New US charges against Julian Assange could spell decades behind bars

I believe in a free press. I also believe in God. But that doesn't mean that anyone who calls himself God is God. Likewise, bugging the Presidents phone and car, and then disseminating the conversations to our adversaries, is not being a free press. It is spying. Assange and Wikileaks are parts in a spy network.

 

Gather intel on what?

 

He didn't leak anything.
Why do you use that language?

 

Then you really don't believe in a free press or the first amendment. And I'm glad you believe in God, cuz you'll need him when you're dead, after the big authoritarian government you help create here on earth makes the rest of your time here a living hell.

 

You either believe in a free press or you do not. I think probably there is a bit of difference in how things are judged in the US and the UK. You believe in your first amendment. We believe in political freedom. A free press which is one of the key things to protect us from tyranny has now apparently gone from the US and from the UK. The example you gave of course has nothing to do with this but a democracy cannot work if it is prevented from knowing things such as was one of the wikileaks that US soldiers kill civilians for fun. No action has been taken against these soldiers but action most certainly has been taken against people who respect the position they have been given and report it. I know in my early life in particular we were forever getting information the Government did not want us to know. In that way the press serves democracy allowing the people to keep the Government in order. Sadly too many people in democracies want to live in Tyranny so are colluding with the destruction of freedom of the press and in the US the first Amendment. Their children will be unlikely to forgive them.

I had no idea just how bad the UK had become until I read this

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...lised-the-countrys-leading-liberal-newspaper/

though of course like all old Guardian readers I knew they had lost it. Striped Horse used to put in this type of information, for instance about the involvement of our 'security state' in trying to totally deny democracy in the UK by making Corbyn unelectable - something that above article also deals with.

 

The first ammendment doesn't give reporters the right to report state secrets.

 

And the "conservatives" are proving themselves to be nothing more than big government, authoritarian lovers, though they'll turn around and complain when it's used against them.

Limit government at all costs or get the boot in the face that you deserve.

 

Yes it does.
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)

 

So journalists should get a free pass for possession and trafficking of stolen government property? I don't think so. Although, perhaps you are forgetting about this minor detail.

Also, don't be surprised if you get a warning for resurrecting what will be deemed an 'old thread.' I am a prior offender myself, on more than one occasion.

 

Yes.
And it's been settled

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

Keeps gov in check.

 

So the guy who participates in the theft and dissemination of American secrets, did it to help purify America? Is this what his defenders would have us believe? What about his own purification. He currently stands accused of rape, molestation, and generally promiscuous whorishness. Not to mention spying and giving leverage to our adversaries who'd like nothing less than our annihilation. I suggest he live his beliefs and flush his hypocrisy.

 

Possibly on this the UK believes in more rights on a political level than the US. After all we took in a lot of the communists they deported. It is one thing to act as a spy and quite another to report on wrongdoings which a Government is doing. In a Democracy the deal is that the Government serves the people. They people need to know what the Government is doing to make informed choices.

After Snowdon's revelations on another forum I was using, the Europeans particularly the German's went crazy when they discovered how much they were being spied on. I have to imagine that you cannot imagine how this information can and has been used against the people before. Right now we have agencies like Cambridge Analytical getting enough data on you so that they can give you adverts so that you will act on a political level in exactly the way the people who are paying them want you to. With regard to Assange most of the information given from Governments is not true. This was well understood till Snowden and the Guardian Computers. Wikileaks was well respected by our press prior to that. Makes me wonder if the Guardian was the only paper they got to. The reality is that if that article I put in is true and there is certainly evidence it is, then we do not have a free press any more. Press which is instructed by our secret services how to act is not a free press. I get it you do not know how democracy works or do not want democracy and that is the real problem here.

So what is this supposed to be? A threat from you. This thread is on ongoing material on a situation which is still going on. I did not like some people do look for a thread which has been finished years ago because there is something in that thread they want to exploit. This is about an ongoing issue.

 

He published he didn't spy

 

This article by Fidel Narvaez who was at the Ecuador Embassy for 6 out of the 7 years Assange was working there debunks 40 of CNN's smears against Assange


https://thegrayzone.com/2019/08/20/cnn-media-smears-julian-assange-fidel-narvaez/

 

Another minor detail. The article I put in is dated the 11th of September 2019. I could have started a new thread with it but choose instead to continue with this one which is ongoing. Possibly when you 'resurrected threads' you were not doing so with up to date material.

 

Yeah right. And all you did was hold her down while another raped her. So you're golden, man.

 

You believe papers should only publish information which the Government has given them?

 

Care to stay on topic?
Perhaps you didnt read New York times v United states ?

 

In Assange's world there is no "freedom of the press."
His sympathies lie with Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela etc
in their contest against the West.
But directly in this case is the fact that Assenge stole security
information. He published material that led to the deaths of
people.

That's not "freedom of the press."

 

Sure, and that's the reason for the press, but should that give journalists the freedom to do what they want?

The article that you posted contains no information on HOW the Guardian has been targeted by the security state, let alone any evidence for it.

Now where did you "get" such an idea from? Please present evidence for this if you're even remotely capable of doing so.

How could it possible be a threat? Do you think that I'm a moderator and have the ability to sanction you?

 

I ready that this case determined that while it CAN be legal, in order for it to not be legal, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a "grave and irreparable" danger. So this doesn't mean that it is always legal. Plus, Assange isn't even a US citizen, and his organisation isn't part of the US press specifically serving the American people, so I wonder how much this Supreme Court decision would apply to him.

 

The first duty of citizens is to condemn their government for its criminal actions. That you shirk that duty, that you somehow support those criminal actions by way of rationalization demonstrates so very well that we American subjects have the government we deserve.

 

They always have the same argument.
Letting out their dirty secrets caused grave and irreparable danger.

But in reality, the only danger is to the individuals on the ground, carrying out the states dirty little schemes, and of course to the state actors masterminding the whole thing.

The only treason is by the state actors.

 

Exposing the state criminals is the real crime.
Haven't you heard?

 

Who are the "state actors?" Also, nobody is claiming 'treason' are they? Given that a non-citizen can't be charged with treason.