President Obama

[Humodour]

I don't mean to offend you but can you provide another link to this article that discusses the same information. It should be easy if it is true? The reason I ask is I haven't read or seen anything about what the article claims from any credible news sources this week.

 

Yeah, it was as easy as a Google search: https://www.google.c...my of the state

 

He used the power of the Internet to publish confidential documents that ... embarrassed many countries and jeopardized certain political agreements between countries that weren't suppose to be made available to the public.

 

Good. What, did you want to me to weep tears for tyrants and authoritarians (and I don't just mean in the Middle East)?

[Hurlshort]

I wouldn't expect too much from Oby, he throws a lot of odd pictures out here. There is a chance he is an elaborate bot designed to illicit responses.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Hurlshot

[BruceVC]

I don't mean to offend you but can you provide another link to this article that discusses the same information. It should be easy if it is true? The reason I ask is I haven't read or seen anything about what the article claims from any credible news sources this week.

 

Yeah, it was as easy as a Google search: https://www.google.c...my of the state

 

He used the power of the Internet to publish confidential documents that ... embarrassed many countries and jeopardized certain political agreements between countries that weren't suppose to be made available to the public.

 

Good. What, did you want to me to weep tears for tyrants and authoritarians (and I don't just mean in the Middle East)?

 

Thanks for the additional link. It tells us that the USA considers Wikileaks an enemy and that military personnel mustn't share information with them, I accept that now and its no surprise. As I mentioned I consider what Wikileaks did as very dangerous and completely unacceptable. There are many valid reasons why diplomatic cables need to be kept secretive. Also these leaks didn't just effect tyrants and dictators but countries that are allies of the West in the Middle East, and other places, like Saudi Arabia.

[ravenshrike]

Yeah I can't really get behind him regarding his being hunted by the whitehouse for passing on the diplomatic leak - which usually would be a no brainer for me. The thing is I don't believe the Swedish charges were part of a conspiracy. He is chosing to stay away because he doesn't want to be embarrased, or even because he knows there is something to the charges.

 

Exactly, there are so many flaws with him claiming asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and not wanting to go to Sweden. Primarily there is a much stronger extradition treaty between the UK and USA. If the USA wanted to extradite him they would have requested it. Why wait till he gets to Sweden? I am convinced that there are legitimate charges he is trying to avoid in Sweden

 

Okay. US brands Assange an 'enemy of the state' - just like al-Quaeda - because Sweden

http://www.tgdaily.c...-like-al-quaeda

Actually, the military branded him and wikileaks an enemy of the state for the express purpose of being able to bring treason charges the next time some discontented little **** decides to give classified info out. Instead of the much weaker espionage charges that were leveled against Manning.

 

 

 

In any case regarding Assange he's almost certainly a narcissistic sociopath.

[BruceVC]

Yeah I can't really get behind him regarding his being hunted by the whitehouse for passing on the diplomatic leak - which usually would be a no brainer for me. The thing is I don't believe the Swedish charges were part of a conspiracy. He is chosing to stay away because he doesn't want to be embarrased, or even because he knows there is something to the charges.

 

Exactly, there are so many flaws with him claiming asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy and not wanting to go to Sweden. Primarily there is a much stronger extradition treaty between the UK and USA. If the USA wanted to extradite him they would have requested it. Why wait till he gets to Sweden? I am convinced that there are legitimate charges he is trying to avoid in Sweden

 

Okay. US brands Assange an 'enemy of the state' - just like al-Quaeda - because Sweden

http://www.tgdaily.c...-like-al-quaeda

Actually, the military branded him and wikileaks an enemy of the state for the express purpose of being able to bring treason charges the next time some discontented little **** decides to give classified info out. Instead of the much weaker espionage charges that were leveled against Manning.

 

 

 

In any case regarding Assange he's almost certainly a narcissistic sociopath.

 

That makes perfect sense, there has to be real legal consequences for any person who discloses information as sensitive as some of the Wikileaks cables.

[Gorgon]

The article mentions 'blurring the line between law enforcement and war', which reminds me of the Chechnian govermnent in exile, which was also on the run in various scandinavian countries and the UK. with Russia gunning for an extradition. I wonder what Oby thinks of Akhmed Zakayev.

[Zoraptor]

Also these leaks didn't just effect tyrants and dictators but countries that are allies of the West in the Middle East, and other places, like Saudi Arabia.

Funny, if I had to find two words to describe Saudi tyrannical and dictatorial would be two of the first, along with terrorist exporting religious zealot nutbars.

 

Let's be frank here, the Swedish case against him is an outright joke. They've leaked immensely from day one which is close to unheard of, and with impunity, and have leaked amongst other things the victim statements of two women they believe- at least in theory- have been the victims of a serious sexual assault. They've cancelled the case, then reinstated it with a more militant prosecutor- so at least one prosecutor thought there was no case to answer. The person who did the police interview with Assange (that got leaked, of course) knew one of the complainants well. The condom he allegedly ripped- the single most crucial bit of impartial and objective evidence- does not contain his DNA.

 

Looking at the Kim Dotcom case we've got going on here, and the Pirate Bay case in Sweden, there isn't much doubt that people will try and do anything including stuff outside the law to cuddle up to the US. We had our police using illegal warrants, transferring stuff to the FBI against judges orders and suborning our equivalent of the NSA/ GCHQ to illegally monitor a bunch of people they shouldn't (ultimately the GCSB and Prime Minister's responsibility, not the police's though). Fortunately we still have an independent judiciary- as opposed to Sweden's largely politically appointed one- so all this has been revealed and the tsunami or media invective has rather reversed its direction.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Let's be frank here, the Swedish case against him is an outright joke.

 

I fail to see anything funny about it. From what I have seen and heard it was a matter that should have been looked into, and with more interest than saying, on the first day of the investigation, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." The fact is that the allegations are serious and need to be addressed - if he were anyone else I suspect we'd, for the most part, agree on this. Also, before it is brought up, I know that the Ecuadorean government made offered to Sweden interview him within Ecuador's embassy. And that Sweden refused. But, really, that should be expected. They want him for criminal prosecution and, thus, an interview or two just would not work. But then, I guess it's ok to help with an accused rapist's flight from justice as long as he started a website that you like and supports leaking information.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Yeah I can't really get behind him regarding his being hunted by the whitehouse for passing on the diplomatic leak - which usually would be a no brainer for me. The thing is I don't believe the Swedish charges were part of a conspiracy. He is chosing to stay away because he doesn't want to be embarrased, or even because he knows there is something to the charges.

 

I agree.

[Gorth]

Sounds like he didn't lean from previous sect leaders. If you take sex with your cultists for granted, you are heading for a slippery slope,

[Zoraptor]

I fail to see anything funny about it. From what I have seen and heard it was a matter that should have been looked into, and with more interest than saying, on the first day of the investigation, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." The fact is that the allegations are serious and need to be addressed - if he were anyone else I suspect we'd, for the most part, agree on this. Also, before it is brought up, I know that the Ecuadorean government made offered to Sweden interview him within Ecuador's embassy. And that Sweden refused. But, really, that should be expected. They want him for criminal prosecution and, thus, an interview or two just would not work. But then, I guess it's ok to help with an accused rapist's flight from justice as long as he started a website that you like and supports leaking information.

 

If he were anyone else the initial dropping of the case would have been The End. Facts are:

 

1) The allegations were delayed, and made only after the two women found out he had not been exclusive.

2) There was no evidence of animus (rather the opposite in fact) after the incidents but prior to the two women meeting

2a) There was an attempt to hide that lack of animus post accusation, via deleting tweets/ facebook postings

2b) One of the women tried to delete her "how to get revenge on a man" webpage which included making false accusations against him.

3) The initial prosecutor did not want to proceed as the case was so weak but got replaced by someone who had sponsored the legislation used

4) The prosecution leaked everything possible against all precedent- and legality- in what can only have been a deliberate policy. That by itself would get the case terminated in any sensible jurisdiction and criminal charges brought against the prosecutory authorities that did the leaking.

4a) There was various other malfeasance, like the police interviewer knowing one of the accusors well

5) They allowed Assange to leave Sweden- they did not require him to surrender his passport at any time despite the accusations

6) They then issued an Interpol Red Notice, generally used for international drug dealers and the like

7) The single piece of impartial evidence- ie not he said/ she said- that would have supported the accusation lacks his DNA.

 

In summary: yep, the Swedish case is a joke, though a bad one. In any sensible system the prosecution would be facing disbarment or sacking, and the charges would be dismissed summarily. Unfortunately due to the way Euro Warrants work the British court cannot even consider the Swedish prosecutors being bent despite the obvious evidence supporting that, as it's just assumed that fellow Euros must be, by definition, Proper.

 

I understand that people don't like Assange, but that's no reason to throw due process out the window. Due process has the absolute requirement that those responsible for enforcing the laws -ie Sweden's judicial and police authorities- themselves abide by those laws, something they've singularly failed at with all the leaking they've done. Sexual impropriety is the perfect crime to accuse people of, as it brings out all the smoke = fire instincts so that you see plenty of people taking the mere accusation as fact, and as evidence of guilt in and of itself. An accusation by itself is not evidence of anything.

 

Amazingly- as if on cue and to illustrate a point- Barack Obama just walked in and punched me on the nose.

[BruceVC]

I fail to see anything funny about it. From what I have seen and heard it was a matter that should have been looked into, and with more interest than saying, on the first day of the investigation, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." The fact is that the allegations are serious and need to be addressed - if he were anyone else I suspect we'd, for the most part, agree on this. Also, before it is brought up, I know that the Ecuadorean government made offered to Sweden interview him within Ecuador's embassy. And that Sweden refused. But, really, that should be expected. They want him for criminal prosecution and, thus, an interview or two just would not work. But then, I guess it's ok to help with an accused rapist's flight from justice as long as he started a website that you like and supports leaking information.

 

 

 

I understand that people don't like Assange, but that's no reason to throw due process out the window. Due process has the absolute requirement that those responsible for enforcing the laws -ie Sweden's judicial and police authorities- themselves abide by those laws, something they've singularly failed at with all the leaking they've done. Sexual impropriety is the perfect crime to accuse people of, as it brings out all the smoke = fire instincts so that you see plenty of people taking the mere accusation as fact, and as evidence of guilt in and of itself. An accusation by itself is not evidence of anything.

 

Amazingly- as if on cue and to illustrate a point- Barack Obama just walked in and punched me on the nose.

 

Shame poor Assange is the victim right? You then mention " due process" . What do you consider him breaking his bail conditions and illegally hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy, all supporters who contributed towards his bail would have now lost there money and hopefully any faith in him. But I guess thats alright because the Swedes are the ones "throwing out due process" and Assange did nothing wrong?

[Zoraptor]

Yep. That's the burden of existing in a proper judicial system, there's an absolute obligation on those responsible for making and enforcing the rules to follow them themselves. That is perhaps the single most basic and important tenet of the modern legal process and is the underlying bedrock of all quality modern judicial systems. Its abuse is a significant sign of a poorly designed or corrupt judicial system, or one that has been co-opted to serve a particular purpose.

 

Since the prosecutors didn't follow the rules there's zero obligation on Assange to walk himself willingly into a corrupt show trial- but if it were a model prosecution, or even a typical one, there would be. In fact, and ironically, that sort of thing is exactly the sort of reasoning Britain uses when granting asylum to people like Boris Berezovsky.

[213374U]

Also Russian TV must be the most anti-western, biased and propaganda fulled news channel I have ever seen.

You are possibly right, but for the wrong reasons. Russian media are overwhelmingly owned by Russian oligarchs, with whom the incumbent president is publicly at odds.

 

So yeah, they may be biased and propaganda filled, but it's mostly anti-regime stuff.

[alanschu]

I used to be an Assange hater, but as time goes on, less so.

 

I've obviously become a pinko in my old age!

[Calax]

No matter how distasteful a person might be in their personal life (true or not) that does not damage the veracity of their work professionally or the fact that what they might say is or is not the truth based on the evidence available.

 

Basically, just because you think that Julien is a giant douche does not mean that wikileaks and what was placed there are any less true, or necessary (to a degree) for a population within a democracy to operate properly, with an informed voting base.

[Meshugger]

So, how did the debate go?

[Hurlshort]

So, how did the debate go?

 

I didn't watch, but apparently it went terribly for Obama.

[ravenshrike]

Terrible is really too kind. He consistently looked down and not to either the audience or his opponent when it wasn't his turn, which is not what you want to do during a debate. He seemed consistently off-balance, as if he expected Romney to debate in a very specific way and then lost all will to debate when Romney didn't. And then there's the fact that without a teleprompter or a specific script he sounds like a brand spanking new TA who's never performed a lecture before that involved something other than his notes. Considering that this should have been his strongest debate, and that the next will be a mix of foreign policy and domestic, and the final will be purely foreign policy, it ain't looking good.

[BruceVC]

Terrible is really too kind. He consistently looked down and not to either the audience or his opponent when it wasn't his turn, which is not what you want to do during a debate. He seemed consistently off-balance, as if he expected Romney to debate in a very specific way and then lost all will to debate when Romney didn't. And then there's the fact that without a teleprompter or a specific script he sounds like a brand spanking new TA who's never performed a lecture before that involved something other than his notes. Considering that this should have been his strongest debate, and that the next will be a mix of foreign policy and domestic, and the final will be purely foreign policy, it ain't looking good.

 

I agree it didn't go that well but how relevant are these debates to overall voting numbers, it has re-energized Romney's campaign but after the "47%" gaff his campaign can surly only improve? ( Okay I'm being petulant)

 

But I do think Obama will dominate any foreign ppolicy discussion, I know thats not a key issues at the moment but Romney really seems to fall short on understanding America's role in a new world.

[Calax]

If nothing else, it's acting as a wake up call to Obamas campaign. He was obviously under prepared for what he's doing and was to technically minded. Instead of saying "no, that's not what my plan says!" he would just go into the details that often would jump over peoples heads.

 

Basically instead of preparing for a debate with a person, he prepared a power point presentation with a sniper.

[Meshugger]

Is there even a difference in foreign policy between the two? I was always under the impression that they differed the most on domestic and economical issues.

[BruceVC]

Is there even a difference in foreign policy between the two? I was always under the impression that they differed the most on domestic and economical issues.

 

I would say there is a huge difference in the two around foreign policy, but to be realistic we only have Romney's words about foreign policy and not his actual decisions

 

Obama

• has been more diplomatic and much less belligerent, and arrogant, when it comes to dealing with overseas areas of potential crisis. For example he doesn't come across like the Bush and Chaney era of American politics where the message was " you are either with us or against us
  
• For example he accepted that the Russians didn't want the missile defense system should be on there border and backed down
  
• He resisted Republican calls to invade Libya and Syria, despite being told he wasn't supporting legitimate newly founded Democracies" (the Libyan air strikes don't count as an invasion)
  
• He got the troops out of Iraq and has set a deadline for an Afghanistan pullout.
  
• He has resisted Israeli pressure to agree that if Iran crosses a line with there nuclear development then there will be military intervention. He genuinely seems to believe that sanctions and increased diplomatic pressure will force the Iranians to stop enriching Uranium
  

There are other points I can make but I think you get the message.

 

 

Romney has

• said that Obama was weak with dealing with Russia and that Obama betrayed allies like Poland by not building the missile defense system. He is dismissive of Russia, and I think thats a mistake
  
• Has been much more supportive of Israel around the military solution to the Iranian crisis
  
• Doesn't believe that America should apologize for any decisions or actions , for example that absurd movie that was made about Islam recently. Obama seems fine to apologize if he feels the USA is wrong about certain things, I don't see whats wrong with humility
  
• Romney espouses the general Republican view on foreign policy which assumes a much more militant and unilateral perspective on dealing with overseas issues. I am simplifying this a little but I hope you get my point
  

[ravenshrike]

Yeah, another point on FP is where Obama left our ass hanging in the wind in Benghazi, and then when the fecal matter hit the rotary impeller started lying through his teeth on the issue. All intelligence pointed towards Benghazi as an AQ hotspot. This was the explicit reason that the Brits pulled out of Benghazi in June after AQ tried to assassinate the British ambassador. There was no mob at the Benghazi consulate until well after the attack started. There certainly wasn't one at the SAFE HOUSE. And yet, somehow Stevens' death on 9/11 was caused by a shoddy movie trailer. ****ing pathetic.

[Calax]

Yeah, another point on FP is where Obama left our ass hanging in the wind in Benghazi, and then when the fecal matter hit the rotary impeller started lying through his teeth on the issue. All intelligence pointed towards Benghazi as an AQ hotspot. This was the explicit reason that the Brits pulled out of Benghazi in June after AQ tried to assassinate the British ambassador. There was no mob at the Benghazi consulate until well after the attack started. There certainly wasn't one at the SAFE HOUSE. And yet, somehow Stevens' death on 9/11 was caused by a shoddy movie trailer. ****ing pathetic.

 

The more I see you post, the more I think you're taking Glenn Beck as holy writ. Or Faux News.

 

Also, on Foreign Policy, If Obama says he's gonna kill a dude, he kills that guy. No "Oh well we got his second in command four times!" just "He's dead biatch!"