Abuses show Assange case was never about law • Hacker News Board

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#21

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #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 wel…

There is a lot of FUD spread about what WikiLeaks has published. I see the same accusations being repeated over and over, rarely with any explanation of the actual meat of the accusations.

For example, you say that WikiLeaks has released a huge amount of material of zero public interest, and give the example of them supposedly outing a gay man in Saudi Arabia. WikiLeaks actually published a huge cache of Saudi diplomatic cables, which are obviously of immense public interest. Those cables detail the Saudi government's backroom dealings with foreign countries and internal repression. One cable mentions the arrest by the Saudi government of a gay man. That is the cable that people use to accuse WikiLeaks of outing someone in Saudi Arabia.

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#22

Post by acdha » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #7

acdha wrote: post #3

He 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.

Here's an exercise: try to find an actual fact in that blog post and then look to see whether it was in fact not covered in the stories about Assange. For example, “he wasn't fleeing rape charges” is true only to the extent that journalists said “charges” without explaining that it was an arrest warrant which could lead to those charges — that was heavily covered at the time and for the subsequent years in which it ended up, among other things, being litigated to the U.K. Supreme Court[1], all of which got a ton of publicity for years.

Again, I'm not saying anything about the actual merits of the case or the conduct of any of the parties involved, only that I don't think a good discussion will come out of an inflamatory blog post by someone who lacks particular legal expertise, knowledge about the case, and seems to be using it as grist for preexisting grievances about “corporate media”.

Accordingly, I'm not going to reply further.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#23

Post by AlwaysRock » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #17

proaralyst wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a reputable source for your assertion?

No, because it's a lie. Actually one of the victims just recently (after the arrest) reiterated her accusations and called for re-opening the prosecution. 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…

You're saying asking for sources is a bad thing?

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#24

Post by AndyMcConachie » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

dmayle wrote: post #8

Background 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…

I think you're just making stuff up.

Here is Jonathan Cook's bio: " rel="nofollow">https://www.jonathan-cook.net/about/>

I don't see any relation to the Unz report nor do I understand why you're even mentioning it. The page you link to doesn't mention Johnathan Cook at all.

Please provide a citation that backs up your allegation.

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#25

Post by gamblor956 » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:47 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #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 moder…

Interesting choice of examples. Cody was accused of sexually assaulting an under-age girl and fled to Taiwan to avoid arrest...

Innocent people don't run. Especially not before they've even seen what the evidence against them is.

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#26

Post by kaolti » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

mrbanks wrote: post #12

dmayle wrote: post #8

Background 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.

FYI voices with reasonable views are mostly a minority online. I've been watching this for a while now - no wonder you're getting downvoted :)

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#27

Post by leesec » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #16

dmayle wrote: post #8

Background 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…

The whole thing looks like a mess where it looks like every party did something wrong. 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.

>Let's not forget that Wikileaks violated certain journalistic standards for divulging confidential information.

Which standards are those? I thought journalists were supposed to divulge confidential information if crimes we're being committed.

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#28

Post by Theodores » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #3

He 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.

It is unfortunate, the world has to be seen in black and white terms. The hit piece on The Guardian misses the mark here, yet the more you know about The Guardian the more you realise what the paper 'guards' and for whom.

There is no guarding of the truth in the abstract sense plus there is definite lying by omission. The paper is a left-wing gatekeeper, giving out enough of the truth to keep people doing things like going to anti-Trump rallies but not thinking that actual change is possible.

In this context of gatekeeping you can expect the paper to be 'clickbaiting' the readers with lots of Assange stuff. Supporting Assange and wanting him to get fairly treated is popular with the readers, none of whom would dare advance a controversial truth themselves.

When push comes to shove the Guardian are on the warmonger side, which is unfortunate if you have been a life long reader of the paper. They get orders from on high about what they can and cannot say, if there is a D-notice they will oblige rather than go front page.

It is not that hard to research examples of this, for a while 'off-guardian' did a good job of doing so. But even then they did not get into the D-notice stuff, where, incredible as it seems for a democracy, you can have facts and stories vanish into thin air on the government's say so. This is also the case in the U.S. where Special Administrative Measures can be used to make a story completely disappear. By the time this happens to a story you really do have a 'revolutionary truth' out of place with the times and deeply taboo. For this reason no examples can be cited, but this is something to bear in mind next time there is something weird like the Scripal incident.

My point being that although this is not a helpful article, The Guardian are not whiter than white, they fulfil a very important role in public diplomacy.

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#29

Post by stephen_g » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #3

He 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.

How so? That no rape charge against Assange does or did exist is a matter of fact, not opinion... As is the fact that the extradition warrant (for questioning over an alleged sexual assault) was issued by the Swedish prosecutor and not the judiciary.

I think it’s fair to say that the quoted wording in the Guardian is clearly factually incorrect on those points at least.

Re: Abuses show Assange case was never about law

#30

Post by kentrado » Fri, May 31, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

dmayle wrote: post #8

Background 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…

You know what this reminds me of, COINTELPRO. We are too ready to believe these sort of things.

It is the perfect tool for governments.