Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
DaveSchmidt said:
After my chuckling at ridski’s GIF subsided, I revisited Paul’s 2005 link and saw this, which I missed earlier and appears to resolve (a):
MATTHEWS: OK, we don't do it. Let's talk Turkey, and in fact literally Turkey. We send people at renditions. We send them to parts of the world that don't have this intellectual approach to this. They may have some psychopaths on the payroll down in the basement of some truth ministry in Cairo or Amman or somewhere else over there in that part of the world. Why do we do that if we don't think torture works? Why do we have these renditions to these dark basements in the third world?NAVARRO: I've never been party to it. And if it is going on, I don't agree to it. I think everything that we do should—or we do should stand up to judicial scrutiny. And I think rendering individuals so that they are somehow softened up by another government works against us.
That still leaves (b). Looking forward to Mr. Surovell explaining how he gets "I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition" out of that.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Do I have this right? Looking for Matthews’ views on rendition, you find an interview about torture, not rendition. In this interview about torture, not rendition, Matthews does not denounce rendition, which you suggest is evidence of his views on rendition. When someone notes that the interview, which is not about rendition, is anti-torture, you reply that’s misleading because you were talking about rendition. Which can make a reader wonder (a) why that interview came up in a search of “Chris Matthews” and “rendition” and (b) why you chose to cite it.
Your comment is misleading because I said Chris didn't seem to have a problem with "rendition" not "torture," which is the subject of your quotes.
You probably didn't click the "Show more text" tab. Chris briefly mentions rendition, but renders no opinion. That was my point:
MATTHEWS: OK, we don't do it. Let's talk Turkey, and in fact literally Turkey. We send people at renditions. We send them to parts of the world that don't have this intellectual approach to this. They may have some psychopaths on the payroll down in the basement of some truth ministry in Cairo or Amman or somewhere else over there in that part of the world. Why do we do that if we don't think torture works? Why do we have these renditions to these dark basements in the third world?
NAVARRO: I've never been party to it. And if it is going on, I don't agree to it. I think everything that we do should—or we do should stand up to judicial scrutiny. And I think rendering individuals so that they are somehow softened up by another government works against us.
MATTHEWS: Why do you think that the agency, as we call it in Washington, is asking—why is CIA asking for this? Or is it CIA, or is it just the vice president wants it?
nohero said:
DaveSchmidt said:That still leaves (b). Looking forward to Mr. Surovell explaining how he gets "I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition" out of that.
After my chuckling at ridski’s GIF subsided, I revisited Paul’s 2005 link and saw this, which I missed earlier and appears to resolve (a):
MATTHEWS: OK, we don't do it. Let's talk Turkey, and in fact literally Turkey. We send people at renditions. We send them to parts of the world that don't have this intellectual approach to this. They may have some psychopaths on the payroll down in the basement of some truth ministry in Cairo or Amman or somewhere else over there in that part of the world. Why do we do that if we don't think torture works? Why do we have these renditions to these dark basements in the third world?NAVARRO: I've never been party to it. And if it is going on, I don't agree to it. I think everything that we do should—or we do should stand up to judicial scrutiny. And I think rendering individuals so that they are somehow softened up by another government works against us.
So your (a) was a blunder, but you have an "escape hatch" in (b). You've quoted Joe Navarro saying he's got a problem with renditions, and Chris Matthews, who expresses a problem with torture, but not with the renditions. So (b) fails as well.
Yes, my (a) was a blunder.
Regarding (b), I'll simply note that Matthews refers to the "dark basements" of rendition. And in another thread, just an hour ago, it was affirmed that "basement" is a pejorative.
DaveSchmidt said:
Yes, my (a) was a blunder.
Regarding (b), I'll simply note that Matthews refers to the "dark basements" of rendition. And in another thread, just an hour ago, it was affirmed that "basement" is a pejorative.
But it was also shown that users of pejoratives sometimes deny that their meaning was pejorative.
paulsurovell said:
But it was also shown that users of pejoratives sometimes deny that their meaning was pejorative.
If you think so.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:If you think so.
But it was also shown that users of pejoratives sometimes deny that their meaning was pejorative.
One doesn't have to agree with that to see Chris Matthew's swings between pejoratives and suggestions of acceptance. He's ambivalent and his "why don't we grab" Assange reflected that.
Not good.
Ecuador to audit Julian Assange’s asylum & citizenship as country eyes IMF bailout
https://www.rt.com/news/448012-ecuador-audit-assange-citizen-imf/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Uh oh. Seems like Julian is about to get his very own perp walk. I hope he can grab a quick piece of fruit from Harrods before he goes to prison for the rest of his life. It would be a shame to be so close to their wonderful food marketplace and not be able to pick up an apple or something for his cell.
Still waiting . . .
Five Weeks After The Guardian’s Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop, No Evidence Has Emerged — Just Stonewalling
None of this is an aberration. Quite the contrary, it has become par for the Trump-Russia course. One major story after the next falls apart, and there is no accountability, reckoning, or transparency (neither CNN nor MSNBC, for instance, have to date bothered to explain how they both “independently confirmed” the totally false story that Donald Trump, Jr. was offered advanced access to the WikiLeaks email archive, all based on false claims about the date of an email to him from a random member of the public).
Nor is it atypical for The Guardian when it comes to its institutionally blinding contempt for Assange: During the election, the paper was forced to retract its viral report from political reporter Ben Jacobs, who decided to assert, without any whiff of basis, that Assange has a “long had a close relationship with the Putin regime.”
The U.S media has become very adept at outrage rituals whenever they are denounced as “fake news.” They should spend some time trying to become as skilled in figuring out why such attacks resonate for so many.
DaveSchmidt said:
Thanks for the band name, Glenn:
Whiff of Basis.
That is poetic.
Still waiting for the Guardian to comment on their "Viral Blockbuster Assange-Manafort Scoop"
Looks like we will be waiting a long, long time.
In the meantime, Julian Assange is living in a virtual prison:
Exclusive: Julian Assange’s Living Conditions Deteriorate – More Akin to Stasi-Era Dissident Than an Award-Winning Publisher With Asylum
Or same story covered by Daily Mail:
Evidently, Wikileaks has raised $50K and they are going to sue the Guardian. The campaign to raise the money was announced a while ago, but now they are going forth with the charges.
WikiLeaks announced on Monday that it will commence its lawsuit against The Guardian over an "entirely fabricated" story that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret meetings with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy - a report which has been largely discredited.
nan said:
Evidently, Wikileaks has raised $50K and they are going to sue the Guardian. The campaign to raise the money was announced a while ago, but now they are going forth with the charges.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-14/after-raising-50k-wikileaks-sue-guardian-over-entirely-fabricated-manafort
WikiLeaks announced on Monday that it will commence its lawsuit against The Guardian over an "entirely fabricated" story that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret meetings with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy - a report which has been largely discredited.
So are they suing for libel? What are the damages to WikiLeaks for a false story that Assange met with Manafort? Just asking, I have no idea if there's some special British press law that's been violated.
I do think the last sentence in the "Zerohedge" article is a bit over-the-top --
This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the "Hitler Diaries".
These folks need a little perspective.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:So are they suing for libel? What are the damages to WikiLeaks for a false story that Assange met with Manafort? Just asking, I have no idea if there's some special British press law that's been violated.
Evidently, Wikileaks has raised $50K and they are going to sue the Guardian. The campaign to raise the money was announced a while ago, but now they are going forth with the charges.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-14/after-raising-50k-wikileaks-sue-guardian-over-entirely-fabricated-manafort
WikiLeaks announced on Monday that it will commence its lawsuit against The Guardian over an "entirely fabricated" story that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret meetings with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy - a report which has been largely discredited.
I do think the last sentence in the "Zerohedge" article is a bit over-the-top --
This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the "Hitler Diaries".These folks need a little perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries
I looked for a better article but this is all I could find now. I just wanted to mention it here and we will see what happens and how they submit the case. It will be in the UK, so the laws are different than here, so I'm not sure how it will proceed.
Have to hope that any federal workers who may be involved in the incarceration of Assange will be back on the job when his plane arrives in the US. Certainly don't want him to have an unfortunate accident on the way to the pokey.
Julian Assange issues “urgent” legal challenge against US extradition plans
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/24/assa-j24.html
Assange’s legal team yesterday announced an “urgent” application to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR), based in Washington, to direct the Trump administration to unseal the charges it has secretly filed against Assange. The application also asks the IACHR to compel Ecuador to cease its intensive spying activities against Assange, stop the isolation imposed on him inside the embassy since last March and protect him from US extradition.
The lawyers’ media statement said the 1,172-page application seeks “precautionary measures” from the IACHR, “which monitors compliance of the US and Ecuador with their binding legal obligations.” The IAHCR, an organ of the Organization of American States (OAS), is meant to promote and protect human rights in the American hemisphere, but the Trump administration has boycotted its hearings.
The US government has refused to reveal details of the charges against Assange, despite sources in the US Department of Justice confirming to the Associated Press that Assange has been charged under seal. “The revelation that the US has initiated a prosecution against Mr. Assange has shocked the international community,” the legal submission states. The US government “is required to provide information as to the criminal charges … in full.”
The submission reveals that US prosecutors have in the past few months formally approached people in the US, Germany and Iceland and pressed them to testify against Assange in return for immunity from prosecution. Those approached are associated with WikiLeaks’ joint publications with other media about US diplomatic interventions, torture and indefinite detention at America’s Guantanamo Bay prison camp and war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm posting this to provide perspective on who -- besides Julian Assange -- is targeted by the FBI:
The Prisoner Says No to Big Brother
WikiLeaks has also revealed how the United States spies on its allies; how the CIA can watch you through your I-phone; how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took vast sums of money from Wall Street for secret speeches that reassured the bankers that if she was elected, she would be their friend.
In 2016, WikiLeaks revealed a direct connection between Clinton and organised jihadism in the Middle East: terrorists, in other words. One email disclosed that when Clinton was US Secretary of State, she knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Islamic State, yet she accepted huge donations for her foundation from both governments.
She then approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors: arms that are currently being used against the stricken people of Yemen.
That explains why he is being punished.
WikiLeaks has also published more than 800,000 secret files from Russia, including the Kremlin, telling us more about the machinations of power in that country than the specious hysterics of the Russiagate pantomime in Washington.
This is real journalism — journalism of a kind now considered exotic: the antithesis of Vichy journalism, which speaks for the enemy of the people and takes its sobriquet from the Vichy government that occupied France on behalf of the Nazis.
Vichy journalism is censorship by omission, such as the untold scandal of the collusion between Australian governments and the United States to deny Julian Assange his rights as an Australian citizen and to silence him.
In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard went as far as ordering the Australian Federal Police to investigate and hopefully prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks — until she was informed by the AFP that no crime had been committed.
I've only made a precursory search but I can't find anything leaked from the Russian government.
If I search for Russian government, here are the leaks listed:
Searching for russian government
Global Intelligence Files 133,124
Plusd 14,918
Cablegate 12,464
Kissinger Cables 1,499
Syria Files 1,376
Hacking Team 1,247
Hacking Team Emails 1,247
Carter Cables 2 616
Berat's Box 547
The Podesta Emails 508
US Embassy Shopping List 429
Sony 338
Carter Cables 334
Secret Congressional Reports 311
DNC Email Archive 252
Sony Documents 186
Clinton Emails 175
The HBGary Emails 164
Sony Emails 151
German BND-NSA Inquiry Exhibits 104
I'm looking into it. It might be related to this from 2010:
or this:
I'm searching on Google for Wikileaks + Russian dump and terms like that.
John Pilger is an esteemed journalist and friend to Assange. So, I'm sure he's not making it up.
Here are some Spy Files: Russia: January 2017
https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/
Ok, I went on the Wikileaks site and they have a filter you can use with search and I played around with it and it seems all the Russia files are under the Global Intelligence Files, which were in your list.
All the global intelligence docs I found were from Stratfor, which is why I discounted them.
“On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.”
But it looks like there may be more that are classified as part of that leak, but not from Stratfor.
Ok, but if you go to the wikileaks site and click on that, the files that come up say "Russia" Some of them are stuff like "EC Butter Sales to Russia" so I'm not sure what I'm looking at. I also searched under Pilger's name but he does not mention.
So, basically, we can see that wikileaks did release files on Russia, but I don't count 800,000 of them and I don't know if those are what he is referring to.
But, anyway, he's a wold famous journalist and he's friends with Assange.
Edited to add: Ok, I found a reference on twitter with a video of him talking about the 800,000 Russia files and I posted a reply tweet asking where to locate them. We will see if someone answers me.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
After my chuckling at ridski’s GIF subsided, I revisited Paul’s 2005 link and saw this, which I missed earlier and appears to resolve (a):