Tucker Carlson's thoughts on the murder of Alexei Navalny

[Estro Felino]

Well, technically he divulged state secrets. Every government on Earth will punish that.

Absolutely not.
If it deals with state secrets that are also criminal, I can never be imprisoned.

Maybe you forget that Assange divulged state secrets which were criminals.

Even the State can commit crimes, can't it?

 

[Wirey]

Absolutely not.
If it deals with state secrets that are also criminal, I can never be imprisoned.

Maybe you forget that Assange divulged state secrets which were criminals.

Even the State can commit crimes, can't it?

Interesting point. But, what crimes did the state commit? There was no trial, merely the representation by Assange that there was a crime. If I accuse you of embezzlement, does that give the press the right to drag your name through the mud?

And there's another point. Assange is claiming he is a journalist. What kind of journalist merely reports a story without verifying if it's true? You can't really say he's a journalist without calling Tucker Carlson a journalist, and I don't think anyone would do that. In my view, Assange broke the law by deliberately endangering people without making any effort to verify the source material.

 

[Estro Felino]

Interesting point. But, what crimes did the state commit?

The US Government?
By waging a war against Gaddafi just because he was creating a currency that would have saved at least 15 African Nations from the seigniorage.
A gold -standard-based currency.
Gaddafi was going to save many African countries from structural debt. And he would have worked on improving Africa.
It's all written, all documented...nobody can deny the evidence.

There was no trial, merely the representation by Assange that there was a crime. If I accuse you of embezzlement, does that give the press the right to drag your name through the mud?

And there's another point. Assange is claiming he is a journalist. What kind of journalist merely reports a story without verifying if it's true? You can't really say he's a journalist without calling Tucker Carlson a journalist, and I don't think anyone would do that. In my view, Assange broke the law by deliberately endangering people without making any effort to verify the source material.

Maybe you didn't understand the point.
Assange exposed war crimes documented by evidence.
That's why they want him dead.

I dare not imagine how the justice in UK works. The Holy Inquisition was more democratic, I guess.

But if those documents enter any courtroom in my country, it would turn ugly for some people who deliberately committed those war crimes.

 

[Wirey]

The US Government?
By waging a war against Gaddafi just because he was creating a currency that would have saved at least 15 African Nations from the seigniorage.
A gold -standard-based currency.
Gaddafi was going to save many African countries from structural debt. And he would have worked on improving Africa.
It's all written, all documented...nobody can deny the evidence.



Maybe you didn't understand the point.
Assange exposed war crimes documented by evidence.
That's why they want him dead.

I dare not imagine how the justice in UK works. The Holy Inquisition was more democratic, I guess.

But if those documents enter any courtroom in my country, it would turn ugly for some people who deliberately committed those war crimes.

I did understand the point, but I think we're talking about two different things. You claim something is a 'crime' despite the absence of a trial. I think statecraft and crime are easy to confuse. Was the invasion of France to rid the world of Nazi-ism a crime? I guess that would depend on your point of view. For us, yes. For Nazis, no.

And Assange didn't prove anything. He released documents he didn't really try to verify. While I agree that in all likelihood there were quite a few of those documents that detailed some pretty heinous things, nations aren't people, and don't have moral codes. They have interests. I'm Canadian, and we're not giving the Ukrainians weapons because it's the right thing to do, we're doing it because it's in Canada's best interests that the Ukraine win. Holding nations to the standards of individuals doesn't really make room for crime. To the Ukrainian soldier who takes ground, Canada is a hero. To the Russian mom who gets a box with her kid in it, not so much.

 

[Firenze]

"Every leader kills people, some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people"

This guy throws neck for Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2024/02/17/tucker-carlson-navalny-putin-killing/

You conflated Carlson with 'thoughts'. That hilarious!

 

[metis]

"Every leader kills people, some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people"

This guy throws neck for Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2024/02/17/tucker-carlson-navalny-putin-killing/

Has Tucker Carlson ever said anything that's truthful? He's just like Burger King-- he's selling Whoppers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But who said that in the West they are all saints? No one.

It's just typical "what-about-ism".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They can keep those four regions.

Why?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You can't really say he's a journalist without calling Tucker Carlson a journalist, and I don't think anyone would do that.

Neatly done.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Absolutely not.
If it deals with state secrets that are also criminal, I can never be imprisoned.
Maybe you forget that Assange divulged state secrets which were criminals.
Even the State can commit crimes, can't it?

No, I am pretty sure you'll find that is not true. For whistleblowing, many countries, including mine, have legal protections. This is to encourage people to make conscientious decisions to release information in the interests of the greater good. I've had an (admittedly super quick) look at Italian laws too, which are due to change in this area this month.

Accessing information through illegal means via conspiracy (something Assange is accused of) is not covered by this. Nor would it give him protection in instances where information was released which is not covered by whistleblowing legislation.
Wikileaks was somewhat the equivalent of a game of 52 pickup. If the picture cards are legitimately evidence of illegal activitity, that still leaves a lot of ground to cover in terms of the release of other information through a widescale public release (rather than in a more controlled fashion).

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he's guilty of anything. The case is multi-faceted and tiring, honestly. But it's a little simplistic to suggest his actions wouldn't be illegal in (for example) Italy.
And in cases where he is releasing unredacted comments where there has been a legal process leading to the redaction in the first place it becomes much more difficult to claim whistelblower protection.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, I am pretty sure you'll find that is not true. For whistleblowing, many countries, including mine, have legal protections. This is to encourage people to make conscientious decisions to release information in the interests of the greater good. I've had an (admittedly super quick) look at Italian laws too, which are due to change in this area this month.

The State is not a tyrannical apparatus like in Orwell's 1984, where the slaves-citizens must obey.
They State is us. Me, you, them (the political bodies).
The political bodies are to be held accountable if they violate international law on human rights, on crime against humanity.
It's them who commit high treason, not the whistleblower.

Accessing information through illegal means via conspiracy (something Assange is accused of) is not covered by this. Nor would it give him protection in instances where information was released which is not covered by whistleblowing legislation.
Wikileaks was somewhat the equivalent of a game of 52 pickup. If the picture cards are legitimately evidence of illegal activitity, that still leaves a lot of ground to cover in terms of the release of other information through a widescale public release (rather than in a more controlled fashion).

In my country it is covered by this. It's called scriminante.
If I break into someone's else office and steal documents that prove that someone (Mr X) murdered tens of people, there will be a trial and I will be judged but there will be the scriminante (force majeure) that will excuse me.
So I will not go to jail.
Because the murder of tens of people is 100 times more serious than breaking into someone's else office.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting he's guilty of anything. The case is multi-faceted and tiring, honestly. But it's a little simplistic to suggest his actions wouldn't be illegal in (for example) Italy.

In Italy there is the fair trial.
There is not the Inquisitorial System of the Anglo-Saxon countries that prevent people from defending themselves.
That is, the judge decides what can be dealt and what cannot.

Assange would never be imprisoned in Italy, because his lawyers would crush the accuse like a cockroach, in court.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The State is not a tyrannical apparatus like in Orwell's 1984, where the slaves-citizens must obey.
They State is us. Me, you, them (the political bodies).
The political bodies are to be held accountable if they violate international law on human rights, on crime against humanity.
It's them who commit high treason, not the whistleblower.

Again, you're trying to make it a simple black and white situation. Assange is accused of conspiracy to hack into government servers. Once he was able to access documents, he then distributed them in the manner he did. It does not appear unusual that such actions would result in legal proceedings...something Assange has avoided. It's not his guilt I am arguing, but his accountability. He has a long history of believing himself ethical, and therefore not requiring accountability.

In my country it is covered by this. It's called scriminante.
If I break into someone's else office and steal documents that prove that someone (Mr X) murdered tens of people, there will be a trial and I will be judged but there will be the scriminante (force majeure) that will excuse me.
So I will not go to jail.
Because the murder of tens of people is 100 times more serious than breaking into someone's else office.

Scriminante is not a slam dunk allowing illegal behaviour to be undertaken, though. You'd need to establish the causal chain in so far as the actions being required to prevent a crime/harm, and there is also consideration of how imminent the harm is, as well as whether the actions taken were required, or there were reasonable (legal) alternatives. It is something that would be tested in court.

In Italy there is the fair trial.
There is not the Inquisitorial System of the Anglo-Saxon countries that prevent people from defending themselves.
That is, the judge decides what can be dealt and what cannot.

Yeah, so...
I'm just going to suggest that stating 'Italy has fair trials and Anglo-Saxon countries prevent people from defending themselves' flies in the face of evidence. All judicial systems have issues. Ours certainly does. But so does Italy's. You're being jingoistic here.

Assange would never be imprisoned in Italy, because his lawyers would crush the accuse like a cockroach, in court.

In court? So you'd extradite him to the US to stand trial, then?

 

[Estro Felino]

Again, you're trying to make it a simple black and white situation. Assange is accused of conspiracy to hack into government servers. Once he was able to access documents, he then distributed them in the manner he did. It does not appear unusual that such actions would result in legal proceedings...something Assange has avoided. It's not his guilt I am arguing, but his accountability. He has a long history of believing himself ethical, and therefore not requiring accountability.


Scriminante is not a slam dunk allowing illegal behaviour to be undertaken, though. You'd need to establish the causal chain in so far as the actions being required to prevent a crime/harm, and there is also consideration of how imminent the harm is, as well as whether the actions taken were required, or there were reasonable (legal) alternatives. It is something that would be tested in court.

There have been cops breaking into some delinquent's den to get the evidence of their misdeeds. Without warrant.
They were never jailed. Scriminante.

Yeah, so...
I'm just going to suggest that stating 'Italy has fair trials and Anglo-Saxon countries prevent people from defending themselves' flies in the face of evidence. All judicial systems have issues. Ours certainly does. But so does Italy's. You're being jingoistic here.

Italy's judicial system is incredibly slow, filled with politicized judges and too bureaucratized. It has so many flaws that the American system doesn't have.
But at least defendants here can speak.
They can use the word to accuse the accusers.
So they can crush the district attorney (or the crown attorney) like a cockroach.

In court? So you'd extradite him to the US to stand trial, then?

Absolutely not. Political refugees, people who are persecuted in a country for political reasons cannot be extradited.
So if Assange manages to come here, he will never be extradited.
Because, as I said (pardon me, I need to use this expression again) he will destroy his accusers in court.
Because Wikileaks disclosed so many criminal activities. So he is a seeker of justice.

 

[libre]

Interesting point. But, what crimes did the state commit? There was no trial, merely the representation by Assange that there was a crime. If I accuse you of embezzlement, does that give the press the right to drag your name through the mud?

And there's another point. Assange is claiming he is a journalist. What kind of journalist merely reports a story without verifying if it's true? You can't really say he's a journalist without calling Tucker Carlson a journalist, and I don't think anyone would do that. In my view, Assange broke the law by deliberately endangering people without making any effort to verify the source material.

In the words of Trevor Timm in The Guardian:

"... you don’t consider Julian Assange a journalist? Doesn’t matter. Whether or not Assange fits your – or anyone’s – definition of “journalist” is irrelevant when we are talking about the first amendment’s guarantee of press freedom. It’s a right that’s afforded to everyone. All that matters in this case is that Assange was engaging in acts of journalism indistinguishable from the acts carried out every day in the New York Times, the Guardian and elsewhere. If he can be prosecuted for those acts, so can they.

It’s why virtually every single civil liberties, press freedom and human rights organization in the world has repeatedly urged the justice department to drop these dangerous charges." If you care about press freedom, make some noise about Julian Assange | Trevor Timm

I'm with the organizations defending press freedom, not with Washington.