Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
If anyone wants a laugh, check out this site
http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

It purports to be a list of the top 100 most damaging wikileaks items. It's freaking hilarious. And perfectly shows what a load of nothing the DNC hack was. (in terms of incriminating information that is) If anything, the dearth of incriminating emails out of such a huge number shows how honest these people were.



nan - do you know that site? Do you agree with their ranking?

 I had not seen this site before, but I don't know why you consider it "freaking hilarious."  It's a good overview of what Wikileaks has revealed.  Are you really advocating that we are better off not knowing these things or that they are not important?

 It's hilarious because it's all b.s. If you actually read what they have there, it proves next to nothing, regardless of what their headlines for each leak say. Their list makes a claim (Like "Obama lied") has a few links, which if you click on, show nothing dispositive of their claim, and then they make a bunch of overwrought assertions based on, apparently, nothing but their inflamed imaginations.
And c'mon, isn't number 10, about the satanic dinner, hilarious all by itself?

 You are cherry picking the wacky stuff and ignoring the important revelations.  I did click on one high drama sounding video, so this site should not be considered the only go-to for information on Wikileaks, but it does give the high level info of what was revealed and it is difficult to find a list like this.  I'd recommend checking anything listed out on other sources first before using.  For example, the revelations on rigging the Palestinian elections. I had to google that on other sources and it's not hilarious. It's disturbing.

Nan,

Hacking is illegal.  

If Assange had persuaded an insider to release the information, he is a journalist.  As a hacker, he is a criminal.

tomcat said:
Nan,
Hacking is illegal.  
If Assange had persuaded an insider to release the information, he is a journalist.  As a hacker, he is a criminal.

 Tomcat, 

Much of news revelations are illegal. That's why it is so important to protect Julian Assange. It's never going to be legal to reveal state secrets, even if they reveal illegal government activity.  But, like slavery, just because it's legal does not mean it's right.  Even if you don't like Assange, do you really want to forbid future Daniel Ellsburgs and Chealsea Mannings and Edward Snowdens from being able to tell us what our government is really up to?

Nan,

You really are missing the point.  For an insider to release information, is breach of trust.  If you work for a gov't agency, it is probably illegal.  That's why Chealsea Manning was convicted (and eventually pardoned).

A journalist seeks out information.  A responsible journalist publishes only what can be considered proven (if necessary confirmed by a second source).

Hacking by an outsider is never legal.  It is on this background, that I have zero compassion for Assange.  With the added sex assault charges from Sweden, I see even less of a need to idolize the creep.

I thought he was hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid arrest on rape charges.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

yahooyahoo said:
Greenwald is so biased at this point, I have a hard time believing most of what he writes.
He's in bed with Assange so who knows how much of that column is valid.

 yeah. luckily The Intercept has emerged from being a fever swamp. It's a good site, except for when GG writes something.

 Glen Greenwald is a fierce defender of free speech and a free press.  That is why he defends Julian Assange.  Also, because we benefit from knowing the things Assange has published.  How does that make him biased?

Please read anything related to Hillary or the Clintons and honestly tell me he's not biased.

Just because he defends the free press it doesn't mean he's unbiased.

He's funded by a wealthy billionaire.  Follow the money.

So, hack-and-release should be legal if one calls oneself a journalist, or funnels it through someone who calls themself a journalist? I guess it's like hack-content laundering: It cleans the content for use in the news system.

Seem similar to the strategy used for the money side of the Trump campaign.

 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.

max_weisenfeld said:
I thought he was hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid arrest on rape charges.

Exactly.  Sweden issued a warrant for his arrest on rape and sexual assault in 2010.  He turned himself in to UK authorities, then spent two years fighting extradition - when that failed, he ran away to Ecuador like a rat.  THAT is why he's in Ecuador - not because he's some kind of journalistic/free speech martyr.  

holymoly said:

max_weisenfeld said:
I thought he was hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid arrest on rape charges.

 
Exactly.  Sweden issued a warrant for his arrest on rape and sexual assault in 2010.  He turned himself in to UK authorities, then spent two years fighting extradition - when that failed, he ran away to Ecuador like a rat.  THAT is why he's in Ecuador - not because he's some kind of journalistic/free speech martyr.  

 Well, he may be in Ecuador, but he still has a good view of the Thames.

Nan, you seem to ascribe to the Trump supporters creed that "say something enough and it makes it true."  Please stop.  

Assange is neither a journalist or a hacker. He doesn't get the info himself - he just provides a repository. He's a middle man.

Here's the latest on his legal status:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant. Although he is free to leave the Embassy, it is likely that he would then be arrested for the criminal offence of breaching his bail conditions. The London Metropolitan Police have indicated that an arrest warrant is still in force for Assange's failure to surrender himself to his bail.

tomcat said:
Nan,

You really are missing the point.  For an insider to release information, is breach of trust.  If you work for a gov't agency, it is probably illegal.  That's why Chealsea Manning was convicted (and eventually pardoned).
A journalist seeks out information.  A responsible journalist publishes only what can be considered proven (if necessary confirmed by a second source).
Hacking by an outsider is never legal.  It is on this background, that I have zero compassion for Assange.  With the added sex assault charges from Sweden, I see even less of a need to idolize the creep.

 The rape allegations, which may have been fabricated for political purposes, have been dropped.  What you are missing is that Whistelblowers reveal crimes or massively unethical behavior that our government was trying to hide.  Sometimes, the revelations shorten wars and save lives.  Often the crimes revealed, don't lead to convictions though--and only the whistle blower gets punished.  Such was the case with Cheasea Manning.  Read about her case here and see if you can develop some sympathy when you read about what she uncovered. 

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-injustices-of-chelsea-mannings-imprisonment/

max_weisenfeld said:
I thought he was hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy to avoid arrest on rape charges.

 The charges were dropped. He has been hiding to avoid arrest for his work.

bets said:
Nan, you seem to ascribe to the Trump supporters creed that "say something enough and it makes it true."  Please stop.  

 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 said:
...What you are missing is that Whistelblowers reveal crimes or massively unethical behavior that our government was trying to hide.  ...

 By your definition, by serving as a "dropbox" for information stolen from private citizens by Russian operatives, Mr. Assange was not acting as a "whistleblower", or as a journalist passing along "whistleblower" information.

nan said:

bets said:
Nan, you seem to ascribe to the Trump supporters creed that "say something enough and it makes it true."  Please stop.  

 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.

 Welcome to the club, bets. Anything against nan's distorted view of life is labelled as a personal insult, and the purveyor of that insult is a troll. Jamie even backs her up occasionally.

nan said:

 The rape allegations, which may have been fabricated for political purposes, have been dropped.  

And why were they dropped?  Oh yes, that's right, charges were dropped because the Swedes saw no prospect of bringing the bottom-feeder Assange to trial.

And fabricated for political purposes?  Really?!?  While I know that Sweden was as upset as you that Clinton stole the Democratic nomination and gave us the awful choice of Trump or nuclear war, I actually don't think they would bother fabricating rape charges for this reason.

nohero said:

nan said:
...What you are missing is that Whistelblowers reveal crimes or massively unethical behavior that our government was trying to hide.  ...

 By your definition, by serving as a "dropbox" for information stolen from private citizens by Russian operatives, Mr. Assange was not acting as a "whistleblower", or as a journalist passing along "whistleblower" information.

 This is the process of whistle blowing and everyone involved is part of journalism and if Assange is prosecuted, it will set a precedent for others.  So many here apoplectic about Russia, but wishing they did not have access to criminal war activities or Democratic election corruption. Wanting to close off the possibility of future leaks.  Don't get it.

Is it just slightly possible that Wikileaks is a site that has done more good than harm AND Julian Assange is a possible rapist and should stand trial for his crime? Or does the former mean that he gets to do what he wants with women with impunity because “fabricated for political purposes”?

ridski said:
Is it just slightly possible that Wikileaks is a site that has done more good than harm AND Julian Assange is a possible rapist and should stand trial for his crime? 

Yes, it's quite possible. Aiding and abetting Trump's election overshadows much of the good, I'm afraid.

ridski said:
Is it just slightly possible that Wikileaks is a site that has done more good than harm AND Julian Assange is a possible rapist and should stand trial for his crime? Or does the former mean that he gets to do what he wants with women with impunity because “fabricated for political purposes”?

We don't know anything except the charges have now been dropped.  It's a non-issue.

This is why you all need to shut your pie holes and support Julian Assange.  

The War on Assange Is a War on Press Freedom

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-war-on-assange-is-a-war-on-press-freedom/

excerpt:  " . . . The failure on the part of establishment media to defend Julian Assange, who has been trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012, has been denied communication with the outside world since March and appears to be facing imminent expulsion and arrest, is astonishing. The extradition of the publisher—the maniacal goal of the U.S. government—would set a legal precedent that would criminalize any journalistic oversight or investigation of the corporate state. It would turn leaks and whistleblowing into treason. It would shroud in total secrecy the actions of the ruling global elites. If Assange is extradited to the United States and sentenced, The New York Times, The Washington Post and every other media organization, no matter how tepid their coverage of the corporate state, would be subject to the same draconian censorship. Under the precedent set, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court would enthusiastically uphold the arrest and imprisonment of any publisher, editor or reporter in the name of national security. . . "

drummerboy said:
Assange is neither a journalist or a hacker. He doesn't get the info himself - he just provides a repository. He's a middle man.


Here's the latest on his legal status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange


On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant. Although he is free to leave the Embassy, it is likely that he would then be arrested for the criminal offence of breaching his bail conditions. The London Metropolitan Police have indicated that an arrest warrant is still in force for Assange's failure to surrender himself to his bail.

 er, did everyone miss this post?

drummerboy said:

drummerboy said:
Assange is neither a journalist or a hacker. He doesn't get the info himself - he just provides a repository. He's a middle man.


Here's the latest on his legal status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange


On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant. Although he is free to leave the Embassy, it is likely that he would then be arrested for the criminal offence of breaching his bail conditions. The London Metropolitan Police have indicated that an arrest warrant is still in force for Assange's failure to surrender himself to his bail.

 er, did everyone miss this post?

 Failure to surrender to bail is not a big deal.  That's not why he's been living in the embassy for years.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

drummerboy said:
Assange is neither a journalist or a hacker. He doesn't get the info himself - he just provides a repository. He's a middle man.


Here's the latest on his legal status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange


On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant. Although he is free to leave the Embassy, it is likely that he would then be arrested for the criminal offence of breaching his bail conditions. The London Metropolitan Police have indicated that an arrest warrant is still in force for Assange's failure to surrender himself to his bail.

 er, did everyone miss this post?

 Failure to surrender to bail is not a big deal.  That's not why he's been living in the embassy for years.

Why has he stayed in the Embassy after the rape charges were dropped? And no one claimed that the bail charge is why he was in the "embassy for years".

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

drummerboy said:
Assange is neither a journalist or a hacker. He doesn't get the info himself - he just provides a repository. He's a middle man.


Here's the latest on his legal status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange


On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant. Although he is free to leave the Embassy, it is likely that he would then be arrested for the criminal offence of breaching his bail conditions. The London Metropolitan Police have indicated that an arrest warrant is still in force for Assange's failure to surrender himself to his bail.

 er, did everyone miss this post?

 Failure to surrender to bail is not a big deal.  That's not why he's been living in the embassy for years.

Why has he stayed in the Embassy after the rape charges were dropped? And no one claimed that the bail charge is why he was in the "embassy for years".

 He doesn't want to be extradited to the U.S.

yahooyahoo said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

drummerboy said:
Assange is neither a journalist or a hacker. He doesn't get the info himself - he just provides a repository. He's a middle man.


Here's the latest on his legal status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange


On 19 May 2017, the Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into the rape accusation against Assange and applied to revoke the European arrest warrant. Although he is free to leave the Embassy, it is likely that he would then be arrested for the criminal offence of breaching his bail conditions. The London Metropolitan Police have indicated that an arrest warrant is still in force for Assange's failure to surrender himself to his bail.

 er, did everyone miss this post?

 Failure to surrender to bail is not a big deal.  That's not why he's been living in the embassy for years.

Why has he stayed in the Embassy after the rape charges were dropped? And no one claimed that the bail charge is why he was in the "embassy for years".

 He doesn't want to be extradited to the U.S.

 Yes, he will be arrested as soon as he walks out of the embassy.  Then he will probably be sent to the US.  

The rape charges were dropped, as I understand it, because under Swedish law, if the crime cannot be fully prosecuted within a certain/reasonable period of time, the charges must be dropped.  Not for lack of evidence but rather in this case because the individual made himself unavailable for questioning or for defending himself.

Edited to add: in other words, it was the Swedes following their own rule of law.

Nan: it seems impossible to argue with those in the throes of the Trump Derangement Syndrome. I can't get over the sudden respect that 'progressives' have for the FBI, CIA and NSA, given their proven history of deceit, manipulation and criminality. Assange isn't an angel, Wikileaks has performed a very useful function in lifting the veil.