- Who did they get to write this garbage about Assange? Archived Message
Posted by Raskolnikov
on May 25, 2019, 6:37 am
|
https://www.dumptheguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/24/the-guardian-view-on-julian-assange-send-him-to-sweden Apparently their hand-wringing period is over and now the fraud has decided to go full on "extradite him to Sweden" phase. I seriously think this is the worst thing I've seen written about the Julian Assange case and that's a crowded field. The US government has brought further charges against Julian Assange now that he is prison in London. These charges, under the Espionage Act, cover his dealings with Chelsea Manning in 2010 and 2011, when Ms Manning was still serving in the US army. After she had sent him some files for her own reasons, Mr Assange, according to the indictment, urged Ms Manning to get hold of and pass over further classified documents, which WikiLeaks published almost unredacted. The Guardian disapproved of the mass publication of unredacted documents at the time, and broke with Mr Assange over the issue. But whether or not the documents should have been published, their publication should not be punished by the American justice system, which could impose a cumulative sentence of 180 years on the latest charges. But not before you gained lots of credit by pretending to be journalists and publishing them, and then selling him down the river by being either utterly incompetent, or wilfully spiteful, and publishing the password that you were supposed to keep private. Weasel bastards. Mr Assange is an unattractive character who has quarrelled with almost all his former supporters. Few will be enthusiastic about defending him. Yet he must be defended against this extradition request because the indictments against him threaten to damage freedom and democracy in both More character assassination and who cares if he's quarelled with former supporters? It's clearly untrue anyway; what the actually mean is "It's not just us that have profitted from him risking his life and then stabbed him in the back, it was everyone". From a US perspective, the Espionage Act is quite the wrong instrument to use against journalists or even their sources. The Obama administration considered deploying it against Mr Assange but decided against it on the grounds that it would bring to a point a dangerous and perfectly avoidable conflict between the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press, and the Espionage Act, passed in a fever of xenophobia in 1917. From a British perspective, the extradition request raises another difficulty. It seems certain that Mr Assange’s treatment in the American penal system would be more cruel than anything he might encounter even in our shameful prisons. It's a bit late for that, fraudian. You've been the head cheerleader for exactly that so to pretend that you disapprove now is the most disgraceful hypocrisy. Ms Manning, a much more sympathetic character, was held in solitary confinement for years and is now once more imprisoned and threatened with ruinous fines for refusing to testify before a grand jury. Ms Manning has started a hunger strike in protest against her treatment and says she is prepared to continue it to death if necessary. That will explain your endless articles attacking the US for their persecution of Chelsea...oh...they must have got lost somewhere along the way. The case of Lauri Love, a British hacker charged with breaking into American systems, provides a helpful precedent here: the judge there ruled that he should stand trial in Britain, in part because of the risk of suicide in the US. Completely different circumstances, even though I agree they should not have been extradited. Then there is the rape charge that Mr Assange faced in Sweden and which led him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. This is serious and deserves a proper trial, which will never happen if he is sent to America. Jesus wept. First of all there is STILL no sodding charge. Secondly, it really isn't in any way shape or form a serious crime and to call it rape is an extraordinary twisting of the word. Thirdly, if it was that serious why did they not get on with investigating it instead of using it as a pretext to get him extradited? Ultimately, the decision on his future will lie with the home secretary, who may well still be Sajid Javid by the time it must be made. Mr Javid should defend the principle at stake and send Mr Assange to Sweden at the end of his sentence here. "Defend the principle"? Any last principles at fraudian towers have long since been flushed down the toilet. This could have been written by the U.S. State Department. Disgusting. |