WikiLeaks

List of journalists killed in Russia

Contrarianna can tell us if she has the same contempt for Russia -- including the current government -- as she does for you, and whether they're similarly not progressives in her estimation.

That isn't to say you couldn't turn your amp down to "8" on the vengeance, Alan.  But for good or bad, wanting (openly; secretly; shamfully) bad people to suffer a little isn't actually a solely conservative thing.  Change the person and the crime, and even Gandhi might say "FUCK YA!  Rot in hell!!!!  Howyalikemenow???"

My apologies if this joint statement has already been posted - it was issued April 2, 2018:

The Isolation of Julian Assange Must Stop

Quote:

We call on President Moreno to end the isolation of Julian Assange now.

List of signatories (in alphabetic order):

Pamela Anderson, actress and activist

Jacob Appelbaum, freelance journalist

Renata Avila, International Human Rights Lawyer

Sally Burch, British/Ecuadorian journalist

Alicia Castro, Argentina’s ambassador to the United Kingdom 2012-16

Naomi Colvin, Courage Foundation

Noam Chomsky, linguist and political theorist

Brian Eno, musician

Joseph Farrell, WikiLeaks Ambassador and board member of The Centre for Investigative Journalism

Teresa Forcades, Benedictine nun, Montserrat Monastery

Charles Glass, American-British author, journalist, broadcaster

Chris Hedges, journalist

Srećko Horvat, philosopher, Democracy in Europe Movement (DiEM25)

Jean Michel Jarre, musician

John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer and former senior investigator, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Lauri Love, computer scientist and activist

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, Presidential advisor

John Pilger, journalist and film-maker

Angela Richter, theater director, Germany

Saskia Sassen, sociologist, Columbia University

Jeffrey St. Clair, journalist

Oliver Stone, film-maker

Vaughan Smith, English journalist

Yanis Varoufakis, economist, former Greek finance minister

Natalia Viana, investigative journalist and co-director of Agencia publica, Brazil

Ai Weiwei, artist

Vivienne Westwood, fashion designer and activist

Slavoj Žižek, philosopher, Birkbeck Institute for Humanities

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

WikiLeaks & the Global Fourth Estate  (and vid)
https://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/426546-britain-possible-war-i...

@14:00  Dr Nozomi Hayase about why everyone on earth needs Wikileaks.

Anyone actually reading the information posted will already know that Assange's communications are cut, blocked and jammed. There is no possiblity of  'a cellphone and plan' no matter how many times the same poster ignores the pertinent posts and substitutes his own reactionary smear and disinformation attempts instead.

The only visitors allowed Assange are very infrequent ones by his lawyers and only as permitted by the embassy.  Ecuador has had a change in government with the new regime apparently open to cruel and unusual  fuckery with Assange as per ongoing negotiations underway with Washington suggest.

Julian Assange has been subjected to intensive demonization and punished by the imposition of inhumane conditions  for WikiLeaks release of critical information revealing the true nature of power and those in high places. He deserves our sympathy and support, not vile calumnies and character assassination by deluded and brainwashed right-left reactionaries.

Pogo wrote:

Down the road I see a great movie of a person who started out with great intentions, got a bunch of power and the power corrupted him as it always does.

That sounds about right to me.

alan smithee wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Solitary confinement and imprisonment is what Assange deserves. I guess he thought his stunt in the last US election would be a gauranteed 'get out of prison free' card. It's going to be hilarious when the Trump administration stabs him in the back.

I hope he's sentenced to prison for life by one of these governments and it will be the very last time we'll hear the name Julian Assange.

LOL!

Pure fascist mentality from one of the many fake "progressives" on Babble: "Imprison  in solitary those who publish facts I don't like".

Look. I have no intention of being banned because of an asshole like yourself so let me make clear something.

I repeasted not only that I hate Julian Assange but he deserves whatever is coming to him. His stunt in the last US election was politically motivated. This has nothing to do with me simply not agreeing with what he publishes.

So please. Take back the fascist remark or I'm flagging you. Understand?

Flag me if you will.
At one time, in the past, it would be more likely be your position that would be questioned on progressive media. Times change.

There is nothing that I said that I would like to retract. Though "fascist mentality' could be replaced with "Stalinist/fascist mentality", they both embody the same desire to punish those who's political motivation does not correspond to one's own. 

So now according to you, you want him imprisoned in solitary because you "hate him" and he did a "stunt" which was "politically motivated"? Do we have enough solitary cells for all those who perform "politically motivated" actions the state and its endorsers don't like? 

Like you,I won't retract ANYTHING I've said about Assange. You want to coddle the sweet little angel go right ahead.

He was working with the Republicans during the election to bury Clinton.

I don't care about Clinton but helping Hitler Incarnate Trump a reality makes him a low life. If he were to be thrown in a pit of snakes and set on fire,I wouldn't piss on him.

It's ironic that you call ME a fascist whilst defending a man who helped elect a REAL fascist.

That's your problem,mate. Calling me a fascist makes you look and sound like a major dumbass who doesnt know his ass from his elbow.Especially caling me Stalin. You sound like a Republican.Clueless and hyperbolic.Are you sure your real name isn't Kanye West?

I'm "a Republican" now? Is that the best dull-witted, though risable, defense you can think of?

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.

Those who replace Trump (should we survive, and he not "win" another show election) whether Republican or Democrat, they will continue the bi-partisan jackbooted march against political foes, whistleblowing, and publishing, which you, de facto, endorse.  The foes may vary a bit according to faction, but bi-partisan totalitarianism is normalized in both security state parties:

The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trum...

Will Democrats Unite to Block Trump’s Torturer, Gina Haspel, as CIA Chief? If Not, What Do They #Resist?
Glenn Greenwald

....That means that Democrats have the power to block a torturer and evidence-destroyer from becoming Trump’s CIA director — if they remain united in their opposition.

Will they do so? It is difficult to be optimistic, to put that mildly.
....
The prospect of united Democratic opposition to Trump’s CIA nominee is further complicated by the vocal support for Haspel coming not only from the CIA itself — which has been running what amounts to a domestic propaganda campaign on her behalf — but also from the most admired Democratic Party intelligence and military officials.....

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/08/will-democrats-unite-to-block-trumps...

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pogo wrote:

Down the road I see a great movie of a person who started out with great intentions, got a bunch of power and the power corrupted him as it always does.

That sounds about right to me.

If I didn't know the context, I could never have imagined that these comments were made about Julian Assange. Unless the words "power" and "corrupted" have some esoteric secondary definitions. What in the name of all that is profane is this supposed to mean??

"Former UK 'Counter-Terrorism commander involved in the Snowden affair trolls Julian Assange's mother on Mothers Day. The Detective now works for BAE Systems, a corrupt Saudi Army supplier often exposed by WikiLeaks."

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/995725728216952834

"USA and others don't like any scrutiny via WikiLeaks and they are leaning on everybody to pillory Assange. What happened to free speech?" - Jeremy Corbyn 2010

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/12307023966240768

Come on.  To say that Wikileaks did  not grow into a very influencial organism is to ignore reality.  Yes he was not on the same level as a nuclear armed nation state, but no one is claiming that.  He definitely had influence and his influence is a reflection of his power.

What I find odd about this latest turn is why he would risk his already delicate position not to release important information, but just to weigh in on issues that are common knowledge. If Wikileaks really is an important organization, it seems to me all he is doing is putting it at risk with what really is pointless grandstanding. It's not as if this concerns suppressing hidden information, and even if it did, all he would have to do is hand it off to someone and release it some other way that does not have his name connected to it.

Which begs the question of what this may really be about.

If he thinks he is going to win a faux free speech showdown, and that a populist groundswell is going to rise up and compel his evil hosts to give him everything he wants he might be disappointed. I can only think a wiser tactician who had real concern for his organization would play his cards a bit closer to his chest.

There's a May 2 link in his twitter feed about Ecuador's security deal with the U.S. - not new information, but an telesur article. What's the point? Seems to me he is making demands while poking them in the eye at the same time.

Unionist wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pogo wrote:

Down the road I see a great movie of a person who started out with great intentions, got a bunch of power and the power corrupted him as it always does.

That sounds about right to me.

If I didn't know the context, I could never have imagined that these comments were made about Julian Assange. Unless the words "power" and "corrupted" have some esoteric secondary definitions. What in the name of all that is profane is this supposed to mean??

As Pogo has already commented, it may be that "influential" would be more accurate than "powerful". In the age of information, Assange had access to a great deal on information that was not publicly known, and also the power to decide which pieces of secret information to reveal. Anything he did reveal was immediately amplified by major media world wide.

As long as he was acting in a way that could be recognized as generally in the public interest, he was exercising his influence in a benign way. Unfortunately, when he was pursued (I think unfairly) by the U.S. government, he began using his influence in a more Machiavellian way, for example attempting to influence the U.S. presidential election in favour of Trump. That is what I regard as corruption.

Unionist wrote:

Thanks for the explanations, Pogo and Michael.

I just thought that "powerful" and "corrupted" were ungenerous and odd terms to use about a man who has been unable to leave a building for almost 6 years because the most powerful country in the history of the world is hunting him down. And if he uses his "influence" to strike back at that country in any way he feels appropriate, I still have trouble blaming the victim. 

I agree that Assange is a rather tragic figure. I don't really blame him for trying to strike back at the U.S. in a personal sense, but I think it cost him his credibility.

Unionist wrote:

if he uses his "influence" to strike back at that country in any way he feels appropriate, I still have trouble blaming the victim. 

I agree that it not the standard power corrupts that I presented. I do think progressive historians will treat Manning far better.

Pogo wrote:

Unionist wrote:

if he uses his "influence" to strike back at that country in any way he feels appropriate, I still have trouble blaming the victim. 

I agree that it not the standard power corrupts that I presented. I do think progressive historians will treat Manning far better.

And I think Edward Snowden is the best example of a guy who used his knowledge and abilities to strike back at power. And I would hope that saying such indicates that my lower opinion of Assange is not a result of my being a shill for "Killary", since her party was as tainted by Snowden's revelations as anybody else.  

Magoo, if I didn't love you, I'd call you names for saying that "Assange should have known that if he spoke truth to power, then power would crush him, so why sympathize with him now?" That's actually beneath you. But I still love you.

 Snowden only escaped due to to the assistance and coordination of Assange and WikiLeaks. This is well known and not seriously questioned. Furthermore, the contributions of WikiLeaks publishing are immense and can't possibly be apprehended or appreciated by what the msm chose to share. 

Quote:

Magoo, if I didn't love you, I'd call you names for saying that "Assange should have known that if he spoke truth to power, then power would crush him, so why sympathize with him now?" That's actually beneath you. But I still love you.

And that love keeps me alive some days.

But I'm not saying "whatevs".  I'm saying that in what alternate universe could Assange imagine doing all that Assange has done while telecommuting from a house in the Hamptons?

Manning paid a price.  Snowden continues to pay a price.  Assange CHOSE to hunker down in a foxhole and we're all supposed be outraged that he doesn't have free wi-fi in his foxhole?

Personally, I don't think that WikiLeaks "did what the world needed".  I think they did whatever they could do, and whatever they personally wanted to do, even if only 5% of that was "what the world needed".  And then Assange couldn't keep it in his pants.  And then he claimed to fear for his life.  And then he chose his prison cell.  And then he pretty much just lived in that cell.  It's terrible if Ecuador insists on frisking Pamela Anderson when she comes to visit him in his misery, and bring him two-year-old newspapers and some chocolate rations and such, but I really don't feel like Assange's lot in life, today, is all the fault of Empire.

Roman Polanski did worse, did it longer ago, and is even more unrepentant, but he lives in a swanky villa, receives awards, drinks good wine whenever he wants to, and has an internet connection.  Assange's "political PRISONER" story is getting thin.

Glenn Greenwald

https://twitter.com/greenwald/status/996787790611394561

"Ecuador's ex-president Rafael Correa, in an exclusive interview with the Intercept, denounces treatment of Julian Assange as 'torture."

Ecuador Hints It May Hand Over Assange

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/05/ecuador-hints-may-hand-assange.html

Interesting comments too:

'...The truth is something we rarely get to see without Wikileaks. If you believe the truth is bad, and it did bad things to your favorite candidate, can you also deny you are a fascist?"

Besides, they turned down this:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russi...

And got all concern troll over the Panama Papers, the world's biggest data leak, which they were not a part of:

#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

https://www.carbonated.tv/news/wikileaks-panama-papers-us-government-fun...

I wonder why. Maybe because it concerned someone's favourite candidate.

"CIA Torturer ['Bloody Gina'] Gina Haspel has just been confirmed as new CIA chief. Six Democrats joined with Republicans to confirm her. Two Republicans opposed."

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/997219832419487745

Never mind that Assange isn't in jail, and isn't in the U.S.:

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/09/us/editor-jailed-over-letter-is-freed...

That tripe about The Guardian being a conduit for the U.S. government and intelligence agencies gave me a chuckle, though.

Quote:

"There are approximately 5,000 media workers in London to cover UK establishment propaganda spectacle, the royal wedding..."

Ah, yes.  Circuses, not bread.

But if WikiLeaks had been offered Markle's Snapchat, they'd have published it.  Because "the people have a right to know".

Quote:

In the past year alone, the “radical transparency” organization has published medical files belonging to scores of ordinary citizens. Hundreds more have had sensitive family, financial or identity records posted to the web, according to the Associated Press.

Sadly, the "establishment" media lacks the courage to tell us who in our midst is HIV+.

Thank you, WikiLeaks.  Thank you.

Quote:

The vindictive pursuit of Assange is happening for one reason only: he told the truth.

About individuals' medical histories?

NDPP wrote:

UK establishment propaganda spectacle, the royal wedding..."

Well, it was about as much of an "establishment spectacle" as it can be without Teresa May, Donald Trump, or even Harry's personal friend Barack Obama being invited.

Getting Julian Assange: The Untold Story  -  by John Pilger

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/05/getting-julian-assange/

"...If the British Government allows this to happen, it will in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of war waged by rampant powers against justice and freedom and all of us."