Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
Also, regarding the Swedish charges, whether they rise to any definition of rape or not, why are some on this board so quick to dismiss them, even make the counter charge that they were "political in nature?"
What happened to listening to women's voices?
max_weisenfeld said:
Also, regarding the Swedish charges, whether they rise to any definition of rape or not, why are some on this board so quick to dismiss them, even make the counter charge that they were "political in nature?"
What happened to listening to women's voices?
#metooButnotforyou
Here's a good piece explaining the charges, written in 2010 (sheesh, has it been that long?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html
Everyone from Fox News's Glenn Beck to feminist writer Naomi Wolf is getting in swipes. Beck told viewers that Assange is being investigated for "sex by surprise" (again, not a real law) because of a "radical" feminist bent on revenge. Wolf wrote a snarking letter to Interpol in the Huffington Post, arguing that the accusers are using feminism to "assuage . . . personal injured feelings." And AOL News writer Dana Kennedy dismissed the incidents as a simple "condom malfunction."
Now, we don't know if Assange is guilty or innocent - but we do know that the accusations against him have been badly reported, misconstrued and generally pooh-poohed. In the same way that Assange's document dump held a mirror to U.S. diplomacy, the accusations against him and the subsequent fallout reflect our country's overly narrow understanding of sexual assault, and just how far we are from Sweden's legal standard.
The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.
sbenois said:
I hope he is executed.
. . . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world.
And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:. . . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world.
I hope he is executed.
And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
+10
To those on this thread who support Daniel Ellsberg but call for the prosecution and execution of Julian Assange, here's a video that Ellsberg recorded as part of a recent online vigil for Assange.
Starting at about 32:23:
"Julian, I support you, I love you" -- Daniel Ellsberg
For journalists - should there be a distinction between illegally hacked documents and documents gotten through whistleblowers/confidential inside sources?
My guess is Russia kills Assange before he can divulge information to the Brits or US.
I believe the whole Assange situation has pretty much decriminalized hacking and has raised it to an elevated level.
Hacking is now acceptable, and news outlets better start to get good hackers on their payroll to succeed in this climate. At least we have a better understanding of what is okay moving forward: Illegally hacked documents = good
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:. . . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world.
I hope he is executed.
And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
Nah, Assange is enough.
mfpark said:
My guess is Russia kills Assange before he can divulge information to the Brits or US.
Nothing suggests he's been anything but supportive of Putin's authoritarianism.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:. . . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world.
I hope he is executed.
And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
I would leave Fox News out of it since they continue to cover the scandals Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
nan said:
jamie said:I do speak out about Trump, but there is less need for that and there are plenty of people 24/7. There are few people talking about how Trump really got elected, and it was not Russia. Read the book Shattered and you will see how it was a conscious decision by the DNC to emphasis Russia to cover up for the revelations of Wikileaks. Review the history of the CIA and FBI and NSA and you will find that they are not people who should be trusted without evidence (and indictments are not evidence). As for Assange, as I have said over and over, even if you hate him, you must support him for the sake of press freedom and freedom of speech. If he is convicted it will set a dangerous precedent for all journalists, including the ones that you support.
Nan - just curious - are you speaking out against Trump at all? Or still campaigning for Bernie and bashing Hillary whenever possible?
The election has been over for quite awhile. Do you have anything new to report that isn't Hillary related?
You - like Trump - LOVE wikileaks. And yet, Assange will never release anything damaging on Russia, apparently it's because he values his life.
As I said before: To be a genuine issue organization globally, you have to be evenhanded. Assange never speaks ill of Putin, he never speaks ill of the Chinese. He has an agenda, which is not pure transparency.
Maybe we should be talking about Republican gerrymandering, voter laws pushed by Republicans that disenfranchise minorities and immigrants, disinformation campaigns by mega-donors like the Kochs, and so on.
jamie said:
At least we have a better understanding of what is okay moving forward: Illegally hacked documents = good
It’s a concept that a lot of Americans aren’t comfortable with, and that opens the door to fervent disagreement, but the reality is: It depends.
There's also a difference between an insider leaking info and an outsider stealing documents and releasing them selectively in order to influence the outcome of an election.
nan said:
shoshannah said:Journalism does not have to be unbiased. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism or unbiased anything. The journalist on MSNBC/CNN/FOX make 30k a day and they represent the options of their corporate owners. When they don't do that they get fired. There is a long list of the fired.
jamie said:OK, this has nothing to do with this thread, but I must address this.
To be a genuine issue organization globally, you have to be evenhanded. Assange never speaks ill of Putin, he never speaks ill of the Chinese. He has an agenda, which is not pure transparency.
Journalism does not have to be even handed. It has to be unbiased. Those two are not the same.
It has to get at the truth.
Let me rephrase. News-reporting should be unbiased. Op-eds, opinion, and news analysis—all of which are also journalism—may have a point of view.
But to Jamie's original post on this, journalism never needs to be even-handed. You know who needs to be even-handed? A judge, when applying the law.
yahooyahoo said:
nan said:Maybe we should be talking about Republican gerrymandering, voter laws pushed by Republicans that disenfranchise minorities and immigrants, disinformation campaigns by mega-donors like the Kochs, and so on.
jamie said:I do speak out about Trump, but there is less need for that and there are plenty of people 24/7. There are few people talking about how Trump really got elected, and it was not Russia. Read the book Shattered and you will see how it was a conscious decision by the DNC to emphasis Russia to cover up for the revelations of Wikileaks. Review the history of the CIA and FBI and NSA and you will find that they are not people who should be trusted without evidence (and indictments are not evidence). As for Assange, as I have said over and over, even if you hate him, you must support him for the sake of press freedom and freedom of speech. If he is convicted it will set a dangerous precedent for all journalists, including the ones that you support.
Nan - just curious - are you speaking out against Trump at all? Or still campaigning for Bernie and bashing Hillary whenever possible?
The election has been over for quite awhile. Do you have anything new to report that isn't Hillary related?
You - like Trump - LOVE wikileaks. And yet, Assange will never release anything damaging on Russia, apparently it's because he values his life.
As I said before: To be a genuine issue organization globally, you have to be evenhanded. Assange never speaks ill of Putin, he never speaks ill of the Chinese. He has an agenda, which is not pure transparency.
and less (a lot less) about how the DNC stole the last election, or whatever the hell it is that they did.
dave23 said:
mfpark said:Nothing suggests he's been anything but supportive of Putin's authoritarianism.
My guess is Russia kills Assange before he can divulge information to the Brits or US.
That is besides the point. Under arrest by the US and/or Britain he becomes a liability for Putin. If I were Assange I would watch out for people carrying umbrellas with sharp tips once he is on the street.
yahooyahoo said:
By definition, the DNC is biased. So is the RNC, they tried everything they could to get rid of Trump before he steamrolled the other GOP candidates.
I have not finished reading this thread, but the tragedy of the 2016 Election is that the RNC did not do enough to stop Trump. They should have done anything and everything short of "making him an offer he could not refuse".
LOST said:
yahooyahoo said:I have not finished reading this thread, but the tragedy of the 2016 Election is that the RNC did not do enough to stop Trump. They should have done anything and everything short of "making him an offer he could not refuse".
By definition, the DNC is biased. So is the RNC, they tried everything they could to get rid of Trump before he steamrolled the other GOP candidates.
Given the resulting damage he has caused, not sure why they should have stopped short of that.
max_weisenfeld said:
"Sex by surprise?"
Isn't that assault?
Not sure. When I was young and single I was sometimes surprised to be having sex.
yahooyahoo said:
Maybe we should be talking about Republican gerrymandering, voter laws pushed by Republicans that disenfranchise minorities and immigrants, disinformation campaigns by mega-donors like the Kochs, and so on.
Well that might be less depressing than talking about children being abused by the US Government or protection of the environment being severely diminished or, if we want to discuss Freedom of Speech critics of Trump being punished by him by having their security clearances revoked.
BTW it was that great champion of Freedom, Rand Paul, who suggested it.
LOST said:
yahooyahoo said:Well that might be less depressing than talking about children being abused by the US Government or protection of the environment being severely diminished or, if we want to discuss Freedom of Speech critics of Trump being punished by him by having their security clearances revoked.
Maybe we should be talking about Republican gerrymandering, voter laws pushed by Republicans that disenfranchise minorities and immigrants, disinformation campaigns by mega-donors like the Kochs, and so on.
BTW it was that great champion of Freedom, Rand Paul, who suggested it.
Rand Paul is a fraud.
Jamie, to add to Dave and Dave’s replies to your question, it’s always case-by-case. Motivation and means have always counted, and continue to, because the information is quite rightly private property and open to interpretation depending on a whole lot of other elements not there. This is where the quality of the journalist’s background shows: some are better at knitting together scattered documentation, others at coaxing information from reluctant interviewees to explain strange circumstances and quirky or forgotten facts.
Others are great archivists with a talent for finding 6 people with the same names and birth dates in one profession, who keep getting mixed up. (That’s actually a true story, but not for now) ‘Sleuthing’ isn’t the semi-glamorous freedom ride people outside the profession see; it’s the same attention to detail as understanding and using correct grammar and punctuation. And understanding clean accessible page design.
Information = knowledge = power in the right hands, but only if it’s clear and accessible.
yahooyahoo said:
Rand Paul is a fraud.
In other news, the pope is Catholic.
nan said:
bets said:bets, you act like a troll. You just come on here and on Facebook and attack me and never offer any examples or engage in conversation. It seems you don't like it when someone does not agree with you. Please stop.
Nan, you seem to ascribe to the Trump supporters creed that "say something enough and it makes it true." Please stop.
Holy crap you are relentless. When do YOU listen?
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:Nah, Assange is enough.
sbenois said:. . . and all the journalists and editors from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, AP, Reuters, etc who publicize and disseminate his documents throughout the world.
I hope he is executed.
And their publishers, especially Bezos and Sulzberger.
Coward
bets said:
nan said:Holy crap you are relentless. When do YOU listen?
bets said:bets, you act like a troll. You just come on here and on Facebook and attack me and never offer any examples or engage in conversation. It seems you don't like it when someone does not agree with you. Please stop.
Nan, you seem to ascribe to the Trump supporters creed that "say something enough and it makes it true." Please stop.
I'm not going to listen to an endless tirade of personal attacks. Grow up.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Not dropped. Suspended. They can be reinstated at any time, except for the ones he escaped by hiding in the Ecuadorean embassy until the statute of limitations expired.