Swedish prosecutors drop Julian Assange rape investigation

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, with respect, I beg to differ. What I think, what people think of this issue is absolutely material, more material in fact than what a given law states.

What people think is very important. In this particular case though, it doesn't change the facts whether you like it or not.

a reply to: uncommitted

Actually, it is the law which does not change the facts. The facts are that people who paid for the creation of illegal mass surveillance initiatives, and people who paid for an illegal war, in which improper methods of engagement and targeting parameters were used, had and still have a right to know what the taxes they pay are being used for, and especially when the facilities, infrastructure and resources we pay for, are being used improperly.

Those are facts, not opinions.

The law may wish to ignore the facts, but reality trumps law.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: uncommitted

Actually, it is the law which does not change the facts. The facts are that people who paid for the creation of illegal mass surveillance initiatives, and people who paid for an illegal war, in which improper methods of engagement and targeting parameters were used, had and still have a right to know what the taxes they pay are being used for, and especially when the facilities, infrastructure and resources we pay for, are being used improperly.

Those are facts, not opinions.

The law may wish to ignore the facts, but reality trumps law.

No, none of that changes the fact that theft of classified material is a crime, what that material contains is irrelevant unless the law itself has a caveat which it doesn't. You may disagree, but that's not the point.

a reply to: uncommitted

The law of the matter does not change the facts of the matter. It does not even change whether the act was just or unjust. It can only ever speak to whether a thing is legal or not, and that is not remotely important in cases like this. What is important is whether an act is just or not, and the law has nothing to say on that matter what so ever.

Looks to me like UNCOMMITTED buggered off.

Come back we haven't finished with you yet.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
Looks to me like UNCOMMITTED buggered off.

Come back we haven't finished with you yet.

lol, I do have to at least make a pretense of listening and working when on a conference call

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: uncommitted

The law of the matter does not change the facts of the matter. It does not even change whether the act was just or unjust. It can only ever speak to whether a thing is legal or not, and that is not remotely important in cases like this. What is important is whether an act is just or not, and the law has nothing to say on that matter what so ever.

Well, that's an opinion, I suggest using it if you ever find yourself in court.

a reply to: uncommitted

oh. Well my apologies.

a reply to: uncommitted

Again, no, it is absolutely not an opinion, but a fact.

The law is not an end unto itself. It is ostensibly a creation which is designed to allow justice to be done equally. It is an unnatural and imperfect thing. Justice, however, is not a created concept, an idea. It is a fundamental underpinning of the way all societies have worked, even when those societies lacked a written record, or even what we would know today as speech. Before law was ever written, there was justice. Human beings feel a nasty feeling in their guts and minds, when justice is not done, and a sense of determination and satisfaction when it has been. This has existed in the human condition for far longer than any of our modern ideas of law have, and it was these feelings which first lead Aristotle to compose a codified idea of law, to further the ends of justice.

The law is simply a tool, just as is science. It is a means to an end. When science as we know it fails to describe or be able to analyse an object or observed phenomenon, we do not say that the phenomenon does not exist, or that it is wrong. We say that our science is not refined enough to deal with the problem, and correct that problem as best we can over time. Similarly, when our law is shown to be incompetent to deal with a situation in order that justice prevails, we MUST redefine what the law states, because to blindly continue as things were before, with law being incapable of deciding a matter in a way which promotes justice, is to fly in the face of justice, something which the law cannot be allowed to continue to do, unless we want to accept that our society is no longer based on even the pretense of just outcomes of proceedings.

Understand this above all things:

When the law fails to uphold justice, it invalidates itself. This is not an opinion, but a fact. How often that fact results in proper outcomes, morally acceptable outcomes in courtrooms is certainly up for debate, but the fact itself is not.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I'm not knocking what you state from a philosophical standpoint, just saying I can't see a judge buying it. The fact you may not like that, or agree with it is entirely reasonable in my opinion.... but it won't stop the judge from convicting you.

a reply to: uncommitted

You're knocking him, just admit it.

a reply to: Kryties

When do they apologize to him and everyone who supports him? They acted like a banana republic.

Every official behind anything against him.....acted like a thug. Our officials included.

Its pretty clear who the "bad guys" are.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: uncommitted

You're knocking him, just admit it.

Nah, I just don't agree on this particular point. I love the idea of everyone having their own definition of what's legal, great, but it doesn't actually work. That's all.

a reply to: uncommitted

Todays definition of legality is messed up. I'd prefer to time travel into the past. Somewhere familiar.

originally posted by: RisenMessiah
a reply to: uncommitted

Todays definition of legality is messed up. I'd prefer to time travel into the past. Somewhere familiar.

Not quite sure how far back you'd have to go, but if you are in the UK then any difference in definition of law would entail being a seriously long way back.

a reply to: uncommitted

It is not a matter of my having a different definition of what is legal to anyone else. I do not. My definition of law is precisely correct, in that I place importance in Justice as a concern which is greater than, and not always served by the machinations of, the law. I understand, as do many of the proper scholars on the topic of law and justice, specifically those prone toward study of the classics and letters, that law has no purpose but to serve justice, and is meaningless in every circumstance other than when it serves the ends of justice rigidly.

a reply to: uncommitted

I was thinking more like... Ancient Egypt.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I can understand that, you are a Corbyn supporter. He is struggling to condemn the terror attacks committed by the IRA - must be a similar kind of thing I suppose.

a reply to: uncommitted

Corbyn is a positive icon. I support him.

a reply to: uncommitted

Firstly, who I happen to support in political terms, is rather irrelevant to this situation. Also, it is worth pointing out that you are simply mistaken on that point. Mr Corbyn emphatically denounced all forms of violence, enacted by ANYONE, and then the Conservatives lied about it, as they have nearly everything else during this election cycle, hell, the preceding years of their reign as well.

Just so you know, this is what Corbyn actually said about it:

"I condemn all the bombing by both Loyalists and the IRA"

The fact that the Tories simply refused to print that, and spun the hell out of his comments is not his fault, nor any indication of his candour on the subject.

However, it is worth pointing out, that while cries of "Terrorist sympathiser!" and "Weak on law and order" have been levelled at Mr Corbyn for absolutely no actual reason, there is a Conservative Party member who was an actual, honest to God, fully paid up member of the IRA, and dating its Chief of Staff for some time. Her name is currently Maria Gatland, councilor for Croydon, but her name USED to be Maria McGuire, under which name she was involved in the IRA for two years, only leaving after the Bloody Friday bombings.

Now that we have straightened that little kink out of things, shall we continue in a slightly more on topic fashion from here on?