Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manipulation and being Russian tool?
Jesus fucking christ.
That's a strong argument.
Assange in Court
101–110 of 173 posts
Re: Assange in Court
#102This doesn't bode well for any inkling Snowden may have of returning to the US in a timeframe that doesn't include some kind of revolutionary change of government.
Re: Assange in Court
#103Re: Assange in Court
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that. It depends what they find him guilty of and what the sentence is. It is unacceptable to have someone on trial for openly telling the truth about what a foreign country is doing. He went into the Ecuadorian embassy saying that the Swedish case against him was basically trumped up and that he was going to be extradited to the United States. His justificati…
> The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material. Allegedly actively assisting a US military member to a) crack other military passwords, and b) work with them on covering said attempts is a mere "flimsy pretext, [not] material"?
Maybe you feel that is worth thousands to millions of dollars spent hunting down a man for 10 years. I doubt Assange would have been aware of that sort of technicality and it is highly likely that something else would have been fabricated if they didn't have that as an excuse.
From memory he didn't even succeed on the password front. The 'crime' here is an incidental non-issue compared to why the US has been hounding him.
Re: Assange in Court
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus fucking christ.
That's a strong argument.
Against what exactly? 0 evidence and what i suspect is from the same source that said tulsi gubbard was a Russian asset? The unverifiable bullshit that Americans eat like its kosher.
Jesus fucking christ is all i got to that ridicilous propganda. If you need to think of him as a Russian operative for you to live with the treatment hes getting, so be it. Im done.
Re: Assange in Court
#106Can someone explain to me why there is apparently no footage of this? Aren't court hearings supposed to be public or was filming simply not allowed?
Public does not mean that filming is allowed. The UK seems to handle it the same as for example Germany does.
Constant broadcasts of real court sessions seems to be a mostly American thing.
Re: Assange in Court
#107Following the WikiLeaks story from its early days until today leave me incredibly demoralized and to be frank, angry. If I where to list the amount of injustices WikiLeaks and those who have associated with them have suffered, I would sit here all night, and I strongly suspect that is by intelligent design. This story, if the end of it is as it seems, it will mark a shift in the perceived ideals of the "free world".
It further erodes any case 'the West' has to argue against the behaviour of China.
And that is a sad indictment on the path the 'victors' of WWII have followed.
(Edited to add: if the account given in the article is relatively accurate)
Re: Assange in Court
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a strong argument.
Against what exactly? 0 evidence and what i suspect is from the same source that said tulsi gubbard was a Russian asset? The unverifiable bullshit that Americans eat like its kosher. Jesus fucking christ is all i got to that ridicilous propganda. If you need to think of him as a Russian operative for you to live with the treatment hes getting, so be it. Im done.
Americans don't need to think of him as a Russian agent because of the treatment he is experiencing - they need to consider him a Russian agent because that allows them to continue to ignore the crimes against humanity and war crimes that their country has been committing, in their name, for decades - and which Julian worked, tirelessly, to expose to the world to see: embarrassing Americans who were previously convinced of their nations exceptionalism.
Americans need to be distracted by the "ma' Russians!" narrative in order to be kept entirely ignorant of the 500,000 innocent people they have killed in their quest for glory in the Middle East. THAT is why "ma' Russians!" is being propagated as a narrative - because if anyone thinks the Americans shouldn't be getting away with murder, they sure as hell won't have the moral authority required to do something about it, if they are Russians, or Russian tools...
America is in the grips of another McCarthy era. There is NEVER any evidence given that "ma' Russians", yet the trills call out every time an American evil is placed on the table.
Re: Assange in Court
#109"Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense." If an American journalist in UK is publishing Chinese military secrets, he will not be extradited to China. If an Australian journalist in UK is publishing American military secrets, will he be extradited to America? This is the question now...
Many would argue that Assange isn't a journalist. And so that also is a factor.
Agreed, he has accomplished more than a journalist could ever hope to achieve.
Re: Assange in Court
#110Funny to read through the comments going back and forth on definitions of journalism and the details of extradition treaties.
Did you not read the article? The convoluted legal language and system are used to explain away the reality that there are no rules really.
If you mess with powerful interests you are in trouble. No legislation or rights or specifics make the slightest difference at all. It's uncomfortable, but that's reality.