Any evidence of this supposed grooming?
Manning tells a different story and i’m inclined to believe them.
3 Likes
I’ve not really had the opportunity to comment on this recently, but I will say that the footage of Assange being dragged out of that embassy should chill any true democrat’s soul. It was bad enough that he had to seek political asylum to escape what many believe to be a fabricated witch hunt, spending seven years in deteriorating health slowly having all of his contact to the outside world cut off.
We’re throwing him to the dogs he warned us about, and as the Wikileaks footage has shown, these are not people that put human dignity or safety, or even the rule of law, very close to the top of their priority list.
3 Likes
5 Likes
1 Like
Yes, but criticising lawyers now if Sweden dropped the cases why couldn’t the lawyers overturn the UK arrest warrant?
Genuine question not taking sides
Would this not require a belief that the judiciary act in an unbiased way and are not under political direction?
“District Judge Michael Snow is a disgrace to the bench who deserves to be infamous well beyond his death. He displayed the most plain and open prejudice against Assange in the 15 minutes it took for him to hear the case and declare Assange guilty, in a fashion which makes the dictators’ courts I had witnessed, in Babangida’s Nigeria or Karimov’s Uzbekistan, look fair and reasonable, in comparison to the gross charade of justice conducted by Michael Snow.
One key fact gave away Snow’s enormous prejudice. Julian Assange said nothing during the whole brief proceedings, other than to say “Not guilty” twice, and to ask a one sentence question about why the charges were changed midway through this sham “trial”. Yet Judge Michael Snow condemned Assange as “narcissistic”. There was nothing that happened in Snow’s brief court hearing that could conceivably have given rise to that opinion. It was plainly something he brought with him into the courtroom, and had read or heard in the mainstream media or picked up in his club. It was in short the very definition of prejudice, and “Judge” Michael Snow and his summary judgement is a total disgrace.”
2 Likes
The best write up of Assange, the media and their lies that i’ve read so far.
“The demonization of the empire’s enemies is not a deception … it is a loyalty test.”
So again, we didn’t get the full story down in the ME at the time so I am genuinely asking.
Why did his Lawyers not use the Legal System to appeal and take this further through the system?
My point is that Assange & his lawyers had a tough decision to make, he chose to hide. In Hindsight, I don’t believe he made the right choice, but I understand why he made it.
Equally, having made that choice, what would motivate any human to act like a nob and upset the people sheltering him?
I’d have let my lawyers get on with it and helped the Ecuadorians out with anything (even the bloody washing up)
But doing an H Block in the embassy that is bound to get you kicked out
1 Like
I don’t think you would, when the reality of situation dawned on you. America torture and murder. Even their politicians have publicly called for both.
The embassy stuff is bullshit. A story for the gullible, to justify their hate.
It that the reputations smears or the shit smears
One and the same, obviously.
Here’s a wonderful example of smearing shit and then showing the mindless puppet you really are.
Pulled up by Media Lens.
Thought free idiot reply.
The stenographers of wealth really are a shallow lot, but that should be obvious, as what kind of real journalist could not see the end game they’re promoting.
1 Like
2 Likes
This threads quiet. Almost like the blame(and the real ramifications) has already been mentally shifted.
This is a very well put together article on what’s been done and is indeed still happening(although the reasons and importance seems to have been somewhat dissipated).
“There is an obvious fault in the logic of people who continue to push the “Assange was fleeing sex crime allegations” line, which they somehow never see. They say Assange is responsible for not confronting sex crime allegations because he would not go to Sweden; they never say Swedish authorities are responsible for refusing to confront the sex crime allegations on their own terms because they wouldn’t give up on an irrelevant extradition to the US. The Swedes’ first priority was not questioning Assange; it was getting him to Sweden with the option of onward extradition to the US… Assange was saying, “Let’s get rid of an entirely irrelevant third-party that is preventing an investigation into the allegations on their own terms.” The Swedes were saying: “No, we insist on preserving the prerogatives and interests of that irrelevant third-party as a condition of our investigation into these sex crime allegations.” The Swedes weren’t taking that position for the sake of the women making the allegations. Who was centering and who was deprecating “the seriousness with which such allegations are viewed”?”
I’d recommend the links as well(although the Hopkins one should be last).
Edit:for those that can’t be bothered to read, the picture at the top says it all(and the words of Martin Niemöller seem more relevant ever day that passes).
50 weeks, even though it’s standard CPS procedure to drop it if the original charge is dropped(it was). For a bit more perspective, a man that fled the country(jumping bail) after killing a child only got half of Assanges sentence.
What a corrupt system we live under.
2 Likes
I suspect there will be an unfortunate event in the showers