Julian Assange arrested at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

originally posted by: KiwiNite

Russia is not democracy either. Ask yourself a question why we never saw anything big about Russia from Assange if he ever released something on Russia at all.

People keep repeating this over and over again. All it takes to disprove is one look at the front page of Wikileaks. Direct link is wikileaks (dot) org/spyfiles/russia/ Even before this, wikileaks leaked other documents on Russia. They also have leaks from Syria and other governments and corporations all over the world. You are parroting talking points.

a reply to: JBurns

Sex crimes are just regular crimes

I agree with you on most of what you say but this should be reworded. Tell that to someone who has been raped and tortured. Sorry I know that was probably semantics as you are referring to Assange, but it comes off a bit callous IMO. I do think the charges are bogus but if they are, and Sweden decides to prosecute, then he "should" come off not guilty. Nudge nudge wink wink and all that.

a reply to: Xtrozero


I feel that if he has been accused of a sex crime, he should at least have a day in court, but they were dropped. But I think were looking at something bigger. People at the top are very uncomfortable about what is still in his bag of tricks. The Panama papers, makes big names very twitchy, the strict MSM censorship, and laws regarding internet free speech. Have all been brought in since the Podesta e mails. They just don't know, what else he has. Seth Richards paid a high price, if he leaked stuff which it looks like he did. So Assange wont be letting stuff out if it means his source gets executed. Dead mans switch probably means just that, if Assange dies it all gets dumped. These are high stakes. It's not really about Assange any more , anyway he might just be fed up with the whole lot and do a deal.

a reply to: anonentity

True investigative journalism seems to be the last defence against and biggest threat to, full government and systemic totalitarianism.

A decade ago, the Ministry of Defence in London produced a secret document which described the "principal threats" to public order as threefold: terrorists, Russian spies and investigative journalists. The latter was designated the major threat.


The document was duly leaked to WikiLeaks, which published it. "We had no choice," Assange told me. "It's very simple. People have a right to know and a right to question and challenge power. That's true democracy." johnpilger.com...

Current UK regime is led by a woman whose husband was named in the Panama Papers and who has exposed herself as a craven racist hypocrite.

The likelihood we will see any moral acuity amongst the ruling classes is nil and sadly, no matter how much any of us find the courage to continue speaking truth to power or demand power speak truth to us, they will forever seek ways to steal our taxes and keep us subjugated to their selfish cause.

a reply to: teapot

In addition, Chomsky has had this to say:

..the Assange arrest is scandalous in several respects. One of them is just the effort of governments—and it’s not just the U.S. government. The British are cooperating. Ecuador, of course, is now cooperating. Sweden, before, had cooperated. The efforts to silence a journalist who was producing materials that people in power didn’t want the rascal multitude to know about

...why is it acceptable for the United States to have the power to even begin to give even a proposal to extradite somebody whose crime is to expose to the public materials that people in power don’t want them to see? That’s basically what’s happening. www.democracynow.org...

In the article at DemocracyNow (transcript of an interview), Chomsky also talks about last years events in Brazil, the silencing of the former leader and how this had no 'established' media coverage.

The MSM and established press in the UK have been silenced. They stay in business by following the corporate line of their sponsors and instead ignore, attack, discredit and trivialise the truth and truth-speakers.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Isn't that what true journalism is? Compiling facts no matter the source?

So you are saying that if I break into a computer and steal information then just release it I'm now a journalist?

No.

Have you looked into the action he did they're trying to frame is him "assisting" in breaching a computer?

From my understanding, Manning had the access, and Assange tried to help Manning cover his tracks. That's a journalist protecting their source. That's no different than a journalist telling someone to use a secure drop box, an airgapped computer, ect.

As Manning stole the data, and JA knew it was stolen, isn't it more aiding and abetting?

No, journalists know it's classified information all the time.

No, it's classified information that Assange assisted (it appears) in being stolen. That makes him an accessory to the theft. Deny it all you want but it is what it is.

a reply to: uncommitted

Deny it all you want but it is what it is.

Hmmmm, I said this yesterday -

If he really did help Manning breach in an illigal manner, it it what it is.

But I digress... What if a constitutional lawyer made the case for Assange? Because that's what Glenn Greenwald does in his article.

Assange appears to have been unsuccessful in cracking the password. The indictment alleges that “Assange indicated that he had been trying to crack the password by stating that he had ‘no luck so far.’”

Thus, even if one accepts all of the indictment’s claims as true, Assange was not trying to hack into new document files to which Manning had no access, but rather trying to help Manning avoid detection as a source. For that reason, the precedent that this case would set would be a devastating blow to investigative journalists and press freedom everywhere.

Journalists have an ethical obligation to take steps to protect their sources from retaliation, which sometimes includes granting them anonymity and employing technical measures to help ensure that their identity is not discovered.

link

originally posted by: uncommitted
No, it's classified information that Assange assisted (it appears) in being stolen. That makes him an accessory to the theft. Deny it all you want but it is what it is.

The leaks are asking the question: "Should this be classified... Why is it classified?"

They scrutinise those who decide what should be classified, or else those who blindly follow such diktats without question will lead us all over the cliff edge with them.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

If you break the law to prove the government is breaking the law.... Why do only you get punished?

The US in particular has started making everything classified so they don't have to be transparent. Much of it is classified not for nation security but pride.

But they released 10,000s of documents and none of it was breaking the law.... Good chunk was sensitive information we really didn't want other countries to know though.

originally posted by: teapot
The MSM and established press in the UK have been silenced.

That's just total rubbish. You are living in fantasy land. Assange is in the press in the UK. He has his supporters and detractors, and a basic level of reporting the facts as they are at the moment. However, Assange ain't really news in the great scheme of things. When things happen they are reported.

- He's been arrested on an existing warrant in the UK (skipping bail) having been chucked out of the Ecuadorean consulate. He'll be sentenced for that in due course, but he's currently in custody. Doubt he'll get bail again having abused that particular right.
- Sweden are looking to restate the original rape charges. He'll probably have to face that first, so there is discussion on whether the original (2011) Swedish extradition request and subsequent result still stands.
- The US have an extradition request.
- It'll all be reported as either way there will be legal process to follow.
- The sequence is: Sort out his current criminal charge for skipping bail, including letting any sentence run its course, then sort out Sweden. If he's sent to Sweden he'll be returned to the UK for extradition proceedings to the US once the Swedes have dealt with him. If (in God knows how long) the courts in England decide to extradite to the US the Home secretary at the time will have the final say.

originally posted by: anonentity

I feel that if he has been accused of a sex crime, he should at least have a day in court, but they were dropped.

I don't think all were dropped, but they were weak anyways to begin with.

Dead mans switch probably means just that, if Assange dies it all gets dumped. These are high stakes. It's not really about Assange any more , anyway he might just be fed up with the whole lot and do a deal.

I don't want confidential mixed with embarrassment type stuff as we have seen so far. If there is a true whistle blower type material then so be it, but if it what we have seen so far then he really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't think all were dropped, but they were weak anyways to begin with

Yes they have all been dropped. The reason being the lack of evidence.

originally posted by: paraphi
If (in God knows how long) the courts in England decide to extradite to the US the Home secretary at the time will have the final say.

I wonder how England handles cases that are based on low level crimes. America is charging him with very little..5 years Max sentence, so I can't say it is anything serious in nature. It almost seems like a situation where if he tries to come to America then he would be apprehended, but as it stands right now that is a lot of energy and money to extradite him for what is US is saying they will go after.

originally posted by: purplemer
Yes they have all been dropped. The reason being the lack of evidence.

That's not sorrect. The Swedes cancelled the arrest warrant as they felt there was no chance Assange could be reached. They had the evidence from the original investigation, which was enough for extradition from the UK to Sweden to be approved after a long legal process.

a reply to: paraphi

That's not sorrect. The Swedes cancelled the arrest warrant as they felt there was no chance Assange could be reached.

What are you on about. It is normal protocol in such instances for them to come to him. It has happened before in the past and it is not an issue. He was happy to have the interview at the embassy. It never happened. They where being obtuse.

originally posted by: purplemer
What are you on about.

You said the Swedes dropped the charges due to a lack of evidence. As I said, that's not correct. Regardless of what you think of Swedish legal protocols, or whether you think they were obtuse, or not...

"With the consideration that all options of moving the investigation forward are now exhausted it appears that – in light of the views expressed by the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) on the proportionality of remanding someone in absentia – it is no longer proportional to maintain the decision to remand Julian Assange in his absence and maintain the European arrest warrant," Ny wrote in her notification to Stockholm District Court.

Multiple sources, but here's one

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: teapot
The MSM and established press in the UK have been silenced.

That's just total rubbish. You are living in fantasy land.

I am in good company.

Normally I do not bother responding to such naïve and mainstream views but seriously, it gets a bit much when people absolutely refuse to look at any evidence that does not support their confirmation bias.

The press in this country have been reduced to unashamed propagandists and they only get away with their govt approved Orwellian double speak narratives because there are still too many people that do not question.

a reply to: paraphi

Use your noggin. They had no evidence. Thats why is has been dropped. If you cannot see that. Thart is fine by me. Smear tactics against whisle blowers is a very common tactic. I could give you a list. But I feel its a waste of time.

Enjoy your deepstate mainstream media narrative.

a reply to: paraphi

and regardless of your opinion above the fact remains that the turning over of JA is in direct violation of article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

No contracting state state shall expel or return a refugee in any manor where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his membership of a particular political opinion.


None should be below the law and those that think so are doofuses

In a time of universal deceit, telling the Truth is a revolutionary act

- George Orwell