Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????

Back to Julian Assange.

Ecuador’s president issues new threat to Julian Assange

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/08/07/assa-a07.html

Moreno’s tweet yesterday stated: “To Mr. Assange we have put a condition: That he stop intervening in politics and self-determination of the country. Otherwise, measures will be taken.”

These “measures” can only mean forcing Assange out of Ecuador’s London embassy, to be immediately arrested by the British police and imprisoned, pending extradition proceedings by the Trump administration.

Moreno’s talk about Assange “intervening” in the politics of other countries is absurd. The journalist has been totally gagged by the Ecuadorian government: he has been denied all visitors and has had his internet access blocked by electronic jammers. To talk about Assange “intervening” in the politics of other governments under these conditions is nothing but a cynical attempt to create a pretext for handing him over to the notorious war criminals in Washington and London.

These measures are aimed at denying basic political free speech to Assange and WikiLeaks, the best-known site in the world for exposing the war crimes, coup plots and mass surveillance of the US government and its allies.

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

How many people were directly killed by US actions in Iraq? How many directly killed by US actions in Libya? 
There's going to be a very large difference between the numbers -- a difference you apparently consider immaterial so a third question: what's your magic number for deciding if the difference is significant and worth caring about?

 I'm not going to go over every incident, but the US interferes in many place it should not.  We are the richest country on the planet and yet half our people are poor.  We have no viable healthcare system for all.  Our infrastructure gets a D- grade.  The military budget is destroying us (and others) and yet they just keep voting to increase it.  Out of control.

So you care about all this in the abstract, but when it comes down to actual details -- for instance, the fact that one party's foreign policy kills far more people than the others -- you simply wave this away.

This kind of undermines the morality of an anti-war stance, doesn't it? If the lives of several hundred thousand people don't matter, then what, exactly, is the basis for being anti-war? 

 No one is worse than us.  Our military budget is bigger than the next ten countries below us combined.  I think it is clear that we are out of control and need to stop.  It's destroying the country. 

 Again -- why do you care? If actual lives saved or lost isn't part of your considerations, then what's the basis for your position?

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

How many people were directly killed by US actions in Iraq? How many directly killed by US actions in Libya? 
There's going to be a very large difference between the numbers -- a difference you apparently consider immaterial so a third question: what's your magic number for deciding if the difference is significant and worth caring about?

 I'm not going to go over every incident, but the US interferes in many place it should not.  We are the richest country on the planet and yet half our people are poor.  We have no viable healthcare system for all.  Our infrastructure gets a D- grade.  The military budget is destroying us (and others) and yet they just keep voting to increase it.  Out of control.

So you care about all this in the abstract, but when it comes down to actual details -- for instance, the fact that one party's foreign policy kills far more people than the others -- you simply wave this away.

This kind of undermines the morality of an anti-war stance, doesn't it? If the lives of several hundred thousand people don't matter, then what, exactly, is the basis for being anti-war? 

 No one is worse than us.  Our military budget is bigger than the next ten countries below us combined.  I think it is clear that we are out of control and need to stop.  It's destroying the country. 

 Again -- why do you care? If actual lives saved or lost isn't part of your considerations, then what's the basis for your position?

 My position is that more lives are lost than saved.  I feel that the US interferes where it has not business to interfere.  I am anti-war and feel that when investigated, most of these conflicts are done to benefit billionaires or corporate interests, especially when the countries invaded have oil or other natural resources.  Follow the money.  

sbenois said:

nan said:

cramer said:

"While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractor employees gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 from defense-related workers — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783

 Not sure why they said "only one-third higher" than the amount Bernie got since these are the amounts on Sbenois's link."  Hillary $87,593, Bernie $32,237

Clinton, Hillary (D)	Pres	$87,593
McCain, John (R-AZ)	Senate	$45,575
Cruz, Ted (R-TX)	Senate	$41,762
Visclosky, Pete (D-IN)	House	$34,100
Trump, Donald (R)	Pres	$33,588
Sanders, Bernie (D-VT)	Senate	$32,237

 Who cares?  Why did he take any?   Sanders took $310k total from defense contractors.  And the best you can come up with is...let's talk about Hillary?


Please make sure that the next time you talk about the defense budget that you remember that your boy Bernie is in their pocket.

 Bernie voted against the defense budget.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

sbenois said:
Tell Back Pocket Bernie to stop taking contributions from defense contractors.

 I will, although he does hold them accountable.  

 Just HOW, exactly, does he do that ?????
 

He shouldn't take the money.

But he voted against the defense budget.

Bernie voted against the defense bill. Not many Democrats in that group.  

But, OK, related to the topic of censorship (which is related to Julian Assange), Alex Jones was recently taken off of YouTube and some other media.  Alex Jones repulses me, but in the way people who don't like Julian Assange need to support him, we also need to protest the censorship of Alex Jones.  If you don't stand up for odious creatures like that, you will not be happy when they later use the same reason to censor people you like.

Also, it turns out that the left gets censored  on college campuses more than the right.  Surprising. All of these topics covered below:

PVW said:

nan said:
  And say I'm anti-war and that is the big issue for me, and I want to vote for President.  Who can I vote for?  You can't say the Democrats are the lesser evil on that area.  There is no major anti-war party.  The Green Party, who some of you have said is useless, is anti-war.  That is needed; it's not useless.

 I had two thoughts on this:
First, this comes across as if you're saying the parties have no significant difference when it comes to military action.  Granting that the Democratic party isn't anti-war, it still is very different from the Republican party.  There's an enormous, and consequential difference between, say, invading Iraq or not -- Al Gore vs George Bush actually was a choice with consequences, even if a Gore administration wouldn't have been one defined by a pacificist foreign policy.  Similarly, the difference between starting a war with Iran (as McCain's Republican party was showing strong signs of doing) or not was a consequential difference in 2008.  To me this is the problem with too-ideological an approach to politics -- it tends to create false equivalences that lump all ideologies that aren't your own into the same bucket, even when there a real, concrete, and significant differences between them.
But, on that note, my second thought -- what exactly is the point of voting? Is it to make a point and stand up for a principle? I'm biased toward pragmatism, so I tend to discount this, but history suggests I may be too quick to do so -- loud voices at the margins often end up influencing the mainstream. It was a hundred years of agitation before women got the vote, for example. Perhaps I too often unfairly dismiss the activists and agitators making all that racket in pursuit of their "hopeless causes."

Personally, I voted for Clinton -- in fact registered with a party for the first time ever so I could vote in the primary -- but I think why and how we vote can be a complicated question.

 If I understand your point, you're saying that a vote for the party that is less likely to start a war should be decisive to an antiwar voter.

I think that's true. However, the choice in 2016 was blurred by Hillary's aggressive proposals for Syria (no-fly zone where Russian planes are flying), her roles in Libyan and Iraq regime-change wars as well as her refusal to condemn the historical US role in overthrowing governments.

In comparison, Trump gave indications of opposing US interventions as well as improving relations with Russia.  However, his promise to dismantle the Iran nuclear deal was (and has become) a serious and potentially catastrophic threat to peace.

So on war and peace there was not a clear choice between Democrat and Republican.

There were obviously clear choices on almost every other issue, favoring Hillary, as Bernie made clear in word and deed.

Thanks, Paul, I think I misunderstood the question.  That's good.

nan said:
Bernie voted against the defense bill. Not many Democrats in that group.  
But, OK, related to the topic of censorship (which is related to Julian Assange), Alex Jones was recently taken off of YouTube and some other media.  Alex Jones repulses me, but in the way people who don't like Julian Assange need to support him, we also need to protest the censorship of Alex Jones.  If you don't stand up for odious creatures like that, you will not be happy when they later use the same reason to censor people you like.
Also, it turns out that the left gets censored  on college campuses more than the right.  Surprising. All of these topics covered below:

 If you post to a site like YouTube, you are required to abide by their standards. It's not "censorship" when they remove content for policy violations. They are not required to host libelous content 

dave23 said:

nan said:
Bernie voted against the defense bill. Not many Democrats in that group.  
But, OK, related to the topic of censorship (which is related to Julian Assange), Alex Jones was recently taken off of YouTube and some other media.  Alex Jones repulses me, but in the way people who don't like Julian Assange need to support him, we also need to protest the censorship of Alex Jones.  If you don't stand up for odious creatures like that, you will not be happy when they later use the same reason to censor people you like.
Also, it turns out that the left gets censored  on college campuses more than the right.  Surprising. All of these topics covered below:

 If you post to a site like YouTube, you are required to abide by their standards. It's not "censorship" when they remove content for policy violations. They are not required to host libelous content 

 While they are private business, they are now functioning as "the town square" and thus should not be able to cut people out of the dialog.  We should be protesting them on this.

No WE should not.   Users agree to a terms of service up front and if they don't like the terms of service they can go elsewhere.   

Alex Jones has a website.  He is welcome to use it promote his ugliness.   Facebook and the others are under no obligation whatsoever to provide him with a platform.

sbenois said:
No WE should not.   Users agree to a terms of service up front and if they don't like the terms of service they can go elsewhere.   
Alex Jones has a website.  He is welcome to use it promote his ugliness.   Facebook and the others are under no obligation whatsoever to provide him with a platform.

 Yeah, cause being mainstream, conventional and married to the status quo, they will come for you last.  So why worry?  You have time.

nan said:

Yeah, cause being mainstream, conventional and married to the status quo, they will come for you last.  So why worry?  You have time.

Dave23 alluded to libel law. Are you aware how that applies to the town square? Or is this another legal (not to mention ethical) distinction that you’d rather not acknowledge?

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, cause being mainstream, conventional and married to the status quo, they will come for you last.  So why worry?  You have time.

Dave23 menioned libel law. Are you aware how that applies to the town square? Or is this another legal (not to mention ethical) distinction that you’d rather not acknowledge?

 What do you mean?  I'm sure plenty of people allowed on Facebook break libel laws every day.

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, cause being mainstream, conventional and married to the status quo, they will come for you last.  So why worry?  You have time.

Dave23 menioned libel law. Are you aware how that applies to the town square? Or is this another legal (not to mention ethical) distinction that you’d rather not acknowledge?

 What do you mean?  I'm sure plenty of people allowed on Facebook break libel laws every day.

And we are all obliged to support their libelous ways? 

If I libel anyone, I hope “they” come for me long before I’m last.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Yeah, cause being mainstream, conventional and married to the status quo, they will come for you last.  So why worry?  You have time.

Dave23 menioned libel law. Are you aware how that applies to the town square? Or is this another legal (not to mention ethical) distinction that you’d rather not acknowledge?

 What do you mean?  I'm sure plenty of people allowed on Facebook break libel laws every day.

And we are all obliged to support their libelous ways? 
If I libel anyone, I hope “they” come for me long before I’m last.

 I think the libel thing is an excuse to limit free speech.  

nan said:

I think the libel thing is an excuse to limit free speech.  

Yes, the libel thing limits free speech. If only a video that spoke to your predilections were available to explain the reasons. 

nan said: 
 While they are private business, they are now functioning as "the town square" and thus should not be able to cut people out of the dialog.  We should be protesting them on this.

That would require some tricky legislation. And if you happen to be paying attention, you should know that Alex Jones is not "cut out of the conversation." And the notion that private companies ought to be required to host libellous and threatening content is vile.

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:
Bernie voted against the defense bill. Not many Democrats in that group.  
But, OK, related to the topic of censorship (which is related to Julian Assange), Alex Jones was recently taken off of YouTube and some other media.  Alex Jones repulses me, but in the way people who don't like Julian Assange need to support him, we also need to protest the censorship of Alex Jones.  If you don't stand up for odious creatures like that, you will not be happy when they later use the same reason to censor people you like.
Also, it turns out that the left gets censored  on college campuses more than the right.  Surprising. All of these topics covered below:

 If you post to a site like YouTube, you are required to abide by their standards. It's not "censorship" when they remove content for policy violations. They are not required to host libelous content 

 While they are private business, they are now functioning as "the town square" and thus should not be able to cut people out of the dialog.  We should be protesting them on this.

 Is MOL not a private business functioning as a town square?   By your argument I should be able to say whatever I want here about anyone and not be subject to moderation by the admins.  Thanks Nan!   The gloves are comin’ off!  

Red_Barchetta said:

nan said:

dave23 said:

nan said:
Bernie voted against the defense bill. Not many Democrats in that group.  
But, OK, related to the topic of censorship (which is related to Julian Assange), Alex Jones was recently taken off of YouTube and some other media.  Alex Jones repulses me, but in the way people who don't like Julian Assange need to support him, we also need to protest the censorship of Alex Jones.  If you don't stand up for odious creatures like that, you will not be happy when they later use the same reason to censor people you like.
Also, it turns out that the left gets censored  on college campuses more than the right.  Surprising. All of these topics covered below:

 If you post to a site like YouTube, you are required to abide by their standards. It's not "censorship" when they remove content for policy violations. They are not required to host libelous content 

 While they are private business, they are now functioning as "the town square" and thus should not be able to cut people out of the dialog.  We should be protesting them on this.

 Is MOL not a private business functioning as a town square?   By your argument I should be able to say whatever I want here about anyone and not be subject to moderation by the admins.  Thanks Nan!   The gloves are comin’ off!  

 Well, perhaps the main social venues like Facebook and Twitter should be utilities instead of private companies.  Because this is how we communicate now and people should not be cut off.  

But, no one is censoring you on MOL. Take the gloves off and speak! My complaint about you is that you just launch personal attacks and run away.  You don't engage in two way conversation.  You just try to disrupt the conversation off track.  You clearly have interest here, so why don't you start expressing your opinion in a more constructive way?

Back to Assange.  John Pilger, a filmaker is disgusted with the media.

Pilger Excoriates Media on Assange Silence

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/07/pilger-excoriates-media-on-assange-silence/

Emmy Award-winning filmmaker and investigative reporter John Pilger takes the gloves off on the continuing attempts to upend WikiLeaks and arrest its founding publisher, Julian Assange, in this interview with Dennis Bernstein and Randy Credico.

Pilger talks about Assange’s deteriorating health and the physical dangers he faces during this period of virtual isolation. Pilger also excoriates the western media for their silence and pro-government stand on the marginalizing and potential prosecution of Assange, even after they collaborated with WikiLeaks and major high-profile breaking stories. The interview is part of a continuing national radio series—Assange: Countdown to Freedom. Pilger was interviewed on August 3rd, 2018.

Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.

Back to Assange.  John Pilger, a filmaker is disgusted with the media.  Like Red_Barchetta he's taking his gloves off.

Pilger Excoriates Media on Assange Silence

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/07/pilger-excoriates-media-on-assange-silence/

Emmy Award-winning filmmaker and investigative reporter John Pilger takes the gloves off on the continuing attempts to upend WikiLeaks and arrest its founding publisher, Julian Assange, in this interview with Dennis Bernstein and Randy Credico.

Pilger talks about Assange’s deteriorating health and the physical dangers he faces during this period of virtual isolation. Pilger also excoriates the western media for their silence and pro-government stand on the marginalizing and potential prosecution of Assange, even after they collaborated with WikiLeaks and major high-profile breaking stories. The interview is part of a continuing national radio series—Assange: Countdown to Freedom. Pilger was interviewed on August 3rd, 2018.

dave23 said:
Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.

 No, because then the first amendment would apply in a way it does not for private companies.

We read it the first time.

nan said:

dave23 said:
Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.

 No, because then the first amendment would apply in a way it does not for private companies.

 Ah, you didn't say that the state would take ownership. That brings up a whole list of other issues. I imagine we disagree on whether the government ought to be able to control the flow of information. This would be monumental shift away from historical public utilities since they were always around infrastructure.

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.

 No, because then the first amendment would apply in a way it does not for private companies.

 Ah, you didn't say that the state would take ownership. That brings up a whole list of other issues. I imagine we disagree on whether the government ought to be able to control the flow of information. This would be monumental shift away from historical public utilities since they were always around infrastructure.

Also, nan, if you’re under the impression that the First Amendment negates the libel thing, you’re mistaken.

DaveSchmidt said:

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.

 No, because then the first amendment would apply in a way it does not for private companies.

 Ah, you didn't say that the state would take ownership. That brings up a whole list of other issues. I imagine we disagree on whether the government ought to be able to control the flow of information. This would be monumental shift away from historical public utilities since they were always around infrastructure.

Also, nan, if you’re under the impression that the First Amendment negates the libel thing, you’re mistaken.

What is the libel thing and why is that not a problem now?  It sounds made up. 

dave23 said:

nan said:

dave23 said:
Treating them as public utilities would result in more limits, not fewer.

 No, because then the first amendment would apply in a way it does not for private companies.

 Ah, you didn't say that the state would take ownership. That brings up a whole list of other issues. I imagine we disagree on whether the government ought to be able to control the flow of information. This would be monumental shift away from historical public utilities since they were always around infrastructure.

 Well, maybe it would be run like the electric company.  This is all new.  I just know that we should not be censoring people.  It starts with the most odious like Jones and then it moves on to people like Jimmy Dore or anyone who does not buy into Russiagate, and so forth.  We need safeguards.  I should not be the only one saying this or noticing.

Were Hillary president, you'd really trust her adminstration to secure free and open communication? 

FYI, libel is real. Sandy Hook families having to move multiple times because of death threats is real. You are defending Jones' right to lie about to them and to add to their horror. 

The things you choose to defend gets curiouser and curiouser.