- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So a judge who has taken cases because he is qualified to see top secret information is assigned a case that contains top secret information.
Why is this a problem? I don’t see a conflict of interest here.
I guess they’re trying to insinuate that there’s a conflict of interest because he worked for a government agency and Wikileaks leaked documents pertaining to that government agency.
But, like… That would be like saying no judge could oversee the case of someone who attacked a courthouse because they work for the same legal system. That would be a real loophole in the law if by breaking the right ones, you just couldn’t be tried anymore.
It’s more like only having to say “purple” and then only get people who worked with purple before and are much more likely to be pro-purple than normal people who are overwhelmingly anti purple.
Just replace “purple” with “government secret”.
Only because the leak involves the agency the judge used to work for. It’s just that.
Removed by mod
Most evil in the world doesn’t come from cartoon villains. It comes from people just doing their job but they have been filtered, trained and biased because of the rules of the system. If all they have to do is say “top secret” to get filter for a certain kind of desirable person and the entire process biased against democratic interests like freedom of the press and accountability for governments, then they win. “They” being the anti-democratic systems of power.
Why do these guys still dress like Colonial Santa? Do they not feel a little silly making the lawyers wear those little green outfits and fake pointy ears?
The most ridiculous version of that was during the recent ICJ trial about Israeli genocide where the lawyers came from different places and so some dressed like 1700’s land barons and the others just wore normal suits.
If your going to wear a wig…why give that wig a bald spot?
Aping Caesar
If Assange hadn’t squatted in that embassy, he’d probably be out by now.
In any case, he lacks credibility as a champion for journalism when he won’t confront the leaders who murder journalists.
You’re either in favor of freedom of the press and not throwing journalists into jail for uncovering things governments want to keep secret, or you’re not.
This appeal to purity is misguided. The US want the power to extradite any journalist anywhere in the world for crimes against the state. Do you want that?
Smells like propaganda.
