• 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!

Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

You have completely misunderstood what evidence is. Having evidence does not mean your case is bulletproof. For instance a witness who say she saw A did a crime is evidence, but she can be wrong.

You have presented no evidence. The problem is not that it is not solid evidence(despite your claim that it was the case that a warrant was out for Assange), but that there is no evidence. That the Australian government thinks that the US might, in the future, issue a warrant is not evidence that the US has already issued such a warrant, and is simply a guess. That Pelosi said she wishes he was arrested is not evidence that a warrant has been issued nor that one will be issued, but that she has an opinion on the topic. To make your case, you need to show actual evidence that the US has in fact taken action. You have shown zero evidence that they have in fact done so.
 
Absolute surety.
Doubt.

Your song is changing, had you noticed?
No, you misread what I wrote. I said the evidence given do not make the case bulletproof. That is evidence that US wants Assange.

However, what really makes the case is the behaviour of Sweden who is not willing to send anyone to interview him, or give him any sort of guarantee. Also, it is very suspicious how UK is willing to spend 50K pounds per day, and storm the embassy and completely devastating their relationship with Latin America. All this for a person who didn't use a condom, and decided to take refugee in an embassy.
 
You have presented no evidence. The problem is not that it is not solid evidence(despite your claim that it was the case that a warrant was out for Assange), but that there is no evidence. That the Australian government thinks that the US might, in the future, issue a warrant is not evidence that the US has already issued such a warrant, and is simply a guess. That Pelosi said she wishes he was arrested is not evidence that a warrant has been issued nor that one will be issued, but that she has an opinion on the topic. To make your case, you need to show actual evidence that the US has in fact taken action. You have shown zero evidence that they have in fact done so.

You are changing the topic. I said he was wanted in the US, not that a warrant has been issued.

It is evidence. As said evidence do not need to be bulletproof. That Australia thinks US will issue an arrest warrent is a much better evidence that a witness in a case, but everyone call it evidence. This should be pretty clear to everyone, including you.
 
Last edited:
Also, it is very suspicious how UK is willing to spend 50K pounds per day, and storm the embassy and completely devastating their relationship with Latin America. All this for a person who didn't use a condom, and decided to take refugee in an embassy.

The Ecuadorian Embassy acting counter to the will of the host country in regards to a fugitive are the ones devastating any relationships that are being devastated.
 
The Ecuadorian Embassy acting counter to the will of the host country in regards to a fugitive are the ones devastating any relationships that are being devastated.

How about addressing the actual point instead of doing the blame game?

Is is very questionable that UK is willing to spend 50K pounds per day for someone that didn't use a condom.
It is very questionable that UK is willing to storm the embassy and at the same time destoy the relationship with Latin America for a man who didn't use a condom.

It is pretty clear there are some other motives.
 
Yes, that is what we call enforcing our laws.
Thank you, Sherlock. I'm always appreciative when people make obvious observations that are irrelevant to my argument.

Those laws are there for a very good reason. Joe Private simply cannot make the determination as to what should be secret and what should be released to the press. If Joe Private feels something should not be classified, he does have avenues to actually address that which will provide him protection from recrimination.
Which still does not address the point about your argument being part of the reason why governments act irresponsibly. Because of people ready to jump on whistle-blowers, governments feel more secure in acting irresponsibly because they know that they have enough to support to demonize those who defy their authority.
 
Julian is a whack job who hates government and the west. The soldier who leaked stuff to him should hang. We should whack Julian for being an enemy seeking to get american Military killed
Why do you want to ignore the crimes of the US military?
Why do you want to muzzle journalists?
What is it about living in a totalitarian state that you enjoy? Do you just get off on the uniforms?

What do you have against judicial procedure?
 
Thank you, Sherlock. I'm always appreciative when people make obvious observations that are irrelevant to my argument.


Which still does not address the point about your argument being part of the reason why governments act irresponsibly. Because of people ready to jump on whistle-blowers, governments feel more secure in acting irresponsibly because they know that they have enough to support to demonize those who defy their authority.

People are not jumping on a whistleblower, people are jumping on some one who knowingly and willingly chose to blow a whistle in an illegal manner. That is a very large, very important distinction. If he had blown the whistle in the legal manner, he would not be in prison.
 
Why do you want to ignore the crimes of the US military?
Why do you want to muzzle journalists?
What is it about living in a totalitarian state that you enjoy? Do you just get off on the uniforms?

What do you have against judicial procedure?

Apparenlty not as much as Assange has against judicial procedure - at least Swedish judicial procedure. I continue to be amused by the sprited defense offered to the Austalian rapist.
 
People are not jumping on a whistleblower, people are jumping on some one who knowingly and willingly chose to blow a whistle in an illegal manner. That is a very large, very important distinction. If he had blown the whistle in the legal manner, he would not be in prison.

Tell me, what is the legal manner to expose confidential information that implicates the government in things it shouldn't be doing? I'm pretty sure there isn't one.
 
Tell me, what is the legal manner to expose confidential information that implicates the government in things it shouldn't be doing? I'm pretty sure there isn't one.

You would be wrong: Reprisal (Military Whistleblower Protection)

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, as amended, prohibits interference with a military member’s right to make protected communications to members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. A protected communication is any lawful communication to a Member of Congress or an IG, as well as any communication made to a person or organization designated under competent regulations to receive such communications, which a member of the Armed Services reasonably believes reports a violation of law or regulation (including sexual harassment, unlawful discrimination, mismanagement, a gross waste of funds or other resources, abuse of authority, or a substantial or specific danger to public health or safety.
 
So, in order to expose activities by the government, one must go through government approved channels. You don't see a contradiction there? That law says, essentially "lawful communication is whatever communication we approve of." That's a pretty clear overreach of power.
 
So, in order to expose activities by the government, one must go through government approved channels. You don't see a contradiction there? That law says, essentially "lawful communication is whatever communication we approve of." That's a pretty clear overreach of power.

There are practical issues at work. Basically, if you don't have to go through the government, then people outside of government make the call on what secrets the government can keep, which is also a contradiction, and one potentially dangerous to national security and diplomacy. However, contrary to your claim, there is a procedure in place for those who act as whistleblowers. Not following those procedures causes you to be subject to penalties under the law, which is as it should be.

Manning is not a hero. He is some one who worked to the detriment of his country by breaking the laws not just of those countries, but that he swore to defend. He is not a victim. If you do the crime, you cannot complain about doing the time.

Edit: and you misunderstand "protected communication". What it means is that if you communicate with the listed people or organizations as part of your whistleblowing, those communications cannot be used against you.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the widespread love being shown to the Australian rapist is not shared by the people of Sweden. But then they've always been right wing lapdogs of the United States, as proven by their membership in Nato:lamo....uh.....there numerous military alliances with the U.S:lamohow they joined with us to defeat the scourge of Nazism:lamo......uh....there must be something.....:lamo

Assange asylum seen as travesty of justice in Sweden - Yahoo! News
 
Apparently the widespread love being shown to the Australian rapist is not shared by the people of Sweden. But then they've always been right wing lapdogs of the United States, as proven by their membership in Nato:lamo....uh.....there numerous military alliances with the U.S:lamohow they joined with us to defeat the scourge of Nazism:lamo......uh....there must be something.....:lamo

Assange asylum seen as travesty of justice in Sweden - Yahoo! News
Actually Sweden has a right wing government who would like to get closer with the United States.

But also remember that this isn't really a right or left wing issue. This issue creates a division between those who trust the government and those who don't. The Swedish trust for their own government is very high.
 
Which hardly explains Swedish public opinion or the position of the Swedish media. Those who oppose the extradition of Assange to Sweden are essentially saying they don't trust the Swedish government or the Swedish legal system. No wonder they are pissed.
 
Which hardly explains Swedish public opinion or the position of the Swedish media. Those who oppose the extradition of Assange to Sweden are essentially saying they don't trust the Swedish government or the Swedish legal system. No wonder they are pissed.

You just said it. They are pissed because Assange supporters don't trust the Swedish government or the Swedish legal system. In Sweden they perceive their government as infallible. So the right end up sympathizing with the United States instead. Actually the left is quite uncertain about what they are going to believe due to their hatred towards the United States.

However, I am not Swedish. I have no reason to trust the Swedish government, there are plenty of past mistakes such as their support for Hitler in the beginning, the eugenic sterilization and the paedophilia scandal among politicians in Sweden. Neither is taught in public schools in Sweden, because it would reduce the trust of the government. And there are ongoing problems such as their out of control immigration and rising crime. A lot of people don't know that either.
 
Tell you what, though. Given a choice between living in Sweden and trusting my life to the Swedish legal system or living in Ecuador and trusting my life to the Ecuadoran legal system, I know which one I'd pick. Of course I haven't raped anybody, either.

And if you want to read something really interesting, read about the humanitarian President of Ecuador and his brutal crackdown on freedom of the press in his own country.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/07/freedom-press-ecuador

The far left is apparently quite selective about the outrages it condemns.
 
Last edited:
Tell you what, though. Given a choice between living in Sweden and trusting my life to the Swedish legal system or living in Ecuador and trusting my life to the Ecuadoran legal system, I know which one I'd pick. Of course I haven't raped anybody, either.

I actually trust neither.

The reason I support the decision is not because I have any faith in the Ecuadorian legal system, but because I don't trust the Swedes to do what I believe is the right thing. That is to not send him to the United States, but still put him on trial for the rape case.
 
Tell you what, though. Given a choice between living in Sweden and trusting my life to the Swedish legal system or living in Ecuador and trusting my life to the Ecuadoran legal system, I know which one I'd pick. Of course I haven't raped anybody, either.

And if you want to read something really interesting, read about the humanitarian President of Ecuador and his brutal crackdown on freedom of the press in his own country.

Freedom of the press in Ecuador: A chill descends | The Economist

The far left is apparently quite selective about the outrages it condemns.

Watch it with the far left crap. I am far left.
 
I actually trust neither.

The reason I support the decision is not because I have any faith in the Ecuadorian legal system, but because I don't trust the Swedes to do what I believe is the right thing. That is to not send him to the United States, but still put him on trial for the rape case.

Would not want him to end up in a country where any trial would be closely monitored and fair, that would just suck. Much better to have him go to a repressive regime.
 
Would not want him to end up in a country where any trial would be closely monitored and fair, that would just suck. Much better to have him go to a repressive regime.
I don't believe the American legal system is fair.
 
I don't believe America legal system is fair.

It is, at the very least, fairer than most. We also have a free press, who would be monitoring the trial. This is all moot since there is no evidence currently that the US intends to ask for extradition nor that Assange is even charged with a crime.
 
I don't believe the American legal system is fair.

So which legal system would you consider fair? Obviously not Sweden, not the U.S., clearly not the British since they approved his extradition. Who? The Russian? The Syrian? the Ecuadoran? The Cuban? Which?
 
Back
Top Bottom