Australian Politics Forum

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17122
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #165 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:17pm

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:26pm:

While Washington has often called Assange's actions reckless and claimed they put its agents at risk, the judge noted that the United States could not identify any personal victim from them.

"There's another significant fact - the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tells me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury," the judge said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-state-department-says-julian-assanges-actions-p...

The so-called rescue missions were 100% successful, eh! And Vietnam was actually a great US victory, no doubt!

That the state department was able to pull them out REGARDLESS of Assange, is pure luck on his part. He was criminally reckless and had no qualms about endangering anyone else just to feed his own ego

That the state department said it pulled them out...

If they hadn't? Would Assange be willing to stand trial for manslaughter?

Did they do it, save their assets?

They failed many Iraqi, Afghani and (historically) Vietnamese assets... Why would anyone believe that they saved, not only some assets, but 100% of them, because y'know, WikiLeaks?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #166 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:21pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:26pm:

While Washington has often called Assange's actions reckless and claimed they put its agents at risk, the judge noted that the United States could not identify any personal victim from them.

"There's another significant fact - the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tells me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury," the judge said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-state-department-says-julian-assanges-actions-p...

The so-called rescue missions were 100% successful, eh! And Vietnam was actually a great US victory, no doubt!

That the state department was able to pull them out REGARDLESS of Assange, is pure luck on his part. He was criminally reckless and had no qualms about endangering anyone else just to feed his own ego

That the state department said it pulled them out...

If they hadn't? Would Assange be willing to stand trial for manslaughter?

Did they do it, save their assets?

They failed many Iraqi, Afghani and (historically) Vietnamese assets... Why would anyone believe that they saved, not only some assets, but 100% of them, because y'know, WikiLeaks?

I doubt they saved them all

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Assange Reply #167 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:23pm chimera wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:11pm: yes, he'd be acquitted. Bullshit. I reckon the coward would spend another 10yr in asylum rather than face manslaughter charges
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17122
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #168 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:27pm

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:21pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:03pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:26pm:

While Washington has often called Assange's actions reckless and claimed they put its agents at risk, the judge noted that the United States could not identify any personal victim from them.

"There's another significant fact - the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tells me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury," the judge said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-state-department-says-julian-assanges-actions-p...

The so-called rescue missions were 100% successful, eh! And Vietnam was actually a great US victory, no doubt!

That the state department was able to pull them out REGARDLESS of Assange, is pure luck on his part. He was criminally reckless and had no qualms about endangering anyone else just to feed his own ego

That the state department said it pulled them out...

If they hadn't? Would Assange be willing to stand trial for manslaughter?

Did they do it, save their assets?

They failed many Iraqi, Afghani and (historically) Vietnamese assets... Why would anyone believe that they saved, not only some assets, but 100% of them, because y'know, WikiLeaks?

I doubt they saved them all

They claim they did, or at least they must have, given the US State Department could not provide the details to various courts of a single asset who was killed or harmed.

Surely they weren't lying about something??!!

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 15426
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #169 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:29pm

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:23pm:

Bullshit. I reckon the coward would spend another 10yr in asylum rather than face manslaughter charges

'Voluntary manslaughter occurs when all the elements for murder are present, including an intention to kill or cause really serious harm, but the crime is reduced to manslaughter by reason of loss of control or diminished responsibility.'
He'd be acquitted.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17122 Gender:	Re: Assange Reply #170 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:58pm In all likelihood, the US does not give a rat's arse about their assets overseas unless they are US citizens. All the more reason that Australian governments should take it upon themselves to come to the rescue of Australian citizens, even at the risk of inconvenience to or in defiance of the US.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Jun 27^th, 2024 at 9:03pm by MeisterEckhart » IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #171 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:08pm

chimera wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 8:23pm:

Bullshit. I reckon the coward would spend another 10yr in asylum rather than face manslaughter charges

'Voluntary manslaughter occurs when all the elements for murder are present, including an intention to kill or cause really serious harm, but the crime is reduced to manslaughter by reason of loss of control or diminished responsibility.'
He'd be acquitted.

Id say that Releasing the names of those assisting the US would in all likelihood see those named murdered. He can't claim ignorance or that it was an accident. Besides, it's not the point. He would never do it because he lacks a moral backbone. He spent 15yrs running from having to face lessor crimes. There is absolutely no way he'd man up about any more serious crimes

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 15426
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #172 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 4:05am

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:08pm:

Id say that Releasing the names of those assisting the US would in all likelihood see those named murdered. He can't claim ignorance or that it was an accident.

The US is ignorant of Smith's Law and didn't charge Ass with manslaughter. Afghanistan is 5,700km away from him and somebody else would do the murder (if it happened). You need a man to be slaughtered for it to be manslaughter.
If police name a child sex-offender and he is shot, is the cop charged with manslaughter?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #173 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 6:12am

chimera wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 4:05am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 11:08pm:

Id say that Releasing the names of those assisting the US would in all likelihood see those named murdered. He can't claim ignorance or that it was an accident.

The US is ignorant of Smith's Law and didn't charge Ass with manslaughter. Afghanistan is 5,700km away from him and somebody else would do the murder (if it happened). You need a man to be slaughtered for it to be manslaughter.
If police name a child sex-offender and he is shot, is the cop charged with manslaughter?

So it's ok to get people killed as long as they are a long way away from you? Got it.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17122
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #174 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 8:40am

Wikileaks publication put lives at risk....?

Despite the US long track record of abandoning many of its foreign assets to their fate when it's done with them, somehow those named in Manning's leaked documents were all spared, such that the State Department could not and cannot provide the name of a single asset who was killed or injured due to Wikileaks' publications.

How is that possible?

The obvious answer is that the US State Department knew well in advance of the documents' publication what they contained, giving them ample time to ensure the safety of all US assets.

How could that have been?

Wikileaks provided the documents to the State Department well in advance of their publication.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 15426 Armidale Gender:	Re: Assange Reply #175 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 8:54am John Smith wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 6:12am: So it's ok to get people killed as long as they are a long way away from you? Got it. No you got nothing. Read it again, repeat, wait 10 minutes then blink.
Back to top	IP Logged

Laugh till you cry

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #176 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:37am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 8:40am:

Wikileaks publication put lives at risk....?

Despite the US long track record of abandoning many of its foreign assets to their fate when it's done with them, somehow those named in Manning's leaked documents were all spared, such that the State Department could not and cannot provide the name of a single asset who was killed or injured due to Wikileaks' publications.

How is that possible?

The obvious answer is that the US State Department knew well in advance of the documents' publication what they contained, giving them ample time to ensure the safety of all US assets.

How could that have been?

Wikileaks provided the documents to the State Department well in advance of their publication.

Another pack of lies from the USA.

They have no evidence of any harm suffered so they create the lies that they protected people by making them invisible.

Watching US spokesmen in press conference performances exposes the US spox as the most evasive, devious liars ever.

Back to top

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 120123
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #177 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:46am

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:37am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 8:40am:

Wikileaks publication put lives at risk....?

Despite the US long track record of abandoning many of its foreign assets to their fate when it's done with them, somehow those named in Manning's leaked documents were all spared, such that the State Department could not and cannot provide the name of a single asset who was killed or injured due to Wikileaks' publications.

How is that possible?

The obvious answer is that the US State Department knew well in advance of the documents' publication what they contained, giving them ample time to ensure the safety of all US assets.

How could that have been?

Wikileaks provided the documents to the State Department well in advance of their publication.

Another pack of lies from the USA.

They have no evidence of any harm suffered so they create the lies that they protected people by making them invisible.

Watching US spokesmen in press conference performances exposes the US spox as the most evasive, devious liars ever.

I thought Uncle Sam was a good guy -
he wouldn't lie would he?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39801
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #178 - Jun 29^th, 2024 at 8:35am

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 1:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 1:15pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 1:10pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 12:42pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 12:01pm:

Why would Albanese ring Assange, and more stupidly, make it public that he did?

For the huge political capital it would earn him.

Why else?

I think he has mis-read the room.

"A poll from earlier this month indicated a large majority of Australians - 71% - said the US and UK should be pressured to close Assange's case."

And:

Majority support for Assange’s release and return home

What did that Poll say about how many ALP voters might not vote ALP because of this obvious political interference in the justice system of another Country? Me included.

The ALP might bleed just enough former support from people like me to lose the next election.

Separation of Powers, my arse.

Laura Tingle agrees with me, and publishes:

Link.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 15426
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Assange
Reply #179 - Jun 29^th, 2024 at 11:50am

'White House National Security Communications advisor, John Kirby, who told journalists this week that "the White House was not involved in any way whatsoever in Julian Assange's case, and the decisions pursuant to that, to his sentencing and his repatriation back to [sic] Israel. That was a [Department of Justice] matter, and they're the only ones that can speak to it".

Why then did the Australan delegation only speak to Congress and not to a judge?

Back to top

IP Logged