John Pilger on Julian Assange

[french frank]

I am glad he won't now be extradited, but I don't think he is really a champion for journalism and free speech as is claimed by his supporters, and personally I think his decision to release unredacted material on wikileaks, knowing that this would endanger the lives of many people named in the leaked documents, when the Guardian, Amnesty International and others all advised against this and were working to produce appropriately redacted documents was unforgiveable. Indeed, it was reported at the time that his view about the people named in the leaks was 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'

A fair summary, LHC. People are very quick to defend anyone perceived to be 'on our side', no matter what they do. But there is a very blurred line when it comes to matters of national security. All the big nations behave disreputably. It goes against the grain to say we have to stoop to the same methods to preserve the semblance of a 'level playing field'. But in many contexts, it's a 'Them or Us' situation.

[Joseph K]

A fair summary, LHC. People are very quick to defend anyone perceived to be 'on our side', no matter what they do. But there is a very blurred line when it comes to matters of national security. All the big nations behave disreputably. It goes against the grain to say we have to stoop to the same methods to preserve the semblance of a 'level playing field'. But in many contexts, it's a 'Them or Us' situation.

I could be mistaken, since this post itself seems somewhat blurry, but it sounds as though you're in favour of either committing war crimes ('them or us situation') or covering up war crimes ('all the big nations behave disreputably' AKA 'boys will be boys').

[Dave2002]

A fair summary, LHC. People are very quick to defend anyone perceived to be 'on our side', no matter what they do. But there is a very blurred line when it comes to matters of national security. All the big nations behave disreputably. It goes against the grain to say we have to stoop to the same methods to preserve the semblance of a 'level playing field'. But in many contexts, it's a 'Them or Us' situation.

Them or us is worrying.

Consider cyber attacks - such as Petya - mentioned here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_c...cks_on_Ukraine

Ostensibly this was intended as an attack against Ukraine, but had far reaching consequences, which may, or may not have been intended. A logistics and shipping company Maersk suffered huge losses as a result, though seemingly was able to recover after a few weeks of very hard work. See articles in Wired and other places for more details.

So now we hear that the UK is no longer going to passively monitor and "defend" against cyber attacks, but may also use active methods against other attackers. Similar positions will be held by other countries, including the USA.

It is indeed a murky world - but sadly may be necessary. The notion that everyone in the world will act "responsibly" and "humanely" and not indulge in human rights abuses is clearly false, and likely to remain so for a long time. Hence national security is important, but how it is viewed will depend on what side each of us is on.

[french frank]

I could be mistaken, since this post itself seems somewhat blurry, but it sounds as though you're in favour of either committing war crimes ('them or us situation') or covering up war crimes ('all the big nations behave disreputably' AKA 'boys will be boys').

You are mistaken.

[LHC]

For those who are interested, the full Judgement is now available (all 132 pages of it):

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf

[jayne lee wilson]

I can only repeat my earlier post.....

"Neither accusation or allegation is charge or let alone proof. Too often forgotten in the rush to join the crowd and condemn.

Remember that the Swedish Authorities never came to London to question Assange , though he was willing to submit to that. Nor did they guarantee his safety from the threat of extradition to the USA, which was the main reason for his refusing to go to Sweden for trial, and his self-imposed exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Given the subsequent events he has been vindicated in that fear. One also recalls the many UK journalists who rubbished his fears about such an extradition. They should be very ashamed.

How much better it would have been for accuser and accused, if the Swedish Government had been more flexible, and stronger in the face of the USA...
If a democratic government does nothing else it should try to avoid inflicting suffering upon anyone....
Assange should be released, but the Government is desperate to avoid upsetting anyone they need a deal with. Just look at the Turkish Arms deal, without a word from the UK about Human Rights violations."

And remind everyone of the brutality of USA involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere, which led to heroes such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden (remember them? The have both suffered terribly at the hands of the USA) whistleblowing, sometimes with the involvement or assistance of wikileaks, about such murderous activities. Far more deaths through all of that, than allegedly may or may not have occurred to US operatives - who were all in connivance at this, consciously or not.

Someone had to do it. They were, with Julian Assange, brave enough to take it on.

[Joseph K]

I can only repeat my earlier post.....

"Neither accusation or allegation is charge or let alone proof. Too often forgotten in the rush to join the crowd and condemn.

Remember that the Swedish Authorities never came to London to question Assange , though he was willing to submit to that. Nor did they guarantee his safety from the threat of extradition to the USA, which was the main reason for his refusing to go to Sweden for trial, and his self-imposed exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Given the subsequent events he has been vindicated in that fear. One also recalls the many UK journalists who rubbished his fears about such an extradition. They should be very ashamed.

How much better it would have been for accuser and accused, if the Swedish Government had been more flexible, and stronger in the face of the USA...
If a democratic government does nothing else it should try to avoid inflicting suffering upon anyone....
Assange should be released, but the Government is desperate to avoid upsetting anyone they need a deal with. Just look at the Turkish Arms deal, without a word from the UK about Human Rights violations."

And remind everyone of the brutality of USA involvement in the Middle East and elsewhere, which led to heroes such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden (remember them? The have both suffered terribly at the hands of the USA) whistleblowing, sometimes with the involvement or assistance of wikileaks, about such murderous activities. Far more deaths through all of that, than allegedly may or may not have occurred to US operatives - who were all in connivance at this, consciously or not.

Someone had to do it. They were, with Julian Assange, brave enough to take it on.

[vinteuil]

I am glad he won't now be extradited, but I don't think he is really a champion for journalism and free speech as is claimed by his supporters, and personally I think his decision to release unredacted material on wikileaks, knowing that this would endanger the lives of many people named in the leaked documents, when the Guardian, Amnesty International and others all advised against this and were working to produce appropriately redacted documents was unforgiveable. Indeed, it was reported at the time that his view about the people named in the leaks was 'Well, they're informants so, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it.'

Some regard Assange - and Snowden and Manning - as martyrs in the cause of freedom of expression.
Others consider that their reckless behaviour put Western intelligence assets in mortal danger : as such, not 'heroes' but seriously in the wrong.
Good that The Guardian and Amnesty International were against their actions.

.

[french frank]

"For now we see through a glass darkly". If my earlier post seemed "blurry" it was certainly because I do view the matter through a glass darkly. Others have 20-20 vision, if only in their own opinion. Expressing doubts does not mean that one is firmly of some contrary view. The Assange case is more complicated that some people seem to find it. In my imperfect view.

[Serial_Apologist]

"For now we see through a glass darkly". If my earlier post seemed "blurry" it was certainly because I do view the matter through a glass darkly. Others have 20-20 vision, if only in their own opinion. Expressing doubts does not mean that one is firmly of some contrary view. The Assange case is more complicated that some people seem to find it. In my imperfect view.

Indeed so! And I remain as befudddled on the Assange issue as I was the moment I was informed that, by releasing top secret documents that placed named persons in danger, his exposings had negated whatever purposes he and others had presumably intended in disclosing "dirty tricks". Behind this seem to loom larger questions. Before the collapse of the Iron Curtain what we assumed to be meant when we spoke of "the West" was in terms of ongoing conflict between capitalism and so-called communism. In the post Cold War era this has now turned into what is actually the same practices by the former West, but in aid of what, precisely? Christian or post Christian civilisation? To stop the spread of fundamentalist Islam? To support the operations of multinational corporations? To find solutions to clmiate change? I pose this question rhetorically because I really think it needs answering.

[french frank]

In the post Cold War era this has now turned into what is actually the same practices by the former West, but in aid of what, precisely? Christian or post Christian civilisation? To stop the spread of fundamentalist Islam? To support the operations of multinational corporations? To find solutions to clmiate change? I pose this question rhetorically because I really think it needs answering.

A (very) partial answer may be linked to the fact that Russia recommended (unofficially) Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize. US v Russia - does one need to take sides?

[Serial_Apologist]

A (very) partial answer may be linked to the fact that Russia recommended (unofficially) Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize. US v Russia - does one need to take sides?

Well, in this post-Brexit world... Nurse! Nurse!

[french frank]

Well, in this post-Brexit world... Nurse! Nurse!

[french frank]

Too many flashing red lights to call this a "fair trial", considering the physical and psychological pressures placed on the defendent before and during the trial.

Accepting what you say as being 100% accurate, it still introduces a separate thread to the weave. Premise: he was treated atrociously, culpably, by British justice. But how should he be treated for what he did do? Hero? Villain? Courageous? Reckless? just to start with.

[Serial_Apologist]

Accepting what you say as being 100% accurate, it still introduces a separate thread to the weave. Premise: he was treated atrociously, culpably, by British justice. But how should he be treated for what he did do? Hero? Villain? Courageous? Reckless? just to start with.

Hero? In many ways, yes. Releasing the documents was important as an illustration of what some, including a few whistle-blowers inside the machine, had been claiming for years, only to be labelled conspiracy theorists or worse, for obvious political reasons.

Courageous? Yes it took courage, given what I am sure he would have recognised as the consequences to himself and associates.

Reckless? Yes, given that he overlook the danger he was putting others in by revealing their names. He probably thought he would have been compounding the initial secrecy were he to have run the black marker pen over them.

Villain? I would say not: after all, what was he the game of gaining for, if that which should not be kept hushed up was revealed to the world?