Assange

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

contrarianna wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Assange will rot in prison. Beautifu,Excellent. Where he belongs. Throw away the key. Have fun in a federal prison, hopefully Walla Walla,Sing Sing or San Quentin. Ciao you Republican troll.

Another wallow in hate from a fascistically-minded "progressive" who supports the bi-partisan Trump Republican-Democrat prosecution of Assange, for printing leaked emails of corruption that are 100% accurate and resulted in one corrupt DNC official losing her job.

But, no, wait, apparently he's NOT fascistically-minded after all, he doesn't want to imprison for life in solitary ALL whistleblowers and publishers, merely those publishers who print verified FACTS he doesn't like, and doesn't want people to see.

Sooo  much better if people who ran the US thought like this--(uhh, oh yeah, they do).

lol....seriously,this man played a roll in creating Donald Trump's presidency. Hence he's a Republican troll..To hell with him.

This post is really for the consideration of rational readers since smithee, spouting obscenities, had before  called me a "Republican" and "troll" and claimed he wouldn't respond anymore.  Amusingly, during the first few of my 12 years here I was often called a "Liberal" for criticizing the rightward drift of the NDP.  I suppose it's only a matter of time before I'm labeled a "Russian troll".

As far as "trolling" goes, compare the content-vacant gleeful incitement I responded to, versus  my (at least rudimentary) argument against political and censorship-driven imprisonment. 

The "case" for Assange's further imprisonment seems to be that he aided Trump by Wikileaks publishing leaked emails that put Clinton and the DNC in a bad light.  That they put Clinton and the DNC in a bad light is undeniable; that they resulted in Trump's election is highly debatable--but not relevant to the desire for censorship-based imprisonment.

The passion for imprisonment seems to be partly based on the assumed bias of the publisher--the claim that Assange favoured Trump over Clinton in the election.  I'd guess that this is quite likely true given Clinton's past role in targetting Assange and that out of self-interest (and his very self-deluded hope} that the Trump-led administration would drop the already extant sealed indictement against him instead what they did--ramping up the persecution.

I would hope that most people would not endorse imprisonment based on the political bias of publishers (gosh, what could go wrong there!).

It's as if CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, RT, Guardian, BBC, etc, didn't promote or denigrate politcal figures according to their bias, or have a state-centric political bias that shapes what they publish.  A major difference being that they often, to varying degrees, publish false information--unlike the Wikileak's main site for leaks.

A subset of the Wikileaks is biased  narrative is that Wikileaks/Assange timed the release of emails to hurt Clinton, as another reason to justify imprisonment. Whether it did or not, it's hardly a leap of imagination to think this happens with corporaate media regularly.
A particularly glaring case of timing bias governing publication is the NYT suppressing publication of NYT story mass illegal domestic surveiilence which could have affected the GW Bush re-election: 

One of the most notorious examples was in mid-2004 when the New York Times discovered - thanks to a courageous DOJ whistleblower - that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on the electronic communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law. But after George Bush summoned to the Oval Office the paper's publisher (Arthur Sulzberger) and executive editor (Bill Keller) and directed them to conceal what they had learned, the NYT complied by sitting on the story for a-year-and-a-half: until late December, 2005, long after Bush had been safely re-elected.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/saudi-arabia-drone...

Should these NYT editors be imprisoned for life for delaying the publication of something that might have hurt the re-election of GW Bush, the greatest war criminal--so far--in the 21st century (now fawned over by many Democrats for simply being not-Trump)?

Despite the repugnant nature of the editors decision, I believe most thinking people would consider it a slide far down the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and that it would give a green light for arbitrary journalist oppression for anyone in power.

The Trump administration, so far, still lags far behind GW Bush's body count and wars of aggression.  This could change very quickly with his fattened coterie of Bush-era neocon and  hawks Pompeo, Bolton, Abrams, Pence etc. that shape the foreign policy of the  Criminal-in Chief.  Unfortunately, there is little real objection on this account from the so-called Resistence (  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/24/so-called-trump-resistance-... ) on this, and often endorsment and egging on from the "liberal" press and minion states like Canada, as Bolton's "Troika of Tyranny" is targetted for regime change by the "Democracy of Decency (tm)".

The apparatus for security state and corporate surveillance and censorship/suppression/persecution has increased under the Trump administration, and most other states in the world. This is not a departure in kind from previous administrations but largely a matter of tighter corporate/state coalescence and technological advance. (ie. when they can do it, they will--and make big money too). The push to destroy voices that do not toe a particular partisan line, or bipartisan state-centric foreign policy, will no doubt proceed with increasing sophistication and, most unfortunately, with the avid approval of so many "progressives" as long as the victims are those they don't like. This a very major contribution to the growing tyranny.

FYI....I've been calling ASSANGE a Republican troll over and over in this thread. Why? Because that's exactly what he is.

I have called you absolutely no name. Not once. Not in any thread. I keep suggesting that people not forget what Assange is,he doesn't have any of my mercy.

So I hope that's clear and now can move on.

contrarianna

alan smithee wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Assange will rot in prison. Beautifu,Excellent. Where he belongs. Throw away the key. Have fun in a federal prison, hopefully Walla Walla,Sing Sing or San Quentin. Ciao you Republican troll.

Another wallow in hate from a fascistically-minded "progressive" who supports the bi-partisan Trump Republican-Democrat prosecution of Assange, for printing leaked emails of corruption that are 100% accurate and resulted in one corrupt DNC official losing her job.

But, no, wait, apparently he's NOT fascistically-minded after all, he doesn't want to imprison for life in solitary ALL whistleblowers and publishers, merely those publishers who print verified FACTS he doesn't like, and doesn't want people to see.

Sooo  much better if people who ran the US thought like this--(uhh, oh yeah, they do).

lol....seriously,this man played a roll in creating Donald Trump's presidency. Hence he's a Republican troll..To hell with him.

This post is really for the consideration of rational readers since smithee, spouting obscenities, had before  called me a "Republican" and "troll" and claimed he wouldn't respond anymore.  Amusingly, during the first few of my 12 years here I was often called a "Liberal" for criticizing the rightward drift of the NDP.  I suppose it's only a matter of time before I'm labeled a "Russian troll".

As far as "trolling" goes, compare the content-vacant gleeful incitement I responded to, versus  my (at least rudimentary) argument against political and censorship-driven imprisonment. 

The "case" for Assange's further imprisonment seems to be that he aided Trump by Wikileaks publishing leaked emails that put Clinton and the DNC in a bad light.  That they put Clinton and the DNC in a bad light is undeniable; that they resulted in Trump's election is highly debatable--but not relevant to the desire for censorship-based imprisonment.

The passion for imprisonment seems to be partly based on the assumed bias of the publisher--the claim that Assange favoured Trump over Clinton in the election.  I'd guess that this is quite likely true given Clinton's past role in targetting Assange and that out of self-interest (and his very self-deluded hope} that the Trump-led administration would drop the already extant sealed indictement against him instead what they did--ramping up the persecution.

I would hope that most people would not endorse imprisonment based on the political bias of publishers (gosh, what could go wrong there!).

It's as if CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, RT, Guardian, BBC, etc, didn't promote or denigrate politcal figures according to their bias, or have a state-centric political bias that shapes what they publish.  A major difference being that they often, to varying degrees, publish false information--unlike the Wikileak's main site for leaks.

A subset of the Wikileaks is biased  narrative is that Wikileaks/Assange timed the release of emails to hurt Clinton, as another reason to justify imprisonment. Whether it did or not, it's hardly a leap of imagination to think this happens with corporaate media regularly.
A particularly glaring case of timing bias governing publication is the NYT suppressing publication of NYT story mass illegal domestic surveiilence which could have affected the GW Bush re-election: 

One of the most notorious examples was in mid-2004 when the New York Times discovered - thanks to a courageous DOJ whistleblower - that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on the electronic communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law. But after George Bush summoned to the Oval Office the paper's publisher (Arthur Sulzberger) and executive editor (Bill Keller) and directed them to conceal what they had learned, the NYT complied by sitting on the story for a-year-and-a-half: until late December, 2005, long after Bush had been safely re-elected.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/saudi-arabia-drone...

Should these NYT editors be imprisoned for life for delaying the publication of something that might have hurt the re-election of GW Bush, the greatest war criminal--so far--in the 21st century (now fawned over by many Democrats for simply being not-Trump)?

Despite the repugnant nature of the editors decision, I believe most thinking people would consider it a slide far down the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and that it would give a green light for arbitrary journalist oppression for anyone in power.

The Trump administration, so far, still lags far behind GW Bush's body count and wars of aggression.  This could change very quickly with his fattened coterie of Bush-era neocon and  hawks Pompeo, Bolton, Abrams, Pence etc. that shape the foreign policy of the  Criminal-in Chief.  Unfortunately, there is little real objection on this account from the so-called Resistence (  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/24/so-called-trump-resistance-... ) on this, and often endorsment and egging on from the "liberal" press and minion states like Canada, as Bolton's "Troika of Tyranny" is targetted for regime change by the "Democracy of Decency (tm)".

The apparatus for security state and corporate surveillance and censorship/suppression/persecution has increased under the Trump administration, and most other states in the world. This is not a departure in kind from previous administrations but largely a matter of tighter corporate/state coalescence and technological advance. (ie. when they can do it, they will--and make big money too). The push to destroy voices that do not toe a particular partisan line, or bipartisan state-centric foreign policy, will no doubt proceed with increasing sophistication and, most unfortunately, with the avid approval of so many "progressives" as long as the victims are those they don't like. This a very major contribution to the growing tyranny.

FYI....I've been calling ASSANGE a Republican troll over and over in this thread. Why? Because that's exactly what he is.

I have called you absolutely no name. Not once. Not in any thread. I keep suggesting that people not forget what Assange is,he doesn't have any of my mercy.

So I hope that's clear and now can move on.

Perhaps, smithee, your lies are not deliberate. 
Perhaps your pervasive world of unhinged anger and irrational claims, they simply don't register anymore:

From the sooo progressive Fuck Free Speech thread:

alan smithee wrote:
...
And calling me a ' fascist' and a ' totalitarian' isn't dull-witted and infantile? LOL..You're a half wit and you must be a ' fake'  progressive  seeing that you are defending a Republican troll.

[contrariana] The bottom line is your gleeful wish to imprison in solitary those who you politically oppose. That is, by definition,  totalitarianism. 
For bi-partisan fascism to progress it doesn't require just the current disgusting extreme of Trump, or Pence--just more fake progressives who think like you.

You're an asshole. There  is nothing left for me to say to you. As I said,I'm not going to be banned at the hands of the likes of you.

Call me ridiculous names. It just proves you're a troll and you're not worth the time of day.

​It's too fucking bad that you get triggered when someone rightfully besmirches your cult leader.

Go yell at a cloud.

http://rabble.ca/comment/5418336#comment-5418336

Mobo2000

Always happy when I see a new contrianna post.  This is really well stated:

"The apparatus for security state and corporate surveillance and censorship/suppression/persecution has increased under the Trump administration, and most other states in the world. This is not a departure in kind from previous administrations but largely a matter of tighter corporate/state coalescence and technological advance. (ie. when they can do it, they will--and make big money too). The push to destroy voices that do not toe a particular partisan line, or bipartisan state-centric foreign policy, will no doubt proceed with increasing sophistication and, most unfortunately, with the avid approval of so many "progressives" as long as the victims are those they don't like. This a very major contribution to the growing tyranny."

And entirely agree with the logic presented in post 100 re: the NYT decision to not publish the warrentless wiretapping/surveillance story before Bush's second election.   The details of that incident are pretty shocking.  Thanks Contrianna for laying it out so well.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Clearly I wasn't on my meds at the time...you win.

This Assange person played a role in creating Donald Trump. If he didn't directly, he most definitely indirectly.

Simple.

So yeah..I hate him. Is this irrational? Not in my view. But if it is yours, sorry,mate.

NDPP

WikiLeaks published the DNC emails because they were as important to publish in the public interest as the Collateral Murder video, the US State Dept cables or the CIA's Vault 7. The 'hate' for Assange is purely a creation of the relentless media driven smear and disinformation campaign to which so many so-called 'progressives' seem particulary vulnerable. As for Assange being responsible for [Crooked!]  Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump, I rather think she is herself responsible for that. At the very least the blame should be shared more widely, some even say Bernie was responsible. In any case one  might wish to consider other possibilities... 

Report: Bill Clinton May Have Encouraged Donald Trump To Run For President

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump...

"Whom does the country have to blame for Donald Trump's ascendancy in American politics? It was president and candidate spouse Bill Clinton all along..."

NDPP

Whistleblower Chelsea Manning Jailed For Refusing to Testify Against Julian Assange

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/08/mann-m08.html

"Manning's lawyer, Moira Meltzer-Cohen, told the WSWS after the decision, 'Chelsea's actions speak for themselves. She is a person of tremendous honor and courage, and the latest struggle is just the most recent in a long series of principled stands she has taken.

The threat to Manning is part of a bipartisan offensive against freedom of speech, aimed at suppressing critical and independent journalism. She has taken an essential stand, in contrast to the corporate media outlets and pseudo-left groups that have turned cynically against Assange..."

NDPP

Unity4J: 19.0

https://youtu.be/f3wyCZqTrGg

"Online vigil in support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks."

@15:00

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Is this guy still hiding in that embassy?

voice of the damned

I believe so, yeah.

NDPP

"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." Malcolm X

 

Collateral Murder

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1104104393123729412

"An 'Investigation into Civilian Casualties Resulting from an Engagement on 12 July, 2007 in the New Baghdad District of Baghdad, Iraq', found that 'the proceedings comply with legal requirements,' and 'contain no material errors or violate any individual's substantial rights."

https://www.thenation.com/article/wikileaks-baghdad/

In an age of information ignorance is a choice.

wage zombie

NDPP wrote:

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1100660998409736192

"Anybody who believes Julian Assange was able to phone Roger Stone from inside the Ecuadorean Embassy with neither CGCQ, NSA, CIA or FBI intercepting the call, is severely deluded - combined budget of these agencies - $41 billion. Michael Cohen's testimony is obviously nonsense."

One way to look at this is that Cohen's testimony is nonsense.  The other way to look at it is that, if Cohen's testimony is indeed true, we would expect to see plenty of evidence of this coming forth in the next year.

bekayne
contrarianna

wage zombie wrote:

NDPP wrote:

https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1100660998409736192

"Anybody who believes Julian Assange was able to phone Roger Stone from inside the Ecuadorean Embassy with neither CGCQ, NSA, CIA or FBI intercepting the call, is severely deluded - combined budget of these agencies - $41 billion. Michael Cohen's testimony is obviously nonsense."

One way to look at this is that Cohen's testimony is nonsense.  The other way to look at it is that, if Cohen's testimony is indeed true, we would expect to see plenty of evidence of this coming forth in the next year.

Trump's former fixer Cohen trys to ingratiate himself in true McCarthyite fashion, adding to the endless conspiricist anti-Assange  Russiagate false stories in the "respected" MSM. 

These stories are simply forgotten when they are shown to be very improbable, or demonstrably false. The closest the conspiracy adherents ever get to backtracking is saying things like: "well, we'll have to wait and see". 

One of the more obviously ridiculous stories in recent times was the Guardian's viral "Manafort visits Assange 3 times in the Equadorian Embassy". Absurd on the face of it, the Guardian never retracted it (but slightly edited it after without saying they did, a journalistic ethical no-no) to make it less definitive.  

That Manafort could walk into the Embassy, even once, without being seen, photographed and videoed by multiple agencies and persons at one of the most surveilled locations on the planet defies even minimal consciousness. (I suppose he could have been smuggled in 3 times in a diplomatic briefcase): 

Five Weeks After The Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged — Just Stonewalling  Glenn Greenwald  January 2 2019, 5:43 a.m.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral...

As for the Cohen story, during the Congressional hearing these words were exchanged:

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: You said—and this is also in your testimony—in the days before the Democratic convention, you became privy to a conversation that some of Hillary Clinton’s emails would be leaked. Is that correct?

MICHAEL COHEN: Correct.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: OK. Was that in—you said late July. Do you know the exact day?

MICHAEL COHEN: I believe it was either the 18th or the 19th, and I would guess that it would be on the 19th.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: But it was definitely July?

MICHAEL COHEN: I believe so, yes.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Do you know that was public knowledge in June? This was Mr. Assange. And I’d like to submit this [Guardian article quoting Julian Assange in June 2016]. [bold mine] Unanimous consent to submit this for the record.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Without objection, so ordered.

REP. THOMAS MASSIE: Mr. Assange reported to the media on June 12th that those emails would be leaked. So, I’m not saying you have fake news; I’m saying you have old news, and there’s really not much to that....

Now, let's just imagine that Cohen is acting out of character and is in fact telling the truth. What would that mean in terms of actual criminal behaviour and comparative publication behaviour? 

I had addressed that issue in an earlier post in this thread: 

"It's as if CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, RT, Guardian, BBC, etc, didn't promote or denigrate politcal figures according to their bias, or have a state-centric political bias that shapes what they publish.  A major difference being that they often, to varying degrees, publish false information--unlike the Wikileak's main site for leaks.

A subset of the Wikileaks is biased  narrative is that Wikileaks/Assange timed the release of emails to hurt Clinton, as another reason to justify imprisonment. Whether it did or not, it's hardly a leap of imagination to think this happens with corporate media regularly.

A particularly glaring case of timing bias governing publication is the NYT suppressing publication of NYT story mass illegal domestic surveiilence which could have affected the GW Bush re-election...."

In a later March 8 article by Ann Garrison elaborates on that perspective: 

....Wheeler’s among the worst of the Russiagate faithful now embroidering the facts. Is she saying that journalists should not publish for maximum impact? Or simply that Wikileaks should not? Would she impose the same standard on the New York Times, the Washington Post, or her own aptly named blog, EmptyWheel.net?

Neither releasing information nor knowing the date that it would be released are a crime. And even if Donald Trump did know the release date, what impact could that possibly have? How was Trump supposed to have used prior knowledge of the date on which Wikileaks would release the DNC and Podesta emails? They were guaranteed to be the day’s biggest headlines whether he knew their release date or not, so even if he did, it would have had absolutely no impact.

Any earnest journalist is going to release whatever they’ve got for maximum impact at whatever time and in whatever outlet they can. Any earnest news outlet is going to rush to publish a big story as fast as they can. And the DNC and Podesta emails were guaranteed to be a huge story no matter who knew of them or their publication date in advance.....

Admitting that they’ve propagandized Americans into a state of mass psychosis about Russian interference and infiltration could embarrass the Russiagate faithful press as much as admitting that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq should have embarrassed that theory’s proponents. It should be remembered, however, that New York Times reporter Judith Miller neither acknowledged being embarrassed nor apologized for leading us into that criminal war of aggression, and neither did Robert Mueller, the special Russiagate prosecutor now lionized by Trump-hating liberals. During the run-up to the 03/20/2003 attack on Iraq, Mueller told Congress,

      “As Director Kennedy has pointed out, Secretary Powell pre[s]ented evidence last week that Baghdad has      failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the            international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or radiological material.”...*

https://www.globalresearch.ca/michael-cohen-scooped-julian-assange/5670722

*Mueller: 'Enemy is far from defeated' Tuesday, February 11, 2003 Posted: 2:49 PM EST (1949 GM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/transcripts.mueller/

Pages