This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Julian Assange - Where Will This Finish?

Jump to new
kahuna1 said:
How idiotic and delusional can a person be ? We have a new standard from the above.

Wow
Click to expand...

Ah, an ad hominem attack from an emotional lefty, representing the side which claims to denounce bullying etc.

Left wing videos on social media depict the murder of white people etc and are left alone. Right wing videos on social media are taken out of context to imply the person was intending to incite violence and their accounts are deleted.

We literally have celebrities and journalists on mainstream media talking about desires to kill the president, be violent to his children, etc etc, with no repercussion at all, but if anyone on the other side says anything remotely bad they risk legal action for 'hate speech'.

It is not idiotic or delusional to see reality. It is delusional to see it so blatantly and in such an extreme and consistent form and fail to comprehend it or maintain denial of it.
 
Sdajii said:
It is not idiotic or delusional to see reality. It is delusional to see it so blatantly and in such an extreme and consistent form and fail to comprehend it or maintain denial of it.
Click to expand...

Seek medical help.
Seriously.
 
US efforts to jail Assange for espionage are a grave threat to a free media
Alan Rusbridger
I found the WikiLeaks co-founder a troubling figure when I worked with him, but America’s case would criminalise journalistic inquiry

Do you remember the Collateral Murder video – the one that showed US air crew in Apache helicopters killing people as though playing computer games, laughing at the dead after slaughtering a dozen people, including two Iraqis working for the Reuters news agency? Do you remember how the US military had lied about what happened in that incident in July 2007 – first claiming that all the dead were insurgents, and then that the helicopters were responding to an active firefight? Neither claim was true. Do you recall that Reuters had spent three years unsuccessfully trying to obtain the video?

Was it in the public interest that the world should have eventually seen the raw footage of what happened? You bet. Was it acutely embarrassing for the US military and government? Of course. Was the act of revelation espionage or journalism? You know the answer.

We have two people to thank for us knowing the truth about how those Reuters employees died, along with 10 others who ended up in the crosshairs of the laughing pilots that day: Chelsea Manning, who leaked it, and Julian Assange, who published it. But the price of their actions has been considerable. Manning spent seven years in jail for her part in releasing that video, along with a huge amount of other classified material she was able to access as an intelligence analyst in the US army. Assange has been indicted on 17 new counts of violating the Espionage Act, with the prospect that he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

---- The remainder of the analysis expands on how critical a free press is to keeping governments around the world accountable.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-for-espionage-poses-danger-freedom-of-press
 
Tide of Public Opinion is Turning in Assange’s Favor

Corporate media & some politicos who opposed Assange after the 2016 election have radically changed their tune, favorably influencing public opinion after the Espionage Act indictment of the WikiLeak‘s founder, reports Joe Lauria.

The indictment of Julian Assange under the Espionage Act has profoundly affected press coverage of the WikiLeaks founder, with much of the media turning suddenly and decisively in his favor after years of vilifying him.

The sharp change has also come from some politicians, and significantly, from two Justice Department prosecutors who went public to express their dissent about using the Espionage Act to indict Assange.


To the extent that public opinion matters, the sea-change in coverage could have an effect on the British or Swedish governments’ decision to extradite Assange to the United States to face the charges. More...
 
It's interesting how even old foes recognize the danger in making what is clearly journalism an act of espionage and make one liable to multiple life terms in jail.

All for telling the truth even when it is ugly and doesn't sit with what a government wants the world to pretend to believe.

Now of course if the journalist/ media outlet chose to ignore the evidence of massacres or similar events and in fact decried such reports as just unsubstantiated , biased non-reporting - they would win a Trump medal wouldn't they ?
 
Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.' The book continues: 'There was, for a moment, silence around the table.'
Click to expand...

The allegations were made in a new book published today by the Guardian timed to coincide with another title released by the New York Times.

Assange was always a pos. The guy thinks he is gods gift to the world. He lost a lot of credibility trying to save his own ass. Same attitude when he was a young hacker here.

Truth is important but he muddied the waters of truth to sink Hillary on a personal vendetta.
He started something great, but power and ego usually corrupts.

"Informants should be killed"

I wonder if he will remember those words if the US ever get a hold of him. The irony would be lost on him though.
 
Interesting response Moxjo. Couple of points

1) What is an "informant" ? Generally speaking in military terms it is someone who betrays partisans in a war. For example French people who told the Nazis who were the local resistance. They certainly weren't popular were they ?

2) The overriding issue is not Julian Assange. It's the intent of the US government to use the Espionage Act to stifle any journalism that exposes uncomfortable realities like massacres, lies, political interference in another country, corruption, in fact anything a government didn't want to see published.
This is why every journalist sees this action as direct threat to finding and exposing what is happening (as distinct to what a government wants to see printed)

Years ago there was another great investigative journalist who also coped a lot of flack becasue he was simply so good at exposing uncomfortable facts. He wouldn't last a week in this new regime

I.F. Stone
I believe very deeply in freedom of the press and you can't fulfill your function unless you're free.
https://allgovernmentslie.com/journalist/i-f-stone
 
basilio said:
I.F. Stone
I believe very deeply in freedom of the press and you can't fulfill your function unless you're free.
https://allgovernmentslie.com/journalist/i-f-stone
Click to expand...
I believe in this too. But the media seems less inclined on informing the public and more focused on swinging public opinion with lies. This happens both sides.

We then have viral like reinforcement like Twitter and Facebook squashing the truth into a million different conspiracies.
Wikileaks did itself a disservice by not being clear on the hillary emails. If you are going for truth then layout all the facts and let the people decide.

I do believe twitter/facebook are two of the most social backwards technologies ever made. They have brought progression to a standstill. Yes they do have value but I often wonder at what cost.

1/ Assange is basically an informant employing informants. I just found it ironic given his situation.

2/ Politics has changed tact. Nobody seems to care if something happens, only the "opposition" to score points.
It has reached a whats in it for me mentality in the general community. Or these brainwashed ideologies where there is zero compromise.

I think you will find most old school center aligned dems and reps are horrified at what their parties have become.
 
Wiki Leaks started as an organisation that would allow whistleblowers to release information about governments or organisations that would be in the public interest and that would then be part of the public domain. Interestingly enough the US government was strong supporter of Wiki leaks when the information was about the usual dictators and so on. They quickly changed their tune when US activities became the focus.

Just to be clear Moxo a more accurate term would be whistleblowers or sources. "Informants" is generally used to describe people grassing on criminals or, as I said earlier, giving up political enemies .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informant

https://wikileaks.org//sourceamerica-tapes/
https://wikileaks.org//wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer
https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/
 
Whistleblowers is just a nice way of saying informant. And under Aussie vernacular they are the same shade of "Dog".
There was a change in posturing to reduce the stigma and get more people to speak out.
But those "whistleblowers" shared the same ramifications as "dogs". Used and ostracized.

A few recent famous cases in Australia as well.
 
Thats the stigma attached, not a personal opinion. I'm just saying informant and whistleblowers are the same thing depending on which side of the fence you are standing on and vilified as such.
 
moXJO said:
Thats the stigma attached, not a personal opinion. I'm just saying informant and whistleblowers are the same thing depending on which side of the fence you are standing on and vilified as such.
Click to expand...

And in my opinion that sort of view is about as shallow and stupid as one could imagine.
I'm struggling to see which people would view a nurse speaking out about an incompetent doctor as an object of vilification.

But then Trumps Law dictates that anyone who opens their mouth about his abuse of women, serial infidelity, abuse of office, or questions the thousands of lies he makes and repeats is a lying dog and purveyor of fake news.

So with that leadership from The Top why should we be surprised that millions of followers would agree.
 
My problem with Julian Assange is the lack of filtering the information. He has caused spies to be caught and maybe killed and betrayed sources.
That said I have problems with giving him to the USA.
 
Knobby22 said:
My problem with Julian Assange is the lack of filtering the information. He has caused spies to be caught and maybe killed and betrayed sources.
That said I have problems with giving him to the USA.
Click to expand...

That was a mistake. But that is not the reason Assange is being charged under the Espionage act. The charge is simply the releasing government information. That is why such a conviction would put every other news organisation at risk of similar charges if they released similar information in the future.
 
And that is a stupid sheltered attitude and not based in reality. Informants of any kind wear the stigma and have their lives ruined in the end.

Hey I wasn't the one praising a guy that wanted them dead.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dics-sacked-exposing-NHS-failures-paying.html
Whistleblowers out in cold: Struggling to find work, isolated and shunned, the terrible price medics sacked for exposing NHS failures are STILL paying
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/society...rying-out-for-help-afterlife-of-whistleblower

https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2018/07/01/should-whistleblower-be-compensated

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhigginbottom/2017/02/18/the-price-of-being-a-whistleblower/

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1563783/amp


Hundreds more.
 
moXJO said:
And that is a stupid sheltered attitude and not based in reality. Informants of any kind wear the stigma and have their lives ruined in the end.
Click to expand...

I am not buying your over-complication of a very simple concept. Do you tell the truth having witnessed a crime and spill the beans on a complete stranger, or do you turn a blind eye if the criminal is a relative, friend or associate?
Sure, if you incriminate a relative or someone you know, you may be considered, in your words a "dog". However, if the offender is a stranger or a entity like a company, or even (god forbid) a government then if you go to the trouble of telling the truth, then that is just the right thing to do. If a whistle blower ends up wearing a stigma and has their lives ruined then that is a travesty of justice and is more a reflection of the power of the accused.
 
Really?
Telling me what you think should happen and what actually happens, is two different things.
Did you not read all those stories where people blew the whistle on a company or govt department and then were screwed over.
I tell you what, go rat on the cfmeu and see how you are treated.
Informants are vilified after the fact and often for doing the right thing.

"Dog" "Snitch" "Rat" are exactly what is used universally. Those terms are entrenched because of the stigma of informing.
You are trying to over-simplify by ignoring the real life repercussions suffered.

Perhaps your tribalism instinct kicked in.
But working in the trades, you should know the reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The threat of US as a Superpower
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Knobby22
J Capital Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
greggles
S
Bring Home Assange
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
moXJO
M
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Getting out of Dodge City
Replies
2
Views
3K
Starcraftmazter
S
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...