US Presidential Race 2016

[CitizenTID]

Why does Assange not go and face this sex crime allegation instead of holing up like is doing? Its not going to go away

Actually, in 2020 I think it will. In 2015, all 3 lesser allegations expired due to failure to interview. 2020 is when the allegation for rape would expire.

He is not (or was not?) at the Ecuadorian embassy to hide from that specifically, he's not gone because there is a very real danger that Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. where he probably believes he wouldn't get a fair trial. That's where my knowledge on that stops but it does appear the U.S. like to extradite people from outside of their jurisdiction quite often.

There is quite a bit of mystery over whether Assange is actually alive since his internet was cut. WikiLeaks have published that he is but still, there's been no peep from Assange.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Actually, in 2020 I think it will. In 2015, all 3 lesser allegations expired due to failure to interview. 2020 is when the allegation for rape would expire.

He is not (or was not?) at the Ecuadorian embassy to hide from that specifically, he's not gone because there is a very real danger that Sweden would extradite him to the U.S. where he probably believes he wouldn't get a fair trial. That's where my knowledge on that stops but it does appear the U.S. like to extradite people from outside of their jurisdiction quite often.

There is quite a bit of mystery over whether Assange is actually alive since his internet was cut. WikiLeaks have published that he is but still, there's been no peep from Assange.

Where did the sex crimes happen?

 

[TonyM]

Everyone has an agenda. I wouldn't criticise you for remaining cautious/suspicious but I would criticise you if you automatically sided with the narrative of the US/UK/NATO governments (or mainstream media) because you'd be using flawed logic without having enough of the context and information at hand. That may seem a rather vague comment, but in determining your support or criticism of an organisation it comes down to percentage of trust and I can understand why most would hold a high percentage of trust in their government and in turn, be liable to criticising those that government representatives criticise.

WikiLeaks is a journalistic organisation, founded by an Australian, whose contributing "workforce" is comprised of various nationalities, therefore the organisation itself has no allegiance. Their aim is simply to expose corruption and things they feel is in the public's interest, to the public - the public that diplomatic government is meant to represent. They have no intention of publishing matters of national security (putting populations at risk), for example documents on military capabilities and do not work with any governments. There are inevitably grey areas where governments may have programmes they deem to be of national security but to which WikiLeaks deem public interest. Like how US government is meant to be a system of checks and balances of power in congress, the presidency and judicial systems (a complete failure in my view as it does not account for vested interests such as campaign funding from corporations and has clearly been abused/ignored as proven), you can think of WikiLeaks as factoring the public into the equation in that checks and balances system. Their agenda can be summarised as protecting internet and technology freedoms such as privacy, which has many implications if not protected, regarding things such as right to free-speech.

WikiLeaks helped Edward Snowden, whose revelations I'm sure will prove a very important part in the history of mankind (unless he's wiped from the record at some point), escape the clutches of American intelligence services, gain temporary asylum whilst also getting him legal support; if they hadn't he very well could have been assassinated if US intelligence had the opportunity to stop the leaked info at a single source, or caught whereby he has been unfairly (but legally) charged with the old espionage act despite not being a spy for another nation (I don't believe the act accounts for whistleblowers). In similar cases in the past, whistleblowers did not receive a fair trial in the U.S. which is why he has sought asylum.

If you want to see an example of the kind of work WikiLeaks does and facilitates and why it is so extremely important to people such as yourself (whether you know it or not) and the implications I allude to above, I am about to post another Off-topic thread soon that will be of interest.

Appreciate the trouble you've gone to to explain Wikileaks but it still seems to me that they are selective and subjective...and that people who take everything they say as fact are ....fools. :-)

 

[CitizenTID]

It's not particularly speculative when the leaks are being released steadily during the month before the election to try and maintain interest in Clinton's supposed wrongdoings. Trump's said he loves Wikileaks and he's hardly going to push for Assange to be prosecuted if he gets in.

Well think about it from their perspective intelligently, they've gone to all this work, they're going to want maximum impact as any journalist wants. They don't want to publish everything at once before the debates, where everybody's going to have finished talking about it by the time the debates come around, when they'll be talking about other stuff and pretty soon, the stuff you published is forgotten in the public's mind. They know that during an election time, voters' attentions are being constantly drawn in many directions so what they feel is very important for people to be talking about, they are going to try and get as much air time in people talking about it on each topic that they can. It's simple tactics anyone with an audience would use. Furthermore, they know someone like Clinton and all her backing can get things stamped out, she's already brushed investigations into her aside like they're nothing, think of WikiLeaks as putting her on trial in front of the public here.

What off the cuff remarks Trump makes when it's something suiting his agenda one day may be very different when he's looking from another perspective another day (like the perspective of a President). I believe he's regularly called for the execution of Edward Snowden to put things into further context.

 

[west didsblue]

Well think about it from their perspective intelligently, they've gone to all this work, they're going to want maximum impact as any journalist wants. They don't want to publish everything at once before the debates, where everybody's going to have finished talking about it by the time the debates come around, when they'll be talking about other stuff and pretty soon, the stuff you published is forgotten in the public's mind. They know that during an election time, voters' attentions are being constantly drawn in many directions so what they feel is very important for people to be talking about, they are going to try and get as much air time in people talking about it on each topic that they can. It's simple tactics anyone with an audience would use. Furthermore, they know someone like Clinton and all her backing can get things stamped out, she's already brushed investigations into her aside like they're nothing, think of WikiLeaks as putting her on trial in front of the public here.

What off the cuff remarks Trump makes when it's something suiting his agenda one day may be very different when he's looking from another perspective another day (like the perspective of a President). I believe he's regularly called for the execution of Edward Snowden to put things into further context.

I'm thinking about it intelligently. Wikileaks are doing their best to influence the US elections and the biggest reason is to help their leader Assange. There are numerous people who prefer to believe innuendo and incorrectly interpreted comments than what they can see and hear with their own eyes and ears in front of them. That's why Trump still has sizeable support and why people believe in all sorts of stupid conspiracies. Wikileaks are capitalising on people's stupidity as is Trump. He's already said he loves uneducated people.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Well think about it from their perspective intelligently, they've gone to all this work, they're going to want maximum impact as any journalist wants. They don't want to publish everything at once before the debates, where everybody's going to have finished talking about it by the time the debates come around, when they'll be talking about other stuff and pretty soon, the stuff you published is forgotten in the public's mind. They know that during an election time, voters' attentions are being constantly drawn in many directions so what they feel is very important for people to be talking about, they are going to try and get as much air time in people talking about it on each topic that they can. It's simple tactics anyone with an audience would use. Furthermore, they know someone like Clinton and all her backing can get things stamped out, she's already brushed investigations into her aside like they're nothing, think of WikiLeaks as putting her on trial in front of the public here.

What off the cuff remarks Trump makes when it's something suiting his agenda one day may be very different when he's looking from another perspective another day (like the perspective of a President). I believe he's regularly called for the execution of Edward Snowden to put things into further context.

He can call for what he wants mate, its just noise, and he makes more than most. He showed his total ignorance of such things when he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton. Its bollocks, any President cannot do that, it is not lawful and cannot be done. In fact, trying to do it was one of the reasons Nixon had to resign. Trump can say what he likes about wikileaks, its meaningless.
In any event, there is absolutely nothing to say that Sweden will extradite Assange. The US has not said it is looking to prosecute him, and it is doubtful that they can or would even try. However, it is a very convenient 'what-if' when authorities want to talk to you about raping a woman. But based on purely nebulous speculative thinking not based in fact. There is not even an extradition agreement between Sweden and the US that could be used in that way, it prohibits extradition based on politics, and in the absence of a criminal investigation in the US, that is all it is. The US Justice Dept have also decided that there is no way that they could seek to prosecute Assange, so it as all a moot point. He is hiding until the statute of limitations on the allegation expires rather than face up to it, and that makes him a **** in my eyes.

 

[CitizenTID]

Where did the sex crimes happen?

Allegedly, Sweden. Obviously, I can't tell you whether he's a rapist or not, but what I'm pretty confident in telling you is that sparking false allegations of rape against someone you perceive as a threat is one of the fastest ways to discredit them. Until the allegations are proven false (or otherwise) I have to curtail my support of the bloke personally, but it doesn't change the fact that his work with WikiLeaks is a monumental success for the public across the globe. Unfortunately many are indoctrinated to believe otherwise.

Appreciate the trouble you've gone to to explain Wikileaks but it still seems to me that they are selective and subjective...and that people who take everything they say as fact are ....fools. :-)

Their whole ethos is to merely present information that has come from verifiable sources, producing items that are from official sources so, with that in mind, "facts" are only what they present. I believe a tweet such as that is rare from them, but in any case it's about what they publish not tweet. Whether you are suspicious of the legitimacy of the documents they publish, is up to you to decide. In my experience, as with anything such as this and particularly history, it's very hard to make a suitable comment unless you have spent considerable time looking at various pieces of information from various sources (or "sides") to present a balanced and considered viewpoint; most people don't do this, so it's always difficult to make a present a point differing to the mainstream narrative you are exposed to but what I'll say is, the more you do it, the closer you are to the truth of something.

 

[CitizenTID]

He can call for what he wants mate, its just noise, and he makes more than most. He showed his total ignorance of such things when he said he would appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton. Its bollocks, any President cannot do that, it is not lawful and cannot be done. In fact, trying to do it was one of the reasons Nixon had to resign. Trump can say what he likes about wikileaks, its meaningless.
In any event, there is absolutely nothing to say that Sweden will extradite Assange. The US has not said it is looking to prosecute him, and it is doubtful that they can or would even try. However, it is a very convenient 'what-if' when authorities want to talk to you about raping a woman. But based on purely nebulous speculative thinking not based in fact. There is not even an extradition agreement between Sweden and the US that could be used in that way, it prohibits extradition based on politics, and in the absence of a criminal investigation in the US, that is all it is. The US Justice Dept have also decided that there is no way that they could seek to prosecute Assange, so it as all a moot point. He is hiding until the statute of limitations on the allegation expires rather than face up to it, and that makes him a **** in my eyes.

Yeah I understand that viewpoint but do you really believe the U.S. can't strong-arm Sweden into extraditing someone they would love to be able to shutup? There are many cases of the U.S. doing such things, they are complete bullies on the world stage. There is nothing like WikiLeaks in terms of the quality of finds and their exposure - it'd solve a huge headache for them if Assange was out the picture. I wouldn't doubt they'd seek to extradite him just on the grounds of national security to "interview" him to find out his sources - you don't think the U.S. could make things difficult for Sweden through their partners? I doubt Sweden are doing the U.S. many favours that would halt them in their tracks.

From the perspective of Assange, he is one man against the superpower (and all the tech., manpower, resources and relations that goes along with that) that the U.S. is. I'm sure there must be something in it, otherwise I don't think there'd be grounds for Ecuador to grant asylum. Also - I doubt there'd be constant surveillance and armed police surrounding the embassy ready to swoop at a moment's notice were Assange to leave, merely for someone wanted for questioning re: a rape allegation in Sweden.

 

[CitizenTID]

I'm thinking about it intelligently. Wikileaks are doing their best to influence the US elections and the biggest reason is to help their leader Assange. There are numerous people who prefer to believe innuendo and incorrectly interpreted comments than what they can see and hear with their own eyes and ears in front of them. That's why Trump still has sizeable support and why people believe in all sorts of stupid conspiracies. Wikileaks are capitalising on people's stupidity as is Trump. He's already said he loves uneducated people.

Think of WikiLeaks as a platform for independent journalists to use, or loose collective, not a cult ha. From what I understand, Assange essentially is WikiLeaks and obviously he has people to help run operations to keep WikiLeaks a thing. Don't forget they were around doing this a lot earlier than this election - there is no special agenda because it's election time. Besides, it's a safer bet to wait until 2020 than trust Trump to pardon you.

You might not like the bloke, but don't forget his platform is doing you a service where the governments of our nations fail to provide transparency on things they should.

 

[The Richard Wright Fan Club]

Been off here for a while(took a rest after transfer deadline day as it was getting mundane hearing about Pep V Pellers V Mancini and Bravo V Hart) so hadn't partook in said thread, what I will say after reading the last 10 pages I'm glad that this thread wasn't how I was expecting it, I thought it would be full of how Trumps a racist(which he is) but I'm glad too see that my fellow Bluemooners haven't just paid attention to the sugar coated BBC news coverage.

This from Wednesday's Crosstalk is worth a watch(sorry if it's already been posted)