I guess they have to drag it out for diplomatic reasons, but the High Court has set a condition that the US cannot satisfy: The State Department nor the Department of Justice can guarantee that he would be granted First Amendment rights. It’s established precedent in US law that constitutional rights only apply to citizens. Judicial independence prevents them enforcing any agreement to the contrary.
This isn’t true at all. The general legal consensus is that foreign nationals are entitled to virtually the same rights as US citizens while on US soil.
Foreign, and non-foreign, citizens only get those rights once they’re legally admitted to US soil. Like, they don’t have those protections at the airport before being granted entrance.
Could the US decide to deport Assange to Guantanamo?
If conditions cannot be guaranteed, the court can uphold his appeal and deny the order.
Whether or not that ruling would in turn be appealed by the US DoJ to the UK Supreme Court is moot. Ditto chance of success if it is. Between impinging on the right to freedom of expression & the horrors of the US penal system, extradition is likely illegal under UK human rights law.
It is not treason to question the results of an election. It is not sedition to contest an election. If there is evidence that an election not handled correctly in a way that is sufficient to change the outcome, those with a stake in the outcome should not accept it.
This idea that it is a high crime to question an election is genuinely dangerous. And it is especially bad coming from democrats, because tactics like voter suppression disproportionately benefit republicans.
No one should accept an unrepresentative election.
In principle yes, of course, but I think we all can be reasonably suspicious that Rubio is using this exact justification as a smoke screen to lay the groundwork of sowing doubt to manufacture a false "controversy" come election time. He's also being just vague enough that he can play both sides, too, depending on which option he finds most politically beneficial. I'm glad to have people scrutinize our electoral process, but not when they start from a predetermined conclusion. Which I know I'm also doing by assuming Rubio's intent, but it's not like we haven't been here before.
He answered the question without a pre-determined conclusion. He answered with a conditional statement. That is how you answer the question without a pre-determined conclusion.
“If it’s unfair, we are going to do the same thing Democrats do,” Rubio said. “We’re going to use lawyers to go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws.”
That is the most reasonable way to answer that question. If an election is unfair, you should take reasonable actions to mitigate things, and accept the result otherwise, which is what he said. If anyone is trying to create a narrative its NBC for choosing to ask the question.
It is a crime to fabricate evidence and questioning the results of an election without at least a hint of evidence really should be a crime so that there’s not an incentive for incredibly well funded questioners to bombard the public and courts with questions about elections they don’t like.
Have you already forgotten the shit show that was the last presidential election? Despite no evidence of any foul play, MAGAts still refuse to accept the results. Are you so obtuse you can’t see that this is just another attempt to sow division and mistrust of an election system that by all accounts is very secure and fair?
Sounds like you’re helping them, so I say to you, fuck off and suck a bag of molton dicks.
Did you forget the 2016 election when democrats accused the trump campaign of colluding with russia despite zero evidence? Accusing the opposition of undermining an election in every possible venue where there’s no risk of perjury is not a uniquely republican strategy.
Elections should be robust in the face of criticism. If the process cannot even stand up to disingenuous scrutiny, there are far bigger problems.
The 2020 election was questioned by republicans for months after it concluded. Many investigations were made and found ZERO evidence of interference. If anything, some republicans were charged in a handful of states for election interference crimes.
Questioning an election is one thing, but outright denying the results even after all the evidence suggests that no interference/meddling occurred sets a precedence for future candidates that they can cause chaos in the system by just constantly claiming elections are rigged, eventually causing distrust of the entire system by voters who will just assume that their votes don’t matter because the decision has already been set.
I believe if you are attempting to discredit an election, not because of the potential for foul play, but because you are just upset that you or your candidate of choice lost, and you attempt to destabilize the democratic system in order to achieve your goal, that is treason/sedition and should be a crime that is delt with a severe penalty.
I hope everyone who can cancels their Tesla contracts and gets another fleet vehicle. Tesla fired enough people to signify they are getting out of both the car and battery business. So like, their whole fucking business. Elon destroyed Tesla’s future in a fit of pique.
What is the difference between “small piece of comet” and a meteorite? I thought meteor showers are caused when Earth travels through the trail of a comet so I don’t fully understand why the correction was posted by ESA?
I like the term “extermination” which the ICC’s chief prosecutor used in his charging document against Bibi.
Genocide requires intent. There is at least the possibility that Israel is merely showing careless disregard and willful ignorance towards Palestinian lifes. That doesn’t make a practical difference, of course. The fact that Israel is maybe? not as racist as they could be, doesn’t help all the dead or starving civilians.
That’s why I like the term extermination. It’s precise but doesn’t require intent. It doesn’t imply that Israels interest in defeating Hamas is merely a smokescreen (for the record: I don’t think Hamas can be defeated militarily, but I understand the interest).
And it does all that without being a euphemism.
Edit: a previous version of this contained a Freudian slip where I confused the names of Biden and Netanjau.
reuters.com
Oldest