Jump to content
Malkieri

Assange granted Ecuadorean Asylum

Recommended Posts

I do understand that, but name a war where bad shit doesn't happen? Do you think this will change the way wars are fought? next time everyone will be a little bit more careful?

You're missing the point, it's not about 'how' wars are fought, it's about 'why' wars are fought and if there were ever an unwanted, immoral and unnecessary war then our invasion of the middle east is it. Bottom line is that we shouldn't even be there, not that we are committing atrocities.

 

Its a pipe dream, and thats why Australia and England isnt helping him and thats why America want him.

"It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong" -Voltaire

 

if you where completely correct, Assange would be able to walk out of that embassy and go for a tour around the USA with no worries, because he didn't do anything wrong, right?

IMO he DID the right think (in the context of wikileaks that is), not everyone shares that opinion. :)

 

Also, you are blaming an entire nation for a few peoples actions, do you think high command ordered extra civilian killings?

Who knows? They probably don't give a hit at the very least. And no, I'm not blaming all yanks anymore than I blame you for what those tools in Canberra get up to.

 

how exactly does karma get distributed?

It's a built-in feature of Universe 1.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taliban was actually in government in Afganistan, and they attacked America. What would you have done if a foreign small government power attacked Australia? let them have their way by the sound of it ;)

 

We needed to pull them out of government and shatter their image of being protected by a god, the problem is we have stayed for too long.

 

I know its easy to say we should all get along and not fight, but you are expected to do something if Another country is attacking you

 

The Taliban was in power September 1996 until October 2001, and they took owner ship on the attack on America. On paper, this is the collective power of the Afganistan Nation attacking America. It was in itself an Act of war, The Afganistan people are to blame for letting the Taliban take power. Just like the Germans where to blame for letting the Nazi's take power

 

[edit]

 

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/wo...stan-officials/

 

Updated August 28, 2012

KANDAHAR (AFP) - Taliban Islamist insurgents beheaded 17 party-goers, 10 Afghan soldiers were killed and two NATO troops shot dead in a new insider attack in a bloody day across Afghanistan, officials said Monday.

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's just it xnatex, another country didn't attack America, a bunch of nut jobs hijacked some planes and crashed them into buildings. It's a terrible act, but it's not a declaration of war from their country of origin.

 

What if the terrorists were Australian? Would the USA have the right to invade Australia? Or is it only because the countries the USA decided to hold responsible are pieces of shit in your eyes, that it's OK we carpet bomb them into last century?

 

Just because the hijackers of those planes on September 11 were apparently from Afghanistan, doesn't give anyone the right to declare war on said nation or neighboring nations. I'll admit, after September 11 I wanted to see some sort of action from the USA government in finding who was responsible, and bringing them to justice. I didn't however want to see hundreds of thousands of more deaths as the USA invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taliban was actually in government in Afganistan, and they attacked America.

What? When did the Taliban attack Amerika? And who put them into power in the first place?

 

We needed to pull them out of government and shatter their image of being protected by a god, the problem is we have stayed for too long.

Oh, we NEEDED to do that did we? Just as well God is on our side then.

 

The Afganistan people are to blame for letting the Taliban take power. Just like the Germans where to blame for letting the Nazi's take power

Just like we are to blame for letting the globalists take power? Only I imagine the Afghan people had even less say in it than we do, and that's saying something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No im sorry, they ran the place, they ran the goverment. They made the Laws, The people worked for them.

 

Taliban

 

It ruled large parts of Afghanistan and its capital, Kabul, as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until October 2001. It gained diplomatic recognition from three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The main leader of the Taliban movement is Mullah Mohammed Omar,[7] and Kandahar is considered the birthplace of the Taliban.[8]

 

The Taliban was actually in government in Afganistan, and they attacked America.

What? When did the Taliban attack Amerika? And who put them into power in the first place?

 

 

Sorry not the Taliban, the Mujahideen.

 

I didn't however want to see hundreds of thousands of more deaths as the USA invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq was wrong, there should be no doubt about that. But they are very different wars.

I volunteered to go over to Iraq to help pull us out, met Krudd on the campaign trail who agreed with us getting out of there. krudd was the best

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/341/krud.jpg/

 

What if the terrorists were Australian? Would the USA have the right to invade Australia? Or is it only because the countries the USA decided to hold responsible are pieces of shit in your eyes, that it's OK we carpet bomb them into last century?

If the terrorists where in charge of Australia i would pray to every god that USA would invade Australia, id be in the resistance force if i was alive to see it. I'd say that would be a common story too

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

xnatex - Out of interest, how old are you?

The taliban, like many large organisations, has splinter groups, factions, and isn't really centrally controlled.

If Kevin Rudd decided to commit a terrorist act, then that's no indication that the government of Australia is behind it.

 

In any event, I'd love to live in the simple world that exists inside your head. But that's all it is, a black and white simplification of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more info

 

According to the mutually conceded facts on court records , Assange was wanted for interrogation (the one he's wanted for now) on the 28th of September while he was still in Sweden.

 

He then left the country on the 27th.

 

When his lawyer finally contacted him and said advised him he needed to do this, he tried to dictate the terms upon which he would be tried for rape saying ill be available after the 9th or 10th of October. (this is 2011 by the way)

 

Then when he failed to show they did this (almost two months later)

 

"On 24th November the Court of Appeal ruled on detention and the degree of rape, after hearing

written submissions from Ms Ny and Mr Hurtig. Ms Ny’s submissions outlined the steps she

said she had taken to interrogate Mr Assange".

 

 

Now, almost a year later he still hasn't fronted for detention and interrogation as per Swedish law.

 

So , after a year, they rightly enforce the EAW to get this guy to front.

From your last link:

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html

 

From Mrs Ny's own submission -

 

"A domestic warrant for the respondent’s arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW. " - He was only wanted for interrogation on the 24th of Nov.

 

From the judges deliberation -

 

"Against such criticism as remains of the Swedish prosecutor there is the mutual respect and confidence that this court has in the appropriate authorities of our European counterparts. This mutual respect underpins the whole framework of the European Arrest Warrant. Where there are ambiguities, and where there is a need for further information, this court almost always looks first to the judicial authority of the requesting state for clarification. That clarification is, in my experience, always accepted by the parties and the court. I recognise that others may have had different experiences, but that is undoubtedly rare. The starting point is that this court can rely on information supplied by the judicial authority, particularly in a European Union country. So I start with a strong presumption that Ms Ny is the best person to know why extradition is requested, and that she will provide the best and most reliable explanation. However, it seems to me that potentially such an explanation can be rebutted by other evidence. What is the other evidence here? "

 

"I am not helped by comments Ms Ny may have made before the warrant was issued. Her position may have changed over time, for example after Mr Assange did not present himself in Sweden for interview.

It is clear that Ns Ny confirmed to the Australian ambassador in December 2010, after the EAW had been issued, that if a decision is made to charge Mr Assange, he and his lawyers will be granted access to all documents related to the case (no such decision has been made at this stage.) The decision to charge is not necessarily the same as a decision to prosecute. It is common ground that mere suspicion that an individual has committed offences is insufficient to place him the category of an “accused” person. There is no statutory definition of accused person, nor for this purpose is there any statutory definition of “prosecution”. Given the diverging systems of law involved, that is not surprising. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person who is wanted for prosecution. It is accepted by all parties in this case that it is wrong to approach this question solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure. In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different. It is necessary to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question of whether as a matter of substance rather than form Mr Assange is wanted for prosecution. The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences. The fact that the defendant would be interviewed upon his return is no clear indication that this is a criminal investigation rather than a criminal prosecution."

 

"It may be that after interrogation and further enquiries the matter will not be pursued. As Ms Ny says, a formal decision to charge is taken at a later stage in Sweden than it is here. In this jurisdiction a person can be charged with rape or sexual assault by a custody sergeant and may then wait many months before the case is discontinued. In Sweden the decision to formally charge is followed very shortly by the trial itself, if the defendant is in custody."

 

In short - Assange's Swedish Lawyer did such a bad job of managing things in Sweden, that the English courts will take Mrs Ny at her word, and she is not required to submit to cross examination WRT to deciding Assange's extradition.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully Assange faces the allegations in Sweden, with access to all the evidence that may help him out (much of which has not been investigated by the prosecution yet). It seems improbable that he won't end up facing them sooner rather than later, but it would be nice if Sweden would at least confirm that the UK will be involved in any US extradition process, as is their right under the EWA agreements. It would at least silence most worried observers.

 

I agree that Assanges Lawyer was really bad, and should have known that ranting and heresay may work for arguments on internet forums, but you will get strung up in a court.

Also it s does seem that Assange fled once he knew a second round of questioning and probable pre trial detention was in the making.

 

Which kind of casts dispersions on his innocence. (and would definitely count against him in a court)

 

Again, what pisses me of off is that he wears the cape of captain truth but is using his status as a way of avoiding trial, claiming that he's being persecuted , when he's most probably just a rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tantryl - in your words, what would you class as material that would be harmful to soldiers?

 

Do you think the people in the middle east need to see videos like this while we are still in occupation ? Do you think videos like this will bring peace or reprisal attacks?

Noting the culture in the middle east is one where revenge is a right, do you think the family members of innocent people killed would let this fly?

Bad things in warfare SHOULD be revealed during the warfare. Vietnam taught us that fairly well. If you can't do the job well and you can't accept the consequences of mistakes then you shouldn't be bombing the shit out of people.

 

That said, the BEST thing you can come up with is "it might breed some dissent". Might. The 10 years of semi-occupation... well, that was fine. One video? Lots of dissent. Well guess what, you can PROVE it! Look at the rate of incidents before and after. What does it tell you?

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to live in the simple world that exists inside your head. But that's all it is, a black and white simplification of the world.

A world safe from discrimination against the colour blind

 

Tantryl - exactly, and that's why you will never get a security clearance

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tantryl - exactly, and that's why you will never get a security clearance

I think you just a whole brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Assanges Lawyer was really bad, and should have known that ranting and heresay may work for arguments on internet forums, but you will get strung up in a court.

Also it s does seem that Assange fled once he knew a second round of questioning and probable pre trial detention was in the making.

 

Which kind of casts dispersions on his innocence. (and would definitely count against him in a court)

 

Again, what pisses me of off is that he wears the cape of captain truth but is using his status as a way of avoiding trial, claiming that he's being persecuted , when he's most probably just a rapist.

He might be.

 

However it's also likely he can't get a fair trial in Sweden, what with the prosecution leaking documents to the media (which they shouldn't do), the prime minister commenting on the case publicly (which they shouldn't do) and the media whipping it up into a bigger deal. Personally, I think given the charges were dropped once, it's not even odds that he's guilty, but I don't know. Ultimately, we dont' know the circumstances around which he left the country.

 

It shouldn't count against him in court, because revealing that information to the jury is prejudicial and not probative. Ultimately the judge should decide whether the jury should be aware of the information. Which brings me back to a fair trial, with all the media coverage, how are they going to get an unbiased jury (sorry, layjudges).

 

Sure, his holier than whatever attitude is grating. I personally think that wikileaks is going away, and forking projects are going to be where it's at. He's already ticked off his closest allies who used to work in wikileaks with him. That said, as I would for any Australian, I want him to have a fair trial. Whether he's accused of not paying a parking fine, or burning puppies and televising it on afternoon children's stations.

 

The case should be judged on the merits of the case, and "appearing to flee the country" is evidence we wouldn't admit in Australia, unless the judge ruled it had probative value. So, if the evidence is that he left and didn't talk to his lawyer, no ball. If the evidence is that he emailed a bunch of people about how worried he was, and spent $10,000 securing a first class ticket to leave the country a day early, it might be.

 

Do you know what I mean, Michael? If it was you facing court, would you think it fair if coincidental things you had done with no link to the alleged crime were brought in to make you look bad, when there is no logical value in using them to prove you committed the act? Many, MANY people have been freed after serving years in jail unjustly, because a Judge ruled unfairly on the probative vs prejudicial nature of evidence.

 

A world safe from discrimination against the colour blind

Colourblind people can't discern between shades of grey?

If that's not a metaphor for all your posts, I'm not sure what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Assanges Lawyer was really bad, and should have known that ranting and heresay may work for arguments on internet forums, but you will get strung up in a court.

Also it s does seem that Assange fled once he knew a second round of questioning and probable pre trial detention was in the making.

 

Which kind of casts dispersions on his innocence. (and would definitely count against him in a court)

 

Again, what pisses me of off is that he wears the cape of captain truth but is using his status as a way of avoiding trial, claiming that he's being persecuted , when he's most probably just a rapist.

He might be.

 

However it's also likely he can't get a fair trial in Sweden, what with the prosecution leaking documents to the media (which they shouldn't do), the prime minister commenting on the case publicly (which they shouldn't do) and the media whipping it up into a bigger deal. Personally, I think given the charges were dropped once, it's not even odds that he's guilty, but I don't know. Ultimately, we dont' know the circumstances around which he left the country.

 

It shouldn't count against him in court, because revealing that information to the jury is prejudicial and not probative. Ultimately the judge should decide whether the jury should be aware of the information. Which brings me back to a fair trial, with all the media coverage, how are they going to get an unbiased jury (sorry, layjudges).

 

Sure, his holier than whatever attitude is grating. I personally think that wikileaks is going away, and forking projects are going to be where it's at. He's already ticked off his closest allies who used to work in wikileaks with him. That said, as I would for any Australian, I want him to have a fair trial. Whether he's accused of not paying a parking fine, or burning puppies and televising it on afternoon children's stations.

 

The case should be judged on the merits of the case, and "appearing to flee the country" is evidence we wouldn't admit in Australia, unless the judge ruled it had probative value. So, if the evidence is that he left and didn't talk to his lawyer, no ball. If the evidence is that he emailed a bunch of people about how worried he was, and spent $10,000 securing a first class ticket to leave the country a day early, it might be.

 

Do you know what I mean, Michael? If it was you facing court, would you think it fair if coincidental things you had done with no link to the alleged crime were brought in to make you look bad, when there is no logical value in using them to prove you committed the act? Many, MANY people have been freed after serving years in jail unjustly, because a Judge ruled unfairly on the probative vs prejudicial nature of evidence.

 

A world safe from discrimination against the colour blind

Colourblind people can't discern between shades of grey?

If that's not a metaphor for all your posts, I'm not sure what is.

 

 

I absolutely agree the guys needs a far better lawyer and like any person,a fair trial.

 

I don't know if him appearing to flee the country would or could be something that a prosecutor would bring up in a trial, however I think being a no -show for second stage interrogation/detention and then leaving the country is grounds to issue an EAW under Swedish law (which is pretty much all I have been saying all along).

 

Its also up to a good lawyer to dismiss allegations and dispersions that may lead the jury as hearsay as far as I'm aware. (totally talking out my arse on this one as Ive only really watched law shows on TV)

 

 

 

So In summary

 

I believe his EAW was issued justly.

 

Personally I find his sudden departure from Sweden on the announcement of the second stage interrogation, suspect.

 

It really , really grates on me that he's using Ecuador and saying that he's been persecuted to dodge a rape charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree the guys needs a far better lawyer and like any person,a fair trial.

I don't know if him appearing to flee the country would or could be something that a prosecutor would bring up in a trial, however I think being a no -show for second stage interrogation/detention and then leaving the country is grounds to issue an EAW under Swedish law (which is pretty much all I have been saying all along).

 

Its also up to a good lawyer to dismiss allegations and dispersions that may lead the jury as hearsay as far as I'm aware. (totally talking out my arse on this one as Ive only really watched law shows on TV)

I'm not sure about Sweden, but here it can only be used if the judge rules it has probative value. The prosecutor will definitely try to use it, if they think there is a glint of hope the judge will agree. Unlike TV, the prosecutor will generally let them know what he intends to do before hand. I'm not so concerned with whether the EAW can be issued under Swedish law, as to whether it should be honoured in the UK. I have no opposition to the EAW, on the assumption Sweden will honour the UK's right to protect Assange from extradition to the US or anywhere else.

 

It's not up to a good lawyer, it's up to a good judge. The jury shouldn't even hear it (doesn't work like it does in TV and movies).

The problem is, whether they layjudges (the jury in this case) can be selected from a pool of people who are going to be unbiased by the media (ie, people unaware of the media around Assange).

 

If the pool of jurors is biased by media reporting, statements by the prosecution, statements by the prime minister before hand, then it's very hard to guarantee a fair trial. I believe these considerations apply in Sweden anyway, and they certainly should as Sweden is a signatory to a slew of UN based justice "rules".

 

So In summary

 

I believe his EAW was issued justly.

I don't disagree. However Sweden hasn't said that it will give the UK any say in hypothetical further extraditions of Assange. It should cost them nothing to do so, as they are legally required to.

 

Personally I find his sudden departure from Sweden on the announcement of the second stage interrogation, suspect.

 

It really , really grates on me that he's using Ecuador and saying that he's been persecuted to dodge a rape charge.

Which is why you wouldn't be a good juror (and I'm sure you'd agree).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the lols....

 

Is this the photo that could clear Assange?

 

It seems an unremarkable image: a group of friends smiling broadly. But this is the photograph Julian Assange hopes will clear his name.

 

The face of the woman on the left has been obscured for legal reasons.

 

For although she is seen beaming, she would later tell police that 48 hours before the picture was taken, the WikiLeaks founder pinned her down in her flat and sexually assaulted her.

So the photo was taken 2 days after the alleged rape, and clearly before she knew she had been raped. :)

 

Have we reached peak stupid YET? I mean c'mon, all the guy wants is a chance to face his accusers in Switzerland with a guarantee that they wont forward him on to Amerika.

 

Do you know how many altar boys continued smiling in photos next to the priests who abused them, for decades?

 

 

Out of all the predictable replies I thought of, that was number one on the list. Of course young kids usually don't have a say in where and who they will be photographed with, grown women usually do. The fact still remains, if he can get a non-extradition guarantee from Switzerland then he'll happily go and get it sorted out. Regardless of did he/didn't he, letting Amerika get its hands on Assange is what this is all about. I'm still a bit surprised you can't see that?

 

No country will give a no-extradition guarantee. And even if they did it would be immoral and not legally binding.

 

Two women claimed they were raped. America has not put in an extradition treaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree the guys needs a far better lawyer and like any person,a fair trial.

I don't know if him appearing to flee the country would or could be something that a prosecutor would bring up in a trial, however I think being a no -show for second stage interrogation/detention and then leaving the country is grounds to issue an EAW under Swedish law (which is pretty much all I have been saying all along).

 

Its also up to a good lawyer to dismiss allegations and dispersions that may lead the jury as hearsay as far as I'm aware. (totally talking out my arse on this one as Ive only really watched law shows on TV)

I'm not sure about Sweden, but here it can only be used if the judge rules it has probative value. The prosecutor will definitely try to use it, if they think there is a glint of hope the judge will agree. Unlike TV, the prosecutor will generally let them know what he intends to do before hand. I'm not so concerned with whether the EAW can be issued under Swedish law, as to whether it should be honoured in the UK. I have no opposition to the EAW, on the assumption Sweden will honour the UK's right to protect Assange from extradition to the US or anywhere else.

 

It's not up to a good lawyer, it's up to a good judge. The jury shouldn't even hear it (doesn't work like it does in TV and movies).

The problem is, whether they layjudges (the jury in this case) can be selected from a pool of people who are going to be unbiased by the media (ie, people unaware of the media around Assange).

 

If the pool of jurors is biased by media reporting, statements by the prosecution, statements by the prime minister before hand, then it's very hard to guarantee a fair trial. I believe these considerations apply in Sweden anyway, and they certainly should as Sweden is a signatory to a slew of UN based justice "rules".

 

So In summary

 

I believe his EAW was issued justly.

I don't disagree. However Sweden hasn't said that it will give the UK any say in hypothetical further extraditions of Assange. It should cost them nothing to do so, as they are legally required to.

 

Personally I find his sudden departure from Sweden on the announcement of the second stage interrogation, suspect.

 

It really , really grates on me that he's using Ecuador and saying that he's been persecuted to dodge a rape charge.

Which is why you wouldn't be a good juror (and I'm sure you'd agree).

 

yes we definitely agree that I wouldn't be a good juror in this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes we definitely agree that I wouldn't be a good juror in this case

Neither would I :)

 

No country will give a no-extradition guarantee. And even if they did it would be immoral and not legally binding.

 

Two women claimed they were raped. America has not put in an extradition treaty.

But they could at least state that they will honour their commitments to an EWA extradition, being that the UK will have a hand in any future hypothetical extraditions to a third party, and that any such extraditions will not be extra-judicial.

 

Making such a statement SHOULD be redundant, but after making an offer like that, it would be pretty hard for Assange to keep fighting and look as "awesome" if you know what I mean.

Personally, if they made that guarantee, I'd be a lot less sympathetic to Assange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes we definitely agree that I wouldn't be a good juror in this case

Neither would I :)

 

No country will give a no-extradition guarantee. And even if they did it would be immoral and not legally binding.

 

Two women claimed they were raped. America has not put in an extradition treaty.

But they could at least state that they will honour their commitments to an EWA extradition, being that the UK will have a hand in any future hypothetical extraditions to a third party, and that any such extraditions will not be extra-judicial.

 

Making such a statement SHOULD be redundant, but after making an offer like that, it would be pretty hard for Assange to keep fighting and look as "awesome" if you know what I mean.

Personally, if they made that guarantee, I'd be a lot less sympathetic to Assange.

 

It's like that statement i've been banned from making. People seem to want assurances that Sweden will not break EU laws.

 

It's crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xyzzy frobozz

At this point I'd just like to point out....

 

A lot of people here seem to think that Julian Assange should face his accusers in Sweden even while acknowledging that the law there is very different.

 

Many of those same people are also saying that he should not have to face the law in the US because.... their law is very different.

 

I'm not making an argument one way or another, but I do find it an interesting item of cognitive dissonance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like that statement i've been banned from making. People seem to want assurances that Sweden will not break EU laws.

 

It's crazy.

Sweden have bowed to the CIA before and broken EU laws.

This time, they have the technicality that he might not even be covered by EWA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good doco on the Afgan war for anyone interested

 

Its an Afgan reporter following the mujahideen involved in the Jihad, how they run areas and the people pay taxes to them. It even follows them on an attack to the non-believers. They are some of the toughest people on earth, they have fought the strongest nations and won multiple times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpAwqGd6g8&feature=share

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good doco on the Afgan war for anyone interested

Good clip, but how is that germane to this case? Methinks that would have been more appropriate to its own thread, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good doco on the Afgan war for anyone interested

 

Its an Afgan reporter following the mujahideen involved in the Jihad, how they run areas and the people pay taxes to them. It even follows them on an attack to the non-believers. They are some of the toughest people on earth, they have fought the strongest nations and won multiple times

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vpAwqGd6g8&feature=share

Hmm

 

I think saying that they won wars against the strongest nations on earth is a stretch.

 

Russia for instance, virtually built their country for them, armed them, and then they went all jihad.Russia pulled out after realising that a battle for the shithole that is Afghanistan wasn't worth it and their country returned to being a stone age wasteland.

 

Then Pakistan in the 1990's-2000's started to do the same thing with funding the Taliban, jihadists once again bit the hand that fed them and called the aid a "creeping invasion"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. I will strengthen whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud and abuse of authority in government.”

-Barack Obama 2008

 

 

Contrast that statement with the administration’s boast about prosecuting whistle-blowers made in mid-August: “Fact check: President Obama has aggressively pursued and addressed national security leaks,” the campaign’s so-called “Truth Team” wrote. “The Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many cases under the Espionage Act as all other administrations combined.”

Obama administration August 2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×