We don't need no American Empire. :fire:

My youtube broadcast of that contains a warning that RT is funded by the Russian government. Does yours say that?

No way I would spend 20 on a video...

...but MY take on the Assange issue is that he has been charged with crimes against the US...

...and I would love to see him be extradited to the US; stand a fair trial; and either be released or punished depending on the verdict of a jury and the rule of law.

Sorry...

"No way I would spend 20 minutes watching a video..."

He also needs to be tried in the UK for failing to surrender to the court and in Sweden for rape (should they reopen charges).

Would this be your take if he were an American citizen who had (allegedly) engaged in crimes against Ecuador, and had received asylum in the Australian embassy in London? Would it be ok for the UK police to enter the Australian embassy, extract an American citizen from there, take him to court, and (at the end of the process) extradite him to Ecuador?

Michael
7.6k
↪Frank Apisa
He also needs to be tried in the UK for failing to surrender to the court and in Sweden for rape (should they reopen charges). — Michael

Sounds right to me.

Mariner
354
↪Frank Apisa
Would this be your take if he were an American citizen who had (allegedly) engaged in crimes against Ecuador, and had received asylum in the Australian embassy in London? Would it be ok for the UK police to enter the Australian embassy, extract an American citizen from there, take him to court, and (at the end of the process) extradite him to Ecuador? — Mariner

Yes.

If he had instead come back to the US...the situation could be different. But if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go.

By the way...the UK police entered the Ecuadorian embassy by invitation of Ecuador.

if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go. — Frank Apisa

So, wouldn't you require an Ecuadorian (or, an Australian) court to authorize the deportation to the US, in the actual scenario? That is conspicuously absent.

Note, the Ecuadorian government requested, in writing, an assurance from the UK that Assange would not be deported to places where the death penalty is a possibility (we all know who they were thinking about; it was not Iran or China).

Note, the Ecuadorian government requested, in writing, an assurance from the UK that Assange would not be deported to places where the death penalty is a possibility (we all know who they were thinking about; it was not Iran or China). — Mariner

They didn't really need to as it's against UK law to extradite anyone who could face the death penalty anyway.

Yep, it's all a big show.

Mariner
357

if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go. — Frank Apisa


So, wouldn't you require an Ecuadorian (or, an Australian) court to authorize the deportation to the US, in the actual scenario? That is conspicuously absent.

Note, the Ecuadorian government requested, in writing, an assurance from the UK that Assange would not be deported to places where the death penalty is a possibility (we all know who they were thinking about; it was not Iran or China). — Mariner

You asked a question. I answered it.

Assange has been charged with crimes against the US. If he is sent here by the UK (not a certainty) I want to see him get a fair trial.

I have confidence that the charges brought are reasonable...and that he can get a fair trial in the US>

If you don't...that is your prerogative.

You asked a question. I answered it. — Frank Apisa

Thereby revealing a double standard. Which is your prerogative.

Mariner
358

You asked a question. I answered it. — Frank Apisa


Thereby revealing a double standard. Which is your prerogative. — Mariner

There was NO double standard.

If the laws of all the countries involved are followed...it is okay with me.

What is your problem?

I haven't got a problem. You have (if you don't want to have a double standard).

A citizen of country M is accused by people in country N. He is currently in country P, an ally of N. He is in risk of being extradited to N. He gets asylum in country Q's embassy. Later, country Q decides to revoke his asylum. Country P gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to N or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of M, as well as its own laws, but the government of M is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Does that sound like a fair summary of Assange's position?

Now check your reaction to this scenario, in which the countries are named:

A citizen of the US is accused by people in China. He is currently in Pakistan, an ally of China. He is in risk of being extradited to China. He gets asylum in Portugal's embassy. Later, Portugal decides to revoke his asylum. Pakistan gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to China or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of the US, as well as its own laws, but the government of the US is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Sounds ok now?

The problem in discussing international relations with US citizens is that they often forget that they are just another country, and that their courts, government, agents, do not enjoy any special presumption of innocence. International relations is a tough game. There are no special countries.

There are no special countries. — Mariner

An American is believed to have interfered with your country's election. Where do you want this American to be tried? In the United States?

Mariner
359
I haven't got a problem. You have (if you don't want to have a double standard).

A citizen of country M is accused by people in country N. He is currently in country P, an ally of N. He is in risk of being extradited to N. He gets asylum in country Q's embassy. Later, country Q decides to revoke his asylum. Country P gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to N or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of M, as well as its own laws, but the government of M is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Does that sound like a fair summary of Assange's position?

Now check your reaction to this scenario, in which the countries are named:

A citizen of the US is accused by people in China. He is currently in Pakistan, an ally of China. He is in risk of being extradited to China. He gets asylum in Portugal's embassy. Later, Portugal decides to revoke his asylum. Pakistan gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to China or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of the US, as well as its own laws, but the government of the US is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Sounds ok now?

The problem in discussing international relations with US citizens is that they often forget that they are just another country, and that their courts, government, agents, do not enjoy any special presumption of innocence. International relations is a tough game. There are no special countries. — Mariner

If the laws of the countries involved are being followed...I am okay with it.

If you want to think I am a hypocrite espousing a "double standard"...not much I can do about it.

Assange has been charged with crimes against the US. Whether he is guilty of those crimes or not...I DO NOT KNOW. But I would like to see him extradited to the US to stand trial for those crimes.

If he is not found guilty...I want to see him go free...and, in fact, given transport to whatever country he chooses. If he is found guilty...whatever punishment is appropriate should be assessed.

If you think that is unfair...

...be my guest.

Interesting comments. Exactly what is he accused of and why? What did he do to the US besides reveal some unwelcome truths about how military operations took place?

...and I would love to see him be extradited to the US; stand a fair trial; and either be released or punished depending on the verdict of a jury and the rule of law. — Frank Apisa

The idea of a fair trial and the rule of law do not apply here. Assange revealed horrible US war crimes. For that he must be punished. As we speak, he and Chelsea Manning are in prison for revealing to the world the true nature of US foreign policy. That cannot be forgiven. There is no fair trial here. If fairness applied, the people who committed the war crimes exposed by Manning and Assange would be brought to justice.

What are your thoughts about this and what appears to be a lack of coverage on the matter? — I like sushi

Assange is the perfect example of the impossibility of independent investigative whistleblowing on a large scale. You either follow one actors fiddle or the other in today's hostile climate. This was obvious even before the Swedish rape allegations and Mr Assange's voluntary confinement in the Equadorean embassy. You pick one side or another.

After publishing to the World what one soldier had copied from military database, Assange was financed by the Russians and did get a lucrative deal with the Russian media and had his own "World Tomorrow" show on Russia Today.

And this naturally meant that Assange has NEVER said a bad Word about Putin, the killings of journalists in Russia and actually when the Panama Papers got out WAS AGAINST this, defended Putin and naturally attacked who else than GEORGE SOROS: See here. A perfect example of reurgitation of Russian propaganda. Needless to go to the Wikileaks/Russia link in the 2016 elections.

But this of course means nothing to those that have put mr Assange on a pedestal as a beacon of freedom. In my view it just shows how easily and willingly people do take sides.

fishfry
533

...and I would love to see him be extradited to the US; stand a fair trial; and either be released or punished depending on the verdict of a jury and the rule of law. — Frank Apisa


The idea of a fair trial and the rule of law do not apply here. Assange revealed horrible US war crimes. For that he must be punished. As we speak, he and Chelsea Manning are in prison for revealing to the world the true nature of US foreign policy. That cannot be forgiven. There is no fair trial here. If fairness applied, the people who committed the war crimes exposed by Manning and Assange would be brought to justice. — fishfry

This is America. The way we arrive at a decision on matters of this sort...is by a trial.

That is what I want to see.

I did not say (or think) that you are a hypocrite.

Another example: Salman Rushdie's fatwa was perfectly legal according to the Iranian laws.

Pinochet's prison was obviously illegal according to then-prevailing international law.

Etc.

Laws (of any country, or even international) are merely a (small) piece of the jigsaw puzzle. And if some of them are considered as of more worth than others, then we have -- by definiion -- a double standard.

Mariner
360
↪Frank Apisa
I did not say (or think) that you are a hypocrite. — Mariner

I did not say you said I was a hypocrite. I said, "If you want to think I am a hypocrite espousing a "double standard"...not much I can do about it."

You certainly inferred a double standard on my part...and I consider the "if" hypothetical appropriate. In the interest of understanding each other, I withdraw that comment.

Another example: Salman Rushdie's fatwa was perfectly legal according to the Iranian laws.

Pinochet's prison was obviously illegal according to then-prevailing international law.

Etc. — Mariner

Things like this happen.

I still do not think I am applying a double standard.

I replied that I would want the SAME standard applied to an American in the same position.

Not sure how you interpret that to be applying a double standard, but there truly is NOTHING I can do about it if you do.

Laws (of any country, or even international) are merely a (small) piece of the jigsaw puzzle. And if some of them are considered as of more worth than others, then we have -- by definiion -- a double standard.

I am an American who has trust in our judicial system. I do NOT think it is perfect, but I think for the most part it is fair. Julian Assange has been accused of crimes against America...

...and I champion a fair trial for him IF he can legally be brought back to America for a such a trial.

My guess is he will have MORE THAN ADEQUATE legal representation.

I champion him being appropriately punished if found guilty...BUT I also champion him being release immediately if there is no guilty verdict.



I truly am at a loss about what you see as unfair or "double standard"ish about that.

Would you accept it in stride if some Iranian murdered Salman Rushdie in London, claiming that he had faith in the Iranian legal system, and that the Iranian legal system allowed Iranian citizens to murder people in other countries if there was a proclaimed fatwa?

Mariner
362
Would you accept it in stride if some Iranian murdered Salman Rushdie in London, claiming that he had faith in the Iranian legal system, and that the Iranian legal system allowed Iranian citizens to murder people in other countries if there was a proclaimed fatwa? — Mariner

Mariner...if that was addressed to me...I would ask:

What the hell does that have to do with anything I have said on the subject of this thread?

What is the absurd comparison you are attempting to make to anything I have said?

What is the purpose of your question?

It was addressed to you.

And if the analogy isn't clear, that is worrisome.

You said that you were fine with the treatment of Assange because you trust the law system of your country.

If an Iranian treated Rushdie according to the law system of his country, would you think it ok?

If you would not, then you have a double standard. You think that the law system of the US is worth more than the law system of Iran.

The legalistic argument in defense of Assange's treatment breaks down. One can support that treatment because one thinks he is a criminal (and laws be damned!), but not because "Law systems ought to be respected" (unless he is fine with the Rushdie execution as well).

If you would not, then you have a double standard. You think that the law system of the US is worth more than the law system of Iran. — Mariner

I don't think that it's a double-standard to think that one country's legal system is better than another's if there are material differences between them. It would be a double-standard if the legal systems were the same but one was OK with it happening to a Swede being extradited to the United States but not an American being extradited to Sweden (assuming for the sake of argument that the U.S. and Sweden have similar legal systems).

So in this case one can argue that vigilante execution is an immoral punishment but that imprisonment for 5 years after a trial by jury with guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt is acceptable.

Mariner
364
↪Frank Apisa

It was addressed to you.

And if the analogy isn't clear, that is worrisome.

You said that you were fine with the treatment of Assange because you trust the law system of your country.

If an Iranian treated Rushdie according to the law system of his country, would you think it ok?

If you would not, then you have a double standard. You think that the law system of the US is worth more than the law system of Iran.

The legalistic argument in defense of Assange's treatment breaks down. One can support that treatment because one thinks he is a criminal (and laws be damned!), but not because "Law systems ought to be respected" (unless he is fine with the Rushdie execution as well). — Mariner

I have said that I would treat the hypothetical you originally offered THE SAME as I would treat the Assange issue. For some reason, you then accused me of having a double standard.

Now you are reaching further and further into absurdity in order to suggest that I am of a double standard.

My position is:

Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States. Do you disagree with that?

IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, I want him to receive a fair trial. Do you disagree with that?

IF found guilty, I want him to receive the punishment mandated by law. Do you disagree with that?

IF not convicted, I want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing. Do you disagree with that.

Let's return this discussion to the topic at hand...

...and you can consider me to be as much a low-life as you want.

The topic is Assange...not me...or YOUR opinion of me.

One can argue that, but in arguing it he is abandoning the legalistic principle ("if a law requires it, it must be done") which I perceived (perhaps erroneously) in Frank Apisa's defense of Assange's treatment, embodied in sentences such as "he was indicted by a US court of law, I think he must be judged there".

When someone says that laws X are worse than laws Y, he is already judging them by some other standard (in this case, an ethical standard). If you use an ethical standard (only one!) to judge the law systems of the world, you will reach different conclusions. But if you use the legalistic standard ("if it is [procedurally] legal, then it is ok"), it must be accepted in the Iranian case as well.

For the record, I don't think you are a low life. It is strange that you think that an analysis of your stance is so momentous.

In reply to your questions:

I agree that Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States.

[Whether the court system of the US is synonymous with "the United States" is another can of worms, but let's leave this to the side for now].

I agree that IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, you want him to receive a fair trial.

I agree that IF he is found guilty, you want him to receive the punishment mandated by law.

I agree that IF not convicted, you want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing.

But you are still insisting on not looking to the substantial issues, focusing only on the procedural issues (which is why you have a double standard).

Suppose Brazil had a law against posts made by people called Francisco.

Suppose you were charged with crimes according to this law.

Would you accept extradition from the US to Brazil, in order to be tried (very fairly, as fairly as a court can do), to be released in the case that you proved that your name is actually Francis?

I am using ridiculous examples to underline the weakness of the legalistic argument ("if a law is being followed according to the procedures, there is nothing wrong going on"). Perhaps Assange ought not to be extradited because his indictment is unjust, even though procedurally legal. This should be discussed by anyone who wants to understand the Assange situation. And insisting that the procedures are being followed as if this were enough to settle the matter cannot but reveal a double standard, since I'm quite sure you would not accept analogous situations (already presented), even though procedures were being followed flawlessly.

Mariner
366
↪Frank Apisa


For the record, I don't think you are a low life. It is strange that you think that an analysis of your stance is so momentous.

In reply to your questions:

I agree that Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States.

[Whether the court system of the US is synonymous with "the United States" is another can of worms, but let's leave this to the side for now].

I agree that IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, you want him to receive a fair trial.

I agree that IF he is found guilty, you want him to receive the punishment mandated by law.

I agree that IF not convicted, you want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing.

But you are still insisting on not looking to the substantial issues, focusing only on the procedural issues (which is why you have a double standard).

Suppose Brazil had a law against posts made by people called Francisco.

Suppose you were charged with crimes according to this law.

Would you accept extradition from the US to Brazil, in order to be tried (very fairly, as fairly as a court can do), to be released in the case that you proved that your name is actually Francis?

I am using ridiculous examples to underline the weakness of the legalistic argument ("if a law is being followed according to the procedures, there is nothing wrong going on"). Perhaps Assange ought not to be extradited because his indictment is unjust, even though procedurally legal. This should be discussed by anyone who wants to understand the Assange situation. And insisting that the procedures are being followed as if this were enough to settle the matter cannot but reveal a double standard, since I'm quite sure you would not accept analogous situations (already presented), even though procedures were being followed flawlessly. — Mariner

Okay...we are in agreement on those matters above.

I am no longer going to deal with your hypotheticals. If you want to think negatively of me or my arguments...do it without creating those things. I am okay with whatever you think of me and my arguments.