How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!
Abuses show Assange case was never about law
11–20 of 156 posts
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#12Background for anyone who doesn't know: Jonathan Cook is a writer for the alt-right conspiracy rag, The Unz Review: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ This article is attempting to draw lines where there aren't. Julian Assange did in fact flee to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to escape rape charges. That he did so because he feared extradition to the US is correct, but that does not change the original…
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#13> When Assange’s popular recognition fell, and Ecuador’s political incentives changed, the asylum was rescinded. An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people. For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moder…
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#14Background for anyone who doesn't know: Jonathan Cook is a writer for the alt-right conspiracy rag, The Unz Review: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ This article is attempting to draw lines where there aren't. Julian Assange did in fact flee to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to escape rape charges. That he did so because he feared extradition to the US is correct, but that does not change the original…
Rape charges invented by the US. The 'rape victim' admitted the Swedish Police told her what to say. Open your eyes Cinderella.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#15How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#16Background for anyone who doesn't know: Jonathan Cook is a writer for the alt-right conspiracy rag, The Unz Review: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-unz-report/ This article is attempting to draw lines where there aren't. Julian Assange did in fact flee to the Ecuadorian embassy in order to escape rape charges. That he did so because he feared extradition to the US is correct, but that does not change the original…
Let's not forget that Wikileaks violated certain journalistic standards for divulging confidential information. It's a "two wrongs do not make a right" situation.
Yes, the rape charges are an awfully convenient distraction. But they exist, and should be investigated.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rape charges invented by the US. The 'rape victim' admitted the Swedish Police told her what to say. Open your eyes Cinderella.
Do you have a reputable source for your assertion?
Meta: This endless "do you have sources" plays right into the hands of liars. If you don't have real reason to believe that some crucial fact may be missing you shouldn't invite them to spew their nonsense. If they had something real, they would have posted it the first time. Asking them just lets them draw the "I'm just answering an honest question" card, thereby making it seem that now there are two posters discussing the issue. A well-known trick.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#18Sweeden considers espionage a political crime and does not extradite people for political crimes. Sweeden seems like a great place to be if you're wanted for political crimes. Not a great situation in life, but a good place to be for that.
The usual theory in response to that is that the US was going to kidnap him from Sweeden or something (it seems to be the standard response I get). I find the idea that a kidnapping would be less likely in the UK or Ecuador fairly absurd. If the US (or any nation) really wanted him that bad, it seems like a first world country that doesn't extradite political crimes would be a RELATIVELY great place to be... and if things are as folks say about governments wanting to kidnap him, I think they could have done it long before the embassy events too.
I think Assange at some point (maybe the start, who knows) really has struggled with the "truth" in favor of grooming his own narrative. This is hardly unique to him, politicians do it all the time too, but it also makes his stated motives and explanations hard to belive. On their old Facebook page (not sure if they still had one) in the early days if you followed up and asked "hey want happened to what you said you were going to release today" they'd delete your post in short order, and any post about their past plans to release whatever it is they had promised ... IMO their willingness to control the information for their own purposes seemed to betray whatever people wanted Wikileaks to be. Not that they should just dump it without consideration but their actions did not seem to follow the ideals.
This article talks about "never about the law", and yet in the end he's charged with helping someone try to break into a computer. IMO that is a step beyond what a journalist should do. That's the law, it's a legitimate law IMO, and we'll see how the trial goes as for proving it and what if any punishment there is.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#19How could anyone possibly think this was ever about the law? When he first published "Collateral Murder", you knew what it was about, and you knew how it would (eventually) end for him. Does anyone not living under a rock, think what is happening to Assange is even remotely based on law and justice? spoiler alert: it's not!
Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did fine [1].
I’m not convinced that, had Wikileaks filtered their material like the ICIJ did with the Panama Papers [2], they would have been charged. Ignoring the collateral damage caused by Assange’s decision not to curate, like every journalist is trained to do, doesn’t make it immaterial.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_%28Watergate%29
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#20> When Assange’s popular recognition fell, and Ecuador’s political incentives changed, the asylum was rescinded. An important side note: this is the why the state always attacks the personality and popularity of activists, and why it's important to defend personalities and people. For example, let me say that, having met Cody Wilson several times and spending several hours with him on a couple of occasions (and moder…
It's absolutely routine for basically anyone accused of sexual assault to find a whole bunch of men reporting that they seemed to be a standup guy. That doesn't mean they remain a standup guy when left alone around women.