waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 You’re intentionally blurring the lines, as no where did I infer the Australian article nor Mr Jones, like Mr Assange and the Wikileaks organization has broken the law………Unless that is, you care to demonstrate different? How has Mr Assange broken the (US) law? What law(s) has Mr Assange, as an individual, broken that would warrant the United States pursuing a Federal indictment against Mr Assange? the purposeful blurring is yours! In the exchange you're replying to, your challenge was directly to the integrity of the Australian diplomatic cables... clearly you don't value them; clearly, you imply the Australian diplomatic cables realized through Freedom of Information means have no, as I categorized, meaning/validity/emphasis... to you. You chose to isolate on the statement of an Australian government official, over and above the contents within the diplomatic cables. Are you hiding something Waldo? Do you know of some law Mr Assange, or Wikileaks in general has broken? Why do you keep avoiding the question? Are you going to seek refuge in the nearest Latin American embassy? Why the aversion to the question, what did Mr Assange do that would warrant him getting the “needle”? you can keep barking like a junkyard dog... your last post was the first I took notice of your question - and I won't be bothered to actually check/confirm, as you've stated, you've been barking it over and over! ..... "possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy" how naive are you... "The Whole World is Watching" I got it, and I’ll jump on this idea quickly; a Halloween mask, not comprising latex nor rubber (mustn’t be too restrictive), adorned with the likeness of the soon to be late Mr Julian Assange Now that will be Gold now you're just into your fallback trolling mode! The circumstances behind the speculated extradition are, quite obviously, political in nature... and yes, the whole world is watching. If it occurs, this will not be an obscure and cloaked rendition - it will become an iconic and symbolic event. You dropped the martyr word earlier... nothing would greater solidify that martyr label for Assange than his extradition. Well, nothing other than a protracted prosecution and possible life imprisonment... or death sentence. Speaking of you ignoring questions, somehow you conveniently avoided the earlier one concerning the possible outcomes related to criminal guilt and capital offenses in the U.S.. Unlike your junkyard act, my gentlemanly manner did not press you on the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Does Wikileaks comprise solely of Mr Assange? You’re intentionally blurring the lines, as no where did I infer the Australian article nor Mr Jones, like Mr Assange and the Wikileaks organization has broken the law………Unless that is, you care to demonstrate different? How has Mr Assange broken the (US) law? What law(s) has Mr Assange, as an individual, broken that would warrant the United States pursuing a Federal indictment against Mr Assange? Are you hiding something Waldo? Do you know of some law Mr Assange, or Wikileaks in general has broken? Why do you keep avoiding the question? Are you going to seek refuge in the nearest Latin American embassy? Why the aversion to the question, what did Mr Assange do that would warrant him getting the “needle”? I got it, and I’ll jump on this idea quickly; a Halloween mask, not comprising latex nor rubber (mustn’t be too restrictive), adorned with the likeness of the soon to be late Mr Julian Assange Now that will be Gold Why do you assume Assange has to have broken US laws in order for an idictment to be drawn up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Why do you assume Assange has to have broken US laws in order for an idictment to be drawn up? Jurisprudence? In that, the United States Government would have to accuse Mr Assange of something……Not being liked isn’t illegal. My question, what would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 the purposeful blurring is yours! In the exchange you're replying to, your challenge was directly to the integrity of the Australian diplomatic cables... clearly you don't value them; clearly, you imply the Australian diplomatic cables realized through Freedom of Information means have no, as I categorized, meaning/validity/emphasis... to you. You chose to isolate on the statement of an Australian government official, over and above the contents within the diplomatic cables. But wasn’t it you drawing the comparison and divergence (all at once) between Wikileaks and the Australian report? you can keep barking like a junkyard dog... your last post was the first I took notice of your question - and I won't be bothered to actually check/confirm, as you've stated, you've been barking it over and over! ..... "possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy" Care to highlight the possible laws broken by the lone individual, Mr Assange? And after that, explain why a US indictment hasn’t been levied as of yet against Mr Assange?? now you're just into your fallback trolling mode! The circumstances behind the speculated extradition are, quite obviously, political in nature... and yes, the whole world is watching. If it occurs, this will not be an obscure and cloaked rendition - it will become an iconic and symbolic event. You dropped the martyr word earlier... nothing would greater solidify that martyr label for Assange than his extradition. Well, nothing other than a protracted prosecution and possible life imprisonment... or death sentence. Speaking of you ignoring questions, somehow you conveniently avoided the earlier one concerning the possible outcomes related to criminal guilt and capital offenses in the U.S.. Unlike your junkyard act, my gentlemanly manner did not press you on the point. Again, feel free to fill in the blanks: Diplomatic Cables leaked-> Assange accused of sexual assault in Sweden--> Assange buggers off to the UK---> Assange’s appeal on extradition denied---> Assange hides in Ecuadorian embassy--> Assange get’s stuck with a needle in US federal prison. Clearly somewhere in the process, Assange would have to have committed a crime or at the very least, be accused of committing a crime, extradited to the United States, tried, convicted, then stuck. As I requested, please fill in the blanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 But wasn’t it you drawing the comparison and divergence (all at once) between Wikileaks and the Australian report? no - as I said, the purposeful blurring was yours. You chose to totally negate the significance of the Australian diplomatic cables by quoting a statement from an Australian government official. Again, it was you directly challenging the integrity of the diplomatic cables realized through freedom of information request. Care to highlight the possible laws broken by the lone individual, Mr Assange? And after that, explain why a US indictment hasn’t been levied as of yet against Mr Assange?? can't you read?... you just quoted it: "possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy". Perhaps you should invest in waldo's 'USindictment101 for Dummies'... you would realize that, for instance, one of the circumstances related to the unsealing of a sealed indictment (as is being stated exists against Assange), is that the unsealing only occurs upon actual arrest. I'm currently working on a revised chapter that will emphasize international considerations and political implications surrounding U.S. indictments... stay tuned. Again, feel free to fill in the blanks: try again... it seems your thunder has been stolen by your lack of even a minimalist understanding of U.S. indictments ala wikiLegalease! Y'all Come Back Now Ya Hear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 well hey now, 'Derek L'! There has been a very, very one-sided question/answer session going on here. For a change, how about you... you... actually step up and answer the following - sure you can! you can keep ignoring the points that I have no problem in repeating for you... or you could actually step it up and provide comment on why: - Swedish authorities, who quite regularly travel abroad to question persons in regards to active police investigations... somehow... can't see themselves able to offer the same privilege to Assange - Swedish authorities have denied requests to issue a guarantee that Sweden will not, in turn, extradite Assange to the U.S.. - U.S. authorities have denied requests to issue a guarantee that the U.S. will not seek Assange's extradition from Sweden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 no - as I said, the purposeful blurring was yours. You chose to totally negate the significance of the Australian diplomatic cables by quoting a statement from an Australian government official. Again, it was you directly challenging the integrity of the diplomatic cables realized through freedom of information request. Sure I did, since said documents were said to be from the very department said Government official heads…… can't you read?... you just quoted it: "possible prosecution on charges including espionage and conspiracy". Perhaps you should invest in waldo's 'USindictment101 for Dummies'... you would realize that, for instance, one of the circumstances related to the unsealing of a sealed indictment (as is being stated exists against Assange), is that the unsealing only occurs upon actual arrest. I'm currently working on a revised chapter that will emphasize international considerations and political implications surrounding U.S. indictments... stay tuned. And can't you read? What section of the Espionage Act has Mr Assange allegedly broken? What did and with whom did Mr Assange allegedly commit a conspiracy with against the United States Government? Clearly if Mr Assange and other members of Wikileaks can be charged with Conspiracy against the United States, so to can the editorial/news board of The New York Times…….. try again... it seems your thunder has been stolen by your lack of even a minimalist understanding of U.S. indictments ala wikiLegalease! Y'all Come Back Now Ya Hear! How many members of Wikileaks have been charged with Conspiracy and or any section of the Espionage Act, outside of the young US soldier that released the cables. Are you inferring Mr Assange and/or Wikileaks urged the young soldier to allegedly commit a crime that could see him, if convicted, spend the next several decades in Leavenworth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 well hey now, 'Derek L'! There has been a very, very one-sided question/answer session going on here. For a change, how about you... you... actually step up and answer the following - sure you can! One sided? You've yet to answer squat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 thundering, blustering, distraction at large!!! Are you asking me to argue precise legalities... into "sections within the U.S. Espionage Act? Would you like me to play the role of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder? Please tell me you've actually got the U.S. Espionage Act at the ready!!! as I've said once recently, when you finally revert to this degree of 'Derek L' nonsense, I will quite gladly leave you to your 'circle of one'. by the by... answer the questions just presented to you, previously posed (several times now in various forms). Or are these a problem for you, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 One sided? You've yet to answer squat huh! I've provided several answers to your direct questions... I'm quite fond of the most recent one I quoted from my book: "USindictment101 for Dummies" now answer the questions you refuse to, apparently, even acknowledge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 You are beyond chauvinistic. You are rude. Which is why he wasted his time posting everything beyond that - as that's as far as I read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 /facepalm I wouldn't waste your time AW. When somebody's in that deep of a sycophantic state, no amount of logic and reason will matter. I generally don't waste my time with the poster in question - very rarely, in fact; but that was just too rich to pass up. "He said he's innocent!" Well, there you go. Case closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Still there is no evidence that this was done at the behest of the United States The denial of a guarantee there'll be no attempt to extradite him seems a lot like evidence of malicious intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 The denial of a guarantee there'll be no attempt to extradite him seems a lot like evidence of malicious intent. Have the Americans given you a guarantee they won't extradite you? If not, are you writing from your local Ecuadoran consulate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 I think there is more need for transparency in intergovernmental communications and the maliciousness of what is being done to him only underscores why. What's being done to him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 I think there is more need for transparency in intergovernmental communications and the maliciousness of what is being done to him only underscores why. But the areas that should have transparency are not the areas Assange seems to thrive on. We're not getting private info about how certain contractors want to screw over the government purchasing office, or how certain politicians or high ranking bureaucrats want to pad their wallets or screw over others. What we're getting is information we don't need to know, like what certain ambassadors think of certain government leaders, and where espionage efforts are headed. This isn't the kind of transparency we need at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Your outrage at the ability of Assange to invade the precious secrecy of the smoke filled backrooms of our governments? But he's never done that. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 But he's never done that. Ever. So why do you care about this if that's how you feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 YEah... you would destroy relations between two countries over this incident. Thats why youre flipping burgers not managing national diplomatic relations. I paid more in taxes last year than you'll ever earn, sonny boy. As to destroying relations, Ecuador is a banana republic run by a communist. Why would anyone outside that area need to have any sort of diplomatic relations with them? I bet you could travel the world for the rest of your life and not find anyone who could name a single city in Ecuador, or anything Ecuador has ever done that impacted anyone else in the world. It's ironic that a Ecuador, a place which has been doing everything it can to eliminate any sort of independent media, is now admired by the lefties as the saviour of their Wikileaks hero. If Assange tried to do in Ecuador what he's done elsewhere he'd be in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 how naive are you... "The Whole World is Watching" Well, not in Ecuador, where the government has clamped down on independent media. Now you only watch what they want you to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 well hey now, 'Derek L'! There has been a very, very one-sided question/answer session going on here. For a change, how about you... you... actually step up and answer the following - sure you can! - Swedish authorities, who quite regularly travel abroad to question persons in regards to active police investigations... somehow... can't see themselves able to offer the same privilege to Assange - Swedish authorities have denied requests to issue a guarantee that Sweden will not, in turn, extradite Assange to the U.S.. - U.S. authorities have denied requests to issue a guarantee that the U.S. will not seek Assange's extradition from Sweden. Authorities from all countries regularly travel abroad to question persons in regard to active police investigations. But at the same time, they also very often simply put out a request for extradition, depending on circumstances involved. There's absolutely nothing unusual about putting out an extradition request. As for guarantees. The Canadian government has made no guarantee it wouldn't extradite Assange, either. Nor would it. Go ahead. Ask them to guarantee not to extradite Assange in the event he comes here and a request for extradition comes in. Ask any country. None would make such a guarantee given they have legal treaties in place with the US. Nor would the US or Canada or any other country offer up a guarantee not to extradite someone they have even the most casual suspicion might have violated some law. These are inane questions that support nothing but your tinfoil cap conspiracy beliefs in some grand US scheme to get poor little Julian into their evil clutches. Though why you think they didn't just extradite him from the UK or Australia or wherever, directly, is beyond me. But then, I don't have any tinfoil in my caps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 (edited) So why do you care about this if that's how you feel? Why do you? Assange encourages hacking, and none of what he's 'exposed' so far is, in my opinion, particularly helpful to anyone. As for the publicity, the man is grossly undeserving of it. It's as overinflated as his colossal ego. Edited August 20, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 But the areas that should have transparency are not the areas Assange seems to thrive on. We're not getting private info about how certain contractors want to screw over the government purchasing office, or how certain politicians or high ranking bureaucrats want to pad their wallets or screw over others. What we're getting is information we don't need to know, like what certain ambassadors think of certain government leaders, and where espionage efforts are headed. This isn't the kind of transparency we need at all. WikiLeaks contains much more than diplomatic exchanges... much more than a reflection on the conduct of American diplomacy around the world. Both the NYT/Guardian interpreted enough significance in the Iraq/Afghanistan war related information to republish it as received from WikiLeaks. In any case, I've read a bit of media/analyst critique of Assange-WikiLeaks... yours is the first reference I've ever come upon suggesting Assange isn't an 'equal opportunity' whistleblower - that WikiLeaks is, as you imply, "selective" in publishing what comes/came its way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Why do you? Because Assange encourages hacking. and none of what he's 'exposed' so far is, in my opinion, particularly helpful to anyone. I disagree entirely, look at all the rats trying to scurry deeper into the shadows. It's pretty obvious they must feel they have something to hide. As for the publicity, the man is grossly undeserving of it. It's as overinflated as his colossal ego. Notice I'm defending what he's done not who he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 Authorities from all countries regularly travel abroad to question persons in regard to active police investigations. But at the same time, they also very often simply put out a request for extradition, depending on circumstances involved. There's absolutely nothing unusual about putting out an extradition request. thanks for acknowledging that, yes, (Swedish) authorities, quite matter of fact, as you say, "regularly travel abroad to question persons in regard to active police investigations". Yet, in this case... not so much, hey? As for guarantees. The Canadian government has made no guarantee it wouldn't extradite Assange, either. Nor would it. Go ahead. Ask them to guarantee not to extradite Assange in the event he comes here and a request for extradition comes in. Ask any country. None would make such a guarantee given they have legal treaties in place with the US. Nor would the US or Canada or any other country offer up a guarantee not to extradite someone they have even the most casual suspicion might have violated some law. the inanity you speak of is not in my posed questions - the inanity is in you not recognizing the requested guarantees were very precise and pointedly targeted to the release of WikiLeaks information... not your broad based "some law" catch-all. These are inane questions that support nothing but your tinfoil cap conspiracy beliefs in some grand US scheme to get poor little Julian into their evil clutches. Though why you think they didn't just extradite him from the UK or Australia or wherever, directly, is beyond me. But then, I don't have any tinfoil in my caps. you would deny the known more than 18 months long U.S. Justice Department investigation, you would deny the circumstances and actual information strongly indicating that a sealed U.S. indictment against Assange exists, you would deny the related Australian, "declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information laws, show Australia's diplomatic service takes seriously the likelihood that Assange will eventually be extradited to the US on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.", etc. Previous comment has been offered in regards your, "why not directly from the UK" talking point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.