
Assange: US Waging 'Lawfare' in Bid to Control the World - jdimov9
http://sputniknews.com/us/20151008/1028223233/us-lawfare-julian-assange.html
======
will_brown
>The concept explains that intricate legal developments are used as a
substitute to a military occupation...Critics have argued that such
initiatives actively undermine the sovereignty of governments

The very idea of the UN and treaties by nature undermine the sovereignty of
governments, and that is obviously not an inherently evil thing. Yes there
will always be criticisms when balancing the creation of an international
legal framework that supports a stable international community at the cost of
relinquishing sovereignty. However, I assure anyone that as deplorable as one
might find US "lawfare" (if you buy into this argument) against Snowden or Kim
Dotcom, that the US political actions are far better than military operations
such as Russia into Georgia, and I am left wondering why SputnikNews seems to
be suggesting that use of armed force (military) is a more legitimate way of
expanding international influence than through international organization and
bi-lateral treaties...why advocate for military protection of territory over
diplomatic means, are we that far removed from WW2 we simply forget the
consequences of might is right?

~~~
fennecfoxen
> _why advocate for military protection of territory over diplomatic means_

Because you are Vladimir Putin and your economic policies of cronyism have led
to a general long-term economic decline (exacerbated by sanctions for things
like invading Ukraine). You want your various media mouthpieces to play up a
threat from competing powers; it will justify your actions to your countrymen,
explain away your economic woes, and drive a wedge between them and people who
advocate for political freedom.

------
frigg
Sputnik[1] is a Russian government-controlled website with very little
credibility when it comes to anything Western. Secondly, this is Assange,
while no doubt the US is guilty of a lot of things, Assange and Wikileaks'
purpose seem to be an anti-US organization at this point.

I also find it ironic how a group "dedicated to transparency" aren't
themselves transparent with their finances.

>The WikiLeaks chief said the US investigation of himself and others involved
in leaking sensitive government information is a prime example of Washington
engaging in lawfare

>"I'm an Australian, Why Is the US Investigating Me for Espionage?"

Is he serious?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Receptio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_\(news_agency\)#Reception)

~~~
Jerry2
Instead of arguing where something is posted, it's better to concentrate
arguments at things that matter. PG has an excellent hierarchy on where to
concentrate disagreements [0].

And don't forget, BBC is also funded by a government. So is Canadian CBC. CNN
also gets a lot of gov contracts and gov crossover.

And just recently, it was revealed that even 60 Minutes is engaging in
propaganda on behalf of State Department [1].

Propaganda is truly everywhere now.

[0]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464](https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/649628016268734464)

~~~
bmsleight_
BBC is not funded by government. It is a separate licence fee and have
governance in place to keep it at a very long arm length away from government.
Which may be a reason why the current government want to
change/destroy/modernise ot so that it can influence output.

~~~
jobu
The BBC is funded by a government tax on TVs [1], and to an outsider this
looks an awful lot like government funding.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom)

~~~
teh_klev
> The BBC is funded by a government tax on TVs

It's not a tax on TV's. It's a license you pay _only_ if you watch live
broadcast television. It is not funded through normal taxation mechanisms such
as PAYE, VAT etc. Individuals and organisations decide whether they need to
pay the TV License or not depending on whether they need to or not.

The license fee is collected by the BBC via private contractors (the major one
being Capita) under the umbrella of the TV Licensing Authority. This money is
paid to the UK government which then pays out to the BBC.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licence_fee_collection_and_use)

------
TodPunk
I don't buy it. The US is bringing their cases to protect their interests and
the interests of their economies. It's not about territory control, it's about
industry control. I don't agree with how they're going about it, but I'm not
going to make up motivations that don't fit just because of my disdain for it.

Of course, this is one reason why I'm not in politics.

~~~
korisnik
_> It's not about territory control, it's about industry control._

He's talking about application of laws in foreign territories. Naturally, for
the benefit of US and its own industry. How is that substantially different
from what you're saying?

~~~
jpollock
Every day we're hearing about another country attempting to apply it's laws on
people not in the country. I've seen Canada, France, Germany. The US is huge
in this, but they're hardly alone.

[1] Canada: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-
ordere...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/google-ordered-by-b-
c-judge-to-block-website-from-search-results-1.2679824) [2] France:
[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-
reject...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2984524/privacy/france-rejects-
googles-appeal-on-right-to-be-forgotten.html) [3] Germany:
[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98593)

------
johansch
Good point made by a sketchy guy. :/

