Jullian Assange has been arrested following removal of asylum by the Ecuadorian Government

Yes, that is because I do not know his name. I will see if I can find it

Seems there were a lot far more high profile than the one whose name I do not know - will continue looking.

Got it, the one we are looking for is Vaughan Smith

 

It's possibly not as bad as I thought but it annoyed me at the time.

 

Not the many, but the individual requires a set of values to adhere, a set of rational values. And no, man isn't driven by instinct; he is moved by whatever ideals he holds true.

If men wish to live free, peaceful, and prosperous, they need to embrace reason, and nothing else. As a philosopher once said, and I paraphrase, "Saving the world is simple. Think"

The world doesn't need a "one world government" to rule it; it needs free nations to coexist under the principles of individualism, liberty, and capitalism; not semi-slave states compromising with tyrants to see who can get the have the greatest power to loot the most.

And lastly, if slavery is a condition of mankind's survival, then mankind deserves the hell that will come--sticks, stones, or nukes.

As to the dawn of tomorrow, I'm referring to Ayn Rand's Objectivism, the only philosophy of reason, and the only hope Man has.

 

She's a b'itch, alright. And arrogant too.

 

Good job! Thank you!

 

I understand that you went to a dubious source to make your point because a legitimate one wouldn't work.

 

You are a complete waste of my time and energy.

 

I've found that people who can't discuss issues within the bounds of reason and evidence frequently have that same complaint.

 

This is a goingunderground well worth watching.

They begin with the change in the BBC's attitude to the US attack on Libya in 1986 when it was the Libyans the BBC appeared sympathetic to and critical of our Government for allowing the US to use our airspace to bomb them. He also says that it was when the Tories started complaining about the BBC and this ending with Alistair Milne the then Director General of the BBC losing his job – and points out that his son is Communications director for Corbyn.

The BBC give it is due did try and stay by what it believed the UK was which was at that time was a liberal society. It admitted having such a bias. It was another enquiry after Israel had got so upset at their reporting of the hardships of the Palestinians that got it another report and that definitely was the end of the BBC as an Independent liberal media. It became just like any other corporate owned media then.

He then moves to an interview with Greg Palast and of course begins with the arrest of Assange.
Palast said he will need to be arrested too then and the New York Times and is disgusted that the NYT who have been more than happy using the information provided by Manning and Assange without giving them credit , now to use his words they' sickeningly applaud the arrests' of Manning and Assange. (Blumenthal has also said the NYT has used his research and not given him credi for it)Apparently they are indicting him for releasing documents which reveal war crimes! (so a bit more than any hacking lark already) Palast says the crime was committed by the US military in covering up the war crimes...sounds right to me.


He goes on to discuss many other things like the US Democracy which he calls a Mockery of Democracy and how Theresa May is bringing the system which got Trump into power and which is apparently corrupt, or rather can be used in a corrupt way to Britain. He is not surprised. He says it is the only way she could win. Loads more good stuff including on Venezuela. He is only half the video so not too long.

 

Yes, the court can override the Constitutional “confrontation clause” (depriving a defendant’s right to confront a witness) -in the interest of justice. It is uncommon, but often necessary, for example in cases of child sex abuse where the victim is afraid of the defendant. This doesn’t make the trial “secret” and the non-confronted witness’ testimony is transcribed, becomes part of the record.

 

The first part of your sentence above will be dismissed by psychologists, psychiatrists, philosophers, educators, and other researchers in the human condition, because the effects of unconscious mental activity and instinctive behaviour are scientific fact.

As for the second part: from where or whom does he obtain his ideals?

Obviously not only from the act of exercising his own powers of reason. ("give me the child and I will give you the man": Loyola)
So a world view constructed on your quoted assertions is already on incredibly shaky ground.

Addressed above; the "nothing else" bit is the error in that paragraph.

Merely a statement of your political/economic ideology, which is based on inadequate knowledge of the human condition, as explained above.
Now, an international rules based system is not the same as "a one world government"; the former is a system of separation of powers at different levels government, with eg, an UNSC without veto having clearly defined powers that do not reach into a nation's internal affairs - provided a nation's own laws do not conflict with Universal Rights as already agreed and defined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Like you, Rand was unable to conceive of an economy in which scarcity doesn't exist. Therefore her reasoning is already flawed.

Now - assuming you (and she) are not into theories of cultural and racial superiority, and other divisive ideological nonsense:

"It's the economy, stupid".

"Slavery"?
Universal above poverty participation in the economy, clearly deliverable in our advancing AI and IT world, and which is surely the minimum which ought be required of a functional economic system, is not slavery, though that's apparently the conclusion of your world view.

 

Best Wishes.

 

That is a ton of important information and it will keep me thinking for days. I knew nothing about the grade of oil in Venezuela and recorded efforts by the US government to commandeer those resources.

It seemed to me like an overnight change in BBC reporting but I understand now how it was accomplished over particular incidents and who it was that broke its back. So yes, without Wikileaks there's RT to turn to. But without competition from Assange RT might slip its' moorings and then we're all stuffed. I like RT and it's my main source of news although I do not think very highly of that "crosstalk" fellow Peter John Lavelle who speaks too much and listens too little.

 

Although off topic it is interesting to note that the 1986 bombing of Tripoli using US F-111's from USAF (RAF) Alconbury was preceded, two years earlier, by a very, very vile dirty tricks operation at the Libyan Consulate in London that saw WPC Yvonne Fletcher gunned down and murdered.

The killing was blamed on the Libyans, with the official account stating that the deadly shot was fired from the 2nd floor of the consulate. But the forensic evidence, presented by Dr. Hugh Thomas, a trauma surgeon and forensic specialist appearing in three linked TV documentaries produced by the award winning Fulcrum TV, titled Murder in St. James, revealed that the kill shot came from the 6th floor of an adjacent building -- where a joint British and American surveillance post was located... but which was oddly unoccupied on the day of the murder. The Dispatches producer, Richard Belfield, eventually tracked down the responsible "hired" gunman in Germany where he interviewed him.

Unfortunately, copies no longer exist nor are available for the three part Dispatches programme. Unsurprisingly, in my opinion.

WPC Fletcher's murder created the public atmosphere for Margaret Thatcher to later give approval for US warplanes to bomb Tripoli, something that would have caused massive public fury at the time.

 

Made me think of you, international law, and the basis of international commerce.

International Trade Refutes Hobbes's Theory about the State of Nature

“Have we achieved our current levels of peace and prosperity through state intervention or in spite of it”

You know my thoughts

https://fee.org/articles/international-trade-refutes-hobbess-theory-about-the-state-of-nature/?utm_campaign=FEE Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=71761451&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8Vkf8kC3PKja4p_EUUvK4xDUDE0xxWt268xOcMLPH8vx8mr-pB7m4SN6fcGKaZ8CbfsRFyVQtTy1NAVRdm9XIx_GcaAw&_hsmi=71761451

 

I didn't hear that one but I have definitely had experience of information I have found disappearing, at least once after I had linked to it on this board!

My memory of 'Mad Dogs' is different. I do remember hearing Thatcher getting hell in Parliament for allowing them to use our air space. She responded that she had thought she had to allow them - so possibly was a bit subdued by Parliament's reaction. That is what I thought was the basic response. I was living in London at the time. Possibly it depends on who you were in touch with but everyone I knew was strongly against us allowing the use of our air space. I seem to remember other European countries refused

.....but it fits with Thatcher sneakily allowing Murdoch to get a very strong influence in British Media - I have read that was deliberate for obvious reasons. I can also remember the strikes they had at the Times when he was taking that over - did the workers not try to buy it themselves? and how they correctly said this was going to be the destruction of free press in this country. That of course was neo liberalism for us.

 

I was referring to cases where the transcript is not made public, or the witnesses identity is kept a secret from the public, or evidence is presented to the jury that is neither made public nor presented to the defendant.

 

I interpreted your post as suggesting secret trials were common in the US, you said you knew of numerous cases and referred to a case where defendant was not allowed to be present during a certain witness’ testimony. I just noted this doesn’t make the trial “secret” and how in some cases it may be necessary.

 

A bitch's brew:

 

I'm going to check out The Juice Media. That was great!

 

Thanks for this engaging read.

A couple of the premises are questionable:

<<Companies on either side of the Pacific can and do negotiate contracts and enter into complex trade agreements without paternalistic state oversight>>

yet obviously nations still perceived a need for establishment of WTO rules to facilitate trade between self-interested nations. Why?

Surely not only because Hobbes insightfully said (4 centuries ago) that human nature is largely driven by self-interested instinct, and needs therefore to be regulated by law (or in Hobbes day - an absolute monarch) but rather, because the need is real.

That is, just because individual companies may agree to negotiate contracts without state oversight, the author's conclusion that nations can therefore do the same without supranational oversight does not necessarily follow.

Here's to voluntary co-operation.....but don't bet your life on it; and, absent an international rules-based system, we see the results: Assange is certainly caught up in the terror always threatening to be unleashed by the military-'security' complex, if said co-operation between self-interested nations is not forthcoming.

 

The prosecution needs to prove a case first. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

George Galloway has something to say about that:







As the "bitch's brew" video shows, there is precedent for judicial oversight of government prosecution in similar cases - after all, it is the media's duty to expose the truth. Consider the Pentagon Papers case and the Downing Street Memo matter - neither the US or UK government wanted to expose these revelations but despite all efforts to suppress them, they did get exposed. The Nixon and Blair governments were deposed as a consequence (as was Aznar's in Spain and others who supported Bush's war of imperialistic terrorism). By keeping things as they are or have been up to now, nothing has been settled - Assange remained imprisoned in an embassy and no further exposure of Bush's crimes took place. But if a trial did take place, those crimes would be fully exposed again, lead to Assange's vindication, and might serve as disincentive for further American imperialism overseas.

 

Well, let him come to America and watch the prosecution fall on its face. What? There aren’t 12 honest souls out of 350 million?

As to “innocent until proven guilty”, it’s a legal principle, not a metaphysical axiom. In other words, I don’t need a court to determine a person’s guilt or innocence. For example, O.J.

 

Exactly. Many appear to be convinced that the government will have an open and shut case against Assange. That has yet to be proven, especially in view that the documentation was stolen by someone else while he merely exposed the data. Consider:


https://newrepublic.com/article/153558/us-charges-julian-assange-well-exactly


Assange's conduct in those alleged proceeding with Manning are merely routine for the profession: "most of what’s described [in the indictment] amounts to fairly routine communications between journalists and their sources, especially when reporting on national security matters". It will be up to the government to prove (not merely assert) that the defendant has violated the law. This notwithstanding the limitations put on the government by the First Amendment with its freedom of the press guarantee.