I promote cleaning up your **** and being a good guest. Assange is a disgusting human being and should have at least showered
You'd be surprised how many Trump supporting veterans and active duty love Assange but absolutely hate Chelsea Manning.
I'm waiting on the other shoe to drop with Greenwald it seems he might have been involved a n some shady stuff as well.
Not dropped because he was innocent. "The case against Assange in Sweden was dropped by prosecutors in May 2017 -- not because of any conclusion about his guilt or innocence, but because they accepted there wasn't any reasonable chance of prosecuting him as he remained holed-up in London." So how does that jibe with your new found stance on wanting sexual predators prosecuted?
I've always been a bit suspicious of those charges. He could of course be totally guilty. But, it also seemed like a very politically convenient crime for him to be convicted for. I'm happier with a conspiracy charge.
When you hand pick what information you will release, and you get your information from the Kremlin and you target the person that wants you arrested badly (Clinton); you lose the high ground. He was not a non-political hero releasing all information without an agenda. I hope he rots in the FCO supermax, because he should be strung up by his toes and have his stomach and intestines ripped out and blanched in boiling water while he ***** himself from the pain.
Not speaking for glynch, but a bunch of my far lefty friends are pro-Assange and see him as a whistle-blowing champion. I do not agree with them. He could have been an unambiguous whistle-blowing champion, IMHO. Maybe he feared death by stealth super-toxin or similar.
I think Assange fits the "you live long enough to be a vilian" mold. He probably had genuine intentions with no agenda when he first started but over time formed biases and probably in some form was influenced or controlled by Russian interests.
This is about exposing a war crime -- specifically Apaches firing on a group of civilians, including seriously injuring two children and killing two Reuters employees. Reuters requested this footage in a Freedom of information Act request in 2007. The Army finally investigated and told Reuters they didn't know how the children were injured, and wouldn't tell them how their employees died, but concluded it was done in accordance with international law and their own "rules of engagement." It was only until 2010 in Wikileaks published it with the help of Chelsea Manning, that it showed the full event and that the government had lied and covered up the incident. Even once they got it, Wikileaks had to get access to a supercomputer to brute force decrypt the video (in itself a rather extraordinary feat). The charge against Assange, is that he asked Manning to obtain this video specifically. There's nothing illegal about a journalist asking for specific evidence in order to publish it, and there's certainly precedence for that. There was plenty of spin after that point that it was taken out of context, but that only became necessary after the damn thing was released and people were able to judge for themselves. I can't help but marvel at the hypocrisy of those who are so selective in their defense of transparency. Releasing the Mueller Report immediately is considered a sacrosanct necessity by many of the same people yet applaud putting Assange in prison forever for releasing this video exposing a war crime. I'd also add these are the same people that **** themselves when Israel is caught doing these things, but when their own country is caught doing it, they circle the wagons. In any case, I suspect the people cheering on the humiliation and torture of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning have never bothered to watch it.
I think it's consistent to believe that Assange shouldn't be prosecuted for wanting Manning's data and having sincere motives to expose a horrible war crime while also believing throughout his years after Manning was influenced by the wrong people, formed biases and became a stooge for Russian propaganda or at the very least he lost control of the Wikileaks "brand" to the Russians.
Yes they could be suspicious but that has no bearing on what D was trying to imply. What exactly does Sweden have to gain for pursuing these charges as long as they did?
yeah I kinda get that but it seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face when you still champion him. But everybody loves a good conspiracy.
It is sort of telling that centrists Dems hate Assange in their desperation to explain Trump or pin Hillary's loss on the Russians or Assange or even Sanders. Conservatives hate Assange and Manning because they disclosed torture and war crimes which the Pentagon prefers to be secret. Both the conservatives and the centrists (who claim sometimes to be "liberals" ) allege support for freedom of speech or the press but quickly abandon support if the usual defense establishment gang claim the war on terrorism or the war against Russia makes them keep stuff secret. It is interesting given the usefulness of the "global war on terrorism" for these purposes that these groups still trot out so effectively the anti-Russian trope.
if assange had exposed crimes of russia/china/iran etc, he'd be hailed as a hero and given a nobel peace prize, oh just like say... Liu Xiaobo?
Are the charges against assange that he shared information (confidential or not)? It appears he is being charged with assisting someone to hack a government system. https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-julian-assange-indictment
