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

[Karl]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 3:49 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at 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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 16693 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210705/63e6b124/attachment.txt>