ralphio @ ralphio @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

171

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well in your scenario she would become the problem of Syria, and whatever you think of the Asaad regime there's a reason these types of exiles are not accepted under international law. When a large county uses a smaller society as its de facto prison it doesn't tend to work out too well for the natives (see Australia), so it's just not allowed in principle. In reality the British are trying to say it's Bangladesh's problem since her parents are from there which doesn't really make sense.

I guess we'll call it even after the US provided support for the Judicial coup of Rousseff in 2016 which is the main reason Bolsonaro's party came to power in the first place.

A longer read, but worth the time:

https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-department-brazil-car-wash-lava-jato-international-treaty/

It's definitely "why" they want to put him in jail regardless of what anti-journalism charges they hit him with.

Why do people keep saying this? It doesn't even make sense. Why would the Russians give Assange the RNC emails if they didn't want them to be published? There is no evidence that I can find that the RNC emails were ever given to anyone.

So the argument from Assange was that all relevant information from the cache was already public from previous publication. The entire cache was public when FP published the article you're referring to so they could have pointed out what was actually worth reporting if there was anything.

Here's the article for everyone else:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/

The point about the 2012 Syria emails is more interesting, but the whole point about Wikileaks running cover for Russia never made a lot of sense to me since they have published damaging info about Russia.

ETA: I'd be remiss not to mention that the discussion of Assange's biases is a red herring to the real problem which is the US's attempt to criminalize publication of state secrets.

The accusation is about kickbacks. Basically saying she hired her boyfriend who then took her on vacations which technically she would have to reimburse him for. You can't really prove it since she can just say she paid him back in cash which is what she testified.

The DEA issue will never get resolved since any lawmaker that tries to reign them in will be accused of fueling the drug crisis.

Did you send the wrong link? This doesn't mention a full page ad for NATO.

In addition to what others have said NK spends about 1/3 of its GDP on its military. It definitely punches above its economic weight when it comes to war.

Whatever you think of Assange, you should know why the US government wants to prosecute him. He published this among other things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8xhH0FkCQg

Context: that's a US gunship firing on Reuters journalists among other civilians including kids.

Let's be even more specific. Sweden has a history of looking the other way on US extraordinary rendition:

https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/post-9-11-renditions-an-extraordinary-violation-of-international-law/

The men were later subjected to torture.

It's definitely insufficient as a condemnation, but it does seem like he's implying that Navalny was killed for political reasons?

India hasn't sold any weapons to Russia at least since the war started.

I don't think this type of scheme is even illegal which is the main problem.

I've have not read any analysis that has not said the Czech weapons were superior, but I'm not a weapons expert. The Israelis also had more fighting men than the combined Arab forces. This Israel underdog narrative is mythology.

Israel was supplied arms from Europe during the war.

Framing the Arabs as the mighty over the Europeans is a new one for me.

Might makes right arguments don't resonate with me.

You skipped one step at the beginning where Israel took power by force in '48.

Is there a reason they can't use a conventional warhead to destroy a satellite? Even if they wanted to use it to attack a surface there isn't a lot of evidence that a normal ICBM can be reliably intercepted so I doubt them being in space will change much.

Edit: *surface target