Assange has been released. He is now free: what do you think?

[Estro Felino]

"
Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, June 25, 2024
Jun 25, 2024 - ISW Press

Two major international bodies—the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) — announced decisions on June 25 confirming Russia's long-term perpetration of war crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine. The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber II (the chamber in charge of the ICC's Ukraine-related investigations and prosecutions) announced on June 25 that it had issued arrest warrants for former Russian Defense Minister and current Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the Russian General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov for "the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects" in Ukraine."

Institute for the Study of War

www.understandingwar.org

Now these 2 courts are what, @Estro Felino?

Two wrongs don't make a right.
What is the your point?
Russia does it, so can we?
I thought , we the civilized West were different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Two wrongs don't make a right.
What is the your point?
Russia does it, so can we?
I thought , we the civilized West were different.

Well, so you admit that Russia does it?

If yes, we can contuine. If no, we don't agree at a part of the fundamentals and we will just leave it there.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, so you admit that Russia does it?

I was not there.
I don't know. I cannot affirm that.

If yes, we can contuine

So you do admit war crimes were committed.
Of those I am certain since there is an email sent to Hillary Clinton about Libya.
Wikileaks has shown thuggeries and unspeakable things worthy of a godless gang.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was not there.
I don't know. I cannot affirm that.

So you do admit war crimes were committed.
Of those I am certain since there is an email sent to Hillary Clinton about Libya.
Wikileaks has shown thuggeries and unspeakable things worthy of a godless gang.

Good bye.

 

[McBell]

According to some elitist ideology, the criminal is the journalist who denounces a war crime. Not the one who commits it.

Do you subscribe to any limits or restrictions at all or do journalists have complete immunity?
Does the journalists complete immunity extend to the journalists sources?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you subscribe to any limits or restrictions at all or do journalists have complete immunity?
Does the journalists complete immunity extend to the journalists sources?

Well, in general I accept that journalists as journalists have complete immunity. Not so for the sources.
And there might be a limit for journalists as per shouting fire in a full theatre crowd.

 

[Estro Felino]

Do you subscribe to any limits or restrictions at all or do journalists have complete immunity?

Complete immunity. Whenever it deals with the truth.
Napoleonic tradition and jurisprudence, present in countries like France, Italy.

Does the journalists complete immunity extend to the journalists sources?

In my country a journalist is exempted from disclosing the sources.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Complete immunity. Whenever it deals with the truth.
Napoleonic tradition and jurisprudence, present in countries like France, Italy.

In my country a journalist is exempted from disclosing the sources.

I don't like absolute rules when it comes to the totality of law. In effect it always seems to be a balancing act of different laws.

 

[McBell]

Complete immunity. Whenever it deals with the truth.
Napoleonic tradition and jurisprudence, present in countries like France, Italy.

Wait...
Are you saying the complete immunity only applies if what they present is true?

So murdering 100 people to get the information is fine so long as how they present the information to the public is the truth?

In my country a journalist is exempted from disclosing the sources.

I am talking about the protection the journalists sources get.

If I commit a slew of crimes to get some information and then give said information to a journalist, does the journalists complete immunity also cover me, the source of the journalists information or does the complete immunity only cover the journalist??

 

[Estro Felino]

Wait...
Are you saying the complete immunity only applies if what they present is true?

Yes.

So murdering 100 people to get the information is fine so long as how they present the information to the public is the truth?

This is a false equivalency. The source just gained access to documents protected by State Secret.
Nobody died.
In my country crimes have different degrees of seriousness. What about in yours? Are they all equivalent?

I am talking about the protection the journalists sources get.

They are protected, yes.

If I commit a slew of crimes to get some information and then give said information to a journalist, does the journalists complete immunity also cover me, the source of the journalists information or does the complete immunity only cover the journalist??

Scriminante: case of justification of crime, when it is committed to expose or to avoid a much more serious crime.
artt. 54 and 51 Criminal Code
What Assange did is a scriminante: he gained access to documents that even if they were protected by State Secret, expose a much more serious crime.
But I believe that in your system, in your Common Law System, all crimes are equivalent.
Am I right?

 

[Stevicus]

Well, in general I accept that journalists as journalists have complete immunity. Not so for the sources.
And there might be a limit for journalists as per shouting fire in a full theatre crowd.

It's a question which has sometimes come up in the past, particularly regarding the sources of information. It might also come up in court cases where evidence may have been stolen or otherwise obtained through illicit means. There have also been cases of journalists being locked up for contempt of court for refusing to divulge the sources of information which was obtained illegally.

Interestingly, priests are exempted from being required to reveal anything told to them in the confessional, and likewise, lawyers are not able to testify against their own clients, as such testimony would be inadmissible anyway. But journalists are not granted such privileges.

 

[McBell]

Yes.

This is a false equivalency. The source just gained access to documents protected by State Secret.
Nobody died.
In my country crimes have different degrees of seriousness. What about in yours? Are they all equivalent?

You completely sidestepped the question:

So murdering 100 people to get the information is fine so long as how they present the information to the public is the truth?​

​

This is the question.
Note that it is not about assange.
So stop trying to use assanges specific case as an excuse to not answer.

They are protected, yes.So the complete immunity covers the source as well?

meaning that the source can commit pretty much any crime so long as the information gotten is presented in a truthful manner, right?

Scriminante: case of justification of crime, when it is committed to expose or to avoid a much more serious crime.
artt. 54 and 51 Criminal Code

Ah, so there is in fact limitations...

What Assange did is a scriminante: he gained access to documents that even if they were protected by State Secret, expose a much more serious crime.

Fair enough

But I believe that in your system, in your Common Law System, all crimes are equivalent.
Am I right?

No, you are not right.
But I am used to that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a question which has sometimes come up in the past, particularly regarding the sources of information. It might also come up in court cases where evidence may have been stolen or otherwise obtained through illicit means. There have also been cases of journalists being locked up for contempt of court for refusing to divulge the sources of information which was obtained illegally.

Interestingly, priests are exempted from being required to reveal anything told to them in the confessional, and likewise, lawyers are not able to testify against their own clients, as such testimony would be inadmissible anyway. But journalists are not granted such privileges.

The one with priests and lawyers is in Denmark limited for some cases of illegal activity. But it is off memory and thus I am not 99% sure.

 

[Estro Felino]

You completely sidestepped the question:

So murdering 100 people to get the information is fine so long as how they present the information to the public is the truth?​

​

This is the question.
Note that it is not about assange.
So stop trying to use assanges specific case as an excuse to not answer.

It's not fine. But I have explained why . Because mass murder is a much more serious crime than the crime contained in that piece of information.
Scriminante.

PS: as for me not answering your questions: do you always answer my questions or you plead the fifth?
I never plead the fifth, also because pleading the fifth means guiltiness in my country.

meaning that the source can commit pretty much any crime so long as the information gotten is presented in a truthful manner, right?

Not any crime. I have already answered you.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a question which has sometimes come up in the past, particularly regarding the sources of information. It might also come up in court cases where evidence may have been stolen or otherwise obtained through illicit means. There have also been cases of journalists being locked up for contempt of court for refusing to divulge the sources of information which was obtained illegally.

In my country journalists are never locked up for such reasons.
The Vatileaks case comes to mind. Secrets taken from the Vatican and given to two Italian journalists who wrote two books about the scandalous luxurious lives of many churchmen and the mismanagement of money meant to help the poor.

The Italian republic protected these two Italian journalists because even if those confidential documents were taken from the Vatican, the freedom of speech and the right to information prevail.

Vatican leaks scandal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But journalists are not granted such privileges.

They are granted such privileges, unless it deals with state secrets that expose an elitist cabal fo warmongers.

 

[McBell]

It's not fine. But I have explained why . Because mass murder is a much more serious crime than the crime contained in that piece of information.
Scriminante.

Yes, which you withheld until the END of the last post...
To bad your country doesn't have a word for with holding information until much later...

PS: as for me not answering your questions: do you always answer my questions or you plead the fifth?
I never plead the fifth, also because pleading the fifth means guiltiness in my country.

What question did I not answer?

If I am going to plead the fifth, I will flat out say that I plead the fifth.
That you think not answering is same as an actual plea is a fault you should work on.

If I did not answer/reply to a question, it is most likely because I either did not see at all, planned on coming back to it and it slipped my mind (which happens more and more often lately), got sidetracked otherwise.

Not any crime. I have already answered you.

Yes, at the end of the post right before the post I replied to.

Does your country have a word or phrase for those who with hold information until the last second?

I mean, I flat out asked about it being complete immunity and you said yes.
Then later admitted that it is not.

In my country that is considered dishonest.
Unless you are a politician.

 

[Estro Felino]

What question did I not answer?

If I am going to plead the fifth, I will flat out say that I plead the fifth.
That you think not answering is same as an actual plea is a fault you should work on.

If I did not answer/reply to a question, it is most likely because I either did not see at all, planned on coming back to it and it slipped my mind (which happens more and more often lately), got sidetracked otherwise.

Okay, I give you the chance of answering, now.

On the basis of what transpired from Wikileaks, do you think the United States committed war crimes and other violation of international treaties?
Thank you in advance for answering.

PS: you need to substantiate your answer. Not a simple yes or no.

 

[Revoltingest]

I explained the difference between godless and atheist many times.

Your explanations are offensive.
They're mere no-true-Scotsman
evasions of Christianity's evils & failures.
Accept responsibility & culpability for
what your vaunted Christians perpetrate
against themselves & others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank God that at least you admitted that war crimes were committed.

I addressed only what you claimed.
Not the cromulence of your claims.

 

[Estro Felino]

I addressed only what you claimed.
Not the cromulence of your claims.

Okay...I ask you know. Do you think war crimes were committed by the United States?