Abuses show Assange case was never about law
jonathan-cook.net
Abuses show Assange case was never about law
1–10 of 156 posts
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#2How 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
#3He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy.
He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#4> No state in the world gives a non-citizen political asylum to avoid a rape trial
The granting of political asylum does not prove the crimes alleged are solely political. That this point is granted zero further attention weakens every subsequent claim.
The granting of political asylum is itself a political act. Particularly when extended by an executive. When Assange’s asylum was granted, Assange was popular and well known. The Ecuadorean leader drew power from an anti-American base. Years later, most Americans don’t know who Assange is [1]. The leadership in Ecuador changed, and with it the political incentives that made Assange valuable [2].
I don’t think Assange fled the Swedish charges per se. But there is insufficient evidence to show he didn’t commit any bona fide crimes under U.S. law. Yes, he exposed war crimes. But he also published sensitive information of zero public benefit yet detrimental to those exposed, e.g. agents in terrorist organisations or the medical records of gay men in Saudi Arabia [3].
I am unfamiliar as to how those balance under American law. But to dismiss the latter solely because of the former is to say a good deed single-handedly excuses bad deeds, which isn’t justice.
[1] https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/ecuadors-president-turns-on-his...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-post...
[4] https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6024868-Assa...
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#5> 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 moderating a panel on which he sat), I found him to be an absolute standup guy. He seems like a genuine patriot to me and a person of big heart and bravery.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#6The US gov got him where they wanted him, but let's hope Assange breaks this cycle of the U.S. gov arresting and accusing whistleblowers of espionage by not taking any plea deal or pleading guilty. He needs to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#7He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy. He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.
He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership.
The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path.
The facts presented plainly is the contribution.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#8Background 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 facts.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#9This is a hard read as so much of it is "I don't like this opinion I hear, here are some vied insults about people who share that view".
There doesn't seem to be any real critical thinking about Assange's actual actions here, or taking any accusations directed at him seriously.
To some extent this blog post takes the law as seriously as it claims the government(s) take it.
Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law
#10He starts by asserting that things which are incompatible with his personal opinions are factual errors or some artifact of a corporate media conspiracy. He doesn’t say “wake up sheeple” but this is unlikely to result in a good discussion and he has no new information or analysis to contribute.
He's compiling a list of existing information that, as per his assertion, every media outlet seems to ignore which therefore serves to misinform the readership. The author isn't attempting to add anything new, he's merely trying to reincorporate the facts back into a narrative that has strayed from the appropriate journalistic path. The facts presented plainly is the contribution.
>every media outlet seems to ignore
I feel like that phrase gets bounded about all the time when people don't see their own narrative parroted back to them. Same with the following part of the sentence.