Assange wanted on new charges; Espionage (US) and rape (Swe)

[Ifreann]

Somehow they brainwashed him into committing rape so that he'd extradited to Sweden. For some reason.

---

People praising and defending him doesn't actually benefit anything but his ego, and he's inflicted worse treatment on himself by hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy than he'd have received if he just went to Sweden.

Well feeding his ego seems to be his primary purpose in life so...

There is that.

---

"Let him go free on rape charges to stick it to Murica." Inane and petty in a nice economy pack.

Especially considering the one has got nothing to do with the other. Prosecuting Assange for rape or not prosecuting Assange for rape has got no bearing whatsoever on the question of daring to reveal US secrets.

The question really is "Can people be whistleblowers and yet still worthy of prosecution for unrelated crimes?" to which the answer should be "Of course, why are you even asking about this?"

Truly this is a crazy world we live in, where sometimes people can do something good and then do something bad.

[Fartsniffage]

Well feeding his ego seems to be his primary purpose in life so...

There is that.

---

Especially considering the one has got nothing to do with the other. Prosecuting Assange for rape or not prosecuting Assange for rape has got no bearing whatsoever on the question of daring to reveal US secrets.

The question really is "Can people be whistleblowers and yet still worthy of prosecution for unrelated crimes?" to which the answer should be "Of course, why are you even asking about this?"

Truly this is a crazy world we live in, where sometimes people can do something good and then do something bad.

Media is filled with heros and dark heros who do a little bad but the good vastly outweighs it. I imagine that for a huge number of people a hero who truly falls just doesn't compute.

[Elwher]

There is that.

---

Truly this is a crazy world we live in, where sometimes people can do something good and then do something bad.

Media is filled with heros and dark heros who do a little bad but the good vastly outweighs it. I imagine that for a huge number of people a hero who truly falls just doesn't compute.

Somehow, I can't justify calling rape a little bad. If it was your mother or sister, would you refer to it that way?

[Ifreann]

Media is filled with heros and dark heros who do a little bad but the good vastly outweighs it. I imagine that for a huge number of people a hero who truly falls just doesn't compute.

Somehow, I can't justify calling rape a little bad. If it was your mother or sister, would you refer to it that way?

That's exactly not what he said.

[Hirota]

It hasn't helped him much so far.

Neither has the coincidental habit of Wikileaks not publishing any materials on Russia submitted to them.

I'm sure this claim could never be proven to be complete bullshit could it.

[Gormwood]

Neither has the coincidental habit of Wikileaks not publishing any materials on Russia submitted to them.

I'm sure this claim could never be proven to be complete bullshit could it.

Okay, I'm wrong. Feel free to laugh and sneer.

[Vassenor]

So we've still got people banging the "he made America look bad and so can do no wrong" drum?

[Hirota]

So we've still got people banging the "he made America look bad and so can do no wrong" drum?

So you are still showing an inability for basic reading skills?

Did he make America look bad? Oh yes certainly. Can he do no wrong? He absolutely can do wrong. Even the best of people can do wrong from time to time, and I'm sure the reverse also applies.

Some people have a habit of judging other people by either arbitrary factors they deem as "good" or "bad", but to do so is to ignore the fact that human beings are equally capable of both good and bad.

I'm sure this claim could never be proven to be complete bullshit could it.

Okay, I'm wrong. Feel free to laugh and sneer.

For the master - or some would say one trick pony - of that particular MO to give his blessing for me to laugh and sneer is high praise indeed, but one I shall decline to carry out thanks.

It's certainly damaging to the oft repeated (including on here) conspiracy theory that wikileaks are Russian stooges... Unless you want to get into the whole false flag, tin foil hat nonsense. I'm sure some people are jumping down that rabbit hole.

Still, back to the point at hand, I've already gone on record as saying Assange should be Investigated and (potentially, depending on the investigation) put on trial where he should have the opportunity to clear his name, or be found guilty for his alleged crimes in Sweden and serve the appropriate punishment.

America on the other hand can go fuck themselves.

[Purpelia]

"Let him go free on rape charges to stick it to Murica." Inane and petty in a nice economy pack.

Especially considering the one has got nothing to do with the other. Prosecuting Assange for rape or not prosecuting Assange for rape has got no bearing whatsoever on the question of daring to reveal US secrets.

The question really is "Can people be whistleblowers and yet still worthy of prosecution for unrelated crimes?" to which the answer should be "Of course, why are you even asking about this?"

Are you honestly claiming that he would not be extradited to america the moment he sets foot in Sweden?

[Vassenor]

Especially considering the one has got nothing to do with the other. Prosecuting Assange for rape or not prosecuting Assange for rape has got no bearing whatsoever on the question of daring to reveal US secrets.

The question really is "Can people be whistleblowers and yet still worthy of prosecution for unrelated crimes?" to which the answer should be "Of course, why are you even asking about this?"

Are you honestly claiming that he would not be extradited to america the moment he sets foot in Sweden?

Sweden has already stated on multiple occasions that they won't extradite because of how shit America's justice system is.

[Novus America]

Neither has the coincidental habit of Wikileaks not publishing any materials on Russia submitted to them.

I'm sure this claim could never be proven to be complete bullshit could it.

That was one insignificant file compared to the countless other they turned down.

After they got criticize for not blocking release if Russian files.
It was a half assed save face move.

[Novus America]

So we've still got people banging the "he made America look bad and so can do no wrong" drum?

Yup. It is okay to rape if you hate America apparently.

[Ifreann]

Especially considering the one has got nothing to do with the other. Prosecuting Assange for rape or not prosecuting Assange for rape has got no bearing whatsoever on the question of daring to reveal US secrets.

The question really is "Can people be whistleblowers and yet still worthy of prosecution for unrelated crimes?" to which the answer should be "Of course, why are you even asking about this?"

Are you honestly claiming that he would not be extradited to america the moment he sets foot in Sweden?

He's more likely to get extradited to America from the UK.

[Gormwood]

I'm sure this claim could never be proven to be complete bullshit could it.

That was one insignificant file compared to the countless other they turned down.

After they got criticize for not blocking release if Russian files.
It was a half assed save face move.

Surprised to be right after all.

[Hirota]

That was one insignificant file compared to the countless other they turned down.

After they got criticize for not blocking release if Russian files.
It was a half assed save face move.

Surprised to be right after all.

Except your claim does not equal Novus's claim. The two are not the same, and anyone with a basic reading ability will see that. And clinging onto it like it was a false flag (or a "half assed save face move") really does make you both sound like tinfoil hat wearers.

Nonetheless, if you or Novus want to take a stab at proving Novus's claim that they turned down countless other files you go right ahead. Where you're claim and Novus's overlap is they are both wrong - yours because it is demonstrably wrong, and Novus's because most people can count that high.

But personally, if I was you I'd point out that wikileaks have turned down at least one - which there is plenty of evidence to suggest they have - and you'd have both made your point with far less hyperbolic nonsense.

To which I'd point out that Wikileaks issued a denial at the time, according to the foreign policy article:

As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.

He's more likely to get extradited to America from the UK.

And that's less likely since they expanded the list of crimes they want him for.

[Purpelia]

Are you honestly claiming that he would not be extradited to america the moment he sets foot in Sweden?

Sweden has already stated on multiple occasions that they won't extradite because of how shit America's justice system is.

Oh, that changes things somewhat. Yea, if he can be kept away from america than the issue I mentioned vanishes.

[Novus America]

Surprised to be right after all.

Except your claim does not equal Novus's claim. The two are not the same, and anyone with a basic reading ability will see that. And clinging onto it like it was a false flag (or a "half assed save face move") really does make you both sound like tinfoil hat wearers.

Nonetheless, if you or Novus want to take a stab at proving Novus's claim that they turned down countless other files you go right ahead. Where you're claim and Novus's overlap is they are both wrong - yours because it is demonstrably wrong, and Novus's because most people can count that high.

But personally, if I was you I'd point out that wikileaks have turned down at least one - which there is plenty of evidence to suggest they have - and you'd have both made your point with far less hyperbolic nonsense.

To which I'd point out that Wikileaks issued a denial at the time, according to the foreign policy article:

As far as we recall these are already public,” WikiLeaks wrote at the time.

“WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin,” the organization wrote in a Twitter direct message when contacted by FP about the Russian cache.

He's more likely to get extradited to America from the UK.

And that's less likely since they expanded the list of crimes they want him for.

While it is true they have not never published anything regarding Russia, it is true they have turned down large amounts of Russia related material and Assange literally worked for a Russian government media outlet.

[Mettaton-EX]

So we've still got people banging the "he made America look bad and so can do no wrong" drum?

dk about that, but there are plenty of people banging the "he made america look bad and so we must destroy him at all costs" drum

[Greed and Death]

Trump in his wisdom has proposed sawing Assange into two so we can each imprison half of him.

[Galloism]

Sanders, Warren, and Gabbard have weighed in on Assange:

“Let me be clear: it is a disturbing attack on the First Amendment for the Trump administration to decide who is or is not a reporter for the purposes of a criminal prosecution,” said Mr. Sanders, Vermont independent. “Donald Trump must obey the Constitution, which protects the publication of news about our government.”

“Assange is a bad actor who has harmed U.S. national security — and he should be held accountable,” said Ms. Warren, Massachusetts Democrat. “But Trump should not be using this case as a pretext to wage war on the First Amendment and go after the free press who hold the powerful accountable everyday.”

....

Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren are not the first Democratic presidential hopefuls to speak out against prosecutors charging Mr. Assange, however. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii Democrat, said during an interview released earlier this month that she would abandon the government’s case against Mr. Assange if elected president in 2020

[Vassenor]

Trump in his wisdom has proposed sawing Assange into two so we can each imprison half of him.

Joke posts tend to work best when they're at least slightly plausible.

Calling Trump wise or intelligent kind of strains it for me.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Trump in his wisdom has proposed sawing Assange into two so we can each imprison half of him.

It's sad that he probably actually said that.

[Hirota]

While it is true they have not never published anything regarding Russia, it is true they have turned down large amounts of Russia related material and Assange literally worked for a Russian government media outlet.

That is considerably stronger ground to make an argument from.

But whilst both are true, this is a case of putting 2 and 2 together and making 5. This argument that wikileaks operate in Russias interests (willingly or wittingly or not) is still in the realm of supposition and speculation.

We don't know with any certainty why wikileaks didn't publish the data they have been offered. They claim its because they cannot verify it. I'd speculate that they might be more cautious about the data they publish, because of criticism wikileaks has not properly vetted data before.

And as an amusing blast from the past, if you ever needed evidence Gorm/Gauth knows absolutely nothing about wikileaks, and/or potentially has the memory of a slightly senile goldfish, check out this gem where he claimed the US had been the only "victims" of wikileaks whilst completely forgetting they had previously mentioned the Saudi leaks.

As for the whole "worked for a Russian government media outlet," I'm always uncomfortable with a careless use of the association fallacy as if that really proves anything. I mean, it was filmed in Norfolk according to wikipedia - does that mean that the whole county of Norfolk is now suddenly a Russian stooge? No, that would be ridiculous.

What about the production companies involved? Are Dartmouth Films - one of the two production companies I can find involved in filming of "World Tomorrow" - Russian stooges? They have had shows broadcast on most of the mainstream UK channels, so does that all of a sudden mean the BBC are now complicit?

Heck, Jeremy Corbyn is a Iranian stooge if we apply some flaky logic and overuse of association fallacy.

I'm using absurd examples to demonstrate how if you look hard enough you can probably find someone did something with someone shady enough to justify seeing conspiracy theories. Hence, like I said, 2 + 2 = 5. Now maybe the US intelligence community has more evidence Assange is a Russian "operative" that sheds more light on the matter, and I doubt anyone here both has access to that evidence, and willing to share it. But all we have to operate on is speculation and supposition, and I don't know about you, but thats just not enough for me to endorse extradition to a nation with a long, enduring and continuing track record of being more than willing to abuse prisoners, violate due process, and ignore human rights.

[Novus America]

While it is true they have not never published anything regarding Russia, it is true they have turned down large amounts of Russia related material and Assange literally worked for a Russian government media outlet.

That is considerably stronger ground to make an argument from.

But whilst both are true, this is a case of putting 2 and 2 together and making 5. This is still in the realm of supposition and speculation.

Still, we don't know why wikileaks didn't publish the data they have been offered. They claim its because they cannot verify it. I'd speculate that they might be more cautious about the data they publish, because of criticism wikileaks has not properly vetted data before.

And as an amusing blast from the past, if you ever needed evidence Gorm/Gauth knows absolutely nothing about wikileaks, and/or potentially has the memory of a slightly senile goldfish, check out this gem where he claimed the US has been the only victims of wikileaks data whilst completely forgetting they had mentioned the Saudi leaks.

As for the whole "worked for a Russian government media outlet," I'm always uncomfortable with a careless use of the association fallacy as if that really proves anything. I mean, it was filmed in Norfolk according to wikipedia - does that mean that the whole county of Norfolk is now suddenly a Russian stooge? No, that would be ridiculous.

What about the production companies involved? Are Dartmouth Films - one of the two production companies I can find involved in filming of "World Tomorrow" - Russian stooges? They have had shows broadcast on most of the mainstream UK channels, so does that all of a sudden mean the BBC are now complicit?

Heck, Jeremy Corbyn is a Iranian stooge if we apply some flaky logic and overuse of association fallacy.

I'm using absurd examples to demonstrate how if you look hard enough you can probably find someone did something with someone shady enough to justify seeing conspiracy theories. Hence, like I said, 2 + 2 = 5. Now maybe the US intelligence community has more evidence Assange is a Russian "operative" that sheds more light on the matter, and I doubt anyone here both has access to that evidence, and willing to share it. But all we have to operate on is speculation and supposition, and thats just not enough for me to endorse extradition to a nation with a long, enduring and continuing track record of being more than willing to abuse prisoners, violate due process, and ignore human rights.

I never said he was a conscious Russian agent.
More a useful idiot or fellow traveler.

And at some point we have to use Occam’s razor.
2+2+x=5 if x is one, and we see all evidence to pointing to x as one.
Certainly one cannot dispute Assange is decidedly biased in favor of Russia, she how he denied the DNC data came from Russia.

And criticisms of the US justice system do not apply to Sweden.

[Vassenor]

While it is true they have not never published anything regarding Russia, it is true they have turned down large amounts of Russia related material and Assange literally worked for a Russian government media outlet.

That is considerably stronger ground to make an argument from.

But whilst both are true, this is a case of putting 2 and 2 together and making 5. This argument that wikileaks operate in Russias interests (willingly or wittingly or not) is still in the realm of supposition and speculation.

We don't know with any certainty why wikileaks didn't publish the data they have been offered. They claim its because they cannot verify it. I'd speculate that they might be more cautious about the data they publish, because of criticism wikileaks has not properly vetted data before.

And as an amusing blast from the past, if you ever needed evidence Gorm/Gauth knows absolutely nothing about wikileaks, and/or potentially has the memory of a slightly senile goldfish, check out this gem where he claimed the US had been the only "victims" of wikileaks whilst completely forgetting they had previously mentioned the Saudi leaks.

As for the whole "worked for a Russian government media outlet," I'm always uncomfortable with a careless use of the association fallacy as if that really proves anything. I mean, it was filmed in Norfolk according to wikipedia - does that mean that the whole county of Norfolk is now suddenly a Russian stooge? No, that would be ridiculous.

What about the production companies involved? Are Dartmouth Films - one of the two production companies I can find involved in filming of "World Tomorrow" - Russian stooges? They have had shows broadcast on most of the mainstream UK channels, so does that all of a sudden mean the BBC are now complicit?

Heck, Jeremy Corbyn is a Iranian stooge if we apply some flaky logic and overuse of association fallacy.

I'm using absurd examples to demonstrate how if you look hard enough you can probably find someone did something with someone shady enough to justify seeing conspiracy theories. Hence, like I said, 2 + 2 = 5. Now maybe the US intelligence community has more evidence Assange is a Russian "operative" that sheds more light on the matter, and I doubt anyone here both has access to that evidence, and willing to share it. But all we have to operate on is speculation and supposition, and I don't know about you, but thats just not enough for me to endorse extradition to a nation with a long, enduring and continuing track record of being more than willing to abuse prisoners, violate due process, and ignore human rights.

You really are that desperate to defend George Galloway's honour, aren't you?