| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:34 tnud wrote: I got this one! It's fun :D Edited my above post just pointing at tpb case when looking at the swedish court system. Ignoring the fact that you no doubt made a gross over simplification, what does one case matter? You cannot claim an entire system corrupt because of one alleged aberration. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:41 Nitan wrote: Ignoring the fact that you no doubt made a gross over simplification, what does one case matter? You cannot claim an entire system corrupt because of one alleged aberration. Yes, I simplified an allegation against a 2x 2weeks case and months of consideration.. It shows that Sweden isn't flawless and America HAS a hold on us. Don't go saying that Sweden can assure Americas enemy #2 a fair trial. I admit we have a pretty good chance of doing it, but I don't like the way you worded it. Trust me, living in sweden you get another perspective  | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:11 tnud wrote: Don't be naive, something smells rotten about these charges for sure, I mean come on.. Wanted by interpol for alleged rape? He's wanted "by Interpol" simply because there is a court order requiring his appearance and he is not in Sweden. As I said in an earlier post, Interpol is not the super police, it's basically a system to give notice to other countries to look out for him so that they can extradite him to Sweden. And most modern countries have extradition treaties with Sweden, probably because of Sweden's sterling reputation? Dropped, reopened. That he somehow managed to rape TWO women in TWO days in Sweden.. Why the hell would this man risk that right smack in his big moment of fame so to speak. I dunno, maybe he's a sex freak. Who cares? Leave that sort of speculation to the jury. Given that Sweden is such an awesome country (look at the "Sell me on your country" thread if you don't believe me), I have no doubt he would receive a fair trial. Sure, perhaps the decision to prosecute was politically motivated, but that says nothing about whether he will be fairly indicted and tried. Either way the man is a hero. Stuff like this makes the government fear the people! Which governments are in fear of their people because of the cables? Stuff like this makes governments fear other governments. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:36 Nitan wrote: What is controversial? Do you deny the British Empire persisted or that it was atrocious? Do you deny there was a punitive peace? If not, do you deny it helped lead to WWII? The Terms of the Treaty of Versaille and the failures of the U.N. were the main causes of WW2. The Treaty of Versaille was opposed by Woodrow Wilson as being too harsh. His original vision of the 14 point plan for creating the U.N were opposed by American conservatives and European nations. Seeing how the main causes of WW2 were policies that America directly opposed, I'm not sure how your deducting that we caused WW2. Instead of asking me to prove why your random theory is true, why don't you show some sources or support? To be frank I've never heard of such a ludicrous theory that American intervention caused WW2. And yes, American intervention propped up a faltering british empire, but non-intervention would have drastically increased the economic damage and sheer length of an already destructive war. The British empires continued existence had very little to do with the start of ww2. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:47 domovoi wrote: He's wanted "by Interpol" simply because there is a court order requiring his appearance and he is not in Sweden. As I said in an earlier post, Interpol is not the super police, it's basically a system to give notice to other countries to look out for him so that they can extradite him to Sweden. And most modern countries have extradition treaties with Sweden, probably because of Sweden's sterling reputation? I dunno, maybe he's a sex freak. Who cares? Leave that sort of speculation to the jury. Given that Sweden is such an awesome country (look at the "Sell me on your country" thread if you don't believe me), I have no doubt he would receive a fair trial. Sure, perhaps the decision to prosecute was politically motivated, but that says nothing about whether he will be fairly indicted and tried. Which governments are in fear of their people because of the cables? Stuff like this makes governments fear other governments. 1) Yea I know I worded that wrong lol, I kinda corrected it. Sorry. 2) I'm from Sweden. I know we're pretty awesome. Don't go CONFIRM a fair trial with US looking over our shoulder just because of that. You are the world police after all. 3) Well... yea. Still, one thing leads to another | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:29 Aim Here wrote: The FBI is America's political police (If you think they're politically impartial, just google for COINTELPRO sometime). And I don't know what you're talking about with 'fake terrorist plots' or being busy - there are mainstream news articles (like this one) saying that the FBI is trawling the lawbooks looking for something to hit Assange with. And if Assange gets caught in an unfriendly jurisdiction, he might end up being extradited to the US afterwards. In fact, he might get deported to Australia without even the need for extradition The FBI basically acts as the federal police, and sure, sometimes their investigations are politically motivated. But it would actually be DOJ, not the FBI, who would be scouring the lawbooks to see if Assange can be extradited for a crime. Sweden is a western-aligned government and it may be being pressured by the US to nobble the trial or it might just want to do it as a favour I'm surprised you have so little regard for one of the most successful liberal democracies in the world. Even in America, our judiciary is separate from the executive branch and does not take marching orders from either the President or a foreign state. if you want to see an example of a Western, supposedly law-abiding country assuring the United States that an independent tribunal has apparently been nobbled in America's favour, then you can peek at 09LONDON2198 in the cables, where a British civil servant assures the US ambassador that they had "put measures in place to protect your interests" in regards to the supposedly independent Chilcott inquiry into the Iraq war. The Chilcott inquiry was conducted by Parliament, which is under the control of the Prime Minister. Of course the US would be able to influence it. Whether Sweden is susceptible to this sort of thing, I have no idea, but with the odd timing and conduct of the allegations (they started immediately after one of the previous major leaks, the charges were changed and then dropped and reinstated, and then a warrant issued immedately after this leak), the thought definitely ought to arise in any sufficiently imaginative individual. I'm somewhat certain the rape charges are partially being brought out of political motivation. That says nothing as to whether Assange will receive a fair trial, and I'm fairly certain Sweden's judicial system gives defendants a fair shot against a zealous prosecutor. | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:46 tnud wrote: Yes, I simplified an allegation against a 2x 2weeks case and months of consideration.. It shows that Sweden isn't flawless and America HAS a hold on us. Don't go saying that Sweden can give Americas enemy #2 a fair trial. I don't understand what you're saying in the first sentence but intellectual property is very complicated so simplifying the case doesn't really help you. Your second sentence is...odd. No judicial system is flawless and to demand that before answering crimes is to be above the law. As for America's hold...probably? America has some sort of hold on most nations because we have a global economy. It's silly to think that Sweden is America's client state because of that though. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:57 Nitan wrote: I don't understand what you're saying in the first sentence but intellectual property is very complicated so simplifying the case doesn't really help you. Your second sentence is...odd. No judicial system is flawless and to demand that before answering crimes is to be above the law. As for America's hold...probably? America has some sort of hold on most nations because we have a global economy. It's silly to think that Sweden is America's client state because of that though. I'm not saying that, I'm just slightly annoyed that you think so highly of us lol xD I'm basically astounded that you think just because the trail is in Sweden it can be 100% guaranteed to be totally and completely fair. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:14 Half wrote: So you're citing the leak that allowed U.S. to fight against Germany in World War 1 as a negative consequence of leaking? rofl. what an atrocity. Since when were you a cheerleader for war? | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
Wouldn't care too much of this attention whore. TBH I don't think that wikileaks is a good thing at all. Just recently they released some document saying that american diplomats said that the runner up in the election in zimbabwe or some country like that was weak and had no chance to win, which basically just gave the current dictator a huge lead. Seriously I don't give a fuck what diplomats say to eachother, but they might just have destroyed the last hope of democracy during this century in that country.. worth it? | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway472 Posts
TBH I don't think that wikileaks is a good thing at all. Just recently they released some document saying that american diplomats said that the runner up in the election in zimbabwe or some country like that was weak and had no chance to win, which basically just gave the current dictator a huge lead. Seriously I don't give a fuck what diplomats say to eachother, but they might just have destroyed the last hope of democracy during this century in that country.. worth it? Ehhh, I don't think Mugabe ever had a problem "winning the elections" for the past 20 years... | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:50 Half wrote: The Terms of the Treaty of Versaille and the failures of the U.N. were the main causes of WW2. The Treaty of Versaille was opposed by Woodrow Wilson as being too harsh. His original vision of the 14 point plan for creating the U.N were opposed by American conservatives and European nations. Seeing how the main causes of WW2 were policies that America directly opposed, I'm not sure how your deducting that we caused WW2. Instead of asking me to prove why your random theory is true, why don't you show some sources or support? To be frank I've never heard of such a ludicrous theory that American intervention caused WW2. And yes, American intervention propped up a faltering british empire, but non-intervention would have drastically increased the economic damage and sheer length of an already destructive war. The British empires continued existence had very little to do with the start of ww2. Where did I say America directly caused WWII? Yeah, America interfering in WWI was pretty bad in that it preserved the atrocious British Empire and created a punitive peace that led to WWII. Wilson failed to use his leverage before we broke the German army's back. Then he had to concede most of his 14 points to create the League of Nations. He screwed up and while he didn't create the punitive peace his ineptness created the circumstances that let it be made. Keeping the British Empire alive was just a general bad thing caused by interfering in WWI. | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:58 tnud wrote: I'm not saying that, I'm just slightly annoyed that you think so highly of us lol xD I'm basically astounded that you think just because the trail is in Sweden it can be 100% guaranteed to be totally and completely fair. Nothing is 100% but I see no reason to believe that Sweden has such a strong chance of being unfair that it would deprive him of due process to be tried there. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
I'm somewhat certain the rape charges are partially being brought out of political motivation. That says nothing as to whether Assange will receive a fair trial, and I'm fairly certain Sweden's judicial system gives defendants a fair shot against a zealous prosecutor. Well I'm glad your somewhat certain. However, considering this entire set of allegations are politically motivated, there is little reason or precedent for Assange to be the same. Since when were you a cheerleader for war? U.S. involvement in WW1 served only to shorten its length, thus lowering casualties and its economic damages. Sorry for ruining it all for you, but you do realize that this guy is about as far from a trusted source as you can be. This information is / could be so corrupted it's not even worth looking at in all honesty. Wouldn't care too much of this attention whore. Don't you think if any shred of the information was untrue, the U.S. would simply say so and discredit the entire site? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On December 02 2010 10:04 Nitan wrote: Where did I say America directly caused WWII? You said it was a substantial cause in WW2. I am saying that they are an irrelevant and WW2 would have happened regardless of American intervention. Wilson failed to use his leverage before we broke the German army's back. Then he had to concede most of his 14 points to create the League of Nations. He screwed up and while he didn't create the punitive peace his ineptness created the circumstances that let it be made. Keeping the British Empire alive was just a general bad thing caused by interfering in WWI. We certainly didn't help avoid WW2, but you realize that both of those elements would have simply not existed had U.S. not participated at all? Explain how keeping the British empire alive would be worse then prolonging the war by several years and causing millions of more civilian and military deaths, as well as the tiny possibility that England had now won the war at all? | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
Well, accidents happen. On December 02 2010 10:13 Half wrote: You said it was a substantial cause in WW2. I am saying that they are an irrelevant and WW2 would have happened regardless of American intervention. I didn't say they were a substantial cause either. I requoted my one line just to make sure. It's a pretty short and unqualified sentence. We certainly didn't help avoid WW2, but you realize that both of those elements would have simply not existed had U.S. not participated at all? Well, it could have been that both sides would have just tired themselves out and made a peace where neither side held all the cards. There would have been no League of Nations but that was pretty much doomed to failure to begin with. Explain how keeping the British empire alive would be worse then a war that lead to the collapse of the empire, prolonging the war by several years and causing millions of more civilian and military deaths, as well as the tiny possibility that they have not won the war at all? You have created a rather strange dichotomy here. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On December 02 2010 10:09 Half wrote: Well I'm glad your somewhat certain. However, considering this entire set of allegations are politically motivated, there is little reason or precedent for Assange to be the same. Assange is being irrational, and so are you. Prior to the allegations, what would you have put the probability of receiving a fair trial in Sweden? 99%? That's almost a certainty. Now that the allegations may have been politically motivated (and what is the probability? note that we only have timing to go by, so be careful of post hoc ergo propter hoc), you put the probability of a fair trial (which is a completely different process than allegations involving different political bodies) at, what, less than 50%? No rational person would do that. U.S. involvement in WW1 served only to shorten its length, thus lowering casualties and its economic damages. Way to completely miss the point. You can argue whether or not in hindsight it was a good idea for the US to enter WW1. That is neither here nor there. The point is that candid diplomatic communications could possibly upset the peoples of a nation into warmongering. Perhaps we got lucky with WW1 and it was ultimately the right decision. Can you be so confident the next time it happens? The irony of all this is that Assange and wikileaks itself recognizes the importance of secrecy. Without secrecy, Assange would not be able to guarantee that whistleblowers will not be disclosed. This is a perfect example of how secrecy is often necessary for candidness. Assange should be disclosing actual abuses, not dumping gossipy cables in order to harm the overall infrastructure that allows diplomatic secrecy. That way, people are less inclined to abuse secrecy to hide their bad activities, rather than less inclined to make use of secrecy to express candid and honest thoughts. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
I didn't say they were a substantial cause either. I requoted my one line just to make sure. It's a pretty short and unqualified sentence. Ok then if its not a substantial cause why the fuck are you mentioning it rofl? Well, it could have been that both sides would have just tired themselves out and made a peace where neither side held all the cards. This is literally impossible and has no historical or logical precedents. There would have been no League of Nations but that was pretty much doomed to failure to begin with. The L.N did almost nothing, positive or negative. It is irrelevant to this argument. I am saying America reduced the economic damage of the war, and saved millions of lives in the process. You have created a rather strange dichotomy here. Sorry was watching TV while I was typing that :x. Pretty lulzy sentence. | ||
|
Aim Here
Scotland672 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:55 domovoi wrote: The Chilcott inquiry was conducted by Parliament, which is under the control of the Prime Minister. Of course the US would be able to influence it. No. Firstly Parliament isn't 'under the control of the Prime Minister'. The idea is that a majority of the MPs ought to be in favour of the Prime Minister, but they're answerable to the electorate. If anything, the Prime Minister is answerable to Parliament, in that if Parliament wants him to go, he goes. The Prime Minister has formal control over the civil service and the army, and things of that nature. Secondly, the Chilcot inquiry is an independent public inquiry, appointed by the government directly, not Parliament, ostensibly as an impartial inquiry into the causes and conduct of the Iraq war. If you think the fact that they're Prime Ministerial appointees is grounds for them being politically biased, note also that upper court judges in the UK are appointed in much the same way, and are therefore susceptible to the same bias. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On December 02 2010 09:10 domovoi wrote: No it wasn't. The vast majority of the cables were irrelevant and nonoffensive. It was an attack on the infrastructure of diplomacy. Consequences: (1) less trust amongst nations to broker negotiations, leading to a marginal increase in the probability of armed conflict, (2) increased security of these diplomatic lines of communication, lessening the flow of information between States, (3) nothing important to be said will be written down, causing less transparency in the long run. It is well recognized that guarantees of privacy increase the flow of candid and honest advice. When those guarantees break down, people are more likely to respond with less information, not more. That, of course, appears to be the goal of a nihilist group like wikileaks. A few years ago, when I first encountered the site, I thought it was a great idea to have a completely anonymous site to make it easier for whistleblowers to disseminate information. Wikileaks no longer serves that function with its leader now so prominent and its whistleblowing function taking a backseat. The target in this latest dump is especially heinous given that history has shown time and time again what happens when diplomacy breaks down. In response, (1) this entire argument of "it hurts diplomacy, hence there will be more distrust and military solutions to things" is inane. You don't know this, you can't prove this and it can equally be argued the other way. War is less likely when there's openness, because (I'm paraphrasing someone here, but I forgot who said it first) 'without openness you'll see your enemy as a black box you can project all your fears into. The more you know, the less you can be manipulated by warmongers who play on your fears.' Second, diplomats are frequently wrong, that's one of the reasons they loathe transparency. Just by reading some of the cables myself I can spot instances where they were wrong, and I'm sure there are experts around that can investigate the line of thinking used and correct it, now that it's in the open. (2)(3) are the same argument, I guess. You're saying that anything wikileaks does will only ensure even more secrecy and harsher protections. But there already wasn't any openness until wikileaks changed it, so this doesn't make sense. Anyway, this is a feature, not a bug: read Assange's goals for wikileaks. He's quite clear that if states will become excessively secret, they're actually making it harder for themselves to function and as a result their power weakens. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
ByuN vs Solar
herO vs Classic
Reynor vs Cure
Solar vs herO
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games gofns9090 tarik_tv4947 Grubby2360 FrodaN2140 Fnx  864DeMusliM411 Liquid`Hasu369 mouzStarbuck315 QueenE103 shahzam75 ZombieGrub61 |
|
RongYI Cup
SHIN vs Creator
Classic vs Percival
OSC
BSL 21
RongYI Cup
Maru vs Cyan
Solar vs Krystianer
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
