Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 188

Thread: Varoufakis on Assange.

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    27,036

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by LarixMaximus View Post
    Where did you gain your knowledge that Assange is not a journalist?

    According to the source that you pointed others to for information, "Wikipedia", clearly states Assange is a journalist.

    Never seen such rude, insulting words about others thrown around as if meaningless innocent comments. People with weak arguments facing facts, are usually the first to throw insults.
    You seem to have a different version of Wikipedia. Here is mine:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

    Perhaps you would care to point out the place where “Wikipedia… clearly states that Assange is a journalist”?
    Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 07-23-2021 at 01:34 PM.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ibeeria
    Posts
    4,090

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    hear hear, but he seems to be losing the plot a bit according to other posts too

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    downward bound
    Posts
    8,958

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Assange lost the plot years ago. Now his defenders have descended into the madness.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Sveirge (Sweden)
    Posts
    386

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    You seem to have a different version of Wikipedia. Here is mine:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

    Perhaps you would care to point out the place where “Wikipedia… clearly states that Assange is a journalist”?

    Either you not read your own links, or perhaps comprehend it, or being puposefully obtuse.

    Ask yourself, If Assange is not a journalist, why did Obama suggest they could not bring a succesfull prosecution against him, as it would mean also prosecuting the New York Times and The Guardian?

    Reality is what is is, wether you like it or not.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    27,036

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by LarixMaximus View Post
    Either you not read your own links, or perhaps comprehend it, or being puposefully obtuse.

    Ask yourself, If Assange is not a journalist, why did Obama suggest they could not bring a succesfull prosecution against him, as it would mean also prosecuting the New York Times and The Guardian?

    Reality is what is is, wether you like it or not.

    Res ipsa loquitur.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Sveirge (Sweden)
    Posts
    386

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    opus est tibi opus ut meliores fiant

  7. #77
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK. Cornwall, Suffolk.
    Posts
    8,228

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Iste in Latinam semper facit caput canetis sicut dick.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    You seem to have a different version of Wikipedia. Here is mine:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

    Perhaps you would care to point out the place where “Wikipedia… clearly states that Assange is a journalist”?
    In fairness, he did win the coveted 2014 Union of Journalists in Kazakhstan Top Prize.

    Being a journalist isn't like being a barrister, you don't take a rigorous course of study and pass a difficult test to be certified as a journalist. Hell, Boris Johnson even masqueraded as a journalist while acting more like a fabulist.

    Journalists have often published classified information, for the very good reason that if you can make things secret, the first thing you will do is make your mistakes secret. The problem is this: You can publish things people leak to you, within certain bounds, but you cannot encourage people to steal classified information so you can publish it. This is what Assange is accused of doing.


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ecuador-assange-usa-conspiracy/u-s-charges-wikileaks-assange-with-hacking-conspiracy-with-manning-idUSKCN1RN1QA

    The Justice Department said Assange, 47, was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain and was charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion.

    The indictment, filed in March 2018 and unsealed on Thursday, said Assange in March 2010 engaged in a conspiracy to help Manning crack a password stored on Defense Department computers connected to the Secret Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNet), a U.S. government network used for classified documents and communications.
    Manning had access to the computers as an intelligence analyst and was using them to download classified records to transmit to WikiLeaks, the Justice Department said. Cracking the password would have enabled Manning to log on under a username other than her own, making it harder for investigators to determine the source of the illegal disclosures, it said.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    ibeeria
    Posts
    4,090

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Non modus frequentius

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Thank you for your thoughtful response. The term 'dogs of war' most certainly was applied to those returning from service in Vietnam, and having witnessed what my father went through, I'm sensitive to that. Had you simply answered my question sincerely in the first place, rather than accuse me of misrepresenting what you said, we would have had no ill-will between us. It was certainly not my intention to misrepresent your views.

    Point taken. Thanks.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  11. #81
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    For perusal and consideration, Stella Morris on Assange, Interview with ( here's that term again ) journalist Phillip Adams:

    Stella Moris on why Julian Assange should be freed - Late Night Live - ABC Radio National
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    For perusal and consideration, Stella Morris on Assange, Interview with ( here's that term again ) journalist Phillip Adams:

    Stella Moris on why Julian Assange should be freed - Late Night Live - ABC Radio National
    So, he hid out for nine years to avoid extradition, and now they complain that the legal process is taking too long? Do I have that right?

  13. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    So, he hid out for nine years to avoid extradition, and now they complain that the legal process is taking too long? Do I have that right?
    Yes, both observations are correct. That being said the myriad of relevant and critically important issues of which those two observations are a small part of, are really what this debate is attempting to explore.

    As you quote my post linking the interview with Stella, some other issues become obvious upon from a quick re - listen

    * To an extent it seems the process has become the punishment
    * The US prosecution were given six months to decide on what grounds to appeal.
    * The US continues to re - boot their case, shifting the goal posts when a weakness of their case is exposed by the defence.
    * The US demands maximum security even though Julian is not serving a sentence
    * at 10.02 in the interview:
    US assurances are not assurances. They reserve the right to change their minds as soon as Julian hits US soil for any reason at all. This includes the possibility torture.

    And this last point I make from the interview ( there were more ) is one where the rubber really hits the road.

    *.
    11:03 The witness bought forward for the new charges laid during a bizarre moment during the extradition procedures where Julian was re arrested has now admitted to lying ( perjury? )
    ........an interesting situation worthy of detailed examination in and of itself....... an example of the pursuit of justice 'The American Way'?
    Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment
    Last edited by Hallam; 07-23-2021 at 09:42 PM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    Yes, both observations are correct. That being said the myriad of relevant and critically important issues of which those two observations are a small part of, are really what this debate is attempting to explore.

    As you quote my post linking the interview with Stella, some other issues become obvious upon from a quick re - listen

    * To an extent it seems the process has become the punishment
    * The US prosecution were given six months to decide on what grounds to appeal.
    * The US continues to re - boot their case, shifting the goal posts when a weakness of their case is exposed by the defence.
    * The US demands maximum security even though Julian is not serving a sentence
    * at 10.02 in the interview:
    US assurances are not assurances. They reserve the right to change their minds as soon as Julian hits US soil for any reason at all. This includes the possibility torture.

    And this last point I make from the interview ( there were more ) is one where the rubber really hits the road.

    *.
    11:03 The witness bought forward for the new charges laid during a bizarre moment during the extradition procedures where Julian was re arrested has now admitted to lying ( perjury? )
    ........an interesting situation worthy of detailed examination in and of itself....... an example of the pursuit of justice 'The American Way'?
    Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment
    Prior to this thread, I had never heard of Thordarson. This does not appear to affect the charges regarding him working with Manning to steal classified documents.

    Assange isn't afraid of torture at the hands of the Americans. No Democratic administration would permit it, and the Republicans figure he and his Russian buddies are on their side.
    Last edited by johnw; 07-24-2021 at 01:16 AM.

  15. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Well, as one might suspect there is more to the issue than that contained in the writings of Wikipedia. Here for consideration is another serve of what Andrew has referred to as antipodean idiocy in what seemed like his attempt at convincing others to move on, there's nothing to see here, all the while offering nothing of substance to illuminate the position he has firmly adopted while maintaining Assange cannot be considered a Journalist.

    Let me introduce Gordon Krombers.

    Click the link to read in full. For an introduction I have copied and pasted a few relevant quotes to indicate the nature of the content etc.

    The Controversial Prosecutor at the Heart of Julian Assange Case

    .........In all, the January court documents from Assange’s extradition case mention Kromberg over 40 times to help make the legal argument for extraditing Assange. Many of his statements go to the heart of the Espionage Act case against the WikiLeaks publisher.
    The case has raised alarms among civil liberties groups in the United States, particularly in light of the Biden administration’s decision to continue pressing for extradition. Assange has become a controversial figure in the U.S. due to his alleged role in manipulating the 2016 presidential election, but the charges he faces relate almost entirely to acts of receiving and publishing secret information — the bread and butter of most national security journalism.
    “If Julian Assange is extradited to the U.S. it would be by far the most important and dangerous trial for press freedom in the 21st century,” said Trevor Timm, co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. (Timm is an occasional contributor to The Intercept.) “Seventeen out of 18 changes in the indictment against Assange are Espionage Act charges. This is the same law that has been used against sources and whistleblowers for over a decade now, and which news organizations have been terrified would be used against them to prosecute national security reporters who receive classified information from their sources.”...............

    IN THE YEARS after the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks, Gordon Kromberg became the government’s point man on notorious terrorism cases involving allegations of torture and malicious prosecution. In the past, opposing counsels and civil rights groups accused him of engaging in racist behavior and using unethical tactics in pursuit of convictions.
    Legal experts said that the inclusion of a notoriously politicized and aggressive prosecutor on a high-profile extradition case like Assange’s is a sign of how strongly the government is motivated to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher and bring Espionage Act charges at all costs.
    “A common factor in Kromberg’s career has been a willingness to take very provocative positions on behalf of the government and stay the course with them,” said Wadie Said, a professor of law at the University of South Carolina and author of “Crimes of Terror: The Legal and Political Implications of Federal Terrorism Prosecutions.” “He has also shown great willingness to take on highly political cases and to be a lightning rod himself for attention; he often makes himself part of the story with his own actions and statements.”....................

    In 2008, Kromberg was the subject of a Washington Post profile covering his conduct in the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian academic in the U.S. who faced terrorism charges after 9/11. The government’s relentless pursuit of Al-Arian came to be viewed by many legal observers as an example of malicious prosecution, with Kromberg’s role coming in for particular scrutiny.Years of intense pursuit by the Justice Department over Al-Arian’s alleged terrorist ties failed to produce any jury convictions on 17 charges related to terrorism. In 2006, the former University of South Florida professor accepted a plea deal on a single count of conspiracy to provide money to a designated terror group. Almost a decade later, he would be deported to Turkey to “conclude his case and bring an end to his family’s suffering,” as he previously told The Intercept.

    ASSANGE’S CASE HAS been largely ignored in the U.S. press, considering the potential implications of his prosecution under the Espionage Act. Kromberg’s key role, however, suggests that the Justice Department is not taking the implications of the case on its end lightly. Legal observers say that the incredible extent that the government is going to level these charges, spending years pursuing Assange in various forms, and placing one of its most aggressive prosecutors on the case all sends a dire message to those who would publish classified information in the future.sly told The Intercept..............

    Assange has become a polarizing figure in the U.S., with detractors and supporters divided over the nature of his work and motivations, particularly since the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, where he was believed to have acted in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Press freedom experts say that irrespective of people’s personal opinions on Assange, if he is successfully extradited and convicted on Espionage Act charges for publishing classified information, the consequences for the future of national security journalism in the U.S. would be grave.

    “Lots of people hate Julian Assange, his opinions, and his tactics, but if you look at the Espionage Act charges that he faces, they wholly relate to speaking to sources, asking for more information, receiving or holding classified information, and then publishing a subset of that information,” said the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Timm. “Whatever anyone thinks of Assange, or whether they think he’s a journalist or not, those actions are what journalists do all the time.”
    Timm added, “If the U.S. government is successful in prosecuting Assange for those actions, there would be nothing stopping it from prosecuting New York Times or Washington Post reporters on the same grounds in the future.”






    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Prior to this thread, I had never heard of Thordarson. This does not appear to affect the charges regarding him working with Manning to steal classified documents.

    Assange isn't afraid of torture at the hands of the Americans. No Democratic administration would permit it, and the Republicans figure he and his Russian buddies are on their side.
    John, you might be mistaken on the issue of torture with respect to extraordinary rendition and how it is employed by the USA. My above post mentions the trial and conviction of an American citizen, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali and links to a wikipedia article about his conviction. As stated, his case has been the subject of criticism due to the Federal Government admitting evidence from alleged torture during Ali's extraordinary rendition.

    Ahmed Omar Abu Ali - Wikipedia

    From this and other instances it is a fair call that Mr Assange has reason to fear.

    There was also this from the Intercept article:
    Kromberg has been accused by civil rights groups of being motivated by anti-Muslim animus in many of his prosecutions, including one case in which he was accused of mocking the family of a terrorism suspect who had experienced torture in Saudi custody; he allegedly told them that their son is “no good for us here, he has no fingernails left.” (Kromberg declined to comment on the allegation at the time.)

    Official Allegedly Hinted at Saudi Torture of Va. Man - The Washington Post

    A federal prosecutor in Alexandria made a comment last year suggesting that a Falls Church man held in a Saudi Arabian prison had been tortured, according to a sworn affidavit from a defense lawyer that was recently filed in federal court in Washington.
    The alleged remark by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg occurred during a conversation with the lawyer, Salim Ali, in the federal courthouse in Alexandria, according to Ali's affidavit. The document was filed Oct. 12 in connection with a petition by the parents of the detained man, Ahmed Abu Ali, who are seeking his release from Saudi custody.
    The lawyer stated in the affidavit that he asked Kromberg about bringing Abu Ali back to the United States to face charges so as "to avoid the torture that goes on in Saudi Arabia."
    Kromberg "smirked and stated that 'He's no good for us here, he has no fingernails left,' " Salim Ali wrote in his affidavit, adding: "I did not know how to respond [to] the appalling statement he made, and we subsequently ceased our discussion about Ahmed Abu Ali."


    Last edited by Hallam; 07-24-2021 at 06:33 AM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  17. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    5,264

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    Prior to this thread, I had never heard of Thordarson. This does not appear to affect the charges regarding him working with Manning to steal classified documents.

    Assange isn't afraid of torture at the hands of the Americans. No Democratic administration would permit it, and the Republicans figure he and his Russian buddies are on their side.
    And there are no longer any detainees at Guantanamo, they all had fair trials in a civilian court of law with adequate legal representation, right? Obama promised.
    It also depends on your definition of tortured. 24/7 solitary + lights on, and being woken every couple of hours "just to make sure you're still ok" ticks a whole lot of boxes - and look, no marks!

    Pete

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by epoxyboy View Post
    And there are no longer any detainees at Guantanamo, they all had fair trials in a civilian court of law with adequate legal representation, right? Obama promised.
    It also depends on your definition of tortured. 24/7 solitary + lights on, and being woken every couple of hours "just to make sure you're still ok" ticks a whole lot of boxes - and look, no marks!

    Pete
    My heavens, you seem to have heard me say things I've never said.

    The panic over 9/11 led to some gross, horrible behavior by our government. It is impossible to convict many of the people held there because they were tortured, and no American court will accept evidence tainted by torture. It is quite true that the Senate blocked President Obama's efforts to close Gitmo, and Trump didn't care about it. Biden is doing his best to empty the place out, but working more quietly to avoid the kind of pushback Obama got.

    I believe even the Republicans have learned their lesson about torturing prisoners, although I made fun of them in post #84.

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    The Controversial Prosecutor at the Heart of Julian Assange Case

    .........In all, the January court documents from Assange’s extradition case mention Kromberg over 40 times to help make the legal argument for extraditing Assange. Many of his statements go to the heart of the Espionage Act case against the WikiLeaks publisher.
    The case has raised alarms among civil liberties groups in the United States, particularly in light of the Biden administration’s decision to continue pressing for extradition. Assange has become a controversial figure in the U.S. due to his alleged role in manipulating the 2016 presidential election, but the charges he faces relate almost entirely to acts of receiving and publishing secret information — the bread and butter of most national security journalism.
    “If Julian Assange is extradited to the U.S. it would be by far the most important and dangerous trial for press freedom in the 21st century,” said Trevor Timm, co-founder and executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. (Timm is an occasional contributor to The Intercept.) “Seventeen out of 18 changes in the indictment against Assange are Espionage Act charges. This is the same law that has been used against sources and whistleblowers for over a decade now, and which news organizations have been terrified would be used against them to prosecute national security reporters who receive classified information from their sources.”...............

    IN THE YEARS after the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks, Gordon Kromberg became the government’s point man on notorious terrorism cases involving allegations of torture and malicious prosecution. In the past, opposing counsels and civil rights groups accused him of engaging in racist behavior and using unethical tactics in pursuit of convictions.
    Legal experts said that the inclusion of a notoriously politicized and aggressive prosecutor on a high-profile extradition case like Assange’s is a sign of how strongly the government is motivated to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher and bring Espionage Act charges at all costs.
    “A common factor in Kromberg’s career has been a willingness to take very provocative positions on behalf of the government and stay the course with them,” said Wadie Said, a professor of law at the University of South Carolina and author of “Crimes of Terror: The Legal and Political Implications of Federal Terrorism Prosecutions.” “He has also shown great willingness to take on highly political cases and to be a lightning rod himself for attention; he often makes himself part of the story with his own actions and statements.”....................

    In 2008, Kromberg was the subject of a Washington Post profile covering his conduct in the prosecution of Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian academic in the U.S. who faced terrorism charges after 9/11. The government’s relentless pursuit of Al-Arian came to be viewed by many legal observers as an example of malicious prosecution, with Kromberg’s role coming in for particular scrutiny.Years of intense pursuit by the Justice Department over Al-Arian’s alleged terrorist ties failed to produce any jury convictions on 17 charges related to terrorism. In 2006, the former University of South Florida professor accepted a plea deal on a single count of conspiracy to provide money to a designated terror group. Almost a decade later, he would be deported to Turkey to “conclude his case and bring an end to his family’s suffering,” as he previously told The Intercept.

    ASSANGE’S CASE HAS been largely ignored in the U.S. press, considering the potential implications of his prosecution under the Espionage Act. Kromberg’s key role, however, suggests that the Justice Department is not taking the implications of the case on its end lightly. Legal observers say that the incredible extent that the government is going to level these charges, spending years pursuing Assange in various forms, and placing one of its most aggressive prosecutors on the case all sends a dire message to those who would publish classified information in the future.sly told The Intercept..............

    Assange has become a polarizing figure in the U.S., with detractors and supporters divided over the nature of his work and motivations, particularly since the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, where he was believed to have acted in support of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Press freedom experts say that irrespective of people’s personal opinions on Assange, if he is successfully extradited and convicted on Espionage Act charges for publishing classified information, the consequences for the future of national security journalism in the U.S. would be grave.

    “Lots of people hate Julian Assange, his opinions, and his tactics, but if you look at the Espionage Act charges that he faces, they wholly relate to speaking to sources, asking for more information, receiving or holding classified information, and then publishing a subset of that information,” said the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Timm. “Whatever anyone thinks of Assange, or whether they think he’s a journalist or not, those actions are what journalists do all the time.”
    Timm added, “If the U.S. government is successful in prosecuting Assange for those actions, there would be nothing stopping it from prosecuting New York Times or Washington Post reporters on the same grounds in the future.”






    As a former journalist, I am quite familiar with the issues surrounding confidential sources and what journalists are allowed to do in regard to classified material. I am also concerned with press freedom.

    From your post:
    “Lots of people hate Julian Assange, his opinions, and his tactics, but if you look at the Espionage Act charges that he faces, they wholly relate to speaking to sources, asking for more information, receiving or holding classified information, and then publishing a subset of that information,” said the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Timm. “Whatever anyone thinks of Assange, or whether they think he’s a journalist or not, those actions are what journalists do all the time.”
    Timm added, “If the U.S. government is successful in prosecuting Assange for those actions, there would be nothing stopping it from prosecuting New York Times or Washington Post reporters on the same grounds in the future.”
    You can accept classified information from a source, but you cannot conspire with that source to steal classified information. At that point, you are essentially engaged in espionage. The cause of press freedom is not advanced by people claiming a right to do things the courts have clearly ruled they cannot. Assange allegedly stepped over that line, then claimed press freedom as a defense. The question being contested is, did 'asking for more information' involve suborning espionage, and did Assange work with Manning to get more information.

    You seem to think there is no case to be contested. I think there is. In my own mind, I have not convicted or absolved Assange, although he certainly acts like someone who fears facing legal proceedings. You clearly have absolved him based on testimony of people such as his fiancé. I have not.

    I understand why people in other countries might have misgivings about our legal system, but remember, none of the detainees at Gitmo have been convicted based on confessions extracted by torture. That's why many of them are still there, they can't be tried in American courts, and few countries are willing to accept detainees widely believed to be terrorists, so how do you get rid of them?

  20. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    Posts
    544

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Julian Assange now is Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    and "US of A" is now the "Union Soviet of America"
    for its crazy military spending and because is a mental bubble that consumes its own propaganda

  21. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    33,905

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    As a former journalist, I am quite familiar with the issues surrounding confidential sources and what journalists are allowed to do in regard to classified material. I am also concerned with press freedom.

    From your post:


    You can accept classified information from a source, but you cannot conspire with that source to steal classified information. At that point, you are essentially engaged in espionage. The cause of press freedom is not advanced by people claiming a right to do things the courts have clearly ruled they cannot. Assange allegedly stepped over that line, then claimed press freedom as a defense. The question being contested is, did 'asking for more information' involve suborning espionage, and did Assange work with Manning to get more information.

    You seem to think there is no case to be contested. I think there is. In my own mind, I have not convicted or absolved Assange, although he certainly acts like someone who fears facing legal proceedings. You clearly have absolved him based on testimony of people such as his fiancé. I have not.

    I understand why people in other countries might have misgivings about our legal system, but remember, none of the detainees at Gitmo have been convicted based on confessions extracted by torture. That's why many of them are still there, they can't be tried in American courts, and few countries are willing to accept detainees widely believed to be terrorists, so how do you get rid of them?
    Nicely explained, thanks.
    be modest, and be proud of it.

  22. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    As a former journalist, I am quite familiar with the issues surrounding confidential sources and what journalists are allowed to do in regard to classified material. I am also concerned with press freedom.

    From your post:


    You can accept classified information from a source, but you cannot conspire with that source to steal classified information. At that point, you are essentially engaged in espionage. The cause of press freedom is not advanced by people claiming a right to do things the courts have clearly ruled they cannot. Assange allegedly stepped over that line, then claimed press freedom as a defense. The question being contested is, did 'asking for more information' involve suborning espionage, and did Assange work with Manning to get more information.

    You seem to think there is no case to be contested. I think there is. In my own mind, I have not convicted or absolved Assange, although he certainly acts like someone who fears facing legal proceedings. You clearly have absolved him based on testimony of people such as his fiancé. I have not.

    I understand why people in other countries might have misgivings about our legal system, but remember, none of the detainees at Gitmo have been convicted based on confessions extracted by torture. That's why many of them are still there, they can't be tried in American courts, and few countries are willing to accept detainees widely believed to be terrorists, so how do you get rid of them?

    A great post clarifying your position and distilling the essence of the debate and I essentially agree that on the surface, this is the state of play, the issue being tested in court.

    That being said, there are several indispensable reasons why I am convinced of the importance of opposing Julian's extradition and with this case as the test case of creating precedent etc, fighting on issues the issues of Govt accountability, the secrecy and tightly controlled narrative that accompanied the invasion of Iraq, the manner in which Govt are creating and applying legislation to enable surveillance while using the legislation and the courts to prosecute those who hold them accountable when they are acting beyond the scope of their legal mandate as an elected govt of the people.

    The USA in pursuing Julian for alleged over reach are involved in glaring and stark hypocrisy of a devastating consequence to the nations moral compass by using the legal system to perpetuate a criminality of intent and action in all manner of ways. Assange's course of actions are as a response to US Got over reach. The subject matter of the information being disclosed by the publication of secret material reveals the validity of his actions.
    It seems to me that many are either unwittingly ignorant or wilfully turning a blind eye, thinking that loyalty to your nation demands an acceptance of this Governments actions. You as a nation have a very dark, murderous reality at the hidden core of many of your foreign policy initiatives and you champion the vilification and incarceration of those who expose your dirty international criminal secrets. This makes you complicit in these very initiatives of your Government.
    There are those within the USA and elsewhere who consistently advocate in all manner of ways to put a check on this abhorrent dynamic of US foreign policy and there are those who don't.
    With respect to this, the goal posts have shifted since 9/11 and the all encompassing nature of the internet and very powerful digital technology. We are at the beginning of a new epoch, laying a new layer of foundational principals over the former.

    To distill my position, there are two choices:
    * hold you govt to account in these matters by doing everything possible to put a check on the forces at play and mitigate their functioning.
    * or let your nation devolve and succumb to the toxic consequences of state sanctioned murder and morally bankrupt mayhem, what I referred to earlier as the dogs of war be they at the bidding of Democrat or Republican as all are in this game up to their necks and beyond and in earnest, have been for my entire lifetime.

    While the functioning of other nations in this regard is of equal distain, I as Julien is am a citizen of Australia and thereby implicated via our Govt's lock step support of US foreign policy.

    Most Americans are not aware that during the 70's we had a Gov't that moved to hold the USA to account for the manner in which the US used the Pine Gop facility. There were terms and conditions the US went beyond. That Govt was removed in a manner that created a constitutional crisis and involved the CIA and Australian operatives. It was effectively a coup. We know how the USA operates when an ally moves in a valid and honourable direction on moral grounds that are a threat to your hidden agenda.
    Last edited by Hallam; 07-24-2021 at 06:59 PM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  23. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    A great post clarifying your position and distilling the essence of the debate and I essentially agree that on the surface, this is the state of play, the issue being tested in court.

    That being said, there are several indispensable reasons why I am convinced of the importance of opposing Julian's extradition and with this case as the test case of creating precedent etc, fighting on issues the issues of Govt accountability, the secrecy and tightly controlled narrative that accompanied the invasion of Iraq, the manner in which Govt are creating and applying legislation to enable surveillance while using the legislation and the courts to prosecute those who hold them accountable when they are acting beyond the scope of their legal mandate as an elected govt of the people.

    The USA in pursuing Julian for alleged over reach are involved in glaring and stark hypocrisy of a devastating consequence to the nations moral compass by using the legal system to perpetuate a criminality of intent and action in all manner of ways. Assange's course of actions are as a response to US Got over reach. The subject matter of the information being disclosed by the publication of secret material reveals the validity of his actions.
    It seems to me that many are either unwittingly ignorant or wilfully turning a blind eye, thinking that loyalty to your nation demands an acceptance of this Governments actions. You as a nation have a very dark, murderous reality at the hidden core of many of your foreign policy initiatives and you champion the vilification and incarceration of those who expose your dirty international criminal secrets. This makes you complicit in these very initiatives of your Government.
    There are those within the USA and elsewhere who consistently advocate in all manner of ways to put a check on this abhorrent dynamic of US foreign policy and there are those who don't.
    With respect to this, the goal posts have shifted since 9/11 and the all encompassing nature of the internet and very powerful digital technology. We are at the beginning of a new epoch, laying a new layer of foundational principals over the former.

    To distill my position, there are two choices:
    * hold you govt to account in these matters by doing everything possible to put a check on the forces at play and mitigate their functioning.
    * or let your nation devolve and succumb to the toxic consequences of state sanctioned murder and morally bankrupt mayhem, what I referred to earlier as the dogs of war be they at the bidding of Democrat or Republican as all are in this game up to their necks and beyond and in earnest, have been for my entire lifetime.

    While the functioning of other nations in this regard is of equal distain, I as Julien is am a citizen of Australia and thereby implicated via our Govt's lock step support of US foreign policy.

    Most Americans are not aware that during the 70's we had a Gov't that moved to hold the USA to account for the manner in which the US used the Pine Gop facility. There were terms and conditions the US went beyond. That Govt was removed in a manner that created a constitutional crisis and involved the CIA and Australian operatives. It was effectively a coup. We know how the USA operates when an ally moves in a valid and honourable direction on moral grounds that are a threat to your hidden agenda.
    The question being litigated is not Assange's intent, it's whether he was a participant in the theft of classified documents, the crime for which Manning has already done time. If a journalist commits burglary to get documents to publish, would they not be guilty of burglary?

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    .........and the overarching fact resulting in my present convictions is that communism was (said to be) the legitimising impetus driving US foreign policy, the actions of the CIA etc etc. With the comprehensive victory of US Foreign Policy implied with the end of the Soviet Union and the historic fall of the Berlin wall the USA had a valid imperative to "give peace a chance". There was a unique opportunity to be who on the exterior they claimed to be as a nation. Yet look, see and admit to what has transpired in the years that have followed and there is every reason to be gutted with remorse!

    And from the knowledge of this reality there remains the options of manning up to the truth, wilful indifference or complicit sanctioning.

    With respect to Trump and false news and the contempt Trump is held here, Trump's actions pale into insignificance when seen in comparison with what I'm having a beef at.

    The law?

    Wilful and Wanton Conduct Law and Legal Definition

    A Willful and Wanton Conduct is a willful or wanton injury that must have been intentional or the act must have been committed under circumstances exhibiting a reckless disregard for the safety of others, such as a failure, after knowledge of impending danger, to exercise ordinary care to prevent it or a failure to discover the danger through recklessness or carelessness when it could have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care. [Henslee v. Provena Hosps., 369 F. Supp. 2d 970, 977-978 (N.D. Ill. 2005)]
    Willful and wanton conduct means “acting consciously in disregard of or acting with a reckless indifference to the consequences, when the Defendant is aware of her conduct and is also aware, from her knowledge of existing circumstances and conditions, that her conduct would probably result in injury.” [Duncan v. Duncan (In re Duncan), 448 F.3d 725, 729 (4th Cir. Va. 2006)]
    “A course of action which shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard of a person's own safety and the safety of others."[Siemer v. Nangle (In re Nangle), 274 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001)]

    In the case of the people verses The United States of America?

    .....................guilty your honour!
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  25. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The question being litigated is not Assange's intent, it's whether he was a participant in the theft of classified documents, the crime for which Manning has already done time. If a journalist commits burglary to get documents to publish, would they not be guilty of burglary?

    As I have outlined in my post #92 it is clear I have introduced issues beyond the simple reading of the law that are essential to the position i am arguing.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  26. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    As I have outlined in my post #92 it is clear I have introduced issues beyond the simple reading of the law that are essential to the position i am arguing.
    You appear to argue that his good intentions should clear him of guilt, while arguing that the prosecution is criminalizing his intentions.

  27. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    You appear to argue that his good intentions should clear him of guilt, while arguing that the prosecution is criminalizing his intentions.
    If he acted illegally then in essence yes! If he did not act illegally the USA has no case.

    The Nuremberg trials especially as pertaining to Superior Orders come to mind with respect to clarifying this perspective.

    from Wikipedia:
    Superior orders - Wikipedia

    [ During the Nuremberg Trials, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, and other defendants unsuccessfully used the defense. They contended that while they knew Adolf Hitler's orders were unlawful, or at least had reason to believe they were unlawful, their place was not to question, but to obey.
    They claimed they were compelled to do so by the Führerprinzip (leader principle) that governed the Nazi regime, as well as their own oath of allegiance to Hitler. In most cases, the tribunal found that the defendants' offenses were so egregious that obedience to superior orders could not be considered a mitigating factor. ]


    Of relevance to the Assange case this from the Wikipedia link is relevant to my argued position:

    [ US General Telford Taylor, who had served as Chief Counsel for the United States during the Nuremberg trials, employed the term "Nuremberg defense" in a different sense. He applied it not to the defense offered by the Nuremberg defendants but to a justification put forward by those who refused to take part in military action (specifically America's involvement in the Vietnam War) that they believed to be criminal.
    [19] ]


    So I'm not a legal expert in the application of the law or principals with respect to Superior Orders etc but I am firmly in the camp of those who are advocating for transparency and holding to account, based on these principals, the actions of the American Government, Secret Services, and Military.
    I see Julian Assange and wickileaks as a legitimate function of accountability within a democratic system where the people have the power of informed choice.


    Last edited by Hallam; 07-24-2021 at 09:17 PM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  28. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Let's look at another US lawyer, Telford Taylor:

    Telford Taylor - Wikipedia

    McCarthyism and Vietnam[edit]

    After the Nuremberg Trials, Taylor returned to civilian life in the United States, opening a private law practice in New York City. He became increasingly concerned with Senator Joseph McCarthy's activities, which he criticized strongly. In a speech at West Point in 1953, he called McCarthy "a dangerous adventurer," branded his tactics "a vicious weapon of the extreme right against their political opponents," and criticized President Dwight Eisenhower for not stopping McCarthy's "shameful abuse of Congressional investigatory power." He defended several victims of McCarthyism, alleged communists or perjurers, including labor leader Harry Bridges and Junius Scales. Although he lost these two cases (Bridges' sentence of five years in prison was later voided by the Supreme Court, and Scales' six-year sentence was commuted after one year), he remained unfazed by McCarthy's attacks on him, and responded by writing the book, Grand Inquest: The Story of Congressional Investigations, which was published in 1955.[4]

    In 1959, he served as a technical adviser and narrator on the television production, Judgment at Nuremberg.

    In 1961 Taylor attended the Eichmann trial in Israel as a semiofficial observer and expressed concerns about the trial being held on a defective statute.[citation needed]
    Taylor became a full professor at Columbia University in 1962, where he would be named Nash Professor of Law in 1974. In 1966, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[5] He was one of very few professors there who refused to sign a statement issued by the Columbia Law School that termed the militant student protests at Columbia in 1968 as being beyond the "allowable limits" of civil disobedience. Taylor was very critical of the conduct of US troops in the Vietnam War, and in 1971 urged President Richard Nixon to set up a national commission to investigate the conflict. He strongly criticized the court-martial of Lieutenant William Calley, the commanding officer of the US troops involved in the My Lai massacre because it did not include higher-ranking officers.
    Taylor regarded the 1972 bombing campaign targeting the North Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, as "senseless and immoral." He offered to describe and explain his views to CBS, but the network declined to air them because they considered them "too hot to handle."[citation needed]. In December 1972, he visited Hanoi along with musician and activist Joan Baez and others, among them was Michael Allen, the associate dean of the Yale Divinity School.[6]
    Taylor published his views in a book, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, in 1970. He argued that by the standards employed at the Nuremberg Trials, US conduct in Vietnam and Cambodia was equally criminal as that of the Nazis during World War II. For that reason, he favored prosecuting US aviators who had participated in bombing missions over North Vietnam.[7]
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,499

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hallam View Post
    If he acted illegally then in essence yes! If he did not act illegally the USA has no case.

    The Nuremberg trials especially as pertaining to Superior Orders come to mind with respect to clarifying this perspective.

    from Wikipedia:
    Superior orders - Wikipedia

    [ During the Nuremberg Trials, Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, and other defendants unsuccessfully used the defense. They contended that while they knew Adolf Hitler's orders were unlawful, or at least had reason to believe they were unlawful, their place was not to question, but to obey.
    They claimed they were compelled to do so by the Führerprinzip (leader principle) that governed the Nazi regime, as well as their own oath of allegiance to Hitler. In most cases, the tribunal found that the defendants' offenses were so egregious that obedience to superior orders could not be considered a mitigating factor. ]


    Of relevance to the Assange case this from the Wikipedia link is relevant to my argued position:

    [ US General Telford Taylor, who had served as Chief Counsel for the United States during the Nuremberg trials, employed the term "Nuremberg defense" in a different sense. He applied it not to the defense offered by the Nuremberg defendants but to a justification put forward by those who refused to take part in military action (specifically America's involvement in the Vietnam War) that they believed to be criminal.
    [19] ]


    So I'm not a legal expert in the application of the law or principals with respect to Superior Orders etc but I am firmly in the camp of those who are advocating for transparency and holding to account, based on these principals, the actions of the American Government, Secret Services, and Military.
    I see Julian Assange and wickileaks as a legitimate function of accountability within a democratic system where the people have the power of informed choice.


    I'm at a loss as to how superior orders apply in this case. No one appears to have made any such defense.

    You see Wikileaks as "a legitimate function of accountability within a democratic system where the people have the power of informed choice." I say that can be done without violating the law. The New York Times did it in the Pentagon Papers case, Seymour Hersh did it in the Mi Lai case. Do we really want to say that people calling themselves journalists should be allowed to violate laws any time they feel it serves a worthy purpose? In the end, that's just going to undermine people's faith in journalism and give justification to those who would restrict the activities of journalists.

    Violating the law while claiming it was necessary for the service of society is how the second Bush administration justified torture. Whether you agree with the goals of the people involved or not, there must be lines we will not cross if we wish to live in a just society. However many good intentions you pave it with, we know where that road leads.

  30. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    5,264

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    My heavens, you seem to have heard me say things I've never said.

    The panic over 9/11 led to some gross, horrible behavior by our government. It is impossible to convict many of the people held there because they were tortured, and no American court will accept evidence tainted by torture. It is quite true that the Senate blocked President Obama's efforts to close Gitmo, and Trump didn't care about it. Biden is doing his best to empty the place out, but working more quietly to avoid the kind of pushback Obama got.

    I believe even the Republicans have learned their lesson about torturing prisoners, although I made fun of them in post #84.
    You said "Assange isn't afraid of torture at the hands of the Americans. No Democratic administration would permit it"

    I was trying to make the point that Democratic administrations have permitted rather a lot to continue, in spite of assurances to the contrary. And that torture does not necessarily entail brute force or electricity applied to the gonads.
    If I was in his shoes, I'd be pretty damn concerned.
    Don't know what is going on with the bold text thing - I'm not shouting, and I can't turn it off
    .

    Pete


  31. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I'm at a loss as to how superior orders apply in this case. No one appears to have made any such defense.

    You see Wikileaks as "a legitimate function of accountability within a democratic system where the people have the power of informed choice." I say that can be done without violating the law. The New York Times did it in the Pentagon Papers case, Seymour Hersh did it in the Mi Lai case. Do we really want to say that people calling themselves journalists should be allowed to violate laws any time they feel it serves a worthy purpose? In the end, that's just going to undermine people's faith in journalism and give justification to those who would restrict the activities of journalists.

    Violating the law while claiming it was necessary for the service of society is how the second Bush administration justified torture. Whether you agree with the goals of the people involved or not, there must be lines we will not cross if we wish to live in a just society. However many good intentions you pave it with, we know where that road leads.

    The Pentagon Papers - 1971

    Seymour Hersh did it in the Mi Lai case. - 1969


    As I stated in my post
    #92

    Legislation since 9/11, the use of the law, how the law is applied that enables the US Govt to act with impunity and to prosecute those who attempt to hold the US Govt accountable

    "the goal posts have shifted since 9/11 and the all encompassing nature of the internet and very powerful digital technology. We are at the beginning of a new epoch, laying a new layer of foundational principals over the former. The cycle of push comes to shove is repeated. In the 70's as with Assange there were those who were angered by and opposed the actions of Danielle Ellsberg, called him a traitor

    In essence this is not the 1970's it's the 2020'. Julien Assange and Wikileaks is the next iteration of the Pentagon Papers.

    It is the process of accountability that is available in the absence of formally legal pathways. the legality of which where hotly contested in their day.

    Does this sound familiar?

    For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property; charges were later dismissed, after prosecutors investigating the Watergate scandal discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg...................

    As much as anything this is a test of the American publics appetite and resolve for a higher moral compass. A public atmosphere and expectation that given knowledge of the State sanctioned wrongdoing as exposed by The Pentagon Papers and the My Lai coverup Americans demanded a better way, a higher ground.

    Does the American public have such an appetite and expectation in 2021? I am beginning to wonder.
    This appetite and the drive seems to come from a loose international collective of like minded people and smaller international organisations.

    Interesting times that will chart a course for the future.
    Last edited by Hallam; 07-25-2021 at 01:56 AM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  32. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Daniel Ellsberg

    Daniel Ellsberg: Edward Snowden Is a Hero and We Need More Whistleblowers

    [COLOR=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]I think there has not been a more significant or helpful leak or unauthorized disclosure in American history ever than what Edward Snowden shared with the [/COLOR]Guardian about the NSA—and that definitely includes the Pentagon Papers.......

    ..........
    [COLOR=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]I was frankly surprised there was so much evidence of criminality of the U.S. government’s in Manning’s secret material–I thought that would have been a higher level of classification. But apparently ordering people to be turned over to Iraqis knowing they would be tortured was so routine it didn’t require higher classification. And then when this was reported by American troops in over 100 different instances, in each case an illegal order was given to them: “no additional investigation.” That’s an illegal order. Under the Geneva Convention, not only can we not torture, but we cannot hand over anyone to another party we might expect to torture them. And if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that torture has occurred, there must be an investigation, so the orders not to investigate were clearly illegal. And that has not been prosecuted or investigated since Bradley Manning revealed it—that is a criminality that goes right up to the commander-in-chief, and that’s only at the secret level..............[/COLOR]

    [COLOR=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]He knows that he is not beyond the reach of the executive branch of the U.S. government anywhere in the world. He knows that better than I did 40 years ago. My wife at that time was worried that the CIA might harm me, and I told her at the time, “No, don’t worry. I don’t think they do that to Americans.”[/COLOR]
    [COLOR=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.85)]Wrong. I was wrong then, and would be now. The White House sent people with orders “to incapacitate me totally.” I was subject to a White House death squad that fortunately backed off and aborted the mission. Now we have a president, Barack Obama, who openly proclaims the right to execute, to kill, to murder any American citizen he wants if he can’t arrest them. But he’s already done it to Americans he could have arrested.......


    [/COLOR]
    Last edited by Hallam; 07-25-2021 at 02:04 AM.
    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  33. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Sorrento Australia
    Posts
    3,885

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Daniel Elsberg:

    Vietnam war leaker Daniel Ellsberg warns against extraditing Julian Assange | Julian Assange | The Guardian

    The man who leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam war has defended Julian Assange at his London extradition hearing on Wednesday, saying WikiLeaks had acted in the public interest and warned that its founder would not get a fair trial in the United States.

    Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked documents known as the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other news outlets, told the court that WikiLeaks’ disclosures had shown Americans how they had been misled about US action in Iraq and Afghanistan just as his leaks, which also revealed previously secret information, did about the Vietnam War.

    James Lewis, the lawyer representing the US authorities, said Assange was not wanted for publishing the 2007 video, but for disclosing a small number of documents with the unredacted names of sources or informants.
    Lewis said many of these had suffered harm or threats because they had been named. He said some had disappeared, although he conceded that there was no evidence that this was directly linked to WikiLeaks’ publication.


    “How can you possibly say … that there is no evidence that Mr Assange’s publication of WikiLeaks put anyone in danger? That’s just pure nonsense,” Lewis said.
    Ellsberg, who was himself charged with breaking the espionage law in a case that was later dismissed, said there was no evidence of physical harm or deaths because of the leaks. The exchange with Lewis led to an outburst from Assange in the courtroom, and the judge warned him to remain silent.
    Earlier, John Goetz, an investigative reporter who worked for Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine on the first publication of the documents in 2010, said Assange was careful to ensure that the names of informants in hundreds of thousands of leaked secret US government documents were never published.
    Goetz said WikiLeaks was frustrated when a password that allowed access to the full, unredacted material was published in a book by Guardian reporters in February 2011.


    Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Leonardo da Vinci.

    If war is the answer........... it must be a profoundly stupid question.

    "Freighters on the nod on the surface of the bay, One of these days we're going to sail away"
    Bruce Cockburn

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2021
    Location
    Sveirge (Sweden)
    Posts
    386

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
    One more time - we have an extradition treaty with the USA. Many of us don’t like it because it is one sided in favour of the USA but it’s the law here.

    .
    You mean like Anna Sacoolas who is charged with causing death by careless driving in the UK, then absconded to the US, and whose government refuses to extradite her?

    Yet you claim Assange will get treated fairly. Clearly US justice depends on who you are, not written law.

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    27,036

    Default Re: Varoufakis on Assange.

    Yes, as I said, it is an unbalanced extradition treaty.

    I also said that US law offers better justice to the rich and the famous. Clearly, Assange is famous.
    IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •