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

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by alexa, Apr 11, 2019.

  1. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmm. You posted that Christian Zionist believe all Palestinians should be killed; I was just pointing out that I’d be satisfied if the Palestinians would surrender, unconditionally.

    As to your concern for innocents and journal—in war, there are no innocents, and journalists are on their own and are fair game by the enemy forces.

    If you want to see how to win a war, I would suggest studying Sherman and Patton. If you to see how to lose a war, study Johnson and McNamara.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  2. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely right!

    And considering the nasty little chimpanzees we all often are (Hobbes was right!), which is a condition arising from the fact that just below the surface of our poor little conscious (cortex) brains (seat of reason, justice, creativity, altruism, love etc) lies the unconscious and instinctive (mammalian, reptilian) brains (seat of un-reason, visceral fear, hatred, competitive greed, lust for power etc) that evolved to best ensure survival of the individual in a predatory, competitive natural (pre-human) world - considering all this, there is one viable long term solution which we almost achieved in 1946, while bearing the image of a certain cloud over Hiroshima etched into our brains.......but this solution needs a little more conscious 'effort of reason' to achieve it.

    As to your 'total war' solution - the instinctive, non-effort of un-reason: the author of your linked article promoting total war as the solution to national disputes turns out to be a Randian (… I should have guessed).

    Typical fallacies:

    1. We all (in our nation) are good; and they all in the other nation are evil.
    But in fact Americans kill one-another at home at a rate of 30,000 annually (in gun violence); deaths in the US, carried out by overseas actors are: c.3000 in the year 2001 plus some other few dozen (I suppose) in the last 50 years. Who have "we" more to fear in reality?

    2. Total war is most efficient.
    But in fact it is now an impossibility, in an age of MAD. (Russia might be relatively impoverished now, but do you dare, like ISIS suicidal maniacs, make Putin angry? - which would be both MAD and delusional.

    3. Hitler 'charmed' the Germans - yet many Germans never gave up trying to assassinate him); and in the absence of an international rules-based system, your preferred solution resulted in the almost total destruction of priceless Christian heritage in that country, a loss we must all bear. War is obsolete, stop back-tracking!

    You won't understand; you are blind, but another of your countrymen (and hopefully many more) - would certainly understand, eg, Thomas Paine - "The world is my country; to do good is my religion" (to borrow a quote from another poster here).

    Solution: strengthen the institutions of the UN.. Delegitimise war. (A UNSC without veto would already have 99% of the world's military force). Have the debates about terrorism in the UNGA - recognising there is only one God. Eliminate economic scarcity with a global MMT economy. etc.

     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am pleasantly surprised at your thoughts on that. Thank you.

    However I find it very easy to imagine, understand, that most jurors don't know that. There are several cases in which courts have chastised defense lawyers for bringing up the matter of jury nullification. I socialize with a number of defense attorneys, and they confirm that, what I've read in years gone by.

    The most egregious case that I can remember easily was the Branch Davidian case at Waco. Connie Chung was working then, and she interviewed several of the jurors after their guilty verdict. At least one was a woman, and I think there were one or two more, and they were literally in tears for having convicted when they did not know that they could indeed follow their conscience, as you note.

    There are other court decisions which have used the Sparf precedent to obscure the jury power. Today's jury, for the most part, is an emotional group of people that rubberstamp government prosecutions.

    An exception was the trial out west somewhere regarding some people who took over some Federal Park HQ or something just in the past few years. Can't remember the details, but the jury called the government's bluff and acquitted.
     
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please, let's not go there.
    That rate is still lower than most Third World countries.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Libertarianism actually does embrace the rule of law, but not necessarily statutory law. Maybe more natural law in the tradition of Thomas Paine?

    Libertarians very much support the US Constitution and the legal principles upon which it is founded.

    Their arguments are against illegitimate statutory law, for example the Patriot Act.
     
  6. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    No, that was to another poster. You and I have always been talking about the video which illustrates how US soldiers told lies to their superiors in order to get permission to kill ordinary people trying to get about their day when the US is an occupying force and hence has a duty of care towards them. These people murdered included two working for Reuters, one being a journalist and the other a photographer. The same soldiers then got permission to kill people coming to try and get help for the wounded. Making this public is what the United States and her people want to imprison Assange for.

    This is against the law by any system and belongs only to people who support the kind of thing Hitler and other fascists do to civilians which I now have to assume is your position and the position of anyone else who supports it. We are into crimes against humanity. That is what you are supporting and encouraging.
     
  7. wombat

    wombat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll bow out of our discussion, we are on different planets.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. wombat

    wombat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Mmm, I'm not alone.
     
    alexa likes this.
  9. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the context of the linked article re Randian-based Libertarianism (which ends up claiming un-reason as reason) in praise of total war, which I'm guessing you did not read, I'm entitled to make that point. Most of the time we have more to fear from ourselves than from persons overseas.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  10. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That’s a lot hate and anger for a vision of Man on a pedestal, not to be worshipped, but to be emulated. I’m referring to Ayn Rand, of course.

    As to the rest of your post, though many may fail to live up to the ideal, the ideal still is real, and obtainable by the one....all one need do, is think.

    And the best way to protect that ideal is for any nation, whose political philosophy is based on the rights of the individual, i.e., “...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to never surrender its sovereignty, and to always be the most powerful nation on the planet.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  11. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113


    The vision is of Man living in liberty and prosperity, free from poverty and war that has existed from the beginning.

    Nothing to do with "Man on a pedestal", certainly not to be worshipped, but (via law) protecting innocent life (ie those not envisioning warfare) and the best of his art and culture.

    Anyway your total war solution is impossible now (post MAD); you must of necessity be confined to non-nuclear skirmishes that will always result in blow-back. (The author does not mention this reality).



    If the ideal ("universal voluntary co-operation") is delusional, it will fail.

    Just trying to help....
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  12. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I know it was addressed to another poster, and I was responding to your comment to that other poster.

    As to your movie, which you seem to view as Assange’s redemption and sainthood— it’s war, civilians are killed. And that’s part of the reason why war is hell.

    I did watch, and I found the gunship’s crew’s actions regrettable, not condemnable.

    With regards to Assange, let him bring it to court. Let’s see what 12 honest jurors say.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  13. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you say. Let’s see what the future brings, Galt’s Gulch, or Dante’s inferno. I’m betting on man; it is unwise to sell him short.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lincoln? Wilson?

    How about since New York Times Co. v. United States?
     
  15. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The ideal is living one’s own life for one’s own happiness by giving your best to be your best in the name of the best within you, i.e., reason, the abandoned ideal. And it’s the only ideal that will lead to a better world of “universal voluntary co-operation”.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  16. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As you will.
     
  17. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That’s one interpretation, there are others.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If Assange is so courageous, why is he afraid of 12 honest jurors?
     
  19. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A nice statement, actually I like it...BUT must I keep pointing out:
    'reason' as exercised by individuals is subject to machinations of the reptilian and mammalian brains, as well as the cortex brain?

    It follows that the ideal of pure reason, as a beacon - and the derived concepts of justice and liberty - can only exist in a complete form (ie universally), outside of the individual and within rule of law.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if that law is just.

    In many practical cases, the concept of rule of law breaks down, because the law may be open to so much interpretation. It's no longer so much what the law says anymore but people's decisions.

    To prove this point, perform a thought experiment, if you will. Imagine we had a super computer that operated on pure logic that was in charge of enforcing the laws, exactly as the laws were worded. Well, then that certainly would result in a great deal of injustice with vast numbers of innocent people in prison, would it not?

    You see, the problem is you make false presumptions in your arguments.
    You do not know what the law actually is, or what it could be used to do in a vast number of impossible to count possible scenarios.
    The law does not only criminalize what is and should be wrong.
    Actually the government itself probably would not be able to practically function if all the laws that now exist were actually strictly enforced, but of course they're not, endless double standards.

    I support the concept of rule of law, in general, but not its literal application in actual practice.
    Either way, it comes down to individual people making individual decisions about what to do with that law.
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  21. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do realize he will be held in prison for more than a year before he even sees those 12 jurors?

    The court might prevent him from making certain arguments in front of those jurors.

    The jurors might be encouraged to convict based on an unjust law, even though it's evil and unconstitutional.

    Why are YOU afraid to let Assange make an argument in front of the grand jury (by teleconference) before they decide whether or not to indict? Well?
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2019
  22. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course: that's what we are seeking, law that is just and - eg, in the international sphere - complies with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    No one is saying establishing rule of just law is easy; the process began with the writing down of Hammurabi's law in 1750BC ("an eye for an eye") and is continuing.

    True; the old stumbling block that is unreasoning self interest will have negative consequences on writing and enactment of just law from time to time.

    But the ideal of just law beyond ideology is unimpeachable: eg, the universal right, in law, to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    [War and poverty are incompatible with this universal right; the UN Declaration was proposed when the elimination of economic scarcity was not considered as achievable, hence UN formulations of international law are flawed by the oxymoronic proposition of legal war.]

    Rand apparently finds this sought-after ideal (that is beyond ideology) in 'objective' reason which she claims is accessible to all humans within themselves. I have demonstrated the error in this proposition. .
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019
  23. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Reason is subject to nothing but conscious choice.
    If you mean that laws must be objective and rational, agreed. If you mean individual liberty must be sacrificed to the good of all...history is full of slaughtered humans as a testament to the abject failure of “for the good of all”.

    Any good that requires the sacrifice of the one to the many, is primitive and barbaric, and as aptly demonstrated in Venezuela, deadly evil.

    Ayn Rand: “The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The barbarians are inside the gates.....
     
  25. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not Randian-based LIbertarianism, its Objectivism.

    Assange! Quit running. Come and face the facts.
     

Share This Page