The very strange, and vindictive, case of Julian Assange

I made two points which you conveniently decided to skim over to support your pointless argument.
1. There's no mileage whatsoever in publishing my personal details on Wikileaks. No-one's in the slightest bit interested in me.
2. I wouldn't do it through YOU. Because I don't trust you.

MsG

So you wouldn't practice what you preach others should do.

Such a shock to hear that from a lying, delusional aly such as yourself....
 
Yes I think you're right. I just really don't see them actually trying to prosecute him now and dredging up all this stuff again. Then again you never know I suppose.
Why would they even want to, they have the "person" who illegally copied the documents and handed them over safely tucked away in a prison cell.

Something else that the hard of thinking mouthbreathers ignore as they rant about non-existent arrest warrants.
 
I made two points which you conveniently decided to skim over to support your pointless argument.
1. There's no mileage whatsoever in publishing my personal details on Wikileaks. No-one's in the slightest bit interested in me.
2. I wouldn't do it through YOU. Because I don't trust you.

MsG
A somewhat contradictory set of points there, Bugsy. Were you to make your details public, then it would not matter if you had done so through me - as they would be public anyway. I dont think that you've really thought that one through, but it's not really important (more amusing).

I dont mind you not trusting me. The knowledge certainly doesnt hurt. You may note (from other threads) that I'm perfectly happy to stand up and make my objections heard: such as when I criticise Stacker for his unnecessary insults against your wife. By my standards, that's out of order. Similarly, I'm happy to "go against the flow" and state my support for UK remaining in the EU. This is pertinent to the next paragraph.

Also by my standards, what is out of order is people engaging in what I call "Student Union politics". It's all very well and good taking a position based upon principle, but the real world is all about finding compromise positions and balancing the idealism against the pragmatism required to respond to other peoples' agenda. Incidentally, (I believe) that's why Jeremy Corbyn attracts equal measures of adoration and disparagement. He's an idealist and therefore totally unsuited and unprepared for the real-politique of actual government. He simply chooses not to face up to the "threat" and to find realistic compromise (or least bad) positions and policies. I also believe that the posters who are quite so simplistic in their rejection of european politics and the UK's part to play are also engaging in this matter. Over-simplification and rejection of the multitude of conflicting factors is a failure of subjective analysis - in my opinion.

Still on the topic of "student union politics" - that's where Assange is stuck too. He's an idealist who believes that he should be afforded a free pass and liberty to engage in whatsoever he desires - and not have to account for his actions or face the consequences. He preaches freedoms, liberty and "rights" whilst simply refusing to consider their impact on others and the concept of personal responsibility.

He is personally responsible for there being Swedish people who feel that they are being denied justice for what they believe and attest are illegal acts of violence against them. Dear Julian seems to be unconcerned about this travesty at individual level - he obviously believes that his greater level of evangelism somehow renders him immune to the individual instances. Is this arrogance, selfishness or immaturity? Possibly all three. It's what I call "Student Union politics" and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions.

Well - he's got it wrong this time and is going to receive a very bloody and painful lesson in growing up.

I consider his greater crime to be his refusal to permit justice to be done and closure attained for the people against whom he has transgressed, than for his leaks of protected information. Although, as you have now had to admit yourself: nobody likes their personal identity to be widely disseminated.
 
Why would they even want to, they have the "person" who illegally copied the documents and handed them over safely tucked away in a prison cell.

Something else that the hard of thinking mouthbreathers ignore as they rant about non-existent arrest warrants.
Yeah they (the US govt) really have little to gain and everything to lose from a prosecution....wonder why the conspiracy loons can't see the difference between trying a serving US Army soldier and an itinerant Australian " journalist" .
 
Yeah they (the US govt) really have little to gain and everything to lose from a prosecution....wonder why the conspiracy loons can't see the difference between trying a serving US Army soldier and an itinerant Australian " journalist" .
It plays to their sense of self-importance and of being anti-establishment rebels. Without that, they'd simply be nobodies.....
....and I dont think their egos can handle that sort of marginalisation.
 
Rebels in search of a cause, if there wasn't one they would have to make one up.
Or be offended by one as we are currently seeing.
A textbook example of Maslow's heirarchy of human needs: Form a group and then rail against those who are not in it.

The cruellest punishment for Assange would for him to be ignored and/or patronised.
 
A textbook example of Maslow's heirarchy of human needs: Form a group and then rail against those who are not in it.

The cruellest punishment for Assange would for him to be ignored and/or patronised.
I think him doing time for being a nonce, followed by being extradited to the USA would be a better punishment.
 
I did find it interesting that some not immediately obviously "government spokestoads" did make some interesting comments about the "UN" panel judgement.


Of course the opinion cannot be taken into UK law: if home detention curfew, tagging and remand are taken as arbitrary detention, the legal system will grind to a halt and fall over.

Can anyone seriously sustain an argument that having exhausted due process of law, which presumably one is happy to enjoy the benefits of, the moment it goes the way a chap doesn't like suddenly you can have it on your toes?

I think that is actually the actions of a common criminal; the sort that are locked up day in day out without people actually get wound up about as arbitrary.

Arbitrary would be if the very moment he had come into the UK he'd had a bag put over his head and posted off to the Americans (and stuff the Swedish warrant).

People can advance whatever narrative the like: here's a counter-point, amidst highly complex events some people are seeking every chance to weaken any UK CT capability.

Assange in this narrative is a chance.

David Miranda was a targeted attempt to take on UK authorities (why the hell else would the boyfriend of the Greenwald fly through a UK airport? I submit to you that he wanted to create a cause celebre).

Well back in the real world of harshness, there's enough problems trying to prevent people who actually want to kill people on behalf of their sky pixie of choice without people trying to be clever.
 
I read somwhere, possiably PJ O'Rourke, about the real big conspiricy - that there is no conspiricy - the world is too big and no-one cares enough about you or thinks you're inportant enough to be worth all the effort - guess how well that went down with the moonhowlers?

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
 
I think him doing time for being a nonce, followed by being extradited to the USA would be a better punishment.
I deliberately chose the word "cruellest", not "best".
 
I think he should be put in an arena in Kabul with all the relatives of the people who were murdered by the Taliban after he released those documents giving their identities.
Naah, just drop him in between Kabul and Helmand and tell him to walk home.
 
Also of note is how the likes of the Guardian and the apologists here (Bugsy, DeltaDog, I'm looking at you) have refused to acknowledge, have ignored, and will continue to ignore and acknowledge the above whilst dribbling about non-existant extradition requests and charges against the Narcisstic Skippylander.

Plus ça change.......
Actually, the Guardian's editorial line for some time has been that Rapey Jules is a bit of a lady's front bottom

The Guardian view on Julian Assange: no victim of arbitrary detention | Editorial

How did the UN get it so wrong on Julian Assange?| Joshua Rozenberg
 
They still ignored the matter of how the decision from the panel was not unanimous, doesn't matter what the columnists, etc, think of him.
What is surprising to me in Canada, is how much space is accorded to the "Guardian" newspaper -- for it seems to be very, very lefty and not at all what I thought the average Brit would subscribe to.
 
What is surprising to me in Canada, is how much space is accorded to the "Guardian" newspaper -- for it seems to be very, very lefty and not at all what I thought the average Brit would subscribe to.

The 'average Brit' has a range of political opinions. If you look at our range of national newspapers you'll find that they cater for everyone from the left to the right.
 
What is surprising to me in Canada, is how much space is accorded to the "Guardian" newspaper -- for it seems to be very, very lefty and not at all what I thought the average Brit would subscribe to.
Funnily enough, the Guardian is running a piece in today's issue about how the left wing is very selective about who gets support, and how a serious sex charge like Assange's can be conveniently ignored if the fugitive is perceived to be a "right on" hero against the Capitalist Establishment.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top