Assange

Assange Media Downfall: From Journalist to 'Useful Idiot'

https://youtu.be/N0_igpOiBQE

"With Julian Assange now in prison waiting for his fate to be decided we look at the media's dramatic u-turn regarding the arch whistleblower - with outlets hailing him first as hero of journalism, then as a colluding villain."

CrossTalk Bullhorns: Assange

https://youtu.be/BW146MI_b6k

"The fate of Julian Assange and journalism..."

Al Jazeera, The Listening Post

https://youtu.be/gEwgUefRAxw

"WikiLeaks Editor Hrafnsson on Assange case..."

double post

Hedges: The Martyrdom of Julian Assange

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-martyrdom-of-julian-assange/

"The arrest Thursday of Julian Assange eviscerates all pretense of the rule of law and the rights of a free press. The illegalities embraced by the Ecuadorian, British and US governments in the seizure of Assange are ominous..."

Julian Assange Suffered Severe Psychological and Physical Harm in Ecuadorian Embassy,  Doctors Say

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/15/julian-assange-health-medical-care/

Dr Sandra Crosby, an associate professor of medicine and public health at Boston University and an expert on the physical and psychological impact of torture noted the severe psychological toll Assange suffered in his prolonged and indefinite confinment. 'In fact his positiyon is worse than a conventional prison in many respects...'I believe the psychological, physical and social aftereffects will be long-lasting and severe,' Crosby wrote."

Julian Assange's Nightmarish Future

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/15/julian-assanges-nightmarish-future/

"The WikiLeaks publisher is in a maximum-security prison that has been called the UK's Guantanamo Bay, Elizabeth Vos reports..."

Babble is always a good place to judge the effectiveness of any official smear and disinformation campaign upon 'progressives'. A perusal of the WikiLeaks/Assange threads reveals the usual sources for the patently dishonest, vicious and vitriolic bile are msm  such as the NYT, WaPo and the Guardian etc. And so once again we observe - garbage in garbage out.

Julian Assange's Extraordinary Record of Investigative Journalism

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/18/asre-a18.html

"When a full record of WikiLeaks investigative exposures is published, it will span volumes. In a 2006 essay, written shortly after the founding of WikiLeaks, Assange, then the publisher's editor-in-chief, explained some of the conceptions underlying the project. He wrote:

'Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people's will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the efficiencies  of naked power..."

Margaret Kimberley: The 'Resistance' is Silent on Julian Assange

https://blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-resistance-julian-assange

"Attacking the person who revealed war crimes is compliance in the service of the state..."

Petition: Free Julian Assange Before It's Too Late. Sign To STOP the USA Extradition

https://www.change.org/p/free-julian-assange-before-it-s-too-late-stop-u...

"Please sign and share the petition. Thank You.

113K Supporters!

Endless repetitions of endlessly discredited allegations. You're peddling a hoax and a conspiracy theory relentlessly disseminated by agit-prop media, Dems and US intelligence agencies.  In brief, Josh, nought but simple shit. You've joined a vicious, dangerous mob that smears a hero. This attack function on behalf of elite US interests is apparently the new function of faux liberal 'progressives.'

'Assange may very well end up dead..' - Roger Waters

https://on.rt.com/9sgu

There are no heroes, only humans. Here’s a view of Assange from someone who was close to him, sympathetic in many ways. 

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting

ETA: The piece is from 2014, if it matters. Still an interesting glimpse into Assange’s world. 

That’s a view remarkably devoid of nuance. Assange isn’t a saint. He’s done some good, but he’s also notable for his misogyny and a propensity to avoid responsibility. A view that ignores that is simplistic to the point of either simple-mindedness or mendacious propaganda - both territories that are great for cultivating heroes and poor for looking at actual people  

i wonder - if Assange started promoting narratives you didn’t agree with, how long would he still be a “hero”?

Also noted that your dismissal doesn’t argue with anything O’Hagan says. 

I’ll bet you a dollar that if Assange is extradited to the US, he will immediately throw Manning under a bus. 

If we remember Assange the whistleblower without remembering Assange the deeply flawed human, we’d only be whitewashing history. 

Im making the assumption that’s a bad thing, but if you’re more invested in the narrative than in any larger understanding, then YMMV.

I suspect your earlier comment about Assange 'promoting narratives you don't agree with' is probably more relevant than supposed concerns about 'whitewashing history'...

Timebandit wrote:

More relevant to what? 

I think both statements are pretty consistent. The guy’s no saintly hero and presenting him as such if a whitewash. 

I guess I haven't see much of that on this board but yes indeed it would be a really bad whitewash. Of course some would think that empathizing the clay feet is merely whitewashing the people he exposed.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I guess I haven't see much of that on this board but yes indeed it would be a really bad whitewash. Of course some would think that empathizing the clay feet is merely whitewashing the people he exposed.

I don’t think it has anything to do with people he’s exposed. If it’s true, it’s true. 

But pretending he can do no wrong because he did a good thing, or even many good things, isn’t realistic. In fact, if that’s what we do with Assange, we’re just making the argument that accountability is only for people we don’t like. IMV, nobody should be getting a pass .

Timebandit wrote:

 

But pretending he can do no wrong because he did a good thing, or even many good things, isn’t realistic.

That would be bad. Who on this board has committed this crime?

Perhaps I consider the question of Assange/WikiLeaks 'crimes' a deliberate diversion from the monstrous disclosed crimes and criminality of the system of Bush and Blair, 'humanitarian invervention', 'Five Eyes etc. I'm with Chomsky, Mairead Maguire or Evo Morales on Wikileaks/Assange and the value of their work. I confess. 

Chomsky on Assange

https://youtu.be/wWk8ft49lQM

NDPP wrote:

Perhaps I consider the question of Assange/WikiLeaks 'crimes' a deliberate diversion from the monstrous disclosed crimes and criminality of the system of Bush and Blair, 'humanitarian invervention', 'Five Eyes etc. I'm with Chomsky, Mairead Maguire or Evo Morales on Wikileaks/Assange and the value of their work. I confess. 

Chomsky on Assange

https://youtu.be/wWk8ft49lQM

By this post I think you are saying that you do not believe the women who have accused Assange.

Otherwise you are suggesting that sexual assualt is trivial.

Do you really want to go there?

BTW here is an article covering some of the allegations:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-...

NDPP wrote:

No,  but you obviously do...

 

Pilger: The Long Ordeal of Julian Assange

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/20/the-long-ordeal-of-julian-assange/

"...On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a 'rape investigation', they coordinated it, unlawfully with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the 'rape of two women.' Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying 'I don't believe there is any reason to suspect he has committed rape.' Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying, 'There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.'

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, who Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically. 

On August 30, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case. At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, 'Ah, but she is not a lawyer..."

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange (and vid)

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/sex-lies-and-julian-assange/4156420

ABC Australia - reactionary and hardly a friend.

 

Sky News: Lawyer - 'Assange Doesn't Fear Justice He Fears Extradition'

https://youtu.be/wpwyMu3PsUg

"There was a grand jury investigation that was opened back in 2010. And we were concerned about the risk of US extradition [even] then. That concern has been proven correct. We were concerned because Sweden had not provided assurrance against US extradition, and once in custody he would not be able to seek asylum with respect to the United States. That is why he walked into the Embassy when he did. The asylum that was granted by Ecuador was with respect to the risk of being sent to the United States to face prosecution on his publishing activities and actions associated with that. 

Ecuador continued to negotiate with Sweden to try to deal with the Swedish investigation and to allow prosecutors to question him so he could answer the Swedish allegations, while protecting from US extradition. That is why he was in the Embassy. The Swedish prosecutor [eventually] came inside the Ecuadorian Embassy to ask questions about the case. He gave his testimony and afterwards they chose to close the investigation. This is a fact that has been completely lost in the discussion about the case over the past couple of weeks. The investigation was closed after hearing his testimony. If they choose to re-open it [again] that is a separate question and we'll deal with it and are absolutely happy to answer those questions if they come up. He has always offered to cooperate with the Swedish authorities while protecting himself against the very extradition request that was served on him this week..."

Lots of complications here that are skipped over. There are issues of time and delay and there are issues of what constitutes a crime in Sweden. There is also more than one allegation and comments about one are implied to be about the whole story. Then there is the outright denial and claim that he is innocent of all facts that he is accused of or that he is some kind of hero.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/13/women-groups-say-extradite...

This is not a simple debate and certianly people have been motivated to twist the case to guilt or innocence depending on what they thnk of the political issues. However, this twisting appears to happen on both sides. The protect Assange side is just as selective with the facts they share.

My point is that he is not certain to be some wonderful hero innocent of everything. He is a controversial figure for good reason. He is at the centre of a polarized debate with both sides claiming to be at the centre.

Normally I try to stay away from most of the debate about Assnage becuase of the lack of certainty. However, I get involved from time to time as a reaction against the polaraization and championing of his side by people who are being selective about the knowledge they claim to have while proclaiming certainty they cannot have while holding up one side as biased as if the other is not equally biased. Few, if anyone is that interested in the man himself. Most are interested in what he represents and are lining up on these questions along the lines of how they feel on these other issues.

I suspect that Assange probably lies very close to the middle of all of this. He likely was accused of sexual impropriety for political reasons I grant that -- but also becuase this is a weakness for him. I suspect that he is not very nice towards women and that while claims may have been exaggerated and people who are on the correct political side might not have faced accountability for such action, he is. Not without it being real but still for political reasons. I suspect his protection is also for politial reasons.

I object to the assertions of hero status whether of not he is technically afoul of laws that could result in legal sanction.

The number of celbrity men, or noncelebrity men who have other power who feel entitled to abuse women is unfortunately a common thing. Many have these actions covered up. Many are called innocent due to what people want to believe becuase they are representatives of more than just themselves. 

It is also true that allegations like this may also be raised against Assange becuase they cannot be dismissed so easily, becuase they rightfully should not be just wsept away. But we cannot be so certain. Declarations of his innocence and proclamation of his innocence are no less dangerous than assertions of his guilt.

I am disturbed by the polarization of the debate here on many issues and the unfoudned certainty that people use to bring to their rhetoric. I think there is a cloud over Assange and we do not need to raise him up as a hero. He is a complicated person who has done things for a variety of motivations and not all consistant, ethical and altruistic. Some of what he has done has been beneficial - and that depends on your stance on each issue. As an individual there is no need to be so certain of  his status especially as this - on both sides - is linked back to him as a political figure. I am very uncomfortable when men's behaviour towards women is viewed in the light of who they are in other ways. This is very much why some men feel so entitled and above accountability.

Timebandit if Assange had been arrested for sex offenses and people were defending him then your point would be 100% valid. As it is he was arrested for exposing the Empires secrets not sex offenses. He is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in a US prison hellhole. So is that what you think is justice for a man accused of being too aggressive with women and crossing the legal line in Sweden. It seems a far harsher and truly draconian compared to any potential penalty that the Canadian court system would sentence him too for any of the accusations against him.

I think that insisting over and over that the focus be on the fact that he is a misogynist pig is a red herring and ignores the fact he is being made a very public and global scapegoat for defying the NATO cabal that seeks to rule the world.

As a comparison, why are we listening to Mueller when he is a war criminal and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people because he headed a disinformation campaign to support US aggression for oil. Why don't babblers have to spit every time they type his name?

"Have you ever noticed how whenever someone inconveniences the dominant western power structure, the entire political/media class rapidly becomes very, very interested in letting us know how evil and disgusting that person is?"

Debunking All The Assange Smears (and vid)

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/debunking-all-the-assange-smears-a549...

I find it reassuring that there is groups/people actively fighting imperialism. 

Having said that, I’m not entirely sure this is what Assange has done. Now I usually agree with NDPP on most of what we post and core values, but I had my doubts that Assange would ever be charged. 

I’m assuming Assange is now in an English prison awaiting trial?

So where will Assange be deported to after his trial in England for evading arrest? US or Sweden? This should be indicative of what the British government cares for more, imperialism or women’s accusations of rape sexual harassment. 

Quote:

So where will Assange be deported to after his trial in England for evading arrest? US or Sweden? This should be indicative of what the British government cares for more, imperialism or women’s accusations of rape sexual harassment.

Has Sweden requested extradition?  If not, the UK won't have to choose.

WWWTT wrote:

I guess you could be right Mr Magoo. Didn’t Sweden drop the charges? Or are they still on? Wasn’t there an extradition order to Sweden? Sorry Im not sure, I haven’t followed this as close as other posters here.  And I’m getting confused by some comments here. 

There is more than one case.

TRNN: Assange Arrested For Exposing US War Crimes - Paul Jay (and vid)

https://t.co/ILjbaDtyHG

"An important thing is being lost in most of the media coverage. They exposed war crimes -  'they', being Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning. They exposed US war crimes. If there's ever going to be democracy there better be whistleblowers. The corporate media is ignoring the whole substance of what was done by Chelsea and Julian..."

Afghanistan: Support For Julian Assange

https://twitter.com/HeikelHensell/status/1119339709828861952

"Support in several provinces of Afghanistan for Julian Assange. 'We the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, express our gratitude for the sacrifice of Julian Assange and other whistleblowers. We stand by Julian, who is the true face of humanity and the true friend of our people."

'This Guardian Dunce'

https://twitter.com/rosenda_joe/status/1119632996838137857

"This Guardian Dunce mindlessly peddles claims by Lenin Moreno but the editor Katherine Viner also refuses to retract a bullshit story about Assange meeting Manaford (sic) in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Shit people. Shit journalism."

makes  shit 'progressives.' (see comments)

Pogo wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

who actually violated the Assange/Guardian agreement on the cables by making  the completely unredacted internet "insurance file" available to all by publishing the encryption password as heading in his fast cash book.--and then denied any responsibility.

Assange is upset over privacy being breached?

The contractual confidentiality agreement Wikiileaks had with the Guardian was that they would have the entirety of the files and the would make the decisions on what was necessary to redact before publishing.  This made sense since Wikileak's obviously would not have the staff to sift through the massive trouve and make those decisions. 

This  agreement violation, along with the endless slagging of Assange by the Guardian which profited from publishing the files, (as well as the  previous experience with the NYT), pretty much ended  Wikileak's attempts to provide leaks exclusively to "liberal" media for redaction rather than posting them direct with only limited redactions.  

Here is a brief summary of the Guardian's role:   

According to Wired.com, a keyword search of the file shows that “the uncensored cables contain more than 2,000 occurrences of the phrase ‘strictly protect’, which is used in cables to denote sources of information whose identities diplomats consider confidential.”

As Nigel Parry framed it:

      “[Leigh revealed] the top-secret password revealing the names of U.S. collaborators around the world—           information now freely available to all the enemies of the U.S.”

Specifically, Leigh published the password as a chapter heading in his book, “WIKILEAKS: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy“, which is still being promoted on the Guardian’s online bookshop:

Many believe that the Guardian disclosure is a violation of the confidentiality agreement between WikiLeaks and Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, signed July 30, 2010. David Leigh, Parry notes, is also Alan Rusbridger’s brother in law, which has led some to believe that David Leigh has been unfairly protected from the fallout.

Indeed, it is not the first time the WikiLeaks security agreement has been violated by the Guardian.

David Leigh and the Guardian have, per WikiLeaks, repeatedly violated WikiLeaks security conditions, including requirements that the unpublished cables be kept safe from state intelligence services by keeping them only on computers not connected to the internet.  It has been claimed that Ian Katz, Deputy Editor of the Guardian, admitted in December 2010 meeting that this condition was not being followed by the Guardian.

By any estimate, this breach by Leigh seems to represent journalistic malfeasance on a grand scale.

Many sources have apparently been revealed in the document dump and even extreme left blogger Glenn Greenwald is acknowledging that lives  (including whistleblowers and human rights activists) have been put in danger.

PJ Crowley, U.S. State Department spokesman, told AP on the 30th of August, 2011 that “any autocratic security service worth its salt” would probably already have the complete unredacted archive. For many people in totalitarian states this could prove life-threatening....

https://ukmediawatch.org/2011/09/04/guardians-david-leigh-disclosed-secret-wikileaks%E2%80%99-passwords-for-thousands-of-unredacted-diplomatic-cables/

'Vive Assange!'

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1119669390935494657

"Beautiful. Yellow Vest protesters salute Julian Assange today in Paris. Thank you Gilets Jaunes."

It's not surprising that there is a  doubling down on the "sex allegations" narrative just when Assange's fears of political imprisonment as the reason for obtaining political asylum should be evidently true to all, and not an alleged "conspiracy theory" as scurrilously smeared (see above:  http://rabble.ca/comment/5576276#comment-5576276 )

One reason the Assange enemies give for why there were in fact NEVER any sex assault charges laid in the 7 years of what the UN re-iterated as "arbitary  detention" is now given as the allegations are "complex".  

Somehow the multiple interviews with Assange and 7 years of "investigation" have never resulted in charges in absentia, though Sweden has the power to do so--and a history of doing so.  We are supposed to believe there still must be still more to learn before charges are laid.  

The situation is only "complex" because of the multidimensional  political involvement by the US and its allied states.

The current innumerable political/media calls for Sweden to re-open the investigation--for the third time--is primarily designed to keep that smokescreen narrative alive in the mind of the gullible public, rather than the in-your-face political persecution and charges under the shallow guise of computer fraud.   

 I predict  that the re-imagined Swedish charges will never happen for the following reasons:   

1)The Swedish state prosecution has already done yeomanly service the US security alliance in stretching Assange's UN declared "arbitrary detention" into 7 years without charges--that was likely longer than it would have been were it not for the direct, behind the scenes UK political interferrence in the case  (and certainly much longer than any extremely unlikely incarceration in the Sweden legal system),  [Read about FOIA requests, from STEFANIA MAURIZI on the destruction of documents and  the UK Crown Prosecution Service interference here: https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2017/11/10/news/seven_years_confined_ho...

2) If, in the unlikely scenario, he was first extradited  to Sweden, that country (with or without charges being laid)  would  ultimately be saddled with the politically embarrassing task of extraditing him to the US according to its existing treaty with the US.  They would have to convince their public that the Trumped-up charge of computer fraud was indeed the reason and not a disguised political one.  It's much politically safer, and easier, to leave it in the UK's  hands though the Swedish state prosecution may dutifully make noise about "considering it".

3)If he were, in that very unlikely scenario, extradited to Sweden and then charged it would mean, (even though Swedish sex crime trials are held in secret  and decided only by judges, lay judges, and not juries) there is a still a legal process of discovery.   Assange's lawyers have been prevented from seeing the full investigation file until charges are actually laid, and I rather doubt the Swedish prosecution will want to do that the by actually laying charges.

I'd guess the only exception for Sweden to initiate more legal action would be if they were assured  by the usual inter-regime covert backchannels on Assange that he would be extradited to the US instead.  It would still be a propaganda win.