U.S. Case Against Julian Assange Falls Apart, as Key Witness Says He Lied to Get Immunity
From Democracy Now with Amy Goodman.
Not good news for some I know. Truth tellers are okay with some as long as they only release info from the Other side. I can't believe how well even Democrats have been frightened off with the well funded propaganda campaign against not him as an individual, but him as an example to be squashed in order to frighten off others who may want to help expose truths behind curtains. This is just more evidence, after the bogus rape charges were dropped, that the powers that be, the .1% who do not want any crack of light shone on their activities, regard Assange, Wikileaks, and what they represent, as a dire threat. Karl Rove helping the prosecution is just the cherry on top.
I've never understood the opposition to truth telling, whistleblowing.....if YOUR side is also exposed.
Because if you truly believe that YOUR side is the mostly good, and theirs is the mostly evil, ie...that even though there may be faults by YOUR side exposed by truth tellers, even embarrassing, (an email release showing the DNC had a thumb on the scale), don't we have confidence that we will usually always come out on top? Or to put it differently, that the Republicans, the MIC, top corporate influencers like the Koch bros, Fox News, have the most to fear from organizations like Wikileaks? And that's why, on balance, we WANT whistleblowers and those that provide a space to publish what they have...even if that means they occasionally expose embarrassing info on organizations or people we support? If we believe that the messy truth being exposed will work in OUR favour, even 9/10 times, why are we so afraid of it?
Doing research to see if this had been posted already, I ran into this old DU post. They wrote this excellent OP,
Looks like everything but the unpardonable sins of embarrassing bureaucrats and generals is going to fade away.
Assange in this category nor in the category of journalist. He published others discoveries but he also encouraged illegally obtaining information for the purposes of embarrassment, not some need of truth telling but for his own political bias and entertainment. This case is a bit more than just publishing embarrassing materials He also:
Tried to help Manning hack a password
Solicited hacks of Iceland
Identified a vulnerability in a US server and encouraged people to use it
Encouraged people to get a job with CIA for the express purpose to find documents and leak.
This was all before the Russia conspiracy and hunt for Hillary's emails, for which the US government did not go after him because if the truth came out on that they are all screwed. They wanted to control him and that is what all these charges are about. He is not a honorable person trying to find the truth, nor are they honorable or looking for truth by trying to indict him on those charges.
I don't know how "honorable" a man he is. I don't know him personally. But it seems like all of those 4 wrongs you list are meant to "find the truth" in the end, no? Legal? maybe not. But there is a place for civil disobedience in this world. Especially when a lot of laws are set up to keep the incriminating secrets of the powerful secret.
Icelandic people were not so disappointed as you with Wikileaks exposure of corruption in their banking industry. Led by Kristinn Hrafnsson, an Icelandic journalist now Wikileaks editor in chief. Who has exposed a lot of criminal activity and corruption in high places, and has been named Icelandic journalist of the year three times, in 2004, 2007 and 2010 by Iceland's National Union of Journalists
It is precisely the allegation that Assange encouraged illegal obtaining of information that the government's chief witness now says he lied about in oroer to be granted immunity.
Its much better for us peons to not know anything. We are so much more peaceful and pliable that way.
... again, fuck Julian Assange very much.
What makes him a whistleblower by blanket posting reams of information given to him by Putin?
Why didn't he make his case in court - that's what whistleblowers do?
What journalism has he ever done until he was in the Ecuadoran Embassy?
Why didn't he face his accusers in sex crimes he was charged for in Sweden?
Can anyone cite any truth he spouted, one little factoid that has nothing to do with Julian Assange?
Fuck Julian Assange.
Do you have a link to that? All I found is a case dropped because it had no basis, meant to get him to a country he could be extradited from, about a consensual sexual encounter where a condom was or wasn't used. But it sure worked to tarnish Assange. As any sexual charge will, baseless or not.
Of course he 's not a whistleblower. He publishes whistleblowers. One needs the other.
Easy to google what Wikileaks has exposed.
But fuck knowing stuff.
... engaging in sexual activity, wouldn't you and the law consider you abused? Wouldn't you feel abused?
I'll start supplying links to events that are common knowledge as soon as you supply links supporting your opinion Julian Assange is a whistleblower or a journalist.
Once again, and the horse he rode in on.
The organization he helped start works with whistleblowers to expose what they find. It is an act of journalism. A type we rarely see these days.
As far as Assanges personal life, we'll never know the details of those encounters, as Sweden finally admitted they got nothin. But this is typical of a Rove investigation. Its the most potent weapon the conservative establishment have against those who threaten them. Sexual sins. Bill Clinton, and Al Franken know all about that. Because any hint of sexual misbehaviour is indefensible.
Maybe he did go too far in the moment. Here, Ill dig it up for you. Anna Ardin, one of the women wrote in her book,
She wrote that she had considered sleeping with him in a bid to annoy her ex-partner but that Assange's celebrity had also been part of the appeal.
The year of his stay, the Australian native drew the ire of the United States government after WikiLeaks released secret cables about the war in Iraq along with a video of the US military killing civilians.
Ardin wrote that she had thought 'scoring with Julian Assange' might 'be a pretty fun thing' but that the his behaviour changed that night.
After they agreed to have sex, Ardin claimed Assange pushed her onto the bed roughly and 'deliberately sabotaged' the condom so he could have sex without one.
She told Swedish media: 'Julian is definitely not a monster. But he crossed my boundaries'.
Ardin wrote that she and Assange attended a party the following night and that she continued to let him stay in her flat.
'The Julian who took part in the [party] is totally different from the one who humiliated and abused me the previous evening,' Ardin wrote, adding that Assange 'is in many ways a fantastic person'.
So because of that you take the leap to discredit everything Wikileaks has done for exposing those who want to remain hidden, like the Church of Scientology, on this Straw Man argument. The human frailties of a man, like Clinton and Franken, do not immediately discount or reverse all other good work they have done. At least for me. I guess there's a line, and he's crossed it for you. Not for me yet. Even the great minister MLK was purported to have had extra marital affairs. Oh my...does that mean we have to rethink the Civil Rights Movement too?
Who discredited Wikileaks? We're talking about Julian Assange, a distinctly defective human being. Are you implying Assange is Wikileaks and Wikileaks is Assange? That Wklileaks isn't about whistleblowing?
Assange is as innocent of crimes as 45 is, after all, both have done nothing but deny and defy courts that could find either or both not guilty. Funny who 45 liked Assange.
You think Assange is peachy. OK, but don't deny he's a cold manipulator and no saint.
Some links for you:
What Julian Assange and Donald Trump Have in Common
[Search domain theatlantic.com] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/01/donald-trump-and-julian-assange-have-same-enemies/579811/
By one count, Trump mentioned Assange's organization at least 164 times in the last month of the campaign. Read: The secret correspondence between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks
Trump Didn't Pardon Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange And ...
[Search domain forbes.com] https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2021/01/20/trump-didnt-pardon-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-and-his-supporters-arent-happy/
Jan 20, 2021Topline. Trump's decision to leave out Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from his final list of presidential pardons has not gone down well with his supporters on mainstream and fringe social ...
Trump Offered Julian Assange a 'Win-Win' Deal, Lawyer Says ...
[Search domain bloomberg.com] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-18/trump-associates-offered-assange-a-win-win-pardon-lawyer-says
Sep 18, 2020Trump Offered Julian Assange a 'Win-Win' Deal, Lawyer Says. A portrait of Assange during a demonstration in London on Sept. 14. Photographer: Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images. A lawyer for ...
Confirmed at Trial: President Trump Offered Julian Assange ...
[Search domain thegatewaypundit.com] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/confirmed-trial-president-trump-offered-julian-assange-deal-shared-source-podesta-emails-wasnt-russia/
President Trump offered Julian Assange a deal if he were to disclose his source of the DNC emails released before the 2016 election. Julian Assange did not share who provided him the DNC emails he leaked before the 2016 election but he did unequivocally claim that it wasn't a state actor (i.e. Russia).
I skimmed through all the articles.
Yes, its no secret that Trump was pleased with Assange and Wikileaks releasing the DNC emails. Assange insists it wasn't a Russian state actor. Trump wanted that name for his own purposes and offered a deal to Assange.
But its a ludicrous leap to say that Trump and Assange want the same thing. Or support the same goals.
And yes, Assange = Wikileaks. Specifically in this case the material that was released by Manning. But it is way more about the threat an organization like Wikileaks is. Right before Assange went on the run, Wikileaks and him were attempting to set up a journalist haven in Iceland, negotiating with politicians to use their island as a center for journalists to work inhibited and protected from corrupt elite international elites. A space that would encourage whistleblowers like the John Doe that released The Panama Papers. This was one of the deepest threats to the world's elites ever, both those based in the US and around the world. And they've done their best to take a perhaps flawed individual, and spin that to create a monster out of him. At least in the eyes of those who believe them.
Its not about Assange's personal character for me. Just like MLK, and Bill Clinton. I don't care about that. Its about who they represent, and the work they stand for.
Maybe if journalists expose information for the public, nothing more, and the result is being hunted down internationally, imprisoned, and had a negative PR campaign unleashed against them.......maybe just maybe that's a clue that their voice is important to hear?
. . . Here is a link to a transcript of an interview of the UN Special Rapporteur on Tortuer, who looked into the Swedish charges:
Why didnt Assange turn himself into the police at the time?
He did. I mentioned that earlier.
Then please elaborate.
Assange learned about the rape allegations from the press. He established contact with the police so he could make a statement. Despite the scandal having reached the public, he was only allowed to do so nine days later, after the accusation that he had raped S. W. was no longer being pursued. But proceedings related to the sexual harassment of A. A. were ongoing. On Aug. 30, 2010, Assange appeared at the police station to make a statement. He was questioned by the same policeman who had since ordered that revision of the statement had been given by S. W. At the beginning of the conversation, Assange said he was ready to make a statement, but added that he didnt want to read about his statement again in the press. That is his right, and he was given assurances it would be granted. But that same evening, everything was in the newspapers again. It could only have come from the authorities because nobody else was present during his questioning. The intention was very clearly that of besmirching his name.
The Swiss Professor of International Law, Nils Melzer, is pictured near Biel, Switzerland.
Where did the story come from that Assange was seeking to avoid Swedish justice officials?
This version was manufactured, but it is not consistent with the facts. Had he been trying to hide, he would not have appeared at the police station of his own free will. On the basis of the revised statement from S.W., an appeal was filed against the public prosecutors attempt to suspend the investigation, and on Sept. 2, 2010, the rape proceedings were resumed. A legal representative by the name of Claes Borgström was appointed to the two women at public cost. The man was a law firm partner to the previous justice minister, Thomas Bodström, under whose supervision Swedish security personnel had seized two men who the U.S. found suspicious in the middle of Stockholm. The men were seized without any kind of legal proceedings and then handed over to the CIA, who proceeded to torture them. That shows the trans-Atlantic backdrop to this affair more clearly. After the resumption of the rape investigation, Assange repeatedly indicated through his lawyer that he wished to respond to the accusations. The public prosecutor responsible kept delaying. On one occasion, it didnt fit with the public prosecutors schedule, on another, the police official responsible was sick. Three weeks later, his lawyer finally wrote that Assange really had to go to Berlin for a conference and asked if he was allowed to leave the country. The public prosecutors office gave him written permission to leave Sweden for short periods of time.
The point is: On the day that Julian Assange left Sweden, at a point in time when it wasnt clear if he was leaving for a short time or a long time, a warrant was issued for his arrest. He flew with Scandinavian Airlines from Stockholm to Berlin. During the flight, his laptops disappeared from his checked baggage. When he arrived in Berlin, Lufthansa requested an investigation from SAS, but the airline apparently declined to provide any information at all.
I would urge you to read the entire interview -- it's a real eye-opener. There's a reason the charges against him in Sweden were dropped. And the U.S.'s case against him has collapsed.
And as to whether Assange is a "good guy" or not, here's what the Special Rapporteur had to say:
Im not saying Julian Assange is an angel or a hero. But he doesnt have to be. We are talking about human rights and not about the rights of heroes or angels. Assange is a person, and he has the right to defend himself and to be treated in a humane manner. Regardless of what he is accused of, Assange has the right to a fair trial. But he has been deliberately denied that right in Sweden, the U.S., Britain and Ecuador. Instead, he was left to rot for nearly seven years in limbo in a room. Then, he was suddenly dragged out and convicted within hours and without any preparation for a bail violation that consisted of him having received diplomatic asylum from another UN member state on the basis of political persecution, just as international law intends and just as countless Chinese, Russian and other dissidents have done in Western embassies. It is obvious that what we are dealing with here is political persecution. In Britain, bail violations seldom lead to prison sentences they are generally subject only to fines. Assange, by contrast, was sentenced in summary proceedings to 50 weeks in a maximum-security prison clearly a disproportionate penalty that had only a single purpose: Holding Assange long enough for the U.S. to prepare their espionage case against him.
... clear his name?