9 ms·

The idea that he could get a fair trial in the US is beyond ridiculous.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Please explain why you think that. Courts are not perfect because they are made of human beings but what is a better alternative? The alternative that you are implying is that courts and laws are only for people you don't like and since you like (or agree with) Julian Assange it's not necessary.
- enriquec 3y ago
  lmfao so you don't believe in kangaroo courts? What's your opinion on how the government treated/surveilled MLK or how the UK castrated Alan Turing? The level of willful ignorance of history is truly appalling.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    It's 2023 not 1963 and we are talking about US courts not the UK. Support your argument! Tell me how the US court system is a "kangaroo" court system.
    - enriquec 3y ago
      SO you just simply don't believe that kangaroo courts exist... how naive. What do you think of mandatory minimums, documented and proven IRS targeting, gitmo/wmds in Iraq, the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, or the fact that not a single person has stood trial for what Snowden exposed? How about we start there. Anyways, 'omg that would never happen' to 'omg so long ago, hurrdurr' - you're not arguing in good faith. later.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        I believe courts can make mistakes and are not perfect but to preemptively say Snowden would have been given a kangaroo court when he hasn't even been to court is a leap of faith. I can't argue the legitimacy of a trial before it's happened.
        enriquec 3y ago
        So where are the arrests and subpoenas for the crimes he exposed? Certainly, if the courts are as unbiased as you claim, that would have happened at some point in the last 10 years... right?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Which crimes did he expose? Are you making an assumption?
        enriquec 3y ago
        blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment amongst other things. You are being purposefully obtuse. Really sad I wasted my time on you but at least other people can see that there is no depth, honesty, or consistency to the perspective you've put forth.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Was it a Fourth Amendment violation or was it a crime? A court has ruled that they did violate the Fourth Amendment but that doesn't necessarily make it criminal is my point. Who would you charge with a crime and what would the punishment be?
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        It seems fairly clear Clapper should face perjury charges at a bare minimum, but he's never been indicted. https://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ https://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Sure, perhaps he should be. He hasn't been, nor has he been convicted, so it's tough to say what the outcome would be. Have you considered that maybe he hasn't been because there is no case to build? Devil's advocate: I'd be nervous answering those questions publicly when they are close to undoubtedly classified topics. Were there also closed door hearings?
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  Look into the case of Steven Donziger if you want an example of how big of a joke the US legal system is. If a company like Chevron could influence a court with a private prosecutor to put a journalist on house arrest for a year, how on earth could a whistleblower expect a fair trial when all they have to say is "national security" and he disappears in a dark hole for the rest of his life.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    I will look into it more but according to Wikipedia: > Donziger is married and has a son.[17] The family lives in a two-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.[17][49] Your assertion is also a bit larger than one case- you say the entire legal system is a joke.
    - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
      Not sure what him living in Manhattan has to do with the fact that a corporation can hire a private prosecutor who is friends with a judge to imprison someone who exposed their pollution. Additionally, my point was to give an example of how easily the legal system can be flaunted for the benefit of some corp, with little recourse. Why should anyone expect the rules to be followed for a fail trial when the full weight of the federal gov's spy apparatus is behind the charges?
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        > an example of how big of a joke the US legal system is. The legal system is one court case? If anything it supports that the US court system is not perfect, which is true. How does Donzinger's case affect Snowden's?
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  >explain why you think that Because his right to a fair trial has already been violated. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/07/icxh-j07.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/07/icxh-j07.html
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    In your opinion. In mine it hasn't been violated. I think that a court should decide.

Please explain why you think that. Courts are not perfect because they are made of human beings but what is a better alternative? The alternative that you are implying is that courts and laws are only for people you don't like and since you like (or agree with) Julian Assange it's not necessary.

enriquec 3y ago
lmfao so you don't believe in kangaroo courts? What's your opinion on how the government treated/surveilled MLK or how the UK castrated Alan Turing? The level of willful ignorance of history is truly appalling.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  It's 2023 not 1963 and we are talking about US courts not the UK. Support your argument! Tell me how the US court system is a "kangaroo" court system.
  - enriquec 3y ago
    SO you just simply don't believe that kangaroo courts exist... how naive. What do you think of mandatory minimums, documented and proven IRS targeting, gitmo/wmds in Iraq, the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, or the fact that not a single person has stood trial for what Snowden exposed? How about we start there. Anyways, 'omg that would never happen' to 'omg so long ago, hurrdurr' - you're not arguing in good faith. later.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      I believe courts can make mistakes and are not perfect but to preemptively say Snowden would have been given a kangaroo court when he hasn't even been to court is a leap of faith. I can't argue the legitimacy of a trial before it's happened.
      - enriquec 3y ago
        So where are the arrests and subpoenas for the crimes he exposed? Certainly, if the courts are as unbiased as you claim, that would have happened at some point in the last 10 years... right?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Which crimes did he expose? Are you making an assumption?
        enriquec 3y ago
        blatant violations of the Fourth Amendment amongst other things. You are being purposefully obtuse. Really sad I wasted my time on you but at least other people can see that there is no depth, honesty, or consistency to the perspective you've put forth.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Was it a Fourth Amendment violation or was it a crime? A court has ruled that they did violate the Fourth Amendment but that doesn't necessarily make it criminal is my point. Who would you charge with a crime and what would the punishment be?
        boomboomsubban 3y ago
        It seems fairly clear Clapper should face perjury charges at a bare minimum, but he's never been indicted. https://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ https://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Sure, perhaps he should be. He hasn't been, nor has he been convicted, so it's tough to say what the outcome would be. Have you considered that maybe he hasn't been because there is no case to build? Devil's advocate: I'd be nervous answering those questions publicly when they are close to undoubtedly classified topics. Were there also closed door hearings?
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
Look into the case of Steven Donziger if you want an example of how big of a joke the US legal system is. If a company like Chevron could influence a court with a private prosecutor to put a journalist on house arrest for a year, how on earth could a whistleblower expect a fair trial when all they have to say is "national security" and he disappears in a dark hole for the rest of his life.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  I will look into it more but according to Wikipedia: > Donziger is married and has a son.[17] The family lives in a two-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.[17][49] Your assertion is also a bit larger than one case- you say the entire legal system is a joke.
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Not sure what him living in Manhattan has to do with the fact that a corporation can hire a private prosecutor who is friends with a judge to imprison someone who exposed their pollution. Additionally, my point was to give an example of how easily the legal system can be flaunted for the benefit of some corp, with little recourse. Why should anyone expect the rules to be followed for a fail trial when the full weight of the federal gov's spy apparatus is behind the charges?
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      > an example of how big of a joke the US legal system is. The legal system is one court case? If anything it supports that the US court system is not perfect, which is true. How does Donzinger's case affect Snowden's?
boomboomsubban 3y ago
>explain why you think that Because his right to a fair trial has already been violated. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/07/icxh-j07.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/06/07/icxh-j07.html
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  In your opinion. In mine it hasn't been violated. I think that a court should decide.