Now, focusing on the larger issue of WikiLeaks, rather than the proposed LPSF specific resolution. Quote from this week's Bloomberg Businessweek Year in Review: "Leaking is inherently an anti-authoritarian act. It is inherently an anarchist act...We get information in the mail...vet it like a regular news organization...release it to the public, and then defend ourselves against the inevitable legal and political attacks." -- Julian Assange.
This is guts speaking. No asking for resolutions. No asking for exceptions. No whining. Do the deed and take the lumps.
But Julian Assange didn't say "do the deed and take the lumps" -- he said do the deed "and then DEFEND OURSELVES" (emphasis added). Part of "defending ourselves" is writing resolutions, along with other forms of resistance and mobilizing support that conservatives often like to characterize as "whining".
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I interpreted Assange's words as meaning defending oneself in a court of law, defending our deed before public opinion. If you or I wish to assist him, and he is not asking for such assistance as far as I know, I would think we would need to send money for his legal defense, and/or help explain how his deed was justified. And yes, we conservatives believe that calling for anyone to be exempt from LEGITIMATE CHARGES UNDER EXITING LAWS is whining. Reminder! Assange was charged with sexual molestation, not libel or other related free speech situation.
Why should we rely only on courts controlled by governments for our defense? Doesn't "defending our deed before public opinion" include passing resolutions? My guess is that Julian Assange appreciates the protests and statements being conducted and written on his behalf. I know that I would, were I in his situation.
Furthermore many current laws are clearly NOT legitimate. And if the laws themselves are not legitimate, then the charges based on those laws cannot be legitimate either.
Having said that, laws against rape and non-consensual sexual molestation are not illegitimate, although I understand Julian Assange has not been formally charged with either of those offenses and is according to the Swedish government merely wanted for questioning.
In fact Assange had shown his willingness to cooperate with the investigation in the manner in which that government usually handles such cases, but his case is NOT being handled according to normal procedure. Assange's case has been expedited and taken far more seriously than normal, and this is obviously *not* because of anything about the case itself, but because of his involvement with WikiLeaks.
Such deliberate prosecutorial abuse constitutes sufficient legal grounds for charges to be dropped, and judicial proceedings terminated as expressed in the resolution I drafted. Stopping the proceedings would help *uphold* the value you appear to me to be arguing for, namely that everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - In your message below you use the phrase "we conservatives". I hope you will retract that; it seems to me at odds with your role as LPSF chair. Anyway, I think libertarians are more likely than conservatives to demand "rule of law" rather than "rule of man". Look who voted for the Sit/Lie ordinance, despite the fact that its supporters *openly admitted that the law was not designed to be enforced uniformly, but rather with discretion* (i.e. some people would be EXEMPTED from enforcement) -- it was the more CONSERVATIVE parts of SF that saw majorities voting for this!
Anticipating the rhetoric about the illegitimacy of government and of laws, I ended my objection points regarding your specific resolution by stating, "...and, no, I am not an anarchist." So, obviously, we will never agree on a large number of things, since you believe in "rule of man" and I "rule of law;" allowing for a moment that the two need be mutually exclusive. Just as you feel someone who abides by rule of law is at odds with libertarianism, I feel that someone who abides by rule of man is at odds with *political* parties. Ah, but we have discussed this before, many times!!
Sorry to dash your hopes that I would "retract" my statement that I am a conservative! Actually I am surprised that you seemed surprised at that statement -- Now I feel that you have not been reading a word I have been saying on these lists for the past 8 years!