3 ms·

He's not a US citizen, he was outside the USA. So what? If we tried to arrest every person outside the USA who is trying to do something to/in the USA we'd hav

He's not a US citizen, he was outside the USA. So what? If we tried to arrest every person outside the USA who is trying to do something to/in the USA we'd have to put out arrest warrants for millions of people. We'd be, and are, the laughingstock of the diplomatic world. Aside: we apparently assassinate hundreds of individuals outside the USA every year (something that Obama complained about IIRC ) with God-knows-what justification. We're well on our way down the Road to Ruin. I'm hardly a bleeding-heart, but for the USA intelligence agencies to dog Assange to death is immoral, unethical and illegal even under our legal system. Pursuing Assange is the worst of all causes: a fishing expedition, a routine overextension of international and national law, legal malpractice, and a giant fool's errand for every man involved in this. Only a psychopath would put the pursuit of Assange on their resume. Of course we likely have plenty of those working for us. Apparently they float to the top, like shit. jollybean says>"I think your comment implies an general ignorance of the situation." Nope. But your reasoning above amply demonstrates a bit of how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual. You should write an "Anti-Declaration of Independence" for spies that outlines their grievances against free agents and how they should be able to kill/maim/wound/harm anyone, anywhere just b/c they are irritated with those agents' behavior. An honest leader would publicly fire with malice every asshole who participated in or encouraged this shitfest and make sure the government never employed them again. Of course, that would be a bit (but only a bit) similar to doing to them what is being done to Assange! Perhaps that would be justice. I'll have to think about it.

jollybean 5y ago
You're not grounded in material reality of the situation. When a crime is committed, justice is pursued. The nationality of the individual doesn't matter that much. American or not, if they've committed a crime against the US, then they will face justice. If he possibly raped a woman in Sweden, then he's extradited to Sweden to face justice for that crime. If he possibly robbed someone in Switzerland, then he's extradited to face justice there. Since it looks like he conspired with Pt. Manning to steal classified data from the US Military, he's going to be extradited to the US to face trial. " how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual." This is not some YouTube conspiracy story, for the most part it's really not that complicated. There is already reasonable evidence in the public domain that a crime was committed, he's going to have to get a lawyer and face a judge so we can find out the truth.
- giardini 5y ago
  I see no crime. Find another way to employ the multitude of overpaid and useless intelligence agents than siccing(1) them on the citizens of the USA and other nations. The laws of the USA apply only within the boundaries of the USA with minor exceptions by treaty. Application of USA law outside the USA is illegal, delusional and megalomanical. Furthermore, other nations will either object (the only reasonable response) or expect full reciprocation. Imagine life in a country where USA, French, British, Scottish, South African, Russian, Chinese, etc. law all simultaneously applied? Your suggestions are nonsensical and self-contradictory. (1) To sic, to attack (used especially in commanding a dog):to incite to attack (usually followed by on).
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Ironically, though the latter’s position is reversed with regard to Assange himself and the former’s famous intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations, Henry Kissinger would agree with you that law stops at the border, while Amnesty International would disagree and say certain crimes have universal justification. And indeed, the USA isn’t the only nation claiming universal jurisdiction for various offences.

jollybean 5y ago

You're not grounded in material reality of the situation. When a crime is committed, justice is pursued. The nationality of the individual doesn't matter that much. American or not, if they've committed a crime against the US, then they will face justice. If he possibly raped a woman in Sweden, then he's extradited to Sweden to face justice for that crime. If he possibly robbed someone in Switzerland, then he's extradited to face justice there. Since it looks like he conspired with Pt. Manning to steal classified data from the US Military, he's going to be extradited to the US to face trial. " how the powers-that-be twist language, logic and reason to justify contemptible behavior and justify crushing an individual." This is not some YouTube conspiracy story, for the most part it's really not that complicated. There is already reasonable evidence in the public domain that a crime was committed, he's going to have to get a lawyer and face a judge so we can find out the truth.

giardini 5y ago
I see no crime. Find another way to employ the multitude of overpaid and useless intelligence agents than siccing(1) them on the citizens of the USA and other nations. The laws of the USA apply only within the boundaries of the USA with minor exceptions by treaty. Application of USA law outside the USA is illegal, delusional and megalomanical. Furthermore, other nations will either object (the only reasonable response) or expect full reciprocation. Imagine life in a country where USA, French, British, Scottish, South African, Russian, Chinese, etc. law all simultaneously applied? Your suggestions are nonsensical and self-contradictory. (1) To sic, to attack (used especially in commanding a dog):to incite to attack (usually followed by on).
- ben_w 5y ago
  Ironically, though the latter’s position is reversed with regard to Assange himself and the former’s famous intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations, Henry Kissinger would agree with you that law stops at the border, while Amnesty International would disagree and say certain crimes have universal justification. And indeed, the USA isn’t the only nation claiming universal jurisdiction for various offences.