6 ms·

>He wasn't going to get a fair trial by any means whatsoever You state your very arguable opinion as some kind of fact. It's not. It's your opinion. The US is

>He wasn't going to get a fair trial by any means whatsoever You state your very arguable opinion as some kind of fact. It's not. It's your opinion. The US is a country with rule of law, and this would have been a very public trial with tons of people coming to his legal aid. Even Manning got a fair trial, for a crime that Assange coaxed and encouraged him to commit by the way.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"The US is a country with rule of law" You accuse the other of presenting subjective opinion as fact, do you think this stament is any different? US jailed an environmental activist for embarrasing an oil company abroad: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environment/steven-donziger-chevron.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environme... You chance of going to jail is inversely proportional to how wealthy you are: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article174707216.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/a... USA has refused to extradite Warren Martin Anderson, a CEO facing manslaughter charges in India for 16,000 deaths in the Bhopal Disaster In UK criminals kill ~650 people a year, the US police kills over 1200 people a year.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  >for embarrasing an oil company abroad For criminal contempt of court, in a very scrutinized and controversial decision that is freely debated and will be settled case law when it's through the process. >USA has refused to extradite Warren Martin Anderson Citing lack of evidence. >You chance of going to jail is inversely proportional to how wealthy you are: You ability to hire good lawyers is proportional to how wealthy you are. It's unclear what these tidbits are supposed to illustrate. Failing to effectively remedy inequality with pro bono legal aid means your country's judicial system is flawed, and judges make arguable and controversial decisions. This does not mean the country is not governed by law.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "Citing lack of evidence." How about the case of Posada Carriles, a terrorist and CIA operative that blew up 73 people on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, was there also lack of evidence? Do you believe that USA is fair and impartial when it comes to international affairs? If USA blatantly violates international law it claims to uphold, do we have rule of law? "your country's judicial system is flawed... This does not mean the country is not governed by law." Thats exactly what it means, at some point the system is so flawed you are not governed by law. We could debate how flawed it is, but it seems to be getting worse. "For the first time, the United States fell out of the top 20 countries for adherence to the rule of law in an index compiled by the World Justice Project."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
megous 5y ago
Remind me, when were the people who shot at a van that was trying to carry wounded from the collateral murder video tried, again? And how much priority it had over some leaker?
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  A context-free video purposefully edited to remove, for example, the presence of weapons[0]. Guess what? Mistakes happen in war all the time. There are sometimes clear cases of criminal behaviour, such as in Abu Ghraib, but most of the time the ultimate responsibility lies with whoever orders the troops into the combat zone where they will inevitably mistakenly kill civilians, not with the troops themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#Reactions_to_the_video_footage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
  - monocasa 5y ago
    It's Baghdad, everyone has AKs. It's not highlighted because it's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand. The mere presence of AKs has never been carte blanche for use of force in Iraq.
    - kspacewalk2 5y ago
      >Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, said of the airstrike: >It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. Responsibility for civilian deaths in such encounters rests with those who violate the rules of war. The Wikileaks videos also do not reveal the hundreds upon hundreds of cases in which American forces refrain from attacking targets precisely because civilians are in harm's way. Hard to summarize it better
elzbardico 5y ago
Are we so post truth already that we are calling what Manning did a “crime”???
- semanticist 5y ago
  Just because something is morally/ethically sound doesn't mean it's legal. The part of 'choosing the break the law to expose things for the public good' that makes it heroic is 'choosing the face the consequences of breaking the law'.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    I stole bread to feed my family, is that a crime?
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      Usually, but somewhat debatable: Three Requirements for defence of necessity: (1) Urgent situation of imminent peril or danger (2) No reasonable legal alternative (3) Proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided
      - blitzar 5y ago
        What if the bread my family needed was millions of dollars in cash from a bank... It was (1) urgent, (2) hard to do get any other way, (3) its not like anybody got hurt anyway.
        dane-pgp 5y ago
        This is literally a Simpsons bit: "Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?" https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Bart_the_Murderer/Quotes https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Bart_the_Murderer/Quotes
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      >I stole bread to feed my family, is that a crime? There's often a difference between something that's a crime and something that's wrong. Crime (n)[0]: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law There are laws in many places that make things that aren't wrong or bad a crime. Words have meanings. If we ignore that, it's impossible to communicate effectively. How about we amend your statement to be: I stole bread to feed my family, is that wrong/bad /immoral? The difference is obvious, no? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"The US is a country with rule of law" You accuse the other of presenting subjective opinion as fact, do you think this stament is any different? US jailed an environmental activist for embarrasing an oil company abroad: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environment/steven-donziger-chevron.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environme... You chance of going to jail is inversely proportional to how wealthy you are: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article174707216.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/a... USA has refused to extradite Warren Martin Anderson, a CEO facing manslaughter charges in India for 16,000 deaths in the Bhopal Disaster In UK criminals kill ~650 people a year, the US police kills over 1200 people a year.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
>for embarrasing an oil company abroad For criminal contempt of court, in a very scrutinized and controversial decision that is freely debated and will be settled case law when it's through the process. >USA has refused to extradite Warren Martin Anderson Citing lack of evidence. >You chance of going to jail is inversely proportional to how wealthy you are: You ability to hire good lawyers is proportional to how wealthy you are. It's unclear what these tidbits are supposed to illustrate. Failing to effectively remedy inequality with pro bono legal aid means your country's judicial system is flawed, and judges make arguable and controversial decisions. This does not mean the country is not governed by law.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "Citing lack of evidence." How about the case of Posada Carriles, a terrorist and CIA operative that blew up 73 people on Cubana de Aviación Flight 455, was there also lack of evidence? Do you believe that USA is fair and impartial when it comes to international affairs? If USA blatantly violates international law it claims to uphold, do we have rule of law? "your country's judicial system is flawed... This does not mean the country is not governed by law." Thats exactly what it means, at some point the system is so flawed you are not governed by law. We could debate how flawed it is, but it seems to be getting worse. "For the first time, the United States fell out of the top 20 countries for adherence to the rule of law in an index compiled by the World Justice Project."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

megous 5y ago

Remind me, when were the people who shot at a van that was trying to carry wounded from the collateral murder video tried, again? And how much priority it had over some leaker?

kspacewalk2 5y ago
A context-free video purposefully edited to remove, for example, the presence of weapons[0]. Guess what? Mistakes happen in war all the time. There are sometimes clear cases of criminal behaviour, such as in Abu Ghraib, but most of the time the ultimate responsibility lies with whoever orders the troops into the combat zone where they will inevitably mistakenly kill civilians, not with the troops themselves. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstrike#Reactions_to_the_video_footage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007,_Baghdad_airstri...
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's Baghdad, everyone has AKs. It's not highlighted because it's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand. The mere presence of AKs has never been carte blanche for use of force in Iraq.
  - kspacewalk2 5y ago
    >Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, said of the airstrike: >It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. Responsibility for civilian deaths in such encounters rests with those who violate the rules of war. The Wikileaks videos also do not reveal the hundreds upon hundreds of cases in which American forces refrain from attacking targets precisely because civilians are in harm's way. Hard to summarize it better

elzbardico 5y ago

Are we so post truth already that we are calling what Manning did a “crime”???

semanticist 5y ago
Just because something is morally/ethically sound doesn't mean it's legal. The part of 'choosing the break the law to expose things for the public good' that makes it heroic is 'choosing the face the consequences of breaking the law'.
- blitzar 5y ago
  I stole bread to feed my family, is that a crime?
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Usually, but somewhat debatable: Three Requirements for defence of necessity: (1) Urgent situation of imminent peril or danger (2) No reasonable legal alternative (3) Proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided
    - blitzar 5y ago
      What if the bread my family needed was millions of dollars in cash from a bank... It was (1) urgent, (2) hard to do get any other way, (3) its not like anybody got hurt anyway.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        This is literally a Simpsons bit: "Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?" https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Bart_the_Murderer/Quotes https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Bart_the_Murderer/Quotes
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I stole bread to feed my family, is that a crime? There's often a difference between something that's a crime and something that's wrong. Crime (n)[0]: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government especially : a gross violation of law There are laws in many places that make things that aren't wrong or bad a crime. Words have meanings. If we ignore that, it's impossible to communicate effectively. How about we amend your statement to be: I stole bread to feed my family, is that wrong/bad /immoral? The difference is obvious, no? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime