• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assange Speaks to UN

Kal'Stang said:
So they NEVER classify something as "classified" or "Top Secret" in order to cover things up? How nieve do you think I am?
Click to expand...

well, if they did, then you wouldn't exactly have heard about the scandals that we have, now would you?

I would have made sure that the guy was carrying an RPG and not a news camera....Which comes to mind...how do you mistake this...

View attachment 67135537

For this....

View attachment 67135538

??
Click to expand...

From the front, rapidly, through eye-pro, and as he leans out suddenly.

When you jump out at soldiers or Marines with something on your shoulder, pointing at them, when they are in combat, you are likely going to get shot. If you don't like that, you have no one to blame but Darwin.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not gonna discuss the side stuff and possible hearsay. Nor will I endeavor into the possible psychological motives for suppressing trauma and the many examples we have of that.

I will only say that someone not using a condom when requested is rape, and if he is HIV positive, it is murder. IMHO.

Perhaps that's why he refuses to be tested, because it would reveal that he has committed (at least attempted) murder.
Click to expand...

Possible hearsay? That was from the woman herself.

But I'm not surprised that you want to ignore that part. You apparently are quite willing to find Assaunge guilty no matter the actual facts.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Possible hearsay? That was from the woman herself.

But I'm not surprised that you want to ignore that part. You apparently are quite willing to find Assaunge guilty no matter the actual facts.
Click to expand...

There are many instances of victims suppressing trauma and behaving normally after. Her statements at a party, immediately after the event (?) and with the alleged rapist, nonetheless, do not necessarily impugn her allegation.


If a woman requests that someone uses a condom and they do not, that's rape. If they are HIV positive, it is attempted murder or murder (depending on transmission). Do you disagree?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Uhhh...no, they don't. There's an SOP for classifying things. You knew that, didn't you? Or are you picturing some random general smoking a cigar, randomly shouting "Classify it!'?
Click to expand...

Yes I knew about it. Doesn't take much to get things classified.

OldWorldOrder said:
It has a van.
Click to expand...

Not at the begining of the shooting which is when the firing started in the video that I saw.

OldWorldOrder said:
They did the right thing. They killed that which they perceived as a threat. It's the most right thing you can do in a war.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue whether shooting them was the right or wrong thing to do. My arguement is that our government covered it up and swept it under the rug. No apologies, no restitution, nothing. Just swept it under the rug. And THAT is what was wrong.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes I knew about it. Doesn't take much to get things classified.
Click to expand...

"Cover up something wrong" doesn't qualify. Whether you like it or not.

Not at the begining of the shooting which is when the firing started in the video that I saw.
Click to expand...

Maybe your video was only the second half of the whole thing.

I'm not going to argue whether shooting them was the right or wrong thing to do. My arguement is that our government covered it up and swept it under the rug. No apologies, no restitution, nothing. Just swept it under the rug. And THAT is what was wrong.
Click to expand...

That's what happens in a war. People are killed. Are you gonna pay everyone? Why?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Are you gonna pay everyone? Why?
Click to expand...

More like "how". Does he think we should give each of the 100k Iraqi civilians a million bucks? Fantasy world nonsense.

The US provides restitution for egregious misconduct, not for collateral damage that was probably a human shield during a firefight.
 
ecofarm said:
There are many instances of victims suppressing trauma and behaving normally after. Her statements at a party do not necessarily impugn her allegation.
Click to expand...

If she had been "suppressing the trauma" then it never would have been brought up in conversation with the other woman. When someone suppresses something it takes coaxing to bring it out again. A casual conversation is not enough.

Seriously, your grasping.

ecofarm said:
If a woman requests that someone uses a condom and they do not, that's rape. If they are HIV positive, it is attempted murder or murder (depending on transmission). Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I don't think you actually know what rape is.

It is also funny how you never even mentioned anything about HIV until I brought up the fact that the women just wanted Assaunge to get an STD test. And the way you have been posting that would have been stated also before I mentioned it. It makes me wonder just how much you actually knew about this case before I started to show you facts.
 
Kal'Stang said:
If she had been "suppressing the trauma" then it never would have been brought up in conversation with the other woman. When someone suppresses something it takes coaxing to bring it out again. A casual conversation is not enough.

Seriously, your grasping.
Click to expand...

I'm not grasping. Suppressing trauma (acting normal) after a rape is common.


I don't think you actually know what rape is.
Click to expand...

If a woman requests a man use a condom and he does not, you think that's ok?

It is also funny how you never even mentioned anything about HIV until I brought up the fact that the women just wanted Assaunge to get an STD test. And the way you have been posting that would have been stated also before I mentioned it. It makes me wonder just how much you actually knew about this case before I started to show you facts.
Click to expand...

Knowingly giving someone HIV is ok in your book?
 
It doesn't matter what's okay and what's not, or what's illegal in the US, the UK, or Australia. Only what rape is in Sweden.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
It doesn't matter what's okay and what's not, or what's illegal in the US, the UK, or Australia. Only what rape is in Sweden.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that a woman requesting a condom and the man not doing so is the end of consent, in any (western) country.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually, yes, it would qualify.

Classified Information ~ Wiki
Click to expand...

:lol: No, it doesn't. Point me to an EO, a USSID, an FM. Something on SOP, not Wikipedia dude.

What about an apology? That costs nothing more than to lose a bit of pride.
Click to expand...

Umm..okay. I thought Manning was supposedly uncovering war crimes or some such. Now your position was that he was a "whistleblower" on some discourtesy or something? He was uncovering the US acting impolitely? That's worthy of "whistleblowing" now?
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not grasping. Suppressing trauma (acting normal) after a rape is common.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you won't mind proving that will you?

ecofarm said:
If a woman requests a man use a condom and he does not, you think that's ok?
Click to expand...

Generally no, but if the woman continues with the sex act then no, it is not rape. Douchebag move, but not rape. Now if she had told him to stop and he didn't THAT would be rape. But there is nothing that indicates that she told him to stop.

ecofarm said:
Knowingly giving someone HIV is ok in your book?
Click to expand...

What does knowingly giving someone HIV have to do with this discussion? Can you prove that Assaunge has HIV? Can you prove that he knowingly has HIV and purposely had sex with these women to give them it? Lets stick with the facts shall we? Hyperbolic comments will get you no where.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
:lol: No, it doesn't. Point me to an EO, a USSID, an FM. Something on SOP, not Wikipedia dude.
Click to expand...

Whats the point? I gave you a valid source and now you're wanting more? Tell you what, why don't YOU link to those since you are asserting that I am wrong. See thats how debates work. One person makes a claim, provides evidence for it then the other person who disagree's provides evidence of them being wrong. Simply demanding different sources doesn't cut it.

OldWorldOrder said:
Umm..okay. I thought Manning was supposedly uncovering war crimes or some such. Now your position was that he was a "whistleblower" on some discourtesy or something? He was uncovering the US acting impolitely? That's worthy of "whistleblowing" now?
Click to expand...

Where did I say war crimes? Oh wait...I never did.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Generally no, but if the woman continues with the sex act then no, it is not rape. Douchebag move, but not rape. Now if she had told him to stop and he didn't THAT would be rape. But there is nothing that indicates that she told him to stop.
Click to expand...

Do you have a transcript of all statements by the presumed victim?

What does knowingly giving someone HIV have to do with this discussion? Can you prove that Assaunge has HIV? Can you prove that he knowingly has HIV and purposely had sex with these women to give them it? Lets stick with the facts shall we? Hyperbolic comments will get you no where.
Click to expand...

He refused to use a condom, and refused to be tested. The more reasonable explanation for refusing the test is that there is something to be found (which would complicate his refusal to use a condom), and not "just a douchebag".
 
Kal'Stang said:
Whats the point? I gave you a valid source and now you're wanting more? Tell you what, why don't YOU link to those since you are asserting that I am wrong. See thats how debates work. One person makes a claim, provides evidence for it then the other person who disagree's provides evidence of them being wrong. Simply demanding different sources doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

That's not a source. Real people, who actually work in the community, use real sources. Hell, the military works the same way: you find the regulation, not a post on an internet forum, not something from wikipedia, not even something from your boss. You find the regulation. You didn't do that. Wikipedia is cool when it has links on the bottom to the relevant documents: that page didn't. Lots of classification guides are, by necessity, classified themselves. You can't say "all mention of Walter Payton playing for the Bears is Top Secret" because that gives away part of the thing. But the most basic and general documents are not.

This might be a good start for you: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol1.pdf

Where did I say war crimes? Oh wait...I never did.
Click to expand...

So whistlblowing on people being rude and mean? Do you think that's a valid excuse?
 
ecofarm said:
Rape trauma syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

From your own link...

According to Scarse[6] there is no "typical" response amongst rape victims. However, the U.S. Rape Abuse and Incest National Network[7] (RAINN) asserts that, in most cases, a rape survivor's acute stage can be classified as one of three responses: expressed ("He or she may appear agitated or hysterical, [and] may suffer from crying spells or anxiety attacks"); controlled ("the survivor appears to be without emotion and acts as if 'nothing happened' and 'everything is fine'"); or shock/disbelief ("the survivor reacts with a strong sense of disorientation. They may have difficulty concentrating, making decisions, or doing everyday tasks. They may also have poor recall of the assault"). Not all rape survivors show their emotions outwardly. Some may appear calm and unaffected by the assault.[2]
Click to expand...

Wanted to be sure we had the whole context there...

"without emotion" is the key words there. The woman obviously was expressing emotion afterwards.

Something else you seem to be forgetting is that the women still did not want Assaunge to be charged with anything. The only one wanting to charge Assaunge is the prosecutor. And if the women do not want Assaunge to be charged then they simply won't testify. Which means the prosecutor has nothing. Notta. Zilch. Why is the prosecutor pursueing this despite the fact that she knows that the women don't want to charge Assaunge with anything? What would be the point?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Whats the point? I gave you a valid source and now you're wanting more?
Click to expand...


what? no you didn't - you linked wikipedia, not a single controlling document for US Classification guides.

here. DOD 5200.1. Executive Order 13526. Then perhaps you can tell us about your time as an original classification authority and your ability to speak to the legal review process. :) Enjoy.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
That's not a source. Real people, who actually work in the community, use real sources. Hell, the military works the same way: you find the regulation, not a post on an internet forum, not something from wikipedia, not even something from your boss. You find the regulation. You didn't do that. Wikipedia is cool when it has links on the bottom to the relevant documents: that page didn't. Lots of classification guides are, by necessity, classified themselves. You can't say "all mention of Walter Payton playing for the Bears is Top Secret" because that gives away part of the thing. But the most basic and general documents are not.

This might be a good start for you: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol1.pdf
Click to expand...

From your link....

OldWorldOrder said:
9. CLASSIFICATION POLICY. Information shall be classified only when necessary in the
interests of national security and shall be declassified as soon as is consistent with the
requirements of national security.
Click to expand...

So what exactly constitutes "interests of National Security"?

OldWorldOrder said:
So whistlblowing on people being rude and mean? Do you think that's a valid excuse?
Click to expand...

I've already stated what they did that was wrong. Sorry if you can't accept that the right thing to do was to at the very least admit that wrong did happen. Even if that wrong was an accident it was still wrong. Or should we not have involuntary manslaughter charges in our legal system?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Or should we not have involuntary manslaughter charges in our legal system?
Click to expand...

So you think refusing to use a condom is merely "douchebag", refusing to get tested after refusing to use a condom is merely "douchebag" and that the US should have apologized for a human shield used by rogue journalists (as if the US doesn't apologize profusely for collateral damage).

Do you not believe that ambassadors should have secure lines to their higher-ups in which to pass speculation?
 
ecofarm said:
Do you have a transcript of all statements by the presumed victim?
Click to expand...

Transcript, no. Unlike Florida they're not releasing transcripts of testimonies. I do remember reading it in the news though.

ecofarm said:
He refused to use a condom, and refused to be tested. The more reasonable explanation for refusing the test is that there is something to be found (which would complicate his refusal to use a condom), and not "just a douchebag".
Click to expand...

Actually the more reasonable explanation is that he just doesn't want to be tested because he probably feels that he is clean and that getting an STD test is too embarressing. Something that happens quite often.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually the more reasonable explanation is that he just doesn't want to be tested because he probably feels that he is clean and that getting an STD test is too embarressing. Something that happens quite often.
Click to expand...

He refused to use a condom and is under rape charges. The more obvious reason for refusing a test is that it complicates the rape charge.

"Embarrassed"? Wow, could you be a bigger apologist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom