Does the uk not have a law against executions and if so would the not be breaking said law by extraditing him.
That’s exactly what they’re arguing here. However the US is trying to use a non-answer to avoid this, and in the past that’s worked.
Well doesnt that just fill you with confidence.
Well, can’t send him there then, right?
Regardless of any judicial or legal red tape preventing that extradition, are we seriously operating under the assumption that the United States government would execute him?
are we seriously operating under the assumption that the United States government would execute him?
Legally, UK and EU courts must consider this, because sending someone to a country where they will be executed for their crimes is a breach of human rights.
By the strict reading of the law, he could be extradited for life in prison. If he was being extradited to be sentenced to death, that would be a no go.
The US are skirting and pushing the bounds of UK law here. Unfortunately, they will likely get away with it, because the English are pussies.
because the English are pussies
You spelled complicit wrong…
I don’t like Julian Assange, but I think that if he were found guilty of his crimes of espionage, that he has already served out more than a proportional sentence in exile.
the whole plan is to get him over here and then kill him or let him die of neglect.
May as well get in early.
Julian Assange didn’t kill himself.
The US hasn’t executed someone under espionage charges since the Rosenbergs.
Do you want to buy a bridge?
Formally anyway…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
But in such things, the german version is usually more detailed.
A lot like Gary Webb.
Well, Epstein’s cell is empty at the moment.
I suspect they’d prefer that he die in prison over there, but if not then in prison over here. I don’t think they want to ever take this to trial, because it’s been a farce from the start.
They literally dropped all the potentially credible charges they were first going for. Those women in Sweden? Long gone, as of 5 years ago. Hillary Clinton’s emails? Also dropped.
What really sucks is that the narrative has changed over years, as the facts have been forgotten. People think he’s been in league with Russia, and some even think Russia provided him with evidence against Republicans alongside the Democrat emails, and that he refused to publish the Republican stuff in support of Russia so that Russia’s man (Trump) could get in the White House.
First off, Russia wouldn’t provide Republican emails if they were trying to get a Republican inside the White House (they didn’t provide any such emails and they did promote Trump). Second, the controversy as about Wikileaks not publishing details of Russian corruption. While this is definitely controversial (and frankly something I disagree with), Wikileaks’ reasoning was simply: “Russian corruption is not news, it is to be expected”.
Those two women from Sweden were not prostitutes (and even if, it wouldn’t matter) and have themselves backtracked from pressing charges. They are also victims of this entire farce and have been instrumentalized.
Fair point, I meant to change that before I posted. I think I was getting confused with Trump and the prostitutes that peed on him.
False equivalence is false— but, sure, anything to make espionage seem OK
Seeing as this was posted in c/privacy, I believe the intent was rather to say “actually that whole ‘nothing to hide nothing to fear’ premise government espionage programs enjoy thrusting on their citizens is patently bullshit, and they know it, as despite saying it to you while spying on you they make it illegal to spy on them.”
Using paranoia to justify a logical fallacy - and espionage - isn’t a very good argument.
“Espionage” - Ed Snowden leaking PRISM docs
“Paranoia” - reading about it on WikipediaYou’re the only one who mentioned Edward Snowden
You’re right, I mentioned it because it seemed like a good counterexample to your reasoning.
… Apparently you agree?
I wish I were on the drugs you are to find the reason in the obviously logically flawed and contradictory madness you keep making of this.
But if you need to keep telling yourself that espionage is OK just because some governments engage in some forms of mass surveillance, then I can’t stop you from making a fool of yourself by saying so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I still think that both are bad, and I still find it pretty easy to argue both points without conflating the two logically fallaciously.
Thing is, even if we don’t agree, I think you could do better arguing either or both points without conflating the two. And I think you’d be more convincing, if you didn’t rely on conflating them. That’s what I’m trying to say, is that you’re not really wrong on one point, the other is logically fallacious, but that you’re wrong for trying to say that they’re related.
What did Edward Snowden do, if not technically espionage? Some other crime?
Sometimes, it’s good to do crimes. The more oppressive the government, generally speaking, then more good things might get turned into crimes. Criticism of the government. Protest. Etc.
This post actually illustrates the opposite of your interpretation. Satire generally extrapolates on the actual real events with logical evolutions that demonstrate that the original premise was laughable at best, and at worst creates a double standard.
Government always tries to establish as much power imbalance as possible
Memes r duamb
A ‘State’ is not inherently bad. That’s just libertarian propaganda/dogma. Self-interested psychopaths in charge of a state is bad…
Oh boy, here comes the political drama. Can we not do this?
Too late
Unfortunately it’s usually self-interested psychopaths who seek out and obtain those positions, especially since you need to be a bit psychotic to do what’s required to get there.
Lol lots of people think that no entity has the right to monopolize violence against a population.
any state is bad because taxes are evil
deleted by creator
Taxes used for public good and infrastructure are what taxes are supposed to be for. And they should raised and collected proportionally to your wealth.
Neither of those statements describe how the US handles taxes.
Why are taxes evil, I like roads
Ohh man that one must hurt
Funny thing about ancap libertarianism is that they’ve correctly identified that power can lead to tyranny, but they’re completely oblivious to the power that corporatism (the conclusion of lassez-faire capitalism) results in.
tHe mArKeT wIlL rEgUlAtE tHeM
They often are Christians, so they apply fundamentalist style thinking and cannot challenge the assumptions they made.
The state is kinda bad and it’s not only Right-Libertarians who say that. Even so, leaking documents is not always bad. Like, the Abu Ghraib leak was objectively good.
Abu Graib wasn’t leaked. Amnesty International talked to prisoners that were released. Then the Red Cross used their oversight powers to get in and make an official report. Then a soldier reported the crimes to the Army’s version of the FBI, (CID). The Army then did an investigation and started arresting people.
Joe Darby came forward with the photographs, effectively leaking them. Rumsfeld later leaked Joe Darby’s name and identity, leading to him receiving death threats.
He “leaked” them to CID.
States always wind up being run by self-interested psychopaths.
That’s not a “flaw;” it’s the fundamental nature of the concept.
deleted by creator
We need a strong authoritarian leader and a massive police force to keep the people in line.
I think some people missed the joke
I think you forgot a /s
What makes you think I’m joking?
I assumed you were well intentioned and not trolling
*grabs popcorn*Nothing to hide…
It’s the same reason I don’t support free speach: I’ve got nothing to say.
/s
Sorry, but the cases are too different. The secrets of the government serve a completely different purpose than those of the citizens.
The government is an illegitimate state. We live in a dictatorship on stolen indigenous ground. Fuck Charles and fuck the government.
Not all of us lived in America.
Do you think I live in America when I say we live in a dictatorship and fuck Charles?
Is that justification for spying on civilians?
I never say that. Thats a straw man-argument.
Or so you are told by people unwilling to be under strict oversight from independent authorities.
“I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.
“I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.
Yes. The problem is, when one country has had a intelligence agency and the other has not, the one with the agency has a advantage. At least, under the same conditions.
I see the tension between a republican (res publica, “thing of the public”) State and the existence of such secrets. The question is if a state without this could exist under the current circumstances. There are a lot room for doubts here, I fear.
Bruh it’s the government. They have plenty of things to hide.
played well.
BUT BUT BUT THOSE ARE ILLEGAL TO SHARE
This argument of “nothing to hide” always reminds me of Google, show me this man’s balls, please by Eric Andre.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Google, show me this man’s balls, please
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Man I really do enjoy reading the classifieds
deleted by creator
Say whatever you want, Snowden’s a fucking hero for sharing this.
Don’t forget the people that tried to blow the whistle on the NSA prior to Snowden
