2 ms·

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

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.

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.