As US prosecutors gear up for an attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange, they are combing through years of public talking points,
never tested in court, but often bandied about as something that makes
this more than just a First Amendment question.
Assange’s actions, after all, are centered around informing the American
public of the actions of the American government.. It proved
embarrassing for highly placed officials, but actual crimes, if any, are
going to have to be built around ideas that he knew or intended to “injure” the US through the leaks, and the solicitation of the leaks.
These aren’t new arguments, of course, dating back to the Chelsea Manning case. In 2010 officials claimed Assange had “blood on his hands.” While they maintained the leaks were risky, they later conceded that no one was actually outed by WikiLeaks, and the claimed “harm” never held water.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) later revised this from harming America or
harming actual, real people to “harming the war effort,” and that’s
really what the bulk of the leaks were about. Embarrassing officials,
and revealing the excesses of the American warfare state to the American
public were a blow to selling the public on constant war. It’s not that
this is illegal, as such, but it’s just not done, which is why
officials struggle with Assange’s actions being effectively the meat of
what journalists are intended to do.
It is a testament to how little the prosecutors have on Assange that
long-discredited arguments are still being offered as the centerpieces
of the case. Those arguments may never have actually faced any courtroom
scrutiny in the past, but the fact that they failed so miserably in the
court of public opinion years ago can’t possibly bode well for proper
trials.
Beyond allegations of what Assange did, Ecuador is offering a series of after-the-fact allegations against Assange, accusing him of using the embassy for spying.
The evidence for this isn’t very strong, but Ecuador clearly feels it
needs to make better excuses for expelling him than simply wanting money
from the IMF.
I think Trump & Neoconservative Clown Car Presidency need to rethink renderingAssange u
Here are some interesting comments about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange by current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo:
https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/04/mike-pompeo-and-julian-assange-sealing.html
Mr. Assange’s fate was sealed once Mike Pompeo had the power to destroy him.
Pompeo and Bolton should make clear to any American with a brain that they no longer live in a democracy or a Republic. These evil bastards run the place. The rest of the world has to try to keep their destruction to a minimum. What a world.
Keep in mind that the initial drive to get Assange was from Hillary, whose actions in the State Dept were specifically what he exposed and embarrassed. She was furious, to the point of asking about murdering him.
So the Democratic-Republican Party of neocon power continues, but Pompeo did not bring it.
The Deep State is not concerned with evidence and facts, they’re only into payback. The political establishment was embarrassed by Wikileaks. The Podesta emails showed how the Dems rigged the primaries against Bernie. Chelsea Manning’s leaks showed that here in the land of the free, war criminals run free. Can’t have our crimes exposed, it’s embarrassing.
Just finding out of Mr. Knapp has banned me completely from antiwar or just on the one thread where I was exposing how ridiculous his arguments are.
You were banned from the part of the site where you violated the guidelines.
You won’t be banned on this part of the site unless you violate the guidelines here.
What guidelines were those? Exposing your nonsense?
“You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re not entitled to use Antiwar.com’s facilities to publish slurs or supremacist claims based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity …”
Apparently I am not if it exposes how nonsensical your attacks are. At that point you classify it a violation. I was pointing out that there are over 100 memorials to “The Holocaust” in America. How is this indisputable truth a violation. You laughably compared Xian churches to this.
“How is this indisputable truth a violation”
It isn’t.
Which is why your comments on the subject weren’t deleted, and you weren’t banned, until you decided to escalate it to a collectivist slur on Jews as such.
“How is this indisputable truth a violation”
It isn’t.
Which is why your comments on the subject weren’t deleted, and you weren’t banned, until you decided to escalate it to a collectivist slur on Jews as such.
“..you decided to escalate it to a collectivist slur on Jews as such.” Evidence? You sure you just weren’t trying to avoid my bashing your absurd claims comparing Xian churches to Holocaust memorials?
“Evidence?”
The evidence would be your last post. You know what you wrote, and you knew what it was.
“You sure you just weren’t trying to avoid my bashing your absurd claims comparing Xian churches to Holocaust memorials?”
If that’s what I had been trying to “avoid,” all I would have had to do was delete the posts in which you did it. They’re still there. I only delete posts which, and ban commenters who, violate the actual guidelines. Neither outmatching me, nor being outmatched by me, in an argument violates the guidelines.
“Personal abuse of Antiwar.com’s writers and staff” does violate the guidelines, but I don’t generally enforce — in fact, I don’t think I’ve EVER enforced — that one when I’m the target of said abuse.
I see. Your evidence that I broke the rules is that “You know what you wrote”. Seems as if you are living in the USSR.
Are you suggesting that you DON’T know what you wrote?
This is not a court proceeding. I don’t owe you any “evidence” of anything.
I am not suggesting anything. I am stating that you have not given one bit of evidence that I broke any guidelines. Because you can’t. And now you are squirming out of it with your this is not a court garbage.
“I am stating that you have not given one bit of evidence that I broke any guidelines.”
Who am I supposed to “give” this “evidence” to and for what purpose?
Since you wrote the post, you know what’s in it.
Since I read the post, I know what’s in it too.
It’s not like proving that Colonel Mustard did it in the library with the wrench or something. You posted content that violated the guidelines. It’s far from the first time, and it’s not like you don’t know the rules. You just kept thinking you were special long after you should have figured out you aren’t and now you want to play the victim. Have fun with that, I guess.
You ban me for breaking guidelines and yet cannot even tell me what I said, never mind how it broke the guidelines. I have put up dozens of comments. I have no idea which one you claim broke a guideline. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would show the post and explain how it ran afoul of what guideline. But then, if you did that you would not be Knapp, would you?
” I have no idea which one you claim broke a guideline.”
Hmm … could it just possibly be the last comment you posted, the one that was deleted simultaneously with the ban, the one in which you included a clear and unambiguous slur based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity instead of playing your usual catch-me-f**k-me “how close can I come to saying it without actually saying it, so that I can pretend to be a victim if I get called on my sh*t” games? Maybe that one there?
No, I’m not going to violate the guidelines myself by (re)-publishing a slur based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. There’s no jury here for me to prove anything to. You did it. You know you did it. I know you did it. We both know it’s against the rules.
You are correct on one thing, though — if I didn’t do my job, I wouldn’t be me. Which is why I do my job whether you like it or not.
I have never posted any comment slurring any race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. How convenient for you that you will not post my comment so I cannot defend myself.
Lying doesn’t violate the guidelines, so feel free to continue doing so if it makes you feel morally superior.
How convenient for you that you will not post my comment so I cannot defend myself.
What is it that you think you need to “defend yourself” from, and how?
Your dishonest accusations that I broke guidelines against slurring race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. Of course. Are you really this thick? If you claim I broke these guidelines, you should prove it.
I am a janitor. When someone defecates on the floor, I clean it up.
You defecated on the floor. I cleaned it up.
I didn’t comment on the turd until you asked why I cleaned it up. At which point, I explained why.
I didn’t owe you an explanation, nor did I point at you and yell “you defecated on the floor” before cleaning it up. I just cleaned it up (and, it being the nth time you had defecated on the floor, put a diaper on you) and then answered you when you asked why.
If you don’t want me (honestly) answering questions about your behavior, feel free to not ask those questions.
If you think the turd belongs on the floor, feel free to appeal my job performance to akeaton at antiwar dot com. If she says I have to get the turd out of the trash can and put it back on the floor, and remove your diaper, that’s how it will be.
My duty is to Antiwar.com, not to you.
You really are that thick! Asked and answered.
Asked and answered. You really are that thick. And apparently obsessed with bodily functions. Scary,
You ought to be a janitor. You are clearly unsuited in intellect and temperament to have veto power over others comments.
You got something against janitors? It’s honorable work that has to be done (and I made a LOT more doing the regular version of it than I make doing this version of it).
I don’t have “veto power over others’ comments.” I have the job of enforcing rules. And I do that job.
I didn’t make those rules. They were here before I was. I have encouraged Antiwar.com to codify them in writing, for the specific purpose of delineating my job and limiting my own authority instead of just letting me or some successor run wild.
Do I agree with the rules? It doesn’t matter whether I agree with them or not — my job isn’t to agree with them, it’s to enforce them. I agree with some of them and am skeptical of others.
Do the rules specify that you are special and exempt from them? No, they don’t. But they also don’t require me to ban you for whining about not being special and exempt from them, so feel free to continue if it makes you feel better.
Just a little creepy how many references you made to turds. You think it is special treatment to be given actual proof of what someone is accusing you of?
You already HAVE the “proof” of what you did. You wrote that “proof.” But here, I’ll refresh your memory:
You asserted that a particular ethnic group “got kicked out of more than 100 places” because of their “group behavior.”
That’s a “slur … based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Antiwar.com chooses not to host slurs or supremacist claims based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The only discretion I have in such matters is whether to merely delete such things, or to ban the people posting them.
I do the latter when some anonymous troll pops over from Stormfront and immediately starts in with such conduct. That’s clearly all they’re here for, so they don’t need to be here at all.
I do the former with people who at least occasionally contribute to actual discussion here — for a little while, anyway. At some point, my discretion runs to the following question:
How much time am I spending coddling this person, and am I getting paid enough to justify that time?
In your case, I eventually realized that if my whole salary was dedicated just to reading and acting on your comments (I wouldn’t do the former at all if I wasn’t getting paid to do it), it probably wouldn’t come to minimum wage.
You got thousands of feet of rope, and you eventually hanged yourself with it. Unlike most death penalties, though, this one can be appealed after the fact — that appeal should be addressed to akeaton at antiwar dot com.
Is that not the truth? Is it also not true that no other group has ever had anything like this happen to them? Or is it that we have to adhere to the official narrative that this group’s behavior has nothing at all to do with this result? And, that nearly everywhere they have ever gone, the people living there have been infected with a dislike of this group for no good reason? That’s pretty silly. You ought to ban yourself for serving as a gatekeeper for this nonsense.
When I was hired to moderate comments at Antiwar.com, that was one of two plans under consideration.
The other possible plan was to just not have commenting at Antiwar.com anymore.
The latter option nearly won out. Comments from the board and the junior staffers who were rebelling against doing the filthy job of moderating boiled down to “the comment section gets so toxic, do we really need it?” My recollection is that it was Eric Garris and Angela Keaton who told the board “yes, we do need to have a place for readers to discuss our articles — and we’ve found someone who’s willing to keep that place from becoming a sewer.”
If you want the ability to comment without moderation — or at least moderation by me — I suggest Gab’s Dissenter app.
Nice dodge. I really don’t care about your life story.
And I don’t care about your excuses. I get paid to clean your slime — and if necessary you — off the site, and I’m going to do my job whether you like it or not.
Face it. You are a gate-keeper for the ruling elites. Knowingly or not. You label certain facts in history relating to that ruling group as ethnic slurs..,.exactly as you have been conditioned to do. One can tell your reaction is not truthful, not rational, by you use of emotional, juvenile language (Turds, diaper, slime, sewer, trash, defecation, etc.).
I never thought of Antiwar.com as “the ruling elites” or of janitorial duty in its comment section as being a “gate-keeper” but whatever floats your boat.
Thick as a brick.
Historical facts about Jews are labeled racism and hate speech….you fit in well in 21st century America.
The comment that got you banned contained two things:
1. An historical claim about Jews (that they’ve been kicked out of more than 100 countries); and
2. An opinion as to why.
The second item was not an “historical fact.” It was just a statement of opinion, and it happened to violate guidelines that it’s my job to enforce.
Do I have opinions on those items?
On the first, no, I don’t — I haven’t researched the matter.
On the second, yes, I do — but that opinion doesn’t matter.
If I agree with it, it’s a slur (“an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation”) that is “based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
If I disagree with it, it’s a slur (“an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation”) that is “based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
And those aren’t allowed here.
You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.
Knapp editing comments that expose him for the gate-keeper of the powerful that he is.
Sleazy Knapp. Better you ban my comments instead of modifying them. In fact, they may be criminal
In a rigged system, if the state wants you to suffer, you will suffer. And you better f**king believe this is a rigged system, all states are. Assange’s greatest hope may be the Assata Shakur option. Where are a few fine black Marxists when you need them? Oh yeah, they’re locked up too.
The truth does not damage “us.” It damages those in power who have abused us, abused our trust. They ought to be damaged. They are the ones who ought to be on trial.
US imperial snowflakes are playing the victim and complaining that the poor innocent American Empire was “injured” by Assange and Wikileaks for their expose of American war crimes and the mass murder and maiming (or injuring, if you will) of thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis, and other people targeted by US wars of aggression.
For a global superpower and self-appointed “Leader of the Free World,” this latest accusation is pathetic.
It’s like a bad parody from the Onion or The Twilight Zone.
What’s next?
Wikileaks and Assange are guilty of hurting America’s feelings by providing documentary evidence of its war atrocities like the Collateral Murder video?!?
This is American Victimhood culture in all its pathetic glory.
Apparently, even American war criminals need their very own Safe Space and Trigger Warnings when viewing videos like the one below.
WikiLeaks: Collateral Murder
Why the article by Reese Ehrlich in Anti War that begins by incorrectly asserting, as does the main stream media, that the DNC emails were hacked?
Former NSA whistle blower and top analyst William Binney has shown forensic evidence that clearly demonstrates the actual original DNC email documents could not have been downloaded by a hack from any relatively slow internet connection available at that time. The DNC emails must have been downloaded very rapidly to a thumb drive by someone with direct access to the DNC servers somewhere in the eastern time zone.
How about an article that features William Binney. A true progressive who actually understands the technical aspects of the issue and who could help deliver the message to the public about what really happened.
Assange has said repeatedly the DNC emails were “not from a state actor”.
Help Assange spread the message about the true source of the DNC emails.