3 ms·

You can't just shoot him. This is not communism, nor nazism, nor fasicm, this is democracy, where the rule of law is supreme. If he is shot, there would be no p

by Ardit20 16y ago

You can't just shoot him. This is not communism, nor nazism, nor fasicm, this is democracy, where the rule of law is supreme. If he is shot, there would be no people arguing about pointing fingers, everyone would know who dun it, there would be little room for doubt. Here in the UK they are reopening the inquiry into Dr. Kelly's death, and his death, whether a suicide or otherwise, came amides the dawning of the war in Iraq, so perhaps of a different magnitude, but, he was also a relatively little known person. You can accuse him of rape though. Now that would leave you doubting. It is not so hard, pay some person a million, or ten million, and its a fairly good deal. It is tremendously hard to prove an untruth and they might get the result that they want. Otherwise, he would still be the alleged rapist, and fox news would probably just call him a criminal, and the trial can go on and on and during that time he might be kept in prison. As for whether he is a criminal or being framed, both may be true indeed, but that neither may be true is not quite possible. If he innocent, he is being framed, either by the victim, or something way bigger than the victim. "I understand that this fits a narrative" As doctors might say, if the symptom fits the illness no point looking at other things. It might in this case indeed be different as we are not diagnosing an illness, but common, what are the chances that the guy raped someone and molested someone? What are the chances that he did so now, only a week or so after some nutter called for him to be arrested even though then there were no allegations of committing any crime. I hope however that you are right. Otherwise, our society would have arrived at that point where the little child cries, but the emperor has no clothes, and at least we all will stop pretending that our system is brilliant, that freedom of speech is indeed paramount, that in this country the rule of law rules for kings and peasants alike and instead will realise that we need to fight for such things and not take them for granted.

jacquesm 16y ago
Dr. Kelly is just about the worst example to trot out to prove that such stuff is investigated properly. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-investigation-inadequate-Now-NINE-doctors-demand-inquest.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-inv... And Dr. Kelly was very well known, especially because of the whole 'Sexing up' press coverage.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  His files are closed for 70 years! So it is not a good example, hence the added details about being the dawn of the war in Iraq and although he was on the news, not quite known in the way the wikileaks founder is. This government appears to be thinking of reopening the files however. People have come out saying that there are doubts about the inquiry, that its conclusions are not plausable. My point was therefore that we live in a democracy where the death of someone, even where mighty powers are concerned, is not simply shrugged under the carpet.
- tome 16y ago
  Surely that was Ardit20's whole point. "You can't kill Assange because it's too suspicious. Dr Kelly's death, for example, was suspicious".
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Of course you can kill Assange in a way that is just as suspicious as this whole story. In fact that would be a lot more effective. Mugging in an alley gone wrong, fatal stab wound. Traffic accident. People die all the time, Assange is not immune to that. A bullet to the head would be problematic.
- 10ren 16y ago
  Wow, isn't a "70-year gagging order" the most explicit cover-up possible? I doubt that secretly classifying post-mortem examination reports is standard.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    There was a reason that the Hutton report was seen as a whitewash by a very large number of people both inside and outside of the government.
lmaonade 16y ago
They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner. A little encouragement and the means to enact the murder and you have an assassin who cannot be traced back to you. But, he's simply not important enough to be assassinated. While the media coverage of him may make it seem like he is the bane of the American government, they have much more important things to worry about. This approach was perfected by the CIA during the cold war, but it has been a long time since someone in the public eye was important or dangerous enough to warrant an assassination. The other problem I have with this is that rape is an awful way to frame someone. You need to condition someone to stand up to extreme amounts of interrogation and cross-examination. A single slip-up in memorization of facts can cost the entire case. It is not nearly as simple as "pay someone 10 million and have them say he raped them", we're talking about world class psychiatrists and world class lawyers, the victim needs an incredible amount of practice to be able to convince them that they are telling the truth. The American government has the NSA at their disposal, they could frame him a million ways and make it stick, they would not use a random swedish woman. That is not to say that the American government isn't happy about it, nor that they aren't encouraging this story, nor that Assange did it, but this certainly isn't the work of the American government.
- sprout 16y ago
  >They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner. That is a terrible idea from the perspective of the US government. "You'll find a live saint much easier to handle than a dead one." Assange is in himself not that powerful, he represents an idea, and his followers are scarier than 4Chan, because they're a superset of 4Chan, and they don't just do what they do "for the lulz." They do so because they believe in it. Killing Assange would mobilize them like nothing before. It doesn't matter who did it. Accusing him of rape sows discord among moderates. They want to kill the movement, not Assange.

by Ardit20 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

Dr. Kelly is just about the worst example to trot out to prove that such stuff is investigated properly. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-investigation-inadequate-Now-NINE-doctors-demand-inquest.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-inv... And Dr. Kelly was very well known, especially because of the whole 'Sexing up' press coverage.

Ardit20 16y ago
His files are closed for 70 years! So it is not a good example, hence the added details about being the dawn of the war in Iraq and although he was on the news, not quite known in the way the wikileaks founder is. This government appears to be thinking of reopening the files however. People have come out saying that there are doubts about the inquiry, that its conclusions are not plausable. My point was therefore that we live in a democracy where the death of someone, even where mighty powers are concerned, is not simply shrugged under the carpet.
tome 16y ago
Surely that was Ardit20's whole point. "You can't kill Assange because it's too suspicious. Dr Kelly's death, for example, was suspicious".
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Of course you can kill Assange in a way that is just as suspicious as this whole story. In fact that would be a lot more effective. Mugging in an alley gone wrong, fatal stab wound. Traffic accident. People die all the time, Assange is not immune to that. A bullet to the head would be problematic.
10ren 16y ago
Wow, isn't a "70-year gagging order" the most explicit cover-up possible? I doubt that secretly classifying post-mortem examination reports is standard.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  There was a reason that the Hutton report was seen as a whitewash by a very large number of people both inside and outside of the government.

lmaonade 16y ago

They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner. A little encouragement and the means to enact the murder and you have an assassin who cannot be traced back to you. But, he's simply not important enough to be assassinated. While the media coverage of him may make it seem like he is the bane of the American government, they have much more important things to worry about. This approach was perfected by the CIA during the cold war, but it has been a long time since someone in the public eye was important or dangerous enough to warrant an assassination. The other problem I have with this is that rape is an awful way to frame someone. You need to condition someone to stand up to extreme amounts of interrogation and cross-examination. A single slip-up in memorization of facts can cost the entire case. It is not nearly as simple as "pay someone 10 million and have them say he raped them", we're talking about world class psychiatrists and world class lawyers, the victim needs an incredible amount of practice to be able to convince them that they are telling the truth. The American government has the NSA at their disposal, they could frame him a million ways and make it stick, they would not use a random swedish woman. That is not to say that the American government isn't happy about it, nor that they aren't encouraging this story, nor that Assange did it, but this certainly isn't the work of the American government.

sprout 16y ago
>They /can/ shoot him though. All it takes is an angry war widow who feels their life is forfeit without their partner. That is a terrible idea from the perspective of the US government. "You'll find a live saint much easier to handle than a dead one." Assange is in himself not that powerful, he represents an idea, and his followers are scarier than 4Chan, because they're a superset of 4Chan, and they don't just do what they do "for the lulz." They do so because they believe in it. Killing Assange would mobilize them like nothing before. It doesn't matter who did it. Accusing him of rape sows discord among moderates. They want to kill the movement, not Assange.