Utopia Talk / Politics / Tomorrow we will find out if Seb is

Average Ameriacn Member	Sun Jan 03 12:17:17 still our ally http://www...kileaks/2021/01/02/id/1003971/ WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will find out Monday whether he can be extradited from the U.K. to the U.S. to face espionage charges over the publication of secret American military documents. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser is due to deliver her decision at London's Old Bailey courthouse at 10 a.m. Monday. If she grants the request, then Britain's home secretary, Priti Patel, would make the final decision. U.S. prosecutors indicted the 49-year-old Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse that carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison. Lawyers acting on behalf of the U.S. government said in their closing arguments after the four-week hearing in the fall that Assange's defense team had raised issues that were neither relevant nor admissible. “Consistently, the defense asks this court to make findings, or act upon the submission, that the United States of America is guilty of torture, war crimes, murder, breaches of diplomatic and international law and that the United States of America is 'a lawless state',” they said. "These submissions are not only non-justiciable in these proceedings but should never have been made.” Lawyers for the U.S. government argued that Assange’s mental state "is patently not so severe so as to preclude extradition.”
jergul large member	Mon Jan 04 06:05:26 Seb is not your ally then. A surprising turn of events.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 04 06:17:41 Seb totally supports buttfucking Assange for having the audacity to go against the global elites. This ruling is a complete loss for him.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 04 06:21:52 Rugian: I actually agree with the ruling. He committed a crime - soliciting hacking isn't investigative journalism - but medical conditions and lack of assurance of reasonable treatment in the US mean we should not extradite. I might go further: the court thought that the to US system could be trusted re plea bargaining.
Dakyron Member	Mon Jan 04 09:11:08 Its a Trump thing I would assume, even though Obama probably would have disappeared him given the chance.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 04 16:50:16 Excellent troll by the English judiciary of their American counterparts. They block the extradition, not based on the merits of the case, but because they deem the American prison system to be so horrible that it violates human rights.
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 04 16:59:19 Seb He's done more journalism in his lifetime than the army of hacks who think that "journalism" consists of attending a government press briefing and soliciting a quote from one or two special interest groups. People in a democracy have a right to know what their government is doing. Him and Bradley Manning are heroes. That being said, you're not fooling anyone here. This is all just about revenge for Anne Sacoolas, isn't it.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 04 17:13:49 Rugian: Be that is it may, soliciting hacking, which is the charge, goes beyond what can be covered by journalist privileged. And publishing the name of informants was reckless and was criticized by the actual journalists he had worked with to date. Letting the world's nastiest regimes know who was working against them is hardly a great libertarian act for the little man. "This is all just about revenge for Anne Sacoolas, isn't it." Independent judiciary. Ours aren't appointed on political merit by politicians. Hard for a hard core partisan like yourself to understand.
Paramount Member	Mon Jan 04 17:15:17 ”Him and Bradley Manning are heroes.” What about Snowden?
Rugian Member	Mon Jan 04 17:31:53 Seb Ah, I see. So when the government is acting in a radically abusive manner, say by secretly building a mass surveillance network to spy on the entire citizenry, journalists should just let that sort of thing go and ignore it. Nothing to see there! This mentality of "when Assange/Snowden reveals government corruption, focus on the hack and ignore the corruption" would have it so that nothing could ever be reported on provided it was closked behind the guise of national security. "Independent judiciary" Oh yes, that famously dispassionate and objective independent judiciary. Tell me Seb, is Spider Lady still dunking on Boris in public over how she sabotaged Brexit by arbitrarily revoking a PM's power to prorogue, or has she come to the realization of how badly she fucked up her cause with that ruling? Independent is not the same thing as nonpartisan.
Seb Member	Tue Jan 05 07:55:01 Rugian: "journalists should just let that sort of thing go and ignore it." No, they should report on it. But that doesn't mean they should solicit hacking, and if they do they should account for it in a court of law. And they will be in a much stronger position if, when they do so, they haven't pointlessly and needlessly published the names of people in various countries that have been talking to the US about the abuses inflicted by their own governments; endangering their lives. That simply isn't necessary to expose malfeasance by the US govt. "Tell me Seb, is Spider Lady still dunking on Boris in public over how she sabotaged Brexit by arbitrarily revoking a PM's power to prorogue, or has she come to the realization of how badly she fucked up her cause with that ruling?" So many things wrong with that paragraph. 1. The ruling did not sabotage brexit. 2. The right to prorogue isn't a PMs (nowhere is there documented a role of PM, so claiming this royal prerogative is the right of the PM is dubious) 3. The entire history of British liberty is the story of Parliament and the Courts removing Royal Prerogatives and giving them to Parliament. 4. The rights of Parliament are reasonably well established. 5. The govt merely needed to sign an affidavit explaining their intent, proroguing in this instance only being illegal if it had ill intent. They could not find a single officer of the crown (including the PM himself) willing to sign such an affidavit - essentially damning themselves. The PM retains broad powers to prorogue parliament, it is only limited when it is intended to frustrate parliaments ability to hold the executive to account; which is the well established role of Parliament. 6. Her cause was simply the application of law 7. She was one of a panel that made the decision. 8. Surely this whole example, ignoring all of your errors in your cack handed diatribe, does nothing but show that the UK Judiciary is independent of the Executive; and only further shows how you are incapable of even conceiving of an non-partisan judiciary?
The Children Member	Tue Jan 05 08:16:24 "Tomorrow we will find out" >> LOLZ OWNED!
Rugian Member	Tue Jan 05 18:10:08 Seb There is no legal channel to expose malfeasance by the US (or UK) government. So people willing to take an alternative route must be encouraged and celebrated. Also, given the gigantic hard-on the US intel community has for putting Assange up against a wall and executing him, I'm not taking any of the "espionage" claims at face value. Re Spider Lady: Are you joking?! 1. It was an attempt to sabotage Brexit. Good thing the voters punished her side for it. 2. Oh my god, it's almost like Great Britain doesn't have a written constitution or something. And yet despite that, you have this thing called centuries of constitutional convention which clearly outline the roles of the various parties in your small-g government. Don't even try to pull that "it's not written on paper so it's not a delegated power" crap. 3. That was very clever of you to lump "Parliament and Courts" together, as if they are of equal import in your system of small-g government. They are not. Parliament reigns supreme and may implement constitutional reforms as it wishes, subject only to the assent of the monarch. The "courts," on the other hand, are a bunch of unelected judges who largely lack the power of judicial review (you know, that thing that makes you hate on American courts so frequently). 4. So are the PM's. 5. Irrelevant requirement and one not needed for the English High Court to properly conclude that it had no business guessing the PM's mind in his decision to prorogue. 6. "Major establishment of new precedent which overturns a centuries-old implied power" does not come off as a simple "application of the law." 7. Yes, and the other judges are anti-Brexit hacks as well. But she was the chief, and furthermore she was the one who afterwards went around making "girly swots" digs. She clearly had an axe to grind with BoJo. 8. It's independent in the same way the American Supreme Court is independent of the executive. How many times have Trump-appointed judges ruled against Trump in various cases? Independent != non-partisan.
Forwyn Member	Tue Jan 05 20:26:14 > Thinking the US surveillance state has standing to prosecute a foreign citizen for publishing provided documents Fucking lol @ Seb
Seb Member	Wed Jan 06 01:09:34 Forwyn: It's not the publishing that's the issue. It's how they were obtained. However, the failure to redact names of individuals damages his claim the activity was journalism and holding govt to account. Rugian: 1. No it wasn't. Proroguing parliament isn't needed for Bexit. 2. We do have a written Constitution, just not a single document (noob). Convention is important. An important part of that convention involves how and for what purposes royal prerogative powers are used. That's what the case hinged on. 3. They are. You know the entire idea of parliamentary sovereignty in the form Mogg claimed to support the govts position was invented by an activist judge (Dicey) in the late 1800s. 4. PM doesn't have rights, it's s Royal prerogative and exercised by the privy council, for expressed purposes. Well established precedent for what abuse of that power entails (having your head cut off). If we take your insane view that the PM has unfettered power to prorogue parliament, a PM could simply prorogue parliament the entire 5 years between election. It's obviously limited. 5. Just wrong. See above. 6. It's not a new precedent. We actually had a civil war over this issue establishing parliamentary supremacy over the crown. 7. Like I said: you can't see this beyond Brexit, to the point you are arguing that the PM defacto wields an absolute monarchs power to dismiss parliament indefinitely. 8. Your SC is politically appointed, with political opinion the determining factor for who the president appoints and who the senate will accept. It's in no way non partisan.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 06 03:10:17 Seb We commonly think of constitutions as things that are protected from change by supermajority criteria or whatnot. Does your informal framework have any such protections?
Seb Member	Wed Jan 06 04:04:55 jergul: Constitutions are just the norms, traditions and laws that set out the legal basis and powers of an organisation - in this case a government. It may - or may not - be a good idea to set out strict measures for controlling how they are changed. Making it very hard to change can be a big flaw. As can obsessive focus on the specifics of the processes it sets out as opposed to principles and outcomes. But that is not a criteria for whether something has a constitution or not. Informal is not correct description either. If it was informal, it would not be justiciable, and as we have seen it absolutely is. You simply mean "uncodified".
jergul large member	Wed Jan 06 04:20:18 Seb The norms, laws and traditions typically afford constitutions rigerous minority protections. Brexit would not have been possible if UK membership had been protected by supermajority criteria. With good reason. A referendum to resolve internal faults in the conservative party should not have been possible.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 06 05:07:03 My pet peeve right now relates to devolution. I find it problematic that the PM of UK is also the PM of England. Proper devolution would also give England its own devolved parliament that is distinct and separate from the UK parliament.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 06 05:48:16 Jergul: It may be typical, it is not a defining condition. I.e. to say we don't have a constitution, that means we have no laws, traditions, norms etc that set out the legal basis for power and that's clearly not the case. What you mean is we do not have a codified Constitution. "Brexit would not have been possible if UK membership had been protected by supermajority criteria." Quite possibly we would not have been members in the first place. Quite possibly there would have been no withdrawal agreement. Quite possibly we would have had no devolution. Quite possibly we would not have had the various reforms to the house of lords either. There is no legal entity England to be prime minister of.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 06 05:49:42 A universal barrier to constitutional change isn't necessarily a good thing, particularly if you don't have a codified constitution. Better to establish norms and traditions over what requires a change that needs a high barrier. Lords reform shouldn't, for example.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jan 06 10:20:00 "It's not the publishing that's the issue. It's how they were obtained." This is, of course, outdated and false. You could make this argument when his only charge was hacking; this was itself spurious, as extraditing a foreign citizen for running a provided hash through a couple of rainbow tables with inconclusive results is onerous. But in the superseding set of charges, counts 9 through 18 were specifically charges on the batches of disclosures; the previous charges were for the act of obtaining them. "However, the failure to redact names of individuals damages his claim the activity was journalism and holding govt to account." According to Assange, he reached out to both the White House and State Department without luck regarding disclosed names. In any case, this is a classic case of short-sighted bureaucrat thinking: this would shift the burden of responsibility on to reporters, often sifting through thousands of pages of documents; the government could then argue that the reckless publishing of a certain item voids press protections. The Associated Press is on record stating that both solicitation and dissemination is a frequent job of investigative reporters.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 06 13:32:48 Forwyn: Even the guardian, who worked with him up publish other releasees and is hardly sympathetic to the US criticised house release. They had pledged to work with him to redact iirc. "The Associated Press is on record stating that both" It would, in the UK at least, still require a public benefit test and much of what he released would fail a public benefit test in the UK. If US protections are stronger, then that's for a US court to decide.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 06 13:38:10 As for short sighted, I'm afraid I think you are being short sighted. Releasing the names and details in all the diplomatic cables (unlike the Apache footage) have us no real knowledge of information or disclosed any real malfeasance by the US govt. Instead it put hundreds of people at risk of violence and death across, and hugely undermined the ability of the US govt to work with informants, sources and campaigners around the world, including dealing with terrorist threats and narcotics traffickers, and for intelligence sharing. There was basically nothing of value in the cables that justified putting them out there. And he had actual journalists institutions willing to sift and vet the material.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Jan 06 16:21:07 lol
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: