5 ms·

>When the announcement itself heavily impedes So you're claiming if this was kept secret the odds of catching the person would increase dramatically? What sta

>When the announcement itself heavily impedes So you're claiming if this was kept secret the odds of catching the person would increase dramatically? What stats do you base this on? >as would be standard under such situations Where is this standard? There are plenty of indictments issued all the time followed by arrests. What evidence do you have that unsealed indictments has a higher arrest rate?

monocasa 6y ago
Look what they did with Julian Assange. Secret indictment until he was already in friendly custody.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  So all your above claims are based on one anecdote? We extradited El Chapo, Abu Hamza al-Masri , Victor bout, Ira Einhorn, Roman Piscotti, and many others. So if we’re just making claims on anecdotes, so far I’ve presented that 6 times as many people get extradited after indictments than your anecdote. I figured you had more reason to make such strong claims than simply an opinion without data.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    I mean I can give more examples despite them being secret initially which would incorrectly color the public statistics in a way against my argument. The point though is that, from the prosecutor's perspective, the end goal of trying and winning trials is ultimately hindered by making an indictment like this public, and that the option to make these indictments secret even in the case of extremely geopolitically charged indictments exists. Which leads one to the idea that of making this indictment public is contrary to the standard goals of prosecuting a crime, then there's a different goal in mind. That goal is intrinsically linked to making public declarations you can't execute on. I can't think of a better definition of propaganda.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      So why would anyone make any indictment public before arrests? Yet we do it all the time internally. And I’ve never heard prosecutors complain that this is making it harder to arrest people. There are benefits to it - it opens doors, gets other law enforcement involved, can lead to public awareness to help apprehend, etc. I think you formed an opinion not based on the evidence.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        We do it all the time in situations without geopolitical ramifications because prosecutors trust law enforcement's ability execute arrest warrants. What "public awareness" is going to help bring these people in from Russia when we show them our hand of "we know who you are and what you do"? Like what's specifically different about them versus Assange that makes it more likely to bring them to trial by publicly announcing the indictment?
        ChrisLomont 6y ago
        > What "public awareness" is going to help bring these people in from Russia when we show them our hand of "we know who you are and what you do"? It lets other countries know we're looking for someone. For example, here [1] is the US indictment from 2015 for Russian national Aleksei Yurievich Burkov. This let other countries know we wanted him. He was arrested later that year in Israel, and held because he was indicted by an ally country. He was extradited to the US in early 2020, tried, and sentenced to a long prison term. Care to explain how public awareness does not get people arrested? Even from Russia? There are plenty of cases like this. I see very few arrests and extraditions followed by public indictments. Do some searching in the DOJ court cases. I'm done here. You form a lot of opinions based on very little data, and seem uninterested in solid statistical evidence before making claims, which is what I care about. Unfounded opinions are not useful to me. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14431846/united-states-v-burkov/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14431846/united-states-...
        monocasa 6y ago
  - FDSGSG 6y ago
    >Abu Hamza al-Masri Indictment unsealed after arrest. >Romano Pisciotti Indictment unsealed after arrest. >Viktor Bout Indictment unsealed after arrest. El Chapo and Ira Einhorn both fled after being made aware of their indictments.

monocasa 6y ago

Look what they did with Julian Assange. Secret indictment until he was already in friendly custody.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
So all your above claims are based on one anecdote? We extradited El Chapo, Abu Hamza al-Masri , Victor bout, Ira Einhorn, Roman Piscotti, and many others. So if we’re just making claims on anecdotes, so far I’ve presented that 6 times as many people get extradited after indictments than your anecdote. I figured you had more reason to make such strong claims than simply an opinion without data.
- monocasa 6y ago
  I mean I can give more examples despite them being secret initially which would incorrectly color the public statistics in a way against my argument. The point though is that, from the prosecutor's perspective, the end goal of trying and winning trials is ultimately hindered by making an indictment like this public, and that the option to make these indictments secret even in the case of extremely geopolitically charged indictments exists. Which leads one to the idea that of making this indictment public is contrary to the standard goals of prosecuting a crime, then there's a different goal in mind. That goal is intrinsically linked to making public declarations you can't execute on. I can't think of a better definition of propaganda.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    So why would anyone make any indictment public before arrests? Yet we do it all the time internally. And I’ve never heard prosecutors complain that this is making it harder to arrest people. There are benefits to it - it opens doors, gets other law enforcement involved, can lead to public awareness to help apprehend, etc. I think you formed an opinion not based on the evidence.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      We do it all the time in situations without geopolitical ramifications because prosecutors trust law enforcement's ability execute arrest warrants. What "public awareness" is going to help bring these people in from Russia when we show them our hand of "we know who you are and what you do"? Like what's specifically different about them versus Assange that makes it more likely to bring them to trial by publicly announcing the indictment?
      - ChrisLomont 6y ago
        > What "public awareness" is going to help bring these people in from Russia when we show them our hand of "we know who you are and what you do"? It lets other countries know we're looking for someone. For example, here [1] is the US indictment from 2015 for Russian national Aleksei Yurievich Burkov. This let other countries know we wanted him. He was arrested later that year in Israel, and held because he was indicted by an ally country. He was extradited to the US in early 2020, tried, and sentenced to a long prison term. Care to explain how public awareness does not get people arrested? Even from Russia? There are plenty of cases like this. I see very few arrests and extraditions followed by public indictments. Do some searching in the DOJ court cases. I'm done here. You form a lot of opinions based on very little data, and seem uninterested in solid statistical evidence before making claims, which is what I care about. Unfounded opinions are not useful to me. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14431846/united-states-v-burkov/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14431846/united-states-...
        monocasa 6y ago
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  >Abu Hamza al-Masri Indictment unsealed after arrest. >Romano Pisciotti Indictment unsealed after arrest. >Viktor Bout Indictment unsealed after arrest. El Chapo and Ira Einhorn both fled after being made aware of their indictments.