Despite many appeals for the freedom of incarcerated journalists throughout the world, our media remains largely silent about Julian Assange who has effectively been imprisoned in the London Embassy of Ecuador for over 6 years and faces the possibility of draconian legal action if he is ever extradited to the US.
His current plight is extreme and this appears to have resulted from US pressure on Ecuador to break down Assange’s mental and physical health to the state where he will surrender to extradition.
I just wish our media could be more open-minded and direct some of their concern Assange’s way. And I wish all this rubbish about Latin America’s Troika of Terror and Axis of Evil would stop. Or perhaps our media should be more honest, recognise the evil done to those countries by the USA and apply some of this derogatory terminology to the USA itself.
After all, with the recent resounding UN General Assembly condemnation of the long-standing US sanctions against Cuba perhaps there is more justification to reverse this labeling and define the US (and it only allies in the UN vote – Ukraine and Israel) as “Rogue States.”
Good on you Ken
There’s been a deliberate campaign to assassinate Assange via smearing his character, reputation, physical and mental health
Its pretty disheartening to see our own media joining in such craven cowardice.There was a time when New Zealand stood as a feisty,independent voice for fairness and truth . No longer.
I’m wondering how Amnesty International manages to hold its head up
You say “Receiving classified information isn’t a crime.” Then you must tell me why US politicians want him murdered and the US is attempting to extradite him.
Only a fool would argue that Assange has fled to political asylum to avoid punishment for a very minor crime. He has fled for his life. And even now his life is in danger.
On this issue and the issues where it was commended in the UN GA the other day, the USA is a rogue state.
And isn’t it interesting that”intelligence leaks” are standard procedure in the US media and is used to feed the current political hysteria? Of course – it has to be the right sort of “leaks.” In fact, many are plants as the intelligence agencies are actually involved in political activity through the media.
It is the leaks of the sort which revealed the corrupt activity going on in the Democratic party which Assange is being hated for. Yet, for the ordinary person, and voter, this information is valuable.
Sweden has stronger asylum laws than Britain, assuming the UK would agree to his extradition to a third country after his extradition to Sweden on a Eurowarrent.
Right sort of leaks! That prat Senator Lindsey Graham leaked to the press that they knew where Osama bin Laden was because they were tracking his satellite phone. Naturally, that satellite phone was never used again once the report was published in the New York Times
Ken says, “It is the leaks of the sort which revealed the corrupt activity going on in the Democratic party which Assange is being hated for. Yet, for the ordinary person, and voter, this information is valuable.”
Ah yes, Julian Assange, whose sole whistle-blowing purpose is to expose corrupt activity for the “ordinary person” who then will be able to make more informed voting decisions.
Is that about right?
I find it odd that such an icon of free and open speech as Mr. Assange was only able to hack and expose the “corruption” (quotation marks used because no crimes were exposed by Assange) of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in the 2016 election.
I mean, wouldn’t information be more valuable to the ordinary voter if Assange exposed corruption from both sides? In that way, the ordinary person could make fair and balanced decisions. But that’s not what Assange did, is it.
David, I think corruption and criminal activity is rife in the US political system. On both sides. No wonder so few people vote.
interestingly while the Democrats and their mates in the establishment have been able to push for some exposure of that corruption and illegal activity by Republicans it appears they have levered off the top of a real can of worms and details of corruption by Democrats, Obama’s administration and the FBI/Intelligence agencies are starting to come out.
The fact that George Papadopoulos is now starting to talk more publicly and details of entrapment are emerging suggest we may actually get to see a more balanced picture.
I hope so.
But, come on. Are you suggesting that because of your limited knowledge of what Wikileaks has revealed you want to see the current persecution of an award-winning journalist to continue – possibly to his death? Despite the UN condemnation of that treatment as violating human rights?
I thought you were a great defender of journalists. Or does your concern not cover the UK, USA, Ukraine, etc?
Nevertheless, and more to the point of my comment, you have said:
“But, come on. Are you suggesting that because of your limited knowledge of what Wikileaks has revealed you want to see the current persecution of an award-winning journalist to continue . . ”
You are right. I have not read every minuscule bit of minutia that Wikileaks has released. Please enlighten me. Could you please provide hacked emails of Donald Trump that Wikileaks has released? Could you please provide anything that Wikileaks had released prior to the 2016 elections that may have influenced that election — you know, because Wikileaks, being the completely transparent, fair, and balanced organization that it is would have treated both sides equally after it decided to involve itself in that election.
I think you miss the point, David. It is not Wikileaks which pretends to “completely transparent, fair, and balanced.” It is the mainstream media and governments – particularly regimes like the USA and UK.
The value with Wikileaks is that it has made public leaks which reveal the falseness of that facade. This is the reason the US is after his blood.
Assange made no secret of his partisanship in the 2016 presidential elections – very few people did, even in little old NZ. The mainstream media was horribly partisan (on the wrong side) and just could not understand how they got it so wrong. Assange was opposed to any Clinton victory – he made that clear and no doubt this drove him to expose the hypocrisy and corruption in her camp. A relatively minor exposure now that we are seeing more of the facts exposed (or recognised in the DNC Podesta email dumps).
But, again, you seem to be very concerned about press freedom and the lives of journalists – at least those in the Russian Federation. But when it comes to journalists, even award-winning journalists like Assange, in the UK, USA or Ukraine you are strangely silent -except when you want to put the boot into them.
Despite his partisanship of sorts, Assange has done the world a service with his publication of damning leaked material. Particularly as mainstream media has reneged on that job themselves and their journalist appear to be no more than stenographers for the establishment these days.
The world must try to stop the ongoing persecution and threats to Assange’s life. And, yet, the sycophants in the mainstream media seem to have been organised to, like you, put the boot it – at a very time when is plight is so dangerous.
David, you may be salivating over an increased turnout today but how much will it differ from the average for presidential elections over the last 30 years – 53.6%?
Low turnouts like this show a widespread apathy or belief that the system does not work. And that is only reinforced by the determined opposition to third-party voting from the more militant and partisan voters.
This is odd: “Assange made no secret of his partisanship in the 2016 presidential elections – very few people did, even in little old NZ. The mainstream media was horribly partisan (on the wrong side)”
Response: Therefore the “right side” in the 2016 election would have been Trump? Am I reading you correctly?
Nevertheless, as expected you could offer no examples of Assange releasing hacked emails of Donald Trump. Nor could you provide anything that Wikileaks had released prior to the 2016 elections which may have influenced that election. So, we are in agreement. Assange is partisan.
Your honesty about Assange’s partisanship was a bit unexpected. I’m glad you showed integrity in your answer.
Ken: “Assange was opposed to any Clinton victory – he made that clear and no doubt this drove him to expose the hypocrisy and corruption in her camp.”
Response: If I wanted partisan journalism, I would watch Fox News, or RT, which is nothing less than State Propaganda TV. But I feel little sympathy for those who push the agenda of the State.
And I know you claim that Mainstream Media is partisan, you say MSM lies; but I would counter with the fact that when Mainstream Media makes a mistake, it owns up to that mistake, admits it, and apologizes.
(Example: “ABC News was rightly criticized for botching a report that said President Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians. Ross later issued a clarification on “World News Tonight,” and ABC News followed up with a full apology for the “serious error,” which it said had not met the network’s editorial standards or vetting process. Ross was suspended from ABC News for four weeks as a result of his misreporting.” https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16871430/trumps-fake-news-awards-annotated )
Ok. You want to keep talking about the 2016 election. I am puzzled by your obsession with what you call Hillary Clinton’s corruption which Assange exposed so voters could make informed decisions. What exactly were the crimes that Mrs. Clinton was supposed to have committed?
Two things about that:
1.) Mr. Trump, her opponent, really did commit actual crimes in the 1990s. He screwed the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and then was able to screw his own tenants because of the method he was using to cheat the government.
About that election you keep bringing up, he lied. His supporters believed that he earned every dollar that he has, he didn’t take a dime from his father. But the truth was that everything he has was given to him . . . so much so that even his many failing businesses were covered, dishonestly, by his father.
The people who voted for him believed that Trump was a smart, savvy, successful businessman. Wouldn’t it have been beneficial for those people to have been informed about him? Where was Assange on Trump’s crimes?
2.) About this Clinton corruption that you keep citing – Exactly what crimes did she commit? All I saw was mild politics as usual. Show me anything exposed by Assange that was worse than what George Bush & Karl Rove did to John McCain in the 2000 Republican Primary in South Carolina (of all places).
Ever hear of Bush’s Whisper Campaign? Let me refresh your memory:
“During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, Senator John McCain was the target of a whisper campaign implying that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (McCain’s adopted daughter is a dark-skinned child from Bangladesh). Voters in South Carolina were reportedly asked, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?”.[1] McCain would later lose the South Carolina primary, and the nomination, to George W. Bush.
In addition, on the week of the nomination vote, dozens of radio stations were called on the same day asking talk show hosts what they thought of McCain’s fathering of a black child out of wedlock.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering_campaign#Politics
What these guys did was vile, racist, dishonest and frankly, sick. Hillary Clinton didn’t come close to this level of political perversion. But, for some reason, you seem to be obsessed with Hillary’s non-crimes.
So again, What crimes did Mrs. Clinton commit that were exposed by Assange? Why didn’t Assange feel it was necessary to expose the real criminal activity of Donald Trump to his voters? That would have been useful knowledge. And what exactly did Mrs. Clinton do that even came close to the corruption and vile behavior that Karl Rove and George Bush used to smear John McCain in 2000?
Unless you can answer those questions, I don’t get why you hero-worship a partisan hack to took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.
“Low turnouts like this show a widespread apathy or belief that the system does not work. And that is only reinforced by the determined opposition to third-party voting from the more militant and partisan voters.”
“determined opposition to third-party voting . . ” And, in my mind at least, there is a historic reason for that.
In the 2000 presidential election, there were two main party contenders, George Bush and Al Gore. Ralph Nader, a popular candidate, represented the liberal Green Party.
It’s a well documented fact that Nader’s candidacy took votes from Gore and handed that close election to Bush, although Nader argues, like you do, that every citizen has the right to run for public office. And that argument is not without merit.
Nevertheless, on September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked and Bush rightly attacked the host country of Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, which refused to extradite him for prosecution.
That was all fine, until 2003, when the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, after the Bush Administration lied to the world about WMD.
I submit, in that case at least, had Nader not been blindly arrogant enough to presume that he had a chance of winning the Presidency, a trillion dollars would not have been spent on an illegal war, over 50,000 killed and wounded U.S. servicemen & women would not have been harmed, over 1 million Iraqis would still be alive, and the U.S. might still have a shred of credibility in the world. Even you, Ken, exploit that U.S. failure to this day. . . And if Nader knew he couldn’t win, he was doing little more than throwing his own monkey-wrench into the machinery of a U.S. election. To what end?
Sure, in an ideal world, every citizen has the right to participate. But let’s get real about the world we live in and not purposely screw up the little hope we have as Nader did.
David – why this long diatribe fighting phantoms you have aired often before but have no relevance here?
This article was about the effective imprisonment and enforcement of torture-like conditions on one of the world’s best-known journalists. A multi-award winning journalist whose treatment has been condemned by UN Human Rights bodies.
Given your claimed concern about the treatment of journalists in at least one country, it would seem logical you should be at the forefront of support for Assange and condemnation of his treatment by the UK, USA, and the current Ecuadorian regimes. But you have been silent.
Well, not silent. You are actually echoing a common mainstream media attack on Assange. An attack which demonstrates the absolute spinelessness of the mainstream media and the stenographers it employs who like to pretend they are journalists. It is a shameful position that you are in, given that the coordination of the current attacks on Assange by the mainstream media corresponds with political moves. Corresponds with, is coordinated with – not a response to those political moves and inhuman treatment of that journalist.
Are you not ashamed to be manipulated in this way?
You seem to not understand anything of my often repeated position if you to find it “odd” that I state Assange had a partisan position with respect to the US presidential elections. Why? Nothing I have said should have ever lead you to claim my position was that Wikileaks was a “completely transparent, fair, and balanced organization that it is would have treated both sides equally.” You were playing the straw man gambit.
My position has always been that no media organisation can be described that way. They all have their own perspectives and biases. I have been advocating for a while now that we should all recognise this and take responsibility for our own thinking – not just automatically accept that our preferred organisation is the source of truth. None of them are.
But why is it that you can pretend to be concerned about the treatment of or plight of some journalists in the Russian Federation but adopt a contrary position over Assange? You go to extremes over Russian journalists – extremes in the sense that you claim every death or injury is a result of government or presidential action while providing no forensic or legal evidence and ignoring the obvious role (often supported by forensic and legal evidence) of corruipt officials or business people, of terrorist groups, etc.
Yet here we have the persecution of possibly the world’s most recognisable journalist – persecution by legal, political and state entities of the US and UK regimes.
And all you can do is join the mindless throng, promoted by a manipulating media with clear coordination to the political moves, and put the boot in.
That is a shameful position. I cannot accept your concern for Russian journalist is at all genuine if you remain silent about persecutions of journalists in Ukraine, USA and UK. Or worse than silent – you actually join in that persecution as you have over Assange.
I have always found the concept that honest voting takes votes away from some other candidate to be extremely dishonest. Our votes belong to us – not the candidates. Such arguments are used to take votes away from us, the people.
Of course, we can see where such dishonest arguments end up – People like Nader get blamed for the atrocities committed by the US in Iraq. What stupidity. Or what a way of hiding the real truth of what drives the US to be at economic war with half the planet and illegally at military war with a number of suffering countries. You are refusing to use any of the brain cells you have if you wish to blame thrid parties for the crimes of your political masters.
It is partisanship of this sort (and it seems so extreme of late) which helps impose a very undemocratic electoral system on people and helps hide what is really happening behind the scenes.
Thankfully in New Zealand, we moved to a more democratic proportional electoral system in the 1990 and I no longer have to put up with such stupid arguments here.
Ken, your comment: “it would seem logical you should be at the forefront of support for Assange and condemnation of his treatment by the UK, USA, and the current Ecuadorian regimes. But you have been silent.
Well, not silent. You are actually echoing a common mainstream media attack on Assange.”
Response: Re-read my comment. I am not echoing anything. I am asking you questions about your position . . questions which you have chosen not to answer.
Ken, your statement: “People like Nader get blamed for the atrocities committed by the US in Iraq. What stupidity.”
Response: No, I never said that. Re-read my comment. This time with an open mind. Bush, Rove, and Rumsfeld are responsible for the atrocities committed by the U.S. in Iraq. Nader only gave them the ability to carry out those atrocities.
David, you surely are not that naive. The US neocons had intentions towards Iraq for many years – one just has to read documents from the New American Century. Any elected person in the US system become entrapped by the neocon establishment and act as servants of that establishment. The invasion was going to happen, just as the illegal attacks on Iraq and Syria. Elected officials can play only a very minor role in how these things happen.
As for any effect Nader had on the final outcome of any election (probably extremely minuscule) that is just speculation. One may as well attribute the eventual invasions, regime changes, etc., to the flapping of butterfly wings in the Amazon.
So, I repeat, you claim is just stupid. But worse, it is aimed at restricting the democratic behavior and choice of voters. it is a disgusting position.
David, David, David – you do echo the pathetic attacks of the mainstream media.
You describe him as a “partisan hack who took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.”
I don’t know if you are capable of seeing that this describes the partisan behaviour of most of the mainstream media stenographers/journalists during the 2016 campaign and since. But your problem is that you use the description only for Assange in exactly the same way the mainstream media stenography does.
You also attack me (and presumably anyone else empathizing with Assange’s position by calling my position “hero-worship!!” This is a classic approach aimed at encouraging self-censorship – attack anyone who can think for themselves, make them afraid of doing so and encouraging them to be more compliant with the non-thinking approach to reality. (Classical as it is described in a new book dealing with this subject – “Propaganda Blitz: How and Why Corporate Media Distort Reality.” I am, currently reading this and find it fascinating that you are presenting the problems that these authors describe.
Now, a more rational approach would be not to attack me in such a way but to actually see that I might have a different view to yours and that it would be interesting to discuss this. You should not feel threatened by the fact I have a different view – I don’t feel threatened that your view differs from mine. And I don’t feel the need to pressure you into hiding your view.
But we still have a dilemma. You pretend concern about the situation of journalists in the Russian Federation. Journalists who may well (and surely are) partisan in the same way (although maybe not the same direction) as Assange. Journalists who may have all sorts of personality issues. This does not matter to you – you still support them and empathise with them.
However, when the journalist is not a Russian Citizen and is perhaps a Ukrainian, Australian, UK or US citizen you are incapable of felling any empathy. That is weird.
The current situation Assange faces is horrible. His life and well being is threatened. His mother is appealing for action to save his life and all you can do is go onto the attack. Out the boot in.
Can I suggest that somewhere you are not actually using your brain cells? Either you simply follow the media’s political commands about Assange or their contrary commands about Russian journalists.
imo many people are as deranged over H Clinton as they are over Putin.
Clinton was a career politician who, as is typically the case for such types, picked up a fair bit of questionable baggage over a 35 year political career, but she’s nowhere near the intellectual and ethical cripple that Trump is.
Assange has my sympathy and Wikileaks my respect, although I think Assange is also deranged over Clinton. He claims Wikileaks impartially publishes all information it receives but I suspect that isn’t an entirely straight up claim. I also strongly suspect Assange was played by the Russians in 2016. In my mind Assange was clearly set up in regard to due process over the sexual assault complaints. I support his freedom from extradition etc particularly extradition to that madhouse, the USA.
First, regarding this question about Ralph Nader affecting the 2000 presidential election, either you are not familiar with the facts, or you simply like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Your quote: “As for any effect Nader had on the final outcome of any election (probably extremely minuscule) that is just speculation.”
It is not speculation to say that those 97,000 Green Party votes would have gone to environmentalist Al Gore, rather than to Texas oil-man George Bush, since the environment was the core platform of Nader’s campaign.
It would be best for you to withdraw from this debate now, rather than continue to argue in the face of reality.
Your second point: “Any elected person in the US system become entrapped by the neocon establishment and act as servants of that establishment. The invasion was going to happen,”
Response: Here are some portions of Al Gore’s impassioned speech given just prior to the invasion of Iraq:
“By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against
terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the
sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it
into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility.”
“From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies.”
Al Gore was not a man who would have invaded Iraq. Ken, for you to say, “any elected person,” would have become entrapped by neocons who were bent on invasion . . . I don’t want to use the word “ignorant,” . . . but you are certainly grossly misinformed.
Those neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, are the people with whom Bush chose to surround himself. Bush made the decisions. That war was conceived by Bush, sold by Bush, engineered by Bush, and undertaken by Bush. Bush was not a victim of “entrapment” by the people he alone hired. The blame falls solely at his feet, and few others would have taken that course of action. Clearly not Al Gore.
Regarding my comment on Assange, you seem upset that I described him as a “partisan hack who took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.”
Ok. Let’s look at that.
1.)We have both agreed that he is partisan . . No problem there.
2.) Second definition of the word “hack.”: “use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.” And “an act of computer hacking.” . . I don’t see the problem there. I believe that is accurate.
3.) “who took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.”
Did he pretend to play god in that universe of the presidential campaign? Without a doubt. Consider the fact:
In other words, whenever Clinton’s lead increased in the polls, Wikileaks released emails in order to manipulate the media and cancel out that lead. (Contrary to what you are trying to say, MSM reported on Clinton’s emails.) If that’s not trying to play god, I don’t know what is.
But your problem with me is that I am not “capable of seeing that this describes the partisan behaviour of most of the mainstream media stenographers/journalists during the 2016 campaign and since.”
Response: Your penchant for gish galloping is duly noted. My views about the MSM are irrelevant to this discussion, and I never should have responded when you tried to shift the discussion in this earlier comment: “It is not Wikileaks which pretends to “completely transparent, fair, and balanced.” It is the mainstream media and government.” Mia Culpa. https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2018/11/05/julian-assanges-mother-appeals-for-her-sons-freedom/#comment-119221
Your quote: “You also attack me (and presumably anyone else empathizing with Assange’s position by calling my position “hero-worship!!”
Response: Definition of “hero worship.”
“noun
1. 1.
excessive admiration for someone.
verb
1. 1.
admire (someone) excessively”
Is that inaccurate? Do you not admire Assange? Please correct me if I am wrong about that. Paranoid much?
Your quote: “But we still have a dilemma. You pretend concern about the situation of journalists in the Russian Federation. Journalists who may well (and surely are) partisan in the same way (although maybe not the same direction) as Assange.”
Response: You are comparing my feelings about a government which is famous for the murders of its own journalists, and my feelings about Julian Assange. If the U.S. government ever murders Assange, then you can make the comparison, and you will see the appropriate outrage from me.
You say people have threatened to kill him? I don’t know that. You never document anything you say. Your idea of documentation is posting factually incorrect videos of Alexander Mercouris. Learn to write and learn to document if you are trying to make convincing arguments.
Nevertheless, the more important question is, since you brought it up, ‘Why aren’t you outraged about the murders of Russian journalists who criticize their government?’ I don’t think I need to call you a hypocrite here.
David, you seem unable to learn the lesson over even recent history.
Trump went into the 2016 election with a policy of relaxing tensions with the Russian Federation. This, together with a few comments of his about Syria and criticism of US interventions around the world, was the only positive thing I saw in his policies (and, of course, was a clear positive over Clinton).
Understandably, many Russians saw those specific policies as positive and expressed support for them – from a distance. (Leaders of some other countries opposed those policies and it seems that ongoing revelations reveal those countries did actually interfere in the US elections. Thinking here of Australia, UK, and Ukraine).
I expressed support for Trump’sd sensible comments on those specific issues – but I also said that I did not believe for one minute he would be allowed to put those policies into practice – any more than Obama was able to. (My support for those policies would not have encouraged me to vote for him if I had been a US citizen – I am not that naive)
Neither of those two candidates was attractive to most voters – I certainly would not have voted for either if I had been a US citizen.
In the 2000 elections, I would not have voted either Democrat or Republican if I had been a US citizen. I may well have voted Green. The project being that despite anything positive Gore may have said (as did Trump) either of those parties would have been likely to follow a similar foreign policy and their record showed this included illegal interventions and regime change.
However, I think it is disgusting for anyone to argue that my vote inevitably is the cause of the illegal invasion of Iraq or what followed. (especially as my refusal to vote for Democrat or Republican would have been based on the history of both those parties in violating international law and invading other countries.
It does not take much intellect to search for the elements driving US foreign policy and its “humanitarian” regime change acts. But to blame such actions on a voter who chooses to express their own political beliefs in a democratic act of voting is simply stupid – worse, it attempts to cover up the real criminals.
Or perhaps let’s consider a possible different scenario. What if Clinton had won the 2016 elections. What if she then went on to attempt to impose a no-fly zone over Syria (as NATO did in Libya). What if the results were even worse than in Lybia – the destruction of a secular country and empowerment of extremists, and war broke out between the US (and its vassals in NATO) and the Russian Federation, Iran, China, etc.
Would we then have idiots running around blaming this war on people who didn’t vote for Trump, who voted for a third party or didn’t vote. Yes, Republican idiots rather than Democratic idiots – but still idiots.
That is just stupid. And it lets the real criminals off the hook.
David, I am “outraged” about the murder of all journalists. I use quote marks because I do have to admit that I find it hard to be empathetic about some “journalists” (say those operating in Idlib and Jamal Khashoggi) when they are heavily involved in promoting jihadis for which such murders are routine.
But, yes, I am outraged at the murder of people like Ann Politskaya and Paul Klebnikov (I have their books although yet to read them all). Further, my outrage extends to the murder of other people like Boris Nemtsov. And I suggest that probably most citizens and politicians in the Russian Federation are similarly outraged about those murders. (Did you not see the mass rally of sympathy for Nemtsov in Moscow?)
But I suggest your proclaimed outrage is false because you often argue that their deaths were caused by the Russian government or the Russian President. You do this despite the lack of any forensic or legal evidence to support the claim – in fact in opposition to that forensic and legal evidence where it exists. (The nastiness of your argument can be seen if we realize “blaming Putin” automatically lets the real criminals off the hook. It just encourages the corrupt business people and politicians and the terrorists who were really responsible. Still, that is the normal anti-Russia approach – consider how Russian criminals, many accused of murder, have been welcomed in London where they can escape their crimes. Berezovsky for example. Mind you, apparently they donate well to the Tory Party).
I charge you with expressing fake rage over the deaths of Russian journalists because your political mythology is actually far important to you. Your outrage is not ghenuine.
But I am also outraged about the murder of journalists in Ukraine – and their imprisonment. You never express concern for them, do you? Did you express concern for the murder of two Russian journalists Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin in Ukraine? In fact, you may not have even heard of them. Your mainstream media was more interested in reporting the imprisonment of Nadiya Savchenko because of her role in their murder. Biased reporting, of course, to claim her human rights were being violated.
Of course, you mainstream media no longer talks about Nadiya Savchenko. Nor do western human rights organisations continue their campaign for her and lament at the effects of her current hunger strike. Why, because she is now in a Ukrainian prison.
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy in this talk about “outrage” over journalists deaths – outrage driven by geopolitical agendas.
Similarly, you will not protest on the effective imprisonment and danger to the life of Assange. You mindlessly follow your masters in the media who are putting the boot in.
Ken (on the 2000 election): ” But to blame such actions on a voter who chooses to express their own political beliefs in a democratic act of voting is simply stupid – worse, it attempts to cover up the real criminals.”
Response: Since you are incapable of reading what I have actually written, I will end this now. It is pointless as your mind appears to be rusted shut.
Open Parachute 
he jumped bail
LikeLike
So?
LikeLike
He is on the run. He would have been tried years ago if he didn’t jump bail.
LikeLike
Good on you Ken
There’s been a deliberate campaign to assassinate Assange via smearing his character, reputation, physical and mental health
Its pretty disheartening to see our own media joining in such craven cowardice.There was a time when New Zealand stood as a feisty,independent voice for fairness and truth . No longer.
I’m wondering how Amnesty International manages to hold its head up
LikeLike
Tried for what?
The original charge was withdrawn. The danger obvious to anyone with a few brain cells is extradition to the USA which is extremely dangerous.
As I argue, on some matter the USA is a rogue state and this is confirmed by statements from US politicians urging the murder of Assange.
LikeLike
No. The time limit for prosecution lapses while he was on the run.
Receiving classified information isn’t a crime. If it was, Nytimes national security reporters would be arrested every week.
LikeLike
You say “Receiving classified information isn’t a crime.” Then you must tell me why US politicians want him murdered and the US is attempting to extradite him.
Only a fool would argue that Assange has fled to political asylum to avoid punishment for a very minor crime. He has fled for his life. And even now his life is in danger.
On this issue and the issues where it was commended in the UN GA the other day, the USA is a rogue state.
LikeLike
And isn’t it interesting that”intelligence leaks” are standard procedure in the US media and is used to feed the current political hysteria? Of course – it has to be the right sort of “leaks.” In fact, many are plants as the intelligence agencies are actually involved in political activity through the media.
It is the leaks of the sort which revealed the corrupt activity going on in the Democratic party which Assange is being hated for. Yet, for the ordinary person, and voter, this information is valuable.
LikeLike
Multiple sexual assaults are not minor crimes.
Sweden has stronger asylum laws than Britain, assuming the UK would agree to his extradition to a third country after his extradition to Sweden on a Eurowarrent.
LikeLike
Right sort of leaks! That prat Senator Lindsey Graham leaked to the press that they knew where Osama bin Laden was because they were tracking his satellite phone. Naturally, that satellite phone was never used again once the report was published in the New York Times
LikeLike
Ken says, “It is the leaks of the sort which revealed the corrupt activity going on in the Democratic party which Assange is being hated for. Yet, for the ordinary person, and voter, this information is valuable.”
Ah yes, Julian Assange, whose sole whistle-blowing purpose is to expose corrupt activity for the “ordinary person” who then will be able to make more informed voting decisions.
Is that about right?
I find it odd that such an icon of free and open speech as Mr. Assange was only able to hack and expose the “corruption” (quotation marks used because no crimes were exposed by Assange) of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in the 2016 election.
I mean, wouldn’t information be more valuable to the ordinary voter if Assange exposed corruption from both sides? In that way, the ordinary person could make fair and balanced decisions. But that’s not what Assange did, is it.
And to suggest that no crimes were ever committed by the Trump side, or by Trump himself, is nothing short of denial. After all, even the New York Times was able to find actual crimes that Trump committed. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
But Assange couldn’t find any Trump corruption, could he. That is odd indeed.
I doubt the Trump administration has the ax to grind with Mr. Assange that you seem to fear.
LikeLike
David, I think corruption and criminal activity is rife in the US political system. On both sides. No wonder so few people vote.
interestingly while the Democrats and their mates in the establishment have been able to push for some exposure of that corruption and illegal activity by Republicans it appears they have levered off the top of a real can of worms and details of corruption by Democrats, Obama’s administration and the FBI/Intelligence agencies are starting to come out.
The fact that George Papadopoulos is now starting to talk more publicly and details of entrapment are emerging suggest we may actually get to see a more balanced picture.
I hope so.
But, come on. Are you suggesting that because of your limited knowledge of what Wikileaks has revealed you want to see the current persecution of an award-winning journalist to continue – possibly to his death? Despite the UN condemnation of that treatment as violating human rights?
I thought you were a great defender of journalists. Or does your concern not cover the UK, USA, Ukraine, etc?
LikeLike
Wow, Ken, could your comment possibly be a more timely illustration of your inability to grasp reality?:
“David, I think corruption and criminal activity is rife in the US political system. On both sides. No wonder so few people vote.”
Unless you meant that in an ironic way — https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/05/massive-early-voting-numbers-point-to-record-turnout-for-midterms.html
and
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/06/us-midterm-elections-2018-live-polls-open-donald-trump-senate/
and
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/us/voter-day-registration-record-trnd/index.html
Nevertheless, and more to the point of my comment, you have said:
“But, come on. Are you suggesting that because of your limited knowledge of what Wikileaks has revealed you want to see the current persecution of an award-winning journalist to continue . . ”
You are right. I have not read every minuscule bit of minutia that Wikileaks has released. Please enlighten me. Could you please provide hacked emails of Donald Trump that Wikileaks has released? Could you please provide anything that Wikileaks had released prior to the 2016 elections that may have influenced that election — you know, because Wikileaks, being the completely transparent, fair, and balanced organization that it is would have treated both sides equally after it decided to involve itself in that election.
Right?
LikeLike
I think you miss the point, David. It is not Wikileaks which pretends to “completely transparent, fair, and balanced.” It is the mainstream media and governments – particularly regimes like the USA and UK.
The value with Wikileaks is that it has made public leaks which reveal the falseness of that facade. This is the reason the US is after his blood.
Assange made no secret of his partisanship in the 2016 presidential elections – very few people did, even in little old NZ. The mainstream media was horribly partisan (on the wrong side) and just could not understand how they got it so wrong. Assange was opposed to any Clinton victory – he made that clear and no doubt this drove him to expose the hypocrisy and corruption in her camp. A relatively minor exposure now that we are seeing more of the facts exposed (or recognised in the DNC Podesta email dumps).
But, again, you seem to be very concerned about press freedom and the lives of journalists – at least those in the Russian Federation. But when it comes to journalists, even award-winning journalists like Assange, in the UK, USA or Ukraine you are strangely silent -except when you want to put the boot into them.
Despite his partisanship of sorts, Assange has done the world a service with his publication of damning leaked material. Particularly as mainstream media has reneged on that job themselves and their journalist appear to be no more than stenographers for the establishment these days.
The world must try to stop the ongoing persecution and threats to Assange’s life. And, yet, the sycophants in the mainstream media seem to have been organised to, like you, put the boot it – at a very time when is plight is so dangerous.
LikeLike
David, you may be salivating over an increased turnout today but how much will it differ from the average for presidential elections over the last 30 years – 53.6%?
Low turnouts like this show a widespread apathy or belief that the system does not work. And that is only reinforced by the determined opposition to third-party voting from the more militant and partisan voters.
Your electoral system is far from democratic.
LikeLike
Ken,
This is odd: “Assange made no secret of his partisanship in the 2016 presidential elections – very few people did, even in little old NZ. The mainstream media was horribly partisan (on the wrong side)”
Response: Therefore the “right side” in the 2016 election would have been Trump? Am I reading you correctly?
Nevertheless, as expected you could offer no examples of Assange releasing hacked emails of Donald Trump. Nor could you provide anything that Wikileaks had released prior to the 2016 elections which may have influenced that election. So, we are in agreement. Assange is partisan.
Your honesty about Assange’s partisanship was a bit unexpected. I’m glad you showed integrity in your answer.
Ken: “Assange was opposed to any Clinton victory – he made that clear and no doubt this drove him to expose the hypocrisy and corruption in her camp.”
Response: If I wanted partisan journalism, I would watch Fox News, or RT, which is nothing less than State Propaganda TV. But I feel little sympathy for those who push the agenda of the State.
And I know you claim that Mainstream Media is partisan, you say MSM lies; but I would counter with the fact that when Mainstream Media makes a mistake, it owns up to that mistake, admits it, and apologizes.
(Example: “ABC News was rightly criticized for botching a report that said President Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with the Russians. Ross later issued a clarification on “World News Tonight,” and ABC News followed up with a full apology for the “serious error,” which it said had not met the network’s editorial standards or vetting process. Ross was suspended from ABC News for four weeks as a result of his misreporting.” https://www.vox.com/2018/1/17/16871430/trumps-fake-news-awards-annotated )
Ok. You want to keep talking about the 2016 election. I am puzzled by your obsession with what you call Hillary Clinton’s corruption which Assange exposed so voters could make informed decisions. What exactly were the crimes that Mrs. Clinton was supposed to have committed?
Two things about that:
1.) Mr. Trump, her opponent, really did commit actual crimes in the 1990s. He screwed the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and then was able to screw his own tenants because of the method he was using to cheat the government.
About that election you keep bringing up, he lied. His supporters believed that he earned every dollar that he has, he didn’t take a dime from his father. But the truth was that everything he has was given to him . . . so much so that even his many failing businesses were covered, dishonestly, by his father.
The people who voted for him believed that Trump was a smart, savvy, successful businessman. Wouldn’t it have been beneficial for those people to have been informed about him? Where was Assange on Trump’s crimes?
2.) About this Clinton corruption that you keep citing – Exactly what crimes did she commit? All I saw was mild politics as usual. Show me anything exposed by Assange that was worse than what George Bush & Karl Rove did to John McCain in the 2000 Republican Primary in South Carolina (of all places).
Ever hear of Bush’s Whisper Campaign? Let me refresh your memory:
“During the 2000 Republican presidential primary, Senator John McCain was the target of a whisper campaign implying that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. (McCain’s adopted daughter is a dark-skinned child from Bangladesh). Voters in South Carolina were reportedly asked, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?”.[1] McCain would later lose the South Carolina primary, and the nomination, to George W. Bush.
In addition, on the week of the nomination vote, dozens of radio stations were called on the same day asking talk show hosts what they thought of McCain’s fathering of a black child out of wedlock.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering_campaign#Politics
What these guys did was vile, racist, dishonest and frankly, sick. Hillary Clinton didn’t come close to this level of political perversion. But, for some reason, you seem to be obsessed with Hillary’s non-crimes.
So again, What crimes did Mrs. Clinton commit that were exposed by Assange? Why didn’t Assange feel it was necessary to expose the real criminal activity of Donald Trump to his voters? That would have been useful knowledge. And what exactly did Mrs. Clinton do that even came close to the corruption and vile behavior that Karl Rove and George Bush used to smear John McCain in 2000?
Unless you can answer those questions, I don’t get why you hero-worship a partisan hack to took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.
LikeLike
Ken, to this comment:
“Low turnouts like this show a widespread apathy or belief that the system does not work. And that is only reinforced by the determined opposition to third-party voting from the more militant and partisan voters.”
“determined opposition to third-party voting . . ” And, in my mind at least, there is a historic reason for that.
In the 2000 presidential election, there were two main party contenders, George Bush and Al Gore. Ralph Nader, a popular candidate, represented the liberal Green Party.
It’s a well documented fact that Nader’s candidacy took votes from Gore and handed that close election to Bush, although Nader argues, like you do, that every citizen has the right to run for public office. And that argument is not without merit.
Nevertheless, on September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked and Bush rightly attacked the host country of Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, which refused to extradite him for prosecution.
That was all fine, until 2003, when the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, after the Bush Administration lied to the world about WMD.
I submit, in that case at least, had Nader not been blindly arrogant enough to presume that he had a chance of winning the Presidency, a trillion dollars would not have been spent on an illegal war, over 50,000 killed and wounded U.S. servicemen & women would not have been harmed, over 1 million Iraqis would still be alive, and the U.S. might still have a shred of credibility in the world. Even you, Ken, exploit that U.S. failure to this day. . . And if Nader knew he couldn’t win, he was doing little more than throwing his own monkey-wrench into the machinery of a U.S. election. To what end?
Sure, in an ideal world, every citizen has the right to participate. But let’s get real about the world we live in and not purposely screw up the little hope we have as Nader did.
LikeLike
David – why this long diatribe fighting phantoms you have aired often before but have no relevance here?
This article was about the effective imprisonment and enforcement of torture-like conditions on one of the world’s best-known journalists. A multi-award winning journalist whose treatment has been condemned by UN Human Rights bodies.
Given your claimed concern about the treatment of journalists in at least one country, it would seem logical you should be at the forefront of support for Assange and condemnation of his treatment by the UK, USA, and the current Ecuadorian regimes. But you have been silent.
Well, not silent. You are actually echoing a common mainstream media attack on Assange. An attack which demonstrates the absolute spinelessness of the mainstream media and the stenographers it employs who like to pretend they are journalists. It is a shameful position that you are in, given that the coordination of the current attacks on Assange by the mainstream media corresponds with political moves. Corresponds with, is coordinated with – not a response to those political moves and inhuman treatment of that journalist.
Are you not ashamed to be manipulated in this way?
You seem to not understand anything of my often repeated position if you to find it “odd” that I state Assange had a partisan position with respect to the US presidential elections. Why? Nothing I have said should have ever lead you to claim my position was that Wikileaks was a “completely transparent, fair, and balanced organization that it is would have treated both sides equally.” You were playing the straw man gambit.
My position has always been that no media organisation can be described that way. They all have their own perspectives and biases. I have been advocating for a while now that we should all recognise this and take responsibility for our own thinking – not just automatically accept that our preferred organisation is the source of truth. None of them are.
But why is it that you can pretend to be concerned about the treatment of or plight of some journalists in the Russian Federation but adopt a contrary position over Assange? You go to extremes over Russian journalists – extremes in the sense that you claim every death or injury is a result of government or presidential action while providing no forensic or legal evidence and ignoring the obvious role (often supported by forensic and legal evidence) of corruipt officials or business people, of terrorist groups, etc.
Yet here we have the persecution of possibly the world’s most recognisable journalist – persecution by legal, political and state entities of the US and UK regimes.
And all you can do is join the mindless throng, promoted by a manipulating media with clear coordination to the political moves, and put the boot in.
That is a shameful position. I cannot accept your concern for Russian journalist is at all genuine if you remain silent about persecutions of journalists in Ukraine, USA and UK. Or worse than silent – you actually join in that persecution as you have over Assange.
LikeLike
I have always found the concept that honest voting takes votes away from some other candidate to be extremely dishonest. Our votes belong to us – not the candidates. Such arguments are used to take votes away from us, the people.
Of course, we can see where such dishonest arguments end up – People like Nader get blamed for the atrocities committed by the US in Iraq. What stupidity. Or what a way of hiding the real truth of what drives the US to be at economic war with half the planet and illegally at military war with a number of suffering countries. You are refusing to use any of the brain cells you have if you wish to blame thrid parties for the crimes of your political masters.
It is partisanship of this sort (and it seems so extreme of late) which helps impose a very undemocratic electoral system on people and helps hide what is really happening behind the scenes.
Thankfully in New Zealand, we moved to a more democratic proportional electoral system in the 1990 and I no longer have to put up with such stupid arguments here.
LikeLike
Ken, your comment: “it would seem logical you should be at the forefront of support for Assange and condemnation of his treatment by the UK, USA, and the current Ecuadorian regimes. But you have been silent.
Well, not silent. You are actually echoing a common mainstream media attack on Assange.”
Response: Re-read my comment. I am not echoing anything. I am asking you questions about your position . . questions which you have chosen not to answer.
LikeLike
Ken, your statement: “People like Nader get blamed for the atrocities committed by the US in Iraq. What stupidity.”
Response: No, I never said that. Re-read my comment. This time with an open mind. Bush, Rove, and Rumsfeld are responsible for the atrocities committed by the U.S. in Iraq. Nader only gave them the ability to carry out those atrocities.
LikeLike
David, you surely are not that naive. The US neocons had intentions towards Iraq for many years – one just has to read documents from the New American Century. Any elected person in the US system become entrapped by the neocon establishment and act as servants of that establishment. The invasion was going to happen, just as the illegal attacks on Iraq and Syria. Elected officials can play only a very minor role in how these things happen.
As for any effect Nader had on the final outcome of any election (probably extremely minuscule) that is just speculation. One may as well attribute the eventual invasions, regime changes, etc., to the flapping of butterfly wings in the Amazon.
So, I repeat, you claim is just stupid. But worse, it is aimed at restricting the democratic behavior and choice of voters. it is a disgusting position.
LikeLike
David, David, David – you do echo the pathetic attacks of the mainstream media.
You describe him as a “partisan hack who took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.”
I don’t know if you are capable of seeing that this describes the partisan behaviour of most of the mainstream media stenographers/journalists during the 2016 campaign and since. But your problem is that you use the description only for Assange in exactly the same way the mainstream media stenography does.
You also attack me (and presumably anyone else empathizing with Assange’s position by calling my position “hero-worship!!” This is a classic approach aimed at encouraging self-censorship – attack anyone who can think for themselves, make them afraid of doing so and encouraging them to be more compliant with the non-thinking approach to reality. (Classical as it is described in a new book dealing with this subject – “Propaganda Blitz: How and Why Corporate Media Distort Reality.” I am, currently reading this and find it fascinating that you are presenting the problems that these authors describe.
Now, a more rational approach would be not to attack me in such a way but to actually see that I might have a different view to yours and that it would be interesting to discuss this. You should not feel threatened by the fact I have a different view – I don’t feel threatened that your view differs from mine. And I don’t feel the need to pressure you into hiding your view.
But we still have a dilemma. You pretend concern about the situation of journalists in the Russian Federation. Journalists who may well (and surely are) partisan in the same way (although maybe not the same direction) as Assange. Journalists who may have all sorts of personality issues. This does not matter to you – you still support them and empathise with them.
However, when the journalist is not a Russian Citizen and is perhaps a Ukrainian, Australian, UK or US citizen you are incapable of felling any empathy. That is weird.
The current situation Assange faces is horrible. His life and well being is threatened. His mother is appealing for action to save his life and all you can do is go onto the attack. Out the boot in.
Can I suggest that somewhere you are not actually using your brain cells? Either you simply follow the media’s political commands about Assange or their contrary commands about Russian journalists.
That makes you appear to be a hypocrite.
LikeLike
imo many people are as deranged over H Clinton as they are over Putin.
Clinton was a career politician who, as is typically the case for such types, picked up a fair bit of questionable baggage over a 35 year political career, but she’s nowhere near the intellectual and ethical cripple that Trump is.
Assange has my sympathy and Wikileaks my respect, although I think Assange is also deranged over Clinton. He claims Wikileaks impartially publishes all information it receives but I suspect that isn’t an entirely straight up claim. I also strongly suspect Assange was played by the Russians in 2016. In my mind Assange was clearly set up in regard to due process over the sexual assault complaints. I support his freedom from extradition etc particularly extradition to that madhouse, the USA.
LikeLike
Ken,
First, regarding this question about Ralph Nader affecting the 2000 presidential election, either you are not familiar with the facts, or you simply like to argue for the sake of arguing.
Your quote: “As for any effect Nader had on the final outcome of any election (probably extremely minuscule) that is just speculation.”
Response: Here are the facts, there is no speculation involved. The 2000 Bush-Gore election was decided in the state of Florida. Of over 6 million votes cast in that election, Bush defeated Gore by only 537 votes. Nader, the Green Party, won 97,488 votes in Florida alone. That is over 180 times the margin of defeat. Hardly minuscule.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.166cdc30458a
It is not speculation to say that those 97,000 Green Party votes would have gone to environmentalist Al Gore, rather than to Texas oil-man George Bush, since the environment was the core platform of Nader’s campaign.
It would be best for you to withdraw from this debate now, rather than continue to argue in the face of reality.
Your second point: “Any elected person in the US system become entrapped by the neocon establishment and act as servants of that establishment. The invasion was going to happen,”
Response: Here are some portions of Al Gore’s impassioned speech given just prior to the invasion of Iraq:
“By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against
terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the
sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it
into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility.”
“From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among Americans and between America and her allies.”
“But is a general doctrine of pre-emption necessary in order to deal with this problem? With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the answer is clearly not.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/23/usa.iraq
Al Gore was not a man who would have invaded Iraq. Ken, for you to say, “any elected person,” would have become entrapped by neocons who were bent on invasion . . . I don’t want to use the word “ignorant,” . . . but you are certainly grossly misinformed.
Those neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, are the people with whom Bush chose to surround himself. Bush made the decisions. That war was conceived by Bush, sold by Bush, engineered by Bush, and undertaken by Bush. Bush was not a victim of “entrapment” by the people he alone hired. The blame falls solely at his feet, and few others would have taken that course of action. Clearly not Al Gore.
LikeLike
Ken,
Regarding my comment on Assange, you seem upset that I described him as a “partisan hack who took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.”
Ok. Let’s look at that.
1.)We have both agreed that he is partisan . . No problem there.
2.) Second definition of the word “hack.”: “use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.” And “an act of computer hacking.” . . I don’t see the problem there. I believe that is accurate.
3.) “who took it upon himself to choose one side over another in a U.S. presidential election by pretending to play god with someone’s personal emails.”
Did he pretend to play god in that universe of the presidential campaign? Without a doubt. Consider the fact:
“The two trends are strongly and statistically significantly correlated (.33 where the maximum positive correlation is 1.0). As Clinton’s lead in the polls goes up, the number of stories mentioning “Clinton email” follows suit. As her lead declines, the frequency of such stories declines as well.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/01/why-its-entirely-predictable-that-hillary-clintons-emails-are-back-in-the-news/?utm_term=.2b52f51f152e
In other words, whenever Clinton’s lead increased in the polls, Wikileaks released emails in order to manipulate the media and cancel out that lead. (Contrary to what you are trying to say, MSM reported on Clinton’s emails.) If that’s not trying to play god, I don’t know what is.
But your problem with me is that I am not “capable of seeing that this describes the partisan behaviour of most of the mainstream media stenographers/journalists during the 2016 campaign and since.”
Response: Your penchant for gish galloping is duly noted. My views about the MSM are irrelevant to this discussion, and I never should have responded when you tried to shift the discussion in this earlier comment: “It is not Wikileaks which pretends to “completely transparent, fair, and balanced.” It is the mainstream media and government.” Mia Culpa. https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2018/11/05/julian-assanges-mother-appeals-for-her-sons-freedom/#comment-119221
Your quote: “You also attack me (and presumably anyone else empathizing with Assange’s position by calling my position “hero-worship!!”
Response: Definition of “hero worship.”
“noun
1. 1.
excessive admiration for someone.
verb
1. 1.
admire (someone) excessively”
Is that inaccurate? Do you not admire Assange? Please correct me if I am wrong about that. Paranoid much?
Your quote: “But we still have a dilemma. You pretend concern about the situation of journalists in the Russian Federation. Journalists who may well (and surely are) partisan in the same way (although maybe not the same direction) as Assange.”
Response: You are comparing my feelings about a government which is famous for the murders of its own journalists, and my feelings about Julian Assange. If the U.S. government ever murders Assange, then you can make the comparison, and you will see the appropriate outrage from me.
You say people have threatened to kill him? I don’t know that. You never document anything you say. Your idea of documentation is posting factually incorrect videos of Alexander Mercouris. Learn to write and learn to document if you are trying to make convincing arguments.
Nevertheless, the more important question is, since you brought it up, ‘Why aren’t you outraged about the murders of Russian journalists who criticize their government?’ I don’t think I need to call you a hypocrite here.
LikeLike
David, you seem unable to learn the lesson over even recent history.
Trump went into the 2016 election with a policy of relaxing tensions with the Russian Federation. This, together with a few comments of his about Syria and criticism of US interventions around the world, was the only positive thing I saw in his policies (and, of course, was a clear positive over Clinton).
Understandably, many Russians saw those specific policies as positive and expressed support for them – from a distance. (Leaders of some other countries opposed those policies and it seems that ongoing revelations reveal those countries did actually interfere in the US elections. Thinking here of Australia, UK, and Ukraine).
I expressed support for Trump’sd sensible comments on those specific issues – but I also said that I did not believe for one minute he would be allowed to put those policies into practice – any more than Obama was able to. (My support for those policies would not have encouraged me to vote for him if I had been a US citizen – I am not that naive)
Neither of those two candidates was attractive to most voters – I certainly would not have voted for either if I had been a US citizen.
In the 2000 elections, I would not have voted either Democrat or Republican if I had been a US citizen. I may well have voted Green. The project being that despite anything positive Gore may have said (as did Trump) either of those parties would have been likely to follow a similar foreign policy and their record showed this included illegal interventions and regime change.
However, I think it is disgusting for anyone to argue that my vote inevitably is the cause of the illegal invasion of Iraq or what followed. (especially as my refusal to vote for Democrat or Republican would have been based on the history of both those parties in violating international law and invading other countries.
It does not take much intellect to search for the elements driving US foreign policy and its “humanitarian” regime change acts. But to blame such actions on a voter who chooses to express their own political beliefs in a democratic act of voting is simply stupid – worse, it attempts to cover up the real criminals.
LikeLike
Or perhaps let’s consider a possible different scenario. What if Clinton had won the 2016 elections. What if she then went on to attempt to impose a no-fly zone over Syria (as NATO did in Libya). What if the results were even worse than in Lybia – the destruction of a secular country and empowerment of extremists, and war broke out between the US (and its vassals in NATO) and the Russian Federation, Iran, China, etc.
Would we then have idiots running around blaming this war on people who didn’t vote for Trump, who voted for a third party or didn’t vote. Yes, Republican idiots rather than Democratic idiots – but still idiots.
That is just stupid. And it lets the real criminals off the hook.
LikeLike
David, I am “outraged” about the murder of all journalists. I use quote marks because I do have to admit that I find it hard to be empathetic about some “journalists” (say those operating in Idlib and Jamal Khashoggi) when they are heavily involved in promoting jihadis for which such murders are routine.
But, yes, I am outraged at the murder of people like Ann Politskaya and Paul Klebnikov (I have their books although yet to read them all). Further, my outrage extends to the murder of other people like Boris Nemtsov. And I suggest that probably most citizens and politicians in the Russian Federation are similarly outraged about those murders. (Did you not see the mass rally of sympathy for Nemtsov in Moscow?)
But I suggest your proclaimed outrage is false because you often argue that their deaths were caused by the Russian government or the Russian President. You do this despite the lack of any forensic or legal evidence to support the claim – in fact in opposition to that forensic and legal evidence where it exists. (The nastiness of your argument can be seen if we realize “blaming Putin” automatically lets the real criminals off the hook. It just encourages the corrupt business people and politicians and the terrorists who were really responsible. Still, that is the normal anti-Russia approach – consider how Russian criminals, many accused of murder, have been welcomed in London where they can escape their crimes. Berezovsky for example. Mind you, apparently they donate well to the Tory Party).
I charge you with expressing fake rage over the deaths of Russian journalists because your political mythology is actually far important to you. Your outrage is not ghenuine.
But I am also outraged about the murder of journalists in Ukraine – and their imprisonment. You never express concern for them, do you? Did you express concern for the murder of two Russian journalists Igor Kornelyuk and Anton Voloshin in Ukraine? In fact, you may not have even heard of them. Your mainstream media was more interested in reporting the imprisonment of Nadiya Savchenko because of her role in their murder. Biased reporting, of course, to claim her human rights were being violated.
Of course, you mainstream media no longer talks about Nadiya Savchenko. Nor do western human rights organisations continue their campaign for her and lament at the effects of her current hunger strike. Why, because she is now in a Ukrainian prison.
There is a huge amount of hypocrisy in this talk about “outrage” over journalists deaths – outrage driven by geopolitical agendas.
Similarly, you will not protest on the effective imprisonment and danger to the life of Assange. You mindlessly follow your masters in the media who are putting the boot in.
LikeLike
Ken (on the 2000 election): ” But to blame such actions on a voter who chooses to express their own political beliefs in a democratic act of voting is simply stupid – worse, it attempts to cover up the real criminals.”
Response: Since you are incapable of reading what I have actually written, I will end this now. It is pointless as your mind appears to be rusted shut.
LikeLike