5 ms·

>objectivity + >considered within the spectrum What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by followi

by mmjaa 7y ago

>objectivity + >considered within the spectrum What is your purpose here? To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Or to open the door for the, very definite Assange-haters, to have a way around the argument that Assange is not getting a fair trial, that this case is a total farce, and that anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'?

FireBeyond 7y ago
One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as being 'flat' and 'slow' and 'confused'), and instead apparently a foregone conclusion to assume that he is being physically and mentally subjected to "extreme torture". > anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'? Please. You'd be very much mistaken to think I have -any- sympathy for the "military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex", as even a cursory reading of my comments on issues of health insurance in the US, or military interventions would show. Believe it or not, it is possible to think that Assange has committed multiple crimes for less than noble reasons in amongst the good he has done, without being an agent for the state, deep or otherwise.
- mmjaa 7y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty. But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. "Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    > Innocent until proven guilty And for that to hold, you have to let him be tried. Justice isn't automatic. But people (maybe not you) seem far too quick to start muddying up the due process. It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that. From here, it seems perfectly plausible that he actively helped Manning leak. If the US have evidence to that end, they have a case. Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain?
    - roenxi 7y ago
      > It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that. It depends what they find him guilty of and what the sentence is. It is unacceptable to have someone on trial for openly telling the truth about what a foreign country is doing. He went into the Ecuadorian embassy saying that the Swedish case against him was basically trumped up and that he was going to be extradited to the United States. His justification for staying in the embassy on the basis that he would be extradited to the US if he walked out. His excuses were dismissed by critics as unconvincing. He is now out of the embassy and, surprisingly, appears to be going through an extradition process to the US. The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material. Australians in Europe cannot be reasonably held subject to US laws related to classified documents. And how materially he helped Manning is a very open question. Maybe the US government is going to have something convincing but the odds are great it is some word game that they are going to try and nail him with. > Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain? If the US government is going to treat Assange the way they treat other non-US-citizens they don't like then by the time the case is heard it will be too late.
      - FireBeyond 7y ago
        > The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material. Allegedly actively assisting a US military member to a) crack other military passwords, and b) work with them on covering said attempts is a mere "flimsy pretext, [not] material"?
        whamlastxmas 7y ago
        Telling someone to Google a publicly available tool is hardly assisting in any criminal way
        oliwarner 7y ago
        And if he stopped resisting, he'd have the opportunity to test that view in a court.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    And if that is indeed what is happening: > in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand"
  - lucozade 7y ago
    > medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. They wouldn't need to medicate him so that he can't defend himself. This was a case management hearing. He wasn't ever going to get an opportunity to defend himself as that's not what it's for. He's not even required to attend.
- vintermann 7y ago
  True, it's possible. You can also be a complete tool. As I've been saying constantly, what you can believe is more important than who you can believe (Murray has big problems with this himself, unfortunately). That Assange is being abused is one of the facts you have to concede if you've looked at the case at all - even if you distrust all involved parties.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Wow, so he's either being tortured or medicated to the point he has difficulty saying his own name and date of birth. Clearly there's no problem with their medicating and this is clearly normal UK prison conditions.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Clearly corrupted if the article is accurate. FireBeyond questioned the accuracy. You assume the accuracy of the article, and question FireBeyond's motives. But the question still stands: Is the article accurate? Can you provide any confirmation that it is? Are there any independent accounts of the hearing? (I don't regard the article as an independent account; the author stated that he is a close friend of Assange.) If you have reason to think the article is correct, I will listen. If not, though, then FireBeyond's comment is very relevant, and your response is totally beside the point.
- mmjaa 7y ago
  Given the long history of atrocious crimes against humanity being committed by the US and its Coalition allies, it is logical to conclude that Assange has been chemically lobotomized in order to reduce the threat he poses to war-fighting operations. If you want an independent view of Assange's mental health and wellbeing, you're going to have to wait. He is being held in Bellmarsh so that nobody can actually verify anything - not even his lawyers, and that IS THE POINT ENTIRELY - thus giving the CIA and its UK lackeys every opportunity to have their way with Assange, without anyone knowing anything until its well and truly, too late. If you want 'independent verification' before you're willing to believe the state would do this to its enemies, maybe you should look at the long history of other enemies of the state being chemically lobotimized once they are held in secret conditions under the control of agents of the very military-industrial complex institutions whose crimes against humanity are being revealed. BY DESIGN: there is no public oversight and there won't be until they have finished their lobotomy operation. This is a serious situation which requires citizens such as yourself to have the courage to confront the details: the West has been torturing and disappearing its dissidents for decades. Go find out for yourself how bad it is.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I do not deny that such things have happened. But by your logic, every time a light bulb burns out in Tierra del Fuego, it's logical to conclude that it's a CIA conspiracy, because of the long history of CIA intervention in Latin America. That is, while such things have happened, far more things have happened that were not the result of the US government's nefariousness. What I wanted was an independent account of the hearing. I know Assange is locked up and isn't able to give interviews. But his friend was able to attend the hearing, so reporters should have been able to, also. Where are their reports? And, in particular, the US is requesting extradition, so of course US agents are in court requesting stuff from the judge. I'd like to hear from an unbiased reporter whether what happened at the hearing was normal, or whether it really was US agents improperly controlling the court. As I said, this article is so clearly biased that I cannot accept its judgment on this question. Where are the mainstream news accounts? > If you want 'independent verification' before you're willing to believe the state would do this to its enemies, maybe you should look at the long history of other enemies of the state being chemically lobotimized once they are held in secret conditions under the control of agents of the very military-industrial complex institutions whose crimes against humanity are being revealed. You're making the claim. Cite some sources (preferably creditable ones).

by mmjaa 7y ago

FireBeyond 7y ago

One example: Very article linked in the original post talks about concerns for Assange's health, saying he has been in the medical ward in jail. Yet apparently it's not at all possible that he is on medications to help with his mental state (which would explain - though in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand" - his demeanor as being 'flat' and 'slow' and 'confused'), and instead apparently a foregone conclusion to assume that he is being physically and mentally subjected to "extreme torture". > anyone who stands up to the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is 'an enemy of the West'? Please. You'd be very much mistaken to think I have -any- sympathy for the "military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex", as even a cursory reading of my comments on issues of health insurance in the US, or military interventions would show. Believe it or not, it is possible to think that Assange has committed multiple crimes for less than noble reasons in amongst the good he has done, without being an agent for the state, deep or otherwise.

mmjaa 7y ago
Innocent until proven guilty. But in the meantime: medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. "Concern for his mental health" is just an excuse for "medically lobotomized".
- oliwarner 7y ago
  > Innocent until proven guilty And for that to hold, you have to let him be tried. Justice isn't automatic. But people (maybe not you) seem far too quick to start muddying up the due process. It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that. From here, it seems perfectly plausible that he actively helped Manning leak. If the US have evidence to that end, they have a case. Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    > It seems that if he is found guilty, nobody will accept that. It depends what they find him guilty of and what the sentence is. It is unacceptable to have someone on trial for openly telling the truth about what a foreign country is doing. He went into the Ecuadorian embassy saying that the Swedish case against him was basically trumped up and that he was going to be extradited to the United States. His justification for staying in the embassy on the basis that he would be extradited to the US if he walked out. His excuses were dismissed by critics as unconvincing. He is now out of the embassy and, surprisingly, appears to be going through an extradition process to the US. The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material. Australians in Europe cannot be reasonably held subject to US laws related to classified documents. And how materially he helped Manning is a very open question. Maybe the US government is going to have something convincing but the odds are great it is some word game that they are going to try and nail him with. > Can we just let that case be heard and stop assuming that every actor here is a Bond villain? If the US government is going to treat Assange the way they treat other non-US-citizens they don't like then by the time the case is heard it will be too late.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      > The US is reaching out and nabbing him on the flimsiest of pretexts; more a process crime than doing anything material. Allegedly actively assisting a US military member to a) crack other military passwords, and b) work with them on covering said attempts is a mere "flimsy pretext, [not] material"?
      - whamlastxmas 7y ago
        Telling someone to Google a publicly available tool is hardly assisting in any criminal way
        oliwarner 7y ago
        And if he stopped resisting, he'd have the opportunity to test that view in a court.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  And if that is indeed what is happening: > in this case note that I would entirely agree that the use of such medication would interfere with his "ability to understand"
- lucozade 7y ago
  > medicated into oblivion so he can't adequately defend himself. They wouldn't need to medicate him so that he can't defend himself. This was a case management hearing. He wasn't ever going to get an opportunity to defend himself as that's not what it's for. He's not even required to attend.
vintermann 7y ago
True, it's possible. You can also be a complete tool. As I've been saying constantly, what you can believe is more important than who you can believe (Murray has big problems with this himself, unfortunately). That Assange is being abused is one of the facts you have to concede if you've looked at the case at all - even if you distrust all involved parties.
whamlastxmas 7y ago
Wow, so he's either being tortured or medicated to the point he has difficulty saying his own name and date of birth. Clearly there's no problem with their medicating and this is clearly normal UK prison conditions.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> To defend the actions of the UK court, which is clearly being corrupted by following direction from US agents? Clearly corrupted if the article is accurate. FireBeyond questioned the accuracy. You assume the accuracy of the article, and question FireBeyond's motives. But the question still stands: Is the article accurate? Can you provide any confirmation that it is? Are there any independent accounts of the hearing? (I don't regard the article as an independent account; the author stated that he is a close friend of Assange.) If you have reason to think the article is correct, I will listen. If not, though, then FireBeyond's comment is very relevant, and your response is totally beside the point.

mmjaa 7y ago
Given the long history of atrocious crimes against humanity being committed by the US and its Coalition allies, it is logical to conclude that Assange has been chemically lobotomized in order to reduce the threat he poses to war-fighting operations. If you want an independent view of Assange's mental health and wellbeing, you're going to have to wait. He is being held in Bellmarsh so that nobody can actually verify anything - not even his lawyers, and that IS THE POINT ENTIRELY - thus giving the CIA and its UK lackeys every opportunity to have their way with Assange, without anyone knowing anything until its well and truly, too late. If you want 'independent verification' before you're willing to believe the state would do this to its enemies, maybe you should look at the long history of other enemies of the state being chemically lobotimized once they are held in secret conditions under the control of agents of the very military-industrial complex institutions whose crimes against humanity are being revealed. BY DESIGN: there is no public oversight and there won't be until they have finished their lobotomy operation. This is a serious situation which requires citizens such as yourself to have the courage to confront the details: the West has been torturing and disappearing its dissidents for decades. Go find out for yourself how bad it is.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I do not deny that such things have happened. But by your logic, every time a light bulb burns out in Tierra del Fuego, it's logical to conclude that it's a CIA conspiracy, because of the long history of CIA intervention in Latin America. That is, while such things have happened, far more things have happened that were not the result of the US government's nefariousness. What I wanted was an independent account of the hearing. I know Assange is locked up and isn't able to give interviews. But his friend was able to attend the hearing, so reporters should have been able to, also. Where are their reports? And, in particular, the US is requesting extradition, so of course US agents are in court requesting stuff from the judge. I'd like to hear from an unbiased reporter whether what happened at the hearing was normal, or whether it really was US agents improperly controlling the court. As I said, this article is so clearly biased that I cannot accept its judgment on this question. Where are the mainstream news accounts? > If you want 'independent verification' before you're willing to believe the state would do this to its enemies, maybe you should look at the long history of other enemies of the state being chemically lobotimized once they are held in secret conditions under the control of agents of the very military-industrial complex institutions whose crimes against humanity are being revealed. You're making the claim. Cite some sources (preferably creditable ones).