6 ms·

I’m going to ignore all the subjective incendiary rhetoric and focus on this (slightly edited) line: > [Those] who uncover state crimes are the enemy of the st

I’m going to ignore all the subjective incendiary rhetoric and focus on this (slightly edited) line: > [Those] who uncover state crimes are the enemy of the state. This is an interesting point, considering Snowdon made public improper behaviour, which resulted in him fleeing the country, while (at least some of) the improper behaviour has been declared illegal behaviour by a court of law. Meanwhile Snowdon remains persona non grata.

malux85 6y ago
I wonder if we can manipulate trump into freeing Assange and Snowden under the narrative “These heros exposed Obama’s crimes, you can be the hero who frees them” (I know they are not “Obama’s” crimes but that’s the only way to get trump engaged, or maybe just “democrats” crimes) I think he would run with it if only it didn’t set president for whistleblowers to blow the whistle on whatever he has done...I dont think he thinks deeply enough to consider secondary effects but those around him may
- acqq 6y ago
  > I wonder if we can manipulate trump into freeing Assange and Snowden under the narrative “These heros exposed Obama’s crimes, you can be the hero who frees them” Apparently, no, as Trump has much higher priority of "controlling" the press. See "Trump’s campaign against the press" from the testimony of Mark Feldstein, who's a Professor of Broadcast Journalism at the University of Maryland and a witness for defense in this process: https://assangecourt.report/witness-statement-feldstein https://assangecourt.report/witness-statement-feldstein "Seen in this light, the administration’s prosecution of Julian Assange is part and parcel of its campaign against the news media as a whole. Indeed, Assange’s criminal indictment under the US Espionage Act is arguably its most important action yet against the press, with potentially the most far-reaching consequences."
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    It is the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CFR who make the blotter ready for the CiC to stick his bloodied fingerprint on. Being distracted by the scary orange puppet rhetoric is one thing - having the courage to face the criminal charges with integrity, at a state and cultural level, is another thing entirely. The only reason the USA isn't having its leaders schackled in the docks of The Hague for the last 20 years of criminal murderous insanity, is the people of the USA don't think it necessary, or warranted. That is the purpose of the leaks: to encourage an honest investigation by a just and fair society. Alas, the conditions for that cannot exist under secrecy regimes dictated by a military junta.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's what Glenn Greenwald tried to do on Tucker Carlson's show around a week ago, to the letter.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Somehow, many public figures misunderstood his intentions.
fit2rule 6y ago
>subjective incendiary rhetoric Its not rhetoric if you've had to dig your children out from under the rubble. I'm not surprised this is a scary subject, and that it is immensely important to the American public that it be kept hidden away beyond the state secrecy walls of privilege. The collateral damage video wasn't rhetoric, either. Again, innocent children being murdered for lies. Let us not forget Assange's message: yes, the USA is committing atrocious crimes against humanity, on the regular, and expecting to be allowed to get away with it.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  Some of the things you’ve said are subjective, and incendiary. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. I was simply trying to highlight a statement of fact from your post, and provide an example of this occurring.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    What part of the Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and US' War Crimes isn't incendiary? This is not a subject for sensitive feelings. It is extremely important that discourse not be repressed for the sake of political expediency ... If there were more awareness of the horrors, Assange wouldn't have been so necessary. If we want to reign in the war-mongers, we must hold them accountable. Always.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The problem isn't your descriptions of the actions which Assange reported on. The problem is your use of phrases like "Ma' Russians" and your strange reference to a "chemical castration" of Assange.
      - pftf 6y ago
        You're just tone policing here. You should engage with the actual subject of the discussion, or say nothing at all. People aren't unemotional robots, and thus don't always conform to prejudices on what constitutes the 'correct' tone. It's more useful to criticize the substance of a persons words, not how they choose to express them.

malux85 6y ago

I wonder if we can manipulate trump into freeing Assange and Snowden under the narrative “These heros exposed Obama’s crimes, you can be the hero who frees them” (I know they are not “Obama’s” crimes but that’s the only way to get trump engaged, or maybe just “democrats” crimes) I think he would run with it if only it didn’t set president for whistleblowers to blow the whistle on whatever he has done...I dont think he thinks deeply enough to consider secondary effects but those around him may

acqq 6y ago
> I wonder if we can manipulate trump into freeing Assange and Snowden under the narrative “These heros exposed Obama’s crimes, you can be the hero who frees them” Apparently, no, as Trump has much higher priority of "controlling" the press. See "Trump’s campaign against the press" from the testimony of Mark Feldstein, who's a Professor of Broadcast Journalism at the University of Maryland and a witness for defense in this process: https://assangecourt.report/witness-statement-feldstein https://assangecourt.report/witness-statement-feldstein "Seen in this light, the administration’s prosecution of Julian Assange is part and parcel of its campaign against the news media as a whole. Indeed, Assange’s criminal indictment under the US Espionage Act is arguably its most important action yet against the press, with potentially the most far-reaching consequences."
- fit2rule 6y ago
  It is the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CFR who make the blotter ready for the CiC to stick his bloodied fingerprint on. Being distracted by the scary orange puppet rhetoric is one thing - having the courage to face the criminal charges with integrity, at a state and cultural level, is another thing entirely. The only reason the USA isn't having its leaders schackled in the docks of The Hague for the last 20 years of criminal murderous insanity, is the people of the USA don't think it necessary, or warranted. That is the purpose of the leaks: to encourage an honest investigation by a just and fair society. Alas, the conditions for that cannot exist under secrecy regimes dictated by a military junta.
sudosysgen 6y ago
That's what Glenn Greenwald tried to do on Tucker Carlson's show around a week ago, to the letter.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Somehow, many public figures misunderstood his intentions.

fit2rule 6y ago

>subjective incendiary rhetoric Its not rhetoric if you've had to dig your children out from under the rubble. I'm not surprised this is a scary subject, and that it is immensely important to the American public that it be kept hidden away beyond the state secrecy walls of privilege. The collateral damage video wasn't rhetoric, either. Again, innocent children being murdered for lies. Let us not forget Assange's message: yes, the USA is committing atrocious crimes against humanity, on the regular, and expecting to be allowed to get away with it.

oarsinsync 6y ago
Some of the things you’ve said are subjective, and incendiary. I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. I was simply trying to highlight a statement of fact from your post, and provide an example of this occurring.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  What part of the Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and US' War Crimes isn't incendiary? This is not a subject for sensitive feelings. It is extremely important that discourse not be repressed for the sake of political expediency ... If there were more awareness of the horrors, Assange wouldn't have been so necessary. If we want to reign in the war-mongers, we must hold them accountable. Always.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The problem isn't your descriptions of the actions which Assange reported on. The problem is your use of phrases like "Ma' Russians" and your strange reference to a "chemical castration" of Assange.
    - pftf 6y ago
      You're just tone policing here. You should engage with the actual subject of the discussion, or say nothing at all. People aren't unemotional robots, and thus don't always conform to prejudices on what constitutes the 'correct' tone. It's more useful to criticize the substance of a persons words, not how they choose to express them.