271–280 of 792 posts
"But judges ruled the risk of suicide was removed by assurances from the US." Like Epstein? Let this be a point, there is no press freedom in the United States.
> Like Epstein? Yes. And like Milosevic. And like Saddam. It's funny how some people choose to commit suicide just before trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “he’s a world famous journalist with prior work” That’s a claim not a fact. It’s also possible he was an asset for a hostile intelligence service posing as a journalist. I’m not normally one to side with Mike Pompeo, but I agree with his assessment on this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c... “‘WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence…
It's a fact he's world famous. We've heard of him. It's a fact he's a journalist. We've all read his journalism or at least know of its existence. [1] It's a claim that "he was an asset for a hostile intelligence service" and one with zero evidence to back it up. Everything Assange has done the New York Times has also done. Every single thing he has been charged with in this case. That's also a fact. [1] https://www.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect Assange doesn't regret this. I kind of get the impression that becoming a martyr was a sacrifice he was prepared to make if he managed to rip off the mask and expose the unbridled imperialist evil lurking underneath the "civilized press conference veneer" presented by the US government.
It's a bit of a sad sacrifice, though. Nothing (significant) has changed about the US's imperialism as a result of his disclosures, it's just mildly more acknowledged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
unfortunately he switched from citizen journalist to selective propaganda release and russian propaganda washing.
are you denying he released the truth or are you saying he released the truth, but "others" behaved similarly yet he withheld the truth on them?
Yes, 100%. I think the documents he released were all authentic, but that’s a great distance from either being “the truth” or being in service of “the truth”. The majority of propaganda is factual while attempting to subvert "the truth".
If Assange is transferred to US custody, there is a strong chance he will be killed (and possibly in a way that makes it look “accidental”). The CIA was actively planning for such scenarios in 2017: https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london...
To fully appreciate the context: - he’s not a us citizen - none of the “crimes” happened on US soil - he’s a world famous journalist with prior work - was charged with bogus crimes in Europe in an attempt to arrest him. All dropped - the person who stole the files he released is already free and the tax payers paid for their transition
> “he’s a world famous journalist with prior work” That’s a claim not a fact. It’s also possible he was an asset for a hostile intelligence service posing as a journalist. I’m not normally one to side with Mike Pompeo, but I agree with his assessment on this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/us/politics/mike-pompeo-c... “‘WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence…
Given Pompeo's business history, I think it's fair to understand everything he says with the knowledge that he's an avatar of the American military-industrial complex [0]. With that lens in place, of course WikiLeaks is "hostile", have you seen Collateral Murder?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complicated. I feel that an Australian citizen should not expect to be extradited to the USA for publishing information the USA would rather not be published. Still true even if he is an activist, would still be true even for someone genuinely trying to systematically destroy America and American values, if it’s just publication. Free speech etc. For encouraging Americans to break American laws, which I think is the…
>For encouraging Americans to break American laws, which I think is the non-legalese summary of the accusation? Were Gandhi/MLK/Rosa Parks wrong when they made a point of breaking unjust laws and encouraging others to follow along? Many liberals at the time thought yes - "the law being the law" and all that. It does sound like you're making the same argument they were?
Remind me about how Rosa Parks ran and hid?
This should be a sobering view of how the world really works. Above a certain threshold, every veneer of civilization vanishes no matter what the country (some have a higher threshold than others). At this level, only power matters. And the first rule of power is: Don't embarrass the powerful unless you can call on a lot of power to defend yourself. Laws can't protect you; they can be thwarted and bent, and the legal…
There are countries which do not bend before others. Russia, China, Iran to name a few examples. They can protect those fleeing from the West. Just like West can protect people from those countries. World is not unipolar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit of a sad sacrifice, though. Nothing (significant) has changed about the US's imperialism as a result of his disclosures, it's just mildly more acknowledged.
The sad part is how few people even know what he published, especially juxtaposed with his sacrifice. If I go talk to the average person about Snowden or Assange they know little to nothing about what they revealed.
You are doing good, then. Need to keep talking to more people!