U.S. have prepared charges to seek arrest of Julian Assange

Fawlty said:
If we was bold, he wouldn't have taken money from Russian state media and turned off the faucet on Russia and the Republicans. Every anti-American spy in the world now knows he can go to Assange, every time. He's no Daniel Ellsberg. He'll probably turn on Trump now though, which will keep things interesting in the last days of his embassy prison sentence. We'd have to be out of our goddamn minds not to shut him down.
Click to expand...

So, at the end of the day he was more noble until he turned to the only friends he had?

I am sorry, but reaching out to the Russians and right makes sense, as they are the only serious "anti-Globalist" racket in town.

Racket is not an accidental choice of words either.
 
Seano said:
I haven't heard that the US wants to charge him with rape.
Click to expand...

They want the Swedes to do it for us.

Cleaner, and, Trump can wash his hands of it for the alt-right crowd, Ron Paul libertarians, ECT. who might sympathize with Assange.
 


GLENN GREENWALD: What’s interesting is, the Justice Department under President Obama experimented with this idea for a long time. They impaneled a grand jury to criminally investigate WikiLeaks and Assange. They wanted to prosecute them for publishing the trove of documents back in 2011 relating to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as the U.S. State Department diplomatic cables. And what they found, the Obama Justice Department found, was that it is impossible to prosecute WikiLeaks for publishing secret documents, without also prosecuting media organizations that regularly do the same thing. The New York Times, The Guardian, many other news organizations also published huge troves of the documents provided by Chelsea Manning. So it was too much of a threat to press freedom, even for the Obama administration, to try and create a theory under which WikiLeaks could be prosecuted.

Fast-forward five years later, there’s been a lot more WikiLeaks leaks and publications, including some really recent ones of sensitive CIA documents, as well as having spent all of last year publishing documents about the Democratic National Committee, which means they’ve made enemies not just of the right in America, but also the Democratic Party. And the Trump administration obviously believes that they can now safely, politically, prosecute WikiLeaks. And the danger, of course, is that this is an administration that has already said, the President himself has said, the U.S. media is the enemy of the American people. And this is a prosecution that would enable them not only to prosecute and imprison Julian Assange, but a whole variety of other journalists and media outlets that also routinely publish classified information from the U.S. government.


JULIAN ASSANGE: Pompeo said explicitly that he was going to redefine the legal parameters of the First Amendment to define publishers like WikiLeaks in such a manner that the First Amendment would not apply to them. What the hell is going on? This is the head of the largest intelligence service in the world, the intelligence service of the United States. He doesn’t get to make proclamations on interpretation of the law. That’s a responsibility for the courts, it’s a responsibility for Congress, and perhaps it’s a responsibility for the attorney general. It’s way out of line to usurp the roles of those entities that are formally engaged in defining the interpretations of the First Amendment. For any—frankly, any other group to pronounce themselves, but for the head of the CIA to pronounce what the boundaries are of reporting and not reporting is a very disturbing precedent. This is not how the First Amendment works. It’s just—it’s just legally wrong.

The First Amendment is not a positive definition of rights. It’s a negative definition. It limits what the federal government does. It doesn’t say the federal government must give individuals rights and enforce that. It limits what the federal government can do to take away a certain climate of open debate in the United States. So, the First Amendment prevents Congress and the executive from engaging in actions themselves which would limit not only the ability of people to speak and to publish freely, but would also limit the ability of people to read and understand information, because it is that climate of public debate which creates a check on a centralized governmental structure from becoming authoritarian. It’s a right, from that perspective, for all the people, not just the publisher.
 
It kind of sounds like a version of Teump's new libel laws on steroids. The Democrats were opposed to that, but now that they get a chance to take down one of the guys they blame for Clinton losing they're all on board.
 
InternetHero said:
So, at the end of the day he was more noble until he turned to the only friends he had?

I am sorry, but reaching out to the Russians and right makes sense, as they are the only serious "anti-Globalist" racket in town.

Racket is not an accidental choice of words either.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you recognize all of this "anti-globalism" as a racket. Whether his motivations are logical is completely irrelevant to me though, and you're right that he has behaved logically. I have to ask...so what?

The way Russia is happy to accommodate Assange, Snowden, Jill Stein, the Trump campaign, and anybody in town who is interested in taking a piece out of America (whether they have good points or bad points doesn't matter in the least), it of course makes sense for anti-American actors to take advantage of their money, their airtime, and if need be, their spies. And we have a duty to ourselves to fucking curbstomp them.
 
Fawlty said:
I'm glad you recognize all of this "anti-globalism" as a racket. Whether his motivations are logical is completely irrelevant to me though, and you're right that he has behaved logically. I have to ask...so what?

The way Russia is happy to accommodate Assange, Snowden, Jill Stein, the Trump campaign, and anybody in town who is interested in taking a piece out of America (whether they have good points or bad points doesn't matter in the least), it of course makes sense for anti-American actors to take advantage of their money, their airtime, and if need be, their spies. And we have a duty to ourselves to fucking curbstomp them.
Click to expand...

Globalism in terms of ideas, economics, and safety has been one of the greatest forces for human good... ostensibly.

On the other hand, it has undermined the core principles of living: culture, individual autonomy as well as collective identity, and through the specter of trade-over-everything has allowed the West to turn a blind eye to new soft and hard forms of authoritarianism.

The racket as per Russia, is that Russia wants power from this and their own identity to pursue that power. There aims are not noble, but it is hard to say America's aims pretend to be noble nowadays.

America is the greater force of good, though, more from the bones of some past Eagle of the Enlightenment, that glides on as a zombie husk spreading the carrion of all encompassing consumerism and the ugliest parts of a vapid culture, eaten down to the very heart, and interested in a pitiless future of technologically driven social control and whatever empty ethos of desire the new philosophy of post-post modernism can conjure.

All that aside, I would still take Globalism... but we are too blind to make it work for good, maybe now, maybe forever.


I guess that comes to the only real question. If we are breaking all of our own laws and principles in secret, and want to break even more laws and principles to squash the Wikileaks bug, are we not going further down the relativist road in the wrong direction... where it matters the most? He is not a terrorist, or a dictator, and while a cad, is not so much an evil man, yet we would make compromises to destroy him rather than win an honest debate? I respect the need for nations, certainly republican nations, to fight for their benefit... but let's hang him, and anyone else who has in truth gone too far, by honest means, not on a Swedish rape-lie.
 
Assange will broker a deal and release incriminating evidence against Hillary.
 
Cint said:
Assange will broker a deal and release incriminating evidence against Hillary.
Click to expand...
Assange has nothing left on Hillary, tbh. That ship has sailed.
 
Fawlty said:
lol

Assange, you backed the wrong pony. Here's your lesson, bitch.
Click to expand...
what? weren't assange and trump in cahoots?

don't let the facts get int he way of bashing trump though, right?
 
This is an older article, just replace "Obama" with "Trump"

"
James Goodale has a message for journalists: Wake up. In his new book, Fighting for the Press (CUNY Journalism Press, 2013), Goodale, chief counsel to The New York Times when its editors published the Pentagon Papers in 1971, argues that President Obama is worse for press freedom than former President Richard Nixon was.

The Obama administration has prosecuted more alleged leakers of national security information under the 1917 Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined, a course critics say is overly aggressive. Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller wrote in a March op-ed that the administration “has a particular, chilling intolerance” for those who leak. If the Obama administration indicts WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, Goodale argues, the president will have succeeded where Nixon failed by using the act to “end-run” the First Amendment. "
http://archives.cjr.org/critical_eye/qa_with_goodale_obama_press_fr.php
 
Nice. Get em, Lord Emperor Trump!

tenor.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

White Whale
International Artist says he'll destroy $45M worth of Rembrandt, Picasso and Warhol masterpieces if Julian Assange dies in prison
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
2K
Hog-train
Hog-train

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,934
Messages
55,455,928
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top