Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Just like the US government doesn't get to label anyone as a terrorist or enemy combatant with no Geneva convention protection and with no due process. Hm...
All I've been saying the whole time is the US system is not without flaws and if they want to prosecute Assange they'll find some way of doing it shady or not while you on the other hand just keep on denying that the US system is fallible and corruptable even after I provided examples. The why is pretty well established already given how many US gov't officials are pissed of... the how, like I said... there are ways. I'm done with this regardless.
|
You provide quite possibly the best example I could have asked for. A case that denied rights at a lower level, and was reversed by the Supreme Court. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of the protections inherent in the structure of the US judicial arm. Better yet, you chose a case that was far from a slam dunk in either direction and insinuated that the tribunals decision could only have been possible due to executive influence. The Supreme Court was highly divided on Hamdan, even the majority didn't fully agree on its reasoning, and legal scholars continue to be highly divided on a number of the issues at play. Are they all on the take too? All under pressure from the executive branch? I should also point out that the Justice that was apparently influenced to make a certain decision at a lower level recused himself from the Supreme Court case.
And let's not pretend your argument is a simple "the US system is not without flaws". The statement I responded to was your assertion that the government simply gets to label Assange as a journalist or non-journalist as they see fit, which is 100% inaccurate. I have never argued that the US system is infalliable, all systems have weaknesses and the potential to be corrupted. I've simply rebutted the incredibly thorough argument you've presented ("there are ways") and asked you to actually demonstrate or support your claim. The Supreme Court may well come to a decision on the First Amendment issues at play here that runs counter to your belief, but unless you've got more than "there are ways" your argument that it's due to corruption is pretty hollow.