4 ms·

He probably will since Assange has been a reliable ally to Trump in the 2016 election. But I don’t think it helps or hurts matters electorally since most voters

by zapita 6y ago

He probably will since Assange has been a reliable ally to Trump in the 2016 election. But I don’t think it helps or hurts matters electorally since most voters have never heard of Assange.

kebman 6y ago
Trump has had ample opportunity to do it until now, though. So what's the holdup?
- kzrdude 6y ago
  You can only pardon someone who has been convicted, so I don't see what opportunity he has had
  - kebman 6y ago
    True enough, but I should think he's got the power to stop this train too, then. How long can a man be held prisoner without a trial in the UK, anyway? What kind of democratic system can hold a person jailed indefinately like that? What are we becoming?
    - bboygravity 6y ago
      He wasn't really held prisoner though. He was being tortured. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange-shows-psychological-torture-symptoms-says-un-expert https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange... Democratic IMO means: the majority of people in a country take all political decisions that matter to them. They decide about the creation and alteration of all laws that matter to them. The majority of people in a country is well informed by free press. With that in mind I would argue there isn't really any country in the world that comes close to being democratic (with the exception of maybe Switzerland).
      - kebman 6y ago
        The first thing I studied at uni was Political Science. I liked statistics more, but it did prompt me to read up on the many interpretations of what democracy is. To sum it up; it's deeply flawed, but it's also the the best we can do. Democracy is what caused Socrates to drink poison, but at the same time it's also what has made freedom-loving countries the best places to live on earth. Within this system, there are various ways that you can amass undemocratic power, and make undue influence on others, and IMHO that is why Assange is still in jail. I'm not talking solely on "evil elites" here but also of the undue power of bureacracies and institutions that are built up by the very democracies they are meant to serve. And in this special case, diplomacy in particular. This is why we should work to unravel these powers, to see them for what they are, not least to shed light on who benefits from them, so we can make a democratic decision upon if it benefits us as a people to have such institutions at all, or in what way they can be changed to better serve us. One of our tools for soft change is of course reform and reorganization. But in the face of unchanging and monolitic institutions, there is another way; to build up entirely new and competing institutions in order to challenge the decisions of the "powers of old," as it were. I can name one such institution in Norway, for instance; Datatilsynet, the Data Inspectorate, that primarily works for the human right of privacy in terms of what kind of personal information the state and other actors can and cannot legally store in their computer systems. They are experts on these matters, and the law, and often advice courts and big institutions on matters regarding privacy, but also cryptography and other measures that make the storage of data safer for the individual. They were among the first to challenge the Data Storage Act, for instance, where all Norwegian internet protocol traffic (sender and receiver IP's and such) is to be stored by ISP's for at least six months to aid possible police investigations, for instance. In Norway some of these actors are part of the state, like the Data Directorate, because we trust them to do their job for the people. But in other countries, it is perhaps better to have them as wholly private actors, as is often the case in the USA, for instance. But because The Data Inspectorate is part of the state, they are also respected that much more by other state actors than special interest groups, because they have real power granted to them by the people, and so they are authorized to intervene in matters of privacy and data security. So, perhaps one such institutions should also be made to intervene in matters of freedom of speech and persecution.
belorn 6y ago
Assange has never did anything directly towards Trump, only things against the person who was secretary of the united states of American during the time when diplomatic cables was released, and when the "paranoid speculations" started that the US wanted to extradite Assange for treason charges. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a common theme, and trump did benefit from the situation. There is also the theme that the enemy of my enemy is simply the enemy of my enemy, no more, no less. If I guess which one it was in 2016 I would not count on Trump pardoning Assange in 2020.

by zapita 6y ago

He probably will since Assange has been a reliable ally to Trump in the 2016 election. But I don’t think it helps or hurts matters electorally since most voters have never heard of Assange.

kebman 6y ago

Trump has had ample opportunity to do it until now, though. So what's the holdup?

kzrdude 6y ago
You can only pardon someone who has been convicted, so I don't see what opportunity he has had
- kebman 6y ago
  True enough, but I should think he's got the power to stop this train too, then. How long can a man be held prisoner without a trial in the UK, anyway? What kind of democratic system can hold a person jailed indefinately like that? What are we becoming?
  - bboygravity 6y ago
    He wasn't really held prisoner though. He was being tortured. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange-shows-psychological-torture-symptoms-says-un-expert https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/31/julian-assange... Democratic IMO means: the majority of people in a country take all political decisions that matter to them. They decide about the creation and alteration of all laws that matter to them. The majority of people in a country is well informed by free press. With that in mind I would argue there isn't really any country in the world that comes close to being democratic (with the exception of maybe Switzerland).
    - kebman 6y ago
      The first thing I studied at uni was Political Science. I liked statistics more, but it did prompt me to read up on the many interpretations of what democracy is. To sum it up; it's deeply flawed, but it's also the the best we can do. Democracy is what caused Socrates to drink poison, but at the same time it's also what has made freedom-loving countries the best places to live on earth. Within this system, there are various ways that you can amass undemocratic power, and make undue influence on others, and IMHO that is why Assange is still in jail. I'm not talking solely on "evil elites" here but also of the undue power of bureacracies and institutions that are built up by the very democracies they are meant to serve. And in this special case, diplomacy in particular. This is why we should work to unravel these powers, to see them for what they are, not least to shed light on who benefits from them, so we can make a democratic decision upon if it benefits us as a people to have such institutions at all, or in what way they can be changed to better serve us. One of our tools for soft change is of course reform and reorganization. But in the face of unchanging and monolitic institutions, there is another way; to build up entirely new and competing institutions in order to challenge the decisions of the "powers of old," as it were. I can name one such institution in Norway, for instance; Datatilsynet, the Data Inspectorate, that primarily works for the human right of privacy in terms of what kind of personal information the state and other actors can and cannot legally store in their computer systems. They are experts on these matters, and the law, and often advice courts and big institutions on matters regarding privacy, but also cryptography and other measures that make the storage of data safer for the individual. They were among the first to challenge the Data Storage Act, for instance, where all Norwegian internet protocol traffic (sender and receiver IP's and such) is to be stored by ISP's for at least six months to aid possible police investigations, for instance. In Norway some of these actors are part of the state, like the Data Directorate, because we trust them to do their job for the people. But in other countries, it is perhaps better to have them as wholly private actors, as is often the case in the USA, for instance. But because The Data Inspectorate is part of the state, they are also respected that much more by other state actors than special interest groups, because they have real power granted to them by the people, and so they are authorized to intervene in matters of privacy and data security. So, perhaps one such institutions should also be made to intervene in matters of freedom of speech and persecution.

belorn 6y ago

Assange has never did anything directly towards Trump, only things against the person who was secretary of the united states of American during the time when diplomatic cables was released, and when the "paranoid speculations" started that the US wanted to extradite Assange for treason charges. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a common theme, and trump did benefit from the situation. There is also the theme that the enemy of my enemy is simply the enemy of my enemy, no more, no less. If I guess which one it was in 2016 I would not count on Trump pardoning Assange in 2020.