Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

This might be an apt spot for a reminder that the Pentagon Papers are not really the legal comparison here. That case was about prior restraint — whether or not the government could prevent publication — which is a moot point for WikiLeaks. Whether or not news organizations can be prosecuted after publication was, and is, a separate question.

jamie said:
is that seriously your rebuttal?

Seriously, that is fine and a good overview.  What do I even watch on RT anyway?  Chris Hedges and occasionally some others such as Abby Martin or Lee Camp.  If you think those people are Russian puppets you need medication.   Same for Nixon and Stranahan on Fault Lines, Sputnik Radio.  You cannot watch these shows for a period of time and think they are anything but the personal views of the speakers.  

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Paul,
Just curious, at 2:02 am does the signal from Moscow come in strong or do you need to send Ed Norton out with the rabbit ears to get it  just right?

TIA.

 How long were you hospitalized when the tornado dropped you on your head?

 That's the best you have Paul?   

Poooor Paul.   Just mailing his posts in for the last few paychecks.

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

The full exchange between McGovern and Clapper begins around 28:40 and ends just after 33:00.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/13/intelligence-brief-with-james-clapper-event-7007

nan said:

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. 

 I don't need to support his sexual assault and anti-Semitism, and I don't need to support his selective release of content to benefit Trump. But his decision to publish selectively is protected by the First Amendment. But we don't know what the potential charges are. 

dave23 said:

nan said:

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. 

 I don't need to support his sexual assault and anti-Semitism, and I don't need to support his selective release of content to benefit Trump. But his decision to publish selectively is protected by the First Amendment. But we don't know what the potential charges are.   I 

 I don't agree that he is guilty of any of those things, but even if you do, you know what I am talking about when I say you need to support him--he can not be found to be guilty of any charges related to journalism or publishing materials from questionable sources.  And no we don't know the exact charges, but we can sorta kinda get a ball park idea.  I linked to some theories on that earlier. 

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.

Assange is not an editor - or at least he should not be. The pure version of wikileaks is one where assange takes documents that have been leaked, and then posts them where they can easily be found. All of them, at once. 

Instead, he weaponized them to further his own political goals. So I'm kind of tired of having people (not you) equate him as some sort of noble beast. He's not. He's a sh!t.

drummerboy said:

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.

Assange is not an editor - or at least he should not be. The pure version of wikileaks is one where assange takes documents that have been leaked, and then posts them where they can easily be found. All of them, at once. 
Instead, he weaponized them to further his own political goals. So I'm kind of tired of having people (not you) equate him as some sort of noble beast. He's not. He's a sh!t.

 A+

His anti-Semitic tweets weren't real? The leaks about his wish for Trump's victory were imaginary? 

There's a good chance he'll be implicated in things unrelated to journalism.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/20/the-day-after-assange-threatened-don-jr-accused-vault-7-leaker-joshua-schulte-took-to-tor/

DaveSchmidt said:

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

The full exchange between McGovern and Clapper begins around 28:40 and ends just after 33:00.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/13/intelligence-brief-with-james-clapper-event-7007

 Thanks - here's the video - it was very disingenuous for the coverage of the McGovern question - not to show the response.  VIPS is trying to stay relevant, unfortunately, there's no way for any of them to have clearance to the intel that people like Clapper have. 

drummerboy said:

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.

Assange is not an editor - or at least he should not be. The pure version of wikileaks is one where assange takes documents that have been leaked, and then posts them where they can easily be found. All of them, at once. 
Instead, he weaponized them to further his own political goals. So I'm kind of tired of having people (not you) equate him as some sort of noble beast. He's not. He's a sh!t.

 Documents cannot be just dumped because some names and things need to be protected.  Some people have different views of this, but it does not make him a ****.  What has he printed that you don't think the public has a right to know?   Would you rather be lied to about government surveillance, torture and other war crimes, and double dealings at the DNC?   I'm glad to know about these things.  But, as I keep saying, it does not matter if you HATE Julian Assange and think he is despicable--you need to support him because prosecution of him will affect the journalist you do like.  Are you not getting this through your head?  Cause there is NO OTHER ACCEPTABLE viewpoint on this.  NONE.  If Assange is prosecuted and found guilty, we will lose our free press.  End of story.  If you think Assange should be prosecuted than you are cheering on a repressive government shut-down of the free press and supporting Trump.  So get with the program. 

Baloney.  

dave23 said:
His anti-Semitic tweets weren't real? The leaks about his wish for Trump's victory were imaginary? 
There's a good chance he'll be implicated in things unrelated to journalism.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/20/the-day-after-assange-threatened-don-jr-accused-vault-7-leaker-joshua-schulte-took-to-tor/

 This is the kind of smear you see on people like Jeremy Corbin.  They try to pin sexual deviance and anti-sematism and disloyalty.  Don't see how he will be charged with anything unrelated to journalism. Like what?  Where is the evidence?  You really need to check the sources on these allegations.

(https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f)

Also, this article:  http://www.newslogue.com/debate/271  which says this:

In the leadup to the election I read an infuriating Buzzfeed article being circulated by my liberal friends titled “Inside The Strange, Paranoid World Of Julian Assange,” which was authored by a man who had worked with Assange and clearly had an (unstated) agenda against him. The article mentioned anti-Semitism multiple times without ever actually leveling an accusation of anti-Semitism against Assange, a transparent attempt to cause readers to walk away from the article with the mistaken impression that Assange is an anti-Semite. It also tried to make the laughable case that Assange’s most significant days were behind him and that the latest leaks were a desperate attempt to “regain the spotlight,” when 2016 was very clearly the most visible WikiLeaks has ever been to date, with Assange arguably having a more significant impact on the world than anyone else on Earth that year.

This was just one example of the countless smear pieces that have targeted Assange in support of the American political establishment his releases helped upend. The Swedish sexual assault allegations, for which he has not even been charged, have been thrust again and again into the spotlight despite their lack of substance. A Clinton-linked attempt to smear him as a pedophile has been reported as fact on CNN and other outlets despite a clear Clinton tie to the accusation and a total absence of any evidence whatsoever. He has been smeared as a Kremlin stooge, a charlatan, and, hilariously, a traitor despite his being an Australian citizen with no loyalties to or relationship with the United States. His “motives” for sharing the truth with the world have been called into question again and again and again, as though shedding a light on the corruption and deceit of political power could ever be a bad thing. 

But, anyway, even if these allegations are true, you still need to support Assange as I stated above.

jamie said:

DaveSchmidt said:

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

The full exchange between McGovern and Clapper begins around 28:40 and ends just after 33:00.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/11/13/intelligence-brief-with-james-clapper-event-7007

 Thanks - here's the video - it was very disingenuous for the coverage of the McGovern question - not to show the response.  VIPS is trying to stay relevant, unfortunately, there's no way for any of them to have clearance to the intel that people like Clapper have. 

The questioner was pushing that "it was a leak, not a hack" story which is the same as the lie about the Seth Rich killing.  

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Paul,
Just curious, at 2:02 am does the signal from Moscow come in strong or do you need to send Ed Norton out with the rabbit ears to get it  just right?

TIA.

 How long were you hospitalized when the tornado dropped you on your head?

 That's the best you have Paul?   


Poooor Paul.   Just mailing his posts in for the last few paychecks.

 Go back and play with your cowboy videos.

Hmmmm

Newly released Ecuadorian government documents have laid bare an unorthodox attempt to extricate the WikiLeaks founder from his embassy hideaway in London by naming him as a political counselor to the country’s embassy in Moscow.

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:

paulsurovell said:

sbenois said:
Paul,
Just curious, at 2:02 am does the signal from Moscow come in strong or do you need to send Ed Norton out with the rabbit ears to get it  just right?

TIA.

 How long were you hospitalized when the tornado dropped you on your head?

 That's the best you have Paul?   


Poooor Paul.   Just mailing his posts in for the last few paychecks.

 Go back and play with your cowboy videos.

 Oh Paul.   There you go again.

nan said:

dave23 said:
His anti-Semitic tweets weren't real? The leaks about his wish for Trump's victory were imaginary? 
There's a good chance he'll be implicated in things unrelated to journalism.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/20/the-day-after-assange-threatened-don-jr-accused-vault-7-leaker-joshua-schulte-took-to-tor/

 This is the kind of smear you see on people like Jeremy Corbin.  They try to pin sexual deviance and anti-sematism and disloyalty.  Don't see how he will be charged with anything unrelated to journalism. Like what?  Where is the evidence?  You really need to check the sources on these allegations.
(https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f)
Also, this article:  http://www.newslogue.com/debate/271  which says this:

In the leadup to the election I read an infuriating Buzzfeed article being circulated by my liberal friends titled “Inside The Strange, Paranoid World Of Julian Assange,” which was authored by a man who had worked with Assange and clearly had an (unstated) agenda against him. The article mentioned anti-Semitism multiple times without ever actually leveling an accusation of anti-Semitism against Assange, a transparent attempt to cause readers to walk away from the article with the mistaken impression that Assange is an anti-Semite. It also tried to make the laughable case that Assange’s most significant days were behind him and that the latest leaks were a desperate attempt to “regain the spotlight,” when 2016 was very clearly the most visible WikiLeaks has ever been to date, with Assange arguably having a more significant impact on the world than anyone else on Earth that year.

This was just one example of the countless smear pieces that have targeted Assange in support of the American political establishment his releases helped upend. The Swedish sexual assault allegations, for which he has not even been charged, have been thrust again and again into the spotlight despite their lack of substance. A Clinton-linked attempt to smear him as a pedophile has been reported as fact on CNN and other outlets despite a clear Clinton tie to the accusation and a total absence of any evidence whatsoever. He has been smeared as a Kremlin stooge, a charlatan, and, hilariously, a traitor despite his being an Australian citizen with no loyalties to or relationship with the United States. His “motives” for sharing the truth with the world have been called into question again and again and again, as though shedding a light on the corruption and deceit of political power could ever be a bad thing. 

But, anyway, even if these allegations are true, you still need to support Assange as I stated above.

 So the allegations aren't true and even if they are...

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
His anti-Semitic tweets weren't real? The leaks about his wish for Trump's victory were imaginary? 
There's a good chance he'll be implicated in things unrelated to journalism.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/06/20/the-day-after-assange-threatened-don-jr-accused-vault-7-leaker-joshua-schulte-took-to-tor/

 This is the kind of smear you see on people like Jeremy Corbin.  They try to pin sexual deviance and anti-sematism and disloyalty.  Don't see how he will be charged with anything unrelated to journalism. Like what?  Where is the evidence?  You really need to check the sources on these allegations.
(https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f)
Also, this article:  http://www.newslogue.com/debate/271  which says this:

In the leadup to the election I read an infuriating Buzzfeed article being circulated by my liberal friends titled “Inside The Strange, Paranoid World Of Julian Assange,” which was authored by a man who had worked with Assange and clearly had an (unstated) agenda against him. The article mentioned anti-Semitism multiple times without ever actually leveling an accusation of anti-Semitism against Assange, a transparent attempt to cause readers to walk away from the article with the mistaken impression that Assange is an anti-Semite. It also tried to make the laughable case that Assange’s most significant days were behind him and that the latest leaks were a desperate attempt to “regain the spotlight,” when 2016 was very clearly the most visible WikiLeaks has ever been to date, with Assange arguably having a more significant impact on the world than anyone else on Earth that year.

This was just one example of the countless smear pieces that have targeted Assange in support of the American political establishment his releases helped upend. The Swedish sexual assault allegations, for which he has not even been charged, have been thrust again and again into the spotlight despite their lack of substance. A Clinton-linked attempt to smear him as a pedophile has been reported as fact on CNN and other outlets despite a clear Clinton tie to the accusation and a total absence of any evidence whatsoever. He has been smeared as a Kremlin stooge, a charlatan, and, hilariously, a traitor despite his being an Australian citizen with no loyalties to or relationship with the United States. His “motives” for sharing the truth with the world have been called into question again and again and again, as though shedding a light on the corruption and deceit of political power could ever be a bad thing. 

But, anyway, even if these allegations are true, you still need to support Assange as I stated above.

 So the allegations aren't true and even if they are...

I don't think they are, but rather than spend lots of time arguing against anti-Assange propaganda, am just reminding you of the most important concept here--Freedom of the Press.  That is the big deal here you must recognize.

Great interview:   

ON CONTACT: CRUCIFYING JULIAN ASSANGE

nan said:

I don't think they are, but rather than spend lots of time arguing against anti-Assange propaganda, am just reminding you of the most important concept here--Freedom of the Press.  That is the big deal here you must recognize.

Yes, I've recognized it many times here. I also recognize that he's a scumbag (an anti-Semite who timed the release of the stolen Democratic emails to steal focus from Trump's grab 'em audiotapes and texted about preferring Trump to Clinton) who may have committed real crimes unrelated to the emails.

dave23 said:

nan said:

I don't think they are, but rather than spend lots of time arguing against anti-Assange propaganda, am just reminding you of the most important concept here--Freedom of the Press.  That is the big deal here you must recognize.

Yes, I've recognized it many times here. I also recognize that he's a scumbag (an anti-Semite who timed the release of the stolen Democratic emails to steal focus from Trump's grab 'em audiotapes and texted about preferring Trump to Clinton) who may have committed real crimes unrelated to the emails.

If you recognize the issue is Freedom of the Press presumably you oppose his prosecution, regardless of the rest of your post.

paulsurovell said:

If you recognize the issue is Freedom of the Press presumably you oppose his prosecution, regardless of the rest of your post.

I'd have to know what he's being prosecuted for before deciding whether or not I support it.

paulsurovell said:
If you recognize the issue is Freedom of the Press presumably you oppose his prosecution, regardless of the rest of your post.

So many replies from me and dave23/terp rejecting that presumption, yet you and nan refuse to accept them. You know, it’s possible to disagree with a point and recognize it at the same time.

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23/terp 

 This remains very funny.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:
If you recognize the issue is Freedom of the Press presumably you oppose his prosecution, regardless of the rest of your post.

So many replies from me and dave23/terp tejecting that presumption, yet you and nan refuse to accept them. You know, it’s possible to disagree with a point and recognize it at the same time.

Well that's one of two possibilities, and as you've noted, people change their minds.

If one accepts the consensus that Freedom of the Press includes the right to publish stolen documents, and if he/she "recognizes" Freedom of the Press as the issue with Assange's potential prosecution, then I think it's reasonable to presume that he/she opposes prosecution of Assange for publishing stolen documents.

Not sure about dave23/terp, but my understanding is that you don't oppose the prosecution of Assange because you "don't know" whether he was involved in the theft of documents he published. And theft of documents is a crime.

However, since there is no reason to believe or assume that Assange was involved in stealing documents that he published, raising that hypothetical should have no bearing on one's position, given what we "do know." Unless the position was something like -- "I oppose Assange's prosecution for publishing stolen documents, unless it is proven that he was involved in the theft of those documents."

But then, any position could be hedged in a similar fashion by raising a conflicting hypothetical, regardless of its connection to reality. For instance, "I believe Obama was born in Hawaii unless it is proven that the hospital conspired to falsify his birth certificate."

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

If you recognize the issue is Freedom of the Press presumably you oppose his prosecution, regardless of the rest of your post.

I'd have to know what he's being prosecuted for before deciding whether or not I support it.

 If he were prosecuted for publishing stolen documents.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

If you recognize the issue is Freedom of the Press presumably you oppose his prosecution, regardless of the rest of your post.

I'd have to know what he's being prosecuted for before deciding whether or not I support it.

 If he were prosecuted for publishing stolen documents.

I believe he'd be protected by the First Amendment if his role were only publisher and not, for instance, an abettor in some way.

paulsurovell said:

But then, any position could be hedged in a similar fashion by raising a conflicting hypothetical, regardless of its connection to reality. For instance, "I believe Obama was born in Hawaii unless it is proven that the hospital conspired to falsify his birth certificate."

That's the Trumpist defense.  Disregard any different factors, but simplify it so much that it allows for your "argument" to have an appeal for you. 

Try as I might, I honestly don't understand the expectation that I'm supposed to decide whether to support someone or something before I'm convinced that all the relevant information has come to light, or the idea that unknown details are simply hypotheticals and must be disregarded.