sho nuff
Footballguy
Wait, what? BBC readers are now the ignorant ones?Nice distortion of reality by BBC here. It is no wonder their readers are so profoundly ignorant.
Wait, what? BBC readers are now the ignorant ones?Nice distortion of reality by BBC here. It is no wonder their readers are so profoundly ignorant.
Don’t forget opines on them and sometimes in a less than honest manner.Receives stolen documents. Decides which ones are worth publishing. Releases them.
Journalism. Gotcha.
Who has been imprisoned and tortured? I’m not sure whom you’re referring to.And yet there the US and UK are, extraditing a publisher for imprisonment and torture. There they are, lobbying the Ecuadorean government to hold a journalist in solitary confinement for political expression. There's the "resistance" liberals, cheerleading Trump's national security state as they do it. And there's our "free" press, sitting on its dead ### as it happens to a journalist in plain sight. An absolute joke
No one yet. I was referring to JA. That’s what the extradition process is for.Who has been imprisoned and tortured? I’m not sure whom you’re referring to.
On this, yes. They try to make it sound like Assange is a stuttering pothead living on someone’s couch who just won’t get a job. They barely make mention of the fact he’s been living in isolation for 7 months, in violation of Ecuador’s own Constitution and multiple UN rulings. They say he took refuge in the embassy to avoid the Sweden investigation, which is disingenuous, and doesn’t make sense anyway given that it was dropped a long time ago. The asylum grant was based on legitimate concerns about being extradited to the US for leaking classified documents. Disgraceful.Wait, what? BBC readers are now the ignorant ones?
So, not only was "journalist" hyperbole in the original post, "torture" was too. Good to know. How's the cat, btw? Being treated better now?On this, yes. They try to make it sound like Assange is a stuttering pothead living on someone’s couch who just won’t get a job. They barely make mention of the fact he’s been living in isolation for 7 months, in violation of Ecuador’s own Constitution and multiple UN rulings. They say he took refuge in the embassy to avoid the Sweden investigation, which is disingenuous, and doesn’t make sense anyway given that it was dropped a long time ago. The asylum grant was based on legitimate concerns about being extradited to the US for leaking classified documents. Disgraceful.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=solitary+confinement+torture&ia=webSo, not only was "journalist" hyperbole in the original post, "torture" was too. Good to know. How's the cat, btw? Being treated better now?
His "solitary confinement" - being in the embassy - is self inflicted. And do keep the personal insults to yourself
I haven't followed this situation closely at all. I don't understand why this living situation has reached the point where it has. I know he had some charges he was avoiding and went to the Ecuadorean embassy and has been there since? Surely Ecuador should have made a decision on his living arrangements before now. Letting a guy just live at your consulate or whatever for that long seems irresponsible. What am I missing here?On this, yes. They try to make it sound like Assange is a stuttering pothead living on someone’s couch who just won’t get a job. They barely make mention of the fact he’s been living in isolation for 7 months, in violation of Ecuador’s own Constitution and multiple UN rulings. They say he took refuge in the embassy to avoid the Sweden investigation, which is disingenuous, and doesn’t make sense anyway given that it was dropped a long time ago. The asylum grant was based on legitimate concerns about being extradited to the US for leaking classified documents. Disgraceful.
Oh. The extradition that not only hasn’t happened, there’s no evidence I’m aware of that a request exists. And the UK had him in its jails but let him go on bail (which he skipped out on) but now is planning on unjustly incarcerating him? Which will naturally lead to being tortured.No one yet. I was referring to JA. That’s what the extradition process is for.
Don'tren hoek said:
Exactly. He is apparently staying in the embassy (and has been for the past few years) to ensure the British are not going to incarcerate him for skipping bail. Not sure what the punishment is for that in the UK, also considering that the charge has since been withdrawn.Oh. The extradition that not only hasn’t happened, there’s no evidence I’m aware of that a request exists. And the UK had him in its jails but let him go on bail (which he skipped out on) but now is planning on unjustly incarcerating him? Which will naturally lead to being tortured.
Jail. Up to a year.Exactly. He is apparently staying in the embassy (and has been for the past few years) to ensure the British are not going to incarcerate him for skipping bail. Not sure what the punishment is for that in the UK, also considering that the charge has since been withdrawn.
I'm pretty sure the longest I'd be willing to stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy in order to avoid a year in a British jail is about nine months.Jail. Up to a year.
The reason Assange sought political asylum was because he had good reason to believe he would be extradited to the US for the Iraq/Afghan leaks. //I haven't followed this situation closely at all. I don't understand why this living situation has reached the point where it has. I know he had some charges he was avoiding and went to the Ecuadorean embassy and has been there since? Surely Ecuador should have made a decision on his living arrangements before now. Letting a guy just live at your consulate or whatever for that long seems irresponsible. What am I missing here?
That’s funny, the documents WL links to as sources for reference are turning up null.The reason Assange sought political asylum was because he had good reason to believe he would be extradited to the US for the Iraq/Afghan leaks. //
PRESS RELEASE - STRATFOR EMAILS: US HAS ISSUED SEALED INDICTMENT AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE
The second link just cites an NBC report stating that Holder was considering filing charges. First of all you don’t need a stolen email for that. Second, did he or not?https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375123_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/37/375123_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html
Guessing they reorganized the site somehow and never went back to update the links from this 2012 release. All of the source material is still there.
I'd say that the behaviour of Assange since then indicates that he at least believes formly it exists (or could be filed at any moment).The second link just cites an NBC report stating that Holder was considering filing charges. First of all you don’t need a stolen email for that. Second, did he or not?
I assume these source documents are available on the web? This being Wikileaks and all?The reason Assange sought political asylum was because he had good reason to believe he would be extradited to the US for the Iraq/Afghan leaks. //
PRESS RELEASE - STRATFOR EMAILS: US HAS ISSUED SEALED INDICTMENT AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE
Tuesday 28th February 2012 18:30 GMT
Confidential emails obtained from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor show that the United States Government has had a secret indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for more than 12 months.
Fred Burton, Stratfor's Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State's (DoS) counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).
In early 2011, Burton revealed in internal Stratfor correspondence that a secret Grand Jury had already issued a sealed indictment for Assange: "Not for Pub -- We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect." (375123) According to Burton: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever." (1056988) A few weeks earlier, following Julian Assange's release from a London jail, where he had been remanded as a result of a Swedish prosecutor's arrest warrant, Fred Burton told SkyNews: "extradition to the US is] more and more likely". [(373862).
Emails from Fred Burton reveal that the US Government employs the same counterterrorism strategy against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as against Al Qaeda: "Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ Al Qaeda]. Thank Cheney & 43 [former US President George W. Bush]. Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist ####." [(1067796)
Ten days after the CIA reportedly assassinated Osama bin Laden, Burton writes in an email sent to Stratfor's "Secure" mailing list that he "can get access to the materials seized from the OBL Osama bin Laden] safe house." [(1660854)
Burton states: "Ferreting out Julian Assange's] confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside [sic]. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki." [(1056763)
Along with the FBI, the Diplomatic Security Service and the Department of Defense (DoD) form a multi-agency US Government outfit seeking to criminally indict and prosecute WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. According to the Department of State, the DSS handles the investigation of all leads that involve the DoS and assists the DoD in forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the US Government in its ongoing criminal investigation.
Burton also says he "would pursue c]onspiracy and [p]olitical [t]errorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki" [(1074383). Burton's strategy is to: "b]ankrupt the arsehole first," Burton states, "ruin his life. Give him 7-12 yrs for conspiracy." [(1057220)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said: "For over a year now, the US Attorney General Eric Holder has been conducting a "secret" Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks. This neo-McCarthyist witch hunt against WikiLeaks may be Mr Holder's defining legacy. Any student of American history knows that secret justice is no justice at all. Justice must be seen to be done. Legitimate authority arises out of the informed consent of the governed, not Eric Holder's press secretary. Secret Grand Juries with secret indictments are apparently Eric Holder's preferred method of dealing with publishers who hold his administration to account. Eric Holder has betrayed the legacy of Madison and Jefferson. He should drop the case or resign. Should he continue, however, the Obama administration may not -- Democrats and Republicans alike believe in the right to tell the truth."
As early as June 2010, after the release of the Collateral Murder video but prior to the Afghan War Diaries release, the emails talk of a sealed indictment. In an email conversation between Shane Harris, a National Security journalist, and Burton, Harris is surprised that Assange was reporteded to be attending a Las Vegas Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) conference. Burton remarks: "As a foreign national, we could revoke Julian Assange's] travel status and deport. Could also be taken into custody as a material witness. We COULD have a sealed indictment and lock him up. Depends upon how far along the military case is" [(391504). Julian Assange cancelled his appearance at the IRE conference due to security concerns.
In another email to Stephen Feldhaus, Stratfor legal counsel, about Ronald Kessler, a "pro-FBI journalist", Burton remarks: “I look forward to Manning and Assange facing a bajillion-thousand counts of espionage]." [(1035283)
In July 2010 alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning was moved from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait to the Quantico Brig in the Military District of Washington at the request of Maj. Gen. Terry Wolff, then Commanding General of the 1st Armored Division/US Division – Center in Iraq.
Wolff requested Manning's move, the Pentagon reported, "due to a potentially lengthy pre-trial confinement because of the complexity of the charges and an ongoing investigation.” Three days before Manning arrived at Quantico Brig, Burton wrote to George Friedman, Stratfor CEO and founder:
“We probably asked the ASIS Australian Secret Intelligence Service] to monitor Wiki coms and email, after the soldier from Potomac was nabbed. So, it's reasonable to assume we probably already know who has done it. The delay could be figuring out how to declassify and use the Aussie intel on Wiki... The owner [Julian Assange] is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo.” [(402168) //
This has been ongoing ever since.
A couple things. Some in here were under the impression there wasn’t an indictment, this contradicts that. Second, the linked article only suggests charges were being considered, not the existence of a sealed indictment, so we wouldn’t have known that without the email.The second link just cites an NBC report stating that Holder was considering filing charges. First of all you don’t need a stolen email for that. Second, did he or not?
There’s also the extremely draconian rhetoric by Pompeo (hostile intel service), Sessions (prosecuting a priority), Bolton (“target practice”), negotiations btw Pence and Moreno that seem to coincide with further isolation/abandonment of Assange, Lehtinen’s letter to turn over Assange, house Dems letter arguing for turnover of Assange (before letter requesting closed testimony), Schiff only willing to interview Assange when in custody, $500m IMF loan and Ecuadorean relations seemingly contingent on kicking Assange out of embassy, UK spending millions on security detail/surveillance, refusal to confirm with Assange legal team whether such an extradition order exists.I'd say that the behaviour of Assange since then indicates that he at least believes formly it exists (or could be filed at any moment).
Why would anyone else break bail and exile themselves in an embassy for six years?
That Assange truly fears this makes sense intuitively. I'm questioning the use of the specific WL links here to make the point.msommer said:I'd say that the behaviour of Assange since then indicates that he at least believes formly it exists (or could be filed at any moment).
Why would anyone else break bail and exile themselves in an embassy for six years?
Ren, they're just privately talking about publicly available information. Here:ren hoek said:A couple things. Some in here were under the impression there wasn’t an indictment, this contradicts that. Second, the linked article only suggests charges were being considered, not the existence of a sealed indictment, so we wouldn’t have known that without the email.
I want to remind you that blogging rights are an issue everywhere, just look at EFF.And yet there the US and UK are, extraditing a publisher for imprisonment and torture. There they are, lobbying the Ecuadorean government to hold a journalist in solitary confinement for political expression. There's the "resistance" liberals, cheerleading Trump's national security state as they do it. And there's our "free" press, sitting on its dead ### as it happens to a journalist in plain sight. An absolute joke
You'd think the Committee to Protect Journalists - a great organization - telling you this should tell you something. He's not a professional journalist. His need for a maid and conjugal visits from Pam Anderson is not on their list of priorities considering real professional journalists are being persecuted and murdered across the world, such as Kashoggi as a recent example. But instead of supporting journalism WL has actually published stolen private emails of journalists. I wouldn't be surprised at how they've reacted to the purveyor of hot data crowing about his lack of toiletries.I have contacted the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) several times by phone, email and through Twitter over the past few weeks, asking them why I have not found any comment from them denouncing Moreno’s silencing of Assange, explicitly on political grounds. When I finally reached a CPJ official by phone, I was told me they have “reported” on Assange’s case. No kidding. What they haven’t ever done is denounce Moreno’s ruthlessness towards Assange.
These emails are consistent with there being an actual sealed indictment. They're certainly potential evidence of such an indictment, and at the very least impeachment evidence if the authors claim they never believed that such a thing existed. It may exist - certainly it's more likely with these than without, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of contradiction given the number of possible explanations for what was meant. Still, it's a decent reason to believe Assange may be right about an indictment.Ren, they're just privately talking about publicly available information. Here:
WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act
- They're not talking inside supersecret baseball here, that was public domain reporting, it still is (albeit from 2010). You avoid MSM, yet refer to secret communiques which are just talking about MSM reporting.
I respectfully disagree and think there is a lot of in this "great conspiracy against Assange"ren hoek said:There’s also the extremely draconian rhetoric by Pompeo (hostile intel service), Sessions (prosecuting a priority), Bolton (“target practice”), negotiations btw Pence and Moreno that seem to coincide with further isolation/abandonment of Assange, Lehtinen’s letter to turn over Assange, house Dems letter arguing for turnover of Assange (before letter requesting closed testimony), Schiff only willing to interview Assange when in custody, $500m IMF loan and Ecuadorean relations seemingly contingent on kicking Assange out of embassy, UK spending millions on security detail/surveillance, refusal to confirm with Assange legal team whether such an extradition order exists.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see what’s happening here.
Let's be clear, we've seen one email, one where the writers (still not sure who these guys are but getting past that) - based on reports from AP, NBC, CBS and other MSM like the WaPo I posted - believed there is a sealed indictment. You, I, Ren or anyone in the public arena could reach the same conclusion. But anyway this speculation is interesting:These emails are consistent with there being an actual sealed indictment. They're certainly potential evidence of such an indictment, and at the very least impeachment evidence if the authors claim they never believed that such a thing existed. It may exist - certainly it's more likely with these than without, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of contradiction given the number of possible explanations for what was meant. Still, it's a decent reason to believe Assange may be right about an indictment.
They do, however, contradict the idea of him being brought in to be tortured (given that they're talking about placing him in prison, not a blacksite.)
Ooohhkay then. Can't we surmise this ourselves from WaPo reports? Yes it's interesting people on this level are reaching that conclusion and have since 2010. The DNC hacks via Russia seems in the same vein and the same mode of operation.The theory of the case is that Assange orchestrated the leak through cut outs deliberately designed to immunize himself from charges of espionage.
I agree it's taking it way to far, but that doesn't mean it's useless as evidence of an indictment. As I said, it isn't by any means dispositive, but it's worth putting in the binder labeled "is there or isn't there an indictment."Let's be clear, we've seen one email. one where the writers (still not sure these guys are but getting past that) - based on reports from AP, NBC, CBS and other MSM like the WaPo I posted - believed there is a sealed indictment. You, I, Ren or anyone in the public arena could reach the same conclusion. But anyway this speculation is interesting:
Ooohhkay then. Can't we surmise this ourselves from WaPo reports? Yes it's interesting people on this level are reaching that conclusion and have since 2010. The DNC hacks via Russia seems in the same vein and the same mode of operation.
This is proving too much.
Just a point here - I think the events supporting a supposed indictment we've discussed so far would include Manning, which you noted above, and Russia. However this particular comment by Pompeo was about the Vault7 release. The DOJ has a prosecution on that already and they're adding charges. This one is an active prosecution.ren hoek said:There’s also the extremely draconian rhetoric by Pompeo (hostile intel service),
Well, the food (that he now pays for himself I believe) might be a lot better at the embassy than what he would get in her Majesty's clink. Doubt they'll let him out on bail again...Just a point here - I think the events supporting a supposed indictment we've discussed so far would include Manning, which you noted above, and Russia. However this particular comment by Pompeo was about the Vault7 release. The DOJ has a prosecution on that already and they're adding charges. This one is an active prosecution.
The email posted above is from 2011 talking about reports from 2010. The Manning case I think would be hurt by Obama pardoning the culprit himself, Manning. And as we know at this very moment Mueller has not shown his hand publicly. He hasn't prosecuted anyone yet for the actual hacking - though he seems to have everything lined up I haven't seen anything suggesting a sealed indictment. I don't know if the Snowden case is something that can result in Assange being indicted?
And the Swedish charge has been dropped from the passing of time.
What does Manning have before him besides that? The bail jumping charge, which he should legitimately face.
Really it seems to me this thing can't get better, it will only get worse. As such he has a window of opportunity to make his case in court in the UK right now. Face the bail charge, draw out anything else the US has on him and fight it on the ground.
Ha, of course, I'm sure the empanadas are excellent. And maybe schwarma from the down the street. But how long would he face for jumping bail? A month? Maybe a fine? And on the flip side what's the risk of being evicted and maybe even having his citizenship stripped once a US indictment is made public?Well, the food (that he now pays for himself I believe) might be a lot better at the embassy than what he would get in her Majesty's clink. Doubt they'll let him out on bail again...
Henry looked it up upthread. Up to 12 months depending on circumstances.Ha, of course, I'm sure the empanadas are excellent. And maybe schwarma from the down the street. But how long would he face for jumping bail? A month? Maybe a fine? And on the flip side what's the risk of being evicted and maybe even having his citizenship stripped once a US indictment is made public?
Not "we" as such....Didn’t WL DM don Jr asking him to tell his father to question the election results? And we’re still pretending they’re some neutral party without an agenda?
Saints, it’s not just about the existence of an indictment. It’s the tone and line of thinking being applied to Assange. You don’t glean the idea of Assange being tossed in Gitmo, sexually assaulted by other prisoners and dunked in human excrement by the sanitized language of a wapo article. You don’t get the life and death consequence of the situation when they turn it into a punchline about his cat.That Assange truly fears this makes sense intuitively. I'm questioning the use of the specific WL links here to make the point.
Who’s pretending that? Where has anyone said anything like that?Didn’t WL DM don Jr asking him to tell his father to question the election results? And we’re still pretending they’re some neutral party without an agenda?
You've shown one email indicating two people talking about published news reports. Can we see the email (the one that works) under no. 402168? That's the source of the claim about Gitmo.Saints, it’s not just about the existence of an indictment. It’s the tone and line of thinking being applied to Assange. You don’t glean the idea of Assange being tossed in Gitmo, sexually assaulted by other prisoners and dunked in human excrement by the sanitized language of a wapo article. You don’t get the life and death consequence of the situation when they turn it into a punchline about his cat.
The article you link still requires the reader to speculate, it’s not the same thing. You can debate whether publishing the emails is right or wrong or illegal or in the public interest, but they do provide unique insight rarely seen in traditional reporting.
Guantanamo I believe is for enemy combatants so Manning would (and was) not applicable.Manning himself never landed in Guantanamo, I see no reason Assange would.
Ren hasn’t provided the source email (I’m guessing he hasn’t even looked at it) but I’d imagine this general genuinely believed an American soldier had been killed as a result of Manning and Assange. That’s a point against Assange in and of itself because it seems like a pretty specific soldier he had in mind.Guantanamo I believe is for enemy combatants so Manning would (and was) not applicable.
Is (the head of) a "hostile intelligence service" an enemy combatant? That would seem a stretch.
In addition, Imagine the signal it would send to argue in High Court for extradiction only to fly the extradicted person directly to Gitmo. Has that ever happened?
Just enter a search string into the search function. It's not hard. You are talking about one (perhaps multiple) soldiers compared to an illegitimate war that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, thousands more troops, and set off a chain of events that brought ruin to the Middle East. That's not Assange's fault. And I think the "associated forces" language of the 2012 NDAA could be applied to Assange as an enemy combatant.Ren hasn’t provided the source email (I’m guessing he hasn’t even looked at it) but I’d imagine this general genuinely believed an American soldier had been killed as a result of Manning and Assange. That’s a point against Assange in and of itself because it seems like a pretty specific soldier he had in mind.
But you haven't even read this email you're making your claim on, right? Is that fair?Just enter a search string into the search function. It's not hard.
Here's a root email. The former Deputy COS at DSS, per WL, and I guess that's basic enough, is Burton. A field doctor, Taufener, sends him a list of casualty incidents from The Guardian. - Note - PUBLIC RECORD. - Burton says "I would hope" that the FBI indicts WL. He's just speaking off the cuff here, from a Guardian news report. Further up he talks about his daughter's soccer practice.But you haven't even read this email you're making your claim on, right? Is that fair?Just enter a search string into the search function. It's not hard.
Did you know that Ted Bundy's mother defended him until the day she died?
Is it possible that Assange has access to something that would incriminate or embarrass Trump? Would he release it to save himself from being indicted?