|
Neurolimal posted:That discussion in particular was about my characterization of people who argued that Assange was in no danger of US extradition. "They" is entirely appropriate in that discussion. i was one of those people and i was absolutely right assange claimed he needed asylum to avoid being extradited from the UK to sweden to stand trial for his rapes, because he could potentially be extradited from sweden to the united states after trial and sentencing for his rapes the obvious flaw in this claim was, as i pointed out ad nauseum at the time: you know what country assange can also (and more easily) be extradited from? the united kingdom. where he was happily living without needing to be holed up in an embassy, up until the rape charges. as a result it was always incredibly obvious that assange's supposed fear of us extradition was a cover to avoid standing trial, because going from the UK to sweden would only have increased the difficulty for the US to extradite him. that argument never required it being the case that the US would not ever seek to charge him with something. it was always obvious that could happen. but assange only suddenly became concerned about that risk when he needed to hide from rape charges. if he was actually terrified of a US extradition request at the time he wouldn't have been in the UK in the first place. how do we know? because the US did eventually request he be extradited from the UK! just like they always could have! evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 18, 2021 |
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:also it does bear noting that assange has not actually been convicted of anything and his stated reason for not wanting to face the charges seems to have been vindicated by subsequent events so ymmv on that point as well subsequent events have unequivocally demonstrated that assange's claim to fear extradition as a reason he could not live in sweden, but could live in the UK, was a lie
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Thank you for chipping in to prove that I was in fact referring to actual posters and not strawmen, I appreciate that, and hope it's enough for MP. again, you are mischaracterizing what happened. everyone who believed assange's nonsense was incredibly gullible and was taken in by a lie that fell apart the moment it was looked at. assange claimed, specifically, that being in sweden would make it easier for him to be extradited to the United States as compared to the UK. not that once the UK police arrested him he would be deported from the UK. that's why he demanded as a condition of standing trial he get a commitment from sweden he would not be extradited (a demand that was carefully drafted to be legally impossible for sweden to agree to). there is no question he would have been safer in sweden from US extradition than in the UK. the US and UK have a very close relationship and very similar legal systems. in fact, the UK's legal regime is far more unfriendly to a journalist who leaks official state secrets than the united states is. in the UK it is a criminal act for a journalist to publish leaked secret government information when they had no role in the leak itself, while in the US that is protected by the 1st amendment. so a defense in the UK that extradition was inappropriate because he had no role in the leak and the US is trying to criminalize something that isn't criminal? not going to get you far - it is literally a crime under UK law. sweden, however, does have a constitution that protects free speech (unlike the UK which has no constitution) and so you would be on much stronger grouds opposing extradition from Sweden to the US on the grounds that the US charges were trumped up to charge something that was not actually a crime. the idea that he thought the UK was a safer location than sweden to avoid extradition to the United States is laughable. when he sought refuge in Ecuador's embassy he was indeed no longer feeling safe in the UK because the UK was going to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden. not the US, to Sweden. this was all obvious at the time. people chose not to believe, for the same reason they chose not to believe greenwald was a shithole. assange cooked up the "oh i can't stand trial for rape because im concerned about extradition" because he didn't want to stand trial for rape. there is zero doubt of this, and anyone who believed it was taken in by an obvious lie that could have been (and was) trivially disproved. people believed it because they wanted to believe. it's inexcusable people still believe this nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well, this is correct given a hyperspecific and completely unreasonable interpretation of the positions involved, so i'm not surprised to see it advanced it is correct, period. complaining about being "hyperspecific" is complaining that the handwavey nonsense actually got examined and collapsed. assange's case obviously rested on that he did not want to stand trial for rape. that's it. the evidence establishes overwhelmingly that assange's actions were not due to a legitimate fear of extradition to the US - in which case he would never have left Sweden to go to the UK - but due to a legitimate fear that he would be extradited to Sweden and convicted of rape. that's the end of the story. V. Illych L. posted:like, the swedish government handles extradition on a case-by-case basis, subject to veto by britain. this means that swedish constitutionality or whatever doesn't really enter into it - if assange were judged to be non-suicidal and in reasonable health, the brits would not have a problem with that extradition according to the recent verdict. I remembered this but didn't have a source handy so I didn't want to post on a recollection from years ago. But this also definitively disproves Assange's argument. Sitting in the UK, he's extraditable if the UK agrees. Extradited to Sweden to stand trial for rape, he is extraditable if and only if both Sweden and the US agree. By being extradited to face trial for rape in Sweden, he only increases his safety from extradition - because Sweden can disagree or the UK can disagree, and then he's safe.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the bourgeois state is supposed to guarantee fair trials. when it cannot do this, its ability to provide justice is tainted. this is why it's so important for the evilweasels of the world to pretend that it would've been perfectly safe for assange to go to sweden to face charges, because then the state killing him for doing journalism is somehow justified yeah see this is why you complain i'm getting "hyperspecific" - because your point is utter nonsense. it would not be "perfectly safe" for assange to go to sweden to face charges because he could indeed have been extradited from sweden to the US. however, the argument that's a valid reason not to go to sweden to face rape charges is nonsense because it is more safe for him to be in sweden than in the UK. take it as a given that the US will seek to extradite. it's reasonable to do so. it remains the case that it is obvious assange's rationale for not going to sweden was a lie. he did not want to avoid going to sweden because it would increase the risk the US would seek extradition - it is plain it would not (and your attempt to do so proved the very opposite). he did not want to go to sweden because did not want to stand trial for rape in sweden. V. Illych L. posted:the allegations against assange are that he's a rapist and i've already said that i find those allegations credible. as a matter of personal principle i don't like to assert that people have done specific crimes for which they haven't been convicted, especially when they're being persecuted by the full force of anglo-american state power. i don't mind that others don't share this principle, but it's telling that the criticism comes in the shape of condemning specific phrasing and rhetorical emphasis rather than engaging on substance nobody's saying he shouldn't have gotten a trial except you because you're justifying why he refused to stand trial
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Very little of the conversation around Assange, since the Embassy debacle started, has been about whether or not Assange is guilty. It's entirely been about extradition, and how much the UK and Sweden can be trusted not to extradite Assange to the US. most assange defenders at the time were definitely saying that the US/CIA/what-have-you manufactured the rape charges. that has, now, largely dissapated but it was very definitely a big thing at the time. it remains indisputable that assange fled to the embassy to avoid extradition to sweden for rape, not extradition to the united states. it was indisputable then, it is indisputable now, which is why i am puzzled you are not only trying to claim it is disputed but claim it has been resolved in your favor when you cannot come up with any possible rationale why it was actually about the US.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because the UK did get ahold of Assange, and then immediately the US requested that he be extradited. This should have been painfully obvious at the time by the UK's reaction to the charges, compared to how Europe usually reacts to famous people being pedophiles or rapists in other countries. no no no - this is nonsense you've made up. he was living openly in the UK. if the uk wanted to arrest him at the behest of the US, they could have. they didn't. at no point did he justify his refusal to go to sweden because he would need to be arrested by the UK first. he could have just gotten on a plane to sweden, escorted by the swedes! he claimed that sweden was some sort of hellhole where he would be sent to the US as compared to the UK and so he refused to go. if he was afraid of the UK extraditing him then he wouldn't have been living in the UK. it was always false. it was always obviously false. it was always obviously false taking it as a given the US would like to arrest Assange. it's not "entirely possible" for his publicly stated fears to be motivated by a desire to escape punishment. they were unambiguously motivated by that and his claim that he refused to stand trial because of a fear of extradition was always an absolute lie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:holy poo poo how are you this misinformed i mean, it's a tough look when you claim i'm misinformed and get basic facts wrong. he hasn't been sent to america but yes, he was indeed arrested in the UK for bail jumping at which point the us requested his extradition. that's why i have been taking it as a given that america would like to extradite him - there wasn't a sealed indictment at the time or the US could have just asked the UK to extradite him at that time, but it was very obviously something that could happen. but if he was actually concerned about that happening he wouldn't have been in the UK because there's probably no easier country to extradite him from for these charges. he would have much rather been in sweden because he'd have had greater protection from extradition there, except he'd be in prison for rape most likely. paul_soccer12 posted:ya this is not true it is definitely, definitely true
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:the london police were spending like 5 million dollars a month surrounding the embassy with officers in case he tried to leave. "lived openly in the UK" lol jesus christ yeah see this is the sort of depths of ignorance you need to sink to in order to defend this nonsense he lived openly in the UK until he was accused of rape, at which point he continued to live openly in the UK until it was clear he would be extradited to stand trial in Sweden, at which point he then fled to the Ecuadorian embassy after violating his bail reminder: the uk police arrested him and then let him out on bail which is a troubling fact for this nonsense
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Aruan posted:he was arrested when ecuador invited the british police in to the embassy to arrest him after suspending his citizenship because they were tired of him continuing to publish things on wikileaks/making GBS threads all over his toilet seat. it was unclear if he would've been arrested even if he had left the embassy otherwise. he would definitely have been arrested because the UK was not really pleased that someone who was let out on bail decided not to show up for their extradition hearing based on flimflam nonsense, as they should be ecuador just invited the police in instead of dumping him on the doorstep out so they didn't have to be the ones to drag him out, they'd rather the UK police need to deal with it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:didnt say he was in america, i said he was extradited, which i misstated. They attempted to extradite using, in part, the espionage act no the ruling specifically was that the US met every standard to extradite assange, but that assange had convinced the court he would try to kill himself if he was extradited and the US had not proved they'd successfully stop him the latter part is on appeal
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/01/1081442 that's not the ruling, that's someone else giving their opinion the ruling was that assange met every legal requirement to be extradited, but that it would be oppressive to his mental health because he'd try to kill himself quote:"Faced with the conditions of near total isolation without the protective factors which limited his risk at HMP Belmarsh, I am satisfied the procedures described by the US will not prevent Mr Assange from finding a way to commit suicide and for this reason I have decided extradition would be oppressive by reason of mental harm and I order his discharge."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dubstep posted:especially since we're talking about a gay Jew living in Brazil and married to an equally gay, Latino congressman for the Socialism and Liberty Party, I thought there must be some sort of smoking gun. that is, I thought in order to accuse him of being a white supremacist, you must be in possession of some overwhelming contrary evidence that this gay Jew who moved to a minority-white country, married a nonwhite Latino socialist, and has lived in that country under mortal threat from fascist gangs is himself a white supremacist. was I wrong about that? why yes, there is https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1372172963408183298
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Quotey posted:The Greenwald chat appears to have been people calling him everything under the sun with little to no pushback. That's not really a chat. "this chat on evolution didn't mention intelligent design once! for shame, you call this a discussion?????"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
here is the long-form explainer for "gee it sounds like glenn is just asking questions, just like he innocently does on the tucker carlson show while calling carlson the true socialists???" https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1372245031172636677
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I'm honestly trying to remember the last time I saw someone in USPol mention Maddow. I think the dingus up-thread is the first time I've seen a post with her name in it since before the election. the only post mentioning maddow since jan 26th was a single post on on feb 26th (there's now a thread-specific search) and it was generically referencing her as someone that arguments could devolve into being about so yeah, not really a thing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Yeah. It’s also all that stuff is either universally accepted hobbies/media now or the companies/individuals are rich enough to not be hosed with by weird moral nuts, also folks have grown up with rap and video games now. Also gently caress Lieberman. it also helps that violent crime dramatically fell as all that stuff went mainstream so it has become rather hard to argue a causal connection in the way that people were concerned about in the 90s 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 16:15
|
|