Coronavirus

I'm guessing they just want information about how Russia contacted him. The hacking charge is pretty minor.

Yes. Your mistake is treating people's lives as if they're the plot of 'Top Gun'. There's no 'your house'/'my house'. America is made mostly of people (who suffer from the oppression of their government), Australia likewise is populated by human beings who suffer at the hands of a disgraceful government and its corporate sponsors. The rest of the world's people suffer likewise (though often at the hands of the US than their own governments). People. All the same people. Not Russians vs Americans. Not your house vs my house.

Whatever his personal motives, Assange highlighted actions which, if allowed to continue, would harm people. Sending the message that such actions will be severely punished by governments the world over will harm people. There's no us vs. them except in the storyline they want you to swallow. But then your proclivity for swallowing simplistic us vs. them narratives you're fed so that you can play out your John Wayne fantasy has been noted before. — Isaac

First, thank you for being the only person who tried (even if you failed) to take a stab at my question. That said, talk about a simplistic view of the world! First you try to imply a "we are the world" group of people, but then the U.S. government is the bogy man (Top Gun, pun intended, get it? No? Never mind) out there undermining what would otherwise be kumbaya. :roll:

Your silly view of the situation is is just another "us vs them" argument, only you try to wrangle the world into your remuda to defend it against the evil governments.

I assumed my original, honest question was not answered because it is a very hard question. Quite simply, when all I see is unmitigated hatred and sniping against my government (warranted or not),I want to know if the sniper is sincerely trying to help, of if he is an agent for one of those other governments? Look at it from my point of view: We not only have Assange and Street coming out of Australia, but you've also blessed the world with Rupert Murdoch. What I'm seeing here is white nationalism. Especially when you throw Putin into the mix.

So, as a naïve noob in these matters of international concern that you seem to be such an expert on, how is a simpleton like me supposed to know your intentions toward me are good? Are you sewing discord and division in the U.S. as part of a plot to destroy the U.S.? Or are you just a good guy, trying to help us see the error of our ways? You know, some kind of self-improvement guru?

Were the insurrectionist of January 6th on the right track? Was Trump on the right track? Is the fall of the U.S. and the rise of China a good thing? Or are you just trying to help the U.S. by pointing out how fucking corrupt and rotten and evil it is? "Shed a little sun light, disinfect with the truth, and the U.S. too can join the world campfire!"

How is a simple American supposed to know? That's my simple question.

Now you may say that I'm not entitled to an answer, or that the burden is not upon you to exonerate yourself before my non-existent jurisdiction. And that's true. You don't have to answer the question. But as far as my non-existent family in my non-existent house is concerned, if you fail to prove you're not in bed with nationalists, then you are one. Ironic, huh? I mean here you want to view the people of the world as innocent victims of government, yet your failure to prove your bonafides supports government. And all because you can't answer the question: How do I know you are good when all I hear is how fucking rotten and evil my country is? And what happens to credibility when what is happening to Assange is equated with the fate of Khashoggi? Poor stupid me just doesn't know what to do! Evil government misleading me on the one hand, and then there's you. Decisions, decisions.

P.S. You know, as I said before about a world clearing house, that would have moved us closer to what you purport to want. But it didn't happen. Hmmm. I wonder why? I think somebody picked a side. If that's the case, then fuck him.

Except the people who did publish were precisely papers like Der Spiegel and so on. — StreetlightX

Can't tell the difference between Der Spiegel and the NYT? Let me help you out, Der Spiegel is German.

I guess we'll see.

Quite simply, when all I see is unmitigated hatred and sniping against my government (warranted or not),I want to know if the sniper is sincerely trying to help, of if he is an agent for one of those other governments? — James Riley

OK, I'll be more blunt. The answer is it doesn't matter one jot. Your government, their government...what does it matter? You owe your government nothing, you owe no enmity to the other. That's the us vs them to which I was referring.

So, as a naïve noob in these matters of international concern that you seem to be such an expert on... — James Riley

I've made no greater a claim than you, we're all just giving opinions here, or did you think that yours came along with labels on?

I have taught you repeatedly — James Riley

I have taught but you have not learned. — James Riley

I already taught you — James Riley

Remember what I taught you — James Riley

...and I'm the one who's comments are apparently suffused with pretensions to expertise!

How is a simple American supposed to know? That's my simple question. — James Riley

You can't. You've already ruled out 'doing your own research', you've ruled out listening to dissenting voices in any areas other than those in which you are an expert. You've blindfolded and gagged yourself, so do whatever your government says, it's the only option you've got left.

OK, I'll be more blunt. The answer is it doesn't matter one jot. Your government, their government...what does it matter? You owe your government nothing, you owe no enmity to the other. that's the us vs them to which I was referring. — Isaac

and I'm the one who's comments are apparently suffused with pretensions to expertise! — Isaac

And yet you fail to learn your lessons and you can't teach me anything? I've asked you to teach me, but you can't: proof:

You can't. — Isaac

You've already ruled out 'doing your own research', you've ruled out listening to dissenting voice in any areas other than those in which you are an expert. You've blindfolded and gagged yourself, so do whatever your government says, it's the only option you've got left. — Isaac

No, I'm doing my research now, asking you: How do I tell? But you say I can't tell. So, I either trust you, who can't learn any lessons or teach anything, or I trust my government. I trust my own eyes and what I see happening to my country. Seems like my government is telling me the truth when they say their are subversives and useful idiots out there doing Putin's work for him, and pushing an agenda of white nationalism.

So, since you have nothing, and can't answer my question, that leaves me to use my own suppositions about you, Street, Assange, Murdoch, Trump, Putin, et el.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any body else want to tell me how I can tell the difference between those who want to help democracy with transparency, and those who want to take it down for a Russian agenda?

2. I noticed he's not in U.S. custody. So there's that. Here he'd be on easy street and he'd probably be out by now after community service; or found not guilty.

Manning was sentenced to 35 years. When the corrupt US justice system investigates, charges, and sentences someone under The Espionage Act, it is no joke. The history of the act itself is littered with free speech and human rights abuses.

By any moral measure, not only did Assange do nothing wrong, he was doing good. The United States government, it’s allies in Europe, are the bad guys in this affair.

By any moral measure, not only did Assange do nothing wrong, he was doing good. The United States government, it’s allies in Europe, are the bad guys in this affair. — NOS4A2

Meh. Like I said, Big Boy Rules apply. (Well, in Manning's case, Big Girl Rules Apply. How would that have happened in any country but the U.S.? Kind of contradicts your assessment of the system, doesn't it?) Besides, I'm still looking for an answer to my question: How do I know what you say is true? After all, you are no fan of ANY government. So I'm still looking for a marker I can use to guide me. And even if what you say is "truth", it's just another tool when proponents are selective about the reveal. How come you folks aren't ripping on Russia and China, et al?

The Espionage Act, it is no joke. — NOS4A2

Yeah? Ask Khashoggi and all the Putin poison pin cushions if the Espionage Act is a joke.

I've asked you to teach me, but you can't: proof: — James Riley

Teaching is a collaborative, not a combative activity.

Seems like my government is telling me the truth when they say their are subversives and useful idiots out there doing Putin's work for him, and pushing an agenda of white nationalism. — James Riley

How does it 'seem like...' they're telling the truth? Do their words come out with glitter on?

democracy — James Riley

Ha!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/07/is-america-a-democracy-if-so-why-does-it-deny-millions-the-vote

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/24/us-world-democracy-rankings-freedom-house-new-low

This dramatic decline is primarily down to the US having been demoted to a “flawed democracy,” in the classification of the EIU - as a result of low public confidence in the government. The report stresses that this was strongly in evidence prior to the presidential election that saw Donald Trump become president. — https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/which-are-the-worlds-strongest-democracies/

Teaching is a collaborative, not a combative activity. — Isaac

:rofl:

How does it 'seem like...' they're telling the truth? Do their words come out with glitter on? — Isaac

And yours? You are making my point. How to tell, how to tell. Crickets.

Regarding your cites: They make my case. I see the white nationalist agenda and the division long before Trump. Trump was just Putin's bitch.

as a result of low public confidence in the government. The report stresses that this was strongly in evidence prior to the presidential election that saw Donald Trump become president. — https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/02/which-are-the-worlds-strongest-democracies/

Yeah, I wonder why? DOH! No thanks to the nationalist populist conservative Republican useful idiots of Putin.

For me it’s a matter of conscience. Weigh the good (the exposure of war crimes, transparency, knowledge of how the govt. spends our money, election meddling) with the bad (not sure what the bad is). If I ask myself if Assange deserves this treatment the answer is clearly “no”.

For me it’s a matter of conscience. Weigh the good (the exposure of war crimes, transparency, knowledge of how the govt. spends our money, election meddling) with the bad (not sure what the bad is). If I ask myself if Assange deserves this treatment the answer is clearly “no”. — NOS4A2

Well, that's an honest answer. Thanks. I guess for the bad, you would look at all the countries that do not give Assange counter-parts any due process of law, at all. Well, unless their law considers what they got "due process." But I don't hear anyone whining about that. Thus my curiosity.

Anyway, my power keeps going on and off so I'm going to shut off the computer till the storm blows over. In the meantime, if anyone has any constructive ideas on how I am to tell a gnat from an agent provocateur, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I'll be left to doing what I perceive a lot of people here doing: Considering the source and the hyperbolic language that they use.

RIP to all those who didn't get notice and an opportunity to be heard before being killed or sent to a gulag.

OK, I'll be more blunt. The answer is it doesn't matter one jot. Your government, their government...what does it matter? You owe your government nothing, you owe no enmity to the other. That's the us vs them to which I was referring. — Isaac

Maybe that's true for you in the country you live in. Not true here for me. Here we have a relationship of sorts, because ultimately it's my country. And me and mine, we share responsibilities and owe each other a lot. "Of the people, by the people, for the people." And if you do not get that, well, that might reflect poorly on your character, maturity, education - all kinds of things. Meanwhile, try reading Crito. Maybe not the last or the newest word on the topic, but at least instructive.

Yes, I believe that is what it is about. Assange poked the eye of the sleeping giant, and the sleeping giant is embarrassed and angry, and wants to punish Julian Assange to save face, and show that you disturb its dogmatic slumber at your peril.

After four years of this:



we no longer have the ability to be embarrassed.

Perhaps not; but you desperately need to save face. Problem is you're going about it in entirely the wrong way.

EDIT: since I understnd that "save face" can be taken in two different senses: to redeem yourself, and to appear to redeem yourself, I want to note that I meant the former, which should subsume the latter. The latter, however does not necessarily, or even often, include the former.

but you desperately need to save face — Janus

Not really. We're not fucking Japanese (except the ones who are).

You might not be fucking them now, but you already fucked the Japanese once or twice, and you still need to save face for that crime. Perhaps the Chinese are next?

You're not making much sense.

Yeah, right, I know...

Any body else want to tell me how I can tell the difference between those who want to help democracy with transparency, and those who want to take it down for a Russian agenda? — James Riley

This is a kind of implicit ad hom. IOW your argument may or may not be good, but since I can't tell if your intentions are to undermine the government it doesn't matter.

I can recognize that Putin's 'justice' system sucks, but still criticize political BS like charging Assange under the Espionage Act. To argue, implicitly or explicitly, that we should not criticize our government if there are superpowers that are worse is apologetics for those factions within the US that wants to be able to do what Putin and the CCP can.

How can I tell whether you are actually concerned about justice and fair use of power, or actually you are someone who wants to transform the US system into something Putin's Russia or CCP China?

the sleeping giant is embarrassed and angry, and wants to punish Julian Assange to save face, and show that you disturb its dogmatic slumber at your peril. — Janus

Yep - that Assange put exactly zero people in danger - for reporting on American war crimes - is not at issue. It's about sending a message, as the mafia say. And US is nothing if not a mafia operation. Challenges to American power - which at this point is abusive by definition - will not be tolerated. Anyone else who dares do similar things will be ruined and have their lives destroyed.

I wouldn't bother. James is a conspiracist loon whose paranoia is beneath address.

Challenges to American power - which at this point is abusive by definition - will not be tolerated. Anyone else who dares do similar things will be ruined and have their lives destroyed. — StreetlightX

:100: And our (Australian) gaggle of complicit idiots and shysters are not much better; all they lack is the degree of power.

Challenges to American power - which at this point is abusive by definition - will not be tolerated. — StreetlightX

Kind of like how you respond to anyone who dares to differ with you.

I wouldn't bother. James is a conspiracist loon whose paranoia is beneath address. — StreetlightX

Well, I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's useful to focus on arguments regardless of the people who make them. You may well be right that he will not interact rationally with my criticism (which itself may or may not be sound), but I think it's still useful (potentially for others and certainly for me) to toss it out there.

Challenges to American power - which at this point is abusive by definition — StreetlightX

Whose definition? Or, rather, make the case not that American power can abuse, but that it is categorically abusive.

Surprised nobody has reactivated this thread. Julian Assange pleaded guilty to one count of violating the US Espionage act, in return for a sentence of 62 months with credit for time served, the 62 months he just spent in 23 hour a day solitary confinement in Britain's notorious Belmarsh prison. He's a free man.

There's good news and bad news.

For Julian, I am thrilled. I've been hoping for his freedom for years. Few of us could have stood up to his five year incarceration, preceded by seven years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Julian Assange is tonight a free man, and I am glad for that.

The bad news is that the US has established the precedent that journalism is espionage. That's a step down a slippery slope that few of us are going to like. Every journalist in the world got the message today. Reveal the US government's crimes and they destroy your life. A lot of other governments in the "free world" too. Forget that pesky First Amendment and the notion of a free press.

Assange did exactly what the New York Times did in the Pentagon Papers case. He was treated a lot differently, and the world of mainstream journalism deserted him and hung him out to dry. When you're declared an enemy of the state, few will stand up for principle at the cost of being seen defending you.

Today even the Times, the voice of the establishment, agreed with the risk of this deal to press freedom.

Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse

The deal brings an ambiguous end to a legal saga that has jeopardized the ability of journalists to report on military, intelligence or diplomatic information that officials deem secret

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/us/politics/assange-plea-deal-press-freedom.html

From the Times:

The agreement means that for the first time in American history, gathering and publishing information the government considers secret has been successfully treated as a crime. This new precedent will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution.

I am a bit surprised at this take. The Times has not been outspoken in Assange's defense as far as I know, but I admit I haven't followed their coverage over the years.

Well I'm happy for Julian Assange tonight, and I'm sad they put another big dent in the First amendment and the public's right to know about government malfeasance.

From 2021 ...

Fuck Assange. He helped the Russians interfere in the 2016 US elections. Another FSB/GRU tool. Thanks for Trump, Jules! Go. Rot. — 180 Proof

:mask:

It is great on a personal level to see Assange walk free after his ordeal - 14 years all up, as his confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy was also tantamount to imprisonment (although I also second what @180 Proof says above, let’s not forget that it came out that one of the reasons Assange leaked all the DNC files was to demonstrate Wikileaks ability to ‘change history’. That was a totally invidious interference in my view with disastrous consequences.)

The question that nags at me, however, is ‘is Wikileaks a bona fide media organisation’, and can what it does be described as journalism? Consider the Chelsea Manning documents, and the related but separate Ed Snowden leaks. Both of these were conducted by employees of an organisation who had presumably signed a contract requiring them to observe the confidentiality and secrecy of the documents that they leaked. Apart from anything else, they broke that contract.

If these materials had been made available to a mainstream media organisation, such as the New York Times, would that organisation have published them? I presume not, as they would be aware of the penalties involved for divulging confidential and top-secret information.

The theory behind Wikileaks, as I understand it, is that it is supposed to be a publicly-available repository into which anonymous users are able to post whatever information they choose, with no editorial oversight or interference from the Wikileaks organisation. But no bona fide media organisation would provide such a facility, for fairly obvious reasons.

I feel that a genuine distinction is being lost amidst the smoke and heat. Of course the crimes which Wikileaks exposed deserve to be exposed, and governments ought not to use secrecy as a shield for wrong-doing, which they inveterately will. It’s a balance of ‘right to know’ vs ‘need for confidentiality’. But then how much ‘transparency’ could be expected from, for example, the CCP, or from Russia? Presumably if one of Assange’s counterparts had hacked and leaked information from the Russian FSB - well, he or she would face a fate much worse than legal threats, and we in the West would probably never even know their name.