5 ms·

Assange: US Waging 'Lawfare' in Bid to Control the World

43 points by jdimov9 11y ago

TodPunk 11y ago
I don't buy it. The US is bringing their cases to protect their interests and the interests of their economies. It's not about territory control, it's about industry control. I don't agree with how they're going about it, but I'm not going to make up motivations that don't fit just because of my disdain for it. Of course, this is one reason why I'm not in politics.
- korisnik 11y ago
  >It's not about territory control, it's about industry control. He's talking about application of laws in foreign territories. Naturally, for the benefit of US and its own industry. How is that substantially different from what you're saying?
  - jpollock 11y ago
    Every day we're hearing about another country attempting to apply it's laws on people not in the country. I've seen Canada, France, Germany. The US is huge in this, but they're hardly alone. [1] Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordered-by-b-c-judge-to-block-website-from-search-results-1.2679824 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordere... [2] France: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-rejects-googles-appeal-on-right-to-be-forgotten.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-reject... [3] Germany: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
frigg 11y ago
Sputnik[1] is a Russian government-controlled website with very little credibility when it comes to anything Western. Secondly, this is Assange, while no doubt the US is guilty of a lot of things, Assange and Wikileaks' purpose seem to be an anti-US organization at this point. I also find it ironic how a group "dedicated to transparency" aren't themselves transparent with their finances. >The WikiLeaks chief said the US investigation of himself and others involved in leaking sensitive government information is a prime example of Washington engaging in lawfare >"I'm an Australian, Why Is the US Investigating Me for Espionage?" Is he serious? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Receptio...
- bwheel 11y ago
  Sputnik and RT are the same animal, Kremlin propaganda pushers of the 21st century.
- Jerry2 11y ago
  Instead of arguing where something is posted, it's better to concentrate arguments at things that matter. PG has an excellent hierarchy on where to concentrate disagreements [0]. And don't forget, BBC is also funded by a government. So is Canadian CBC. CNN also gets a lot of gov contracts and gov crossover. And just recently, it was revealed that even 60 Minutes is engaging in propaganda on behalf of State Department [1]. Propaganda is truly everywhere now. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html [1] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464
  - bmsleight_ 11y ago
    BBC is not funded by government. It is a separate licence fee and have governance in place to keep it at a very long arm length away from government. Which may be a reason why the current government want to change/destroy/modernise ot so that it can influence output.
    - jobu 11y ago
      The BBC is funded by a government tax on TVs [1], and to an outsider this looks an awful lot like government funding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
      - teh_klev 11y ago
        > The BBC is funded by a government tax on TVs It's not a tax on TV's. It's a license you pay only if you watch live broadcast television. It is not funded through normal taxation mechanisms such as PAYE, VAT etc. Individuals and organisations decide whether they need to pay the TV License or not depending on whether they need to or not. The license fee is collected by the BBC via private contractors (the major one being Capita) under the umbrella of the TV Licensing Authority. This money is paid to the UK government which then pays out to the BBC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_collection_and_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
will_brown 11y ago
>The concept explains that intricate legal developments are used as a substitute to a military occupation...Critics have argued that such initiatives actively undermine the sovereignty of governments The very idea of the UN and treaties by nature undermine the sovereignty of governments, and that is obviously not an inherently evil thing. Yes there will always be criticisms when balancing the creation of an international legal framework that supports a stable international community at the cost of relinquishing sovereignty. However, I assure anyone that as deplorable as one might find US "lawfare" (if you buy into this argument) against Snowden or Kim Dotcom, that the US political actions are far better than military operations such as Russia into Georgia, and I am left wondering why SputnikNews seems to be suggesting that use of armed force (military) is a more legitimate way of expanding international influence than through international organization and bi-lateral treaties...why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means, are we that far removed from WW2 we simply forget the consequences of might is right?
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  > why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means Because you are Vladimir Putin and your economic policies of cronyism have led to a general long-term economic decline (exacerbated by sanctions for things like invading Ukraine). You want your various media mouthpieces to play up a threat from competing powers; it will justify your actions to your countrymen, explain away your economic woes, and drive a wedge between them and people who advocate for political freedom.
johansch 11y ago
Good point made by a sketchy guy. :/

43 points by jdimov9 11y ago

I don't buy it. The US is bringing their cases to protect their interests and the interests of their economies. It's not about territory control, it's about industry control. I don't agree with how they're going about it, but I'm not going to make up motivations that don't fit just because of my disdain for it. Of course, this is one reason why I'm not in politics.

korisnik 11y ago
>It's not about territory control, it's about industry control. He's talking about application of laws in foreign territories. Naturally, for the benefit of US and its own industry. How is that substantially different from what you're saying?
- jpollock 11y ago
  Every day we're hearing about another country attempting to apply it's laws on people not in the country. I've seen Canada, France, Germany. The US is huge in this, but they're hardly alone. [1] Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordered-by-b-c-judge-to-block-website-from-search-results-1.2679824 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordere... [2] France: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-rejects-googles-appeal-on-right-to-be-forgotten.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-reject... [3] Germany: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

frigg 11y ago

Sputnik[1] is a Russian government-controlled website with very little credibility when it comes to anything Western. Secondly, this is Assange, while no doubt the US is guilty of a lot of things, Assange and Wikileaks' purpose seem to be an anti-US organization at this point. I also find it ironic how a group "dedicated to transparency" aren't themselves transparent with their finances. >The WikiLeaks chief said the US investigation of himself and others involved in leaking sensitive government information is a prime example of Washington engaging in lawfare >"I'm an Australian, Why Is the US Investigating Me for Espionage?" Is he serious? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Receptio...

bwheel 11y ago
Sputnik and RT are the same animal, Kremlin propaganda pushers of the 21st century.
Jerry2 11y ago
Instead of arguing where something is posted, it's better to concentrate arguments at things that matter. PG has an excellent hierarchy on where to concentrate disagreements [0]. And don't forget, BBC is also funded by a government. So is Canadian CBC. CNN also gets a lot of gov contracts and gov crossover. And just recently, it was revealed that even 60 Minutes is engaging in propaganda on behalf of State Department [1]. Propaganda is truly everywhere now. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html [1] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464
- bmsleight_ 11y ago
  BBC is not funded by government. It is a separate licence fee and have governance in place to keep it at a very long arm length away from government. Which may be a reason why the current government want to change/destroy/modernise ot so that it can influence output.
  - jobu 11y ago
    The BBC is funded by a government tax on TVs [1], and to an outsider this looks an awful lot like government funding. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...
    - teh_klev 11y ago
      > The BBC is funded by a government tax on TVs It's not a tax on TV's. It's a license you pay only if you watch live broadcast television. It is not funded through normal taxation mechanisms such as PAYE, VAT etc. Individuals and organisations decide whether they need to pay the TV License or not depending on whether they need to or not. The license fee is collected by the BBC via private contractors (the major one being Capita) under the umbrella of the TV Licensing Authority. This money is paid to the UK government which then pays out to the BBC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_collection_and_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

will_brown 11y ago

>The concept explains that intricate legal developments are used as a substitute to a military occupation...Critics have argued that such initiatives actively undermine the sovereignty of governments The very idea of the UN and treaties by nature undermine the sovereignty of governments, and that is obviously not an inherently evil thing. Yes there will always be criticisms when balancing the creation of an international legal framework that supports a stable international community at the cost of relinquishing sovereignty. However, I assure anyone that as deplorable as one might find US "lawfare" (if you buy into this argument) against Snowden or Kim Dotcom, that the US political actions are far better than military operations such as Russia into Georgia, and I am left wondering why SputnikNews seems to be suggesting that use of armed force (military) is a more legitimate way of expanding international influence than through international organization and bi-lateral treaties...why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means, are we that far removed from WW2 we simply forget the consequences of might is right?

fennecfoxen 11y ago
> why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means Because you are Vladimir Putin and your economic policies of cronyism have led to a general long-term economic decline (exacerbated by sanctions for things like invading Ukraine). You want your various media mouthpieces to play up a threat from competing powers; it will justify your actions to your countrymen, explain away your economic woes, and drive a wedge between them and people who advocate for political freedom.

johansch 11y ago

Good point made by a sketchy guy. :/