PDA

View Full Version : Assange arrested in Britain



skuthorp
04-11-2019, 04:56 AM
Equador withdraws asylum, he looks terrible.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-11-2019, 05:05 AM
https://e3-365dm-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/e3.365dm.com/19/04/768x432/skynews-julian-assange-arrested_4635799.jpg?20190411105910

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-11-2019, 05:07 AM
His asylum was revoked because of his aggression towards Ecuadorean Embassy staff. The Metropolitan Police were invited into the building to arrest and remove him.

Hope the US extradition warrant is ready.

epoxyboy
04-11-2019, 05:08 AM
^ He's an ass, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Pete

skuthorp
04-11-2019, 05:19 AM
I wonder about his mental state...

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 06:22 AM
.

Hope the US extradition warrant is ready.

Why, do you think it should have been kept secret that US forces in Iraq killed a Rueters news team, among many other civilians?

wizbang 13
04-11-2019, 06:26 AM
I wish I understood more of this , hero / villian?

Steve McMahon
04-11-2019, 06:58 AM
I wish I understood more of this , hero / villian?

Me too. I suspect a bit of both.
He does appear to becoming a bit unhinged, kind of like Trump...

JayInOz
04-11-2019, 07:20 AM
Hahaha Great photo! Needs a caption me thinks. For a start I think he should repay the Ecuadorian embassy every cent it's cost to feed and house him for the last seven years. And they should be compensated for having to listen to him for all that time. I would have strangled him after a couple of weeks:) JayInOz

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 07:26 AM
I wish I understood more of this , hero / villian?

He has probably had far more press in Europe than in the US, save for the media making him out to be something he is not. Even the woman he was alledged to have raped, confirmed that the police had pushed her to make an accusation, she also pushed for those charges to be dropped ,and we knew then the US wanted Assange for publishing the video of the Apache helicopter on a civilian killing spree and a means to bring him into US custody. A man who has not committed any crime within the US.
Truth is the only thing that matters. US government did not want that footage exposed, and you only need to have witnessed the government policy since then to decide who the bad guys really are, and what lengths they will go to to cover up, or make an example of those that did, in order to deter others .
Assange has won numerous global awards as a journalist, and since 2010 has been on the Nobel Peace Prize list , not that i hold that to any esteem after Obama was awarded that. What will be interesting now, is if his "insurance file" keys get published, and more information comes into light straight to the public.
Moreno didnt like the Vatican hit peice Wiki-leaks published that exposed him in high level corruption......coincidence he is being thrown out just a short time after ?
Sad day for press freedom and exposing truth. Even many here prefer comfortable lies......

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-11-2019, 07:50 AM
He’s the Tang Tinted Turd’s friend. He worked with the Russians on the Clinton emails.

Chelsea Manning is in jail in the USA for refusing to testify against him. I have more sympathy with Manning.

One of his Swedish victims is trying to get her case reinstated in Sweden.

Paul Pless
04-11-2019, 07:55 AM
I wish I understood more of this , hero / villian?neither, both; and a douchebag to boot

TomF
04-11-2019, 07:56 AM
It's a conundrum, to be sure. I understand the motivation to set up something like Wikileaks, as an independent and rather anarchic "check" on Government power. Except that it's also vulnerable to being co-opted, as it appears to me Wikileaks was. I've zero doubt that it knowingly functioned as the distribution end of the Russian hacking which helped elect Trump, though how Russia obtained the leverage to enable that is murky. Probably has to do with the Snowden or Manning stuff. I'm also not of the opinion that there should be no state secrets - that having even some dark secrets invalidates the societal benefits of order over anarchy. The perfect really is the enemy of the good.

L.W. Baxter
04-11-2019, 08:02 AM
Assange's play against Clinton might be understandable if his concerns really were for the "truth" per skarab.

If his approach had been an attempt to reveal any and every secret about the major players of western governments, regardless of nominal ideology, one could see his arrest as a blow to press freedoms. Maybe.

But that's not what he was ever about, was it.

genglandoh
04-11-2019, 08:09 AM
I wonder about his mental state...

I am also wondering about his mental state.

He looks 70 but he is only 47 years old.

Canoez
04-11-2019, 08:16 AM
I guess that I can't fully argue with the whole "press freedom" perspective of the release of information by Assange and his organization. I think that the Swedish charges are sorta thin, but Swedish law says otherwise.

The issue that I have is that Assange's releases of secrets seemed to be somewhat limited to certain governments/organizations. If it poked at ALL governments equally, and those who were guilty of repressing part of their population, I'd have a bit more respect, but frankly, I don't.

I believe that Assange and Wikileaks actions in coordination with actors who were benefiting the Russian government swayed elections in other places - including the US. He should stand trial for that, IMO.

L.W. Baxter
04-11-2019, 08:24 AM
It is possible that Assange started as one thing and morphed into another.

The interplay of the pressures applied and an unbalanced ego could easily transform a person from idealistic justice warrior to scheming self-aggrandizer to paranoic idealogue.

Art Haberland
04-11-2019, 08:28 AM
He does look really bad. I hope it is an act and not an indication on his mental and physical state

TomF
04-11-2019, 08:30 AM
It's a workplace hazard common to the messiah and cult leader gig. Secular as well as sacred, it appears.

Paul Pless
04-11-2019, 08:41 AM
The interplay of the pressures applied and an unbalanced ego could easily transform a person from idealistic justice warrior to scheming self-aggrandizer to paranoic idealogue.

When the Ecuadorians cut off his internet access a while back he probably flipped the **** out. He does look quite a bit like a deranged gnome in this photo. . .

https://e3-365dm-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/e3.365dm.com/19/04/768x432/skynews-julian-assange-arrested_4635799.jpg?20190411105910

oznabrag
04-11-2019, 08:47 AM
When the Ecuadorians cut off his internet access a while back he probably flipped the **** out. He does look quite a bit like a deranged gnome in this photo. . .



Whoa.

Canoeyawl
04-11-2019, 08:49 AM
What's up with the white gloves?

Canoez
04-11-2019, 09:17 AM
"Flashes 'thumbs-up' to the press."

Uhhh...

Uhm.

35316

peb
04-11-2019, 10:40 AM
Heís the Tang Tinted Turdís friend. He worked with the Russians on the Clinton emails.

Chelsea Manning is in jail in the USA for refusing to testify against him. I have more sympathy with Manning.

One of his Swedish victims is trying to get her case reinstated in Sweden.

Agreed. The ends do not justify the means, and WikiLeaks has pursued immoral means since its inception, from what I can tell.

Dave Wright
04-11-2019, 10:49 AM
Apparently one of the Ecuadorian embassy complaints against him was that he wouldn't clean up after his damn cat.:d

Gerarddm
04-11-2019, 11:32 AM
#17, #18: +1

What ever respect I had for him died some time ago. As far as I can see, he morphed into being a Russian asset. Screw him.

birlinn
04-11-2019, 11:35 AM
Apparently one of the Ecuadorian embassy complaints against him was that he wouldn't clean up after his damn cat.:d

That should be enough to extradite him!

Osborne Russell
04-11-2019, 11:47 AM
Did he ever leak anything about Russia, China, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Myanmar . . . this great lifter of veils over systematic violation of human rights by national governments?

C. Ross
04-11-2019, 12:08 PM
#17, #18: +1

What ever respect I had for him died some time ago. As far as I can see, he morphed into being a Russian asset. Screw him.

Yup. Started well ended badly.

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 12:14 PM
Agreed. The ends do not justify the means, and WikiLeaks has pursued immoral means since its inception, from what I can tell.

Would you feel the same if one or more of YOUR family members was part of the 12 that got slaughtered that day? Proud your nation tried hard to cover it up?

johnw
04-11-2019, 12:29 PM
Did he ever leak anything about Russia, China, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Myanmar . . . this great lifter of veils over systematic violation of human rights by national governments?
He's charged with computer hacking, not with publishing classified information. Legally, the question is not about what he published, but whether he broke the law to get the material.

Which is a bit of a surprise.

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 12:42 PM
Did he ever leak anything about Russia, China, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Myanmar . . . this great lifter of veils over systematic violation of human rights by national governments?

He had just released documents concerning the head of state from the country who had been giving him asylum, so either he has gone mad, or the truth is more important. It is obvious to most people that some states are not the democracies they pretend to be, but perhaps America seems to bear the brunt as its foreign policy of invading other countries, and then complaining about other countries militaries in Soveriegn nations by invitation is completely hypocritical. Its quite possible he has read cables that he has not disclosed publicly, there does seem to be some bad vibes between him and Clinton. And yes there was stuff posted about Putin and a money trail of Oligarchs. I see most people have already forgotten about journalist Kasshoggi getting cut up and the starving millions in Yemen, so why fuss about the 12 people killed? You have to ask yourself if you think state sponsered killing of journalists because of leaking embarrassing FACTS is a crime worthy of death, what value do you put on truth?

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 12:46 PM
He's charged with computer hacking, not with publishing classified information. Legally, the question is not about what he published, but whether he broke the law to get the material.

Which is a bit of a surprise.

So thats at most a 5 year stretch if he gets to be tried in a civilian court and not some secret military court in which case he will be wearing an orange jump suit and on his way to Cuba......

Osborne Russell
04-11-2019, 12:50 PM
He's charged with computer hacking, not with publishing classified information. Legally, the question is not about what he published, but whether he broke the law to get the material.

Which is a bit of a surprise.

That's what he's charged with. That doesn't mean that's all he did. His argument is that the publishing justifies the hacking. Whether he leaked anything about other countries is very germane to that argument. Whether he hacked other countries may or may not be.

Old Dryfoot
04-11-2019, 12:55 PM
Impeccable timing.

isla
04-11-2019, 01:04 PM
Did he ever leak anything about Russia, China, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Myanmar . . . this great lifter of veils over systematic violation of human rights by national governments?

I know that there are searchable databases of emails and government documents from Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 01:09 PM
Heís the Tang Tinted Turdís friend. He worked with the Russians on the Clinton emails.

Chelsea Manning is in jail in the USA for refusing to testify against him. I have more sympathy with Manning.

One of his Swedish victims is trying to get her case reinstated in Sweden.

How can you even logically suggest that? Its Trumps DOJ who have been working the last 2 years to get him extradited, and if Trump is in the pocket of Putin that many here want to believe, and as you believe had dealings with Russia and Clintons, why would Trump want to even do that? The speculation does not even pass the smell test.

isla
04-11-2019, 01:22 PM
How can you even logically suggest that? Its Trumps DOJ who have been working the last 2 years to get him extradited, and if Trump is in the pocket of Putin that many here want to believe, and as you believe had dealings with Russia and Clintons, why would Trump want to even do that? The speculation does not even pass the smell test.

How about (tinfoil hat time).. Trump gives Assange a couple of million bucks and a free pardon, and gets him to 'reveal' all sorts of unpleasant thing about Obama, Hillary, Mueller etc. in time for the 2020s?

Ted Hoppe
04-11-2019, 01:23 PM
Are we sure this isn't Jamie?

35339

Old Dryfoot
04-11-2019, 01:24 PM
How about (tinfoil hat time).. Trump gives Assange a couple of million bucks and a free pardon, and gets him to 'reveal' all sorts of unpleasant thing about Obama, Hillary, Mueller etc. in time for the 2020s?
Impeccable timing.

^^^

isla
04-11-2019, 01:26 PM
^ Quite so |:)

isla
04-11-2019, 01:31 PM
President Trump said on Thursday: “I know nothing about Wikileaks. It’s not my thing,” after he was asked about the organization in the aftermath of Julian Assange's arrest, per USA Today.

Reality check: Trump said he loved WikiLeaks at an October 2016 rally in Pennsylvania, according to The Hill. The Washington Post put together a video collection of all the times the president referenced WikiLeaks on the 2016 campaign trail.

Flashback: WikiLeaks sent Donald Trump Jr. a series of Twitter direct messages between September 2016 and 2017, with the president's son responding to some of the messages sent ahead of November's election.

https://www.axios.com/trump-assange-arrest-know-nothing-about-wikileaks-c1f094d6-4c1a-46fe-8502-8148187b8b44.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veRHG7xnb6k

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 01:39 PM
How about (tinfoil hat time).. Trump gives Assange a couple of million bucks and a free pardon, and gets him to 'reveal' all sorts of unpleasant thing about Obama, Hillary, Mueller etc. in time for the 2020s?

The dirt, or some of it, is already out there. Getting it to stick when you have a DOJ and politically biased FBI is another matter. And in some peoples eyes, some people can do no wrong despite all the bodies piling up. I would not dismiss any kind of deal out of hand, it appears its done all the time if you know the right people or line of credit.....

Canoez
04-11-2019, 01:42 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who pays you to post this?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-11-2019, 01:43 PM
Would you feel the same if one or more of YOUR family members was part of the 12 that got slaughtered that day? Proud your nation tried hard to cover it up?

Would you feel the same if one or more of YOUR family members was amongst the interpreters for NATO who were murdered because WikiLeaks published their names to the Taliban? Or donít brown Muslims count?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-11-2019, 01:45 PM
Are we sure this isn't Jamie?

35339

Jamie has a far better head of hair and is much better looking, as you might expect of a man who spends his time in the fresh air with wooden boats. Pshaw!

NickW
04-11-2019, 01:57 PM
The simplest thing would be to deport him back to his homeland, Australia, as an undesirable alien. Then if the USA want him, they can ask the Aussies.

Nick

epoxyboy
04-11-2019, 02:29 PM
Would you feel the same if one or more of YOUR family members was amongst the interpreters for NATO who were murdered because WikiLeaks published their names to the Taliban? Or donít brown Muslims count?
Well arguably, the "western coalition" should never have been in Afghanistan in the first place, and there shouldn't have been a need for interpreters - how far back do you want to go?
What are the chances that Assange gets a fair trial, as against a Gitmo style military kangaroo court? Or that any sort of trial happens in a remotely timely fashion. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't wish a US extradition on anyone, especially in what is now a highly politicized case.

Pete

skaraborgcraft
04-11-2019, 02:38 PM
Would you feel the same if one or more of YOUR family members was amongst the interpreters for NATO who were murdered because WikiLeaks published their names to the Taliban? Or don’t brown Muslims count?

Every life has value, but it would appear US foreign policy does not feel the same way. MILLIONS have died based on LIES.

Old Dryfoot
04-11-2019, 02:47 PM
MILLIONS have died based on LIES.

Twas ever thus. . .

johnw
04-11-2019, 03:04 PM
Would you feel the same if one or more of YOUR family members was amongst the interpreters for NATO who were murdered because WikiLeaks published their names to the Taliban? Or don’t brown Muslims count?
He certainly leaked information about bad acts, but he also leaked information that he had no business leaking. Wikileaks was so indiscriminate in its publication of information that even Edward Snowden was appalled.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
In July 2016, Edward Snowden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden) criticised WikiLeaks for insufficiently curating its content.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#cite_note-:8-28) When Snowden made data public, he did so by working with the Washington Post, the Guardian and other news organisations, choosing only to make documents public which exposed National Security Agency surveillance programs.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#cite_note-:8-28) Content that compromised national security or exposed sensitive personal information was withheld.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#cite_note-:8-28) WikiLeaks, on the other hand, makes little effort to remove sensitive personal information or withhold content with adverse national security implications. WikiLeaks responded by accusing Snowden of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#cite_note-:8-28)

Assauge was also hypocritical. He ran one of the most secretive organizations in the world. Transparency was for other people.

Osborne Russell
04-11-2019, 03:31 PM
I know that there are searchable databases of emails and government documents from Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Do they have some connection to wikileaks?

skuthorp
04-11-2019, 03:52 PM
On balance I'm with Ska on this. Politicians prove all the time their governments are not to be trusted. Let me quote the Vietnam conflicts and Iraq for a start, let alone the illegal goings on by the US in Sth America for well over 100 years.
But I'm not at all sure about Assange's mental state lately.

isla
04-11-2019, 05:10 PM
I know that there are searchable databases of emails and government documents from Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.


Do they have some connection to wikileaks?

Well they are ON wikileaks..

https://wikileaks.org/+-Government-+.html

Or more specifically..

Saudi:
https://wikileaks.org/saudi-cables/

Syria:
https://search.wikileaks.org/syria-files/

Turkey:
https://wikileaks.org//akp-emails/

skuthorp
04-11-2019, 05:40 PM
No wonder the US wants him buried………………..

old pathologist
04-11-2019, 06:20 PM
He does look really bad. I hope it is an act and not an indication on his mental and physical state
I think he's only 47 years old.

old pathologist
04-11-2019, 06:25 PM
Can this sudden eviction and subsequent arrest of Assange be related somehow to the Mueller probe and report?

skuthorp
04-11-2019, 06:30 PM
No, Assange was critical of Equador's new President.

I understand that the original extradition request e=was for a 'misuse of a carriage service' or some such, but once the US has him there will be new charges.
From the examples I see here I would not trust the US 'justice system' to be any sort of 'just' at all. It's been the playground of politics for far to long to be trusted at all.

Canoeyawl
04-11-2019, 07:44 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who pays you to post this?

He's Russian...

Art Haberland
04-11-2019, 07:45 PM
I think he's only 47 years old.

That's sad.. I am a year older and just now starting to get some gray.. though I have less hair. Tradeoffs, I imagine

Hallam
04-11-2019, 08:56 PM
The simplest thing would be to deport him back to his homeland, Australia, as an undesirable alien. Then if the USA want him, they can ask the Aussies.

Nick


........there would be a hell of a row back here! ..........but our politicians are well and truely bought.

Old Dryfoot
04-11-2019, 10:38 PM
So YOU judge a man, or person, on having GRAY hair??? Unbelievable !

Seriously?

https://bettergeorgia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/20150902-uv-trump-share-v2-CAUCUS-UPDATE-3.png

https://screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com/images/d2ff03e8-d2f8-41f0-8d4b-d41683342ad8.png

https://screenshotscdn.firefoxusercontent.com/images/cf9c7109-fc54-486f-8850-60abc6c99321.png

I could do this all night. . .

JayInOz
04-11-2019, 10:44 PM
So YOU judge a man, or person, on having GRAY hair??? Unbelievable !

It's spelled grey. I prefer to call mine antique blonde:) JayInOz

oznabrag
04-11-2019, 11:14 PM
No, Assange was critical of Equador's new President.

I understand that the original extradition request e=was for a 'misuse of a carriage service' or some such, but once the US has him there will be new charges.
From the examples I see here I would not trust the US 'justice system' to be any sort of 'just' at all. It's been the playground of politics for far to long to be trusted at all.

From what I heard on NPR earlier, that's not how extradition works.

If he's extradited to the US for misuse of a carriage service, then that is all he can be charged with.

Legally.

Of course, the William Barr DoJ hasn't upheld the law YET, so anything might happen.

skaraborgcraft
04-12-2019, 03:03 AM
He's Russian...

I would ask you, as i have asked others, to support that assertion, but as i know you cant, im afraid im going to have to say you are LYING. When people post this kind of garbage comment, is obviously why other people have maybe suggested i have ended up on "the popular" ignore list. So where do you get your wrong information?

Art Haberland
04-12-2019, 04:50 AM
So YOU judge a man, or person, on having GRAY hair??? Unbelievable !

I am more envious that he has more hair. If you must know, if you are going to take my comment the wrong way, I thought he was older than me, not a year younger. His time in hiding must have been hard considering how it aged him so quickly

JayInOz
04-12-2019, 05:39 AM
Why not correct Art? Speaks volumes, to me about what a hypocrite you are Jay!


Grey and gray are both accepted in the English language. They refer to a color of a neutral tone between black and white, and can also be used metaphorically to convey gloom and dullness. However, gray is the more popular spelling in the US, while greyreigns supreme in the UK.

Iíd say you are just a jacka$$, but Iíd prolly get banned, and yes Prolly, should be spelled probably. Youíre earned a spot with the others on ignore ! Good day kind sir , LOL, Rich Head !

Hahaha! You go Paul. Call me whatever you like:) You're a trump supporter- I can't think of a worse insult than that. JayInOz

skuthorp
04-12-2019, 05:49 AM
From what I heard on NPR earlier, that's not how extradition works.

If he's extradited to the US for misuse of a carriage service, then that is all he can be charged with.

Legally.

Of course, the William Barr DoJ hasn't upheld the law YET, so anything might happen.
News here was that new charges are being prepared, in anticipation perhaps?

Breakaway
04-12-2019, 06:38 AM
Assange has been gray for quite some time. Grey-haired; operate in lots of gray areas.

3538935390

Kevin

oznabrag
04-12-2019, 08:55 AM
I would ask you, as i have asked others, to support that assertion, but as i know you cant, im afraid im going to have to say you are LYING. When people post this kind of garbage comment, is obviously why other people have maybe suggested i have ended up on "the popular" ignore list. So where do you get your wrong information?

! ! !

Lew Barrett
04-12-2019, 09:52 AM
On balance I'm with Ska on this. Politicians prove all the time their governments are not to be trusted. Let me quote the Vietnam conflicts and Iraq for a start, let alone the illegal goings on by the US in Sth America for well over 100 years.
But I'm not at all sure about Assange's mental state lately.

It is possible for there to be two wrongs. There's the reprehensible US foreign policies we've observed here at length and then there's the indiscriminate theft and leaking of information that has no visible sense of balance. If you're going to condemn military adventures and the killing of innocents at weddings, would you not also be interested in revealing the inner secrets of what happened in Ukraine and Crimea, the willful downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, the ongoing meddling in foeign affairs and the jailing of dissidents in the former Soviet Union and the background behaviors associated with being a former KGB agent??

Whatever his motivations when he started out, he's no longer a neutral observer if indeed he ever was.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-12-2019, 11:13 AM
The best comment I have seen on this comes from a friend in the Philippines:

WikiLeaks started as a noble thing. Money and power corrupts everyone.

skaraborgcraft
04-12-2019, 12:47 PM
! ! !

35403

Canoeyawl
04-12-2019, 01:03 PM
I would ask you, as i have asked others, to support that assertion, but as i know you cant, im afraid im going to have to say you are LYING. When people post this kind of garbage comment, is obviously why other people have maybe suggested i have ended up on "the popular" ignore list. So where do you get your wrong information?

Can you prove you're not a Russian?

skaraborgcraft
04-12-2019, 01:11 PM
Can you prove you're not a Russian?

I was not the one making a false statement regarding another forum member, so for everyones benefit, please provide the substance of your evidence for why you wrote that.

Canoeyawl
04-12-2019, 01:18 PM
I was not the one making a false statement regarding another forum member, so for everyones benefit, please provide the substance of your evidence for why you wrote that.

It seems obvious.
You used to be not as reticent revealing your location.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/d7/ce/cfd7ce412e668e83f27149219eef4c76.gif

skaraborgcraft
04-12-2019, 01:28 PM
Let me kindly suggest something, as it is obvious you can at least read. Find a dictionary, or perhaps even Google the following two words, "location" and "nationality". Spend some time to take onboard the difference between the meanings. You can then apologize to your fellow forum members for spreading ill-informed untrue comments that were posted.

Take a leaf out of Oznas book, who wrote on another thread...

"This statement is completely devoid of factual basis, and is an egregious insult to your fellow forumites.


If you can not back that up with numerous citations, then I will have to assume that you are knowingly spreading falsehoods and denigrating the integrity of your fellow forumites ON PURPOSE.""

Hard to believe Ozna actually had the audacity to write that, as he lacks the compulsion to do just that, while expecting it from others, quite the hypocrite. I didnt expect the same from you.

Canoeyawl
04-12-2019, 02:08 PM
Let me kindly suggest something, as it is obvious you can at least read.

What makes you so sure I can read anything other than handwriting on the wall?

Katherine
04-12-2019, 02:11 PM
The best comment I have seen on this comes from a friend in the Philippines:

WikiLeaks started as a noble thing. Money and power corrupts everyone.That's kinda been my take on the whole thing too.

John of Phoenix
04-12-2019, 03:44 PM
So is he a russian? Lots of deflection in that but no answer. I bet he thinks he's tricky.

Canoeyawl
04-12-2019, 04:07 PM
So is he a russian? Lots of deflection in that but no answer. I bet he thinks he's tricky.

Well he used to be a Russian.
But Russians are now persona non grata so right now it's northern Europe.
They do seem tricky enough to know how naive the US population at large is.

johnw
04-12-2019, 07:45 PM
Whoa. Sounds like Assange was the house guest from hell.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/12/18307626/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-cat-poop

It is not clear to me whether the feces he smeared on the wall was his own or his cat's.

oznabrag
04-12-2019, 07:48 PM
Let me kindly suggest something, as it is obvious you can at least read. Find a dictionary, or perhaps even Google the following two words, "location" and "nationality". Spend some time to take onboard the difference between the meanings. You can then apologize to your fellow forum members for spreading ill-informed untrue comments that were posted.

Take a leaf out of Oznas book, who wrote on another thread...

"This statement is completely devoid of factual basis, and is an egregious insult to your fellow forumites.


If you can not back that up with numerous citations, then I will have to assume that you are knowingly spreading falsehoods and denigrating the integrity of your fellow forumites ON PURPOSE.""

Hard to believe Ozna actually had the audacity to write that, as he lacks the compulsion to do just that, while expecting it from others, quite the hypocrite. I didnt expect the same from you.

Pore li'l feller.

Old Dryfoot
04-12-2019, 07:52 PM
Whoa. Sounds like Assange was the house guest from hell.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/12/18307626/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-cat-poop

It is not clear to me whether the feces he smeared on the wall was his own or his cat's.

I hope someone looks after the cat.

johnw
04-12-2019, 10:04 PM
I hope someone looks after the cat.
Sounds like the embassy staff was already doing that. He wasn't even feeding it.

WX
04-12-2019, 11:17 PM
Well he used to be a Russian.
But Russians are now persona non grata so right now it's northern Europe.
They do seem tricky enough to know how naive the US population at large is.
Born: 3 July 1971 (age 47 years), Townsville City (https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&q=Townsville&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LSz9U3SDLLNoqvUuIEsQ0LTS1KtMSyk630C1LzC3JSgVRRcX6e VVJ-Ud4iVq6Q_PK84rLMnJxUAIwSyoM-AAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuy7fTmszhAhVFfH0KHSzXDlYQmxMoADAcegQID BA5)....which last time I looked is in northern Queensland Australia.

wizbang 13
04-13-2019, 03:17 AM
We immediately bring up his “mental state” and his cat?

isla
04-13-2019, 04:06 AM
Well he used to be a Russian.
But Russians are now persona non grata so right now it's northern Europe.
They do seem tricky enough to know how naive the US population at large is.


Born: 3 July 1971 (age 47 years), Townsville City (https://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&channel=ipad_bm&q=Townsville&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPgE-LSz9U3SDLLNoqvUuIEsQ0LTS1KtMSyk630C1LzC3JSgVRRcX6e VVJ-Ud4iVq6Q_PK84rLMnJxUAIwSyoM-AAAA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuy7fTmszhAhVFfH0KHSzXDlYQmxMoADAcegQID BA5)....which last time I looked is in northern Queensland Australia.

I think that comment was about Skaraborgcraft not Assange.

beernd
04-13-2019, 04:27 AM
I think that comment was about Skaraborgcraft not Assange.

Yep

skaraborgcraft
04-13-2019, 04:59 AM
Well he used to be a Russian.
But Russians are now persona non grata so right now it's northern Europe.
They do seem tricky enough to know how naive the US population at large is.

The only true part of that comment is "how naive the US population at large is", especially down here in the bilge where one persons wrong assertion is picked up and ran with, due in part most likely with the constant Russiaphobia spewed from your press, i guess you cant help being anything but brainwashed. It would not take much effort upstairs to find out where i am and what my nationality is.
Your casting assertions and trying hard to make someone be someone who they are not, which is quite relevant to how Assange has been demonized.
Following your logic, John of Phoenix must be a Vietnamese, because he was once over there for a period of time, is that right?.
I mentioned before on another thread how posting BS can get people killed. I will use an extreme example, such was the case that ended in killings, but if someone suggested online, in a public accesable forum that "hes a pedophile", following your logic, that person would be guilty unless he could prove otherwise? You sir have a very twisted logic on justice, ask yourself if you would want to be judged by YOUR version, guilty till proven innocent.

WX
04-13-2019, 08:03 AM
Assange may not be the nicest person but....
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47907890

Duncan Gibbs
04-13-2019, 08:59 AM
Peter Greste, a journalist with experience of being in a prison run by the government he was reporting on, has this opinion piece:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/assange-is-no-journalist-don-t-confuse-his-arrest-with-press-freedom-20190412-p51di1.html

I find myself in complete agreement with him.

Assange and Wikileaks had every potential of being an actual journalist and an actual news organisation, and when the 'Collateral Murder' video was released I thought it was of immense public interest, but then Assange and Wikileaks simply didn't follow through with all the work that is done by actual professional journalists working in an actual news organisation. And then he decided to effectively join the Trump campaign with the Hillary email dump. (Trump apparently mentioned and praised Wikileaks 141 seperate times during his campaign). For that I will never forgive him.

If he ever does come back to Australia, I hope our agents of the law find the appropriate book(s) to throw at him. Snivelling idiot.

He looked like some latter day Rasputin as he was being dragged from the embassy.

C. Ross
04-13-2019, 09:27 AM
Duncan’s right, as usual.

Real journalists can and should publish damning information, even if it is received from an unsavory source or means. The difference is that real journalists don’t just publish everything without some form of corroboration and some form of editing to remove information which would be damaging, like names of people who would be harmed (and in some cases were by Wikileaks).

Assange should be tried in the U.S. for hacking. His “journalism” activities should be protected, even though he could and should be liable for civil suits brought by people damaged by his irresponsible release of information. Hacking and journalism can be differentiated.

Peerie Maa
04-13-2019, 09:32 AM
Meanwhile
Julian Assange must face Swedish justice first - MPs and peers

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47917325)

C. Ross
04-13-2019, 09:43 AM
Meanwhile
Julian Assange must face Swedish justice first - MPs and peers

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47917325)

Sure Sweden first would be fine. Only problem is, Sweden does not have an extradition request or criminal complaint against him. That makes it a bit awkward.

Peerie Maa
04-13-2019, 09:53 AM
Sure Sweden first would be fine. Only problem is, Sweden does not have an extradition request or criminal complaint against him. That makes it a bit awkward.

Did you read the link?

Swedish prosecutors dropped a rape investigation into Assange in 2017 because they were unable to formally notify him of allegations while he stayed in the embassy.
Two other charges of molestation and unlawful coercion had to be dropped in 2015 because time had run out.
But Swedish prosecutors say they are now re-examining Assange's case (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47910820) at the request of the lawyer acting for the alleged rape victim.

and
Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864) because they were unable to proceed while he remained in the Ecuadorean embassy.
Assange also faced investigation for molestation and unlawful coercion, but these cases were dropped in 2015 because time had run out.
Prosecutors will now re-examine the rape case to decide whether to resume it before the statute of limitations runs out in August 2020.
Ms Massi Fritz, lawyer for the alleged victim, said the arrest came as a shock (https://twitter.com/ElisabethMFritz/status/1116292951125180416) but "what we have been waiting and hoping for since 2012 has now finally happened".
She said: "No rape victim should have to wait nine years to see justice be served."


They will most likely have one in place before he is released from his UK jail.

C. Ross
04-13-2019, 09:58 AM
Nick, I did read the link. But they haven’t filed either criminal charges or an extradition request yet, and one assumes the British court will consider the timing and precedence of the requests.

If there is a criminal complaint for sexual assault, it seems to me it should have high priority. But then I’m not a British judge. :)

Peerie Maa
04-13-2019, 12:45 PM
Nick, I did read the link. But they haven’t filed either criminal charges or an extradition request yet, and one assumes the British court will consider the timing and precedence of the requests.

If there is a criminal complaint for sexual assault, it seems to me it should have high priority. But then I’m not a British judge. :)

That is what the MP's and peers are saying. It is likely that if Sweden get their act together in time the Home Secretary may also think so. It should also be remembered that Assange sought sanctuary to avoid an extradition request by Sweden, so they are 7 years ahead in the timing stakes. ;)

johnw
04-13-2019, 04:56 PM
We immediately bring up his “mental state” and his cat?

Yes. They seem relevant to the decision to stop hosting him. Likewise, it seems relevant that he allegedly went to war against the president of his host country.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-ecuador-arrests-man-with-alleged-links-to-wikileaks

Osborne Russell
04-15-2019, 11:01 AM
The only true part of that comment is "how naive the US population at large is", especially down here in the bilge where one persons wrong assertion is picked up and ran with, due in part most likely with the constant Russiaphobia spewed from your press . . .

Uh huh.


In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution ... The new Eurasian empire will be constructed on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilizational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union.

ó The Basics of Geopolitics (1997)

-- wikipedia

Art Haberland
04-15-2019, 11:42 AM
Nick, I did read the link. But they haven’t filed either criminal charges or an extradition request yet, and one assumes the British court will consider the timing and precedence of the requests.

If there is a criminal complaint for sexual assault, it seems to me it should have high priority. But then I’m not a British judge. :)

If he had gone to Sweden, been found guilty, and served his time, He probably would have been either a free man or an almost free man now.

ERGR
04-15-2019, 01:26 PM
Our laws are not extreme. As a visitor you don't have to like them, just follow them. That also applies to celebrities with inflated egos. My guess is that Julian Assange would have faced a short prison term if he'd been found guilty, which isn't certain. Another celebrity, found guilty for worse sexual assaults, received 2 years. Maximum sentences are reserved for the worst crimes.
The possible extradition to the US is a legal issue. I doubt that either the US or the Swedish public (opposed to extradition) would have had any sympathy for the independence of our courts. Julian Assange is trouble, a UK trouble for the moment.
/Erik

johnw
04-15-2019, 02:35 PM
Our laws are not extreme. As a visitor you don't have to like them, just follow them. That also applies to celebrities with inflated egos. My guess is that Julian Assange would have faced a short prison term if he'd been found guilty, which isn't certain. Another celebrity, found guilty for worse sexual assaults, received 2 years. Maximum sentences are reserved for the worst crimes.
The possible extradition to the US is a legal issue. I doubt that either the US or the Swedish public (opposed to extradition) would have had any sympathy for the independence of our courts. Julian Assange is trouble, a UK trouble for the moment.
/Erik

Actually, men have been charged with rape in the U.S. for doing what Assange is alleged to have done in Sweden.

Osborne Russell
04-15-2019, 03:14 PM
I doubt that either the US or the Swedish public (opposed to extradition) would have had any sympathy for the independence of our courts.
/Erik

Why not? What kind of independence do you mean?

ERGR
04-15-2019, 11:58 PM
Sweden has signed treaties regarding extradition, made into law. The courts decide if extradition is legal or not. It's not a matter for the government, although I presume the government can stop an extradition. I don't expect my fellow Swedes to respect that an extradition or not is a legal issue that the government shouldn't interfere with. I also expect that the US would apply political pressure for an extradition, and not be satisfied to leave it to the Swedish courts to decide. I might be wrong regarding the US. You know your government better.

skaraborgcraft
04-16-2019, 01:52 AM
The affidavit in US v Julian Assange was signed the "same" day that the UK rejected Ecuador's attempt to grant him diplomatic status; would that be a coincidence?

johnw
04-16-2019, 01:23 PM
Sweden has signed treaties regarding extradition, made into law. The courts decide if extradition is legal or not. It's not a matter for the government, although I presume the government can stop an extradition. I don't expect my fellow Swedes to respect that an extradition or not is a legal issue that the government shouldn't interfere with. I also expect that the US would apply political pressure for an extradition, and not be satisfied to leave it to the Swedish courts to decide. I might be wrong regarding the US. You know your government better.
Well, we used to.

Osborne Russell
04-16-2019, 01:24 PM
Sweden has signed treaties regarding extradition, made into law. The courts decide if extradition is legal or not. It's not a matter for the government, although I presume the government can stop an extradition. I don't expect my fellow Swedes to respect that an extradition or not is a legal issue that the government shouldn't interfere with. I also expect that the US would apply political pressure for an extradition, and not be satisfied to leave it to the Swedish courts to decide. I might be wrong regarding the US. You know your government better.

The procedure for extradition is always legal. The decision to initiate extradition is prosecutorial, which is always political. If the police charge X speeding offenses in month 1, and are told to charge 2X, or .5, in month 2, it's political.

Osborne Russell
04-16-2019, 01:25 PM
The affidavit in US v Julian Assange was signed the "same" day that the UK rejected Ecuador's attempt to grant him diplomatic status; would that be a coincidence?

No.

skaraborgcraft
04-17-2019, 03:05 AM
https://youtu.be/1efOs0BsE0g

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 03:21 AM
Crude, but accurate.

I'll actually be surprised if the British extradite him to the USA. Whoever agrees to that will have to face all the other judges for rest of his career, being the chap who agreed that the USA has universal jurisdiction for crimes committed by non-citizens whilst not in the USA...

Extraditing him to Sweden, however...

What a mess.

skaraborgcraft
04-17-2019, 05:45 AM
There was a lot of posters here foaming at the mouth after the death of Anna Politkovskaya. It would appear that investigative journalists are not equal depending on what information they expose. No need to name the hypocrites, they know who they are.

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 06:08 AM
Journalism is dead. It was always a bit of a myth, given it relied upon advertising to exist, but it’s finally entirely defunct. The myth is exploded. Assange is one of the few who was truly independent, and now he’s facing prison while the mass of journos join in the defamation campaign being run by the CIA and MI6.

Craig Murray is good: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/04/chelsea-and-julian-are-in-jail-history-trembles/

skaraborgcraft
04-17-2019, 06:52 AM
I believe there will always be people like Craig Murray, who expose the truth. The sad part it is the platforms given the power to "rate" other sites as "trustworthy" are often the ones shown to be spreading their own propaganda, and bigly sad to see how effective it has been on many here; it would appear many would rather be told what to believe, than partake in critical thinking. No doubt a hard task given MSM power to influence thought. I would never take anything at face value from the BBC and i used to believe they were one of the more trustworthy sources, but just another government mouthpiece when push comes to shove, not independent. When the going gets tough....lie........

L.W. Baxter
04-17-2019, 07:11 AM
Simply publishing, wholesale, government secrets is not "journalism".

Journalism requires judgment, learning, and discretion. The selective exposure of something like the airstrike video, for instance, would be a valuable contribution to society. But the non-selective dump of an entire database, exposing the inner workings of a nation's diplomatic efforts, etc., is simply anarchic, bordering on vandalism. Particularly true when no similar exposure of rival nation's inner workings is ever attempted.

Likewise, selective exposure of correspondence between party officials demonstrating a particular corruption would be useful, especially if balanced by similar exposure of other parties. But the Clinton email dump was not journalism. It was simple theft and was, itself, worse political corruption than what was "exposed".

skaraborgcraft
04-17-2019, 07:15 AM
I didnt see any charges from the DNC on his charge sheet for that alledged theft.......do you think if Assange makes it to US territory, charges might be filed?

L.W. Baxter
04-17-2019, 07:27 AM
The DNC is not a prosecutorial body. They can't charge anybody with anything.

The current executive branch administration in the U.S. wouldn't raise a finger for a democratic principle. So there's that.

L.W. Baxter
04-17-2019, 07:40 AM
Would further point out that the sitting POTUS explicitly requested the theft and publication of his political rival's electronic correspondence.

All bets are off as to how the Assange case is handled by this administration. Except the bet that it won't be any more judicious and even-handed than anything else it has done.

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 08:35 AM
Simply publishing, wholesale, government secrets is not "journalism".

Journalism requires judgment, learning, and discretion. The selective exposure of something like the airstrike video, for instance, would be a valuable contribution to society. But the non-selective dump of an entire database, exposing the inner workings of a nation's diplomatic efforts, etc., is simply anarchic, bordering on vandalism. Particularly true when no similar exposure of rival nation's inner workings is ever attempted.

Likewise, selective exposure of correspondence between party officials demonstrating a particular corruption would be useful, especially if balanced by similar exposure of other parties. But the Clinton email dump was not journalism. It was simple theft and was, itself, worse political corruption than what was "exposed".

You make good points, however...

“Simply publishing, wholesale, government secrets is not "journalism".”

Simply publishing, wholesale, government PRESS RELEASES is not "journalism" either, but that’s about all that the media do these days on foreign affairs, military matters, and a raft of other subjects. This produces a reaction. Assange and co. and those who support him are examples of that reaction. It’s healthy. Much healthier that the abject servitude to the rich and powerful that the media displays every moment.

What do you think?

L.W. Baxter
04-17-2019, 08:38 AM
You make good points, however...

ďSimply publishing, wholesale, government secrets is not "journalism".Ē

Simply publishing, wholesale, government PRESS RELEASES is not "journalism" either, but thatís about all that the media do these days on foreign affairs, military matters, and a raft of other subjects. This produces a reaction. Assange and co. and those who support him are examples of that reaction. Itís healthy. Much healthier that the abject servitude to the rich and powerful that the media displays every moment.

What do you think?

I think "the media" is a meme that simplifies something complex, that makes into an abstract and easily manipulated concept something that is manifold and requires discernment to understand.

There's no such thing as "the media". Talking about something that doesn't exist is no way to reach a valid conclusion about the real world.

The Bigfella
04-17-2019, 08:44 AM
You make good points, however...

ďSimply publishing, wholesale, government secrets is not "journalism".Ē

Simply publishing, wholesale, government PRESS RELEASES is not "journalism" either, but thatís about all that the media do these days on foreign affairs, military matters, and a raft of other subjects. This produces a reaction. Assange and co. and those who support him are examples of that reaction. Itís healthy. Much healthier that the abject servitude to the rich and powerful that the media displays every moment.

What do you think?

I think your commentary is reactionary piffle.

I was, in a past life, before becoming a restaurateur, publican, and general dog'sbody... the general manager of a listed publishing company. Sure, we received those press releases.... but that doesn't mean we (and the journals of today) didn't do critical analysis and report breaking stories. We had an immense range of sources... and we used them. Your comments show either a total misunderstanding of journalism, or a desire to denigrate. Either way, you are diminished by your comments.

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 08:55 AM
BF and LWB, think Iraq and WMDs. The exceptions, and there were exceptions, only proved the rule.

Of course, I do personally know one neocon who maintains that there were WMDs and the US found them and kept them secret because otherwise all the other tinpot dictators would realise how easy it must be to get WMDs. I kid you not. But he’s also an exception that proves a rule.

The Bigfella
04-17-2019, 09:16 AM
BF and LWB, think Iraq and WMDs. The exceptions, and there were exceptions, only proved the rule.

Of course, I do personally know one neocon who maintains that there were WMDs and the US found them and kept them secret because otherwise all the other tinpot dictators would realise how easy it must be to get WMDs. I kid you not. But heís also an exception that proves a rule.

What's that got to do with your slagging of modern journalism?

Lew Barrett
04-17-2019, 12:52 PM
I think "the media" is a meme that simplifies something complex, that makes into an abstract and easily manipulated concept something that is manifold and requires discernment to understand.

There's no such thing as "the media". Talking about something that doesn't exist is no way to reach a valid conclusion about the real world.

Needs to be said and repeated every time somebody says "the media." . "The media has....." is one of their big lies. As if there is anything universal in the way news and views are disseminated, especially in the 'net era.

L.W. Baxter
04-17-2019, 01:20 PM
BF and LWB, think Iraq and WMDs. The exceptions, and there were exceptions, only proved the rule.

Of course, I do personally know one neocon who maintains that there were WMDs and the US found them and kept them secret because otherwise all the other tinpot dictators would realise how easy it must be to get WMDs. I kid you not. But he’s also an exception that proves a rule.

Actually, as I recall, plenty of mainstream news sources were skeptical of the WMD in Iraq notion. I recall being convinced that Hans Blix was telling the truth and the Bush administration was not, well before the war started. The only way I could have formed an opinion at all would have been through consumption of reportage and opinion from numerous sources, applying reason and discernment as any consumer of news must do.

You can tell a simplified story to yourself if you want, but you are not describing reality, so much as shaping a version of it for your own purposes.

johnw
04-17-2019, 04:05 PM
Actually, as I recall, plenty of mainstream news sources were skeptical of the WMD in Iraq notion. I recall being convinced that Hans Blix was telling the truth and the Bush administration was not, well before the war started. The only way I could have formed an opinion at all would have been through consumption of reportage and opinion from numerous sources, applying reason and discernment as any consumer of news must do.

You can tell a simplified story to yourself if you want, but you are not describing reality, so much as shaping a version of it for your own purposes.
Same here. There was plenty of good journalism out there for those willing to believe it, especially from the Knight-Ridder newspapers. There were outlets that became obsessed with their access to the newsmakers, and they got taken in. I think the real problem was that people were inclined to believe their government. Foolish, really.

Duncan Gibbs
04-17-2019, 07:36 PM
There was a lot of posters here foaming at the mouth after the death of Anna Politkovskaya. It would appear that investigative journalists are not equal depending on what information they expose. No need to name the hypocrites, they know who they are.
Assange is not a journalist. He could have been one if he'd actually understood exactly what journalism is and done the hard yards that are involved in proper reportage and analysis. Considering his sources, he could have been a great journalist if he'd applied himself.

But he didn't. All he is at the end of the day is a hacker who started off with good intentions (a hacker whom I've previously defended, based on the 'Collateral Murder' report), but ended up being a douche who likes to have sex with women whilst they sleep, and a douche that simply likes to take a trove of secret documents and dump them into the public domain without a single piece of analysis, thoughtful redaction to protect people that were harmed by the release of the documents.

Go back and read the Peter Greste article I linked to and then come back and tell me if you can, in all seriousness, equate Anna Politkovskaya and Assange.

At the bedrock of good journalism is the ethical judgement on what to publish and what not to publish. Assange didn't make any such decision: He simply got information, some of which was very much in the public interest, but he thoughtlessly dumped it all into the public domain.

Duncan Gibbs
04-17-2019, 07:54 PM
You make good points, however...

“Simply publishing, wholesale, government secrets is not "journalism".”

Simply publishing, wholesale, government PRESS RELEASES is not "journalism" either, but that’s about all that the media do these days on foreign affairs, military matters, and a raft of other subjects. This produces a reaction. Assange and co. and those who support him are examples of that reaction. It’s healthy. Much healthier that the abject servitude to the rich and powerful that the media displays every moment.

What do you think?
I think you need to read the Peter Greste article as well. It has references to what makes good journalism and examples of such.

Is it possible you could take off your blinkers and agree on what kind of benchmarks signify who is a journalist and who is not?

I could call myself a golf expert, but that would be complete BS. Just because Assange and his supporters call him a journalist doesn't make him one.

Cue that line from Life of Brian...

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 08:35 PM
Duncan, do you think that to count as a journalist one has to be a good journalist? That’s going to shrink the pool, eh?

He’s not much of a journalist compared with the legends, but he is precisely a journalist. He’s also a publisher. Think about it this way, if press freedom is limited by how responsible or moral the government considers any given outlet, where is the line?

I think Murdoch is a fiend. He’s a bad publisher, without discernible morals, and he compromises the ethics and professional standards of his journalists. Should a future Democrat administration seek to shut him down, how would you argue against that?

Regards,
John

johnw
04-17-2019, 08:50 PM
Duncan, do you think that to count as a journalist one has to be a good journalist? That’s going to shrink the pool, eh?

He’s not much of a journalist compared with the legends, but he is precisely a journalist. He’s also a publisher. Think about it this way, if press freedom is limited by how responsible or moral the government considers any given outlet, where is the line?

I think Murdoch is a fiend. He’s a bad publisher, without discernible morals, and he compromises the ethics and professional standards of his journalists. Should a future Democrat administration seek to shut him down, how would you argue against that?

Regards,
John

Assange deals entirely in stolen material. Do you think Murdoch does as well? And Assange is not charged with publishing the wrong thing, he is charged with stealing the material he published. Given the structure of American laws, it's unlikely Assange could be successfully prosecuted for what he published. That's why they chose not to charge him based on that.

Osborne Russell
04-17-2019, 08:57 PM
There was a lot of posters here foaming at the mouth after the death of Anna Politkovskaya. It would appear that investigative journalists are not equal depending on what information they expose. No need to name the hypocrites, they know who they are.

Not me but thanks for pointing out another chapter in the story of the Putin Goon Squad.


It was her reporting from Chechnya that made Politkovskaya's national and international reputation. For seven years she refused to give up reporting on the war despite numerous acts of intimidation and violence. Anna was arrested by Russian military forces in Chechnya and subjected to a mock execution. She was poisoned while flying from Moscow via Rostov-on-Don to help resolve the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis, and had to turn back, requiring careful medical treatment in Moscow to restore her health.

For you see she was a journalist and a published author.


Politkovskaya worked for Izvestia from 1982 to 1993 as a reporter and editor of the emergencies and accidents section. From 1994 to 1999, she worked as the assistant chief editor of Obshchaya Gazeta, headed by Yegor Yakovlev, where she wrote frequently about social problems, particularly the plight of refugees. From June 1999 to 2006, she wrote columns for the biweekly Novaya Gazeta, a newspaper with strong investigative reporting that was critical of the new post-Soviet regime from the outset. She published several award-winning books about Chechnya, life in Russia, and Russia under Vladimir Putin, including Putin's Russia.

Duncan Gibbs
04-17-2019, 09:26 PM
Duncan, do you think that to count as a journalist one has to be a good journalist? That’s going to shrink the pool, eh?
To be counted as a journalist you need to actually do the work of one. Assange has done no such thing.

Where is his actual writing? Aside from information dumps, I can't find a single article he's written, other than the briefest of prefaces to the dumps.

I could source/steal information and dump it into the public domain without any analysis or commentary, and I very much doubt I'd be called a journalist.

To play golf you need to use golf clubs, not cricket bats. Ya folla?

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 09:42 PM
Assange deals entirely in stolen material.

What's that "entirely" word got to do with it? The Pentagon Papers were stolen.


Do you think Murdoch does as well? I think you may have missed the point. The issue was whether Assange is a journalist (and publisher). Are you arguing that he isn't either if he doesn't publish any non-stolen material?

He's a journalist and publisher specialising in whistle-blower materials. Of course his material is stolen.


And Assange is not charged with publishing the wrong thing, he is charged with stealing the material he published. Given the structure of American laws, it's unlikely Assange could be successfully prosecuted for what he published. That's why they chose not to charge him based on that.

Watch that space. I doubt they'll run a prosecution based upon him committing a crime for which he was not within the relevant jurisdiction, they'll swap it for something else when appropriate (and I seriously doubt it will be for "publishing the wrong thing" either). This current charge is just to give people out here in the real world a hook to to think he has actually done something plausibly wrong (as the rape allegations are just PR to smear him). We're being subjected to a propaganda campaign by a couple of governments. This is not new, it's entirely generic, normal, common, not even controversial. Some journalists cooperate ignorantly, others are in on the game (e.g. Luke Harding at The Guardian, who is an MI6 mouthpiece).

Full disclosure - I don't personally like Assange, nor do I think I would find much to agree with in his politics. I'm just a sceptic, especially when it comes to "official" narratives pushed by commercial media. Ironically, government-owned media is better, at least in this country. (I don't believe the official JFK conspiracy theory either. And I have no affection, or even much respect, for JFK. He authorised the coup against Diem, which got Diem killed, and JFK himself was killed twenty days later. Live by the sword...)

Regards,
John.

Aquinian
04-17-2019, 09:48 PM
To be counted as a journalist you need to actually do the work of one. Assange has done no such thing.

Where is his actual writing? Aside from information dumps, I can't find a single article he's written, other than the briefest of prefaces to the dumps.

I could source/steal information and dump it into the public domain without any analysis or commentary, and I very much doubt I'd be called a journalist.

To play golf you need to use golf clubs, not cricket bats. Ya folla?

Yes, Duncan, but I think it's a semantic point, not substantive. Any given journo with a hot document could publish it without commentary, except a preface that says, "This speaks for itself." Would you say that wasn't journalism? His journalism is whistle-blower journalism, where the key thing is to get the docs out.

In any case, my point is that other news organisations should be defending his rights, as they are indistinguishable from their own rights, and I really don't think depriving him of the title "journalist" will get you anywhere arguing against that. We could speak of him as a "publisher" only, and the point would stand.

Regards,
John.

Duncan Gibbs
04-17-2019, 11:11 PM
Yes, Duncan, but I think it's a semantic point, not substantive. Any given journo with a hot document could publish it without commentary, except a preface that says, "This speaks for itself." Would you say that wasn't journalism? His journalism is whistle-blower journalism, where the key thing is to get the docs out.

In any case, my point is that other news organisations should be defending his rights, as they are indistinguishable from their own rights, and I really don't think depriving him of the title "journalist" will get you anywhere arguing against that. We could speak of him as a "publisher" only, and the point would stand.

Regards,
John.
Utter tosh and nonsense.

For anyone to claim the title of 'Journalist' they really need to have actually written something. Assange hasn't. He's not a journalist.

On the point of who is and isn't a journalist I will take Peter Greste's definition and opinion any day of the century over yours.

The idea he's a publisher is also questionable, as I seriously doubt any of the types of curatorial and editorial practices that publishers employ on a daily basis are part of the Wikileaks practice.

As I have repeated, Assange and Wikileaks have had every opportunity to demonstrate this with the material they had at hand which is clearly public interest material. Since you have appeared to have roundly ignored reading the Greste article here's his comparison that torpedoes your "semantic" argument:


In 2015, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists got hold of more than 11 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. But the ICIJ did not simply publish and be damned. Instead, it compiled a team of journalists from 107 news organisations across 80 countries, who then spent more than a year going through that vast trove. They carefully dug out evidence that confirmed corruption, tax evasion and the evasion of international sanctions by some of the worldís most powerful business and political elites.

It was long, hard and expensive work, but it was also journalism at its finest, fulfilling its watchdog role by fearlessly holding the powerful to account and doing its best to protect the privacy of those who were doing nothing wrong.

Julian Assange did none of that, so he cannot claim to be a journalist or hide behind arguments in support of press freedom. The distinction matters because of the way the digital revolution has confused the definitions of what journalism is and its role in a democracy.

We at the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom are committed to restoring public trust in journalism, which can only ever happen if its practitioners work with responsibility and respect. It has never been about opening up a hosepipe of information regardless of the consequences.

Aquinian
04-18-2019, 01:01 AM
Utter tosh and nonsense.

Maybe, but it isn't obvious that it is. Again, I'm not defending Assange in toto, I'm arguing that if he is fair game, then so is every journalist and publisher. I did read the Greste article. Unless I am misunderstanding something, it posits that unless you qualify as having met his definition of journalist, you don't deserve any protection. I respect his courage and integrity, but I don't see how he expects the line to be drawn. Think about the "sorting" process he expects to see, the decision-making about what to release and what not to release. Is he claiming that Wikileaks has published every document it ever received? I doubt it, and I doubt they have. They would receive countless leaks daily, much of it rubbish (personal fights, stuff already out there, whatever). So, why allege that no sorting occurs? And if some occurs, but not as much as the NYT does, where's the line?

I agree that Wikileaks is governed by a silly libertarian philosophy, but so are countless members of the public, and especially this forum. Look at the stuff on the Mueller report, for example. Any redactions are not be trusted because, you know, we can't trust the (this?) government. So Peter Greste has a different, more sensible, philosophy, which I happen to agree with, but I don't see that it can be applied to the question of who deserves "press freedom" protection without a great deal more explanation, and it's not in his article or on the Web site: https://www.journalistsfreedom.com/

OK, so much for that argument (an argument about principles), but quite distinct from it is the question of fact. Is it actually true that Wikileaks didn't edit the documents it released? Several indications are that Wikileaks did edit the documents. For example: "US generals have accused WikiLeaks of wholesale leaking that does too little to protect informants and the identities of Afghan villagers who co-operated with US and British forces.

"Assange has riposted that it is US soldiers who have "blood on their hands" and he is seeking to edit sensitive files before posting them online." From: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/22/wikileaks-julian-assange-sweden

Here's another: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/apr/10/wikileaks-david-leigh-luke-harding-review Quote: "Sarah Palin unthinkingly asserts that Assange has "blood on his hands". She argues that he should be pursued like the Taliban and al-Qaida (ie executed without trial). Yet even the Pentagon admits that there is no evidence that his revelations have resulted in bloodshed."

Peter Greste himself doesn't seem to be entirely informed about the facts. He writes, "Instead of sorting through the hundreds of thousands of files to seek out the most important or relevant and protect the innocent, he dumped them all onto his website, free for anybody to go through, regardless of their contents or the impact they might have had. Some exposed the names of Afghans who had been giving information on the Taliban to US forces."

However, Bloomberg tells us, "And even in 2010 when Assange helped Manning steal and transfer the State Department cables it later exposed, he worked with media organizations to report out the raw material his source provided." From: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-17/is-julian-assange-a-journalist-it-depends-what-year-you-ask

As for the allegation that Assange actually published the names of Afghan translators, here's what a hit piece on Assange says about that: "They persuaded Assange to remove names before publishing the State Department Afghanistan cables. But Assange's disillusioned associates suggest that the failure to expose "informants" niggled in his mind." From: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-nick-cohen

So, The Guardian says the names were not published. So, were the names published, or not? Several posters here alleged that they were (e.g. YOU: "a douche that simply likes to take a trove of secret documents and dump them into the public domain without a single piece of analysis, thoughtful redaction to protect people that were harmed by the release of the documents."). Where did you get that information? Do you agree, at least, that it's hardly a secure and reliable statement of fact?


For anyone to claim the title of 'Journalist' they really need to have actually written something. Assange hasn't. He's not a journalist.

On the point of who is and isn't a journalist I will take Peter Greste's definition and opinion any day of the century over yours.

Fair enough, but that's not the point. Greste is not the only journalist with a view, nor is his view shared by all. Do we need to multiply links to dissenting views, or can we agree that your appeal to authority is vacuous?

Regards,
John.

PS It isn't true, as many here have said, that Wikileaks published the anti-Moreno material. They merely pointed to it after it had been published by others.

Aquinian
04-18-2019, 01:21 AM
Assange on his own operation, dealing with whether he's written anything (he has) or be called a journalist, and lo and behold, on editing documents before release: https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks


Mr Assange,Can you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the release of cable or are they randomly selected?
Thank you.


Julian Assange:
The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.

I think Peter Greste, and some others, need to do more research.

Regards,
John.

skaraborgcraft
04-18-2019, 01:32 AM
Assange is not a journalist.


.

You might want to get onto these people with your bombshell expose Duncan.

Honours and awards

2008, The Economist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_(magazine)) New Media Award[369] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-369)
2009, Amnesty International UK Media Awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International_UK_Media_Awards)[370] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-370)
2010, Time Person of the Year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year), Reader's Choice[371] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-371)
2010, Sam Adams Award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award)[372] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-372)
2010, Le Monde Readers' Choice Award for Person of the Year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde)[373] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-373)
2011, Free Dacia Award[374] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-374)
2011, Sydney Peace Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Peace_Prize) Gold Medal[375] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-375)
2011, Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Gellhorn_Prize_for_Journalism)[376] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-376)
2011, Voltaire Award for Free Speech[377] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-377)
2012, Big Brother Award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_Awards) Italy 2012 "Hero of Privacy"[378] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-378)
2013, Global Exchange Human Rights Award, People's Choice[379] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-379)
2013, Yoko Ono Lennon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoko_Ono_Lennon) Courage Award for the Arts[380] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-380)
2013, New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films Silver World Medal[381] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-381)
2014, Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize[382] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#cite_note-382)


Julian Assange Wins 2019 EU Journalism Award | News | teleSUR ...
https://www.telesurenglish.net/.../Julian-Assange-Wins-2019-EU-Journalism-Award-2 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiGxsLigNnhAhXrw8QBHRejDw0QFjALegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telesurenglish.net%2Fnews%2F Julian-Assange-Wins-2019-EU-Journalism-Award-20190416-0035.html&usg=AOvVaw2fqtdf4mnXbbEA8Jdto2yi)...
1 day ago - The award is given to individuals "uncovering the truth and exposing it ......

Just like you wrote Duncan, just because YOU claim he is not a journalist, it would appear he has been nominated BY JOURNALISTS for his work. Your attempt to discredit is an abject failure.

Duncan Gibbs
04-18-2019, 06:42 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PwNue4C_g8

Duncan Gibbs
04-18-2019, 08:30 AM
Maybe, but it isn't obvious that it is. Again, I'm not defending Assange in toto, I'm arguing that if he is fair game, then so is every journalist and publisher. I did read the Greste article. Unless I am misunderstanding something, it posits that unless you qualify as having met his definition of journalist, you don't deserve any protection. I respect his courage and integrity, but I don't see how he expects the line to be drawn. Think about the "sorting" process he expects to see, the decision-making about what to release and what not to release. Is he claiming that Wikileaks has published every document it ever received? I doubt it, and I doubt they have. They would receive countless leaks daily, much of it rubbish (personal fights, stuff already out there, whatever). So, why allege that no sorting occurs? And if some occurs, but not as much as the NYT does, where's the line?

I think Greste made abundantly clear what was the line. I had a good look through the Afghanistan documents and there was all sorts of information there that would have been a big bonus for the Taliban such as times of operations, routes taken, rotations, and a heap of names that weren't redacted that had nothing untoward associated with their behaviour in the theatre of war. Try reading this bit again:


In 2015, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists got hold of more than 11 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. But the ICIJ did not simply publish and be damned. Instead, it compiled a team of journalists from 107 news organisations across 80 countries, who then spent more than a year going through that vast trove. They carefully dug out evidence that confirmed corruption, tax evasion and the evasion of international sanctions by some of the world’s most powerful business and political elites.
It was long, hard and expensive work, but it was also journalism at its finest, fulfilling its watchdog role by fearlessly holding the powerful to account and doing its best to protect the privacy of those who were doing nothing wrong.

This is what Assange and Wikileaks has never done. At best they've gone through and blanked out a few names here and there, but to someone used to dealing with the importance of the context of a situation I can say that the material I read on the Afghanistan War Logs (AWL) provided enough information for someone with half a brain to put two and two together to be able to find out who it was.
Most of it was pretty useless stuff to release anyway.*

Stuff like Collateral Murder was totally on the mark, and I'm in 100% agreeance with the sentiments he expressed early on and was a vocal supporter of his work then. I still support those sentiments, but I found reading the AWL to be disturbing, but not for the reason Assange states. My opinion of his work turned then. Since then all the other events have basically further diminished my opinion of him. He SHOULD go to Sweden and face justice there. If he'd done so in the first place, and even if he'd been convicted, he'd most likely be a free man today. He would never have been extradited from Australia. Even if he got back here now, it would be political suicide for any Australian government to acquiesce to such a request.

I agree that Wikileaks is governed by a silly libertarian philosophy, but so are countless members of the public, and especially this forum. Look at the stuff on the Mueller report, for example. Any redactions are not be trusted because, you know, we can't trust the (this?) government.
I would expect a fully un-redacted Mueller Report to be released to the public. I would expect that the Congress should have an un-redacted version though. Wouldn't you? Or is that distinction also too fine grained for you as well?


[snip] So, The Guardian says the names were not published. So, were the names published, or not? Several posters here alleged that they were (e.g. YOU: "a douche that simply likes to take a trove of secret documents and dump them into the public domain without a single piece of analysis, thoughtful redaction to protect people that were harmed by the release of the documents."). Where did you get that information? Do you agree, at least, that it's hardly a secure and reliable statement of fact?
I read the AWLs. I saw what he'd published. See above. *




http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Duncan Gibbs http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5871396#post5871396)For anyone to claim the title of 'Journalist' they really need to have actually written something. Assange hasn't. He's not a journalist.


On the point of who is and isn't a journalist I will take Peter Greste's definition and opinion any day of the century over yours.
Fair enough, but that's not the point. Greste is not the only journalist with a view, nor is his view shared by all. Do we need to multiply links to dissenting views, or can we agree that your appeal to authority is vacuous?
He's penned a few books so I guess that makes him an author, but I've never seen an actual article he's written. Ever, so I think it's entirely the point. The preface to AWLs was more a guide to how the data was arranged, without any reference to where the really important bits of it were, nor simply getting rid of the chaff that was of precisely zero interest to anyone. Plus the the type of background operational information still present that any decent analyst within the Taliban could make use of.

This from your Guardian piece really stood out as a demonstration of exactly how arrogant, lazy, obtuse and un-journalistic Assange actually is:


JAnthony
Julian.
I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the
protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.
In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.
My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.
Julian Assange:


If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.
The guy is scum. Wikileaks for all its high-blown moralising is one of the least transparent organisations, and also highly litigious.

Duncan Gibbs
04-18-2019, 09:14 AM
Assange on his own operation, dealing with whether he's written anything (he has) or be called a journalist, and lo and behold, on editing documents before release: https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks


Mr Assange,Can you explain the censorship of identities as XXXXX's in the revealed cables? Some critical identities are left as is, whereas some are XXXXX'd. Some cables are partially revealed. Who can make such critical decisons, but the US gov't? As far as we know your request for such help was rejected by the State department. Also is there an order in the release of cable or are they randomly selected?
Thank you.

Julian Assange:
The cables we have release correspond to stories released by our main stream media partners and ourselves. They have been redacted by the journalists working on the stories, as these people must know the material well in order to write about it. The redactions are then reviewed by at least one other journalist or editor, and we review samples supplied by the other organisations to make sure the process is working.

I think Peter Greste, and some others, need to do more research.

Regards,
John.
I think you should also read what Assange just wrote. Wikieaks doesn't do any of the work, but merely act as a data supply agency for actual journalists to do the work of sorting through the information.

I think you should pay attention to Peter Greste's opinion on this issue, since, of anyone quoted on this thread he's the only one who has been 'convicted' and imprisoned for doing his job.

Duncan Gibbs
04-18-2019, 09:28 AM
Just like you wrote Duncan, just because YOU claim he is not a journalist, it would appear he has been nominated BY JOURNALISTS for his work. Your attempt to discredit is an abject failure.
Whatever you want to reckon. Two of the awards are for simple notoriety, several others minor/unknown awards, but I grant that there are significant figures and organisations who do support him. He is divisive at best now.

Like I've always said I support the ultimate aims of Wikileaks, but the methods are sloppy, and the scope of the leaks questionable, the work needed to pick out the really important stuff not done, or left to others, the transparency of Wikileaks non-existant making its demands for others to do so hypocritical, and the associations it's developed with Chinese and Russian intelligence organisations highly dubious. Assange's claims to have altered the outcome of the Kenyan elections take him well beyond journalism into the realm of player, like Murdoch. And you might guess at what my opinion is of Uncle Rupert and his bunch of shills and RWW spruikers.

Aquinian
04-18-2019, 10:21 AM
Hey Duncan, I will see you after Easter, all the best until then.

Regards,
John.

Duncan Gibbs
04-18-2019, 10:39 AM
Hey Duncan, I will see you after Easter, all the best until then.

Regards,
John.
Happy Easter to you too John. Hope you have some nice things lined up to do!

I'm going to enjoy not having to make and receive work calls! Some gardening, some shed cleaning and some drawing for a couple of projects.

johnw
04-18-2019, 04:18 PM
What's that "entirely" word got to do with it? The Pentagon Papers were stolen.

I think you may have missed the point. The issue was whether Assange is a journalist (and publisher). Are you arguing that he isn't either if he doesn't publish any non-stolen material?

He's a journalist and publisher specialising in whistle-blower materials. Of course his material is stolen.



Watch that space. I doubt they'll run a prosecution based upon him committing a crime for which he was not within the relevant jurisdiction, they'll swap it for something else when appropriate (and I seriously doubt it will be for "publishing the wrong thing" either). This current charge is just to give people out here in the real world a hook to to think he has actually done something plausibly wrong (as the rape allegations are just PR to smear him). We're being subjected to a propaganda campaign by a couple of governments. This is not new, it's entirely generic, normal, common, not even controversial. Some journalists cooperate ignorantly, others are in on the game (e.g. Luke Harding at The Guardian, who is an MI6 mouthpiece).

Full disclosure - I don't personally like Assange, nor do I think I would find much to agree with in his politics. I'm just a sceptic, especially when it comes to "official" narratives pushed by commercial media. Ironically, government-owned media is better, at least in this country. (I don't believe the official JFK conspiracy theory either. And I have no affection, or even much respect, for JFK. He authorised the coup against Diem, which got Diem killed, and JFK himself was killed twenty days later. Live by the sword...)

Regards,
John.
Now, that's just silly. In the modern era, crimes like this can easily cross borders. The Mueller investigation indicted 33 Russian nationals, none of them resident in the U.S. The line Assange crossed was helping Manning steal classified documents.

You and Duncan seem obsessed with whether to call Assange a journalist. Call him one if you wish, what he did is still illegal. You like to compare him to Rupert Murdoch. Well, Murdoch's News of the World got in trouble for hacking cell phones to steal information, and it resulted in the closure of that publication, the withdrawal of Murdoch's bid for BSkyB, and eight people being convicted of crimes. Being called a journalist does not excuse you from obeying the law.

Here's a list of those arrested and convicted in that scandal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_arrested_in_the_News_International_ phone-hacking_scandal


Before I became a bookseller, I had a career as a journalist, and I can assure you, I never figured I could steal information and get away with it, even aside from the ethical concerns. You clearly don't understand the legal fallout of the Pentagon Papers case. You can publish information someone else has stolen, as long as you are not involved in the theft, but Assange is alleged to have crossed a line by helping Manning with the theft. As a journalist, I never stole information, never urged anyone to steal information, and never helped anyone figure out how to steal information. That's a line you just don't cross.

Some of Murdoch's employees crossed that line and paid the price. Why should Assange be treated differently?

Juan
04-18-2019, 04:29 PM
In summary

The servants have to be obedient, hardworking, honest and holy, and the powerful ones have the right granted by the gods to kill, enslave and extract taxes

Well

What we already knew from the time of Tutmoses III, Pharaoh of Egypt