Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment - Stundin

[Karl]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2021, 1:01 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at 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.

>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 10077 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210703/7ba4f87f/attachment.txt>