Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Debate with "Horatio" (Julian Snowdon) RE: Assange

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: Debate with "Horatio" (Julian Snowdon) RE: Assange Reply with quote

Re: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along
Posted by Horatio on August 18, 2012, 10:13 pm, in reply to "Re: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along"


--Previous Message--
: Almost all his points are red herrings -
: basically evasions
:
: 1) He is Wanted in Connection with a Rape
: Investigation
:
: Remarks here are irrelevant to whether or
: not the case against him is weak. The case
: against his is extremely weak, and this is
: an evasion of that fact.
:
In that case he should have nothing to fear in a court of law. Loads of people find themselves facing a court of law, convinced that the case against them is weak. Sometimes they are right. The English courts have not considered the point of guilt or innocence, but merely whether there may be a case to answer, and the courts have decided that ther is. They have not been asked to decide on guilt or innocence.
:
: 2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one
: Swedish Prosecutor
:
: Wrong. {I agree. It is a vendetta by
: powerful states agasint very effective
: whistle blowers. Again thsi point is an
: evasion.]

The Swedish prosecutors are investigating an accusation against Assange of a very serious crime brought by two individuals, both Assange loyalists. Are you saying that 'powerful states' have generated these accusations, and if so, how? You seem to see people as puppets acting consciously or not under the influence of powers beyond their control. In fact it seems that this is the very core of your worldview. But, if you can actually describe the real tangible ways in which this corrupting influence is excercised, go ahead.
:
: 3) He has not had Full Recourse to the
: Courts of this Country
:
: Wrong. [Irrelevant. Has he been treated
: fairly? Have the states involved taken
: obvious steps that they could easily have
: taken to show that the case against Assange
: is not politcally motivated? Answer is a
: clear no, and he evades it.]

He obviously has had full recourse to the courts in England and his counsel has been able to ensure that all due process has been followed. So it's only 'irrelevant' if you believe that the entire process is corrupt; which you don't say, possibly because you would make yourself look (even more) ridiculous.
:
: 4) He is a Fugitive from Justice
:
: Indeed he is. [Irreveavtn to tthe key
: questions he evades. See response to 3]

Only 'irrelevant' if one accepts your answer to point 3, which no-one but an idiot would.
:
: 5) Britain has Threatened to Storm the
: Ecuador Embassy
:
: [His remarks boil down to quibbling whether
: YJ treatentened to storm immediately or
: after legal precedings. More evasion. They
: key point is tha the UK acted - yet again -
: in a totally disporportionate manner
: revealing something other than a buring
: desire to see Assange questioned for rape
: (which he easily could have been in the UK,
: another point he evades).]
:
: It is debatable whether Britain has made an
: "open threat" to Ecuador as its
: foreign minister claims. The text of the
: letter delivered by a British diplomat is
: said to be a reminder of the law by the
: Foreign Office, and a threat by others.
: Judge for yourself. I believe it can most
: definitely be seen as clumsy and may well
: have pushed Ecuador into its decision to
: grant political asylum. As a small country
: it was keen to point out it was "not a
: British colony" and did not want to be
: seen to be bowing to pressure.
:
: What the letter did not do was suggest
: Britain would break national or
: international law, which of course might
: well spark a serious international incident.
: There is a power under English law to
: withdraw diplomatic recognition from a
: premises, which was introduced after the
: shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher. However, as
: Carl Gardner points out here very clearly
: any such decision must be in accordance with
: international law. To do so would set a
: very difficult precedent and more than
: anything this looks to me like very clumsy
: saber rattling (that had of course, the
: opposite of the desired effect).
:
: As for the SAS being about to storm the
: Embassy? You've been watching too many
: movies. A dull court case argued by public
: international lawyers is a lot more likely
: than that ever happening.

I think that reminding the Ecuadorians of the law regarding the proper and legitimate use of diplomatic and consular premises may have been clumsy and counter-productive in this instance. But, it has served to provoke a display of that self-pitying victimhood which all students of Latin American politics must bear in mind.
:
: 6) Assange Can Now Leave the Country
:
: Wrong. [Again, irrelevant to the key
: questons that he evades. See response to 1
: & 3 again]
:
Of course wrong. He'll never leave the Embassy without some deal done at a high level, which will involve surrender to Sweden for trial.

: 7) He faces a Secret Trial and/or he will be
: Extradited to America where he faces Death
: Penalty
:
: [See response to point 3 and the case of
: Bradley Manning plus renditions plus
: etrajudical assasinations, plus calls made
: for Assange's asasination. Dismissing the
: risks Assanhe faces is a sleazy form of
: denial] .
:

Assange is not Manning. Manning broke his contract of employment big-time and and been made to suffer disproportionatley. Assange acted as publisher to state secrets - much like the Washington Post and NYT, who are protected under US laws. None of the journalists involved in breaking state secrets in the US have been subject to any sanctions. Rather, they have becone national heroes.

: No surprise tha this is the post Sunny
: Hundal was inpressed by and cited on his
: blog.
:
Sunny Hundal- why bring him in? He's not taken seriously anywhere.
:

So it all come down to your response to question 3 - about recourse to legal process. You ask whether he's been treated fairly? Well, he has counsel to speak for him, and they have challenged every step taken. If you are aware of any legal avenue not explored, or any flaw in the process not picked up, then you know who to get in touch with. I'm sure they'll be interested. This is how they make their living you know.

You then say - "Have the states involved taken
obvious steps that they could easily have taken to show that the case against Assange is not politcally motivated?" - But why should they? This is the extradition stage in a criminal case. It's simple. If those women had not gone to the police, than it would never have happened. Did the CPS have to demonstrate lack of political motivation when they prosecute for assault? Of course not.

I had hoped for a more powerful refutation of the points made, for the sake of the debate, but I can only respond to the arguments put forward by Emersberger.

I remember Emersberger in a long and entertaining CiF row a couple of years ago - can't remember what it what was about, or who his opponent was.

What does stick in my mind was Emersberger's technique - straw men, changing the subject, deliberate misunderstandings or misreadings, accusations of bad will, ad hominems, the whole mis-firing arsenal that the sweaty self-righteousness that flies under the banner of ML's 'compassionate rationality' can employ.

Assange may think he deserves better friends than these. Or he may be grateful for any he can get.



Re: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along
Posted by emersberger on August 19, 2012, 12:18 am, in reply to "Re: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along"


Your asumptions appears to be that

1) The USA, Sweden and UK have done nothing to indicate that their motivations for pursuing Assange's case are political. In fact "only an idiot" (in your words) coud doubt this.

2) You think the evidence to support the allegations against Assange is strong.

If that is wrong please let me know.

I'll only reply to a few of the things you say below since your approach amounts to flinging a great deal irrelevant debris which I'm not inclined to pick up.

In your response you fail to distiguish between a "serious crime" and serious evidence of the crime. I can accuse any random person of being a serial killer. That's a "serious allegation". It doesn't follow that I have any serious evidence for it. Apologists for the behaviour of the states targetting Assange routinely fail to make this distinction.

:
: 2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one
: Swedish Prosecutor
:
:Are you saying that 'powerful states' have generated these accusations, and if so, how?


No. Powerful states have opportunistically used the allegations as a way to punish Asange for his journalism.

:You seem to see people as puppets acting consciously or not under the influence of powers beyond their control.
:


You miss a lot of simple points.

: 3) He has not had Full Recourse to the
: Courts of this Country
:
: Wrong. [Irrelevant. Has he been treated
: fairly? Have the states involved taken
: obvious steps that they could easily have
: taken to show that the case against Assange
: is not politcally motivated? Answer is a
: clear no, and he evades it.]

:He obviously has had full recourse to the courts in England and his counsel has been able to ensure that all due process has been followed. So it's only 'irrelevant' if you believe that the entire process is :corrupt; which you don't say, possibly because you would make yourself look (even more) ridiculous.
:

Again, have the states involved taken obvious steps that they could easily have to show that the case against Assange is not politcally motivated? They haven't. Neither Sweden nor the UK have garntteed that Assange tha they will not allow Assange to be shipped off to the USA to be tries for his journalism. Sweden has refued to qustion him in the UK as they did with a murder suspect in Belgrade.

: 5) Britain has Threatened to Storm the
: Ecuador Embassy
:
:I think that reminding the Ecuadorians of the law regarding the proper and legitimate use of diplomatic and consular premises may have been clumsy and counter-productive in this instance. But, it has served :to provoke a display of that self-pitying victimhood which all students of Latin American politics must bear in mind.
:

Your remark is example of the bigotry that any student of British colonialism shoud bear in mind.

:
:Assange is not Manning. Manning broke his contract of employment big-time and and been made to suffer disproportionatley. Assange acted as publisher to state secrets - much like the Washington Post and :NYT, who are protected under US laws. None of the journalists involved in breaking state secrets in the US have been subject to any sanctions. Rather, they have becone national heroes.


Nixon had Ellberg's psychiatrist's office broken into in an effort to find dirt on him. Assange (like Ellsberg) is not a member of the corporate club that is protected. Assange tried to work with them but the inevitable break with them was made. That is why companies like VISA have targetted Wikileaks in a way they would never dream of doing with the NYT or any corporat eoutlet. The evidecne that the USA has been working to nab Assange is overwhelming. Check out Greewald's work. Check out the recent revelatins about the Australian officials saying in private what they deny publcy.:
"AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show."
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1345288604.html
Wilful blindness is the only reaon I can see for missing all that. Given your remarks about Latin America, perhaps something worse is also involved.

:I remember Emersberger in a long and entertaining CiF row a couple of years ago - can't remember what it what was about, or who his opponent was.
:
:What does stick in my mind was Emersberger's technique - straw men, changing the subject, deliberate misunderstandings or misreadings, accusations of bad will, ad hominems, the whole mis-firing arsenal :that the sweaty self-righteousness that flies under the banner of ML's 'compassionate rationality' can employ.

:
Why don't you go look for it so you can post it here to fortify your "arguments"?

Re: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along
Posted by Horatio on August 19, 2012, 9:10 pm, in reply to "Re: When it comes to Assange rape case, the Swedes are making it up as they go along"


"No. Powerful states have opportunistically used the allegations as a way to punish Asange for his journalism."
Rubbish. The Swedish judicial authorities are investigating an accusation of a criminal offense. To do otherwise would be grossly negligent.

"You miss a lot of simple points."
Would that I could live in a simple world like you.

"Again, have the states involved taken obvious steps that they could easily have to show that the case against Assange is not politcally motivated? They haven't. Neither Sweden nor the UK have garntteed that Assange tha they will not allow Assange to be shipped off to the USA to be tries for his journalism. Sweden has refued to qustion him in the UK as they did with a murder suspect in Belgrade."
There is no reason for them to show that the case against Assange is not politically motivated, any more than it was necessary for the prosecution to show that in the case against, say, (for an extreme example the Kray brothers). It's a criminal case. The prosecutor has to show a case, he has no remit to bow to any bad-faith conspitorialist who happens along.

"Your remark remark is example of the bigotry that any student of British colonialism shoud bear in mind."
Are you seriously sugesting that the most recent iteration of the comprador culture does not exploit a culture of victimhood amongst its followers, in the most irresponsible, cheaply
populist, historically contemptible, and self-serving way?

"Wilful blindness is the only reaon I can see for missing all that. Given your remarks about Latin America, perhaps something worse is also involved."
Something worse, eh? The worse thing you can imagine is the ability to think for oneself. So maybe you've got it.
"Why don't you go look for it so you can post it here to fortify your "arguments"?"
No. You do it.
You know very well the thread I'm talking about. You know very well the dishonest strategems you used.
You know very well you lost the argument.

Yet you persist. I'll resist the temptation, almost overpowering though it is, to get into the kind of ad-hominem amateur psycho-reductionist 'rebuttals' that are found here. That would be too easy. Instead - remember, just remember, you've lost every argument you've ever had.

Why do you make me angry? Because you, and the whole ML enterprise, is an insult to the human spirit.

The MediaLens project is a denial of everything that makes us human. It denies humanity in the name of 'the truth'. It denies critical intelligence in the name of 'the truth'; it denies difference in the name of 'the truth'; it denies debate in the name of 'the truth'; it denies other's humanity in the name of 'the truth'; it denies the human project - in the name of 'the truth'. In the name of 'the truth' it is closed, finished, perfect, absolute, realised, intolerant, absolutist, apologist for tyranny, blinded by ideology, philistine, shallow, self-righteous, sanctimonious, solipsistic.

The ML project is the antithesis of everything that a broad generous open mind should aim at. You guys really are in the gutter.
Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:46 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker