Assange Superseding Indictment

[Mirimir]

On 07/01/2020 02:19 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:05:50 -0700
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/30/2020 06:34 PM, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:52:49 +0000
> 
>>>
>>> 	certain kinds of heinous criminals forfeit their rights. Government criminals for instance. 
>>
>> Sure, but "criminal" is such an ambivalent term. As they say, it depends
>> on whose ox is getting gored.
> 
> 	I can rephrase and avoid moral terms : 
> 
> 	if governmetn agents spy, steal, torture, kill and the like they can't then object when they are treated in the same way. 

Exactly :)

>>> 	take for instance cops and soldiers, who are nothing but govcorp's hitmen. Those people can't complain if they are exterminated like they deserve to be. 
>>
>> I generally agree, although I'm not so bloodthirsty about it ;)
> 
> 	well strictly speaking they should be given the chance to surrender and pay for the damage they caused. And if they don't...

Sure, if "pay" includes death ;)

>> As I see it, privacy rights are inversely proportional to power over
>> others. So even if governments are necessary, which is questionable at
>> best, nothing about them ought to be private. Because openness is a
>> prerequisite for public oversight. And because despotism is totally
>> inevitable without public oversight.
>>
> 
> 	Agreed. No privacy for government agents seems fair to me. If they don't like it, they can get a honest job.

Right :)

But "government" is also ambiguous. I mean, I live on an old farm with
several hundred others, with sociocratic governance.