Jullian Assange has been arrested following removal of asylum by the Ecuadorian Government

Oh. Yeah. That's gonna happen. Secret trials in America. LOL. Bezos couldn't even keep his mistress a secret. But the most notorious spy scandal in recent American history will? Sorry. Still laughing out loud.

 

Enhanced interagation and the droning of the terrorist in Yemen were known to everyone. We didn't need Manning and Assange to tell us about them.

 

I'm just saying it's not a complete impossibility. In the event that happened, it wouldn't be entire trial, just certain parts of it.
It's even possible evidence could be presented to the jury and Assange would not be allowed to be present, though usually in these rare cases the defendant's lawyer would be allowed to be there to argue, though would be bound to secrecy.
It has happened in US cases before.

The prosecutor is likely to request government secrecy for certain things, though the judge will probably be unlikely to grant it. It will however be part of a delaying tactic, so Assange will be in prison as long as possible before the trial can conclude. (For the defendant to oppose a prosecutorial motion could easily add 5 or 6 months)

 

Vague, loose broadly-worded laws.

There's no criminal law that specifically describes what Assange did, it could all fall under "assist", "conspiracy", "espionage".

 

Not when the entire department is acting together to do something, and all the relevant high up officials in that department who are required to know about it know about it.

 

I see you keep making stuff up hoping some of it sticks.
Please post proof of secret trials in the US.

 

Going full Roman on Islam isn't really what this thread is about...

 

Why not? That will be what the prosecutor is going to do during the trial.

 

This is just one story I can quickly come up with right now:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-dec-26-na-witnesses26-story.html

I don't have the link, but also remember reading about an organized crime case where the defendant (who was a lawyer for a crime family) was not allowed to be present during a certain part of the testimony but the public provided defense lawyer was allowed to be there.

 

If you have some sort of specific criticism of Manning's Court Martial, feel free to list those criticisms. I'll help. Here is a transcript for you to review.

Long story short: I have an email correspondent who constantly uses Truthout as a source which, inevitably falls short. So after years of that nonsense, I just tune it out. If you are using Truthout, you don't have any real sources.

 

Point taken. Though some like to smear the American soldier over some fool's rottenness.

 

Weak. Very.

 

Well guess what, the burden of proof is on you if you want to lay the blame on Assange.

I just told you a fact, a questionable one perhaps, and don't care to take the time to spend the time or energy researching right now, on page 29 of this thread.

I wasn't saying it was likely, just a small possibility. But could very likely play a part in stretching out the length of trial.

 

Nope. It's Assange who is asserting his actions are pure, moral, just. Let him prove it. Assange! Show up in court and defend yourself.

Protecting an agent's identity isn't my idea of a secret trial. If that's all he's afraid of, he's even more cowardly than I feared.

 

Then charge them, arrest them, and bring them to trial. What is immoral is smear the entire American Armed Forces for the actions of a few.

 

That’s not a secret trial.
You are trying to have a discussion and your arguments are entirely made up. Do you consider it to be an intelligent debate?
How can you expect others to have a discussion with you when they throw facts at you and you respond with speculations and things that never happened or impossible to happen?

 

Let the government prove it.
What we are really arguing about is justice on who's terms.
He's an Australian citizen so...

 

I never claimed the trial would be conducted entirely in secret.
It is an example of secrecy is some of the evidence though.

Well, they never provided any evidence those "facts" are true.

Why the double standards? Don't apply anything to my side that you wouldn't to your side.

 

If a government believes he is guilty it is there job to arrest him and bring him to trial.
It is not the job of Assange to go to that trial, nor is it necessarily the job of another government who has no idea if he is guilty or not.

 

It sounds disgusting. I haven't seen it but I don't get Sky. I can't see my way clear paying extra for yet another batch of useless programming. I have 19 cable channles as it is and it's mostly adverts, ex on the beach, say yes to the dress, cooking competitions, cake baking .... you know what I mean. But I'll see if I can find that Sky interview on YouTube just to have something to grumble about this week.

 

You are not paying attention. I did not seek Truthout specifically. In fact, this is the first time I've heard of it.

Military rules are spelled out on their own ticket. Whether it's Truthout or Sam Peckinpah who quotes those rules is completely irrelevant. Do you understand what we are talking about? Are you sure?

 

A person cannot be blinded by pure reason, but can be blinded by ideology arising from the survival instinct.

Do I detect (in your nice phrase "dawn of tomorrow") some - albeit limited - awareness of progression (historically) from instinctive "law of the jungle" to reason-based rule of law?

Ayn Rand is a manifestation of self-interested reaction against loss of privilege, at the hands of a collectivist system determined to eradicate this privilege perceived at the time to be detrimental to the mass of the people.

Lot's of problems with that statement, including the failure of neoliberal capitalism to institute universal above-poverty participation in the economy (as stated in Article 25 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights). Poverty will always generate resentment.

Hey, I absolutely agree....(no need for all those keyboard symbols!....)

A couple of problems with that statement:

1. Islam's Golden age was in the 10-12th centuries, manifested in Baghdad in the East and Cordoba in the West, both leading centres of culture and science at that time. But Islam was soon eclipsed by Western power, hence by the 18th century we see the British marauding through the Middle east. Present-day Islamic terrorism is in part a reaction to this history. [Bin Laden himself was still complaining about the loss of Spain in the Reconquista, 500 hundred years after the event!].

Today Islamic political power is weak; the bullies now are to be seen in the West Bank, emboldened by their overseas protectors. (Bullies within Islamic nations only have power to injure their own citizens). Terrorists are more deluded, suicidal maniacs, less bullies.

While your 'righteous indignation' at this state of affairs is justified, your ideological blindness is a stumbling block: whereas the individual is mainly instinct driven, the many - if they are to enjoy well-ordered relations - self evidently need a rules-based system to prevent anarchy, war and starvation. The League and the UN were/are crippled by instinct; hopefully reason will finally prevail .

"All of human existence to save"?

I recall Einstein's comment: "I don't know how the 3rd WW will be fought, but the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones..."

 

I got them delivered from youtube but we do get Sky News as one of our free channels. It is a Murdoch Channel. I have in the past heard people say not as bad as Fox! There does though seem to be a massive deterioration in objectivity of reporters in our media. I don't have a problem with them making demanding questions trying to break through the spin. That has been absent for a long time but in the UK a new form of interviewing has taken in primarily to debase Corbyn and try to present him as an enemy of Britain even though as Leader of the Opposition and as most of what is reported is lies, this is a definite assault on Democracy. That interview reminded me of the way they work when they are trying to diss Corbyn, refusing to listen to anything which does not go with that and degrading the integrity of any who do not follow this apparent 'official' line. It is exceedingly concerning about the future. Possibly just get rid of wikileaks and anyone else who would dare to do investigative journalism or have an unwanted view and they will have a field day for what is veering towards dictatorial news.

 

I'm onboard with all of that and the biggest shocker (for me anyway) is that the BBC has gone right down the ruddy tubes along with the rest of the muck. Not to say that our media is any better. It isn't.

 

I am getting nowhere searching for that interview. I don't even know who bail money-man is.