Julian Assange on CNN

reply to post by Amanda5


Well, we can question Burnett's loyalties and motivations all we want...and I don't know her well enough to say for sure..but I'm pretty sure she's not stupid. Mainstream, yeah. But way high level mainstream...financial analyst at Goldman Sachs=brains.

Don't get me wrong, I like Assange much better.

And, hopefully this post doesn't turn this into an Erin Burnett argument...its about Assange vs. establishment.

This interview is but a microcosm, and the adversary of (probably) the greatest whistleblower in our history is no dummy.

The guy is the f....g cable Jedi ,the Armour of truth, the end of sky-net, darthvaders worst nightmare made out of crypton thats what he is......

The implications of what Assange is saying is difficult to grasp...if he is correct, here is a reminder:

Everything we are saying right now, everything you are clicking and searching...is being stored permanently.

If you have a smart phone, it may be recording it's surroundings 24/7 and being stored...permanently.

And if it hasn't happened already, unless the trend is curbed, every user of the internet will have a profile that paints us quite accurately...physically with pictures and even more important ideologically.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


So that they can compartmentalize us..We have to call Morpheus to bring us the blue pill

Erin Burnett gave Assange a forum and if they really wanted the discussion to flow differently, stuff would have ended up edited out and on the cutting room floor. The Wikileaks dog gets a leash just like every other group, the demographic calculations have been done and if you look real hard you might see the limits of the dog run in the Wikileaks content.
Sites like Cryptome and Wikileaks are just too convenient not to end up a gold mine for disinformation.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


The man was trying to warn us of something very serious and very real, and all she wanted to do was deflect...

Some people confuse the $%@$ out of me. Did she not understand the severity of the issue or did she just not care? I wish I could ask her personally: What good is money without freedom?

Anyways, if you haven't seen it, heres some evidence for his case, as brought to you by the google: the google warns

Looks like those who attempt to portray Assange negatively have found their talking point from the interview:

From Huffington, written with clear bias against Assange:

Titled: Erin Burnett Grills Julian Assange: Why will you not talk about Ecuador?

She moved on to another issue: human rights in Ecuador, the country that has granted him asylum. "When you talk about governments clamping down on people's right to speak, Ecuador is an unlikely champion of your call for free speech," Burnett said.

He attempted to interject, but she insisted, "Let me finish here for my viewers."

"All governments have their problems," Assange said. "I'm not here to talk about these little things about Ecuador or whatever. Come on, let's be realistic."

"Suppressing journalists is not a little thing for someone who says their job is to put out information that the government tries to suppress," Burnett shot back. She brought up attempts to stifle free press in Ecuador.

The two engaged in heated cross-talk. "Why will you not talk about Ecuador?" Burnett asked.

"Because Ecuador is insignificant!" he said, referring to his earlier discussion about allegations of mass surveillance by the U.S. "It's people have been generous to me et cetera, but it's not a significant world player."

The write up focus completely on this one part of the interview, portraying Burnett as a tough no-nonsense hero of journalism. Mass surveillance is mentioned in passing, as an allegation.


And another, from all places: Ecuador Times- Julian Assange: Ecuador is insignificant

Assange, to the questions of the interviewer Erin Burnett on alleged violations of freedom of expression in Ecuador made by the government of Rafael Correa, he replied, “Ecuador is insignificant. It is very important to me, and its people have been very generous with me, but it isn’t a major global player. ” Burnett, when citing more about the important events taking place in the South American nation, Assange said, “I do not want to talk about tiny issues about Ecuador.”

Once again, the focus is on a quote taken out of context which makes Assange seem ungrateful.


Here's the response from http://__._/Assange-statement-on-CNN-s-Erinn.html

Today there have been reports misquoting Julian Assange in relation to Ecuador as a result of an exchange with CNN’s Erinn Burnett. To those who watch the segment the meaning is clear. Those that have drawn attention to the quote have clearly done so with the intention of misrepresenting what in context was clear in its meaning. Said comment occured within the context of a CNN interview about Mr. Assange’s new book, Cypherpunks. CNN had agreed to ask Mr. Assange about the topic of the book, namely the abuse of mass surveillance by the United States and other mass surveillance powers. The CNN interviewer tried to move the debate away from the scrutiny of the abuses of the United States mass surveillance, by attacking Mr. Assange over Ecuador’s media reform. Since the subject was the abuse of mass surveillance and Ecuador is not known to be an abusive surveillance power, Mr. Assange said Ecuador’s was "not significant" in this context and the conversation should return to topic.

To avoid any doubt, Mr. Assange stated that Ecuador was personally significant to him and that developments within the region were of general international significance. The threats to Latin America by US mass surveillance are extreme as nearly all communications between Latin American and the rest of the world pass through the United States. These and other topics are discussed in Mr. Assange’s book "Cypherpunks" which was published by OR Books this month. Readers are encouraged to watch the segment, which is available on the internet.

Could it be possible that CNN pressed him about Ecuador in the middle of his mass surveilance lecture on purpose, so that he would make this type of slip up, and end up losing support from the Ecuadorian embassy?

Which would mean arrest?

And bad news for wikileaks....

Hmmmmm

These guys are in deep # and broke the law. That being said, only time will tell whether or not they were justified in their actions. Next up on the news: "Scientists Try to Genetically Engineer a Flying Pig"

But does the average Joe pay attention to this? As far as I can tell, the answer is 'no'.

Are the 15-17 year old students paying attention to this? No.

And who are "these guys" anyway?

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I was flipping through the channels just now, and was surprised to see WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on CNN. He was being interviewed on Erin Burnett Out Front.

This is what you get when you pit one of the many airhead mud flingers of the MSM against a person like Julian assange.


I was quite impressed with him in this interview. Not at one point did he allow her target bullet point that being , "the other country does it too!!!!". She even went all childish there and totally lost her composure while assange just kept his.

He comes onto that show to talk about how the internet is being used and or abused but she Fights to talk about his infection and Ecuador.

If you ask me she lost the fight and jullian assange should do more interviews. I doubt CNN is jumping to do another one soon with him though.

To start with the oz gov are the biggest puppets than any other gov in the world, they don't even know that their strings are being pulled, chose to ignore the Assange issue, if someone's wanted by any other nation or commits a crime in oz, they deport/extradite their arse so quick, but don't bother trying to protect or convict their own nation's people supposedly committing crimes globally, oh apart from the rich pricks that is, they do a fine job protecting and pretending to convict them.

And to support what Assange was talking about, I recently received an e-mail from my internet provider explaining how the gov over here was expect them to store records of all traffic passing their servers and more, blog.iinet.net.au... ,they do a good job explaining why and the fact that the customer's will be flipping the bill too.

String them both up. I'll pay for the rope and the wood.

Some one else needs to do the knots.

But, then, I'm more then happy to pull the lever, for the 4000 Americans deadup to this point!!!

Whatever happened to the whole Julian doing time thing?

Suppose I could get used to them both in a 6x8 cell 23 hours a day for 80 years.

At least until we legalize stoning.

And yes, I WILL cast the first stone.....no problem.

reply to post by Yosemite Sam


How about innocent until proven guilty?

Trial by peers?

Basically everything that our judicial branch, and society, are based off of? I guess you're a fascist? If they are guilty, they are guilty. But they need to be tried in court first. And we all know how fair the court system is.

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


Wel im worried bout his health, and im worried what manning has to say, and shame on the Australian goevernment for not helping assange.

Originally posted by canDarian
I didn't find it amusing at all,watching Erin try to hijack the conversation with her constant interrupting was freaking annoying.From the constant and totally off topic question about a lung infection to trying to somehow denigrate the mans character for accepting asylum in Ecuador.
How these people can with a straight face call themselves journalists is beyond me,I have seen better etiquette on the Jerry Springer show.

this is a prime example of media maipulation
although Assange is aware of her tactics and so shes not having much success
thanks for posting
i will add this video to my thread Media Manipulation

reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


nanu nanu

In early August, WikiLeaks released another cluster of the 5 million e-mails it obtained in late 2011 from Stratfor, a private intelligence agency Barron’s has called “The Shadow CIA.”

so what happened to all the 5 million mails obtained? or some of the clusters that are online.
was there no candy in the mails? NO DIRT?

sazbot!

That whole interview was about 3 core questions, listen for them ...

Why is the internet bad ?

Officials from Ecuador say you have a lung infection and this is one of the reasons you are staying there, is this true ?

Ecuador is an unlikely source for freedom of speech, the President of Ecuador said 'it should be a function of the state where the information is regulated'

Essentially attacking the contradiction of that country to grant Assange asylam.
Seemed quite obvious they were leading questions to me but as always Julian did a good job at steering back onto the topic.

Control of the Internet is the #1 priority for all govenerments right now, the power of the people no longer stays within the boundries of a single country, it's global and that is a very terrifying prospect for tptb.

"You poison all your children to camouflage your scars."

I pray for Julian and Bradley.

"Someone had to go this far", it is unfortunate that no one listens anymore.

I still do not fully understand the implications of all the stuff that got these guys in trouble, but I do know that they exposed killings that should not have happened. War crimes that we would have never known about because it is so under all the thumbs of those who are so evil and unjust.

Why does these people that we know are no good get voted back into office and hold power positions? Sick, sick game we all play---and for what?