Neither have you! no response on the challenge for you to prove your oft stated insistence that there is NO sealed indictment! dox or gtfo and please remember this thread is about the merits of the Asylum Case.
And you have not proven yours. I wonder if you can spot the difference between the following statements: I have seen so far no proof of the allegations. The allegations are wrong. In the first case, you keep a skeptical point of view and can keep it as long as nobody provides a proof. In the second one, you make claims and the burden of proof is on you.
Indeed you did You are claiming Assange has no fear, and/ or well founded fear of the USA extraditing him from Sweden after their case is dealt with. Assange doesn't have to prove conclusively that there is a Sealed Indictment. Just that he has a fear and it is well founded as per YOUR OP, (remember this is the Asylum case being discussed in the thread). It has been covered extensively that it is impossible to know until the moment it is unsealed, ie on execution, again as per your dox. So i think we can agree in this instance your dox suffice for that claim. You are the one who continually claims there is NO such sealed Indictment for him making his claim groundless. It is only incontrovertible dox that can prove HIS claim is NOT well founded ( again we are speaking about the Asylum case as per your OP. I am asking you to dox Your CLAIM that denies his claim. For which the burden of proof is on you. Because you say so is not good enough. Dox or gtfo as is the general term used around here by you old fags. edit to add and/or and this edit
Practical example of what I mentioned. If I say: "Please prove that unicorns exist", the burden is on you. "Unicorns do not exist", the burden is on me too. So, please, provide us with the proof that unicorns exist.
The ECHR is a woeful bunch of legal eagles making big bucks out of what should be a serious court. One which has no sway in any country anyway! As for the US, yes it has it's faults like any country but you can still take to the streets and peacefully protest, you can be a journalist criticising the government and wake up every morning still breathing, it does have free speech. Yes if your a pain in the ass, and go to extremes you may get noticed and watched/harassed/end up in court. What you quoted in your post about the US could be said of many many countries, it's not unusual for countries to run black ops abroad, do deals with others inc threats, don't be so naive. Kangaroo court ref was for Equador. Manning has been charged with acts of treason against his country, he's not going to have an easy time, and its his legal teams duty to try and fog/disrupt proceedings by claiming shit, inc 'torture' claims. Yes he's getting a rough ride but is it 'torture' hmmm questionable.
As an aside, I'm sure basic training breaches a lot of your human rights and could be considered torture but no one bitches about that,
Does not change a thing about what I mentioned. IMHO, asking him for proof is OK, but claiming the opposite requires proofs too.
47 countries signed to it but has no sway, hmmm- especially in Europe. Are you an Amerifag/ Canadianfag by any chance? For all that the AsshatQC is (and he surprised me by allowing my response) he is right to use the ECHR in Europe. It is a serious court. What would be your preferred authority to use, should you or anyone you like need to use it? or do you believe there is no need for such an act in any civilised country apart from wog ones. As for Manning, wow, you take my breath away. 6×8 cell with no window or natural light, awoken at 0500 hours and required to remain awake in his cell from 0500 to 2200 hours.not permitted to lie down on his rack during the duty day, he had to sit upright on his rack without any back support. 20 minutes of “sunshine call.” Aside from a 3-5 minute shower, this would be the only time PFC Manning would regularly spend outside his cell, He was not permitted to sit down or stay stationary during this while shackled. The Brig guards were required to check on him every five minutes by asking him some variation of, “are you okay?” PFC Manning was required to respond in some affirmative manner. Guards were required to make notations every five minutes in a logbook.At night, if the guards could not see him clearly, because he had a blanket over his head or he was curled up towards the wall, they would wake PFC Manning in order to ensure that he was okay.There were usually no detainees on either side of PFC Manning. If PFC Manning attempted to speak to those detainees that were several cells away from him, the guards would order him to stop speaking.not allowed to have any personal items in his cell was prevented from exercising in his cell. If he attempted to do push-ups, sit-ups, or any other form of exercise he would be forced to stop. His spectacles were taken away and that is not exhaustive nor does it touch on everything in the 500 pages filed before the gov't suddenly produced the 84 emails. Emails they had been sitting on for 6 months, after receipt from Quantico before handing them over after defence notified they had filed. Emails the gov't described as "obviously material to the preparation of the defense". Emails that indicated further information that the gov't should have produced under discovery - you know that pesky thing enshrined in american law would you find it so questionable if it were you? Your common humanity astounds me. Your belief in Freedom of Information astounds me. Especially on a site such as this dedicated to the dismantling of the abuses of the Co$ and for the Freedom of Information. Not forgetting the situation in Iran. I would think Bradley would find the hole a vacation resort As for the USA's impeccable record on non torture etc shall we compare it to Ecuador again. Can you please tell me of Ecuador's (or any other country that has one) version of Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition and lawyers advising that waterboarding is a legal method and not torture. What about the recent bills and acts so actively denounced on here? How effective have they been in reducing terrorism? In acclimating people to acceptance of what should be horrifying them AND STILL CONSIDER THEMSELVES MORALLY SUPERIOR AND FREE? how effective have they been into acclimatising people into not feeling or recognising the difference between the image projected/held in heart and the actuality of their actions What is it about Assange that produces such hatred? That makes anyone neutral on Assange but concerned for law, the application of the law, freedom of information and Human rights in general is automatically accused of being a fanboi? That the Assange haters are so determined to see him taken down they lose sight of what the implications are for everyone? That they will happily denounce such crimes and actions used by other wog countries but deny it happens in their own (and i include my country in this too, so don't accuse me of being anti USA). That they are happy to use and applaud any method to take him down regardless of how it conflicts with what they say they stand/ fight for? That is an honest question, as i have repeatedly said i really know nothing about him but i would like to understand your viewpoint because i just don't get it (edit to add not forgetting Iran cos like an assfag i forgot to include it)
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/20...ion-of-wikileaks-sweden-decay-of-rule-of-law/ “I am a person that it has been established is under a political persecution by the United States and its allies,” Assange declares. “That’s a fact. That fact was recognized, though we had to put a lot of work into giving the Ecuador government evidence about that fact.” He goes on to express his belief that Ecuador “has been right to demonstrate its values in this case” and contends they went the “extra mile” in defending his rights because they correlate with Ecuador’s values. He knew Latin America supported WikiLeaks, but he was pleasantly surprised with the solidarity the region has shown recently. In regards to the case in Sweden, Assange says he is going through the formal methods of cooperation. He noted the country’s prosecution authority had “refused to accept a written sworn statement.” Prompted by Gestoso, he shares his view on Sweden’s neutrality or ability to act independent from the United States’ agenda: Sweden’s a very interesting country. There’s historically a lot of good things about Sweden. There’s important advances of some kinds that were made in the ’70s, but it’s changed in a very sad way and most Swedes—Swedes who are old enough see what has happened and they see the change. And they see a state that has said it was proud of its neutrality. There’s been questions, even in the ’70s, about how neutral it was. [It's] to a position now where Sweden is on over 100 NATO committees, where its forces under US command in Afghanistan, where it’s the fifth in to Libya with planes. It was the first to have its parliament to vote to send planes into Libya. It’s the number one per capita arms manufacturer in the world, nearly double that of Israel. It was number one supplier of arms to the United States during the Iraq War in absolute terms. And it is now currently the third largest arms supplier to the United States.
and for anyone else thinking Bradley Manning isn't being tortured. Let's look a bit more closely at just ONE of the complaints being asked the same question and being forced not only to answer, but to answer in the affirmative every 5 mins for 17 hours a day is not torture? look again a little closer every 5 minutes between 5 am and 10 pm - and it is logged so you cannot dispute it that is up tp 1020 times a day for how many months? One thousand and twenty- even taking some off for when something is happening, that is an extraordinarily high number of repititions! And for what purpose exactly? how many times can you take before you have had enough? Not just for one day either but month after month? and you can dismiss it as a little rough handling??? how butthurt are you? Is my country/miilitary right or wrong so deeply ingrained that that single act is just a little roughhandling? is your butthurt really because of what he did? and remember the usa govt was one of the instigators of the Nuremberg principle whereby following orders is no defence to doing wrong or not exposing war crimes? Or is it because your (and mine) gov't and military now act so far astray from how you believe they do/ should that you would rather shoot the messenger than hear the message? So addicted to the idea of being the best, being the home of the brave and land of the free that you won't let yourself see what it really is? and destroy a little more of yourself and your own integrity and society in the process like any other addict? ask yourself is the butthurt you feel not really butthurt at your gov't and millittary for their appalling behaviour contradicting their supposed moral superiority? and since you cannot take the pain of that and work to remedy it (like the icelandics have had to do so recently) you blind yourself. Just like the Co$ and Indie scilons
There's some shitty song called "Proud To Be An American". I wish I could make it up, but the guy who wrote it is a fucking dipshit who tugged on patriotic heartstrings to get his one shitty hit. I'm not proud to be an American. I'm fucking ASHAMED!!! I'm ashamed that the sacrifices of my family, dating at least to the American Revolution and in every war since, have been for naught, resulting in this perversion of this nation's founding ideals. I'm more than a little bit pissed off that this is what has become of a once great nation, because I want better for the generations to come. As it now stands, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will damn us, and the hell of it is, they'll be RIGHT. Under Article 13 of the UCMJ and the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (quoted from here. PFC Manning's lawyers are far better than I), PFC Manning should have all charges dismissed with prejudice, and he should be honorably discharged with the full benefits associated therewith. Financial compensation for the torture he underwent would also serve the cause of justice. We're almost no better than Iran now, especially with the Teabag Taliban attempting a bloodless theocratic takeover.
Ok, so Arseange makes unsubstantiated claims that there is a conspiracy to extradite him to Sweden so that he can then be illegally shipped on to the US to face unknown charges, torture and probably execution. And now it's for the rest of us to prove this moonbat shit ain't true????? Like that's how it's always worked on this site!!!!! And what's worse is you're a frikkin mod!!!
It goes to the following quote by an Anonymous poster: Which was answered by Archer, badly, here: The United States government wanted to starve Wikileaks in a way that wouldn't make them look quite so bad. This was one way they could accomplish that, and yet Wikileaks is still here.
And you fucking scumbags daring to call Bradley Manning a traitor and condemning him as if he is trying to detroy the USA. He is your biggest patriot. Why the fuck do you think he was in Iraq? He was a Volunteer! fucking doing most of you what you won't. Because he believed what the Gov't and his senior officers told him Because he loved his country and his flag more than his own life!!! Why the hell would he want to betray them? betray you? What was it that sickened him? what was it that changed all that? It was the disparity of what Being Proud to be an AMERICAN (just like you) meant to him and what he was actually living!!!! just like you now but he didn't sit on the computer bawwwwing and going La LA LA aint true your fault won't hear you He was that appalled he did something to fight and get AMERICA back to where it should be, where it keeps insisting it is. Because he loves it and WANTS to be PROUD TO BE AMERICAN AGAIN. The REAL America - the one you hold in your heart but can't even feel that the way you used to, not the one you are living Knowing what was likely to happen to him would be bad, might kill him but once again he loved his country and its people so much more than his own life itself. ONCE AGAIN. And it is bad and still he goes on, taking it in the ass for his country and you fucking assraping scumbags call HIM a traitor!!! AND APPLAUD HIS TREATMENT!! While you collude with those who are really are destroying YOUR AMERICA. YOU ARE THE FUCKING TRAITORS and i don't care what Assange is like as a person or if you like him or not. The reason you should be fighting FOR him is for the sake of YOUR AMERICA!! Plenty of your military will tell you - some of them still believe in being the kind of American they think it should be and are speaking out (an ya think they won't get a little rough handling) How would that hero have been able to get that info out? if not for wikki and the ones that came before and after. And he is only being persecuted for that. And to send a warning, don't mess with us! Our dirty little secrets are our dirty little secrets. And each time they get away with it a little bit more of it. And YOU and AMERICA die a little more. but hey what's that matter you are getting a bit of your hatred vented aren't you? Shame that the thing you hate the most, is what you are and are becoming! you make me sick to my stomach go and DIAF you really would be doing the world a favour
You're largely preaching to the converted here. The only thing I would take back in my own polemic, if I were the type, was my comparison of the United States to Iran. I stand by my referring to the "Tea Party" as the "Teabag Taliban" and referring to their goals as an attempt to foment a bloodless theocratic takeover, though I have doubts about the bloodless part. As bad as it's become, we are still a long way from being that fucked up. Still, I have had family in every war this nation has fought, albeit sometimes on the wrong side. I have at least three, and probably more, ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, and one entire side of my family, should they so choose, could easily join the DAR and SAR.
yeah Iran are fighting a bloody civil war! At least they know they are fighting one America ... What's really fucked up is why I a Brit love their country more than they do! I fucking LOVE America!! i was brought up on John Wayne, Jimmy Cagney, Bette Davis et all I've stood in Astronauts Park in Florida watching the shuttle go up, with my heart damn near bursting out my chest and tears rolling down my cheeks. I've been to many parts and loved them all and can't wait till i am mobile again and can visit the rest, see my friends and make more. i fucking love it as much as my own country I hate what the Govts are turning them into Both of them
Typical Amerifags speech, blah blah America used to be blah blah I couldn't give a shit for your delusional view of what "America Used to be" and how it is no longer the America you were proud of! Oh please, just because you have just woken up to the fact that America has been up to naughty stuf doesn't mean it's a new thing sunshine! And please enlighten us as to exactly when this wonderful America you speak of existed? Tell us all what period in history America was so awesome? Please please tell us!
You know this is as ridiculous as glenn beck saying OWS = Stalinists revolutionaries right? Anyways, another debate for another place.
I know it's ridiculous to refer to people who have expressed the false belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and want to take it back to a state that has never existed, while holding the nation's credit hostage and doing everything they can to deny basic rights to women and minorities, as the "Tea Party Taliban". Did I say "ridiculous"? I meant "accurate."
Funny, coming from you. You make claims, you prove them. You claimed there were no charges in the US. Can you prove that ? No. So, stop making this claim and continue to ask the other party for the proof of its claim. My guess is that you apply binary logic here. But, IMHO, many-valued logic seems more appropriate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic
This is a fable, and incorrect. For example right this moment there are many negatives I could prove given the time, cooperation and equipment: 1. I am not a mod on this forum 2. I am not roller skating in plaid underwear right now 3. I am not your old friend from the circle jerk 4. I am not dating you now or ever 5. You should not be using the word impossible in your statement. Etc, etc...
"It is impossible to prove a negative" is a misquote, as it is obviously false. The real principle is: it is impossible to prove a negative existential" because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For example, I can prove that there is not a unicorn in this room, but I cannot prove unicorns don't exist.
I have heard the "I cannot prove unicorns don't exist" quote often. However I disagree. I don't believe in absolutes I suppose. Theoretically, it should be possible to prove unicorns don't exist by surveying all the creatures alive on earth. That is very difficult, yes but not completely impossible, especially with the theoretical model of a camera surveying every point on earth, something that could very well happen at the current rate of development in a century or two. Attempting to make this relevant, I posit that you could prove there were no charges against Assange, by examining the proceedings of the investigation into Manning, Assange and Wikileaks associations, an investigation which has been admitted to exist by US officials. However before that could even happen, the person proving "charges didn't exist" would find that indeed charges do exist and some of the evidence can be found both in leaked Stratfor emails, in the behavior and questioning of officials detaining Wikileaks associates, and in several statements made by various people involved both on the inside and outside of the investigation. So this "can't prove a negative" trope is just a pat way to duck the argument, and an unoriginal one at that.
Well, in that case your claim to prove would still be more analogous to the "there are none this is room" as you are just extrapolating to "there are none on planet earth." But as we know, simply because something does not exist on earth does not mean it doesn't exist. IE. there are no black holes on Earth does not mean black holes do not exist. So...I guess *hypothetically* you could prove they don't exist by searching the universe for planets that harbor life and scanning them using your Unicorn-detector 5,000.....but we are getting into some ridiculous high-deas there.... so, to get to my point, my initial post should emphasize the distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. ...anyway, back to Mr. Assange. Proving that there aren't secret charges against Assange isn't a matter of logic...its a matter of security clearance. So, given that I don't have one I can only speculate....this guy humiliated the US Gov't on multiple occasions and stole government property, in particular state secrets... I think his fears about extradition are justified. Uncle Sam doesn't have a history of taking that kind of humiliation well.
Agreed. And as far as proving existence in other universes, 7th heavens, etc...you are right that is the weakness of my position. I suppose I would have to assert a reasonable expectation of what "exist" means. After all unicorns do exist in our minds, some of us anyway.
You do realise that this is not how it works though right? I did not make the claim there were no charges in the US. Assange made the claim that there were. All I am doing is asking for evidence of it, so far, none. Do I need to get the hand puppets to explain to you the basics of critical thinking?
