Jullian Assange has been arrested following removal of asylum by the Ecuadorian Government

So closing the case was based upon that meeting?

 

Just as private property is not a license to murder in your house; investigative journalism is not a license to steal information, state or private. If his actions are just—then damnit, Julian, quit being a Jussie and start being a Jean or better still, stop being a vagina (soft and yielding) and start being a Valjean (strong and firm).

Assange! Right now your acting like a rat trying find a corner of the world to hide in. You want the cloak of heroism, then earn its red, white, and blue colors... all I see now is a yellow streak down your back.

 

Well, maybe in your eyes, but in the military court it certainly does.

 

That was pretty Orwellian as well.

 

That was what she was saying

 

I am surprised. I seem to remember Assange being very displeased with her, remarking to his lawyer, "She is an awful woman!"

 

I was only half paying attention but I am petty certain that is what she said. She also said that everyone always forget that or pays no attention to it. Possibly Assange did not realise they were going to drop the case.

 

Why is he not headed to Sweden for those charges?

 

What he did was release information that he US government was doing things that were illegal and beyond the scope of powers granted the government by the Constitution. The government in fact was acting as a traitor against the American people. It is no different than what the government was doing when it was exposed by the Pentigon Papers in the 70's. It is not criminal to expose criminals.

 

The only crime Assange committed was to expose the US breaking the Geneva Convention, and the US Constitution. Of course I am sure you are in favor of torture and the extrajudicial murdering of American Citizens by a rouge government.

 

The issue is that the US Government is restrained in its power by the Constitution. Assange and Manning exposed the government clearly acting in an illegal capacity and violating the Constitution that restricts its power. Once government refuses to be restrained by its Constitution, then we no longer have a republic, we have a dictatorship.

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

 

OK here you are Thingmabob but I think you will find it easier to watch on you tv than computer youtube.

 

Diversion....as expected, since you are blind (as I have attempted to explain)

No, here's where we part: courage and/or cowardice in individuals (of which you speak in post #652) - and the right to defend one's self - is one thing; but inter-national relations defined by MAD is....mad, since the individuals that make up one nation cannot claim an excess of morality over the individuals that comprise another nation. Therefore 'legal' war is a confusion of terms, the ultimate failure of governance, and a relic of the Neanderthal condition, as I have attempted to explain.

Eg, it's preposterous to claim the British peoples were more moral in the 20th century than the German peoples; rather politics and economics - and the ability of a demagogue to mislead a nation, which can happen to any nation in the absence of an international rules based system - conspired to debauch the German nation, realities which the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights has since attempted to address.

As for Islam being evil, need I remind you of the blaspheming prophets in the Old Testament who claimed 'God' himself authorised genocide - including against women and children (and babies -"sucklings"- thrown in for good measure....)?
[It's a pity Marcion's New Testament was eventually deemed heretical, because the world certainly needs to heed the message of the Prince of Peace, unadulterated by the bronze age barbarity authorised in the O.T].

Your brand of 'liberty' is an illusion at best, and is related to the misery of millions living with war and poverty around the globe.

But you are blinded by your world view, so you can't see it.

 

It's called mafia law.

​

We hated you but now we do
the same - so what?
What-cha gonna do about it?​

 

What "things" are you talking about? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were approved by congress.

 

It's not the wars that were illegal, the illegality was in the actions of the US army.

 

You are not paying attention.

 

Very nice, thank you, alexa! That interviewer is an idiot and kept asking the same question over and over despite having her question answered the first time.

 

Well, well, well, it is true that America will extradite an American to a foreign country if the charges have merit. Hmmm. Perhaps some on this board owe America an apology.

American extradited to Australia charged with gruesome bound and gag murder

https://www.foxnews.com/world/american-extradited-to-australia-charged-with-bound-and-gag-murder

Ayn Rand: "To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; it is not a task that can be performed automatically by one’s feelings, “instincts” or hunches. It is a task that requires the most precise, the most exacting, the most ruthlessly objective and rational process of thought. It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person. When one pronounces moral judgment, whether in praise or in blame, one must be prepared to answer “Why?” and to prove one’s case—to oneself and to any rational inquirer."http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html

Assange, have courage, make your case, face your judgment.

 

Silly me...self-blinded by the light of reason provided by the dawn of tomorrow (Not meant to be noticed or understood by anyone but the intelligent and the observant. Let's see who is)

Ayn Rand: (Referring to the UN, Playboy interview, March 1964): "Yes. I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships." --http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/foreign_policy.html

Well, Amen sister, amen.

As stated before, if international law is based on the protection of free trade and individual rights, i.e., capitalism, then no problem. But if it means being subservient to a community of human butchering tyrannical despots, then %$#E$%#%^ off! (As an aside: the state of the world today is led by a bunch of toadies kissing the arses of human butchering despots and tyrants; which, by-the-way, is why the bully, Islam, has gained power. As-well-as the reason the Soviet Union got away with slaughtering 20 million Kulaks--Man may forgive, but history never forgets. Where the fk%! was The League of Nations, the UN's precursor? Where the hell were the keepers of the international faith? Like I said, kissing tthe human butchering tyrants' arses because they didn't want to go to war. Who the hell cares about 20 million Kulaks when you have all of human existence to save, or for the matter, the 1 against the many.)

 

If you are talking about the gunship incident that was investigated and found to be a mistake not a crime.

 

Someone, please tell Jeanette (she gave up on me) that it is impossible for any action by the American Defense Forces to be criminal--it serves but one purpose: to protect the rights of Americans, not the plunder of despotic leaders, say like Maduro? Putin? Kim?

 

American military members who commit crimes in a war zone are court martialled and sent to prison if found guilty. There have been several convictions of members serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

It is reported Assange's extradition will be a long and tortuous legal procedure, the first hurdle is to overcome Sweden's 'first dibs'. Sweden is expected to dismiss proceedings against Assange, but will retain custody as it is anticipated the US will immediately seek extradition from them. The conditions for extradition are that the extraditing charge be a crime in the extraditing jurisdiction too, and (in Sweden's case) that the charge not be sentenced with death (it isn't). The US seeks Assange's extradition not just for publishing classified material, but also for aiding Manning in gaining access to the published material. No doubt Sweden punishes the publication of classified material, and am certain they must have laws against assisting others in unlawfully accessing classified information. We will need to parse the language of the extradition request (when it is formulated to Sweden) and consider the specific charges in the indictment. Sweden may seek to limit the possible charges to those accepted under Swedish law. Most analysts say this process will take a year or two. I hope it can be expedited so US prosecutors can bargain with Assange for information relating to where he got the Hillary email leaks from and gain forensic data on the manner in which those emails were obtained.