8 ms·

>Can you stop trying to deliberately muddy the waters with this nonsense? You're focusing on twisting my words instead of trying to make an honest argument. FW

by xoa 8y ago

>Can you stop trying to deliberately muddy the waters with this nonsense? You're focusing on twisting my words instead of trying to make an honest argument. FWIW the feeling is mutual, I see you as doing exactly that to me. Which maybe means we're kind of talking past each other. I don't really want to endlessly go down that rabbit hole because I don't even think you're necessarily wrong to be upset. But I also think your original post failed to make a quality argument, was very low content for a big claim, that "politically motivated" gets tossed around way too lightly (and is a weak argument regardless) and the reasoning you gave is particularly non-sensical (normally such an argument would talk about the motivations of the Administration or prosecutors, although inconveniently for that this Administration has tons of on the record statements about loving Wikileaks). It's also irritating how you have then tried to flip the standard of evidence when it was you who made the accusation. Next time, maybe in your original post tell us what the law and history is around indictments as you understand/have researched it, why this one stands out (not your feelings, actual numbers), why this particular incident of "politics" was wrong if that's what it was (since it was international of course it had to involve "politics" but that's a broader brush then you implied), etc. Putting that all out upfront saves everyone a lot of time trying to endlessly nail down basics down-thread.

ryanlol 8y ago
This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That doesn't (and shouldn't!) render the criminal charges against Assange invalid. The lack of legislation regarding politically motivated prosecutions doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticize them when they happen. It is simply wrong for governments to target individuals like this. >normally such an argument would talk about the motivations of the Administration or prosecutors, although inconveniently for that this Administration has tons of on the record statements about loving Wikileaks Pompeo and Mattis sure love WL! The administration isn't a single person, I'm sure Trump loves Pompeo far more than he cares for WL. Besides, indicting Assange is an obvious move to discredit the Russia conspiracy theorist crowd. >Next time, maybe in your original post tell us what the law and history is around indictments as you understand/have researched it, why this one stands out (not your feelings, actual numbers), why this particular incident of "politics" was wrong if that's what it was (since it was international of course it had to involve "politics" but that's a broader brush then you implied), etc. I'm sorry, but this is just terribly lazy of you.
- Nevermark 8y ago
  > This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That is not a logical statement. One administration choosing to treat a case differently than another administration can happen without bad politics. Different people see things differently. Assange's recent loss of asylum got the attention of new decision makers so the timing doesn't mean anything either. Your original and continued statements amount to: "I have no evidence but darn it I know it!" Of course bad politics could be involved. I.e. a campaign PR move, instead of making rational decisions in the countries interest. But you didn't reference any evidence. Here is some evidence: Trump doesn't seem to approach anything without overwhelming self-interest. (That argument has nothing to do with your nonsensical argument.) But that is not conclusive. Maybe someone competent made a well thought out decision (whether or not you and I agree with it).
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >Assange's recent loss of asylum got the attention of new decision makers so the timing doesn't mean anything either Both the indictment and extradition request long predate Assanges loss of asylum. >One administration choosing to treat a case differently than another administration can happen without bad politics. I believe it is inherently bad politics to single out an individual case like this. Is Trump DOJ reviewing all cases Obama DOJ decided to not prosecute or did someone just happen to feel like going after Assange? I think odds are it’s the latter.

by xoa 8y ago

ryanlol 8y ago

This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That doesn't (and shouldn't!) render the criminal charges against Assange invalid. The lack of legislation regarding politically motivated prosecutions doesn't mean that we shouldn't criticize them when they happen. It is simply wrong for governments to target individuals like this. >normally such an argument would talk about the motivations of the Administration or prosecutors, although inconveniently for that this Administration has tons of on the record statements about loving Wikileaks Pompeo and Mattis sure love WL! The administration isn't a single person, I'm sure Trump loves Pompeo far more than he cares for WL. Besides, indicting Assange is an obvious move to discredit the Russia conspiracy theorist crowd. >Next time, maybe in your original post tell us what the law and history is around indictments as you understand/have researched it, why this one stands out (not your feelings, actual numbers), why this particular incident of "politics" was wrong if that's what it was (since it was international of course it had to involve "politics" but that's a broader brush then you implied), etc. I'm sorry, but this is just terribly lazy of you.

Nevermark 8y ago
> This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Previous admin chose not to indict, politics happened and new admin decided to dig it up again. That is not a logical statement. One administration choosing to treat a case differently than another administration can happen without bad politics. Different people see things differently. Assange's recent loss of asylum got the attention of new decision makers so the timing doesn't mean anything either. Your original and continued statements amount to: "I have no evidence but darn it I know it!" Of course bad politics could be involved. I.e. a campaign PR move, instead of making rational decisions in the countries interest. But you didn't reference any evidence. Here is some evidence: Trump doesn't seem to approach anything without overwhelming self-interest. (That argument has nothing to do with your nonsensical argument.) But that is not conclusive. Maybe someone competent made a well thought out decision (whether or not you and I agree with it).
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >Assange's recent loss of asylum got the attention of new decision makers so the timing doesn't mean anything either Both the indictment and extradition request long predate Assanges loss of asylum. >One administration choosing to treat a case differently than another administration can happen without bad politics. I believe it is inherently bad politics to single out an individual case like this. Is Trump DOJ reviewing all cases Obama DOJ decided to not prosecute or did someone just happen to feel like going after Assange? I think odds are it’s the latter.