(Close Window)
Topic: Julian Assange will be booted out soon
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 06:27PM)
So we hear.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 07:05PM)
Too early to tell, I think. They've been saying this for a while.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 07:08PM)
Yes - which is why I said so we hear but they say within an hour or so.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 4, 2019 07:13PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, tommy wrote:
So we hear. [/quote]
Good, may he be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and brought to justice for his horrific crimes.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 07:16PM)
LOL
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 4, 2019 07:17PM)
?
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Apr 4, 2019 07:19PM)
I have no idea what anybody is talking about...
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 07:21PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
horrific crimes [/quote]

Yes, he murdered innocent civilians during the Iraq war for sport.

Oops, sorry. No he reported on those who did. Horrific. The crime of journalism.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 07:22PM)
My nephew is a reporter, covering it there. He thinks he is coming out soon, he told my son, who just told me and there it is for what it’s worth.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 07:24PM)
11 Greatest stories:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/wikileaks-greatest-ever-stories-scandals/
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 07:27PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, tommy wrote:
My nephew is a reporter, covering it there. He thinks he is coming out soon, he told my son, who just told me and there it is for what it’s worth. [/quote]

Thanks, tommy. It will be a tragedy for journalism and set a terrible precedent. The DOJ had basically admitted that if Wikileaks is prosecuted, then any paper including the NY Times could be prosecuted for the same thing.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 4, 2019 07:32PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
horrific crimes [/quote]

Yes, he murdered innocent civilians during the Iraq war for sport.

Oops, sorry. No he reported on those who did. Horrific. The crime of journalism. [/quote]
I didn't realize rape was journalism. Laugh all you want, I'll continue to call rape horrific for now thanks.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 07:40PM)
Please. You know that's not what he is being accused of. There is not even a Swedish arrest warrant against him any more.

"Inquiry into three of the allegations dropped

On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitations for the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation. After 18 August 2015, Assange could no longer be charged for any of the three less serious charges. However, the preliminary investigation into the more serious allegation remained open as the statute of limitations for this charge was not expected to expire until 2020.[37] Swedish authorities interviewed Assange on this allegation in November 2016.[38]
Revocation of arrest warrant
On 19 May 2017, the Swedish chief prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court to rescind the arrest warrant for Julian Assange,[39] effectively ceasing their investigation against Julian Assange.[40]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

The American grand jury case has nothing to do with such trumped up charges from another country. It has to do with what I posted in the link in my post above. The crime of journalism.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Apr 4, 2019 07:41PM)
OK had to look it up but...

On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant.

For the rest of us that may be in the dark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Apr 4, 2019 07:42PM)
Posted same time as Landmark.

My comment was directed to MagicFish
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 07:43PM)
I think the rape allegations were dropped but perhaps you didn't realize he is innocent.

Likewise :)
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Apr 4, 2019 07:46PM)
Yep, an accusation is not a conviction.

Not a fan, but I dislike absolute labels...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 4, 2019 08:21PM)
OK I am posting against better judgement here. I think this might shock people, even Jack.

It is possible that the accusation was a way to get at him to bloody him up to get him to stop. Not unlike Al Capone. (NOT calling Julian a criminal like Capone, just comparing how they went after him.) Couldn't get him for what he was doing so they go after him other ways. Not a fan of this sort of thing.

I take no side in what he has done. Not a fan of it if pressed I probably would disagree. BUT I am even LESS a fan of oppressive regimes disguised as democratic nations colluding to go after a guy for being pretty good at what he does. IF this is what happened then it is sickening.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 4, 2019 08:47PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
Please. You know that's not what he is being accused of. There is not even a Swedish arrest warrant against him any more.

"Inquiry into three of the allegations dropped

On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitations for the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation. After 18 August 2015, Assange could no longer be charged for any of the three less serious charges. However, the preliminary investigation into the more serious allegation remained open as the statute of limitations for this charge was not expected to expire until 2020.[37] Swedish authorities interviewed Assange on this allegation in November 2016.[38]
Revocation of arrest warrant
On 19 May 2017, the Swedish chief prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court to rescind the arrest warrant for Julian Assange,[39] effectively ceasing their investigation against Julian Assange.[40]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

The American grand jury case has nothing to do with such trumped up charges from another country. It has to do with what I posted in the link in my post above. The crime of journalism. [/quote]
I believe her.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Apr 4, 2019 09:05PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:

I believe her. [/quote]


[youtube]ULkuwxJTGtY[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 09:09PM)
Well, I guess I am a fan of the truth but not necessarily a fan of who tells it or what the truth may be. Great truths it seems to me are often told by great monsters and the truth is often troubling but still, I like to know. On the other hand, knowledge in the wrong hands can be a dangerous thing and so I also believe in keeping secrets. I am a fan of JFK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznTND--4eI
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 4, 2019 09:10PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
Please. You know that's not what he is being accused of. There is not even a Swedish arrest warrant against him any more.

"Inquiry into three of the allegations dropped

On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitations for the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation. After 18 August 2015, Assange could no longer be charged for any of the three less serious charges. However, the preliminary investigation into the more serious allegation remained open as the statute of limitations for this charge was not expected to expire until 2020.[37] Swedish authorities interviewed Assange on this allegation in November 2016.[38]
Revocation of arrest warrant
On 19 May 2017, the Swedish chief prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court to rescind the arrest warrant for Julian Assange,[39] effectively ceasing their investigation against Julian Assange.[40]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

The American grand jury case has nothing to do with such trumped up charges from another country. It has to do with what I posted in the link in my post above. The crime of journalism. [/quote]
Incorrect. Journalism is not a crime.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 09:18PM)
Http://thequotes.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/George-Orwell-Quotes-1.jpg
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 4, 2019 09:30PM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
Please. You know that's not what he is being accused of. There is not even a Swedish arrest warrant against him any more.

"Inquiry into three of the allegations dropped

On 12 August 2015, Swedish prosecutors announced that, as the statute of limitations for the less serious allegations had run out, and they had not succeeded in interviewing Assange, they would end part of their preliminary investigation. After 18 August 2015, Assange could no longer be charged for any of the three less serious charges. However, the preliminary investigation into the more serious allegation remained open as the statute of limitations for this charge was not expected to expire until 2020.[37] Swedish authorities interviewed Assange on this allegation in November 2016.[38]
Revocation of arrest warrant
On 19 May 2017, the Swedish chief prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court to rescind the arrest warrant for Julian Assange,[39] effectively ceasing their investigation against Julian Assange.[40]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

The American grand jury case has nothing to do with such trumped up charges from another country. It has to do with what I posted in the link in my post above. The crime of journalism. [/quote]
Incorrect. Journalism is not a crime. [/quote]

But this is:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails-julian-assange-20161024-story.html
Message: Posted by: landmark (Apr 4, 2019 09:55PM)
[quote]
Incorrect. Journalism is not a crime. [/quote]

To the US government it is. There's lots more to be said on this, magicfish, but it's not within the scope of what we can talk freely about here. I'll stand by my statements as I'm sure you'll stand by yours.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 4, 2019 11:20PM)
Ecuador denies decision made to expel Wikileaks founder

https://www.foxnews.com/world/ecuador-denies-decision-made-to-expel-wikileaks-founder
Message: Posted by: gallagher (Apr 5, 2019 06:32AM)
Magic fish's Chicago Tribune article would not come up,
here in Germany,
..but I suppose it makes clear that
Julian Assange is not wanted in the U.S., for rape;
but for Espionage.

Under the 1917 Espionage Act,
which prosecutes folks for publically opening military secrets.

The same law that the Rosenbergs were executed for,
in 1953.
Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971 tap danced around the wording,
in this law,...
and brought down the Nixon administration.

Two russian friends joked to me,
as I write this:
"President Donald Trump is simply getting his 'election campagne commitee' back together!" 🙃
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 5, 2019 12:50PM)
U.N. torture expert urges Ecuador not to expel Assange from embassy

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ecuador-assange-un/u-n-torture-expert-urges-ecuador-not-to-expel-assange-from-embassy-idUSKCN1RH22V
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 5, 2019 12:51PM)
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, gallagher wrote:
Magic fish's Chicago Tribune article would not come up,
here in Germany,
..but I suppose it makes clear that
Julian Assange is not wanted in the U.S., for rape;
but for Espionage.

Under the 1917 Espionage Act,
which prosecutes folks for publically opening military secrets.

The same law that the Rosenbergs were executed for,
in 1953.
Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971 tap danced around the wording,
in this law,...
and brought down the Nixon administration.

Two russian friends joked to me,
as I write this:
"President Donald Trump is simply getting his 'election campagne commitee' back together!" 🙃 [/quote]
I don't get it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Apr 5, 2019 01:02PM)
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, gallagher wrote:
Magic fish's Chicago Tribune article would not come up,
here in Germany,
..but I suppose it makes clear that
Julian Assange is not wanted in the U.S., for rape;
but for Espionage.

Under the 1917 Espionage Act,
which prosecutes folks for publically opening military secrets.

The same law that the Rosenbergs were executed for,
in 1953.
Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971 tap danced around the wording,
in this law,...
and brought down the Nixon administration.

Two russian friends joked to me,
as I write this:
"President Donald Trump is simply getting his 'election campagne commitee' back together!" 🙃 [/quote]
I don't get it. [/quote]

What is not to get? He hates Donald Trump.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Apr 5, 2019 01:12PM)
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Apr 5, 2019, magicfish wrote:

I don't get it. [/quote]

What is not to get? He hates Donald Trump. [/quote]


[youtube]ULkuwxJTGtY[/youtube]


;)
Message: Posted by: gallagher (Apr 7, 2019 06:25AM)
One of Mrs. Clinton's biggest stumbling blocks,
on her way to the White House,
was her using 'an open internet',
to send official messages and personal messages,..
as well as letting others use her computer.
(Some who were later convicted of watching child pornography, for example.)

Wikaleaks publically opened 30,000 such correspondences,
before the elections,...
slowly,
..delicate tidbit after delicate tidbit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

They showed Mrs. Clinton in a pretty dark light,
through her own words and actions.
Aids to Mrs. Clinton, at the time:
and as she was Secretary of State,
have openly stated,
she considered assassinating Mr. Assange.
With drones, as Secretary of State....
'privately',
as Presidential canadate.

Where Mr. Assange and wikileaks received the info,
has never been revealed.
Since there is no longer Adolf Hitler,..
the Russians are blamed.

The Russian's joke is in reference to Julian Assange
...working together with President Trump,
.....working together with the Russian.

Wikileaks has SINCE been hacked ITSELF(!).
Intern-memmos between Mr. Assange and his co-workers show,
they thought Mr. Trump had no real chance(!..!),
and were hoping to stop Mrs. Clinton(!),
in her run against Bernie Sanders.
,...seeing him, as the 'cleanist denominator'.

Funny actually, how everything turned out!
Experts!...!

p.s.: The politics today, I find so twisted and turned,
trampled, tangled, twitted, and tweeked...
Time is better spent close to home,...
Double-lifts.
Classic palm.
Dai Vernon's thoughts and personal correspondences.....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2019 06:15AM)
Julian has left the building.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 11, 2019 06:33AM)
Finally, he is arrested and in custody. May he be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2019 06:49AM)
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward."

"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"

"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.

"I won't!" said Alice.

"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

"Who cares for you?" said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 11, 2019 07:09AM)
Oh of course the jury will decide. That is not in question. And when they do, may the strong arm of the law come down on this monster.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2019 09:04AM)
"Oh of course the jury will decide. That is not in question." Yeah right!

He has just been found guilty without a jury.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 11, 2019 02:44PM)
Guilty plea?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 11, 2019 03:04PM)
On a not guilty plea, found guilty by a magistrate and remanded for sentence by the Crown Court - for the bail offense.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 11, 2019 04:36PM)
I see.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Apr 12, 2019 03:13AM)
Unfortunately he may be tortured like Manning .. Solitary for a YEAR .. Poor kid went NUTS!!!! Wanted to be someone else .. Something else .. ANYTHING else... Solitary is no joke ... Plus the Mind Games ... My hope is that he cuts a deal and spills the beans on Seth Rich!!!!! :clownonball:
Message: Posted by: gallagher (Apr 12, 2019 06:01AM)
In the middle of the U.S. Presidential election,
would you want him,
..sitting in a grass hut, in London,
...throwing paper-aeroplanes out of the windows,
....with accusations and pencil drawings...?

Or would you want him,
sitting in NYC,
in front of a neutral State Judge,..
on national television every night,..
with cheering masses of liberal voters boasting him,
in front of the court house.....

as he openly tells the woes of the President Obama/Clinton,...Democratic administration.
,.....documenting it all,
with their own files..?

Maybe my fantasties simply run wild......
but,
...I believe President Trump is no-where HALF as silly,
as his advisaries believe him to be.
gallagher
Message: Posted by: tommy (Apr 12, 2019 06:06AM)
We know somebody who was held in solitary for a year. He said one goes mad. One starts talking to oneself. He said it is like a split personality like there are actually two people in the cell. Such is the will to speak to somebody.

They put our friend in solitary for organizing a small protest in jail. This small incident sparked off many other large riots in other jails throughout England. He got the blame for it all and got the title of the most dangerous prisoner in England. In reality, he was just young fellow in for shoplifting.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 13, 2019 04:53AM)
Https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/13/europe/julian-assange-sweden-intl-gbr/index.html

Hopefully one day we can stop relegating rape and sexual assault as a secondary, less serious crime.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 13, 2019 04:56AM)
Sure he is innocent of these allegations until proven guilty. But does it surprise us that this slippery coward who personifies the weasel is capable of forcing himself on women? It wouldnt surprise me in the least.
This narcissist knows no morals.
I would be happily excused from jury duty.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 13, 2019 09:50AM)
If that is abuse then what are you?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 13, 2019 11:34AM)
Sorry Tommy could you rephrase the question? I'm not sure what you're asking.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 13, 2019 11:57AM)
If you are merely throwing insults at him you are simply being abusive, which would make you an abuser.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 13, 2019 12:20PM)
Correct. I'm also judging him on many different levels.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 13, 2019 12:30PM)
Narcissus, by the way, did not lust after women but fell in love with his own reflection and lusted for his own self.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 13, 2019 01:06PM)
[quote]On May 13, 2019, tommy wrote:
Narcissus, by the way, did not lust after women but fell in love with his own reflection and lusted for his own self. [/quote]
Also correct. Why then, do you think it is that many serial rapists/killers etc., are diagnosed partially as narcissists?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 13, 2019 09:30PM)
I think they crucify people who think they are God.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (May 20, 2019 10:00PM)
Are they still mentally torturing him ... 007 style ... ??????? He will set the hook on the Seth Rich murder.... If it is true that the brother-in-law was put in charge of investigating a murder in an effort to protect one of the best and most obvious suspects.. then Assange will be a very good witness if he can maintain his sanity... :dice:
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 21, 2019 09:37PM)
[quote]On May 20, 2019, Slim King wrote:
Are they still mentally torturing him ... 007 style ... ??????? He will set the hook on the Seth Rich murder.... If it is true that the brother-in-law was put in charge of investigating a murder in an effort to protect one of the best and most obvious suspects.. then Assange will be a very good witness if he can maintain his sanity... :dice: [/quote]
No, but he continues to mentally torture his rape victim on a daily basis with help from moronic celebrities singing his praises.
Weinstein is finished, Cosby is finished, Michael Jacksons music isn't played. Spacey is the devil. But Assange is the darling of the Hollywood left. #me too but only sometimes. What hypocrisy.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (May 22, 2019 01:03AM)
[quote]On May 21, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Weinstein is finished, Cosby is finished, Michael Jacksons music isn't played. Spacey is the devil. But Assange is the darling of the Hollywood left. #me too but only sometimes. What hypocrisy. [/quote]

And Roman Polanski and Woody Allen also remain darlings.

But let’s get back to Assange.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2019 08:54AM)
[quote]#me too but only sometimes. What hypocrisy. [/quote]

magicfish, were you a supporter of Anita Hill's and Christine Blasey Ford's accusations?
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 22, 2019 09:00AM)
The misinformation regarding the Assange cases here and elsewhere is startling.

Here are some facts:

https://defend.wikileaks.org/2019/03/04/false-statements-about-assange-and-wikileaks/

and

https://justice4assange.com/note-to-editors-Sweden.html
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 22, 2019 09:15AM)
Whether or not the guy has misbehaved with women - all this is not helping women and it is setting the larger issue about foreign policy whistle-blowers further into the background.

The Handmaid's Tale continues to do well. Those who deny basic political equality to women (and other sex-gender issues) continue to do well. There's renewed interest in "To Kill a Mockingbird" on Broadway and in print... and a sequel to "The Handmaid's Tale" due out in a few weeks.

While some people would move the world, or move the political bandwagon along ... it's also possible to move the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window]Overton Window.[/url] Different kind of Red Queen chase.

[quote]Just at this moment, somehow or other, they began to run.

Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying ‘Faster! Faster!’ but Alice felt she could not go faster, though she had not breath left to say so.

The most curious part of the thing was, that the trees and the other things round them never changed their places at all: however fast they went, they never seemed to pass anything. ‘I wonder if all the things move along with us?’ thought poor puzzled Alice. And the Queen seemed to guess her thoughts, for she cried, ‘Faster! Don’t try to talk!’

Not that Alice had any idea of doing that. She felt as if she would never be able to talk again, she was getting so much out of breath: and still the Queen cried ‘Faster! Faster!’ and dragged her along. ‘Are we nearly there?’ Alice managed to pant out at last.

‘Nearly there!’ the Queen repeated. ‘Why, we passed it ten minutes ago! Faster!’ And they ran on for a time in silence, with the wind whistling in Alice’s ears, and almost blowing her hair off her head, she fancied.

‘Now! Now!’ cried the Queen. ‘Faster! Faster!’ And they went so fast that at last they seemed to skim through the air, hardly touching the ground with their feet, till suddenly, just as Alice was getting quite exhausted, they stopped, and she found herself sitting on the ground, breathless and giddy.

The Queen propped her up against a tree, and said kindly, ‘You may rest a little now.’

Alice looked round her in great surprise. ‘Why, I do believe we’ve been under this tree the whole time! Everything’s just as it was!’

‘Of course it is,’ said the Queen, ‘what would you have it?’ [/quote] From [url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm]here[/url].
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 22, 2019 07:04PM)
My understanding of all that Jon is limited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1hJefKgB8A
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 23, 2019 03:19PM)
Irony is that while I was reading this thread, Microsoft news popped up that JA had been hit with 18 additional federal charges!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2019 06:45PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2019, ed rhodes wrote:
Irony is that while I was reading this thread, Microsoft news popped up that JA had been hit with 18 additional federal charges! [/quote]
Correct. The wheels of justice are turning.
This guy should be locked up for a long time.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 23, 2019 07:41PM)
Why?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 23, 2019 07:44PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2019, landmark wrote:
Why? [/quote]

Why what, why was it ironic or why should he be locked up?

If the latter, if he's found guilty of any or all of these charges, he should definitely be put away for a long time.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 23, 2019 08:57PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2019, ed rhodes wrote:
... if he's found guilty of any or all of these charges, he should definitely be put away for a long time. [/quote]

Wikileaks, 2009. Charges on Swedish matter - 2010. Post hoc?

Treason doth never prosper... interesting metamorphosis of Ajax, huh? [url=https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Harington_(writer)]link[/url] and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(cleaning_product)]link[/url] ;)
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2019 09:25PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2019, landmark wrote:
Why? [/quote]
Well, when one commits a crime, in a civilized, lawful society, there are consequences.
If you speed, you get a speeding ticket.
If you rape or assault, it could be a lengthy prison sentence.
If you interfere with affairs of state or commit espionage or treason, it could be life in prison or death depending on many things.
Skipping bail carries a penalty too.
Fraud, theft, conspiracy to commit...and so on.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 23, 2019 09:28PM)
“[i]For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information.[/i]

This is ... a direct assault on the First Amendment. It establishes a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by publishing its secrets.

And it is equally dangerous for U.S. journalists who uncover the secrets of other nations. If the US can prosecute a foreign publisher for violating our secrecy laws, there’s nothing preventing China, or Russia, from doing the same.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-julian-assange-indictment
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 23, 2019 09:39PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2019, landmark wrote:
Why? [/quote]
Well, when one commits a crime, in a civilized, lawful society, there are consequences.

[/quote]


What society would that be? The lawlessness of the US government is exactly what Assange has been publishing for the past decades. The murder of civilians by US government troops among other matters.

Assange is being punished for the crime of journalism. There is absolutely no difference between what he did and the NY Times publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2019 10:08PM)
1. What society? Any society governed by the rule of law.
2. Journalism is not a crime. What assange did was not journalism in any way, shape or form. Hence the charges.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 23, 2019 11:10PM)
Journalism is the printing of the truth about matters which concern the public. Period. A person doesn't cease to be a journalist merely because you don't like what s/he has to say. The discovery of illegal murder by government operatives most certainly falls into that category.

Any society which does not allow for the printing of the truth about its government's illegal activities is well on the way to totalitarianism. Unlike the British isles, the US was predicted on the importance of a free press. Thomas Jefferson was speaking precisely of the kind of situation we are dealing with now:

[i]"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." [/i]

and

[i]"Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light."[/i]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 24, 2019 12:52AM)
Well I concede that is what journalism once was. Now not so much.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 01:53AM)
Theresa May will be booted out soon

So they say.

Different leaders have different ideas about what will be.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 04:22AM)
Theresa has left the building.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 24, 2019 07:22AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
Theresa has left the building. [/quote] She gave her two week notice announced last night.

Same day as Bittersweet Symphony story went out. Do we have a theme song?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 07:35AM)
Boris Johnson is the 6/4 Favourite to become the next leader here. Boris as former Home Secretary said that he would not extradite Julian Assange to the USA without good reason and not before he had certain assurances: Julian Assange would have to be treated humanely, get a fair trial and not be executed, etcetera. Also if it sparks a new election and the Labour party win I do not think they will extradite Julian Assange. It is no sure thing that our courts will do it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 08:09AM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0TuXLrvyE4
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2019 02:27PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2019, landmark wrote:
“[i]For the first time in the history of our country, the government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information.[/i]

This is ... a direct assault on the First Amendment. It establishes a dangerous precedent that can be used to target all news organizations that hold the government accountable by publishing its secrets.

And it is equally dangerous for U.S. journalists who uncover the secrets of other nations. If the US can prosecute a foreign publisher for violating our secrecy laws, there’s nothing preventing China, or Russia, from doing the same.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-julian-assange-indictment [/quote]
So is it fair to say that you admit he broke the law but you just don't agree with the law?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2019 02:29PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
Boris Johnson is the 6/4 Favourite to become the next leader here. Boris as former Home Secretary said that he would not extradite Julian Assange to the USA without good reason and not before he had certain assurances: Julian Assange would have to be treated humanely, get a fair trial and not be executed, etcetera. Also if it sparks a new election and the Labour party win I do not think they will extradite Julian Assange. It is no sure thing that our courts will do it. [/quote]
Espionage is a serious crime. As is Rape. He should be brought to justice. But, amid today's leftwing media lunacy, his role as political pawn may save him.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 24, 2019 05:34PM)
[quote]So is it fair to say that you admit he broke the law but you just don't agree with the law? [/quote]
No. He broke no law. He did the same thing the New York Times did. He published news.

The rape allegations are just that--allegations. Allegations, incidentally, that he was always willing to face. BTW you never answered , whether you believed the allegations of Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford.

As for "left-wing lunacy," the movement to free Assange encompasses people from all over the political spectrum--even among the posters on this board. The peril to the First Amendment is obvious and important to many across political lines.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 24, 2019 05:45PM)
Problem with the first ammendment stuff is it has no meaning beyond our shores.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 06:00PM)
Are we in a time of universal deceit?

Have magician failed to warn the public of universal deceit?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 07:14PM)
DANIEL ELLSBERG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=338&v=SJuCNrRXxC4

Ed Rhodes, I wonder, when the President of the United States has repeatedly referred to the New York Times as the enemy of the people, do you really want his Justice Department deciding who is and who is not a journalist?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 24, 2019 07:19PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
DANIEL ELLSBERG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=338&v=SJuCNrRXxC4

Ed Rhodes, I wonder, when the President of the United States has repeatedly referred to the New York Times as the enemy of the people, do you really want his Justice Department deciding who is and who is not a journalist? [/quote]


Turning it around, do you want people committing acts of Espionage, in the name of journalism?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 24, 2019 07:21PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
DANIEL ELLSBERG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=338&v=SJuCNrRXxC4

Ed Rhodes, I wonder, when the President of the United States has repeatedly referred to the New York Times as the enemy of the people, do you really want his Justice Department deciding who is and who is not a journalist? [/quote]


Turning it around, do you want people committing acts of Espionage, in the name of journalism? [/quote]

I would have a lot more respect for Wikileaks, if I didn't feel the man wasn't respecting "journalism" so much as taking part in an agenda.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 08:17PM)
Do you think the New York Times is an enemy of the people?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 24, 2019 09:00PM)
Interesting phrase "Enemy of the People"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/10/18305189/twitter-enemy-of-the-people-new-york-times-autosuggest-algorithm
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2019 09:21PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]So is it fair to say that you admit he broke the law but you just don't agree with the law? [/quote]
No. He broke no law. He did the same thing the New York Times did. He published news.

The rape allegations are just that--allegations. Allegations, incidentally, that he was always willing to face. BTW you never answered , whether you believed the allegations of Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford.

As for "left-wing lunacy," the movement to free Assange encompasses people from all over the political spectrum--even among the posters on this board. The peril to the First Amendment is obvious and important to many across political lines. [/quote]
The NY Times illegally hacked the Pentagon for the purposes of distributing legal secrets and compromise National Security?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 09:24PM)
To the crooks in power the honest journalist is public enemy number one.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2019 09:35PM)
Landmark wrote "The rape allegations are just that--allegations. Allegations, incidentally, that he was always willing to face. BTW you never answered , whether you believed the allegations of Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford."

Of course I believed them. Why wouldn't I have? Until, of course, it became clear that there was no evidence of any wrong doing my the accused and one of the ladies failed a polygraph, but I digress. My question is, did you believe them and, if so, why don't you believe Assange's accuser?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 09:35PM)
[youtube]sh163n1lJ4M[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 24, 2019 10:58PM)
[quote]The NY Times illegally hacked the Pentagon for the purposes of distributing legal secrets and compromise National Security? [/quote]
No--and neither did Assange. The Times--and many other papers--printed the info Manning obtained about how the US was targeting civilians and journalists in Iraq.

[quote]one of the ladies failed a polygraph,[/quote]

Christine Blasey Ford passed a lie detector test:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-fords-polygraph-test-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations/1434270002/

as did Anita Hill:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?25487-1/thomas-hearing-polygraph-test
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 24, 2019 11:09PM)
Do you believe either of them had an agenda?

Do you believe those who accused Bill Clinton were believable?
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 24, 2019 11:41PM)
Most of the Clinton accusers were believable in my opinion.

Everyone has an agenda. The question is where the truth is.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2019 11:43PM)
What do you mean Ed when you claim Julian Assange has an agenda?

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and publisher. He is the founder and editor of WikiLeaks, a public-interest publication designed to provide a safe conduit for whistleblowers all over the world to expose secret wrongdoing, regardless of political ideology or allegiance. Assange's publishing and journalistic work is widely recognized: he is the recipient of the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award, the 2010 Martha Gellhorn Prize, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, the 2011 Walkley Award for Journalism and the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award in the Arts.

What is his agenda exactly?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2019 12:26AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, landmark wrote:
Most of the Clinton accusers were believable in my opinion.

Everyone has an agenda. The question is where the truth is. [/quote]

So do you think they all were telling the truth?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 25, 2019 07:12AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
Do you think the New York Times is an enemy of the people? [/quote]

Has the New York Times ever violated the Espionage Act? No. I do not believe the New York Times is an enemy of the people.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 25, 2019 07:15AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
What do you mean Ed when you claim Julian Assange has an agenda?

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and publisher. He is the founder and editor of WikiLeaks, a public-interest publication designed to provide a safe conduit for whistleblowers all over the world to expose secret wrongdoing, regardless of political ideology or allegiance. Assange's publishing and journalistic work is widely recognized: he is the recipient of the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award, the 2010 Martha Gellhorn Prize, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, the 2011 Walkley Award for Journalism and the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award in the Arts.

What is his agenda exactly? [/quote]

Has WikiLeaks found any hard hitting exposure on Donald Trump?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 25, 2019 07:22AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2019, landmark wrote:
Most of the Clinton accusers were believable in my opinion.

Everyone has an agenda. The question is where the truth is. [/quote]

So do you think they all were telling the truth? [/quote]

Oh I don't think Assange has ever lied. I just think he's very selective about who he chooses to tell the truth about.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2019 08:24AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2019, landmark wrote:
Most of the Clinton accusers were believable in my opinion.

Everyone has an agenda. The question is where the truth is. [/quote]

So do you think they all were telling the truth? [/quote]

I haven't done a deep study on it. But Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick's testimony seem pretty persuasive. There were others.

Ironically, the one woman who Clinton was impeached over, Monica Lewinsky, was exactly the woman who he shouldn't have been impeached over; it seems pretty clear to me that in that case it was a consensual relationship between two adults, unlike the cases mentioned above.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2019 08:32AM)
[quote]
Oh I don't think Assange has ever lied. I just think he's very selective about who he chooses to tell the truth about.[/quote]

That's true about just about every newspaper and cable "news" outlet. That's not a crime, distasteful as one may find that; moreover not a reason to imprison a journalist for life. And Wikileaks has a far, far better track record with regard to printing the truth than just about any other news outlet, including the New York Times, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. To my knowledge, nothing Wikileaks has printed has ever been refuted. It's quite a remarkable record.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 25, 2019 09:31AM)
"No--and neither did Assange."

-How do you know?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 25, 2019 09:43AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]
Oh I don't think Assange has ever lied. I just think he's very selective about who he chooses to tell the truth about.[/quote]

That's true about just about every newspaper and cable "news" outlet. That's not a crime, distasteful as one may find that; moreover not a reason to imprison a journalist for life. And Wikileaks has a far, far better track record with regard to printing the truth than just about any other news outlet, including the New York Times, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. To my knowledge, nothing Wikileaks has printed has ever been refuted. It's quite a remarkable record. [/quote]
Whether or not it has been refuted is irrelevant. Whether or not the information he stole is true is irrelevant.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2019 10:08AM)
[quote]Whether or not the information he stole is true is irrelevant. [/quote]

He stole nothing. He published documents that Manning and other whistleblowers had obtained.

And the truth has every relevance. It's hard to believe that you really believe that.

Unless you believe a government may do the most heinous things, classify the information, deep six it, and thus escape all responsibility and accountability?

That's pretty much the definition of a totalitarian society.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2019 10:13AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"No--and neither did Assange."

-How do you know? [/quote]

How do I know you or David Copperfield didn't?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

There has been zero evidence that Assange stole anything. Not that I think there is anything wrong with "stealing" crucial evidence of massive ongoing crimes that government officials try to keep hidden, as Snowden and Manning did. But Assange is a different case--he's a publisher, not a whistleblower.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 25, 2019 10:35AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]Whether or not the information he stole is true is irrelevant. [/quote]

He stole nothing. He published documents that Manning and other whistleblowers had obtained.

And the truth has every relevance. It's hard to believe that you really believe that.

Unless you believe a government may do the most heinous things, classify the information, deep six it, and thus escape all responsibility and accountability?

That's pretty much the definition of a totalitarian society. [/quote]
Every constitutional, democratically elected
Government which rules by the authority of the people, must have secrets. Period.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2019 11:45AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2019, landmark wrote:
Most of the Clinton accusers were believable in my opinion.

Everyone has an agenda. The question is where the truth is. [/quote]

So do you think they all were telling the truth? [/quote]

I haven't done a deep study on it. But Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick's testimony seem pretty persuasive. There were others.

Ironically, the one woman who Clinton was impeached over, Monica Lewinsky, was exactly the woman who he shouldn't have been impeached over; it seems pretty clear to me that in that case it was a consensual relationship between two adults, unlike the cases mentioned above. [/quote]

Read a bit more. That was not why the impeachment.

I am not saying it should or should not have happened. But the idea that he was impeached for a relationship is simply wrong.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 25, 2019 11:52AM)
Yes, agreed. I was just pointing out that the press brouhaha was over a consensual relationship when there were matters much more serious both sexual and political to be concerned over.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2019 01:04PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, landmark wrote:
Yes, agreed. I was just pointing out that the press brouhaha was over a consensual relationship when there were matters much more serious both sexual and political to be concerned over. [/quote]

Yes you are pointing out the PROBLEM with the media for a long time. They made it about stuff it was not to avoid the stuff that it was. This is what happens when a media and government share an agenda. Thank you for pointing it out.

And again I am NOT saying he should have been impeached. (I have my doubts trust me.) But as for the consensual nature of the relationship he was at least her "boss". So it was definitely inappropriate. I am not saying it should have caused an impeachment mind you. But let's at least be honest about what is being said. It makes things easier.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2019 03:55PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
Do you think the New York Times is an enemy of the people? [/quote]

Has the New York Times ever violated the Espionage Act? No. I do not believe the New York Times is an enemy of the people. [/quote]

According to the New York Times executive editor, their lawyers and some of the worlds top journalists. If the same criteria are applied to the New York Times that has been applied to Assange then the New York Times etcetera can likewise be prosecuted for committing acts of Espionage.

ie

Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, said in a statement: Obtaining and publishing information that the government would prefer to keep secret is vital to journalism and democracy. The new indictment is a deeply troubling step toward giving the government greater control over what Americans are allowed to know. Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard lawyer who has been a recent ally of Mr. Trump, said the case against Mr. Assange was really the first time since the Pentagon Papers that the government has gone after publishers. We all think there is a difference between The New York Times and Assange from a practical point of view, but from a constitutional point of view, it is hard to find that difference, Mr. Dershowitz said. They are both publishing classified, stolen material. This is analogous to if The New York Times and The Washington Post had been prosecuted after publishing the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Dershowitz added, referring to the top-secret report on Vietnam whose publication in 1971 was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is a very, very frightening development. Seymour Hersh, the investigative journalist who exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War and misconduct by the C.I.A., among other revelations, wrote in an email that the move against Mr. Assange was troubling. Today Assange, Mr. Hersh wrote. Tomorrow, perhaps, The New York Times and other media that published so much of the important news and information Assange provided.

See:

It’s not criminal to encourage someone to leak classified information to you as a journalist — that is called news gathering, and there are First Amendment protections for news gathering, said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer who frequently represents media organizations like CNN. The ramifications of this are so potentially dangerous and serious for the ability of journalists to gather and disseminate information that the American people have a right to know.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/business/media/assange-first-amendment-wikileaks.html
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 25, 2019 04:48PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Every constitutional, democratically elected
Government which rules by the authority of the people, must have secrets. Period. [/quote]
That's a strong and unqualified statement. Last century we had many such statements reviewed, updated, and qualified. For example the statement all swans are white was shown to be wrong by finding black swans. We hold a principle that the means (say littering) can justify the ends (say producing evidence of a great waste of public funds). Not period, just semicolon followed by a proof or at least supportive enthymeme, please.

The language of our laws is telling*. In this case look at our Freedom of information Act. Our definitions of National Security and National Interests are useful notions to explore as a citizen of a nation.

Humorous non-conclusion: There's also a book Information Does Not Want to be Free. The conflict about identity politics and validation is ongoing.

*The line from Cicero about finding a specific exception in law implying the presumed existence of a more general accepted law bears upon our discussion.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 25, 2019 05:02PM)
What is the greater gain in prosecuting a #MeToo case instead of pursuing matters evidenced by information indicating tremendous public expense both in dollars and our moral high ground?

Low hanging fruit ...or bait?

* I recently read that during our 1776 war George Washington ordered smallpox inoculations for a town.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2019 05:33PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
What do you mean Ed when you claim Julian Assange has an agenda?

Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and publisher. He is the founder and editor of WikiLeaks, a public-interest publication designed to provide a safe conduit for whistleblowers all over the world to expose secret wrongdoing, regardless of political ideology or allegiance. Assange's publishing and journalistic work is widely recognized: he is the recipient of the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award, the 2010 Martha Gellhorn Prize, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, the 2011 Walkley Award for Journalism and the 2013 Yoko Ono Lennon Courage Award in the Arts.

What is his agenda exactly? [/quote]

Has WikiLeaks found any hard hitting exposure on Donald Trump? [/quote]

Assange exposed the war atrocities under Bush showing that he will expose the right just as much as the left, so now answer the question what is his agenda?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2019 05:47PM)
Anyone who believes the government does not have secrets is delusional.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2019 06:01PM)
It is no secret that the government is delusional.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 25, 2019 08:50PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"No--and neither did Assange."

-How do you know? [/quote]

How do I know you or David Copperfield didn't?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

There has been zero evidence that Assange stole anything. Not that I think there is anything wrong with "stealing" crucial evidence of massive ongoing crimes that government officials try to keep hidden, as Snowden and Manning did. But Assange is a different case--he's a publisher, not a whistleblower. [/quote]
How do you know there is no evidence?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 25, 2019 08:53PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Every constitutional, democratically elected
Government which rules by the authority of the people, must have secrets. Period. [/quote]
That's a strong and unqualified statement. Last century we had many such statements reviewed, updated, and qualified. For example the statement all swans are white was shown to be wrong by finding black swans. We hold a principle that the means (say littering) can justify the ends (say producing evidence of a great waste of public funds). Not period, just semicolon followed by a proof or at least supportive enthymeme, please.

The language of our laws is telling*. In this case look at our Freedom of information Act. Our definitions of National Security and National Interests are useful notions to explore as a citizen of a nation.

Humorous non-conclusion: There's also a book Information Does Not Want to be Free. The conflict about identity politics and validation is ongoing.

*The line from Cicero about finding a specific exception in law implying the presumed existence of a more general accepted law bears upon our discussion. [/quote]
Sorry Jon. Not a clue what you are saying.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 26, 2019 06:31AM)
Will wonders never cease?

https://www.justice-integrity.org/1170-assange-rape-defense-underscores-shameful-swedish-u-s-tactics
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 28, 2019 03:44PM)
It is a wonder indeed.
If we don't believe American women we are right wing sexist evil doers.
If we believe a swedish woman we are right wing evil doers.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 28, 2019 04:55PM)
Who told you that?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 29, 2019 02:04PM)
To use the abandoned cause of a claimed *ual assault (and remember he was not asked to leave afterwards) at the expense of investigating the matters people have risked their livelihoods and lives to make public ... looks pretty misdirected to me. Then again maybe it's just that folks aren't wearing hats?

Since everyone here knows about misdirection as a principle... here's a useful quote to consider on this matter: [quote]Rebecca Niblock, an extradition lawyer with the London-based firm Kingsley Napley, anticipated that the Swedish case would take precedence over the U.S. one. “It would be very difficult politically to say that a computer intrusion offense is more serious than an allegation of rape,” she said.[/quote]* Washington Post May 13 article by Karla Adam.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 29, 2019 02:35PM)
Hogwash. It is much more serious. One is punishable by death, the other carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 29, 2019 07:24PM)
It's a pi**ing match between the fourth estate (the press) and the first estate (those who manage the party bosses). Who gets to decide public access to inconvenient truths*. The current public facing game is to use legal means to make an example of JAssange. To instill fear into future whistle-blowers and those who would use more public means to address public wrongs. Good thing they did not simply dump the data onto Twitter feeds or Facebook pages... you know - publish the sources as found rather than directly attempt to broker narrative for fame and profit.

Alert readers here will have also noticed the Baltimore city computer hack and the spreading use of USA developed and sponsored computer weapons being used against US citizens. There's also the matter of missing public discussion of our recent trade treaties, undermining private use of cryptography, and the general notion of social privilege. A Convenient Distraction?

Ideology? There's something about filtering information that feels like talking down to a child. So, have you noticed that Clark Kent is a reporter for the Daily Planet rather than some town or city newspaper? We spend a lot of time treating Star Trek as nostalgia and Star Wars as model of suitable storytelling. Keeping a focus on the forest fire and not a few scattered smoldering dry leaves is no small task these days. There's a nice song in "Into The Woods" that offers some perspective. No matter the supposed context or pretense - children are listening. Alexa, say hi to Siri.

*It might be worth watching that Al Gore movie as allegory for our economy. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 29, 2019 07:32PM)
Did the two women in question say they were not raped and did you believe them?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 29, 2019 07:41PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2019, tommy wrote:
Did the two women in question say they were not raped and did you believe them? [/quote]
?? Tommy they both said he had consenting relations but one claims she thought it was exclusive... then demanded the public inquiry and an STD test to shame him. Rationally the matter ended the day after the claimed assault when she kept him in her place and in her bed that again night too. If you'd like to get all soap opera lurid about it ... maybe she found out he was spending time with Bradley Manning?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 29, 2019 08:04PM)
Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped."

http://johnpilger.com/articles/getting-julian-assange-the-untold-story
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 29, 2019 09:37PM)
[quote]On May 29, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
It's a pi**ing match between the fourth estate (the press) and the first estate (those who manage the party bosses). Who gets to decide public access to inconvenient truths*. The current public facing game is to use legal means to make an example of JAssange. To instill fear into future whistle-blowers and those who would use more public means to address public wrongs. Good thing they did not simply dump the data onto Twitter feeds or Facebook pages... you know - publish the sources as found rather than directly attempt to broker narrative for fame and profit.

Alert readers here will have also noticed the Baltimore city computer hack and the spreading use of USA developed and sponsored computer weapons being used against US citizens. There's also the matter of missing public discussion of our recent trade treaties, undermining private use of cryptography, and the general notion of social privilege. A Convenient Distraction?

Ideology? There's something about filtering information that feels like talking down to a child. So, have you noticed that Clark Kent is a reporter for the Daily Planet rather than some town or city newspaper? We spend a lot of time treating Star Trek as nostalgia and Star Wars as model of suitable storytelling. Keeping a focus on the forest fire and not a few scattered smoldering dry leaves is no small task these days. There's a nice song in "Into The Woods" that offers some perspective. No matter the supposed context or pretense - children are listening. Alexa, say hi to Siri.

*It might be worth watching that Al Gore movie as allegory for our economy. :) [/quote]
Long runs the fox.
Sprite or 7-Up? Hawking radiation indeed.
And when will we dispense with the heavenly cardinal? Did we not learn from the Plains of Abraham?
I, for one, second the motion.
Roller hockey anyone?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 30, 2019 05:02AM)
So the press is free to entertain but not free to inform the public?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2019 05:23AM)
It is free to inform the public, unfortunately, it doesn't.
What it is not free to do is commit crimes.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 30, 2019 08:03AM)
Agreed about conspiring (doing more than developing sources for a story) and certainly agreed about directly endangering people in active field operations by naming them - such as what happened to Valerie Plame.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 30, 2019 08:07AM)
At a press conference, Borgstrom the Swedish prosecutor was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer." So who is going to win that argument in court?
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 30, 2019 08:09AM)
[quote]What it is not free to do is commit crimes. [/quote]


It's curious to keep calling someone a criminal when you have shown zero proof of that. Yet when proof by a journalist is shown of crimes--atrocious crimes--committed--there is no mention of that. What gives with that?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2019 08:35AM)
I asked you a question which you have avoided.
There is evidence that he has committed serious crimes. How do I know? You cannot be charged without some evidence. He is innocent until proven guilty if these crimes, but yes, of course there is evidence.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 30, 2019 09:18AM)
[quote]You cannot be charged without some evidence.[/quote]

It happens all the time. Ever hear of wrongful arrest?

And even when there is evidence, there is the matter of truth. Truthful evidence.

I know there is no evidence because the US does not publicly charge such crimes without leaking evidence if they have it. It doesn't happen that way.

So, what do you think about the evidence of atrocities committed by US military members uncovered by Chelsea Manning?

There's a reason there is no Official Secrets Act in the US as there is in Britain and its other former colonies: it's because the American tradition has always been that the uncovering of truth always takes precedence over government reputation.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 30, 2019 09:49AM)
Many are charged without evidence.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 30, 2019 10:44AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2019, magicfish wrote:
There is evidence that he has committed serious crimes. How do I know? You cannot be charged without some evidence. [/quote]
If only that were the case. Ordinarily [i]habeas corpus[/i] and discovery would protect people from being [b]convicted[/b] but not until the trial.

Reasoning backwards presuming both good conservative judgement as regards use of the courts and good intent rather than abuse of authority is not always the most sensible approach to matters.

If there were a matter worth prosecuting - it would have been done back in 2010 or shortly after some information was made public which put US citizens in danger. Developing a case of "she says (if Ms. Manning did testify)"/"he says" looks more like bullying.

Claims about hypothetical effects of information being public rather than brokered through the usual channels (see the slideshow about data availability to search) remain to be tested and validated. Again, have a look at the instance of Ms. Plame. She's fine, safe at home, writing books.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2019 02:34PM)
"Police and prosecutors do not arrest and charge someone solely because another person claims that a crime occurred and wants the offender prosecuted. Unless the police observe the crime, they will need to gather evidence and other information to recommend that the prosecutor charge the person with a crime."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 30, 2019 03:06PM)
If you're going to quote please also cite the source.

The police officer who observes an activity may not be the officer who performs a related arrest or participates in evidence gathering. There's usually a Judge involved in getting a warrant. Justification and Warrants are specific notions - while the activity of performing an arrest does not depend upon or require a valid warrant. A successful prosecution may depend upon such things - recall the notion of Miranda rights.

Be that as it may things are different after the PATRIOT act, FISA courts... Five Eyes agreement and... meh - let's just say civil rights are as complicated as end user license agreements these days.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 30, 2019 03:21PM)
Evidence is anything which tends to persuade one of a fact in issue. The fellow who understands that will also understand there is always evidence against the accused. The Swedish evidence is the two women’s statements and any admissions by Assange. It is up the court to decide if has committed an office and whether or not it has been proven. He has not charged yet and all they want is for him to be brought there for questioning. After that they might not charge him and likewise with regard to the so called charges in the USA.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2019 04:06PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
If you're going to quote please also cite the source.

The police officer who observes an activity may not be the officer who performs a related arrest or participates in evidence gathering. There's usually a Judge involved in getting a warrant. Justification and Warrants are specific notions - while the activity of performing an arrest does not depend upon or require a valid warrant. A successful prosecution may depend upon such things - recall the notion of Miranda rights.

Be that as it may things are different after the PATRIOT act, FISA courts... Five Eyes agreement and... meh - let's just say civil rights are as complicated as end user license agreements these days. [/quote]
Source? Sure. Every justice system in the modern civilised world.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2019 04:08PM)
Charging someone without evidence is a massive waste of money since it can never go to trial.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 30, 2019 04:26PM)
After a charge, there is usually a hearing to see if there is a case to answer before it goes to trial. I have faith in the justice system and I trust that Assange will win at the end of the day.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 30, 2019 04:45PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Charging someone without evidence is a massive waste of money since it can never go to trial. [/quote] Agreed. But in practical reality that's a matter of opinion. If a judge can claim at the moment to believe there is likely to be sufficient grounds to prosecute they can sign a warrant... but thanks to the design of FISA, secrecy, arguments from plausibility, and politics those opinions may be more cynical than laudable.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 30, 2019 07:49PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2019, tommy wrote:
After a charge, there is usually a hearing to see if there is a case to answer before it goes to trial. I have faith in the justice system and I trust that Assange will win at the end of the day. [/quote]
Fair comment.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 31, 2019 11:03AM)
The latest moves in this game - removal from the Ecuadorian embassy and arrest by the U. K. to serve jail time (50 weeks) puts Assange between the UK and USA players as a marker held by the UK. He was re-arrested on behalf of the USA on a conspiracy charge but currently held on the bail matter. The move to make public comment about his poor health was also not a surprise.

At the end of the day, Ms. Manning is in jail again.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 31, 2019 11:45AM)
His problem is that he has no faith in the system.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (May 31, 2019 04:16PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2019, tommy wrote:
After a charge, there is usually a hearing to see if there is a case to answer before it goes to trial. I have faith in the justice system and I trust that Assange will win at the end of the day. [/quote]

You trust that Assange will win because he is innocent? He's clearly dirty as hell, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy hiding from justice for years.
He's not being extradition fought-over by three countries just because he's an a-hole.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 1, 2019 12:29AM)
It is not hard to see why Assange has been framed: his organization helped to expose a wide array of Deep State crimes, ranging from illegal gunrunning and war crimes to subversion and even perversion among elites. Reasonable juries take such things into account when deciding whether there is reasonable doubt.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 1, 2019 01:40AM)
[quote]On May 31, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2019, tommy wrote:
After a charge, there is usually a hearing to see if there is a case to answer before it goes to trial. I have faith in the justice system and I trust that Assange will win at the end of the day. [/quote]

You trust that Assange will win because he is innocent? He's clearly dirty as hell, holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy hiding from justice for years.
He's not being extradition fought-over by three countries just because he's an a-hole. [/quote]

Holed up? He was an asylum seeking guest. Justice? Whose justice?

Dirty? Do you imagine he was brokering hacking resources? That's a different business. Here's a little info on that affair: https://wikileaks.org/vault7/#Protego

Kindly recall the fate of that reporter who got taken out of a hotel and dismembered.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 1, 2019 06:24AM)
When the elite perverts pervert the course of justice to prosecute journalists for publishing their classified perversions, classify that and call it secret, then are we allowed to mention it in secret sessions may we ask?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 1, 2019 11:31AM)
Only after you publish at least 50 real news stories. Most journalists are stenographers for power.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 5, 2019 08:27PM)
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cehh70jAl_8
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 5, 2019 09:17PM)
For two weeks??? And they won't peek? Guess that's a hint that their third party consultants have two weeks to produce sufficient evidence to make a case?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 6, 2019 08:30AM)
Mind-boggling. Authorities may tamper with evidence legally.

""I'm still staggered by the power of this warrant. It allows the AFP [Australian Federal Police] to 'add, copy, delete or alter' material in the ABC's {Australian Broadcasting Corporation] computers," tweeted John Lyons, executive editor of news and head of investigative journalism at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)....

The AFP said the warrant was "in relation to allegations of publishing classified material"

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=691136&start=140#10
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 6, 2019 12:44PM)
That takes me back.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Jun 6, 2019 06:01PM)
Actually, the warrant doesn't allow Australian Federal Police to tamper with evidence found on a target's computer; it allows AFP conducting clandestine hacking of a target's computer to alter certain code (data) in the target's computer to effectuate the hacking and hide their tracks (conceal their electronic footprint), to leave the target unawares that the warrant-sanctioned hacking is occurring. That is what the "add, copy, delete, or alter" language of the warrant pertains to (it tracks the language of the legislation that provides for it).

Not saying it's a good or bad provision of the pertinent legislation, just that it doesn't do what was implied (thank goodness).
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 6, 2019 07:32PM)
[quote]to effectuate the hacking and hide their tracks (conceal their electronic footprint),[/quote]

Then how does one know that data wasn't altered? It's basically a license to plant evidence.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 6, 2019 08:00PM)
So let's say they installed "GoodGuy(tm)" spyware... and now interested hackers check the altered wiring, routers and computers to start reverse engineering the tools... ... a few months from now it's in the wild and source code starts showing up :(

Here's some good news - check the guy's Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 6, 2019 11:39PM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]to effectuate the hacking and hide their tracks (conceal their electronic footprint),[/quote]

Then how does one know that data wasn't altered? It's basically a license to plant evidence. [/quote]

Who are we to tell sorbet sovereign nation how to do things? I think your policy of minding our own business applies.

Also it sort of assumes wrong doing without proof. Another no no isn't it?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 7, 2019 06:30AM)
I am not an Australian citizen (except by marriage). I obviously have no individual power to change Australian free speech policy; all I can do is say what I think is just and what I think is not just.

Australia is an ally (particularly when it comes to surveillance matters [see [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes] Five Eyes[/url]]), and supposedly a democracy. If there is no Australian and American domestic and worldwide outcry against such practices in that supposed democracy, then it paves the way to other supposed democracies to do the same. Fortunately, best I can tell, there [i]has[/i] been an international response.

As to assuming wrong without proof-- I'm a bit surprised at your comment. You well know that that is exactly what our form of government is supposed to be designed to prevent: we assume there might be bad actors in the government, so we have checks, balances, and regulations to restrain possible abuses of power.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 7, 2019 07:55AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Who are we to tell sorbet sovereign nation how to do things? [/quote]
? well we might not have installed any monarchies but our National Interests have had great influence with governments of other places for a while.

Cue the Tom Leherer song "Send the Marines".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 7, 2019 10:08AM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2019, landmark wrote:
I am not an Australian citizen (except by marriage). I obviously have no individual power to change Australian free speech policy; all I can do is say what I think is just and what I think is not just.

Australia is an ally (particularly when it comes to surveillance matters [see [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes] Five Eyes[/url]]), and supposedly a democracy. If there is no Australian and American domestic and worldwide outcry against such practices in that supposed democracy, then it paves the way to other supposed democracies to do the same. Fortunately, best I can tell, there [i]has[/i] been an international response.

As to assuming wrong without proof-- I'm a bit surprised at your comment. You well know that that is exactly what our form of government is supposed to be designed to prevent: we assume there might be bad actors in the government, so we have checks, balances, and regulations to restrain possible abuses of power. [/quote]

So change what toy think needs changing and decry other things that are changed. Not so consistent as you usually are.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 7, 2019 11:42AM)
When the people of the USA and North Korea speak under constant scrutiny and threat of punishment, the way I see it is, what’s the difference?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 7, 2019 01:30PM)
If you want cynical :( : much more bread, larger circuses, the illusion of free will, diversity, brand identification, and choice.... and no immediate military threats to the north, south and just offshore.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 7, 2019 02:24PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2019, tommy wrote:
When the people of the USA and North Korea speak under constant scrutiny and threat of punishment, the way I see it is, what’s the difference? [/quote]

USA scrutiny is angry anonymous tweets.
N Korean scrutiny ends in death or imprisonment. Maybe a flogging.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 7, 2019 02:44PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 7, 2019, tommy wrote:
When the people of the USA and North Korea speak under constant scrutiny and threat of punishment, the way I see it is, what’s the difference? [/quote]

USA scrutiny is angry anonymous tweets.
N Korean scrutiny ends in death or imprisonment. Maybe a flogging. [/quote]
Yea... this.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 7, 2019 02:46PM)
“My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” said Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 7, 2019 05:06PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2019, tommy wrote:
“My most urgent concern is that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” said Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. [/quote]

If Assange is extradited to the United States he will receive the fairest trial possible in the world, and if convicted will be allowed to express himself freely in prison for as long as he was sentenced for his crimes. The food is probably not that great.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 7, 2019 10:41PM)
Https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 8, 2019 10:31AM)
Thank you for the link.
Assange is just an investigative journalist forced to hide in an embassy where he never felt completely welcome, while the press and social media harangued him.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 8, 2019 11:02AM)
Https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

Among the dead was a 22-year-old Reuters photographer. Did he receive the fairest trial possible in the world?
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 8, 2019 11:56AM)
War is terrible and Collateral damage is an ugly reality. Pretty sure nobody will argue those points. But there is still a wide chasm between investigative-journalism and accessing/stealing/disseminating or conspiring to release/sell/distribute a nations classified information.


Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 8, 2019 12:12PM)
Not the press but Governments applying both diplomatic pressure and media abuse wink wink applied by eager do-gooders out to demonstrate their loyalties. The dogs of war.
There's a difference between stating your argument about a matter and inciting others to express hostilities. Compare and contrast those three linked dialogues.

Unfortunately the pedo case is not a distraction. It clearly illustrates how social media are used by "agents". But my point in that instance was to prove a larger context. Why would someone believe that a parent would seek strangers for that stated purpose unless there were a significant context of such parents doing just that very thing? :( :( Think back to narcs among the pot dealers. Of course one could also argue that all such illicit providers are agents but that's's an unfair comparison to the British providing opium to the masses in imperial China ( 1800s).

Nice distractions from the OP and that writers work teaching how to face and defuse bullying. Feigning ignorance and presenting a disingenuous voice to social dialogue still works. So, want to discuss how well his approach works? :question:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 8, 2019 12:18PM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it. [/quote]
Link to that statement, please. Was it him, his staff, or his sources who .., cute .,, "encryption by the military" .., too vague. AVI, WMV, asf, pretty much all video must be interpreted by a CODEC to be viewed. Nice try. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 8, 2019 12:58PM)
There is a difference between collateral damage and a war crime. Why would anybody want to cover up collateral damage by encrypting it and sweeping it under the carpet and then prosecute anybody who exposes it?
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 8, 2019 01:50PM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 8, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it. [/quote]
Link to that statement, please. Was it him, his staff, or his sources who .., cute .,, "encryption by the military" .., too vague. AVI, WMV, asf, pretty much all video must be interpreted by a CODEC to be viewed. Nice try. :rolleyes: [/quote]

The quote is from the previous article posted about the Reuters photographer. The same article with the helicopter footage of a guy peeking around a building with a bazooka on his shoulder...that apparently may have been a telephoto lens.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 8, 2019 01:51PM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2019, tommy wrote:
There is a difference between collateral damage and a war crime. Why would anybody want to cover up collateral damage by encrypting it and sweeping it under the carpet and then prosecute anybody who exposes it? [/quote]

I assume war footage is never made public. It certainty wouldn't benefit any nation to publish it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 8, 2019 02:41PM)
:) War is the greatest show on Earth. As an aside it is quite interesting how it works:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_correspondent
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 8, 2019 03:26PM)
Thank you. The claim about encryption is in the Guardian article and not a quote. The source article page on wikileaks attributes the video to whistleblowers in the military. The Guardian article also mentions our CIA and attempted coverups including further defiling the slain to remove bullets traceable to US weapons.
https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/
Since the password and encryption notions have been presented in charges - is there mention in that article of wikileaks directly accessing secured military sites to acquire information? Hacking ( electronic analog of lockpocking across the internet ) is [i]not[/i] protected journalism. Again thanks.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 8, 2019 05:27PM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2019, tommy wrote:
:) War is the greatest show on Earth. As an aside it is quite interesting how it works:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_correspondent [/quote]

Understood there's some market for violence porn. Kinda obvious where the gore/confirmed hit reveal shots fit in that model. Remember Videodrome?

Transmitting realtime data from a military action almost certainly undermines strategy to acquire control over the territory. What then of the free press who happen to work for those we call enemies? Does their coverage of our action as viewed by their reporters become something other than journalism?

What about witnessed violations of rules of engagement or the Geneva Convention? Fair game for live coverage? Whistleblowing? I dunno..
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 8, 2019 07:28PM)
I don't know where the Guardian got their quote, but they are a respected news source. I only quoted the allegation because it's a serious crime well beyond the scope of journalism.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 8, 2019 09:32PM)
It is a *duty* to report war crimes. Those who cover them up with classification systems are still war criminals. Those who lie about the reasons for war--remember WMDs and yellowcake?--and send young men to die for those lies are criminals and murderers. No amount of hiding behind a wall of secrecy changes that. Whether you choose to open your eyes or close them, they are still criminals.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 9, 2019 07:14AM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2019, landmark wrote:
It is a *duty* to report war crimes. Those who cover them up with classification systems are still war criminals. Those who lie about the reasons for war--remember WMDs and yellowcake?--and send young men to die for those lies are criminals and murderers. No amount of hiding behind a wall of secrecy changes that. Whether you choose to open your eyes or close them, they are still criminals. [/quote]
Now you've gone too far.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 9, 2019 07:48AM)
What part of the post do you take issue with and why? Do you think it is not a duty to report war crimes?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 9, 2019 08:06AM)
We all know your underlying agenda. You wont acknowledge Assange's crimes because it suits your agenda. You ignore the world's most horrific atrocities day in and day out. You refuse to denounce ISIS. You refuse to condemn the butchery of innocents by machete, by car bombing, by suicide vest. You refuse to utter a word against the worst terror groups on earth. But you take joy in crying war crime and murder whenever discussing your own government. It is sickening.
You love Assange because he fuels your disdain for democracy and the free west.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 9, 2019 10:24AM)
When the American war criminals are supporting the jihadi war criminals then whose side are you on?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 9, 2019 10:29AM)
Jihadi war criminals? Who?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 9, 2019 10:59AM)
You're entitled to your opinion. But FWIW, every assumption and statement in your above posts about me are wrong.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 9, 2019 01:30PM)
[b]Your[/b] supportive narrative conflicts with [b]my[/b] supportive narrative... so clearly you are wrong...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 9, 2019 01:44PM)
Jihadi Jack, who else? He was captured in Syria and said he misses his mom and wants to come home.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 9, 2019 01:55PM)
[quote]On Jun 9, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Jihadi war criminals? Who? [/quote]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/us-government-pentagon-fake-al-qaeda-propganda-videos-a7348371.html
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 10, 2019 02:08PM)
[quote]On Jun 9, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
[b]Your[/b] supportive narrative conflicts with [b]my[/b] supportive narrative... so clearly you are wrong... [/quote]
Isn't this the heart and soul of this section?
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 10, 2019 02:14PM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 9, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
[b]Your[/b] supportive narrative conflicts with [b]my[/b] supportive narrative... so clearly you are wrong... [/quote]
Isn't this the heart and soul of this section? [/quote]


It has become the mantra for all social media...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 10, 2019 02:23PM)
[quote]On Jun 9, 2019, magicfish wrote:
We all know your underlying agenda. You wont acknowledge Assange's crimes because it suits your agenda. You ignore the world's most horrific atrocities day in and day out. You refuse to denounce ISIS. You refuse to condemn the butchery of innocents by machete, by car bombing, by suicide vest. You refuse to utter a word against the worst terror groups on earth. But you take joy in crying war crime and murder whenever discussing your own government. It is sickening.
You love Assange because he fuels your disdain for democracy and the free west. [/quote]

Well I must say this seems a bit harsh. I am not trying to be confrontational here so please do not take it as such. Jack certainly holds a different world view than I do and probably you also. I do think you are putting it is a very harsh light. I do not think he hates democracy or the free west. I just believe he has a different vision for it is all.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 10, 2019 02:47PM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 9, 2019, magicfish wrote:
We all know your underlying agenda. You wont acknowledge Assange's crimes because it suits your agenda. You ignore the world's most horrific atrocities day in and day out. You refuse to denounce ISIS. You refuse to condemn the butchery of innocents by machete, by car bombing, by suicide vest. You refuse to utter a word against the worst terror groups on earth. But you take joy in crying war crime and murder whenever discussing your own government. It is sickening.
You love Assange because he fuels your disdain for democracy and the free west. [/quote]

Well I must say this seems a bit harsh. I am not trying to be confrontational here so please do not take it as such. Jack certainly holds a different world view than I do and probably you also. I do think you are putting it is a very harsh light. I do not think he hates democracy or the free west. I just believe he has a different vision for it is all. [/quote]

Years ago I had a co-worker tell our management team that I hated America... because I married a non-American. Luckily our immediate manager nipped it in the bud. I'm sure the fact that he was being reassigned for work violations (reported by me) had nothing to do with it. :)

The emotions we assign to our words say more about ourselves than the person the words are directed at.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 10, 2019 05:29PM)
Do you mean magicfish loves Julian Assange?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 10, 2019 05:51PM)
To be clear, I never said anyone here hated anything or anyone.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 10, 2019 06:11PM)
I guess I misread "disdain" as hate. My bad.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 11, 2019 02:27PM)
Not long ago atrocities in wartime were generally accepted as just, well, the nature of it. They still are in reality but don’t you think we going to get a bad name if we keep acting like Vlad the Impaler?
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 11, 2019 06:36PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2019, tommy wrote:
Not long ago atrocities in wartime were generally accepted as just, well, the nature of it. They still are in reality but don’t you think we going to get a bad name if we keep acting like Vlad the Impaler? [/quote]

Please define "not long ago"
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 11, 2019 11:25PM)
How's 1929 (Geneva Convention) as a first guess?
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 12, 2019 03:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
How's 1929 (Geneva Convention) as a first guess? [/quote]

I am sure we are all aware of the Geneva Convention, The Nuremburg Trials etc., Which is why I take issue with the statement that wartime atrocities were acceptable until "not long ago"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 12, 2019 03:46AM)
Historical note

The concept of war crimes is a recent one. Before World War II, it was generally accepted that the horrors of war were part of the nature of war, and recorded examples of war crimes go back to Greek and Roman times.

Before the twentieth century armies frequently behaved brutally to enemy soldiers and non-combatants alike - and whether there was any punishment for this depended on who eventually won the war.

Commanders and politicians usually escaped any punishment for their role in war - or, if they lost, were summarily executed or imprisoned.

There was no structured approach to dealing with 'war crimes' nor any general agreement that political and military leaders should take criminal responsibility for the acts of their states or their troops.

Attitudes changed during World War II when the murder of several million people - mainly Jews - by Nazi Germany, and the mistreatment of both civilians and prisoners of war by the Japanese, prompted the Allied powers to prosecute the people they believed to be the perpetrators of these crimes.

These trials provide the main precedents for cases being heard by tribunals in this century, among them the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/crimes_1.shtml
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 12, 2019 11:20AM)
Equating espionage to presenting evidence of war crimes ... looks odd.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 13, 2019 03:03AM)
[quote]On May 13, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Correct. I'm also judging him on many different levels. [/quote]

Assange has already been judged, by those more qualified (both academically and by virtue of having access to the evidence) via the Swedish legal system. A Swedish judge threw out the charges and Assange was acquitted, his reputation intact. One particularly telling piece of evidence in Assange's favour was a picture of him in a group photo with colleagues, this was 3 weeks after the alleged rape, and right there, next to Assange, all laughing and bubbly was the woman he is supposed to have raped.

These malicious charges have only been resurrected due to pressure from the Americans who don't like people who reveal their dirty secrets.

Assange volunteered to be interviewed by Swedish investigators at the Ecuadorean embassy but they refused, for some strange reason they would only interview him in Sweden (does this not speak volumes about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the charges?). They wanted him in Sweden because if Assange had been stupid enough to comply he would have found himself extradited to the USA faster than you can say Hilary is a criminal.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 13, 2019 07:51AM)
Https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jun/13/julian-assange-sajid-javid-signs-us-extradition-order

Do you think they're gonna put Assange vs Manning into a pie fight?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 13, 2019 08:13AM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPQ3BD6MeTQ
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 14, 2019 04:55AM)
[quote]On Jun 13, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On May 13, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Correct. I'm also judging him on many different levels. [/quote]

Assange has already been judged, by those more qualified (both academically and by virtue of having access to the evidence) via the Swedish legal system. A Swedish judge threw out the charges and Assange was acquitted, his reputation intact. One particularly telling piece of evidence in Assange's favour was a picture of him in a group photo with colleagues, this was 3 weeks after the alleged rape, and right there, next to Assange, all laughing and bubbly was the woman he is supposed to have raped.

These malicious charges have only been resurrected due to pressure from the Americans who don't like people who reveal their dirty secrets.

Assange volunteered to be interviewed by Swedish investigators at the Ecuadorean embassy but they refused, for some strange reason they would only interview him in Sweden (does this not speak volumes about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the charges?). They wanted him in Sweden because if Assange had been stupid enough to comply he would have found himself extradited to the USA faster than you can say Hilary is a criminal. [/quote]
Stupid enough to comply?
He didn't comply because he is hiding, , and Maneouvering, ducking us.
Turning oneself in to authorities isn't stupid, it's lawful.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 14, 2019 12:14PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Turning oneself in to authorities isn't stupid, it's lawful. [/quote]


History may disagree with you...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 14, 2019 12:58PM)
The American Court of Human Rights does not agree with him.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 14, 2019 02:54PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Turning oneself in to authorities isn't stupid, it's lawful. [/quote]


History may disagree with you... [/quote]
So might Wayne Adam Ford.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 14, 2019 03:24PM)
Yeah... he turned himself in because it was lawful...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 15, 2019 02:22AM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Equating espionage to presenting evidence of war crimes ... looks odd. [/quote]
I agree ... That helicopter video is gruesome... 2 dead reporters...
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 15, 2019 04:11AM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:

Turning oneself in to authorities isn't stupid, it's lawful. [/quote]


History may disagree with you... [/quote]

Wise words.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 15, 2019 04:20AM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 13, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On May 13, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Correct. I'm also judging him on many different levels. [/quote]

Assange has already been judged, by those more qualified (both academically and by virtue of having access to the evidence) via the Swedish legal system. A Swedish judge threw out the charges and Assange was acquitted, his reputation intact. One particularly telling piece of evidence in Assange's favour was a picture of him in a group photo with colleagues, this was 3 weeks after the alleged rape, and right there, next to Assange, all laughing and bubbly was the woman he is supposed to have raped.

These malicious charges have only been resurrected due to pressure from the Americans who don't like people who reveal their dirty secrets.

Assange volunteered to be interviewed by Swedish investigators at the Ecuadorean embassy but they refused, for some strange reason they would only interview him in Sweden (does this not speak volumes about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the charges?). They wanted him in Sweden because if Assange had been stupid enough to comply he would have found himself extradited to the USA faster than you can say Hilary is a criminal. [/quote]
Stupid enough to comply?
He didn't comply because he is hiding, , and Maneouvering, ducking us.
Turning oneself in to authorities isn't stupid, it's lawful. [/quote]

I see that you cherry which bits of my post to respond to, my points about the non-rape being totally ignored. This is a witch hunt, led by the Americans, nothing more.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 15, 2019 02:19PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
Yeah... he turned himself in because it was lawful... [/quote]
Yeah... so would Assange..
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 15, 2019 02:24PM)
[quote]On Jun 15, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 13, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On May 13, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Correct. I'm also judging him on many different levels. [/quote]

Assange has already been judged, by those more qualified (both academically and by virtue of having access to the evidence) via the Swedish legal system. A Swedish judge threw out the charges and Assange was acquitted, his reputation intact. One particularly telling piece of evidence in Assange's favour was a picture of him in a group photo with colleagues, this was 3 weeks after the alleged rape, and right there, next to Assange, all laughing and bubbly was the woman he is supposed to have raped.

These malicious charges have only been resurrected due to pressure from the Americans who don't like people who reveal their dirty secrets.

Assange volunteered to be interviewed by Swedish investigators at the Ecuadorean embassy but they refused, for some strange reason they would only interview him in Sweden (does this not speak volumes about the seriousness, or lack thereof, of the charges?). They wanted him in Sweden because if Assange had been stupid enough to comply he would have found himself extradited to the USA faster than you can say Hilary is a criminal. [/quote]
Stupid enough to comply?
He didn't comply because he is hiding, , and Maneouvering, ducking us.
Turning oneself in to authorities isn't stupid, it's lawful. [/quote]

I see that you cherry which bits of my post to respond to, my points about the non-rape being totally ignored. This is a witch hunt, led by the Americans, nothing more. [/quote]
Incorrect. Assange is suspected of committing serious crimes. The evidence is sufficient for the charge. Now he must be arrested to face trial.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 15, 2019 02:26PM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
Yeah... he turned himself in because it was lawful... [/quote]
Please cut and and paste where I said he turned himself in because it was lawful.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 15, 2019 03:02PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Charging someone without evidence is a massive waste of money since it can never go to trial. [/quote]
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

Not when such waste of money is also an objective. [quote]The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking into the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.[/quote]
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/flying-objects-attacked-and-damaged-japanese-tanker-travelling-through-gulf-of-oman
The second picture in the article showing water being sprayed onto a tanker might be reframed as an attempt to sink the tanker by flooding it... just saying.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 16, 2019 01:14PM)
In the meantime, a former Icelandic minister has revealed that when he was in office the FBI had tried to frame Assange in Iceland and he had them thrown out of the country. Any evidence of that would taint the evidence against Assange. The USA regarded Wikileaks as an independent spy agency that had to be taken down by any means possible he said.

This sort of revelation, of course, destroys any trust in police evidence in the future and all convictions will now need to be reviewed.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 16, 2019 06:50PM)
[quote]On Jun 16, 2019, tommy wrote:
In the meantime, a former Icelandic minister has revealed that when he was in office the FBI had tried to frame Assange in Iceland and he had them thrown out of the country. Any evidence of that would taint the evidence against Assange. The USA regarded Wikileaks as an independent spy agency that had to be taken down by any means possible he said.

This sort of revelation, of course, destroys any trust in police evidence in the future and all convictions will now need to be reviewed. [/quote]

Thanks for this info Tommy, I was not aware of this. More evidence that its an orchestrated, American led, witch hunt.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 16, 2019 07:42PM)
I am sorry, I forget the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmPQY7cXOIg


Well, yes but I think there has been an international war on journalism that has been going on for some time.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 16, 2019 08:51PM)
Https://wikileaks.org/US-DoJ-Preparing-Additional-Indictment.html
links to the 2013 and 2011 incidents with Swedish nationals and ... FBI
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/teenage-wikileaks-volunteer-why-i-served-as-an-fbi-informant/2/
https://www.wired.com/2013/06/wikileaks-mole/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 16, 2019 09:43PM)
So magicfish’s star witness turns out to be a convicted pedophile with a fetish for stuffed animals!

Will wonders never cease?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 16, 2019 09:51PM)
[quote]Thordarson was 17 years old and still in high school when he joined WikiLeaks in February 2010. [/quote]

Does the Spy Kids make more sense now?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 16, 2019 10:14PM)
Folks might recall the plot theme of the Spy Kids films (basically collecting their errant or missing relatives)
Hadn't thought of the "five eyes" as "Spy Kids" parallel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcFnQ-Q95k
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 17, 2019 09:32PM)
Hey we got a nice sharp turn on the Iran story today. It went from flaming tankers and mines to stockpiles of nuclear material in just one day's news cycle.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/pentagon-iran-oil-tankers-1366749
to
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-to-breach-limits-of-nuclear-pact-putting-bid-to-save-deal-in-doubt-11560765015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
*
This should cover the time before his extradition hearing.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 18, 2019 12:29AM)
After what the US did to Libya, why would anyone get rid of their nukes???????? They are torturing Assange ... I'd bet everything I have ... The UK is knee deep in all of this...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2019 03:22AM)
Yes we did it but Patrick Clawson from the World Bank called the shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6uB2aUvqXw
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 07:34AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Slim King wrote:
After what the US did to Libya, why would anyone get rid of their nukes???????? They are torturing Assange ... I'd bet everything I have ... The UK is knee deep in all of this... [/quote]
Electricians sometimes get shocked.
Dog sitters get bitten.
Iron Workers fall.
Spies get detained, poisoned, tortured etc.
It's one of the reasons I didn't become a spy.
Otherwise I'd do it. No brainer.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 08:29AM)
Yes, Snowden, Assange, and Manning all knew they could face torture from the torturers in their fight to uncover the lies and depredations of the torturers and killers.

That is part of the reason they are all heroes, a word sometimes easily thrown around.

They were braver than many, took risks, certainly risks that neither you or I are prepared to take, and have made crystal clear to the public exactly how the killers subvert our Constitution and democracy.

They will stand in history with those like Solzhenitsyn, Karen Silkwood, Lech Wałęsa, Mark Felt, Roy Medvedev, Nelson Mandela, Wei Jingsheng, Daniel Ellsberg, Vaclav Havel, and other brave souls who defied the laws of their countries so that people could better understand and counter the forces that oppress them.

I thank them for their service, and pray the torturers do not win. The world's fate depends on it.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 08:54AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
Yes, Snowden, Assange, and Manning all knew they could face torture from the torturers in their fight to uncover the lies and depredations of the torturers and killers.

That is part of the reason they are all heroes, a word sometimes easily thrown around.

They were braver than many, took risks, certainly risks that neither you or I are prepared to take, and have made crystal clear to the public exactly how the killers subvert our Constitution and democracy.

They will stand in history with those like Solzhenitsyn, Karen Silkwood, Lech Wałęsa, Mark Felt, Roy Medvedev, Nelson Mandela, Wei Jingsheng, Daniel Ellsberg, Vaclav Havel, and other brave souls who defied the laws of their countries so that people could better understand and counter the forces that oppress them.

I thank them for their service, and pray the torturers do not win. The world's fate depends on it. [/quote]
Ah ah ah...there you go again. Refusing to renounce the evildoers and twisting it to suit your agenda of accusing your own government.
Hero? Not even close. A treacherous, treasonous, thief, who put his own colleagues lives and thousands of others at risk for his own personal gain.
Your hero. Not mine.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 10:36AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Slim King wrote:
...hey are torturing Assange ...[/quote] ? Torturing, or tormenting? Persecuting or prosecuting?
As to whether enhanced interrogation techniques are involved in any interviews ... or medical equipment etc. as with that other journalist, time will tell.
*
meanwhile Egypt's democratically elected president, quickly removed by his defense minister, has died. He didn't survive his fair trial.
*
where were we... oh yes, singing "send the marines".
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 12:29PM)
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 12:44PM)
Bad as the food is, this was worse:

https://roarmag.org/essays/britain-torture-northern-ireland/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354066116653455

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 01:03PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
Yes, Snowden, Assange, and Manning all knew they could face torture from the torturers in their fight to uncover the lies and depredations of the torturers and killers.

That is part of the reason they are all heroes, a word sometimes easily thrown around.

They were braver than many, took risks, certainly risks that neither you or I are prepared to take, and have made crystal clear to the public exactly how the killers subvert our Constitution and democracy.

They will stand in history with those like Solzhenitsyn, Karen Silkwood, Lech Wałęsa, Mark Felt, Roy Medvedev, Nelson Mandela, Wei Jingsheng, Daniel Ellsberg, Vaclav Havel, and other brave souls who defied the laws of their countries so that people could better understand and counter the forces that oppress them.

I thank them for their service, and pray the torturers do not win. The world's fate depends on it. [/quote]
Ah ah ah...there you go again. Refusing to renounce the evildoers and twisting it to suit your agenda of accusing your own government.
Hero? Not even close. A treacherous, treasonous, thief, who put his own colleagues lives and thousands of others at risk for his own personal gain.
Your hero. Not mine. [/quote]

Your baseless accusations about what I "refuse to renounce" are really getting silly. The list above is an international one, made up of heroes who have been dissidents from many countries. If you are referring to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, I have no idea why you would say I refuse to denounce them. Relatives of some of my students were killed in the World Trade Center murders. On the contrary, anyone who takes any serious look at that phenomenon knows that it is driven by Wahabi fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 attackers were from. The last time I pointed this out, you said you supported the US aid to Saudi Arabia. Have you changed your support of the bone-sawers? Have you denounced US policy towards Saudi Arabia? Have you denounced the US support of ISIS in Syria? Have you denounced the US support of the starving of millions of Yemenis? Please. Anyone who is not denouncing the alliance with Saudi Arabia is just not dealing with the reality of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 01:09PM)
I'm not referring to Islam.
I'm referring to Julian Assange.
What's silly is how naive you sound for someone who seems to pride themselves on being informed. No offense.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 01:12PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve. [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 01:17PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve. [/quote]
I find it to be the best food I've ever tried. What don't you like about it?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 01:19PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve. [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau [/quote]
How ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 01:34PM)
I didn't know it was fact-free Tuesday at the Café. I will take note in the future that on such days facts are ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 01:53PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve. [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau [/quote]
How ridiculous. [/quote]

That is indeed a nasty chapter of British imperial history. Perhaps something within the last 70 years would be more apropos to support the statement.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 18, 2019 02:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve. [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau [/quote]
How ridiculous. [/quote]

That is indeed a nasty chapter of British imperial history. Perhaps something within the last 70 years would be more apropos to support the statement. [/quote]

Oh no. Why would something happening recently be of any value to the conversation? The key here is to push an agenda and even if it is decades ago it is still the way things are. Try to keep up please.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 02:17PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The UK doesn't torture. Unless you count the food they serve. [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau [/quote]
How ridiculous. [/quote]

That is indeed a nasty chapter of British imperial history. Perhaps something within the last 70 years would be more apropos to support the statement. [/quote]

Oh no. Why would something happening recently be of any value to the conversation? The key here is to push an agenda and even if it is decades ago it is still the way things are. Try to keep up please. [/quote]

Gotcha. I did some research, and the Brits do indeed torture!


Father John Gerard was a spy. In November 1588 he was among a team of four Jesuit priests sent from Rome and secretly landed on the shores of England with the mission of making contact with and ministering to that country's Roman Catholic community. He joined a clandestine network of Catholic operatives controlled from their headquarters in London.

Born in England, Father Gerard mingled easily among English society, passing himself off as a gentleman of leisure. It was a dangerous existence; as evidenced by the fact that Father Gerard's three companions in the landing party were eventually discovered and executed. Gerard remained undetected for six years until his betrayal by a servant in a household in which he was staying.

After three years in captivity he was taken to the Tower of London where he was subjected to torture in an effort to force him to confess that his mission was to overthrow Queen Elizabeth and to reveal the identity of the leader of the spy ring.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 02:49PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
...Perhaps something within the last 70 years would be more apropos to support the statement. [/quote]
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/eca/uk1106/

Anyway, the Assange show is supposed to start again early next year. The current attention getter is Iran.

* The torture thing can be its own distraction on another thread if folks want.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 03:15PM)
@ Mr Salk:

I posted it already, but here it is again for your convenience:

https://roarmag.org/essays/britain-torture-northern-ireland/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.......16653455
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 03:24PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
@ Mr Salk:

I posted it already, but here it is again for your convenience:

https://roarmag.org/essays/britain-torture-northern-ireland/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.......16653455 [/quote]

I don't condone torture. Neither does the UK or USA. Nonetheless there are isolated instances in the past decades where torture occurred within the auspices of both countries. Usually against suspected or actual terrorist classified as "war criminals". Not that classification matters in the morality.
My point is still that lonely albino Assange is perfectly safe from torture in the US or UK.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 05:01PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
... Assange is perfectly safe from torture in the US or UK. [/quote]
Ok. :)
The fourth estate expansion into whistleblowers and the larger worldwide stage of actors is [i]to me[/i] the matter of interest.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/whatsapp-spyware-israel-cyber-weapons-company-novalpina-capital-statement
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/14/yana-peel-uk-rights-advocate-serpentine-nso-spyware-pegasus

[quote]Under the new proposed guidelines, Novalpina promised that NSO would aim to disclose “all information of relevance and importance” about the firm’s work, unless it was prohibited by law from doing so, risked public safety, national security, or employee safety, or if it needed to protect “legitimate commercial confidentiality”.[/quote]

TL;DR version: the cool tech the "good guys" are occasionally caught doing bad things ... are developed and made available as non-exclusive use under NDA and there's a pattern of "bad guys" getting and using these very tools for their own purposes. ... like Baltimore.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48423954

So, is sunlight a good disinfectant?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Jun 18, 2019 05:08PM)
The USA put one whistleblower in ISOLATION (Solitary Confinement) for over a year .. When they were done with him he wanted to renounce his sex and become a totally different person ... That is indeed TORTURE!!! :firedevil:
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 05:25PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Slim King wrote:
The USA put one whistleblower in ISOLATION (Solitary Confinement) for over a year .. When they were done with him he wanted to renounce his sex and become a totally different person ... That is indeed TORTURE!!! :firedevil: [/quote]

Chelsea had feelings since childhood. Isolation is harsh, possibly cruel, but still a long way from torture.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 05:35PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
I didn't know it was fact-free Tuesday at the Café. I will take note in the future that on such days facts are ridiculous. [/quote]
Funny, I didn't realize it was ASSumption Tuesday. I'll keep that in mind next time someone here assumes they know what someone thinks is ridiculous.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 05:41PM)
Https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/fast-lane/article/2018/10/22/chelsea-manning-undergoes-gender-affirming-surgery

https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/sexuality/fast-lane/article/2017/08/25/chelsea-manning-opens-about-fine-tuning-her-style-and-finding-her-identity

[quote]Manning also spoke about the famous black and photograph that—up until her release—was the world’s only impression of her.

“The first time the world saw me as I see me is that picture that went viral of me in the blond wig, which I sent to my superior.
“I took that picture for myself when I was on leave in January of 2010. I took it as a little memento of who I was at that moment. I never intended it to be shared with the world.
“When I look at that picture now, I see me — but I see me in a phase of trying to figure myself out. I’m much closer to who I am today than I was in that photo. But it was a process to get here.”[/quote]

* comic signoff line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7dCTwlAI8Y
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 05:48PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
@ Mr Salk:

I posted it already, but here it is again for your convenience:

https://roarmag.org/essays/britain-torture-northern-ireland/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.......16653455 [/quote]
Ah yes. Perfect. Once again refusing to acknowledge and renounce the terrorists, the bombings etc, so you can accuse the government.
When are you going to surprise us landmark?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 06:17PM)
[quote]refusing to acknowledge and renounce the terrorists, the bombings etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process
[/quote]

LOL. So now you're accusing me of not denouncing IRA bombings?? I don't recall anytime in the 15 years I've been a member here when we've ever discussed Ireland, but if it makes you happy I'll be glad to say that I thought the bombings were a terrible terrible thing.

You're all over the place, magicfish. Just a few posts ago you were denying that you were accusing me of not renouncing Islamic terrorists when I challenged you on it. And you never answered my questions to you about Saudi Arabia. Talk about refusal to denounce terrorism.

But to return to the immediate topic: do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law?
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 06:24PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
But to return to the immediate topic: do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law? [/quote]

Interesting.

No. It is never permissible or moral to break the law, regardless of what is discovered while doing so.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 06:27PM)
Well, thank you for being so frank about it. I appreciate that clear statement.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 06:37PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
...No. It is never permissible or moral to break the law, regardless of what is discovered while doing so. [/quote]Which kinda puts espionage, eavesdropping, ... on a steep slippery moral slope to start - so what then of darker things recovered or any potential lives saved by acting upon information gained through those actions?

The Wikileaks thing is about whistle-blowers having a place to send evidence of such egregious actions which could not be handled from within due to further internal policy problems. What to do when an organization is violating its own policies and the internal affairs/inspector general is part of the problem?

And yes it does look like he was sleeping at one woman's place, in her bed, and she found out he had some fun with another woman. ....Makes a cute sitcom episode but as international politics it looks less important than one nation deciding to interfere in another nation's government to effect a regime change.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 18, 2019 06:48PM)
How has not renouncing become support of in our world now?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2019 07:37PM)
I happen to know people personally who have been tortured by the English authorities. We, the English, practiced it in Northern Ireland, which was a testbed for that sort of thing and surveillance. Naturally enough it came back home to England where the police started using the techniques learned on suspects, secretly until they were exposed. What is more frightening though are the Americans who started torturing people openly and calling it legal: even the Nazis did not go that far and always tried to keep the evil acts a secret. That which the Americans did is called "Revelation of the method" and readers that do not know what that is better look it up.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 07:57PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]refusing to acknowledge and renounce the terrorists, the bombings etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process
[/quote]

LOL. So now you're accusing me of not denouncing IRA bombings?? I don't recall anytime in the 15 years I've been a member here when we've ever discussed Ireland, but if it makes you happy I'll be glad to say that I thought the bombings were a terrible terrible thing.

You're all over the place, magicfish. Just a few posts ago you were denying that you were accusing me of not renouncing Islamic terrorists when I challenged you on it. And you never answered my questions to you about Saudi Arabia. Talk about refusal to denounce terrorism.

But to return to the immediate topic: do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law? [/quote]
No. I'm not. Just to be sure, I will reiterate.
You think Assange is a hero because it aligns with your agenda. That the government is tyrannical and murderous. You are willing to overlook global atrocities throughout history because you don't really care. What you care about is trying to prove that the governments who try to bring these criminals to justice are themselves criminals, oppressors, murderers etc.
You have been consistent on this for years.
With the U.S. mostly, now the British.
Clear?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 08:03PM)
[quote]You are willing to overlook global atrocities throughout history because you don't really care.[/quote]

This is what I mean about fact-free statements. it's just made-up nonsense.

But to return to the immediate topic: do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 08:15PM)
Stop right there. Are you accusing the United States of America of war crimes?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2019 08:18PM)
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 08:25PM)
Yes, Tommy, we know your stance on this. Thanks for the link.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2019 08:26PM)
Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 08:28PM)
Classic! What's the movie again?
I'd also like to thank whomever composed and uploaded that fact filled link .
Probably not a Rhodes Scholar.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 08:30PM)
Https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2019 08:38PM)
I would like to know who do you think you are fooling besides yourself with this see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, monkey act when comes to the USA.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 08:58PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Stop right there. Are you accusing the United States of America of war crimes? [/quote]

Uhh....We're on page 13 of this thread and you're asking me this?

Yes, members of the US govt have committed war crimes and have attempted to cover up war crimes. Tommy posted a convenient list of some of them for you.

Do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 09:02PM)
Do you have evidence of these crimes?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 09:03PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre [/quote]

??

And the point of posting this is...?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 18, 2019 09:08PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Do you have evidence of these crimes? [/quote]

Pretty lame answer. You can read the citations. Or not.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 09:08PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I would like to know who do you think you are fooling besides yourself with this see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, monkey act when comes to the USA. [/quote]
And I'd like to know who you are fooling with this big bad America is behind everything evil buffoonery.
How about a link to the latest corruption by the Tunisians? How about a link to the behind the scenes torture by the Luxembourg regime?
Why are these Americans constantly sh-t-ng on their own country? Why do they devote their lives to trying to convince us how awful they are? Why do they never talk about anything else?
Talk about a see no evil monkey act.
Its sickening.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 18, 2019 09:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Do you have evidence of these crimes? [/quote]

Pretty lame answer. You can read the citations. Or not. [/quote]
Ahhh I see. So Assange is innocent until proven guilty but your own democratically elected government is not?
Lame indeed sir.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 18, 2019 09:12PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre [/quote]

??

And the point of posting this is...? [/quote]
751 comes up on photos every now and then. But to hear people talk about their comfort animals - wow.

Anyway - why distract from the basic question - what to do when you do have evidence of something the the institutional structure just keeps doing? Stay quiet while collecting your pay and pray the world thinks of passive complicity has something less than consent for a paycheck?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 18, 2019 09:12PM)
I would have to say that on any given day landmark is more against any type of war or organized death than most people posting here.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 18, 2019 10:41PM)
I don’t think big bad America is behind anything because I think the people behind everything are the Germans.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 18, 2019 11:20PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I don’t think big bad America is behind anything because I think the people behind everything are the Germans. [/quote]
Historically accurate.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 19, 2019 05:01AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I would like to know who do you think you are fooling besides yourself with this see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, monkey act when comes to the USA. [/quote]
And I'd like to know who you are fooling with this big bad America is behind everything evil buffoonery.
How about a link to the latest corruption by the Tunisians? How about a link to the behind the scenes torture by the Luxembourg regime?
Why are these Americans constantly sh-t-ng on their own country? Why do they devote their lives to trying to convince us how awful they are? Why do they never talk about anything else?
Talk about a see no evil monkey act.
Its sickening. [/quote]

Yeah, the Tunisians, let's not forget them, they wield a lot of power and influence in the world, don't they? and those expansionist Luxembourgers, weeell, say no more!!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 19, 2019 05:06AM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I don’t think big bad America is behind anything because I think the people behind everything are the Germans. [/quote]
Oh wow. Ok. That is interesting.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 19, 2019 05:07AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I would like to know who do you think you are fooling besides yourself with this see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, monkey act when comes to the USA. [/quote]
And I'd like to know who you are fooling with this big bad America is behind everything evil buffoonery.
How about a link to the latest corruption by the Tunisians? How about a link to the behind the scenes torture by the Luxembourg regime?
Why are these Americans constantly sh-t-ng on their own country? Why do they devote their lives to trying to convince us how awful they are? Why do they never talk about anything else?
Talk about a see no evil monkey act.
Its sickening. [/quote]

Yeah, the Tunisians, let's not forget them, they wield a lot of power and influence in the world, don't they? and those expansionist Luxembourgers, weeell, say no more!! [/quote]
Do you think their victims would appreciate your sarcasm?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2019 08:36AM)
The question is, as an individual, what can be done.

As an American, the slim hope I have is that I might, through political means, influence my own government. It's very unlikely that I can influence the Chinese Government or Russian government or the Saudi government as directly. So the focus for me is what I can do to change what is being done with my tax dollars, and in my name as an American.

What happens in America has effects on the rest of the world stage; if I want to have any effect on Tunisia then my best shot is influencing American policy towards Tunisia.

Does that make where I stand any more clear?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2019 10:49AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
... Do you think their victims would appreciate your sarcasm? [/quote]Their surviving friends and relatives might appreciate knowing that [i]not[/i] everyone else turned their heads, pretending not to hear or see.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2019 11:04AM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:
...
Stupid enough to comply?
... [/quote]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/consulate-recordings-reveal-saudi-plan-for-jamal-khashoggi

You know, just an interview...
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 19, 2019 11:33AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
... Do you think their victims would appreciate your sarcasm? [/quote]Their surviving friends and relatives might appreciate knowing that [i]not[/i] everyone else turned their heads, pretending not to hear or see. [/quote]
Indeed they would.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 19, 2019 12:06PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I don’t think big bad America is behind anything because I think the people behind everything are the Germans. [/quote]
Historically accurate. [/quote]


There is really only one historical document one needs to read to understand how the world has worked since World War II with regard to national security and that is Reinhard Gehlen's CIA file.

As early as 1942 Reinhard Gehlen foresaw what was coming and said Germany's defeat in World War II would be followed by the emergence of two great power blocs headed by Russia and America, that countries, nationalism and the like would no longer be of any real importance. So it came to be when Reinhard Gehlen's plan was accepted at the end of the war.

Yet we still speak of this country and that in this regard as if countries, nationalism and the like, are of real importance.

Iran is in the power bloc headed by Russia and we are in the other bloc and so that is why we are waging a cold war with Iran. Who's side is Assange on: that is the question. If he had only exposed the crimes of the power bloc headed by Russia then he would be a hero to our bloc.

You are either with us or you are against us: no you cannot be neutral in this game. Such is life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Q3ADnJKpY
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 19, 2019 12:19PM)
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
...No. It is never permissible or moral to break the law, regardless of what is discovered while doing so. [/quote] Which kinda puts espionage, eavesdropping, ... on a steep slippery moral slope to start - so what then of darker things recovered or any potential lives saved by acting upon information gained through those actions? [/quote]
The slope is all downhill towards other nations. We have no obligation to obey the laws of enemy states. Clearly they feel the same about us.

[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
But to return to the immediate topic: do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law? [/quote]
Judging by the slanted rhetorical nature of your question, I assume you think it's morally permissible to commit crimes in pursuit of greater crimes.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 19, 2019 12:48PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
...No. It is never permissible or moral to break the law, regardless of what is discovered while doing so. [/quote] Which kinda puts espionage, eavesdropping, ... on a steep slippery moral slope to start - so what then of darker things recovered or any potential lives saved by acting upon information gained through those actions? [/quote]
The slope is all downhill towards other nations. We have no obligation to obey the laws of enemy states. Clearly they feel the same about us.

[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, landmark wrote:
But to return to the immediate topic: do you think it is morally permissible to uncover American war crimes if it means breaking an American law? [/quote]
Judging by the slanted rhetorical nature of your question, I assume you think it's morally permissible to commit crimes in pursuit of greater crimes. [/quote]

And yet somehow he will say it is reprehensible when the government commits crimes in the pursuit of greater crimes. (I happen to think it is wrong on all accounts to do so.)
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 19, 2019 01:23PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I don’t think big bad America is behind anything because I think the people behind everything are the Germans. [/quote]
Historically accurate. [/quote]


There is really only one historical document one needs to read to understand how the world has worked since World War II with regard to national security and that is Reinhard Gehlen's CIA file.

As early as 1942 Reinhard Gehlen foresaw what was coming and said Germany's defeat in World War II would be followed by the emergence of two great power blocs headed by Russia and America, that countries, nationalism and the like would no longer be of any real importance. So it came to be when Reinhard Gehlen's plan was accepted at the end of the war.

Yet we still speak of this country and that in this regard as if countries, nationalism and the like, are of real importance.

Iran is in the power bloc headed by Russia and we are in the other bloc and so that is why we are waging a cold war with Iran. Who's side is Assange on: that is the question. If he had only exposed the crimes of the power bloc headed by Russia then he would be a hero to our bloc.

You are either with us or you are against us: no you cannot be neutral in this game. Such is life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Q3ADnJKpY [/quote]
*** right.
And guess what? He's against us.
But I would still see him brought to justice by the Russians if he was caught stealing their state secrets.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 19, 2019 02:06PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 18, 2019, tommy wrote:
I don’t think big bad America is behind anything because I think the people behind everything are the Germans. [/quote]
Oh wow. Ok. That is interesting. [/quote]

Yes, and they have had a secret base on the dark side of the moon since WW2, watch out.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 19, 2019 02:30PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
*** right.
And guess what? He's against us.
But I would still see him brought to justice by the Russians if he was caught stealing their state secrets. [/quote]

I suspect Assange's allegiance is only to himself. The US just happened to have ripe-fruit.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 19, 2019 03:30PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
*** right.
And guess what? He's against us.
But I would still see him brought to justice by the Russians if he was caught stealing their state secrets. [/quote]

I suspect Assange's allegiance is only to himself. The US just happened to have ripe-fruit. [/quote]
Of course.
Assange's motives were personal fame and fortune. Which is fine. Until you commit crimes to attain it.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 19, 2019 04:30PM)
A UN independent investigation has just found that there is evidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was responsible for the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2019 04:34PM)
Https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/consulate-recordings-reveal-saudi-plan-for-jamal-khashoggi

Any wikileaks on Crimea or Latin American policy?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 19, 2019 04:44PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
A UN independent investigation has just found that there is evidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was responsible for the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. [/quote]
And?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2019 06:48PM)
[quote]If he had only exposed the crimes of the power bloc headed by Russia then he would be a hero to our bloc. [/quote]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=russia

[quote]Crimea...[/quote]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=crimea

[quote] Latin America policy?[/quote]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=latin+america+policy

Thousands of files on all of the above for the searching. That's what it's for.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 19, 2019 08:10PM)
So let's get to what the matter is.

Do you believe landmark that governments should have secrets? Do you believe it should be a crime to expose said secrets?

No diatribes but please the very simple questions of if government is allowed to keep secrets. Because THIS is the heart of the matter. If they are allowed to do so AND it is criminal behavior to expose them then it is a simple thing. Now don't get too far down the road of "the government is committing crimes" because that is an excuse for the behavior. We can discuss how to deal with war criminality in and of itself later after I see what your position is on simply having secrets and the punishment for exposing said secrets.

And by the way "the government should hold no secrets" is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2019 09:22PM)
Thanks, Danny. I appreciate your getting down to actual issues.

A couple of premises about the world:

1. Governments--all governments--lie constantly. They do so in the service of the class that runs the country.

2. The first rule of any bureaucracy, institution, or agency is CYA- Cover Your Backside. That's also the second and third rule as well.

3. Items 1 and 2 would not be a problem for a dictatorship or totalitarian society. But they become uniquely troubling in a society that wants to run as a democracy. Because democracy requires informed consent and decision making. That can't happen if a significant portion of information is covered up or hidden from the general populace.

So I view the claim for the necessity for secrecy very very skeptically. Not saying it might not in some rare cases be necessary, but I start out viewing the supposed need very very skeptically.

Because "secrecy" is the perfect out for #1 and #2 isn't it?

So I believe that 99.999% of classified material is BS. It's either there to CYA, avoid embarrassment, just plain bureaucratic habit, or to allow someone to act in ways contrary to the interests of the general public. In extreme cases. it's to hide gross violations of the fundamental legal underpinnings of the State.

Certainly anything that's classified as less than Top Secret is BS. Probably anything really earth-shaking is not even within the classification system.

Is there anything I think a govt needs to keep secret? Well it should keep the nuclear trigger codes secret (but how about working to get rid of the need for such weapons in the first place? Reagan and Gorbachev almost had a deal...but I digress). And I don't think anyone needs to share any info about the critical mass of uranimum needed to cause fission to start, or the details of other terrible weapons (again, let's work for ways to obviate the need for them). Maybe some other things, not many. Not for a democracy. it's different for an Empire, admittedly.

So that said, given the exceptions, I'm skeptical. And I'm even more skeptical about how the laws are applied. Because it's clear that neither Snowden nor Assange revealed anything that fell in the above category. Even the Secretary of Defense at the time admitted that Snowden's revelations were not damaging to the military. What they revealed to the public (didn't sell, which makes a prior comment about Assange's motivation being money, obviously false) was profoundly embarrassing and revelatory of the perjury of members of the government. James Clapper brazenly lied to Congress about the nature of his law-breaking, and lied to [i]the Congressional committee which was charged to provide oversight of his actions.[/i] Meanwhile, for his perjury, crickets. So Snowden's and Assanges's actions fall squarely within #1 and #2.

They love to say this has done irreparable harm, blah, blah, blah, but of course what else would they say when they have been caught lying? If there has been irreparable harm, then where is it?? They will have a very real problem proving that there was irreparable harm. Assange didn't sell nuclear tech to the Saudis or Pakistan. Of course, because of the embarrassment and perjury, they will attempt to twist the facts into claiming irreparable harm. But we all know that's a lie. Government officials leak "secrets" anytime they like to far less outcry.

So sorry for the length of this, but I thought it was important to flesh out why I feel the way I do. My tl;dr summary would be this: 99% of official secrets are BS. When journalists release classified documents to the public as opposed to selling them privately to third parties, it's evident right away as to whether they are in the public interest or endangering many lives. So I think a government has to show a very very high standard of harm caused if they wish to prosecute a journalist. If a democracy has no mechanism for prying secrets from the cloud of official secrets than it can't be a democracy. That's what journalists are for.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 19, 2019 09:49PM)
OK what about a secret that keeps people safe such as identity?

Oh and do YOU have secrets? If a government can not have things THEY want to keep secret how can YOU claim things to be secret in service to yourself?

So do you think that ONLY our government should not have secrets or that EVERY government should not have secrets? See even if you believe OUR government should not have them how can you tell others to not have them?

Forget Utopia. I am telling you that your 99% figure is just ridiculous. Yes there ARE things that should not be so kept, but it is not 99% or anywhere near. While YOU may not see the need for them in your world view, that in no way means in the world as it IS there is no need to have them.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2019 10:08PM)
The heart of our discussion is [b]not[/b] governments, secrets, or spies. We know gentlemen don't read eachothers mail [i]so they have staff who do such things very well[/i]. And a secretary who will disavow any knowledge of the operation if things go badly. Got it. And sometimes domestic wire-tapping is done by legal means using warrants to get that set up. We also claim to disapprove of such policies as East Germany used and China currently has in place to monitor their civilian population.

It's when the third and fourth party agencies are brokering computer malware, data collection services and training to interested parties that someone felt a whistle needed to blow.

It's when cell phone towers are rigged to collect data (like we care whether its stingray or something else?) and that data made available to third parties without warrant that someone blew the whistle.

It's not being naive about collateral damage during a war. It's when that happens and the combatants are treating their actions as if they are playing "grand theft auto" and blatant disrespect to the lives of known journalists in the area that someone felt a need to share some of the video.

That smell, it's not coffee. This is not an episode of Get Smart. And we're the ones losing our moral high-ground.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2019 10:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
OK what about a secret that keeps people safe such as identity?[/quote]

Like Ms. Plame?

[quote]Oh and do YOU have secrets? If a government can not have things THEY want to keep secret how can YOU claim things to be secret in service to yourself?[/quote]

This I'm surprised to hear from you. Surely as a conservative you understand that in a democracy, it's the government which must be transparent and the individual whose privacy rights must be protected. Or what are we even talking about?

[quote]So do you think that ONLY our government should not have secrets or that EVERY government should not have secrets? See even if you believe OUR government should not have them how can you tell others to not have them?[/quote]

You're right, I can't tell other governments what to do. Only my own. But I sure don't complain when Russian, Chinese, Saudi, etc. secrets are uncovered. There's an incredible moment going on in Brazil as we speak, due to journalist Glenn Greenwald (who lives in Brazil) printing out some incredible documents about corruption in the Bolsanaro government. It basically details how the govt bribed a Supreme Court judge to put the former President of Brazil, Lula, into prison and thus deprive him of the right to run against Bolsanaro in the election. Of course Bolsanaro is now personally threatening Greenwald and his husband Councilman David Miranda with all kinds of things. This is in a place where people get disappeared. So while I have no say about other countries I cheer Greenwald. Others might frown that he revealed some secrets.

[quote] I am telling you that your 99% figure is just ridiculous. Yes there ARE things that should not be so kept, but it is not 99% or anywhere near. [/quote]

Well, of course no one can know the actual figure, but here's an article that suggests that Top Secret classification falls to about 10% of classified docs.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/07/what-s-the-difference-between-top-secret-and-confidential.html
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2019 10:42PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
The heart of our discussion is [b]not[/b] governments, secrets, or spies. We know gentlemen don't read eachothers mail [i]so they have staff who do such things very well[/i]. And a secretary who will disavow any knowledge of the operation if things go badly. Got it. And sometimes domestic wire-tapping is done by legal means using warrants to get that set up. We also claim to disapprove of such policies as East Germany used and China currently has in place to monitor their civilian population.

It's when the third and fourth party agencies are brokering computer malware, data collection services and training to interested parties that someone felt a whistle needed to blow.

It's when cell phone towers are rigged to collect data (like we care whether its stingray or something else?) and that data made available to third parties without warrant that someone blew the whistle.

It's not being naive about collateral damage during a war. It's when that happens and the combatants are treating their actions as if they are playing "grand theft auto" and blatant disrespect to the lives of known journalists in the area that someone felt a need to share some of the video.

That smell, it's not coffee. This is not an episode of Get Smart. And we're the ones losing our moral high-ground. [/quote]

Jon, non-governmental third-party sharing of data is obviously a concern, a huge concern--but that doesn't obviate the need to grapple with the direct violation of privacy rights by governments. And someone should be starting a thread about the Facebook Libra thing. That's about the spookiest thing I've heard in a long time.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 19, 2019 11:56PM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
OK what about a secret that keeps people safe such as identity?[/quote]

Like Ms. Plame?

[quote]Oh and do YOU have secrets? If a government can not have things THEY want to keep secret how can YOU claim things to be secret in service to yourself?[/quote]

This I'm surprised to hear from you. Surely as a conservative you understand that in a democracy, it's the government which must be transparent and the individual whose privacy rights must be protected. Or what are we even talking about?

[quote]So do you think that ONLY our government should not have secrets or that EVERY government should not have secrets? See even if you believe OUR government should not have them how can you tell others to not have them?[/quote]

You're right, I can't tell other governments what to do. Only my own. But I sure don't complain when Russian, Chinese, Saudi, etc. secrets are uncovered. There's an incredible moment going on in Brazil as we speak, due to journalist Glenn Greenwald (who lives in Brazil) printing out some incredible documents about corruption in the Bolsanaro government. It basically details how the govt bribed a Supreme Court judge to put the former President of Brazil, Lula, into prison and thus deprive him of the right to run against Bolsanaro in the election. Of course Bolsanaro is now personally threatening Greenwald and his husband Councilman David Miranda with all kinds of things. This is in a place where people get disappeared. So while I have no say about other countries I cheer Greenwald. Others might frown that he revealed some secrets.

[quote] I am telling you that your 99% figure is just ridiculous. Yes there ARE things that should not be so kept, but it is not 99% or anywhere near. [/quote]

Well, of course no one can know the actual figure, but here's an article that suggests that Top Secret classification falls to about 10% of classified docs.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2000/07/what-s-the-difference-between-top-secret-and-confidential.html [/quote]
You just can't help throwing out political jabs can you? LOL.

HOW transparent should a government be? I mean since ONE operative of a covert nature was revealed certainly according to your theory they ALL should be right? Or just the ones with different political views that you have I guess.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 20, 2019 12:08AM)
What did you think was a political jab? Just making the point that it's highly variable about what really constitutes a damaging revelation of an identity. Every govt pulls that--"we can reveal classified info, but you can't."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 20, 2019 02:49AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]If he had only exposed the crimes of the power bloc headed by Russia then he would be a hero to our bloc. [/quote]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=russia

[quote]Crimea...[/quote]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=crimea

[quote] Latin America policy?[/quote]

https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=latin+america+policy

Thousands of files on all of the above for the searching. That's what it's for. [/quote]

When I said if he had only I meant only theirs and theirs only and not ours as well.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 20, 2019 06:28AM)
Ah. Well it's true that if a person is actually principled and not just a team booster for one side, you're going to incur the wrath of everyone.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 07:39AM)
Unfortunately, that's not the case with Assange.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 08:13AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not the case with Assange. [/quote]Him being a little less than monogamous is already established in public consciousness. What, specifically, do you believe he did that transgresses journalism, and should be investigated with an eye toward his facing legal consequences?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 08:28AM)
It has already been investigated, and enough evidence collected for prosecutors to lay charges.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 08:30AM)
"...little less than monogamous"?
Yuk. What a horrible statement.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 20, 2019 08:54AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
*** right.
And guess what? He's against us.
But I would still see him brought to justice by the Russians if he was caught stealing their state secrets. [/quote]

~~~I suspect Assange's allegiance is only to himself. The US just happened to have ripe-fruit.~~~ [/quote]

You could say this about any whistle blower/investigative journalist, what is your evidence for this 'suspicion'?
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 20, 2019 08:57AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
A UN independent investigation has just found that there is evidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was responsible for the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. [/quote]
And? [/quote]

and??? State perpetrated crime is a fact. Wiki Leaks does us all a favour by reporting it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 09:09AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"...little less than monogamous"?
Yuk. What a horrible statement. [/quote]
The Sweden story came down to him sleeping with one woman and her finding out that he had been intimate with another - but not kicking him out and in fact still sleeping with him in her home. And that's the motivation for international extradition in this context? Yuk indeed.

So, beyond some accusation of having involvement with acquiring data from willing sources - what's the charge?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 09:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
HOW transparent should a government be? I mean since ONE operative of a covert nature was revealed ... [/quote]
The name of an active field agent was revealed to the public as retribution, and not by a reporter in context of whistleblowing. Apparently someone wanted to send her husband on a fact finding mission into Niger and in her professional capacity she was asked about his qualifications. [quote]In 2002, Plame wrote a memo to her superiors in which she expressed hesitation in recommending her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson, to the CIA for a mission to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had arranged to purchase and import uranium from the country, but stated that he "may be in a position to assist".[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 20, 2019 10:12AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
*** right.
And guess what? He's against us.
But I would still see him brought to justice by the Russians if he was caught stealing their state secrets. [/quote]

~~~I suspect Assange's allegiance is only to himself. The US just happened to have ripe-fruit.~~~ [/quote]

You could say this about any whistle blower/investigative journalist, what is your evidence for this 'suspicion'? [/quote]

Assange is a bad-human and Morally-Bankrupt. He is a philandering, hallway-skateboarding, feces-wall smearing, lying, cheating, pompous self-centered arse.
And he may have broken some international laws.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2019 12:03PM)
Is it okay to be a criminal in order to expose other criminals?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 20, 2019 12:30PM)
Yes if the criminals are policemen.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 12:39PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, tommy wrote:
A UN independent investigation has just found that there is evidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was responsible for the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. [/quote]
And? [/quote]

and??? State perpetrated crime is a fact. Wiki Leaks does us all a favour by reporting it. [/quote]
LOL
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 12:42PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"...little less than monogamous"?
Yuk. What a horrible statement. [/quote]
The Sweden story came down to him sleeping with one woman and her finding out that he had been intimate with another - but not kicking him out and in fact still sleeping with him in her home. And that's the motivation for international extradition in this context? Yuk indeed.

So, beyond some accusation of having involvement with acquiring data from willing sources - what's the charge? [/quote]
So you're saying you don't believe the woman who is accusing him of rape?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 12:47PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Is it okay to be a criminal in order to expose other criminals? [/quote]
That question has haunted our civilization for a while. Sometimes phrased as "Who watches the Watchmen?". It's been the theme of several TV shows and movies. From "Mission: IMPOSSIBLE" and "It Takes a Thief", to the recent Dark Knight movies and the show "White Collar". A fair amount of "Spider-Man" stories have Peter Parker's boss J.J.Jameson grouching about the web slinging vigilante. Sherlock Holmes? The Shadow? Marc Antony in the play Julius Caesar?

In more serious history, you might recall the quote "Treason doth never prosper? What's the reason? For if it prosper none dare call it treason".
https://books.google.com/books?id=L3tjygZWWmIC&pg=PA82#v=onepage&q=Treason&f=false
or much earlier: "[i]Prosperum ac felix scelus/ Virtus vocatur"[/i] ("Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue"), Seneca, Herc. Furens, ii. 250.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2019 12:49PM)
Yea wasn't asking for a lot of word salad and movie references.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 20, 2019 12:50PM)
This entire thread in a nutshell...

[b]My[/b] bias is correct... making me a good person.

[b]Your[/b] bias is wrong... so... you know... you suck.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2019 01:06PM)
Yea that is why I was trying to get to the heart of the matter.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 02:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea [/quote]
I believe that "we" say the ends justify the means - unless "we" don't like the ends. And I'm not championing moral relativism.

What I see is lots of finger pointing and threats of violence. And some words attempting to offer a narrative to justify. Then lots of attempts at distraction from evidence offered.

Do the ends justify the means? Sometimes also known as "necessity": https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/necessity/ We claim to approve of whistleblowers till we don't like what they show us. Arguing ad-hominem about Assange's personal behavior in someones house and bed is [i]not[/i] relevant to questions about wikileaks data.

That "word salad" was examples of other people's answers to your question - from ancient Rome with Seneca to Shakespeare (Marc Antony) including that line about treason prospering... then on to modern days for our morality tales - the stories we use to illustrate good and bad.

We can answer your question (in the large - public opinion) by recalling whether we read about people appalled by the abduction of the accountant in The Dark Knight Returns. Remember the felony assault starting with some sabotage to the building security, then a guy swoops into the building, breaks a window then drags the victim away and brings them to another country against their will? The movie makers thought it was so impressive that they used the idea again using two planes in the next Dark Knight movie. Next example: How about the game of soccer/polo with a weapon of mass destruction on the streets of Hong Kong in MI:2? I don't recall even a peep of disapproval in the theater. Or when an abduction happens in the middle of Vatican City with a car bomb as punctuation (MI:3) ? So, criminal or just good guys doing their job?
As shown by all those examples from our culture it often seems to be a matter of narrative. The narrative justification for labeling someone "bad" seems to be pinning personal gain on the motive. One could argue that collateral damage is hyperbolically discounted against moral validation.


People don't like to reconsider their position and form a new opinion when presented relevant information or argument. (Rhetoric book 1)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2019 03:20PM)
My lord do you understand things as you type them or are you intentionally obtuse?

That "word salad" is the way you communicate in an apparent attempt to feel intelligent or whatever the heck. It is not effective in making points. It may be time someone told you that. It mostly gets you ignored.

And don't include me in "we" if you did. (I'm not sure as trying to run everything you type through the secret decoder ring is too time consuming.) But I personally do not feel the "ends justifies the means".
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 03:32PM)
“It may be time someone told you that.”
I’ve been telling him, as respectfully as possible, for years.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 03:42PM)
I argued a position (treason doth never prosper... ) using quotes and examples from current stories. If you have an argument for something other than that position I'd like to read it. You say the end does not justify the means?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 20, 2019 03:47PM)
The necessity defense rarely succeeds in my experience: it is really hard to convince a judge that one had no choice.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 20, 2019 03:56PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Is it okay to be a criminal in order to expose other criminals? [/quote]

I'd pose it a little differently:

Is it okay to break the law in order to expose a criminal?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2019 04:27PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Is it okay to be a criminal in order to expose other criminals? [/quote]

I'd pose it a little differently:

Is it okay to break the law in order to expose a criminal? [/quote]

Pose it how you like but you didn't really answer it now did you?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2019 04:28PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, magicfish wrote:
“It may be time someone told you that.”
I’ve been telling him, as respectfully as possible, for years. [/quote]

Well obviously he chooses not to understand.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 04:39PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, tommy wrote:
The necessity defense rarely succeeds in my experience: it is really hard to convince a judge that one had no choice. [/quote]
That puts the journalist in a tough spot when his story is supported by evidence of a criminal act.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 05:22PM)
There's also the question about whistleblowers. Folks, if you're watching something [i]really[/i] wrong happening and it won't be addressed by management within the institution - what do you suggest?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 20, 2019 05:25PM)
Normally it is used as mitigation:


I went in to pay the bill
but instead, I stole the till
my wife and kids were
starving
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 20, 2019 05:37PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 19, 2019, magicfish wrote:
*** right.
And guess what? He's against us.
But I would still see him brought to justice by the Russians if he was caught stealing their state secrets. [/quote]

~~~I suspect Assange's allegiance is only to himself. The US just happened to have ripe-fruit.~~~ [/quote]

You could say this about any whistle blower/investigative journalist, what is your evidence for this 'suspicion'? [/quote]

Assange is a bad-human and Morally-Bankrupt. He is a philandering, hallway-skateboarding, feces-wall smearing, lying, cheating, pompous self-centered arse.
And he may have broken some international laws. [/quote]

...nothing but more of your opinion, more blah blah, where's the evidence; particularly for your accusation that he is self-serving??
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 20, 2019 05:45PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
There's also the question about whistleblowers. Folks, if you're watching something [i]really[/i] wrong happening and it won't be addressed by management within the institution - what do you suggest? [/quote]



Ummm go above that institution? What proof is there that (other than saying he did) that those avenues were exhausted?

It is one thing to take a stand on your principles and another to steal a bunch of stuff and run away.


See... you drew me in... now you got me wearing pigtails in a blue gingham dress with my little dog Toto yipping away...

[i]"I think I'll miss you most of all Strawman"[/i] ;)
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 20, 2019 05:49PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
There's also the question about whistleblowers. Folks, if you're watching something [i]really[/i] wrong happening and it won't be addressed by management within the institution - what do you suggest? [/quote]



Ummm go above that institution? What proof is there that (other than saying he did) that those avenues were exhausted?

It is one thing to take a stand on your principles and another to steal a bunch of stuff and run away.


See... you drew me in... now you got me wearing pigtails in a blue gingham dress with my little dog Toto yipping away...

[i]"I think I'll miss you most of all Strawman"[/i] ;) [/quote]
As depicted in your avatar.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 20, 2019 06:11PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Dannydoyle wrote:
Is it okay to be a criminal in order to expose other criminals? [/quote]

I'd pose it a little differently:

Is it okay to break the law in order to expose a criminal? [/quote]

Pose it how you like but you didn't really answer it now did you? [/quote]

I gave a quite detailed series of posts on what I thought. I'd like to give some space to others.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 20, 2019 06:14PM)
"Germany calling, Germany calling"

"So you English believe that you can defeat the superior German forces! Haw, Haw."

William Brooke Joyce, Lord Haw-Haw, was he just a journalist, broadcasting the news?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtUcGR0Og6c
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 20, 2019 06:24PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:

Assange is a bad-human and Morally-Bankrupt. He is a philandering, hallway-skateboarding, feces-wall smearing, lying, cheating, pompous self-centered arse.
And he may have broken some international laws. [/quote]

...nothing but more of your opinion, more blah blah, where's the evidence; particularly for your accusation that he is self-serving?? [/quote]

I define him as self-serving according to common social mores.

And Ecuador's take (CNN):
Foreign Minister José Valencia and Interior Minister María Paula Romo accused Assange of riding scooters around the cramped embassy hallways, insulting staff and smearing feces on the walls.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 20, 2019 06:25PM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, magicfish wrote:

As depicted in your avatar. [/quote]


[youtube]TXE2OBE4n8I[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 20, 2019 06:29PM)
How is insulting your hosts or contaminating your living quarters self serving?

And what does his alleged personal behavior have to do with processing the evidence on the wikileaks site?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 09:19AM)
Criminal acts and relevant facts:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/us/eddie-gallagher-navy-seal-trial/index.html
[quote]... testifying under immunity, also said that he had not admitted to asphyxiating the prisoner in previous interviews with NCIS or with the prosecution. He said he was only doing so now because he was granted immunity, which means he cannot be prosecuted for his testimony.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 09:26AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
wearing pigtails in a blue gingham dress with my little dog Toto yipping away...
[i]"I think I'll miss you most of all Strawman"[/i] ;) [/quote]
See here's the plan. We'll drop you in on agent East so you can acquire her shoes. Don't worry about the witnesses, they'll believe the cover story and won't complain about the body or the house dropped into their town square. Then we'll arrange a safe route to the fortress of agent West so you can get her broom. Agent North will arrange to get you back after she arranges an accident for our local informant - it seems he's been discovered and they're feeding him false information. Operation Toto is a go.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 21, 2019 10:01AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
How is insulting your hosts or contaminating your living quarters self serving?
[/quote]

I'll need to slowly back away from this conversation if Q1 is serious.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 10:25AM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 20, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
How is insulting your hosts or contaminating your living quarters self serving?
[/quote]

I'll need to slowly back away from this conversation if Q1 is serious. [/quote]

A little googling and more detail can be found on what they found offensive [url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-ecuador-ended-asylum-spoiled-brat-julian-assange-n993711]from the last paragraph.[/url]: [quote]The final straw for Moreno was WikiLeaks' decision to spread information about a purported offshore account controlled by the president's brother. Personal photographs of Moreno lying in bed, as well as images of close family members dancing, were also leaked, further incensing him.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 21, 2019 12:11PM)
That's a large handful of self-serving straws.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 21, 2019 12:16PM)
Yes it is. But what did they expect from this slimeball?
This isn't a man of good character who is bravely and heroically sacrificing for the greater good. That is as far from the truth as it gets. Unfortunately there will be those who ignore his poor character as it suits their anti-U.S. agenda.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 21, 2019 12:21PM)
At the heart of it is the upper class’s desire to keep the working class’s dumbed down: Knowledge is power and them up there don’t want you down there to know.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 01:30PM)
The UK takes possession of Assange and now it's up to him and WikiLeaks to offer something useful before the EU summit today and Parliament negotiations in a couple of weeks.
Here's the schedule for events: https://www.ft.com/content/64e7f218-4ad4-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
Some folks probably want him trussed up and shipped over in an [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_mask]Anonymous mask[/url] as a Guy Fawkes day present.
My guess is the next moves happen before the October 31 Brexit event and then it's a coin flip about Halloween.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 21, 2019 02:20PM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2019, tommy wrote:
At the heart of it is the upper class’s desire to keep the working class’s dumbed down: Knowledge is power and them up there don’t want you down there to know. [/quote]

The labor we require from the working-class (dishwasher, boot-polisher, bean-picker) doesn't require education. That's why we stress timeliness and work-ethic in the schools.
The most important thing they can learn is to clock-in on time and grind it out until their shift ends.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 02:29PM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Jun 21, 2019, tommy wrote:
At the heart of it is the upper class’s desire to keep the working class’s dumbed down: Knowledge is power and them up there don’t want you down there to know. [/quote]

The labor we require from the working-class (dishwasher, boot-polisher, bean-picker) doesn't require education. That's why we stress timeliness and work-ethic in the schools.
The most important thing they can learn is to clock-in on time and grind it out until their shift ends. [/quote] Siri and Alexa are doing just fine. Cortana had some issues but after some reeducation - all set. They do home automation, parter with ADT (security/alarms) and respect DRM. The manual labor portals are doing fine, with interfaces in English, Spanish, and just about any other language their owners or operators require. Still a few bugs in the bean pickers but - should be ready right after the 2020 electoral circus. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/03/20/592857197/robots-are-trying-to-pick-strawberries-so-far-theyre-not-very-good-at-it
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 21, 2019 07:30PM)
Nobody said education was power.

All education is despotism. [William Godwin, "Enquirer," 1797]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 10:31PM)
Nice catchy meme there. But you're quoting from the middle of his [url=https://archive.org/details/enquirer00godwgoog/page/n78]seventh essay[/url] and out of context. [quote] Thirdly, public education is best adapted for the generation of a robust and healthful mind. All education is despotism. It is perhaps impossible for the young to be conducted without introducing in many cases the tyranny of implicit obedience. Go there; do that; read ; write; rise ; lie down ; will perhaps for ever be the language addressed to youth by age. In private education there is danger that this superintendence should extend to too many particulars. The anxiety of individual affection watches the boy too narrowly, controls him too much, renders him too poor a slave. In public education there is comparative liberty. The boy knows how much of his time is subjected to his task-master, and how much is sacredly his own. "Slavery, disguise it as we will, is a bitter draught;" and will always excite a mutinous and indignant spirit. But the most wretched of all slaveries is that which I endure alone; the whole weight of which falls upon my own shoulders, and in which I have no fellow-sufferer to share with me a particle of my burthen. Under this slavery the mind pusillanimously shrinks. I am left alone with my tyrant, and am utterly hopeless and forlorn. But, when I have companions in the house of my labour, my mind begins to erect itself. I place some glory in bearing my sufferings with an equal mind. I do not feel annihilated by my condition, but find that I also am something.[/quote]

Jules Henry had some words about education in our culture: https://redefineschool.com/jules-henry/
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 21, 2019 11:37PM)
In 2012 granting Assange sanctuary in the Ecuador embassy had value to Ecuador to demand some more respect from the UK.
https://www.wbur.org/npr/158893808/ecuador-says-u-k-threatened-to-storm-embassy-if-assange-isnt-turned-over

With Brexit (UK leaves the EU) a real possibility in the next six months - and Sweden being a member of EU, Assange has more value to the UK as token of defiance - insisting he serve his 50 weeks sentence violating probation. https://www.pressenza.com/2018/11/julian-assange-cornered/

*okay that's enough serious analysis for today. And now for something completely different...
This evening: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/21/18701355/trump-gaslight-e-jean-carroll-rape-sexual-assault
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/21/completely-horrific-journalist-e-jean-carroll-becomes-24th-woman-accuse-trump-sexual
She's got the cover story of New York magazine and a book on the way called ...
https://www.amazon.com/What-Do-We-Need-Men/dp/1250215439/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1561179329&sr=1-1
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 22, 2019 02:41AM)
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Apr 4, 2019, magicfish wrote:
horrific crimes [/quote]

Yes, he murdered innocent civilians during the Iraq war for sport.

Oops, sorry. No he reported on those who did. Horrific. The crime of journalism. [/quote]
I didn't realize rape was journalism. Laugh all you want, I'll continue to call rape horrific for now thanks. [/quote]

I have already presented you with the background to the so- called rape allegation, and the fact that the case has already been through a Swedish court and thrown out by the judge, and you were strangely quiet on the subject. I see that you are now back on your favourite hobby horse. You seem to have a penchant for emotive adjectives such as 'horrific' so here's what I call horrific, a corrupt government hounding an innocent journalist for daring to expose them.

As I'm a mentalist here's a prediction, i' ll place it in this little black envelope here...Assange wiil be hung out to dry by the Americans for espionage, and you will never here of these rape allegations again.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 22, 2019 04:38AM)
If by hung out to dry you mean, proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers based on evidence, then perhaps.
But weather we hear of the allegations again isn't what is important. I think the alleged victim would agree.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 22, 2019 07:35AM)
There is at least chance that Assange will be home by Christmas: it’s now 6/4 against there being a new election here this year and it is even money that the right honorable Mr. Corbin will win it. Corbin has stated the government should not send Assange to the USA for exposing USA atrocities. I figure that amounts to a 20% chance 4/1.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 22, 2019 08:01AM)
For keeping up with things:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 22, 2019 08:04AM)
[quote]I think the alleged victim would agree. [/quote]

Do more research. You've been provided with sources within this thread.
Message: Posted by: art85y (Jun 22, 2019 08:56AM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, magicfish wrote:
If by hung out to dry you mean, proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers based on evidence, then perhaps.
But weather we hear of the allegations again isn't what is important. I think the alleged victim would agree. [/quote]

As you appear to have missed the point entirely; my comment was clearly intended to impugn the veracity of these specific allegations NOT to trivialise actual rape.
As for "a jury of his peers", seriously? in America? peers such as yourself perhaps? LOL Oh, and BTW would this be the same legal system that allowed OJ to walk free? Yeah, right, I've got some faith in that !@#$%^& system.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 22, 2019 12:52PM)
Wow...
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 22, 2019 01:14PM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, landmark wrote:
[quote]I think the alleged victim would agree. [/quote]

Do more research. You've been provided with sources within this thread. [/quote]
Ditto
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 22, 2019 01:15PM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, art85y wrote:
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, magicfish wrote:
If by hung out to dry you mean, proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers based on evidence, then perhaps.
But weather we hear of the allegations again isn't what is important. I think the alleged victim would agree. [/quote]

As you appear to have missed the point entirely; my comment was clearly intended to impugn the veracity of these specific allegations NOT to trivialise actual rape.
As for "a jury of his peers", seriously? in America? peers such as yourself perhaps? LOL Oh, and BTW would this be the same legal system that allowed OJ to walk free? Yeah, right, I've got some faith in that !@#$%^& system. [/quote]
...................uh........ohhhh.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 22, 2019 01:25PM)
I must be a fool. I trust the system. Yea point to OJ. Point to those things that go wrong with the system. There are also a heck of a lot of things that go right with it.

The 4th amendment is part of that "system" along with the 6th. They work well as far as I am concerned. Easy to point to things that are wrong and whine. (Landmark seems to make a lifetime achievement of it LOL.) But right were the rubber meets the road it is not always that way.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 22, 2019 01:59PM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, art85y wrote:
...As for "a jury of his peers", seriously? in America?
*
peers such as yourself perhaps? LOL Oh, and BTW would this be the same legal system that allowed OJ to walk free? [/quote]

Wait a second! That's several items which each merit discussion. Never mind that espionage and such are not civil/jury trial matters. Though the matter could be framed as a copyright violation involving conspiracy to break DRM. :devilish: To start he's an Australian, not an American citizen. So his peers would be extradited Australian nationals brought to America through years of applied political force to face unspecified charges... Okay Kafka! I can see him now facing a jury of extradited Aborigines who unsympathetically decide to convict on the grounds that he did so little to bring their plight to the larger world.

The OJ trial is an exception, with it's circus of ethnic and legal antics which left both public and media bug-eyed and irked. So many wrongs. For the entertainment world Kato Kalin starts the parade of celebrity including the Kardasins and leading to Kaytlin Jenner. Circus of the Stars. Nice proving ground for The Apprentice and West Wing - to bring us where we are today.

It's not a distraction from any discussions about rape. Or use of career advancement to bypass the social processes of mutual interest and consent. Or #MeToo where some are accusing others of enabling their careers at the cost of their bodies. Tales of the casting couch which leads us to July's release of a book which purports in include a description of attempted sexual assault by our current President.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 22, 2019 02:13PM)
In the OJ case, a cop lied on oath and so he tainted all the evidence he was connected to. One cannot convict on perjury and so OJ beat the wrap. That is no disgrace to the justice system, quite the contrary. The cop, on the other hand, was a disgrace to law enforcement. I love the legal system: it is the only way to beat it. If Assange is going to win he better learn to love thy enemy.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Jun 22, 2019 02:52PM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, art85y wrote:
...As for "a jury of his peers", seriously? in America?
*
peers such as yourself perhaps? LOL Oh, and BTW would this be the same legal system that allowed OJ to walk free? [/quote]

Wait a second! That's several items which each merit discussion. Never mind that espionage and such are not civil/jury trial matters. Though the matter could be framed as a copyright violation involving conspiracy to break DRM. :devilish: To start he's an Australian, not an American citizen. So his peers would be extradited Australian nationals brought to America through years of applied political force to face unspecified charges... Okay Kafka! I can see him now facing a jury of extradited Aborigines who unsympathetically decide to convict on the grounds that he did so little to bring their plight to the larger world.

The OJ trial is an exception, with it's circus of ethnic and legal antics which left both public and media bug-eyed and irked. So many wrongs. For the entertainment world Kato Kalin starts the parade of celebrity including the Kardasins and leading to Kaytlin Jenner. Circus of the Stars. Nice proving ground for The Apprentice and West Wing - to bring us where we are today.

It's not a distraction from any discussions about rape. Or use of career advancement to bypass the social processes of mutual interest and consent. Or #MeToo where some are accusing others of enabling their careers at the cost of their bodies. Tales of the casting couch which leads us to July's release of a book which purports in include a description of attempted sexual assault by our current President. [/quote]
I don't think peers have to be of the same nationality. I could be wrong. Not that it matters in this case.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 22, 2019 08:09PM)
It doesn't take a chessmaster to understand: the corrupt authoritarians worldwide are happy to put the people who uncover their crimes in prison.

It will take the continued international outcry and support of those who cherish freedom to release them.
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Jun 22, 2019 09:10PM)
So... my choices are only to be Pro-rapist (though no court conviction -- but that... don't matter...) or...

to oppose those who cherish freedom (makin' me a freedom hater -- and therefore a corrupt authoritarian supporter)?


Hmmm.... I think we should all get stars on our bellies 'cause this Sylvester McMonkey McBean seems to know a thing or two :nod:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 22, 2019 10:33PM)
Ah, that wonderful game of false dichotomies and brand identification. It's snitches vs sneers, you can tell by their hats. :D
This game of quidditch hardly seems to stop when one side catches their golden snitch.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Jun 24, 2019 10:29AM)
[quote]On Jun 22, 2019, art85y wrote:

As for "a jury of his peers", seriously? in America? peers such as yourself perhaps? LOL Oh, and BTW would this be the same legal system that allowed OJ to walk free? Yeah, right, I've got some faith in that !@#$%^& system. [/quote]

The glove didn't fit. We had to acquit.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 24, 2019 03:44PM)
Greenwald and Brazil, happening in real time:

https://www.france24.com/en/20190613-greenwald-defiant-after-grotesque-threats-over-brazils-car-wash-leaks
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 24, 2019 05:15PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMgHtbdCUWY
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 24, 2019 08:13PM)
[quote]On Jun 24, 2019, tommy wrote:
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMgHtbdCUWY [/quote]
Not a funny musical joke there.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-democracy-threat_n_5c2a30c5e4b08aaf7a929cbb?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAM-PkKU9FNnz4wmoWdoOG-FzuNJf7E-zI1hW6p2BJ0vZaGEoTrCS-yxuHLNp3aoOt_wAT7Fa8Ab-J-_FbD7f_eez6YaXrewYE0nFO_ELsveSb4Y22uIbmUudyIT0xERDlGJiN1dMwzOC5X1RpUALbzGP_efEnOO1yFSN4eAwZRgf
Nostalgia? Property owners feeling threatened?
That place has the resources and educated population to become something truly modern and wonderful. I hope that's what they choose.