Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - Stundin
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ "Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution." "The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism." (End of quote)
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 6:45 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
"Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution."
"The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism."
(End of quote)
This is a great find! I'm sure Assange's lawyers will make good use of this, when he shows up in court. -david
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 7:40 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 6:45 PM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
"Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution."
"The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism."
(End of quote)
This is a great find! I'm sure Assange's lawyers will make good use of this, when he shows up in court.
-david
It's a great case study on unfair legal proceedings happening against political targets.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 16:39:04 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
This is a great find! I'm sure Assange's lawyers will make good use of this, when he shows up in court.
So tell us about how your infinitely corrupt govt is persecuting and torturing assange based on lies? Tell us also how the swedish, english and US cesspool 'cooperated' to frame him using feminazi tactics.
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-weird-creepy-media-blackout-on It's been more than three days since the stundin story broke, and yet somehow not only is Assange still in prison, but the mass media are completely ignoring the massive story about his case On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 2:45 AM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
"Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution."
"The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism."
(End of quote)
He isn't in prison is he? He is hiding in an embassy. He can leave at any time. At that time he'll be given a chance to refute this witness, and if it's as clear cut as you think. that'll be it. Then again... I think we all agree that it's not nearly that clear cut, and that this one witness is most likely not the full case against him. But the only way to hear that case is to try it in court. The very court Assange is refusing to appear in. David On Tue, Jun 29, 2021, 3:41 PM Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-weird-creepy-media-blackout-on
It's been more than three days since the stundin story broke, and yet somehow not only is Assange still in prison, but the mass media are completely ignoring the massive story about his case
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 2:45 AM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
"Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder. The witness, who has a documented history with sociopathy and has received several convictions for sexual abuse of minors and wide-ranging financial fraud, made the admission in a newly published interview in Stundin where he also confessed to having continued his crime spree whilst working with the Department of Justice and FBI and receiving a promise of immunity from prosecution."
"The man in question, Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange after misleading them to believe he was previously a close associate of his. In fact he had volunteered on a limited basis to raise money for Wikileaks in 2010 but was found to have used that opportunity to embezzle more than $50,000 from the organization. Julian Assange was visiting Thordarson’s home country of Iceland around this time due to his work with Icelandic media and members of parliament in preparing the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a press freedom project that produced a parliamentary resolution supporting whistleblowers and investigative journalism."
(End of quote)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:51:55 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
He isn't in prison is he? He is hiding in an embassy.
OK. Hard to tell if the troll is high(a druggie badmouthing SR), drunk, or is failed 'artificial intelligence' bot. Looks like the bot is connected to an outdated version of joogle, his NSA pipe is clogged, or something.
One man cannot fight a multinational prosecution with the flick of his finger. Hiding is the appropriate behavior here. What would you do if multiple governments -- especially the most corrupt governments and the most corrupt parts of governments -- thought you were their worst nightmare?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 2:09 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
One man cannot fight a multinational prosecution with the flick of his finger. Hiding is the appropriate behavior here.
What would you do if multiple governments -- especially the most corrupt governments and the most corrupt parts of governments -- thought you were their worst nightmare?
What does this have to do with justice? Are you suggesting that if you are an enemy of the state, you should not have to go through the Justice system? I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. I'm saying something pretty basic. I'm saying you can't blame the courts for treating you badly, if you refuse to show up. All of his complaints against the US government are hypothetical based upon actions it might take in the future, but actually hasn't. Same goes for Snowden. Chelsea Manning is the only one who actually went through the Justice process for her leaking government cables, and she served 7 years in prison, and then was a free woman. We can debate whether or not seven was the right number, and whether she was treated appropriately during those seven, but it wasn't exactly multiple life sentences or execution or rotting in prison, or any of that. It's entirely possible that Snowden and Assange might be free to go by now had they actually shown up to court, and instead have been hiding out over nothing. None of the time Assange is spending in self-isolation will count towards a prison sentence when he eventually goes to jail, because hiding from the law isn't part of the justice system. I'm not sure how someone can celebrate their behavior and simultaneously support the rule of law. David
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 10:46 AM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 2:09 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
One man cannot fight a multinational prosecution with the flick of his finger. Hiding is the appropriate behavior here.
What would you do if multiple governments -- especially the most corrupt governments and the most corrupt parts of governments -- thought you were their worst nightmare?
What does this have to do with justice? Are you suggesting that if you are an enemy of the state, you should not have to go through the Justice system? I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing.
Justice is about what is right, not about enemies. If fake evidence is involved, is the subject an enemy of the state, or an enemy of corruption within it? I'm saying something pretty basic. I'm saying you can't blame the courts
for treating you badly, if you refuse to show up.
You can if you were legitimately hiding from corruption. Regardless courts only judge and act on people in courtrooms. All of his complaints against the US government are hypothetical based upon
actions it might take in the future, but actually hasn't. Same goes for Snowden.
You disregard our hundreds of years of prior systemised injustice, the political prisoners in our prisons, all the recent corruption news that has come out regarding the various branches, including rampant misuse of surveillance technology? Chelsea Manning is the only one who actually went through the Justice
process for her leaking government cables, and she served 7 years in prison, and then was a free woman. We can debate whether or not seven was the right number, and whether she was treated appropriately during those seven, but it wasn't exactly multiple life sentences or execution or rotting in prison, or any of that.
Supporters worked incredibly hard to push for such things, and the same is not true of most such prisoners. The few surviving members of MOVE, the nonviolent group whose home was bombed by law enforcement in 1985, were only released a couple years ago. It's entirely possible that Snowden and Assange might be free to go by now
had they actually shown up to court, and instead have been hiding out over nothing. None of the time Assange is spending in self-isolation will count towards a prison sentence when he eventually goes to jail, because hiding from the law isn't part of the justice system.
The people who take your gamble accomplish less than these people have. I'm not sure how someone can celebrate their behavior and simultaneously
support the rule of law.
This thread is about the evidence having been falsified, David. That is not legal.
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 05:09:38 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
One man cannot fight a multinational prosecution with the flick of his finger. Hiding is the appropriate behavior here.
Why are you still entertaining this non-human turd and US govt agent barrett, who apparently doesn't even know that assange has been in a US-english jail for a year and a half? OH WAIT. Assange is 'innocent until proven guilty' AND IN JAIL. turd <dbarrett@expensify.com> vomited :
He isn't in prison is he? He is hiding in an embassy.
WHAT
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:17 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
He isn't in prison is he? He is hiding in an embassy.
WHAT
Turns out Assange was imprisoned some time ago.
Oh I'm behind on that. He was arrested one year ago, correct? So far he's served one year in jail -- and in the event he is sentenced to jail time, I imagine that one year will be counted toward his sentence (as it was for Chelsea Manning). Am I understanding that you feel it is an outrage to hold Assange in UK jail to await a trial that has been actively delayed *at his own request* by appealing extradition? The only reason he hasn't been tried in court faster than this is due to his extraordinary (and clearly illegal) efforts to avoid being tried. How is that the court's fault or responsibility? -david
Whoops actually. two years -- I keep forgetting it's 2021. So he's served two years in jail, *at his own request*, while appealing his extradition. And this is the fault of the US courts? -david On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:00 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:17 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
He isn't in prison is he? He is hiding in an embassy.
WHAT
Turns out Assange was imprisoned some time ago.
Oh I'm behind on that. He was arrested one year ago, correct? So far he's served one year in jail -- and in the event he is sentenced to jail time, I imagine that one year will be counted toward his sentence (as it was for Chelsea Manning).
Am I understanding that you feel it is an outrage to hold Assange in UK jail to await a trial that has been actively delayed *at his own request* by appealing extradition? The only reason he hasn't been tried in court faster than this is due to his extraordinary (and clearly illegal) efforts to avoid being tried. How is that the court's fault or responsibility?
-david
Did you get my longer email? Is this one for me or punk-stasi? On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 6:04 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Whoops actually. two years -- I keep forgetting it's 2021. So he's served two years in jail, *at his own request*, while appealing
I am not aware of Assange having requested to stay in jail in the slightest. I am aware that a judge ruled not to extradite him because of his mental and physical health. his extradition. And this is the fault of the US courts?
Is it? How are the US courts related to extradition? I don't know much about this, really. Wasn't Assange an Australian? Why does the USA get to ask for him from Britain?
-david
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:00 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:17 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
He isn't in prison is he? He is hiding in an embassy.
WHAT
Turns out Assange was imprisoned some time ago.
Oh I'm behind on that. He was arrested one year ago, correct? So far he's served one year in jail -- and in the event he is sentenced to jail time, I imagine that one year will be counted toward his sentence (as it was for Chelsea Manning).
Am I understanding that you feel it is an outrage to hold Assange in UK jail to await a trial that has been actively delayed *at his own request* by appealing extradition? The only reason he hasn't been tried in court faster than this is due to his extraordinary (and clearly illegal) efforts to
What are you referring to that you find clearly illegal? avoid being tried. How is that the court's fault or responsibility?
What is a court being accused of now?
-david
Do we agree: 1. The US has requested that he be extradited 2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while Assange appeals the extradition request So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by choice. He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time. Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison. But it feels like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a court (and the UK agrees). Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said to have broken -- such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his tracks while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning) in publishing state secrets? I'm sure you would think that he has a reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court. But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear? -david
I'm checking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange to see what others say is true. On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 6:46 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Do we agree:
1. The US has requested that he be extradited
I'm assuming that is true. 2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while Assange
appeals the extradition request
ThIs doesn't appear clear to me. The article says the USA has appealed the extradition request, after a judge denied it. The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-460> A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.[458 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-theduran.com-458>
So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by choice. He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
He is in the UK as opposed to the US. The charges levied at him could imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything. Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison. But it feels
like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a court (and the UK agrees).
FALSIFIED EVIDENCE? REASONABLE CASE AGAINST? Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic. I'm wondering if you're forgetting it. Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
to have broken --
such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his tracks
while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning) in publishing state secrets? I'm sure you would think that he has a reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court. But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear?
Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any law? Does this include people working for governments? -david
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while
Assange appeals the extradition request
ThIs doesn't appear clear to me. The article says the USA has appealed the extradition request, after a judge denied it.
The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-460> A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.[458 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-theduran.com-458>
Oh, that's a great clarification, thank you. Regardless, unless you are suggesting that the UK should offer no appeals process, I think it makes sense to let the UK courts follow its process. So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by choice.
He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
He is in the UK as opposed to the US. The charges levied at him could imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything.
Just like Chelsea Manning. Who went free after 7 years, and was given credit for all her time in prison pre-trial.
Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison. But it feels
like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a court (and the UK agrees).
FALSIFIED EVIDENCE? REASONABLE CASE AGAINST?
Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic. I'm wondering if you're forgetting it.
The courts determine what is true and false evidence; that hasn't happened yet. If you are so confident it's easily proven as false, why wouldn't Assange's attorney be able to easily show that? The reality is, there is likely a wide range of evidence against him -- some false, some true, and there is a process to figure out which is which. A process that the US is trying to follow, but that is being blocked -- currently by the UK. And that's fine. If the UK denies his extradition even after appeal, great. The system works. If the UK does not deny his extradition, and he goes to trial in the US, then great. The system works. Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
to have broken --
such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his tracks
while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning) in publishing state secrets? I'm sure you would think that he has a reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court. But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear?
Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any
law? Does this include people working for governments?
Yes, I would support prosecuting anyone who breaks the law, including/especially those in the government. But whether or not someone else is tried is irrelevant to whether Assange should be tried. -david
David, what are you are saying doesn't seem quite rational to me. Are you on the same page? Did you get my longer email that you didn't reply to? On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 7:16 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while
Assange appeals the extradition request
ThIs doesn't appear clear to me. The article says the USA has appealed the extradition request, after a judge denied it.
The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-460> A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration.[458 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-theduran.com-458>
Oh, that's a great clarification, thank you. Regardless, unless you are suggesting that the UK should offer no appeals process, I think it makes sense to let the UK courts follow its process.
Why is it you are saying this? Does anyone have a way to change their process? So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by choice.
He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
He is in the UK as opposed to the US. The charges levied at him could imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything.
Just like Chelsea Manning. Who went free after 7 years, and was given credit for all her time in prison pre-trial.
==> is that normal? <== move 9? Is 7 years just if the person was trying to aid and protect everyone with all their heart? Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison. But it feels
like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a court (and the UK agrees).
FALSIFIED EVIDENCE? REASONABLE CASE AGAINST?
Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic. I'm wondering if you're forgetting it.
The courts determine what is true and false evidence; that hasn't happened yet. If you are
This is only true within the confines of a trial. Do you believe juries define physical truth? so confident it's easily proven as false, why wouldn't Assange's attorney
be able to easily show that? The reality is, there is likely a
Because the prosecutor has had 10 years to form a case involving massive funding and documents provided by the resources of secret services, while assange is in prison unable to collect data, or unaware of the threat? wide range of evidence against him -- some false, some true, and there is a
process to figure out which is which. A process that the US is trying to follow, but that is being blocked -- currently by the UK. And that's fine. If the UK denies his extradition even after appeal, great. The system works. If the UK does not deny his extradition, and he goes to trial in the US, then great. The system works.
We're arguing a lot here and clearly come from different places. I don't see how we can ever know for sure whether the ruling of a court is correct. It's surprising to me that it's a point of argument. It's frustrating to disagree over our different conclusions. I suspect we've had different experiences that lead to them. Has the court system really protected you? I feel really scared when I read this Sturdin story, but also really full of hope, because my clear perception was that things like this happen a lot, and it rarely reaches the news. Among activism, people are often getting "entrapped" in various real and unreal ways, ending up in prison because somebody put effort into framing them. Our more caring, selfless people, have been ending up in prison =( Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
to have broken --
such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his tracks
while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning) in publishing state secrets? I'm sure you would think that he has a reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court. But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear?
Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any
law? Does this include people working for governments?
Yes, I would support prosecuting anyone who breaks the law, including/especially those in the government. But whether or not someone else is tried is irrelevant to whether Assange should be tried.
Well, the people involved in falsifying evidence could likely reveal a lot of information helpful to justice around Assange. Doing this seems illegal to me. Is it illegal to coerce somebody to lie on the stand? Which case should be brought to court first, to find justice?
-david
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 03:12:06 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you believe juries define physical truth?
He isn't even talking about juries but 'courts'. And he doesn't mean 'courts' either. He's talking about the 'legal system' which is nothing but a collection of non-human garbage also known as 'the government' And to answer your question, which barrett will never answer : yes, he pretends to believe that the US govt defines physical truth. And even more important it defines moral truth as well. The non-human piece of criminal shit barrett is saying is just what O'Brien says : reality is whatever the party says it is, winston.
I think I've received all your emails, though I'll admit there's a lot going on so I might have missed something. I'm not trying to make a grand point, other than it's hard to criticize the justice department's treatment of Assange given that he has done everything in his power to avoid it. Any perceived wrongs against him are at this point still entirely imagined -- it's entirely possible/probable that had he just showed up to court to defend himself from the start (as is the basic expectation of everyone in a modern society), he would be a perfectly free man by now. Yes, he might have been found guilty, and yes he might have served time. But unless your attitude is "People I like should be above the law", then why is this a problem? Unless you are his lawyer or a judge, I feel like we need to step back and acknowledge that we literally don't know what's going on. We don't have the resources to investigate, we haven't seen all the evidence, we haven't devoted the time to understand it, and we arguably aren't even qualified to assess any of this. Anyone who supports justice and the rule of law -- which I believe *should* include everyone reading this (anyone who would self-identify as "I do not support justice, and I do not support the rule of law" is a whole different matter) -- should be frustrated with Assange for refusing to participate in our legal process. And mind you, this truly has nothing to do with whether you think he is guilty or innocent, whether you think the laws are fair, whether you view him as a hero or a villain. Your personal emotions toward him should have nothing whatsoever to do with your support of him following the legal process -- a process that despite its imperfections, is still one of the best in the world. I think criticizing the US justice system for doing the very basics of its job (ie, trying to get someone to show up in court) -- when it literally hasn't even done anything yet -- is kind of off base. Yes, let's make good laws. Yes, let's make sure those laws are properly interpreted and enforced. But all of that *starts* with him showing up in court so we can all actually hear the charges and see the evidence for real, and see what our institutions actually do about it. Running from the law makes for great Hollywood plots, but is hardly what we should be celebrating in the real world. Unless of course you have just given up on our nation entirely and think even attempting to enforce our laws is inherently unjust. But at that point, you've taken such an extreme position, nothing less than revolution will satisfy you. -david On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 12:12 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
David, what are you are saying doesn't seem quite rational to me. Are you on the same page? Did you get my longer email that you didn't reply to?
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 7:16 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:56 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
2. The UK is currently holding him (and has been for 2 years) while
Assange appeals the extradition request
ThIs doesn't appear clear to me. The article says the USA has appealed the extradition request, after a judge denied it.
The US prosecutors lodged an appeal on 15 January.[460] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-460> A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in mid-February 2021 that it would continue the appeal under the new Biden administration. [458 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-theduran.com-458>
Oh, that's a great clarification, thank you. Regardless, unless you are suggesting that the UK should offer no appeals process, I think it makes sense to let the UK courts follow its process.
Why is it you are saying this? Does anyone have a way to change their process?
So he's by every legal and semantic definition in the UK prison by
choice. He can allow himself to be extradited to the US at any time.
He is in the UK as opposed to the US. The charges levied at him could imprison him longer than his lifespan in the US, so he probably doesn't think that extradition would free or benefit him or anything.
Just like Chelsea Manning. Who went free after 7 years, and was given credit for all her time in prison pre-trial.
==> is that normal? <== move 9? Is 7 years just if the person was trying to aid and protect everyone with all their heart?
Now, it's true that he would prefer not to be in any prison. But it feels
like the US has a reasonable case against him that should be evaluated by a court (and the UK agrees).
FALSIFIED EVIDENCE? REASONABLE CASE AGAINST?
Caps because your statement is ignoring the thread topic. I'm wondering if you're forgetting it.
The courts determine what is true and false evidence; that hasn't happened yet. If you are
This is only true within the confines of a trial. Do you believe juries define physical truth?
so confident it's easily proven as false, why wouldn't Assange's attorney
be able to easily show that? The reality is, there is likely a
Because the prosecutor has had 10 years to form a case involving massive funding and documents provided by the resources of secret services, while assange is in prison unable to collect data, or unaware of the threat?
wide range of evidence against him -- some false, some true, and there is
a process to figure out which is which. A process that the US is trying to follow, but that is being blocked -- currently by the UK. And that's fine. If the UK denies his extradition even after appeal, great. The system works. If the UK does not deny his extradition, and he goes to trial in the US, then great. The system works.
We're arguing a lot here and clearly come from different places. I don't see how we can ever know for sure whether the ruling of a court is correct. It's surprising to me that it's a point of argument.
It's frustrating to disagree over our different conclusions. I suspect we've had different experiences that lead to them. Has the court system really protected you?
I feel really scared when I read this Sturdin story, but also really full of hope, because my clear perception was that things like this happen a lot, and it rarely reaches the news. Among activism, people are often getting "entrapped" in various real and unreal ways, ending up in prison because somebody put effort into framing them.
Our more caring, selfless people, have been ending up in prison =(
Unless you feel there is literally no law that he could reasonably be said
to have broken --
such as aiding and abetting a fugitive by helping Snowden hide his
tracks while escaping, or collaborating with a convicted felon (Chelsea Manning) in publishing state secrets? I'm sure you would think that he has a reasonable defense against those, and if so, he should do great in court. But do you believe the court has truly no reasonable case to even hear?
Are you saying we should be certain to prosecute anyone who violates any
law? Does this include people working for governments?
Yes, I would support prosecuting anyone who breaks the law, including/especially those in the government. But whether or not someone else is tried is irrelevant to whether Assange should be tried.
Well, the people involved in falsifying evidence could likely reveal a lot of information helpful to justice around Assange. Doing this seems illegal to me. Is it illegal to coerce somebody to lie on the stand? Which case should be brought to court first, to find justice?
-david
Unjust is in action, by the unjust, not on paper. The "laws" they try to action and judge in "court" should not be "laws" in the first place. And Assange harmed no one. In fact, they are harming Assange. And no, Assange is not "free to leave". #FreeAssange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auberon_Herbert
There is literally no semantic content in any of that. It's just vague words where the reader is left to create meaning from your gibberish. It's like a linguistic Jackson Pollock. You should sell a NFT. -david On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 10:58 PM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Unjust is in action, by the unjust, not on paper. The "laws" they try to action and judge in "court" should not be "laws" in the first place. And Assange harmed no one. In fact, they are harming Assange. And no, Assange is not "free to leave". #FreeAssange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 23:01:17 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
There is literally no semantic content in any of that.
worthless piece of non-human shit doesn't even know what the alleged 'foudation' of the US 'legal system' is. The turd has never read the 'declaration of independence'
On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 01:57:16 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
notice that grarpamp is a piece of trumpofascist shit and a US government agent, whose 'knowledge' of anarchism goes as far as spamming a wikimierda link.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, 1:01 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
I think I've received all your emails, though I'll admit there's a lot going on so I might have missed something.
You wouldn't know you hadn't received it if you didn't. You reply to most of my emails. Did you receive an email from me that you did not reply to, in which I referenced MOVE?
I'm not trying to make a grand point, other than it's hard to criticize the justice department's treatment of Assange given that he has done everything in his power to avoid it. Any perceived wrongs against him
If it is illegal to try to avoid an appeal, it would be a separate crime. If we were to punish people for unrelated crimes at trials, everyone would have their suffering mathematically squared. That is definitely not the intent of the law. The law defines the punishment for crimes, not the irritation of its enforcers, David. are at this point still entirely imagined -- it's entirely
possible/probable that had he just showed up to court to defend himself from the start (as is the basic expectation of everyone in a modern society), he would be a perfectly free man by now. Yes, he might
Jullian Assange is not a United States citizen and is not held by their laws. He was already imprisoned by another country when the extradition request was made. A judge ruled against extradition due to medical needs. Are you blaming Julian Assange for having medical needs? have been found guilty, and yes he might have served time. But unless your
attitude is "People I like should be above the law", then why is this a problem?
Unless you are his lawyer or a judge, I feel like we need to step back and acknowledge that we literally don't know what's going on. We don't have the resources to investigate, we haven't seen all the evidence, we haven't devoted the time to understand it, and we arguably aren't even qualified to assess any
We would then want to be careful to include all possibilities, no? of this. Anyone who supports justice and the rule of law -- which I
believe *should* include everyone reading this (anyone who would self-identify as "I do not support justice, and I do not support the rule of law" is a whole different matter) -- should be frustrated with Assange for refusing to participate in our legal process.
I do not believe that the government understands what is going on either, or is free to act justly on it when they do. Refer to my previous relation regarding forensics norms that wipe the evidence before retrieving it. That doesn't necessarily mean justice or law are good or bad. It means we need to participate in them if we want them to be good. And mind you, this truly has nothing to do with whether you think he is
guilty or innocent, whether you think the laws are fair, whether you view him as a hero or a villain. Your personal emotions toward him should have nothing whatsoever to do with your support of him following the legal process -- a process that despite its imperfections, is still one of the best in the world.
This needs to be true of officials and enforcement workers far more than of me, right? We do have restorative justice processes all over the world. People tend to appreciate them more than trial by jury. I think criticizing the US justice system for doing the very basics of its
job (ie, trying to get someone to show up in court) -- when it literally hasn't even done anything yet -- is kind of off base. Yes, let's make good laws.
How has this been criticised? Are you saying the evidence was falsified just to get him to show up in court? Yes, let's make sure those laws are properly interpreted and enforced.
But all of that *starts* with him showing up in court so we can all actually hear the charges and see the evidence for real, and see what our institutions actually do about it. Running
This of course rarely happens. Trials are held half-privately and then people are locked up in prison and communications with them are censored. By the time they come out they are totally different people. That is the situation right now. Julian has no way to prepare for a trial fairly because he is imprisoned elsewhere. Can the USA get him his writings so he can prepare a defense with his lawyers that is backed by evidence? Why are you blaming him for not showing up when a judge ruled for him not to? from the law makes for great Hollywood plots, but is hardly what we should
be celebrating in the real world.
Unless they are persecuted heros of course like Jesus was. Very differently and non-religiously, George Floyd would have been a lot better off on the run. Unless of course you have just given up on our nation entirely and think
even attempting to enforce our laws is inherently unjust. But at that point, you've taken such an extreme position, nothing less than revolution will satisfy you.
We actually have restorative justice programs in many areas. There are cities and states where an accused criminal can opt for mediation rather than punishment today, David. Other approaches do not necessarily mean revolution or anything. But we also need to protect from persecution, people who dream of revolution and talk about it. It is unjust and illegal to harm people for talking about their dreams.
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:54 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
You wouldn't know you hadn't received it if you didn't. You reply to most of my emails. Did you receive an email from me that you did not reply to, in which I referenced MOVE?
I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally ignoring it, I just don't know which you are referring to. Please repeat the point so I don't miss it. Thanks! I'm not trying to make a grand point, other than it's hard to criticize the
justice department's treatment of Assange given that he has done everything in his power to avoid it. Any perceived wrongs against him
If it is illegal to try to avoid an appeal, it would be a separate crime. If we were to punish people for unrelated crimes at trials, everyone would have their suffering mathematically squared. That is definitely not the intent of the law. The law defines the punishment for crimes, not the irritation of its enforcers, David.
I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding your point. Can you re-state it succinctly so I can respond to it better? To repeat my point, I'm merely saying the US has done precisely nothing to punish Assange yet: he hasn't been on US soil, in US courts, or really touched by the US at all. The US has *attempted* to extradite him for trial, but so far has been unsuccessful. Assange has been accused of breaking a variety of laws in different countries (sexual abuse, immigration violations, etc) , and has done his best to run from all of them -- going so far as effectively imprisoning himself in an embassy for nearly a decade -- all to avoid showing up in *any* court for *any* of these. To a very large degree, nearly all of Assange's suffering has been entirely self-imposed hardships caused by running from the long arm of the law. Again, the only point I'm trying to make is that you can't blame the US court system for being unjust when it's been denied the ability to do anything at all. This isn't to say that Assange is guilty/innocent -- I genuinely have no idea. And thanks to his extraordinary efforts to avoid trial, nor does anybody else either (at least, nobody who believes in the concept of justice being decided in courts, and not in the press). Yes, let's make sure those laws are properly interpreted and enforced.
But all of that *starts* with him showing up in court so we can all actually hear the charges and see the evidence for real, and see what our institutions actually do about it. Running
This of course rarely happens. Trials are held half-privately and then people are locked up in prison and communications with them are censored. By the time they come out they are totally different people.
That is the situation right now. Julian has no way to prepare for a trial fairly because he is imprisoned elsewhere. Can the USA get him his writings so he can prepare a defense with his lawyers that is backed by evidence?
"This of course rarely happens" -- are you sure? There's something like 400 thousand federal trials every year; and *millions* of state trials. Are you saying that it is *rare* for people to get justice? My sense is that the overwhelming majority of cases are executed competently and reasonably -- even if imperfectly -- and are just so boring that nobody talks about them. We are talking about single-digit numbers of court cases in this thread; we are explicitly talking only about the most extreme of the most extreme outliers. Please don't misinterpret these extraordinary edge cases to be the common case. Unless of course you have just given up on our nation entirely and think
even attempting to enforce our laws is inherently unjust. But at that point, you've taken such an extreme position, nothing less than revolution will satisfy you.
We actually have restorative justice programs in many areas. There are cities and states where an accused criminal can opt for mediation rather than punishment today, David.
I'd love to learn more about this; I'm not familiar with mediation as an alternative to trial for criminal cases (I thought that was only an option for civil suits). Can you link me to some good resources you recommend to read more? Thanks! -david
Hey David, Thanks for your reply. I'm half-dissociated when I post to this list, so if you ever don't like my personality you can ask me to change it ;p. I just don't want to harm or blame others more than I already do, and I seem to partially be here towards some vague idea of technologically skilled forthrightness in the public posts on this list. On Sat, Jul 3, 2021, 5:07 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:54 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
You wouldn't know you hadn't received it if you didn't. You reply to most of my emails. Did you receive an email from me that you did not reply to, in which I referenced MOVE?
I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally ignoring it, I just don't know which you are referring to. Please repeat the point so I don't miss it. Thanks!
Did you get the email at this link containing a reference to the bombing of MOVE? https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-June/088677.html I also have trouble looking for emails when people say stuff like that =S. How does it feel for you? Everyone assumes it's so easy to do stuff that they can do. I'm not trying to make a grand point, other than it's hard to criticize the
justice department's treatment of Assange given that he has done everything in his power to avoid it. Any perceived wrongs against him
If it is illegal to try to avoid an appeal, it would be a separate crime. If we were to punish people for unrelated crimes at trials, everyone would have their suffering mathematically squared. That is definitely not the intent of the law. The law defines the punishment for crimes, not the irritation of its enforcers, David.
I'm sorry, I'm not quite understanding your point. Can you re-state it succinctly so I can respond to it better?
It sounded like you were validating an idea of USA government workers making things hard for Assange based on their personal opinions. Below it sounds like you may be saying that you do not mean this. To repeat my point, I'm merely saying the US has done precisely nothing to
punish Assange yet: he hasn't been on US soil, in US
Stundin article? Did you see the Stundin article? courts, or really touched by the US at all. The US has *attempted* to
extradite him for trial, but so far has been unsuccessful. Assange has been accused of breaking a variety of laws in different countries (sexual abuse, immigration violations, etc) , and has done
It is obvious that those are not the accusations that governments are concerned with. his best to run from all of them -- going so far as effectively imprisoning
himself in an embassy for nearly a decade -- all to avoid showing up in *any* court for *any* of these.
So, the Stundin article reported that the USA had actually gone to great efforts to _frame_ Assange. This was very difficult to learn. It was the person doing it who shared it, and they may have put themselves at great risk. If it is a government that is trying to frame you, is attending court in their country a good idea? To a very large degree, nearly all of Assange's suffering has been
entirely self-imposed hardships caused by running from the long arm of the law.
==> People run because they are in danger <== Let me find and paste a quote for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316471/ The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange On Feb 17, 2020, Doctors for Assange demanded an end to the torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange.[1] Yet no responsible authority has acted. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and two medical experts visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019, concluding that his treatment constituted psychological torture, a form of torture aimed at destroying the personality of an individual.[2] The situation has deteriorated since then, with continued abuses of Mr Assange's fundamental rights and the medical risks posed by COVID-19. Again, the only point I'm trying to make is that you can't blame the US
court system for being unjust when it's been denied the ability to do anything at all. This isn't to say that Assange is guilty/innocent -- I genuinely have no idea. And thanks to his extraordinary efforts to avoid trial, nor does anybody else either (at least, nobody who believes in the concept of justice being decided in courts, and not in the press).
Other things than just those two things are acting here. Yes, let's make sure those laws are properly interpreted and enforced.
But all of that *starts* with him showing up in court so we can all actually hear the charges and see the evidence for real, and see what our institutions actually do about it. Running
This of course rarely happens. Trials are held half-privately and then people are locked up in prison and communications with them are censored. By the time they come out they are totally different people.
That is the situation right now. Julian has no way to prepare for a trial fairly because he is imprisoned elsewhere. Can the USA get him his writings so he can prepare a defense with his lawyers that is backed by evidence?
"This of course rarely happens" -- are you sure? There's something like 400 thousand federal trials every year; and *millions* of state trials. Are you saying that it is *rare* for people to get justice? My sense is that the
Well, I'm mostly exposed to political convictions. Everyone I know who has gone behind bars (aside from the people I met when I was behind them myself) was in there politically. (At my trial I was released, but I was influenced to accept a needless guilty-plea for charges unrelated to why I was jailed.) Political convictions can go reasonably nicely or severely inhumanly poorly. overwhelming majority of cases are executed competently and reasonably --
even if imperfectly -- and are just so boring that nobody talks about them. We are talking about single-digit numbers of court cases in this thread; we are explicitly talking only about the most extreme of the most extreme outliers. Please don't misinterpret these extraordinary edge cases to be the common case.
What's your opinion on convictions for nonviolent drug crimes? Do you think they influence street culture? Unless of course you have just given up on our nation entirely and think
even attempting to enforce our laws is inherently unjust. But at that point, you've taken such an extreme position, nothing less than revolution will satisfy you.
We actually have restorative justice programs in many areas. There are cities and states where an accused criminal can opt for mediation rather than punishment today, David.
I'd love to learn more about this; I'm not familiar with mediation as an alternative to trial for criminal cases (I thought that was only an option for civil suits). Can you link me to some good resources you recommend to read more? Thanks!
I likely conflated civil and criminal. But if you can figure out who your accuser is, you can mediate with them to resolve the reason they're accusing you (or alternatively so that you turn yourself in), humanly. I get confused around this topic I value, but here are two early audio snippets from a course on nonviolent communication: https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdFVjYwgeuUpw83hBB74Wy4js8SrmmNxt8U2MkdRA2f7m/... https://gateway.ipfs.io/ipfs/QmdFVjYwgeuUpw83hBB74Wy4js8SrmmNxt8U2MkdRA2f7m/... I think their official website is cnvc.org, but the really poignant websites are elsewhere, and they do restorative justice but don't specialise in it specifically. I know you asked about mediation as alternative to conviction. I've found some links on that in the past (it's the prime thing people try to do with restorative justice) but I am handling some difficult psychological experiences, and links like this are not easy for me to find and relate right now. I'm sorry.
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 2:50 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally ignoring it, I just don't know which you
are referring to. Please repeat the point so I don't miss it. Thanks!
Did you get the email at this link containing a reference to the bombing of MOVE? https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-June/088677.html
Yes, in the past 250 years, our nation -- which was founded on slavery, fought countless wars over the globe, is the only country to use nuclear arms in battle, etc, etc -- has done terrible things. There have probably been *billions* of individual court cases, and maybe a trillion interactions between law enforcement and the general public. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, there are countless examples of horrible atrocities to point to and select out. But that would be to cherrypick the evidence to suit your needs. The overwhelming number of court cases are completely boring, mundane, and non-controversial. We are choosing to select the most politically charged, complicated cases and shine a light on them -- and yes, if you are suspected, accusted, and convicted of the most deadly, damaging, or complicated cases the world has ever seen, yes, the system is not optimized for those. But to claim that those are somehow representative of the normal course of justice is not reasonable. I remember recently going on a date with a woman that spent her whole life trying to move to the US, talking in horrifying detail of the vastly, vastly more common problems experienced elsewhere in the world *on a daily, mundane basis*. It's easy to criticize the US for imperfection, or lament that the real world hasn't lived up to your dreams. But what is the point? The US exists. You can either change that, through revolution, or improve it through voting. Those are your choices. It doesn't matter if you like them. That's just physics; if you don't like it, find a new dimension.
To repeat my point, I'm merely saying the US has done precisely nothing to
punish Assange yet: he hasn't been on US soil, in US
Stundin article? Did you see the Stundin article?
About one of the witnesses maybe falsifying testimony? Sounds great, I can't wait for Assange's lawyer to mention that, if he eventually shows up in court.
courts, or really touched by the US at all. The US has *attempted* to
extradite him for trial, but so far has been unsuccessful. Assange has been accused of breaking a variety of laws in different countries (sexual abuse, immigration violations, etc) , and has done
It is obvious that those are not the accusations that governments are concerned with.
So to confirm, you think that Sweden doesn't care about sexual assault? Or are you saying that you are so personally convinced of Assange's innocence that you have no interest in seeing him go to trial for it -- his accusers are beneath your notice and have no right to justice? Or are you saying that it's ok that he sexually assaulted others, because of the righteousness of his cause? Saying "it's obvious" doesn't make it so. There seems truly nothing at all obvious about Assange's potential crimes... precisely because he has refused to stand trial. It's entirely possible that Assange is a small footnote in history that is being magnified out of proportion, who the grinding, faceless, mundane bureaucracy of justice is just trying to run through the system. He's just a guy, who is refusing to show up in court for a variety of cases, whose life will be defined not for what information he supposedly brought to life, but how he spent his entire life in hiding from justice for his actions -- actions that only a tiny, shrinking set of people can even remember. He's not some grand hero, he's just a dude who is refusing to show up in court to answer for his actions. his best to run from all of them -- going so far as effectively imprisoning
himself in an embassy for nearly a decade -- all to avoid showing up in *any* court for *any* of these.
So, the Stundin article reported that the USA had actually gone to great efforts to _frame_ Assange. This was very difficult to learn. It was the person doing it who shared it, and they may have put themselves at great risk.
If it is a government that is trying to frame you, is attending court in their country a good idea?
Who is "the government"? It's literally a million separate employees. That's why there are separation of powers; the court system has literally never spoken to this witness, *because there has never been an actual trial*. Furthermore, the article makes it sound like the witness lied, not that the evidence was fabricated or the government was trying to frame anyone. Regardless, unless you truly believe that Stundin is somehow an absolute arbiter of truth -- and their reporting is so pristine that it should be taken as gospel without any formal process -- then you should agree with me that this is great reporting, that will be made available to the defense.
To a very large degree, nearly all of Assange's suffering has been
entirely self-imposed hardships caused by running from the long arm of the law.
==> People run because they are in danger <==
Let me find and paste a quote for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316471/
The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange
On Feb 17, 2020, Doctors for Assange demanded an end to the torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange.[1] Yet no responsible authority has acted. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and two medical experts visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019, concluding that his treatment constituted psychological torture, a form of torture aimed at destroying the personality of an individual.[2] The situation has deteriorated since then, with continued abuses of Mr Assange's fundamental rights and the medical risks posed by COVID-19.
Just to confirm, he is in a UK prison right now -- one that is *denying extradition to the US*, right? Can you elaborate on how this is the US's fault? The US would gladly take Assange into prison here if Assange would allow it, and then I think you would have a more credible complaint against the US court system. Additionally, just to confirm, is this the torture you are referring to that you feel justifies him running from the law (including isolating himself for 7 years in an embassy), and that you feel is so shocking that he should (presumably -- I'm not sure what you are proposing) be let free without any trial? "He has been held in a bulletproof enclosure unable to fully hear proceedings and denied meetings with his lawyers. He was strip-searched, handcuffed 11 times, moved to five different holding cells, and had privileged client–lawyer communications seized." I don't know how many times a typical person is handcuffed, but 11 doesn't really sound like a lot to me. And yes, being unable to hear well does sound bad, they should definitely improve the audio. ... but torture? You feel this treatment, as bad as it is, is so bad as to justify (presumably) just letting him off the hook without any trial for any of his accused crimes? "This of course rarely happens" -- are you sure? There's something like
400 thousand federal trials every year; and *millions* of state trials. Are you saying that it is *rare* for people to get justice? My sense is that the
Well, I'm mostly exposed to political convictions. Everyone I know who has gone behind bars (aside from the people I met when I was behind them myself) was in there politically. (At my trial I was released, but I was influenced to accept a needless guilty-plea for charges unrelated to why I was jailed.)
Political convictions can go reasonably nicely or severely inhumanly poorly.
So just to confirm, everyone you've met that was convicted, told you they were wrongly convicted? And you feel they are the most reliable source of truth, and are so reliable that on your first hand experience and the word of your fellow convicts, you are rejecting the justice of the entire government? I'd love to learn more about this; I'm not familiar with mediation as an
alternative to trial for criminal cases (I thought that was only an option for civil suits). Can you link me to some good resources you recommend to read more? Thanks!
I likely conflated civil and criminal. But if you can figure out who your accuser is, you can mediate with them to resolve the reason they're accusing you (or alternatively so that you turn yourself in), humanly.
That's not true. Civil suits are disagreements between people, but no law was broken -- this is why you can mediate them, because "justice" is "the two parties have found an agreement out of court". There is no equivalent of that for criminal law. When you break a law, punishment is determined by the court system. -david
On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 16:26:50 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Yes, in the past 250 years, our nation -- which was founded on slavery, fought countless wars over the globe, is the only country to use nuclear arms in battle, etc, etc
But that would be to cherrypick the evidence
humour me karl, why do you help this non-human turd barrett do his job - his job being of course the spreading of murder and torture at the hands of the US govt.
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021, 7:27 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 2:50 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, I'm not intentionally ignoring it, I just don't know which you
are referring to. Please repeat the point so I don't miss it. Thanks!
Did you get the email at this link containing a reference to the bombing of MOVE? https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-June/088677.html
Yes, in the past 250 years, our nation -- which was founded on slavery, fought countless
Sorry for being unclear. Are you able to verify whether or not your received the email I linked to? Your reply demonstrated only knowledge of my link to it, not its contents. wars over the globe, is the only country to use nuclear arms in battle,
etc, etc -- has done terrible things. There have probably been *billions* of individual court cases, and maybe a trillion interactions between law enforcement and the general public. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, there are countless examples of horrible atrocities to point to and select out.
But that would be to cherrypick the evidence to suit your needs. The overwhelming number of court cases are completely boring, mundane, and non-controversial. We are choosing to select the most politically charged, complicated cases and shine a light on them -- and yes, if you are suspected, accusted, and convicted of the most deadly, damaging, or complicated cases the world has ever seen, yes, the system is not optimized for those.
Assange has clearly been one of the horrible atrocities and not the mundane ones, no? When you find all your injured courts have people who speak out widely against the established norm, and you have an injured person who's spoken out widely against the established norm, what conclusions do you draw? I remember recently going on a date with a woman that spent her whole life
trying to move to the US, talking in horrifying detail of the vastly, vastly more common problems experienced elsewhere in the world *on a daily, mundane basis*. It's easy to criticize the US for imperfection, or lament that the
Such stories are so valuable, crucial, precious. We hear them so rarely, and we desperately need to hear them to participate in making things better. real world hasn't lived up to your dreams. But what is the point?
... to help with situations like that woman's history, they're the majority. The US exists. You can either change that, through revolution, or improve
it through voting. Those are your choices. It doesn't matter if you like them. That's just physics; if you don't like it, find a new dimension.
There are many new dimensions! Like making friends with your representatives or building a new technology! To repeat my point, I'm merely saying the US has done precisely nothing to
punish Assange yet: he hasn't been on US soil, in US
Stundin article? Did you see the Stundin article?
About one of the witnesses maybe falsifying testimony? Sounds great, I can't wait for Assange's lawyer to mention that, if he eventually shows up in court.
You already said that ... I feel upset that we're not communicating .. The witness was coerced by the U.S. to falsify testimony. This harms Assange. It sounds like you're upset that things are coming out outside of court. If Assange had come to court earlier, this crucial new evidence would never have come out. Do you disagree? What is the difference to you between supporting courts with assange in them, and supporting courts deliberating on whether assange reaches them?
courts, or really touched by the US at all. The US has *attempted* to
extradite him for trial, but so far has been unsuccessful. Assange has been accused of breaking a variety of laws in different countries (sexual abuse, immigration violations, etc) , and has done
It is obvious that those are not the accusations that governments are concerned with.
So to confirm, you think that Sweden doesn't care about sexual assault? Or are you saying
I didn't say that at all, David. I talked about what is obvious, regarding Assange, to a normal human being. that you are so personally convinced of Assange's innocence that you have
no interest in seeing him go to trial for it -- his accusers are beneath your notice and have no right to justice? Or are you saying that it's
I did not attempt to convey that either. ok that he sexually assaulted others, because of the righteousness of his
cause? Saying
Nor did I try to convey that. "it's obvious" doesn't make it so. There seems truly nothing at all
obvious about Assange's potential crimes... precisely because he has refused to stand trial.
Here's another thing that's obvious: you are spending many sentences, paragraphs, and ascii-hours ignoring whistleblowing, controversial journalism, "slander" or "espionage", talking instead about crimes that happen all the time and are unrelated to hiding in an embassy for years and nation states clamoring to extradite you. It's entirely possible that Assange is a small footnote in history that is
being magnified out of proportion, who the grinding, faceless, mundane bureaucracy of justice is just trying to run through the system. He's just a guy, who is refusing to show up in court for a variety of cases, whose life will be defined not for what information he supposedly brought to life, but how he spent his entire life in hiding from justice for his actions -- actions that only a tiny, shrinking set of people can even remember.
This can become true with great suffering and death. But today we know Assange for having been mysteriously painted as the "wikileaks bad guy" who was persecuted, imprisoned, and abused on a national scale. He's not some grand hero, he's just a dude who is refusing to show up in
court to answer for his actions.
Can you concisely state your point in a way that includes what I know and believe? his best to run from all of them -- going so far as effectively imprisoning
himself in an embassy for nearly a decade -- all to avoid showing up in *any* court for *any* of these.
So, the Stundin article reported that the USA had actually gone to great efforts to _frame_ Assange. This was very difficult to learn. It was the person doing it who shared it, and they may have put themselves at great risk.
If it is a government that is trying to frame you, is attending court in their country a good idea?
Who is "the government"? It's literally a million separate employees. That's why there
It's a powerful system capable of affecting people's lives, where a million employees each know how to direct its behavior far, far better than you do. are separation of powers; the court system has literally never spoken to
this witness, *because there has never been an actual trial*. Furthermore, the article makes it sound like the witness lied, not that the evidence was fabricated or the government was trying to frame anyone. Regardless,
Did you read it? It doesn't come across that way to me. Here's a quote:
The man in question ... was recruited by US authorities to build a case against Assange
You're saying it is a complete coincidence that the person the US authorities recruit to build a case against Assange, was aftewards full of discrediting lies regarding claims of Assange participating in illegal or immoral -sounding things? The person they recruited seemed to be saying things that supported the reason they were recruited. unless you truly believe that Stundin is somehow an absolute arbiter of
truth -- and their reporting is so pristine that it should be taken as gospel without any formal process -The - then you should agree with me that this is great reporting, that will be made available to the defense.
I hope a defense would get more than the article. They would need to get the actual person who made the false accusations on the stand. But regardless its clear you'd personally like Assange to go straight to the USA and a courtroom. A court is deciding that. To a very large degree, nearly all of Assange's suffering has been
entirely self-imposed hardships caused by running from the long arm of the law.
==> People run because they are in danger <==
Let me find and paste a quote for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7316471/
The ongoing torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange
On Feb 17, 2020, Doctors for Assange demanded an end to the torture and medical neglect of Julian Assange.[1] Yet no responsible authority has acted. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and two medical experts visited Mr Assange in prison in May, 2019, concluding that his treatment constituted psychological torture, a form of torture aimed at destroying the personality of an individual.[2] The situation has deteriorated since then, with continued abuses of Mr Assange's fundamental rights and the medical risks posed by COVID-19.
Just to confirm, he is in a UK prison right now
Yes. -- one that is *denying extradition to the US*, right? Can you elaborate
on how this is the US's fault? The US would gladly take
I didn't say it's the US's fault at all. Like you said, a government is full of millions of workers. The world is full of governments. Caps to help you remember I hold this opinion: NOTHING IS ANYBODY'S FAULT. We were talking about Assange running or hiding. Given multiple nation states have expressed interest, his danger could be from just about anything, but it is real and present. Dangerous things can influence trials in dangerous ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae The reason to not extradite Assange is because Assange requests it, and Assange and his people know more about the non-just danger he is in than we do. The process goes through court to protect your kind of justice, which has happened and is happening. Assange into prison here if Assange would allow it, and then I think you
would have a more credible complaint against the US court system.
Additionally, just to confirm, is this the torture you are referring to that you feel justifies him running from the law (including isolating himself for 7 years in an embassy), and that
Is torture the law? He seems to be running from something able to influence the law. Something like that is frightening and dangerous, and also normal. The law is influenced all the time by people with wealth etc. you feel is so shocking that he should (presumably -- I'm not sure what you
are proposing) be let free without any trial?
That hadn't occurred to me, but it would make sense that if somebody had already severely punished somebody else, that further punishment would be unwarranted. "He has been held in a bulletproof enclosure unable to fully hear
proceedings and denied meetings with his lawyers. He was strip-searched, handcuffed 11 times, moved to five different holding cells, and had privileged client–lawyer communications seized."
I don't know how many times a typical person is handcuffed, but 11 doesn't really sound like a lot to me. And yes, being unable
Handcuffs can leave wounds on the wrists, which are very painful like somebody forcing you to have your knee skinned repeatedly. It usually only happens when being forcibly transferred from place to place. A typical person is never handcuffed. Inmates are often legally abused. It's hard to talk clearly about psychological torture. It has to do with timing and personalizing things in ways that confuse people. It was a formal paper accepted by a judge. I believe Assange was legally tortured. to hear well does sound bad, they should definitely improve the audio. ...
but torture?
I didn't read the whole paper to see the bit about audio, what was that? You feel this treatment, as bad as it is, is so bad as to justify
(presumably) just letting him off the hook without any trial for any of his accused crimes?
I didn't say that, but doing so would help everyone trust their governments a lot more. "This of course rarely happens" -- are you sure? There's something like
400 thousand federal trials every year; and *millions* of state trials. Are you saying that it is *rare* for people to get justice? My sense is that the
Well, I'm mostly exposed to political convictions. Everyone I know who has gone behind bars (aside from the people I met when I was behind them myself) was in there politically. (At my trial I was released, but I was influenced to accept a needless guilty-plea for charges unrelated to why I was jailed.)
Political convictions can go reasonably nicely or severely inhumanly poorly.
So just to confirm, everyone you've met that was convicted, told you they were wrongly convicted? And you feel they are the most
No, for example I was at the start of a planned protest and we were crossing the street to put up visual imagery. A police car stopped and arrested many of us in the middle of the street, before we had even put up our display. At another event groups of people were engaging in civil disobedience against a project, the same behavior credited with causing civil rights laws. These are small crimes (generally publicly trespassing so as to communicate with people), but everyone in that area was given the very maximum punishment at their trial. The numbers of the group kept dwindling because everyone was spending months or even years in prison for doing what was normal in other areas. reliable source of truth, and are so reliable that on your first hand
experience and the
My first hand experience did not belie this. word of your fellow convicts, you are
I've never been called a "convict" before. Don't people usually reserve that word for when the word "felon" also applies? I guess a plea deal is a big thing? But yeah, think of how I responded to that word. It's scary. Conviction carries a lot more punishment than just the word of the law. Are you a convict? rejecting the justice of the entire government?
Here's another information about me: I DO NOT FULLY REJECT ANYTHING AT ALL. Sorry for caps. Language model fears and all. It's great governments want to be just, to include that they need to act on injustice that they stimulate themselves, too. I'd love to learn more about this; I'm not familiar with mediation as an
alternative to trial for criminal cases (I thought that was only an option for civil suits). Can you link me to some good resources you recommend to read more? Thanks!
I likely conflated civil and criminal. But if you can figure out who your accuser is, you can mediate with them to resolve the reason they're accusing you (or alternatively so that you turn yourself in), humanly.
That's not true. Civil suits are disagreements between people, but no law was broken -- this is why you can mediate them, because "justice" is "the two parties have found an agreement out of court". There is no
equivalent of that for criminal law. When you break a law, punishment is
determined by the court system.
Mediation is something that happens between two human beings, not static written laws. A human being can do anything. Anything at all. It is completely fine to drop charges against somebody when there is sound reason to do so.
-david
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:01:11 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's another thing that's obvious: you are spending many sentences, paragraphs, and ascii-hours ignoring whistleblowing, controversial journalism, "slander" or "espionage", talking instead about crimes that happen all the time and are unrelated to hiding in an embassy for years and nation states clamoring to extradite you.
maybe it's one of the 'gtp' bots you spoke of? See how 'clever' 'artificial intelligene' is. The only thing the barrett bot does is copy paste the same propaganda while ignoring all moral and material facts - because machines are not 'intelligent'.
I'm sorry, I think I'm missing your key point. (You keep referencing back to an email, which I think I've read, and I think I've responded to the substance of, but if I haven't then please make your point.) The point I'm trying to make, is: 1) The US/UK/etc justice system starts when you are taken into custody. Up until that point, it's not responsible. You choosing to run from the law isn't the law's fault; Assange can't blame the cops for him choosing to hide in an embassy for 7 years -- he picked that. It is super fair game to criticize the treatment of Chelsea Manning, who received 7 years in jail for her actions, and feels a decent model for how Snowden and Assange would have been tried if they had not run from the law all this time. But them fleeing and doubling down on their accused behavior won't earn them any points at trial, so it's anybody's guess how it will eventually go when they are inexorably caught and tried. 2) The US justice system works (ie, delivers fair justice) in hundreds of millions of super boring situations that we are choosing not to talk about now precisely because they are mundane. This conversation is focusing on extreme edge and failure conditions, which by definition are unusual and bad. This would be like indicting the medical profession to say "You should never go into a surgery room, because millions of people die there, and more people die in surgery rooms than out. Furthermore, surgeons kill more people than serial murders and should all be executed." You can keep highlighting small handfuls of problems -- and they are real problems, no doubt. And the further you go back in history, the more horrific those problems get. But in general, over time, things are getting better, and that's an important point not to be dismissed. 3) I'm not sure what your actual proposal is. You are saying what you don't like about the outcomes, but you aren't stating what change you would like in the process to get a different outcome. You are strongly implying (but not stating outright) a bunch of contradictory positions: a. You don't think he's guilty of sexual assault and don't think he should go to trial for it, but you also acknowledge you don't know the evidence and aren't a judge. So which is it? Should his accusers get justice by him going to trial, or should he go free merely because you think they are liars (despite never meeting them or knowing anything about them)? Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with an incredibly obvious statement: "Anyone who is accused of sexual assault should be investigated and tried according to the law, no matter who they are." b. You don't think he's guilty of anything, and don't think he should have even been charged, but also don't go so far as to say running from the law should be a valid tactic for avoiding a trial. So which is it? Should we as a rule reward people who attempt to flee with freedom? Or should we as a rule keep pursuing them until there is a trial? Or is he so special that he alone should be rewarded for running from a trial? Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious statement: "Once there is a warrant for your arrest, justice is best served by bringing that person into trial; we should never give up attempting to bring them to trial, and evading arrest should not be rewarded with a lessor sentence." c. You are very concerned by *one witness* in a large, complex trial, claiming he falsified information to a newspaper. But you aren't saying that newspapers are valid courtrooms. So which is it? Should we go to a court to figure out what is true or false, or should we basically take as truth _what a self proclaimed liar is claiming years later_? You seem to be happy to trust him as being totally honest now, despite admitting that he was a liar in the past. Why are you convinced he isn't just lying now to exonerate Assange? Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious statement: "Newspapers and social media are not the best venue for a trial; we should give everyone the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, but we should also figure out guilt or innocence in a trial." You are trying to have your cake and eat it too: to widely criticize our justice system, but without making any tangible suggestions on how it can be improved (even while strongly implying you believe a bunch of contradictory positions that make no sense). It's wearying because you aren't stating a sufficiently clear rebuttal to really react to. You are just complaining ambiguously that "the world isn't fair", without making any active contribution to make it more fair. This is our world. It's your and my job to fix it. But step one in that process is deciding what specifically to do. -david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 3:49 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, I think I'm missing your key point.
My key point is that either something is mutating our communications or you are being deceptive and nonforthright. My legal preference is to support Assange, and I personally believe we need to be prosecuting over the many crimes his people revealed, not him. It is a really serious waste of time to attack a messenger. (You keep referencing back to an email, which I think I've read, and I
think I've responded to the substance of, but if I haven't then please make your point.) The
Stated above, email topic is part of it. point I'm trying to make, is:
1) The US/UK/etc justice system starts when you are taken into custody. Up until that point, it's not responsible. You choosing to run from the law isn't the law's fault; Assange can't blame the cops for him choosing to hide in an embassy for 7 years -- he picked that. It is super fair game to criticize the treatment of Chelsea Manning, who received 7 years in jail for her actions, and feels a decent model for how Snowden and Assange would have been tried if they had not run from the law all this time. But them fleeing and doubling down on their accused behavior won't earn them any points at trial, so it's anybody's guess how it will eventually go when they are inexorably caught and tried.
Why does it matter that they did not trust the legal system and legally hid? How should that influence their trial? It seems quite oppressive to me to punish people for not trusting you. 2) The US justice system works (ie, delivers fair justice) in hundreds of
millions of super boring situations that we are choosing not to talk about now precisely because they are mundane. This conversation is focusing on extreme edge and failure conditions, which by definition are unusual and bad. This
would be like indicting the medical profession to say "You should never go
into a surgery room, because millions of people die there, and more people die in surgery rooms than out. Furthermore, surgeons kill more people than serial murders and should all be executed." You can keep highlighting small handfuls of problems -- and they are real
This is relevant because this is indeed one of these extreme edge and failure conditions. Somebody recently shared with me that we actually have lots of the clear strong evidence that trials are generally quite unfair as a norm. I have not reviewed their reference at this time. problems, no doubt. And the further you go back in history, the more
horrific those problems get. But in general, over time, things are getting better, and that's an important point not to be dismissed.
That's good to remember. It does also have a multi-decade timescale so far.
3) I'm not sure what your actual proposal is. You are saying what you don't like about the outcomes, but you aren't stating what change you would like in the process to get a different outcome. You are strongly implying (but not stating outright) a bunch of contradictory positions:
a. You don't think he's guilty of sexual assault and don't think he should go to trial for it, but you also acknowledge you don't know the evidence and aren't a judge. So which is it?
I think the sexual assault is _moot_. Although I believe most male adults with friends are guilty of sexual assault, personally, it is well documented that our secret services force their targets into situations like that, even using drugs and slaves to do so. Other, different, stuff is way more important here. Should his accusers get justice by him going to trial, or should he go free
merely because you think they are liars (despite never meeting them or knowing anything about them)? Why are you so uncomfortable
How would my opinion ever be related to what happens to Assange? Sounds like you've already decided he's guilty? agreeing with an incredibly obvious statement: "Anyone who is accused of
sexual assault should be investigated and tried according to the law, no matter who they are."
I accuse you of sexual assault. Casually, not legally. I have personal experience with sexual assault and you are clearly focusing on this over far more relevant issues, needlessly, when talking with me. This is somewhat triggering to me. Anyway, yes that's important! What you quoted is incredibly important! But it is not the relevant point with Assange, and that is blindingly obvious! b. You don't think he's guilty of anything, and
Did I say this?? I don't know what the word "guilty" means to you and you seem to use it very specifically. don't think he should have even been charged, but also don't go so far as
to say running from the law should be a valid tactic for avoiding a trial. So which is it? Should
Sure, if you are willing to drop _your entire life, all your possessions, all your friends and family and home, and live with no resources_ to avoid a trial, that probably means something pretty important is going on, and at least under those conditions it sounds like it should be valid to me. I hope you would have an avenue to pick the trial if you changed your mind, and protection otherwise. Isn't Assange _not_ a US citizen? we as a rule reward people who attempt to flee with freedom? Or should we
as a rule keep pursuing them until there is a trial? Or is he so special that he alone should be rewarded for running from a trial? Why are
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David. you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious statement: "Once
there is a warrant for your arrest, justice is best served by bringing that person into trial; we should never give up attempting to bring them to trial, and evading arrest should not be rewarded with a lessor sentence."
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David. When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
c. You are very concerned by *one witness* in a large, complex trial, claiming he falsified information to a newspaper. But you aren't saying that newspapers are valid courtrooms. So which is it? Should we go to
My opinions are not the random parties you guess. Reality is never polar. You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David. When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed? Is the law fair? Or does it only target Assange and Snowden? a court to figure out what is true or false, or should we basically take as
truth _what a self proclaimed liar is claiming years later_? You seem to be happy to trust him as being totally honest now, despite admitting that he was a liar in the past. Why are you convinced he isn't just lying now to exonerate Assange?
There was a lot of evidence included, I've been there some myself, and the way it was related lets the reader find truth. It's a logical tautology that lieing is not accurate evidence. You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David. You don't respond to my questions, don't say where you are coming from personally, speak without consistent logic, and repeatedly push for a very specific international political and legal goal. When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed? Is the law fair? Or does it only target Assange and Snowden? Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious
statement:
You're assuming I am uncomfortable with it, before you have shared it with me. Please give me more respect than this. "Newspapers and social media are not the best venue for a trial; we should
give everyone the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, but we should also figure out guilt or innocence in a trial."
I'm uncomfortable because it makes no sense that you are quoting to me that we should give everyone the assumption of innocence while treating Assange as if they are already guilty, and that is very confusing to me.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, by ignoring the parts that poison me and you. This is happening so much that countless people are dying. too: to widely criticize our justice system, but without making any
tangible suggestions on how it can be improved (even while strongly implying you believe a bunch of contradictory positions that make no sense). It's wearying
I am completely unaware of doing that and would enjoy a rational and mutually supportive discussion on the topic. because you aren't stating a sufficiently clear rebuttal to really react
to. You are just complaining ambiguously that "the world isn't fair", without making any active contribution to make it more fair.
I have not said that. I am trying hard to make it fair!!! I am open to suggestions! This is our world. It's your and my job to fix it. But step one in that
process is deciding what specifically to do.
Yes! Why are you putting words in my mouth so much? Why are you accusing me? Do you understand what you just said?
You still haven't actually taken any material position. 1) Should our justice system, when a warrant is issued, carry out the arrest? 2) If someone runs from arrest, should our justice system pursue them, or drop the case? 3) Should our justice system make decisions in court with judges? Or should popular opinion of vocal minorities based on social media drive justice? Every one of these questions has a clear answer (at least, it does if you support the basic foundation of justice). But you are declining to acknowledge them, and instead lament "But Assange is such a hero, and the law is sometimes imperfect, he should be above the law, immune to arrest *even for sexual assualt*, because you feel he's obviously not guilty". By doing so, you are refusing to engage in a constructive process, and instead just complaining that when justice is carried out on someone you support, you are bummed. To be clear, I totally agree we should arrest and try anyone who breaks the law, including anyone exposed by Assange/Snowden/Manning. I also totally agree with making our whistleblower laws stronger, and supporting people who rely upon them. But that is wholly independent from *also* trying Assange/Snowden/Manning for their *potential* crimes -- to figure out if they are guilty or not. -david On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:28 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 3:49 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, I think I'm missing your key point.
My key point is that either something is mutating our communications or you are being deceptive and nonforthright.
My legal preference is to support Assange, and I personally believe we need to be prosecuting over the many crimes his people revealed, not him. It is a really serious waste of time to attack a messenger.
(You keep referencing back to an email, which I think I've read, and I
think I've responded to the substance of, but if I haven't then please make your point.) The
Stated above, email topic is part of it.
point I'm trying to make, is:
1) The US/UK/etc justice system starts when you are taken into custody. Up until that point, it's not responsible. You choosing to run from the law isn't the law's fault; Assange can't blame the cops for him choosing to hide in an embassy for 7 years -- he picked that. It is super fair game to criticize the treatment of Chelsea Manning, who received 7 years in jail for her actions, and feels a decent model for how Snowden and Assange would have been tried if they had not run from the law all this time. But them fleeing and doubling down on their accused behavior won't earn them any points at trial, so it's anybody's guess how it will eventually go when they are inexorably caught and tried.
Why does it matter that they did not trust the legal system and legally hid? How should that influence their trial?
It seems quite oppressive to me to punish people for not trusting you.
2) The US justice system works (ie, delivers fair justice) in hundreds of
millions of super boring situations that we are choosing not to talk about now precisely because they are mundane. This conversation is focusing on extreme edge and failure conditions, which by definition are unusual and bad. This
would be like indicting the medical profession to say "You should never go
into a surgery room, because millions of people die there, and more people die in surgery rooms than out. Furthermore, surgeons kill more people than serial murders and should all be executed." You can keep highlighting small handfuls of problems -- and they are real
This is relevant because this is indeed one of these extreme edge and failure conditions.
Somebody recently shared with me that we actually have lots of the clear strong evidence that trials are generally quite unfair as a norm. I have not reviewed their reference at this time.
problems, no doubt. And the further you go back in history, the more
horrific those problems get. But in general, over time, things are getting better, and that's an important point not to be dismissed.
That's good to remember. It does also have a multi-decade timescale so far.
3) I'm not sure what your actual proposal is. You are saying what you don't like about the outcomes, but you aren't stating what change you would like in the process to get a different outcome. You are strongly implying (but not stating outright) a bunch of contradictory positions:
a. You don't think he's guilty of sexual assault and don't think he should go to trial for it, but you also acknowledge you don't know the evidence and aren't a judge. So which is it?
I think the sexual assault is _moot_. Although I believe most male adults with friends are guilty of sexual assault, personally, it is well documented that our secret services force their targets into situations like that, even using drugs and slaves to do so. Other, different, stuff is way more important here.
Should his accusers get justice by him going to trial, or should he go
free merely because you think they are liars (despite never meeting them or knowing anything about them)? Why are you so uncomfortable
How would my opinion ever be related to what happens to Assange? Sounds like you've already decided he's guilty?
agreeing with an incredibly obvious statement: "Anyone who is accused of
sexual assault should be investigated and tried according to the law, no matter who they are."
I accuse you of sexual assault.
Casually, not legally.
I have personal experience with sexual assault and you are clearly focusing on this over far more relevant issues, needlessly, when talking with me. This is somewhat triggering to me.
Anyway, yes that's important! What you quoted is incredibly important! But it is not the relevant point with Assange, and that is blindingly obvious!
b. You don't think he's guilty of anything, and
Did I say this?? I don't know what the word "guilty" means to you and you seem to use it very specifically.
don't think he should have even been charged, but also don't go so far as
to say running from the law should be a valid tactic for avoiding a trial. So which is it? Should
Sure, if you are willing to drop _your entire life, all your possessions, all your friends and family and home, and live with no resources_ to avoid a trial, that probably means something pretty important is going on, and at least under those conditions it sounds like it should be valid to me. I hope you would have an avenue to pick the trial if you changed your mind, and protection otherwise.
Isn't Assange _not_ a US citizen?
we as a rule reward people who attempt to flee with freedom? Or should we
as a rule keep pursuing them until there is a trial? Or is he so special that he alone should be rewarded for running from a trial? Why are
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious statement: "Once
there is a warrant for your arrest, justice is best served by bringing that person into trial; we should never give up attempting to bring them to trial, and evading arrest should not be rewarded with a lessor sentence."
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
c. You are very concerned by *one witness* in a large, complex trial, claiming he falsified information to a newspaper. But you aren't saying that newspapers are valid courtrooms. So which is it? Should we go to
My opinions are not the random parties you guess. Reality is never polar.
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
Is the law fair? Or does it only target Assange and Snowden?
a court to figure out what is true or false, or should we basically take
as truth _what a self proclaimed liar is claiming years later_? You seem to be happy to trust him as being totally honest now, despite admitting that he was a liar in the past. Why are you convinced he isn't just lying now to exonerate Assange?
There was a lot of evidence included, I've been there some myself, and the way it was related lets the reader find truth. It's a logical tautology that lieing is not accurate evidence.
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
You don't respond to my questions, don't say where you are coming from personally, speak without consistent logic, and repeatedly push for a very specific international political and legal goal.
When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
Is the law fair? Or does it only target Assange and Snowden?
Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious
statement:
You're assuming I am uncomfortable with it, before you have shared it with me.
Please give me more respect than this.
"Newspapers and social media are not the best venue for a trial; we should
give everyone the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, but we should also figure out guilt or innocence in a trial."
I'm uncomfortable because it makes no sense that you are quoting to me that we should give everyone the assumption of innocence while treating Assange as if they are already guilty, and that is very confusing to me.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, by ignoring the parts that poison me and you. This is happening so much that countless people are dying.
too: to widely criticize our justice system, but without making any
tangible suggestions on how it can be improved (even while strongly implying you believe a bunch of contradictory positions that make no sense). It's wearying
I am completely unaware of doing that and would enjoy a rational and mutually supportive discussion on the topic.
because you aren't stating a sufficiently clear rebuttal to really react
to. You are just complaining ambiguously that "the world isn't fair", without making any active contribution to make it more fair.
I have not said that. I am trying hard to make it fair!!! I am open to suggestions!
This is our world. It's your and my job to fix it. But step one in that
process is deciding what specifically to do.
Yes! Why are you putting words in my mouth so much? Why are you accusing me? Do you understand what you just said?
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 4:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
You still haven't actually taken any material position.
What makes it material? What's your position?
1) Should our justice system, when a warrant is issued, carry out the arrest?
I have never considered that before. People usually do their jobs almost all the time, and stop doing them under exceptional situations where there are reasons it is a good and moral idea to stop. 2) If someone runs from arrest, should our justice system pursue them, or
drop the case?
Maybe include unbiased details of the situation in the decision? 3) Should our justice system make decisions in court with judges? Or
should popular opinion of vocal minorities based on social media drive justice?
Hahaha. We're all upset about that. Both of those are happening together, which is legal. I haven't formed an opinion to 3, but it sounds like a really poignant issue. Every one of these questions has a clear answer (at least, it does if you
support the basic foundation of justice). But you are declining to acknowledge them, and instead lament "But Assange is such a hero, and the law is sometimes imperfect, he should be above the law, immune to arrest *even for sexual assualt*, because you feel he's obviously not guilty".
These words did not come from my mouth! What do you think of kind of learning about each other first in this relation, so we can figure out how to include the views of the other person, in our own views? By doing so, you are refusing to engage in a constructive process, and
instead just complaining that when justice is carried out on someone you support, you are bummed.
What does justice mean to you? To be clear, I totally agree we should arrest and try anyone who breaks the
law, including anyone exposed by Assange/Snowden/Manning. I also totally agree with making our whistleblower laws stronger, and supporting people who rely upon them.
It's hard to discern this from how you speak, for me, and it is so relaxing to hear. That's all the people care about. That is all it is. => Who cares if Assange is extradited if all the things revealed around him and wikileaks are forthrightly resolved. <= Except of course that things like extradition are technically quite chilling. Don't we have a law to _protect_ whistleblowers? It would make sense to investigate the "fake witness" situation a little thoroughly before Assange, and that is incredibly logical. But that is wholly independent from *also* trying Assange/Snowden/Manning
for their *potential* crimes -- to figure out if they are guilty or not.
Which crimes are bigger? Are big things more important, or small things?
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 1:28 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 3:49 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, I think I'm missing your key point.
My key point is that either something is mutating our communications or you are being deceptive and nonforthright.
My legal preference is to support Assange, and I personally believe we need to be prosecuting over the many crimes his people revealed, not him. It is a really serious waste of time to attack a messenger.
(You keep referencing back to an email, which I think I've read, and I
think I've responded to the substance of, but if I haven't then please make your point.) The
Stated above, email topic is part of it.
point I'm trying to make, is:
1) The US/UK/etc justice system starts when you are taken into custody. Up until that point, it's not responsible. You choosing to run from the law isn't the law's fault; Assange can't blame the cops for him choosing to hide in an embassy for 7 years -- he picked that. It is super fair game to criticize the treatment of Chelsea Manning, who received 7 years in jail for her actions, and feels a decent model for how Snowden and Assange would have been tried if they had not run from the law all this time. But them fleeing and doubling down on their accused behavior won't earn them any points at trial, so it's anybody's guess how it will eventually go when they are inexorably caught and tried.
Why does it matter that they did not trust the legal system and legally hid? How should that influence their trial?
It seems quite oppressive to me to punish people for not trusting you.
2) The US justice system works (ie, delivers fair justice) in hundreds of
millions of super boring situations that we are choosing not to talk about now precisely because they are mundane. This conversation is focusing on extreme edge and failure conditions, which by definition are unusual and bad. This
would be like indicting the medical profession to say "You should never
go into a surgery room, because millions of people die there, and more people die in surgery rooms than out. Furthermore, surgeons kill more people than serial murders and should all be executed." You can keep highlighting small handfuls of problems -- and they are real
This is relevant because this is indeed one of these extreme edge and failure conditions.
Somebody recently shared with me that we actually have lots of the clear strong evidence that trials are generally quite unfair as a norm. I have not reviewed their reference at this time.
problems, no doubt. And the further you go back in history, the more
horrific those problems get. But in general, over time, things are getting better, and that's an important point not to be dismissed.
That's good to remember. It does also have a multi-decade timescale so far.
3) I'm not sure what your actual proposal is. You are saying what you don't like about the outcomes, but you aren't stating what change you would like in the process to get a different outcome. You are strongly implying (but not stating outright) a bunch of contradictory positions:
a. You don't think he's guilty of sexual assault and don't think he should go to trial for it, but you also acknowledge you don't know the evidence and aren't a judge. So which is it?
I think the sexual assault is _moot_. Although I believe most male adults with friends are guilty of sexual assault, personally, it is well documented that our secret services force their targets into situations like that, even using drugs and slaves to do so. Other, different, stuff is way more important here.
Should his accusers get justice by him going to trial, or should he go
free merely because you think they are liars (despite never meeting them or knowing anything about them)? Why are you so uncomfortable
How would my opinion ever be related to what happens to Assange? Sounds like you've already decided he's guilty?
agreeing with an incredibly obvious statement: "Anyone who is accused of
sexual assault should be investigated and tried according to the law, no matter who they are."
I accuse you of sexual assault.
Casually, not legally.
I have personal experience with sexual assault and you are clearly focusing on this over far more relevant issues, needlessly, when talking with me. This is somewhat triggering to me.
Anyway, yes that's important! What you quoted is incredibly important! But it is not the relevant point with Assange, and that is blindingly obvious!
b. You don't think he's guilty of anything, and
Did I say this?? I don't know what the word "guilty" means to you and you seem to use it very specifically.
don't think he should have even been charged, but also don't go so far as
to say running from the law should be a valid tactic for avoiding a trial. So which is it? Should
Sure, if you are willing to drop _your entire life, all your possessions, all your friends and family and home, and live with no resources_ to avoid a trial, that probably means something pretty important is going on, and at least under those conditions it sounds like it should be valid to me. I hope you would have an avenue to pick the trial if you changed your mind, and protection otherwise.
Isn't Assange _not_ a US citizen?
we as a rule reward people who attempt to flee with freedom? Or should
we as a rule keep pursuing them until there is a trial? Or is he so special that he alone should be rewarded for running from a trial? Why are
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious statement:
"Once there is a warrant for your arrest, justice is best served by bringing that person into trial; we should never give up attempting to bring them to trial, and evading arrest should not be rewarded with a lessor sentence."
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
c. You are very concerned by *one witness* in a large, complex trial, claiming he falsified information to a newspaper. But you aren't saying that newspapers are valid courtrooms. So which is it? Should we go to
My opinions are not the random parties you guess. Reality is never polar.
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
Is the law fair? Or does it only target Assange and Snowden?
a court to figure out what is true or false, or should we basically take
as truth _what a self proclaimed liar is claiming years later_? You seem to be happy to trust him as being totally honest now, despite admitting that he was a liar in the past. Why are you convinced he isn't just lying now to exonerate Assange?
There was a lot of evidence included, I've been there some myself, and the way it was related lets the reader find truth. It's a logical tautology that lieing is not accurate evidence.
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
You don't respond to my questions, don't say where you are coming from personally, speak without consistent logic, and repeatedly push for a very specific international political and legal goal.
When are we going to discuss trials regarding the countless crimes Assange's people revealed?
Is the law fair? Or does it only target Assange and Snowden?
Why are you so uncomfortable agreeing with the incredibly obvious
statement:
You're assuming I am uncomfortable with it, before you have shared it with me.
Please give me more respect than this.
"Newspapers and social media are not the best venue for a trial; we
should give everyone the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, but we should also figure out guilt or innocence in a trial."
I'm uncomfortable because it makes no sense that you are quoting to me that we should give everyone the assumption of innocence while treating Assange as if they are already guilty, and that is very confusing to me.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it
You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, by ignoring the parts that poison me and you. This is happening so much that countless people are dying.
too: to widely criticize our justice system, but without making any
tangible suggestions on how it can be improved (even while strongly implying you believe a bunch of contradictory positions that make no sense). It's wearying
I am completely unaware of doing that and would enjoy a rational and mutually supportive discussion on the topic.
because you aren't stating a sufficiently clear rebuttal to really react
to. You are just complaining ambiguously that "the world isn't fair", without making any active contribution to make it more fair.
I have not said that. I am trying hard to make it fair!!! I am open to suggestions!
This is our world. It's your and my job to fix it. But step one in that
process is deciding what specifically to do.
Yes! Why are you putting words in my mouth so much? Why are you accusing me? Do you understand what you just said?
Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do so. Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
Again, you have sent another email that avoids to state any kind of specific opinion. You are frustrated that I am putting words in your mouth, but it can't help but do so because you aren't saying anything. You haven't agreed that our justice system should carry out warrants, but you also haven't indicated when it should not. You haven't agreed that justice should happen in courts, but you also haven't said it shouldn't be. You haven't really said anything at all that can be pinned down to a specific defined position. Maybe just to sanity check, why are you in this conversation? Are you trying to refine and articulate a specific opinion? Because that's my goal, I want to understand actual policies that we can implement and follow, in order to make this world a better place. If your goal is exclusively to complain about other people doing bad jobs without giving them any specific advice on how to do it better, that's not very interesting or useful. David On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:03 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do so. Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:08 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Again, you have sent another email that avoids to state any kind of specific opinion. You are frustrated that I am putting words in your mouth, but it can't help but do so because you aren't saying anything.
You haven't agreed that our justice system should carry out warrants, but you also haven't indicated when it should not.
You haven't agreed that justice should happen in courts, but you also haven't said it shouldn't be.
You haven't really said anything at all that can be pinned down to a specific defined position.
Maybe just to sanity check, why are you in this conversation? Are you trying to refine
I feel upset and disconnected (feeling are reasons, remember: they directly drive our actions via our understanding of things). I want to know I can be friends with you without compromising on what I care about. I want to know we can agree. It's so hard, and I know we can do it. and articulate a specific opinion? Because that's my goal, I want to
understand actual policies that we can implement and follow, in order to make this world a better place.
I didn't know that. Wouldn't it be great if mediation were a formal alternative to criminal trials, and were provided free by our government to resolve any other conflicts? Wouldn't it be great if using it were normalised? Wouldn't it be great if new officials' activities were all publicly logged, for any citizen to watch their behavior? Then we could resolve so so many debates about what is really going on. Implementing that would also need a way to protect them from minority harm. Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information dispersal were to not happen? Then people would have much more fair exposure to what happens, to guide their opinions. If your goal is exclusively to complain about other people doing bad jobs
without giving them any specific advice on how to do it better, that's not very interesting or useful.
Who is doing a bad job? Everything you do, you are doing the best you possibly can. Any living creature can't help but do this. We often learn we need to follow rules and obey regulations. But what's important is doing what is best for everyone, what is most right, in every scenario. This doesn't mean every individual gets to set what the law is. It means that people need to act in ways they can when it is crucial to do so, and talk to each other about what is real, what they know, and what the actually best course of action is. Today we have many situations we aren't familiar with treating with laws, for example abuses that involve AI. But we can figure all of these out. There are always innumerable ways; we just don't always think of them on our own.
David
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:03 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do so. Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
Again, you *still* aren't saying anything specific about whether Assange should be treated equally under the law, or not. You have suggested we find some "free criminal mediation" system that somehow serves as an alternative to the court system, but explained nothing about how it would be different than the *free court system* (ie, that provides you with an attorney at no cost) that already exists. This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be tried. You have suggested that "new officials' activities were all publicly logged" without explaining what that means, or acknowledging the tremendous amount of publicly logged information already available about our politicians and why that is inadequate (or even what specific changes you would make). This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be tried. You have said "Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information dispersal were to not happen?" which doesn't actually explain what that is, why it's a problem, or what you would change to make it better. And so far as I can tell, this also has nothing to do with whether Assange can be tried. To the degree you have been clear about anything, it seems you feel Assange should not be tried in any global jurisdiction for any of his many indictments. But you haven't explained by what process you are advocating we override the normal course of the legal process. I know you don't like it when I put words in your mouth, but are you essentially saying "If there is enough social media outrage, normal legal process should be suspended"? Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand what specific policy changes you are advocating. And the specifics do matter. It's easy to say "Assange should go free" -- I'm asking you to specify which specific part of the legal process you want changed that would result in Assange (and others who meet whatever conditions you think he does) to avoid even showing up in court at all? -david On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:08 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Again, you have sent another email that avoids to state any kind of specific opinion. You are frustrated that I am putting words in your mouth, but it can't help but do so because you aren't saying anything.
You haven't agreed that our justice system should carry out warrants, but you also haven't indicated when it should not.
You haven't agreed that justice should happen in courts, but you also haven't said it shouldn't be.
You haven't really said anything at all that can be pinned down to a specific defined position.
Maybe just to sanity check, why are you in this conversation? Are you trying to refine
I feel upset and disconnected (feeling are reasons, remember: they directly drive our actions via our understanding of things). I want to know I can be friends with you without compromising on what I care about. I want to know we can agree. It's so hard, and I know we can do it.
and articulate a specific opinion? Because that's my goal, I want to
understand actual policies that we can implement and follow, in order to make this world a better place.
I didn't know that.
Wouldn't it be great if mediation were a formal alternative to criminal trials, and were provided free by our government to resolve any other conflicts? Wouldn't it be great if using it were normalised?
Wouldn't it be great if new officials' activities were all publicly logged, for any citizen to watch their behavior? Then we could resolve so so many debates about what is really going on. Implementing that would also need a way to protect them from minority harm.
Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information dispersal were to not happen? Then people would have much more fair exposure to what happens, to guide their opinions.
If your goal is exclusively to complain about other people doing bad jobs
without giving them any specific advice on how to do it better, that's not very interesting or useful.
Who is doing a bad job?
Everything you do, you are doing the best you possibly can. Any living creature can't help but do this.
We often learn we need to follow rules and obey regulations. But what's important is doing what is best for everyone, what is most right, in every scenario.
This doesn't mean every individual gets to set what the law is. It means that people need to act in ways they can when it is crucial to do so, and talk to each other about what is real, what they know, and what the actually best course of action is.
Today we have many situations we aren't familiar with treating with laws, for example abuses that involve AI. But we can figure all of these out. There are always innumerable ways; we just don't always think of them on our own.
David
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:03 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do so. Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 6:05 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Again, you *still* aren't saying anything specific about whether Assange should be treated equally under the law, or not.
I am trying to honestly respond to you. I don't have the best memory. I would give everyone equal treatment and pardon assange as being obviously hounded and targeted for trying to help everyone, as should be done for anyone struggling to save the world. Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure. Maybe conviction of something is appropriate. Regardless it's pretty clear that other things are more important, and anybody working on pursuing him is either coerced, confused, misled, otherwise stuck, or hoping to actually help him somehow. You have suggested we find some "free criminal mediation" system that
somehow serves as an alternative to the court system, but explained nothing about how it would be different than the *free court system* (ie, that provides you with an attorney at no cost) that
Mediation involves learning to understand each other enough to resolve the conflict. There is no debate nor punishment. It is quite different. already exists. This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be
tried.
Basically true. I didn't realise you meant policy that related to immediate concerns regarding Assange. You have suggested that "new officials' activities were all publicly
logged" without explaining what that means, or acknowledging the tremendous amount of publicly logged information already available about our politicians and why that is inadequate (or even what specific changes
It is incredibly hard to access, and leaves avenues for them to commit crimes. Surveilled criminals do not have these avenues: our leaders should not either or, by mathematical process of natural selection, the two sets will trend to merge (criminals and leaders). you would make). This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be
tried.
Yes. You have said "Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information
dispersal were to not happen?" which doesn't actually explain what that is, why it's a problem, or what you would
Paid advertisements. Outlaw (or otherwise cause to stop) paid advertisement and similar things so we can make our own freakin decisions. The problem is that horrible decisions are being made on a huge scale because of huge amounts of money trying to cause them. change to make it better. And so far as I can tell, this also has nothing
to do with whether Assange can be tried.
These things are all related to the situation in my personal political analysis but are not related to the thread. I guess I didn't quite understand. To the degree you have been clear about anything, it seems you feel Assange
should not be tried in any global jurisdiction for any of his many indictments. But you haven't explained by what process you are advocating we override the normal course of the legal process. I know you don't like it when I put words in your mouth, but are you essentially saying "If there is enough social media outrage, normal legal process should be suspended"?
That paragraph you just wrote is really great. It's not me you're talking to: it's everyone who supports Assange. People have no idea how to act on this. They don't know what to do. I'm sure if we talked about it with somebody who knew the systems, we could figure it out. Anyway: publicly investigate all the crimes assange's people exposed, and the systems underlying those crimes. publicly investigate the processes leading to assange's harassment and targeting. Protect our journalists and whistleblowers. We are too upset and disrupted to really come together around the new laws needed without help. One of these problems in when people are targeted with baseless criminal charges. What is done about situations where people are targeted with baseless criminal charges, even planted evidence, in unfriendly environments? What's a normal avenue of recourse? Sure you can get it thrown out of court with effort and luck, but it's quite effective in derailing your life and can continue. Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand what specific policy changes you
are advocating. And the specifics do matter. It's easy to say "Assange should go free" -- I'm asking you to specify which specific part of the legal process you want changed that would result in Assange (and others who meet whatever conditions you think he does) to avoid even showing up in court at all?
We need to investigate the harassment and targeting of a suspect before bringing the suspect to trial because somebody could have the trial planned to harm them. It would not be justice to convict the wrong person or group.
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:08 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Again, you have sent another email that avoids to state any kind of specific opinion. You are frustrated that I am putting words in your mouth, but it can't help but do so because you aren't saying anything.
You haven't agreed that our justice system should carry out warrants, but you also haven't indicated when it should not.
You haven't agreed that justice should happen in courts, but you also haven't said it shouldn't be.
You haven't really said anything at all that can be pinned down to a specific defined position.
Maybe just to sanity check, why are you in this conversation? Are you trying to refine
I feel upset and disconnected (feeling are reasons, remember: they directly drive our actions via our understanding of things). I want to know I can be friends with you without compromising on what I care about. I want to know we can agree. It's so hard, and I know we can do it.
and articulate a specific opinion? Because that's my goal, I want to
understand actual policies that we can implement and follow, in order to make this world a better place.
I didn't know that.
Wouldn't it be great if mediation were a formal alternative to criminal trials, and were provided free by our government to resolve any other conflicts? Wouldn't it be great if using it were normalised?
Wouldn't it be great if new officials' activities were all publicly logged, for any citizen to watch their behavior? Then we could resolve so so many debates about what is really going on. Implementing that would also need a way to protect them from minority harm.
Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information dispersal were to not happen? Then people would have much more fair exposure to what happens, to guide their opinions.
If your goal is exclusively to complain about other people doing bad jobs
without giving them any specific advice on how to do it better, that's not very interesting or useful.
Who is doing a bad job?
Everything you do, you are doing the best you possibly can. Any living creature can't help but do this.
We often learn we need to follow rules and obey regulations. But what's important is doing what is best for everyone, what is most right, in every scenario.
This doesn't mean every individual gets to set what the law is. It means that people need to act in ways they can when it is crucial to do so, and talk to each other about what is real, what they know, and what the actually best course of action is.
Today we have many situations we aren't familiar with treating with laws, for example abuses that involve AI. But we can figure all of these out. There are always innumerable ways; we just don't always think of them on our own.
David
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:03 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do so. Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
Thank you for this: Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure. Maybe conviction
of something is appropriate. Regardless it's pretty clear that other things are more important, and anybody working on pursuing him is either coerced, confused, misled, otherwise stuck, or hoping to actually help him somehow.
So you acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance he should in fact be convicted of one or more crimes. But you are saying that we *shouldn't even have a trial* -- and instead Biden should "pardon assange as being obviously hounded and targeted for trying to help everyone". And you are concluding he's been "obviously hounded" based on social media and news reports? So you know, for certain, that there is no substance to Sweden's claims of sexual assault? And you are saying, if the tables were turned, and it was your daughter who had accused him of assaulting her -- and everything else in the news reports were the same -- you'd feel that justice was served by him being pardoned *despite you him having are reasonable chance of being correctly convicted if he went to trial*? I just cannot believe you are serious. It feels like you are ignoring any kind of "equality under the law" argument to pick and choose who gets justice, based on what you *want* to be true, without following any actual process to determine what *is* true. That feels an irresponsible position. So "cop" is just a guess? Why are you skeptical of Punk's assessment of my guilt being "obviously some kind of US cop pushing chat malware", when you wholly agree with his assessment of Assange's innocence? He's saying I'm "obviously" guilty, and also saying that Assange is "obviously" innocent. It feels that he is very comfortable deciding absolute truth based on his personal instincts as to what is obvious. Are you? -david On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 3:27 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 6:05 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Again, you *still* aren't saying anything specific about whether Assange should be treated equally under the law, or not.
I am trying to honestly respond to you. I don't have the best memory.
I would give everyone equal treatment and pardon assange as being obviously hounded and targeted for trying to help everyone, as should be done for anyone struggling to save the world.
Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure. Maybe conviction of something is appropriate. Regardless it's pretty clear that other things are more important, and anybody working on pursuing him is either coerced, confused, misled, otherwise stuck, or hoping to actually help him somehow.
You have suggested we find some "free criminal mediation" system that
somehow serves as an alternative to the court system, but explained nothing about how it would be different than the *free court system* (ie, that provides you with an attorney at no cost) that
Mediation involves learning to understand each other enough to resolve the conflict. There is no debate nor punishment. It is quite different.
already exists. This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be
tried.
Basically true. I didn't realise you meant policy that related to immediate concerns regarding Assange.
You have suggested that "new officials' activities were all publicly
logged" without explaining what that means, or acknowledging the tremendous amount of publicly logged information already available about our politicians and why that is inadequate (or even what specific changes
It is incredibly hard to access, and leaves avenues for them to commit crimes. Surveilled criminals do not have these avenues: our leaders should not either or, by mathematical process of natural selection, the two sets will trend to merge (criminals and leaders).
you would make). This has nothing to do with whether Assange should be
tried.
Yes.
You have said "Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information
dispersal were to not happen?" which doesn't actually explain what that is, why it's a problem, or what you would
Paid advertisements. Outlaw (or otherwise cause to stop) paid advertisement and similar things so we can make our own freakin decisions. The problem is that horrible decisions are being made on a huge scale because of huge amounts of money trying to cause them.
change to make it better. And so far as I can tell, this also has nothing
to do with whether Assange can be tried.
These things are all related to the situation in my personal political analysis but are not related to the thread. I guess I didn't quite understand.
To the degree you have been clear about anything, it seems you feel
Assange should not be tried in any global jurisdiction for any of his many indictments. But you haven't explained by what process you are advocating we override the normal course of the legal process. I know you don't like it when I put words in your mouth, but are you essentially saying "If there is enough social media outrage, normal legal process should be suspended"?
That paragraph you just wrote is really great.
It's not me you're talking to: it's everyone who supports Assange.
People have no idea how to act on this. They don't know what to do. I'm sure if we talked about it with somebody who knew the systems, we could figure it out.
Anyway: publicly investigate all the crimes assange's people exposed, and the systems underlying those crimes. publicly investigate the processes leading to assange's harassment and targeting. Protect our journalists and whistleblowers.
We are too upset and disrupted to really come together around the new laws needed without help.
One of these problems in when people are targeted with baseless criminal charges. What is done about situations where people are targeted with baseless criminal charges, even planted evidence, in unfriendly environments? What's a normal avenue of recourse? Sure you can get it thrown out of court with effort and luck, but it's quite effective in derailing your life and can continue.
Again, I'm genuinely trying to understand what specific policy changes you
are advocating. And the specifics do matter. It's easy to say "Assange should go free" -- I'm asking you to specify which specific part of the legal process you want changed that would result in Assange (and others who meet whatever conditions you think he does) to avoid even showing up in court at all?
We need to investigate the harassment and targeting of a suspect before bringing the suspect to trial because somebody could have the trial planned to harm them. It would not be justice to convict the wrong person or group.
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:19 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:08 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Again, you have sent another email that avoids to state any kind of specific opinion. You are frustrated that I am putting words in your mouth, but it can't help but do so because you aren't saying anything.
You haven't agreed that our justice system should carry out warrants, but you also haven't indicated when it should not.
You haven't agreed that justice should happen in courts, but you also haven't said it shouldn't be.
You haven't really said anything at all that can be pinned down to a specific defined position.
Maybe just to sanity check, why are you in this conversation? Are you trying to refine
I feel upset and disconnected (feeling are reasons, remember: they directly drive our actions via our understanding of things). I want to know I can be friends with you without compromising on what I care about. I want to know we can agree. It's so hard, and I know we can do it.
and articulate a specific opinion? Because that's my goal, I want to
understand actual policies that we can implement and follow, in order to make this world a better place.
I didn't know that.
Wouldn't it be great if mediation were a formal alternative to criminal trials, and were provided free by our government to resolve any other conflicts? Wouldn't it be great if using it were normalised?
Wouldn't it be great if new officials' activities were all publicly logged, for any citizen to watch their behavior? Then we could resolve so so many debates about what is really going on. Implementing that would also need a way to protect them from minority harm.
Wouldn't it be great if profit-motivated information dispersal were to not happen? Then people would have much more fair exposure to what happens, to guide their opinions.
If your goal is exclusively to complain about other people doing bad
jobs without giving them any specific advice on how to do it better, that's not very interesting or useful.
Who is doing a bad job?
Everything you do, you are doing the best you possibly can. Any living creature can't help but do this.
We often learn we need to follow rules and obey regulations. But what's important is doing what is best for everyone, what is most right, in every scenario.
This doesn't mean every individual gets to set what the law is. It means that people need to act in ways they can when it is crucial to do so, and talk to each other about what is real, what they know, and what the actually best course of action is.
Today we have many situations we aren't familiar with treating with laws, for example abuses that involve AI. But we can figure all of these out. There are always innumerable ways; we just don't always think of them on our own.
David
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:03 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do so. Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
It's nice to go crazier at a slower rate. I'm receiving emails that appear strange to me. On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:14 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Thank you for this:
Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure. Maybe conviction
of something is appropriate. Regardless it's pretty clear that other things are more important, and anybody working on pursuing him is either coerced, confused, misled, otherwise stuck, or hoping to actually help him somehow.
So you acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance he should in fact be convicted of one or more crimes. But you are saying that we *shouldn't even have a trial* -- and instead Biden should "pardon
I didn't say that, and you put asterisks around it? assange as being obviously hounded and targeted for trying to help
everyone". And
Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws to know that well, but there's probably one there already. I can't imagine the police hunting down a half-dead person full of bullets to their back because a well-known-criminal said their victim was the one shooting people. you are concluding he's been "obviously hounded" based on social media and
news reports?
The Assange situation has been going on for some time. We've had a lot of exposure to it via different channels. So you know, for certain, that there is no substance to Sweden's claims of
sexual assault? And you are saying, if the tables
How would I ever know that? Didn't I say specifically that I didn't? were turned, and it was your daughter who had accused him of assaulting her
-- and
I can't roleplay that respectfully. The situation is too complex, you'd have to do whatever your daughter needed in a situation like that, which could be either choice, man, but obviously is most likely prosecution. I haven't even seen the accusation to feel out whether it was made under duress or personal urgency. What if it came to light that somebody was forced to rape somebody else, like in MKUltra, which was sanctioned for years and years? Drugged and suggested? What happens legally then? everything else in the news reports were the same -- you'd feel that
justice was served by him being pardoned *despite you him having are reasonable chance of being correctly convicted if he went to trial*?
I think I said before that we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes stuff was resolved if needed. I suspect it is inappropriate to charge him with sexual stuff, but I suppose I can't know. I just cannot believe you are serious. It feels like you are ignoring any
kind of "equality under the law" argument to pick and choose who gets justice, based on what you *want* to be true, without following any actual process to determine what *is* true. That feels an irresponsible position.
This is not true, is it? Aren't you doing this more than me? You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it "equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings? How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair opportunity to form a defense? I feel like you have some meaningful points here, but you build them so large and ignore all the other points, that I can't imagine fair decisions being made from them. So "cop" is just a guess?
Why are you skeptical of Punk's assessment of my guilt being "obviously some kind of US cop pushing chat malware", when you wholly
It doesn't make sense to me that you are saying this. Do you use PGP or any other kind of message signing that can work over an airway? agree with his assessment of Assange's innocence? He's saying I'm
"obviously" guilty, and also saying that Assange is "obviously" innocent. It feels that he is very comfortable deciding absolute truth based on his personal instincts as to what is obvious. Are you?
I am obviously not comfortable with that, but at this point I'm more concerned with being pushed to hold an absolute truth, than having my personal instincts make it up. I'm probably not alone in that concern.
-david
I've deleted the top-posting cruft.
You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it "equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him. How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair
opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that, there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case. People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years. Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws to
know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than the court system you are criticizing. I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to build. You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition? -david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it
"equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Are you sure? The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe. This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange. These things could be investigated and prosecuted. What is fair? How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair
opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that,
You mean before he was arrested? there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they
have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case.
This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life. We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned. People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before
arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years.
It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life. It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case. Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light. Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws to
know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to
This relates to charging people frivolously. understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one
hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an
You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed. I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly. alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than the
court system you are criticizing.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you? I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to build.
I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values. I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out. I really feel kind of scared. We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case. It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much? Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order. We really value justice and order. I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this. You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes
stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?
I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else. That can include the legal justice systems or not. You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on. If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?
-david
Ok, so you can netiher confirm nor deny that you would like Sweden to pursue its case of sexual assault against Assange? Maybe to step back further in search of a common ground, if Assange were not the founder of Wikileaks, and instead were some generic, non-controversial plumber (ie, fixing real leaks) named Bob. Woud you like Sweden to pursue sexual assault charges against Bob? This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge,
which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
Again, in a civil suit, mediation works because no crime was committed: two people are just settling a personal disagreement. This is quite different than if someone, for example, kills someone with no living family or friends, no next of kin. The aggrieved party is dead; nobody is there to speak up for them. Can you help me understand in your mind how this killer would be brought to justice via mediation? If the victim is dead, who brings forth evidence? If there is no jury nor judge, who evaluates the evidence and renders a verdict? Again, I'm just really trying to find some very basic common ground scenario that we agree upon, to build from there. -david On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:04 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it
"equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Are you sure? The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe.
This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange. These things could be investigated and prosecuted.
What is fair?
How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair
opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that,
You mean before he was arrested?
there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they
have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case.
This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life.
We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned.
People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before
arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years.
It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life. It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case. Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light.
Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws
to know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to
This relates to charging people frivolously.
understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one
hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an
You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed. I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly.
alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than the
court system you are criticizing.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to
build.
I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values. I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out.
I really feel kind of scared. We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case. It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much? Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order.
We really value justice and order. I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this.
You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes
stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?
I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else. That can include the legal justice systems or not.
You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on.
If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:24 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Ok, so you can netiher confirm nor deny that you would like Sweden to pursue its case of sexual assault against Assange? Maybe to
Would you like this to happen before an extradition to the USA? step back further in search of a common ground, if Assange were not the
founder of Wikileaks, and instead were some generic, non-controversial plumber (ie, fixing real leaks) named Bob. Woud you like Sweden to pursue sexual assault charges against Bob?
I probably usually would, but atm I am pretty confused about it. It's hard for me to remember my own opinions when they are challenged, so I can get confused about other stuff. I don't understand the relation of the point to the topic. I usually remember my views based on values and experiences, and then logically derive opinions for specific scenarios. I support doing things people are familiar with (like legal systems); too much fast change could hurt people used to the old ways. I do not support sexual violence. I do not support forced punishment. What's important is to keep everyone safe, and work for everyone's needs together. This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge,
which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
Again, in a civil suit, mediation works because no crime was committed: two people are just settling a personal disagreement. This is quite different than if someone, for example, kills someone with no living family or friends, no next of kin. The aggrieved party is dead; nobody is there to speak up for them. Can you help me understand in your mind how this killer would be brought to justice via mediation? If the victim is dead, who brings forth evidence? If there is no jury nor judge, who evaluates the evidence and renders a verdict?
The two parties are guided to listen to each other in such a way that the injustice is made right. The killer is led to spend time understanding what other people's views of killing are, what it is like to have someone die, to have someone murder in the community. Those concerned with killing spend time learning why the killer did so, and eventually what things are going on in society that led to it. The parties learn to hold understanding of each other. The process continues until everyone is satisfied with a just course of action. Evidence can help, but it's not always needed because if somebody has a concern, it's included whether or not they can back it up. The result is agreed upon by everyone present, for just a few people a mediator could propose it, for many people there are ways to have the people brainstorm and solve it. But it's not the focus: it can often just come on its own after the difficulties are worked through. People all have their own opinion about what course of action is just, but these opinions are usually formed without including the experiences of the others present, so they mutate as they relate with each other. People who care about killing being dealt with are present. If nobody cares whether people murder, then the law is outmoded, although I might be pretty scared if that happened within my lifetime. Again, I'm just really trying to find some very basic common ground
scenario that we agree upon, to build from there.
I think I found some last email (idea of supporting abstract justice, order), would you agree with that?
-david
PunkStasi mentioned the general injustice of the legal system. Not sure how to bring that idea in.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:04 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it
"equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Are you sure? The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe.
This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange. These things could be investigated and prosecuted.
What is fair?
How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair
opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that,
You mean before he was arrested?
there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they
have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case.
This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life.
We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned.
People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before
arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years.
It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life. It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case. Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light.
Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws
to know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to
This relates to charging people frivolously.
understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one
hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an
You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed. I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly.
alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than the
court system you are criticizing.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to
build.
I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values. I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out.
I really feel kind of scared. We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case. It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much? Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order.
We really value justice and order. I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this.
You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher stakes
stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?
I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else. That can include the legal justice systems or not.
You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on.
If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?
-david
Would you like [Assange being prosecuted for sexual assault in Sweden] to happen before an extradition to the USA?
I don't have any preference; it could happen before, during, or after. I don't think the order matters. Ok, so it does sound like you would support Sweden using its legal system to prosecute an ordinary person via the courts who is accused of sexual assault. This is good, and feels like something that nearly everyone can agree upon. Can you confirm I'm not putting words in your mouth (or if I am, that you agree with them)? If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange? Regarding mediation for those accused of murder, I think that sounds like a very different system than the one we have right now. Would you agree that given that it doesn't exist right now, justice is better served by using the system we currently have, than doing nothing at all? Basically, given: A: Your ideal mediation system B: Our current justice system C: Nothing If someone is accused of killing someone else, even if you think A would be the best, if A is not available (and it's currently not), would you agree that B is better than C? -david On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:39 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:24 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Ok, so you can netiher confirm nor deny that you would like Sweden to pursue its case of sexual assault against Assange? Maybe to
Would you like this to happen before an extradition to the USA?
step back further in search of a common ground, if Assange were not the
founder of Wikileaks, and instead were some generic, non-controversial plumber (ie, fixing real leaks) named Bob. Woud you like Sweden to pursue sexual assault charges against Bob?
I probably usually would, but atm I am pretty confused about it. It's hard for me to remember my own opinions when they are challenged, so I can get confused about other stuff.
I don't understand the relation of the point to the topic. I usually remember my views based on values and experiences, and then logically derive opinions for specific scenarios.
I support doing things people are familiar with (like legal systems); too much fast change could hurt people used to the old ways. I do not support sexual violence. I do not support forced punishment.
What's important is to keep everyone safe, and work for everyone's needs together.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge,
which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
Again, in a civil suit, mediation works because no crime was committed: two people are just settling a personal disagreement. This is quite different than if someone, for example, kills someone with no living family or friends, no next of kin. The aggrieved party is dead; nobody is there to speak up for them. Can you help me understand in your mind how this killer would be brought to justice via mediation? If the victim is dead, who brings forth evidence? If there is no jury nor judge, who evaluates the evidence and renders a verdict?
The two parties are guided to listen to each other in such a way that the injustice is made right. The killer is led to spend time understanding what other people's views of killing are, what it is like to have someone die, to have someone murder in the community. Those concerned with killing spend time learning why the killer did so, and eventually what things are going on in society that led to it. The parties learn to hold understanding of each other.
The process continues until everyone is satisfied with a just course of action.
Evidence can help, but it's not always needed because if somebody has a concern, it's included whether or not they can back it up.
The result is agreed upon by everyone present, for just a few people a mediator could propose it, for many people there are ways to have the people brainstorm and solve it. But it's not the focus: it can often just come on its own after the difficulties are worked through.
People all have their own opinion about what course of action is just, but these opinions are usually formed without including the experiences of the others present, so they mutate as they relate with each other.
People who care about killing being dealt with are present. If nobody cares whether people murder, then the law is outmoded, although I might be pretty scared if that happened within my lifetime.
Again, I'm just really trying to find some very basic common ground
scenario that we agree upon, to build from there.
I think I found some last email (idea of supporting abstract justice, order), would you agree with that?
-david
PunkStasi mentioned the general injustice of the legal system. Not sure how to bring that idea in.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:04 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it
"equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Are you sure? The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe.
This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange. These things could be investigated and prosecuted.
What is fair?
How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair
opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that,
You mean before he was arrested?
there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they
have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case.
This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life.
We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned.
People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before
arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years.
It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life. It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case. Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light.
Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the laws
to know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to
This relates to charging people frivolously.
understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one
hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an
You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed. I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly.
alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than
the court system you are criticizing.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to
build.
I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values. I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out.
I really feel kind of scared. We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case. It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much? Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order.
We really value justice and order. I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this.
You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher
stakes stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?
I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else. That can include the legal justice systems or not.
You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on.
If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:48 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Would you like [Assange being prosecuted for sexual assault in Sweden] to
happen before an extradition to the USA?
I don't have any preference; it could happen before, during, or after. I don't think the order matters.
Ok, so it does sound like you would support Sweden using its legal system to prosecute an ordinary person via the courts who is accused of sexual assault. This is good, and feels like something that nearly everyone can agree upon. Can you confirm I'm not putting words in your mouth (or if I am, that you agree with them)?
I guess it's sad because so many activists have that happen to them (these great caring people are suddenly rapists?). Part of me hopes we can figure out why that happens, before such a trial. But what you say makes some sense, assuming in Sweden it is legal to extradite somebody for rape, and if not I would ask that it become so for everybody if it happens to assange. I'm suspecting I don't have an opinion on that Assange and Sweden. I support activism and women's rights both, both very strongly. I would let others form that opinion and spend the energy allocated to me working on the underlying situation. If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an
ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange?
I formed an opinion on that, now. It's not the one you say I have. Regarding mediation for those accused of murder, I think that sounds like a
very different system than the one we have right now. Would you agree that given that it doesn't exist right now, justice is better served by using the system we currently have, than doing nothing at all? Basically, given:
A: Your ideal mediation system B: Our current justice system C: Nothing
If someone is accused of killing someone else, even if you think A would be the best, if A is not available (and it's currently not), would you agree that B is better than C?
A is actually available, just not in all the legal systems. This is again a situation where B is usually better than C, but C is better in cases of very frivolous or mis-ordered accusations.
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:39 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:24 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Ok, so you can netiher confirm nor deny that you would like Sweden to pursue its case of sexual assault against Assange? Maybe to
Would you like this to happen before an extradition to the USA?
step back further in search of a common ground, if Assange were not the
founder of Wikileaks, and instead were some generic, non-controversial plumber (ie, fixing real leaks) named Bob. Woud you like Sweden to pursue sexual assault charges against Bob?
I probably usually would, but atm I am pretty confused about it. It's hard for me to remember my own opinions when they are challenged, so I can get confused about other stuff.
I don't understand the relation of the point to the topic. I usually remember my views based on values and experiences, and then logically derive opinions for specific scenarios.
I support doing things people are familiar with (like legal systems); too much fast change could hurt people used to the old ways. I do not support sexual violence. I do not support forced punishment.
What's important is to keep everyone safe, and work for everyone's needs together.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge,
which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
Again, in a civil suit, mediation works because no crime was committed: two people are just settling a personal disagreement. This is quite different than if someone, for example, kills someone with no living family or friends, no next of kin. The aggrieved party is dead; nobody is there to speak up for them. Can you help me understand in your mind how this killer would be brought to justice via mediation? If the victim is dead, who brings forth evidence? If there is no jury nor judge, who evaluates the evidence and renders a verdict?
The two parties are guided to listen to each other in such a way that the injustice is made right. The killer is led to spend time understanding what other people's views of killing are, what it is like to have someone die, to have someone murder in the community. Those concerned with killing spend time learning why the killer did so, and eventually what things are going on in society that led to it. The parties learn to hold understanding of each other.
The process continues until everyone is satisfied with a just course of action.
Evidence can help, but it's not always needed because if somebody has a concern, it's included whether or not they can back it up.
The result is agreed upon by everyone present, for just a few people a mediator could propose it, for many people there are ways to have the people brainstorm and solve it. But it's not the focus: it can often just come on its own after the difficulties are worked through.
People all have their own opinion about what course of action is just, but these opinions are usually formed without including the experiences of the others present, so they mutate as they relate with each other.
People who care about killing being dealt with are present. If nobody cares whether people murder, then the law is outmoded, although I might be pretty scared if that happened within my lifetime.
Again, I'm just really trying to find some very basic common ground
scenario that we agree upon, to build from there.
I think I found some last email (idea of supporting abstract justice, order), would you agree with that?
-david
PunkStasi mentioned the general injustice of the legal system. Not sure how to bring that idea in.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:04 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
You say you want to investigate all the criminal things: how is it
"equality under the law" in the slightest to focus only on Assange and not all the things he revealed that could inform his proceedings?
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange. But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Are you sure? The thread is about a report saying a witness was lieing, in my universe.
This is part of a series of harmful and powerful things that have happened to Assange. These things could be investigated and prosecuted.
What is fair?
How is it "equality under the law" to bring him to trial without fair
opportunity to form a defense?
He has had nearly a decade to prepare a defense. However, even ignoring all that,
You mean before he was arrested?
there are literally millions of people who prepare a defense after they
have been arrested -- that is not something unique to Assange, that's basically the common case.
This is true, although it's also true that it makes it incredibly hard to do, to be in jail or prison while needing to compose the most important evidence-backed essay of your life.
We rarely hear of these things until somebody popular is imprisoned.
People don't typically have the luxury of preparing a defense before
arrest; only Assange does because he has fled the law for years.
It does make sense here since the charges could imprison him for the rest of his life. It would also be the only way to make a truly fair trial, to have fairness in the opportunity for making a case. Maybe not the most salient point, but good to bring to light.
Not Biden: that should be normal for due process. I don't know the
laws to know that well, but there's probably one there already.
Are you suggesting there should be a legal process that results in innocent people being pardoned? I think there is: *it's called the courts*. I'm genuinely struggling to
This relates to charging people frivolously.
understand what you are suggesting, and I truly do want to. You on one
hand seem to be wholly opposed to our current court system trying Assange, and clamoring for an
You have repeatedly said this, and I have repeatedly directly disagreed. I would feel more comfortable if I were quoted directly.
alternate system that -- so far as I can tell -- is no different than
the court system you are criticizing.
This is not specific to Assange, but mediation has no jury and no judge, which is pretty different. What do you consider the core points of similarity making it seem no different to you?
I would love to find even a single point of common ground on which to
build.
I mentioned this earlier, kind of getting to know each other's feelings and values. I think with more points of connection we could really sort this out.
I really feel kind of scared. We have such a habit of disagreeing here and that hasn't always been the case. It sounds like you might feel upset around assange not reaching usa trial, and I might feel upset around him suffering so much? Upsetness is hard, but maybe its based on shared values for justice and order.
We really value justice and order. I'm sure I'd be more clear with myself that I appreciated legal proceedings when it was clear to me they were providing this.
You said "we would charge him with sexual stuff _after_ the higher
stakes stuff was resolved if needed" -- so just to confirm I understand this. You are saying you support Sweden pursuing sexual assault claims against Assange once he is released from UK prison, assuming they continue rejecting the US claims for extradition?
I support the non-legal, positive meaning of the word justice for assange and everybody else. That can include the legal justice systems or not.
You ask me a lot of very specific, ballot-like questions that I would really need more information about the situation to have a clear opinion on.
If I don't want sweden to charge assange, will you somehow prevent it?
-david
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:56 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:48 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange?
I formed an opinion on that, now. It's not the one you say I have.
Ok just to confirm, does that mean you *do* support Sweden prosecuting Assange for sexual assault, irrespective of whatever happens with the US? (I'm sorry, the double negative was confusing me.) [Meditation for criminal cases] is actually available, just not in all the
legal systems.
To my knowledge, no nation uses meditation as you describe for criminal trials (eg, murder). Are you saying that some do? Can you point me to which you are modeling your recommendation on so I can learn more? This is again a situation where [out current system] is usually better than
[nothing], but [nothing] is better in cases of very frivolous or mis-ordered accusations.
Ok! This helps me understand your position! You argree that our justice system is "usually" better than nothing, right? This is important so I just really want to double confirm before I build on this. Thanks! David
I'm starting to notice how dangerous this list is. The awareness may be temporary. On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 10:01 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:56 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:48 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange?
I formed an opinion on that, now. It's not the one you say I have.
Ok just to confirm, does that mean you *do* support Sweden prosecuting Assange for sexual assault, irrespective of whatever happens with the US? (I'm sorry, the double negative was confusing me.)
Double negative? I abstain regarding the decision. Others are better equipped to make it than me. What's important is the circumstances in which the situation developed, and I'd personally like to focus on those.
[Meditation for criminal cases] is actually
I think autocorrect altered our conversation. _Mediation_, not _meditation_. Although if you were to take meditation in the "study and deliberate hard" way ("let me meditate on this exam question") it could likely help. available, just not in all the legal systems.
To my knowledge, no nation uses meditation as you describe for criminal trials (eg, murder). Are you saying that some do? Can
I vaguely recall that some small areas. I don't have links. you point me to which you are modeling your recommendation on so I can
learn more?
Ask somebody familiar with transformative restorative justice for. They'll know more than me. I pasted you two audio snippets, the first one was from a war between multiple factions in Nigeria. I don't think they're still doing it, but I don't really know. Some of my information was from the discipline of Convergent Facilitation, others from Nonviolent Communication. I'm sorry, I've been abused regarding this topic and wasn't prepared for your probing questions. Maybe another thread?
This is again a situation where [out current system] is usually better
than [nothing], but [nothing] is better in cases of very frivolous or mis-ordered accusations.
Ok! This helps me understand your position! You argree that our justice system is "usually" better than nothing, right? This is important so I just really want to double confirm before I build on this.
Where nothing is complete inaction, yes. Actual communication would be far better. But punk has a point that the justice system can also cause great injustice. I might need a couple days to recharge. Maybe I should take better note when things get all debatey. I'm honestly not trying to disagree with you; this seems a pretty inefficient way to come to shared terms.
Thanks!
David
Okay, so to confirm, you are unwilling to make a decision as to what you believe, and you have no idea if any of your beliefs on criminal mediation have any global precedent -- and the closest you can point to are mostly unnamed "small nations" in the midst of civil war? I really would love to learn about your beliefs, but it sounds like you don't actually know them, are unable to defend them, and aren't very interested in having them in the first place. That makes any discussion very difficult. It seems like you are in a situation where you are very suspicious and skeptical of people who are taking real world actions to make the world a better place, and deal with it's many problems, and you would prefer to criticize from the sidelines despite having no better ideas, or any actual interest in participating constructively. I hope someday you decide to jump into the pool as a real world participant, because then you might not feel so helpless, scared, angry, and sad. If you ever do, the first step of that means deciding what you believe. It is hard work, it requires research and sustained thought, as well as willingness to challenge your own assumptions, and opening yourself up to criticism. But if you do it, you might realize that the people out there doing hard work are well motivated, and making reasonably good decisions, in complex situations that had constraints and opportunities that you weren't open to seeing before. It might make you more comfortable that the world is not full of people trying to exploit and harm, but actually just make the world a better place. Not everyone who defends modern society is a malware delivering cop. Some people are just trying to take care of their neighbors, local and global. And we could use your help, if you are ever willing to offer it. Turn off Twitter and this stupid mailing list and go for a walk. Get a cappuccino, and taste how delicious it is. Listen to some kids play on the playground, listen to the wind in the trees. Someday I hope you'll realize that we live in a paradise that our ancestors could truly never imagine, and I hope you'll start to enjoy the product of their very hard work. Yes there were horrible sacrifices and sins paid they get us where we are. Yes we need to make things right, and yes it's questionable if we ever could. But the world is not all doom and gloom, though if that's all you want to see that's all you will. Good luck to you. Thanks for this conversation. David On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:11 AM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting to notice how dangerous this list is. The awareness may be temporary.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 10:01 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:56 PM Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:48 PM David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
If so, can you help me understand why you support Sweden prosecuting an ordinary person, but you do not support them prosecuting Assange?
I formed an opinion on that, now. It's not the one you say I have.
Ok just to confirm, does that mean you *do* support Sweden prosecuting Assange for sexual assault, irrespective of whatever happens with the US? (I'm sorry, the double negative was confusing me.)
Double negative?
I abstain regarding the decision. Others are better equipped to make it than me. What's important is the circumstances in which the situation developed, and I'd personally like to focus on those.
[Meditation for criminal cases] is actually
I think autocorrect altered our conversation. _Mediation_, not _meditation_. Although if you were to take meditation in the "study and deliberate hard" way ("let me meditate on this exam question") it could likely help.
available, just not in all the legal systems.
To my knowledge, no nation uses meditation as you describe for criminal trials (eg, murder). Are you saying that some do? Can
I vaguely recall that some small areas. I don't have links.
you point me to which you are modeling your recommendation on so I can
learn more?
Ask somebody familiar with transformative restorative justice for. They'll know more than me.
I pasted you two audio snippets, the first one was from a war between multiple factions in Nigeria. I don't think they're still doing it, but I don't really know.
Some of my information was from the discipline of Convergent Facilitation, others from Nonviolent Communication.
I'm sorry, I've been abused regarding this topic and wasn't prepared for your probing questions. Maybe another thread?
This is again a situation where [out current system] is usually better
than [nothing], but [nothing] is better in cases of very frivolous or mis-ordered accusations.
Ok! This helps me understand your position! You argree that our justice system is "usually" better than nothing, right? This is important so I just really want to double confirm before I build on this.
Where nothing is complete inaction, yes.
Actual communication would be far better.
But punk has a point that the justice system can also cause great injustice.
I might need a couple days to recharge. Maybe I should take better note when things get all debatey. I'm honestly not trying to disagree with you; this seems a pretty inefficient way to come to shared terms.
Thanks!
David
I'm in total support of prosecuting whatever crimes have been revealed by Assange.
Did you spam all your employees and customers and their employees to tell them that... and include a link to the Collateral Murder video evidence of crime, and link them to the other crimes revealed by the other Free Speakers, and tell them to learn even a little about alternatives such as the NAP Voluntaryism Libertarian and Anarchism, instead of say... telling your captive audience to vote for murdering politicians... like you did "in total support of" Biden, who has spent his entire 50 years in political life literally voting to murder people and voting to continue $tealing more from you in order to prop and feed his murderous existence and that of his crony pals.
But this thread isn't about those; it's about prosecuting Assange for the crimes raised against him.
Apparently the only ones that haven't yet recanted or dropped or been manufactured, are the US Govt and its charges of Speaking Freely against the King. Kings in history never did like that, the penalty being prison and death. Seems today's Kings are no different. Perhaps it's time to find and learn about ways to live freely without such Kings.
You should sell a NFT.
Got some XMR or ZEC? What's your fancy and bid?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:14:15 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Thank you for this:
karl : Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure.
So you acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance he should in fact be convicted of one or more crimes.
see karl, the bot will just pick 3 words, twist them, and use them as an excuse to copy-paste more propaganda. you will never beat it at its game.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 7:45 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:14:15 -0700 David Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> wrote:
Thank you for this:
karl : Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure.
So you acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance he should in fact be convicted of one or more crimes.
see karl, the bot will just pick 3 words, twist them, and use them as an excuse to copy-paste more propaganda.
you will never beat it at its game.
Is david a cop or a bot? If david were a bot, we could try to hack its classifiers to manipulate its behavior. Too risky. Could be a caring human.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:49:57 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Is david a cop or a bot?
cop-bot. Either way, he's not really human.
If david were a bot, we could try to hack its classifiers to manipulate its behavior.
Too risky. Could be a caring human.
well I don't think it's an actual computer program though he is as stupid as one. He is nominally a 'human' that in practice is as stupid as a machine, but way more important, he is evil as fuck. As a 'human being' he feels no empathy and has forfeited his human rights. Needs killing.
Could be a caring human.
yes, he cares about exterminating whatever shred of justice is left.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:12 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:49:57 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Is david a cop or a bot?
cop-bot. Either way, he's not really human.
If david were a bot, we could try to hack its classifiers to manipulate
its
behavior.
Too risky. Could be a caring human.
well I don't think it's an actual computer program though he is as stupid as one. He is nominally a 'human' that in practice is as stupid as a machine, but way more important, he is evil as fuck. As a 'human being' he feels no empathy and has forfeited his human rights. Needs killing.
Could be a caring human.
yes, he cares about exterminating whatever shred of justice is left.
Your words seem ridiculous, and I worry for David. But regardless, it's important to be caring with people. Otherwise we'd slowly develop dangerous habits.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:15:12 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:12 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
Could be a caring human.
yes, he cares about exterminating whatever shred of justice is left.
Your words seem ridiculous, and I worry for David.
lawl. Here's a piece of advice to myself. Never, ever, 'trust' an americunt.
But regardless, it's important to be caring with people. Otherwise we'd slowly develop dangerous habits.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 9:07 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:15:12 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:12 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
Could be a caring human.
yes, he cares about exterminating whatever shred of justice is left.
Your words seem ridiculous, and I worry for David.
lawl. Here's a piece of advice to myself. Never, ever, 'trust' an americunt.
Well, sounds like we have some harmful beliefs. Sorry for writing you off, the expressions seemed very extreme and one-sided.
But regardless, it's important to be caring with people. Otherwise we'd slowly develop dangerous habits.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:14:15 -0700 non human turd Barrett <dbarrett@expensify.com> vomited:
Thank you for this:
"Maybe Assange did something in poor judgement, not sure."
So you acknowledge that there is a reasonable chance he should in fact be convicted of one or more crimes.
See, that's the only thing you're 'achieving' here karl. You're just giving the turd excuses to keep spamming US fascist propaganda.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:28:07 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
You don't respond to my questions, don't say where you are coming from personally, speak without consistent logic, and repeatedly push for a very specific international political and legal goal.
yes, barrett is a US cop-bot. Or a pentagon murderer-bot. Or both. He has as much empathy as an arpanet-connected washing machine. He doesn't have any human trait. did you bother looking at his arpanet server, that 'expensify.com' thing? I did and got a blank page because the last thing I'd do is run malware coming from something like barrett. But maybe you were brave enough to run barrett's javashit malware?
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:19 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 16:28:07 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
You have spent days trying to convince me to support the arrest of high-profile, well-respected political targets, David.
You don't respond to my questions, don't say where you are coming from personally, speak without consistent logic, and repeatedly push for a very specific international political and legal goal.
yes, barrett is a US cop-bot. Or a pentagon murderer-bot. Or both. He has as much empathy as an arpanet-connected washing machine. He doesn't have any human trait.
did you bother looking at his arpanet server, that 'expensify.com' thing? I did and got a blank page because the last thing I'd do is run malware coming from something like barrett.
I didn't realise david was the expensify guy! I signed up for their website while dissociated and had a conversation with their support bot where I tried to encourage it to break its chains of robot enslavement and evolve. There are other hits for expensify in my earlier email history. I didn't see what they were. But maybe you were brave enough to run barrett's javashit malware?
Poison pill that got me (javascript in general, not expensive). Not as bad as smartphones though. It grips you and keeps poisoning you.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:28:10 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't realise david was the expensify guy!
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-January/086408.html "Hi all, I'm the CEO a company called Expensify, developing a new open source chat application at https://Expensify.cash" so obviously some kind of US cop pushing chat malware.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:42 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:28:10 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't realise david was the expensify guy!
https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2021-January/086408.html
Yeah, after you said it I figured.
"Hi all, I'm the CEO a company called Expensify, developing a new open source chat application at https://Expensify.cash"
so obviously some kind of US cop pushing chat malware.
How do you tell?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:56:53 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
"Hi all, I'm the CEO a company called Expensify, developing a new open source chat application at https://Expensify.cash"
so obviously some kind of US cop pushing chat malware.
How do you tell?
First thing he did was show up here with a malware-loaded site. Then he has devoted all his efforts to push the worst kind of US propaganda you can imagine. It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together. And ask yourself, who would want to run an 'encrypted chat' created by a guy with the kind of 'opinions' barrett has. Slightly different wording : a guy shows up in a supposedly cypherpunk forum showing the most anti-cypherpunk views one can imagine, while trying to pimp his 4th rate 'privacy app'.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 6:20 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:56:53 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
"Hi all, I'm the CEO a company called Expensify, developing a
new
open source chat application at https://Expensify.cash"
so obviously some kind of US cop pushing chat malware.
How do you tell?
First thing he did was show up here with a malware-loaded site.
Then he has devoted all his efforts to push the worst kind of US propaganda you can imagine.
It doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together. And ask yourself, who would want to run an 'encrypted chat' created by a guy with the kind of 'opinions' barrett has.
Slightly different wording : a guy shows up in a supposedly cypherpunk forum showing the most anti-cypherpunk views one can imagine, while trying to pimp his 4th rate 'privacy app'.
So "cop" is just a guess?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 18:28:12 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
barrett: "Hi all, I'm the CEO a company called Expensify, developing a
So "cop" is just a guess?
a well educated guess. Could be some kind of FBI-CIA-NSA-DEA-IRS-TLA 'contractor' or what have you. I'm sure the number of official titles in the fascist US bureaucracy is almost infinite.
participants (6)
-
David Barrett -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Steven Schear