therefore, no prosecutor will ever the pursue the death penalty when convicting a person of that crime. Lmfao seriously dude what is wrong with your brain. Quit wasting my time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I have always maintained that the US is investigating ways to prosecute Assange, given that this is publicly available information. the gently caress else would they prosecute him for you dense rear end in a top hat Dog Jones posted:This is your reasoning: convicting a person they don't have jurisdiction over yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:This is your reasoning: it's actually a huge gaping hole in your argument that manning, who committed worse crimes than assange could possibly have committed, was not even prosecuted with the death penalty let alone convicted of the crime which could have theoretically warranted it. you have nothing to support the idea that assange will face the death penalty except for the burning conviction that you are right, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and that there's some logical reason your beliefs are correct that you mysteriously can't articulate at this time without collapsing into what-ifs and backpedaling about how you're not really arguing technically what you are clearly trying to argue you're so wrapped up in trying not to be proven wrong that you end up contradicting your own posts by launching on these long tenuouous conjecture laden trails, which you immediately retreat from as soon as you can't support the assertion except you're unwilling to admit you may be wrong and you're also incapable of dropping the argument haha. you're just stuck in an argument you can neither win nor back down from because of nerd pride and it's fun to watch boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:gently caress Assange, he spent the last year helping to get Trump elected. I really liked how as soon as Trump was elected, a lot of the conspiracy crew turned on Assange because even people afraid of clouds and think Smallpox isn't a big deal are aware enough to realize Trump is very very bad news. I mean it shouldn't be surprising that  people have zero constancy, but it is amazing how fast some can turn on their saints. If only they'd turn on Alex Jones and tear him apart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Jones' time is coming, he's only lasted this long because he's so good at adapting to new situations. He's also not the primary content source for infowars anymore, PJW and the "news" crew does everything outside of the daily radio broadcast. They're going in so many different directions that you really can't even find something to focus on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
e, dammit awful app
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Jones' time is coming, he's only lasted this long because he's so good at adapting to new situations. Someday I may do a write up on Alex Jones, because personally I think he is a very specific (and thankfully uncommon) type of social predator. In my analysis Jones is quite a wild card at present and will remain so going forwards. I think that Jones is not an idealogue so much as he is a very cunning and particularly self-aware type of cult leader. Make no mistake, Jones wants power more than anything else and there will come a day when he uses every single resource at his disposal to make a play for real power. (How/when/what form that will take is rather impossible to predict at present, however his personality type always makes a massive play at some point. Whether that play is motivated by a real chance at power or by the realization that his influence is quickly waning only time will tell, but unless he keels over suddenly from a heart attack then someday you will see him do some real interesting poo poo.) Everything Jones says about the New World Order is based entirely on his (admittedly excellent) instincts for knowing what his audience wants to hear. (His audience has shifted over time, during the early Bush years it was heavily made up of left-leaning Millenials, now its mostly the younger/more violent Tea Party types). The reason Jones does not create as much of his own content anymore is because Jones does not actually want to create content, he wants to empire build behind the scenes. As long as Infowars is putting out material that attracts an audience of fanatics Jones does not actually give the tiniest of shits about what he has to say in order to attract that audience. Jones knows exactly who is attracted to him and he knows how to slowly radicalize them and bring them into his fold. Whereas with many other right wing figures you can make a case that they are genuine demagogues (e.g. O'Reilly) or hucksters who have bought their own poo poo (e.g. Beck), Jones is a different beast altogether. Jones knows what he is doing, and he knows why he is doing it, and he always has a half dozen plans for doing even more of it. What his ultimate intentions are is very hard to decipher, (and to a degree the specifics are not really that important from our perspective) but they will involve him acquiring huge power as well s the ability to cruelly punish anyone he pleases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Dog Jones is making really low quality arguments but the rest of you are just arguing in bad faith. I'm gonna go with "rational scepticism" of anyone even knows what the gently caress they are talking about regarding Assange.OwlFancier posted:If the US wants someone disappeared, they disappear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Dog Jones is making really low quality arguments but the rest of you are just arguing in bad faith. I'm gonna go with "rational scepticism" of anyone even knows what the gently caress they are talking about regarding Assange. May I ask how specifically I am arguing in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:May I ask how specifically I am arguing in bad faith? You all bring up conspiracy memes like the new world order or whatever as straw men into the discussion. In your defense Dog Jones is arguing from an almost mostly entirely defensive position and I get why you would skip reading his boring posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Dog Jones is making really low quality arguments but the rest of you are just arguing in bad faith. I'm gonna go with "rational scepticism" of anyone even knows what the gently caress they are talking about regarding Assange. it's not really possible to argue in good faith with a conspiracy theorist. dog jones is going to shoot down, dismiss, and rationalize any arguments until they get tired of being a punching bag. this is largely because they do not want to accept or admit that they've been suckered into a silly narrative about assange hiding in the free speech zone from big bad uncle sam when really he's just a panicky coward who's sold people on a goofy theory
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:You brought up your dad being a con man to invoke authority on the subject of Dog Jones being an easily conned gullible idiot. Actually you are accusing me here of a false appeal to authority rather than arguing in bad faith. But aside from that it is not like I don't have something of a fairly extensive established record of insight into the particular functions of conspiracy thought. I've been talking about my experiences with being a former conspiracy theorist in this thread for several years now, among other things. Mercrom posted:
Now this right here is an actual bad faith argument, but the bad faith part is coming from you. The only time I ever mentioned the New World Order (and I believe I am the only person in the last ~5 or so pages to do so) was specifically addressing Alex Jones (who kind of talks about the NWO a great deal) in a post that was not directed towards the conversation occurring with Dog Jones at all. So again I ask you, can you provide an example of where I argued with Dog Jones in bad faith?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's actually a lot of question that there's an investigation into him in the US that could lead to criminal charges severe enough for extradition, because he hasn't been here in decades, is not a US citizen and hasn't committed any serious crimes here. All the actual illegal stuff so far was done by other people, sometimes with his prompting, but that's really not enough to extradite him. Precisely, it would seem that you have 4 questions pertaining to the existence of the US criminal investigation of Assange: - How could there be a criminal investigation of Assange if he has not been in the US for decades? You are not required to be a regular visitor to the US in order to be subject to its laws. Being absent from the US for a long period of time does not protect you from being the subject of a criminal investigation in the US. I don't know why you are assuming that being absent from the US for a certian period of time will protect you from a criminal investigation. Maybe you are thinking of statute of limitations. - How could there be a criminal investigation of Assange if he is not a US citizen? You are not required to be a US citizen in order to be subject to the laws of the United States. This is of course true in the case where a foreigner commits a crime within the US physically, and electronically. Foreigners operating in the United States are not free to break the law as they please. Foreigners who break US law are routinely the subject of criminal investigations, and some are even successfully prosecuted. About 21.9% of the US prison population does not have US citizenship. I don't know why you think that non US citizens are immune to investigation for criminal activity. - How could there be a criminal investigation of Assange if he has not committed any serious crimes here? The point of an investigation is to determine if the subject(s) of the investigation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have broken the law. The investigation's purpose is to accumulate a mass of evidence so that authorities can charge a person with a crime. Meanwhile, the prosecutor is determining how to successfully convict the defendants in court. A person does not necessarily have to have committed a crime in order to be the subject of a criminal investigation. The subject of a criminal investigation is merely suspected of having broken the law. If it were known a priori that the subject of the investigation had indeed committed a crime (serious or not), the investigation would be mostly pointless. - How could there be a criminal investigation of Assange if the illegal stuff that occurred was done by other people? This question is identical to question 3. The point of the investigation is to determine what, if anything, the suspect is guilty of, and if those alleged crimes could be successfully prosecuted. That proposition is not known a priori. Its veracity becomes known as the result of the investigation. If it was already known that Assange had not done anything illegal, there would be no need for an investigation. I don't see how any of these questions count as reasonable doubt about the existence of the investigation into WikiLeaks and Assange, given that none of them confront the fact that the existence of the investigation is well documented in the public record. fishmech posted:What makes you think the Swedish legal system is going to gently caress up with him specifically? And once again, Assange only faces long term imprisonment in the Swedish prison system, and then only if he did the crimes. Nothing makes me think that the Swedish legal system will do a particularly bad job getting to the bottom of the case, and I never said that. You are once again wrong to state that Assange will only face long term imprisonment if he did the crimes, because there is a possibility that he could be wrongly convicted. I'm not saying this is particularly likely in the case of Assange. I'm just pointing out that your claim is false. I don't know why you think the court system of any country could be guaranteed to never wrongly convict anyone. You are also wrong to state that Assange only faces long term imprisonment by the Swedes. There is also the possibility that he could be imprisoned in the US. I understand that you still disagree that this is possible, but you should confront that issue directly rather than stating and restating that there is only one possible way Assange could be imprisoned long term. fishmech posted:And he has absolutely no risk of facing the death penalty in the US because he hasn't done anything like that? Manning once again did way more and only has a 35 year sentence. If she's not getting executed, why would he get executed? I already posted the congressional report which stated explicitly that prosecuting Assange under the espionage act would be a promising avenue to convict Assange. That same congressional report said that if the crimes of the defendant met a certain criteria (which I described previously) the death penalty is a possible sentencing option. Your attempt to compare how Assange will be sentenced to how Manning was sentenced is pointless. We do not know what crimes Assange will be charged with so there is no basis for comparison. It doesn't matter who did more in reality, what matters is the charges the defendant is found guilty of in court. If Assange is to be charged for the exact same crimes as manning, and the prosecutor who prosecuted manning's case also prosecutes Assange's case, and the same judge presides over the trial, and EVERYTHING ELSE is the same, then we could reasonably expect the same outcome. However, none of that information is known. All we can conclude is that the death penalty is a possibility for Assange. Your claim that there is no possibility Assange could receive the death penalty is in conflict with all of the the facts: - that the espionage act allows for the death sentence in certain circumstances - that the possibility of prosecuting Assange successfully under the espionage act was described as a promising opportunity by a congressional report - that the existence of criminal proceedings against WikiLeaks has been confirmed by US officials and court documents - that the prosecutors of Manning have successfully tied Assange to Manning's crimes -- crimes which could have merited a death sentence, if not for the decision of the prosecutor to not pursue it I do not see how the possibility of Assange facing the sentence could be disputed in light of these facts. If you still insist that it is impossible that Assange will face the death penalty, please provide arguments and evidence which establish positively that Assange could not possibly face a death sentence. fishmech posted:Also the reason it's relevant that he's not a US citizen and hasn't been there when the alleged crimes (which you can't even name) happened, is that the extradition treaty and the court considers those pretty important factors in agreeing to extradite someone. First of all, I'm not sure why you think its so damning that I do not know what crimes Assange will be charged with. Prosecutors in the US have not charged Assange with a crime and the details of their investigation are secret. Why would I know which charges they will ultimately raise against him? I don't doubt that the court considers the citizenship of the person to be possibly extradited when considering an extradition request. But I do doubt that the physical circumstances of the defendant matter much in their consideration, since these factors are irrelevant to many crimes such as conspiracy and wire fraud. Please provide evidence for this claim. fishmech posted:And? He's also published things against Ecuador and every other country. I'm not aware of any WikiLeaks release which subverted the interests of the Ecuadorian government. Please show me which release you are talking about. fishmech posted:All he has to do is shut up a little about Russia to stay there indefinitely if he wanted to dodge his rape charges. Snowden's kept quiet about Russia a lot to stay there after all. Also no, the only thing he's "got" with Ecuador is two cramped rooms in an office building with no ability to even go outside. In Russia he could have a nice old house like Snowden has now, and even travel a bit. This is worthless speculation. There is no reason to believe your fantasies about Assange's hospitable arrangement in Russia. However, the fact that Assange has leaked subversive information to Russian journalists is reason to believe that he might not be in the Putin regime's good graces. Russia has not granted Snowden indefinite asylum, and his asylum lasts only 3 more years, and Snowden's work had nothing to do with Russia. Your belief that Russia would grant Assange indefinite asylum is inexplicable. fishmech posted:No, the likelihood is still 0, and the likelihood of getting the death penalty is also still 0. I don't know how you could so pointedly avoid addressing any of the arguments I brought up and be content to blithely restate your ridiculously ambitious claim that extradition / long term imprisonment / death is completely impossible. Despite all of the evidence coming directly from US government sources that prosecutors are investigating Assange and WikiLeaks and ruminating on designs to see him tried in the US, and the huge amount of unknowns coming from the fact that the actual content of the investigation and the grand jury are both secret it is really remarkable that you are able to arrive at this conclusion with such confidence. Even more remarkable is the fact that people so close to the story seem unaware that their work in the justice department and congress is actually pointless, or maybe not even happening. fishmech posted:However if you actually believe he might get extradited to the US, then he's not safe in the Ecuadorian embassy as he can get kicked out at any time, at which point the Brits will absolutely arrest him for his jumping bail. Why do you say that he can get kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy at any time? The Ecuadorian embassy has granted him indefinite asylum. That is like the strongest guarantee they can possibly provide that he will not be kicked out at any time. It is a pretty strong indicator that he will not be kicked out. fishmech posted:IT should be clear to him because he made up "i'm going to get extradited" as a lie, when he knew he was just trying to dodge the rape charges in Sweden. This is bizarre fantasy about Assange's inner monologue, and I don't know what I can say about it. fishmech posted:And once again, going to the UK put him at much more risk of extradition, because the UK is about the second easiest place in the world to get extradited to America in. Practically anywhere else would be better. Ecuador has guaranteed protection to Assange from the US government. His residence inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London is what allows the Ecuadorian government to make good on this guarantee. Sweden has made no such offer despite the urging of amnesty international. Why do you think Assange is safer from extradition to the US in a country which has not guaranteed to protect him from extradition, than in a location where another nation's government has guaranteed his personal safety and has the means to enforce the guarantee. I appreciate your argument that the UK is more willing to extradite people to the US than Sweden. But the UK is not capable of extraditing Assange when he is in the Ecuadorian embassy. fishmech posted:Because, since you can't read, I'll explain this again: the actual aboveboard extradition process requires public announcement of the charges, and long negotiations back and forth to approve extradition, which have very high chances of not succeeding, especially with a country already wanting to try him for a different crime and likely to find him guilty. Meanwhile, a secret CIA spy mission to abduct him could happen at any time, no charges filed, and not even a revelation that the US has him - he just gets disappeared to a black site like thousands of people have been. The reason why I found your CIA spy mission fantasy relatively implausible compared to what the evidence seems to be documenting in reality, is because you made no effort to attack or discredit the evidence of the criminal investigation of Assange, while also supplying no evidence to support your day dreams about Assange massaging his relationship with the Putin Regime and CIA wet work. Not because I can't read. Public announcement of the charges will likely coincide with the beginnings of the legal battle to extradite Assange, since the charges against Assange will almost certainly be sealed. I see no reason why public announcement of the charges which comes simultaneously with the initiation of the extradition process would subvert the extradition process. It also is not clear why a lengthy extradition process makes successful extradition less likely. I think you are trying to mislead readers by re-stating your argument that the extradition process has "very high chances of not succeeding" alongside your irrelevant statements about the timing and length of the extradition attempt. It makes it look like you have provided reasons to think that the extradition process will likely fail, when really all you've done is said two non-sequiturs and then restated your argument. Either way, you have provided no evidence that the extradition attempt is likely to fail. However, by saying that the extradition process is "highly likely to fail" you have contradicted your prior statement that there is a 0% chance of extradition occurring. On the other hand, here are some reasons which support the idea that the extradition attempt might succeed: - I have not been able to find a single extradition request from the US that sweden has denied. But there have been at least 10 extraditions from Sweden to the US since 2003 according to the US marshalls. - Sweden has explicitly refused to guarantee Assange will be protected from extradition to foreign countries which could possibly threaten his human rights. - Part of the case against Manning stated that Assange actively helped Manning illegal access the computer systems which contained the information she leaked. The attorney general at the time stated that these charges, related to illegally accessing a computer system would be leveraged in the case against WikiLeaks. These charges also circumvent Swedish restrictions on extradition related to political or military charges. Your note about beginning the extradition process while another country is attempting to extradite Assange will make the extradition process all the more likely to fail is probably true. I'd add that if they submitted the indictment in crayon it would also probably hurt the chances of successful extradition. Thats probably why it won't be done like that. fishmech posted:My point is hiding in the embassy does nothing for Assange besides prevent him from going to trial for rape. I hope I have demonstrated adequately that the Ecuadorian embassy is the safest place for Assange right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:the gently caress else would they prosecute him for you dense rear end in a top hat I refer to some of the other legal instruments which can be employed against Assange in that motherfucker of a post I just made if you can bear to comb through it. Alternatively, you could read an article or conduct a single google search to try and glean a basic understanding of the subject matter before jumping into the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:I refer to some of the other legal instruments which can be employed against Assange in that motherfucker of a post I just made if you can bear to comb through it. Alternatively, you could read an article or conduct a single google search to try and glean a basic understanding of the subject matter before jumping into the discussion. "do the research" it's really arrogant to assume everyone who disagrees with you doesn't have knowledge of the topic of discussion. huh it's almost like you're super defensive over a personal choice or something as you slowly realize you did not reason yourself into this argument Prester Jane posted:Like I said earlier, highly intelligent people will often do most of the confidence man's work for him once they have bitten onto the hook. this really bears reiterating - in this case personal experience of otherwise intelligent people beliving in woo and stupid theories isn't an appeal to authority, it's an observed fact. one of the strongest truther groups out there is still 9/11 architechts and engineers for truths, a professional group of people who will go to their deathbeads convinced that they could not possibly be wrong about wtc7 the strategy of employing unreadably dense posts as a sort of inkcloud to escape being pinned down on any single point is a pretty common tactic, especially among people who regard themselves as being logical or rational. you can always back up into trivial points of minutae - remember how dog jones accused me of not knowing the difference between rape and consensual sex earlier to avoid talking about false rape accusations? and besides, if you didn't read my whole post how can you really say you understood it... do the research 
boner confessor fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Like I said earlier, highly intelligent people will often do most of the confidence man's work for him once they have bitten onto the hook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Mercrom posted:Dog Jones is making really low quality arguments but the rest of you are just arguing in bad faith. I'm gonna go with "rational scepticism" of anyone even knows what the gently caress they are talking about regarding Assange. Please address the problems you find with my arguments if you care to. If not, congratulations on being smarter than everyone. Mercrom posted:In your defense Dog Jones is arguing from an almost mostly entirely defensive position and I get why you would skip reading his boring posts. Your brain is very impressive and someday I hope I will be intelligent enough to speak authoritatively on debate while also saying it is fine to ignore other people. Thats just way too smart though!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:54
|
|