Assange the rapist headed to face the music

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I'm defending whistle blowers and the 1st amendment protections of journalists. Cry now about Assange, bitch later about the Washington Post or NYT being censored under the presidence you're espousing now
Click to expand...
Assange isn't a whistle blower. Snowden was. The Russian smear campaign made with unverifiable data wasn't about whistlblowing, it was about propaganda. Assange/Wikileaks is just a clearing house and became a Russian propaganda tool in 2016 like Facebook. The difference is, Assange knew where the e-mail crap really came from.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
1st amendment protections of Australian election tamperers being fed hacked info by Russians PURELY for political purposes?

That's twisted.
Click to expand...
The US Constitution extends to non US citizens, which is why it's still illegal to torture a foreigner

Intent is irrelevant to the question of authenticity. If what was leaked damaged Democrats electoral chances, why aren't you criticizing those that acted in such a way that damaged the credibility of the party? Shouldn't you be focused on fixing that so it doesn't happen again?
tangerinegreen555 said:
Assange, foreign national, election tampering in direct colIuslon with Russians, known to lie, hates Hillary.

Putin, murderous dictator, tampered in as many as 20 free elections and literally kills poIitical opponents at home and abroad, hates Hillary.

You, hates Hillary.

I see a goddamn rhetoric pattern between the 3 of you. But keep claiming 1st amendment protection. You have it, at least.
Click to expand...
Like I said, the rhetoric you're using and the policies you seem to be espousing sets precedent for future protections for journalism. Journalists and whistleblowers, and those that provide the platform for them like Assange, should be protected from prosecution regardless of their motives. Otherwise, honest organizations suffer the consequences depending on who is in power at the time. Trump could shut down the WP or NYT citing this precedence. Do you want that?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The US Constitution extends to non US citizens, which is why it's still illegal to torture a foreigner

Intent is irrelevant to the question of authenticity. If what was leaked damaged Democrats electoral chances, why aren't you criticizing those that acted in such a way that damaged the credibility of the party? Shouldn't you be focused on fixing that so it doesn't happen again?

Like I said, the rhetoric you're using and the policies you seem to be espousing sets precedent for future protections for journalism. Journalists and whistleblowers, and those that provide the platform for them like Assange, should be protected from prosecution regardless of their motives. Otherwise, honest organizations suffer the consequences depending on who is in power at the time. Trump could shut down the WP or NYT citing this precedence. Do you want that?
Click to expand...
When is Bernie going to release his internal campaign emails?
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
I don't get this point of this thread's OP at all.

Julian Assange helped reform the wrong position in the military, besides the whole world domination nightmare, that they have no business regulating sexual behavior, i.e. with Chelsea Manning exposing horrendous war crimes.

But complain and have a stick up their butt for "crimes" that were dropped, while forgetting about there were actual crimes exposed that were covered up. That without those two, these real crimes our government does wouldn't have seen the light of day.

I mean, huh?
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The US Constitution extends to non US citizens, which is why it's still illegal to torture a foreigner

Intent is irrelevant to the question of authenticity. If what was leaked damaged Democrats electoral chances, why aren't you criticizing those that acted in such a way that damaged the credibility of the party? Shouldn't you be focused on fixing that so it doesn't happen again?

Like I said, the rhetoric you're using and the policies you seem to be espousing sets precedent for future protections for journalism. Journalists and whistleblowers, and those that provide the platform for them like Assange, should be protected from prosecution regardless of their motives. Otherwise, honest organizations suffer the consequences depending on who is in power at the time. Trump could shut down the WP or NYT citing this precedence. Do you want that?
Click to expand...
Let's hack your emails, texts and cell phone calls.

See what we can find and then turn it over to your neighbor to do as he wishes.

And how are those Trump judicial appts. helping out your causes?

You aren't pragmatic enough to see the big picture?

You play politics all the time here. Don't act like an objective middle of the road individual who just wants the right thing. It doesn't fit you at all.

Have you ever even worked on an election? Knock on doors, get bitched at by redneck assholes who don't even watch Fox news, just FB and barroom rumors?

You don't strike me as having a very good work ethic. You just want far left policies put into place. When did anyone ever get what they wanted without working for it?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Let's review:

The Swedish authorities wanted to question Assange about allegations of rape. Rather than simply go to Sweden and be interviewed by the authorities and clear it all up, Assange stayed in England and fought it.

Once England agreed to extradite Assange to Sweden, he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy and pleaded for and was granted asylum (Where he remained to this day.)

Those are NOT the actions of an innocent man. Those are the actions of a criminal that knows full well he's in a world of shit.

After that, the United States wanted to question him as well about classified documents that wound up on his site WikiLeaks. Assange refused to be interviewed by the United States authorities because (he stated at the time) he was afraid that it was a ploy for them to arrest him and extradite him to Sweden to answer the rape charges.

So, in order to appease Assange and help the United States, Sweden agreed to drop the charges so that Assange would have no reason to believe that the U.S. was acting on their behalf.

Assange then refused to be questioned by U.S. authorities because he was afraid they would arrest him for espionage charges.

Again, these are NOT the actions of an innocent man. These are the actions of a full blown criminal on multiple fronts.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending his actions but until he's convicted of something he's innocent.

Unless you're cool with throwing all the rest of our protections under the bus.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Sorry, I don't take you seriously. You are a sad, intolerant person with a sense of moral superiority only matched by Tty. I will savage your posts as I see fit. You will declare victory regardless because the only thing that matters to you is validating your own bloated ego.
Click to expand...
Lol

The irony of the likes of you berating anyone else for a 'bloated ego'

Give us a break, clown shoes!
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I'm not defending his actions but until he's convicted of something he's innocent.
Click to expand...
If you play by the rules, I would agree.

He doesn't.

He's guilty.

You can't say, "You owe me 10 bucks, I'd like to talk to you about it." and then have me not return your calls, move out of the state, change my name and deny ever having met you and still tell people "you should think I'm innocent because he hasn't proved I owe him 10 bucks."

By my own actions I have already proven beyond any doubt my guilt.

So has Assange by his own actions. The actual court conviction is academic at this point.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
If you play by the rules, I would agree.

He doesn't.

He's guilty.

You can't say, "You owe me 10 bucks, I'd like to talk to you about it." and then have me not return your calls, move out of the state, change my name and deny ever having met you and still tell people "you should think I'm innocent because he hasn't proved I owe him 10 bucks."

By my own actions I have already proven beyond any doubt my guilt.

So has Assange by his own actions. The actual court conviction is academic at this point.
Click to expand...
No it isn't academic. It is the right of every defendant.

Have you considered that he might have felt the charges were spurious and an attempt to get him in custody for the express purpose of shutting him up?

Explains his actions pretty well, especially considering America's by now well known contempt for international law, due process or human rights.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
No it isn't academic. It is the right of every defendant.

Have you considered that he might have felt the charges were spurious and an attempt to get him in custody for the express purpose of shutting him up?

Explains his actions pretty well, especially considering America's by now well known contempt for international law, due process or human rights.
Click to expand...
Very progressive of you to say rape victims are just lying and making it up
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
You’re currently defending a rapist who peddled propaganda for Putin to get trump elected while accusing others of being republicans

Just incredible
Click to expand...
No, comma, stupid, I'm defending the concept of DUE PROCESS.

As usual, you're more than willing to throw such details under the bus in your headlong rush to 'justice', especially if it serves a partisan interest.

Incredibly short sighted, nevermind self serving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top