• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Sir Abacus
Junior Member
(04-20-2017, 11:41 PM)
Sir Abacus's Avatar
Trump screwing his contractors yet again.
The Hamburglar
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:41 PM)
The Hamburglar's Avatar
Hiliarous. Sedition lmao. High and mighty US gaf thinking he should be charged for leaking those documents. Those same documents that proved what we all knew anyway that us military gives no fucks when operating in a country populated with brown people.

The real charges are the sex offensives. Fuck the usa's trumped up charges because they got embarrassed.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-20-2017, 11:41 PM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by jorma

Because they're still dragging the decision out? They interviewed him last november, and there's still no decision whether to press charges.

Because the report is in a different language (because he insisted on the special treatment of being interviewed remotely) and translating large legal documents is time consuming.
Got
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:41 PM)
Got's Avatar
so is he the cuck now?
Barzul
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
Barzul's Avatar
Get fucked Assange.
Deuce Deuce
Junior Member
(04-20-2017, 11:42 PM)

Originally Posted by Sir Abacus

Trump screwing his contractors yet again.

nice
SirClinksAlot
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
SirClinksAlot's Avatar
And he thought the Donald was his friend.
DreadPirateRoberts
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
DreadPirateRoberts's Avatar

Originally Posted by Autoignition

What? The US Constitution absolutely only applies to US citizens.

Nope, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, there are rights that are specific to citizens, but the basic rights apply to everyone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush
mo60
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
mo60's Avatar

Originally Posted by Timeaisis

But how will they get him out of the Ecuador Embassy? He's just gonna sit there forever at this point.

Make a plea deal with him so he come out.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-20-2017, 11:42 PM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nivash

Oh, so that's their angle. Still sounds fishy. There's an extremely thin line between Wikileak's role in distributing the information and the role of the regular news agencies in doing the same, unless they actively helped Snowden decrypt the files or something.

They're alluding to some kind of active help or participation so the free speech argument isn't really applicable.
Carpe Carnim
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:43 PM)
Carpe Carnim's Avatar

Originally Posted by Chumley

You don't even know what your argument is or what you're talking about, do you?

It's the Internet, bruh. Ain't no one got time to read for comprehension. Those Takes ain't gonna heat themselves up y'know
Unison
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:43 PM)
Unison's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nivash

Oh, so that's their angle. Still sounds fishy. There's an extremely thin line between Wikileak's role in distributing the information and the role of the regular news agencies in doing the same, unless they actively helped Snowden decrypt the files or something.

If I am reading this correctly, this isn't really about the Russian election hacking/interference at all, which explains why Sessions is talking on the matter... The CNN article barely mentions the election at all.

We "know" that Assange colluded with the Russians to publish the DNC hack information and there's evidence that they gathered information on the site and turned it over to the Russians, as well as some evidence that Trump surrogates directly collaborated with Assange during the election... This could be an attempt by the WH to dodge the Russia issue or to paint itself as anti-Assange or to get him into custody before the FBI gains access to him.
Magus1234
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:44 PM)
Magus1234's Avatar
Lock his ass up.
Nivash
(04-20-2017, 11:45 PM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by jorma

It's not bizarre considering Sweden had already done exactly that.

I'm guessing this is surfacing now because Sweden is going to drop the charges and they wont get him that way.
This case should have been dismissed years ago, there's literally no case.

That's completely untrue. The Egyptian deportation - which I'm assuming are what you're referring to - were legal, just extremely unethical. They rightly caused a national scandal too, mind. If Assange were ever to face an extradition request from the US while in Swedish custody, he would enjoy both the protectionof Swedish law not allowing extradition on espionage or political charges and the fact that U.K. courts would have priority because of his skipped bail there.

Edit: source. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/...united-states/

We have refused to extradite an honest-to-God Soviet spy because of this.
Last edited by Nivash; 04-20-2017 at 11:55 PM.
Autoignition
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:45 PM)
Autoignition's Avatar

Originally Posted by DreadPirateRoberts

Nope, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, there are rights that are specific to citizens, but the basic rights apply to everyone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Too bad for Assange he wasn't under US jurisdiction at any point during his fuckery.
Gorger
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:46 PM)
Gorger's Avatar
Looks like Assange bet on the wrong horse.
RangerX
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:49 PM)
RangerX's Avatar
I still think wikileaks did a lot of good especially regarding Iraq. I hope they don't get him.
Unison
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:51 PM)
Unison's Avatar

Originally Posted by RangerX

I still think wikileaks did a lot of good especially regarding Iraq. I hope they don't get him.

Assange is a complicated figure because he seemingly started out on the side of justice and transparency but now clearly is not.
Boke1879
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:51 PM)
Boke1879's Avatar

Originally Posted by RangerX

I still think wikileaks did a lot of good especially regarding Iraq. I hope they don't get him.

Whatever it once was. It is now just an arm of the Russian government with the sole job to influence outside elections.

And again. This man needs to go to trial for his crimes and stop hiding.
bomma_man
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:51 PM)
bomma_man's Avatar

Originally Posted by Autoignition

Too bad for Assange he wasn't under US jurisdiction at any point during his fuckery.

If he wasn't under US jurisdiction, how can they charge him??
Nivash
(04-20-2017, 11:51 PM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by Autoignition

Too bad for Assange he wasn't under US jurisdiction at any point during his fuckery.

No, but he will obviously be under US jurisdiction as soon as he's in US custody. Judges have concluded that even Guantanamo inmates enjoy constitutional protection because of that.
Puck Beaverton
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:54 PM)
Puck Beaverton's Avatar
Shame he's a Russian stooge after the good work WikiLeaks had done.
Hellwarden
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:54 PM)
Hellwarden's Avatar
I mean, unless they can actually get him out the Ecuadorian embassy, then this is all pointless.
RangerX
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:55 PM)
RangerX's Avatar

Originally Posted by Boke1879

Whatever it once was. It is now just an arm of the Russian government with the sole job to influence outside elections.

And again. This man needs to go to trial for his crimes and stop hiding.

I don't see him getting a fair trial in the US. Whistleblowers should be afforded certain protections anyway.
Fenderputty
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:56 PM)
Fenderputty's Avatar
I wonder if he's sitting on those GOP hacks we know happened but never leaked
Dopus
Member
(04-20-2017, 11:56 PM)
Dopus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Boke1879

Whatever it once was. It is now just an arm of the Russian government with the sole job to influence outside elections.

And again. This man needs to go to trial for his crimes and stop hiding.

This isn't accurate at all. It's not an arm of the Russian government. If you're going to state that then you need to provide a basis for it. As it stands, there isn't one. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make whatsoever, even if Russia used the organisation to leak materials they themselves got a hold of.

Moreover, let's wait and see what the result is from Sweden shall we?
Tamanon
Professional Bastard
(04-20-2017, 11:59 PM)
Tamanon's Avatar
Not sure what they can actually legitimately charge him with, since he's not a citizen. Only if he was actually involved in some of the hacks.

Seems silly, and I assume it'll die out shortly.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:01 AM)
TheChewyWaffles's Avatar
I thought sharing the information he shared was a good thing. Plus, isn't he being protected by the Ecuadorian embassy?
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:01 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by Autoignition

What? The US Constitution absolutely only applies to US citizens.

Where did you get this idea from?

Originally Posted by AlexFlame116

As a U.S. Resident who can't become a citizen yet because if the immigration wait period I don't even know what you're trying to imply.

That the poster he was responding to was wrong in a fairly obvious way.
jorma
is now taking requests
(04-21-2017, 12:01 AM)

Originally Posted by Nivash

That's completely untrue. The Egyptian deportation - which I'm assuming are what you're referring to - were legal, just extremely unethical. They rightly caused a national scandal too, mind. If Assange were ever to face an extradition request from the US while in Swedish custody, he would enjoy both the protectionof Swedish law not allowing extradition on espionage or political charges and the fact that U.K. courts would have priority because of his skipped bail there.

Edit: source. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/18/...united-states/

We have refused to extradite an honest-to-God Soviet spy because of this.

Ok, those extraditions were extremly illegal, the UN knows it, our constitutional committee knows it and you should know it too.

And the ONLY reason they got extradited anyway was because Sweden folded to massive pressure from the US government. The former PM has already admitted that, on record.

So while i do agree that Sweden couldn't afford to extradite him after that scandal, i probably wouldn't want to bet on that horse if my own ass was on the line. It's easier to trust the swedish government to do the right thing when you don't personally risk a life in guantanamo bay.
KernelPanic
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:04 AM)
KernelPanic's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dopus

This isn't accurate at all. It's not an arm of the Russian government. If you're going to state that then you need to provide a basis for it. As it stands, there isn't one. It's not a reasonable conclusion to make whatsoever, even if Russia used the organisation to leak materials they themselves got a hold of.

Moreover, let's wait and see what the result is from Sweden shall we?

It's a propaganda arm of Russian intelligence (hence government). The servers are hosted in Russia too.

Julian sold out a long time ago. He even had a show on RT.
Last edited by KernelPanic; 04-21-2017 at 12:06 AM.
SilentRacoon
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:04 AM)
SilentRacoon's Avatar
Obama wouldn't have pardoned him, it's only logical for Trump to do the exact opposite, and he probably will.
Autoignition
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:06 AM)
Autoignition's Avatar

Originally Posted by bomma_man

If he wasn't under US jurisdiction, how can they charge him??

Dunno, I'm not an international law expert.

Originally Posted by Nivash

No, but he will obviously be under US jurisdiction as soon as he's in US custody. Judges have concluded that even Guantanamo inmates enjoy constitutional protection because of that.

Right, but that wouldn't give him retroactive protections of freedom of speech. So, while he's here he'll have them (as far as I understand it), but he doesn't get everything he's done in the past grandfathered in with him.

Originally Posted by Cocaloch

Where did you get this idea from?

It was a huge point of contention during the travel ban debacle. Legal experts still disagree about the technicalities of it.
MetalGearZed
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:06 AM)
MetalGearZed's Avatar

Originally Posted by andythinkpad

LOL I thought pissbaby is going to give him a medal?

WIKILEAKS! can you believe this? i just love WIKILEAKS!!
Cocaloch
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:07 AM)
Cocaloch's Avatar

Originally Posted by Autoignition

Too bad for Assange he wasn't under US jurisdiction at any point during his fuckery.

What do you think happens in a trial? Do you think the judiciary magically is the one branch of government that doesn't have to work under constitutional law? There are certain enumerated rights for citizens, but besides those they apply to all people.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the switch there.

I really don't mean this as an insult, but you aren't thinking about jurisprudence at all here.
Last edited by Cocaloch; 04-21-2017 at 12:11 AM.
Squire
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:08 AM)
Squire's Avatar

Originally Posted by QuantumBro

Just like Dylan Roof.

I spit.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:09 AM)
Prof. Bathtub's Avatar

Originally Posted by SilentRacoon

Obama wouldn't have pardoned him, it's only logical for Trump to do the exact opposite, and he probably will.

Maybe, but everybody around him is still incensed over the army leaks. They'll want him to be punished for that, even if they share his opinion that people with names ending in -odesta don't have the right to privacy. Stealing from Democrats isn't a crime.
Kyzer
RIP to Harambe, the gorilla who died
(04-21-2017, 12:09 AM)
Kyzer's Avatar

Originally Posted by hydrophilic attack

So it's a good thing that the government can arbitrarily prosecute someone, just because he's on the other side? That's the path to autocracy

WTF? I didnt say that either, and if it happens there will be a legal basis
Boke1879
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:10 AM)
Boke1879's Avatar
I do wonder what happens though? I mean this is what a the Trump government is doing.

Does Julian just play it cool? Attack Trump or just attack the our institutions in general.
MAB128
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:12 AM)

Originally Posted by DreadPirateRoberts

Nope, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, there are rights that are specific to citizens, but the basic rights apply to everyone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Both Dems and Reps don't give a crap about the constitution. It doesn't matter if he's American or not.

Want an example? IRC, Obama targeted and killed an American citizen with a drone strike without due process. That's how screwed up things are.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:13 AM)
Prof. Bathtub's Avatar

Originally Posted by Boke1879

I do wonder what happens though? I mean this is what a the Trump government is doing.

Does Julian just play it cool? Attack Trump or just attack the our institutions in general.

Will Hannity continue to defend him and attack the IC? I suppose not, if the WH sheepishly says he's actually bad again.
Savitar
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:15 AM)
Savitar's Avatar
Good luck getting him.

Unless they do a Bin Laden.
Carpe Carnim
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:18 AM)
Carpe Carnim's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Hamburglar

Hiliarous. Sedition lmao. High and mighty US gaf thinking he should be charged for leaking those documents. Those same documents that proved what we all knew anyway that us military gives no fucks when operating in a country populated with brown people.

The real charges are the sex offensives. Fuck the usa's trumped up charges because they got embarrassed.

Calm down Chuckles, you're gonna cut yourself with all that edginess.
Nivash
(04-21-2017, 12:18 AM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by MAB128

Both Dems and Reps don't give a crap about the constitution. It doesn't matter if he's American or not.

Want an example? IRC, Obama targeted and killed an American citizen with a drone strike without due process. That's how screwed up things are.

Maybe not, but the courts sure do. The drone strike doesn't apply here - it wasn't a judicial decision, it was a military one. That citizen was a member of an organization at war with the US, that made him a legal target. The problem with that is obviously that the War on Terror is actually prosecuted as a war at all, but that's a different issue than the legality of the action.
Dopus
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:19 AM)
Dopus's Avatar

Originally Posted by KernelPanic

It's a propaganda arm of Russian intelligence (hence government). The servers are hosted in Russia too.

Julian sold out a long time ago. He even had a show on RT.

Again nonsense. The show was sold to RT and has nothing to do with them beyond owning the distribution rights.

Please provide evidence that it is an arm of Russian Intelligence. They have a multitude of servers scattered across Europe. They've even used Amazon servers before.
Fenderputty
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:23 AM)
Fenderputty's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dopus

Again nonsense. The show was sold to RT and has nothing to do with them beyond owning the distribution rights.

Please provide evidence that it is an arm of Russian Intelligence. They have a multitude of servers scattered across Europe. They've even used Amazon servers before.

What's the effective difference between being an arm of the Russian government and pushing slanted hacked emails that the Russians wanted leaked and only those emails which they wanted leaked?
MAB128
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:24 AM)

Originally Posted by Nivash

Maybe not, but the courts sure do. The drone strike doesn't apply here - it wasn't a judicial decision, it was a military one. That citizen was a member of an organization at war with the US, that made him a legal target. The problem with that is obviously that the War on Terror is actually prosecuted as a war at all, but that's a different issue than the legality of the action.

So you're entitled to due process if the government feels like it, when it feels like it. The president reserves the right to be your judge, jury and executioner.

I know love GAF loves Obama. But this is one of the worst things he did. I can't believe there's people defending him on this. I really hope history judges him harshly because as I see it right now he's on his way to be considered one of the greatest Republican Presidents we've had.
Last edited by MAB128; 04-21-2017 at 12:26 AM.
Nivash
(04-21-2017, 12:26 AM)
Nivash's Avatar

Originally Posted by MAB128

So you're entitled to due process if the government feels like it, when it feels like it. The president reserves the right to be your judge, jury and executioner.

No, but if you join a nation or organization at war with the US, you can become a target for the US military. Pretty simple. Although, again, the decision to make it a war rather than a purely criminal matter in the first place is highly questionable.
Dopus
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:28 AM)
Dopus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fenderputty

What's the effective difference between being an arm of the Russian government and pushing slanted hacked emails that the Russians wanted leaked and only those emails?

They have made the claim that it wasn't from Russian intelligence services and was in fact from a third party non-state actor.

Publishing materials given by a state isn't the same as being an arm of it. Just what sort of logic is this? If they were genuine documents (which they were) and met whatever editorial guidelines they have, it gets published.

I don't agree with the timing of the email releases, I think it was inappropriate and rather careless. I do however understand why they were released then, for maximum impact. Again, it's something I disagree with. At the same time, I'm not going to accuse them of being compromised by the Russian intelligence services because it fits my narrative. There isn't adequate proof and so any such claims should be met with questions that have answers instead of vague assumptions.
KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(04-21-2017, 12:28 AM)
KHarvey16's Avatar

Originally Posted by MAB128

I really hope history judges him harshly because as I see it right now he's on his way to be considered one of the greatest Republican Presidents we've had.

Spoiler: it won't.

Thread Tools