Assange will rot in prison. Beautifu,Excellent. Where he belongs. Throw away the key. Have fun in a federal prison, hopefully Walla Walla,Sing Sing or San Quentin. Ciao you Republican troll.
Another wallow in hate from a fascistically-minded "progressive" who supports the bi-partisan Trump Republican-Democrat prosecution of Assange, for printing leaked emails of corruption that are 100% accurate and resulted in one corrupt DNC official losing her job.
But, no, wait, apparently he's NOT fascistically-minded after all, he doesn't want to imprison for life in solitary ALL whistleblowers and publishers, merely those publishers who print verified FACTS he doesn't like, and doesn't want people to see.
Sooo much better if people who ran the US thought like this--(uhh, oh yeah, they do).
lol....seriously,this man played a roll in creating Donald Trump's presidency. Hence he's a Republican troll..To hell with him.
This post is really for the consideration of rational readers since smithee, spouting obscenities, had before called me a "Republican" and "troll" and claimed he wouldn't respond anymore. Amusingly, during the first few of my 12 years here I was often called a "Liberal" for criticizing the rightward drift of the NDP. I suppose it's only a matter of time before I'm labeled a "Russian troll".
As far as "trolling" goes, compare the content-vacant gleeful incitement I responded to, versus my (at least rudimentary) argument against political and censorship-driven imprisonment.
The "case" for Assange's further imprisonment seems to be that he aided Trump by Wikileaks publishing leaked emails that put Clinton and the DNC in a bad light. That they put Clinton and the DNC in a bad light is undeniable; that they resulted in Trump's election is highly debatable--but not relevant to the desire for censorship-based imprisonment.
The passion for imprisonment seems to be partly based on the assumed bias of the publisher--the claim that Assange favoured Trump over Clinton in the election. I'd guess that this is quite likely true given Clinton's past role in targetting Assange and that out of self-interest (and his very self-deluded hope} that the Trump-led administration would drop the already extant sealed indictement against him instead what they did--ramping up the persecution.
I would hope that most people would not endorse imprisonment based on the political bias of publishers (gosh, what could go wrong there!).
It's as if CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, RT, Guardian, BBC, etc, didn't promote or denigrate politcal figures according to their bias, or have a state-centric political bias that shapes what they publish. A major difference being that they often, to varying degrees, publish false information--unlike the Wikileak's main site for leaks.
A subset of the Wikileaks is biased narrative is that Wikileaks/Assange timed the release of emails to hurt Clinton, as another reason to justify imprisonment. Whether it did or not, it's hardly a leap of imagination to think this happens with corporaate media regularly.
A particularly glaring case of timing bias governing publication is the NYT suppressing publication of NYT story mass illegal domestic surveiilence which could have affected the GW Bush re-election:One of the most notorious examples was in mid-2004 when the New York Times discovered - thanks to a courageous DOJ whistleblower - that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on the electronic communications of Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law. But after George Bush summoned to the Oval Office the paper's publisher (Arthur Sulzberger) and executive editor (Bill Keller) and directed them to conceal what they had learned, the NYT complied by sitting on the story for a-year-and-a-half: until late December, 2005, long after Bush had been safely re-elected.... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/07/saudi-arabia-drone...
Should these NYT editors be imprisoned for life for delaying the publication of something that might have hurt the re-election of GW Bush, the greatest war criminal--so far--in the 21st century (now fawned over by many Democrats for simply being not-Trump)?
Despite the repugnant nature of the editors decision, I believe most thinking people would consider it a slide far down the slippery slope to totalitarianism, and that it would give a green light for arbitrary journalist oppression for anyone in power.
The Trump administration, so far, still lags far behind GW Bush's body count and wars of aggression. This could change very quickly with his fattened coterie of Bush-era neocon and hawks Pompeo, Bolton, Abrams, Pence etc. that shape the foreign policy of the Criminal-in Chief. Unfortunately, there is little real objection on this account from the so-called Resistence ( https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/24/so-called-trump-resistance-... ) on this, and often endorsment and egging on from the "liberal" press and minion states like Canada, as Bolton's "Troika of Tyranny" is targetted for regime change by the "Democracy of Decency (tm)".
The apparatus for security state and corporate surveillance and censorship/suppression/persecution has increased under the Trump administration, and most other states in the world. This is not a departure in kind from previous administrations but largely a matter of tighter corporate/state coalescence and technological advance. (ie. when they can do it, they will--and make big money too). The push to destroy voices that do not toe a particular partisan line, or bipartisan state-centric foreign policy, will no doubt proceed with increasing sophistication and, most unfortunately, with the avid approval of so many "progressives" as long as the victims are those they don't like. This a very major contribution to the growing tyranny.
FYI....I've been calling ASSANGE a Republican troll over and over in this thread. Why? Because that's exactly what he is.
I have called you absolutely no name. Not once. Not in any thread. I keep suggesting that people not forget what Assange is,he doesn't have any of my mercy.
So I hope that's clear and now can move on.
