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

[David Barrett]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 6:05 PM David Barrett <dbarrett at 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 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: 16554 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210705/bbebdbef/attachment.txt>