WTF First Amendment under attack?

Brenda Archer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,135
Location
Arizona
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
Sept 2007
SLU Posts
12005
The beginning of the end of the first amendment? Not sure exactly how I feel about Assange but I'm pretty sure Trump wants to silence all journalists who fail to promote his lies.
This is really bad. I’m not one of the fans of Assange, but it’s still really bad. Freedom of the press is another enemy of the hard Right. I think Assange might be well served letting himself wind up in Swedish jail until there’s been political change in the US.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,418
SLU Posts
18459
All the legal comment I've seen here seems agreed that adding these charges to the application has made it far, far more difficult for a British court to agree to Assange's extradition.

As I recall, when the first indictment was released (alleged assistance to Chelsea Manning in breaking into a computer account) that it looked pretty thin but at least it avoided the many obstacles presented by existing law relating to press freedom and dual criminality.

This blows that right out of the water. Rather, it's as if someone had set this up as a competition for human rights lawyers -- how many potential objections under existing human rights law can you find in this indictment?

I wonder how seriously they expect, or even particularly want, his extradition. They must realise that, while it's not impossible, it's very, very unlikely that the updated indictment can withstand close judicial scrutiny, possibly all the way up to the British Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, as did the much less legally contentious application from Sweden.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,902
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
All the legal comment I've seen here seems agreed that adding these charges to the application has made it far, far more difficult for a British court to agree to Assange's extradition.

As I recall, when the first indictment was released (alleged assistance to Chelsea Manning in breaking into a computer account) that it looked pretty thin but at least it avoided the many obstacles presented by existing law relating to press freedom and dual criminality.

This blows that right out of the water. Rather, it's as if someone had set this up as a competition for human rights lawyers -- how many potential objections under existing human rights law can you find in this indictment?

I wonder how seriously they expect, or even particularly want, his extradition. They must realise that, while it's not impossible, it's very, very unlikely that the updated indictment can withstand close judicial scrutiny, possibly all the way up to the British Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, as did the much less legally contentious application from Sweden.
I am guessing donnie did not think that far ahead. Remember, he is not a chess player .... or even one for a simplified version of naughts and crosses. Instead he is simply a boor who thinks he can throw his weight around to get his way no matter the circumstances. I would be willing to stake money all of his employees has thought 'I hate my life/job' at one time or another.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,418
SLU Posts
18459
Whatever Individual 1's role in the matter, it seems to me that whoever is responsible for the legal oversight of such matters in the US might have taken the view that, since many of the points in the indictment potentially conflict with various US constitutional protections, too, it might be less embarrassing to have the request denied by a British court than to have the First Amendment and other aspects of the case examined by the US courts.
 

Soen Eber

Vatican mole
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
637
Wrong. He has always, always given his base exactly what they want. This is just another bone for them to party over, a thumb in the eye to whoever. It both distracts and energizes the base.

Thw ride will have to end eventually, but if he can break precedent and the rule of law sufficiently, democracy will never recoverer, which is.exactly what he and his corrupt friends need to escape prosecution.
 

Anya Ristow

Bernie Bro
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
732
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
The beginning of the end of the first amendment? Not sure exactly how I feel about Assange but I'm pretty sure Trump wants to silence all journalists who fail to promote his lies.
Trump should have absolutely no issues with Assange. If he allows the security state to go after Assange, it's either because his puppet masters want it, or because he cares so little that he just lets them do as they please.

This is going to lose him some supporters. But some of them are convinced this is some sort of 9th-dimensional chess move. Idiots.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,902
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
This is going to lose him some supporters. But some of them are convinced this is some sort of 9th-dimensional chess move. Idiots.
His supporters I can never figure out, especially when the question is over some policy that will hurt them. Figuring out donnie is simplicity itself, all you have to do is ask 'what feeds his ego the most'. He simply does not care about any other considerations ... at all.

Politics is some sort of a combination of chess and poker. In what amounts of each varies, but there is certainly hints of both. I do not see either coming from donnie, even in the most simplistic forms.
 

Lianne Marten

Cheese Baron
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
383
Location
WA, USA
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Sept 18 2007
SLU Posts
3367
His supporters I can never figure out, especially when the question is over some policy that will hurt them. Figuring out donnie is simplicity itself, all you have to do is ask 'what feeds his ego the most'. He simply does not care about any other considerations ... at all.

Politics is some sort of a combination of chess and poker. In what amounts of each varies, but there is certainly hints of both. I do not see either coming from donnie, even in the most simplistic forms.
They're easy to figure out.

Whatever the libs want, they want the opposite just out of spite.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,193
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
I still think the Trump administration just wants to bury Assange in the deepest, darkest hole so that he may not spill the beans about how he directly worked with Russia on Trump's behalf.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,902
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
They're easy to figure out.

Whatever the libs want, they want the opposite just out of spite.
Although that by itself does not make a lot of sense, although it does make it predictable. Saying they want the opposite policies of the other party may be misguided but at least it makes sense. It is when libs say 'humans need oxygen' and trumpites say 'no we do not'.
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Eunoli

Well-known member
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
718
SL Rez
2002
I still think the Trump administration just wants to bury Assange in the deepest, darkest hole so that he may not spill the beans about how he directly worked with Russia on Trump's behalf.
Its a two-fer. Keeps Assange from being somewhere he could be questioned by the "wrong" people and sets our American journalists up for the same charges next time someone tries to whistle-blow. This is one of the worst things he's done.

-- and I really, really hate that I have to side with Assange on anything.
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,086
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65535
This is really bad. I’m not one of the fans of Assange, but it’s still really bad. Freedom of the press is another enemy of the hard Right. I think Assange might be well served letting himself wind up in Swedish jail until there’s been political change in the US.
I think Assange is a sleeze, especially for his role in publishing DNC emails during Trump's campaign. But, yeah, it's not looking good for the 1st Amendment, which is already under attack every time Trump refers to the press as "enemies of the people".
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,418
SLU Posts
18459
What's the history of all this? I've not been following the story of the grand jury particularly, but I have it at the back of my mind that the grand jury who returned this sealed indictment were empanelled as long ago as 2010, though the indictment was dated 2018 (what happened in the meantime?).

How long do people sit on grand juries, and is this the same grand jury before whom Chelsea Manning recently refused to testify? How long do people sit on the damn things -- it sounds like a permanent job?

In any event, what I'm wondering is who drafted the indictment. By all accounts it's even more vulnerable to in the US courts than in the European ones, at least as far as first amendment rights are concerned, so whoever prepared the document must have been aware that the indictment is open to multiple -- and potentially fatal -- objections.

I think I read somewhere it was originally prepared by someone while President Obama was President, but his Justice Department wisely sat on it.

But who is responsible for this somewhat tendentious document? From everything I read, it's going to have a very hard time in court.
 

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,670
SLU Posts
9073
What's the history of all this? I've not been following the story of the grand jury particularly, but I have it at the back of my mind that the grand jury who returned this sealed indictment were empanelled as long ago as 2010, though the indictment was dated 2018 (what happened in the meantime?).

How long do people sit on grand juries, and is this the same grand jury before whom Chelsea Manning recently refused to testify? How long do people sit on the damn things -- it sounds like a permanent job?

In any event, what I'm wondering is who drafted the indictment. By all accounts it's even more vulnerable to in the US courts than in the European ones, at least as far as first amendment rights are concerned, so whoever prepared the document must have been aware that the indictment is open to multiple -- and potentially fatal -- objections.

I think I read somewhere it was originally prepared by someone while President Obama was President, but his Justice Department wisely sat on it.

But who is responsible for this somewhat tendentious document? From everything I read, it's going to have a very hard time in court.
Grand Juries trace back to the Magna Carta, but in the United States, the 5th Amendment to our Constitution states ""No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,". They are a group of citizens, similar to a trial jury, but whose job is to review the work of prosecutors, and also have independent investigatory powers. If a majority of grand jurors believe a crime has been committed, they can bring an indictment. The work of grand juries is secret until they issue an indictment, so as not to taint a person who they investigate, but don't find enough reason to indict.

A sealed indictment merely means they are not ready to publicly release it, either because of other ongoing investigations, or the person(s) are not available to be held to account. Assanage was in the latter position until recently. Federal grand juries normally sit for 18 months, meeting one day a week.

Prosecutors usually draft indictments, but the grand jury has to decide if the case is good enough to go forward, and they can edit them if they so choose. I can't speak to the logic they used for this particular case.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer