Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

nan - like I've said to you a thousand times - please provide links - don't cut and paste whole pieces of articles.  Otherwise this thread could merely be cut and pastes instead of a discussion.

jamie said:
nan - like I've said to you a thousand times - please provide links - don't cut and paste whole pieces of articles.  Otherwise this thread could merely be cut and pastes instead of a discussion.

 I did not post the whole piece--only excerpts.  I hope people read the whole thing--much longer than what I posted.

jamie said:
I saw McGovern was happy to post his bold question to Clapper - but there is no video existence of Clapper's response - why?  Why show one without the other?

What's your take on Clapper's statement (in his book) that he shares the blame for falsified information created by intelligence officers, including himself, who were eager to find what wasn't there?

Couldn't happen again, right?

sure it could - Clapper has also been part of the solution to make sure it doesn't.

(this could have been detailed in Clapper's response - had anyone cared to share it)

paulsurovell said:

What's your take on the implications of McGovern's quote from Clapper's memoirs:
that places blame on the Iraq WMD hoax

As someone who’s been wrong before, I give credit to people and institutions that acknowledge their errors and try to learn from them.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

What's your take on the implications of McGovern's quote from Clapper's memoirs:
that places blame on the Iraq WMD hoax

As someone who’s been wrong before, I give credit to people and institutions that acknowledge their errors and try to learn from them.

 Maybe, but Clapper's not one of those people:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/

jamie said:
sure it could - Clapper has also been part of the solution to make sure it doesn't.

Well if so, it's a pretty sloppy solution. See my response to Dave Schmidt above.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
I saw McGovern was happy to post his bold question to Clapper - but there is no video existence of Clapper's response - why?  Why show one without the other?

What's your take on Clapper's statement (in his book) that he shares the blame for falsified information created by intelligence officers, including himself, who were eager to find what wasn't there?
Couldn't happen again, right?

 When someone's honest self-examination is used as a weapon against them, that discourages more honesty.  But some people don't want honesty, perhaps, because it won't help their "nothing to see here" narrative against Mueller's investigation.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
I saw McGovern was happy to post his bold question to Clapper - but there is no video existence of Clapper's response - why?  Why show one without the other?

What's your take on Clapper's statement (in his book) that he shares the blame for falsified information created by intelligence officers, including himself, who were eager to find what wasn't there?
Couldn't happen again, right?

 When someone's honest self-examination is used as a weapon against them, that discourages more honesty.  But some people don't want honesty, perhaps, because it won't help their "nothing to see here" narrative against Mueller's investigation.

 Not used as a weapon against "them" but used to reveal the truth about a massive hoax committed by the Intel community and the political/media class that must be factored into any analysis of what those institutions are doing today. 

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
I saw McGovern was happy to post his bold question to Clapper - but there is no video existence of Clapper's response - why?  Why show one without the other?

What's your take on Clapper's statement (in his book) that he shares the blame for falsified information created by intelligence officers, including himself, who were eager to find what wasn't there?
Couldn't happen again, right?

 When someone's honest self-examination is used as a weapon against them, that discourages more honesty.  But some people don't want honesty, perhaps, because it won't help their "nothing to see here" narrative against Mueller's investigation.

 Not used as a weapon against "them" but used to reveal the truth about a massive hoax committed by the Intel community and the political/media class that must be factored into any analysis of what those institutions are doing today. 

 It doesn't "reveal the truth" about anything except what he admits about the "case" to support the Iraq invasion.

[Edited to add] and as Mr. J. Ross already pointed out, your "reveal the truth" people aren't even interested in continuing the video in order to show the response that followed McGovern's question.

Here's my main issue with wikileaks - they're a dumping ground for any classified or stolen information sent to him by anyone.  Assange gets to choose WHAT to disseminate and WHEN to release it - THIS is where he is dangerous.  I'd love to know everything he's refusing to release to the public.  

What is he choose to release all of our credit card numbers and SSNs?  

jamie said:
Here's my main issue with wikileaks - they're a dumping ground for any classified or stolen information sent to him by anyone.  Assange gets to choose WHAT to disseminate and WHEN to release it - THIS is where he is dangerous. 

When tipsters and flacks and officials and readers all flood a newsroom with information, what’s an editor to do? He or she chooses what to disseminate and when to release it.

To elaborate a little, you may not like Assange’s choices, but if that is indeed the crux of your argument, you’ll inevitably come up against Paul and nan’s question: Where would you draw the line?

And as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are learning, there’s danger in efforts to liberate information from choices as well.

DaveSchmidt said:
To elaborate a little, you may not like Assange’s choices, but if that is indeed the crux of your argument, you’ll inevitably come up against Paul and nan’s question: Where would you draw the line?
And as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are learning, there’s danger in efforts to liberate information from choices as well.

 Exactly.  You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

nan said:

You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

 No, but we’ve already been through that.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

 No, but we’ve already been through that.

 No we have not.  

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

 No, but we’ve already been through that.

 No we have not.  

 The freedom of press and Assange equivalency is a narrative that has been parroted over and over on RT - wonder why they’re so keenly focused on “freedom of the press” when they’re not even allowed to criticize their Dear Leader.

nan said:

No we have not.  

Of course we have. As a matter of fact, it was exactly a week ago: last Sunday between 4:48 and 7:48 p.m., in this very thread. See you again on Dec. 2?

jamie said:

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

 No, but we’ve already been through that.

 No we have not.  

 The freedom of press and Assange equivalency is a narrative that has been parroted over and over on RT - wonder why they’re so keenly focused on “freedom of the press” when they’re not even allowed to criticize their Dear Leader.

 I have posted this view from many, many sources other than RT.  Also, don't believe that Putin does not allow criticism--where did you get that from--Bill Browder? Cant imagine that their press is much worse than ours.  Really, you don't have to like Assange, but if you don't support him, you have been seriously brainwashed.  It is that simple.  

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

No we have not.  

Of course we have. As a matter of fact, it was exactly a week ago: last Sunday between 4:48 and 7:48 p.m., in this very thread. See you again on Dec. 2?

 Maybe you went over it, but I did not agree.

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

 No, but we’ve already been through that.

 No we have not.  

 The freedom of press and Assange equivalency is a narrative that has been parroted over and over on RT - wonder why they’re so keenly focused on “freedom of the press” when they’re not even allowed to criticize their Dear Leader.

 I have posted this view from many, many sources other than RT.  Also, don't believe that Putin does not allow criticism--where did you get that from--Bill Browder? Cant imagine that their press is much worse than ours.  Really, you don't have to like Assange, but if you don't support him, you have been seriously brainwashed.  It is that simple.  

 I got the idea of the lack of Putin criticism on RT by the void of Russian criticism in RT. If you can find an instance where they have - please post. 

Here’s a question- what if Roger Stone started a site called stoneleaks and every month he published all classified emails from a world leader of his choosing - would this be okay?

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
I saw McGovern was happy to post his bold question to Clapper - but there is no video existence of Clapper's response - why?  Why show one without the other?

What's your take on Clapper's statement (in his book) that he shares the blame for falsified information created by intelligence officers, including himself, who were eager to find what wasn't there?
Couldn't happen again, right?

 When someone's honest self-examination is used as a weapon against them, that discourages more honesty.  But some people don't want honesty, perhaps, because it won't help their "nothing to see here" narrative against Mueller's investigation.

 Not used as a weapon against "them" but used to reveal the truth about a massive hoax committed by the Intel community and the political/media class that must be factored into any analysis of what those institutions are doing today. 

 It doesn't "reveal the truth" about anything except what he admits about the "case" to support the Iraq invasion.
[Edited to add] and as Mr. J. Ross already pointed out, your "reveal the truth" people aren't even interested in continuing the video in order to show the response that followed McGovern's question.

 The truth about the hoax that was used to promote the Iraq invasion matters. I know you regard the issue as "tiresome" because it reflects badly on the integrity of the institutions promoting Russiagate that you obsessively defend

With regard to the end of the video, Mr. Clapper is fully capable of rebutting McGovern's article that is in the public record, if he disputes McGovern's summary.

DaveSchmidt said:

jamie said:
Here's my main issue with wikileaks - they're a dumping ground for any classified or stolen information sent to him by anyone.  Assange gets to choose WHAT to disseminate and WHEN to release it - THIS is where he is dangerous. 

When tipsters and flacks and officials and readers all flood a newsroom with information, what’s an editor to do? He or she chooses what to disseminate and when to release it.

 Journalism 101.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/reader-center/confidential-tip-line.html

nice dodge in regards to the video cutoff.  

jamie said:
nice dodge in regards to the video cutoff.  

 Maybe there wasn't a cutoff. Maybe there was no video of the response. The camera angle and position suggests that possibility. Regardless, Clapper's a big boy who would like nothing better than to discredit McGovern if he misrepresented his answer.

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

You can hate Assange all you want, but if you value a free press you MUST support him.  Any other stance is a akin to signing on to totalitarianism and defiantly supporting Trump. 

 No, but we’ve already been through that.

 No we have not.  

 The freedom of press and Assange equivalency is a narrative that has been parroted over and over on RT - wonder why they’re so keenly focused on “freedom of the press” when they’re not even allowed to criticize their Dear Leader.

 I have posted this view from many, many sources other than RT.  Also, don't believe that Putin does not allow criticism--where did you get that from--Bill Browder? Cant imagine that their press is much worse than ours.  Really, you don't have to like Assange, but if you don't support him, you have been seriously brainwashed.  It is that simple.  

 I got the idea of the lack of Putin criticism on RT by the void of Russian criticism in RT. If you can find an instance where they have - please post. 

 Jamie,

You need a better view of RT, one that is within the realm of reality:

Why I Support Russia Today (and So Should You)

So, is this true? Is RT merely Kremlin propaganda, spreading disinformation and lies, or is it a platform to present a more balanced picture of Russia, expressing the Russian perspective on global affairs? In my opinion, from extensive viewing of the news coverage and programs offered by RT, I would say that RT critics’ “propaganda” claim does not hold up to close scrutiny and is, in fact, propaganda itself; on the other hand, the alternate claim of offering a “balanced picture of Russia” and expressing the “Russian perspective,” though certainly closer to the truth than the “propaganda” claim, is not a truly accurate description of RT either. In other words, while the news coverage can be said to reflect the Russian perspective on global affairs, most of the hosts are not Russian; moreover, as for as providing insight into Russia and everything “Russian,” proportionally speaking, only a fraction  of the programming or coverage revolves around Russia or Russian affairs.

So, now that I’ve told you what RT isn’t, I’ll explain what it is, the reason why I view and support it, and why I think the US establishment, including its corporate media, has been fiercely attacking RT and are out to shut it down. To put it plainly, RT is the #1 international broadcast that allows a platform for alternative narratives and dissenting views to be expressed. Just take a look at the hosts of the “shows” section of RT’s website, and you’ll understand what I mean. These are very independent-minded individuals, whose dissenting views are simply not allowedo n MSM; in fact, some of them, like Larry King, Ed Schultz, and Thom Hartmann, held celebrity status on MSM and only joined the RT staff because they were free to air their views without censorship. Ed Schultz, for example, stated that, unlike the usual censorship tactics of MSNBC, RT never quizzed him in advance about his guests or the content of his show; instead, he says that the very reason he likes RT is because of its policy of absolute freedom of speech. Imagine that! Here we have Ed Schultz, a media refugee from MSM, stating that, unlike MSNBC, he’s allowed to say anything he wants to on RT, without any editorial oversight whatsoever.

is that seriously your rebuttal?

jamie said:
Here’s a question- what if Roger Stone started a site called stoneleaks and every month he published all classified emails from a world leader of his choosing - would this be okay?

If those emails were the only material that StoneLeaks published, maybe a court finds a line to draw there: You can publish stolen documents as part of your journalistic mission if they fall into your lap, but not if that’s your only purpose, because your entire operation can’t be built on someone else’s crimes. Or not: Maybe a court decides instead that there’s always going to be someone stealing emails anyway, and that a world leader’s emails are, almost by definition, “of public concern” (which is the subjectively, and therefore variously, determined legal threshold).