General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAssange and Chomsky Appear Arm-In-Arm at Ecuadorian Embassy
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/26/assange-and-chomsky-appear-arm-arm-ecuadorian-embassyWednesday, November 26, 2014
Assange and Chomsky Appear Arm-In-Arm at Ecuadorian Embassy
Scholar and prominent activist pays visit despite heavy police presence
by Common Dreams staff
?itok=WIYaKXz-
Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London arm-in-arm with American scholar and activist Noam Chomsky on Tuesday.
Assange has remained at the Embassy since 2012, when he was granted asylum by the Ecuadorian government. UK authorities have denied Assange passage to Ecuador and the embassy building has been guarded 24 hours a day by London police.
TeleSUR adds:
Assange claims if he is sent to Sweden, he would face a serious risk of extradition to the United States, where he fears he would face charges in relation to the disclosure of classified government documents.
Chomsky, a world reknowned linguist and analyst of global affairs, has previously expressed support for Assange.
Someone who courageously carries out actions in defense of democratic rights deserves applause, not hysterical denunciation and punishment, Chomsky once stated regarding Assange.
more...
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)pull that shit up beeyatch LOL
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying $8.43 million for Homeland Security Since 9/11.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
$20 million dollars PER HOUR isn't enough to get most Americans up off their couch. The biggest ripoff in human history.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)It's fact that he would face a serious risk of extradition. The Swedish authorities have refused to promise that he would not be extradited, and Sweden has been extremely cooperative with US interests.
It's also virtually certain that he would face charges in the US, where a grand jury has been active in the case for years.
It's possible for a newspaper to hedge their language slightly -- but suggesting that it's only Assange "claiming" that he's at risk if he leaves the embassy seems designed to make him sound paranoid and hysterical.
randome
(34,845 posts)Of course a grand jury is investigating Wikileaks. That does not mean anyone is out to 'get' Assange. Of course Sweden doesn't want to interview him on his terms. That does not mean they want to extradite him.
Your 'fears' -and Assange's- are not supported by any evidence.
Assange runs to Ecuador to hide. Snowden runs to Russia. They both took themselves out of the equation -unilaterally gave up- by running to hide. If the U.S. government was actually trying to make them useless, they could not have done a better job than what they did to themselves.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-18/obama-pursuing-leakers-sends-warning-to-whistle-blowers.html
Obama's War on Whistleblowers
I can tell you that people who normally would meet with me, sort of in a more relaxed atmosphere, are on pins and needles, Landay said of the reporting climate during the Obama years, a period of unprecedented whistleblower prosecutions. The crackdown on leaks, he added, seems deliberately intended to have a chilling effect.
Landay isnt alone in that assessment, as several investigative journalists attest in War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State, a timely documentary directed by Robert Greenwald of Brave New Foundation that premieres this week in New York and Washington. The film details the ordeals of four whistleblowers who turned to the press in order to expose waste or illegality.
The Obama administration's been extremely aggressive in trying to root out whistleblowers within the government, NBC News investigative reporter Michael Isikoff says in the film. The New Yorkers Jane Mayer, describing the secrecy required in her reporting for a profile of whistleblower Thomas Drake amid government prosecution, said the experience didnt feel [like] America, land of the free press.
Drake, a former senior executive of the National Security Agency, says in the film, "it's extremely dangerous in America right now to be right as a whistleblower when the government is so wrong." He adds: "speaking truth to power is now a criminal act."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones
Nows Amy Goodman:
AMY GOODMAN: [T]he number of people who have been indicted are more than all presidents combined in the past.
WILLIAM BINNEY: Right. And I think its to silence whats going on.
From 2012:
On January 23rd, the Obama administration charged former CIA officer John Kiriakou under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information to journalists about the waterboarding of al-Qaida suspects.
Kiriakou, in particular, is accused of giving information about the CIAs torture programs to reporters two years ago. Like the other five whistleblowers, he has been charged under the draconian World War I-era Espionage Act.
That Act has a sordid history, having once been used against the governments political opponents. Targets included labor leaders and radicals like Eugene V. Debs, Bill Haywood, Philip Randolph, Victor Berger, John Reed, Max Eastman and Emma Goldman.
Debs, a union leader and socialist candidate for the presidency, was, in fact, sentenced to 10 years in jail for a speech attacking the Espionage Act itself. The Nixon administration infamously (and unsuccessfully) invoked the Act to bar the New York Times from continuing to publish the classified Pentagon Papers.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)About that record number of Obama leak prosecutions:
1. The total number of Obama first-term leak prosecutions is six (6). Previous leak prosecutions: three. So technically, yes, the BO admin has prosecuted more leakers than all previous administrations combined, but all that says is that previous administrations had reasons not to pursue leakers.
more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022862201
hack89
(39,171 posts)Out the news and impotent.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)by ISRAEL SHAMIR
CounterPunch, MARCH 07, 2011
The British magistrate court has decided to surrender Julian Assange to the Nordic Amazons who were hunting for his head pending appeal. Thus the long Saga of the Broken Condom, or whatever name by which it will become known to posterity, took a definite turn for the worse. The judge decided to honor the European Arrest Warrant issued by man-eating Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Julian has appealed to the High Court, ensuring that the saga will go on as a side divertissement to the main story, Cablegate.
We shall not delve again into what happened between Julian and the two women; this has already been covered in previous installments. Today we turn to the dramatic events that occurred immediately afterwards. We live in an age of leaks, and this story is no exception. The Swedish police papers pertaining to Assange case have surfaced on the web and there are some shocking revelations. One revelation concerns the investigative editor of The Guardian, David Leigh and his accomplice Nick Davies. They were given the leaked police papers well before they were made public, and Davies constructed a story that revealed his special unauthorised access. Now the original documents (in Swedish) have been published on the site flashback.org, and the English version is now available on Rixstep.com with this touching foreword from the translator:
The truth will out, the truth wins out. Let no journalist ever again speculate into what the protocols say. Six months of digging and the people at Flashback have the actual documents. The sleaze printed by rags such as the Daily Mail, Swedens Aftonbladet and Expressen, and perhaps above all the toxic Nick Davies of The Guardian, can stand no more. Yet more: these documents are an indictment of the news organisations whove printed deliberate inaccuracies all along or even worse: refused to print anything at all. Nick Davies account of the protocols was maliciously skewed; both Aftonbladet and Expressen had copies early on and printed nothing. Bloggers had copies but arrogantly kept the information to their Smeagol selves.
Once again we can compare the raw data with the official story, and once again we can confirm that Leigh and his partners are brazen, busy little cooks. They cooked the Embassy Cables, as we reported in CounterPunch, and now we can see exactly how they cooked the Assange police papers too. Leigh and his supporters have loudly proclaimed that his deletions and redactions were due to British libel laws. In this story, he proves how empty was his rhetoric. Every damaging accusation against Assange was given a place of prominence; the true and disturbing picture has remained buried until now.
Our story begins on Friday, August 20, 2010, when the two women of our story, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen met in Stockholm, compared their experiences and discussed how to commemorate their weekend with Julian. Manipulative and ambitious, Anna Ardin had decided to get some sweet revenge on our breezy, festive Julian, who had drifted like a butterfly away from her bed and over to the bed of the younger Sofia. Annas plan was to stay out of the limelight she convinced Sofia to make out the complaint. But she did arrange for it: Anna took Sofia to see the police.
But Anna did not take Sofia directly to the nearest police station. No, Anna had already arranged an appointment with her good friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans. Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were once political running mates for a city hall election Irmeli came in at 38th place and Anna won 12th. Irmeli is a well-known gender activist, a member of the LGBT movement and the Gay Police Union. Kranss blog is full of pictures taken at gay parades from Riga, Tallinn, and Stockholm. It might appear as if this stern criminal investigator treats her police work as a hobby while her real work is attending gay parades all over Europe, but she dropped everything for the Assange case.
CONTINUED...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/
riqster
(13,986 posts)To Hades with the pair of 'em.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And it is noteworthy that once accused they are guilty.
What the hell is wrong with us that we do that?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Facts are facts.
Cha
(297,196 posts)mine. Trying to say you're "not of friend of DU" because you spoke the truth.. like they are the arbiters of everything DU. LOL
I'm thankful for you being one of us!
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)while rape victims have no rights.
Assange has had every opportunity to clear his name and has instead chosen to evade prosecution. For someone like me who holds the heretical notion that women exist for a purpose other than to provide sex on demand, and without consent, that takes away his presumption of innocence. Innocent men do not flee prosecution. Then of course there is the fact he admits to the act but insists it shouldn't be considered rape because he says so. Once again we learn what matters most in the world is what "great" men want.
Your assertion that seeing an accused rapist brought to justice is "throwing democracy under the bus" excludes people like me from the body politic, and I resent it. Reverence for men of prominence above the rights of victims and due process is far from democratic. It shows that some see men of prominence as more important that the women they are accused of violating.
Time and time again I see people insist that men they admire shouldn't be held accountable for charges of abuse or rape of women. It is precisely such attitudes that result in a situation where only 2-4 percent of rapes result in jail for the perpetrator.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I said "accused", which he is. Not "guilty", not "convicted", not even "indicted", but "accused". And out come the resident misogynists with their woman-dismissing, bullshit ad hominem attacks.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)He had consensual sex...but is accused of not using a rubber...but now he is a rapist in your mind...same judgment as if he used a gun or a knife to force sex.
And Chomsky is the one being thrown under the buss, because he supports him...as if any support of him is wrong because obviously Assuage is guilty.
As I said, emotion is used as a tool to divide us up and attack our leaders who do care about democricy...and this is what you are doing.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Really?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And it was consensual according to the facts...the accuser admits to that.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And please bear in mind as you answer that their system affords more and better rights to an accused individual than does America's.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Where he can be punished like Manning for telling the secrets of our corrupt system...something important to both countries.
And you don't have to be a genius to know that.
riqster
(13,986 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Wikileaks.
Edward Snowden.
Russel Tice...and others like him.
The Patriot Act.
riqster
(13,986 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Don't you agree?
And the original intent was to test him for STDs...he does not need to go to Sweden for that...but they want him to...why?
riqster
(13,986 posts)EX500rider
(10,842 posts)....the US and Britain are very close allies, much closer then the US and Sweden.
If we wanted him we would extradite him from the UK, no need to stop in Sweden 1st.
Does the US have a arrest warrant out for him? No. So we really don't want him.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)On June 19, 2012, he fled bail and applied for asylum in Ecuador, through the embassy in Knightsbridge. But police encircled the embassy and refused to allow him to leave: the UK says its courts have ruled he must be sent to Sweden.
Ecuador granted him asylum in August 2012, but as soon as he sets foot outside the building Britain will deport him to Sweden. He has been inside the embassy ever since.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/11681502/Why-is-Julian-Assange-still-inside-the-embassy-of-Ecuador.html
hack89
(39,171 posts)those are the four charges Assange faces. When you read the actual victim statements, it is clear it was much more than "sex without a rubber".
Start with paragraph 3 for all the gory detail Assange supporters refused to acknowledge:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71282275/Assange-High-Court-Judgement-2-November-2011
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)1.
On 13th 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured partys arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.
On 13th 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.
On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.
On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured partys sexual integrity.
Sid
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Yeah, we get it. Feminists (aka people who believe women are human beings) are being "divisive', "emotional", and are "distracting us" from "more important issues."
We understand you just fine.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)If I don't submit to your interpretation of things I am a misogynist.
We are ether with you or against you...nicely divided up...and forced to accept your conclusions or face the charges.
And I used to think this was just the strategy of the right wing.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)and an accused rapist according to the Swedish court. There is an arrest warrant for sexual assault in force against him. That is a matter of public record.
Here is the arrest warrant: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
British high court rulings on Sweden's request to extradite Assange: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Stating a fact that a person is an accused rapist is not "throwing democracy under the bus,' nor does it have a thing to do with Chomsky. It is a simple statement of fact. A court determines guilt or innocent, but Assange is held up in the embassy evading the rape investigation. That is why he has been there all these years. Those are the only charges against him and those are the charges he is evading.
I am not even minimally surprised that people make excuses for him. Such is the case with every accused rapist, whether Assange, Bill Cosby, college football players or the boys in Steubenville. It's always the same story. The men are too important, so people refuse to consider they might be guilty. Clearly fleeing from prosecution displays consciousness of guilt and can be used as evidence of such in a court of law.
I can't understand the kind of adoration with individual public figures above principle. I don't care who an accused rapist he. He needs to face justice. I hold that view whether his is RW tea bagger, Assange, or a member of my own family.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)About something they in fact do not know anything about...and then make emotional statements that practically convicts them of a serious and violent crime.
And then insists in calling it justice.
All I can figure is that politics has made so many angry mean people, that the love of many turns cold...and then anger and retribution owns their soul.
But I have nothing further to say on this.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #14)
Dont call me Shirley This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cha
(297,196 posts)snip//
The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.
In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."
So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape. It defies common sense. Who besides a rapist would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)At least one woman remains a complainant in a criminal case against Assange in Sweden, as demonstrated through this arrest warrant.
She describes him forcibly holding her down and making her have sex. Obviously she did not claim it was consensual. Quite the opposite.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20110224-Britain-Ruling-Assange-Extradition-to-Sweden.pdf
British high court rulings on Sweden's request to extradite Assange: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
She has written about how his supporters have stalked and shamed her, just as has been done to the victims of frat boys and high school rapists. This is identical to every case in which rape victims are ignored, vilified, attacked, shamed, and disbelieved. Too many people refuse to believe men they admire are capable of such things, so they make excuses for him. Thus rapists remain at large.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)I was under the false impression that Assange was being crudely framed and that the charges were minor anyway but this sure sounds like a forcible rape allegation to me.
Sincerely, its good to sit back and avoid taking sides until I have read the proper information.
Do you think the CIA would like to lay hands on him anyway?
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)I will delete my original post.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)I just got back from work sorry. Its only my point of view I'm not asking for any retractions.
Cha
(297,196 posts)actions. What's he gonna do.. stay in the Embassy until the statute of limitations on rape are up?
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)PS: Good to have you back on this board.
Kali
(55,007 posts)innocent men (people) choose to avoid/evade prosecution all the time. talk to any criminal attorney. it is often the advice of such professionals that clients do whatever possible to avoid the potential dangers of being prosecuted for various charges, even when innocent of them.
to use avoidance of arrest or of facing charges as proof of guilt, especially in this case where there are major international security issues involved, is not valid in my opinion. never mind the ideal of presuming innocence that our justice system is supposed to have as a foundation.
randome
(34,845 posts)Wikileaks operates just fine without him. All he ever did in the past was publish stuff that someone else stole for him. Anyone can do that. Assange is unimportant, much to his dismay.
Happy Holidays from Foley, Alabama, DU!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)would advise someone to flee prosecution since it is illegal. Additionally, it can be used in court as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Our justice system has nothing to do with this case. The arrest warrant is from Sweden, not the US.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)or thumb his nose at the US. He is a purely anti-US negative nationalist. In that sense, women shouldn't feel bad here. If instead of being accused of rape, Assage was accused of a heinous act that was associated with virulent anti-semitism, racism, homophobia, you name it, Chomsky would unhesitatingly throw those groups under the bus too.
That's one of the ways you know he is a negative nationalist. Everything for him hinges on being able to attack US prestige.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Until he practices what he preaches and defends himself in court, he remains an accused sex criminal. Neither innocent nor guilty. He has the power to clear his name, but refuses to do so.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Where you are accused of not using a rubber when having consensual sex, and if you go there to defend yourself you will be extradited to a country that will charge you with espionage and never see the light of day or a fair trial.
riqster
(13,986 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Where the 1% call the shots and protect one another.
If he did defend himself in Swedish courts I am sure it would be just, but that is not how it would go down and you know it...he would never see a Swedish cort.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Can you provide an example of when the Swedish government has pursued an innocent person, arrested them, and then used extralegal means to rendition them to our shores,
I looked and could find nothing.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And so would never happen.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Here is how my thought process works: a thing that hasn't happened vs. a frequent occurrence: which is more likely?
So we have potential judicial malfeasance by a country of the sort that has no history of such activity on the one hand.
On the other, we have an alleged sex crime committed by a powerful man, and a victim that suddenly recants or changes her story after the accusations are public. The supporters of the powerful man do their best to try the case in the media while he avoids arrest. There is a long history of these events, going back through history (Catholic priests, bankers, etc).
Which is more likely?
Cha
(297,196 posts)snip//
The allegations against Assange are rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. He's accused of pinning one woman's arms and using his body weight to hold her down during one alleged assault, and of raping a woman while she was sleeping. In both cases, according to the allegations, Assange did not use a condom. But the controversy seems to center on the fact that both encounters started off consensually. One of his accusers was quoted by the Guardian newspaper in August as saying, "What started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault." Whether consent was withdrawn because of the lack of a condom is unclear, but also beside the point. In Sweden, it's a crime to continue to have sex after your partner withdraws consent.
In the United States, withdrawing consent is not so clear-cut. In September, for example, prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape and sexual battery charges against a high school football player because sexual contact with the alleged victim began consensually. The dismissal documents cited a 1979 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, State v. Way, which says that if intercourse starts consensually, "no rape has occurred though the victim later withdraws consent during the same act of intercourse."
So if you initially agree to have sex and later change your mind for whatever reason - it hurts, your partner has become violent, or you're simply no longer in the mood - your partner can continue despite your protestations, and it won't be considered rape. It defies common sense. Who besides a rapist would continue to have sex with an unwilling partner?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Foul-mouthed anonymous internet shit-slinger or reknowned public intellectual? Nope, still not a tough choice.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And until he goes through the judicial process, he remains an accused criminal.
If stating an established fact seems to you to be "shit-slinging", then you obviously care naught for facts. Revealing and disturbing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against Assange, and by the same so-called 'prosecutor' who demanded in the PAST that all sex cases should be tried IMMEDIATELY.
That of course would be possible if there was a case.
So, now it appears that the 'case' is going to be dropped. Members of the Swedish govt itself, embarrassed by the entire collusion with the Big Banks, have called it a sham and are asking to drop it. I guess with the world watching them, years later, unable to file charges, lying about their reasons, all of which have been debunked over and over again, they realize their country has become a laughing stock throughout most of the world.
Last I heard Assange will be leaving the embassy, with no charges filed ever, in the not too distant future.
The ONLY people who ever gave any credence to this sham, intended to silence anyone who dared to expose the corruption of the Big Banks, were supporters of Wall St and their entire corrupt system.
All that happened from this in the end, was to confirm what most people already knew regarding this sham of a 'case', which even the Swedish Lawyer responsible for trying to make a case where there was none, admitted, that if it 'ever went to court, there is not a chance of a conviction'. Which is why it never will.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And I shall acknowledge the facts as I do now. Until then, I will continue calling him what he is based on the facts at this time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)years WITHOUT CHARGES. Just show me the CHARGES.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)He has been asked to come to Sweden to respond to legal charges by the Swedish Judiciary. His "imprisonment" is self-enforced because hew refuses to do so.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)In fact he offered to return to Sweden but was told again, too busy. You haven't been following this case from BEFORE it began, have you?
The prosecutor does NOT NEED him in Sweden to file those charges, that was established years ago. Not to mention that interviews have been conducted by video in the past if she really wants to interview him, though why she tried to use that as an excuse for not filing charges when it was completely false, is anyone's guess.
Assange has repeatedly offered to speak to her, both in Sweden, offered to return from London, and was always available for that interview she DOESN'T NEED to file charges.
We know charges will never be filed since there is no case. Are you familiar with the discovery of the phony piece of 'evidence' provided by the only woman making claims in this travesty of justice btw? Once THAT happened, whatever chance of a case there ended at that point. Lying 'witnesses' and false evidence don't make for good prosecutions.
Just file those 'charges', that's all the world is asking. But by not doing so a human being has been wrongfully imprisoned and it doesn't make the US look too great all over the world. Not that we do anyhow, this just serves to make this country look even worse.
There is no CASE so there never will be charges. This is nothing more than the US pressuring its 'allies' or 'stooges' might be a better word, to silence whistle blowers. And it isn't working.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Swedes to press the case for rape, and that the woman involved had been an "asset" for the U.S. Just speculation, but the Swedish government is the most reactionary in Europe with regard to the W.O.D. And drug policy/actions heavily involve foreign policy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Ronald Reagan'. Our neocons have been busy in Europe, working, as they do here, to rid the continent of any Left leaning leaders.
Rove was in Sweden helping his old friend get elected while he was under subpoena HERE in the US to appear before Congress.
What happened to his refusal to appear before Congress? NOTHING. He was busy helping 'Europe's Ronald Reagan' get elected in Sweden.
There is no doubt among anyone who isn't a Neocon, that Wikileaks was a target of the US Govt the moment he revealed he had information on a major US Bank, we know now that was BOA. That information was stolen and one month AFTER Assange's revelation of this, Assange was suddenly a wanted man.
But Wikileaks had exposed a CIA document months earlier, in which CIA operatives were discussing how to silence Wikileaks, especially Assange. They discussed various 'options', then settled on a Sexual Scandal The think was that the Left supported Wikileaks, so by implicating Assange in a sexual assault case, he would lose his supporters.
Problem is, that hasn't happened because many had been following Wikileaks long before many in the US even heard of them.
I have no doubt this was a CIA/Karl Rove psyops operation from the beginning.
Let them FILE CHARGES! But we know that is never going to happen because it is all a scam to silence Whistle Blowers and the Independent press.
BOA was taking contracts on 'how to smear' anyone who was supporting Wikileaks.
One of those 'supporters' was Glenn Greenwald, a mere blogger at the time, who had been writing about the Big Banks.
Anonymous exposed one of the Private Security Contractors who was submitting a 'contract' to BOA, the emails released by Anonymous showed that HB Gary was working on a smear campaign against people like Glenn Greenwald.
That smear campaign must have been contracted out even after its exposure. Because we've seen it even here on DU.
No charges against Assange after so many years and still we see a few here trying to justify the entire scam.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...but still no solid refutation of what Assange has been charged for.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I have NEVER seen any charges filed against Assange.
Hard to provide 'solid refutation' of charges that don't exist.
Talk about CTs!
Now go read my post again with the knowledge you apparently didn't have before. It kind of changes things when you have the facts.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)The alleged victim could have been working Assange for ??? alphabet agency. But still, if he really raped her then justice must be served.
Please don't confuse me with others. I want to see all the dirt uncovered, the torture report and the 9/11 report released. I personally think Chelsea Manning's sentence is a draconian outrage. It shouldn't be illegal to expose lawbreaking and war crimes.
If they wanted to set him up a rape charge would be just the thing. The weight of the charge damaging a reputation forever.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they don't appear to think the case is a sham.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/20/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-warrant/
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)assange.
Karl Rove's friends in the Swedish Govt, especially the PM who Rove helped elect, naturally are continuing to try perpetrate a lie they CANNOT BRING TO COURT where it would be tested.
And at this point, anyone still defending Karl Rove and his friends, is highly suspect imo.
I followed this case from BEFORE the scam went into effect. I saw the CIA memo on Wikileaks Website which discussed 'how to silence him' regarding the information he had stated he had on 'a big, US Bank' (BOA we later learned)
The memo showed CIA operatives discussing how to shut him up. They talked about various options, then settled on a 'Sex Scandal'. Imagine that, what a coincidence that what the CIA was plotting actually happened.
EVERYONE involved in this plot against Whistle Blowers is a RIGHT WING lunatic, from the Right Wing Rag in Sweden that first published the 'story' all the way up to Sweden's PM and Karl Rove.
So it's strange to see anyone on a Dem website supporting this plot to silence the press. Frankly I don't understand it all. I thought the Left knew all about the Neocons, Karl Rove and their despicable tactics.
Why have no CHARGES ever been filed against Assange?
Maybe Rove can answer that question.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Rape, coercion and two counts of sexual molestation.
You know why the charges have not been filed - the Swedish legal system is different. The last step before arrest is an interview with the accused where the state details their case. After the interview the accused is arrested and indicted.
Read the British High Court transcript- It has the four charges with details in paragraph 3
zappaman
(20,606 posts)"SHOW US THE CHARGES!" ad nauseum.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that were long ago debunked, which is WHY we will never see the CHARGES I asked you to post. Because the Prosecutor has no case. The radical lawyer that had this reopened after it was rightfully dismissed due to not a shred of evidence against Assange, as we know the main 'accuser' has been found to have fabricated 'evidence' and not very well, even THAT radical lawyer has stated that 'this case, if it ever went to court, would be total loss'.
Yet both of them continue to participate in what they KNOW is a corrupt, libelous attack by powerful people on a News Editor simply for the purpose of silencing him.
I am not going to re post all that we know about those false allegations, but it's astounding that a prosecutor would make such a fool of herself for this long a period of time by demonstrating to the world, that she is participating in a witch hunt. But who knows why she continues to do so?
When the 'condom' claimed to have been ripped by Assange was discovered to have zero DNA on it,, this case was over. When a woman is so stupid as to try to pass off a piece of evidence as PROOF of her claims, which she knew would do no such thing, she is a liar, and not a very smart one at that.
So there is no case, there never was, and there never will be charges filed. Most intelligent people KNEW this and said so, years ago. And it appears we were correct.
Why would you support an obvious attempt to silence the press? That is what I don't understand.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Some interesting logic there.
The Swedish judicial system said last week that the arrest warrant is valid. You can't arrest someone unles they have been charged with a crime. If he allows himself to be arrested there will be an indictment and a trial.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)A warrant does NOT equal charges, since when did become the case? The warrant was NEVER NEEDED, he was ALWAYS available to speak to the prosecutor.
He spoke freely to the Swedish Police but the Prosecutor WOULD NOT SPEAK to HIM. Why wouldn't she speak to him if she was so 'concerned' about a crime having been committed?
Why did the prosecutor, not once, or twice, but several times refuse to 'find time' to speak to him after he stayed longer than intended in Sweden JUST TO TRY TO SPEAK TO HER?
She told his lawyer, 'he is free to leave for London'. Assange didn't want to leave before speaking to her. But after trying and being told she couldn't make time for him, he finally went to London, told her to let him know when she had time and he would return.
It was a blatant trap the entire shame of a process. And you trying to defend it is a waste of your time and everyone else's.
The world knows what this was all about, it's better not to even try to 'explain' it away.
They WANTED to issue that fake warrant in which they lie without any legal challenge.
Those were not CHARGES, they were ALLEGATIONS.
Now, if you can point to the CHARGES not the ALLEGATIONS, then do so, but I know you cannot because this Prosecutor will NEVER file charges in this case because there IS NO CASE.
Btw, there are literally millions of warrants issues every day at the request of someone or another. A warrant is NOT a charge, it is a request to appear in court to answer ALLEGATIONS made by someone against you.
I know they thought we are all stupid. Some of the allegations btw, in that warrant, have been PROVEN to be FALSE.
Too bad people have followed all this very closely and actually KNOW the FACTS.
hack89
(39,171 posts)"Why am I being arrested" is a basic question to be answered. There are four specific charges filed against Assange. They are called charges by the Swedish prosecutors so I will take their word over yours as to what constitutes charges vice allegations.
Assange ' s lawyer testified under oath that Assange was notified several days before he fled Sweden that the prosecutor wanted to interview him. The prosecutor also said she intended to arrest him. It is in black and white from his lawyer's mouth so stop lying about it.
She will not interview Assange in London until Assange agrees that he will surrender if arrested. The interview is the final step before arrest. You also know that so stop lying about it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on the unlikely assumption that there is ANYONE left on the planet who actually doesn't know the difference between Criminal Charges Filed in a Court of a Law, and an Interpol Warrant containing propaganda fed to them by the puppets of deserate corrupt Corporate entities, who are desperately trying to silence the free press.
And the ONLY way they could put that garbage into writing was to falsely claim they HAD A CASE which THEY WOULD FILE!
But the LIED didn't they, the got their libelous filth out there using the European Judicial system to do so, shamefully.
Assange's attorneys AGAIN made him available in the same way others who were in that position have, and the Prosecutor AGAIN refused to interview him.
THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED ANYWHERE AGAINST ASSANGE. None, Zero, and their never WILL BE. We KNOW that.
They Prosecutor LIED about needing to interview Assange in SWEDEN.
SHE REFUSED TO INTERVIEW HIM IN SWEDEN. She is a liar. And everyone knows it.
Where are the CHARGES? You cannot answer that question because THERE ARE NO CHARGES FILED AFTER ALL THESE YEARS BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE!
hack89
(39,171 posts)She notified him days before he fled to London. It is in black and white. He testified in court under oath.
It is a fact.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Swedish Police as soon as the asked him for an interview. And the FACT that he contacted the Prosecutor several times, stayed in Sweden way past the time he was scheduled to leave, TRYING to get an interview with the prosecutor.
What the lawyer testified to was HIS contact with the prosecutor which he failed to reveal to Assange.
Considering that Assange repeatedly ASKED for an interview, even after the Prosecutor told him he was free to leave Sweden AND she would contact him when she had time, you are struggling hard to try to avoid admitting that THERE ARE NO CHARGES FILED after YEARS of claiming to have a case. The question is why, why can you not simply admit what the whole world KNOWS to be a fact. It is a fruitless waste of time.
The other lie told by the prosecutor is that she has to conduct that interview in Sweden. NO, she does not. It is a game that is being played in order to avoid actually filing charges that are false, where under oath, as their own lawyer has admitted, the case doesn't stand a chance.
hack89
(39,171 posts)of testimony given freely under oath by Assange's lawyer? Are you saying it does not exist?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)deny that fact? After YEARS of lies and obfuscations by the Swedish Prosecutor, who continually REFUSED to speak to him, and after LYING about the interview process, her credibility which was pretty bad to begin with, is about ZERO at this point.
So, I asked you to show us the charges against Assange.
Are you still claiming they exist? Or are you hoping people won't notice how much trouble you are going to to try to deny that FACT?
Either link to them, or have courage to admit they do not exist. Since everyone knows that anyhow I don't get why you simply will not state that fact.
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #182)
hack89 This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)a warrant with four detailed specifications?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The warrant was based on lies. So yes, many people do deny it was valid.
Anything based on lies is invalid. The lies contained in that warrant have been repeatedly debunked.
To make them valid, all the Prosecutor has to do is FILE THOSE ALLEGATIONS in court and let's see if they stand up to a LEGAL challenge.
But she won't do that because SHE knows they cannot stand up to a legal challenge. Her main 'witness' has been caught lying and probably cannot even appear in court without those lies being torn to pieces for the world to see.
Any good prosecutor who believes they have a strong case doesn't waste any time turning those allegations into LEGAL CHARGES in the ONLY COURT where such charges CAN BE FILED.
But after YEARS of playing games, she is still unable to make a case in a court of law and the whole world now knows what a sham the whole thing was.
hack89
(39,171 posts)The Swedish Appeals court said last week there is probable cause to arrest Assange so I guess they didn't get the word that everything has been "debunked".
Once Assange is interviewed he can be indicted. You know the Swedish law by now. Those accusations will never be proven false if he keeps avoiding arrest, will they?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No interview in SWEDEN is needed to file charges. Assange has offered to speak to her the same way others have who are out of the country. Why won't she do that?? I think we know why.
I know, it's hard for you to defend all this when the facts are so against you. '
If they have a case, FILE IT. Otherwise all they are doing is blowing hot air AGAIN. That court has zero credibility at this point. They are an embarrassment to Sweden, which several of Sweden's own government have more or less stated.
No charges filed after years of playing games = No Case. It really is simple.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you cannot believe that the Swedish courts have to lay out all of their evidence prior to trial. To what end - to hold an internet poll on whether Assange should be arrested or not? Giving me a fucking break - do you have any clue how the real world works? The prosecutor presented their evidence to the judicial system to get a detention order. Which became an international arrest warrant when he fled. The Swedish judicial system twice has said that there is probable cause that Assange committed a crime. The only way forward is a trial.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)and under their system, they have an investigation, then interview the suspect to present their case, then arrest the suspect and then indict him.
You know this. You have been told this countless times.
Until Assange agrees that he will surrender when arrested, there is no point in interviewing him. They have their case - now they need their defendant.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)speak to him in Sweden. We know they have spoken to others via phone, video conferencing etc.
We know the prosecutor has refused to speak to Assange time and time again, while he was in Sweden and multiple times since then.
You may as well stop repeating that false information. It was debunked right at the beginning.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Didn't think so.
Assange's lawyer has said under oath that Assange fled Sweden after being told the prosecutor wanted to interview him. So please stop spreading that falsehood. It is in black and white in a trial transcript.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)surrender when there are no charges filed against them, and the Prosecutor is SAYING, you too btw, that in order to file those charges, meaning he is a totally innocent person, she needs to talk to him??
If she won't take that step, then there is no question of any surrender, is there?
You just got caught in the web that is weaved when people lie about things like this.
He has complied with the warrant. He has done his part.
She won't. So there is no question of any surrender, is there?
hack89
(39,171 posts)do you understand how our legal system works? Guilt or innocence is not determine before arrest but after. That is what trials are about.
He has a valid arrest warrant in his name. He is a fugitive from justice. He has not complied with the warrant.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Because we KNOW the US is behind all this together with its main Imperial 'ally', the former Imperial Empire, the UK.
Thanks for that anyhow.
All this has done is to confirm the suspicion people have had for so long that the Imperial Western Powers have so much to hide that they will do anything to silence Whistle Blowers and the Free Press.
And it has all failed so spectacularly that you would think they would change tactics at this point. But there is no accounting for stupidity, and I am glad they are showing their true colors to the world.
They turned Assange into a hero!! I'm sure that wasn't the goal! Lol!
hack89
(39,171 posts)think about it - 6 more years of threads like this.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)What do you think about all the great Democratic/Liberals who have been supporters of Assange in this from the beginning? I know the Far Right hates him.
One way to know whether you are on the historically correct side of something is to look at who is there with you, AND of course at those who are on the wrong side.
I would be very worried if I found myself on the same side as Sarah Palin in this case, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Limbaugh et al.
But thankfully most of our great Liberals have known from the beginning what this is all about and have been very supportive of Assange.
hack89
(39,171 posts)We are talking about him fleeing Sweden to avoid an interview with the prosecutor - did his lawyer lie under oath? Is that what you believe?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Did they prosecutor screw up by not contacting Assange directly, not returning his calls?
I assume you are trying to use this to make it appear Assange lied.
Okay, then WHY didn't prosecutor take it to COURT?
Why didn't she file charges and add this minor issue to try to make him look like a liar?
Because she knew she could not.
There's no way out of it for this prosecutor.
She has no case so all she can do is continue to refuse to file charges pretending she needs an interview when in fact she NEVER NEEDED THAT INTERVIEW.
Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to inform anyone reading of the facts of this case btw.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but don't you think it is an important issue?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are you still pretending that charges were filed?
Regarding your Think Tank Talking point above, It isn't possible to talk about something that never happened.
Assange did not flee Sweden. He did the opposite, he remained in Sweden TRYING to get that Prosecutor to talk to him.
So where are these charges you claimed against him? Or are you ready to admit that this entire 'case' was a scam like everyone else who knows a scam when they see one?
hack89
(39,171 posts)because what he said under oath does not jib with "Assange did not flee Sweden. He did the opposite, he remained in Sweden TRYING to get that Prosecutor to talk to him." His lawyer is on record as saying that the prosecutor contacted him to set up an interview. Assange left Sweden two days later.
Those are documented facts.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Just in case:
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Anyone who defends Assange has no right to claim to take rape seriously or be unambiguously opposed to it.
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #36)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #40)
Post removed
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Just so you know.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)It doesn't matter what any one 'thinks.'
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Assange's defense while fighting the European Arrest Warrant wasn't "I didn't do this".
His defense was "what I did wasn't rape".
Thanks for the reminder.
Sid
pa28
(6,145 posts)Clearly Assanges' presence is a deep threat to the surveillance state and the status quo. It's always heartening to know people like Noam Chomsky are willing to stand up and call it out.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...and you, no doubt, have detailed knowledge to back up that assertion?
pa28
(6,145 posts)Remember, Assange is not being charged with any crime. Until charges are filed it's "supposed".
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...perhaps if Assange has responded when the investigation started, they wouldn't have had to spend that much.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)The Ecuadorian government feels he will be subject legal persecution and so gave Assange the asylum he requested. Based on the British government's out of scale response to the situation it appears they were right.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)because they walk into an embassy?
Legal persecution? Assange spent his time in the UK on a country estate, talking full advantage of the British courts.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Asylum is a difficult and politically loaded event and not granted loosely.
randome
(34,845 posts)Where have you been for the past 50 years?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
pa28
(6,145 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)defense attorney I will tell you that a sure and clear indicator of guilt is bail jumping, particularly in sex crimes cases.
Mr Assange's legal defense is not that he did not do the acts described in the warrant... merely that the acts described in the warrant are not crimes.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Let's not forget he jumped bail and fled when he lost in court.
pa28
(6,145 posts)They felt the charges against him were politically motivated. Asylum recipients are always called "fugitives" by their pursuers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)He didn't think things out very well.
Wella
(1,827 posts)Were he not tenured, he would have lost his job and livelihood a long time ago.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Cha
(297,196 posts)I think everyone is aware of what the racist assholes ron and rand stand for without me having to post it.
Assange and the Pauls.. good fucking fit.
you killed it
elias49
(4,259 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
elias49
(4,259 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)So yeah...fuck Assange (not literally, of course!).
Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #80)
Post removed
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)How predictable.
elias49
(4,259 posts)And what the hell could "How predictable" mean?
Are you Karnac the Magnificent?
G'night.
Keep toeing the line.
hack89
(39,171 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)On Fri Nov 28, 2014, 08:09 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Rape charges are bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5884568
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
"fuck the jealous chicks?"
Am I on Free Republic? Please hide this...as a woman, I don't come here for this.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Nov 28, 2014, 08:26 PM, and voted 7-0 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Over the top and inappropriate.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. This is way over the top, inappropriate, off-topic and mean-hearted. Hide.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Pig.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This isn't about whether or not Assange is guilty or innocent this post is insensitive and insulting.
Thank you.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)One of the women accusing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sex crimes appears to have worked with a group that has connections to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
James D. Catlin, a lawyer who recently represented Assange, said the sex assault investigation into the WikiLeaks founder is based on claims he didnt use condoms during sex with two Swedish women.
Swedish prosecutors told AOL News last week that Assange was not wanted for rape as has been reported, but for something called sex by surprise or unexpected sex.
One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups, according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.
CONTINUED...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/06/assange-rape-accuser-cia-ties/
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)I get you now.
EDIT:
Assanges lawyer and many of his supporters have claimed that this was a CIA conspiracy. Assanges supporters often argue this because the women did not report the crime immediately and did not kick Assange out of the house. Unfortunately, this relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of rape and sexual assault.
Victims of rape sometimes experience self-doubt, and often fear stigma and shame. Many people, both men and women, are confused by the line between aggressive sex and sexual assault, and even those who understand the lines may hesitate. This is why most rapes are not reported at all. Statistics show that the number of victims seriously affected by trauma far outnumber cases where false accusations are made. These women were Wikileaks supporters, invited Assange to their homes, and at one point wanted to have sex with him, on their terms. They probably predicted that they would be publically vilified by Assanges supporters.
The fact that this crime was reported at all beats the odds. In light of these facts, it is pure misogyny to criticize Assanges victims for the delay.
There are other reasons to discredit conspiracy theories about the charges. The incident in question occurred in August of 2010, before Wikileaks major cable dump. At the time, most Americans had never heard of Wikileaks and Wikileaks could not have been a serious priority for the CIA.
Assange would have you believe that the CIA managed to convince two of his former supporters, as well as the fairly liberal Swedish government, to turn on him without leaving a shred of evidence behind. Unfortunately, there is a long history of the media and the American public giving celebrity rapists the benefit of the doubt. Kate Harding, a journalist for Salon, effectively documented how the smears against Assanges accusers began as soon as the story broke. Major media figures, such as Keith Olberman, were claiming Assange was set up even before the basic facts of the case were in. Sadly, rumors are still flying about the supposed CIA connection of one of Assanges accusers. However, no credible media source has verified this connection.
It was first claimed by Israel Shamir, a Wikileaks member infamous for Holocaust denial and other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Shamir claims that one of Assanges accusers once worked with anti-Castro groups that are also supported by the CIA.
http://mic.com/articles/13088/julian-assange-wikileaks-embassy-standoff-5-myths-that-have-helped-make-assange-a-hero
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Last year, I attended "Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" at Duquesne University in October.
One of the important speakers there I was privileged to hear is attorney Dan L. Hardway, whose program was entitled "A View from the Trenches: The HSCA and the CIA." Mr. Hardway once served as a staff investigator and researcher for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
A body formed by the House of Representatives in 1976, the HSCA was founded to investigate the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In brief, the HSCA was to follow up on information that the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House -- and other Congressional investigations after Watergate -- uncovered, including the startling revelations that the CIA and the Mafia conspired to murder foreign leaders, starting in 1960 with Patrice Lumumba in Congo and later that year to include Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Hardway's work included interviewing people and researching documents related to the Central Intelligence Agency, including their connections to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The record shows, Mr. Hardway said, that within 24 hours of the assassination of President Kennedy, an anti-Castro organization in Miami, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE, an acronym based on the Spanish phrase for Directorate of Revolutionary Students) began to issue information to the United States press that linked Lee Harvey Oswald to Fidel Castro. The information included an episode in New Orleans where Oswald was handing out pro-Castro literature to passers-by in his "role" as chapter head of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. During the leafleting, DRE members confronted Oswald, pushing him around and calling him a communist dupe. The police were called and arrested Oswald, who was not belligerent and had not initiated the confrontation.
This episode in New Orleans was even more important to Hardway and the HSCA than he knew in 1977 when he first began to investigate it. The reason: George Joannides, the intelligence officer the CIA assigned to serve as liaison to the HSCA in the late 1970s, also was in charge of paying almost $450,000 a month (in today's dollars) to the DRE in 1963. This vital information was not made known to the HSCA, nor to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s.
Below are Mr. Hardway's words, including a partial transcription of his presentation at Duquesne, and some observations on why his testimony is vitally important for our future as a democracy.
If (the Oswald, the Pro-Castro Commie story) was that coordinated, that quick, and as detailed, it would be reasonable to infer that it had been laid on in advance. I set out to identify the sources of these stories that came out immediately after the assassination with detailed information on Oswald and his pro-Castro activities. I started asking for the CIA files on all those sources. I got a lot of them before we lost access, but I did not get them all. That was one of the things I was really pressing on, when I got shut down.
In the same period, I also found a reference to a CIA debriefing of Johnny Roselli, after Drew Pearson published his piece about Castro turning the assassins sent to kill him around and sending them back to kill Kennedy. I asked for the records about the debriefing that was part of what I was looking into with Bill Harvey. That's how I came across that. I very clearly remember some of the details about this. The debriefing happened at a CIA safe house over a period of two weeks in 1967. Sheffield Edwards was one of the debriefers. He was brought out of retirement, I think in order to do that, I think I remember that he was brought out of retirement.
And that was when the CIA changed the procedures on us. They brought George Joannides out of retirement to be the new liaison for me and Ed (Edwin L. Lopez), primarily. He closed our office at Langley. The agency set up a safe room for us to use as committee offices. I no longer had direct contact with any CIA employees to request files. All further requests for documents and files had to be in writing and approved through official channels. Files (we requested) were not produced for weeks after being requested. My whole inquiry into areas outside and inside the scope of my portfolio ground to a halt. We soon thereafter lost unexpurgated access and perk
Long and short on the Rosselli debriefing: I was told eventually -- I was given expurgated access to it. As a matter of fact, it was the first expurgated document I was handed. It happened out at the old meeting room that I had at the CIA. It was one of the few times that I am sure I met George Joannides. Ed remembers meeting him a lot. I don't remember meeting that many times, but I know I met him that time because when I walked in, it was just me, him, and Scott Breckenridge.
They handed me the file. It was about 2-inches, 2-and-a-half-inches thick. I sat down at the desk and they stood there, grinning, which struck me as unusual, and I thought maybe they don't trust me to look at the file without them present, because usually whoever delivered the file (in the past) would leave and let me work on them. And they were standing there, grinning in anticipation. And I opened it. And not only was the document expurgated, instead of taking the document and blacking out the lines on the copy, which is what they always did, they had retyped the whole document leaving white spaces where things were left out.
I blew up. I left. And, uh. They agreed, after the committee issued a subpoena, they agreed to let Gary Cornwall see it, unexpurgated. Gary went out there one day in the middle of trying to get the final report written, with 20 things on his agenda to get done. He stayed maybe two hours. He was out of the office about two hours. I know because I was waiting for him to get back, because I wanted to find out what he'd seen. And when he came back in he said, It doesn't have anything to do with what you're working on for the final report. Forget it. And that was the end of it.
That was the end of it until I went before the Assassination Records Review Board, which I was subpoenaed before to testify. And after they'd asked me about all the documents they wanted to ask me about, they asked me if there was anything else that they should ask me about that they had not asked me about. I told them about the debriefing of Johnny Roselli, about Sheffield Edwards' involvement, about Harvey, leaving the (inaudible) with the Harvey files. They (ARRB) said they would search for that, because it certainly sounded interesting and relevant and something that should be disclosed. They later had the kindness to get back to me, to tell me there was no record of any such file having ever existed or having ever been requested by the House Select Committee on Assassinations...
The George Joannides case shows the lengths to which the CIA went to stonewall the HSCA investigation. That's not just what Mr. Hardway said, it's what G. Robert Blakey, the chief counsel and staff director of the HSCA said:
I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee...
SNIP...
I was not told of Joannides background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.
That the Agency would put a material witness in as a filter between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.
The committees researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.
They were certainly right about one question: the committees researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agencys integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.
SNIP...
Significantly, the Warren Commissions conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
CONTINUED...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/#addendum
Federal Judge John Tunheim, who headed the ARRB panel, the government body charged with finding, reviewing and releasing all pertinent JFK and MLK assassination records, said he was very surprised to learn to what extend the CIA went to obstruct HSCA Congressional investigators, the ARRB and the law:
It really was an example of treachery, Tunheim said in a recent interview of the CIAs handling of the Joannides affair. If (the CIA) fooled us on that, they may have fooled us on other things.
SOURCE: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/11/25/government-still-withholding-thousands-documents-jfk-assassination/PvBM2PCgW1H11vadQ4Wp4H/story.html
What other things? What Assange revealed?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)By: Kirk Murphy
FireDogLake, Saturday December 4, 2010 9:20 pm
Yesterday Alexander Cockburn reminded us of the news Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett broke at Counterpunch in September. Julian Assanges chief accuser in Sweden has a significant history of work with anti-Castro groups, at least one of which is US funded and openly supported by a former CIA agent convicted in the mass murder of seventy three Cubans on an airliner he was involved in blowing up.
Anna Ardin (the official complainant) is often described by the media as a leftist. She has ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups. She published her anti-Castro diatribes (see here and here) in the Swedish-language publication Revista de Asignaturas Cubanas put out by Misceláneas de Cuba. From Oslo, Professor Michael Seltzer points out that this periodical is the product of a well-financed anti-Castro organization in Sweden. He further notes that the group is connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner whose CIA ties were exposed here.
Quelle surprise, no? Shamir and Bennett went on to write about Ardins history in Cuba with a US funded group openly supported by a real terrorist: Luis Posada Carriles.
In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter. Wikipedia quotes Hebe de Bonafini, president of the Argentine Madres de Plaza de Mayo as saying that the so-called Ladies in White defend the terrorism of the United States.
Who is Luis Posada Carriles? Hes a mass murderer, and former CIA agent. . . .
Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles (born February 15, 1928) (nicknamed Bambi by some Cuban exiles)[1] is a Cuban-born Venezuelan anti-communist extremist. A former Central Intelligence Agency agent,[2] Posada has been convicted in absentia of involvement in various terrorist attacks and plots in the Americas, including: involvement in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed seventy-three people;[3][4] admitted involvement in a string of bombings in 1997 targeting fashionable Cuban hotels and nightspots;[5][6][7] involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion; [and] involvement in the Iran-Contra affair
Luis Posada Carriles is so evil that even the Bush administration wanted him behind bars:
In 2005, Posada was held by U.S. authorities in Texas on the charge of illegal presence on national territory before the charges were dismissed on May 8, 2007. On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported, finding that he faces the threat of torture in Venezuela.[11] His release on bail on April 19, 2007 had elicited angry reactions from the Cuban and Venezuelan governments.[12] The U.S. Justice Department had urged the court to keep him in jail because he was an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks, a flight risk and a danger to the community.[7]
Who is Julian Assanges chief accuser in Sweden? Shes a gender equity officer at Uppsula University who chose to associate with a US funded group openly supported by a convicted terrorist and mass murderer. She just happens to have her work published by a very well funded group connected with Union Liberal Cubana whose leader, Carlos Alberto Montaner, in turn just happened to pop up on right wing Colombian TV a few hours after the right-wing coup in Honduras. Where he joined the leader of the failed coup in Ecuador to savage Correa, the target of the coup. Montnaner also just happened to vociferously support the violent coup in Honduras, and chose to show up to sing the praises of the Honduran junta. Jean-Guy Allard, a retired Canadian journalist who now writes for Cubas Gramma, captured the moment
A strange pair appeared on NTN 24, the right-wing Colombian television channel aligned to the Fox Broadcasting Company the U.S. A few hours after the coup attempt in Quito, Ecuador, CIA agent Carlos Alberto Montaner, a fugitive from Cuban justice for acts of terrorism, joined with one of the leaders of the failed Ecuadorian coup, ex-Lieutenant Colonel Lucio Gutiérrez, to attack President Rafael Correa
SNIP...
Oh and the rape charge thats smeared Julian Assanges name around the world? On Thursday James D. Catlin, the Melbourne barrister who represented Assange in London, wrote:
Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.
Swedens Public Prosecutors Office was embarrassed in August this year when it leaked to the media that it was seeking to arrest Assange for rape, then on the same day withdrew the arrest warrant because in its own words there was no evidence. The damage to Assanges reputation is incalculable. More than three quarters of internet references to his name refer to rape. Now, three months on and three prosecutors later, the Swedes seem to be clear on their basis to proceed. Consensual sex that started out with a condom ended up without one, ergo, the sex was not consensual.
SNIP...
Small world, isnt it? Julian Assange is the human face of Wikileaks the organization thats enabled whistle-blowers to reveal hideous war crimes and expose much of Americas foreign policy to the world.
CONTINUED w/links to all the salient points the BFEE Secret Team doesn't want you to know...
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)called Operation 40 and one of his fellow members was Porter Goss, the co-author of the Patriot act and co-chair of the original 911 commission
Operation 40 was a Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored undercover operation in the early 1960s, which was active in the United States and the Caribbean (including Cuba), Central America, and Mexico. The group was formed to seize political control of Cuba after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.[1]
It was approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in March 1960, after the January 1959 Cuban Revolution, and was presided over by Vice-president Richard Nixon. The group included Frank Sturgis (who would later become one of the Watergate burglars); Felix Rodriguez (a CIA officer who later was involved in the capture and summary execution of Che Guevara); Luis Posada Carriles (held in the US in 2010 on charges of illegal immigration, he is demanded by Venezuela for his key role in the execution of the 1976 Cubana Flight 455 bombing); Orlando Bosch (founder of the counterrevolutionary Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations, that organized the 1976 murder of Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier); Rafael 'Chi Chi' Quintero; Virgilio Paz Romero; Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz; Bernard Barker; Porter Goss; and Barry Seal.
Operation 40 had 86 employees in 1961, of which 37 were trained as case officers.
...Operations
On 4 March 1960, La Coubre, a ship flying a Belgian flag, exploded in Havana Bay. It was loaded with arms and ammunition that had been sent to the armed forces of the post-revolution government of Cuba. A second bomb was set nearby and timed to go off later. The explosions killed 75 people and over 200 were injured.[2] Operation 40 was not only involved in sabotage operations.
One member, Frank Sturgis, allegedly told author Mike Canfield: "this assassination group (Operation 40) would upon orders, naturally, assassinate either members of the military or the political parties of the foreign country that you were going to infiltrate, and if necessary some of your own members who were suspected of being foreign agents...We were concentrating strictly in Cuba at that particular time." The group sought to incite civil war in Cuba against the government of prime minister Fidel Castro. "In October 1960, they realize that this project has failed, and that is when Brigade 2506" was created, a CIA-sponsored group made up of 1,511 Cuban exiles who fought in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40
Of course this kind of thing is only directed at "other countries" (rofl)WORLD EXCLUSIVE
May 6 2006--Venice,FL.
by Daniel Hopsicker
Deposed CIA head Porter Goss was once a member of the CIA's super-secret Operation 40, an assassination squad which roamed through North and Central America during the 1960's. Along with a number of men whose names became famous and whose lives and careers comprise a large part of America's Secret History, Goss appears (see a comparison) in the historic photograph at right, which also appears on the cover of "Barry & 'the boys': The CIA, the Mob, and America's Secret History...
The only known photo in existence of Operation 40
Seal is seated third from left. Sitting right next to him (second from left) is Porter Goss. Beside Goss is notorious "freedom fighter" Felix Rodriguez (front left), a Cuban vice cop under the corrupt Mob-run Batista regime in Cuba who later became an Iran Contra operative and a confidant of the first George Bush.
On the other side of the table is the the only spook celebrant displaying any regard for tradecraft... Covering his face with his sport coat is Frank Sturgis, famous for being one of the Watergate burglars.
Beside Sturgis (front right) is another famous spook, at least among Kennedy assassination researchers, William Seymour, the New Orleans representative of the Double-Chek Corporation, a CIA front used to recruit pilots (like Seal). Seymour is regarded by many researchers as the man who on several notable occasions is said to have impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald, when that lone nut gunman was out of the country...>
MORE http://www.madcowprod.com/05072006.html
Sing along!
It's a world of laughter, a world of tears
It's a world of hopes and a world of fears
There's so much that we share that it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small, small world...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Original OP from 2006: Know your BFEE or "Hey, America! Wake Up and Smell the Sulfur!"
Few today remember a most heinous terrorist act: The assassinations of former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and American Ronnie Karpen Moffit.
Ms. Moffit was an American citizen murdered by agents of a foreign government on U.S. soil. Her only crime was being with Orlando Letelier, whose crime was to speak out against the military coup that toppled the democratically elected Chilean government he served. Because he refused to turn over the Chilean secret police and their American contacts, these assassinations were allowed, if not sanctioned, by George Bush, then director of central intelligence and head of the CIA.
As with all things having to do with the BFEE, the world get worse. So, a reminder:
October will mark the 30th anniversary of another most heinous terrorist act: The bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner that killed 73 passengers and crew. The pilots reported the blast caused their aircraft to catch fire and they were burning up as they attempted an emergency landing. The plane crashed into the Caribbean, a few miles west of Barbados. All aboard perished, including a close friend of the Great DUer malaise.
Cubana Airlines DC-8 like the one bombed by BFEE members Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. Both turds have been protected by Poppy and Baby Doc Bush and the CIA, which strangely has been loyal to them rather than to various presidencies before and in-between.
Heres an excellent essay based on the facts:
The Charmed Life of a Mass Murderer
Posada Carriles and Bush's Anti-Terror Hoax
By SAUL LANDAU
Counterpunch June 9, 2005
President George W. Bush has emphasized that if one of the myriad of U.S. police agencies even suspect someone of planning, abetting or carrying out a terrorist act, he will, at a minimum, get tossed into a dark hole. Indeed, Bush has thrown the Magna Carta into the garbage heap when it comes to Muslims suspected of pernicious thoughts toward the United States.
But if suspected terrorists turn their rage toward the detested Fidel Castro, these rules don't apply.
Indeed, those who try to bomb Cuban targets, or those related to Cuba, receive special treatment. This double-standard casts a shadow over the president's commitment to fight terrorism.
For example, TV footage showed Homeland Security cops arresting Posada in mid May. But the arresting officers didn't even handcuff the Western Hemisphere's most notorious terrorist. (Remember how Bush's pal Ken "Kenny Boy" Lay ENRON's CEO got handcuffed?) Justice Department spokespeople said they plan to charge the foremost terrorist in the western hemisphere with "illegal entry into the United States."
The FBI has reams of files on Posada, affectionately called "Bambi" by his terrorist friends. Former FBI Special Agent Carter Cornick told New York Times reporter Tim Weiner that Posada was "up to his eyeballs" in the October 1976 destruction of a Cuban commercial airliner over Barbados. All 73 passengers and crew members died. Recently published FBI and CIA documents not only confirm Cornick's statement, but also reveal that U.S. agencies had knowledge of the plot and did not inform Cuban authorities or try to stop the bombing.
SNIP
One wonders: Did Posada announce his illegal presence in the United States with the idea that U.S. government complicity in aiding and abetting his past acts of terrorism would protect him? U.S. authorities didn't inform Cuba or try to stop the 1976 air-bombing plot, and in 1971, as Veciana stated, the CIA made the gun that Posada's agents placed inside the camera to assassinate Castro. And Ollie North has knowledge of Posada's covert activities for U.S. intelligence as well.
CONTINUED
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau06092005.html
[font color="red"]What ties these two events together is the involvement of George Herbert Walker Bush, as then-CIA director, in their cover-up as crimes and in the protection of their perpetrators, as in the person of one Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch and their colleagues-in-terror.[/font color]
Think about it: A murder-forgiving CIA director Bush went on to become President of the United States. Today, Bushs son, George, acts as president. The younger Bush has used his office from Day One to protect and cover-up the crimes of his father.
Thats what Hugo Chavez was talking about when he smelled the sulfur and called Bush The Devil.
America needs to wake up and smell the sulfur, too. Heres some background on the above:
LUIS POSADA CARRILES
THE DECLASSIFIED RECORD
CIA and FBI Documents Detail Career in International Terrorism; Connection to U.S.
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 153
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153 /
Dont forget to check out Orlando Bosch, while youre at it. GOOGLE with Jeb Bush for some interesting connections to the present day.
Democracy Nows Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez interviewed National Security Archives Peter Kornbluh and Leteliers son, Francisco:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/21/153...
Another important point to remember, is Kissinger's close association with Operation CONDOR, the assassination program run out of "The Cone" to silence democrats, liberals, union leaders, progressives, socialists, communists or anyone who stood for justice and equality.
Chile security chief was CIA informer
BBC Tuesday, 19 September, 2000, 23:24 GMT 00:24 UK
Recently declassified documents in the United States show that the former head of the secret police in Chile, Manuel Contreras, was a paid informant for the US intelligence agency, the CIA.
The report, comprising CIA documents requested by the US Congress, show that contact with Contreras began in 1974 - a year after the military coup that brought General Augusto Pinochet to power.
Contreras oversaw the much-feared security service DINA
The report adds that the contact was maintained until 1977 - a year after Contreras plotted the killing of the then Chilean Foreign Minister and foe of General Pinochet, Orlando Letelier, in Washington.
A BBC correspondent in Washington, Nick Bryant, says the documents reinforce the view that the US turned a blind eye towards political repression in Chile during the Pinochet era and that the CIA was complicit in many human rights abuses.
Pinochet's confidant
As head of the security service, DINA, Contreras became the one of the most feared men in Chile, second only to General Pinochet.
The general's iron rule was underpinned by the tactics of brutal repression that saw thousands die and thousands more flee into exile. Others disappeared or were tortured.
CONTINUED
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/932897.stm
Of course, there are even more sulferous friends than these
Bush s Longstanding Criminal Mexican Amigos
The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush's Latino advisors
More on Bush-Amigos links in PBS Frontline interview with Gary Jacobs
By Julie Reynolds
Research assistance by Victor Almazán and Ana Leonor Rojo
LOS AMIGOS DE BUSH
Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres. (Tell me who you side with and I will tell you who you are.) George W. Bush for President web site
Those who say that George W. Bush has scant knowledge of foreign affairs don't understand his family's relationship with Mexico.
If one event could be said to make that relationship visible, it had to be the state dinner given eleven years ago by President Bush for Mexico's president, Carlos Salinas. It was an elegant yet boisterous gala, where the biggest movers and shakers in Texas and Mexico congregated and celebrated. This group was to become W's Mexican legacy, a gift of ties and connections passed on from the father to his son.
SNIP
The Mexican president had spent a long day with President Bush signing trade pacts, the precursors of NAFTA. Salinas brought his so-called Dream Team: his commerce secretary, finance minister, and his personal Machiavelli, Jose Córdoba. It would later be astounding to see, as the decade unfolded, how many of that administration's proud men and women fell shamefully from grace - some exiled, some imprisoned and some assassinated.
No one knew it then, but many at that banquet would survive to one day help young W beat a path back to the White House. There were loyal "Bushfellas" who were old friends of the family: Commerce Secretary Robert Mosbacher Sr., General Colin Powell, and George Bush Senior's ever-present friend, Secretary of State James Baker. Gary Jacobs, whose Texas bank was about to be bought by the son of Mexico's billionaire-politico Carlos Hank González, was also a guest. Tony Garza, then a young judge, is now a Bush cabinet contender. Today, all are advisors or contributors to W's campaign.
Hidden among the glitterati were two relative unknowns. They were, however, familiar to the group at hand. They were the loyal "Amigos de Bush" from San Antonio: criminal defense lawyer Roy Barrera Jr. and car dealer Ernesto Ancira Jr. In contrast to the Salinas group, the ties of Barrera and Ancira to drug cartels would remain unnoticed for another decade. Their ties to George W. would grow stronger.
CONTINUED
GOOGLE cache:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Th5_dq9beuYJ:www.el...
May also be at:
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/contents10,2,00.htm
Henry Kissinger and Agusto Pinochet
[font size="6"][font color="red"]I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves. -- Henry A. Kissinger[/font color][/font size]
Remember: If the guy Poppy's Dim Son wanted to appoint head of the 9-11 Commission feels that way about democracy in Chile, whats there to make us think he and those for whom he toils believe differently about democracy in the United States of America?
Ed Koch stands up for justice? Wouldn't be prudent. Speed bump.
Thanks for standing up to these fascist warmongers, nationalize the fed. While they may own most all the guns and money in the world, we have the only things that trump them on our side: Truth, Justice and Democracy.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I do love it when you recycle your old posts, though.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022521303
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022423322
Unless, maybe, you're just plagiarizing from banned poster "green for victory".
Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)just who your source is need only google my username and "Israel Shamir" in the helpful search box provided by admin.
The links provided by this search will show that your source is completely debunked, and a scurrilous individual.
Pay special attention to the Al Jazeera debunking of Israel Shamir...
http://m.aljazeera.com/story/20129410312450511
Or..as Katha Pollitt described your source....(and hell...rationalwiki totally debunks him, too.)
Katha Pollitt from The Nation describes a visit to Shamir's website thusly:
"I spent a few hours on www.israelshamir.net and learned that: 'the Jews' foisted capitalism, advertising and consumerism on harmonious and modest Christian Europe; were behind Stalin's famine in Ukraine; control the banks, the media and many governments; and that 'Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is.' There are numerous guest articles by Holocaust deniers, aka 'historical revisionists.'"[10]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir
That's Al Jazeera, rationalwiki, and Katha Pollitt...all calling bullshit on your source.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Some people just don't care about sources, I suppose.
Not the first time I've seen this poster link to disgusting sources.
Any port in the storm
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Anyone who's read my journals on DU3 or DU2 can see that.
Do you have anything of value to add about racism, bigotry or anti-semitism when I post about those subjects? Here's an important, recent example for you:
Who enabled NAZI Germany to round up the Jews? Think IBM.
That OP demonstrates more than a few issues -- and sources -- that show where I stand.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)No smears necessary.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I guess some are so wound up in CTs, they don't care who they are in bed with.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)There's a disturbing pattern on display here.
Sid
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)That's what some great DUers figured.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022890845
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Go figure.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)Most of that jackoff's buddies were pretty quick to pretend they'd never heard of him following his PPR.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who works for Wikileaks is credible?
What a crop circle of logic.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No need to smear, msanthrope. I linked to a post on DU and mentioned the great DUers there.
To think I once thought you better than that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)cited is Fire Walk With Me--banned for his Holocaust denial.
Do you not think that an employee of Wikileaks might be a bit biased in his reporting? His son works for Wikileaks, too.
Any DUer who follows this exchange need only google my username and "Israel Shamir" in the helpful search box provided by admin to understand exactly who you cite as an authority.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)As for Israel Shamir, he was a co-writer with Paul Bennett.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/08/27/assange-the-amazing-adventures-of-captain-neo-in-blonde-land/
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)one of the "great Duers" you citied is a banned anti-Semite troll, has the cognitive dissonance hit you yet?
Have you considered that anti-Semites are liars?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Dance around it all you like.
Its disturbing how you seem to ignore anti-semitism when you find someone who agrees with you about something else.
Whatever floats your boat, my friend!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)How do you know who's been banned and for what?
Secret little lists? How undemocratic.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)No need for secret lists unless you're paranoid.
Maybe you should ask Skinner to reinstate?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)He's pretending not to know even though his reply before his reply to me acknowledges it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5892793
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)marmar
(77,078 posts)...... when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. The 10-Minute Assange Hate team must distract and deflect! ..... The underlying substantive issues must not be discussed!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)They have a big problem about Chomsky hanging around with an (accused) rapist but no problem with Obama hanging around with war criminals and torturers...er, patriots under a lot of pressure.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
Puglover
(16,380 posts)any way Democracy." Just like in no known universe can this be considered a flight plan.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023164458
Seriously, it would be just almost cute if it weren't so pitiful.
QC
(26,371 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)1st greatest thread! THAT is for sure!
QC
(26,371 posts)struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)What a glorious day for the Anarcho-Syndicalist Revolution! Masses of disciplined vanguard cadres swarm the internet to applaud this historic achievement! This news surely revitalizes the Wikileaks Party in Australia, which narrowly lost its 2014 Senate seat race and was only excluded at the 24th count after collecting a staggering 8062 votes with the support of 0.63% of the voters! Surge forward, mighty hoards of keyboard warriors!
... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has made a rare public appearance on the balcony ... Noam Chomsky .. paid a brief visit ...
Julian Assange makes balcony appearance with Noam Chomsky
November 26, 2014
zappaman
(20,606 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Well done.
Sid
Number23
(24,544 posts)You killed it. It's now dead.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Like Snowden and Greenwald, Wikileaks and Noam Chomsky both reveal the crimes of our corporate/MIC corrupted government against humanity and democracy. And like Snowden and Greenwald, they will reliably be swarmed with smear whenever their names appear. This is how efficient and deeply tentacled the corruption really is now in the good old USA.
[font size=3]The relentlessness of the smear machine is directly proportional to the severity of the government crimes revealed by those being smeared.[/font size]
Let's remain explicit about what we are really dealing with here:The US government's online campaigns of disinformation, manipulation, and smear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097
Obama taps "cognitive infiltrator" Cass Sunstein for Committee to create "trust" in NSA:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023512796
Salon: Obama confidants spine-chilling proposal: Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
Snowden: Training Guide for GCHQ, NSA Agents Infiltrating and Disrupting Alternative Media Online
http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/02/25/snowden-training-guide-for-gchq-nsa-agents-infiltrating-and-disrupting-alternative-media-online/
The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting posters is blatant and unnatural.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023262111
The goal of the propaganda assaults across the internet is not to convince anyone of anything.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801
The government figured out sockpuppet management but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242
The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454
Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741
Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351
None of this is behavior that anyone should have to associate with the United States of America. These are the tactics of totalitarian states.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
treestar
(82,383 posts)from the totalitarian United States of America!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)old claims, what IS different is that it gets harder and harder for them to even try to make a case when YEARS have gone by with not a SINGLE CHARGE and all the excuses for that have been completely debunked.
But the corrupt cabal of Corporations that have so much influence on world governments now, cannot stop trying to silence people. They are terrified of the truth and the more they try to silence people, the more suspicious of them, people are.
What are they hiding, and why is there anyone on a Dem forum even TRYING to defend this gross miscarriage of justice?
Never mind, that was a rhetorical question, I already know the answer and so does everyone else.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Just as it is telling that none of his defenders-in this thread or elsewhere-is willing to admit that their golden boy might be (probably is) a rapist.
No, it's all a NWO/Illuminati/totalitarian "conspiracy" to "silence" the "messengers" who are the last hope of "democracy."
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..you're on the WRONG side of history, democracy, and Human Rights.
There is no middle ground.