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

[David Barrett]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:08 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway if you can honestly help someone in need like Assange, please do
>>> so.  Otherwise please focus on fixing the world.
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210705/a82f6af4/attachment.txt>