Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Thoughts on Julian Assange?  (Read 512 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matto

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5420
  • Reputation: +2987/-132
  • Gender: Male
Thoughts on Julian Assange?
« on: April 12, 2019, 05:03:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I heard that Julian Assange was arrested and will be put on trial in the US after being holed up in an embassy for years. What are your thoughts about this? I ask because I have seen no discussion about it on this forum considering that it is big news. I know little about it but fear it is a dangerous sign. What is it they say a canary in a coalmine? Lots of canaries are dropping dead down here.
    In a Station of the Metro
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1219
    • Reputation: +493/-813
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #1 on: April 12, 2019, 06:34:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • They're going to lock him up for life for revealing their wrongdoing to the world time and time again. I'm very disappointed Trump is doing nothing to stop this kangaroo court. 


    Offline PAT317

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 339
    • Reputation: +398/-72
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #2 on: April 12, 2019, 09:09:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I heard that Julian Assange was arrested and will be put on trial in the US after being holed up in an embassy for years. What are your thoughts about this? I ask because I have seen no discussion about it on this forum considering that it is big news. 

    Here are some articles about it:

    How You Can Be Certain That The US Charge Against Assange Is Fraudulent

    The US Government's Indictment of Julian Assange Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedoms

    US Henchmen Violently Arrest Assange! Show Trial To Follow.  <--video

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5916
    • Reputation: +2100/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #3 on: April 13, 2019, 05:40:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Assange Arrest Is A Warning From History
    By John Pilger

    April 13, 2019 "Information Clearing House" -  That this outrage happened in the heart of London, in the land of Magna Carta, ought to shame and anger all who fear for "democratic" societies. Assange is a political refugee protected by international law, the recipient of asylum under a strict covenant to which Britain is a signatory. The United Nations made this clear in the legal ruling of its Working Party on Arbitrary Detention.

    But to hell with that. Let the thugs go in. Directed by the quasi fascists in Trump's Washington, in league with Ecuador's Lenin Moreno, a Latin American Judas and liar seeking to disguise his rancid regime, the British elite abandoned its last imperial myth: that of fairness and justice.

    Imagine Tony Blair dragged from his multi-million pound Georgian home in Connaught Square, London, in handcuffs, for onward dispatch to the dock in The Hague. By the standard of Nuremberg, Blair's "paramount crime" is the deaths of a million Iraqis. Assange's crime is journalism: holding the rapacious to account, exposing their lies and empowering people all over the world with truth.

    The shocking arrest of Assange carries a warning for all who, as Oscar Wilde wrote, "sew the seeds of discontent [without which] there would be no advance towards civilisation". The warning is explicit towards journalists. What happened to the founder and editor of WikiLeaks can happen to you on a newspaper, you in a TV studio, you on radio, you running a podcast.


    Assange's principal media tormentor, the Guardian, a collaborator with the secret state, displayed its nervousness this week with an editorial that scaled new weasel heights. The Guardian has exploited the work of Assange and WikiLeaks in what its previous editor called "the greatest scoop of the last 30 years". The paper creamed off WikiLeaks' revelations and claimed the accolades and riches that came with them.

    With not a penny going to Julian Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, turned on their source, abused him and disclosed the secret password Assange had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing leaked US embassy cables.

    With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding joined the police outside and gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh". The Guardian has since published a series of falsehoods about Assange, not least a discredited claim that a group of Russians and Trump's man, Paul Manafort, had visited Assange in the embassy. The meetings never happened; it was fake.

    But the tone has now changed. "The Assange case is a morally tangled web," the paper opined. "He (Assange) believes in publishing things that should not be published.... But he has always shone a light on things that should never have been hidden."

    These "things" are the truth about the homicidal way America conducts its colonial wars, the lies of the British Foreign Office in its denial of rights to vulnerable people, such as the Chagos Islanders, the expose of Hillary Clinton as a backer and beneficiary of jihadism in the Middle East, the detailed description of American ambassadors of how the governments in Syria and Venezuela might be overthrown, and much more. It all available on the Wikileaks site.

    The Guardian is understandably nervous. Secret policemen have already visited the newspaper and demanded and got the ritual destruction of a hard drive.  On this, the paper has form. In 1983, a Foreign Office clerk, Sarah Tisdall, leaked British Government documents showing when American cruise nuclear weapons would arrive in Europe. The Guardian was showered with praise.

    When a court order demanded to know the source, instead of the editor going to prison on a fundamental principle of protecting a source, Tisdall was betrayed, prosecuted and served six months.

    If Assange is extradited to America for publishing what the Guardian calls truthful "things", what is to stop the current editor, Katherine Viner, following him, or the previous editor, Alan Rusbridger, or the prolific propagandist Luke Harding?

    What is to stop the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post, who also published morsels of the truth that originated with WikiLeaks, and the editor of El Pais in Spain, and Der Spiegel in Germany and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia. The list is long.

    David McCraw, lead lawyer of the New York Times, wrote: "I think the prosecution [of Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers... from everything I know, he's sort of in a classic publisher's position and the law would have a very hard time distinguishing between the New York Times and Wikileaks."

    Even if journalists who published Wikileaks' leaks are not summoned by an American grand jury, the intimidation of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning will be enough. Real journalism is being criminalized by thugs in plain sight. Dissent has become an indulgence.


    In Australia, the current America-besotted government is prosecuting two whistle-blowers who revealed that Canberra's spooks bugged the cabinet meetings of the new government of East Timor for the express purpose of cheating the tiny, impoverished nation out of its proper share of the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea. Their trial will be held in secret. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, is infamous for his part in setting up concentration camps for refugees on the Pacific islands of Nauru and Manus, where children self harm and suicide. In 2014, Morrison proposed mass detention camps for 30,000 people.

    Real journalism is the enemy of these disgraces. 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."

    What if Assange and Manning and others in their wake - if there are others - are silenced and "the right to know and question and challenge" is taken away?

    In the 1970s, I met Leni Reifenstahl, close friend of Adolf Hitler, whose films helped cast the Nazi spell over Germany.

    She told me that the message in her films, the propaganda, was dependent not on "orders from above" but on what she called the "submissive void" of the public.

    "Did this submissive void include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked her.

    "Of course," she said, "especially the intelligentsia.... When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen."

    And did.

    The rest, she might have added, is history.

    Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger



    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51418.htm



    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5826
    • Reputation: +3213/-180
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #4 on: April 13, 2019, 05:50:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Although he is an Aussie VIP, I know practically nothing about Julian Assange. I have learnt a little since he was arrested. I went to search and came up with (you guessed it) Wikipedia. He has had a very unusual upbringing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

    Here is  an article by another Aussie John Pilger on the purpose of the showcasing of Julian.
    https://www.mintpressnews.com/john-pilger-julian-assange-arrest-warning-history/257337/?utm_source=Stay+Informed%3A+Sign+Up+For+Our+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=65cfe3ba77-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_17_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_51e062931b-65cfe3ba77-108704657

    The glimpse of Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London is an emblem of the times. Might against right. Muscle against the law. Indecency against courage. Six policemen manhandled a sick journalist, his eyes wincing against his first natural light in almost seven years.
    That this outrage happened in the heart of London, in the land of Magna Carta, ought to shame and anger all who fear for “democratic” societies. Assange is a political refugee protected by international law, the recipient of asylum under a strict covenant to which Britain is a signatory. The United Nations made this clear in the legal ruling of its Working Party on Arbitrary Detention.
    But to hell with that. Let the thugs go in. Directed by the quasi fascists in Trump’s Washington, in league with Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno, a Latin American Judas and liar seeking to disguise his rancid regime, the British elite abandoned its last imperial myth: that of fairness and justice.

     
    Imagine Tony Blair dragged from his multi-million pound Georgian home in Connaught Square, London, in handcuffs, for onward dispatch to the dock in The Hague. By the standard of Nuremberg, Blair’s “paramount crime” is the deaths of a million Iraqis. Assange’s crime is journalism: holding the rapacious to account, exposing their lies and empowering people all over the world with truth.
    The shocking arrest of Assange carries a warning for all who, as Oscar Wilde wrote, “sew the seeds of discontent [without which] there would be no advance towards civilisation”. The warning is explicit towards journalists. What happened to the founder and editor of WikiLeaks can happen to you on a newspaper, you in a TV studio, you on radio, you running a podcast.
    Assange’s principal media tormentor, the Guardian, a collaborator with the secret state, displayed its nervousness this week with an editorial that scaled new weasel heights. The Guardian has exploited the work of Assange and WikiLeaks in what its previous editor called “the greatest scoop of the last 30 years”. The paper creamed off WikiLeaks’ revelations and claimed the accolades and riches that came with them.
    With not a penny going to Julian Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, turned on their source, abused him and disclosed the secret password Assange had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing leaked US embassy cables.
    With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding joined the police outside and gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. The Guardian has since published a series of falsehoods about Assange, not least a discredited claim that a group of Russians and Trump’s man, Paul Manafort, had visited Assange in the embassy. The meetings never happened; it was fake.
    But the tone has now changed. “The Assange case is a morally tangled web,” the paper opined. “He (Assange) believes in publishing things that should not be published …. But he has always shone a light on things that should never have been hidden.”
    These “things” are the truth about the homicidal way America conducts its colonial wars, the lies of the British Foreign Office in its denial of rights to vulnerable people, such as the Chagos Islanders, the expose of Hillary Clinton as a backer and beneficiary of jihadism in the Middle East, the detailed description of American ambassadors of how the governments in Syria and Venezuela might be overthrown, and much more. It all available on the WikiLeaks site.


    The Guardian is understandably nervous. Secret policemen have already visited the newspaper and demanded and got the ritual destruction of a hard drive.  On this, the paper has form. In 1983, a Foreign Office clerk, Sarah Tisdall, leaked British Government documents showing when American cruise nuclear weapons would arrive in Europe. The Guardian was showered with praise.
    When a court order demanded to know the source, instead of the editor going to prison on a fundamental principle of protecting a source, Tisdall was betrayed, prosecuted and served six months.
    If Assange is extradited to America for publishing what the Guardian calls truthful “things”, what is to stop the current editor, Katherine Viner, following him, or the previous editor, Alan Rusbridger, or the prolific propagandist Luke Harding?
    What is to stop the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post, who also published morsels of the truth that originated with WikiLeaks, and the editor of El Pais in Spain, and Der Spiegel in Germany and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia. The list is long.
    David McCraw, lead lawyer of the New York Times, wrote: “I think the prosecution [of Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers … from everything I know, he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and the law would have a very hard time distinguishing between the New York Times and WilLeaks.”
    Even if journalists who published WikiLeaks’ leaks are not summoned by an American grand jury, the intimidation of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning will be enough. Real journalism is being criminalised by thugs in plain sight. Dissent has become an indulgence.
    In Australia, the current America-besotted government is prosecuting two whistle-blowers who revealed that Canberra’s spooks bugged the cabinet meetings of the new government of East Timor for the express purpose of cheating the tiny, impoverished nation out of its proper share of the oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea. Their trial will be held in secret. The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, is infamous for his part in setting up concentration camps for refugees on the Pacific islands of Nauru and Manus, where children self harm and suicide. In 2014, Morrison proposed mass detention camps for 30,000 people.
    Real journalism is the enemy of these disgraces. 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.”
    What if Assange and Manning and others in their wake — if there are others — are silenced and “the right to know and question and challenge” is taken away?
    In the 1970s, I met Leni Reifenstahl, close friend of Adolf Hitler, whose films helped cast the Nazi spell over Germany.
    She told me that the message in her films, the propaganda, was dependent not on “orders from above” but on what she called the “submissive void” of the public.
    “Did this submissive void include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?” I asked her.
    “Of course,” she said, “especially the intelligentsia …. When people no longer ask serious questions, they are submissive and malleable. Anything can happen.”
    And did.
    The rest, she might have added, is history.
    Top photo | Julian Assange gestures as he arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, after the WikiLeaks founder was arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police and taken into custody, April 11, 2019. Victoria Jones | PA via AP
    John Pilger is an award-winning journalist. His articles appear worldwide in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Mail & Guardian (South Africa), Aftonbladet (Sweden), Il Manifesto (Italy).

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.


    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5916
    • Reputation: +2100/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #5 on: April 14, 2019, 09:49:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • 4 Myths About Julian Assange DEBUNKED
    Published: April 14, 2019

    Source: Washington blog

    Myth #1: The U.S. Is Respecting First Amendment Freedom of the Press, and Only Prosecuting Assange for Hacking

    While the criminal indictment against Assange focuses on his alleged conspiracy with Chelsea Manning to hack a Department of Defense password, there is a lot of language complaining about standard journalism practiced by Assange.

    New York Times national security reporter Scott Shane tweets:

        Even as some commentators say of the Assange charge, “This isn’t about journalism,” the indictment is written to make it about journalism.

    The Washington Post’s media columnist Margaret Sullivan writes:

        “The indictment discusses journalistic practices in the context of a criminal conspiracy: using encryption, making efforts to protect a source’s identity, and source cultivation,” said University of Georgia media law professor Jonathan Peters.

        Those practices, he told me, are not only routine and lawful, “they’re best practices for journalists.”

        ***

        News organizations now provide secure drop boxes for sources.

        They wisely use encryption applications such as Signal to converse with, and receive information from, sources.

        That these practices are cast as part of the conspiracy “should worry all journalists, whether or not Assange himself is seen as a journalist,” Peters said.

        ***

        The risks to news organizations of prosecuting him remain very real

    The New Yorkers’ John Cassidy points out:

        In explaining the charges against Assange, the indictment’s “manners and means of the conspiracy” section describes many actions that are clearly legitimate journalistic practices, such as using encrypted messages, cultivating sources, and encouraging those sources to provide more information. It cites a text exchange in which Manning told Assange, “after this upload, that’s all I really have got left,” and Assange replied, “Curious eyes never run dry in my experience.” If that’s part of a crime, the authorities might have to start building more jails to hold reporters.

        The indictment, and some of the commentary it engendered, also makes much of the fact that Assange offered to try to crack a computer password for Manning. The Department of Justice claims that this action amounted to Assange engaging in a “hacking” conspiracy. Even some independent commentators have suggested that it went beyond the bounds of legitimate journalism—and the protections of the First Amendment.

        But did it? On Thursday, my colleague Raffi Khatchadourian, who has written extensively about Assange, pointed out that, as of now, it looks like Assange didn’t do much, if anything, to crack the password once Manning sent the encrypted version. Khatchadourian also pointed out that federal prosecutors have known about this text exchange for many years, and yet the Obama Administration didn’t bring any charges. “As evidence of a conspiracy,” Khatchadourian writes, “the exchange is thin gruel.”

        Even if Assange had succeeded in decoding the encryption, it wouldn’t have given Manning access to any classified information she couldn’t have accessed through her own account. “Cracking the password would have allowed Manning to log onto the computers using a username that did not belong to her,” the indictment says. “Such a measure would have made it more difficult for investigators to identify Manning as the source of disclosures of classified information.” So the goal was to protect Manning’s identity, and Assange offered to assist. But who could argue that trying to help a source conceal his or her identity isn’t something investigative journalists do on a routine basis?

    Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Trevor Timm says:



        A core part of [the indictment’s] argument would criminalize many common journalist-source interactions that reporters rely on all the time. Requesting more documents from a source, using an encrypted chat messenger, or trying to keep a source’s identity anonymous are not crimes; they are vital to the journalistic process. Whether or not you like Assange, the charge against him is a serious press freedom threat and should be vigorously protested by all those who care about the First Amendment.

    The ACLU’s Ben Wizner notes:

        Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations.

        ***

        His indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information.

    The Committee to Protect Journalists’ Robert Mahoney writes:

        The potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are deeply troubling. With this prosecution of Julian Assange, the U.S. government could set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.

    Reporters Without Borders argues:

        The prosecution of those who provide or publish information of public interest comes at the expense of the investigative journalism that allows a democracy to thrive.

    Electronic Frontier Foundation writes:



        While the indictment of Julian Assange centers on an alleged attempt to break a password—an attempt that was not apparently successful—it is still, at root, an attack on the publication of leaked material and the most recent act in an almost decade-long effort to punish a whistleblower and the publisher of her leaked material. Several parts of the indictment describe very common journalistic behavior, like using cloud storage or knowingly receiving classified information or redacting identifying information about a source. Other parts make common free software tools like Linux and Jabber seem suspect.

    Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University’s Jameel Jaffer notes:

        The indictment and the Justice Department’s press release treat everyday journalistic practices as part of a criminal conspiracy. Whether the government will be able to establish a violation of the hacking statute remains to be seen, but it’s very troubling that the indictment sweeps in activities that are not just lawful but essential to press freedom—activities like cultivating sources, protecting sources’ identities, and communicating with sources securely.

    The Center for Constitutional Rights points out:

        The arrest sets a dangerous precedent that could extend to other media organizations such as The New York Times, particularly under a vindictive and reckless administration that regularly attacks journalistic enterprises that, just like WikiLeaks, publish leaked materials that expose government corruption and wrongdoing. This is a worrying step on the slippery slope to punishing any journalist ….

    Human Rights Watch says:

        Many of the actions listed in the indictment, such as holding encrypted chats, concealing a source’s identity, or using secure drop boxes, are part and parcel of journalism in the digital age, Human Rights Watch said.

        ***

        “There is a real danger that the Assange case could become a model for governments that seek to punish media for exposing evidence of abuses” ….

    And Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald and Micah Lee write:

    The indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As longtime Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “The factual allegations … boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”

    That’s why the indictment poses such a grave threat to press freedom. It characterizes as a felony many actions that journalists are not just permitted but required to take in order to conduct sensitive reporting in the digital age.

    But because the DOJ issued a press release with a headline that claimed that Assange was accused of “hacking” crimes, media outlets mindlessly repeated this claim even though the indictment contains no such allegation. It merely accuses Assange of trying to help Manning avoid detection. That’s not “hacking.” That’s called a core obligation of journalism.

    ***

    Encouraging sources to obtain more information is something journalists do routinely. Indeed, it would be a breach of one’s journalistic duties not to ask vital sources with access to classified information if they could provide even more information so as to allow more complete reporting.

    ***

    As Edward Snowden said this morning, “Bob Woodward stated publicly he would have advised me to remain in place and act as a mole.”

    ***

    Northwestern journalism professor Dan Kennedy explained in The Guardian in 2010 when denouncing as a press freedom threat the Obama DOJ’s attempts to indict Assange based on the theory that he did more than passively receive and publish documents — i.e., that he actively “colluded” with Manning:



            The problem is that there is no meaningful distinction to be made. How did the Guardian, equally, not “collude” with WikiLeaks in obtaining the cables? How did the New York Times not “collude” with the Guardian when the Guardian gave the Times a copy following Assange’s decision to cut the Times out of the latest document dump?

            For that matter, I don’t see how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents ….

        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. When journalists take source protection seriously, they strip metadata and redact information from documents before publishing them if that information could have been used to identify their source; they host cloud-based systems such as SecureDrop, now employed by dozens of major newsrooms around the world, that make it easier and safer for whistleblowers, who may be under surveillance, to send messages and classified documents to journalists without their employers knowing; and they use secure communication tools like Signal and set them to automatically delete messages.

        But today’s indictment of Assange seeks to criminalize exactly these types of source-protection efforts, as it states that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used a special folder on a cloud drop box of WikiLeaks to transmit classified records containing information related to the national defense of the United States.”

        The indictment, in numerous other passages, plainly conflates standard newsroom best practices with a criminal conspiracy. It states, for instance, that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning used the ‘Jabber’ online chat service to collaborate on the acquisition and dissemination of the classified records, and to enter into the agreement to crack the password […].” There is no question that using Jabber, or any other encrypted messaging system, to communicate with sources and acquire documents with the intent to publish them, is a completely lawful and standard part of modern investigative journalism. Newsrooms across the world now use similar technologies to communicate securely with their sources and to help their sources avoid detection by the government.

        The indictment similarly alleges that “it was part of the conspiracy that Assange and Manning took measures to conceal Manning as the source of the disclosure of classified records to WikiLeaks, including by removing usernames from the disclosed information and deleting chat logs between Assange and Manning.”

        Removing metadata that could help identify an anonymous source, such as usernames, is a critical step in protecting sources.

    Moreover, the U.S. will almost certainly add many more claims to the indictment (perhaps including espionage) if Assange is extradited to the U.S.

    CNN notes:

        US Justice Department officials expect to bring additional charges Assange, according to a US official briefed on the matter.

    The Washington Post reports: “More charges are probably forthcoming”.

    And Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois School of Law Francis Boyle points out:

        Once the U.S. government has Assange over here, they can concoct whatever charges they want to against him for anything and then ask the British to waive what’s called the Rule of Specialty. That could add up to much more than the current five years Assange is facing. The British government will almost certainly consent, unless Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister.

    Myth #2: Assange Will Get a Fair Trial In the U.S.

    14-year CIA officer John Kiriakou notes:

        Assange has been charged in the Eastern District of Virginia — the so-called “Espionage Court.” That is just what many of us have feared. Remember, no national security defendant has ever been found not guilty in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Eastern District is also known as the “rocket docket” for the swiftness with which cases are heard and decided. Not ready to mount a defense? Need more time? Haven’t received all of your discovery? Tough luck. See you in court.

        … I have long predicted that Assange would face Judge Leonie Brinkema were he to be charged in the Eastern District. Brinkema handled my case, as well as CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling’s. She also has reserved the Ed Snowden case for herself. Brinkema is a hanging judge.

        ***

        Brinkema gave me literally no chance to defend myself. At one point, while approaching trial, my attorneys filed 70 motions, asking that 70 classified documents be declassified so that I could use them to defend myself. I had no defense without them. We blocked off three days for the hearings. When we got to the courtroom, Brinkema said, “Let me save everybody a lot of time. I’m going to deny all 70 of these motions. You don’t need any of this information to be declassified.” The entire process took a minute. On the way out of the courtroom, I asked my lead attorney what had just happened. “We just lost the case. That’s what happened. Now we talk about a plea.”

        My attorneys eventually negotiated a plea for 30 months in prison — significantly below the 45 years that the Justice Department had initially sought. The plea was something called an 11-C1C plea; it was written in stone and could not be changed by the judge. She could either take it or leave it. She took it, but not after telling me to rise, pointing her finger at me, and saying, “Mr. Kiriakou, I hate this plea. I’ve been a judge since 1986 and I’ve never had an 11C1C. If I could, I would give you ten years.” Her comments were inappropriate and my attorneys filed an ethics complaint against her. But that’s Brinkema. That’s who she is.

        Julian Assange doesn’t have a prayer of a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia.

    Myth #3:  This Is About Protecting America’s National Security

    New York Times’ national security reporter Scott Shane tweets:

        Given the nature of the charge — a discussion 9 years ago about an unsuccessful attempt to figure out a password — I think it’s fair to debate whether this is a figleaf for the government punishing someone for publishing stuff it doesn’t want published.

    One of America’s top constitutional law experts – Jonathan Turley – writes for USA Today, in an article entitled “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be punished for embarrassing the DC establishment”:

        Assange committed the unpardonable sins of embarrassing the establishment — from members of Congress to intelligence officials to the news media. And he will now be punished for our sins.

        ***

        Assange will be convicted of the felony of causing embarrassment in the first degree.

    Indeed, when asked the difference between prosecuting Wikileaks and the New York Times for publishing leaked documents, the U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the U.S. should prosecute Assange because – when exercising prosecutorial discretion – it’s “easier” than going after the New York Times.

    In reality, both whistleblowers and the reporters they speak with are being hounded by the government …

    National security claims are … used to keep financial fraud secret (and people who protest runaway criminality by the big banks are targeted as terrorists).  And when those in the private sector blow the whistle on potential crimes, they are targeted also.

    Government employees also go out of their way to smear whistleblowers.  Indeed, even high-level government employees are in danger.  For example, after the head of the NSA’s spying program – William Binney – disclosed the fact that the U.S. was spying on everyone in the U.S. and storing the data forever, and that the U.S. was quickly becoming a totalitarian state, the Feds tried to scare him into shutting up:

        [Numerous] FBI officers held a gun to Binney’s head as he stepped naked from the shower. He watched with his wife and youngest son as the FBI ransacked their home. Later Binney was separated from the rest of his family, and FBI officials pressured him to implicate one of the other complainants in criminal activity. During the raid, Binney attempted to report to FBI officials the crimes he had witnessed at NSA, in particular the NSA’s violation of the constitutional rights of all Americans. However, the FBI wasn’t interested in these disclosures. Instead, FBI officials seized Binney’s private computer, which to this day has not been returned despite the fact that he has not been charged with a crime.

    NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was also subject to armed raids and criminal prosecution.  Indeed, the government attempted to frame him by falsifying evidence.

    And after high-level CIA officer John Kiriakou blew the whistle on illegal CIA torture, the government prosecuted him for espionage [And sentenced him to years in prison. And see this].

    But it’s not just whistleblowers … it’s also the reporters they speak with.

    The government started spying on journalists in 2002 to make sure they didn’t write about the NSA’s mass surveillance program.

    If reporters criticize those in power, they may be smeared by the government and targeted for arrest (and see this).

    Indeed, the government treats real reporters as terrorists. Because the core things which reporters do could be considered terrorism, in modern America, journalists are sometimes targeted under counter-terrorism laws.

    Not only has the government thrown media owners and reporters in jail if they’ve been too critical, it also claims the power to indefinitely detain journalists without trial or access to an attorney which chills chills free speech.

    After Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.
    Myth #4: Assange is a Proven Rapist

    One of the two women who accused Assange of raping them in Sweden produced a condom which she claimed was intentionally torn by Assange before they used it. However, the Sydney Morning Herald, Register and others reported that forensic DNA tests on the condom concluded that it did not contain any of Assange’s DNA. This casts doubt on the veracity of at least one of the accusers.

    The Guardian also noted many odd facets of Sweden’s treatment of the rape allegations:

        Swedish prosecutors attempted to drop extradition proceedings against Julian Assange as early as 2013, according to a confidential exchange of emails with the [British] Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] seen by the Guardian.

        The sequence of messages also appears to challenge statements by the CPS that the case was not live at the time emails were deleted by prosecutors, according to supporters of the WikiLeaks founder. [In a separate article, the Guardian notes that CPS deleted key emails regarding Sweden’s prosecution of Assange]

        ***

        The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so.

        ***

        The CPS lawyer handling the case, who has since retired, commented on an article which suggested that Sweden could drop the case in August 2012. He wrote: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”.

        ***

        Not all the emails are preserved in the exchange, but three days later Ny emailed the CPS again to say: “I am sorry this came as a [bad] surprise… I hope I didn’t ruin your weekend.”

        ***

        At the beginning of the legal battle over Assange in 2011, the CPS advised Swedish prosecutors not to interview him in Britain, but they eventually did.

    I don’t know whether Assange did or did not commit rape. But accusations are very different from convictions after all evidence is aired in court. And it seems like foreign bodies such as Britain’s CPS pushed hard to keep Sweden’s prosecutions and extradition requests going.

    Share This Article...

    https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/72145/4-myths-about-julian-assange.html

    The new President of Ecuador after the arrest of Assange received from the International Monetary Fund a Loan of
    2.4 billion dollars. I really doubt that the proceeds of that money will help any Ecuadorian People. 
    However the IMF Loan will have to be paid back with interest.

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5916
    • Reputation: +2100/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #6 on: April 15, 2019, 04:33:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • Posted on 2019/04/15
    Scott Bennett: What Assange Will Tell Congress…
    Ethics, Government, Officers Call
    Julian Assange will be presenting material to the US Congress which will do the following:
    1.  Confirm that Russia did not provide the cables and emails and other computer materials obtained from the Democrat National Committee computer servers, but instead confirm that Congressional staffer Seth Rich was the source, and was killed for it.  Julian Assange will confirm that  Seth Rich had become disenchanted with the Democrats because of the hypocrisy and betrayal of Bernie Sanders and favoring of Hillary Clinton as the Democrat nominee.  Seth Rich then provided this material after downloading it unto a thumbdrive and providing it to an individual (Walsh) who then turned it over to Wikileaks.  Seth Rich was consequently targeted for assasination by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and this will be exposed.

    2.  Julian Assange will confirm that Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and others had nothing to do with coordinating with him to benefit Donald Trump.
    3.  Julian Assange will confirm that he shared with Swiss Bank whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld the Wikileaks cables from Hillary Clinton’s State Department communications from 2009 that contained a “racketeering conspiracy to finance terrorism” using the Union Bank of Switzerland involving Robert Wolf (Chairman of the Americas and Brad Birkenfeld’s boss).  Julian Assange will confirm that Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and Loretta Lynch (later AG) conspired to work with Hillary Clinton at the Clinton Foundation, and Donna Shalala (Presdident of Clinton Foundation) and others to confiscate 19,000 Swiss Bank accounts in exchange for a percentage of the funds contained in these accounts.  Many accounts actually belonged to other politicians and high profile Hollywood and international figures.
    4. Julian Assange will confirm part of this “pay-to-play” scam by Hillary Clinton entailed the transfer of Chinese Uighar terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay Cuba to Switzerland in order to “make this go away” for the Swiss Government.
    5.  Julian Assange will confirm that Bradley Manning (Chelsea) submitted materials that were Mossad videos pretending to be Arabs, torturing people in Iraq in order to justify continuous war.
    6.  Julian Assange will confirm that Edward Snowden worked with the CIA to target Brad Birkenfeld in order to obtain Swiss Banker information; and then Snowden worked with Scott Bennett at Booz Allen Hamilton, and also had left America after he saw Scott Bennett and Brad Birkenfeld’s report “Shell Game: A military whistleblowing report to Congress about terrorist financing”
    7. Julian Assange will confirm that wikileaks cables contain information proving the 911 connection to CIA, Mossad, MI6, Saudi Arabia, and confirm the Robert Mueller connection to the cover-up of the FBI cameras around the Pentagon, and Booz Allen Hamilton’s connection via the Carlyle Group and Leon Panetta  and Michael Hayden (both former Booz Allen Hamilton partners).
    Julian Assange will confirm other things…..more to come.
    Phi Beta Iota: We have no direct knowledge but on balance we consider WikiLeaks a useful public service and the manner in which Assange has been treated to be reprehensible. The evidence that both Assange and Snowden are CIA assets engaged in a mix of mass media / mass hysteria and precision take-down continues to grow, see below. Somewhere in here, truth will out.
    See Especially:
    Arrest of Julian Assange is Just Theatre
    Assange & Snowden are CIA “Rat Traps”
    See Also:
    Assange @ Phi Beta Iota
    WikiLeaks @ Phi Beta Iota

    https://phibetaiota.net/2019/04/scott-bennett-what-assange-will-tell-congress/#more-140148

    Offline RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5916
    • Reputation: +2100/-46
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Thoughts on Julian Assange?
    « Reply #7 on: April 15, 2019, 08:14:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From X22 Report

    04.11.2019 – Julian Assange Arrested In London On “Behalf Of US Authorities”
    • Update (8:30 am ET): Reporters have uncovered some more information about the circumstances surrounding Assange’s arrest. But first, former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, who initially welcomed Assange when the Wikileaks founder sought asylum in 2012, derided his successor, Lenin Moreno, as “corrupt” and accused him of committing a crime that “humanity will never forgive.”
    Quote
    The greatest traitor in Ecuadorian and Latin American history, Lenin Moreno, allowed the British police to enter our embassy in London to arrest Assange.
     Moreno is a corrupt man, but what he has done is a crime that humanity will never forget. https://t.co/XhT51MA6c6
    — Rafael Correa (@MashiRafael) April 11, 2019
    • The Guardian has confirmed that the US has confirmed what Assange’s lawyer said about the US extradition request…the wheels that will ultimately bring Assange to the US to face espionage charges have already been put in motion.
            For your FYI The Facebook Account of former President of Ecuador was turned off by Facebook at the time of
            Assange arrest.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16