Author Topic: The trial of Julian Assange  (Read 3972 times)

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2020, 07:53:13 PM »
Right. I don't see why Sweden is seen as an easier touch, extradition wise, than the UK either.

Assange, Ulbricht, Swartz, Manning. These are all slightly deranged individuals. As in, of course. They are crazy to take on what they have taken on.

Snowden.. is somewhat of an exception.  But then he was one of their own. A thoroughbred. A genuine squeaky cleaner who did the right thing and ran ran ran.

Everyone knows Assange's problem is his ego. His determination to cripple state power has entwined with an inflated and conceited person who wants to be the one at the front with all the shiny benefits of fame (like women) and is probably a hypocrite and highly flawed like pretty much most people alive. He's talked himself into his own psycho-death march with that inherent contradiction in his heart and it's probably not going to go well for him.

I understand why people think he's a cunt. He may well be ... a cunt.

But that isn't what the trial is about.

chveik

  • I feel like swimmin' in rat piss
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2020, 09:08:49 PM »
But that isn't what the trial is about.

very true. it's about making sure that no one will ever challenge the industrialo-military complex again.

and cunt or not, I think Assange has already suffered enough. it's probably inconsiderate towards the women he allegedly assaulted, but there was no way he could have gone to Sweden.

imitationleather

  • "The French... are famous... for their kissing"
    • http://last.fm/user/ImiLeathr
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2020, 09:15:08 PM »
I'm not saying where I stand until I've clarified what Jess Phillips thinks about this.

Zetetic

  • Worrying the carcass of an old song.
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2020, 09:18:34 PM »
but there was no way he could have gone to Sweden.
Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but it rather looks like it might have been the better bet.

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2020, 01:12:53 AM »
The government wouldn't be so adamant to prosecute the case (make it more symbolic) if the journalistic establishment stood up to them. But Assange was not one of them and they were too worried about being blamed for helping September the 11th No 2.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2020, 08:22:48 AM »
September the 11th No 2.

What has George W Bush got to do with this?

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2020, 10:42:55 AM »
This trial is nothing but a kangaroo court,

Julian Assange was condemned to extradition, torture and subsequent death from the very moment he was given up to the UK authorities. There is nothing any of us can do about that, and that's the point, I guess, that we are supposed to take from this.

There were only sixteen seats available to the public for this hearing, but luckily the wonderful Craig Murray was able to gain access to one of them. He is a whistle-blower himself, and Assange is a good friend of his. Apparently it's taking place in a "Counter-Terrorism Court” -- where people are ostensibly deemed guilty before any verdict is made. It is all a sham. Murray has a lot of things to say about this shitshow, which you hardly will hear from any of the mainstream journos.

Quote from: Craig Murray
There was a separate media entrance and a media room with live transmission from the courtroom, and there were so many scores of media I thought I could relax and not worry as the basic facts would be widely reported. In fact, I could not have been more wrong. I followed the arguments very clearly every minute of the day, and not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media. That is a bold claim, but I fear it is perfectly true.

Here are his blog entries for Day 1, Day 2 and  Day 3, I really encourage you to read them, if you are interested in the case.

On a side note: It's a common thing to accuse whistle-blowers of various unrelated crimes, to de-legitimize them in the eye of public. Sexual harassment is an effective method: it's easy to have somebody pronounced guilty by the mob with accusation alone since it's in vogue for the accused to be pronounced guilty by the mob, based on accusation alone, not evidence or proof.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2020, 10:44:39 AM »
Everyone knows Assange's problem is his ego. His determination to cripple state power has entwined with an inflated and conceited person who wants to be the one at the front with all the shiny benefits of fame (like women) and is probably a hypocrite and highly flawed like pretty much most people alive. He's talked himself into his own psycho-death march with that inherent contradiction in his heart and it's probably not going to go well for him.

I understand why people think he's a cunt. He may well be ... a cunt.

Do you know him personally? I don't, so I would find it difficult to say personal things about the psyche of somebody I don't know, with such an air of authority.

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2020, 10:45:35 AM »
The government wouldn't be so adamant to prosecute the case (make it more symbolic) if the journalistic establishment stood up to them. But Assange was not one of them and they were too worried about being blamed for helping September the 11th No 2.

He didn't do himself any favours in that regard by alienating just about everyone journalist he came into contact with.

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2020, 10:47:48 AM »
Do you know him personally? I don't, so I would find it difficult to say personal things about the psyche of somebody I don't know, with such an air of authority.

This https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting is quite revealing on the personality of the guy. Seems like a massive twat.

Cardenio I

  • Hasta la muerte, todo es vida
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2020, 11:08:14 AM »
The government wouldn't be so adamant to prosecute the case (make it more symbolic) if the journalistic establishment stood up to them. But Assange was not one of them and they were too worried about being blamed for helping September the 11th No 2.

I believe it's written "September the 12th"

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2020, 11:21:22 AM »
Do you know him personally? I don't, so I would find it difficult to say personal things about the psyche of somebody I don't know, with such an air of authority.
The people who hadn't already disowned him pretty much did after you know, the whole "going after Hilary Clinton whoops let's launder the emails" thing

EDIT: Oh yeah let's not forget putting the details of all Turkish women voters online and naming gay, disabled and rape victims in Saudi

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2020, 11:36:19 AM »
September the 11th No 2.

Second only to boxing day shit

Inspector Norse

  • I bash the Bishop well.
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2020, 11:55:22 AM »
Do you know him personally? I don't, so I would find it difficult to say personal things about the psyche of somebody I don't know, with such an air of authority.

You are saying a lot else about him, for example that he has already been sentenced to torture and death, with an air of authority so I don't see why not.


(for what it's worth I do expect any sentence he'd get in the US would be excessive and unjust, even if he's not the crusading saint people want him to be, I just think that the OTT conspiracy theories do anyone any favours)
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 12:59:24 PM by Inspector Norse »

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #44 on: February 29, 2020, 06:30:45 AM »
Do you know him personally? I don't, so I would find it difficult to say personal things about the psyche of somebody I don't know, with such an air of authority.

I thought it was pretty clear my post was hyperbolic. Of course I don't really know the guy from Adam. That's precisely my point. He 'could' or 'may well' be a cunt, but it's still not relevant to the charges.

But yes, I was going to mention the Murray reports - they're excellent. In the Day Three article he links to Le Grand Soir which has a photo of Assange in the glass dock. For people who haven't seen it yet it really is a separate room and it's pretty obvious you wouldn't hear much in there.

Murray has a good grasp of the legal arguments but I'm still trying to wrap my head around them. Essentially it looks like the prosecution are asking him to be extradited under an Act which has been modified since by an international treaty which excludes political prisoners. But there is some dispute about how binding this treaty is given it hasn't been fully enacted in law by Parliament yet. They are also claiming, somewhat spuriously, that even if the new treaty does apply Assange is not a political prisoner.

EDIT: Oh yeah let's not forget putting the details of all Turkish women voters online and naming gay, disabled and rape victims in Saudi

Sources please.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #45 on: February 29, 2020, 06:39:04 AM »
This https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting is quite revealing on the personality of the guy. Seems like a massive twat.

So three years from now ---> huge leak of data exposing American war-crimes in Syria. Who publishes this in Britain?

Five years time. The next Snowden. The NSA have been torturing people. How can this information ever be released anywhere let alone the MSM now that editors can easily be extradited via shadowy show-trials whenever Uncle Sam clicks?

What a wonderful world. Can't think of a single thing that could go wrong in a democracy where the citizens know sweet fuck all about what the secret state are up to. But hey? He was a twat.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 06:57:57 AM by Bence Fekete »

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #46 on: February 29, 2020, 10:14:03 AM »
I don't think he should go to prison for leaking stuff.

I think he's a prick.

The one does not influence the other.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #47 on: February 29, 2020, 03:24:51 PM »
I thought it was pretty clear my post was hyperbolic. Of course I don't really know the guy from Adam. That's precisely my point. He 'could' or 'may well' be a cunt, but it's still not relevant to the charges.

But yes, I was going to mention the Murray reports - they're excellent. In the Day Three article he links to Le Grand Soir which has a photo of Assange in the glass dock. For people who haven't seen it yet it really is a separate room and it's pretty obvious you wouldn't hear much in there.

Murray has a good grasp of the legal arguments but I'm still trying to wrap my head around them. Essentially it looks like the prosecution are asking him to be extradited under an Act which has been modified since by an international treaty which excludes political prisoners. But there is some dispute about how binding this treaty is given it hasn't been fully enacted in law by Parliament yet. They are also claiming, somewhat spuriously, that even if the new treaty does apply Assange is not a political prisoner.

Heh, apologies -- Poe's law in action, I suppose.  I thought it seemed to be at odds with your earlier posts to be honest. And yes, I do agree that his personality is irrelevant.

The Extradition Treaty that they claim is invalid, is the same treaty that is being used to extradite Assange, ironically (Craig Murray's Day 4 entry goes into more detail on this bit). The endless picking apart of "political motivations" is just utter nonsense. The legal arguments contradict each other and don't make sense on purpose, since obfuscation of the charges appears to be the main goal here. It's fair to say that in any other circumstances, the trial would've been declared illegitimate, on the grounds of Assange's treatment, the judge's conduct etc. The judge's only answer, upon being challenged by the defense on the legality of it, was that they should press charges and challenge this in court at a later date. Of course, this can continue ad infinitum until Assange is on his way to the US.

I find it quite interesting that the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, does not seem to have much of a public presence whatsoever. No photos, no articles, no reports on her other cases. Nada. If she is apparently of such a low level of importance, then why has she been made responsible for a high-profile case like this? Curious.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #48 on: February 29, 2020, 04:40:27 PM »
I find it quite interesting that the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, does not seem to have much of a public presence whatsoever. No photos, no articles, no reports on her other cases. Nada. If she is apparently of such a low level of importance, then why has she been made responsible for a high-profile case like this? Curious.

Yes this is bugging me too, and I'd love to know precisely how odd it is in today's day and age. Does anyone know? And also how easy would it be to influence her selection? I'm sure there must be creative ways to do it but it also seems like a risk on their part if she is as batshit as they're making out.

And for those who don't realise the other, over-seeing magistrate has been revealed to have a big conflict of interest because her son has clear and considerable ties to the intelligence agencies. This whole trial stinks of corruption. But, almost, why? Over or under confidence? Desperation? If everyone was just doing their duty you'd have thought playing it by the book - or at least appearing to - was the safer option under this much global scrutiny.


Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #50 on: February 29, 2020, 09:31:33 PM »
first links I've found

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/23/wikileaks-posts-sensitive-medical-information-saudi-arabia

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikileaks-erdogan-emails_b_11158792?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAPrnqvWWojiE6kRa40UOm80P8P1r3D1Y7ImCBh7ZtUyOvNjAzd-OH5Xm-OPavFoALfh8G1is54-iO7_17XhMef40qQVU59cxP0przRg66rrpSWnRnIJs8EUKfx38Ulj49zIJPg9jEqvYZGEMINuYVYlF089_lWCBVX0V3Ayx05r

make of that what you will

Thanks, I know you're playing devils chveik but actually these are good examples of the kind of thing that's going on here. 

The Guardian (sic) article is based solely on one highly disputed claim by a journalist at Associated Press. Wikileaks were made aware of the alleged breaches but when they tried to communicate with the journalist he refused to provide examples before publishing them quickly himself (thus, if his claims were correct, compounding the problem). Wikileaks' lawyers sent a formal letter of complaint to AP, and claim there has still been no evidence provided that any of the leaks compromised innocent people as it was suggested.

It's also worth noting the leaks were of information already known to the Saudi government - so nobody was being doxxed who wasn't already known or on file. Of course people may still have been compromised in some other way but that's why you need evidence that this has actually occurred. And there is zero in this article.

That second article: Huffington Post, Christ, the very first (updated) paragraph contradicts the whole thing. A journalist called Michael Best has confessed to having uploaded those names and Wikileaks' only crime it seems was to link to his database on social media, which they quickly removed when they were made aware of the situation.

This useful exercise goes to show how at first glance it's quite easy to think there must be some dirt here and yet... there is still zero evidence that any of these awful things actually took place. I'm looking forward to the trial and the evidence phase. If Wikileaks has caused huge privacy concerns for private citizens it has to be provable in a court of law and I'll happily consider the facts. But until then these look like very insubstantial and weak low-ball smears that very conveniently fit the state's narrative that Wikileaks is a nefarious actor playing havoc with people's data, without ever actually having to prove a word of it.

chveik

  • I feel like swimmin' in rat piss
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #51 on: February 29, 2020, 09:40:09 PM »
I tend to agree with you. I haven't looked into it that much but the sources seem really dubious.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2020, 01:30:27 PM »
Quick update:

John McDonnell making a good effort to spread the word.

And a solid summary of the trial arguments by my new favourite online news source The Canary.

The trial resumes the middle of May so there's a nice hiatus for people to digest the magnitude of this. Do we even deserve our freedom? Find out! Soon(ish).     

********

Also, anyone know who this is supposed to be?


Inspector Norse

  • I bash the Bishop well.
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2020, 01:44:32 PM »
Nicolas Anelka and Louis Walsh

the

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2020, 01:56:26 PM »
********

Also, anyone know who this is supposed to be?

     

Adrian Chiles via John Noakes

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2020, 04:40:53 PM »

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2020, 05:27:49 PM »
Also, anyone know who this is supposed to be?




Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2020, 07:22:56 PM »
Annnd we're back.

So much noise everywhere about this today. Op-eds, vox pops, heartfelt wranglings, tv debates, big public communal wankoffs on the topics of editorial freedom and the shadowy engineering of consent by unaccountable government agencies for the oscillating maga buck flange of neo-liberalism

Oh, wait, that's just my carefully curated twitter feed.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/07/julian-assange-extradition-hearing-begins-at-old-bailey-wikileaks

If you can handle clicking the link. I couldn't.

After some serious deepthink the US have realised their original argument was weaker than koala piss their sworn commitment to protecting freedum and have rejigged the charges to something the UK have obviously let them know they will accept and can sell to centrism United. Guardian stub was the 53rd article down. Doesn't even make the BBC News page. The journalistic trial of the century will take place between the cracks of our self-immolating media. Sorry to be grim-like but yah we really are rather fucked.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2020, 07:34:37 PM »
From this Peter Oborne piece:

Quote from: Oborne
It's not difficult to imagine how this precedent could be abused by authoritarian foregin powers. Imagine Saudi Arabia prosecuting a journalist in London for revealing deatails of the Jamal Khashoggi murder. Or China citing their Official Secrets Act to charge a publisher responsible for disseminating footage of the horrific treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

Hahaha as if anyone would ever try something like that.

Re: The trial of Julian Assange
« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2020, 08:44:38 PM »


Also, anyone know who this is supposed to be?



The one on the right is definitely Richard Curtis.

Tags: