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

He and most everybody else paying attention know the facts--under present law he has broken no laws. He is an innocent man who has served 7 years in a very real prison.

 

You have way too much trust in government.

 

Not the government, Americans, 12 honest souls.

 

Possibly 12 stupid souls.

You have no clue how this works. Sometimes jurors will just vote guilty because they're not sure and just want to go home.

Sometimes they think they have to convict because that's what the law says, even though it's not right.

Sometimes jurors will vote guilty even though a law was not broken, just because they think the accused should be punished.

Sometimes it just comes down to which side is better at making an argument in front of those jurors.

 

And sometimes planes crash; doesn't mean we stop flying.

 

Assange is under no obligation to come to the US to face his accusers.

Why don't they take it to a UK court?

 

I suspect you've never been a juror. The stupid ones are the first excused, they also get rid of anyone trying hard to be excused for any reason, you can say you don't believe in the jury system or that you have a bias against people of the defendant's race, nationality, gender, socio-economic background, those who need an interpreter, or are accused of whatever the defendant was, and you'll be allowed to leave. Jurors are explained they're the "trier of fact" (the law is the judge's exclusive jurisdiction). At the end there are "jury instructions" and the lawyers phrase these quite carefully, basically they itemize the elements of the generic charge or claim and call for a determination of guilt or liability if all of them have been shown from the facts by whatever standard of proof is required. This isn't 'rocket science'.

The court excuses people with pressing obligations, calendared commitments, and urgent responsibilities, those with small children or elderly to take care of, the court doesn't want people with a sense of urgency on the jury. Jurors are given an estimate on the trial's duration, how long they're expected to deliberate (based on similar past cases). Usually there are retirees, schoolteachers and other government employees (who are paid the same and appreciate the relief). Rarely there are a couple of well-paid professionals, police officers and their relatives are easily excused. I served on different juries with a dentist, an architect and a pilot (who all told me they were there because they wanted the experience, to contribute, participate, out of a sense of duty.

But he is in a jurisdiction which by international treaty is obligated to turn him over to the jurisdiction that properly requests his extradition.

The court must have jurisdiction, British courts now have jurisdiction over Assange, but not over the crime he is charged with.

 

Honest souls on US juries are marginalized, forbidden by the system.

 

My eyes began to glaze over when I attempted to read the Wiki article on 'Objectivism', so I'll try a different tack.

You say:
<<Reason is subject to nothing but conscious choice.>>

Let's explore that more fully, using ourselves as subjects.

I am reasoning that Trump could …(in theory...) visit the UN tomorrow, pronounce the era of absolute national sovereignty obsolete, obtain agreement* to set up a UNSC (eg minus veto) that can indeed exercise its mandate to maintain security around the globe, and set in train a massive project of knowledge dissemination around the globe to begin the process of liberating people from their differing ideologies. Result: Individual freedom and prosperity, in a secure environment.

*relatively easy, I would think, since the leaders are all educated fellows (I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt), and I'm sure the obvious benefits would be too great for each of them to resist (and you could throw in the bait of free electricity around the globe, via IMF-funded solar farms built on the world's deserts powered by free sunshine which shines on half the world's surface 24/7....(and pay off the redundant filthy fossil industry by the same IMF intervention...)

This is my conscious choice ("volitional consciousness") to reason in this fashion (however faulty my reasoning might be in your view).

Conversely, I have noted policy arising from your volitional consciousness which amounts (or is perilously close) to "America Über Alles"....
your reasoning being that the US is the "beacon of moral (government)" in a barbaric world.
While not as offensive as Nazi fascism (which was based more on ideas of racial superiority, less on economic superiority), your appeal to moral superiority would not likely stand rigorous examination, given the US is rent by both racial and economic divisions as severe as anywhere else where such divisions exit. [The situation is complicated by the US's current role of "world policeman"]

Now, assuming we are both "beings of volitional consciousness" (of the species homo sapiens),
can you explain the differences resulting from the exercise of (free?) reason, in each of us?

I have already offered my explanation for these differences (ie the influence of unreasoning instinct residing in individuals' reptilian and mammalian brains - on tribalism, economic competition, different ideologies, etc.) and the interaction of this instinct with the cortex (thinking, reasoning) brain.

Over to you, if you wish. (Notice I did not get past your first sentence!)

 

Intellectual exercises that involve ignoring reality are at best, a waste of time; and at worst, intellectual BS meant to undercut reality. As in: blue is red , green is red, therefore blue is green. This type of syllogism is an intellectual con-artist’s snicker at reality.

Notice, I didn’t make it past your first sentence, either—Trump renouncing National Sovereignty in favor of American subserviency to a One World government? What’s next? An atheistic Pope? Talk about blue being green. Sheesh.

 

Has the UK really sold out their soveignty like that? (Oh wait, don't answer that, this is the UK we're talking about)

We are talking about an Australian citizen in the UK, and the US is trying to make a claim of extradition on him based on an alleged crime he committed while he was not in the US.
That's really entering into the territory of global jurisdiction right there, one country declaring things crimes on a global scale.

If he is extradited, that is going to set a concerning precedent, for more reasons than one.

 

I'm not sure one must be in the US to commit a crime there, seems like one could commit a crime in the US by using the internet, isn't this what Mueller accused those 13 GRU agents and 3 Russian corporations of doing (committing a crime in the US though not while in the US)?

 

If you believe a country has a right to go after someone in another country because it is believed that person may have sent a message to someone else telling them what they could type into a computer to hide their identity while accessing information, then obviously Assange is guilty.

(I say this sarcastically)

 

Its called hacking and yes it is a crime. Its like breaking into an office and stealing files. Assange is accused of conspiring with Manning to break into a US govt computer. You seem to be having some difficulty understanding this. Why is that? You said you read the indictment.

 

Recently Special Counsel Mueller delivered a report on his lengthy investigation of Trump's collusion with Russia to defeat Hillary in the 2016 election. In his Report Mueller concluded 13 Russian GRU agents and 3 Russian corporations (all of which he has indicted) were guilty of unlawful interference in the US election. He specified their use of social media impersonating US citizens to disseminate false information in an effort to influence the election -none of these individuals or corporations were ever in the US. So I'm confused about this requirement the perpetrator sought for extradition must have been present in the US when the crime was perpetrated. It seems like the law allows the charging of individuals and entities who perpetrate crimes in the US without being physically present in that country.

 

"conspiring" is such a vague word, especially since he was not even in the country and is not even a US citizen.

Not only that but the alleged theft is one of information, not even anything actually physical.

I can see why Manning should have been punished, but there are just too many reasons Assange shouldn't. The alleged crime (if it even took place) is just too indirect.

 

OK. That failed, you did not make it past the first sentence, let's try another tack, if you wish.

The issue: 'Objectivism' - it's already an intellectual exercise, so please don't attempt to hide behind that as a reason to avoid the issues.

1.Rand: "Man is a being of volitional consciousness".
2. You: "Reason is subject to nothing but conscious choice".

My first question: if this is so, how do you explain that we adopt opposite world views?

 

Don't you think this side discussion might be more appropriate to take to the Religion & Philosophy section?

 

I would love to read what is on that secret indictment that was pulled from the dark, in order to get the UK to ship him to the US. Greenwald spoke of it, so he must have seen it? I hear assange tried to hack a password to a gov't computer, or perhaps he may have given Manning some advice on how to do it? I doubt if assange personally hacked anything as a publisher.And Manning has already said it did not happen.

The obama admin had access to the same info used in that indictment but chose not to go this route, due to the first amendment. But apparently different eyes looked at that data, and squinted just right, and got a reason.

And obama went after other journalists during his tenure, several in fact with one being a journalist for FOX if my memory is correct. I guess I should do some online research.

 

.
No, a Pope who sees the unity of mankind before God. Ditto for Islam's leaders.

 

No. One of the difficulties in describing human affairs is that the disparate fields of politics, economics, and religion are all inter-related and therefore thoughts and actions in one field affect the other fields. Assange is in jail because of differing political, economic and religious ideologies, which the current 'world policeman' is attempting to manage to the US's own advantage ("America First").

 

From what I understand (and this could be wrong), the current allegation seems to be that Assange sent a message to Manning telling him how to hack a password. Manning already had access to that information without the password, but getting passed the password allowed him to access that information without being identified.

However, that is only an accusation. So far the proof that the message was even sent, or proof that it was Assange who personally sent it, if the message was indeed sent, has not been made public.

The accusation also accuses Assange of inciting Manning to provide the information, although the conversation in the alleged message seems to be very indirect about that, and it is open to interpretation.

 

Palesh-tinian Bedouins should NOT be killed ( besides the many Muslim terrorists among them ).
They should be removed to their true country - Jordan.
Then we can have peace in the Middle East.

 

Mueller's report offers evidence that Julian Assange is actually a Russian intelligence agent. Assange was personally in contact with the GRU in receiving the mail material that the GRU had seized. Trump was lucky to get elected but he wasn't involved. Probably Julian Assange will be interrogated by the FBI or CIA and we will know the truth behind Russiagate.




On page 46, it states that "The [Special Counsel] was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by the GRU. Assange had access to the internet from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England."

 

Easy. You are either innocently wrong or willingly self-deluded. or there's a third, either one of us or both of us are wrong about the understanding of each other's world view.