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

Communism doesn't go too far, it IS too far.

 

I hope this isn't turning into a "If you support capitalism you believe Assange is guilty, If you support socialism you believe Assange is a victim" thread.

 

Capitalism, rooted in reason; reason, the light that lit Man’s path out of the Dark Ages into the World of Tomorrow. On paper, Capitalism is gold; Communism is blood. I'll take the gold, thank you.

 

Nah. It's: Assange, If you want a be a hero, come to America; if you are the weasel I suspect you to be, run to Russia. Your choice, choose wisely.

 

Why do you believe that would be "standing up for justice" ?

If he gets sent to prison and there was not a justified reason for it, do we have any guarantee those responsible for that are going to be punished?

 

This is America, not Venezuela, nor for that matter, Cuba. Besides, he’s the perfect poster child for ANTIFA. I'm sure they’ll be at his trial demanding he gets justice. Of course it won't be up to goons in scarves, it will be up to 12 honest jurors, who wont hide their faces in public.

 

How can Assange hope for "justice" in the USA, when since the first beginning it was unfair play?
He came to Sweden to find a shelter from the US persecution and suddenly got under criminal investigation, as he allegedly raped prostitute! I believe it's hard to find some more idiotic charge than rape of prositute, but anyway Assange moved to England and was arrested on Sweden's request. Then he sheltered in Equador's embassy, as he feared to be extradited to Sweden and next to the USA. Now Swedish authorities have terminated their criminal case against Assange, but Assange is under arrest as he broke the bail conditions - on the Swedish request which is terminated several years ago. And - voila! - today British authorities talk to the US authorities how to extradaite Assange to the USA.
Western governments - Britain, Sweden and USA - used all legal, half legal and illegal tricks to gain Assange. First they tried to pretend it's pure criminal case (rape) but later they gave up pretending.
Assange had to play with worst cheaters, sneaks and bastards. What "justice" are you talking about? It's laughable.

 

To be fair, it's very well possible the charges in Sweden were all serendipitous, more likely having more to do with Sweden's crazy feminist-inspired laws rather than pressure from the U.S. However, Assange couldn't have known this at the time, and even if the circumstances of the case had been known, it's still possible extradition from Sweden to the U.S. might have been more likely than extradition from the U.K. to U.S. at that time (although of course that hypothetical question may never be answered).

 

Indeed, and this is why there's this running discussion of socialism and capitalism, the socialists think the capitalist system is inherently unjust. I believe this biased perception results from their realization what really makes capitalism work is precisely the judicial certitude its legal system provides, there is nothing uncertain in the judicial process of successful capitalist countries, where one finds unsuccessful capitalist countries this can easily be traced back to judicial uncertainty.

Judicial certitude enables the citizens of successful capitalist countries to anticipate with substantial certainty the consequences of their actions and sensibly estimate the cost of any violation of the law. This is essential in business dealings between merchants and others. Whether one is injured by a defective product or defrauded in a deal, one has recourse in court where justice is served and it makes no difference if one is a poor consumer or a foolish rube confronting a wealthy manufacturer or substantial businessman, the same standards apply to all and the law gets applied uniformly.

This is why Assange, if he is innocent, should seek his day in court. If it is true he merely provided a platform for the publication of Manning's stolen information, twelve honest jurors will absolve him because the law says this is not to be punished and Assange can be certain the law will be applied.

 

Indeed, and this is why there's this running discussion of socialism and capitalism, the socialists think the capitalist system is inherently unjust. I believe this biased perception results from their failure to appreciate what really makes capitalism work is precisely the judicial certitude its legal system provides, there is nothing uncertain in the judicial process of successful capitalist countries, where one finds unsuccessful capitalist countries this can easily be traced back to judicial uncertainty.

Judicial certitude enables the citizens of successful capitalist countries to anticipate with substantial certainty the consequences of their actions and sensibly estimate the cost of any violation of the law. This is essential in business dealings between merchants and others. Whether one is injured by a defective product or defrauded in a deal, one has recourse in court where justice is served and it makes no difference if one is a poor consumer or a foolish rube confronting a wealthy manufacturer or substantial businessman, the same standards apply to all and the law gets applied uniformly.

Assange has nothing to fear from a US court if he is innocent.

 

I don't understand why people in the U.K. find this law acceptable.
That would be like punishing someone for escaping from prison, even though it was later determined they were innocent of the original crime.

Maybe this incident will trigger a public debate about changing the law.

 

I think Assange would prefer it be in a U.K. court rather than an American court.

(Not that U.K. courts are any more inherently fair in general, but in this situation the society in the U.K. is likely to have a very different view on the matter)

 

The problem with trying Assange in Britain for unlawfully aiding and abetting the wrongful dissemination of US classified material is that this is not likely a crime in Britain, so the prosecutor there has no case. Britain likely does have laws that forbid providing another with tools and information to enable the unlawful access to British classified information.

 

The question is, should the UK extradite an Australian citizen to face an alleged crime in America even though the accused did not commit that crime in America.

If they do this, they are effectively taking part in the enforcement of American law, applied on a global scale.

Right now the alleged crime is sending information about how someone else could input information to access information (which that individual already had access to), without giving up information about which individual accessed that information.

Think about that for moment. That's effectively what the accusation boils down to.
This talk about "hacking" is all just a human construct.

 

There are well established procedures applied in extradition proceedings, Assange will avail himself of these, everyone anticipates this will take years, the issue of the extraterritorial application of US laws will be well debated, if this is not possible the British court will dismiss the extradition request. The claim Assange's extradition request requires the extraterritorial application of US law is unusual as I think the first level of inquiry is whether the crime he is accused of is also a crime in Britain (I think it is).

Considering the question of extraterritorial application of US law, I'd wonder about this in the context of criminal activity by internet. It is not clear how jurisdiction in the traditional sense applies to criminal activity online.

 

True, but those procedures are not necessarily always right and fair. Can we agree on that?

The fact that he is already being held in prison on the violation of the bail charge already proves the law is not necessarily always right and fair.

 

The U.S. has already been applying it in cases of mail fraud from other countries when the victim is a U.S. citizen.
(i.e. Jamaican citizen sends email to some gullible elderly person in the U.S. tricking them into sending him money)

However, as you'll no doubt agree, this sort of legal principle can be a slippery slope.

 

Funny how the IMF gave a bailout of 4.2 billion dollars to Ecuador..of course this bailout would have to be approved by guess who...the US...it seems that what the US wants the US gets...so they arrest Assange for "breaking his bail conditions"...next step will be an extradition to the US...as quickly as the US demands...
I wonder if he would have been arrested if there was no 4.2 billion bail out...of course not.....

 

No, I disagree, these are well-developed proceedings, extradition is governed by well-established convention between the applicable jurisdictions and in this case these are Britain and the US, neither of which is famous for its judicial abrogation of the law.

He is being held due to the extradition requests (from Sweden and the US) not because he violated terms of his bail (though he did).

 

"Alive and a hero to some"? .....and in jail, for reasons I have explained: international relations based on MAD.

 

I support liberty.
The state is the enemy of liberty, as Assange showed us all.

 

No: like you, he's manifesting the impact of self-interested survival instincts (residing in his reptilian brain) on his ability to reason.

I have already mentioned your Pavlovian-like response to words like Marxism and Socialism; your 'id' is on full display.

Principles of both Capitalism (with its blind free markets) and Socialism (enabling public policy choices) are needed to achieve an economy with universal above poverty level participation, (see MMT: your unconscious 'id' need not feel threatened by higher taxation).

 

Maybe you didn't hear (despite it being repeated over and over again in this thread), Swedish authorities are no longer seeking his extradition.

 

Who doesn't? It's a universal Right in the UN Charter:

"The Universal Declaration includes civil and political rights, like the right to life, liberty, free speech and privacy. It also includes economic, social and cultural rights, like the right to social security, health and education"

The question is how to achieve these universal rights.

Assange showed us that the US military-security complex (in this case) is the enemy of liberty.

To be fair, you can replace 'the US' (in the above sentence)with any other nation.

Now you might see the folly of concepts such as "legal war", 'freedom of nations to wage war', 'rules of war' etc. (just as it's entirely unreasonable to propose law for committing massacres within a nation).

Time to replace MAD with an international rules-based system (though 'Libertarians' unaware of the influence of the reptilian brain on their own ability to reason will not see the urgency).

 

Ah. Man. Not a being of reason, but a psychopathic miscreant driven by his reptilian instincts, who must be controlled by a ruling elite is order to prevent species extinction.

That about the gist of it?